{"id": "20136__0_000", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 97-428, Air Line Pilots Association v. Robert Miller.\nMr. Anker, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [0.0, 8.504], "stop_times": [8.504, 57.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__0_001", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nSection 211 of the Railway Labor Act permits unions and employers to enter into what are you called agency, shop, or similar forms of union security agreements.\nUnder an agency shop agreement, represented employees are not required to become union members, but they are required to support the union financially through the payment of the equivalent of union dues, initiation fees, and assessments.\nHowever, in a line of cases stretching back now more than 35 years, this Court has said that a union may not use such an agreement to require objecting nonmembers to pay for union activities that are political and ideological in nature or are otherwise unrelated to the collective bargaining function.\nIn 1986, in Chicago Teacher's Union v. Hudson, the Court went one step further and held that unions must provide three procedural safeguards to ensure that objectors' funds will not be spent improperly, and those safeguards are, first a notice containing an adequate explanation of how the fee is calculated, second, a reasonably prompt opportunity to challenge the fee before an impartial decisionmaker, and third, an escrow for the amounts reasonably in dispute while those challenges are pending.\nThe issue in this case is whether employees who wish to challenge the fee that they're being charged must present their claim to that impartial decisionmaker before bringing any kind of a lawsuit.\nThis case arose in November of 1991, when the Airline Pilots Association, or ALPA, as we called it, entered into an agency shop agreement with Delta Airlines, very much like the agency shop agreements ALPA has with most of the country's airlines.\nBefore the agreement even became effective, five Delta pilots, later joined by about 150 intervenors, filed a lawsuit to enjoin implementation of that agreement.\nThey had many grounds for their lawsuit, but for present purposes the only one that's relevant here was the allegation that ALPA does not, or does charge objectors improperly for activities which are outside the scope of collective bargaining.\nNow, ALPA has written procedures in compliance with the Hudson decision that include an impartial decisionmaker for the purpose of resolving such disputes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [57.753, 60.455, 70.66, 86.022, 107.352, 141.942, 154.75, 174.914, 189.089, 207.801], "stop_times": [60.455, 70.66, 86.022, 107.352, 141.942, 154.75, 174.914, 189.089, 207.801, 219.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 57.753}, "reply_to": "20136__0_000", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_002", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Mr. Anker--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [219.193], "stop_times": [220.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 219.193}, "reply_to": "20136__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20136__0_003", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [220.076], "stop_times": [220.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 220.076}, "reply_to": "20136__0_002", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_004", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--would you mind telling me as a practical matter how these fee challenges typically come up?\nAre they usually brought to challenge the amount of past payments, or are they typically prospective in nature?\nHow does the union notify people--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [220.626, 226.946, 235.552], "stop_times": [226.946, 235.552, 240.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 220.626}, "reply_to": "20136__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20136__0_005", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "You're talking about specifically--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [240.022], "stop_times": [241.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 240.022}, "reply_to": "20136__0_004", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_006", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--of the breakdown?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [241.339], "stop_times": [241.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 241.339}, "reply_to": "20136__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20136__0_007", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--in our case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [241.689], "stop_times": [242.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 241.689}, "reply_to": "20136__0_006", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_008", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Yes.\nWell, the typical situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [242.391, 242.958], "stop_times": [242.958, 244.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 242.391}, "reply_to": "20136__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20136__0_009", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "All right.\nI think, Your Honor, the procedures vary from union to union.\nThe way it works in ALPA is the following way.\nThe books are closed... we're on an annual year basis, so that the books are closed at the end of each year and then there is a general audit of the books, and in connection with that audit, or once that audit is completed, then a statement is prepared and that statement itself is also audited, setting forth the germane and nongermane expenses, the major categories, which is essentially our Hudson notice.\nAt that point, any--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [244.724, 245.158, 248.945, 253.064, 274.91], "stop_times": [245.158, 248.945, 253.064, 274.91, 277.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 244.724}, "reply_to": "20136__0_008", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_010", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Usually there's been some prospective estimates.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [277.929], "stop_times": [281.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 277.929}, "reply_to": "20136__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20136__0_011", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [281.147], "stop_times": [281.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 281.147}, "reply_to": "20136__0_010", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_012", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "So that they're not charged the full amount.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [281.833], "stop_times": [283.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 281.833}, "reply_to": "20136__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20136__0_013", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [283.133], "stop_times": [283.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 283.133}, "reply_to": "20136__0_012", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_014", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "But then you... it doesn't get serious until after the fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [283.716], "stop_times": [286.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 283.716}, "reply_to": "20136__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20136__0_015", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--Let me... if I can just finish, I think I'll... you'll see that part of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [286.551], "stop_times": [289.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 286.551}, "reply_to": "20136__0_014", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_016", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Yes, okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [289.67], "stop_times": [290.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 289.67}, "reply_to": "20136__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20136__0_017", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "The statement is issued.\nAt that point, for the year in which it's issued, there is an immediate but only provisional adjustment put into place.\nThen when that year is finished there is a final calculation and we actually either add charges or refund, depending on what the differences are.\nIt's at that point that the pilot has the right to challenge that calculation.\nNow, when he does that, of course, he's challenging both the retrospective one and also the provisional one for the coming year, but that's the way our system works.\nOther unions have a different system.\nOther unions are always running 1 year behind, and they don't go back and make the retroactive adjustment, which we do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [290.272, 291.605, 299.545, 311.602, 317.256, 325.778, 327.545], "stop_times": [291.605, 299.545, 311.602, 317.256, 325.778, 327.545, 334.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 290.272}, "reply_to": "20136__0_016", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_018", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Have... has this Court ever required a nonsignatory to a contract to submit to arbitration rather than going to court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [334.116], "stop_times": [345.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 334.116}, "reply_to": "20136__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20136__0_019", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "No, Your Honor, not to my knowledge, and I think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [345.99], "stop_times": [348.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 345.99}, "reply_to": "20136__0_018", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_020", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "It's kind of a big step to do.\nI mean, it may--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [348.791, 350.56], "stop_times": [350.56, 351.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 348.791}, "reply_to": "20136__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20136__0_021", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--Well, it's... it may--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [351.477], "stop_times": [351.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 351.477}, "reply_to": "20136__0_020", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_022", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--help as a practical matter, but I just... I wondered what kind of authority there would be for that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [351.91], "stop_times": [357.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 351.91}, "reply_to": "20136__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20136__0_023", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--All right.\nI think that's the core of this case, and I think to call it arbitration, which in a sense it is, is also in another sense misleading, because it is really not consensual arbitration, which is what most arbitration is, although I gather there are statutes... one of the Article III cases cited by counsel involves the FIFRA statute, which has a compulsory arbitration.\nI think ERISA has a compulsory arbitration that's not consensual.\nBut in any event--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [357.797, 358.166, 382.965, 386.5], "stop_times": [358.166, 382.965, 386.5, 387.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 357.797}, "reply_to": "20136__0_022", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_024", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Of course, it is compulsory for the union here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [387.251], "stop_times": [389.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 387.251}, "reply_to": "20136__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20136__0_025", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--That's correct.\nThis is a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [389.268, 390.035], "stop_times": [390.035, 390.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 389.268}, "reply_to": "20136__0_024", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_026", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "I mean, we've done that half-way--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [390.97], "stop_times": [392.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 390.97}, "reply_to": "20136__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20136__0_027", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--This is a special procedure.\nWe call it arbitration because it most resembles arbitration, but what the Court called it in Hudson was an impartial decisionmaker, and I think the vision that the Court had is that these disputes should be decided by some form of private process, arbitration-like process, or at least they should be submitted to such a process before they go to court.\nThat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [392.32, 393.153, 415.567], "stop_times": [393.153, 415.567, 416.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 392.32}, "reply_to": "20136__0_026", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_028", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--Is this, Mr. Anker, strictly speaking, an impartial decisionmaker?\nHow are the people picked?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [416.102, 419.571], "stop_times": [419.571, 421.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 416.102}, "reply_to": "20136__0_027", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__0_029", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--How are they picked?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [421.923], "stop_times": [423.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 421.923}, "reply_to": "20136__0_028", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_030", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "How at the people picked for the tribunal or the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [423.323], "stop_times": [426.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 423.323}, "reply_to": "20136__0_029", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__0_031", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "All right--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [426.225], "stop_times": [426.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 426.225}, "reply_to": "20136__0_030", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_032", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--person who would make this decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [426.742], "stop_times": [428.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 426.742}, "reply_to": "20136__0_031", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__0_033", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--In our case, and I think here we follow the pattern that most unions have adopted, we use a procedure which the American Arbitration Association created.\nIn the wake of Hudson the American Arbitration Association created a procedure specifically for this purpose called the arbitration rules for the impartial determination of union fees, and under those rules the union may request an arbitrator and invoke those procedures and then the AAA, from a panel that they have selected, designates an arbitrator.\nHe's not selected by either of the disputing parties.\nHe's designated by the American Arbitration--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [428.426, 437.782, 466.432, 470.067], "stop_times": [437.782, 466.432, 470.067, 471.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 428.426}, "reply_to": "20136__0_032", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_034", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "From a panel that the AAA has selected?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [471.753], "stop_times": [475.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 471.753}, "reply_to": "20136__0_033", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__0_035", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [475.388], "stop_times": [476.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 475.388}, "reply_to": "20136__0_034", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_036", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "And do the dissidents have any part in selecting that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [476.573], "stop_times": [480.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 476.573}, "reply_to": "20136__0_035", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__0_037", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "No.\nNeither party has.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [480.625, 481.709], "stop_times": [481.709, 482.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 480.625}, "reply_to": "20136__0_036", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_038", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Neither party?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [482.644], "stop_times": [483.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 482.644}, "reply_to": "20136__0_037", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__0_039", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Neither party does, although there are, of course, provisions for challenging an arbitrator for cause if there's some ground to believe that he is biased in some way, or has some interest--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [483.044], "stop_times": [496.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 483.044}, "reply_to": "20136__0_038", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_040", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Mr. Anker, can I ask you a preliminary question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [496.202], "stop_times": [498.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 496.202}, "reply_to": "20136__0_039", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20136__0_041", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--Surely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [498.587], "stop_times": [498.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 498.587}, "reply_to": "20136__0_040", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_042", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--I just get out of the papers?\nWhat are the annual dues of the pilots here?\nHow much money are we talking about if you change it from 15 percent to 20 percent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [498.987, 499.938, 502.505], "stop_times": [499.938, 502.505, 506.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 498.987}, "reply_to": "20136__0_041", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20136__0_043", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "In the year that this case arose, which was 1992, the fees were 2.35 percent of their airline earnings.\nThey've since been reduced to about 1.95, but in that year it was 2.35.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [506.176, 517.215], "stop_times": [517.215, 521.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 506.176}, "reply_to": "20136__0_042", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_044", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "So for each member of the union it's a different dollar figure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [521.686], "stop_times": [523.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 521.686}, "reply_to": "20136__0_043", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20136__0_045", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "It's based... it's a percentage of his earnings, right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [523.904], "stop_times": [526.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 523.904}, "reply_to": "20136__0_044", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_046", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "And if they made, say, 100,000 a year they would get a... the dues would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [526.088], "stop_times": [529.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 526.088}, "reply_to": "20136__0_045", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20136__0_047", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "2,350.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [529.958], "stop_times": [531.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 529.958}, "reply_to": "20136__0_046", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_048", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--I see, so that a... and then if you reduce that, say 10 percent was in dispute, it would be a couple of hundred dollars in dispute for each person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [531.742], "stop_times": [538.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 531.742}, "reply_to": "20136__0_047", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20136__0_049", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "That's about right.\nThat's about right, just... for example, in this case the arbitrator found that there were some items that had been improperly allocated and should not have been charged, and we rebated those, and it came to, I think, of the order... this is not in the record, but it's of the order of 55 on average for the individuals that were involved in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [538.331, 538.631], "stop_times": [538.631, 559.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 538.331}, "reply_to": "20136__0_048", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_050", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Justice O'Connor's question was, what is the source of our authority to do this?\nI mean, if we think this is a good idea for national labor policy, does that give us the authority to require people who have never consented to the arbitration to arbitrate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [559.894, 564.196], "stop_times": [564.196, 574.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 559.894}, "reply_to": "20136__0_049", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20136__0_051", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [574.487], "stop_times": [576.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 574.487}, "reply_to": "20136__0_050", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_052", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Where do I have the power, does this Court have the power to do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [576.004], "stop_times": [578.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 576.004}, "reply_to": "20136__0_051", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20136__0_053", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--I guess I would answer it this way, Your Honor.\nWe are dealing here... all the statute says, as I indicated at the beginning, is that the union and the employer has a right to have this kind of an agreement, but the Court has found beneath the language of the statute and sort of in the underlying legislative history and the purpose of the statute, an intent by Congress that fees be used only for certain purposes and not for others, and based on the determination that there is such an intention, that that's what Congress wanted, there is a body of law which has had to be necessarily developed by this Court.\nIt's not that different from the body of law that has been developed surrounding the duty of fair representation, or surrounding collective bargaining agreements under section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [578.789, 582.075, 619.266], "stop_times": [582.075, 619.266, 631.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 578.789}, "reply_to": "20136__0_052", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_054", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Well, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [631.173], "stop_times": [631.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 631.173}, "reply_to": "20136__0_053", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20136__0_055", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "It's judicially made law.\nNow, in Hudson--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [631.607, 632.942], "stop_times": [632.942, 634.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 631.607}, "reply_to": "20136__0_054", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_056", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--But there's almost a history or tradition that Congress sets up remedial schemes.\nWe don't set up remedial structures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [634.442, 641.715], "stop_times": [641.715, 643.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 634.442}, "reply_to": "20136__0_055", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20136__0_057", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--Well, my answer would be, Your Honor, that that's exactly what the Court did in the Hudson case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [643.681], "stop_times": [648.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 643.681}, "reply_to": "20136__0_056", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_058", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "But--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [648.785], "stop_times": [649.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 648.785}, "reply_to": "20136__0_057", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__0_059", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "The Court said that the union must provide this procedure.\nIt's not an option.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [649.335, 655.206], "stop_times": [655.206, 656.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 649.335}, "reply_to": "20136__0_058", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_060", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--But that was under the Due Process Clause, wasn't it?\nYou know, you go back to the Hanson case, where the Court says, well now, the Government has its hand on the scale here so there's some constitutional provisions involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [656.089, 659.26], "stop_times": [659.26, 668.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 656.089}, "reply_to": "20136__0_059", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__0_061", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Well, certainly in Hudson there were constitutional provisions, Your Honor.\nI don't think it was the Due Process Clause.\nI think it was the First Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [668.782, 673.834, 676.036], "stop_times": [673.834, 676.036, 677.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 668.782}, "reply_to": "20136__0_060", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_062", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Well, First Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [677.054], "stop_times": [678.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 677.054}, "reply_to": "20136__0_061", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__0_063", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Right, which is not, of course, a procedural provision of the Constitution.\nIt's a substantive provision.\nBut the Court decided that in order to protect the substantive right which the... in that case the challengers had under the First Amendment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [678.604, 683.056, 684.508], "stop_times": [683.056, 684.508, 693.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 678.604}, "reply_to": "20136__0_062", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_064", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "There had to be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [693.162], "stop_times": [694.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 693.162}, "reply_to": "20136__0_063", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__0_065", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--There had to be these procedures.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [694.464, 695.464], "stop_times": [695.464, 696.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 694.464}, "reply_to": "20136__0_064", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_066", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--But now, to me it seems there is a difference here suggested by Justice Kennedy, perhaps, that there isn't any similar constitutional compulsion to set up the procedure you want to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [696.014], "stop_times": [708.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 696.014}, "reply_to": "20136__0_065", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__0_067", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--No, there's not a constitutional compulsion, but there is... the same kind of a right which exists in the public sector under the First Amendment exists under the... in the private sector under the statute, based upon--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [708.456], "stop_times": [720.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 708.456}, "reply_to": "20136__0_066", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_068", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Yes, but this could be invoked by the dissidents--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [720.697], "stop_times": [725.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 720.697}, "reply_to": "20136__0_067", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__0_069", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--All right--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [725.149], "stop_times": [725.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 725.149}, "reply_to": "20136__0_068", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_070", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--but I think not by the union.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [725.416], "stop_times": [726.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 725.416}, "reply_to": "20136__0_069", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__0_071", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--but the union has rights here too, Your Honor, and those are the rights after all, to collect these fees and to have a functioning agency shop agreement and to have it work without excessive burdens that make it impractical.\nIn the Hudson opinion the Court said... I'm not sure if I can quote it exactly, but the Court said that the object should be to ensure... define procedures which will en... protect the dissidents against having to subsidize ideological activities without impairing the right of the union to have this agency shop and to obtain these funds in timely fashion and to use them in a way that they're permitted to use them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [726.251, 741.844], "stop_times": [741.844, 774.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 726.251}, "reply_to": "20136__0_070", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_072", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "May I ask--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [774.482], "stop_times": [774.866], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 774.482}, "reply_to": "20136__0_071", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20136__0_073", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "There's a balance.\nYes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [774.866, 775.582], "stop_times": [775.582, 776.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 774.866}, "reply_to": "20136__0_072", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_074", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--May I ask one other detail, if I may?\nThis opinion said in substance the union had a duty to provide this impartial... we didn't use the word arbitrator, as I remember, just impartial person--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [776.184, 777.034], "stop_times": [777.034, 785.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 776.184}, "reply_to": "20136__0_073", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20136__0_075", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Correct, impartial decisionmaker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [785.123], "stop_times": [786.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 785.123}, "reply_to": "20136__0_074", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_076", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--to look at what was done.\nBut does that mean the union has to pay for the arbitration?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [786.973, 787.373], "stop_times": [787.373, 790.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 786.973}, "reply_to": "20136__0_075", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20136__0_077", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "I suppose in practice it does.\nThe way we've resolved that, Your Honor, is to say that we will pay for the arbitration unless any of the dissidents wants to share the cost for some reason and then they're certainly welcome to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [790.008, 794.395], "stop_times": [794.395, 803.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 790.008}, "reply_to": "20136__0_076", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_078", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Well, why would they ever want to do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [803.418], "stop_times": [804.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 803.418}, "reply_to": "20136__0_077", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20136__0_079", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Well, they might want to--\n[Laughter]\nWe always thought they might want to do it to be more comfortable about the impartiality of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [804.218, 804.885, 805.537], "stop_times": [804.885, 805.537, 810.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 804.218}, "reply_to": "20136__0_078", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_080", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Oh, I see what you're saying.\nBut in practice you do pay the arbitrator.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [810.755, 811.441], "stop_times": [811.441, 813.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 810.755}, "reply_to": "20136__0_079", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20136__0_081", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--In practice, we do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [813.791], "stop_times": [814.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 813.791}, "reply_to": "20136__0_080", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_082", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Mr. Anker, if I look at Hudson and don't go any further than that, I at least find it difficult to conclude that the provision for the neutral decisionmaker was intended to be anything but a protection for the dissidents.\nIt was their interests that were getting litigated there, and the court mentioned the value of a speedy determination.\nAll of that seems to take into consideration the interests of the dissidents.\nHowever, my question to you is going to be, should we consider other interests in going beyond Hudson?\nShould we consider, for example, the impracticality, if that is true, of litigating every one of these issues first and last in the Federal courts?\nWith that in mind, I would like to know what the experience has been, if you can tell me, about what has happened after there has been arbitration.\nHave all of the arbitrated cases then simply been litigated de novo, all over again in the Federal courts, which I doubt, but perhaps that happened.\nIs there a pattern that emerges about the relationship between the arbitration that has taken place in the instances that you know of and what later happens in Federal courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [814.909, 830.403, 840.108, 845.745, 854.618, 866.176, 877.566, 887.072], "stop_times": [830.403, 840.108, 845.745, 854.618, 866.176, 877.566, 887.072, 899.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 814.909}, "reply_to": "20136__0_081", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20136__0_083", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Well, I have to say, Your Honor, that my knowledge about that is fairly limited, but I think the union that has the most experience with it is the National Education Association, which has filed a brief as an amicus here, and they have informed the Court in their brief that in... I don't remember whether they said in most, but in some large percentage of their cases their... they do not go beyond the arbitration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [899.38], "stop_times": [922.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 899.38}, "reply_to": "20136__0_082", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_084", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Well, what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [922.928], "stop_times": [923.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 922.928}, "reply_to": "20136__0_083", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20136__0_085", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Now, I have no personal knowledge of that and I really can't take--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [923.614], "stop_times": [926.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 923.614}, "reply_to": "20136__0_084", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_086", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--You wouldn't, I take it... under the system you're proposing you wouldn't have the sort of deference to an arbitrator's finding that results when consensual arbitration has been in place, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [926.732], "stop_times": [938.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 926.732}, "reply_to": "20136__0_085", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__0_087", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--We would not have that degree of finality to the arbitration, no, Your Honor.\nThere was an issue in the lower court here as to just what degree, if any, of deference is to be given, and the district took the view which we had urged upon it that the findings of fact of the arbitrator should be given deference under a clearly erroneous standard, but not the conclusion of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [938.957, 942.742], "stop_times": [942.742, 962.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 938.957}, "reply_to": "20136__0_086", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_088", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Do any of the other briefs expand on the question that Justice Souter asked you?\nWhat happens to these things after the neutral decisionmaker reaches a judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [962.572, 966.19], "stop_times": [966.19, 972.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 962.572}, "reply_to": "20136__0_087", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__0_089", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "My recollection is that the only one that has anything to say about it was the National Education Association.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [972.428], "stop_times": [980.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 972.428}, "reply_to": "20136__0_088", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_090", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "And of course, there, at least as I remember the case, the dues are a lot lower, so the amount in dispute sometimes was just pennies on these small amounts, and it might be that it's just not worth litigating, whereas here it seems to be a little more money at stake.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [980.182], "stop_times": [991.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 980.182}, "reply_to": "20136__0_089", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20136__0_091", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "It's a little more money, Your Honor, but in every case the amount of money tends to be relatively small, certainly in relation to the income of the fee-payer.\nI think very often these are thought to be great issues of principle by the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [991.223, 1003.697], "stop_times": [1003.697, 1009.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 991.223}, "reply_to": "20136__0_090", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_092", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Is it typical for union dues to be calculated as a percentage of the income of the union member?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1009.803], "stop_times": [1014.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1009.803}, "reply_to": "20136__0_091", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20136__0_093", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--Yes, I think it is, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1014.755], "stop_times": [1015.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1014.755}, "reply_to": "20136__0_092", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_094", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "It is typical?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1015.521], "stop_times": [1016.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1015.521}, "reply_to": "20136__0_093", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20136__0_095", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Yes.\nEither a percentage or sometimes a number of hours of pay.\nI can't tell you how many unions have that, but I think it's quite a common--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1016.04, 1016.473, 1019.675], "stop_times": [1016.473, 1019.675, 1022.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1016.04}, "reply_to": "20136__0_094", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_096", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "When the suit is brought, is it brought under 1983, or another statute that gives the prevailing party attorney's fees, if the suit goes to the Federal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1022.694], "stop_times": [1030.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1022.694}, "reply_to": "20136__0_095", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20136__0_097", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--If the suit goes to the Federal court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1030.717], "stop_times": [1032.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1030.717}, "reply_to": "20136__0_096", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_098", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1032.583], "stop_times": [1032.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1032.583}, "reply_to": "20136__0_097", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20136__0_099", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--I suppose there is provision for attorney's fees, under 1983.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1032.883], "stop_times": [1035.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1032.883}, "reply_to": "20136__0_098", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_100", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Because... Is it 1983?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1035.769], "stop_times": [1036.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1035.769}, "reply_to": "20136__0_099", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20136__0_101", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "19... I'm not sure I understand what you're... if you're asking, is this case under 1983, the answer is no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1036.453], "stop_times": [1041.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1036.453}, "reply_to": "20136__0_100", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_102", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "But the union members... I mean, the nonunion members' case in court would be under 1983.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1041.905], "stop_times": [1050.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1041.905}, "reply_to": "20136__0_101", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20136__0_103", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "No, it would not, Your Honor, not in the... well, not in the case of a private sector, because we are not a governmental entity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1050.944], "stop_times": [1059.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1050.944}, "reply_to": "20136__0_102", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_104", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1059.134], "stop_times": [1059.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1059.134}, "reply_to": "20136__0_103", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20136__0_105", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "We cannot be sued under 1983.\nWe... the labor organization.\nIn the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1059.434, 1061.236, 1063.521], "stop_times": [1061.236, 1063.521, 1063.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1059.434}, "reply_to": "20136__0_104", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_106", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Well, then--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1063.854], "stop_times": [1066.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1063.854}, "reply_to": "20136__0_105", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__0_107", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--In the public sector the cases are brought under 1983, perhaps because they're usually brought against the State employer as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1066.89], "stop_times": [1072.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1066.89}, "reply_to": "20136__0_106", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_108", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--What's the basis of any sort of Federal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1072.727], "stop_times": [1074.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1072.727}, "reply_to": "20136__0_107", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__0_109", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Federal question jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1074.91], "stop_times": [1076.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1074.91}, "reply_to": "20136__0_108", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_110", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--There will be Federal question jurisdiction in a case of a private employer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1076.944], "stop_times": [1081.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1076.944}, "reply_to": "20136__0_109", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__0_111", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "That's right, Your Honor, because the obligation here is derived from the Railway Labor Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1081.046], "stop_times": [1088.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1081.046}, "reply_to": "20136__0_110", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_112", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "But no attorney's... no attorney's fees under the general Federal question jurisdiction, then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1088.569], "stop_times": [1095.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1088.569}, "reply_to": "20136__0_111", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20136__0_113", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "It's general Federal question jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1095.64], "stop_times": [1097.592], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1095.64}, "reply_to": "20136__0_112", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_114", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "But that doesn't provide for attorney's fees for the prevailing party.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1097.592], "stop_times": [1100.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1097.592}, "reply_to": "20136__0_113", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20136__0_115", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "No, it does not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1100.56], "stop_times": [1101.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1100.56}, "reply_to": "20136__0_114", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_116", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Can you... you might want to elaborate a little bit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1101.01], "stop_times": [1105.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1101.01}, "reply_to": "20136__0_115", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20136__0_117", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1105.364], "stop_times": [1106.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1105.364}, "reply_to": "20136__0_116", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_118", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--if you'd like on the question the Chief Justice asked.\nSeeing this as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1106.048, 1108.316], "stop_times": [1108.316, 1110.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1106.048}, "reply_to": "20136__0_117", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20136__0_119", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "On the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1110.283], "stop_times": [1110.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1110.283}, "reply_to": "20136__0_118", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_120", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--Because it seemed to me that the real objection on the other side, what they're upset about in part is that they see the union has a right to the 2,000, but it doesn't have a right to the part of the 2,000 that might go to nongermane expenditure, and then we decide, and this Court decides in Hudson that really the union can go and spend what it wants as long as it gives them, a dissenter a fair chance to see how much of that is being spent on nongermane things, and it says you have to have an escrow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1110.75], "stop_times": [1140.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1110.75}, "reply_to": "20136__0_119", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20136__0_121", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1140.704], "stop_times": [1141.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1140.704}, "reply_to": "20136__0_120", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_122", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "You have to give them a list of what the expenditures were, and you have to provide for a decision by an independent decisionmaker.\nHaving done that, you're free.\nGo do what you want.\nAll right.\nBut then they say, well, how do we challenge it, and I think what they're worried about is that there will be imported into this area of the law the whole law of arbitration which, of course, gives a tremendous leg up to whatever the decision of the arbitrator is.\nI mean, a leg up way beyond what a master or others have, and I think that was a concern, and therefore I want to be sure that you address that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1141.254, 1148.458, 1150.06, 1151.21, 1152.093, 1167.188], "stop_times": [1148.458, 1150.06, 1151.21, 1152.093, 1167.188, 1176.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1141.254}, "reply_to": "20136__0_121", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20136__0_123", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "I appreciate that, Your Honor.\nLet me say first of all that we have never argued in this case that that standard, which essentially is a standard of finality and almost no review at all in the case of normal arbitration... we have never argued that that standard would apply.\nThe argument we make in this case... and by the way, this issue is not before the Court, because the Court did not grant certiorari with respect to this issue of the standard of review, but what we argued in the lower courts was that the fact-findings of the arbitrator should be given some degree of deference, and those fact-findings would normally be the bean-counting issues, as I would describe them, exactly how much did the union spend on this or that or the other activity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1176.044, 1176.36, 1191.22], "stop_times": [1176.36, 1191.22, 1213.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1176.044}, "reply_to": "20136__0_122", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_124", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Well, under your theory that the procedure has to be expeditious and efficient, what would prevent a court from saying that the usual rules of presumptive correctness should not be applied?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1213.983], "stop_times": [1228.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1213.983}, "reply_to": "20136__0_123", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20136__0_125", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "I think I would rely on the advocacy of my adversary to make that clear, and I would not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1228.243], "stop_times": [1234.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1228.243}, "reply_to": "20136__0_124", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_126", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Well, but I mean, we're testing your theory.\nUnder your theory we can do whatever is efficient, and if we think that a binding arbitration is the most efficient, then we can do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1234.631, 1235.297], "stop_times": [1235.297, 1241.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1234.631}, "reply_to": "20136__0_125", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20136__0_127", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--Well, I would just suggest, Your Honor, that that would be inconsistent with this body of law, because this is statutory law, and the Court has some jurisdiction, we don't deny that, ultimately to adjudicate the rights of the parties here, but... and just to finish the standard of review as we had proposed it to the lower courts, we would say that the legal issues, which really I think are the key issues here, is, for example, in our case the issue of the chargeability of our safety activity.\nThat's an issue of law basically, and that would be reviewable de novo, but the Court would have a package in which the facts would be at least preliminarily resolved, the issues would be defined, and the Court in quite expeditious fashion but in effective fashion could exercise its jurisdiction and define the rights of the parties properly here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1241.551, 1271.487], "stop_times": [1271.487, 1294.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1241.551}, "reply_to": "20136__0_126", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_128", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Mr. Anker--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1294.169], "stop_times": [1294.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1294.169}, "reply_to": "20136__0_127", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20136__0_129", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1294.835], "stop_times": [1295.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1294.835}, "reply_to": "20136__0_128", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_130", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--everything that you've said sounds logical, sensible, a regime that might be legislated.\nThe problem in this case is, you start with a Court decision, not something from Congress but something from this Court, the Hudson, and then you say, well, the workers were benefited by Hudson but the Court now has to rule-make a little more so that it's even on both sides.\nIf the employer... if the union is stuck with this procedure, the union doesn't want to arbitrate either, let's say, but the court forced it on the union, then the court must... and it's all the court doing this with... as kind of ontoward from anything that Congress has done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1295.235, 1301.489, 1323.938], "stop_times": [1301.489, 1323.938, 1342.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1295.235}, "reply_to": "20136__0_129", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20136__0_131", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Well, that's correct, Your Honor.\nI think that's unavoidable, but I... my only response to that would be I don't think it's any greater an act of judicial legislation to impose on the challenger the requirement of exhaustion than it is to impose on the union the obligation to provide this procedure in the first place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1342.65, 1343.935], "stop_times": [1343.935, 1361.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1342.65}, "reply_to": "20136__0_130", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_132", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "But with the union, Mr. Anker, there was a constitutional problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1361.128], "stop_times": [1364.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1361.128}, "reply_to": "20136__0_131", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__0_133", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "In that case, yes, right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1364.247], "stop_times": [1365.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1364.247}, "reply_to": "20136__0_132", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_134", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Yes, and there isn't here.\nI mean, it seems to me that's one significant distinction.\nIn other words, the Court said there had to be an impartial reviewer of these allotments in order to protect the dissidents' First Amendment rights, but here there's no corresponding claim that if there isn't this procedure, that the dissidents are required to... the union is going to lose any constitutional right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1365.515, 1367.031, 1369.467], "stop_times": [1367.031, 1369.467, 1390.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1365.515}, "reply_to": "20136__0_133", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__0_135", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "No, not constitutional rights, that's correct, Your Honor, but they are rights, nonetheless.\nWe have statutory rights that are at stake here, and the Court has created a procedure which, if exhaustion is not required, essentially doubles the burden on the union, because we have to defend these cases if they're brought against us both in arbitration and in Federal court, which is essentially what happened here.\nThis group of plaintiffs who are before this Court now preferred the judicial forum, and they brought a lawsuit, and they resisted arbitration, and if they had had their choice they would have avoided the arbitration, but we had another group of people who are not before the Court at all who requested arbitration, and we had to go forward with an arbitration regardless of what the desires were here, and that's going to happen in very many cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1390.713, 1394.515, 1415.012], "stop_times": [1394.515, 1415.012, 1441.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1390.713}, "reply_to": "20136__0_134", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_136", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Yes, but the answer to that may be to, in effect to... in effect to rethink the need for the arbitration, or the legitimacy of it.\nYou spoke a moment ago in response to Justice Ginsburg's question, I think, of the inevitability of there being some such arbitration scheme, but I'm not sure that I see that.\nWhy couldn't the Court just as well have said the interests at stake here require that cases of this sort be handled expeditiously in the Federal court so that you get a quick hearing... I mean, the civil analogue of speedy trial... and have one proceeding in a Federal court and get it over fast?\nIs that any less inevitable, if you will, than the scheme that we set up in Hudson?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1441.663, 1449.602, 1459.875, 1479.271], "stop_times": [1449.602, 1459.875, 1479.271, 1488.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1441.663}, "reply_to": "20136__0_135", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20136__0_137", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Oh, I... no, Your Honor, it isn't, but the Court has set up--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1488.127], "stop_times": [1492.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1488.127}, "reply_to": "20136__0_136", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_138", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "So you would be... would you be happy to have us go in that direction and say we really did not think things through properly in Hudson, in fact it will be for the Federal court to provide the speedy hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1492.531], "stop_times": [1504.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1492.531}, "reply_to": "20136__0_137", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20136__0_139", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--Instead of arbitration?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1504.672], "stop_times": [1505.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1504.672}, "reply_to": "20136__0_138", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_140", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1505.972], "stop_times": [1506.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1505.972}, "reply_to": "20136__0_139", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20136__0_141", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "I think that would certainly be much better than the situation with having to deal with both of them, that's correct.\nI don't know if we had our choice what we would choose, but we would certainly prefer to have one forum rather than two, and if there is no exhaustion requirement, then we would much prefer to have a Federal court procedure than have them both.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1506.306, 1513.694], "stop_times": [1513.694, 1526.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1506.306}, "reply_to": "20136__0_140", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_142", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "What is your experience, again, if you can tell me, with requests to have one or the other proceeding, either the arbitration or the judicial proceeding, stayed if the other one has already gotten underway?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1526.585], "stop_times": [1541.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1526.585}, "reply_to": "20136__0_141", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20136__0_143", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Well, there was such a request in this case.\nIt was denied by the Federal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1541.179, 1543.047], "stop_times": [1543.047, 1545.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1541.179}, "reply_to": "20136__0_142", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_144", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Do you know across the board, again in a broader spectrum of cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1545.347], "stop_times": [1549.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1545.347}, "reply_to": "20136__0_143", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20136__0_145", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "I don't know of any other case, Your Honor.\nIf I could, I'd like to reserve the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1549.45, 1550.8], "stop_times": [1550.8, 1553.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1549.45}, "reply_to": "20136__0_144", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__0_146", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--Very well, Mr. Anker.\nMr. LaJeunesse, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1553.068, 1554.185], "stop_times": [1554.185, 1556.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1553.068}, "reply_to": "20136__0_145", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__1_000", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nAs is apparent from the briefs of ALPA and the amici, and from ALPA's argument here today, ALPA has no legal authority for forcing the nonmember pilots to use its unilaterally created agency fee review procedure.\nNeither ALPA nor either of its amici cites a single case in which this Court has required exhaustion where there was not one of two things.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1556.035, 1560.189, 1576.765], "stop_times": [1560.189, 1576.765, 1587.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1556.035}, "reply_to": "20136__0_146", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_001", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "But isn't it also true that there was no case that, before Hudson, that said there had to be an impartial decision, impartial... what did we call it, impartial person who would verify these expenditures.\nWhere did we get the authority to do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1587.573, 1598.964], "stop_times": [1598.964, 1600.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1587.573}, "reply_to": "20136__1_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20136__1_002", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "As Chief Justice Rehnquist pointed out, that requirement is a matter of First Amendment due process, and it has to be imposed on the union if it's going to be able to exercise its statutory privilege of collecting the service fee, which in itself infringes on the First Amendment rights--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1600.98], "stop_times": [1620.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1600.98}, "reply_to": "20136__1_001", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_003", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "No, but would not it have complied with, literally at least, with the Hudson opinion if, instead of using the American Arbitration Association, they had just said we've got all these figures here, we'll submit them to Price Waterhouse, or Young & Young, or whatever, some independent auditors and said you... you're independent, you verify these figures and let the minority members know what you think of them.\nWould that have complied with Hudson, in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1620.128, 1639.874], "stop_times": [1639.874, 1641.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1620.128}, "reply_to": "20136__1_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20136__1_004", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--No, Your Honor, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1641.991], "stop_times": [1643.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1641.991}, "reply_to": "20136__1_003", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_005", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1643.409], "stop_times": [1644.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1643.409}, "reply_to": "20136__1_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20136__1_006", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--ALPA selects the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1644.159], "stop_times": [1647.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1644.159}, "reply_to": "20136__1_005", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_007", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "They have to select a person that everyone would agree is impartial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1647.611], "stop_times": [1650.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1647.611}, "reply_to": "20136__1_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20136__1_008", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--And Number 2, the court of appeals here held that that independent auditor does not audit the lawfulness of the allocation of the expenses between chargeable and nonchargeable.\nAll the auditor does is check the numbers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1650.897, 1664.49], "stop_times": [1664.49, 1667.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1650.897}, "reply_to": "20136__1_007", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_009", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "That's what this auditor does, but I'm asking whether, just starting from scratch, instead of setting up an arbitration procedure, suppose if they thought they'd comply with the language of Hudson to just say, we'll get an independent accounting firm to verify all the figures and decide which ones are germane and which ones are not, and we'll publish it in the report and make it available to the... to everybody, the members and the union officers.\nWhy wouldn't that have complied with Hudson?\nOf course, if the members didn't agree with it they could then have brought suit and said, well, you know, there's a violation of the First Amendment and so forth.\nBut I don't see anything in Hudson itself that required an arbitrator.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1667.542, 1690.557, 1692.19, 1698.644], "stop_times": [1690.557, 1692.19, 1698.644, 1702.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1667.542}, "reply_to": "20136__1_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20136__1_010", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "I'll agree with that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1702.115], "stop_times": [1704.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1702.115}, "reply_to": "20136__1_009", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_011", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1704.198], "stop_times": [1704.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1704.198}, "reply_to": "20136__1_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20136__1_012", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "What I don't agree with, Justice Stevenson, is that it does not... that Hudson did require some form of impartial decisionmaker procedure to be made available--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1704.648], "stop_times": [1715.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1704.648}, "reply_to": "20136__1_011", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_013", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Correct, and it in effect said--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1715.354], "stop_times": [1716.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1715.354}, "reply_to": "20136__1_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20136__1_014", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--primarily... if I may--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1716.104], "stop_times": [1717.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1716.104}, "reply_to": "20136__1_013", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_015", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--It in effect said, and your cause of action would not be ripe until that has been made available for everybody to look at.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1717.221], "stop_times": [1723.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1717.221}, "reply_to": "20136__1_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20136__1_016", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--Well, the cause of action, Your Honor, is ripe at the time the funds are taken.\nThere's a deprivation of property at that point, and even as a matter of pure Fifth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment due process the employee is normally entitled to a pre-taking notice and hearing.\nNow, I can't explain why the court didn't make the requirement a pre-taking hearing.\nApparently the court felt that the union should get possession of the money and hold it in escrow so that it can later spend that portion which goes to the lawfully chargeable activities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1723.275, 1728.846, 1747.658, 1752.795], "stop_times": [1728.846, 1747.658, 1752.795, 1765.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1723.275}, "reply_to": "20136__1_015", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_017", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "We did require a hearing, though.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1765.952], "stop_times": [1768.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1765.952}, "reply_to": "20136__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20136__1_018", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "That's correct, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1768.721], "stop_times": [1770.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1768.721}, "reply_to": "20136__1_017", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_019", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "You don't accept that a Price, Waterhouse review and then just a statement issued by Price, Waterhouse saying we have audited all of this and these statements are correct, that that would suffice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1770.59], "stop_times": [1779.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1770.59}, "reply_to": "20136__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20136__1_020", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "No, I don't, Justice Scalia, because that's not a hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1779.862], "stop_times": [1782.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1779.862}, "reply_to": "20136__1_019", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_021", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Under the language of our opinion--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1782.314], "stop_times": [1783.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1782.314}, "reply_to": "20136__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20136__1_022", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "That's not a hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1783.081], "stop_times": [1783.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1783.081}, "reply_to": "20136__1_021", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_023", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--it did require it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1783.698], "stop_times": [1784.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1783.698}, "reply_to": "20136__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20136__1_024", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "It's not an absolute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1784.35], "stop_times": [1785.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1784.35}, "reply_to": "20136__1_023", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_025", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "I didn't think that was the point.\nI thought the point was simply whether, of course that your client has a cause of action, but is... the judge isn't going to decide this matter until, for example, the union's had an opportunity to do certain things, such as present your client with a piece of paper that says how the money's spent.\nYou agree with that, I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1785.766, 1786.616, 1804.041], "stop_times": [1786.616, 1804.041, 1805.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1785.766}, "reply_to": "20136__1_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20136__1_026", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--Hudson requires that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1805.993], "stop_times": [1807.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1805.993}, "reply_to": "20136__1_025", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_027", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "If they do it in a timely way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1807.279], "stop_times": [1808.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1807.279}, "reply_to": "20136__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20136__1_028", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Hudson requires that that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1808.512], "stop_times": [1809.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1808.512}, "reply_to": "20136__1_027", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_029", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Fine, and it also--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1809.645], "stop_times": [1809.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1809.645}, "reply_to": "20136__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20136__1_030", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--be done before the money is collected.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1809.979], "stop_times": [1811.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1809.979}, "reply_to": "20136__1_029", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_031", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--Exactly, and then Hudson also requires that the union should have a shot... I mean, they have to run their union, and they can't have five people going to five differing courts which could... or five different decisionmakers all putting them under different, you know, conflicting obligations.\nWho knows what's going to happen.\nSo Hudson says you can go to an independent decisionmaker first, and I took it that that was Justice Stevens' question.\nShould the court act before they go to an independent person and say, independent person, look at this and give us your opinion.\nYou know, it may be things will work out.\nIt may be that all the dissidents won't have to spend their money to hire a lawyer to go to Federal court, but if they want to afterwards, let them do it.\nNow, I mean, what's wrong with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1811.397, 1826.491, 1827.757, 1834.347, 1841.6, 1844.368, 1853.891], "stop_times": [1826.491, 1827.757, 1834.347, 1841.6, 1844.368, 1853.891, 1857.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1811.397}, "reply_to": "20136__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20136__1_032", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "What's wrong with that, Your Honor, is that the individual employee has a cause of action which has been given to him by Congress, and this Court has never, never held that exhaustion is required where there is not one of two situations, one, either an agreement to arbitrate, or a statutory administrative scheme involving deference to another branch of Government, and that is not this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1857.193], "stop_times": [1880.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1857.193}, "reply_to": "20136__1_031", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_033", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "This, I think... and I'm curious about your view of this, and that's why I was pushing it... is not classical arbitration.\nI take it that they're prepared to give you the district judge who would afterwards look at how this arbitrator decides the matter and review everything de novo as to whether or not the factual thing gives rise to a nongermane or germaneness.\nNow, that begins to sound like Price, Waterhouse.\nWhat the arbitrator is doing is deciding what the facts were, and we give him such deference as is due, the power to persuade but not the power to control, something like that, and then the judge decides it de novo.\nNow, from the point of view... not your individual clients but as a person experienced in this area, wouldn't such a thing be better as dissidents... I mean, wouldn't dissidents prefer such a thing, rather than have to go to Federal court, because they won't even give you that, you know.\nIf you have a Federal court judge, and only a Federal court judge, they'll say fine, so be it.\nSo what's your view on... do you see... I'm being a little elliptical for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1880.392, 1886.445, 1903.674, 1906.209, 1919.619, 1933.192, 1938.58], "stop_times": [1886.445, 1903.674, 1906.209, 1919.619, 1933.192, 1938.58, 1942.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1880.392}, "reply_to": "20136__1_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20136__1_034", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "I'm not quite sure I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1942.882], "stop_times": [1944.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1942.882}, "reply_to": "20136__1_033", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_035", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--I'm saying, that they're trying to say that within this statute, give us a chance before the judge goes ahead to do certain things that might resolve this in order to prevent us the union from being placed under potentially conflicting obligations.\nThat's a practical way of working this out.\nIt doesn't really hurt your clients because they can go in after the court if they don't like it, and they're better off than if we don't give it to them, and when they go into court later on they'll have a judge do this de novo, you know, on the law, and he'll give such weight to factual matters as you might give to an accounting firm, knowing that they know more about it than you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1944.484, 1958.66, 1961.195], "stop_times": [1958.66, 1961.195, 1981.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1944.484}, "reply_to": "20136__1_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20136__1_036", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--Justice Breyer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1981.173], "stop_times": [1982.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1981.173}, "reply_to": "20136__1_035", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_037", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "That's what I took out of this, and maybe I'm being... you don't have to answer if you don't want to, but I mean, I'm trying to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1982.525], "stop_times": [1986.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1982.525}, "reply_to": "20136__1_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20136__1_038", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--Justice Breyer, my clients--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1986.894], "stop_times": [1988.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1986.894}, "reply_to": "20136__1_037", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_039", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1988.263], "stop_times": [1988.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1988.263}, "reply_to": "20136__1_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20136__1_040", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--And the typical dissident in the case where I have represented clients, and I've represented dissidents in many places, including the Lehnert case which this Court decided.\nThe typical dissident wants to obtain a judicial determination of his constitutional, in this case also rights under the statute, in which he has an opportunity for discovery, which is denied in this arbitration process, in which he has a determination by an Article III judge qualified to determine what speech and association he can be compelled to support, he wants a truly adversary hearing where he has discovery in which he can vet the potential evidence in advance of the hearing, as the Sixth Circuit held in the Bromley case.\nThat's crucial to these cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [1988.613, 1996.535, 2031.673], "stop_times": [1996.535, 2031.673, 2033.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1988.613}, "reply_to": "20136__1_039", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_041", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Does the American Association... American Arbitration Association which Mr. Anker says has set up these... do they require that members of those panels be trained in the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2033.392], "stop_times": [2043.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2033.392}, "reply_to": "20136__1_040", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__1_042", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "I don't know the answer to that question, Your Honor, but I can answer one question, and that is, if you look at the law review article by Mr. Malin, who was... one of his articles was cited by ALPA in one of its amici.\nI cite another one on the post Gilmer arbitration, and Mr. Malin points out in that article that the arbitrators have to receive recommendations from four employers and four unions to get on the panel to be selected in these cases.\nMy clients have no say over whether it's AAA or somebody else who picks the arbitrator and they have no say in the selection of the so-called arbitrator.\nThe essence of arbitration--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2043.599, 2058.609, 2072.083, 2081.106], "stop_times": [2058.609, 2072.083, 2081.106, 2083.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2043.599}, "reply_to": "20136__1_041", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_043", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Mr. LeJeunesse, you're essentially saying as far as you're concerned your clients, thanks but no thanks to Hudson, that... I mean, you really didn't want any of this.\nYou'd rather just go straight into Federal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2083.139, 2090.71], "stop_times": [2090.71, 2092.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2083.139}, "reply_to": "20136__1_042", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20136__1_044", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--Clients, nonmembers who are lucky enough to have an attorney represent them are going to say no thanks to this particular arbitration procedure, or this particular decisionmaking process.\nHudson... put Hudson in context.\nHudson was a case, a public sector case decided under section 1983 where this Court had already decided that you could not be required to exhaust even a State administrative remedy, and Hudson imposed... after all, in Hudson it was the State who was ultimately compelling the employees to pay the agency fee.\nIt was under a State statute, and an agreement with a public employer.\nHudson placed the primary burden on the State to establish this alternative procedure, and that was only 4 years after this Court's decision in Patsy saying that you can't be required to exhaust a State administrative remedy, and so therefore I find it inconceivable to think that the Court in Hudson could have been supposing that the nonmembers could have been compelled to utilize this procedure.\nThis procedure is made available--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2092.079, 2106.07, 2109.339, 2129.752, 2133.221, 2158.189], "stop_times": [2106.07, 2109.339, 2129.752, 2133.221, 2158.189, 2160.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2092.079}, "reply_to": "20136__1_043", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_045", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "You can't say it's inconceivable when Justice White and Chief Justice Burger both said that's what it meant.\nThey at least conceived of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2160.307, 2164.859], "stop_times": [2164.859, 2166.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2160.307}, "reply_to": "20136__1_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20136__1_046", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--They conceived of it, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2166.46], "stop_times": [2167.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2166.46}, "reply_to": "20136__1_045", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_047", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "So it was not inconceivable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2167.86], "stop_times": [2168.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2167.86}, "reply_to": "20136__1_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20136__1_048", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "That's correct, Justice Stevens.\n[Laughter]\nBut I... but the majority did not agree with them, because the majority did not adopt--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2168.576, 2169.06, 2169.595], "stop_times": [2169.06, 2169.595, 2174.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2168.576}, "reply_to": "20136__1_047", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_049", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "They didn't say one way or the other.\nThe majority said nothing at all about that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2174.78, 2175.982], "stop_times": [2175.982, 2177.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2174.78}, "reply_to": "20136__1_048", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20136__1_050", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--Well, I think the majority suggested the contrary at several points in its decision.\nIn footnote 20 the Court presumed that ordinary judicial remedies remain available.\nIn footnote 16 in Hudson the Court said that the nonmember's burden is simply the obligation to make his objection known, citing the earlier--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2177.466, 2184.505, 2192.342], "stop_times": [2184.505, 2192.342, 2201.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2177.466}, "reply_to": "20136__1_049", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_051", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--What we said in footnote 20 was that we reject the union's suggestion that the availability of ordinary judicial remedies is sufficient, and this was... we were insisting that the... we were imposing obligations on the union, and the union lost that case 100 percent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2201.634], "stop_times": [2215.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2201.634}, "reply_to": "20136__1_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20136__1_052", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--That's correct, Justice Stevens, and what the Court was doing there, as the Chief Justice has suggested, was providing a shield for the protection of employee rights, not giving the union a sword to take another right away from the employee, which is the right of immediate access to the Federal courts guaranteed to them by Article III of the Constitution and the right to redress of grievances under First Amendment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2215.857], "stop_times": [2240.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2215.857}, "reply_to": "20136__1_051", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_053", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "May I ask you this question.\nSupposing you prevail with... because of the right to access to the courts, do you think the district judge having such a case could say, I think I'll stay proceedings until I see what happens in the arbitration?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2240.009, 2240.825], "stop_times": [2240.825, 2249.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2240.009}, "reply_to": "20136__1_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20136__1_054", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--No, I don't believe so, Your Honor.\nThat would be... it would be exhaustion by using another term.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2249.797, 2251.73], "stop_times": [2251.73, 2256.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2249.797}, "reply_to": "20136__1_053", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_055", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "How does Article III give anybody access to courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2256.934], "stop_times": [2261.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2256.934}, "reply_to": "20136__1_054", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__1_056", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Article III says that where Congress has granted jurisdiction to the courts the litigation has a right to bring his case into court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2261.338], "stop_times": [2272.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2261.338}, "reply_to": "20136__1_055", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_057", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Well, I'd be interested in seeing exactly what provision of Article III you're quoting, because I've looked at it often and I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2272.028], "stop_times": [2278.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2272.028}, "reply_to": "20136__1_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__1_058", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "I was referring, Your Honor, to what this Court said--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2278.115], "stop_times": [2283.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2278.115}, "reply_to": "20136__1_057", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_059", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--Well, I'm not talking about what this Court said.\nI'm talking about what does Article III say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2283.9, 2285.252], "stop_times": [2285.252, 2287.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2283.9}, "reply_to": "20136__1_058", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__1_060", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--Article III places the determination of Federal causes of action in Article III judges, and this Court has held that that means that a litigant has a right to have his Federal cause of action determined by an Article III judge, and those--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2287.471], "stop_times": [2306.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2287.471}, "reply_to": "20136__1_059", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_061", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "But not in reliance on Article III.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2306.198], "stop_times": [2308.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2306.198}, "reply_to": "20136__1_060", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__1_062", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nGrande Financial S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33, which we quote on page 23 of our brief, the Court says, if a statutory right is not closely intertwined with a Federal regulatory program... in other words, the administrative scheme, which we don't have here... Congress has power to enact, and if that right neither belongs to nor exists against the Federal Government, then it must be adjudicated by an Article III court, end quote.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2308.55, 2309.716], "stop_times": [2309.716, 2342.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2308.55}, "reply_to": "20136__1_061", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_063", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Well, that's not saying that it's... Article III requires that.\nWe have said many things... times that certain things are required to be adjudicated by Article III courts, but not simply because Article III says what it does.\nWe're... obviously you and I are both perhaps straying from the central theme of the case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2342.187, 2344.703, 2353.293], "stop_times": [2344.703, 2353.293, 2359.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2342.187}, "reply_to": "20136__1_062", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__1_064", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Certainly, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2359.78], "stop_times": [2360.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2359.78}, "reply_to": "20136__1_063", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_065", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--so let's get back to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2360.78], "stop_times": [2361.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2360.78}, "reply_to": "20136__1_064", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__1_066", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--and the central theme of the case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2361.03], "stop_times": [2362.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2361.03}, "reply_to": "20136__1_065", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_067", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "While we're in that mode--\n--I think maybe the Due Process Clause requires it to be determined by an Article III court.\nYou wouldn't care whether it's the Due Process Clause or Article III--\n--Yes, but isn't the question here not whether it must be determined, but rather, when it must be determined, because I guess everybody agrees that after the arbitration you get all the discovery you want.\nYou get everything you want.\nIt's just a question of whether you can get it while the arbitration is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2362.732, 2364.248, 2367.184, 2369.819, 2376.889, 2377.723], "stop_times": [2364.248, 2367.184, 2369.819, 2376.889, 2377.723, 2380.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2362.732}, "reply_to": "20136__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20136__1_068", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--That's correct, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2380.341], "stop_times": [2381.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2380.341}, "reply_to": "20136__1_067", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_069", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--still going on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2381.025], "stop_times": [2381.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2381.025}, "reply_to": "20136__1_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20136__1_070", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "But as this Court said in both Patsy and later in Felder v. Casey the court does not have discretion to simply require exhaustion out of questions of practicality or judicial efficiency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2381.626], "stop_times": [2394.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2381.626}, "reply_to": "20136__1_069", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_071", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "I notice the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2394.434], "stop_times": [2395.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2394.434}, "reply_to": "20136__1_070", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20136__1_072", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "It has to be consistent with congressional intent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2395.45], "stop_times": [2397.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2395.45}, "reply_to": "20136__1_071", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_073", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--I notice the one... I've been trying to think of an example of compelled arbitration without statutory authority.\nI notice that the Northern District of California for some years has had a mandatory arbitration requirement before you can proceed with your civil action.\nIt's nonbinding.\nThat's the only one I can think of.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2397.302, 2403.956, 2413.646, 2414.681], "stop_times": [2403.956, 2413.646, 2414.681, 2417.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2397.302}, "reply_to": "20136__1_072", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20136__1_074", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "I'm not familiar with that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2417.55], "stop_times": [2418.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2417.55}, "reply_to": "20136__1_073", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_075", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Is... imagine on this early dispute resolution, which is common now, but the... suppose that the union... what I want to try to find out is how you do you think this is going to work?\nImagine a union with 5,000 members and 500 dissidents, and the dissidents range from the people who really are angry, you know, at being part of this to the ones who sort of don't care, and a lot of the ones who don't care, you know, would like to have a simple way to resolve this, but some of the ones who really do care want to fight to the last ditch.\nAll right, on your theory of how the statute is supposed to work out, how does it work out?\nI mean, the union will think well, some of the people might... you know, these things are often close.\nThe courts will decide one way.\nThe arbitrators will decide another way on many close questions.\nPerhaps they're intertwined, so that the reasonableness of a relationship between germane... you know, between objective and expenditure depends on, and then we can imagine all kinds of intertwined things.\nOn your theory of what Congress meant to do, how was that to work out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2418.816, 2430.421, 2450.185, 2455.989, 2460.393, 2462.176, 2466.129, 2477.937], "stop_times": [2430.421, 2450.185, 2455.989, 2460.393, 2462.176, 2466.129, 2477.937, 2484.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2418.816}, "reply_to": "20136__1_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20136__1_076", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Justice Breyer, your example points out the need for both systems.\nThat is, the impartial decisionmaker required by Hudson as a matter of First Amendment due process and the ability of the individual who has an attorney and really wants a judicial determination to go to court first.\nThat individual is only going to be delayed by the exhaustion requirement, but you have to have the impartial decisionmaker, a simpler, less formal procedure available for the nonmember who can't afford to hire an attorney, and... plus--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2484.591, 2489.912, 2500.601], "stop_times": [2489.912, 2500.601, 2517.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2484.591}, "reply_to": "20136__1_075", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_077", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2517.395], "stop_times": [2517.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2517.395}, "reply_to": "20136__1_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20136__1_078", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--give him due process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2517.879], "stop_times": [2519.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2517.879}, "reply_to": "20136__1_077", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_079", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "So they say, we can tell you how this works out perfectly.\nGive us a reasonable time to set up our impartial decisionmaker and let ones who are hell-bent on court go there, but only after our impartial decisionmaker has decided, and that will prevent inconsistencies, and that's probably what Congress meant.\nOn the other hand, if you take your theme, which is the ones that are hell-bent for court go there first, we're going to get conflicting decisions.\nWe won't know how to plan our expenditures, and it will be a mess.\nNow, I take it that that's their argument, so how... what do you say about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2519.062, 2521.347, 2537.143, 2545.13, 2549.284], "stop_times": [2521.347, 2537.143, 2545.13, 2549.284, 2553.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2519.062}, "reply_to": "20136__1_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20136__1_080", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "It's an argument that doesn't hold water, Your Honor, because in any event there are going to be conflicting decisions from different courts, different arbitrations.\nThis union has employees, airline pilots throughout the entire Nation.\nSome may bring a case in one Federal district court, others in another.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2553.253, 2562.341, 2568.995], "stop_times": [2562.341, 2568.995, 2572.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2553.253}, "reply_to": "20136__1_079", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_081", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Well, can the multidistrict litigation scheme solve that?\nI'm not quite sure how that works.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2572.447, 2575.649], "stop_times": [2575.649, 2576.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2572.447}, "reply_to": "20136__1_080", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20136__1_082", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Yes, it could, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2576.949], "stop_times": [2577.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2576.949}, "reply_to": "20136__1_081", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_083", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "So that would eliminate the conflict, at least among courts, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2577.449], "stop_times": [2581.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2577.449}, "reply_to": "20136__1_082", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20136__1_084", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "But in either event you're going to have a decision by an arbitrator and then a decision by the court, whether it's sequential or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2581.317], "stop_times": [2591.792], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2581.317}, "reply_to": "20136__1_083", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_085", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "If the court reviews the arbitrator the court has the last word.\nIf they're going on simultaneously, or the arbitrator comes later, or you don't know, interspersed, then you can get I suppose a fairly good mess.\nThat's... and if we're trying to figure out what Congress intended, can't we assume they wanted not a mess, rather than a mess?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2591.792, 2597.077, 2605.599], "stop_times": [2597.077, 2605.599, 2613.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2591.792}, "reply_to": "20136__1_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20136__1_086", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--No, I don't think so, Your Honor.\nI think you have to look at... you have to look at the cause of action involved here.\nIn the public sector it's a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, and this Court held in Patsy and later in Felder that based on legislative history that the congressional intent was that these statutes for the paramount protection of individual rights were intended by Congress to be in the courts in the first instance.\nBecause the parallel situation under the duty of fair representation, which is the basis of the cause of action here.\nThe duty of fair representation was adopted by this Court in 1944 in Steel to protect individual employees from unions abusing their power of exclusive representation.\nIn fact, it was adopted by the Court to avoid having to declare the statute unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2613.388, 2614.172, 2618.557, 2639.101, 2645.374, 2659.098], "stop_times": [2614.172, 2618.557, 2639.101, 2645.374, 2659.098, 2663.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2613.388}, "reply_to": "20136__1_085", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_087", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Well, I suppose Hudson was probably beyond the contemplation of Congress.\nI mean, it was a constitutional decision.\nIt wasn't based on the idea that this is what Congress would have wanted, so that once we get beyond what Congress would have wanted it's hard to say, when you try to see what possible remedies exist post Hudson, to translate that into what Congress would have wanted.\nWe're pretty far away already from congressional intent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2663.419, 2669.156, 2671.073, 2687.717], "stop_times": [2669.156, 2671.073, 2687.717, 2690.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2663.419}, "reply_to": "20136__1_086", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__1_088", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Two questions, Your Honor.\nOne, in Steel the Court said, we have to assume that Congress intended to impose the duty of fair representation on unions, because if we don't make that assumption the statute is probably unconstitutional.\nThe Court then said, there's no remedy provided under the Railway Labor Act, which is the statute in this case, for vindication of an employee's rights where he's accusing the union of breach of the duty of fair representation.\nLater, in Vaca and Breininger the Court held that employees have the right to take that cause of action for breach of duty of fair representation directly to the Federal courts because the purpose of the statute, paramount purpose of the statute is the protection of individual rights, just as it is under section 1983, that the nonmember... that the employee under the National Labor Relations Act doesn't have to go before the National Labor Relations Board first.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2690.819, 2692.771, 2708.198, 2722.505], "stop_times": [2692.771, 2708.198, 2722.505, 2750.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2690.819}, "reply_to": "20136__1_087", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_089", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Mr.... is it clear to begin with that Hudson applies in your situation, where it is not the State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2750.791], "stop_times": [2758.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2750.791}, "reply_to": "20136__1_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20136__1_090", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Yes, it is clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2758.261], "stop_times": [2760.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2758.261}, "reply_to": "20136__1_089", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_091", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--that is depriving these workers of their First Amendment rights?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2760.93], "stop_times": [2764.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2760.93}, "reply_to": "20136__1_090", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20136__1_092", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "It's clear in this case for two reasons, Justice Scalia, first because this Court held in Hanson in 1956 that the Railway Labor Act authorization of agency shop agreements is governmental action, Federal governmental action, and so constitutional limitations do apply, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2764.617], "stop_times": [2786.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2764.617}, "reply_to": "20136__1_091", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_093", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Well, but so then the Federal Government should set up the arbitration scheme.\nI mean, what Hudson said was that the person responsible for the First Amendment violation, what would otherwise be a First Amendment violation, had to set up an arbitration scheme.\nIf you're telling me in this case, since it involves a private employer, the person responsible for it is the Federal Congress, by having adopted the National Labor Relations Act that enables these dues to be charged, then let the Federal Government set up an arbitration scheme.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2786.948, 2790.566, 2800.005], "stop_times": [2790.566, 2800.005, 2814.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2786.948}, "reply_to": "20136__1_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20136__1_094", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--You're making one of the points that I wanted to make, Your Honor, is that ALPA's in the wrong place.\nIt is asking this Court to construct a remedy scheme that Congress has not constructed.\nIt should be addressing the practical concerns that it's raising to Congress, not to this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2814.598, 2818.567, 2826.573], "stop_times": [2818.567, 2826.573, 2833.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2814.598}, "reply_to": "20136__1_093", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_095", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Yes, but isn't that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2833.06], "stop_times": [2833.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2833.06}, "reply_to": "20136__1_094", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20136__1_096", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--which doesn't have the discretion to impose exhaustion simply as a matter of practicalities unless it is consistent with congressional intent, and there are two aspects in which this requirement is inconsistent with congressional intent.\nOne is the point I was making with regard to the duty of fair representation.\nThat is, that this Court has already held that Congress intended that these cases be considered in the courts in the first instance, because the paramount purpose of the duty is to protect individual rights.\nAnd the second is that beginning with Hanson this Court has said that the only incident of union membership that can be imposed on the nonmember is the payment of the cost of collective bargaining, and here you're imposing on the nonmember an additional incident of union membership, exhaustion of a union remedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2833.627, 2850.121, 2856.175, 2866.198], "stop_times": [2850.121, 2856.175, 2866.198, 2887.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2833.627}, "reply_to": "20136__1_095", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_097", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--Mr. LeJeunesse, one of the things that you said about why you don't like this, you said there's no discovery, and I was trying to understand what the complaint is that you come to court with when you don't have any arbitration in the picture.\nYou just say, we don't think they drew the line in the right place.\nDo you have to be at all specific?\nDo you have to say, well, we think that their expenditure for, say, safety lobbying is no good, or do you just say, we challenge the whole thing, and then we can discover?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2887.979, 2906.691, 2911.095, 2912.612], "stop_times": [2906.691, 2911.095, 2912.612, 2923.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2887.979}, "reply_to": "20136__1_096", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20136__1_098", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nThis Court held both in the Railway Labor Act cases back in the sixties, Street and Allen, and later in Abood, that the nonmember need only state a general objection and then the union is put to its burden of proof, and in Allen--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2923.152, 2925.052], "stop_times": [2925.052, 2940.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2923.152}, "reply_to": "20136__1_097", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_099", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Wait, wait.\nIn general... he has to have a basis for that general objection.\nYou just can't come in and say, I object.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2940.698, 2941.264, 2944.066], "stop_times": [2941.264, 2944.066, 2945.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2940.698}, "reply_to": "20136__1_098", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20136__1_100", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--That--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2945.716], "stop_times": [2946.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2945.716}, "reply_to": "20136__1_099", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_101", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Don't you have to plead that you have reason to believe that the union is expending--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2946.435], "stop_times": [2951.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2946.435}, "reply_to": "20136__1_100", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20136__1_102", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--How is the nonmember to have reason?\nThe nonmember doesn't have the facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2951.387, 2955.006], "stop_times": [2955.006, 2957.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2951.387}, "reply_to": "20136__1_101", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_103", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--Well, he does under Hudson.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2957.458], "stop_times": [2958.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2957.458}, "reply_to": "20136__1_102", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20136__1_104", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "They're solely in the possession of the union.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2958.743], "stop_times": [2959.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2958.743}, "reply_to": "20136__1_103", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_105", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "He does under Hudson.\nSee, that's the very point of... the point.\nUntil a member has the facts, he doesn't know whether he should spend the money to hire a lawyer and bring a lawsuit, and one of the points of Hudson was, we put the burden, as you say, squarely on the union to assemble the facts, but not only its own version of the facts, but also those of an independent verifying that version.\nAnd if they've done that, presumably then the employee has a basis for judging whether or not he's been short-changed, and if he has, he's free to sue.\nYou see, the difference between this arbitration and all others is the member is not bound by the arbitration in any way.\nHe hasn't agreed to anything, so he's totally free to sue once he gets the facts.\nThe question is whether we should ask him to wait till he gets the facts before he sues.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [2959.91, 2961.112, 2962.878, 2978.204, 2986.827, 2992.714, 2997.035], "stop_times": [2961.112, 2962.878, 2978.204, 2986.827, 2992.714, 2997.035, 3000.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2959.91}, "reply_to": "20136__1_104", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20136__1_106", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "I return Your Honor to the principle that this Court has followed consistently, which is that you cannot just as a matter of judicial discretion require exhaustion unless--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [3000.903], "stop_times": [3012.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3000.903}, "reply_to": "20136__1_105", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_107", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "But it's not exhaustion.\nThe opinion itself says he need not exhaust.\nThere's no requirement of exhaustion on the member, as you put it correctly.\nAll he has to do is complain and he has his cause of action.\nHe can sue.\nHe doesn't like the arbitration.\nHe starts from scratch.\nHe at least has the facts before he files his complaint.\nThat's all we held.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [3012.544, 3014.644, 3017.079, 3021.198, 3024.518, 3024.968, 3026.618, 3027.47, 3030.054], "stop_times": [3014.644, 3017.079, 3021.198, 3024.518, 3024.968, 3026.618, 3027.47, 3030.054, 3030.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3012.544}, "reply_to": "20136__1_106", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20136__1_108", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--Your Honor, he doesn't have the facts, because the notice that the... Hudson requires--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [3030.956], "stop_times": [3034.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3030.956}, "reply_to": "20136__1_107", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_109", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "He has the union's version of the facts verified by an independent appraisal.\nNow, whether that... he doesn't have to accept it, but he at least has that much, and then he decides whether--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [3034.873, 3038.075], "stop_times": [3038.075, 3042.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3034.873}, "reply_to": "20136__1_108", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20136__1_110", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--I'm not sure I understand you, Justice Stevens.\nYou're saying the employee merely states an objection, the union holds its arbitration ex parte, and then the employee can go to court.\nI don't see the purpose of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [3042.96, 3043.643, 3049.347], "stop_times": [3043.643, 3049.347, 3050.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3042.96}, "reply_to": "20136__1_109", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_111", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--How does it work when a union official complains that the employer... not... sorry, when an employee thinks the employer is trying to censor him or something, or he thinks that the employer should have given him an excuse... it's related to his religion or something.\nI mean, there can be thousands of grievances.\nDon't people have to go through the grievance procedure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [3050.816, 3066.059, 3067.845], "stop_times": [3066.059, 3067.845, 3069.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3050.816}, "reply_to": "20136__1_110", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20136__1_112", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "But they've agreed to go through the grievance procedure.\nThe union is their agent for purposes of their--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [3069.661, 3072.38], "stop_times": [3072.38, 3075.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3069.661}, "reply_to": "20136__1_111", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_113", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Oh, I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [3075.165], "stop_times": [3075.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3075.165}, "reply_to": "20136__1_112", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20136__1_114", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--relationship with their employer.\nIt is not their agent for purposes of their dispute with itself, and those cases, Justice Breyer, also are cases in which... they're simple contract grievance arbitration cases in which both parties know most of the underlying facts.\nHere we're talking about 68 million in union expenditures.\nThe pilot doesn't have a basis to make a detailed complaint.\nAll he's required to do by this Court's decisions, beginning with Allen in the sixties, is state a general objection to the use of his money for purposes other than collective bargaining, then he's entitled to discovery in court to find out what underlies the union's calculations, and the union has the burden of proving its case.\nThat doesn't happen in these arbitration proceedings, the ones that occurred here.\nDiscovery was denied to the pilots.\nThey were not given the opportunity... they could not compel the testimony of union witnesses.\nWithout discovery, they couldn't effectively cross-examine.\nThey couldn't narrow the issues, because they didn't know the underlying facts.\nAnd in conclusion, I would say that the court of appeals correctly held that the pilots were not obliged to proceed first through ALPA's review procedure because there is no legal basis--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [3075.599, 3076.866, 3091.543, 3095.578, 3099.38, 3117.658, 3121.395, 3123.095, 3128.299, 3131.418, 3135.303], "stop_times": [3076.866, 3091.543, 3095.578, 3099.38, 3117.658, 3121.395, 3123.095, 3128.299, 3131.418, 3135.303, 3148.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3075.599}, "reply_to": "20136__1_113", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_115", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "May I ask one other question, though?\nThe... in the arbitration proceeding that's all cost-free for the... they don't have to participate if they don't want to, and they won't be bound, but once you start discovery, then you have to pay your own share of the cost, don't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [3148.63, 3149.796], "stop_times": [3149.796, 3159.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3148.63}, "reply_to": "20136__1_114", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20136__1_116", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--Yes, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [3159.437], "stop_times": [3161.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3159.437}, "reply_to": "20136__1_115", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_117", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [3161.67], "stop_times": [3161.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3161.67}, "reply_to": "20136__1_116", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20136__1_118", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "And I'm talking here about the pilots who have an attorney, who want to go to court to get a judicial determination with an Article III judge in a proceeding where they have the right to discovery, where they can compel the production of witnesses, where the proceeding is truly adversary and they can get that judicial determination of their... what we're talking about here after all is Federal statutory and constitutional rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [3161.953], "stop_times": [3185.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3161.953}, "reply_to": "20136__1_117", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_119", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "It really is an extraordinary claim, that you just come into the court and say, I think they drew the line in the wrong place.\nI'm not going to tell you anything about which expenses, we just say we want to have full discovery.\nAnd I think that the notion of the arbitration is that it would put certain limits, because the... whether it's... some kind of deference to the arbitrator's findings, and you don't want to have any findings, as I understand your position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [3185.033, 3193.739, 3201.911], "stop_times": [3193.739, 3201.911, 3217.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3185.033}, "reply_to": "20136__1_118", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20136__1_120", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, it's a truly extraordinary statutory privilege that the unions have to compel nonmembers to pay these dues, and this Court held in Hudson that First Amendment due process and fundamental fairness, which means it's also a matter of the duty of fair representation, require the union to make available a procedure which is a shield to protect the employee's rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [3217.104], "stop_times": [3245.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3217.104}, "reply_to": "20136__1_119", "speaker": "raymond_j_lajeunesse_jr"}
{"id": "20136__1_121", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Thank you, Mr. LaJeunesse.\nMr. Anker, you have 3 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [3245.607, 3247.223], "stop_times": [3247.223, 3249.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3245.607}, "reply_to": "20136__1_120", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__2_000", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nI think I have three quick points I would like to make.\nFirst of all, there's been a lot of discussion by Mr. LeJeunesse about the intent of the statute, and I think it's clear to say that the statute simply sheds no light whatsoever on the question that's before us, and that's not unusual.\nVery often these exhaustion questions are not resolved by any statute, and certainly this one doesn't have anything whatsoever to say on the subject.\nNow, when the statute is silent, what this Court has said... and I think this is really the ultimate answer to the questions that were asked of me earlier by Justice Ginsburg and others, where does the authority come from to require this exhaustion, this Court has said on several different occasions that exhaustion of an administrative remedy or an arbitration remedy, as in Hudson, as in Republic Steel v. Maddox is a matter of judicial discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [3249.392, 3251.677, 3255.896, 3267.937, 3277.079], "stop_times": [3251.677, 3255.896, 3267.937, 3277.079, 3304.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3249.392}, "reply_to": "20136__1_121", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__2_001", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "But one was... certainly Republic Steel was consensual, was it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [3304.146], "stop_times": [3307.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3304.146}, "reply_to": "20136__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__2_002", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Well, Your Honor, one could say that on the facts of Republic Steel, but the interesting thing about the case is, when you read it, that was not the principal reliance of the Court at all.\nThe Court spoke about several different policy considerations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [3307.848, 3318.488], "stop_times": [3318.488, 3321.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3307.848}, "reply_to": "20136__2_001", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__2_003", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Yes, but another... it seems another defect in your suggestion is that this is not a remedy.\nThe arbitration doesn't bind the union... I mean, bind the member in the slightest.\nHe... it may change the calculation, but it's certainly not a remedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [3321.607, 3325.475, 3329.511], "stop_times": [3325.475, 3329.511, 3334.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3321.607}, "reply_to": "20136__2_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20136__2_004", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Well, I agree it doesn't bind him, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [3334.331], "stop_times": [3338.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3334.331}, "reply_to": "20136__2_003", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__2_005", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Which most remedies do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [3338.05], "stop_times": [3340.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3338.05}, "reply_to": "20136__2_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20136__2_006", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--It's maybe just simply a semantic issue between us, but it's a remedy in the sense that it's a way in which he might get what he's looking for.\nHe might get the adjudication of the issue in his favor, and that would resolve the problem for him, or her, and that's why I would consider it a remedy.\nBut if the Court doesn't like that word, I think it's still analogous to a remedy in a typical exhaustion case such that the normal judicial discretion would apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [3340.402, 3348.572, 3359.63], "stop_times": [3348.572, 3359.63, 3370.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3340.402}, "reply_to": "20136__2_005", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__2_007", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "What's another typical exhaustion case that you're talking about, Mr. Anker, other than Maddox?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [3370.171], "stop_times": [3374.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3370.171}, "reply_to": "20136__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__2_008", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Well, any kind of an exhaustion of administrative remedies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [3374.539], "stop_times": [3378.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3374.539}, "reply_to": "20136__2_007", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__2_009", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "But those are governmental remedies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [3378.86], "stop_times": [3380.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3378.86}, "reply_to": "20136__2_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__2_010", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "They are governmental remedies, but they're nonjudicial remedies, and even where the statute doesn't require--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [3380.077], "stop_times": [3385.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3380.077}, "reply_to": "20136__2_009", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__2_011", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "But the typical reason for exhausting judicial administrative remedies is to get the view of the administrator.\nIn other words, the Government policy maker might rule in your favor.\nBut we have never done that with a private organization.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [3385.097, 3390.882, 3394.536], "stop_times": [3390.882, 3394.536, 3398.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3385.097}, "reply_to": "20136__2_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20136__2_012", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "--Well, I think, Your Honor, you're making two points.\nLet me take the first one first.\nOne of the reasons is the reason relating to the governmental decisionmaker, but the cases have stated several reasons.\nOther reasons are efficiency, reasons of avoiding controversy in court if it's possible to do so.\nIt isn't... that isn't the only reason for exhaustion of administrative remedies.\nNow, I'm not sure I can come up immediately with another example, other than Maddox, of an exhaustion of a private remedy, but Maddox is certainly a case of one, and it's one in which... actually the plaintiff in that case, the individual never consented.\nThe consent is only kind of a constructive consent, because of the fact that he is represented by the union.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [3398.155, 3402.106, 3403.558, 3411.545, 3419.068, 3423.37, 3437.53], "stop_times": [3402.106, 3403.558, 3411.545, 3419.068, 3423.37, 3437.53, 3443.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3398.155}, "reply_to": "20136__2_011", "speaker": "jerry_d_anker"}
{"id": "20136__2_013", "conversation_id": "20136", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Anker.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-428", "start_times": [3443.6, 3444.885], "stop_times": [3444.885, 3446.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3443.6}, "reply_to": "20136__2_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20791__0_000", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-1577, Alaska v. The Native Village of, is it Venetie?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [12.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20791__0_001", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Venetie, Venetie.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [12.058], "stop_times": [14.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 12.058}, "reply_to": "20791__0_000", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__0_002", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Venetie.\nHow do they get that out of V-e-n-e-t-i-e?\nMay I ask counsel for respondent, is the correct pronunciation of the Native Village of Venetie?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [14.224, 16.093, 34.971], "stop_times": [16.093, 34.971, 52.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 14.224}, "reply_to": "20791__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20791__1_000", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Venetie.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [52.682], "stop_times": [53.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 52.682}, "reply_to": "20791__0_002", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__1_001", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Venetie.\nThank you.\nMr. Roberts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [53.416, 54.082, 55.401], "stop_times": [54.082, 55.401, 56.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 53.416}, "reply_to": "20791__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20791__2_000", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIn 1971 Congress settled Native Alaskan land claims by passing the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.\nThat act revoked all reservations in Alaska save one, and extinguished all claims based on aboriginal title.\nIn exchange, it conveyed to State-chartered corporations owned by individual Native shareholders 1 billion dollars and 44 million acres of land in fee simple, land which because a freely alienable asset of the corporations to do with as they see fit.\nThe Ninth Circuit nonetheless held that the settlement lands at issue in this case were Indian country, a jurisdictional concept epitomized by the reservation and characterized by land held in trust or otherwise controlled by the Federal Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [56.584, 58.936, 65.507, 72.846, 90.807], "stop_times": [58.936, 65.507, 72.846, 90.807, 105.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 56.584}, "reply_to": "20791__1_001", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_001", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Mr. Roberts, why do you suppose Congress didn't just mention somewhere in this settlement act section 1151's dependent Indian community notion?\nI mean, it would have been so easy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [105.651, 119.291], "stop_times": [119.291, 121.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 105.651}, "reply_to": "20791__2_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__2_002", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Well, it's often the case that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [121.426], "stop_times": [123.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 121.426}, "reply_to": "20791__2_001", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_003", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--to include a little phrase there somewhere about that.\nWhy do you think that didn't happen?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [123.112, 126.064], "stop_times": [126.064, 128.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 123.112}, "reply_to": "20791__2_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__2_004", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--I think because Congress in 1971 had no reason to suppose that there was any such Indian country in Alaska.\nThat had been the nearly uniform decision of Alaskan courts that had looked at the question, and at the time, yes, there were a handful of reservations that were--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [128.348, 135.086], "stop_times": [135.086, 142.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 128.348}, "reply_to": "20791__2_003", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_005", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "There were some reservations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [142.924], "stop_times": [145.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 142.924}, "reply_to": "20791__2_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__2_006", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--There were reservations, and they were revoked, so to the extent there was Indian country that they would be aware of, they took action very expressly to extinguish it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [145.107], "stop_times": [154.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 145.107}, "reply_to": "20791__2_005", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_007", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "But most of the land that was conveyed was not Indian country under the then-prevailing jurisprudence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [154.113], "stop_times": [160.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 154.113}, "reply_to": "20791__2_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20791__2_008", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "That's correct and, in fact, it was not Indian country under the accepted concept as it had developed in the lower 48.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [160.017], "stop_times": [166.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 160.017}, "reply_to": "20791__2_007", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_009", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "I have some... I have another just kind of basic question here that you can help me with.\nWhat is sought here by the Venetie Village is the ability to levy a certain kind of tax, in this instance on construction of a school building.\nNow, can the village be incorporated, if you will, as a municipality under Alaska law so that the village would have all the powers of any incorporated municipality in Alaska?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [166.754, 173.091, 186.584], "stop_times": [173.091, 186.584, 205.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 166.754}, "reply_to": "20791__2_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__2_010", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Yes, and in fact many--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [205.379], "stop_times": [206.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 205.379}, "reply_to": "20791__2_009", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_011", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Has it done so, to your knowledge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [206.596], "stop_times": [208.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 206.596}, "reply_to": "20791__2_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__2_012", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Venetie has not done so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [208.831], "stop_times": [209.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 208.831}, "reply_to": "20791__2_011", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_013", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "But it could.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [209.564], "stop_times": [210.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 209.564}, "reply_to": "20791__2_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__2_014", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "It could, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [210.2], "stop_times": [210.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 210.2}, "reply_to": "20791__2_013", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_015", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Now, if it did that, could it impose taxes like any other municipality in Alaska?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [210.8], "stop_times": [217.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 210.8}, "reply_to": "20791__2_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__2_016", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "It would have the same authority.\nthere is, in fact, a restriction in the Alaska constitution that says the only local entities who may tax are cities and boroughs.\nThat's one reason the Indian country determination is so important, because in the absence of Indian country that constitutional provision would apply, and in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [217.536, 219.138, 227.625], "stop_times": [219.138, 227.625, 236.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 217.536}, "reply_to": "20791__2_015", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_017", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Well, how does it apply?\nWould it prevent this village from becoming--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [236.165, 237.617], "stop_times": [237.617, 242.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 236.165}, "reply_to": "20791__2_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__2_018", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--No.\nIf it were--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [242.235, 242.535], "stop_times": [242.535, 242.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 242.235}, "reply_to": "20791__2_017", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_019", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--a municipality?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [242.951], "stop_times": [243.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 242.951}, "reply_to": "20791__2_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__2_020", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--incorporated as a borough--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [243.585], "stop_times": [245.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 243.585}, "reply_to": "20791__2_019", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_021", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [245.487], "stop_times": [245.837], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 245.487}, "reply_to": "20791__2_020", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20791__2_022", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--or as a city it would be eligible.\nIf it were not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [245.837, 247.453], "stop_times": [247.453, 248.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 245.837}, "reply_to": "20791__2_021", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_023", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "And then it would have taxing powers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [248.439], "stop_times": [250.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 248.439}, "reply_to": "20791__2_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__2_024", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--It would have the same taxing powers as other villages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [250.822], "stop_times": [253.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 250.822}, "reply_to": "20791__2_023", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_025", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [253.324], "stop_times": [253.657], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 253.324}, "reply_to": "20791__2_024", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20791__2_026", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "There may... I think there are other restrictions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [253.657], "stop_times": [255.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 253.657}, "reply_to": "20791__2_025", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_027", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "As other municipalities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [255.176], "stop_times": [255.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 255.176}, "reply_to": "20791__2_026", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__2_028", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Other municipalities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [255.876], "stop_times": [256.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 255.876}, "reply_to": "20791__2_027", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_029", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [256.543], "stop_times": [256.909], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 256.543}, "reply_to": "20791__2_028", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20791__2_030", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "I think there are restrictions on the extent to which they can tax, but their powers would be the same.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [256.909, 261.944], "stop_times": [261.944, 262.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 256.909}, "reply_to": "20791__2_029", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_031", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Can you give us an example of what other comparable population villages can do, non-Indian villages, in the way of taxing power, because it would be kind of an academic exercise to bring this case all the way here if their claim to this tax didn't depend on their sovereignty claim, unlike other cities or villages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [262.561], "stop_times": [292.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 262.561}, "reply_to": "20791__2_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20791__2_032", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Well, we think their authority to tax does depend on their sovereignty.\nNow, of course, the question that was decided below, and the question on which this Court granted certiorari, was not directly the validity or nonvalidity of the tax.\nIt was... the case is here in an interlocutory posture.\nIt's the ruling on Indian country, which is very pertinent in assessing whether or not the tax is valid.\nThat was the way the case has been litigated throughout, and the question that was presented.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [292.332, 296.95, 305.64, 308.175, 313.912], "stop_times": [296.95, 305.64, 308.175, 313.912, 318.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 292.332}, "reply_to": "20791__2_031", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_033", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "But it's useful to know, and I certainly would like to know what that means.\nThe label, Indian country, apparently, if it's proper, would allow this tax, so what else is gained by having the label, Indian country?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [318.798, 322.851], "stop_times": [322.851, 337.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 318.798}, "reply_to": "20791__2_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20791__2_034", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Oh, it has broad jurisdictional significance.\nIf land is Indian country, we start with the presumption that tribal and Federal jurisdiction controls, and that State jurisdiction is generally displaced.\nIf land is not Indian country, State jurisdiction applies as it does in other areas, so it has significance not only with respect to taxes but to environmental regulation, hunting and fishing, gaming regulation, health and safety regulation, a broad range of day-to-day regulation.\nIt answers the basic question, who is in charge?\nIf it's Indian country, characterized throughout the country by the reservation, you know that the tribal government has sovereign authority and the Federal Government also has sovereign authority.\nIf it's not Indian country, State law applies as it does generally throughout.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [337.611, 340.813, 350.419, 367.546, 370.082, 380.371], "stop_times": [340.813, 350.419, 367.546, 370.082, 380.371, 384.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 337.611}, "reply_to": "20791__2_033", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_035", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "At least some of the friends of the court told us not to worry because in fact Alaska, even if this village is Indian country, can regulate hunting and fishing, and that actually there would not be these large consequences.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [384.758], "stop_times": [403.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 384.758}, "reply_to": "20791__2_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20791__2_036", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Well, I think that's... certainly on a case-by-case basis whether a particular regulation can be applied in Indian country or not is a determination that would have to be made on the particular facts, but if you take a case like New Mexico v. the Mescalero Tribe, there the Court held that State gaming laws did not apply in that Indian country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [403.469], "stop_times": [422.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 403.469}, "reply_to": "20791__2_035", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_037", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Gaming.\nYou mean game and fish laws.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [422.883, 423.383], "stop_times": [423.383, 425.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 422.883}, "reply_to": "20791__2_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__2_038", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Yes.\nYes, hunting--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [425.919, 426.502], "stop_times": [426.502, 427.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 425.919}, "reply_to": "20791__2_037", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_039", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Now we talk about gaming as referring to gambling.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [427.485], "stop_times": [430.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 427.485}, "reply_to": "20791__2_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__2_040", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--I appreciate that.\nYes, I... hunting and fishing, but, of course, the same with respect to gambling, and the reason you have that is because the normal State rules do not apply in Indian country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [430.971, 431.823], "stop_times": [431.823, 442.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 430.971}, "reply_to": "20791__2_039", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_041", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Might gaming be a big matter that's up for grabs here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [442.194], "stop_times": [449.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 442.194}, "reply_to": "20791__2_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20791__2_042", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Hunting and fishing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [449.031], "stop_times": [450.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 449.031}, "reply_to": "20791__2_041", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_043", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Gaming in Justice O'Connor's sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [450.214], "stop_times": [451.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 450.214}, "reply_to": "20791__2_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20791__2_044", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Hunting and fishing is.\nGaming, it could be, although it doesn't look like an attractive location for a big casino.\n[Laughter]\nBut other basic elements like environmental regulation, what type of development can take place, the broad question of State regulation, a determination of whether it's Indian country establishes who, at least as an initial matter, is in charge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [451.966, 452.833, 458.87, 460.953], "stop_times": [452.833, 458.87, 460.953, 474.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 451.966}, "reply_to": "20791__2_043", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_045", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "But it is true, isn't it, that no matter... if we mix it up and get it all wrong, Congress can always straighten it all out, either way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [474.73], "stop_times": [482.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 474.73}, "reply_to": "20791__2_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20791__2_046", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Well, yes.\nCongress has plenary authority over Indian country, and we think when it exercised authority in ANCSA to settle aboriginal claims, it took a course of action fundamentally inconsistent with Indian country.\nThe reservation is the prototypical--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [482.485, 482.935, 497.328], "stop_times": [482.935, 497.328, 499.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 482.485}, "reply_to": "20791__2_045", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_047", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Well, you say they have plenary power over Indian country.\nSuppose this Court were to say it isn't Indian country, what power does Congress have then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [499.778, 502.963], "stop_times": [502.963, 507.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 499.778}, "reply_to": "20791__2_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__2_048", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Well, then it has the power it has over other lands, because the key fact of ANCSA is that these settlement lands were given away free and clear, in fee simple.\nThey were made freely alienable property of the corporations to which they were given.\nThe Federal Government did not retain control.\nThat is the defining characteristic that makes it clear that this is not Indian country.\nThis is not... the test that this Court has articulated is that Indian country is land set apart for the use of the Indians as such, under the superintendence of the Federal Government.\nThese lands were not set aside for anyone's use.\nThey were given... we're done with it, free and clear.\nThe corporations can do with them as they see fit, and have.\nThey've transferred the lands, they've sold the lands, developed it in different ways.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [507.767, 518.741, 523.895, 526.662, 531.132, 542.274, 545.309, 548.094, 551.463], "stop_times": [518.741, 523.895, 526.662, 531.132, 542.274, 545.309, 548.094, 551.463, 554.182], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 507.767}, "reply_to": "20791__2_047", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_049", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "But of course the statute did settle a huge dispute over aboriginal title, didn't it?\nIt put an end to that whole controversy of who owned the lands.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [554.182, 559.668], "stop_times": [559.668, 562.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 554.182}, "reply_to": "20791__2_048", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20791__2_050", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Yes, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [562.437], "stop_times": [564.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 562.437}, "reply_to": "20791__2_049", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_051", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "So you can make sense out of the statute even if you don't think it went quite as far as you think it did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [564.07], "stop_times": [569.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 564.07}, "reply_to": "20791__2_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20791__2_052", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Well, we think that it... in giving the lands away free and clear Congress intended somehow to also set them aside--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [569.841], "stop_times": [577.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 569.841}, "reply_to": "20791__2_051", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_053", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Well, they gave them away in exchange for a total surrender of any aboriginal claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [577.78], "stop_times": [580.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 577.78}, "reply_to": "20791__2_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20791__2_054", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [580.982], "stop_times": [581.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 580.982}, "reply_to": "20791__2_053", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_055", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "So it's not exactly a... totally... you know, not a total gift.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [581.599], "stop_times": [585.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 581.599}, "reply_to": "20791__2_054", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20791__2_056", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Oh, no, it wasn't a... it wasn't a gift at all, but my point was they retained no control over the land, and in every case in which this Court has found Indian country the lands have either been within the boundaries of a reservation, or otherwise subject to Federal control.\nThis would be the first instance in which the Court has found Indian country where the Federal Government retained no control, and if you think about it, the concept of Indian country is inconsistent with the relinquishment of control, under the superintendence of the Federal Government, how--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [585.517, 602.145], "stop_times": [602.145, 616.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 585.517}, "reply_to": "20791__2_055", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_057", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "If I could just ask you right there, it's your view, I take it, that if you have an area of land that is an absolutely typical reservation, absolutely typical in every way, but somebody used the word colony instead of the word reservation, then it would fall within (b) and not (a).\nIt would fall within--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [616.488, 635.117], "stop_times": [635.117, 635.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 616.488}, "reply_to": "20791__2_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20791__2_058", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--That, of course, is McGowan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [635.767], "stop_times": [636.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 635.767}, "reply_to": "20791__2_057", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_059", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Yes, all right, so that's precise.\nAnd then you look at 618(a), which revokes the reservation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [636.902, 638.252], "stop_times": [638.252, 643.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 636.902}, "reply_to": "20791__2_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20791__2_060", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [643.139], "stop_times": [643.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 643.139}, "reply_to": "20791__2_059", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_061", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "And you say, although they didn't use the word, dependent community, they must have intended to revoke that, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [643.555], "stop_times": [649.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 643.555}, "reply_to": "20791__2_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20791__2_062", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Well, yes, but not simply because they revoked the reservations but because, for example,--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [649.559], "stop_times": [653.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 649.559}, "reply_to": "20791__2_061", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_063", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "For that and other reasons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [653.511], "stop_times": [654.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 653.511}, "reply_to": "20791__2_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20791__2_064", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Other reasons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [654.327], "stop_times": [654.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 654.327}, "reply_to": "20791__2_063", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_065", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "All right.\nBut now, whatever those other reasons are, that and other reasons, however strong they get you to your conclusion in (a), why don't they force the opposite conclusion because of (b), where a reservation goes back, revokes all the privileges it might have gotten under this act, gives the land back to the tribe, and behaves in respect to the tribe exactly as it behaved before the act, with land in trust?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [654.794, 655.061], "stop_times": [655.061, 678.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 654.794}, "reply_to": "20791__2_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20791__2_066", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "You're referring to the reconveyance--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [678.709], "stop_times": [679.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 678.709}, "reply_to": "20791__2_065", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_067", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Yes, they reconvey.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [679.828], "stop_times": [680.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 679.828}, "reply_to": "20791__2_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20791__2_068", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--The reconveyance of the land--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [680.528], "stop_times": [682.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 680.528}, "reply_to": "20791__2_067", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_069", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "What they do is they say, okay, what we're going to do is, we're going to give up everything we have under this act, we're going to take the land just as it was, call it a reservation, even, behave exactly the same way in respect to it, take it in, funnel it back, and now what we have after these two events is just what we had before.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [682.03], "stop_times": [697.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 682.03}, "reply_to": "20791__2_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20791__2_070", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--The reason is that the decision to create Indian country is up to Congress.\nIt's not up, as in this case, to the two ANCSA corporations that received the land under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [697.973, 702.508], "stop_times": [702.508, 707.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 697.973}, "reply_to": "20791__2_069", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_071", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "I agree, but my question really is, if you're reading (a) non... (a) and other things nonliterally because, indeed, the purpose must be the same, since reservation, colony, who cares, why wouldn't you read (b) the same way?\nYou see... why wouldn't you also read somewhat nonliterally the giving back--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [707.146, 722.989], "stop_times": [722.989, 727.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 707.146}, "reply_to": "20791__2_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20791__2_072", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Oh--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [727.208], "stop_times": [727.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 727.208}, "reply_to": "20791__2_071", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_073", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--and therefore, just as when you take it away, of course--\n--Well, the Federal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [727.624, 729.659], "stop_times": [729.659, 730.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 727.624}, "reply_to": "20791__2_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20791__2_074", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [730.844], "stop_times": [731.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 730.844}, "reply_to": "20791__2_073", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_075", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Did the Federal Government give this back?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [731.411], "stop_times": [733.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 731.411}, "reply_to": "20791__2_074", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__2_076", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--No, and that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [733.161], "stop_times": [733.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 733.161}, "reply_to": "20791__2_075", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_077", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "No, the--\n--No.\nThe corporation did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [733.963, 734.263, 734.696], "stop_times": [734.263, 734.696, 735.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 733.963}, "reply_to": "20791__2_076", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__2_078", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--That's the critical point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [735.863], "stop_times": [736.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 735.863}, "reply_to": "20791__2_077", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_079", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [736.748], "stop_times": [737.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 736.748}, "reply_to": "20791__2_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20791__2_080", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "And it is also the clearest evidence that the Federal Government had relinquished its control and had no control over the decision of the ANCSA corporations that received the lands that used to be the Venetie Reservation.\nThey elected of their own free will to turn it back, 6 years later, to the tribal government.\nThat is not the act of the Federal Government establishing Indian country, and, of course, it doesn't incorporate any notion of retained Federal control.\nIt's a unilateral--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [737.048, 750.056, 756.393, 765.983], "stop_times": [750.056, 756.393, 765.983, 766.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 737.048}, "reply_to": "20791__2_079", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_081", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Did... it seems to me you should not concede that it created the status quo ante, because the status quo ante was that the Government owned those lands.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [766.768], "stop_times": [775.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 766.768}, "reply_to": "20791__2_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20791__2_082", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Well, that's right, as did the reservation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [775.957], "stop_times": [777.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 775.957}, "reply_to": "20791__2_081", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_083", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "And there's no way... and they tried to get it back to the Government, didn't they?\nThey tried to get the Interior Department to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [777.407, 779.909], "stop_times": [779.909, 782.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 777.407}, "reply_to": "20791__2_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20791__2_084", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--What they did--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [782.278], "stop_times": [782.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 782.278}, "reply_to": "20791__2_083", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_085", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--to accept it in trust for the Indians, and the Interior Department refused.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [782.761], "stop_times": [785.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 782.761}, "reply_to": "20791__2_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20791__2_086", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Because it would have been, they explained, inconsistent with ANCSA.\nThey actually--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [785.563, 788.697], "stop_times": [788.697, 789.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 785.563}, "reply_to": "20791__2_085", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_087", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "So isn't the really crucial point that there is no control?\nI mean, I suppose that within the meaning of the formula that we used that you've been quoting, the validly-set-aside-subject-to-superintendence, and so on, that I suppose if the statute had said, and if any of this land is reconveyed by these corporations to the tribes that originally owned them, they will be subject to the same superintendence which we have traditionally been able to exercise.\nI suppose--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [789.047, 792.332, 815.012], "stop_times": [792.332, 815.012, 815.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 789.047}, "reply_to": "20791__2_086", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20791__2_088", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Well, they could--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [815.928], "stop_times": [816.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 815.928}, "reply_to": "20791__2_087", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_089", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--there would be a fair argument then to say, okay, it has reverted to Indian country status, but that's not the case here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [816.778], "stop_times": [822.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 816.778}, "reply_to": "20791__2_088", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20791__2_090", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--It's not the case.\nThe Government doesn't retain control, and the Government didn't participate in the process.\nThis was a particular finding by the district court and also by the Department of Interior in its opinion on this subject, that this was a unilateral act of the corporations not approved and not joined in in any way by the Government.\nIt doesn't reestablish Federal control that existed when the reservation was in place.\nAnd it's not just the revocation of the reservation that makes it clear that ANCSA is inconsistent with Indian country.\nThere are other provisions throughout.\nCongress said that it wanted to settle claims without creating... without adding to the categories of property entitled to special tax privileges.\nIndian country is entitled to special tax privileges.\nIt's generally exempt from State taxes.\nCongress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [822.582, 823.532, 827.32, 838.793, 845.613, 851.434, 853.284, 862.206, 865.508, 867.877], "stop_times": [823.532, 827.32, 838.793, 845.613, 851.434, 853.284, 862.206, 865.508, 867.877, 868.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 822.582}, "reply_to": "20791__2_089", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_091", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Mr. Roberts, would you just explain to me what benefit a tribe would have, then, from making the 1618(b) election, where they don't get any money, and they just... just give us the reservation that we had before?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [868.46], "stop_times": [883.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 868.46}, "reply_to": "20791__2_090", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20791__2_092", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Well, they get a lot more land.\nThere are two ways that Venetie could have elected to receive benefits under the act the way most other villages did, which gives... has a formula based on population that says you get so many acres or, under 1618(b), they could take title to the former reservation and get the 1.8 million acres, and they get both the surface and the subsurface.\nIf they'd elected the other option they would have title just to the surface, and the regional corporation under ANCSA would have title to the subsurface, so they got a great deal more by pursuing that option and, as was explained by the Department of the Interior, when they refused to take the land back in trust, that this was simply another way to calculate your benefits.\nIt is not a way, as the Ninth Circuit viewed it, to opt out of the act, and it doesn't have a consequence of reestablishing Indian country.\nNow, Venetie wanted to avoid this from the beginning.\nWhen ANCSA was being deliberated they had a proposal, let us keep the reservation.\nIt was not enacted.\nThe only reservation that was kept was Metlakatla, which was a special historical situation, and then, as indicated, in 1978, I believe, they came back and said, all right, we've got this land.\nWe want you, the Government, to take it back and hold it in trust, and the Interior Department refused.\nThey said that would be inconsistent with ANCSA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [883.619, 885.238, 905.735, 926.582, 934.838, 937.29, 941.408, 943.027, 953.3, 957.935], "stop_times": [885.238, 905.735, 926.582, 934.838, 937.29, 941.408, 943.027, 953.3, 957.935, 959.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 883.619}, "reply_to": "20791__2_091", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_093", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Mr. Roberts, is there any other Indian country where the land in question is owned by the Indians and not held in trust by the Government?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [959.887], "stop_times": [968.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 959.887}, "reply_to": "20791__2_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20791__2_094", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "The answer is yes and no.\nYes, in a technical sense.\nSandoval, which involved the Pueblos.\nThe Pueblos owned the land in fee.\nHowever, in the beginning, when the United States took jurisdiction from the King of Spain, that title has been circumscribed.\nThe statute specified that that land was under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States, so while they technically have fee title, Congress retains control, and that's the critical element in the establishment of Indian country.\nI'm aware of no other case, no case where the Government doesn't have control over the land, which is necessary if they're going to assume the obligation of superintendence with the displacement of State authority, and that's why the Court has emphasized that it's critical to focus on the intent of Congress.\nWhen Indian country is established, the most typical way is by establishing a reservation providing for allotments.\nCongress specifically designates the area that's to be covered.\nThat is also true with respect to the only two cases outside of the reservation or allotment categories where this Court has found Indian country, Sandoval and McGowan.\nIn Sandoval, the Court, this Court did not consider a range of factors to see if they added up to some abstract concept of Indian country.\nCongress said in the statute, this land is Indian country, land owned by the Pueblos, and so, too, in McGowan, the colony case that Justice Breyer was mentioning.\nThere, Congress set it up owned by the Federal Government, in trust for specific Indians from throughout Nevada.\nThe respondents would shift to a much more amorphous and more expansive concept of Indian country.\nThey ask whether the area has a uniquely Indian character, whether it is a distinctly Indian community.\nThey don't quite bring themselves to adopt the Ninth Circuit's test, which is six factors to be weighed in an amorphous way to come to that conclusion.\nThose tests, that approach would effectively shift the responsibility for defining and designating Indian country from Congress to the courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [968.56, 970.576, 972.095, 973.963, 977.581, 985.235, 1000.697, 1018.056, 1023.544, 1027.412, 1037.352, 1045.623, 1054.479, 1061.883, 1068.703, 1075.94, 1083.629], "stop_times": [970.576, 972.095, 973.963, 977.581, 985.235, 1000.697, 1018.056, 1023.544, 1027.412, 1037.352, 1045.623, 1054.479, 1061.883, 1068.703, 1075.94, 1083.629, 1091.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 968.56}, "reply_to": "20791__2_093", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_095", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Is there a third possibility?\nIs there any way that Congress at this point could designate certain areas as a reservation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1091.616, 1093.568], "stop_times": [1093.568, 1100.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1091.616}, "reply_to": "20791__2_094", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20791__2_096", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Well, the areas that would be likely candidates, I suppose, have been given away as part of the settlement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1100.805], "stop_times": [1107.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1100.805}, "reply_to": "20791__2_095", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_097", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Right.\nThey're subject... and they're subject, presumably, on your theory to State jurisdiction.\nCan Congress take that back?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1107.875, 1108.192, 1111.744], "stop_times": [1108.192, 1111.744, 1115.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1107.875}, "reply_to": "20791__2_096", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20791__2_098", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Not, probably, without paying the landowners in the first place, because it's privately held land.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1115.029], "stop_times": [1120.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1115.029}, "reply_to": "20791__2_097", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_099", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Well, let's assume the landowners were willing.\nAs against the State, could Congress take that back?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1120.6, 1122.6], "stop_times": [1122.6, 1129.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1120.6}, "reply_to": "20791__2_098", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20791__2_100", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "I think they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1129.937], "stop_times": [1131.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1129.937}, "reply_to": "20791__2_099", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_101", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "And impose reservation status.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1131.622, 1133.039], "stop_times": [1133.039, 1133.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1131.622}, "reply_to": "20791__2_100", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20791__2_102", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--could if... again, that was the issue in Sandoval.\nCould Congress designate this area as Indian country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1133.272, 1136.158], "stop_times": [1136.158, 1139.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1133.272}, "reply_to": "20791__2_101", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_103", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Well, could Congress... supposing... take the case of Ohio, which was the case argued before, after Ohio is admitted to the Union, can Congress take back a part of Ohio and say, this is federally controlled now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1139.276], "stop_times": [1153.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1139.276}, "reply_to": "20791__2_102", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20791__2_104", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "No.\nI think as with respect to the private landowners they would have to do that by arrangement with the State if the State agreed to it, and if compensation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1153.369, 1153.685], "stop_times": [1153.685, 1161.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1153.369}, "reply_to": "20791__2_103", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_105", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "But where the landowner is the tribe, or the village, not the State, then what power would Congress have in the future to treat it differently?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1161.641], "stop_times": [1175.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1161.641}, "reply_to": "20791__2_104", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__2_106", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--I still think the State's rights with respect to jurisdiction over what is... once it's no longer Indian country, regular State land, would prevent Congress from--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1175.383], "stop_times": [1184.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1175.383}, "reply_to": "20791__2_105", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_107", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "No, no, it isn't State land any more.\nMy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1184.389, 1186.14], "stop_times": [1186.14, 1186.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1184.389}, "reply_to": "20791__2_106", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__2_108", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Well, it is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1186.556], "stop_times": [1187.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1186.556}, "reply_to": "20791__2_107", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_109", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--My question relates to land which is now owned, surface and subsurface, by the Village of Venetie.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1187.023], "stop_times": [1194.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1187.023}, "reply_to": "20791__2_108", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__2_110", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Well, it's State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1194.112], "stop_times": [1195.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1194.112}, "reply_to": "20791__2_109", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_111", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Can Congress decide subsequently, by congressional enactment, we want to treat this as a reservation or as Indian country?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1195.079], "stop_times": [1205.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1195.079}, "reply_to": "20791__2_110", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__2_112", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1205.687], "stop_times": [1206.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1205.687}, "reply_to": "20791__2_111", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_113", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Even though they had a different decision originally.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1206.187], "stop_times": [1208.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1206.187}, "reply_to": "20791__2_112", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__2_114", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--I think not.\nWhen I said, State land, I didn't mean State-owned land, but land over which the State exercises jurisdiction.\nIt had not been reserved from State jurisdiction, not public lands.\nIt's private land, like land anyone else would own, and I think that the Federal Government doesn't have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1208.639, 1209.089, 1215.409, 1218.611], "stop_times": [1209.089, 1215.409, 1218.611, 1223.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1208.639}, "reply_to": "20791__2_113", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_115", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Well, I'm not sure the answer is self-evident to that.\nI wouldn't have thought that was an easy thing to answer.\nUnder your approach, is there any Indian country in Alaska at all, following the enactment of this ANCSA law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1223.48, 1226.365, 1229.298], "stop_times": [1226.365, 1229.298, 1241.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1223.48}, "reply_to": "20791__2_114", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__2_116", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Only the Metlakatla Reservation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1241.023], "stop_times": [1242.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1241.023}, "reply_to": "20791__2_115", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_117", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "There is the one reservation, but that's a reservation.\nIt isn't Indian country.\nIt's a reservation under a different subsection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1242.356, 1245.308, 1246.927], "stop_times": [1245.308, 1246.927, 1249.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1242.356}, "reply_to": "20791__2_116", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__2_118", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Yes, and that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1249.36], "stop_times": [1250.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1249.36}, "reply_to": "20791__2_117", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_119", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "I'm asking you whether, under your theory, there is any Indian country left in Alaska.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1250.379], "stop_times": [1255.866], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1250.379}, "reply_to": "20791__2_118", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__2_120", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--No, and that is not at all inconsistent with the history of Alaska up to that point.\nMost of the cases that have addressed the question have said that there isn't Indian country in Alaska in the first place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1255.866, 1260.901], "stop_times": [1260.901, 1266.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1255.866}, "reply_to": "20791__2_119", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_121", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Is your principal argument based on the fact that there's no community, or that there's no dependent community, because that's the phrase.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1266.471], "stop_times": [1273.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1266.471}, "reply_to": "20791__2_120", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20791__2_122", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "It is the phrase, and we agree with the Department of Interior, which has concluded that that is the term of art.\nIt's a term of art as the revisers to 18 U.S.C. 1151(b) said meant to codify this Court's decisions in Sandoval and McGowan.\nThat's what we think it means.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1273.66, 1279.362, 1289.253], "stop_times": [1279.362, 1289.253, 1290.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1273.66}, "reply_to": "20791__2_121", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_123", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Mr. Roberts, you mentioned the Department of Interior.\nWe don't have... that has... the report didn't become an official report, or the 1993 report.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1290.57, 1292.805], "stop_times": [1292.805, 1300.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1290.57}, "reply_to": "20791__2_122", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20791__2_124", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Oh, it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1300.959], "stop_times": [1301.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1300.959}, "reply_to": "20791__2_123", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_125", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Do we have a... any statement in this case of the current views of the United States?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1301.709], "stop_times": [1307.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1301.709}, "reply_to": "20791__2_124", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20791__2_126", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Well, not... I think the current view of the United States is in the 1993 opinion, which has not been withdrawn.\nIt is as final as any of these opinions get.\nIt is not final in the sense it can always be revoked, but it hasn't been withdrawn in any way.\nIt's been under review for almost 5 years now, but hasn't been withdrawn.\nIt represents the last statement of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1307.696, 1313.6, 1317.402, 1323.388, 1328.273], "stop_times": [1313.6, 1317.402, 1323.388, 1328.273, 1330.458], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1307.696}, "reply_to": "20791__2_125", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_127", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Well, it's never been issued, either.\nI mean, it just was put in limbo.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1330.458, 1331.942], "stop_times": [1331.942, 1334.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1330.458}, "reply_to": "20791__2_126", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__2_128", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--It was signed by the Acting Secretary.\nIt hasn't been published.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1334.01, 1336.279], "stop_times": [1336.279, 1337.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1334.01}, "reply_to": "20791__2_127", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_129", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "No, it hasn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1337.379], "stop_times": [1338.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1337.379}, "reply_to": "20791__2_128", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__2_130", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "It hasn't been published, but it is the final statement of the agency charged with the responsibility for implementing ANCSA, charged with responsibility for Indian affairs in general, and charged with responsibility for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1338.914], "stop_times": [1350.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1338.914}, "reply_to": "20791__2_129", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_131", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Yes, but I don't see how you can give any weight to that, when the Department of Interior and the BIA has never let it be published, and it's just sitting there.\nI mean, it makes interesting reading.\nYou can understand it's logic, but I don't know that we're entitled to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1350.706, 1360.312, 1362.014], "stop_times": [1360.312, 1362.014, 1366.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1350.706}, "reply_to": "20791__2_130", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__2_132", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Well, it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1366.065], "stop_times": [1366.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1366.065}, "reply_to": "20791__2_131", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_133", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--give any weight to it at all.\nIt's like Marbury v. Madison.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1366.615, 1368.5], "stop_times": [1368.5, 1369.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1366.615}, "reply_to": "20791__2_132", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__2_134", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Well, I think it's entitled to significant weight for a variety of reasons.\nIt hasn't been included in the published volumes of Solicitor opinions, but it's been signed by the Acting... was signed by the Acting Secretary.\nIt represents, as far as we know... it hasn't been withdrawn... the views of the agency charged with responsibility in this area.\nIt's also consistent with prior Department of the Interior interpretations both, for example, when Venetie brought the lands back and said, take it in trust, Interior said no, we can't.\nLater, it had an oil and gas lease it wanted to have approved, and Interior said, basically, we're not in the business of approving things now.\nYou're on your own.\nThat was the departure from prior Indian policy that ANCSA represented.\nIn the lower 48, the history had been, in settling Native land claims in conflict with white settlers, setting the Natives apart on reservations, which also had the effect of setting them apart from the State government.\nAlaska provided an opportunity for a fresh start, and Congress seized it in ANCSA.\nIt said, we are not going to set this land aside for your use under our superintendence.\nIt's... to settle these claims, these serious claims, this is your land, and you can do with it as you see fit.\nThe ANCSA set the Natives free to manage their own property without the Federal Government looking over their shoulder, subject, like all property owners in Alaska are, to State law, but not subject to any Federal superintendence, and that's what makes the settlement lands incapable of constituting Indian country, because Indian country--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1369.933, 1373.571, 1381.641, 1388.331, 1398.287, 1405.174, 1406.225, 1412.529, 1425.087, 1430.741, 1434.526, 1440.614], "stop_times": [1373.571, 1381.641, 1388.331, 1398.287, 1405.174, 1406.225, 1412.529, 1425.087, 1430.741, 1434.526, 1440.614, 1460.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1369.933}, "reply_to": "20791__2_133", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_135", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Mr. Roberts, this is the first time that I participated in a case involving tribal lands where we haven't heard from the United States, and I thought that that was extraordinary, but maybe they sometimes appear and sometimes don't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1460.427], "stop_times": [1474.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1460.427}, "reply_to": "20791__2_134", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20791__2_136", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Well, obviously it would be speculation, but we do have a thorough exposition of the Department of the Interior's views, which hasn't been withdrawn, and I do note that in the three other cases so far this term where the Solicitor General has appeared, it has been on the side of the Indians.\nThe fact that he hasn't appeared in this case suggests to me that he didn't think that that position could be taken.\nI'd like to reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1474.103, 1489.612, 1496.283], "stop_times": [1489.612, 1496.283, 1498.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1474.103}, "reply_to": "20791__2_135", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__2_137", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Very well, Mr. Roberts.\nMs. Kendall, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1498.302, 1501.504], "stop_times": [1501.504, 1513.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1498.302}, "reply_to": "20791__2_136", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20791__3_000", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nVenetie was Indian country in 1971, and nothing in ANCSA changed that.\nThe petitioner here argues otherwise.\nThe question here is not whether Congress created Indian country in 1971, but whether Congress clearly terminated Venetie's existing Indian country status, and we submit that it did not, for nothing in ANCSA refers to Indian country, to dependent Indian communities, or even cites to the Indian country statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1513.395, 1516.145, 1522.251, 1524.701], "stop_times": [1516.145, 1522.251, 1524.701, 1543.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1513.395}, "reply_to": "20791__2_137", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_001", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Well, Ms. Kendall, I thought Venetie had a reservation actually, originally.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1543.164], "stop_times": [1552.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1543.164}, "reply_to": "20791__3_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__3_002", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Yes, it did, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1552.036], "stop_times": [1554.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1552.036}, "reply_to": "20791__3_001", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_003", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "It was a reservation.\nIt wasn't what we would call Indian country.\nIt fell under a different subsection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1558.924, 1554.17, 1556.722], "stop_times": [1554.17, 1556.722, 1560.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1558.924}, "reply_to": "20791__3_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__3_004", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1560.524], "stop_times": [1561.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1560.524}, "reply_to": "20791__3_003", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_005", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "And I thought that the statute that was passed did abolish the reservation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1561.442], "stop_times": [1566.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1561.442}, "reply_to": "20791__3_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__3_006", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Your Honor, 1151(b) includes three categories of Indian country, reservations, dependent Indian communities, and allotments, and although it is true that ANCSA eliminated Venetie's reservation status--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1566.696], "stop_times": [1580.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1566.696}, "reply_to": "20791__3_005", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_007", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1580.103], "stop_times": [1580.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1580.103}, "reply_to": "20791__3_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__3_008", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--as a basis for Indian country--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1580.553], "stop_times": [1582.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1580.553}, "reply_to": "20791__3_007", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_009", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1582.122], "stop_times": [1582.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1582.122}, "reply_to": "20791__3_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__3_010", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--under 1151(b), ANCSA expressly left in place Indian country in the form of over 10,000 Native allotments under section 1617, and Native allotments are per se Indian country under 1151(c), so Congress clearly did not abolish all forms of Indian country through that particular provision.\n1618(a) must be read in context with 1618(b).\n1618's revocation of the Venetie Reservation was done to be able to convey full fee title of those very same lands to the Venetie Tribe under 1618(b).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1582.439, 1602.536, 1608.273], "stop_times": [1602.536, 1608.273, 1622.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1582.439}, "reply_to": "20791__3_009", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_011", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Ms. Kendall, what do you do with section 1601(b), in which ANCSA said that it's purpose was to convey the land to the Indian people with maximum participation by Natives in decisions affecting their rights and property without establishing any permanently racially defined institutions, rights, privileges, or obligations, and without creating a reservation system or lengthy wardship or trusteeship?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1622.616], "stop_times": [1648.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1622.616}, "reply_to": "20791__3_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20791__3_012", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Yes, Justice Scalia.\nThat particular provision speaks to the creation of a wardship, but it doesn't speak to the ongoing relationship that existed, and it is true that Congress, through that particular provision, announced in its policy that it was going to adopt a new approach to Indian affairs through ANCSA, and that was one that would disavow the reservation system.\nThe reservation system is one in which the Federal Government owns the lands, and has ultimate control over the decisions with respect to development of those lands.\nKeep in mind at the time that ANCSA was passed the average income of Alaska Natives was less than 1,200 dollars per year.\nThey lived in dire poverty, and it was viewed to be necessary to be able to develop some kind of economic vehicle to help the Native people come into the mainstream, economic mainstream.\nThat was the purpose, to get the villages out from underneath the Bureau of Indian Affairs' control.\nOftentimes on reservations, when resources are developed, the money goes into a trust fund for the Native beneficiaries, and they never see that money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1648.915, 1650.35, 1671.697, 1681.453, 1688.475, 1700.032, 1706.353], "stop_times": [1650.35, 1671.697, 1681.453, 1688.475, 1700.032, 1706.353, 1714.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1648.915}, "reply_to": "20791__3_011", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_013", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Well, you say to get them out of their control.\nThat's the whole definition of what's Indian country, whether they're within the control, wardship, and trusteeship of the Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1714.892, 1716.825], "stop_times": [1716.825, 1723.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1714.892}, "reply_to": "20791__3_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20791__3_014", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "I disagree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1723.479], "stop_times": [1723.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1723.479}, "reply_to": "20791__3_013", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_015", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "It's quite in... it seems to me incompatible to say that you want to get them out of the control and yet you still want it to be Indian country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1723.914], "stop_times": [1730.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1723.914}, "reply_to": "20791__3_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20791__3_016", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Your Honor, section 16... I mean, 1151(b), the category that covers the Indian communities, that particular category does not turn on lands being in Federal ownership.\nIt turns on a community that is under the protection and guardianship of the Federal Government, and that's what we have today with respect to Venetie.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1730.402, 1743.559], "stop_times": [1743.559, 1751.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1730.402}, "reply_to": "20791__3_015", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_017", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Dependency.\nDependency to the Federal Government, which is what you're just telling me they were trying to eliminate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1751.879, 1752.213], "stop_times": [1752.213, 1756.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1751.879}, "reply_to": "20791__3_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20791__3_018", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Not the dependency, the BIA control over development issues of their land.\nThe dependency relationship stayed intact and in fact was confirmed by the Congress in the 1994 federally recognized Tribal List Act, where Congress expressly reaffirmed its ongoing relationship to all federally recognized tribes, including Venetie, and that fact fundamentally undermines all of petitioner's arguments, because from that flows two important points, the first that the continuing guardianship means that Congress as a trustee cannot terminate something as important as rights that Venetie possessed before 1971 without expressly saying so.\nSecond, the guardianship relationship goes to two of the important components necessary to establish Venetie's character as a dependent Indian community.\nYou need both a tribe that's under Federal protection, and you need an area that is occupied by a dependent... by a tribe under Federal guardianship.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1756.95, 1762.437, 1799.646, 1809.501], "stop_times": [1762.437, 1799.646, 1809.501, 1818.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1756.95}, "reply_to": "20791__3_017", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_019", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Does that... the dependent community status remain if the tribe moves to a different area, so they bring that Indian country designation to a new area if they choose to move?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1818.107], "stop_times": [1829.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1818.107}, "reply_to": "20791__3_018", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20791__3_020", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "It's not our position, Justice Kennedy, that a tribe can unilaterally create Indian country, but if a... the Federal Government treats with and recognizes and deals with a particular Indian community as Indian country, as being under its Federal guardianship and protection, then that area has been found to be a dependent Indian community.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1829.431], "stop_times": [1851.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1829.431}, "reply_to": "20791__3_019", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_021", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Ms. Kendall--\n--So you... so... just to follow this... so you do submit that there is a territorial aspect to the jurisdiction that's in question here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1851.661, 1852.144], "stop_times": [1852.144, 1861.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1851.661}, "reply_to": "20791__3_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20791__3_022", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "I agree, Your Honor, that 1151 focuses on land and on territory, areas that are occupied, but 1151(b)--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1861.886], "stop_times": [1870.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1861.886}, "reply_to": "20791__3_021", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_023", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "And this is necessarily part of the dependent Indian--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1870.206], "stop_times": [1872.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1870.206}, "reply_to": "20791__3_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20791__3_024", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Indian community--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1872.242], "stop_times": [1872.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1872.242}, "reply_to": "20791__3_023", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_025", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--community definition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1872.842], "stop_times": [1873.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1872.842}, "reply_to": "20791__3_024", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20791__3_026", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor, that Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1873.444], "stop_times": [1876.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1873.444}, "reply_to": "20791__3_025", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_027", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "And yet that seems somewhat inconsistent with the theory of the act, which was to change territorial designation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1876.396], "stop_times": [1883.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1876.396}, "reply_to": "20791__3_026", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20791__3_028", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--It did not change territorial designation.\nWhat it... Congress did do was it extinguished aboriginal claims.\nThose claims were based upon much broader areas than what, in fact, the villages did receive, and in Venetie's case, although petitioner suggests that they received something less, what they received was their full fee title to the very lands that they had occupied prior, and that had been set aside for them prior to 1971.\nNothing changed except for a change in title.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1883.3, 1885.768, 1890.286, 1914.002], "stop_times": [1885.768, 1890.286, 1914.002, 1917.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1883.3}, "reply_to": "20791__3_027", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_029", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Well, do you say that the Federal Government recognizes Venetie as a tribe and... and it offers some accompanying benefits to the tribe.\nNow, do those facts alone mean that the land is Indian country, the land we're talking about here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1917.037, 1928.143], "stop_times": [1928.143, 1935.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1917.037}, "reply_to": "20791__3_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__3_030", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "No, I do not think that Federal recognition in just services is sufficient.\nFederal recognition does supply the dependent relationship that's necessary for the tribal relationship.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1935.498, 1940.383], "stop_times": [1940.383, 1947.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1935.498}, "reply_to": "20791__3_029", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_031", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Well, what else is it that you say is necessary to create Indian country here, other than the fact that the Federal Government recognizes the tribe and offers these--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1947.739], "stop_times": [1959.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1947.739}, "reply_to": "20791__3_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__3_032", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "They likewise have to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1959.464], "stop_times": [1961.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1959.464}, "reply_to": "20791__3_031", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_033", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--aids and benefits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1961.081], "stop_times": [1962.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1961.081}, "reply_to": "20791__3_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__3_034", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--treat the area that the tribe occupies as being an area that is the residence of tribal Indians under Federal protection, and that is present with Venetie.\nAlthough petitioner argues that there are no controls over these particular lands, there are certainly many Federal protections.\nANCSA through section 6--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1962.266, 1972.589, 1979.777], "stop_times": [1972.589, 1979.777, 1981.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1962.266}, "reply_to": "20791__3_033", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_035", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "What if the corporation, which is the one that conveyed the land back to the... to Venetie Village, what if the corporation had sold some land to some non-Indians before it did that.\nWhat about that land?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1981.827, 1994.704], "stop_times": [1994.704, 1995.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1981.827}, "reply_to": "20791__3_034", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__3_036", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Well, I would submit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1995.62], "stop_times": [1996.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1995.62}, "reply_to": "20791__3_035", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_037", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "What would that be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1996.487], "stop_times": [1996.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1996.487}, "reply_to": "20791__3_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__3_038", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--That would be a fact that is not present here, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [1996.822], "stop_times": [2000.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1996.822}, "reply_to": "20791__3_037", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_039", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2000.44], "stop_times": [2000.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2000.44}, "reply_to": "20791__3_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__3_040", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--I would submit that that, depending on the nature of the case and the facts involved there, that that would likely not qualify as Indian country, but here, where you have a case like Venetie, who owns the total, the land base that it occupied prior to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2000.807], "stop_times": [2015.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2000.807}, "reply_to": "20791__3_039", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_041", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Well, but is the touchstone congressional intent?\nIs that what we look at?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2015.8, 2020.335], "stop_times": [2020.335, 2021.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2015.8}, "reply_to": "20791__3_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__3_042", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Congressional intent, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2021.453], "stop_times": [2023.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2021.453}, "reply_to": "20791__3_041", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_043", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Isn't that the touchstone here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2023.02], "stop_times": [2024.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2023.02}, "reply_to": "20791__3_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__3_044", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "That is true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2024.37], "stop_times": [2024.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2024.37}, "reply_to": "20791__3_043", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_045", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Whether there's Indian country?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2024.953], "stop_times": [2025.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2024.953}, "reply_to": "20791__3_044", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__3_046", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "That is true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2025.972], "stop_times": [2026.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2025.972}, "reply_to": "20791__3_045", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_047", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "And here, Congress provided that the land title would go to these State-chartered corporations, not to Venetie.\nThat happened later.\nWhen the corporation then conveyed land to Venetie and didn't pay the fees and was dissolved.\nNow, isn't that the way it happened?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2026.355, 2036.328, 2037.828, 2045.065], "stop_times": [2036.328, 2037.828, 2045.065, 2046.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2026.355}, "reply_to": "20791__3_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__3_048", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "If I may, Your Honor, Congress fully knew that it was conveying the lands to the Venetie residents even if it was doing so through the corporation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2046.7], "stop_times": [2055.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2046.7}, "reply_to": "20791__3_047", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_049", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Gee, I thought it... I thought what was done was that pursuant to the congressional act the lands were conveyed to these State-chartered corporations, not only in the Venetie area but other areas in Alaska.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2055.473], "stop_times": [2068.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2055.473}, "reply_to": "20791__3_048", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__3_050", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Under the act, it was the villages that were found eligible and entitled to receive lands.\nOnly after the villages were found entitled by the Secretary to receive lands, then were the corporations established to hold and manage those lands for and on behalf of the villages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2068.28, 2072.501], "stop_times": [2072.501, 2084.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2068.28}, "reply_to": "20791__3_049", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_051", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Was title conveyed to the corporations?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2084.725], "stop_times": [2085.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2084.725}, "reply_to": "20791__3_050", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__3_052", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Yes, they were.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2085.641], "stop_times": [2086.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2085.641}, "reply_to": "20791__3_051", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_053", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2086.108], "stop_times": [2086.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2086.108}, "reply_to": "20791__3_052", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__3_054", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "But if I can direct your attention to 1618(b) in our brief, in appendix 63a, that provision says--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2086.658], "stop_times": [2094.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2086.658}, "reply_to": "20791__3_053", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_055", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Where again is that, Ms--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2094.347], "stop_times": [2095.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2094.347}, "reply_to": "20791__3_054", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20791__3_056", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--63a in our appendix.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2095.797], "stop_times": [2097.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2095.797}, "reply_to": "20791__3_055", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_057", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2097.449], "stop_times": [2102.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2097.449}, "reply_to": "20791__3_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20791__3_058", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "If you look up on the top of the page at 63a, it says, estates in any reserve set aside for the use or benefit of its stockholders or members--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2102.584], "stop_times": [2113.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2102.584}, "reply_to": "20791__3_057", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_059", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "I'm having trouble seeing this.\nI can't--\n--We're having--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2113.456, 2115.122, 2115.406], "stop_times": [2115.122, 2115.406, 2115.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2113.456}, "reply_to": "20791__3_058", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__3_060", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--63a of the appendix.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2115.856], "stop_times": [2117.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2115.856}, "reply_to": "20791__3_059", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_061", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--That's what I'm looking at.\nAt the top of the page?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2117.841, 2119.61], "stop_times": [2119.61, 2124.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2117.841}, "reply_to": "20791__3_060", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__3_062", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "63a.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2124.912], "stop_times": [2125.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2124.912}, "reply_to": "20791__3_061", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_063", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Oh, estates.\nI thought you said States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2125.514, 2126.547], "stop_times": [2126.547, 2127.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2125.514}, "reply_to": "20791__3_062", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20791__3_064", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Excuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2127.797], "stop_times": [2128.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2127.797}, "reply_to": "20791__3_063", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_065", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "I think that's the problem.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2128.799, 2129.882], "stop_times": [2129.882, 2130.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2128.799}, "reply_to": "20791__3_064", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20791__3_066", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Estates in any reserve set aside for the use or benefit of its stockholders or members prior to December 18, 1971.\nNow, one more provision, if you will, please, on page 105a of our appendix.\nThat is provision 1641(b)(3).\nIf you go down towards, lower than the middle of the paragraph, it says, again, estates in a reserve as such reserve existed on December 18, 1971, which was set aside for the use or benefit of the stockholders or members of such corporation before December 18, 1971.\nNow, I think the only fair reading of those two provisions is that Congress clearly understood that the very lands that they were conveying to a corporation were the same lands that had been conveyed and are set aside for the Venetie residence before that date.\nAll that was occurring here was a change in title to the corporations which were identical to the tribal residence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2130.816, 2140.273, 2148.01, 2151.212, 2176.112, 2191.622], "stop_times": [2140.273, 2148.01, 2151.212, 2176.112, 2191.622, 2199.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2130.816}, "reply_to": "20791__3_065", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_067", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Well, but wasn't something more accomplished, and that was, once the title had changed, as I understand it there was no limitation on what the then titleholder could do.\nAs you answered, I think, Justice O'Connor, the titleholder could have conveyed it to me, in which case it would no longer, as you've conceded, been Indian country.\nNow, isn't it true that the titleholder had completely free rein once title was received?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2199.828, 2210.267, 2219.539], "stop_times": [2210.267, 2219.539, 2224.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2199.828}, "reply_to": "20791__3_066", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20791__3_068", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "The titleholder does have free rein in terms of the alienability aspect of the land, but until those lands leave Indian ownership they are treated by Congress as being under Federal protections for purposes against State taxation, against foreclosure, against a judgment, creditors, against even the involuntary dissolution--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2224.96], "stop_times": [2245.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2224.96}, "reply_to": "20791__3_067", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_069", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "All right.\nLet--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2245.423, 2245.506], "stop_times": [2245.506, 2245.823], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2245.423}, "reply_to": "20791__3_068", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20791__3_070", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--of the corporations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2245.823], "stop_times": [2246.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2245.823}, "reply_to": "20791__3_069", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_071", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Let me go back to, I think an earlier point, and that is, I had been reading the requirement of subsection (b), or I'm reading subsection (b) as intending to codify that definition of the Indian country which has been referred to already.\nI... we used it in Citizen Band Potawatomi, but I think it goes back to 1914, the definition validly set apart for the use if Indians as such under superintendence of the Government, and the difficulty that I'm having with your position, if I am correct that these should be read in the light of that traditional definition, is that even conceding that there may have been some protection provided on a continuing basis, the fact that the land was so readily alienable, unconditionally alienable, seems to me to be inconsistent with the superintendence requirement which I am assuming is part of (b).\nAm I right that it is inconsistent with the superintendence requirement, and am I right that (b) should be read in the light of this traditional definition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2246.456, 2267.419, 2309.079], "stop_times": [2267.419, 2309.079, 2318.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2246.456}, "reply_to": "20791__3_070", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20791__3_072", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "No.\nIf I can take the (b) question first, what you refer to, a reference to land set-aside under superintendence of Indians, that particular term has been used in the context primarily of cases that examine lands that are or continue to be held in Federal ownership or trust status.\nThat hasn't been the touchstone for determining cases that have been treated as Indian country, for instance in the Sandoval case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2318.268, 2318.751, 2336.829], "stop_times": [2318.751, 2336.829, 2347.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2318.268}, "reply_to": "20791__3_071", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_073", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "If that's a valid way to read (b)... I guess you're telling me it's not a valid way to read--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2347.704], "stop_times": [2352.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2347.704}, "reply_to": "20791__3_072", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20791__3_074", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "I'm saying that under the statutory test it's not one of the requirements based on just a plain reading--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2352.156], "stop_times": [2360.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2352.156}, "reply_to": "20791__3_073", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_075", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--It's not an express requirement, is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2360.095], "stop_times": [2361.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2360.095}, "reply_to": "20791__3_074", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20791__3_076", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--It's not express requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2361.512], "stop_times": [2362.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2361.512}, "reply_to": "20791__3_075", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_077", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Is that right?\nBut if it was intended to codify the language we've used in our cases, then it would include superintendence.\nAre you saying it wasn't intended to codify the language in our cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2362.045, 2362.647, 2370.218], "stop_times": [2362.647, 2370.218, 2373.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2362.045}, "reply_to": "20791__3_076", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20791__3_078", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "No, it was, and I am saying that superintendence is an important element, and let me just back up and say, alienability does not eliminate Federal superintendence.\nPetitioner was wrong in saying Sandoval in the Pueblo lands were subject to, or didn't have any restrictions other than those imposed by Congress.\nSandoval's lands, I mean, the Pueblo lands are alienable, as this Court held in 1987 in the case, Mountain States Telephone Company v. Pueblo Santa Ana.\nIn that case, this Court upheld the alienability of the Pueblo lands, so alienability in and of itself is not sufficient to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2373.586, 2382.026, 2392.648, 2403.439], "stop_times": [2382.026, 2392.648, 2403.439, 2412.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2373.586}, "reply_to": "20791__3_077", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_079", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "To buy the Pueblo without the consent of the United States?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2412.645], "stop_times": [2415.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2412.645}, "reply_to": "20791__3_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20791__3_080", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--That's correct, without the consent of the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2415.513], "stop_times": [2418.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2415.513}, "reply_to": "20791__3_079", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_081", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Now, what does the superintendence consist of, then?\nIf superintendence does not imply a right to preclude alienation, what does the superintendence consist of traditionally, and what does it consist of in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2418.282, 2421.151], "stop_times": [2421.151, 2431.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2418.282}, "reply_to": "20791__3_080", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20791__3_082", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "The key to understanding superintendence is that the Federal Government retains its plenary authority to enact protective legislation over Indian lands.\nThat's superintendence, and that is present in spades here, because Congress has retained the authority to enact protective legislation over ANCSA lands and has repeatedly come back, in the course of over 29 amendments, to strengthen the nature and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2431.273, 2440.196], "stop_times": [2440.196, 2456.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2431.273}, "reply_to": "20791__3_081", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_083", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Excuse me.\nWhat... it can... can it enact legislation pertaining to those lands any more... any more... what should I say, intrusively than it can legislation pertaining to State lands?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2456.574, 2456.857], "stop_times": [2456.857, 2472.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2456.574}, "reply_to": "20791__3_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20791__3_084", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Absolutely, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2472.084], "stop_times": [2474.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2472.084}, "reply_to": "20791__3_083", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_085", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "It can displace State law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2474.167], "stop_times": [2476.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2474.167}, "reply_to": "20791__3_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20791__3_086", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Yes, it can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2476.083], "stop_times": [2476.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2476.083}, "reply_to": "20791__3_085", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_087", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--despite what's said in the act, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2476.5], "stop_times": [2477.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2476.5}, "reply_to": "20791__3_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20791__3_088", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Yes, it can, Your Honor.\nCongress has plenary authority over Indian affairs, and based upon that plenary authority--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2477.619, 2478.769], "stop_times": [2478.769, 2483.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2477.619}, "reply_to": "20791__3_087", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_089", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Oh, but Indian land, as well as Indian affairs?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2483.856], "stop_times": [2487.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2483.856}, "reply_to": "20791__3_088", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20791__3_090", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Indian land.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2487.058], "stop_times": [2487.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2487.058}, "reply_to": "20791__3_089", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_091", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "I mean, what's bothering me is, what does fee ownership mean, then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2487.625], "stop_times": [2491.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2487.625}, "reply_to": "20791__3_090", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20791__3_092", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Fee ownership means that Congress has allowed Natives to make a determination for themselves when and if to alienate their lands, but until that land is out, removed out of Native ownership, it continues to retain the protections that Federal Government has imposed upon them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2491.327], "stop_times": [2507.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2491.327}, "reply_to": "20791__3_091", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_093", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Protections and restrictions?\nIn other words--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2507.353, 2509.103], "stop_times": [2509.103, 2509.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2507.353}, "reply_to": "20791__3_092", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20791__3_094", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "And--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2509.786], "stop_times": [2510.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2509.786}, "reply_to": "20791__3_093", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_095", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--In other words, are the holders, the Native Alaskan holders, or the tribal holders of that land, subject to restrictions on what they can do with it while they keep it which would not be restrictions imposable upon a non-Native owner?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2510.153], "stop_times": [2528.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2510.153}, "reply_to": "20791__3_094", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20791__3_096", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--They are not subject to restrictions.\nThey are subject to protections, and Federal protections that have protected those lands from loss to third parties and to the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2528.948, 2530.816], "stop_times": [2530.816, 2538.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2528.948}, "reply_to": "20791__3_095", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_097", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "But doesn't superintendence imply control as well, perhaps, as protection?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2538.82], "stop_times": [2544.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2538.82}, "reply_to": "20791__3_096", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20791__3_098", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "I don't believe so, Justice Souter.\nBut again, superintendence refers to Congress' retained plenary authority to enact protective legislation over the lands.\nIt does not refer to control, and there is nothing in section 1151(b) that has that requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2544.79, 2547.373, 2555.246], "stop_times": [2547.373, 2555.246, 2561.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2544.79}, "reply_to": "20791__3_097", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_099", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Well, that's certainly not the ordinary meaning of superintendence.\nYou know, you say... you're equating it kind of with protections, the... but superintendence means some sort of a... some sort of supervision, which, of course, doesn't perhaps solve the problem very well.\nIt means something more than just protecting, it seems to me.\nIt's just a kind of a dependent situation on the part of the people who are being superintended.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2561.15, 2565.685, 2580.611, 2583.73], "stop_times": [2565.685, 2580.611, 2583.73, 2589.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2561.15}, "reply_to": "20791__3_098", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20791__3_100", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Well, that is true and, in fact, that's what we have here.\nVenetie is a federally recognized tribe.\nIt is in a politically dependent relationship with the Federal Government, and the Federal Government has emphasized its authority to enact legislation pertaining to Venetie's lands.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2589.883, 2592.335, 2594.402], "stop_times": [2592.335, 2594.402, 2604.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2589.883}, "reply_to": "20791__3_099", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_101", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "How is it in a politically dependent relationship?\nWhat does the Federal Government do with regard to the inhabitants of Venetie that it could not do with respect to the inhabitants of Peoria?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2604.06, 2607.095], "stop_times": [2607.095, 2616.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2604.06}, "reply_to": "20791__3_100", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20791__3_102", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Very much, Your Honor.\nFederal recognition refers to the fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2616.534, 2617.867], "stop_times": [2617.867, 2620.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2616.534}, "reply_to": "20791__3_101", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_103", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "I mean, aside from giving benefits, of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2620.569], "stop_times": [2623.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2620.569}, "reply_to": "20791__3_102", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20791__3_104", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--It refers to the fact that the Federal Government has recognized the Venetie tribal government as being a tribal government, one that has all inherent powers that have not been expressly terminated by Congress.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2623.104], "stop_times": [2636.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2623.104}, "reply_to": "20791__3_103", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_105", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "I was talking about dependence.\nIn what ways are... is Venetie dependent upon the Federal Government, subservient to the Federal Government to a degree that the citizens of Peoria are not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2636.079, 2637.197], "stop_times": [2637.197, 2648.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2636.079}, "reply_to": "20791__3_104", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20791__3_106", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "The Venetie as a federally recognized tribe is dependent because it can depend on the Federal Government to protect its interests.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2648.403], "stop_times": [2654.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2648.403}, "reply_to": "20791__3_105", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_107", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "That just means it gets benefits that Peoria don't get.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2654.992], "stop_times": [2657.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2654.992}, "reply_to": "20791__3_106", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20791__3_108", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "It's much, much more than that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2657.861], "stop_times": [2658.761], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2657.861}, "reply_to": "20791__3_107", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_109", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "But that's not dependency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2658.761], "stop_times": [2659.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2658.761}, "reply_to": "20791__3_108", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20791__3_110", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "It has all the privileges and immunities as federally recognized tribes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2659.494], "stop_times": [2662.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2659.494}, "reply_to": "20791__3_109", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_111", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Well, but haven't... hasn't this Court found in some circumstances that there is a federally recognized tribe that no longer has a reservation or is Indian country?\nYou can have a federally recognized tribe without either of those things, and the members of the tribe can continue to receive benefits, isn't that true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2662.479, 2681.04], "stop_times": [2681.04, 2689.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2662.479}, "reply_to": "20791__3_110", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__3_112", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "That's... that is true, and that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2689.813], "stop_times": [2690.915], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2689.813}, "reply_to": "20791__3_111", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_113", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "So it isn't... I don't think that answers the question.\nWhile I have you interrupted, is it possible that Venetie Village could seek status as a municipality under Alaska law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2690.915, 2696.217], "stop_times": [2696.217, 2708.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2690.915}, "reply_to": "20791__3_112", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__3_114", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--It could do so if it were to choose to do so, but that would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2708.941], "stop_times": [2711.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2708.941}, "reply_to": "20791__3_113", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_115", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Yes, and if it did, would it have certain taxing powers like every other municipality in Alaska?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2711.56], "stop_times": [2716.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2711.56}, "reply_to": "20791__3_114", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__3_116", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--It would indeed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2716.262], "stop_times": [2717.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2716.262}, "reply_to": "20791__3_115", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_117", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2717.297], "stop_times": [2717.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2717.297}, "reply_to": "20791__3_116", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__3_118", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "But that would be an act of assimilation.\nVenetie is a federally recognized tribe, and it has been governing its own community and its own affairs since time immemorial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2717.83, 2720.18], "stop_times": [2720.18, 2727.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2717.83}, "reply_to": "20791__3_117", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_119", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Well, by becoming a municipality under State law would it give up control, or wouldn't it continue to exercise control?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2727.167], "stop_times": [2735.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2727.167}, "reply_to": "20791__3_118", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__3_120", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "It would give up its culture.\nIt would be assimilated into the State, and it would for... it would relinquish... it would be forced to relinquish its viable Native governing entity that it has utilized, and is an entity that has been recognized by the Federal Government as existing, and that is entitled to all the same benefits and protections as other federally recognized tribes.\nA municipal government is not one that is necessarily compatible with decisionmaking of tribal governments.\nThe Venetie people make their decisions by consensus, by looking to their tribal elders, by sitting down together and conferring upon the problems.\nA municipal government has a code that's 300 pages long, that they have to nominate people to sit on the board, and it's a totally alien form of government.\nThe Venetie tribal government is one that has been recognized by the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2735.54, 2737.79, 2759.755, 2766.742, 2775.531, 2786.973], "stop_times": [2737.79, 2759.755, 2766.742, 2775.531, 2786.973, 2791.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2735.54}, "reply_to": "20791__3_119", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_121", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "May I interrupt you.\nI can understand your point about the... from the point of view of the tribe, a vast difference between being part of the State government at a municipal level and being an independent tribe, but would you help me on this one point.\nif you're correct that when they terminated the reservation they remained Indian country and therefore have all the prerogatives of running their own affairs, what is the significant difference between that and still being a reservation?\nIn other words, what did Congress accomplish by making this change in status?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2791.627, 2792.577, 2804.199, 2817.442], "stop_times": [2792.577, 2804.199, 2817.442, 2821.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2791.627}, "reply_to": "20791__3_120", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20791__3_122", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "None, Your Honor.\nWhat they accomplished was conveyance of faulty title to the Venetie residents.\nWhat Venetie had prior to then was unrecognized title.\nThey possessed... this reservation had been set aside for their exclusive use and benefit, but this reservation, as the secretarial reservation, was not one that had recognized title, so their aboriginal title was still unprotected.\nWhat Congress accomplished was to recognize their aboriginal title and vest full fee in the tribe itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2821.744, 2822.91, 2828.798, 2833.618, 2848.294], "stop_times": [2822.91, 2828.798, 2833.618, 2848.294, 2856.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2821.744}, "reply_to": "20791__3_121", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_123", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Could they not have done that and allowed the reservation to survive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2856.15], "stop_times": [2861.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2856.15}, "reply_to": "20791__3_122", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20791__3_124", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "And allow... and that... well, what they did is, they allowed Indian country to survive as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2861.285], "stop_times": [2866.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2861.285}, "reply_to": "20791__3_123", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_125", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "No, but could they not have accomplished all the other objectives and not terminated the reservation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2866.006], "stop_times": [2871.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2866.006}, "reply_to": "20791__3_124", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20791__3_126", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--They could have made a policy choice not to revoke reservations, but it was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2871.743], "stop_times": [2874.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2871.743}, "reply_to": "20791__3_125", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_127", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "You see, the thing that runs through my mind, and it may not be correct, that they must have had a reason for terminating the reservation.\nIt seems to me whatever that reason was might equally apply to their decision that you should not retain Indian country status.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2874.862, 2882.031], "stop_times": [2882.031, 2889.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2874.862}, "reply_to": "20791__3_126", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20791__3_128", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, again I think that within the legislative history, to the extent that you want to look there, what you will find is a lot of discussion about how the reservation system was viewed as being a failure by both the Congress and the Indians themselves.\nThe Indians did not want to be under a system in which the Bureau of Indian Affairs was to make day-to-day decisions over how to run their lives.\nThey wanted to be able to make those decisions for themselves.\nThe act itself was passed during... as the era of self-determination without termination, the current policy period of which we still are in, and this era of self-determination without termination, Congress has enacted other statutes like ANCSA, like the Indian Self-Determination Act, in which they are basically telling the tribes, take control of the BIA.\nWe're going to dismantle it all together, and you control the BIA.\nYou provide whatever governing services that the BIA otherwise did, but we will not consider that as a termination of your tribal status.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2889.018, 2901.493, 2909.764, 2912.966, 2937.182, 2940.8], "stop_times": [2901.493, 2909.764, 2912.966, 2937.182, 2940.8, 2947.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2889.018}, "reply_to": "20791__3_127", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_129", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Well, in respect to that, I'm thinking just possibly that whatever reason they had for revoking reservation status might equally well have applied to whether... Indian... dependent Indian community, just as Justice Stevens said.\nBut now I want to explore the possibility that whatever reason they had for giving back the land to the tribe is sufficient to give back the dependent status, and in respect to that... that's under (b).\nYou see where... are you following?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2947.803, 2961.047, 2972.688], "stop_times": [2961.047, 2972.688, 2973.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2947.803}, "reply_to": "20791__3_128", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20791__3_130", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Mm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2973.521], "stop_times": [2973.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2973.521}, "reply_to": "20791__3_129", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_131", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "All right.\nIn respect to that, I want to know what particular differences there are between... in respect to superintendency, dependence, or all those things relevant to making a bit of land a reservation or a dependent community.\nI want to know how that changed between the time before (a) went into effect, before ANCSA went into effect, and the time after the corporation took the title and gave it back to the tribe, i.e., the status quo.\nIs there zero change, or is there some change?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [2973.838, 2974.354, 2991.65, 3005.057], "stop_times": [2974.354, 2991.65, 3005.057, 3008.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2973.838}, "reply_to": "20791__3_130", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20791__3_132", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "One change.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3008.375], "stop_times": [3009.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3008.375}, "reply_to": "20791__3_131", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_133", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "What?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3009.042], "stop_times": [3009.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3009.042}, "reply_to": "20791__3_132", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20791__3_134", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "There's only one change, and that is that the lands are not held in trust by the Federal Government, but that is not a requirement under 1151(b).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3009.625], "stop_times": [3015.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3009.625}, "reply_to": "20791__3_133", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_135", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "But as far as superintendency, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3015.663], "stop_times": [3018.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3015.663}, "reply_to": "20791__3_134", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20791__3_136", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "No change.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3018.781], "stop_times": [3019.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3018.781}, "reply_to": "20791__3_135", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_137", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Practically, as well as theoretical.\nPractically.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3019.248, 3020.048], "stop_times": [3020.048, 3020.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3019.248}, "reply_to": "20791__3_136", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20791__3_138", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "No, change, absolutely no change.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3020.398], "stop_times": [3021.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3020.398}, "reply_to": "20791__3_137", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_139", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "There is no change whatsoever.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3021.398], "stop_times": [3022.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3021.398}, "reply_to": "20791__3_138", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20791__3_140", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "The guardianship role, Federal protections, everything still--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3022.483], "stop_times": [3025.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3022.483}, "reply_to": "20791__3_139", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_141", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "And in terms of whether they run a school, or send letters, or... any practical thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3025.269], "stop_times": [3029.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3025.269}, "reply_to": "20791__3_140", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20791__3_142", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--It's the Federal Government and the Indian tribe, the Venetie Indian Tribe that does all that, that carries out governmental functions within its community.\nIt did before, and it has continued to do so afterwards.\nYour Honors--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3029.137, 3036.207, 3040.326], "stop_times": [3036.207, 3040.326, 3041.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3029.137}, "reply_to": "20791__3_141", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_143", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Ms. Kendall, could I... look on page 17a of your appendix.\nI asked you earlier about 1601(b), and you... which says, without establishing any permanent racially defined institutions, rights, privileges, or any lengthy wardship, and you explained that by saying, well, that just says we weren't creating any.\nIt doesn't say they were not preserving any.\nBut turn the page and look at 18a, subsection (c), which is sort of a proviso, you know, what isn't changed.\nNo provision of this chapter shall replace or diminish.\nYou would expect to be in there, you know, any dependency status of any Indian tribes.\nIt has nothing like that.\nit says, shall diminish any right, privilege, or obligation of Natives, as citizens of the United States, or as of... or of Alaska, or relieve, replace, or diminish obligation of the State of Alaska to protect the rights or welfare of the Natives as citizens of the United States and Alaska.\nThe whole thing just reeks with the very opposite philosophy from the one that you're espousing, that the Government wanted to preserve Native identity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3041.111, 3045.73, 3061.608, 3064.643, 3071.214, 3075.416, 3082.153, 3083.855, 3099.947], "stop_times": [3045.73, 3061.608, 3064.643, 3071.214, 3075.416, 3082.153, 3083.855, 3099.947, 3110.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3041.111}, "reply_to": "20791__3_142", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20791__3_144", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--What you don't find here is language of termination.\nYou find nothing that says, we are terminating your rights as Indian people or federally recognized tribes.\nThere is nothing here in that language that says that.\nWhat you see here is language that says--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3110.839, 3114.057, 3119.842, 3121.877], "stop_times": [3114.057, 3119.842, 3121.877, 3124.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3110.839}, "reply_to": "20791__3_143", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_145", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--thought it would have been in this preservation provision if it was intended to be preserved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3124.163], "stop_times": [3129.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3124.163}, "reply_to": "20791__3_144", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20791__3_146", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--It doesn't need to be in preservation.\nThe statutory--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3129.733, 3131.769], "stop_times": [3131.769, 3133.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3129.733}, "reply_to": "20791__3_145", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_147", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "It doesn't need to be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3133.919], "stop_times": [3134.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3133.919}, "reply_to": "20791__3_146", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20791__3_148", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--The requirement is that termination must be by clear and express language of congressional intent, and that's not what you find in ANCSA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3134.435], "stop_times": [3139.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3134.435}, "reply_to": "20791__3_147", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_149", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "It doesn't need to be there, but one would expect to find it there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3139.737], "stop_times": [3142.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3139.737}, "reply_to": "20791__3_148", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20791__3_150", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Let me ask you, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3142.772], "stop_times": [3144.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3142.772}, "reply_to": "20791__3_149", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_151", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Ms. Kendall, you don't ask questions of the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3144.207], "stop_times": [3146.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3144.207}, "reply_to": "20791__3_150", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20791__3_152", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Excuse me.\n[Laughter]\nLet me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3146.409, 3147.909, 3147.459], "stop_times": [3147.909, 3147.459, 3151.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3146.409}, "reply_to": "20791__3_151", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_153", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "The Ninth Circuit ruling is quite broad.\nWe have at least one of your friends that tells us, this should be restricted to the... what, is it six tribes that are like the Venetie, the... who made the 1618(b) election, and it doesn't... the coverage of the entire ANCSA, is that what you call the legislation, that's wrong.\nOne of the briefs took that position.\nWhat is your view on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3151.961, 3154.163, 3175.928, 3177.628], "stop_times": [3154.163, 3175.928, 3177.628, 3179.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3151.961}, "reply_to": "20791__3_152", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20791__3_154", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "My view is that to the extent that they have similar facts to Venetie I think that they probably have the stronger claim, because of the express language in the statute that I pointed out that says lands set aside for the corporation.\nAs Justice O'Connor said in Sac and Fox, Indian country consists of lands that had been set aside by any means for the benefit of Indians under Federal protection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3179.814, 3192.872], "stop_times": [3192.872, 3200.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3179.814}, "reply_to": "20791__3_153", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_155", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "But you are saying that whether it's 1618(a) or (b), your argument is it's still all... it all can be Indian country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3200.227], "stop_times": [3209.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3200.227}, "reply_to": "20791__3_154", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20791__3_156", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "It... well, it would depend on the facts of the particular community, I would submit, and in... as far as Venetie is going, evidence was presented at trial by both sides of the case, and the district court found, based upon these uncontested findings, that Venetie was a dependent Indian community as of 1971, and nothing in ANCSA changed that, and we ask this Court not to read into ANCSA's silence an intent that was not there.\nCongress, in passing that statute, attempted to construct a fair and honorable settlement, and it would not be fair or honorable to read into the statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3209.166, 3234.8], "stop_times": [3234.8, 3242.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3209.166}, "reply_to": "20791__3_155", "speaker": "heather_r_kendall"}
{"id": "20791__3_157", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Kendall.\nMr. Roberts, you have 5 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3242.62, 3244.486], "stop_times": [3244.486, 3248.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3242.62}, "reply_to": "20791__3_156", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20791__4_000", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nRespondents' position confuses the question of tribal status and the question of Indian country.\nThey are two separate questions.\nThe Department of Interior made that clear in 1993 when it published for the first time the list of federally recognized tribes in Alaska.\nIt said inclusion on the list does not resolve the scope of powers of any particular tribe over land and nonmembers, and it footnoted the Solicitor opinion that we have referenced in our briefs.\nNothing about the State's position calls into question Venetie's status as a tribe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3248.422, 3249.588, 3255.509, 3257.126, 3265.848, 3276.37], "stop_times": [3249.588, 3255.509, 3257.126, 3265.848, 3276.37, 3281.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3248.422}, "reply_to": "20791__3_157", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__4_001", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "How could it footnote that if it wasn't published?\nThat's not very useful, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3281.874, 3283.56], "stop_times": [3283.56, 3284.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3281.874}, "reply_to": "20791__4_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20791__4_002", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "It's not technically been published in the collected volumes, but it's not a secret.\nIt's been made public.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3284.893, 3290.046], "stop_times": [3290.046, 3291.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3284.893}, "reply_to": "20791__4_001", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__4_003", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "I see, sort of been smuggled out.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3291.346, 3292.415], "stop_times": [3292.415, 3293.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3291.346}, "reply_to": "20791__4_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20791__4_004", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Not smuggled, but certainly made public.\nThe respondent has said that nothing changed when they transferred the lands to the reservation.\nLook at what changed.\nWhen it was a reservation, the Federal Government had control over the land.\nIt owned it.\nAfterward, when the corporations had unilaterally reconveyed it to the tribe, the Federal Government had no ownership and no control, a significant change.\nSecond, when the reservation was set up, it was set up by the Federal Government, set apart for the use of the Indians under Federal superintendence.\nThis action of reconveying to the tribe was not an action of the federal Government at all, nor was it approved by the Federal Government.\nFinally, when it was a reservation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3293.615, 3298.735, 3303.271, 3304.306, 3307.591, 3308.225, 3317.364, 3325.97, 3334.325], "stop_times": [3298.735, 3303.271, 3304.306, 3307.591, 3308.225, 3317.364, 3325.97, 3334.325, 3335.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3293.615}, "reply_to": "20791__4_003", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__4_005", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "But it was anticipated by it.\nYou can certainly say that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3335.708, 3337.627], "stop_times": [3337.627, 3339.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3335.708}, "reply_to": "20791__4_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20791__4_006", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--Oh, Your Honor, I don't think there was any reason to anticipate that the ANCSA corporations would reconvey the land and dissolve, not at all.\nCongress viewed the corporations as central to their structure, and the notion that they would dissolve and reconvey the land was not anticipated.\nIt was anticipated that they would, because the land was freely alienable, sell it, develop it, swap it, as ANCSA corporations have done.\nFinally there was, when it was a reservation, pervasive Federal superintendence.\nNow, under the new system, where the land had been transferred back, there is no Federal superintendence in the sense there is in a reservation, the viewing the community as a dependent community that needs Federal supervision and superintendence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3339.227, 3347.633, 3354.739, 3362.16, 3367.897], "stop_times": [3347.633, 3354.739, 3362.16, 3367.897, 3379.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3339.227}, "reply_to": "20791__4_005", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__4_007", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "It remains a recognized tribe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3379.704], "stop_times": [3381.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3379.704}, "reply_to": "20791__4_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20791__4_008", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Absolutely, and nothing in the State's position is inconsistent with that.\nThe issue is simply jurisdiction over the land and nonmembers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3381.639, 3385.258], "stop_times": [3385.258, 3388.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3381.639}, "reply_to": "20791__4_007", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__4_009", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Superintendence being... what do you pin that last statement on, there's now no superintendence, before there was?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3388.793], "stop_times": [3394.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3388.793}, "reply_to": "20791__4_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20791__4_010", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Well, if you look at it in two ways, either... the most significant one is control over the decisions.\nIf the tribe wants to sell the land tomorrow, develop it in a particular way, the Federal Government has no say about that, as it did when it was a reservation.\nIn fact, when the tribe in 1980 submitted an oil and gas lease for Department if Interior approval, the Department of Interior said, we're not in that business any more.\nIt's your land to manage according to your own lights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3394.964, 3401.887, 3409.973, 3418.579], "stop_times": [3401.887, 3409.973, 3418.579, 3421.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3394.964}, "reply_to": "20791__4_009", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__4_011", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Do you agree that dependency means, dependent on the Government for protection of your tribal status?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3421.364], "stop_times": [3427.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3421.364}, "reply_to": "20791__4_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20791__4_012", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Well, again, we think it is a part of the term of art.\nIt means, dependent Indian community means, a community like the community in Sandoval, like the community in McGowan, and we don't think it can be parsed any more finely than that.\nIt's also--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3427.685, 3430.97, 3442.695], "stop_times": [3430.97, 3442.695, 3443.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3427.685}, "reply_to": "20791__4_011", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__4_013", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Could the Federal Government come along today, pass a... could Congress pass a statute and say today, binding upon this tribe, saying you shall take no muskrat upon your land?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3443.13], "stop_times": [3452.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3443.13}, "reply_to": "20791__4_012", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20791__4_014", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "--No, I don't think so, Your Honor, because that would be inconsistent with ANCSA, which gave to them jurisdiction and control over the land.\nThe State could, because it is land subject to State jurisdiction, like everyone else's land.\nIf it were Indian country, the State couldn't, and then either tribal or Federal regulations of hunting and fishing would control.\nNow, with respect to the activities, that superintendence is going to be viewed more broadly, keep in mind that this case arose because the State was building a school in Venetie.\nI think my friend mentioned that that was a Federal and tribal function.\nThe State provides the education.\nThe State has provided health care services.\nThe State has provided electricity and water, public utilities.\nI don't think the Indian country determination hinges on who provides more services.\nIt hinges on the intent of Congress, and Congress' intent in ANCSA was to convey this land free and clear, not to retain control, not to continue to exercise superintendence in the terms it's been used in this Court's Indian country cases.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3452.919, 3459.906, 3464.977, 3472.566, 3482.355, 3486.374, 3487.593, 3490.194, 3493.896, 3499.05, 3513.608], "stop_times": [3459.906, 3464.977, 3472.566, 3482.355, 3486.374, 3487.593, 3490.194, 3493.896, 3499.05, 3513.608, 3514.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3452.919}, "reply_to": "20791__4_013", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20791__4_015", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Roberts.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3514.476, 3515.476], "stop_times": [3515.476, 3518.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3514.476}, "reply_to": "20791__4_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20791__4_016", "conversation_id": "20791", "text": "The honorable Court is now adjourned until Monday next at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1577", "start_times": [3518.142], "stop_times": [3522.278], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3518.142}, "reply_to": "20791__4_015", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20430__0_000", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 96-795, Allentown Mack Sales and Service v. National Labor Relations Board.\nMr. Shawe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [0.0, 10.658], "stop_times": [10.658, 55.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20430__0_001", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nPicking up on the commentary in Curtin Matheson, this case brings to the Court's attention the issue of whether deference to the board is owing when the board applies the same standard to three different approaches to challenging a union's continuing majority status.\nIn Curtin Matheson this Court acknowledged the board's oft-articulated standard that an employer can withdraw recognition from an incumbent union if 1) the union has in fact lost its majority status, or 2) the employer has, based on objective considerations, reasonable grounds to doubt the union's continued majority status.\nThe second test supposedly can be satisfied by a lower threshold of proof, although the board typically requires clear, cogent, concise articulations by individual employees disaffected totalling a majority, or a head count.\nBut conducting a secret ballot poll is not the same as withdrawing recognition.\nObviously, in the withdrawal of recognition the employer has preempted any vote.\nIn contrast, a secret ballot poll assuming fairness consistent with the board's Struksnes standards permits of the possibility that a majority will vote in favor of continued union representation, and the board in Texas Petrochemicals and its brief disclaims any interest or desire to do away with employer polls.\nThe board's standard for permitting an employer to take the grave and precipitous step of withdrawing recognition should not at the same time be applied in the contradictory context of secret ballot polling.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [55.358, 58.21, 76.682, 98.217, 117.35, 124.466, 129.508, 153.764], "stop_times": [58.21, 76.682, 98.217, 117.35, 124.466, 129.508, 153.764, 168.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 55.358}, "reply_to": "20430__0_000", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_002", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Well, why is it contradictory?\nI mean, I thought there was a rational structure for all of this along the following lines:\nThe board says, we're at the point at which the presumption is no longer absolute.\nThe employer in effect is going to be given three options, subject to the same condition, probable cause to believe.\nThe three conditions, the three options, however, have varying risks.\nIf the employer simply withdraws recognition and turns out to be wrong, the repercussions are presumably going to be very great.\nIf the employer asks for an election, perhaps the repercussions may not be so great, but they're going to be serious.\nIf the employer decides to take a poll, the repercussions... and loses, the repercussions perhaps will not be quite so great.\nThat's not quite so disruptive.\nWhat is irrational about saying, subject to the same fact premise, the employer is going to be given an option of going A, B, or C, depending on the degree of risk that the employer wants to run if the employer turns out to be wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [168.434, 169.725, 175.959, 184.575, 193.74, 201.227, 211.122, 219.53, 227.575, 229.107], "stop_times": [169.725, 175.959, 184.575, 193.74, 201.227, 211.122, 219.53, 227.575, 229.107, 246.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 168.434}, "reply_to": "20430__0_001", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20430__0_003", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Well, I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [246.728], "stop_times": [247.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 246.728}, "reply_to": "20430__0_002", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_004", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "How is that irrational?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [247.63], "stop_times": [248.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 247.63}, "reply_to": "20430__0_003", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20430__0_005", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--No, I don't... I think it's not rational, given the predisposition of the board... the court, me, the... everyone, that a poll or an election is a much, much better preferred test to measure employee sentiment than what is... what has been for 40 years the board's articulated standard in Celanese that an employer can withdraw without a poll.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [248.22], "stop_times": [276.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 248.22}, "reply_to": "20430__0_004", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_006", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "I understood your claim to be here... if... perhaps it's a claim of irrational... that the board's requirements for taking a poll are so stringent that they almost make a poll unnecessary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [276.007], "stop_times": [288.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 276.007}, "reply_to": "20430__0_005", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20430__0_007", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Well, they make it irrelevant, a legally irrelevant act, the board's regulatory scheme that accepts as valid a secret ballot poll only, and only if the employer has so much evidence before taking the poll that it could have withdrawn recognition without it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [288.035], "stop_times": [306.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 288.035}, "reply_to": "20430__0_006", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_008", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Well, are you saying that if the... if the standard of cause that were applied to each of these three options were something less than what you characterize as the head count, that there would be nothing irrational, nothing to... nothing really to object to in having the three options subject to the same factual condition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [306.418], "stop_times": [328.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 306.418}, "reply_to": "20430__0_007", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20430__0_009", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Well, I suppose a reasonable doubt, if it were different from a head count and, indeed, it were applied as if it were the totality of the circumstances, perhaps the complaint wouldn't be so vehement, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [328.533], "stop_times": [343.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 328.533}, "reply_to": "20430__0_008", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_010", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Well, but would it be... would the scheme be irrational?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [343.396], "stop_times": [346.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 343.396}, "reply_to": "20430__0_009", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20430__0_011", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Yes, I think it would be irrational to mandate the same requirement--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [346.245], "stop_times": [350.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 346.245}, "reply_to": "20430__0_010", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_012", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [350.8], "stop_times": [351.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 350.8}, "reply_to": "20430__0_011", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20430__0_013", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--for a withdrawal of recognition without a poll, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [351.35], "stop_times": [355.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 351.35}, "reply_to": "20430__0_012", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_014", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "But isn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [355.501], "stop_times": [355.772], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 355.501}, "reply_to": "20430__0_013", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20430__0_015", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Because what the board has elevated, has valued in allowing an employer to withdraw recognition with or without a poll because the same standard applies, or even processing the favored RM petition, the management petition, is a head count, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [355.772], "stop_times": [373.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 355.772}, "reply_to": "20430__0_014", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_016", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--But suppose the same standard didn't apply, isn't your real complaint here that reasonable doubt, that the agency says reasonable doubt, but that you had reasonable doubt here, but that would not suffice without--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [373.774], "stop_times": [388.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 373.774}, "reply_to": "20430__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20430__0_017", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Without a head count.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [388.243], "stop_times": [389.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 388.243}, "reply_to": "20430__0_016", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_018", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Without a head count.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [389.354], "stop_times": [390.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 389.354}, "reply_to": "20430__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20430__0_019", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "That's clearly a complaint, yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [390.095], "stop_times": [392.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 390.095}, "reply_to": "20430__0_018", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_020", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Well, isn't it the essential complaint, because if they... if they treated reasonable doubt as reasonable doubt, you would have the three-stage process that Justice Souter is talking about, the three different ways.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [392.248], "stop_times": [405.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 392.248}, "reply_to": "20430__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20430__0_021", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [405.906], "stop_times": [406.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 405.906}, "reply_to": "20430__0_020", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_022", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Reasonable doubt, the head count, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [406.737], "stop_times": [408.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 406.737}, "reply_to": "20430__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20430__0_023", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--But I don't think the test should determine the... should be dependent on the risk factor.\nI don't think the risk factor is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [408.968, 415.643], "stop_times": [415.643, 417.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 408.968}, "reply_to": "20430__0_022", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_024", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Well, but you may have a gripe with the board that they set it up that way, but that's a very different thing from saying that it's irrational to the point that a court would be authorized to strike it down.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [417.205], "stop_times": [428.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 417.205}, "reply_to": "20430__0_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20430__0_025", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Well, the reason that it's irrational, I suggest, is that it is internally inconsistent.\nIt is... it encourages conduct that should be discourages.\nIt encourages conduct to withdraw recognition without any poll, board or employer-conducted, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [428.562, 435.107, 441.121], "stop_times": [435.107, 441.121, 449.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 428.562}, "reply_to": "20430__0_024", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_026", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "But it does that because they, as you put it they are insisting on a head count.\nIsn't that the reason?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [449.088, 453.68], "stop_times": [453.68, 454.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 449.088}, "reply_to": "20430__0_025", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20430__0_027", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--No.\nI think that the reason that the board is insisting on it is that they are nervous about withdrawals of recognition, appropriately so, and would prefer, as they have acknowledged, and all would agree, that the RM petition be utilized as the standard, and what they have done is, I think mistakenly in U.S. Gypsum, after 20 years of not doing it in 1966 said we are going to have the same elevated standard for processing an RM petition as we have to permit an employer to withdraw recognition without any poll whatsoever, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [454.752, 456.682], "stop_times": [456.682, 495.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 454.752}, "reply_to": "20430__0_026", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_028", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Do you have to say it's irrational before this Court can rule in your favor, or can you say that it's inconsistent with the board's precedents?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [495.627], "stop_times": [503.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 495.627}, "reply_to": "20430__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20430__0_029", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--I think inconsistent with the board precedent.\nI think either one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [503.535, 505.718], "stop_times": [505.718, 506.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 503.535}, "reply_to": "20430__0_028", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_030", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Why... can you tell me why this is inconsistent with the board's precedents?\nIs it primarily because of the definitional content that we ought to give to the reasonable doubt standard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [506.539, 510.583], "stop_times": [510.583, 518.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 506.539}, "reply_to": "20430__0_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20430__0_031", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Yes.\nI think the reasonable doubt standard, as articulated by the board in Celanese, and reiterated even in the 1990's cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [518.851, 519.509], "stop_times": [519.509, 526.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 518.851}, "reply_to": "20430__0_030", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_032", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "But doesn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [526.435], "stop_times": [526.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 526.435}, "reply_to": "20430__0_031", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20430__0_033", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--is a totality of circumstances test, which they fail to apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [526.795], "stop_times": [530.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 526.795}, "reply_to": "20430__0_032", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_034", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--But doesn't the reasonable doubt standard also apply to withdrawal of recognition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [530.527], "stop_times": [534.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 530.527}, "reply_to": "20430__0_033", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20430__0_035", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Yes, of course, and indeed the board's general counsel--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [534.809], "stop_times": [539.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 534.809}, "reply_to": "20430__0_034", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_036", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Well then... then shouldn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [539.583], "stop_times": [541.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 539.583}, "reply_to": "20430__0_035", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20430__0_037", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Shouldn't we have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [541.083], "stop_times": [542.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 541.083}, "reply_to": "20430__0_036", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_038", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--the standard for a poll and withdrawal of recognition be the same?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [542.105], "stop_times": [544.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 542.105}, "reply_to": "20430__0_037", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20430__0_039", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--No.\nThey should be different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [544.476, 544.697], "stop_times": [544.697, 545.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 544.476}, "reply_to": "20430__0_038", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_040", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Okay.\nWhy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [545.708, 545.928], "stop_times": [545.928, 546.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 545.708}, "reply_to": "20430__0_039", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20430__0_041", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Because a poll presumes that employees will fairly express their sentiments.\nThe withdrawal of recognition, the poll, the secret ballot, which is certainly the truest test of employee sentiments, has been preempted completely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [546.209, 552.033], "stop_times": [552.033, 562.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 546.209}, "reply_to": "20430__0_040", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_042", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Are you saying that reasonable... are you saying that reasonable... excuse me.\nAre you saying that reasonable doubt must be given a different definition in the context of a poll than in the case of withdrawal of recognition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [562.74, 566.051], "stop_times": [566.051, 576.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 562.74}, "reply_to": "20430__0_041", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20430__0_043", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "It should, but it hasn't been.\nIt surely should because of the... the withdrawal of recognition is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [576.009, 578.443], "stop_times": [578.443, 581.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 576.009}, "reply_to": "20430__0_042", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_044", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "What do you mean, be given different content?\nShouldn't you use different words?\nI mean, do words have no meaning?\nReasonable doubt's going to mean one thing here and something else there?\nI mean, I take your complaint to be rested upon the fact that reasonable doubt ought to mean reasonable doubt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [581.775, 583.257, 584.398, 585.599, 587.852], "stop_times": [583.257, 584.398, 585.599, 587.852, 596.057], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 581.775}, "reply_to": "20430__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20430__0_045", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--I agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [596.057], "stop_times": [596.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 596.057}, "reply_to": "20430__0_044", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_046", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "But now you're saying reasonable doubt could mean two different things.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [596.358], "stop_times": [599.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 596.358}, "reply_to": "20430__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20430__0_047", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Well, I'm... I'm--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [599.009], "stop_times": [599.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 599.009}, "reply_to": "20430__0_046", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_048", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "It's going to mean one thing for this and one thing for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [599.239], "stop_times": [600.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 599.239}, "reply_to": "20430__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20430__0_049", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Right.\nI'm afraid that if the reasonable doubt standard that the board has applied is accepted by the Court as a head count, that I won't prevail in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [600.611, 600.782], "stop_times": [600.782, 610.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 600.611}, "reply_to": "20430__0_048", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_050", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Are you making two distinct arguments, and is... one, as I hear it, seems to be purely comparative.\nThat is, suppose the board said, we're simply not going to allow unilateral withdrawal.\nThat's too risky.\nSo all we have is the poll and what's been called the RM election.\nSuppose we took out what you say is a glaring inconsistency in no more--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [610.808, 616.663, 621.758, 622.697, 627.572], "stop_times": [616.663, 621.758, 622.697, 627.572, 632.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 610.808}, "reply_to": "20430__0_049", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20430__0_051", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "No more withdrawals?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [632.715], "stop_times": [634.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 632.715}, "reply_to": "20430__0_050", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_052", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Yes.\nThen what would your case be, if we had only the poll?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [634.027, 634.715], "stop_times": [634.715, 640.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 634.027}, "reply_to": "20430__0_051", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20430__0_053", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Well, if the board continued to adhere to its elevated standard to process an RM petition, then I would continue to insist on the employer's right to conduct the poll.\nIf, however, the board accepted its own general counsel's recommendation in the Chelsea Industries case... that was one of the cases lodged by the board in opposition to our cert petition.\nThe board's general counsel, who's obviously much more familiar with this process than currently anyone else, has himself indicated... and I have the lodging where he says that, on page 9, the board's current policy, which applies the triple standard to the RM petition, to the poll, and to the withdrawal of recognition without any election, the board's current policy does little to encourage employers to act in accordance with what the Supreme Court has long thought to be the board's own view, namely that even after the certification year has passed, the better practice is for the employer with doubts to keep bargaining and petition... the RM petition... the board for a new election, citing the Ray Brooks case, the 1954 case that the Supreme Court heard after the... after reading the Celanese decision.\nSo rather, says the general counsel to the board, rather the Celanese rule, which he is proposing be eliminated... that's your suggestion... encourages employers to engage in self-help measures, and thereby to engage in potentially unlawful withdrawal of recognition rather than the, quote, better practice of proceeding to a board vote with the injuries to industrial peace and protracted litigation, which is always the result--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [640.61, 650.737, 662.487, 720.534], "stop_times": [650.737, 662.487, 720.534, 750.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 640.61}, "reply_to": "20430__0_052", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_054", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "But I still don't have a clear answer from you to my question.\nTo the extent that you're complaining about a comparison being irrational, isn't that objection at least taken away if, say, the board was to respond, they said, fine, we've always been nervous about these unilateral withdrawals.\nWe just won't allow them any more.\nSuppose you didn't have that in your case, and all you had was the poll and the RM election governed by the same standard, would you have any complaint?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [750.154, 756.348, 771.608, 773.8], "stop_times": [756.348, 771.608, 773.8, 783.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 750.154}, "reply_to": "20430__0_053", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20430__0_055", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--No.\nI'd have a lot less complaint, but in my view the RM petition, in order to make it available, must be subscribed to in a much lower standard than the one that's currently in place, which does require still a head count in order for the board--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [783.096, 783.437], "stop_times": [783.437, 803.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 783.096}, "reply_to": "20430__0_054", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_056", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "I'm sorry, now you're losing me.\nYou--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [803.722, 805.293], "stop_times": [805.293, 805.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 803.722}, "reply_to": "20430__0_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20430__0_057", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [805.774], "stop_times": [805.994], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 805.774}, "reply_to": "20430__0_056", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_058", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--I thought I understood your first argument that if they didn't permit unilateral withdrawal, you would not have a complaint, but now you seem to be saying even if they didn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [805.994], "stop_times": [816.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 805.994}, "reply_to": "20430__0_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20430__0_059", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "If they do not honor what's called a good faith doubt, which is a totality of the circumstances, still required a head count applicable to the RM petition, and the conduct of a poll before the poll would be validated, yes, I would still object because the good faith doubt would be obliterated within the meaning of what those words mean, at least what the Court has always assumed the board to have meant when it registers good faith doubt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [816.513], "stop_times": [843.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 816.513}, "reply_to": "20430__0_058", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_060", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Then why couldn't the board say, this is our test and we want it to be a tight one because it's important to give the union a chance to operate, and that's why we have the 1-year free, and then we have the rebuttable presumption.\nSo to keep that tight we have to have a stringent standard of what we must show before we'll let you get an election or take a poll.\nWhat would be illogical about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [843.32, 857.928, 866.143], "stop_times": [857.928, 866.143, 870.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 843.32}, "reply_to": "20430__0_059", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20430__0_061", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Well, the reason for that is that it seems to me the best way to resolve a doubt is to have a poll rather than to require the employer to submit evidence in advance--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [870.308], "stop_times": [881.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 870.308}, "reply_to": "20430__0_060", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_062", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "But the board's rule is you have to have more than a doubt.\nIs that what... tell me what... you seem to be saying that that would not be a permissible construction of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [881.715, 885.917], "stop_times": [885.917, 896.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 881.715}, "reply_to": "20430__0_061", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20430__0_063", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--That would not be a permissible construction of good faith doubt, correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [896.244], "stop_times": [899.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 896.244}, "reply_to": "20430__0_062", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_064", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "But the good faith doubt doesn't come from the act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [899.646], "stop_times": [901.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 899.646}, "reply_to": "20430__0_063", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20430__0_065", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "No, it comes from the board, and if the board says that a good faith doubt standard will apply to RM petitions and to polls, then the head count would be impermissible as the test to determine whether or not either the poll or the RM petition's processing should go forward.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [901.749], "stop_times": [918.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 901.749}, "reply_to": "20430__0_064", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_066", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "What was the good faith reasonable doubt in this... you assert that there was here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [918.75], "stop_times": [922.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 918.75}, "reply_to": "20430__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20430__0_067", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [922.613], "stop_times": [922.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 922.613}, "reply_to": "20430__0_066", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_068", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--a good faith reasonable doubt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [922.814], "stop_times": [924.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 922.814}, "reply_to": "20430__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20430__0_069", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [924.754], "stop_times": [924.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 924.754}, "reply_to": "20430__0_068", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_070", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Based on what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [924.774], "stop_times": [925.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 924.774}, "reply_to": "20430__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20430__0_071", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Based on the six or seven employees credited by the board claiming disaffection from the union, several other statements from other employees not accepted by the board, but nonetheless indicating a lack of interest or support for the union, the statement of a night shift employee who said, all five or six night shift employees do not favor the union and, most importantly, the comment by Ron Mohr, the shop steward and union committeeman, who says to the employer that, with you as the boss, the new company, if a vote were taken, the people would not support the union.\nI don't think the people want the union with you as the boss.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [925.595, 964.53], "stop_times": [964.53, 967.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 925.595}, "reply_to": "20430__0_070", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_072", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Is there any theory you can advance to tell us that that should constitute good faith doubt in the context of taking the poll, even though it might not be for withdrawal of recognition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [967.284], "stop_times": [978.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 967.284}, "reply_to": "20430__0_071", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20430__0_073", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Yes, because the... what the board has articulated as elevated, as favored, are individual names.\nHad Mr. Mohr said, and here are the names of the people that I think would vote against the union, the board would prefer that.\nThey'd like that.\nBut that's a remarkable elevation when everyone would agree that a better resolution of true employee sentiment would not be Mr. Mohr's articulation of here's the list over here, and here's the list over here, but rather to allow all the people vote in secret, and that's what happened here.\nThey voted in secret.\nThere is a specific finding that there was a noncoercive setting, that the union had notice, the union lodged no protest over the vote, nor made any comment concerning it.\nAll the employees participated.\nI can't imagine a better test of true employee sentiment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [978.584, 989.322, 997.319, 997.97, 1020.116, 1021.198, 1033.188, 1035.248], "stop_times": [989.322, 997.319, 997.97, 1020.116, 1021.198, 1033.188, 1035.248, 1038.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 978.584}, "reply_to": "20430__0_072", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_074", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Mr. Shawe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1038.969], "stop_times": [1039.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1038.969}, "reply_to": "20430__0_073", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20430__0_075", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--than the poll that was conducted here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1039.47], "stop_times": [1040.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1039.47}, "reply_to": "20430__0_074", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_076", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--I'm sorry.\nMr. Shawe, isn't one answer to the objection that you're making... which I have to say in the Mohr example is I think a very serious objection, but isn't one answer to it this:\nSure, the best way to find out what's really going on is to have an election.\nWe agree.\nBut we want the standard for calling the election to be high.\nWe want the standard of doubt to be a high one because there's another value involved, and the fact is the promotion of industrial peace and the promotion of stability is going to be served over the long haul by fewer elections rather than more elections, and that's why we're going to have a high standard, maybe not to the point of requiring Mohr to say, A, B, C, D, and E told me, but at least to the point of requiring Mohr to say, I have actually talked to the men, not naming them, and I find that they are affirmatively disclaiming any desire at this point to continue with the union.\nWe want the high standard because we've got this other interest that's being served.\nThat may be a good policy, it may be a bad policy, but isn't it a permissible policy choice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1040.801, 1040.932, 1050.88, 1056.994, 1057.986, 1061.976, 1105.847, 1109.607], "stop_times": [1040.932, 1050.88, 1056.994, 1057.986, 1061.976, 1105.847, 1109.607, 1115.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1040.801}, "reply_to": "20430__0_075", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20430__0_077", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Yes, and as a matter of fact this Court's acknowledged it in the Fall River case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1115.183], "stop_times": [1118.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1115.183}, "reply_to": "20430__0_076", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_078", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Yes.\nIsn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1118.924, 1119.184], "stop_times": [1119.184, 1119.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1118.924}, "reply_to": "20430__0_077", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20430__0_079", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "That industrial stability is an important policy so long as it doesn't unduly interfere with employee choice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1119.605], "stop_times": [1127.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1119.605}, "reply_to": "20430__0_078", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_080", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Yes, and what is unduly interfering is the problem here, what unduly means, and whether it would have been your policy choice or my policy choice, isn't it within the realm of reason for the board to have made the policy choice that it made in requiring a starchier standard than perhaps would have been necessary from the literal meaning of the words?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1127.511], "stop_times": [1149.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1127.511}, "reply_to": "20430__0_079", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20430__0_081", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Well, you know, one of the things that's... constantly crops up in the board's brief is the issue of remand, because both you and Justice Ginsburg now assume, let's assume we don't have withdrawals of recognition for the moment, without a poll, which is clearly not the rule.\nIt may be a wise rule, but it's not the rule, and when they apply, the board applies to the polling standard and the RM standard the same standard that they would apply to an employer without any election, to do exactly the same thing, and just litigate the case for a couple of years, is exactly the reason why the board's current standard... I don't want to suggest you set it... needs rethinking, relooking, not inconsistent with its own general counsel's approach--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1149.765, 1166.428], "stop_times": [1166.428, 1194.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1149.765}, "reply_to": "20430__0_080", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_082", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "And maybe it does, but that's a step away from the kind of irrationality upon which invalidity has to be predicated, isn't it?\nMr. Shawe, may I ask you, in judging you claim that there was inadequate evidence to... that there was plenty of evidence to show good faith doubt, you relied in part on the testimony of this man Mohr.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1194.187, 1201.352], "stop_times": [1201.352, 1211.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1194.187}, "reply_to": "20430__0_081", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20430__0_083", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1211.146], "stop_times": [1211.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1211.146}, "reply_to": "20430__0_082", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_084", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "In judging the case, should we do so in view of the fact that the hearing examiner discredited him, and the board discredited him, and the... said it was not... his testimony was not reliable and not entitled to much weight, as did the court of appeals?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1211.457], "stop_times": [1224.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1211.457}, "reply_to": "20430__0_083", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20430__0_085", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "No, I think... I beg to differ.\nI don't think they discredited it at all.\nI think they believed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1224.197, 1225.018, 1227.482], "stop_times": [1225.018, 1227.482, 1229.161], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1224.197}, "reply_to": "20430__0_084", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_086", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "They said it was not entitled to much weight.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1229.161], "stop_times": [1231.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1229.161}, "reply_to": "20430__0_085", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20430__0_087", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1231.312], "stop_times": [1231.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1231.312}, "reply_to": "20430__0_086", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_088", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1231.623], "stop_times": [1231.833], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1231.623}, "reply_to": "20430__0_087", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20430__0_089", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Yes, so that the fact that he said it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1231.833], "stop_times": [1235.056], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1231.833}, "reply_to": "20430__0_088", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_090", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "The fact that he said it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1235.056], "stop_times": [1236.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1235.056}, "reply_to": "20430__0_089", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20430__0_091", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Has been credited.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1236.308], "stop_times": [1236.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1236.308}, "reply_to": "20430__0_090", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_092", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Yes, but whether or not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1236.758], "stop_times": [1239.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1236.758}, "reply_to": "20430__0_091", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20430__0_093", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "But the weight that's to be attached to it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1239.429], "stop_times": [1239.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1239.429}, "reply_to": "20430__0_092", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_094", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Whether or not his recounting of what other people had said to him was entitled to weight is a matter that we should exercise our own independent judgment on, or just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1239.888], "stop_times": [1247.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1239.888}, "reply_to": "20430__0_093", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20430__0_095", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Absolutely.\nIf you're going to weigh what a good faith doubt is, I cannot imagine that you would ignore that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1247.003, 1248.054], "stop_times": [1248.054, 1253.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1247.003}, "reply_to": "20430__0_094", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_096", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--And we should just sort of ignore the reasons why the board, the hearing examiner, and the court of appeals gave less weight to that testimony than you think it should have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1253.059], "stop_times": [1261.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1253.059}, "reply_to": "20430__0_095", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20430__0_097", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Oh, no, I don't mind arguing with those reasons.\nThe reason... one reason that the board gave is that there was no way to verify what he said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1261.094, 1262.875], "stop_times": [1262.875, 1268.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1261.094}, "reply_to": "20430__0_096", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_098", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "You're not sure whether he was referring to a majority of the predecessor employer or this employer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1268.64], "stop_times": [1273.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1268.64}, "reply_to": "20430__0_097", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20430__0_099", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Well, number 1... as for that, as to the predecessor business, this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1273.074], "stop_times": [1276.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1273.074}, "reply_to": "20430__0_098", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_100", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Because he was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1276.256], "stop_times": [1276.556], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1276.256}, "reply_to": "20430__0_099", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20430__0_101", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--and the board says, we presume the same degree of sentiment for the union to a successor as we do a predecessor, or lack of sentiment, I suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1276.556], "stop_times": [1285.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1276.556}, "reply_to": "20430__0_100", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_102", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1285.533], "stop_times": [1285.693], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1285.533}, "reply_to": "20430__0_101", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20430__0_103", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "The same rule applies.\nNumber 2, as I remarked on before, it is true that I didn't know... no one would know with certainty that Mr. Mohr was accurate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1285.693, 1286.675], "stop_times": [1286.675, 1299.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1285.693}, "reply_to": "20430__0_102", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_104", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Hasn't the board held in other cases that the employer or that the board itself should rely on statements of shop stewards?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1299.284], "stop_times": [1310.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1299.284}, "reply_to": "20430__0_103", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20430__0_105", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Sure.\nAbsolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1310.79, 1310.98], "stop_times": [1310.98, 1311.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1310.79}, "reply_to": "20430__0_104", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_106", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "What are your best cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1311.821], "stop_times": [1313.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1311.821}, "reply_to": "20430__0_105", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20430__0_107", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "J&J Drainage is the best case that I can find.\nIt's one cited by them, and the only distinction between--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1313.272, 1316.334], "stop_times": [1316.334, 1320.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1313.272}, "reply_to": "20430__0_106", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_108", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Why would they have treated this steward's testimony differently than they do in other cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1320.168], "stop_times": [1325.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1320.168}, "reply_to": "20430__0_107", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20430__0_109", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--There's no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1325.33], "stop_times": [1325.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1325.33}, "reply_to": "20430__0_108", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_110", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Well, he only--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1325.71], "stop_times": [1326.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1325.71}, "reply_to": "20430__0_109", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20430__0_111", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--The only reason they advanced is, that shop steward was talking about the successor's employees.\nMr. Mohr had not yet come over, so they were talking about the predecessor's employees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1326.231, 1332.616], "stop_times": [1332.616, 1338.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1326.231}, "reply_to": "20430__0_110", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_112", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Plus the fact that he only supervised one portion of the work force.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1338.391], "stop_times": [1341.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1338.391}, "reply_to": "20430__0_111", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20430__0_113", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "He was the shop steward for some, but he was on the union's negotiating committee, and again, I think what's going on is a splitting of, you know, hairs.\nIt's a real strain to say, when the owner of the company hears from the union committeemen and shop steward that I don't think that the employees with this new company would want a union, if we had a vote I think they'd reject it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1341.413, 1349.31], "stop_times": [1349.31, 1360.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1341.413}, "reply_to": "20430__0_112", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_114", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "But what... when you get--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1360.72], "stop_times": [1361.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1360.72}, "reply_to": "20430__0_113", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20430__0_115", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--for him to parse that out and say, that's not good enough, especially when it's accompanied by all the other individual statements and the commentaries of others that says, we don't want the union.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1361.629], "stop_times": [1371.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1361.629}, "reply_to": "20430__0_114", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_116", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--We're talking here only about a doubt.\nIs it enough to raise in the employer's mind a good faith, reasonable doubt--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1371.546, 1372.928], "stop_times": [1372.928, 1378.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1371.546}, "reply_to": "20430__0_115", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20430__0_117", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "In my opinion--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1378.2], "stop_times": [1378.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1378.2}, "reply_to": "20430__0_116", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_118", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--about whether there was majority support?\nI don't know if we're supposed to go into the record and make this court of appeals type determination, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1378.71, 1380.443], "stop_times": [1380.443, 1385.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1378.71}, "reply_to": "20430__0_117", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20430__0_119", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1385.276], "stop_times": [1385.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1385.276}, "reply_to": "20430__0_118", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_120", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--leaving that to the side, is it the case that a group of workers, a union who has been in business a long time, 10 years representing the workers, am I right that if 30 percent of the workers want to have a new election, they can go do it?\nAll right.\nSo we're only talking about a case in which 30... there's no 30 percent of the workers that asked to get rid of the union.\nSo if 30 percent of them want to get rid of it, they can get rid of it.\nThey can have their election.\nSo we're talking about cases, the union's been there a long time, and there isn't some group of workers who were so disaffected that they called for an election.\nNow, under those circumstances, what's unreasonable about the board saying, we don't want management to try to throw out a well-established union?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1385.526, 1400.145, 1401.197, 1407.732, 1410.754, 1411.806, 1419.61], "stop_times": [1400.145, 1401.197, 1407.732, 1410.754, 1411.806, 1419.61, 1428.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1385.526}, "reply_to": "20430__0_119", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20430__0_121", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1428.836], "stop_times": [1429.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1428.836}, "reply_to": "20430__0_120", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_122", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "They have to have a very, very good reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1429.297], "stop_times": [1432.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1429.297}, "reply_to": "20430__0_121", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20430__0_123", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1432.309], "stop_times": [1432.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1432.309}, "reply_to": "20430__0_122", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_124", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "A very good reason.\nNow, if they have that very good reason, called tough reasonable doubt, they can then do it, and as far as we're concerned we don't care whether they disrupt labor relations by having a poll, by calling for an election, by refusing to bargain.\nThat's up to them.\nWe're indifferent.\nSome will want to do the one, some will want to do the other.\nBut what we are interested in is, they don't get into the union disruption business in a situation where the workers haven't tried to do that unless they have a very good reason.\nNow, I either may or may not agree with that reasoning.\nWhat I don't want to... what I want to know is, what's unreasonable about it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1432.529, 1433.41, 1449.201, 1449.94, 1451.022, 1454.505, 1464.729, 1466.882], "stop_times": [1433.41, 1449.201, 1449.94, 1451.022, 1454.505, 1464.729, 1466.882, 1470.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1432.529}, "reply_to": "20430__0_123", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20430__0_125", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Well, what's unreasonable about it is that the employer is required to bargain with a majority union under section 9(a) and, as a result, a whole litany of cases have come out about how you test the union's majority status in a successor case like mine.\nA reasonable good faith doubt of the union's majority status is supposedly... that's articulated by the board and this Court as the standard, and it does not require a head count if the good faith doubt is to have any common-sense meaning, or commonplace meaning of what those words are.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1470.224, 1488.157], "stop_times": [1488.157, 1505.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1470.224}, "reply_to": "20430__0_124", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_126", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "It's possible that a good faith reasonable doubt is required to be the standard by law, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1505.511], "stop_times": [1511.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1505.511}, "reply_to": "20430__0_125", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20430__0_127", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1511.013], "stop_times": [1511.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1511.013}, "reply_to": "20430__0_126", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_128", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "I mean, it's possible that if the agency enunciated a more than tough doubt, probable certainty standard, that that would be unlawful under the act, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1511.404], "stop_times": [1524.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1511.404}, "reply_to": "20430__0_127", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20430__0_129", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Yes, it's possible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1524.871], "stop_times": [1525.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1524.871}, "reply_to": "20430__0_128", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_130", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "But the board doesn't have to confront that problem because it continues to enunciate the good faith reasonable doubt standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1525.222], "stop_times": [1532.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1525.222}, "reply_to": "20430__0_129", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20430__0_131", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "That's right, and doesn't give me the benefit of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1532.268], "stop_times": [1533.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1532.268}, "reply_to": "20430__0_130", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_132", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "And part of your complaint is that it enunciates it so that it can't be challenged in principle, but that on the facts, it doesn't apply it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1533.921], "stop_times": [1540.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1533.921}, "reply_to": "20430__0_131", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20430__0_133", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "That's correct, and commentator Joan Flynn, who's been cited by both parties as, you know, a person who's written extensively on this subject and who was cited by the Court in the Curtin Matheson case, says exactly that, that they do not... do not apply the good faith reasonable doubt standard in any way, in any common sense way, and apply it to a head count standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1540.745], "stop_times": [1564.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1540.745}, "reply_to": "20430__0_132", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_134", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Though they continue to enunciate it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1564.09], "stop_times": [1565.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1564.09}, "reply_to": "20430__0_133", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20430__0_135", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Exactly.\nBut in response to your question, what... it seems to me internally inconsistent if you continue to allow a withdrawal of recognition without a vote.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1565.88, 1567.082], "stop_times": [1567.082, 1582.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1565.88}, "reply_to": "20430__0_134", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_136", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "I mean, there we have Justice Souter.\nSo he says, well, you know, they don't care, the board, which route of the three you take.\nThey don't care.\nThey find them all disruptive to labor relations, and some employers will want to do the one, some will want to do the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1582.143, 1584.524, 1589.268, 1590.179], "stop_times": [1584.524, 1589.268, 1590.179, 1596.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1582.143}, "reply_to": "20430__0_135", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20430__0_137", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "But if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1596.272], "stop_times": [1597.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1596.272}, "reply_to": "20430__0_136", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_138", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Each route has different consequences for the employer.\nSome employers would think, we'll take a poll first.\nWe want to be very careful.\nWe don't want to get the union to hate us.\nOthers will think, I'm just going to bargain.\nI don't care whether they hate us or not.\nThat's up to the employer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1597.284, 1599.324, 1603.018, 1604.16, 1606.063, 1608.985, 1610.266], "stop_times": [1599.324, 1603.018, 1604.16, 1606.063, 1608.985, 1610.266, 1612.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1597.284}, "reply_to": "20430__0_137", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20430__0_139", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Well, let me tell you what the board explains as... in its own brief, which is that many employers, as you said, acting in good faith, and wishing to convey that good faith to their employees, would not wish to withdraw recognition from a union unless they could first confirm whether or not the union in fact lacks majority support, and... right, and polling is one method of making that determination.\nThat's exactly what I did here.\nIt's exactly what I did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1612.308, 1635.736, 1636.864], "stop_times": [1635.736, 1636.864, 1639.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1612.308}, "reply_to": "20430__0_138", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_140", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "So your real complaint is, you had the good faith reasonable doubt, and they found that you didn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1639.154], "stop_times": [1643.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1639.154}, "reply_to": "20430__0_139", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20430__0_141", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "They didn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1643.469], "stop_times": [1644.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1643.469}, "reply_to": "20430__0_140", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_142", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "That's your complaint.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1644.06], "stop_times": [1644.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1644.06}, "reply_to": "20430__0_141", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20430__0_143", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--They didn't find I didn't have good faith doubt.\nThey found that I didn't have... I found six people that said individually I don't want the union, or seven.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1644.571, 1646.453], "stop_times": [1646.453, 1653.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1644.571}, "reply_to": "20430__0_142", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_144", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1653.779], "stop_times": [1654.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1653.779}, "reply_to": "20430__0_143", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20430__0_145", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "And ignored... crediting but ignoring any weight--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1654.089], "stop_times": [1657.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1654.089}, "reply_to": "20430__0_144", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_146", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "But are we supposed to in this Court, even assuming the lower courts were all wrong and so forth, simply conduct a review of the record to decide whether that finding is or is not justified on the basis of the record?\nI thought in Universal Camera Justice Frankfurter said two cases on something, two lower courts on cases like that, that's enough, even if they're wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1657.362, 1667.588], "stop_times": [1667.588, 1674.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1657.362}, "reply_to": "20430__0_145", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20430__0_147", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--I think... I think this Court has the right and the obligation to say that good faith doubt articulated by the board must be applied--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1674.954], "stop_times": [1682.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1674.954}, "reply_to": "20430__0_146", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_148", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Would we then have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1682.967], "stop_times": [1683.218], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1682.967}, "reply_to": "20430__0_147", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20430__0_149", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--fairly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1683.218], "stop_times": [1683.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1683.218}, "reply_to": "20430__0_148", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_150", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--we have to overturn Justice Frankfurter in Universal Camera, who says on substantial doubt questions you get two... you get the court of appeals, they're going to forever make these kinds of determinations, we're not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1683.668], "stop_times": [1694.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1683.668}, "reply_to": "20430__0_149", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20430__0_151", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "No, of course not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1694.437], "stop_times": [1695.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1694.437}, "reply_to": "20430__0_150", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_152", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Mr. Shawe, maybe I don't remember the record right, but I thought that the ALJ had said, but even if it's that lower standard that the other courts--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1695.107], "stop_times": [1705.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1695.107}, "reply_to": "20430__0_151", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20430__0_153", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "You wouldn't find enough.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1705.935], "stop_times": [1707.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1705.935}, "reply_to": "20430__0_152", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_154", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--That... I don't even find that low threshold.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1707.425], "stop_times": [1710.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1707.425}, "reply_to": "20430__0_153", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20430__0_155", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Correct, and the reason that he didn't find a low threshold, and the board articulated the same thing, is that they only considered it in conjunction with the six or seven that were specific articulations of union disaffection, and in either case, the high threshold or the low threshold, no one is contending that six or seven is enough for anything, and what they've done in the high threshold and the low threshold, the board and the ALJ, is to ignore completely what weight to attach to Mr. Mohr or to the other statements to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1710.628], "stop_times": [1741.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1710.628}, "reply_to": "20430__0_154", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_156", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Nuechterlein.\nI think you've answered the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1741.809, 1743.149], "stop_times": [1743.149, 1744.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1741.809}, "reply_to": "20430__0_155", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20430__0_157", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1744.31], "stop_times": [1744.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1744.31}, "reply_to": "20430__0_156", "speaker": "stephen_d_shawe"}
{"id": "20430__0_158", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Not Mr. Nuechterlein, Mr. Shawe.\nMr. Nuechterlein, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1744.641, 1746.494], "stop_times": [1746.494, 1748.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1744.641}, "reply_to": "20430__0_157", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20430__1_000", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nAs Justice Breyer has suggested, once employers have decided to engage in collective bargaining and have settled on a union to represent them, the National Labor Relations Act prescribes only two ways of testing whether that union continues to command majority support.\nFirst, the employees themselves whose interests are most directly at stake here may, upon a showing of interest by 30 percent of the bargaining unit, petition the board to hold a decertification election.\nAlternatively, the employer may itself petition the board to hold an election if it can present a reasonable, solid basis for believing that the union has lost--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1748.845, 1751.756, 1766.476, 1777.165], "stop_times": [1751.756, 1766.476, 1777.165, 1785.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1748.845}, "reply_to": "20430__0_158", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_001", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Yes, but the board also allows an employer to call an election, call a... take a poll if the employer has a reasonable doubt--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1785.309], "stop_times": [1794.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1785.309}, "reply_to": "20430__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20430__1_002", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1794.276], "stop_times": [1795.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1794.276}, "reply_to": "20430__1_001", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_003", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--about the employee support.\nI think that's what we're talking about.\nThe board seems to articulate as its standard here, and maybe it doesn't have to set that standard, but it purports to say a reasonable doubt will suffice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1795.365, 1796.847, 1798.189], "stop_times": [1796.847, 1798.189, 1810.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1795.365}, "reply_to": "20430__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20430__1_004", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1810.526], "stop_times": [1810.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1810.526}, "reply_to": "20430__1_003", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_005", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "But in fact it is in practice asking for something more than that.\nThat's what troubles me, and there is an unbroken line of cases where the board, although mouthing some reasonable doubt standard is, in fact, calling for something more.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1810.787, 1816.811], "stop_times": [1816.811, 1829.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1810.787}, "reply_to": "20430__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20430__1_006", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1829.35], "stop_times": [1830.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1829.35}, "reply_to": "20430__1_005", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_007", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "They have to know the answer by a head count before they say it will justify polling the employees, and it's just such a bizarre case here, where, in fact, the poll shows of course there was a reasonable doubt.\nThere was more than that.\nThere wasn't any support.\nSo I mean, it's just a very strange posture.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1830.702, 1847.603, 1848.555, 1849.906], "stop_times": [1847.603, 1848.555, 1849.906, 1854.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1830.702}, "reply_to": "20430__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20430__1_008", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, I have a couple of answers to your question.\nFirst, I think it's important to recognize that the term, reasonable doubt, does not mean here what it would mean in the criminal law context.\nThe board develops its policies and process--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1854.29, 1857.422, 1863.927], "stop_times": [1857.422, 1863.927, 1867.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1854.29}, "reply_to": "20430__1_007", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_009", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "The board is using it like beyond a reasonable doubt.\n[Laughter]\nI thought the standard was, a reasonable doubt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1867.26, 1869.27, 1869.54], "stop_times": [1869.27, 1869.54, 1872.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1867.26}, "reply_to": "20430__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20430__1_010", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--To the contrary, Justice O'Connor.\nThe board's standard means the employer must have a solid, reasonable basis for believing that the union has lost majority support.\nThe board is not using the term doubt here to mean uncertainty.\nIt is using that term to mean disbelief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1872.673, 1874.065, 1881.4, 1885.063], "stop_times": [1874.065, 1881.4, 1885.063, 1887.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1872.673}, "reply_to": "20430__1_009", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_011", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "I see.\nThe words mean whatever the board chooses them to mean.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1887.764, 1888.325], "stop_times": [1888.325, 1891.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1887.764}, "reply_to": "20430__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20430__1_012", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "I... I'd be... the board--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1891.289], "stop_times": [1893.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1891.289}, "reply_to": "20430__1_011", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_013", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "I mean, a reasonable doubt means he is doubtful for good reason whether the board... whether the union has majority status.\nWhat else could it possibly mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1893.751, 1900.265], "stop_times": [1900.265, 1901.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1893.751}, "reply_to": "20430__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20430__1_014", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Justice Scalia, the board has to develop its policies in the course of adjudication, and in the course of adjudication I think the board has been quite candid that this is a tough standard and is difficult to meet.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1901.515], "stop_times": [1912.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1901.515}, "reply_to": "20430__1_013", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_015", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "So it is not a reasonable doubt standard, then.\nThe board speaks English, doesn't it?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1912.094, 1914.408, 1915.647], "stop_times": [1914.408, 1915.647, 1916.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1912.094}, "reply_to": "20430__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20430__1_016", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Justice... Mr. Chief Justice, the term doubt does have two different meanings.\nOne of them means vague uncertainty, and that is the way in which we use it in the criminal law context.\nI think the board has been quite clear that that's not what it means when it uses the term.\nHere, doubt means disbelief, and what the employer has to show is a solid basis for believing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1916.378, 1921.072, 1925.527, 1928.829], "stop_times": [1921.072, 1925.527, 1928.829, 1933.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1916.378}, "reply_to": "20430__1_015", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_017", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Doubt... I simply don't understand the... your statement that doubt means disbelief.\nDoubt may lead to a state of mind that further investigation would produce disbelief, but doubt I don't think anywhere is equated with disbelief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1933.891, 1940.385], "stop_times": [1940.385, 1948.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1933.891}, "reply_to": "20430__1_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20430__1_018", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--I... I... this is how the board uses the term--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1948.49], "stop_times": [1951.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1948.49}, "reply_to": "20430__1_017", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_019", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1951.383], "stop_times": [1951.593], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1951.383}, "reply_to": "20430__1_018", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20430__1_020", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--and, to the extent it's become a term of art, it's not confusing to anyone because the board is quite candid about the rigor of the standard that it applies here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1951.593], "stop_times": [1958.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1951.593}, "reply_to": "20430__1_019", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_021", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--All right, well, even if we accepted that, that doubt means disbelief, good faith, reasonable disbelief, is the only way you can have good faith, reasonable disbelief to conduct a head count?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1958.087], "stop_times": [1971.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1958.087}, "reply_to": "20430__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20430__1_022", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1971.616], "stop_times": [1972.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1971.616}, "reply_to": "20430__1_021", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_023", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Good faith and reasonable.\nYou have the shop steward who comes in and says, jeez, you know, I don't think there's majority support for you.\nI disbelieve whether this union has majority support.\nIt seems to me it is in good faith.\nIt seems to me it is entirely reasonable, and yet the board says, no, that's no good, you have to do a head count.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1972.858, 1973.959, 1977.869, 1981.452, 1983.205], "stop_times": [1973.959, 1977.869, 1981.452, 1983.205, 1988.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1972.858}, "reply_to": "20430__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20430__1_024", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--What the board requires--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1988.13], "stop_times": [1989.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1988.13}, "reply_to": "20430__1_023", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_025", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Disbelief doesn't get you to that, it seems to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1989.081], "stop_times": [1991.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1989.081}, "reply_to": "20430__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20430__1_026", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--It does in the following sense.\nWhat the board requires is the employer to show good, hard evidence, whether through a head count or through probative circumstantial evidence that the union has, in fact, lost majority support.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [1991.012, 1992.892], "stop_times": [1992.892, 2002.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1991.012}, "reply_to": "20430__1_025", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_027", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Then you're talking about something other than good faith, reasonable disbelief.\nI think the employer in this case surely... surely must have had good faith reasonable disbelief on the basis of the evidence that was introduced here, but you say no, we cannot use this evidence, because the only evidence we'll use is a head count.\nWell, maybe we've got to do a different standard.\nStop calling it good faith reasonable disbelief, and maybe... or, even worse, good faith reasonable doubt, and maybe that new standard you come up with will be litigated in court to see whether the policies of the National Labor Relations Act allow a union to continue in place on the basis of your new standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2002.668, 2006.502, 2019.999, 2021.601], "stop_times": [2006.502, 2019.999, 2021.601, 2040.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2002.668}, "reply_to": "20430__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20430__1_028", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "I've two responses, Justice Scalia.\nFirst, the board does not require a head count.\nWe've enumerated a number of cases in our brief in which the board has relied upon probative--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2040.415, 2042.328, 2044.698], "stop_times": [2042.328, 2044.698, 2048.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2040.415}, "reply_to": "20430__1_027", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_029", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Well, give me any case since 1984 where the evidence, other than express repudiations by a majority of the employees, supported a reasonable doubt standard in the board's view.\nAny case since '84.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2048.821, 2063.512], "stop_times": [2063.512, 2065.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2048.821}, "reply_to": "20430__1_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20430__1_030", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Well, in 1993 the board again reaffirmed its prior precedent and continues to reaffirm those pre-1985 cases.\nI'm not personally aware of any cases since 1984 in which that has happened, but the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2065.114, 2071.799], "stop_times": [2071.799, 2076.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2065.114}, "reply_to": "20430__1_029", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_031", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "In fact, it just applies some other standard.\nIt... that's not... that's not reasonable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2076.734, 2079.766], "stop_times": [2079.766, 2084.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2076.734}, "reply_to": "20430__1_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20430__1_032", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2084.018], "stop_times": [2084.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2084.018}, "reply_to": "20430__1_031", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_033", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "The board has to be up front about what it's doing, and it's not.\nIt adheres to this reasonable doubt standard but applies a different standard.\nWhat purpose at all would employer have to try to conduct an employee poll if the standard is exactly the same in practice as for unilateral withdrawal of recognition by the employer?\nThat in fact is what's going on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2084.257, 2088.623, 2093.795, 2106.844], "stop_times": [2088.623, 2093.795, 2106.844, 2109.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2084.257}, "reply_to": "20430__1_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20430__1_034", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--The... there are two answers to that.\nOne is, first, acknowledging that this is a term of art, just as actual malice is a term of art.\nThe board I think has been quite candid over time about how tough the standard is to meet, but remember that the important question here is whether the board's standard is rational, and all that it takes for the standard to be rational is that there be circumstances in which some employers might profit from taking a poll even if they did meet the evidence for a standard for withdrawal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2109.285, 2111.696, 2117.722], "stop_times": [2111.696, 2117.722, 2134.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2109.285}, "reply_to": "20430__1_033", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_035", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "But the board--\n--Well, why... what is it that gives the board the authority to prevent an employer from taking a poll unless it meets his conditions?\nI mean, aren't there First Amendment problems there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2134.805, 2135.096, 2143.541], "stop_times": [2135.096, 2143.541, 2145.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2134.805}, "reply_to": "20430__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20430__1_036", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Well, the board has determined that polling is sufficiently disruptive that it is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2145.281], "stop_times": [2150.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2145.281}, "reply_to": "20430__1_035", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_037", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "So the employer cannot... is forbidden from asking his employees whether they want to continue to support a union?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2150.135], "stop_times": [2155.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2150.135}, "reply_to": "20430__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20430__1_038", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--That is something that the National Labor Relations Act places principally on the employees.\nIt is their principal role to look after their own interests, and if they want to throw off the union, they themselves have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2155.648, 2160.081], "stop_times": [2160.081, 2165.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2155.648}, "reply_to": "20430__1_037", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_039", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Well, does the National Labor Relations Act supersede the First Amendment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2165.607], "stop_times": [2168.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2165.607}, "reply_to": "20430__1_038", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20430__1_040", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--I don't understand there, first of all, to be a First Amendment issue in this case, because petitioners have never raised it at any point in these proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2168.101], "stop_times": [2174.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2168.101}, "reply_to": "20430__1_039", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_041", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2174.295], "stop_times": [2174.613], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2174.295}, "reply_to": "20430__1_040", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20430__1_042", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "But beyond that, in Gissel Packing this Court pointed out there are special concerns that exist in the workplace that forbid--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2174.613], "stop_times": [2180.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2174.613}, "reply_to": "20430__1_041", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_043", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Well, the free... the commercial free speech doctrine was a good deal different in 1968, or whenever it was that Gissel Packing came down, and the way it is today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2180.747], "stop_times": [2190.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2180.747}, "reply_to": "20430__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20430__1_044", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Well, I think that the basic premise of Gissel continues to be true.\nIn the workplace certain forms of speech may be subject to Government regulation that could not be subject to such regulation in the outside world.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2190.123, 2193.246], "stop_times": [2193.246, 2199.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2190.123}, "reply_to": "20430__1_043", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_045", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Sure, and maybe... maybe a court would hold that it is reasonable, given the need for industrial peace and so forth, not to let an employe conduct a poll, although normally you would think people can ask people questions and get answers.\nThat's the way this society works, by virtue of the First Amendment.\nBut it's reasonable to prevent the employer from disrupting industrial peace unless he has a good faith reasonable doubt about the union's majority status.\nThat's quite possible, and perhaps for that reason the board has gone along with this, but in fact it is not using a good faith reasonable doubt.\nIf it is using another standard, it ought to enunciate that standard so we can see whether that standard complies with the necessity for industrial peace and with the First Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2199.6, 2212.449, 2215.732, 2226.389, 2234.384], "stop_times": [2212.449, 2215.732, 2226.389, 2234.384, 2243.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2199.6}, "reply_to": "20430__1_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20430__1_046", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Again, Justice Scalia, the substance of the standard has to be understood in the context of how it's applied, and I don't think the board has--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2243.129], "stop_times": [2249.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2243.129}, "reply_to": "20430__1_045", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_047", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Can you give us the board, in the board's own words, something more than this formula, good faith reasonable disbelief, some place, some statement by the board where it spells out what it means?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2249.404], "stop_times": [2260.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2249.404}, "reply_to": "20430__1_046", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20430__1_048", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--The board has in past cases described its standard as rigorous, as stringent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2260.682], "stop_times": [2265.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2260.682}, "reply_to": "20430__1_047", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_049", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Just by using those words, not telling us in any more detail, what exactly those words mean.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2265.356], "stop_times": [2272.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2265.356}, "reply_to": "20430__1_048", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20430__1_050", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Well, to be sure, I mean, in this context no matter what the standard the board picks, that standard is going to be fact-specific in its application, and it's not possible to give a global explanation for how it's applied in every case.\nSometimes a head count is enough, sometimes it's required because the employer has no especially probative circumstantial evidence in order to make its case, but the board has also reaffirmed circumstantial evidence is available as a basis for establishing this evidentiary predicate in some cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2272.949, 2282.647], "stop_times": [2282.647, 2298.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2272.949}, "reply_to": "20430__1_049", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_051", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Why was--\n--The board has recognized the utility of informal polls, has it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2298.349, 2299.03], "stop_times": [2299.03, 2304.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2298.349}, "reply_to": "20430__1_050", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20430__1_052", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "It has.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2304.793], "stop_times": [2305.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2304.793}, "reply_to": "20430__1_051", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_053", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Well, it seems to me somewhat inconsistent to say that you can't conduct a poll until you know the answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2305.504], "stop_times": [2311.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2305.504}, "reply_to": "20430__1_052", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20430__1_054", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "First--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2311.197], "stop_times": [2312.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2311.197}, "reply_to": "20430__1_053", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_055", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "And then it seems to me that's the way that you've been applying it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2312.356], "stop_times": [2315.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2312.356}, "reply_to": "20430__1_054", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20430__1_056", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--I want to address the premise of your question, because I think it's very important here.\nEven if the board's standard is quite high, it is nonetheless the case that often an employer, even if he thinks he has a head count, will nonetheless want to take a poll to confirm what he believes he knows.\nRemember that... this case is a good illustration of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2315.208, 2318.671, 2331.14], "stop_times": [2318.671, 2331.14, 2333.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2315.208}, "reply_to": "20430__1_055", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_057", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Well, just as an evidentiary matter to protect himself against the board?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2333.333], "stop_times": [2336.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2333.333}, "reply_to": "20430__1_056", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20430__1_058", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Not just that.\nI think the board is entitled to believe that many employers act in good faith and want to know truly what their employees believe, and also want to give those employees a sense of involvement in that employer's unilateral decision whether or not to withdraw recommendation later.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2336.345, 2336.926], "stop_times": [2336.926, 2350.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2336.345}, "reply_to": "20430__1_057", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_059", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "So this is kind of a purging exercise.\nIt's not an informative exercise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2350.575, 2353.225], "stop_times": [2353.225, 2355.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2350.575}, "reply_to": "20430__1_058", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20430__1_060", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "No, I think it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2355.268], "stop_times": [2355.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2355.268}, "reply_to": "20430__1_059", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_061", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "It's just a way for the employer to objectively demonstrate that it has goodwill toward the employees.\nIs that the point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2355.759, 2362.311], "stop_times": [2362.311, 2363.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2355.759}, "reply_to": "20430__1_060", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20430__1_062", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2363.373], "stop_times": [2363.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2363.373}, "reply_to": "20430__1_061", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_063", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "I thought the point was that it is a truly informative one so that the employer is not subjected to unfair labor practice when it takes the further step of withdrawing recognition, which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2363.984], "stop_times": [2374.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2363.984}, "reply_to": "20430__1_062", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20430__1_064", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2374.049], "stop_times": [2374.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2374.049}, "reply_to": "20430__1_063", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_065", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--it ought to do if, in fact, the union does not represent a majority of employees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2374.219], "stop_times": [2380.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2374.219}, "reply_to": "20430__1_064", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20430__1_066", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Justice Kennedy, I think polling serves both of those purposes when it's cabined to the narrow circumstances in which it's particularly likely to reveal a loss of majority support for the union.\nIt is... it both gives employees a sense of involvement in the employer's later decision, but also it serves an informational purpose.\nThink of this case.\nThe information that this employer got about the views of his employees came in over time through weeks and months through disparate sources, sometimes second or third hand.\nAlso, employers realize that employee support for a union is not static, and employee support for a union may fluctuate over time.\nThat employer, if he's acting in good faith and wants to know what his employees really believe, will want to schedule polls so that they can think about the issue with cooler heads and then get together on one day and decide whether or not they want to keep the union.\nThat is so even if the board's requirement requires a head count, which is something that we claim it does not do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2380.674, 2389.32, 2396.265, 2397.306, 2407.452, 2414.448, 2426.786], "stop_times": [2389.32, 2396.265, 2397.306, 2407.452, 2414.448, 2426.786, 2432.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2380.674}, "reply_to": "20430__1_065", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_067", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Well, I suppose I am troubled by the idea that the standard is the same for a poll and withdrawal of recognition.\nPetitioner's counsel doesn't seem to give me much help there.\nIt does seem to me that, from the standpoint of a sensible interpretation of the act, when we're concerned with having the least disruption of the employee-union relation, that the polls are not treated differently.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2432.472, 2439.004, 2442.236], "stop_times": [2439.004, 2442.236, 2455.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2432.472}, "reply_to": "20430__1_066", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20430__1_068", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Well, remember the act says nothing about either polling or unilateral withdrawals of recognition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2455.386], "stop_times": [2459.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2455.386}, "reply_to": "20430__1_067", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_069", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Well, but we've established that the board has found... I think you've indicated that there is a utility to that device.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2459.99], "stop_times": [2465.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2459.99}, "reply_to": "20430__1_068", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20430__1_070", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "There is utility to the device, but the employer also if he wants to avoid litigation is free on the same showing to request what's called an RM election, which is a board-sponsored election that the employer requests, but the backdrop of all of this is that the act places on the employees and not on the employer the primary responsibility to take the initiative to decide whether they still support the union that they themselves have chosen.\nThat is what industrial stability requires.\nIt's the employees who picked this union and, over time, it's the employees who have the primary responsibility for determining whether or not they should stick with it.\nIt is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2465.904, 2488.978, 2491.53, 2498.385], "stop_times": [2488.978, 2491.53, 2498.385, 2498.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2465.904}, "reply_to": "20430__1_069", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_071", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Well, that may be, but the board has nonetheless articulated this policy, and we have to determine whether it's being applied rationally or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2498.716], "stop_times": [2509.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2498.716}, "reply_to": "20430__1_070", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20430__1_072", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--That is correct, and my--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2509.412], "stop_times": [2510.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2509.412}, "reply_to": "20430__1_071", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_073", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Now, what is the status of the Chelsea Industries case that's pending before the board?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2510.063], "stop_times": [2516.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2510.063}, "reply_to": "20430__1_072", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20430__1_074", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--It's my understanding that that's still pending.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2516.859], "stop_times": [2518.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2516.859}, "reply_to": "20430__1_073", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_075", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "How many months--\n--And we were hearing quotes read from the general counsel's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2518.097, 2519.98], "stop_times": [2519.98, 2523.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2518.097}, "reply_to": "20430__1_074", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20430__1_076", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2523.453], "stop_times": [2526.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2523.453}, "reply_to": "20430__1_075", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_077", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--representations to the board in that case, which do seem somewhat contrary to what you're telling us here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2526.024], "stop_times": [2531.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2526.024}, "reply_to": "20430__1_076", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20430__1_078", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Well, the general counsel has asked the board to abolish the policy permitting employers to unilaterally withdraw recognition from the union, and so what's he's proposing is an altogether different scheme.\nWhat petitioners are proposing is that the board keep its current standard and also be subject to a different substantive standard for polling, but our submission is that so long as the board permits both unilateral withdrawals of recognition and polling, the only requirement is that there be some marginal utility to polling.\nIt is true that the board could altogether abolish polling if it wanted to do that, but I acknowledge that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2531.978, 2543.105, 2562.607], "stop_times": [2543.105, 2562.607, 2566.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2531.978}, "reply_to": "20430__1_077", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_079", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Which is what has been recommended, and how long has this Chelsea case been pending before the board, where this rethinking in this area has been proposed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2566.64], "stop_times": [2574.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2566.64}, "reply_to": "20430__1_078", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20430__1_080", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--I'm not sure of the answer to that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2574.404], "stop_times": [2576.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2574.404}, "reply_to": "20430__1_079", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_081", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "It's over a year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2576.347], "stop_times": [2577.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2576.347}, "reply_to": "20430__1_080", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20430__1_082", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "I know that it's been pending since last spring when we filed for opposition.\nI don't know how long before then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2577.446, 2579.419], "stop_times": [2579.419, 2580.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2577.446}, "reply_to": "20430__1_081", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_083", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "And you have no indication of when it would be decided.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2580.659], "stop_times": [2585.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2580.659}, "reply_to": "20430__1_082", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20430__1_084", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "I do not, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2585.944], "stop_times": [2587.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2585.944}, "reply_to": "20430__1_083", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_085", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "You said in your brief that if the Court disagrees with your position that this is all right just to approve what the board has ruled, that we should remand to let the board do what?\nWhat would happen in this case?\nThat's what... I didn't follow your argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2587.214, 2601.742, 2603.525], "stop_times": [2601.742, 2603.525, 2605.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2587.214}, "reply_to": "20430__1_084", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20430__1_086", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Well, ordinarily when a court determines that an agency's administrative scheme is irrational, the proper course is to remand to the agency to determine what would be a rational scheme in the first instance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2605.274], "stop_times": [2617.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2605.274}, "reply_to": "20430__1_085", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_087", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "But if... but as far as this particular employer is concerned, if that employer was subjected to an irrational scheme, then there is no unfair labor practice.\nAm I missing something?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2617.624, 2626.84], "stop_times": [2626.84, 2628.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2617.624}, "reply_to": "20430__1_086", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20430__1_088", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "I'm not sure that's true in the context of adjudication, as this Court pointed out in Bell Aerospace.\nIt is permissible for the board to adopt its policies through the vehicle-specific cases, and it would be the board's role in the first instance, as this Court pointed out in Food Store Employees, to determine whether any new policy could fairly be applied retrospectively to these petitioners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2628.57, 2633.004], "stop_times": [2633.004, 2649.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2628.57}, "reply_to": "20430__1_087", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_089", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "May I just go back to something specific for a second?\nI... now, the petitioner's Exhibit A is the treatment of Mohr's testimony here.\nI meant to ask this question to your colleague.\nAt the time Mohr made his statement, which the board discounted, was there a question as to whether Mohr would be hired, whether he would be among the 32, or whether he would be let go?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2649.904, 2653.918, 2658.98, 2664.875], "stop_times": [2653.918, 2658.98, 2664.875, 2677.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2649.904}, "reply_to": "20430__1_088", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20430__1_090", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "The record is unclear on that.\nI think that the answer is yes, there is a question about that.\nAs I understand the sequence of events there were two different conversations that the ALJ relied on when discussing Mohr's statements.\nThe first was his conversation with petitioner's president, Mr. Dwyer.\nThe second was a conversation Mr. Mohr had with the supervisor in the course of an interview.\nI think that is the correct order.\nIt was in the course of that first conversation that Mr. Mohr gave what petitioners claim was the evidentiary showing that reached the standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2677.614, 2679.494, 2681.907, 2689.804, 2694.048, 2698.812, 2700.112], "stop_times": [2679.494, 2681.907, 2689.804, 2694.048, 2698.812, 2700.112, 2709.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2677.614}, "reply_to": "20430__1_089", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_091", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Yes.\nOf course, the board didn't discount it on that basis though, did it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2709.839, 2710.059], "stop_times": [2710.059, 2712.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2709.839}, "reply_to": "20430__1_090", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20430__1_092", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "It did not, although I think it is fair to say that the board pointed out that with respect to Mohr's statements in the second interview it was important to consider both that this was, in fact, a successorship situation where employees may in fact feel insecure about their future state, status in the company, and also in the job interview that Mohr had he was told by the supervisor that the company would be nonunion.\nThat is in the ALJ's opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2712.601, 2736.958], "stop_times": [2736.958, 2738.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2712.601}, "reply_to": "20430__1_091", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_093", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Yes.\nCan an employer... in this period of time after the contract bar is over and so forth, can an employer ask an employee whether he favors the union or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2738.46, 2738.73], "stop_times": [2738.73, 2750.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2738.46}, "reply_to": "20430__1_092", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20430__1_094", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "The... as a general matter the board's policy would prohibit an employer from walking up to employees point blank and asking them directly whether they still support the union.\nThere is a case law on this, and in some circumstances the board will not find that to be an unfair labor practice if there are particular reasons to think that, for example, it's just a casual remark and no harm is done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2750.037, 2760.863], "stop_times": [2760.863, 2773.761], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2750.037}, "reply_to": "20430__1_093", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_095", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "So the only way in which the employer can, in fact, take any action is if he has objective evidence, objective evidence that what, that a majority of employees no longer support the union, but they haven't asked the board anything about it.\nIs that what the test is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2773.761, 2792.104], "stop_times": [2792.104, 2794.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2773.761}, "reply_to": "20430__1_094", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20430__1_096", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2794.405], "stop_times": [2794.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2794.405}, "reply_to": "20430__1_095", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_097", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "What is the test, actually?\nI'm a little worried.\nWhat is the test?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2794.786, 2796.218, 2797.157], "stop_times": [2796.218, 2797.157, 2797.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2794.786}, "reply_to": "20430__1_096", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20430__1_098", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Well, again, the test--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2797.648], "stop_times": [2798.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2797.648}, "reply_to": "20430__1_097", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_099", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Good faith reasonable doubt.\n[Laughter]\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2798.249, 2799.521, 2800.5], "stop_times": [2799.521, 2800.5, 2801.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2798.249}, "reply_to": "20430__1_098", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20430__1_100", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--What the employer must have is a solid basis for believing the union has lost majority support.\nThey can establish that either through a head count or through--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2801.671, 2806.693], "stop_times": [2806.693, 2808.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2801.671}, "reply_to": "20430__1_099", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_101", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "I thought the board said they had to have a good faith reasonable doubt.\nYou keep articulating the standard as something else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2808.956, 2812.667], "stop_times": [2812.667, 2815.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2808.956}, "reply_to": "20430__1_100", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20430__1_102", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Well, like actual malice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2815.759], "stop_times": [2816.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2815.759}, "reply_to": "20430__1_101", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_103", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "I really thought, and I want you to answer whether I'm correct, that the board's standard is a good faith reasonable doubt.\nNow, are those the words that we use?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2816.84, 2826.037], "stop_times": [2826.037, 2828.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2816.84}, "reply_to": "20430__1_102", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20430__1_104", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Those are the words that the board uses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2828.13], "stop_times": [2830.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2828.13}, "reply_to": "20430__1_103", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_105", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2830.001], "stop_times": [2830.281], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2830.001}, "reply_to": "20430__1_104", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20430__1_106", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "And it is the board's shorthand--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2830.281], "stop_times": [2831.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2830.281}, "reply_to": "20430__1_105", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_107", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "So why do you keep answering as though it's something else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2831.553], "stop_times": [2834.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2831.553}, "reply_to": "20430__1_106", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20430__1_108", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Because what the standard is is determined by how the board applies that standard through the process of adjudication--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2834.903], "stop_times": [2840.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2834.903}, "reply_to": "20430__1_107", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_109", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "And, in fact, the board is in practice applying a different standard.\nThat's what you're telling us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2840.897, 2844.89], "stop_times": [2844.89, 2846.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2840.897}, "reply_to": "20430__1_108", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20430__1_110", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--No.\nThe... I... in other words, the board is not making any pretense of using a liberal standard when, in fact, it has confirmed that this is a rigorous standard and difficult to meet.\nJust like actual malice, the term that the board uses for this test is a shorthand, and people in the industry know what the shorthand means and know how to satisfy it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2846.252, 2846.542, 2856.208], "stop_times": [2846.542, 2856.208, 2864.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2846.252}, "reply_to": "20430__1_109", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_111", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Actual malice came from, you know, 3 or 400 years of common law judges, and it's been cleared up now by a lot of revised statutes, but the board surely can't depend on that sort of an accretion for simply changing the meaning of something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2864.335], "stop_times": [2882.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2864.335}, "reply_to": "20430__1_110", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20430__1_112", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "I agree with that, but these are not statutory words.\nThey are the board's own words and, like other shorthands, they have to be understood through the lens of the board's application of the standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2882.798, 2885.222], "stop_times": [2885.222, 2892.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2882.798}, "reply_to": "20430__1_111", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_113", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "I think--\n--What were you going to say?\nAre... you were going to say about... assuming... or, it's like predatory intent or something.\nThe... it's a fiction.\nAnd then they say that this fiction means doubt, reasonable doubt, but based on... with certainty on objective evidence, so I got that far.\nIt sounds a little difficult, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2892.045, 2892.235, 2892.866, 2897.68, 2899.561, 2910.957], "stop_times": [2892.235, 2892.866, 2897.68, 2899.561, 2910.957, 2912.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2892.045}, "reply_to": "20430__1_112", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20430__1_114", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "No, I don't believe I said certainty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2912.509], "stop_times": [2913.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2912.509}, "reply_to": "20430__1_113", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_115", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Well, but there's some word, certainty in one of their cases, too, but I'm not picking at the standard for a moment.\nI'm trying to figure out how they go about meeting the standard, and you kept talking about a head count.\nWhat is a head count if it's not a poll?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2913.26, 2917.362, 2923.356], "stop_times": [2917.362, 2923.356, 2925.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2913.26}, "reply_to": "20430__1_114", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20430__1_116", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "A head count as petitioners describe it would be evidence that comes in through... perhaps for a long period of time through many disparate sources, sometimes second or third hand, that suggest that particular employees were, at the particular moment that they said something about the union, inclined not to support the union.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2925.997], "stop_times": [2942.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2925.997}, "reply_to": "20430__1_115", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_117", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "So you have to... if you have 18 employees, 10 of them would have to have said, without the employer asking them, we don't want a union any more, but nonetheless there were not even seven of them, or six, that were willing to go to the board to say that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2942.189], "stop_times": [2956.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2942.189}, "reply_to": "20430__1_116", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20430__1_118", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "That is correct, and I think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2956.828], "stop_times": [2958.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2956.828}, "reply_to": "20430__1_117", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_119", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "That's basically the standards.\nThat's a very, very tough standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2958.448, 2959.76], "stop_times": [2959.76, 2961.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2958.448}, "reply_to": "20430__1_118", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20430__1_120", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--It is a tough standard.\nIt's not the same as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2961.603, 2962.722], "stop_times": [2962.722, 2963.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2961.603}, "reply_to": "20430__1_119", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_121", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "All right.\nNow, then the question would be, if it's that tough a standard, what sense does it make to say you have to know that your majority of your employees really have terrific reason for not wanting the union, but you can't ask them for a poll until after you already know it.\nThat's the question I think that some people are asking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2963.413, 2963.613, 2979.074], "stop_times": [2963.613, 2979.074, 2981.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2963.413}, "reply_to": "20430__1_120", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20430__1_122", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Here's why it makes sense.\nIf there's one principle that this Court has observed continuously over the years, it is that we should rely on the employees themselves rather than on their employers to take the initiative in second-guessing whether or not the union that the employees have chosen should continue to exist in the workplace, and it is true that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2981.628, 2982.697], "stop_times": [2982.697, 2999.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2981.628}, "reply_to": "20430__1_121", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_123", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Excuse me.\nWe've said that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [2999.79, 3000.0], "stop_times": [3000.0, 3001.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2999.79}, "reply_to": "20430__1_122", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20430__1_124", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Yes, you have.\nYou... in Auciello and Fall River, in Brooks, this Court has pointed out that the people that we principally rely on to rebut the presumption of continuing majority status are the employees who have chosen this union.\nIn some circumstances the employer may have evidence that would give him the right either of withdrawal recognition, take a poll or conduct an RM election, but there is nothing in the National Labor Relations Act that confers on the employers an additional collateral right to go out and seek more evidence to try to withdraw recognition from a union.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3001.149, 3002.291, 3014.98], "stop_times": [3002.291, 3014.98, 3033.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3001.149}, "reply_to": "20430__1_123", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_125", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Can you--\n--Assuming--\n--in order to retain that option of the unilateral withdrawal and treat it the same way as a poll.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3033.442, 3034.683, 3035.244], "stop_times": [3034.683, 3035.244, 3041.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3033.442}, "reply_to": "20430__1_124", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20430__1_126", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "I... what... the primary question, as I understand your question, is why does the board still permits unilateral withdrawals of recognition, given that you have the RM election device, or is your question something else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3041.649], "stop_times": [3054.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3041.649}, "reply_to": "20430__1_125", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_127", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "And... why does it permit it, and under the same standard as the poll?\nNumber 1, why does it permit it at all, and second, if it permits it, why doesn't it have a much tighter standard for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3054.587, 3058.41], "stop_times": [3058.41, 3064.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3054.587}, "reply_to": "20430__1_126", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20430__1_128", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Well, the answer to your first question is, it's largely a question of historical evolution of the labor laws.\nIt was not until the Taft-Hartley Act of 1948 that there were RM elections and/or that there were decertification elections.\nThose were added by that.\nBefore then, effectively the only way that a union could ever get decertified was if an employer withdrew recognition, and because of that, the board--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3064.316, 3070.378, 3077.874, 3078.575], "stop_times": [3070.378, 3077.874, 3078.575, 3085.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3064.316}, "reply_to": "20430__1_127", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_129", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Gee, I thought it was an unfair labor practice for an employer to continue to bargain with a union that he knows no longer represents the majority.\nCan he continue to deal with a union that he knows is not supported by a majority of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3085.952, 3092.356], "stop_times": [3092.356, 3099.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3085.952}, "reply_to": "20430__1_128", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20430__1_130", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--I'm not aware of a single case in which any employer has been found guilty of a violation of section 882 by virtue of that, because in fact what he has to have is incontrovertible evidence.\nIf he has a doubt about that, though, the important thing is that he can go to the board and seek an RM election if he wants to preserve his rights.\nHe doesn't have to have unilateral action.\nCongress has provided the specific remedy for him.\nThe fact that the board hasn't foreclosed altogether alternative unilateral remedies that the employer might also take doesn't require the board to give a wide birth to those unilateral remedies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3099.479, 3109.127, 3114.942, 3116.462, 3118.693], "stop_times": [3109.127, 3114.942, 3116.462, 3118.693, 3129.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3099.479}, "reply_to": "20430__1_129", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_131", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--But he... but the employer could not have done this on this record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3129.352], "stop_times": [3131.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3129.352}, "reply_to": "20430__1_130", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20430__1_132", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "That is correct.\nOn this record, the proper--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3131.523, 3133.654], "stop_times": [3133.654, 3135.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3131.523}, "reply_to": "20430__1_131", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_133", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "He couldn't have... the employer couldn't do anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3135.626], "stop_times": [3137.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3135.626}, "reply_to": "20430__1_132", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20430__1_134", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--That is correct.\nOn this record the proper people to challenge--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3137.336, 3138.307], "stop_times": [3138.307, 3140.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3137.336}, "reply_to": "20430__1_133", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_135", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Well, you seem to take the position that what's required for unilateral nonrecognition of the union and calling for a poll of the employees is virtually the same thing, and yet in the Auciello case from this Court, which isn't that old, this Court said that the evidence required to demonstrate that a union has lost majority support is greater than that required to assert good faith doubt.\nWe purported to Auciello to lay out what this tripartite framework is and, in fact, it's being applied as a two-part framework.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3140.49, 3172.21], "stop_times": [3172.21, 3185.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3140.49}, "reply_to": "20430__1_134", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20430__1_136", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, the... this Court in Auciello didn't address the difference between the standards required in the withdrawal context and the polling context.\nWhat it addressed are the two standards that permit an employer to take any action, any unilateral action at all, and those are a demonstration of actual loss of majority support, and what the board has called reasonable doubt.\nNo one's arguing about the first of those in this case.\nWhat we're arguing about is whether it's rational for the board to apply the same reasonable doubt standard in the polling context as it is in the withdrawal context, and the reason it's rational is because there are some contexts in which a good faith employer might benefit from taking a poll even if he thinks he has some sketchy information suggesting the majority of employees no longer support the union.\nIn that context, it makes a lot of sense for him just to maintain workplace goodwill to take the poll before going the extra yard and withdrawing recognition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3185.5, 3193.044, 3205.452, 3208.544, 3230.631], "stop_times": [3193.044, 3205.452, 3208.544, 3230.631, 3238.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3185.5}, "reply_to": "20430__1_135", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_137", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Are there restrictions on the holding of elections that are more severe or more onerous than on taking of polls?\nThere's a contract bar rule, for instance.\nAren't... can you take a poll more often than you can have an election?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3238.364, 3246.718, 3249.122], "stop_times": [3246.718, 3249.122, 3253.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3238.364}, "reply_to": "20430__1_136", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20430__1_138", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "There are not the same formal restrictions on repeated polls, but, of course, if the employer takes a poll and it turns out that the union wins, it will require some new development in the workplace for an employer to develop a new reasonable basis--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3253.103], "stop_times": [3266.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3253.103}, "reply_to": "20430__1_137", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_139", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "What are the formal restrictions on elections that do not apply to the informal polls?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3266.163], "stop_times": [3270.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3266.163}, "reply_to": "20430__1_138", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20430__1_140", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--The primary one is the one that you just identified, which is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3270.718], "stop_times": [3273.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3270.718}, "reply_to": "20430__1_139", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_141", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Contract--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3273.94], "stop_times": [3274.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3273.94}, "reply_to": "20430__1_140", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20430__1_142", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--as a statutory matter you may not take a... you may not conduct a new election within 1 year of the prior election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3274.26], "stop_times": [3279.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3274.26}, "reply_to": "20430__1_141", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_143", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--What would the board's result have been if in this case Mohr had said, I have personally and specifically talked to 12 employees.\nThey all say that they would vote against the union today, and I've been around long enough so that I am satisfied that if an election were held today, the majority support for the union would be gone.\nWould that have been enough for the board... would have have been enough for reasonable doubt--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3279.482, 3289.898, 3300.887], "stop_times": [3289.898, 3300.887, 3304.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3279.482}, "reply_to": "20430__1_142", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20430__1_144", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "It's hard for me to speak for the board.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3304.899], "stop_times": [3306.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3304.899}, "reply_to": "20430__1_143", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_145", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--good faith reason?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3306.491], "stop_times": [3306.802], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3306.491}, "reply_to": "20430__1_144", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20430__1_146", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "That would be a different case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3306.802], "stop_times": [3308.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3306.802}, "reply_to": "20430__1_145", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_147", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Based on what it has said, could you answer my question with assurance one way or the other?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3308.442], "stop_times": [3311.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3308.442}, "reply_to": "20430__1_146", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20430__1_148", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "I'm not sure that I could answer your question with assurance one way or the other.\nI do know that the board requires a particularly strong showing of nonsupport for a union, and the board is naturally skeptical to rely on certain kinds of evidence, and reports of colleagues' views in the workplace, and the reason it is is that often when these views trickle up to the employer they are the result of a concerted effort by some of the employees to throw out the union.\nRemember that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3311.825, 3314.696, 3336.03], "stop_times": [3314.696, 3336.03, 3336.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3311.825}, "reply_to": "20430__1_147", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_149", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Well, if the employer can't go out and ask himself, and if the board is skeptical of views retailed by third parties, then what kind of evidence can the employer use?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3336.591], "stop_times": [3349.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3336.591}, "reply_to": "20430__1_148", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20430__1_150", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--Well, again, there will often be the case... there will often be circumstances in which the employer will not have a sufficient evidentiary basis, and that that's the circumstance in which the board has put the burden on the employees to look after their own rights in filing a decertification--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3349.218], "stop_times": [3364.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3349.218}, "reply_to": "20430__1_149", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_151", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Yes, but the board has said we will allow a poll if there's a... the reasonable doubt showing, but certainly there's got to be some counter to it.\nThat can't just be an empty thing, and yet it seems that the board... if it won't allow the employer to go out and ask, and it doesn't accept the kind of evidence that you just referred to, it's almost a fiction to say the employer can ever meet that standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3364.408, 3373.954], "stop_times": [3373.954, 3388.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3364.408}, "reply_to": "20430__1_150", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20430__1_152", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--No, I think it reflects the board's empirical understanding that no union will ever have majority support.\nIn an initial organizing context elections are held and sometimes a sizeable minority of employees don't support the union.\nThose may, in fact, be the very same employees who are... who 1 year later, 2 years later, give reports to the employer that the union has lost majority support, and the board is naturally quite skeptical about the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3388.456, 3393.779, 3399.934], "stop_times": [3393.779, 3399.934, 3410.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3388.456}, "reply_to": "20430__1_151", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_153", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Well, skepticism can go so far, but I doubt, frankly, whether the board could totally say, union cannot be eliminated unless you get 30 percent of the employees to come in and throw it out.\nI think there is at least doubt whether, under the National Labor Relations Act the employer does not have a right to the assurance that at least there's a reasonable probability that the union represents the majority of his employees.\nDon't... is that not a consideration?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3410.719, 3424.707, 3437.217], "stop_times": [3424.707, 3437.217, 3439.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3410.719}, "reply_to": "20430__1_152", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20430__1_154", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "--I think, as this Court has pointed out, that it is appropriate to be skeptical about employer efforts to act as a worker's champion, and that is the board's position.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3439.968, 3448.523], "stop_times": [3448.523, 3450.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3439.968}, "reply_to": "20430__1_153", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20430__1_155", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Nuechterlein.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3450.005, 3450.446], "stop_times": [3450.446, 3451.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3450.005}, "reply_to": "20430__1_154", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20430__1_156", "conversation_id": "20430", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until Monday next at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-795", "start_times": [3451.627], "stop_times": [3457.603], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3451.627}, "reply_to": "20430__1_155", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20309__0_000", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 96-6839, Hugo Roman Almendarez Torres v. The United States.\nMr. Fleury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [0.0, 11.119], "stop_times": [11.119, 55.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20309__0_001", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nTitle 8, section 1326(a), provides for a 2-year maximum penalty if these facts are proved: 1) a deportation, and 2) a reentry without a deport... without permission.\nTitle 8, 1326(b)(2), on the other hand, sets a punishment of up to 20 years if these facts are proven: 1) a deportation, 2) a reentry without permission, and 3) an aggravated felony conviction which occurred prior to the deportation.\nThe issue presented is, did Congress intend for 1326(b) to be a sentence provision or a separate offense?\nThe starting point, of course, is the plain language of the statute.\nThere are three very important factors which plainly indicate that subsection (b) incorporates by reference the conduct described in subsection (a) rather than setting forth the sentence for a conviction in subsection (a).\nThe first phrase that helps us is 1326(b).\nIt says... is in 1326(b) which says, in the case of any alien described in such subsection, and then it says, in that case if the person has a prior aggravated felony, he'll be facing a 20-year maximum.\nIt specifically does not say, in the case of any alien convicted in such subsection and, as this Court said in the Sedima case, when Congress intended that the defendant had been previously convicted, it said so by using explicitly words like convicted or conviction.\nHere we have no such word, so what subsection (b) does is incorporate by reference the conduct set forth in subsection (a), that you have to have a deportation and a reentry without permission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [55.137, 58.14, 71.237, 89.228, 97.454, 100.967, 115.786, 120.631, 134.129, 151.709], "stop_times": [58.14, 71.237, 89.228, 97.454, 100.967, 115.786, 120.631, 134.129, 151.709, 163.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 55.137}, "reply_to": "20309__0_000", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_002", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "But you could also say that the person described in subsection (a) shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 2 years or both.\nIt's describing that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [163.287, 171.673], "stop_times": [171.673, 172.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 163.287}, "reply_to": "20309__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20309__0_003", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "That's describing the result of the process, not the person in subsection (a).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [172.995], "stop_times": [178.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 172.995}, "reply_to": "20309__0_002", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_004", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "But it's in subsection (a), is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [178.177], "stop_times": [180.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 178.177}, "reply_to": "20309__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20309__0_005", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "That is in subsection (a), but if you take that clause that I just read, the person described in subsection (a), and you add to it the clause that precedes it, where it says, notwithstanding subsection (a), which the Government itself concedes as a must, that that means despite subsection (a), which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [180.078], "stop_times": [197.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 180.078}, "reply_to": "20309__0_004", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_006", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Well, doesn't that very clause naturally refer to the... to your maximum penalty in (a)--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [197.799], "stop_times": [206.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 197.799}, "reply_to": "20309__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20309__0_007", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--No.\nWhat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [206.457, 206.765], "stop_times": [206.765, 207.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 206.457}, "reply_to": "20309__0_006", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_008", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--Notwithstanding that penalty, here's another penalty if these facts are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [207.196], "stop_times": [211.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 207.196}, "reply_to": "20309__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20309__0_009", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--You have to re add words to the statute to get to that result, which is the opposite--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [211.329], "stop_times": [215.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 211.329}, "reply_to": "20309__0_008", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_010", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--Well, I don't think so.\nI mean, I think it's a pretty normal reading, and I think we're... another factor is that the titles to subsection (b) make reference to penalties, and all the amendments to it refer to penalties.\nThey don't refer to a new separate crime.\nI don't know why those aren't indicators for us that this really is a sentence enhancement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [215.501, 216.012, 231.622, 234.654], "stop_times": [216.012, 231.622, 234.654, 241.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 215.501}, "reply_to": "20309__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20309__0_011", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--First, as to the notwithstanding question, if subsection (b) was to be a penalty or a sentence for subsection (a), it's the opposite word that you would use.\nYou would say, the penalties in subsection (a) are a result of the conviction... I mean, the penalties in subsection (b) are a result of the conviction in subsection (a), not, notwithstanding or despite the conviction in subsection (a).\nIt's the opposite signal one would give to say that (b) flows from or is a result of (a).\nSecondly, as to the word penalty, the word penalty by itself is a very little evidence that what Congress intended was a sentence provision.\nPenalty is the word signifying the result that will occur, not whether or not how you get there is through a trial of an offense, or at a sentence proceeding.\nPenalty and sentence proceeding are not synonymous phrases.\nCongress, when they enacted in 1952 this very statute, 1326, before the (b) part was even thought of, enacted it in Chapter 8 of the Immigration & Nationality Act entitled, penalties.\nThe House report to that statutory provision referred to the 1326(a) as creating a sanction for certain deported aliens.\nThe word penalties is the way anybody would describe the creation of a new criminal law.\nIf you wanted to pass a law against jay walking you would say, I want to make a penalty against jay walking, and you would describe it as such, just as Congress did when they described the car jacking statute.\nIt was under a subtitle called, enhanced penalties for auto theft, or Federal penalties for armed robberies.\nNumerous statutes are found under a heading with penalties.\nIt would be a different thing all together if there was subsection (a), offense, subsection (b), penalty.\nIn 1988, when Congress passed 1326(b), as the Government points out in their brief, the phrase penalty was not added to the statute.\nThat's just in the codification that you see when you pick up a book.\nThat was not a congress... the codifiers added that, not Congress, so the word penalty did not become part of the statute at all, much less... even if it had meaning as a signal as to whether or not it's a sentence provision or an offense.\nAnd third, in the plain language of the statute it would make no sense for the phrase in (b)(1) that you can get up to a 10-year sentence for a felony, and then in parentheses, other than an aggravated felony.\nHow would that make any sense if that's a sentence... if that's just a sentence proceeding, because it would just be a gradation.\nAll of the courts below are uniform in looking at a statute and seeing... if Congress had passed 1326(b) and simply added that language to an already existing 1326(a) right at the end, and just said, shall be guilty of a felony and shall suffer a penalty of up to 10 years, or a term of imprisonment of up to 10 years, and if they have an aggravated felony it will be up to 20 years, or if it's just a felony it will be up to 10 years, that would be a signal that there's a sentence provision for the offense in (a).\nBut making it a separate subsection is deemed by all of the courts that review this as an indicator that it's an offense, especially when it's not section (a) entitled penalties, which it's not.\nThen when we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [241.77, 251.845, 265.733, 270.748, 280.694, 290.12, 293.854, 307.43, 318.858, 325.093, 335.421, 342.146, 346.517, 353.603, 362.528, 365.831, 381.36, 394.639, 400.473, 433.815, 444.722], "stop_times": [251.845, 265.733, 270.748, 280.694, 290.12, 293.854, 307.43, 318.858, 325.093, 335.421, 342.146, 346.517, 353.603, 362.528, 365.831, 381.36, 394.639, 400.473, 433.815, 444.722, 446.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 241.77}, "reply_to": "20309__0_010", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_012", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "I'm not following your argument all... about all of the courts of appeals, because I thought that the Ninth Circuit is the only one interpreting this statute as established in a separate offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [446.833], "stop_times": [456.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 446.833}, "reply_to": "20309__0_011", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20309__0_013", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--My point was that in looking at whether or not something is titled penalties, if it's in a separate subdivision, like in section... 18 U.S.C. section 1091, which says (a), basic offense, (b), penalty for basic offense, then that's a signal that (b) is to be a sentence provision.\nBut where it's all in one section, courts of appeals have said as to that factor, not the end result but as to that factor, that is an indication, if the penalty provision is in the same paragraph as the offense, then it's a sentence for the offense, but if it's separated out into a separate section without a separate title of penalty, then that's an indicator... it may not be dispositive... an indicator that it's meant to create a separate offense.\nSuch as in 2113(d), which is the bank robbery statute, and 2113 sets forth (a) that it's a crime to commit a bank robbery, and you can get up to 20 years.\n(d), if you use a weapon or assault somebody in the course of committing (a), then it's an extra 5 years, and this Court in the Simpson case assumed that was an element, and even though it was... it... just as in this statute incorporated by reference all of the provisions of the previous statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [456.75, 475.032, 500.959, 511.415], "stop_times": [475.032, 500.959, 511.415, 530.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 456.75}, "reply_to": "20309__0_012", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_014", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Mr. Fleury, would you go back over your argument about the parenthetical other than an aggravated felony?\nI didn't follow your--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [530.468, 534.76], "stop_times": [534.76, 536.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 530.468}, "reply_to": "20309__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20309__0_015", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Well, what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [536.112], "stop_times": [536.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 536.112}, "reply_to": "20309__0_014", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_016", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--argument on that.\nThat doesn't suggest anything to me.\nWhat does it suggest to you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [536.863, 537.651, 540.634], "stop_times": [537.651, 540.634, 541.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 536.863}, "reply_to": "20309__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20309__0_017", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--Well, if it was a sentence provision, then it would just say in gradations, (a), if you've got a felony conviction you'll get up to 10 years.\nIf it's an aggravated felony you'll get up to 20 years.\nBut if you put in the word, other than an aggravated felony, it takes care of a due process concern... I mean, a double jeopardy concern.\nYou could only get convicted under (b)(1) or (b)(2), because a felony could fall under both statutes, but if you add the clause, other than an aggravated felony, then you can only be convicted under (b)(1) and not (b)(2), otherwise there's no sense to having that clause in there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [541.625, 548.491, 551.381, 557.426], "stop_times": [548.491, 551.381, 557.426, 569.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 541.625}, "reply_to": "20309__0_016", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_018", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "But you can only be sentenced under (b)(1) or (b)(2) also, under that... as it now stands, as the Government--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [569.454], "stop_times": [575.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 569.454}, "reply_to": "20309__0_017", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20309__0_019", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Yes, but there would be no reason to put... it would... you could only be... you can only get up to 10 years if it was a felony and only up to 20 years if it was an aggravated felony, with or without that clause, but it does satisfy double jeopardy concerns if you view these as offenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [575.608], "stop_times": [587.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 575.608}, "reply_to": "20309__0_018", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_020", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--But the clause could... even if this is a sentencing provision the clause is necessary, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [587.824], "stop_times": [591.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 587.824}, "reply_to": "20309__0_019", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20309__0_021", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "No, it wouldn't be necessary.\nIf my client has a felony and they don't prove it's an aggravated felony, he could only get up to 10 years, whether--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [591.837, 592.929], "stop_times": [592.929, 597.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 591.837}, "reply_to": "20309__0_020", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_022", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Well, but the whole point is they want to distinguish between aggravated and nonaggravated felonies for sentencing purposes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [597.961], "stop_times": [603.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 597.961}, "reply_to": "20309__0_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20309__0_023", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--Sure--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [603.575], "stop_times": [604.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 603.575}, "reply_to": "20309__0_022", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_024", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "So you have to have that parenthetical or something equivalent to it in the... in (b)(1).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [604.406], "stop_times": [609.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 604.406}, "reply_to": "20309__0_023", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20309__0_025", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--I don't think it would be necessary for sentencing concerns, because again, if it's not an aggravated felony it still... it's... if it's an aggravated felony, it would be a felony, and that might raise double jeopardy concerns if these are offenses, which is our view they are, because if it doesn't say other than an aggravated felony, there might... it might not survive the Blockburger test, so... but that is not one of our more important points.\nMore importantly, subsequent enactments indicate clearly that Congress viewed these as creating separate offenses.\nIn... when they created 1326(d), they referred to... when they created 1326(d), they made it crystal clear, because they say that you cannot contest the validity of a deportation order under certain... under (a) or (b)(1).\nWell, if you have a trial, and the Government proves the person has been deported and has reentered subsequent to that deportation, the deportation order issue will already have been resolved by the time you get to a sentence proceeding.\nThere would be no need for Congress to refer to (d)(1), saying you can't contest a deportation order under (b), when they created 1326(d), because the issue would never arise.\nAlso, they... there is no word, deportation order, or order of deportation, in (b)(1) or (b)(2).\nTherefore, that indicates Congress assumed that (a) was incorporated by reference into (b).\nThen they created sections 1326(b)(3) and (b)(4), both of which clearly appeared to be offenses, and they put them in with (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(4), all of which are offenses.\nThey didn't separate those out into a separate subsection from (b)(1) and (b)(2).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [609.609, 631.605, 640.51, 660.092, 671.42, 682.936, 690.523, 695.816, 711.604], "stop_times": [631.605, 640.51, 660.092, 671.42, 682.936, 690.523, 695.816, 711.604, 716.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 609.609}, "reply_to": "20309__0_024", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_026", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Mr. Fleury, would you explain to me the consequences of accepting your position in two respects.\nOne is, there was here, if I have it right, no debate about defendant's prior convictions.\nHe conceded that the recitation of his prior conviction was true and correct.\nSo in light of that, that there was nothing to go to the jury on it, he had a prior conviction, he admitted it, what is the consequence of a reversal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [716.229, 723.643, 733.4, 738.934], "stop_times": [723.643, 733.4, 738.934, 749.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 716.229}, "reply_to": "20309__0_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20309__0_027", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "The consequence of a reversal is a 2-year maximum penalty in this case to my client.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [749.592], "stop_times": [754.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 749.592}, "reply_to": "20309__0_026", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_028", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Because it wasn't in the indictment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [754.984], "stop_times": [755.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 754.984}, "reply_to": "20309__0_027", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20309__0_029", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Because it wasn't in the indictment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [755.983], "stop_times": [757.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 755.983}, "reply_to": "20309__0_028", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_030", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Now, if it had been in the indictment, and given the certainty of the conviction, I... the defendant would end up with two offenses which would place the defendant in jeopardy of a three strikes and you're out, closer to the three, so why is it in defendant's interest to have this as a separate offense rather than an enhancement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [757.846], "stop_times": [784.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 757.846}, "reply_to": "20309__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20309__0_031", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "I'm not... I didn't understand the question with regard to he would be convicted of two offenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [784.254], "stop_times": [789.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 784.254}, "reply_to": "20309__0_030", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_032", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "In other words, if you... you take your case.\nYou say, there are two separate offenses, that merely coming back once you've been thrown out is an offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [789.136, 792.068], "stop_times": [792.068, 797.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 789.136}, "reply_to": "20309__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20309__0_033", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Mm hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [797.701], "stop_times": [797.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 797.701}, "reply_to": "20309__0_032", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_034", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "And then a separate offense is coming back after you've committed a felony, been convicted, and then been deported.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [797.962], "stop_times": [808.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 797.962}, "reply_to": "20309__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20309__0_035", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Subsection (a) would be a lesser included offense of (b) necessarily.\nIt would not survive the Blockburger test because there's no element in (a) that does not also exist in (b), therefore only one conviction could be had, but the value is clear, as the amicus brief indicates, to the defendant.\nMost of the prosecutions under 1326 are in the Ninth Circuit alone.\nThere's... 60 percent of the cases under this statute are in the Ninth Circuit alone, which covers more cases than all of the other circuits combined.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [808.289, 811.492, 823.628, 829.173], "stop_times": [811.492, 823.628, 829.173, 836.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 808.289}, "reply_to": "20309__0_034", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_036", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "But you're telling me that's for sure that you'd end up... on your view of the case you can only have the one conviction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [836.747], "stop_times": [843.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 836.747}, "reply_to": "20309__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20309__0_037", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [843.943], "stop_times": [845.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 843.943}, "reply_to": "20309__0_036", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_038", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "And you would not be convicted separately of (a) and (b), so you wouldn't have two strikes against you, only one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [845.082], "stop_times": [850.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 845.082}, "reply_to": "20309__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20309__0_039", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Correct.\nI think it's a clear application of the Blockburger test, and (a) is a subset of (b), and therefore--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [850.027, 850.395], "stop_times": [850.395, 855.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 850.027}, "reply_to": "20309__0_038", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_040", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Can you tell me if in the plea, the hearings when the judge takes the guilty plea, does the judge in a case with an indictment like this one, which is unclear as to whether it covers both (a) and (b), does the judge routinely ask the defendant about the prior convictions to get that on the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [855.46], "stop_times": [870.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 855.46}, "reply_to": "20309__0_039", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20309__0_041", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--I don't know.\nAll I know in this case, the law in our circuit was clear that... Vasquez Olvera had already been handed down years before, and it was the clear rule in our circuit that my client would be exposed to punishment up to 20 years.\nAll the parties acted on that.\nI... we objected at the sentence hearing as we did.\nWe followed the procedure in Vasquez Olvera.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [870.511, 874.012, 887.2, 888.82, 891.872], "stop_times": [874.012, 887.2, 888.82, 891.872, 893.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 870.511}, "reply_to": "20309__0_040", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_042", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Was it clear at the time of the plea hearing, or at the time of the sentencing hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [893.885], "stop_times": [898.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 893.885}, "reply_to": "20309__0_041", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20309__0_043", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "As to the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [898.807], "stop_times": [900.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 898.807}, "reply_to": "20309__0_042", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_044", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "As I understand the statement of fact... pardon?\nThe statement of facts about his prior history was subsequent to the plea of guilty, wasn't it, or am I wrong on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [900.988, 902.06], "stop_times": [902.06, 907.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 900.988}, "reply_to": "20309__0_043", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20309__0_045", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "There was a... an inclusion in the factual resume which was... which is designed to meet the requirements of the Rule 11 factual basis that he had three prior convictions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [907.233], "stop_times": [917.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 907.233}, "reply_to": "20309__0_044", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_046", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [917.56], "stop_times": [917.971], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 917.56}, "reply_to": "20309__0_045", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20309__0_047", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--some... those convictions.\nIt wasn't explained, or the court did not do a colloquy as if those were elements.\nHe listed the elements being the 1326(a) elements.\nHe didn't ask if he had a prior aggravated felony conviction.\nHe didn't ask whether he had a felony conviction.\nHe just... it was just in the resume.\nThe judge didn't even ask about the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [917.971, 919.571, 924.433, 928.307, 932.571, 934.942, 936.542], "stop_times": [919.571, 924.433, 928.307, 932.571, 934.942, 936.542, 937.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 917.971}, "reply_to": "20309__0_046", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_048", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "It seems to me that... the scenario that I haven't quite thought through is, supposing you have an indictment like this, a colloquy in which the defendant acknowledges he came in, and so forth and so on, and then subsequently the Government learns that there were the three prior convictions before sentencing, and they go into the judge and say, we've just learned that he qualifies under (b) so we want a 20-year sentence.\nThat would be permissible, as I understand it, under the Government's view, and they wouldn't have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.\nThey'd just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [937.934, 956.754, 961.499], "stop_times": [956.754, 961.499, 961.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 937.934}, "reply_to": "20309__0_047", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20309__0_049", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--And they wouldn't have to present it to a grand jury, and I would point out with regard to that, as I said, the Ninth Circuit has the majority of these prosecutions.\nAs the Government itself said in their reply to our cert petition the Government has had no problem complying with the Rule in the Ninth Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [961.93, 968.893], "stop_times": [968.893, 974.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 961.93}, "reply_to": "20309__0_048", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_050", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--Well, the other circuits, other than the Ninth, have all found it to be a sentencing enhancement provision, haven't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [974.746], "stop_times": [981.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 974.746}, "reply_to": "20309__0_049", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20309__0_051", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Yes, they have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [981.752], "stop_times": [982.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 981.752}, "reply_to": "20309__0_050", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_052", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "It's the Ninth is the one circuit that has adopted the view that you espouse here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [982.443], "stop_times": [989.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 982.443}, "reply_to": "20309__0_051", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20309__0_053", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [989.456], "stop_times": [990.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 989.456}, "reply_to": "20309__0_052", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_054", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "And in this case the... your client acknowledged at the hearing on the plea agreement that he was subjecting himself to the 10-year penalty and so forth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [990.448], "stop_times": [1006.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 990.448}, "reply_to": "20309__0_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20309__0_055", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Correct.\nHe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1006.859, 1008.209], "stop_times": [1008.209, 1008.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1006.859}, "reply_to": "20309__0_054", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_056", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1008.439], "stop_times": [1008.95], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1008.439}, "reply_to": "20309__0_055", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20309__0_057", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--That was the settled law in our circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1008.95], "stop_times": [1010.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1008.95}, "reply_to": "20309__0_056", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_058", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Right.\nSo what is there left to try?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1010.22, 1010.63], "stop_times": [1010.63, 1011.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1010.22}, "reply_to": "20309__0_057", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20309__0_059", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "There... the question is whether or not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1011.942], "stop_times": [1014.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1011.942}, "reply_to": "20309__0_058", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_060", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "If he's admitted--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1014.473], "stop_times": [1015.074], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1014.473}, "reply_to": "20309__0_059", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20309__0_061", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--this indictment charged him with an offense that exposed him to anything more than 2 years, because if it did not, then the most he could get under this is 2 years, and we're not asking for a retrial, and we've never--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1015.074], "stop_times": [1025.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1015.074}, "reply_to": "20309__0_060", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_062", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1025.262], "stop_times": [1027.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1025.262}, "reply_to": "20309__0_061", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20309__0_063", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--contested the validity of the plea.\nWe're saying he pled guilty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1027.194, 1028.194], "stop_times": [1028.194, 1029.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1027.194}, "reply_to": "20309__0_062", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_064", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--what did the indictment recite?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1029.496], "stop_times": [1030.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1029.496}, "reply_to": "20309__0_063", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20309__0_065", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "It recited the elements of 1326(a), that a person was found in the United States, he hadn't had permission to reenter, and he had been deported, and it referred to just 1326 generally, but it did not have any reference to an aggravated felony conviction.\nThe plea colloquy didn't have any reference to an aggravated--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1030.865, 1043.763], "stop_times": [1043.763, 1046.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1030.865}, "reply_to": "20309__0_064", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_066", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "But the factual admissions of the other crimes were made before the plea agreement hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1046.234], "stop_times": [1052.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1046.234}, "reply_to": "20309__0_065", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20309__0_067", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--We had no plea agreement.\nIt was just a plea, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1052.87, 1054.23], "stop_times": [1054.23, 1056.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1052.87}, "reply_to": "20309__0_066", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_068", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Yes.\nBefore the hearing on the plea, these factual allegations of the prior convictions had been made, and the defendant, your petitioner, had signed it and accepted it as being true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1056.213, 1056.403], "stop_times": [1056.403, 1069.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1056.213}, "reply_to": "20309__0_067", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20309__0_069", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--Right.\nRight.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1069.28, 1069.521], "stop_times": [1069.521, 1069.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1069.28}, "reply_to": "20309__0_068", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_070", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "So there is no question here that all of this was in the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1069.891], "stop_times": [1072.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1069.891}, "reply_to": "20309__0_069", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20309__0_071", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "There's no question that he admitted that he had a burglary, that he had prior burglary convictions.\nHe was not told, if you have an aggravated felony conviction your sentence range will turn on that, your sentence... your statutory sentence maximum will be increased turning on that fact, and he was not asked whether he had an aggravated prior conviction.\nHe was just... it was just included.\nOftentimes in our district they do include the person's record in the factual resume.\nThe import of that was in no way part of the plea colloquy.\nBut in any event, the issue is whether or not... if it's an offense, it doesn't matter, because it has to be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1072.573, 1077.755, 1089.673, 1092.034, 1096.308, 1098.75], "stop_times": [1077.755, 1089.673, 1092.034, 1096.308, 1098.75, 1106.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1072.573}, "reply_to": "20309__0_070", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_072", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Well, before we leave the plea colloquy, I'm looking at Rule 11, does... Rule 11 requires that the judge set forth the range of sentencing, does it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1106.336], "stop_times": [1114.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1106.336}, "reply_to": "20309__0_071", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20309__0_073", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1114.601], "stop_times": [1114.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1114.601}, "reply_to": "20309__0_072", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_074", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "So that your proposed rule would serve no notice function in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1114.992], "stop_times": [1120.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1114.992}, "reply_to": "20309__0_073", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20309__0_075", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Oh--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1120.003], "stop_times": [1120.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1120.003}, "reply_to": "20309__0_074", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_076", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--in the plea context, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1120.834], "stop_times": [1122.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1120.834}, "reply_to": "20309__0_075", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20309__0_077", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--My proposed... I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1122.354], "stop_times": [1123.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1122.354}, "reply_to": "20309__0_076", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_078", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--Or am I incorrect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1123.395], "stop_times": [1124.315], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1123.395}, "reply_to": "20309__0_077", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20309__0_079", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "The reverse, I think.\nUnder the Government's reading, how would a judge know how... how would a trial judge know how to give the range of punishment if it's not in the indictment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1124.315, 1125.757], "stop_times": [1125.757, 1133.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1124.315}, "reply_to": "20309__0_078", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_080", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Well, if the Rule 11 colloquy's inadequate, then there's an invalid plea.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1133.621], "stop_times": [1137.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1133.621}, "reply_to": "20309__0_079", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20309__0_081", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "In this case it's not... we've never challenged the validity of the plea.\nThe Government's never... they didn't rely to their detriment on our--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1137.435, 1140.226], "stop_times": [1140.226, 1143.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1137.435}, "reply_to": "20309__0_080", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_082", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "I'm saying that there's no notice problem because if the judge doesn't adequately advise the defendant--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1143.028], "stop_times": [1150.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1143.028}, "reply_to": "20309__0_081", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20309__0_083", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--Oh--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1150.374], "stop_times": [1150.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1150.374}, "reply_to": "20309__0_082", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_084", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--in the Rule 11 colloquy, then the plea is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1150.625], "stop_times": [1153.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1150.625}, "reply_to": "20309__0_083", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20309__0_085", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1153.787], "stop_times": [1154.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1153.787}, "reply_to": "20309__0_084", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_086", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--must be set aside in any event.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1154.376], "stop_times": [1155.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1154.376}, "reply_to": "20309__0_085", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20309__0_087", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Correct, but as we pointed out in our brief, there is a statute in title 18 in which, depending on the sentence result, you could get up to 6 months, or... another one is up to 2 years, and the judge wouldn't know until the end of the process whether or not you needed an indictment in the first place or whether or not a jury... the defendant was entitled to a jury trial until the end of the process, not at the beginning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1155.618], "stop_times": [1179.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1155.618}, "reply_to": "20309__0_086", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_088", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Mr. Fleury, you made a constitutional argument in your brief.\nAre you going to address that at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1179.093, 1181.103], "stop_times": [1181.103, 1182.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1179.093}, "reply_to": "20309__0_087", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20309__0_089", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Yes, but I think before we get to the constitutional argument I would say that at the very least, since this raises constitutional arguments, you need a clear statement from Congress that they intended to raise these constitutional arguments or infringe upon the constitutional right to a grand jury indictment and proof of the facts beyond a reasonable doubt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1182.135], "stop_times": [1199.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1182.135}, "reply_to": "20309__0_088", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_090", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Can you explain... why is that?\nI understand how it would benefit your client in this case.\nReally what (b) does is, it explains to the jury if it's in the indictment that this person, namely the defendant in front of you, not only was deported previously, but he's a very bad guy.\nNow, why is it that the defense bar, putting your hat on as a defense attorney, thinks it's better to have that placed in front of the jury before the trial than it is to have it placed before the judge after the trial.\nIt doesn't have to do with the details that he was arrested, deported before, and came back.\nIt has to do with what kind of person this is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1199.445, 1200.547, 1203.689, 1216.155, 1227.134, 1232.357], "stop_times": [1200.547, 1203.689, 1216.155, 1227.134, 1232.357, 1234.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1199.445}, "reply_to": "20309__0_089", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20309__0_091", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "As I understand the Court's question, it's why am I not concerned that inclusion of the prior conviction would prejudice my client in a trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1234.338], "stop_times": [1240.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1234.338}, "reply_to": "20309__0_090", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_092", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Yes, or if not, you have a particular client you're representing very well.\nI'm interested in the defense in general, the defense bar in general, why... I want to see why they've taken this position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1240.401, 1244.475], "stop_times": [1244.475, 1251.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1240.401}, "reply_to": "20309__0_091", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20309__0_093", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "As pointed out in the amicus brief, 98.2 percent of these cases end up in a plea of guilty, and in the Ninth Circuit, as the amicus points out, the Government and the courts do not mind the fact that, with the glut of cases that could be prosecuted under this statute, that there's a certain degree of charge bargaining, and therefore some prosecutorial discretion over which of the two offenses to charge to dispose of the case, and in many cases, in this particular case it would benefit my client and, of course, it would benefit a number of clients throughout the land, most of the clients.\nSecondly, under the Old Chief case, any prejudice to my client would be blunted if that were the issue, and thirdly, if the issue is whether or not this is the same person who's been previously convicted, my client or any client would rather have that issue litigated under the beyond a reasonable doubt standard when 18 additional years turns on a resolution of that fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1251.11, 1287.162], "stop_times": [1287.162, 1307.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1251.11}, "reply_to": "20309__0_092", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_094", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "How would any damage to your client be blunted under your understanding of the Old Chief case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1307.177], "stop_times": [1312.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1307.177}, "reply_to": "20309__0_093", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20309__0_095", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "My understanding of the Old Chief is, the jury would not get to hear the conduct that resulted in the conviction, or what the conviction was for.\nHe could just simply stipulate that he has a prior conviction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1312.33, 1321.405], "stop_times": [1321.405, 1324.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1312.33}, "reply_to": "20309__0_094", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_096", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "And the Government wouldn't be entitled to go to the... to show the jury what the convictions were for?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1324.537], "stop_times": [1330.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1324.537}, "reply_to": "20309__0_095", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20309__0_097", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Correct, because under Old Chief that would have... the relevance of that would be outweighed by the prejudicial nature of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1330.632], "stop_times": [1335.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1330.632}, "reply_to": "20309__0_096", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_098", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Well, that's very interesting.\nMay I ask about the Rule 11 point that Justice Kennedy raised?\nIf you had a fact situation in which all that was known was the facts establishing a violation of subsection (a), and there's no sentencing contemplated, I suppose the judge would have a duty of explaining that there is a range of punishment up to 20 years for a violation of subsection (a) in every case, because they wouldn't know... they would not put... they could not avoid the possibility that they would prior to sentencing later discover--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1335.494, 1336.834, 1342.35], "stop_times": [1336.834, 1342.35, 1367.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1335.494}, "reply_to": "20309__0_097", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20309__0_099", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1367.635], "stop_times": [1368.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1367.635}, "reply_to": "20309__0_098", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_100", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--a prior sentence, so the routine would be a plea hearing that advised the defendant in all (a) cases that the maximum penalty is 20 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1368.256], "stop_times": [1376.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1368.256}, "reply_to": "20309__0_099", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20309__0_101", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1376.842], "stop_times": [1377.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1376.842}, "reply_to": "20309__0_100", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_102", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "But do they do that in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1377.443], "stop_times": [1378.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1377.443}, "reply_to": "20309__0_101", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20309__0_103", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Some they do--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1378.322], "stop_times": [1380.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1378.322}, "reply_to": "20309__0_102", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_104", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--I bet they don't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1380.084], "stop_times": [1380.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1380.084}, "reply_to": "20309__0_103", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20309__0_105", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--and sometimes not.\nIt depends.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1380.435, 1381.504], "stop_times": [1381.504, 1382.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1380.435}, "reply_to": "20309__0_104", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_106", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Well, if they fail to, and it later turns out that in fact there is this evidence of prior conviction and so on, they can simply go back and do it again.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1382.485], "stop_times": [1389.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1382.485}, "reply_to": "20309__0_105", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20309__0_107", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Right.\nThey would have to redo the whole process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1389.991, 1390.149], "stop_times": [1390.149, 1391.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1389.991}, "reply_to": "20309__0_106", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_108", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "But they could do that.\nI mean, if it... it wouldn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1391.601, 1393.043], "stop_times": [1393.043, 1394.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1391.601}, "reply_to": "20309__0_107", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20309__0_109", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Yes.\nIt would render the plea invalid.\nThey couldn't give--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1394.554, 1394.894, 1395.873], "stop_times": [1394.894, 1395.873, 1396.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1394.554}, "reply_to": "20309__0_108", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_110", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1396.443], "stop_times": [1396.734], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1396.443}, "reply_to": "20309__0_109", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20309__0_111", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--Yes, in total from the... and they'd have to start all over, which is not the most judicially economic way to proceed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1396.734], "stop_times": [1403.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1396.734}, "reply_to": "20309__0_110", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_112", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Well, it's not, but as you point out, this... I thought you were indicating earlier this isn't likely to happen very often.\nI mean, they... or is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1403.088, 1409.873], "stop_times": [1409.873, 1411.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1403.088}, "reply_to": "20309__0_111", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20309__0_113", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Yes, I think it... it happens--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1411.403], "stop_times": [1413.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1411.403}, "reply_to": "20309__0_112", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_114", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "The Government wakes up at the last moment, suddenly, to this news?\nDoesn't the Government normally--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1413.584, 1418.328], "stop_times": [1418.328, 1419.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1413.584}, "reply_to": "20309__0_113", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20309__0_115", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--I don't know how often it happens.\nI don't have an empirical study on that.\nBut I know it has happened.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1419.38, 1420.67, 1422.362], "stop_times": [1420.67, 1422.362, 1424.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1419.38}, "reply_to": "20309__0_114", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_116", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--But you said that one of the principal advantages of the position you're taking from the point of view of the defendant is the plea bargaining with the prosecutor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1424.043], "stop_times": [1432.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1424.043}, "reply_to": "20309__0_115", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20309__0_117", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1432.207], "stop_times": [1432.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1432.207}, "reply_to": "20309__0_116", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_118", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "The prosecutor says, I'm going to charge only under (a), not (b), so the prosecutor must know at that stage about the conviction, and if I have you right--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1432.868], "stop_times": [1441.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1432.868}, "reply_to": "20309__0_117", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20309__0_119", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Mm hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1441.523], "stop_times": [1441.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1441.523}, "reply_to": "20309__0_118", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_120", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--if the interpretation of the Ninth Circuit is wrong and the other circuits are right, then there is no discretion.\nThe judge can't say, well, there was an aggravated felony but I'm going to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1441.804, 1448.689], "stop_times": [1448.689, 1453.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1441.804}, "reply_to": "20309__0_119", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20309__0_121", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Right.\nThe charging decision, the prosecution will be left with no charging decision whether or not to proceed under (a) or (b), and so therefore simply charging the elements of the offense in (a), which has a 2-year maximum, could lead to the exposure of up to a 20-year maximum based on facts that nobody knew about at the plea hearing or contemplated when the plea was entered, and a whole new plea hearing will have to have... to occur under that circumstance.\nAnother factor that indicated Congress did recognize that they had created an offense is when... in 1996, when they created a law and told the Sentence Commission that they needed to increase the penalties for the offenses in 1326(b).\nMr. Chief Justice, I'd like to reserve the remainder of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1453.241, 1455.953, 1481.928, 1500.422], "stop_times": [1455.953, 1481.928, 1500.422, 1502.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1453.241}, "reply_to": "20309__0_120", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__0_122", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--Very well, Mr. Fleury.\nMs. Brinkmann, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1502.573, 1503.764], "stop_times": [1503.764, 1506.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1502.573}, "reply_to": "20309__0_121", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20309__1_000", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nSection 1326, subsection (b)(2), is a sentencing enhancement provision.\nIt does not create a separate criminal offense.\nCongress enacted (b)(2) as part of a three tier penalty scheme for violations of section 1326.\nThe statutory text, structure, and history compelled that conclusion, and that interpretation does not create a constitutional problem.\nSubsection (a) of section 1326 sets forth the offense conduct.\nIt also sets forth a base sentence of up to 2 years that shall be imposed on such an offender, but specifies that that provision, that you shall be sentenced to 2 years, is subject to subsection (b).\nSubsection (b) then states that notwithstanding subsection (a), longer sentences are authorized in some cases.\n(b) does not set forth any additional offense conduct.\nSpecifically, (b)(2) authorizes a sentence up to 20 years for persons with aggravated felony convictions, a paradigmatic sentencing factor.\nThe reading of (b)(2) is confirmed by the circumstances surrounding its enactment.\nAs Justice O'Connor pointed out, the provision in the enacting legislation was entitled, criminal penalties.\nThat was not carried over into the codification, but it is part of the legislation that was enacted by Congress.\nMoreover, if I could draw the Court's attention to the version of the statute in effect... it's in the appendix to the Government's brief at 2a.\nPages 2a and 3a reflect the changes from the 1952 version to the version which enacted in 1988 that added subsection (b).\nPetitioner's counsel discussed at length the fact that subsection (b) applies notwithstanding subsection (a) into the case of any alien described in such subsection.\nAt the time that provision was added, Congress was looking at (a), which stated at that time that an offender shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, be punished, so it was quite natural for Congress to use that language at that time.\nAs petitioner points out in his brief, later that guilty of a felony provision was dropped out.\nThat was part, as we explain in our brief, part of an effort of Congress going through and changing fine provisions and various provisions of the Immigration Act.\nBut at the time that (b) was enacted, to refer to an alien that was described in (a), it was clearly an alien who was guilty of a felony and who would be subject to a sentence of 2 years unless (b) applied.\nWe think that the legislative history also confirms that.\nAs we discuss in our brief, all the references to the subsection (b) that was added were penalty provisions.\nThe sponsors of the bill referred to it that way, the section by section analysis that was submitted to the Senate, and the predecessor statute, the sponsors and drafters had discussed at length the fact that this was a three tier penalty scheme.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1506.125, 1511.288, 1516.544, 1518.247, 1525.661, 1533.277, 1538.579, 1550.958, 1558.822, 1561.293, 1570.79, 1578.106, 1584.969, 1589.673, 1600.019, 1612.268, 1623.444, 1641.065, 1646.08, 1653.955, 1664.811, 1670.114, 1675.67], "stop_times": [1511.288, 1516.544, 1518.247, 1525.661, 1533.277, 1538.579, 1550.958, 1558.822, 1561.293, 1570.79, 1578.106, 1584.969, 1589.673, 1600.019, 1612.268, 1623.444, 1641.065, 1646.08, 1653.955, 1664.811, 1670.114, 1675.67, 1687.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1506.125}, "reply_to": "20309__0_122", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_001", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "May I ask, just to be sure I understand the posture of the case, the case, the hypothetical case that troubles me is one... unlike this case.\nI guess the facts were pretty clear... one in which at the time of the indictment and the plea hearing, all the Government knows is that this particular reentry was made unlawfully, but the Government is not aware of prior convictions, and as I understand the Government's position, if they subsequently discover before sentencing the prior felony the sentence could go up to 20 years.\nNow... and supposing the defendant says, no, that was my brother or somebody else, it's mistaken identity... and our cases do have some claims of mistaken identity... I take it it's your position that the Government must prove that this particular person was the same one by only a preponderance of the evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1687.876, 1697.934, 1718.006], "stop_times": [1697.934, 1718.006, 1736.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1687.876}, "reply_to": "20309__1_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20309__1_002", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, and that's what I meant before when I explained that this was the paradigmatic sentencing factor.\nThat is by proof of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1736.789, 1742.372], "stop_times": [1742.372, 1744.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1736.789}, "reply_to": "20309__1_001", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_003", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "But normally it's a paradigmatic sentencing factor that does not increase the range of punishment beyond the previous maximum, which was true in McMillan, for example.\nThat was within the statutory range.\nHere, if you... well, that's the argument, I guess, whether the maximum for everybody is 20 years, or only for those who find this out later.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1744.372, 1753.329, 1755.011], "stop_times": [1753.329, 1755.011, 1763.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1744.372}, "reply_to": "20309__1_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20309__1_004", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, a couple of responses.\nAs a threshold matter, we would disagree that sentencing enhancements do not often increase the statutory maximum.\nIn fact, they do, and we discussed the early recidivist cases from this Court, where it makes clear that that is not a constitutional problem.\nGraham v. West Virginia was the first case in 1912 that talked about the fact that prior convictions used for sentencing enhancements are not an offense.\nThey are a distinctive factor.\nThey can be determined at a separate hearing.\nAnd in Oyler v. Boles, an early 1960's case, there were two defendants at issue there.\nBoth of them for their instant offense were subject to much lower than the enhanced sentence.\nMr. Oyler I believe was facing... he had a second degree murder conviction and he was facing a period of, I think it was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1763.627, 1765.607, 1771.451, 1778.457, 1788.171, 1791.324, 1793.346, 1799.392, 1805.705], "stop_times": [1765.607, 1771.451, 1778.457, 1788.171, 1791.324, 1793.346, 1799.392, 1805.705, 1814.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1763.627}, "reply_to": "20309__1_003", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_005", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Wasn't the argument in that case that it was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1814.443], "stop_times": [1816.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1814.443}, "reply_to": "20309__1_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20309__1_006", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--maximum--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1816.763], "stop_times": [1817.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1816.763}, "reply_to": "20309__1_005", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_007", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--double jeopardy to do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1817.181], "stop_times": [1818.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1817.181}, "reply_to": "20309__1_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20309__1_008", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nThey also discussed the fact that he had a maximum of 18 years, and his went to a mandatory life.\nAlso, Mr. Crabtree in that case had a maximum of 10 years and it went to life, so we think that that stands for the proposition that the Court has long recognized that the fact that a sentencing consideration enhances the maximum is not a constitutional problem.\nI would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1818.874, 1820.133, 1827.64, 1844.891], "stop_times": [1820.133, 1827.64, 1844.891, 1845.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1818.874}, "reply_to": "20309__1_007", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_009", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Is... do you apply that to all situations?\nI mean, I'm not outraged when you apply it to prior criminal conviction, I guess, but suppose Congress passed a classic malice murder statute and it says, the maximum penalty shall be life in prison provided that if the murder is committed with malice aforethought it shall be death.\nNow, is that a sentencing enhancement, so you need only a judge determination of by more likely than not of the malice aforethought provision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1845.552, 1847.473, 1871.037], "stop_times": [1847.473, 1871.037, 1881.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1845.552}, "reply_to": "20309__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20309__1_010", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--Your Honor, the question in that case would be, what was the legislative intent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1881.786], "stop_times": [1887.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1881.786}, "reply_to": "20309__1_009", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_011", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1887.179], "stop_times": [1888.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1887.179}, "reply_to": "20309__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20309__1_012", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "And I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1888.139], "stop_times": [1888.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1888.139}, "reply_to": "20309__1_011", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_013", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "They make it very clear.\nThe sentencing shall be increased from life imprisonment to death if there has been malice aforethought.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1888.75, 1890.502], "stop_times": [1890.502, 1896.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1888.75}, "reply_to": "20309__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20309__1_014", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--The second factor that Your Honor introduces is the fact of the death penalty, and different procedural protections of this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1896.813], "stop_times": [1903.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1896.813}, "reply_to": "20309__1_013", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_015", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "All right.\n10 years to life.\n[Laughter]\nthis sentence shall be increased from--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1903.088, 1903.328, 1904.269, 1904.61], "stop_times": [1903.328, 1904.269, 1904.61, 1907.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1903.088}, "reply_to": "20309__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20309__1_016", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--You're eliminating most of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1907.752], "stop_times": [1908.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1907.752}, "reply_to": "20309__1_015", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_017", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1908.042], "stop_times": [1909.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1908.042}, "reply_to": "20309__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20309__1_018", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--Yes, we think... I guess the... to address that question, I guess I would like to address what the Court said in McMillan, suggesting that there is a case over the line where there is some constitutional limit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1909.164], "stop_times": [1920.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1909.164}, "reply_to": "20309__1_017", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_019", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "I'm sure there is, and I'd like to know your judgment as to what the line is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1920.521], "stop_times": [1925.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1920.521}, "reply_to": "20309__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20309__1_020", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1925.914], "stop_times": [1926.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1925.914}, "reply_to": "20309__1_019", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_021", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "McMillan said it was when the tail wags the dog, and the question was whether 20 years is the tail or the dog, as compared to 2 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1926.314], "stop_times": [1932.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1926.314}, "reply_to": "20309__1_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20309__1_022", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--Your Honor, I think one thing that McMillan makes clear, that it's not simply the length of the sentence.\nThe example that the Court in McMillan gave was a statute in which the presumption of innocence was undermined because of the elements that were shifted to the sentencing proceeding.\nThere was an old case, I believe, where there was a presumption that the gun had traveled in interstate commerce, and the Court gave that as an example in McMillan of something that would be on the other side of the line.\nAlso in McMillan, I'd like to point out, the Court cited with... favorably lower court rulings that had upheld the constitutionality of the old special offender statute.\nThe Third Circuit Davis case the Court cites favorably and discusses it as that's the lower court authority to look to that's citing the cases in discussing 3575.\n3575 also includes the maximum authorized sentence.\nThat statute permitted the sentence to go up to 25 years.\nIn the Davis case, setting aside that sentencing enhancement, he was facing a maximum statutory sentence of 2 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1932.879, 1936.863, 1947.049, 1957.627, 1968.263, 1977.169, 1982.502, 1984.683], "stop_times": [1936.863, 1947.049, 1957.627, 1968.263, 1977.169, 1982.502, 1984.683, 1991.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1932.879}, "reply_to": "20309__1_021", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_023", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "May I ask, to follow up on Justice Scalia's... supposing this statute, instead of reading, whose deportation was subsequent to a conviction for three or more, it simply said, whose deportation was subsequent to the commission of three or more crimes.\nIt would still be a sentence enhancement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [1991.638, 2004.537], "stop_times": [2004.537, 2006.249], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1991.638}, "reply_to": "20309__1_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20309__1_024", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "We think in light of all of the other factors in this case it would be.\nAgain, I think it's a totality.\nWhen the Court is discerning legislative intent here we just believe it's abundantly clear, and I don't think that that factor would make any difference in this particular case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2006.249, 2009.892, 2010.841], "stop_times": [2009.892, 2010.841, 2018.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2006.249}, "reply_to": "20309__1_023", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_025", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Are you sure on that one, because there's been no trial or conviction of the previous commission of a felony.\nI mean, I think what Justice Stevens is driving at is that you then have to have a whole trial as to what the person had done previously.\nDid he... three times, did he in fact... was he a felon or not?\nDid he murder somebody?\nYou know, try it before the judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2018.248, 2024.142, 2029.945, 2034.437, 2036.419], "stop_times": [2024.142, 2029.945, 2034.437, 2036.419, 2038.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2018.248}, "reply_to": "20309__1_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20309__1_026", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "I may have misunderstood the question.\nI apologize.\nI think what I'm trying to say is there may be situations certainly under the Court's recent decisions of Witt, or Watts, where sentencing proceedings include consideration of relevant conduct or acquitted conduct, uncharged conduct.\nI don't see that that raises a constitutional area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2038.811, 2040.04, 2041.202, 2055.21], "stop_times": [2040.04, 2041.202, 2055.21, 2058.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2038.811}, "reply_to": "20309__1_025", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_027", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "No, but that doesn't increase the sentence.\nWhen you commit the crime you know that if worst comes to worst you'll get 30 years, and within that 30 years the judge is allowed to find on the basis of probabilities that you had committed another crime, and he may increase your sentence up to the maximum of 30 years because of that.\nBut we're talking here about you commit the crime in good faith, thinking you can get only 30 years, and it turns out that there's a sentencing enhancement that turns it into a 50-year one, and the judge is going to make that determination on his own by... you know, more likely than not that you committed this earlier crime.\nYou think that's constitutional, raising it from 30 to a 50 maximum?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2058.684, 2059.445, 2074.063, 2095.658], "stop_times": [2059.445, 2074.063, 2095.658, 2099.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2058.684}, "reply_to": "20309__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20309__1_028", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2099.329], "stop_times": [2100.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2099.329}, "reply_to": "20309__1_027", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_029", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Wow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2100.721], "stop_times": [2101.352], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2100.721}, "reply_to": "20309__1_028", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20309__1_030", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "I think the Court made clear in Oyler it raised it... it was a check forgery case.\nMr. Crabtree was facing a check forgery case, and because he had had three prior convictions under that base sentence he would have been facing 2 to 10 years.\nIt was a mandatory life sentence in that case.\nI think also I want to distinguish, Your Honor, between notice of what the penalty is and what the claim is in this case.\nThe claim is in this case there was a constitutional violation because this was not alleged in the indictment and proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.\nSentencing enhancements do not need to be included there.\nThat does not mean, however, that it's not clear that Congress intended a person to commit this offense, be criminally sanctioned, and persons who commit this offense with this prior criminal history be subject to the sanctions.\nThat's clear on the face of this statute.\nThe statute gives full notice of that.\nThose penalties are not required to be included in an indictment.\nI think what the Court was focused on before helps in that regard, Rule 11.\nThat is the rule that requires that criminal defendants be notified prior to a guilty plea of the maximum sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2101.352, 2105.273, 2114.819, 2117.962, 2123.836, 2131.721, 2135.804, 2147.902, 2149.942, 2151.645, 2154.817, 2159.91], "stop_times": [2105.273, 2114.819, 2117.962, 2123.836, 2131.721, 2135.804, 2147.902, 2149.942, 2151.645, 2154.817, 2159.91, 2167.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2101.352}, "reply_to": "20309__1_029", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_031", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Suppose the Government thinks that there's just a 2-year case before it.\nIt doesn't have the evidence that Justice Stevens referred to of these other convictions, and the district judge says, I want you to know that the maximum penalty is 20 years.\nIs that a correct Rule 11 advice, or should he say 2 years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2167.426, 2172.228, 2186.028], "stop_times": [2172.228, 2186.028, 2191.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2167.426}, "reply_to": "20309__1_030", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20309__1_032", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Your Honor, I think that in the context of Rule 11 colloquys trial judges often will explain that I can't be certain about your sentence, particularly under the guidelines, and even when they talk about statutory maximum in drug cases they explain enhancement provisions that do increase that maximum--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2191.281], "stop_times": [2209.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2191.281}, "reply_to": "20309__1_031", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_033", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Of course here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2209.374], "stop_times": [2210.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2209.374}, "reply_to": "20309__1_032", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20309__1_034", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--although I think it would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2210.333], "stop_times": [2210.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2210.333}, "reply_to": "20309__1_033", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_035", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--Here he would have to give... you have to give the minimum as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2210.704], "stop_times": [2213.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2210.704}, "reply_to": "20309__1_034", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20309__1_036", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2213.348], "stop_times": [2213.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2213.348}, "reply_to": "20309__1_035", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_037", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "And here the minimum would be 10 or 20.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2213.445], "stop_times": [2216.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2213.445}, "reply_to": "20309__1_036", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20309__1_038", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "But the purpose of that is to have a knowing and voluntary plea, Your Honor, and I'd also point out under Rule 11 subsection (h) there's a harmless error analysis.\nFor example, in the advisory committee notes one of the examples they give of harmless error is a guilty plea proceeding in which the trial judge erroneously understates the maximum penalty.\nIf the penalty imposed in that case did not exceed that, that would be harmless error.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2216.268, 2225.353, 2235.901], "stop_times": [2225.353, 2235.901, 2241.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2216.268}, "reply_to": "20309__1_037", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_039", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Ms. Brinkmann, isn't--\n--Do you have any question as to the validity of the Rule 11 hearing before us in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2241.755, 2242.935], "stop_times": [2242.935, 2248.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2241.755}, "reply_to": "20309__1_038", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20309__1_040", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThere was, we point out in our brief that actually at the Rule 11 it said 10 years and in fact under the statute could have been 20 years, but because petitioner's sentence imposed was ultimately below 10 years there's no problem with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2248.16, 2248.939], "stop_times": [2248.939, 2259.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2248.16}, "reply_to": "20309__1_039", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_041", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Ms. Brinkmann, isn't the fact that we've had a fairly serious colloquy here about the problem of when enhancements and enhancing factors become so radically important that they perhaps ought to be treated for constitutional purposes have to be treated as changes of elements rather than merely the addition of sentencing factors a good reason for us in effect to rule against you, because if we rule your way we're going to have to decide and I suppose come up with some standard to say when enough becomes too much, and when we in fact pass into a constitutionally suspect area, and we ought to avoid those kind of rulings if we can.\nAnd I would suppose that if we at least find arguments each way on what Congress intended, that we ought to rule against you to keep this constitutional issue out of the case.\nIsn't that fair?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2259.597, 2310.508, 2324.96], "stop_times": [2310.508, 2324.96, 2325.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2259.597}, "reply_to": "20309__1_040", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20309__1_042", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "We don't believe the constitutional issue does arise in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2325.449], "stop_times": [2328.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2325.449}, "reply_to": "20309__1_041", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_043", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Well, it may not arise in this case, but in order to decide this case I suppose we will have to say when it would arise in order to conclude that it doesn't here, so I don't see how we can avoid facing it.\nThey've raised it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2328.962, 2339.991], "stop_times": [2339.991, 2340.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2328.962}, "reply_to": "20309__1_042", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20309__1_044", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Well, Your Honor, the Court did avoid that very question in McMillan, I would point out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2340.619], "stop_times": [2344.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2340.619}, "reply_to": "20309__1_043", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_045", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Well, maybe it's time to stop sort of sticking our head in the sand, and it seems to me that the other side has raised this issue, and I don't see how we can avoid it if we go your way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2344.511], "stop_times": [2354.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2344.511}, "reply_to": "20309__1_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20309__1_046", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Well, Your Honor, two things.\nI also think it's been resolved by cases since McMillan.\nIn two death penalty cases this Court has upheld the death penalty sentencing schemes in the State of Florida and Arizona, and in both those schemes the existence of an aggravating factor is the fact that makes... that increases the maximum sentence to the death penalty in Hildwin and Walton, and in Hildwin the Court specifically said that McMillan does not change that result.\nIt was referring back to its results in Spaziano upholding judge sentencing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2354.499, 2355.187, 2358.219, 2379.414], "stop_times": [2355.187, 2358.219, 2379.414, 2383.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2354.499}, "reply_to": "20309__1_045", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_047", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Well, but in those--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2383.007], "stop_times": [2384.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2383.007}, "reply_to": "20309__1_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20309__1_048", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--and judge determination of those factors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2384.039], "stop_times": [2385.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2384.039}, "reply_to": "20309__1_047", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_049", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--In all of... yes, but in all of those cases there was, if I understand what your argument is there's a fact that's different from the case here.\nIn all of those cases you were dealing, ab initio, with capital cases in which the capital result was a possibility.\nIt was part of the range to which the defendant was exposed.\nThe argument here is that the sentencing factor, or that the enhancement factor, as you put it, actually increases the range, so that the death penalty cases, I suppose, would not be authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2385.378, 2394.594, 2402.249, 2405.461], "stop_times": [2394.594, 2402.249, 2405.461, 2416.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2385.378}, "reply_to": "20309__1_048", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20309__1_050", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Your Honor, I'd have to respectfully disagree.\nI think it's important to focus on how those sentencing systems worked.\nIn fact, once you're convicted of the offense... it's called a capital offense, just like this would be a 1326 offense, but you cannot be sentenced to death in those States unless after that verdict there is then a finding of the existence of an aggravating factor, and that aggravating factor is what then permits the imposition of the death penalty.\nIn the Zant case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2416.15, 2417.96, 2420.932, 2439.994], "stop_times": [2417.96, 2420.932, 2439.994, 2440.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2416.15}, "reply_to": "20309__1_049", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_051", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "And did--\n--All of that has been done to comply with our ruling that you must... you cannot apply the death penalty automatically and you must allow... there must be aggravating factors to narrow the class, and that's a consequence of our constitutional ruling, which arguably is satisfied by a judge determination.\nTo reason backwards from that to what the common law requires with respect to conviction or sentencing for felonies is... doesn't seem to me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2440.875, 2441.416, 2464.831], "stop_times": [2441.416, 2464.831, 2476.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2440.875}, "reply_to": "20309__1_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20309__1_052", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--Well, it certainly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2476.549], "stop_times": [2477.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2476.549}, "reply_to": "20309__1_051", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_053", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--Death is different, to quote a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2477.35], "stop_times": [2479.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2477.35}, "reply_to": "20309__1_052", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20309__1_054", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--It certainly supports our position, however, Your Honor that there's no constitutional requirement--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2479.25], "stop_times": [2482.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2479.25}, "reply_to": "20309__1_053", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_055", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--Yes, but it's a narrowing in those cases--\n--Give her a chance.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2482.793, 2483.484, 2484.155], "stop_times": [2483.484, 2484.155, 2484.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2482.793}, "reply_to": "20309__1_054", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20309__1_056", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--There's no constitutional requirement that a factor that is so significant to increasing the maximum sentence needs to be alleged in an indictment or proven at trial.\nIt just does not need to be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2484.726, 2494.133], "stop_times": [2494.133, 2495.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2484.726}, "reply_to": "20309__1_055", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_057", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "No, but in those cases, as Justice Scalia pointed out, there was a narrowing going on.\nIn this case there's an expansion going on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2495.963, 2499.116], "stop_times": [2499.116, 2501.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2495.963}, "reply_to": "20309__1_056", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20309__1_058", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThis indictment charged petitioner with violation of 1326.\nWhen you look at the statute 1326, it is clear that, depending on what your criminal history is, you can get up to 2 years, up to 10 years, up to 20 years.\nThat's clear, just as if you read the death penalty statute, you read 1326--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2501.497, 2502.048, 2507.72, 2517.608], "stop_times": [2502.048, 2507.72, 2517.608, 2521.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2501.497}, "reply_to": "20309__1_057", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_059", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2521.558], "stop_times": [2521.919], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2521.558}, "reply_to": "20309__1_058", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20309__1_060", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--it's clear what the possible penalties are.\nThat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2521.919, 2523.701], "stop_times": [2523.701, 2524.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2521.919}, "reply_to": "20309__1_059", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_061", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "There was no indication in the... I don't have the indictment in front of me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2524.302], "stop_times": [2526.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2524.302}, "reply_to": "20309__1_060", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20309__1_062", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--It's in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2526.924], "stop_times": [2527.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2526.924}, "reply_to": "20309__1_061", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_063", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--There was no indication in the indictment that it was (a) rather than (b)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2527.703], "stop_times": [2530.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2527.703}, "reply_to": "20309__1_062", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20309__1_064", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2530.117], "stop_times": [2530.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2530.117}, "reply_to": "20309__1_063", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_065", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "You couldn't tell?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2530.775], "stop_times": [2531.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2530.775}, "reply_to": "20309__1_064", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20309__1_066", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "No.\nIt's in the joint appendix on page 3.\nIt specifically cites section 1326.\nI would also point out, regarding earlier questions from the Court, that the factual resume that was signed by petitioner, as Justice O'Connor pointed out, is also in the joint appendix on pages 5 to 7, and in that it lists the three burglary convictions that were used as enhancement, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2531.275, 2531.556, 2533.296, 2536.038], "stop_times": [2531.556, 2533.296, 2536.038, 2552.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2531.275}, "reply_to": "20309__1_065", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_067", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Well, it's clear that in this particular case there's no problem, but we're concerned about the possible other cases, and you called my attention to Oyler v. Boyles, and I notice the opinion makes this point: the statute expressly provides for a jury trial on the issue of identity if the accused either denies he is the person named in the information or just remains silent, so apparently the court thought that when an identity is in question it might be a matter of some significance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2552.329], "stop_times": [2576.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2552.329}, "reply_to": "20309__1_066", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20309__1_068", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, we think that that was simply the statutory provision at issue there, and if there's one thing that we've learned in preparing for this case, there's a wide variety of recidivist statutes both in the Federal and State systems, different language, different structures, and I'd have to get back to the Court's opinions in Spaziano and Walton and Hildwin, where the Court made clear that, even in the case of an aggravating factor in a death penalty statute, that's a sentencing provision and it does not need to be determined by a jury.\nI think Spaziano is dispositive on that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2576.276, 2601.551], "stop_times": [2601.551, 2603.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2576.276}, "reply_to": "20309__1_067", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_069", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "But is it the case... suppose we held against you in this case.\nWhat would that do to the drug statutes?\nMy impression is the drug statutes are phrased in terms of a crime, possession with intent to distribute, and there follows a very large section called penalties which gives different statutory penalties ranging from a year to life, depending on the amount of the drug.\nNow, is it the case that those reviewed by the Department normally are simply sentencing enhancements, or are they viewed as part of the substantive crime?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2603.842, 2606.595, 2608.907, 2624.795], "stop_times": [2606.595, 2608.907, 2624.795, 2634.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2603.842}, "reply_to": "20309__1_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20309__1_070", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Those are sentencing enhancements, Your Honor.\nThey're set out under 841 (b).\nIt's captioned penalties, and there's a whole variety of factors that are sentencing enhancements under that.\nIt's not just the nature and quantity of the drugs involved, but again it's also the prior criminal history of the defendant, and in subsections (b)(1)(B)(C), and (D) those statutory maximum authorized sentences are also increased based on the prior conviction.\n(b)(1)(A) it doesn't happen in because the... without any prior convictions the maximum is life, but under (b)(1)(B) the maximum is 30 years, and if you have a prior conviction it's 40 years, and if you have a prior conviction it's life, so that also is a common feature of 841 (b), and the use of prior convictions there.\nWe also have a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2634.753, 2636.606, 2638.195, 2643.028, 2658.83, 2675.189], "stop_times": [2636.606, 2638.195, 2643.028, 2658.83, 2675.189, 2676.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2634.753}, "reply_to": "20309__1_069", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_071", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Ms. Brinkmann, may I... do I understand from your answer to Justice Breyer that it is in fact the Justice Department's practice not to charge amount?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2676.291], "stop_times": [2682.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2676.291}, "reply_to": "20309__1_070", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20309__1_072", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2682.625], "stop_times": [2684.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2682.625}, "reply_to": "20309__1_071", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_073", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "When they draw up the indictments the Justice Department does not include a charge of the amount of the drugs in the statement of the charge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2684.175], "stop_times": [2692.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2684.175}, "reply_to": "20309__1_072", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20309__1_074", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "To the best of my knowledge, Your Honor, that practice has varied over time and over districts.\nI believe in some districts they do include, for example, sentence... citations to sentencing statutes also.\nIt's... I don't think that there's a uniform rule on that.\nI would also point out, though, just... our concern is not with other statutes in this case, it's with the fact that for 10 years, nearly 10 years, the Government has interpreted this according to what we think the clear intent of Congress is, section 1326, and we... as we said in our opposition to the petition in this case we don't have difficulty including this in the prosecution in the Ninth Circuit, but we have not proceeded that way.\nWe do not want to be subject to collateral attacks from defendants who are under conviction from all those other circuits, and we are also put in this ironic position of being subject then to these challenges that it will be prejudicial.\nWe do not believe that the Old Chief scenario would answer all of the challenges we would face, because as the Chief Justice pointed out, that simply sanitizes the prior conviction, if you will.\nIt doesn't eliminate it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2692.39, 2697.905, 2704.198, 2706.811, 2729.405, 2741.544, 2753.711], "stop_times": [2697.905, 2704.198, 2706.811, 2729.405, 2741.544, 2753.711, 2754.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2692.39}, "reply_to": "20309__1_073", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_075", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "I can't imagine the prejudice argument is very important.\nAren't most of these cases, the factual scenario, pretty simple?\nThey pick up the person when he's crossing the border or something, he's found in the United States in violation of (a).\nCan't involve much of a trial very often.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2754.751, 2756.293, 2759.195, 2764.668], "stop_times": [2756.293, 2759.195, 2764.668, 2767.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2754.751}, "reply_to": "20309__1_074", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20309__1_076", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Actually, Your Honor, petitioner was back in the country for years before he was found.\nHe... and I think this is pretty typical.\nHe was found because he was locked up on other State charges.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2767.701, 2771.364, 2773.294], "stop_times": [2771.364, 2773.294, 2776.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2767.701}, "reply_to": "20309__1_075", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_077", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Certainly the violation of (b) would be even easier to prove.\nI mean, there you're not talking with any acts, or something like that.\nYou're simply talking about a judgment of conviction that's introduced from some other court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2776.206, 2779.168, 2782.66], "stop_times": [2779.168, 2782.66, 2787.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2776.206}, "reply_to": "20309__1_076", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20309__1_078", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Exactly, Your Honor, and we would also--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2787.782], "stop_times": [2789.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2787.782}, "reply_to": "20309__1_077", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_079", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "But is it easy when he denies that he's the same person?\nBut this guy didn't deny it.\nI know.\nIt's... I'm just... this is an easy case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2789.284, 2791.445, 2792.647, 2792.885], "stop_times": [2791.445, 2792.647, 2792.885, 2794.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2789.284}, "reply_to": "20309__1_078", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20309__1_080", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--It's easy, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2794.818], "stop_times": [2795.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2794.818}, "reply_to": "20309__1_079", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_081", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "But the question is, what does the statute mean for cases that are not so easy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2795.95], "stop_times": [2797.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2795.95}, "reply_to": "20309__1_080", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20309__1_082", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Fingerprints--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2797.439], "stop_times": [2797.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2797.439}, "reply_to": "20309__1_081", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_083", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "They fingerprint him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2797.94], "stop_times": [2798.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2797.94}, "reply_to": "20309__1_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20309__1_084", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--Identification hearings are very easy.\nThey're often held in district court when there's a transfer to another district for a prosecution.\nThere are all kinds of identity hearings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2798.729, 2800.481, 2804.765], "stop_times": [2800.481, 2804.765, 2805.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2798.729}, "reply_to": "20309__1_083", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_085", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "But would the Government, if there were an identification problem, call the jury in and ask them to make that determination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2805.845], "stop_times": [2812.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2805.845}, "reply_to": "20309__1_084", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20309__1_086", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nWe believe that that would be a determination by the sentencing judge.\nWe do also point out concerning the... that the ease of proof, that the First Circuit, when the First Circuit in the Forbes case was talking about the potential prejudice to defendants, also of introducing a prior conviction, also pointed out the ease of this proof and the fact that Congress has demonstrated a policy of not having prior convictions admitted during criminal trials that are irrelevant to that as a matter of course.\nThat was one of the congressional policies that the First Circuit looked to in its holding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2812.86, 2813.719, 2816.892, 2843.329], "stop_times": [2813.719, 2816.892, 2843.329, 2846.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2812.86}, "reply_to": "20309__1_085", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_087", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "How many of these cases go to trial?\nVery few, don't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2846.251, 2848.614], "stop_times": [2848.614, 2850.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2846.251}, "reply_to": "20309__1_086", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20309__1_088", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "I think that's right, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2850.775], "stop_times": [2851.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2850.775}, "reply_to": "20309__1_087", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_089", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "And as far as identification is concerned you have usually the mug shots and the fingerprints.\nWhat else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2851.985, 2857.49], "stop_times": [2857.49, 2858.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2851.985}, "reply_to": "20309__1_088", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20309__1_090", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "I would think identification numbers on their... the INS has identification procedures, alien numbers, prior cases that that alien was involved with.\nI would think oftentimes but not always the prior deportation will have been a direct result of the prior conviction, so that also will be a package of identifying information about this particular defendant, because the conviction of many felonies obviously is grounds for deportation.\nIf there's nothing further, Your Honor, we submit that the judgment of the court of appeals should be affirmed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2858.54, 2869.297, 2886.668], "stop_times": [2869.297, 2886.668, 2895.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2858.54}, "reply_to": "20309__1_089", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20309__1_091", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Brinkmann.\nMr. Fleury, you have 4 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2895.805, 2897.124], "stop_times": [2897.124, 2898.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2895.805}, "reply_to": "20309__1_090", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20309__2_000", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe... in McMillan and in Patterson there was a clear statement that those legislatures intended the fact at issue there not to be an element, and that was a big part of this outcome of both of those cases.\nIn this case we have no such clear statement, and in... both in McMillan and in Patterson the Court looked to the fact that Congress deemed the... whether or not Congress had deemed the fact... the facts that the jury did find to be so important to create a liability for the statutory maximum punishment, and since the jury did find all of those facts, the outcome was within the dictates of the Constitution.\nHere we have the question left unresolved, and that is whether a fact upon which an additional 18 years, dwarfing the possible consequences to my client other than that resolution of that fact is to be alleged in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and here we do not have what was present in Patterson and in McMillan.\nWe don't have the type of clear statement from Congress as they did in 21 U.S.C. 841, where they have (a), unlawful acts, (b), penalties, and 21 U.S. 851, which sets forth a sentence procedure in order to determine the prior convictions that might be used to increase the statutory maximum sentence under 841, where Congress has said as clearly as they could that the prior convictions in 841 (b) will be sentence enhancements for a conviction under (a).\nThat's not present in this case.\nThe traditional rule is that prior convictions used to increase a statutory maximum must be alleged in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.\nThis Court's never said otherwise.\nIn Oyler--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [2898.997, 2900.096, 2916.017, 2938.643, 2958.476, 2990.016, 2991.897, 3000.002, 3002.244], "stop_times": [2900.096, 2916.017, 2938.643, 2958.476, 2990.016, 2991.897, 3000.002, 3002.244, 3003.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2898.997}, "reply_to": "20309__1_091", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__2_001", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "What is the source of your traditional rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [3003.195], "stop_times": [3006.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3003.195}, "reply_to": "20309__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20309__2_002", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--We... in a footnote we cited numerous, numerous cases.\nThat was the rule at common law, and that was the rule well into the 20th Century until very recently in statutes like 841 and the like.\nIt hasn't changed.\nThat was the... as we pointed out in our brief, the uniform rule.\nAs some of the cases say, the precedents for this are too numerous to cite.\nThat was the traditional rule.\nIn addition to this, this is not a recidivist statute.\nA recidivist statute is something where it says, well, if you do something and you do it again you'll get extra penalties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [3006.097, 3009.968, 3019.525, 3020.797, 3024.578, 3028.431, 3031.333, 3033.944], "stop_times": [3009.968, 3019.525, 3020.797, 3024.578, 3028.431, 3031.333, 3033.944, 3038.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3006.097}, "reply_to": "20309__2_001", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__2_003", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Well, but you don't have to do the same thing again for a recidivist statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [3038.817], "stop_times": [3042.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3038.817}, "reply_to": "20309__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20309__2_004", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Oh, correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [3042.549], "stop_times": [3043.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3042.549}, "reply_to": "20309__2_003", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__2_005", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "So this is a form of recidivist statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [3043.15], "stop_times": [3044.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3043.15}, "reply_to": "20309__2_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20309__2_006", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "But it requires a prior aggravated felony which occurred prior to the deportation, and it has to do with somebody who reenters with the status of a felon, just like 18 U.S.C. 922(g) is concerned with the status of the person.\nIt says, we want to have increased deterrence to keep felons away from weapons, and therefore it's an offense for a felon to have a weapon.\nHere, we... Congress said, we want to have an increased deterrence for felons who don't even belong in this country.\nTherefore, it's an extra offense, it's a 20-year offense for you to come into this country, and that has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and alleged to the jury.\nIn this case we don't have any... we have no indication that the constitutional right to have a grand jury to decide whether a 20-year offense should have been filed in this case, it did not occur.\nThat was not presented to the grand jury, and that's the purpose of the grand jury right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [3044.492, 3057.71, 3064.095, 3069.198, 3077.763, 3089.189], "stop_times": [3057.71, 3064.095, 3069.198, 3077.763, 3089.189, 3093.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3044.492}, "reply_to": "20309__2_005", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__2_007", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Is it your view that also all these things in the drug statute have to be submitted to grand juries... amounts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [3093.413], "stop_times": [3098.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3093.413}, "reply_to": "20309__2_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20309__2_008", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "That presents a much more difficult question at least in the drug cases in 21 U.S.C. 841.\nYou do have what was present in Mulaney... in Patterson and McMillan.\nYou have the clear statement, and so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [3098.436, 3105.191, 3108.093], "stop_times": [3105.191, 3108.093, 3110.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3098.436}, "reply_to": "20309__2_007", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__2_009", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Is there a constitutional problem there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [3110.484], "stop_times": [3111.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3110.484}, "reply_to": "20309__2_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20309__2_010", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--In our... in my view there is, but again--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [3111.946], "stop_times": [3114.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3111.946}, "reply_to": "20309__2_009", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__2_011", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "So in your view it might be unconstitutional--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [3114.979], "stop_times": [3116.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3114.979}, "reply_to": "20309__2_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20309__2_012", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [3116.698], "stop_times": [3117.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3116.698}, "reply_to": "20309__2_011", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__2_013", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "--to... and therefore all the amounts would have to be submitted to grand juries and in the indictment, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [3117.039], "stop_times": [3121.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3117.039}, "reply_to": "20309__2_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20309__2_014", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Yes, that is correct, but again... and 21 U.S.C. 841 would present that issue clearly because there is a clear statement that that's what Congress intended.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [3121.703], "stop_times": [3129.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3121.703}, "reply_to": "20309__2_013", "speaker": "peter_m_fleury"}
{"id": "20309__2_015", "conversation_id": "20309", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Fleury.\nthe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-6839", "start_times": [3129.98, 3131.663], "stop_times": [3131.663, 3132.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3129.98}, "reply_to": "20309__2_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20405__0_000", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 97-679, American Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Central Office Telephone, Incorporated.\nMr. Carpenter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [0.0, 9.627], "stop_times": [9.627, 11.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20405__0_001", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe question in this case is whether the Ninth Circuit correctly held that the statutory filed tariff requirements, here codified in section 203 of the Communications Act, apply only to rates and not to the services provided in exchange for those rates.\nThe answer to this question is that the holding is simply wrong.\nThe statutory terms are not limited to rates, but they also prohibit, among other things, any untariffed privilege or facility in communication and any form of rebate, and this Court has held many times that it's an unlawful rebate and preference in violation of these prohibitions for a carrier to provide a service or to enforce a service guarantee that is not covered by the carrier's tariff.\nAnd this case also lacks the element that made the recent Maislin and MCI v. ATT cases close questions in this Court, for no Federal agency responsible for the administration of these requirements has ever suggested the Ninth Circuit's interpretation, much less endorsed it as advancing some other legitimate statutory goal.\nThe reality is, is that in situations where tariffing requirements have applied and should continue to apply, and the Federal agencies have found that there are many, the Ninth Circuit's holding would create the very discrimination in rates that everyone, even our opponent, concedes to be the purpose of this requirement.\nUnder the holding, carriers could evade the prohibitions not by misquoting the rates, but by misquoting the service, making service guarantees that aren't in the tariff, and when they're breached excusing the carrier from paying tariff charges and paying an amount of money that would represent the damages for the breach.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [11.029, 13.941, 31.271, 34.444, 60.181, 80.904, 99.307], "stop_times": [13.941, 31.271, 34.444, 60.181, 80.904, 99.307, 117.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 11.029}, "reply_to": "20405__0_000", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_002", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Do we take the case as if there had been no violation of the Federal statute 201 through 207?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [117.348], "stop_times": [123.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 117.348}, "reply_to": "20405__0_001", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20405__0_003", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThere was no claim litigated there is any violation of those provisions.\nThe only claims that were litigated is that it was a State law breach of contract, an intentional interference with tortious relationships, with business relationships for ATT to fail to provide COT with the quality of regulated long distance service that COT claimed it had been promised.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [123.333, 124.842, 129.657], "stop_times": [124.842, 129.657, 149.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 123.333}, "reply_to": "20405__0_002", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_004", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Are there cases which tell us that a State law, the State law of torts, say, inform the construction of reasonableness under the Federal statute?\nThat is to say, if there were an interference with an advantageous business relation, that this would carry over to show that this is an unreasonable implementation of the tariffs under the Federal statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [149.088, 158.686], "stop_times": [158.686, 170.293], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 149.088}, "reply_to": "20405__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20405__0_005", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "There's no limitation on the things that the FCC can consider in deciding whether a difference in treatment is unjust and unreasonable, for example, for purposes of the prohibition of section 202(a) of the Communications Act.\nSimilarly, I don't think there would be any limitation on the factors that it could consider in deciding whether something's unjust and unreasonable--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [170.293, 185.563], "stop_times": [185.563, 191.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 170.293}, "reply_to": "20405__0_004", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_006", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "You're saying that AT&T, then, is immune from any sort of intentional interference with business relationship action brought against it by anyone who it had a contractual relationship with.\nThat seems extreme.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [191.975, 205.346], "stop_times": [205.346, 207.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 191.975}, "reply_to": "20405__0_005", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20405__0_007", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--No, that's not... that is not our position.\nFirst, there are a whole range of intentional and nonintentional torts that don't arise out of the carrier-customer relationship and the fortuity that someone happens to be our customer wouldn't immunize us from a tort action if that... if a customer were a victim of such a tort.\nSecond, with respect to things that arise out of the customer-carrier relationship, we are under a series of duties under the Communications Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [207.116, 209.029, 225.077], "stop_times": [209.029, 225.077, 233.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 207.116}, "reply_to": "20405__0_006", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_008", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "I realize that, but you would be immune in many respects from an ordinary suit, say in State court based on State court tort law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [233.502], "stop_times": [243.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 233.502}, "reply_to": "20405__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20405__0_009", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Absolutely, if it involved the rates that we charge for our communications service or the obligations that we incur in exchange for the receipt of those payments.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [243.601], "stop_times": [253.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 243.601}, "reply_to": "20405__0_008", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_010", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well, I was asking because I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [253.368], "stop_times": [255.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 253.368}, "reply_to": "20405__0_009", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20405__0_011", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [255.031], "stop_times": [255.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 255.031}, "reply_to": "20405__0_010", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_012", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--I have some of the concerns indicated by the Chief Justice's question, whether or not in interpreting what is reasonable under the Federal statute, lower courts or the agency has said, well, this is an interference with an advantageous business relationship under State tort law, and that informs our judgment as to what is unreasonable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [255.251], "stop_times": [274.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 255.251}, "reply_to": "20405__0_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20405__0_013", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "That's... that would be entirely legitimate, but, of course, the Federal statute has to be interpreted uniformly.\nLet me maybe put some of these questions to rest right now.\nIf AT&T had deliberately provided COT, other resellers with service that was inferior in quality to that that the commercial customers had received, we would have violated 202 of the Communications Act and we would have been liable to it for the damages we caused.\nNow, those damages would have been determined under the Federal standards of the act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [274.562, 280.126, 283.238, 299.48], "stop_times": [280.126, 283.238, 299.48, 302.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 274.562}, "reply_to": "20405__0_012", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_014", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "In a Federal court, or by the FCC?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [302.111], "stop_times": [304.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 302.111}, "reply_to": "20405__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20405__0_015", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Either place.\nObviously, the suits can be brought either place.\nIf they're a question of the dispute over the scope of the duty it could be referred to the FCC under primary jurisdiction, but those suits can be brought in either the Federal district court or at the FCC.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [304.523, 305.384, 307.695], "stop_times": [305.384, 307.695, 318.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 304.523}, "reply_to": "20405__0_014", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_016", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "What if the... what if AT&T decides that Central Telephone is not simply a customer but a competitor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [318.965], "stop_times": [327.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 318.965}, "reply_to": "20405__0_015", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20405__0_017", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Central Telephone is a competitor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [327.87], "stop_times": [328.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 327.87}, "reply_to": "20405__0_016", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_018", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "And then decides simply to drive it out of business?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [328.809], "stop_times": [332.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 328.809}, "reply_to": "20405__0_017", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20405__0_019", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "If we had done that and did it by providing it with worse service than it was entitled to under the tariff, under 201 of the Communications Act, or 202, it has a Federal damages remedy, but that... that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [332.141], "stop_times": [344.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 332.141}, "reply_to": "20405__0_018", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_020", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "But it has no State law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [344.541], "stop_times": [346.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 344.541}, "reply_to": "20405__0_019", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20405__0_021", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--It has no State law remedy.\nIt might have a Federal antitrust remedy in some circumstance, but it has no State law remedy because the effect of that is to give them a preference over other customers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [346.374, 347.345], "stop_times": [347.345, 355.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 346.374}, "reply_to": "20405__0_020", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_022", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Well, that really is pushing one principle to the very limit of its logic.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [355.43], "stop_times": [359.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 355.43}, "reply_to": "20405__0_021", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20405__0_023", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Let me suggest something for your consideration.\nIn the Abilene case, in 1907, landmark--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [359.311, 361.374], "stop_times": [361.374, 364.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 359.311}, "reply_to": "20405__0_022", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_024", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "I've read that, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [364.706], "stop_times": [365.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 364.706}, "reply_to": "20405__0_023", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20405__0_025", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Abilene case, the question there was whether a State law that had the identical substantive prohibitions as the Federal statute could be... could be applied to define the regulated carrier's obligation to its customer.\nThe Court said, even if the substantive standards are the same it's inevitable that different States will apply those substantive standards in different ways, and that would defeat the uniformity that is the purpose of the statute.\nA later case said that this was one of the rare cases of field preemption, where--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [365.538, 380.118, 393.076], "stop_times": [380.118, 393.076, 396.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 365.538}, "reply_to": "20405__0_024", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_026", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "What was the kind of action that was sought to be brought in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [396.949], "stop_times": [400.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 396.949}, "reply_to": "20405__0_025", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20405__0_027", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--It was a case involving whether the rates were just and reasonable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [400.352], "stop_times": [403.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 400.352}, "reply_to": "20405__0_026", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_028", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--So--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [403.023], "stop_times": [404.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 403.023}, "reply_to": "20405__0_027", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20405__0_029", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "There was a common law right to be charged only a reasonable rate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [404.135], "stop_times": [406.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 404.135}, "reply_to": "20405__0_028", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_030", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--But that was certainly a much less of an expansive preemption than you're arguing for here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [406.926], "stop_times": [412.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 406.926}, "reply_to": "20405__0_029", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20405__0_031", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [412.179], "stop_times": [413.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 412.179}, "reply_to": "20405__0_030", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_032", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "You say an intentional tort is preempted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [413.831], "stop_times": [417.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 413.831}, "reply_to": "20405__0_031", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20405__0_033", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Your Honor, an intentional tort is preempted only if the predicate for it is, is that the customer didn't receive the quality of service that it was entitled to in exchange for the payment of the tariffed rate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [417.345], "stop_times": [430.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 417.345}, "reply_to": "20405__0_032", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_034", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well, why couldn't it... can it be brought, then... could the claims of intentional interference and the claims of wilful breach have been brought under the tariff as in effect claims that the... that AT&T had not used what I think the tariff called its best efforts to provide the services they had contracted for by the time they contracted to provide it, so that at least with respect to these two State causes of action there would have been a Federal remedy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [430.324], "stop_times": [461.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 430.324}, "reply_to": "20405__0_033", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20405__0_035", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Absolutely, Your Honor.\nThey could have sued us for violation of the tariff.\nI think if they had sued us on that basis we would have gotten summary judgment.\nIf there had been a close question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [461.985, 462.496, 464.819, 468.61], "stop_times": [462.496, 464.819, 468.61, 469.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 461.985}, "reply_to": "20405__0_034", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_036", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Of the claims... I take it you're conceding that they would have stated claims under the tariff--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [469.902], "stop_times": [473.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 469.902}, "reply_to": "20405__0_035", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20405__0_037", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [473.833], "stop_times": [474.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 473.833}, "reply_to": "20405__0_036", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_038", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--if they had been brought under the tariff.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [474.033], "stop_times": [475.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 474.033}, "reply_to": "20405__0_037", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20405__0_039", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Absolutely.\nI don't think it's the case that the tariff could have been invoked, because our only duty is to make reasonable effort at the due date we meet and not to... and to allow them to cancel if we miss it by more than 45 days, but they certainly can sue us whenever we make a service guarantee in a tariff and breach it.\nThat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [475.365, 475.596, 493.988], "stop_times": [475.596, 493.988, 495.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 475.365}, "reply_to": "20405__0_038", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_040", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Mr. Carpenter, is it possible that you can make a service guarantee that was not covered by a tariff?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [495.197], "stop_times": [499.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 495.197}, "reply_to": "20405__0_039", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20405__0_041", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--If you make a guarantee involving the tariffed service it's not covered by the tariff.\nIt's invalid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [499.051, 507.279], "stop_times": [507.279, 508.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 499.051}, "reply_to": "20405__0_040", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_042", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well, you... in your briefs you describe network billing and multilocation billing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [508.0], "stop_times": [511.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 508.0}, "reply_to": "20405__0_041", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20405__0_043", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [511.54], "stop_times": [511.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 511.54}, "reply_to": "20405__0_042", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_044", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--as not covered by the tariffs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [511.97], "stop_times": [513.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 511.97}, "reply_to": "20405__0_043", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20405__0_045", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "There's a terminological issue there.\nMultilocation billing and network billing are two different options that we give customers.\nThey are different ways--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [513.613, 518.506, 524.519], "stop_times": [518.506, 524.519, 525.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 513.613}, "reply_to": "20405__0_044", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_046", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "And the tariff doesn't require them to select either one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [525.638], "stop_times": [527.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 525.638}, "reply_to": "20405__0_045", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20405__0_047", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--The tariff... the tariff doesn't even discuss... what the tariff does--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [527.631], "stop_times": [531.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 527.631}, "reply_to": "20405__0_046", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_048", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well, does that mean the tariff doesn't require them to select either one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [531.043], "stop_times": [534.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 531.043}, "reply_to": "20405__0_047", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20405__0_049", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--The tariff obviously requires us to bill them, and it defines our obligations in billing them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [534.006], "stop_times": [541.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 534.006}, "reply_to": "20405__0_048", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_050", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "What if you made a contract to give them one option rather than the other?\nWould you have to obey that contract?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [541.961, 545.363], "stop_times": [545.363, 546.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 541.961}, "reply_to": "20405__0_049", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20405__0_051", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Our position... it's our position that we have to give them a choice of one of those two.\nOur order forms gives them a choice, and we think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [546.692, 552.837], "stop_times": [552.837, 555.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 546.692}, "reply_to": "20405__0_050", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_052", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well, that's not my question.\nMy question is, you give them a choice and they say, we'll take network billing, and you say, we will agree to give it to you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [555.171, 555.391], "stop_times": [555.391, 560.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 555.171}, "reply_to": "20405__0_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20405__0_053", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [560.556], "stop_times": [560.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 560.556}, "reply_to": "20405__0_052", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_054", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--but we're not putting it... we're not modifying any tariff.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [560.776], "stop_times": [562.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 560.776}, "reply_to": "20405__0_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20405__0_055", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [562.377], "stop_times": [562.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 562.377}, "reply_to": "20405__0_054", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_056", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Would you have to honor that contract?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [562.646], "stop_times": [565.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 562.646}, "reply_to": "20405__0_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20405__0_057", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Under that set of facts I would read the obligation to provide multilocation billing or network billing into the tariff, and if we violated the obligation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [565.127], "stop_times": [577.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 565.127}, "reply_to": "20405__0_056", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_058", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "In other words, the tariff silently--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [577.105], "stop_times": [577.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 577.105}, "reply_to": "20405__0_057", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20405__0_059", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--as defined by the tariff we'd be libel to them in damages.\nIn this instance--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [577.215, 579.548], "stop_times": [579.548, 580.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 577.215}, "reply_to": "20405__0_058", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_060", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Well, if you failed to use your best efforts to provide that billing service as you contracted to do, that would be a violation of the tariff, the best effort provision of the tariff, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [580.668], "stop_times": [588.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 580.668}, "reply_to": "20405__0_059", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20405__0_061", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--If we fail to provide it, it is our best efforts, that could be a... that could be a violation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [588.926], "stop_times": [596.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 588.926}, "reply_to": "20405__0_060", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_062", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "That would state a violation, would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [596.89], "stop_times": [598.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 596.89}, "reply_to": "20405__0_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20405__0_063", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--It would state a violation of the tariff, and then the question, you know, would be under the limitation liability clause, whether it was wilful.\nThis... it so happens in this case our tariff disclaims any responsibility for the billing obligation that they want to read into the tariff, so it's... it's answering a hypothetical question.\nIn this case, our tariff says we won't do what they said we should have done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [598.563, 607.405, 620.264], "stop_times": [607.405, 620.264, 625.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 598.563}, "reply_to": "20405__0_062", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_064", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "But in the hypothetical question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [625.147], "stop_times": [627.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 625.147}, "reply_to": "20405__0_063", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20405__0_065", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [627.03], "stop_times": [627.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 627.03}, "reply_to": "20405__0_064", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_066", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--I take it you... under Justice Stevens' hypothetical you would have had the option to file that as a tariff, if you'd made that arrangement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [627.24], "stop_times": [633.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 627.24}, "reply_to": "20405__0_065", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20405__0_067", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Just let me clarify one thing about multilocation billing.\nOur tariff doesn't describe any of the details about how we bill service or provision service.\nIt defines our obligations in doing it and says what they aren't.\nOur obligations aren't to allocate charges among locations, which is what they wanted us to do.\nOur... and we have... there's not an obligation that we actually render accurate bills.\nObviously, they only pay us what's due, but if we render an inaccurate bill it doesn't excuse anybody from paying the rates, and it doesn't give anybody a right to damages, and it's our... we have implemented this obligation by giving customers a choice between two different ways of billing the service, and it's our view that we have to... we honor the choice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [633.415, 639.789, 647.983, 651.805, 656.148, 661.722], "stop_times": [639.789, 647.983, 651.805, 656.148, 661.722, 682.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 633.415}, "reply_to": "20405__0_066", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_068", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "But in the hypothetical case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [682.127], "stop_times": [683.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 682.127}, "reply_to": "20405__0_067", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20405__0_069", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [683.056], "stop_times": [683.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 683.056}, "reply_to": "20405__0_068", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_070", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--suppose that you had agreed to provide the MOL billing.\nWould that have been subject to filing as a... could you have filed that as a tariff if you had chosen to do so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [683.387, 686.849], "stop_times": [686.849, 692.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 683.387}, "reply_to": "20405__0_069", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20405__0_071", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "We could have certainly put in the tariff that the customer has two billing options, multilocation billing and network billing, and we think actually our tariff should be construed, given that we have these order forms that give people that choice, as imposing that obligation anyway.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [692.683], "stop_times": [706.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 692.683}, "reply_to": "20405__0_070", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_072", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "But didn't you just say your tariff prevents... I'm really confused about your billing position, because I thought you had just said that your tariff says you will not allocate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [706.531], "stop_times": [717.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 706.531}, "reply_to": "20405__0_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20405__0_073", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [717.889], "stop_times": [718.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 717.889}, "reply_to": "20405__0_072", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_074", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "So--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [718.38], "stop_times": [718.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 718.38}, "reply_to": "20405__0_073", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20405__0_075", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "So whatever multilocation billing is or isn't, it is not a case where we are assuming the obligation to allocate charges among locations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [718.67], "stop_times": [729.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 718.67}, "reply_to": "20405__0_074", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_076", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--But yet you did agree... you had a box to check off, and you agreed to provide this service for which the tariff didn't provide, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [729.007], "stop_times": [738.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 729.007}, "reply_to": "20405__0_075", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20405__0_077", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "I suppose there would be two ways to look at this, and I'm... the first, which I'm not going to advocate, is that the service wasn't authorized by the tariff.\nIt was therefore invalid.\nThat's not our position.\nOur position is that it was permitted under the tariff so long as it didn't constitute an allocation of charges that gave them a right not to pay us, or to sue us for damages if we didn't do it accurately, and that's their claim here.\nOne thing to remember--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [738.615, 745.408, 746.66, 748.43, 762.851], "stop_times": [745.408, 746.66, 748.43, 762.851, 764.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 738.615}, "reply_to": "20405__0_076", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_078", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well, wasn't... their claim is that... oh, that you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [764.871], "stop_times": [767.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 764.871}, "reply_to": "20405__0_077", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20405__0_079", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Their claim is that we didn't accurately bill their customers on their behalf.\nThe tariff said we won't accurately bill your customers on your behalf, and the FCC regulations say that that is a service that we can't provide in exchange for payment of the tariffed rate.\nThe FCC has defined that as outside the scope of the regulated common carrier service that we offer.\nThat's something that's been deregulated.\nSo that... this is a situation where our tariff didn't assume the obligation that they're claiming, and in which the FCC's regulations would have prevented us from trying to put the service that they're claiming into the tariff.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [767.803, 770.795, 781.751, 787.265, 789.138], "stop_times": [770.795, 781.751, 787.265, 789.138, 802.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 767.803}, "reply_to": "20405__0_078", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_080", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--But would it have prevented you from making a contract to do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [802.856], "stop_times": [805.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 802.856}, "reply_to": "20405__0_079", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20405__0_081", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "No.\nIt would not have prevented that, but it would have had to be a separate contract for a separate consideration.\nIt's... Judge Posner had a wonderful phrase--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [805.247, 805.487, 810.83], "stop_times": [805.487, 810.83, 813.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 805.247}, "reply_to": "20405__0_080", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_082", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "And would... and that would have been enforceable in State court or in Federal court on a diversity--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [813.153], "stop_times": [817.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 813.153}, "reply_to": "20405__0_081", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20405__0_083", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Yes, that would have been enforceable in State court, because that would have been a contract for an unregulated service declared by the FCC to be outside the scope of common carrier communications services.\nThat would be a like a... if we had a separate contract, to quote Judge Posner, to sell them ugli fruit at a market price, that's outside the common carrier relationship, just as it would be outside the common carrier relationship if we committed an intentional tort like libel, and the fact that someone happened to be our customer wouldn't immunize us from a libel suit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [817.715, 826.511], "stop_times": [826.511, 845.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 817.715}, "reply_to": "20405__0_082", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_084", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--But the same doesn't obtain for intentional interference with business relationships?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [845.892], "stop_times": [850.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 845.892}, "reply_to": "20405__0_083", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20405__0_085", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "It does obtain if the intentional interference doesn't arise out of a relationship with them as our long distance customer, so if we... they mention something here called slamming, which is when you change a long distance customer from someone else's service to yours without authorization.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [850.496], "stop_times": [866.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 850.496}, "reply_to": "20405__0_084", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_086", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [866.397], "stop_times": [866.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 866.397}, "reply_to": "20405__0_085", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20405__0_087", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "That's a classic example of something that is quite independent of the customer-carrier relationship, but that wasn't the basis for this judgment here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [866.597], "stop_times": [874.233], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 866.597}, "reply_to": "20405__0_086", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_088", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "But would slamming be... would an intentional interference with business relationships manifested by slamming, would that be actionable in the State court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [874.233], "stop_times": [884.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 874.233}, "reply_to": "20405__0_087", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20405__0_089", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Yes.\nThat would be actionable in the State court.\nThat would be actionable, but what's not actionable in the State court are claims involving the rates or the obligations the carrier incurs in exchange for the rates.\nThat's what's not actionable, and the proposition--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [884.218, 884.398, 885.3, 893.657], "stop_times": [884.398, 885.3, 893.657, 897.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 884.218}, "reply_to": "20405__0_088", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_090", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "I don't know why slamming... we don't have time to go into all the economics.\nI don't know why slamming doesn't have anything to do with that, just as I'm not quite sure I understand Nader, why overbooking doesn't have to do with the rates the carrier--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [897.381, 901.302], "stop_times": [901.302, 909.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 897.381}, "reply_to": "20405__0_089", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20405__0_091", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--All right.\nWell, let me respond to both.\nWhen slamming occurs, generally the carrier that's the victim isn't your customer.\nMCI occasionally changes our customers to it when they're not authorized, so that's something that has nothing to do with the fact, whether two carriers happen to be customers of one another.\nIt's entirely independent.\nIt's just fortuitous in this situation that in the two incidents of slamming that occurred, but they weren't the basis for this judgment, that COT happened to also be our customer.\nNow, with respect to Nader, that was a case, there was no filed tariff claim, and that was a case where the practice of disclosing overbooking or not... overbooking or not was outside the CAB's definition of the tariff transportation service.\nThey had a regulation that specifically authorized common law actions in the event that there was nondisclosure of overbooking.\nSo the key thing is what's within the scope of the agency's definition and the statute's definition of the regulated service, and if a claim involves the rates or the services to be provided in exchange for the rates, then it's going to be governed exclusively by Federal law and Federal standards, and State law can't be applied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [909.105, 909.726, 911.168, 917.362, 930.539, 931.781, 941.138, 957.037, 964.813], "stop_times": [909.726, 911.168, 917.362, 930.539, 931.781, 941.138, 957.037, 964.813, 983.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 909.105}, "reply_to": "20405__0_090", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_092", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--How can you tell whether something is being given in exchange for the rates?\nI mean, even the contract for ugli fruit, you know, you could get a sweetheart deal on ugli fruit because of the fact that you're paying more for the rates.\nIt's very hard to know what's... you know, what is getting the benefit of the rates and what isn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [983.975, 989.411, 1000.748], "stop_times": [989.411, 1000.748, 1007.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 983.975}, "reply_to": "20405__0_091", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20405__0_093", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well, that's true, but there's always going to be questions of law application in a case like that.\nPosner suggested he'd have to prove that the ugli fruit was provided at a market rate.\nIn this case it's easy, because the only relationship we had with COT is that they were our long distance customer.\nThe only thing we provided them was regulated long distance service, and the only thing they paid us was the tariffed rate, and this is a situation where the guarantees that they're seeking, the provision in billing guarantees, weren't in the tariff, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1007.013, 1012.765, 1015.878, 1022.401], "stop_times": [1012.765, 1015.878, 1022.401, 1035.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1007.013}, "reply_to": "20405__0_092", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_094", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "So if you did this for them, the only reason you would have done it was because of the rates that you got.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1035.31], "stop_times": [1039.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1035.31}, "reply_to": "20405__0_093", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20405__0_095", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--That was our... yes, that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1039.553], "stop_times": [1040.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1039.553}, "reply_to": "20405__0_094", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_096", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "I thought there was a whole doctrine of law designed to answer that question, which I didn't see here.\nI mean, if in fact you have a generalized statutory framework like tort law or something, and Congress may have created an exception for certain activities that fall within the jurisdiction of an agency, and you have a tariff that may or may not cover those activities, and the court is uncertain about the extent to which this particular kind of activity does or does not fall within the tariff, or fall within the statutorily implied exemption, I thought there was a doctrine of law designed to cover that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1040.964, 1044.455], "stop_times": [1044.455, 1077.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1040.964}, "reply_to": "20405__0_095", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__0_097", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Primary jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1077.377], "stop_times": [1078.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1077.377}, "reply_to": "20405__0_096", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_098", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Yes, exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1078.008], "stop_times": [1078.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1078.008}, "reply_to": "20405__0_097", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__0_099", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Yes, absolutely.\nAbsolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1078.919, 1079.28], "stop_times": [1079.28, 1079.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1078.919}, "reply_to": "20405__0_098", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_100", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Primary jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1079.82], "stop_times": [1080.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1079.82}, "reply_to": "20405__0_099", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__0_101", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "And if this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1080.301], "stop_times": [1080.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1080.301}, "reply_to": "20405__0_100", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_102", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "But nobody asked for primary... I mean, what are we supposed to do about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1080.852], "stop_times": [1083.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1080.852}, "reply_to": "20405__0_101", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__0_103", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Well, in this case there was no occasion to ask for a primary jurisdiction referral because the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1083.383], "stop_times": [1087.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1083.383}, "reply_to": "20405__0_102", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_104", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Because it's obvious that it's within the statutory exemption, implied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1087.877], "stop_times": [1091.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1087.877}, "reply_to": "20405__0_103", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__0_105", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Your Honor, if they had brought this case under the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1091.33], "stop_times": [1093.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1091.33}, "reply_to": "20405__0_104", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_106", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "I didn't mean to cut you off.\nYou were just giving an answer.\nSay what you said.\nSay what you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1093.942, 1094.613, 1095.451, 1096.112], "stop_times": [1094.613, 1095.451, 1096.112, 1098.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1093.942}, "reply_to": "20405__0_105", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__0_107", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Well, let me answer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1098.405], "stop_times": [1098.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1098.405}, "reply_to": "20405__0_106", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_108", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1098.924], "stop_times": [1099.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1098.924}, "reply_to": "20405__0_107", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__0_109", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--what I was trying to say.\nThey brought this case under the tariff.\nThey didn't bring this case under the tariff.\nThey brought it under State law, the State law standards.\nIf they'd brought it under the tariff we would have sought summary judgment on the ground that what we did didn't violate the tariff.\nIf there'd been a close question there, it would have been referred to the FCC under primary jurisdiction.\nWe raised a Federal defense to their State law claims here, and it was rejected on the ground that the doctrine only applies to rates, so we didn't... there wasn't any occasion for a primary jurisdiction referral on the validity of the defense we asserted.\nThe... this is a situation where the Court could simply say the Ninth Circuit is wrong, that the doctrine applies only to rates, and send it back to the Ninth Circuit to let it review the trial court's judgment again.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1099.144, 1099.424, 1101.247, 1102.977, 1106.269, 1111.802, 1117.208, 1130.246], "stop_times": [1099.424, 1101.247, 1102.977, 1106.269, 1111.802, 1117.208, 1130.246, 1148.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1099.144}, "reply_to": "20405__0_108", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_110", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Mr. Carpenter, before you leave the billing aspect of this claim, maybe you can clarify my confusion.\nAs I understand that claim, it is that you billed the customers directly, as was requested, the multilocation, but you gave the customers the full discount, which meant that the resellers lost the only thing that they were in the business for, that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1148.747, 1157.162], "stop_times": [1157.162, 1179.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1148.747}, "reply_to": "20405__0_109", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20405__0_111", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1179.599], "stop_times": [1180.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1179.599}, "reply_to": "20405__0_110", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_112", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--And you then said here that you could have an agreement outside the tariff with regard to the billing options, so if you can have an agreement outside the tariff for the billing options, then why wouldn't the breach of that agreement be a proper lawsuit for State court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1180.978], "stop_times": [1201.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1180.978}, "reply_to": "20405__0_111", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20405__0_113", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "It would be an unlawful preference under the Wabash Rail and other decisions of this Court if we had given them a service outside the scope of the tariff at no extra charge.\nThe only way we could--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1201.582, 1213.66], "stop_times": [1213.66, 1215.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1201.582}, "reply_to": "20405__0_112", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_114", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Oh, I see.\nYou say you could do it outside--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1215.451, 1215.901], "stop_times": [1215.901, 1217.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1215.451}, "reply_to": "20405__0_113", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20405__0_115", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Right, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1217.394], "stop_times": [1218.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1217.394}, "reply_to": "20405__0_114", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_116", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--but it has to be for an extra charge.\nI understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1218.135, 1218.416], "stop_times": [1218.416, 1219.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1218.135}, "reply_to": "20405__0_115", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20405__0_117", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "And just... everyone's very interested in multilocation billing.\nIt's really only the basis for the decision that we weren't entitled to recover the unpaid charges.\nI don't... couldn't possibly support the lost profits award.\nBut with respect to that, remember, this is a service that we designed for large corporate customers that have locations in multiple cities Any reseller, any customer is entitled to get the service on the same terms as everybody else.\nAll the terms of the service reflect the needs of those customers.\nThese are customers that like multilocation billing because it allows them to do internal... some of them like it because it allows internal cost allocations.\nIf we make mistakes when we're sending a bill to the customers for whom it's designed, it doesn't have any big consequences.\nIt's just an internal cost allocation.\nNow, it's certainly true... I mean, I accept their claims that it does have consequences for resellers, but their right is to get the service on... you know, the service on the terms set forth in the tariff, containing only the service guarantees set forth in the tariff.\nThis service doesn't have a guarantee they're going to accurately bill locations every month because the large customers didn't... you know, we didn't think they cared enough about it to want to pay extra for it.\nIt's important to these people.\nI accept that.\nTheir way of getting it under this tariff and under the FCC's regulations would have been to contract separately with us to provide that billing service at an extra market rate, and we do that all the time for resellers and other customers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1219.247, 1223.46, 1228.824, 1232.056, 1248.359, 1251.961, 1260.356, 1266.36, 1267.83, 1282.009, 1292.706, 1293.987, 1294.537], "stop_times": [1223.46, 1228.824, 1232.056, 1248.359, 1251.961, 1260.356, 1266.36, 1267.83, 1282.009, 1292.706, 1293.987, 1294.537, 1308.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1219.247}, "reply_to": "20405__0_116", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_118", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Mr. Carpenter, I lost part of your explanation.\nYou said that the choice between network billing and multilocation billing was available to them at no extra charge, as I under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1308.518, 1310.75], "stop_times": [1310.75, 1319.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1308.518}, "reply_to": "20405__0_117", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20405__0_119", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Yes, that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1319.074], "stop_times": [1319.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1319.074}, "reply_to": "20405__0_118", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_120", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--So why should they have to pay extra for it to have a binding agreement to take one rather than the other.\nThey only have to pay extra to get it done right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1319.445, 1324.127], "stop_times": [1324.127, 1325.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1319.445}, "reply_to": "20405__0_119", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20405__0_121", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "No--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1325.74, 1326.809], "stop_times": [1326.809, 1328.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1325.74}, "reply_to": "20405__0_120", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_122", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1328.15], "stop_times": [1328.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1328.15}, "reply_to": "20405__0_121", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20405__0_123", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "That's a very--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1328.361], "stop_times": [1328.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1328.361}, "reply_to": "20405__0_122", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_124", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well, it's a tendentious way to put it, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1328.992], "stop_times": [1330.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1328.992}, "reply_to": "20405__0_123", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__0_125", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--It's a very... I think it actually... it does boil down to that.\nIf we were going to guarantee that we were going to accurately do that every month, we would be charging more.\nThere's no such guarantee in our tariff, and we don't ever guarantee... well, we guarantee some tariffs accurate billing, but it's something that people pay extra for.\nIn this service, the customers for whom it's designed didn't care enough about this to want to pay extra.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1330.501, 1334.815, 1340.408, 1348.293], "stop_times": [1334.815, 1340.408, 1348.293, 1353.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1330.501}, "reply_to": "20405__0_124", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_126", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Isn't it... this... I thought the answer to Justice Stevens' question... correct me if I'm wrong, because I think it's important... is that there are certain services that AT&T in our odd, sort of half-slave, half-free world that we have at the moment, provides on the free side and the FCC has a tariff, or has a rule, rather, that says certain kinds of areas don't fall within the tariffs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1353.336], "stop_times": [1377.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1353.336}, "reply_to": "20405__0_125", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__0_127", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1377.121], "stop_times": [1377.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1377.121}, "reply_to": "20405__0_126", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_128", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "And it's because of that rule, not because of any fairness or anything else in the situation, it's because of that rule that you operate now in the nonregulated world, and once you're in the nonregulated world, of course, contract law, tort law and every other law governs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1377.492], "stop_times": [1392.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1377.492}, "reply_to": "20405__0_127", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__0_129", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1392.351], "stop_times": [1392.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1392.351}, "reply_to": "20405__0_128", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_130", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "And that's why, not because of the fairness of the situation or anything else, that had they paid for it they would have taken themselves within the scope of that rule--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1392.642], "stop_times": [1400.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1392.642}, "reply_to": "20405__0_129", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__0_131", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1400.957], "stop_times": [1401.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1400.957}, "reply_to": "20405__0_130", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_132", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--and thereby removed themselves from the tariff-regulated world.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1401.228], "stop_times": [1404.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1401.228}, "reply_to": "20405__0_131", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__0_133", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1404.72], "stop_times": [1404.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1404.72}, "reply_to": "20405__0_132", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_134", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1404.94], "stop_times": [1405.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1404.94}, "reply_to": "20405__0_133", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__0_135", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1405.481], "stop_times": [1405.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1405.481}, "reply_to": "20405__0_134", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_136", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1405.982], "stop_times": [1406.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1405.982}, "reply_to": "20405__0_135", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__0_137", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "And it would have been an unlawful rebate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1406.222], "stop_times": [1407.564], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1406.222}, "reply_to": "20405__0_136", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_138", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1407.564], "stop_times": [1407.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1407.564}, "reply_to": "20405__0_137", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__0_139", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--if we'd given them that unregulated billing service--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1407.844], "stop_times": [1410.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1407.844}, "reply_to": "20405__0_138", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_140", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "If you're in the regulated world.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1410.386], "stop_times": [1412.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1410.386}, "reply_to": "20405__0_139", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__0_141", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--for nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1412.116], "stop_times": [1412.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1412.116}, "reply_to": "20405__0_140", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_142", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "If... as long... if they don't pay for it, they're in the regulated world defined by the FCC tariff... the FCC rule.\nAm I right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1412.797, 1420.552], "stop_times": [1420.552, 1421.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1412.797}, "reply_to": "20405__0_141", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__0_143", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "If all they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1421.243], "stop_times": [1421.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1421.243}, "reply_to": "20405__0_142", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_144", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Am I right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1421.683], "stop_times": [1422.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1421.683}, "reply_to": "20405__0_143", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__0_145", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--pay for is... if all they pay us is the tariff rate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1422.354], "stop_times": [1425.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1422.354}, "reply_to": "20405__0_144", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_146", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1425.316], "stop_times": [1425.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1425.316}, "reply_to": "20405__0_145", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__0_147", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--all they're entitled to are services that are authorized by the tariff, and under the FCC's rule the particular kind of billing service they want has to be provided outside the tariff in the deregulated world.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1425.446], "stop_times": [1437.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1425.446}, "reply_to": "20405__0_146", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_148", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "And the reason you said what you just said... I want you... I want to be sure I'm thinking about this right... is because when they don't pay for it under a particular FCC interpretation of a statute or something, they fall within the regulated world.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1437.664], "stop_times": [1452.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1437.664}, "reply_to": "20405__0_147", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__0_149", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "I wouldn't put it quite that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1452.163], "stop_times": [1454.306], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1452.163}, "reply_to": "20405__0_148", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_150", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well, how would you put it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1454.306], "stop_times": [1455.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1454.306}, "reply_to": "20405__0_149", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__0_151", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "The way I would put it is that they're entitled, in exchange for payment of the tariffed rate, to get services that are within the scope of the tariff.\nIf we give them something extra, that's outside the scope of the tariff, whether it's a regulated something extra, or an unregulated something extra, that's a rebate and a preference.\nThis case is easy, because the something extra is unregulated and can only be provided in contracts and can't be provided as part of the tariff service.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1455.047, 1461.612, 1471.59], "stop_times": [1461.612, 1471.59, 1480.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1455.047}, "reply_to": "20405__0_150", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_152", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well, is the option regulated or unregulated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1480.344], "stop_times": [1483.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1480.344}, "reply_to": "20405__0_151", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20405__0_153", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1483.146], "stop_times": [1484.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1483.146}, "reply_to": "20405__0_152", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_154", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "When you give them an option, is that regulated or un--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1484.767], "stop_times": [1487.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1484.767}, "reply_to": "20405__0_153", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20405__0_155", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--The option is regulated, because the option doesn't encompass the things that would make it an unregulated service.\nUnregulated is when we provide a... what's unregulated is if we basically provide a service in which we were going to bill not our customer, but the customers of our customers.\nNow, they say they're a carrier.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1487.518, 1494.785, 1508.643], "stop_times": [1494.785, 1508.643, 1510.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1487.518}, "reply_to": "20405__0_154", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_156", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--But as I understand it, you've told them that for no extra charge you will do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1510.415], "stop_times": [1514.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1510.415}, "reply_to": "20405__0_155", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20405__0_157", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "No.\nFor no extra charge, we have told them that we will send bills to whatever locations that they designate that will show on the bill a portion of the volume discount.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1514.667, 1515.508], "stop_times": [1515.508, 1527.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1514.667}, "reply_to": "20405__0_156", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_158", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Bills to them, as distinct from bills to their customer?\nWho are you billing when you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1527.075, 1530.878], "stop_times": [1530.878, 1532.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1527.075}, "reply_to": "20405__0_157", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20405__0_159", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "This is the way in which we bill our customer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1532.798], "stop_times": [1534.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1532.798}, "reply_to": "20405__0_158", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_160", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Right, so the bill is going to read, you, customer, pay so much for service at this location, as opposed to your... you, customer's customer, pay this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1534.899], "stop_times": [1545.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1534.899}, "reply_to": "20405__0_159", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20405__0_161", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1545.027], "stop_times": [1545.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1545.027}, "reply_to": "20405__0_160", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_162", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1545.207], "stop_times": [1545.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1545.207}, "reply_to": "20405__0_161", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20405__0_163", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "That's right.\nThat's all we can do under the... the tariff governs the billing relationship between us and our customers.\nIf somebody wants a service in which we're going to help our customers recover money for long distance service from their customer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1545.638, 1545.798, 1551.064], "stop_times": [1545.798, 1551.064, 1559.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1545.638}, "reply_to": "20405__0_162", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_164", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "But as I understand it, the tariff doesn't require you to do either of those options.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1559.008], "stop_times": [1561.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1559.008}, "reply_to": "20405__0_163", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20405__0_165", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--What the tariff does is, it prohibits us from providing the service that they want.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1561.831], "stop_times": [1566.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1561.831}, "reply_to": "20405__0_164", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_166", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "It prohibits you from giving that option to the customer, because I thought you did give that option to the customer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1566.201], "stop_times": [1571.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1566.201}, "reply_to": "20405__0_165", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20405__0_167", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nWe give the customer a choice between two ways of getting bills, neither of which can, under the tariff, constitute the allocation of charges.\nThe reason these services can be lawfully offered under the tariff and the customers can be lawfully given this option is that the billing service we offer doesn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1571.937, 1572.275, 1582.884], "stop_times": [1572.275, 1582.884, 1593.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1571.937}, "reply_to": "20405__0_166", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_168", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "What you're saying, as I understand it, is you can give the option pursuant to the tariff, but if you guarantee the option, they have to pay extra.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1593.469], "stop_times": [1600.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1593.469}, "reply_to": "20405__0_167", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20405__0_169", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--If... they would have to pay extra if we guarantee we do it right, but the other additional factor is, is if we're assuming an obligation for billing their customers, which is what they're claiming, then it's in the deregulated world that Justice Breyer referred to, and we can only do it by contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1600.705], "stop_times": [1617.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1600.705}, "reply_to": "20405__0_168", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_170", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "All right.\nThe part that I don't understand is... I understand your last statement that if you're going to bill the customer's customer, that's in the deregulated world.\nYou can only do it by separate contract, separate consideration.\nWhat about the situation in which you bill your customer?\nI thought you could not make a separate contract to bill your customer accurately for separate consideration because that would be at variance with the tariff.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1617.496, 1618.006, 1624.421, 1627.553, 1631.537], "stop_times": [1618.006, 1624.421, 1627.553, 1631.537, 1641.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1617.496}, "reply_to": "20405__0_169", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20405__0_171", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1641.645], "stop_times": [1642.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1641.645}, "reply_to": "20405__0_170", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_172", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "That is correct, okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1642.213], "stop_times": [1642.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1642.213}, "reply_to": "20405__0_171", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20405__0_173", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "That's correct.\nThat's correct, Now, you know, people could argue that the tariff should be construed as requiring us to do that, but basically the only service guarantees that are enforced against us are those that are expressed in the tariff.\nThat was what this Court held in the Kirby and the Davis and Robertson cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1642.724, 1642.944, 1654.34], "stop_times": [1642.944, 1654.34, 1657.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1642.724}, "reply_to": "20405__0_172", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_174", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well, I think in... perhaps in kidding around with one of the questions earlier you may have conceded too much, because I thought you were conceding that if the customer wanted the tariff service of multilocation billing done accurately, and wanted to be able to enforce it as an obligation to do it accurately, the customer would have to pay extra for it, separate consideration, and I think your answer is no, the customer... we simply cannot do that and the customer cannot do it.\nThe only thing we can do which adds or is different from what is in the tariff is to provide the entirely separate service of billing the customer's customer.\nThat's unregulated.\nThat, we can do it, that they can enforce by contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1657.723, 1684.01, 1696.118, 1696.93], "stop_times": [1684.01, 1696.118, 1696.93, 1699.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1657.723}, "reply_to": "20405__0_173", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20405__0_175", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1699.37], "stop_times": [1700.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1699.37}, "reply_to": "20405__0_174", "speaker": "david_w_carpenter"}
{"id": "20405__0_176", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Carpenter.\nMr. Hall, we'll hear from you.\nWould you tell us what was the basis for Federal jurisdiction in the district court here, Mr. Hall?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1700.151, 1701.963, 1705.356], "stop_times": [1701.963, 1705.356, 1709.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1700.151}, "reply_to": "20405__0_175", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20405__1_000", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nWe sued under diversity.\nMay it please the Court... Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court:\nWe say that the Ninth Circuit should be affirmed on three separate grounds, one of which is the competitive relationships between the two companies under which the inter... pardon me, the intentional interference claim was filed, and the second one is that the Savings Clause in the Federal Communications Act saves the interference claim and saves our claim for wilful misconduct.\nAnd our third reason, argument is that the tariff itself expressly provides for the action that we brought.\nThat particular section has not been mentioned so far in the discussions.\nThe competitor claims--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1709.66, 1711.821, 1714.312, 1719.787, 1743.475, 1749.449, 1755.343], "stop_times": [1711.821, 1714.312, 1719.787, 1743.475, 1749.449, 1755.343, 1756.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1709.66}, "reply_to": "20405__0_176", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_001", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Just on the last point, because I think it follows from what we've just been discussing with petitioner's counsel, if the service is provided by the tariff then you should have sued under the Federal law sections 201 through 207 for violation of the terms of the tariff, or unreasonable provision of services in violation of the tariff, and you didn't do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1756.976], "stop_times": [1784.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1756.976}, "reply_to": "20405__1_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20405__1_002", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--That is not raised here as an issue, Your Honor, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1784.464], "stop_times": [1787.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1784.464}, "reply_to": "20405__1_001", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_003", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well, but it's important because we're trying to ask if there is a cause of action and, if so, what it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1787.065], "stop_times": [1793.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1787.065}, "reply_to": "20405__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20405__1_004", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Well, there are two causes of action here, Your Honor.\nOne of them, the intentional interference, is simply totally outside of the tariff and is preserved by the savings clause and then separately from that it's simply not within the cognizance of the Communications Act, the relationships between these two competitors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1793.6, 1795.11], "stop_times": [1795.11, 1810.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1793.6}, "reply_to": "20405__1_003", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_005", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well, if you're right--\n--But your case is... it seems to me it's very important for us to understand whether or not you would have had a cause of action under this third argument that you mentioned that the tariffs did, in fact, provide this and it wasn't being given.\nIt seems to me the answer to that is to sue under the Federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1810.76, 1812.761, 1823.708], "stop_times": [1812.761, 1823.708, 1826.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1810.76}, "reply_to": "20405__1_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20405__1_006", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Your Honor, we have made the assumption, and I believe that AT&T has made the statement to the FCC to the same effect, that wilful misconduct is fully... can be sued under, and it is 2.3.1 of the tariff.\nIt is the section... it is the lead section of the tariff.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1826.9, 1841.971], "stop_times": [1841.971, 1844.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1826.9}, "reply_to": "20405__1_005", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_007", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "But surely a person cannot, by tariff, change the meaning of the Federal statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1844.662], "stop_times": [1849.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1844.662}, "reply_to": "20405__1_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__1_008", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well, this has been--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1849.748], "stop_times": [1851.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1849.748}, "reply_to": "20405__1_007", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_009", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "So your argument is that... in fact, your claim... your claim, this kind of a claim, when we read the communications statute, the communications statute does not mean to preempt this kind of claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1851.847], "stop_times": [1864.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1851.847}, "reply_to": "20405__1_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__1_010", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--That is true, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1864.085], "stop_times": [1864.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1864.085}, "reply_to": "20405__1_009", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_011", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "All right.\nFine.\nEither your argument arises under the tariff, or it doesn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1864.595, 1864.785, 1865.236], "stop_times": [1864.785, 1865.236, 1868.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1864.595}, "reply_to": "20405__1_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__1_012", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1868.578], "stop_times": [1868.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1868.578}, "reply_to": "20405__1_011", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_013", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "If it does, Justice Kennedy says go to the commission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1868.829], "stop_times": [1871.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1868.829}, "reply_to": "20405__1_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__1_014", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Our third--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1871.242], "stop_times": [1871.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1871.242}, "reply_to": "20405__1_013", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_015", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "If it doesn't, I say don't the courts continuously... hasn't this Court continuously, where it's a close question, in the antitrust area, for example, said where the claim is, Judge, the communications statute, the regulatory statute isn't meant to preempt this kind of claim.\nWhere that's a close question, hasn't this Court always said go first to the commission and see what they think?\nGo first, get the interpretation of the tariff, get the interpretation of the statute, get their views on whether that's so or not, and then come to court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1871.601, 1889.271, 1895.426], "stop_times": [1889.271, 1895.426, 1902.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1871.601}, "reply_to": "20405__1_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__1_016", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Well, on this instance, as counsel mentioned to Your Honor, they did not ask for a referral.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1902.001], "stop_times": [1906.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1902.001}, "reply_to": "20405__1_015", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_017", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Maybe they didn't, but what's the judge supposed to do if he wants to follow the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1906.583], "stop_times": [1910.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1906.583}, "reply_to": "20405__1_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__1_018", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well, I think the judge felt that the common law claims were well within his cognizance and the wilfulness conduct claim which we say is under the filed tariff itself, it is authorized by 203 (a), which as the filing of the tariff becomes the law, 201... pardon me, 2.3.1, which is the wilful misconduct cause of action, if you will--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1910.807], "stop_times": [1934.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1910.807}, "reply_to": "20405__1_017", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_019", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Now, wait, do you read that as saying any State cause of action for wilful misconduct will lie?\nI read it as saying that the limitations which the tariff has on liability, those limitations contained in the tariff do not apply in the case of wilful misconduct.\nFor example, (b) says... all of this is on page 10a of your brief, the blue brief.\nI'm sorry, the petitioner's brief.\n(b) says the company is not liable for damages associated with service channels or equipment which it does not furnish.\nWell, I suppose that if they intentionally somehow got you assigned somebody else's equipment that was inferior, this wilful misconduct provision would eliminate that, that exemption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1934.542, 1941.247, 1951.653, 1957.908, 1959.798, 1965.243], "stop_times": [1941.247, 1951.653, 1957.908, 1959.798, 1965.243, 1982.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1934.542}, "reply_to": "20405__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20405__1_020", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Well, wilful--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1982.083], "stop_times": [1982.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1982.083}, "reply_to": "20405__1_019", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_021", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "But I don't read it as saying that so long as it's wilful you can bring suit for over... I mean, for charging you too much.\nYou think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1982.734, 1993.941], "stop_times": [1993.941, 1994.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1982.734}, "reply_to": "20405__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20405__1_022", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Definitely not that, Your Honor.\nThat would be rate, or rate-affecting, and we... our lawsuit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1994.692, 1995.834], "stop_times": [1995.834, 1998.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1994.692}, "reply_to": "20405__1_021", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_023", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1998.325], "stop_times": [1998.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1998.325}, "reply_to": "20405__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20405__1_024", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--is not rate or rate-affecting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1998.565], "stop_times": [1999.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1998.565}, "reply_to": "20405__1_023", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_025", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Okay.\nSo you ultimately have to get down to that argument.\nWilful doesn't take you out of the box if you have to prove--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [1999.607, 2000.047, 2002.709], "stop_times": [2000.047, 2002.709, 2005.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1999.607}, "reply_to": "20405__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20405__1_026", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "No.\nWe read into that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2005.63, 2005.811], "stop_times": [2005.811, 2006.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2005.63}, "reply_to": "20405__1_025", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_027", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2006.281], "stop_times": [2006.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2006.281}, "reply_to": "20405__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20405__1_028", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--that it must not be rate-affecting as well, because we know the cases like Marco, where you had a collision between wilful misconduct and misrepresentation of rates.\nThis is not a misrepresentation of rates case, or rate-related, in our view, and counsel has mentioned, I believe, that the FCC might perhaps give guidance on these nontariffed items.\nIt hasn't done so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2006.592, 2016.657, 2028.084], "stop_times": [2016.657, 2028.084, 2028.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2006.592}, "reply_to": "20405__1_027", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_029", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "But don't you have the obligation to ask them?\nThat is, why isn't our problem, or is it... we say, of course, if it's a tariff violation or the tariff was unreasonable under the statute, which you could also argue, you should have gone to the commission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2028.715, 2031.088], "stop_times": [2031.088, 2041.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2028.715}, "reply_to": "20405__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__1_030", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2041.785], "stop_times": [2042.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2041.785}, "reply_to": "20405__1_029", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_031", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Now, on your argument, which is, all that's irrelevant because the statute doesn't mean to preempt State unfair competition law, you still should have gone to the commission to get some determination about that.\nNow, if you ran into a statute of limitations problem, maybe you file your case in the court and then ask them under primary jurisdiction to hold it while you go to the commission, but that would be your responsibility.\nSo why don't we end up saying, at least it's a close question, therefore you didn't go to the right place?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2042.386, 2053.723, 2062.998], "stop_times": [2053.723, 2062.998, 2067.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2042.386}, "reply_to": "20405__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__1_032", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Well, there's quite a body of, I guess you'd call it negotiation in this area already, Your Honor.\nI'm doing my arguments in reverse now, but in any event, the amici for us have come in, the large users, and put into their index a great number... they can't, because of confidentiality, go into the details of those contracts, but they have put in a large number of subject areas which are exactly the subject areas that we're talking about in our particular case.\nAT&T at page 35 of its opening brief went into the same kind of listings of things that are associated with tariff items, or a part of... they called them the details a minute ago, that are all part and parcel of it, and as a matter of fact, we have in our own case where we went back after the amicus brief and... these are ER.\nThese are in the record, but they were not in my briefing, and simply looked at what AT&T gave us when we signed up for a software-defined network.\nThis is all part of what the court instructed was going to be part of the contract for these people to... the jury to work on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2067.351, 2073.855, 2094.739, 2113.121, 2120.545], "stop_times": [2073.855, 2094.739, 2113.121, 2120.545, 2128.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2067.351}, "reply_to": "20405__1_031", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_033", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "But it's a classic case, isn't it, if you're saying this is all too complicated, it's absurd to think that people have to read all this, where you would go to the commission and say, commission, the statute requires reasonable rate services.\nTheir rate and services under a thing like that, nobody can understand that, and therefore it's totally unreasonable, and therefore it's outside the statute, and moreover, we get reparations.\nReparations, I take it, is something the FCC can award, or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2128.022, 2138.967, 2147.753], "stop_times": [2138.967, 2147.753, 2151.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2128.022}, "reply_to": "20405__1_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__1_034", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well, Your Honor, maybe if we had the FCC guidelines type of situation with the Robinson-Patman Act, but here we have... the FCC doesn't even want the filed tariff doctrine any more, and I don't think as a practical matter we'd have much luck.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2151.997], "stop_times": [2163.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2151.997}, "reply_to": "20405__1_033", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_035", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well, your complaint, Mr. Hall, was not of a violation of any provisions of the act, was it, or was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2163.195], "stop_times": [2173.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2163.195}, "reply_to": "20405__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20405__1_036", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nUnder our... under 2.3.1, that takes its direct authority from 202(a) as the filing requirement, and 20... 2.3.1, which says the liability, if any, of AT&T for its wilfulness conduct is not limited by this tariff, and to us, that was extremely clear language.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2173.192, 2174.02], "stop_times": [2174.02, 2192.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2173.192}, "reply_to": "20405__1_035", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_037", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well, then it seems to me your response to Justice Breyer's question is not adequate, because section 208 seems to say that if you're complaining about a carrier's violation of the act you can file a complaint with the commission and the commission will adjudicate it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2192.583], "stop_times": [2210.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2192.583}, "reply_to": "20405__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20405__1_038", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, but this would render obligatory the 2.3.1.\nIt is a separate cause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2210.035, 2213.858], "stop_times": [2213.858, 2215.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2210.035}, "reply_to": "20405__1_037", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_039", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "What is... is that a regulation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2215.491], "stop_times": [2217.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2215.491}, "reply_to": "20405__1_038", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20405__1_040", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "That is part of the tariff, Your Honor, which has the authority of 2.\n--203 (a).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2217.771, 2221.553], "stop_times": [2221.553, 2222.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2217.771}, "reply_to": "20405__1_039", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_041", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "But how could a tariff repeal a part of the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2222.774], "stop_times": [2226.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2222.774}, "reply_to": "20405__1_040", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20405__1_042", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "It didn't repeal it, Your Honor.\nIt simply gave, under the right of 203(a), wilful misconduct to the customer as a way of seeking redress.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2226.066, 2227.548], "stop_times": [2227.548, 2238.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2226.066}, "reply_to": "20405__1_041", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_043", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "But why couldn't he... why shouldn't he, why mustn't he do it under the Federal statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2238.034], "stop_times": [2243.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2238.034}, "reply_to": "20405__1_042", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20405__1_044", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well, again, Your Honor, we are saying, and we have said--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2243.029], "stop_times": [2246.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2243.029}, "reply_to": "20405__1_043", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_045", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "It says the company's liability is not limited by the tariff, as I assume the company has to pay an amount that's not set forth in the tariff in the event of wilful misconduct, but that is far different from saying that it must look to State law and that the customer can go to State law.\nYour intentional tort, misconduct, interference, now is that brought under the... is that a violation of the act, or is that a State law claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2246.719, 2263.121], "stop_times": [2263.121, 2276.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2246.719}, "reply_to": "20405__1_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20405__1_046", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--That is a State law claim, Your Honor, which was brought under the savings clause and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2276.138], "stop_times": [2279.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2276.138}, "reply_to": "20405__1_045", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_047", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well then, then that you wouldn't... even if we assume that you would have to go to the commission to get adjudicated a claim that what AT&T did was in violation of the act, if you're not claiming a violation of the act, then presumably that would not apply and you wouldn't have to go the commission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2279.982], "stop_times": [2294.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2279.982}, "reply_to": "20405__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20405__1_048", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, we are saying two things about our intentional claim.\nFirst of all, we're saying intentional claim is separate from the Communications Act.\nIt's simply not within its purview.\nIt's not the kind of a thing, the customer relationship, that the Communications Act addresses.\nThis is between competitors.\nThis... the... I believe the Court has probably seen in our opening brief where we had to state our position of facts quite differently from AT&T, is that we had a very classic intentional interference claim where they wished to put us out of business, and where--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2294.611, 2298.895, 2303.246, 2304.638, 2309.25, 2311.431], "stop_times": [2298.895, 2303.246, 2304.638, 2309.25, 2311.431, 2326.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2294.611}, "reply_to": "20405__1_047", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_049", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well, suppose they try to put you out of business by charging too much, charging more than their filed tariff allows for this service.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2326.173], "stop_times": [2332.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2326.173}, "reply_to": "20405__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20405__1_050", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2332.886], "stop_times": [2333.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2332.886}, "reply_to": "20405__1_049", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_051", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Would you have a separate State cause of action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2333.847], "stop_times": [2335.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2333.847}, "reply_to": "20405__1_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20405__1_052", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Your Honor, that one, we cited to you some antitrust cases, and two of those antitrust cases that we cited... these are in the circuits... City of Kirkwood and City of Groton, were ones where there were price squeezes, where the municipality had its price squeezed by the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2335.388], "stop_times": [2349.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2335.388}, "reply_to": "20405__1_051", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_053", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "The prices charged were the tariff prices.\nThey were complaining that the tariff prices were set at such a level that there was a squeeze between what it cost them to provide the service and what they had to pay to the carrier.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2349.956, 2354.291], "stop_times": [2354.291, 2365.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2349.956}, "reply_to": "20405__1_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20405__1_054", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--I was trying to answer your question, Your Honor, only to say that the... that those issues have been considered.\nThat is not in our case, however.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2365.658, 2369.962], "stop_times": [2369.962, 2372.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2365.658}, "reply_to": "20405__1_053", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_055", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Just answer my question.\nSuppose you claimed that the way they were trying to harm you as a competitor was by charging you more than the tariff allowed, would you have a private cause of action for that either under 2.3.1 or anywhere else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2372.242, 2373.553], "stop_times": [2373.553, 2387.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2372.242}, "reply_to": "20405__1_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20405__1_056", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "I don't think we would win, Your Honor, but we would certainly cite those two cases I just mentioned to you, because they do tend to support our position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2387.613], "stop_times": [2398.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2387.613}, "reply_to": "20405__1_055", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_057", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "You see, I thought you had conceded that point.\nIn answer to my question earlier, when we were talking about wilful misconduct, I thought the position you took was that all that wilful misconduct applies to is wilful misconduct with regard to matters other than the tariffed items, but you're now saying that it includes wilful misconduct even regarding the matters covered in the tariff.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2398.99, 2401.061], "stop_times": [2401.061, 2420.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2398.99}, "reply_to": "20405__1_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20405__1_058", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Both.\nYes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2420.395, 2420.795], "stop_times": [2420.795, 2421.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2420.395}, "reply_to": "20405__1_057", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_059", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Okay.\nThey can I... I'm trying to be helpful to you on this first part of the question.\nI'm going back to the Chief Justice's question, which was the question of let's focus, forgetting all the tariff stuff, forgetting everything but your State claim, which you say was saved from the statute by the savings clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2421.737, 2421.947, 2425.2], "stop_times": [2421.947, 2425.2, 2440.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2421.737}, "reply_to": "20405__1_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__1_060", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2440.47], "stop_times": [2440.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2440.47}, "reply_to": "20405__1_059", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_061", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "That's, I take it, another way of saying that this statute, the Communications Act, does not mean to displace State law here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2440.71], "stop_times": [2449.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2440.71}, "reply_to": "20405__1_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__1_062", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "That is right, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2449.485], "stop_times": [2451.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2449.485}, "reply_to": "20405__1_061", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_063", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "All right.\nNow, the case that's most in your favor I think is Nader, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2451.378, 2451.598], "stop_times": [2451.598, 2455.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2451.378}, "reply_to": "20405__1_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__1_064", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "It... I think it is also supported by Morales--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2455.97], "stop_times": [2459.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2455.97}, "reply_to": "20405__1_063", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_065", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2459.122], "stop_times": [2459.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2459.122}, "reply_to": "20405__1_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__1_066", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--v. TWA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2459.412], "stop_times": [2460.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2459.412}, "reply_to": "20405__1_065", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_067", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "All right.\nIf I think of Nader, I think of a case where this Court thought that the law, the State law was clear enough, given a decision by the agency that we want nothing to do with overbooking.\nThat's a matter of State tort law.\nIn light of that, it's clear enough that you can proceed in court without ever going to the FCC or the agency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2460.023, 2460.354, 2474.844, 2476.136], "stop_times": [2460.354, 2474.844, 2476.136, 2483.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2460.023}, "reply_to": "20405__1_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__1_068", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2483.879], "stop_times": [2484.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2483.879}, "reply_to": "20405__1_067", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_069", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "All the antitrust cases say, it's not at all clear.\nWe don't know what this means, or whether Congress did or did not want to displace the Federal system of antitrust law, so go to the agency first.\nWe want their advice.\nNow, why does your case fall within the first and not the second?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2484.529, 2487.662, 2495.356, 2496.338], "stop_times": [2487.662, 2495.356, 2496.338, 2501.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2484.529}, "reply_to": "20405__1_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__1_070", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2501.861], "stop_times": [2502.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2501.861}, "reply_to": "20405__1_069", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_071", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Why... in other words, my first take on it would be, of course Congress wanted to displace State unfair competition law.\nAt least it's unclear.\nNow, why is my initial take on that wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2502.221, 2509.645, 2511.318], "stop_times": [2509.645, 2511.318, 2514.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2502.221}, "reply_to": "20405__1_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__1_072", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Well, if I understood your correction... your question correctly, Your Honor, the antitrust claims that we cited did survive the Communications Act and filed rate doctrine objections.\nThese were Communications Act cases in one instance.\nThe other kinds of claims that are... that involve us also go under 414.\nThey go under the general competition viewpoint that let those antitrust cases go because they were not within the purview of the Communications Act, and we believe that's a strong separate basis.\nIn the Ninth Circuit there was a cooperative communications case mentioned by both the dissent and the majority.\nThat one was one in which the minority praised the case, or the result, which was under the... 414 and also because it was an independent competitor claim.\nUnder both instances it was free from the filed rate doctrine and the problems that we had in the court below.\nBut what had happened was, it didn't... the dissent did not recognize that we, too, are a competitor just as counsel advised the Court just a moment ago.\nWe're a competitor just as much as the cooperative communication case that the dissent approved.\nWe have under 414... you were mentioning Nader.\nIn the later case of TWA v. Morales, in that particular case there was an amendment, the Airline Deregulation Act, to the FAA, and under that one the Court found a very strong preemption and strong related-to language.\nUnder both of those approaches, the State AG's efforts to regulate went out the window, and the Court said in that particular case in citing Nader that the pre-1978 FAA, Nader... pardon me, the State AG's would have been able to do exactly what they did do, or tried to do, I should have said.\nAnd also, they added on that the States could have regulated intrastate rates of these carriers, and even the rates of interstate carriers that were intrastate, so that was a very strong case, and they relied upon the savings clause of the prior act, of the FAA act.\nThat savings clause is word-for-word the same clause that we have in the Federal Communications Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2514.38, 2529.549, 2532.602, 2541.308, 2551.766, 2560.014, 2570.73, 2576.423, 2585.85, 2591.142, 2596.227, 2617.139, 2637.922, 2658.947], "stop_times": [2529.549, 2532.602, 2541.308, 2551.766, 2560.014, 2570.73, 2576.423, 2585.85, 2591.142, 2596.227, 2617.139, 2637.922, 2658.947, 2664.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2514.38}, "reply_to": "20405__1_071", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_073", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well, the response that AT&T makes to that, of course, is that how... you can't possibly interpret a savings clause, unless you're going to gut the Federal legislation, to save State law that positively contradicts the Federal law.\nI mean, that's interpreting it so much so that there's nothing left of the Federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2664.6, 2677.729], "stop_times": [2677.729, 2682.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2664.6}, "reply_to": "20405__1_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20405__1_074", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well, there, Your Honor, I guess our answer to that has been that we can't understand how attempting to put somebody out of business and wilful misconduct which included a mess of dirty tricks relates to the purposes of the Communications Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2682.853], "stop_times": [2696.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2682.853}, "reply_to": "20405__1_073", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_075", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "It depends.\nIf you try to... if your claim is that they tried to put you out of business by committing a violation of the Federal Communications Act, then you're simply contradicting the Communications Act if you're asserting that they should have provided you off-tariff services which the tariff... which the act does not permit them to provide.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2696.571, 2697.202], "stop_times": [2697.202, 2722.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2696.571}, "reply_to": "20405__1_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20405__1_076", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well, again, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2722.179], "stop_times": [2722.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2722.179}, "reply_to": "20405__1_075", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_077", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "If that's your business claim you're contradicting the act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2722.74], "stop_times": [2724.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2722.74}, "reply_to": "20405__1_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20405__1_078", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--We go back to the really quite a large body of work we have in this particular case where we have the... our amici, AT&T itself at various parts of its brief, in the materials I indicated to the Court that we received, we have a large body of, if not law, of business practice occurring now where a huge amount is not under the direct tariff language.\nNobody can tell a carrier what it puts into the tariff.\nThey may put in nonrate-affecting materials in there, so you have to look at everything to see whether they are or are not rate-affecting, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2724.71, 2745.844, 2750.526], "stop_times": [2745.844, 2750.526, 2758.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2724.71}, "reply_to": "20405__1_077", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_079", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "May I just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2758.033], "stop_times": [2758.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2758.033}, "reply_to": "20405__1_078", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20405__1_080", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Pardon me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2758.283], "stop_times": [2758.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2758.283}, "reply_to": "20405__1_079", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_081", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--I'm sorry, I didn't want to... I thought you'd finished your answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2758.493], "stop_times": [2760.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2758.493}, "reply_to": "20405__1_080", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20405__1_082", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Excuse me, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2760.456], "stop_times": [2761.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2760.456}, "reply_to": "20405__1_081", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_083", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "I just want to get two things straight on the record for my own information.\nUntil Justice Breyer raised this question about primary jurisdiction, had the AT&T ever, or the district court or anybody else suggested that there was a primary jurisdiction issue in the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2761.285, 2766.37], "stop_times": [2766.37, 2776.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2761.285}, "reply_to": "20405__1_082", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20405__1_084", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2776.556], "stop_times": [2776.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2776.556}, "reply_to": "20405__1_083", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_085", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "And the second question I have is, has the FCC... have they filed an amicus brief at any stage of these proceedings?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2776.816], "stop_times": [2783.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2776.816}, "reply_to": "20405__1_084", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20405__1_086", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2783.25], "stop_times": [2783.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2783.25}, "reply_to": "20405__1_085", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_087", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "It seems unusual.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2783.65], "stop_times": [2785.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2783.65}, "reply_to": "20405__1_086", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20405__1_088", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "We suggested they do, but they didn't respond.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2785.273], "stop_times": [2786.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2785.273}, "reply_to": "20405__1_087", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_089", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "I see.\nAnd the third... I guess my third question is, is it your claim that the matters of which you complain are outside the tariff or within the tariff?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2786.692, 2787.323], "stop_times": [2787.323, 2795.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2786.692}, "reply_to": "20405__1_088", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20405__1_090", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Your Honor, they are... it's a strange mix, and I will tell you one of the reasons why, is that at the trial the AT&T tariff expert said that provisioning and billing, which are a large part of what we're talking about here, are not in the tariff, and that has not helped us make a... this fine distinction here.\nWe have... in our pretrial order we listed the kinds of acts, and that's in the J.A. We listed the kinds of acts that we're complaining about, many of which would square off against tariff provisions and many of which would not.\nA suppressed billing would not.\nDeliberately trying to keep us from getting any cash would not.\nSlamming, counsel just agreed, would not.\nMisappropriation of our customers would not.\nSo we felt that the wilfulness misconduct meant a lot more than going down the line of individual numbers below that to see what the breaches were.\nWe felt that wilful misconduct, under State law, which is the usual referral, meant a lot more than that just as intentional interference does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2795.16, 2813.231, 2829.16, 2831.213, 2836.477, 2840.528, 2844.201, 2854.038], "stop_times": [2813.231, 2829.16, 2831.213, 2836.477, 2840.528, 2844.201, 2854.038, 2862.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2795.16}, "reply_to": "20405__1_089", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_091", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "What's wilful--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2862.403], "stop_times": [2863.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2862.403}, "reply_to": "20405__1_090", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__1_092", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Some of these were much more, what would be commonly called intentional interference type actions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2863.425], "stop_times": [2868.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2863.425}, "reply_to": "20405__1_091", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_093", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--What is the difference between... let's imagine in Maislin we have a trucking firm, and the trucking firm charges lower than tariff rates to a whole lot of shippers, a lot of them, and then later on they all go out of business when the trucking firm comes along and has to raise the rates.\nWell, I mean, is that a matter not for the ICC?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2868.818, 2885.057], "stop_times": [2885.057, 2888.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2868.818}, "reply_to": "20405__1_092", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__1_094", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "My--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2888.571], "stop_times": [2888.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2888.571}, "reply_to": "20405__1_093", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_095", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Is that a matter... I mean, what's the... there's a filed rate.\nThe filed rate says you have to charge $1.\nThey charge 50 cents.\nIt was all in very good faith and so forth, and nonetheless the tariff said $1, so lo and behold they had to pay $1.\nThey all went out of business.\nI mean, who knows what happened to them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2888.911, 2891.211, 2893.194, 2894.533, 2900.637, 2901.849], "stop_times": [2891.211, 2893.194, 2894.533, 2900.637, 2901.849, 2903.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2888.911}, "reply_to": "20405__1_094", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__1_096", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Well, we know that we're all presumed to know the tariff, even though we don't, and that was another--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2903.389], "stop_times": [2907.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2903.389}, "reply_to": "20405__1_095", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_097", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "How does your case differ from that, because what they're saying as well, at worst, you know... at worst, accepting everything you say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2907.072], "stop_times": [2913.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2907.072}, "reply_to": "20405__1_096", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__1_098", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--We--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2913.507], "stop_times": [2914.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2913.507}, "reply_to": "20405__1_097", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_099", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--This is an instance where they filed tariffs as to services.\nThey say what it is.\nPerhaps wrongly, AT&T goes and gives some different services, or it doesn't do what it said in the tariff, or whatever, just like those trucks in Maislin, and now you're hurt, but we said in Maislin, follow the rate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2914.038, 2917.009, 2918.219], "stop_times": [2917.009, 2918.219, 2930.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2914.038}, "reply_to": "20405__1_098", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__1_100", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2930.578], "stop_times": [2931.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2930.578}, "reply_to": "20405__1_099", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_101", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--follow the tariff.\nFollow the file.\nWhat's the difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2931.508, 2931.82, 2932.84], "stop_times": [2931.82, 2932.84, 2933.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2931.508}, "reply_to": "20405__1_100", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__1_102", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--We... we're paying the rate.\nThere's no question about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2933.79, 2935.662], "stop_times": [2935.662, 2937.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2933.79}, "reply_to": "20405__1_101", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_103", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "The rates and services are treated alike, aren't they?\nIt's rates, service--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2937.632, 2939.083], "stop_times": [2939.083, 2940.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2937.632}, "reply_to": "20405__1_102", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__1_104", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Rates affecting... I mean, services affecting rates under the Federal Communications Act, which makes a big difference, and there were a lot that AT&T says in this courtroom and has said in its briefing, and the amici have said, do not affect rates, and most of what we are talking about here, that we are certain does not affect rates and it's been mentioned before about this MLB LABO network comment in the AT&T brief, where they said that while these may have value there's no charge for them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2940.064], "stop_times": [2972.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2940.064}, "reply_to": "20405__1_103", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_105", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Well, I... you know, I think it's easy to say that selecting between, what is it, multiple location billing and the other billing, selecting between one or the other doesn't affect rates.\nThey're willing to give you the option.\nIt apparently cost them no more to do the one than the other.\nBut selecting between multiple location billing in which they make sure that what's billed to that location is only the stuff that's been charged to it, and whatever else, that is something that affects rates, because the tariff says you're not going to get that, and because it does take a lot more expenditure on their part and they're not willing to provide it without more money.\nHow can you say that that doesn't affect rates?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [2972.074, 2985.184, 2987.044, 2990.046, 3012.132], "stop_times": [2985.184, 2987.044, 2990.046, 3012.132, 3013.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2972.074}, "reply_to": "20405__1_104", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20405__1_106", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well, that, Your Honor, leads to another conundrum within this language we have here.\nAT&T said in its tariff that LABO was available.\nThat's another one of these accounts, location account billing, and lo and behold we, when we went into contract with them, were put on LABO, not MLB and not network.\nWe were put on LABO.\nLABO, under their tariff, is impermissible to us.\nIt's for franchised operations where there's common ownership.\nThey stuck us into LABO and that, I think Justice Ginsburg mentioned, all the funds then went to our end users and left us to fight it out with them, one of the many reasons we lost all of our accounts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3013.642, 3017.224, 3023.399, 3035.537, 3036.867, 3041.392, 3044.023], "stop_times": [3017.224, 3023.399, 3035.537, 3036.867, 3041.392, 3044.023, 3057.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3013.642}, "reply_to": "20405__1_105", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_107", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Now, that was a violation of the tariff, you say, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3057.229], "stop_times": [3059.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3057.229}, "reply_to": "20405__1_106", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20405__1_108", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "That was a violation of the tariff.\nAt the same time--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3059.232, 3059.871], "stop_times": [3059.871, 3061.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3059.232}, "reply_to": "20405__1_107", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_109", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--And you'd have a remedy for that at the Communications Commission, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3061.033], "stop_times": [3064.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3061.033}, "reply_to": "20405__1_108", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20405__1_110", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--You could, but it's also a part of wilful misconduct if it's intentional and if it's a part of all of these other things I've been mentioning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3064.706], "stop_times": [3072.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3064.706}, "reply_to": "20405__1_109", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_111", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "So any intentional violation of a tariff you can go under State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3072.39], "stop_times": [3076.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3072.39}, "reply_to": "20405__1_110", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20405__1_112", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Your Honor, I think that any... you have to prove wilful misconduct, but it's a separate matter and it has equal dignity.\nWe've mentioned the Primrose case from this Court in 1894, where this Court said you have to... you, utilities, have to provide for liability for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3076.183, 3086.469], "stop_times": [3086.469, 3096.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3076.183}, "reply_to": "20405__1_111", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_113", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Do I have to agree with you on that in order for you to win the case, because I find that an extraordinary proposition, that even for the most clear tariff violations you can sue under State law, so long as they have been wilful.\nIt just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3096.245, 3109.455], "stop_times": [3109.455, 3109.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3096.245}, "reply_to": "20405__1_112", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20405__1_114", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--And so long as they are not rate-affecting.\nI'm ready to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3109.735, 3113.289], "stop_times": [3113.289, 3113.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3109.735}, "reply_to": "20405__1_113", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_115", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Ah.\nAh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3113.97, 3114.24], "stop_times": [3114.24, 3114.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3113.97}, "reply_to": "20405__1_114", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20405__1_116", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--can certainly concede that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3114.731], "stop_times": [3115.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3114.731}, "reply_to": "20405__1_115", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_117", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3115.102], "stop_times": [3115.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3115.102}, "reply_to": "20405__1_116", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20405__1_118", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "That's... we've always said that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3115.583], "stop_times": [3117.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3115.583}, "reply_to": "20405__1_117", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_119", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "And so long as they are not rate-affecting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3117.045], "stop_times": [3118.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3117.045}, "reply_to": "20405__1_118", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20405__1_120", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Yes.\nWe have to make that analysis of it, and I'm sorry if I didn't say it correctly, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3118.297, 3118.637], "stop_times": [3118.637, 3124.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3118.297}, "reply_to": "20405__1_119", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_121", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well, is there anything in the tariff that is not rate-affecting?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3124.041], "stop_times": [3126.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3124.041}, "reply_to": "20405__1_120", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20405__1_122", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Yes.\nThere are many things that were... that are not rate-affecting in a tariff.\nThe tariff... they are required to put what is rate-affecting in the tariff, but they go down and file thousands of tariffs.\nThey can put nonrate-affecting things in there just as easily as rate-affecting if it serves their purposes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3126.802, 3127.533, 3131.355, 3137.077], "stop_times": [3127.533, 3131.355, 3137.077, 3141.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3126.802}, "reply_to": "20405__1_121", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_123", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "I see.\nI see, and what... okay.\nBut that... doesn't that get you right back into the preference that was the whole purpose of the filed rate doctrine?\nI thought the filed rate doctrine said you put everything in your tariff and these are the terms.\nAll takers get the same thing.\nBut if you then say there are some things that are not rate-affecting, that you put those outside the tariff, it seems to defeat the whole purpose of what the filed rate doctrine... which may be passe, but that's another matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3141.671, 3142.022, 3143.765, 3149.758, 3155.903, 3157.843], "stop_times": [3142.022, 3143.765, 3149.758, 3155.903, 3157.843, 3171.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3141.671}, "reply_to": "20405__1_122", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20405__1_124", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well, Justice Ginsburg, again I have to... the real world that has been shown here in the evidence by both sides, I've cited page 35 of their opening brief and 13 and 14 of their closing brief, all the materials that were submitted by the amici, and those of our own, in the actual working world they all accept these as part of... gap-fillers, as they call them, or details, as it was called by counsel, as part of the tariff.\nThose are not antithetical with it.\nThey're consistent with the tariff.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3171.692, 3198.371, 3200.052], "stop_times": [3198.371, 3200.052, 3201.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3171.692}, "reply_to": "20405__1_123", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_125", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "No, but Justice Ginsburg was talking about matters set forth in the tariff, not these side agreements.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3201.584], "stop_times": [3206.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3201.584}, "reply_to": "20405__1_124", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20405__1_126", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Okay.\nYes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3206.768, 3206.998], "stop_times": [3206.998, 3207.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3206.768}, "reply_to": "20405__1_125", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_127", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Your position is that even some things set forth in the tariff don't affect the rates, and you can sue for failure to provide those provisions under State law so long as they're not rate-affecting, and I just find that a difficult problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3207.529], "stop_times": [3224.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3207.529}, "reply_to": "20405__1_126", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20405__1_128", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well, Your Honor, AT&T made no effort at trial to make any such distinctions.\nI'll come back to that in just a second, because I also want to say that AT&T at trial made no such arguments as they're making here today that there were preferences, that there were rebates and so forth.\nThere's an absolutely silent record on that.\nIn the intentional interference claim that we filed, if... the pre-trial order is in the J.A., and in that, Your Honor, you will find that they raise the defense of commercial privilege or comparative privilege alone, no such thing as filed rate doctrine defense.\nWhen they requested instructions for the judge to give, they did not ask for any instruction that the filed rate doctrine opposed the intentional interference claim.\nIt doesn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3224.898, 3228.031, 3238.299, 3239.559, 3253.338, 3266.516], "stop_times": [3228.031, 3238.299, 3239.559, 3253.338, 3266.516, 3267.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3224.898}, "reply_to": "20405__1_127", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_129", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "But the Ninth Circuit passed on that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3267.588], "stop_times": [3269.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3267.588}, "reply_to": "20405__1_128", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20405__1_130", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "The united... the Ninth Circuit said more than it should have there, Your Honor, because it simply overlooked our position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3269.598], "stop_times": [3278.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3269.598}, "reply_to": "20405__1_129", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_131", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Your view is they waived it, is that right?\nYou're saying they waived it, that they... they came in and brought an ordinary State law tort suit.\nYou won, they lost.\nNobody says a word about tariffs to the FCC, and now you're saying nobody raised this till appeal, so it's waived.\nIs that the point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3278.945, 3280.925, 3285.41, 3286.111, 3291.476], "stop_times": [3280.925, 3285.41, 3286.111, 3291.476, 3292.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3278.945}, "reply_to": "20405__1_130", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__1_132", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "At the trial, Your Honor... I'm merely pointing out that intentional interference--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3292.147], "stop_times": [3296.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3292.147}, "reply_to": "20405__1_131", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_133", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Mr. Hall, at page 51 of the Joint Appendix, the pretrial order, (g), first affirmative defense, filed tariff doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3296.451], "stop_times": [3303.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3296.451}, "reply_to": "20405__1_132", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20405__1_134", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--Is that under intentional interference, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3303.583], "stop_times": [3305.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3303.583}, "reply_to": "20405__1_133", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_135", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well, it's their first affirmative defense.\nI don't know if... so they at least have talked about--\n--All right, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3305.526, 3307.057, 3310.028], "stop_times": [3307.057, 3310.028, 3310.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3305.526}, "reply_to": "20405__1_134", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20405__1_136", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "I may have misspoken myself, but I'm awfully certain that under the intentional interference claim they did not raise the filed rate doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3310.379], "stop_times": [3318.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3310.379}, "reply_to": "20405__1_135", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_137", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "--If we're speaking practically, is there anything impractical about the following: you file your complaint in court to protect against the statute of limitations.\nYou then go to the commission and raise all your claims having to do with the tariff.\nYou might win.\nIf you lose, at least there's a good chance there'll be something that comes out of the commission that clarifies the remaining question, namely the question of whether, if you lose everything within the tariffs, nonetheless, nothing preempts the operation of State law in this area.\nNow, as a practical matter, is there anything wrong with that, which is what I thought that... you know, there are quite a few cases that suggest that's the right route.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3318.454, 3326.721, 3331.013, 3332.345, 3346.473], "stop_times": [3326.721, 3331.013, 3332.345, 3346.473, 3353.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3318.454}, "reply_to": "20405__1_136", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20405__1_138", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well, reserving that, we thoroughly believe we have the right to file an intentional interference claim and if it weren't linked to this other one we wouldn't even be here today, in our opinion.\nBut secondly, Your Honor, as a practical matter, going to the... taking the referral and coming to Washington, D.C. from Portland, Oregon is a big financial matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3353.408, 3360.805], "stop_times": [3360.805, 3369.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3353.408}, "reply_to": "20405__1_137", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_139", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "I take it the argument of AT&T is that if you had been simply a competitor and not a customer, there might have been a cause of action here, but the customer relation trumps your standing as a competitor.\nIs that their argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3369.37, 3387.491], "stop_times": [3387.491, 3388.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3369.37}, "reply_to": "20405__1_138", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20405__1_140", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "That seems to be their argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3388.402], "stop_times": [3389.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3388.402}, "reply_to": "20405__1_139", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_141", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Do you have some cases that refute that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3389.613], "stop_times": [3391.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3389.613}, "reply_to": "20405__1_140", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20405__1_142", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Well, I would simply say, Your Honor, that the ones that we cite at the very beginning of our case, of our answering brief, responding brief, suggest that a number of these have gone forward despite the Communications Act and filed rate doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3391.335], "stop_times": [3403.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3391.335}, "reply_to": "20405__1_141", "speaker": "bruce_m_hall"}
{"id": "20405__1_143", "conversation_id": "20405", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Hall.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-679", "start_times": [3403.791, 3404.772], "stop_times": [3404.772, 3406.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3403.791}, "reply_to": "20405__1_142", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20178__0_000", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-779, Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Ralph Forbes.\nMr. Marks.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20178__0_001", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court:\nThe issue in this case is whether the State of Arkansas may establish the Arkansas Educational Television Network as an institution of the press, insulated by policy, structure, and tradition from State political pressure.\nThe issue is important to viewers across the country who depend on public television to select and deliver information, particularly so in political elections but, of course, at other times, too, and this case does not extend just to political debates, because if the decision below stands, its rationale will not only result in fewer debates and less coverage of politics, but it will extend to other programs of a controversial nature where the trustworthiness of public television editors will be questioned because they are employees of the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_000", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_002", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, I think not necessarily.\nIt all depends on the analysis that we follow, and you have to ask whether this is closer to a situation of the State speaking, as such, or a situation of letting candidates speak.\nI mean, it may fall on one or the other side of the line.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_001", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_003", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Your Honor, I agree that the rationale that the Court uses will, of course, affect the scope of the decision, but I think that it's clear from the record whether we deal with a public forum doctrine rationale or whether we deal with a structural rationale based on League of Women Voters.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_002", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_004", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "I assume here that the station was intending to let the candidates speak.\nThe station wasn't trying to put words in their mouths.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_005", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nIn this case we are not talking about State speech.\nWe are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_004", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_006", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "No, and did the station set in advance here the rules that it eventually came up with when there was a third candidate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_005", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_007", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Your Honor, the rules--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_006", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_008", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "When it opened... when it first decided to have the debate, as I understand it, it just said we're going to let the candidates for this office come here and have a debate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_009", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Not exactly, Your Honor.\nIn fact, I think that that is not a full enough characterization of the record.\nWhat the State decided here was to hold a debate that would best serve the interests of its viewers, and the record reflects that the editors went through an elaborate analysis.\nMs. Oliver did an elaborate investigation and reported to Ms. Howarth, the editor-in-chief of the Arkansas network, about those candidates who were newsworthy, and it is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_008", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_010", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "I thought that occurred after this third party candidate appeared and said, I want to talk, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_011", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nIn fact, when the debate discussion started, which was sometime in the spring of 1992, there was a discussion, and it's reflected in the testimony that we had at trial, about how the debates would be structured and about their rationale, and the purpose from the beginning was to provide the citizens of Arkansas with a... an opportunity to hear the views of those candidates who were going to be the ones they were going to be voting for, who had, in the words of the witnesses, a serious chance, who were demonstrating popular support by virtue of any number of factors.\nNow, certainly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_010", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_012", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, I thought that was what emerged eventually in response to the request of Mr. Forbes to participate, but was that laid out in all its complexity at the outset?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_011", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_013", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Not in all its--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_012", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_014", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_013", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_015", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--complexity, no, Your Honor, but what... but the early discussions between Amy Oliver and Bill Simmons, the chief of the Associated Press in Arkansas, concentrated on whom to invite.\nNow, when they issued the invitations the only candidates who were on the list to be invited were ballot-qualified candidates, and they were in each district the Republican and the Democratic candidates, so when the original decision was made, the only candidates who could be invited were the major party candidates.\nMr. Forbes qualified on August 17 of 1992, and his letter was August 24, but even before that, Your Honor, the policies that AETN has adopted, the policy on editorial integrity, the programming policy which incorporates the principles of editorial integrity, set out for Ms. Howarth what would be her basis for decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_014", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_016", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, I assume that this decision was parallel to what a private network would do with a similar debate in a similar format.\nIs that in the record, or do I just judicially know that, or is that important for the case, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_015", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_017", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Your Honor, I think that there are enough cases... the Chisolm case, the Henry Geller decision at the FCC... so that in fact from those cases the Court can take judicial notice that this is a typical structure for debates.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_016", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_018", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Well, I mean, other stations, privately owned stations can surely do things that your station is not allowed to.\nCould your station endorse a candidate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_019", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "No, Your Honor, because of section 399 of the Communications Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_018", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_020", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Let's assume that's not there.\nAs a constitutional matter, would your station be able to endorse a particular candidate for public office?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_019", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_021", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, Your Honor, of course that is very much not this case, and I think under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_020", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_022", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Oh, I thought it was.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_021", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_023", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Not without 399, Your Honor, because the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_022", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_024", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "I mean, I know it's not this case.\nI'm asking you, if 399 were not there, would your... would a publicly owned station as a constitutional matter be able to endorse a political candidate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_023", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_025", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Under forum doctrine the answer is no, because I think to do that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_024", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_026", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Under forum... I'm not talking about creating a forum.\nI'm just talking about a publicly owned station that comes out and says we endorse, you know, the Republican or the Democratic candidate for this district.\nNow, a private broadcaster can certainly do that, can he not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_025", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_027", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--A private broadcaster can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_026", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_028", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "But is... do you think a public broadcaster--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_027", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_029", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "I think this public broadcaster under these policies, the principles of editorial integrity and AETN's programming policy, this public broadcaster could not do that and stay within the bounds of the policy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_028", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_030", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Well, I would be interested in hearing you answer Justice Scalia's question, which you haven't done yet.\nIf the station wished to endorse a candidate, could it have done so under the Constitution, without regard to any statutory provision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_029", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_031", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Mr. Chief Justice, I think that the answer to Justice Scalia's question would depend on whether that would be considered invidious discrimination, and I don't think there's any precedent on it, but my belief is that it would be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_030", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_032", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Under the... some equal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_031", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_033", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Sure, under an equal protection theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_032", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_034", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--protection doctrine, or the First Amendment?\nThat they couldn't do it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_033", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_035", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Could not.\nCould not, because I think that the... I think, Justice Scalia, that there are limits on what a State-owned broadcaster can do.\nI think those bounds are set by invidious discrimination--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_034", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_036", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, to tie that in to where we were before I asked the question, the mere fact that you're using standards that a private broadcaster would use, and that you're doing nothing more than what a, you know, a private station would do, you're not behaving in a politically biased manner, you're just behaving like a good broadcaster, that doesn't help your case, because there are some things that private broadcasters can do that you can't do, and maybe this is one of them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_035", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_037", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--I think, Your Honor, that there's a great difference between endorsing a candidate and having the State come down that way.\nI think it's an equal protection issue at the very least.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_036", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_038", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, I think that... I'm not sure about that, but can your answer be, and could we look at this case as saying that we look at different programs to determine what the First Amendment rules are, and we look on a program by program basis, or do the same rules have to apply to every part of the station's ownership, management, and control in broadcasting, i.e., hypothetical about endorsement, hypothetical whether you can hire all Democrats or all Republicans for the editorial board and so forth?\nWe look at the precise function that's in question, i.e., the conduct of debate.\nIs... would that be a way to answer Justice Scalia's question, and would that be an adequate... is there adequate precedent for us to decide this case on that sort of analysis?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_037", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_039", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "The answer to the second question is yes, and the answer to the first question is yes.\nEach one of these situations, each one of these questions about whether a particular program satisfies this Court's precedent, is a two-level analysis.\nFirst you've got to analyze the intent of AETC in delegating to Ms. Howarth the editorial discretion within the bounds of these policies, and Justice Scalia, these policies do bound her in a way that a private broadcaster is not bound, because they require her to consider credibility and fairness and balance and accuracy and objectivity, and a private broadcaster is not bound that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_038", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_040", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Don't you think private broadcasters might think those elements were desirable, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_039", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_041", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "I think most broadcasters would find them desirable and, indeed, Mr. Chief Justice, the intent of adopting the principles of editorial integrity was to allow the public broadcaster to walk this very difficult line of needing to satisfy the requirements of the First Amendment as the foundation requirement, but at the same time being able to satisfy the requirement in the Communications Act that it control all its programming, because they're--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_040", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_042", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Being responsible wouldn't allow you to endorse one of the candidates for the office even if you had criteria, we will not endorse any candidate unless, and you set out the criteria.\nIt may be very responsible.\nIt may be very objective, even, but that doesn't prove that the Government can do it, the mere fact that it's objective and responsible.\nYou wouldn't allow an endorsement of a candidate to proceed on that basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_041", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_043", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, in this case... I understand that the question is a, if I understand it correctly, a polar question for analytical purposes, but this case has a record, and there are distinct policies here, and there is elaborate testimony--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_042", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_044", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Yes, but on the record in this case, could they... just to take the other side of Justice Scalia's question, could they announce that we don't want you to vote for Forbes?\nDon't waste your time listening to him, or voting for him, concentrate on the two major candidates?\nIn other words, a reverse--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_043", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_045", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--With--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_044", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_046", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--A disendorsement of him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_045", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_047", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--With section 399 not there, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_046", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_048", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_047", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_049", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "With the prohibition not there?\nI still believe that there's an equal protection boundary for a State-owned broadcaster in that area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_048", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_050", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Is it an invidious discrimination for State-owned agents to say, we just think this guy is off the wall, we don't think you should waste your time with him, and if all that is true, it's invidious discrimination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_049", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_051", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, I think that is viewpoint discrimination, as I understand your question, that's certainly prohibited under the rationale of the forum doctrine cases, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_050", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_052", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well then, why isn't what you did viewpoint discrimination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_051", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_053", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Because in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_052", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_054", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Because you had a lot of neutral rules out there that are not in writing anywhere, but governed exactly how you'd handle the debate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_053", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_055", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--The guiding principles are certainly in writing, and there are two levels, the guidelines--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_054", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_056", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Yes, but they don't tell us whether he would have been permitted to debate if he could have gotten 12 percent of the vote instead of 2 percent, do they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_055", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_057", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--That's right, Your Honor.\nWhat Ms. Howarth is obligated to do is to apply the principles of mainstream journalism and, under those principles, she made a decision based on newsworthiness.\nNow, it seems to me that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_056", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_058", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Isn't that simply a way of saying that the distinctly minority candidate always loses?\nBecause I presume newsworthiness is a measure of the interest of the public in the candidate, and if the judgment is made by the station that this candidate is a loser, is never going to garner anything but a small minority, and therefore is not newsworthy, then the minority candidate always loses, and why isn't that a pretty darned good surrogate for viewpoint discrimination?\nThe viewpoint is unpopular.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_057", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_059", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--There are two reasons, Justice Souter.\nFirst, as Mr. Perot's experiences in 1992 and 1996 illustrate, there can be a different conclusion based on newsworthiness, and the distinctly minority candidate does not always lose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_058", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_060", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Isn't it true that you put both party, major party candidates on even though one has a tiny percent and so is not of much interest to the public?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_059", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_061", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, and the reason, as reflected in the record in the testimony of Ms. Howarth and Ms. Oliver, is that a major party nomination carries with it a degree of public support that news people usually don't ignore, and they didn't ignore in this case.\nThey felt it was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_060", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_062", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "May I return to Justice O'Connor's question about what these standards of newsworthiness were?\nThere was nothing written down in advance, and so why isn't this like the legions of cases that have come up with a Government official allowing, say, a permit for a parade with no standards at all, and then after a request is made, may be coming up with a set of reasons?\nGenerally in this area, hasn't the Court required at least that there be clear standards written down going in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_061", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_063", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Not in a nonpublic forum, Your Honor, and certainly not under a League of Women Voters structural analysis.\nIf you... I don't think that we require that... I don't think this Court's cases require--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_062", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_064", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "I don't know about the League of Women Voters, but we are talking about whatever else they are, they are Government actors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_063", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_065", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Let's... let me address that in terms of Polk County.\nThere's no question that there's State action here, but Ms. Howarth is not acting, in our view, as we have said in our brief, under color of State law.\nShe is exercising independent professional judgment.\nThis is essentially a private press function.\nShe's not dependent on the State's coercive power here.\nShe's not doing this out of loyalty to the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_064", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_066", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "If you have integrity, you're not a State actor?\nIs that the principle that you're trying to--\n[Laughter]\nCould she refuse to allow someone on account of their race--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_065", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_067", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_066", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_068", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Clearly she's a State actor in that sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_067", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_069", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "If she crossed... first of all, that would be outside these policies that guide her, and in response to Justice O'Connor's and Justice Ginsburg's question, theses policies do provide some guidance.\nIt's not as if the... not as if she's out there on a chartless sea.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_068", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_070", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, I think the question is what's permissible for a State actor, not whether or not she is or is not a State actor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_069", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_071", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "And if that's the case, Your Honor, just on pure forum doctrine terms, when you're dealing, Justice Ginsburg, with a nonpublic forum, then the rules there need not be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_070", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_072", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, who said it was a nonpublic forum?\nI thought that was what we had to decide, and here the station chose to open up a debate to selected candidates.\nI mean, that sounds a lot like a limited public forum to me, not a nonpublic forum.\nI guess we have to resolve that, don't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_071", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_073", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Yes, Justice O'Connor, you do, but I think as you phrased it the key word is selected candidates, because the intent of Ms. Howarth from the start was clear that she was not opening up this debate to candidates who were not newsworthy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_072", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_074", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Do you think selectivity alone means that it can't be a limited public forum?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_073", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_075", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "I think that in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_074", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_076", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "I hadn't thought so.\nWhat do you rely on for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_075", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_077", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Well, I'm... I'm not sure I understand your question, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_076", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_078", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, I want to know whether this was, as we would characterize it, in some of the cases from this Court, a limited public forum, or is it a nonpublic forum, and do we determine that based solely on the fact that candidates were selected by the station to participate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_077", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_079", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--We determine it based on Cornelius, which set the starting point--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_078", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_080", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, I must say, although I played a part in Cornelius, I think that can be cited for both sides, because it certainly doesn't determine this case, I'm afraid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_079", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_081", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--I think what we need to do is look at Ms. Howarth's intent, and I think we need to look also at the equity AETC's intent in establishing a network to control all of its programming and exercise editorial judgment over all of its programming.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_080", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_082", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Excuse me.\nWe can't hear very well right now.\nI--\n--You're speaking quite clearly but I think it's the microphone.\nI think the microphone isn't working.\nIt's not your problem.\nIt's not working.\nSo you'll have to speak up, I'm afraid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_081", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_083", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "I can do that.\nCan you hear me now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_082", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_084", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Yes, very well.\nVery well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_083", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_085", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Justice O'Connor, the answer to the Cornelius question is, what was Ms. Howart's intent?\nWhat was the AETN's intent?\nThe intent is key in both the structural analysis of the reading of the League of Women Voters, and on the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_084", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_086", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, when you say intent, Mr. Marks, you mean, what was the intent of the person planning the program?\nDid they simply mean to turn it over to the candidates, or did they mean to plan something that was more like a debate where they had more control over it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_085", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_087", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--That's exactly correct, Mr. Chief Justice, and the key is whether Ms. Howarth intended to open up the debate only to newsworthy candidates, or whether she intended to allow the debate to be open on a nonselective basis to anybody who was ballot-qualified.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_086", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_088", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Mr. Marks, maybe I misapprehend this, so tell me if I do, but my notion of a nonpublic forum was a closed circuit like the teachers in the school, like the Federal employees who are being solicited, that that... but this, whatever else it is, it is for the public.\nThe debates are for the public, not for a group of schoolteachers, not for a group of public employees, so I was thinking that whatever it is, it isn't a nonpublic forum.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_087", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_089", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Ms. Howarth's contention is that it is a nonpublic forum because it was Ms. Howarth's intention in providing for participation she was not opening it up to all ballot qualified candidates, but only to those candidates that were newsworthy, and Mr. Forbes was not newsworthy.\nHe was an ineffective candidate.\nHis efforts to fit a place in the market space were feeble, he was not generating public support, and for that reason Ms. Howarth concluded that his appearance would not serve her audience, and for that reason it was her position that he did not fit the criteria to be included.\nIf I may, Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to reserve--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_088", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_090", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Can I just ask, what was [inaudible] reporters in advance decided what the subjects are, decided what the questions will be, and they asked the questions to the candidates in a very narrow area.\nWhat was the nature of this debate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_089", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_091", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Your Honor, you will find a discussion of the debate in the motion for summary judgment that was filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_090", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_092", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "But I've looked at that, of course, and I can't figure it out just on the basis of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_091", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_093", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "In Mr. Simmons affidavit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_092", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_094", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "So far in looking through the record I've not been able to find out what the debate [inaudible] a matter of public record was the broadcast, what was the format?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_093", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_095", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--It was an hour, actually it was 53 minutes time for the candidates.\nThe candidates began with a 2 minute opening statement and concluded with a closing statement, and between that each candidate had a minute to answer each question posed by the panel of journalists, and then Ms. Howarth testified that there were opening and closing credits and other material.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_094", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_096", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "And how many journalists were there and how did they work out their questions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_095", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__0_097", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "They were selected from Associated Press groups of editors and reporters who asked their own questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_096", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__0_098", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Mr. Marks--\n--Thank you, Mr. Marks.\nMr. Wallace, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_097", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__1_000", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nWhen a governmental entity puts on a Law Day program utilizing invited speakers who are not themselves Government officials or employees, no one would think that advocates of terrorism or anarchy could not be excluded from participation as speakers.\nViewpoint neutrality is not required, because forum analysis does not apply to the Government's own expressive presentations to the public.\nForum analysis is instead designed to address situations where the Government... where Government property or facilities are dedicated to use for private speech and the Government is acting--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__0_098", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20178__1_001", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, a candidate debate is sort of exactly that.\nThe station says we want the candidates for this office to come out and have a debate so the public gets to hear them and communicate with them on their views.\nI mean, why isn't that a public forum?\nOf course a university or a station can have programs and teach what it wants, but when they choose to set a candidate's forum that's highly expressive and communicative with the public, why isn't that different?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__1_002", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--The mere fact that non-Government participants are invited to participate in the Government's expressive activities does not, I would argue, turn that into a forum where the Government is acting only in a regulatory capacity with respect to private speech to which it's dedicated its facilities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_001", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20178__1_003", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Mr. Wallace, I'm not sure I even agree with your premise that if this were not a forum, that if the Government were just speaking on its own, at least where it's speaking in the realm of partisan politics, do you think the Government could come in and say, you know, we want you folks to consider the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.\nThis other party is an irresponsible party.\nYou think a Government station can do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__1_004", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, the Government... the Communications Act prohibits--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_003", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20178__1_005", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, we're not talking about the Communications Act, Mr. Wallace, you know.\nWe're talking about the Constitution.\nAs I understood your position, you think it is constitutional so long as the Government is making its proposal itself for the Government to come and say, ladies and gentlemen, you know, consider the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate.\nThis other party is irresponsible.\nYou think the Government can do that?\nI don't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__1_006", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Well, an incumbent running for reelection can espouse his own political cause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_005", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20178__1_007", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Oh, he's not speaking as a Government official when he does that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__1_008", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, he may work that into his official statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_007", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20178__1_009", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "I don't suppose the President is regarded to be viewpoint neutral or anything like that, when he speaks, and certainly he's the top Government official.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__1_010", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, that is our point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_009", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20178__1_011", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "But the Attorney General can do it?\nYou think the Attorney General can come out and say, ladies and gentlemen, I want you to consider voting Republican.\nYou know, the Government's paying for the radio time, and the Attorney General can come out and say that?\nI find that astounding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__1_012", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "As far as protecting speech, it's hard to see why that would violate the First Amendment when a Government official is speaking.\nIt may be something we would consider improper--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_011", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20178__1_013", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Do you lose this case if this is a designated public forum?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__1_014", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Not at all.\nThe last section of our brief shows why that standard is met here in light of the special verdicts of the jury exception, but we happen to think that that is the correct analysis.\nIt is commonplace for non-Government participants to enrich Government expressive presentations.\nCommon examples are the commencement speaker at a State university, a visiting exhibition at the State art museum, the authors' works that are published by the State university press, a lecture series that's given at the State museum--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_013", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20178__1_015", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "None of those are nonpublic forum?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_014", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__1_016", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Those are not forums at all.\nThose are Government presentations.\nThey're a form of publishing by the Government.\nThey don't give rise to a right of access under the First Amendment by other people who would like to use--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_015", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20178__1_017", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, I think it's rather dangerous to say that at a commencement address the Government is the speaker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__1_018", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Well, obviously views will be stated that are the individual's own views, but the speaker has been selected to contribute to the Government program, and the... it's the difference between Government regulation or suppression of speech whether the Government is required to publish speech by those who would like to use the Government's way of publishing in one way or another and participate in the same way, and the same principles apply where a television station happens to be licensed to a Government entity, that they are... under the Communications Act a broadcast licensee is a trustee responsible for selecting programs that will meet the needs of the community it is licensed to serve, and it will fulfill that obligation by selecting programming that may originate with a private entity that gives the program--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_017", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20178__1_019", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "But you can reach that conclusion without saying the licensed entity is a Government speaker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_018", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__1_020", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Well, the... if you once start applying forum analysis that... it gives access rights to a Government publication and their speech.\nIf the station is carrying the Metropolitan Opera broadcast does that mean a composer has some enhanced right, if his opera's not being broadcast on... at the Met, to have access to the station, to use the station's facilities to have his opera heard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_019", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20178__1_021", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Probably not, but nonpublic forum analysis is quite capable of making that distinction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_020", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__1_022", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, but we think that the principles that apply in news broadcasting are doing the same thing.\nIf there is an interview on the evening news hour of private commentators to comment on a terrorist act that occurred that killed people, it isn't necessary to include a spokesman for the terrorist group among those asked to be commentators.\nThis is part of the Government's own presentation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_021", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20178__1_023", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Mr. Wallace, suppose we had a town hall that's devoted to debates, and we have a debate there among candidates, and the town leaders say, we want the debate to exclude all third party candidates, is there any... is that okay, too?\nAre you talking about anything that's peculiar to radio/television?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_022", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__1_024", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "I think that would be a closer case, because we don't have the same obligation of the licensee who's entrusted to use this frequency to serve the needs of the community to exercise the control over the programming presented.\nIt's a much more... it's a much closer case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_023", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20178__1_025", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Why?\nYou just said that there's less control from the point of view of the public interest in the hall than in the radio/TV setting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_024", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__1_026", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Because the licensee is responsible, in using the frequency, to select the programming that it determines will serve the needs of that community.\nThat is the scheme of the act under which it's operating, and it can decide that broadcasting news excerpts from the campaign speeches of major candidates is something worthwhile to do.\nIt can make the same judgment about how a debate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_025", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20178__1_027", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "But let's just talk about debates, because to... I thought that Chief Judge Arnold made it pretty clear he was talking about debates and nothing else, so we have the debate in the town hall and the debate on the Government station, and you say there are different rules that would apply to each?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_026", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__1_028", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Well, there are rules that apply under the Communications--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_027", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20178__1_029", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "No.\nLet's stay with the Constitution, and my question is particularly, in either case would you need rules going in so you could check on the integrity of the Government official?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_028", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__1_030", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--As long as it's a Government program, it's clear that this is something that the Government is putting on for the benefit of the public, the Government can choose who shall be participants, what private person shall be a participant, what private person shall not be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_029", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20178__1_031", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "And it doesn't need any kind of reasons, even post hoc--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_030", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__1_032", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "It has to meet equal protection standards.\nIt cannot engage in invidious or irrational discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_031", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20178__1_033", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Thank you, Mr. Wallace.\nMr. Shackelford, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_032", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_000", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI'm going to take about 30 seconds and put this in context.\nIn 1990, Ralph Forbes running for lieutenant governor received 47 percent of the State-wide vote in the Republican primary.\nThat vote included carrying 15 of 16 counties which comprised the Third Congressional District.\nSo, 2 years later, he ran for the Third Congressional District.\nHe obtained thousands of signatures and met the State's standard for a candidate's seriousness and qualified as one of three candidates on the ballot.\nDays later, an unelected Government official summarily declared him a frivolous candidate and banned him from its debate for that very seat.\nThe Government therefore today asks this Court to give it unfettered discretion to pick and choose amongst candidates, and confer powerful Government benefits on those it chooses, to the detriment of their opponents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__1_033", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_001", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Mr. Shackelford, one of the suggestions that's been raised is that if in fact the State is limited in what it can do here, the State will be limited in what it can do almost universally throughout its broadcasting, including news broadcasts and so on.\nWhat's your answer to this slippery slope?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_002", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "I think it's completely inaccurate.\nI understand the Government's attempt to widen this to all programs, but a debate, a candidate debate sponsored by the Government is a particularized and very unique event.\nIt has aspects which really do not apply to any other forum.\nFor instance, number 1, it involves not just speech, but core political speech that this Court has said is the apex of protection under the First Amendment.\nSecondly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_001", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_003", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, a news... I... all right.\nYou get your list out.\nThen I have a question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_004", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Second--\n[Laughter]\n--it involves... this is I think one of the most important.\nIt involves more than speech.\nIn this context a candidate debate involves the idea that the Government can... that Government can interpose itself in an election process, possibly skewing the debate and possibly affecting the outcome of the election, and third, it is made by its very nature for candidates, it's intending to present them to the public without going through the normal sieve of editorial control of media or third parties.\nAnd then lastly, it is a contest, and the reason you will watch these debates is because of the face-to-face synergy and dynamics of the debates.\nThere are a number of factors--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_003", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_005", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "May I just interrupt with this one question?\nWouldn't all those considerations also apply to a policy of interviewing people on a Sunday news program where you want to ask them what they think of the latest bombing over in some place?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_006", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--I don't think so.\nNumber 1, we would not be talking about the election process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_005", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_007", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "No, right before the election the only people they want to interview, what do the candidates... what do these two leading candidates think about this national issue that's just suddenly hit the headlines?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_008", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "I think that's certainly different, because it wouldn't be the situation with the candidate debates, where the purpose is actually for them to present themselves to the public and essentially--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_007", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_009", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, they certainly would run to the station just for that very reason.\nThey'd want people to look at them and hear what they have to say about this, because they want to get votes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_010", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--But the purpose of... assuming this is a Government station, the purpose of the station would be to create a debate where candidates are presenting themselves and trying to influence the voters' viewpoint.\nThe purpose of the Government station in that limited part of the program would simply be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_009", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_011", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, but the purpose here was not just a wide-open debate, as I understand it.\nIt was a very structured thing.\nThe candidate... each candidate wasn't given just 15 minutes to do what you want to, but the questions asked by reporters, the time for opening was limited, and that sort of thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_012", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Yes, but for instance the candidates were given an open microphone at the beginning and the end to express their views.\nAfter each question, they were given full rein to answer those questions.\nThere was no editing of the words as they came out of their mouths by the Government.\nThis was really not just a forum, it was actually part of the definition that this Court's given for what a forum is.\nIn Cornelius and Perry and a number of cases, this Court in describing what a forum is, has said it's public property, open quote, for assembly or debate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_011", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_013", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "But one of the problems in applying that kind of forum analysis here is this.\nIf we're dealing with... take the easy example, the traditional public forum, the street corner where the soap boxes are, basically it's a matter of no concern whatever to the process whether one person shows up with a soap box or 200 show up with a soap box and just sort of shout at each other in a cacophony, but that does legitimately matter if we're talking about a TV debate, and I guess I have two questions.\nNumber 1 is, is it... are you going to take the position, to be consistent, that there can be no limitation on the number of candidates, and if the answer to that is no, then what is your criterion for selection?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_014", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "We have not taken that position.\nThe position we have taken is that the Government cannot subjectively pick and choose amongst the candidates.\nWe agree that objective and constitutional criteria, such as the ballot access laws, are appropriate, and therefore we're not saying that no standards would be allowed.\nThey could even, for instance, simply draw the names out of a hat.\nFor that at least would be Government neutrality.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_013", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_015", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, how about a State where the write-in procedure is very simple, and someone who is perhaps defeated in a primary is going to run as a write-in, and his name is Willy Wacko, and he's regarded as a total loser by all political observers.\nDo they have to give him access?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_014", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_016", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "No, Your... Mr. Chief Justice, I don't think they do.\nAgain, you have an objective standard, set in place beforehand, a ballot access law.\nThat's perfectly allowed, but this Court's ballot access decisions, what the Court has said is, it's okay to ensure a modicum of support.\nHowever, the Court has never said that the Government can subjectively pick and choose--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_015", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_017", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, you want something more than--\n--You're saying that the same standard applies when you're talking about ballots, State regulation of ballots, as applies in this situation where you're talking about a State-operated--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_018", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Certainly the dangers are very similar, in that we have Government, if they're allowed to subjectively interpose themselves into the election process, whether it's affecting the debate and what personal issues can be discussed by the candidates, or whether it is affecting, you know, the ballot, it has serious consequences.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_017", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_019", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Mr. Shackelford, with respect, you want something more than objectivity.\nIt would be quite objective to say the two parties that got the most votes in the last election will be the candidates that we'll interview.\nWill that satisfy you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_018", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_020", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Your Honor, there has to be two criterias.\nThere has to be first objectivity and the second has to be constitutional.\nNow, if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_019", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_021", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Ah, but it's only the latter that we're talking about here.\nI mean, let--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_020", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_022", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--I think they're both a part of the Constitution, number 1, is the analysis issue, if it's subjective unfettered discretion, that is unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_021", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_023", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Fine, but what do you want besides objectivity?\nIt's not objectivity alone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_022", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_024", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "I... certainly the standard laid out, again, because we're dealing with sort of a hybrid First Amendment as well as election issues.\nWhat this Court has set out saying... under the ballot access cases saying that a modicum of support is all right, but what you can't do is simply pick a particular party and attempt, as the Government, to entrench those parties and throw out--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_023", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_025", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "So you're arguing for a standard.\nYou want us to police these things and determine who has a modicum of support.\nThat's your test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_024", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_026", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Well, the ballot access... the ballot access--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_025", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_027", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "In Buckley v. Valeo the Court upheld part of the act of Congress that gave special benefits to the Republican and Democratic parties and not to anybody else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_026", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_028", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Mr. Chief Justice, you're correct, but they did so not on a subjective basis, on the basis of objective standards laid out ahead of time with regard to candidates.\nCertainly they weren't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_027", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_029", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_028", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_030", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Certainly they weren't allowing Government officials to simply look and say we'll give this party this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_029", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_031", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Well, but they--\n--Well, what if the station had said in advance, we're going to have a debate, we're not including all candidates, we're going to limit it to the selected candidates of the Republican and the Democratic parties, and this is spelled out in advance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_030", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_032", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Then I think that you have a problem under Williams v. Rhodes and others, where the Government can't pick particular parties.\nThey can use objective criteria that might favor individual parties--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_031", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_033", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Like the ones who qualifies to get public money for campaigns?\nThat's going to leave out some minority candidates.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_032", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_034", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Right.\nIn this case, for instance, if an objective standard was used like how many votes you got for the past elections, Mr. Forbes would qualify.\nOne of his opponents wouldn't but Mr. Forbes would have, but instead of giving him an objective standard he can meet, the only objective standard that was there, he did meet.\nThey simply won't wish that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_033", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_035", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_034", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_036", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--That's why they ask the Court today for unfettered discretion to simply pick and choose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_035", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_037", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--What about, you know, you have to be the candidate of a party that was one of the first two parties in the last election?\nThat's objective.\nIt doesn't name the Republicans or the Democrats, and it would bump your candidate, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_036", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_038", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "I think this Court's ballot access cases invoke the theory that guarantees the parties some sort of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_037", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_039", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "No, we don't care which one it is.\nIt just has to be one of the first two parties in the last election.\nIt could be the Bull Moose Party as far as we're concerned.\n[Laughter]\nThat's the problem with the standard.\nIt is difficult to form a standard.\nWhat about following the standard that Congress and the Federal Communications Commission have adopted after thinking about this very problem in trying to come up with a standard that would prevent unreasonable tests?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_038", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_040", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Well, the standard that the Government has actually chosen under the FEC is actually that of preestablished subjective criteria.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_039", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_041", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, all right.\nIf in fact, would that be a possible standard?\nWe're concerned about this, the way the Court would be able to... is to look to the very standard that Congress and the FCC had developed in order to deal with the problem that is under... existed in Arkansas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_040", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_042", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, obviously we don't think that the Constitution is somehow overridden by the FCC--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_041", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_043", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "No, obviously not.\nThe constitutional problem here is to find a standard.\nWhat's the objection to going to Congress and having them define a possible standard that as long as it seemed within the realm of reason would work with the Constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_042", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_044", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Well, I think the Court contemplates whatever it wishes to come out with its standard, whatever it determines or interprets to be necessary to be constitutional--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_043", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_045", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "If, in fact, we follow the Congress and the congressional FCC standard in the area, how does that affect your model?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_044", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_046", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Well, if we're talking about the FCC, I assume there is no standard.\nThey... what both Government agencies, the Federal and State said today is they think have unfettered--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_045", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_047", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "I'm not... what I'm driving at is, I thought that Congress perhaps considered the problems of the national tabloids having debates, and how could we have a debate, because if they had to talk to everybody, no matter what, there would be too many people and they couldn't do it.\nI thought they came up with legislation designed to deal with this?\nIsn't there a law or an FCC rule that deals with this in the case of national television debates?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_046", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_048", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Not that I'm aware of... that deals with any FCC criteria of how to pick their candidates.\nI think they are seeking unfettered editorial discretion of the stations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_047", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_049", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "That's one of the standards.\nWe have a whole universe of choices, I suppose, based on our interpretation of the Constitution.\nOne standard is editorial discretion.\nAnother standard is an elaborate, case-by-case jurisprudence for us to determine what public broadcasting stations must do, and it seems to me the former might be the better.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_048", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_050", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, I think that an argument of editorial discretion is simply saying at their discretion, and we're saying whatever standard this Court comes up with, certainly unfettered discretion over the type of constitutional--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_049", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_051", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, it isn't unfettered.\nI think that's unfair on your part.\nThey've tried to set out some guidelines, and I think you're speaking a little too broadly when you say it's unfettered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_050", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_052", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Let me explain what I mean, Justice O'Connor.\nNumber 1, they conceded in their own brief, and they certainly know this, that their decision was a subjective one.\nNumber 2--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_051", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_053", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "What does the word subjective mean as you're using it now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_052", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_054", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--It means that they were appraising facts, using discretion, coming to conclusions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_053", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_055", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, how else would you plan a broadcast?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_054", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_056", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--You could set clearly tangible criteria that... that where courts of appeals could simply look and see uniform application of a rule whether the candidate met the criteria instead of having to comb through the record--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_055", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_057", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, but, you know, you're saying that the public broadcasting stations could do this, and perhaps they could, but does the Constitution require them to do it just to make it easier for a court of appeals to avoid combing through the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_056", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_058", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--No.\nI think the Constitution does require them to do it under... a number of... even under its licensing cases the Court has said that it cannot vest unfettered discretion in a Government official over speech and this is more critical--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_057", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_059", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, okay, but if this is like a licensing case we get entirely apart from the election, then, what about the University of Virginia planning a lecture series on political philosophy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_058", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_060", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Well, obviously we have a number of different aspects that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_059", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_061", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, but if you once get away from your election context to a license for a speech, which is what you're talking about now, that, too, is in a much different context than broadcasting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_060", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_062", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--We're talking about two different things, I think, probably.\nNumber 1, what we're saying is in a particular and unique forum of candidate debates standardless discretion is not allowed in Government.\nBut second, if we go to the forum analysis, which is what, Mr. Chief Justice, you were referring to, under a forum analysis, again, as this Court has said, not only is the debate a forum, it is what this Court has used to describe what a forum is.\nThe only question therefore really is the limitations of the forum, and I apologize, this is not in the brief.\nI just finally understood this last night.\nWhat the Government is actually doing here is, they are putting as their limit to a limited forum a subjective determination.\nThat allows them to create a forum and then later when particular speakers arise to enter the forum, they use their subjective decisionmaking to exclude them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_061", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_063", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, but what's wrong with what the Government says, and there may be a lot wrong, but they say they may not invidiously discriminate?\nNow, that takes some of the subjectivity out of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_062", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_064", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, number 1, I don't know how they can actually say that.\nAETN is working as a State actor.\nIf they're a State actor, they're not bound... I mean, they're saying they're a private actor.\nIf they're a private actor they're not bound by the Constitution, they can engage in viewpoint discrimination, they can endorse candidates--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_063", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_065", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, let's assume that we think the station is a State actor, all right?\nLet's make that assumption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_064", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_066", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Then if they're a State actor what we have is a case that almost exactly fits this Court's case in Southeastern Productions in which Chattanooga created a forum of a theatre.\nIn this case, they created... the Government created a forum for the debate.\nThen, the speakers were placed in that theatre.\nIn this case there was... it was candidates in this debate.\nThen what happened is, when Hair was drawn in, they said, well, our forum is limited, however.\nIt's limited to plays which are in the best interests of the community.\nIn this case, in the reply brief, the petitioner says our standard was, was it in the best interest of the community?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_065", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_067", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "I thought Southeastern Promotions was more of a procedural case than a substantive--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_066", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_068", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "It's just a forum analysis, and what they do is, once you realize you're in a real forum, which you are here, the Government cannot come up with this type of discretionless standard that at best, again, unfettered discretion of Government officials, subjective... what they say is subjective determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_067", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_069", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--But I take it--\n--Mr. Shackelford, I understand that you're not asking this Court to come up with a code.\nWhat you are saying, I thought, was that there must be a set of rules in place, as they are for public financing of campaigns, as there are for standards of who will have access to the town hall, but those standards must be there not for the Court to invent, but for the Court to review for adequacy once they're put in place by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_068", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_070", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "That's what we're saying.\nAt the very first level we know that the Government cannot engage in a subjective determination, picking and choosing amongst the candidates--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_069", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_071", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Okay, but if it had defined public interest, or here, if it had defined viability, or... I forget what the alternative criterion was here... would any definition do as long as we know it in advance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_070", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_072", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--No.\nI think it was a twostep analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_071", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_073", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "All right.\nWhat's the second step?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_072", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_074", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "The first step is objective criteria, and the second step is it has to meet the constitutional safeguards--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_073", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_075", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Yes, but that's the question.\nWhat are the constitutional safeguards it's got to meet?\nWhat is the substance of the second step?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_074", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_076", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--I think with the ballot access.\nIt's probably the closest thing that we have that deals with the election process, and the standards that I see in there are not necessarily bright lines the Court has said, but it's okay to require a modicum of support.\nIt's not okay to simply entrench the major parties and throw out the minority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_075", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_077", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "You use ballot access and it varies widely from State to State, because in some States it's very easy to get on the ballot and in other States it's harder to get on the ballot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_076", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_078", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "I think the interesting thing about ballot access is it's respectful of the people's wishes.\nThey have put forward in their legislature this is what we consider a serious candidate, and to allow another Government agency in that State to say, we don't care what you think is a serious candidate, we're going to exclude your candidate from the debate and confer powerful Government benefits to his opponents--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_077", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_079", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, you're really saying that if you have a public... if you have a ballot access law, that is a good indication of what an objective standard would be, and if you vary from that, you're not perhaps necessarily treading into unconstitutionality, but you're certainly raising a serious question.\nIs that as far as you go?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_078", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_080", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Certainly ballot access would be sufficient, and in fact that was the only objective standard laid out in this case, and Mr. Forbes met it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_079", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_081", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--that is not the reference that I was thinking of.\nI'm thinking of pages 5 and 6 of the Solicitor General's brief.\nI'm thinking of the probable problems that arise with the private stations and the equal opportunity requirement.\nI'm thinking of the FCC's effort to deal with that identical problem in that statutory contest in the private sector, and they've come up with a set of workable rules, I take it, for the identical problem which is described here as, if you'll recognize an exemption, i.e., for the comparable... only your broadcasting decisions rest on a reasonably good faith journalistic effort.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_080", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_082", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_081", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_083", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Yes, yes.\nWhat I want to know is, why wouldn't that work?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_082", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_084", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Number 1, the FCC standards are there in private and public broadcasting, so it wouldn't be something... it wouldn't be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_083", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_085", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well obviously you won't even have that FCC effort to deal with this very problem, why is that effort not constitutional, moving it into our constitutional province?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_084", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_086", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Number 1, because the idea that an individual can exercise their First Amendment rights in a different place at a different time has never been held as a sufficient basis for denying their rights and ignoring the law.\nFor instance, that argument, if it were used in Brown versus Board of Education, would tell African-American parents they can go to a private school.\nIn this case, the forum was a debate.\nThe speaker cannot be excluded on the basis that they could speak at some other time, some other place.\nIt's certainly not sufficient under the Constitution.\nSoutheastern Productions says this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_085", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_087", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, maybe the fact too that the FCC isn't authorize to fill in blanks in the Constitution.\nWell, they have a comparable problem.\nThey have a statute which imposes the same kind of obligation on a private person as the Constitution imposes on a public person.\nTo deal with that problem they come up with workable standards.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_086", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_088", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--They might be workable, but we say they're certainly not constitutional--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_087", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_089", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "So you're saying that if the FCC rules in a public contest it's a constitutional--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_088", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_090", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Right.\nCertainly what they have here is not sufficient for Government broadcasting.\nThe FCC has made clear its approach is to give unfettered discretion to all of its broadcasters, and so essentially what we have in the question is... and I think the context we have is, a broadcasting industry is a Government monopoly which is run by the FCC.\nTwo-thirds of the licenses given out are given out to Government licensees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_089", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_091", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--But I'm concerned that what you're asking in this case is for us to confine editorial discretion in a corporate broadcasting station, and I suppose you'd be quite satisfied, because you could win your case, if we said that we will confine that discretion when elections are involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_090", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_092", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_091", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_093", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "But I'm not sure if there is a principled line in our precedent that will allow us to make that conclusion, or you to make that argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_092", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_094", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--I think there is, in that there are aspects in this particularized forum that do not exist in any other forum, and therefore it has to extrapolate from this type of forum to a forum that does involve elections, that does involve candidates.\nWe would be in a completely different analysis... it may involve speech elements, but it wouldn't involve other voter's rights elements.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_093", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_095", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "And yet in one sense editorial discretion is most important when we are involved with elections.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_094", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_096", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, certainly not in Government editorial discretion, in the way it interposes itself into the election process, possibly skews the debates.\nFor instance, excluding minority candidates has more than one effect.\nMaybe that minority candidate is going to be our Congressman in 2 months.\nMaybe they're going to change the election as well for some of the other candidates, or I think the most important, maybe the ideas they express are going to be the ones around which the entire campaign is focused.\nSo if we allow this type of discretion in excluding minority candidates, it will be a direct attack on the whole idea of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_095", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_097", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "You know, except that I think at the same time you are agreeing that if the Government station decides instead of having a debate simply to have an interview by its political news anchor, it can choose to interview anyone it wants to.\nIs that your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_096", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_098", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--It's certainly a far step away from our case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_097", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_099", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "But what's the answer to my question?\nOn your theory, is that allowed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_098", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_100", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "I think it would depend upon the facts.\nIf what we have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_099", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_101", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Well, what facts would be significant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_100", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_102", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--I think number 1, whether there's a case for a face-to-face candidate discussion going on, that will bring out that answer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_101", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_103", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "So what you're really saying is, the Government up to a point sets its own terms.\nIf the Government says, we're going to bring people before you so that you can hear them, then they are bound by something like forum analysis.\nIf they don't say that, and they say, in essence, we're going to bring people before you whom we like, we endorse, it's not bound by forum analysis?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_102", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_104", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--Well, I don't know whether bound by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_103", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_105", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Is that a fair characterization of what you're saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_104", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_106", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--What I'm saying is, there's a line, and I don't know that I can draw the line exactly between when it leaves Government speech and becomes a nonpublic forum.\nI think when they begin to involve private speakers, that is the first time the First Amendment might begin to come into play, but certainly when they get as far across the line as they are in the current case, with a candidate-Government debate, it is very clearly a limited public forum, and I don't think there will be any question about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_105", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_107", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Mr. Shackelford, suppose the Court were to determine that the standards that Ms... whatever, that those were all okay standards, the problem was that she made them up, or came up with them after, and that under those standards your candidate would flunk, so you're in this at this point for the money because the election is long over, would you be entitled to any relief if the standards that she announced are okay, the only problem with them was that they weren't in place when your candidate asked to be part of the debate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_106", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__2_108", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "I think we would still be entitled to relief.\nBecause, a good example was the Southeastern Productions case.\nIn that case, the play had already been declared obscene in a criminal action, and so, but then the Court didn't even get to that issue.\nWhat they said was, use of unfettered discretion itself is enough of a constitutional violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_107", "speaker": "kelly_j_shackelford"}
{"id": "20178__2_109", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Shackelford.\nMr. Marks, you have 2 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_108", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__3_000", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nBallot qualification is, is an arbitrary standard.\nIt's both over-and under-inclusive, and it simply wouldn't work.\nThat's why editorial judgment is an essential element in this enterprise.\nYou can't run a news organization without engaging in editorial discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__2_109", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__3_001", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "How about standards like for public financing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__3_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__3_002", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "I think, Your Honor, that the public financing standards that the FC, the FEC, Federal Elections Commission has asked for, even though their objectives are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__3_001", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__3_003", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Is editorial discretion... can it be subject to objective standards?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__3_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__3_004", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "--No, Your Honor, it can't.\nIt has to... the problem, Justice Ginsburg with your... with relying on Federal Election Commission standards, because any time there's a list of standards, there's going to be a weighing and balancing, and it will be subject to some subjectivity in that mix.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__3_003", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__3_005", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "But don't you think that there's a guarantee present when you see the list, and you say, okay, I have to meet this list, then when there is no list, and then after they turn you down they say, these are the reasons?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__3_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20178__3_006", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "No, Your Honor, I don't.\nThis is not an algorithm, and using the newsworthiness standard there's always an opportunity, if somebody doesn't want to use the newsworthiness standard, wants to discriminate, there's always opportunity to manipulate those factors.\nIn fact, in answer to Justice Breyer's question about the FCC's standards that have been quoted here, because those standards in fact in the second prong of the test for an exemption forbid viewpoint discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__3_005", "speaker": "richard_d_marks"}
{"id": "20178__3_007", "conversation_id": "20178", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Marks.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-779", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20178__3_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20720__0_000", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 97-147, Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.\nMr. Abramowitz, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [0.0, 10.118], "stop_times": [10.118, 16.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20720__0_001", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--\nThe setting for this statutory interpretation case is, alas, subchapter L of the Internal Revenue Code, which contains, as this Court has recognized, highly specialized, carefully crafted rules for determining the taxable income of insurance companies.\nThe petitioner's position in this case is straightforward and very simply stated.\nIn connection with a transition rule that Congress adopted in 1986 with respect to a change in the taxations methodology for unpaid losses of insurance companies, it provided fresh start relief, a very favorable provision, but excluded from that fresh start relief reserve strengthening.\nReserve strengthening was the term of art that Congress used in the statute.\nReserve strengthening had, in 1986, a decades old meaning in insurance tax law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [16.583, 33.252, 52.176, 58.451, 79.975, 85.167], "stop_times": [33.252, 52.176, 58.451, 79.975, 85.167, 91.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 16.583}, "reply_to": "20720__0_000", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_002", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "But isn't that a disputed point?\nI mean, the Government tells us it didn't, and said we have witnesses to say it didn't have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [91.783, 94.013], "stop_times": [94.013, 99.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 91.783}, "reply_to": "20720__0_001", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20720__0_003", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "The... I... it's unclear, actually, Justice Ginsburg, the extent to which the Government disputes the history of the meaning of reserve strengthening in insurance tax law.\nIn this case below and in the Western National case the Government conceded that the term, reserve strengthening had a clear meaning in the context of life insurance taxation.\nIt disputed whether the meaning was clear in the context of property and casualty tax--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [99.908, 112.927, 124.595], "stop_times": [112.927, 124.595, 128.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 99.908}, "reply_to": "20720__0_002", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_004", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Which is what we're talking about here, and they had two witnesses to say in property and casualty, at least, the meaning is not a term of art.\nThere are multiple meanings.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [128.918, 136.554, 138.384], "stop_times": [136.554, 138.384, 141.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 128.918}, "reply_to": "20720__0_003", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20720__0_005", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--The Government--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [141.047], "stop_times": [141.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 141.047}, "reply_to": "20720__0_004", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_006", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--I'm just bringing that up to say that it isn't... can't be clear that it is a term of art in the kind of insurance we're talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [141.578], "stop_times": [148.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 141.578}, "reply_to": "20720__0_005", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20720__0_007", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--In the context of this case it is petitioner's position that the term, reserve strengthening, was a tax term of art, that Congress knew precisely what the term meant when it used it, that in fact the distinction between life insurance and property casualty insurance in this context is really not at all relevant.\nThe... subchapter L of the Internal Revenue Code covers both types of companies.\nThis provision applied to both... it's been loosely called a provision that applies to property and casualty companies but, in fact, it applies to both life insurance companies and property and casualty companies and, indeed, the difference between life and... what we're calling life insurance companies and property casualty companies really, in subchapter L of the Internal Revenue Code, is only a question of the relationship between the amount of reserves they hold to qualify as life insurance reserves and the amount of reserves they hold that are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [148.634, 172.069, 177.932], "stop_times": [172.069, 177.932, 205.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 148.634}, "reply_to": "20720__0_006", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_008", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Well, what are the differences in reserve accounting between the life insurance and the property and casualty insurance businesses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [205.25], "stop_times": [212.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 205.25}, "reply_to": "20720__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20720__0_009", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--Insofar as relevant to this case, Justice O'Connor, there are none.\nThere are differences, because obviously a life insurance policy covers one sort of risk and a property casualty insurance policy covers a different sort of risk.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [212.095, 215.148], "stop_times": [215.148, 223.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 212.095}, "reply_to": "20720__0_008", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_010", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Well, I thought there was a big difference.\nI thought the difference with life insurance is, if I sell a policy today and I take the income in and I'm going to have to pay it out in 30 years, I use a bunch of statistical tables that tell me people's life expectancy.\nIf I'm in the casualty business, at the end of the year in which I've received the premium I have to make what I'd call an educated guess about how many tornadoes... there were some tornadoes, but I mean, how many houses actually were flattened and how many people are out there with television sets that they haven't put their property claim in yet, and there aren't some tables I can go to.\nI thought people sit there and they make educated guesses about to what extent the policy that was sold in year one is going to result in a claim for that year that I'll have to pay out in year 10.\nI thought that's quite a big difference, so that seemed to me difference one, and difference two is that you had a sentence in the bill that would... they have a sentence in the bill that says, in the life insurance case, you know, strengthening is... does not... you know the sentence I'm referring to.\nIt's right there.\nIt wins your case if you were in the life insurance, and it's gone in your case, and they put it in in the Senate in your bill, and the House took it out.\nSo there we are.\nWe have a difference in practice, we have a difference in language in the bill, and we have a difference in the legislative history where you won your battle in the Senate and you lost it in the House.\nNow, given that, how do you win the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [223.023, 223.864, 234.21, 252.822, 263.701, 277.799, 278.907, 285.984, 287.353, 296.081], "stop_times": [223.864, 234.21, 252.822, 263.701, 277.799, 278.907, 285.984, 287.353, 296.081, 298.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 223.023}, "reply_to": "20720__0_009", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20720__0_011", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "All right, I need to back up just a step, Justice Breyer.\nThe... first with respect to the comparability of the businesses, they surely cover two different types of risk.\nI think Justice O'Connor's question had to do with the nature of the reserves, and the reserves in both cases are based upon assumptions and methodologies, and that is the relevant point, because that is a point that is embedded in the definition of the term, reserve strengthening, and let me go to the question, if I may, of the sentence, because backing all the way up--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [298.202, 300.734, 308.458], "stop_times": [300.734, 308.458, 326.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 298.202}, "reply_to": "20720__0_010", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_012", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "I think that's very important, and I think we should stay with the format of Justice Breyer's question, but just taking the first part of his question to help us to understand these things, isn't it true that in the life area reserves are usually changed because of methodologies and in the casualty area because of empirical reports that there have been... that there have been losses and so forth?\nIn the life area, people don't say, oh, you know, this policyholder has just been diagnosed with cancer, we're going to change the risk.\nThey don't do that.\nBut in the casualty area, I take it they do.\nNow, tell me if that's wrong, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [326.479, 344.042, 351.137, 351.748, 354.109], "stop_times": [344.042, 351.137, 351.748, 354.109, 355.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 326.479}, "reply_to": "20720__0_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20720__0_013", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--Well, in fact... that is correct, but in fact the comparable... when they make that change in the property casualty area that is the normal reserve increase.\nWhen they make a change in the life area, the normal increase is the adjustment year by year that the actuaries have built in for additional interest assumptions and mortality adjustments and so on, but the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [355.569, 362.232], "stop_times": [362.232, 374.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 355.569}, "reply_to": "20720__0_012", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_014", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--So that, as a general matter, reserve changes... other than for the addition of new policies reserve changes are made in the life area because of methodology changes and in the casualty area because of empirical assessments about actual losses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [374.953], "stop_times": [390.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 374.953}, "reply_to": "20720__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20720__0_015", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--No, Justice Kennedy, I think actually I'm disagreeing with that point, because in the life area there are regular, routine, normal reserve changes each and every year, increases in reserves, adjustments to reserves.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [390.183], "stop_times": [400.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 390.183}, "reply_to": "20720__0_014", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_016", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "For what reasons?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [400.248], "stop_times": [401.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 400.248}, "reply_to": "20720__0_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20720__0_017", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "The formula for determining life insurance reserves has to do with determining the present value... the relationship between the present value of future benefits and the present value of future net premiums, and those things really adjust every year.\nThey simply have normal adjustments every year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [401.53, 414.296], "stop_times": [414.296, 416.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 401.53}, "reply_to": "20720__0_016", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_018", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "And those are different than methodology changes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [416.319], "stop_times": [418.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 416.319}, "reply_to": "20720__0_017", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20720__0_019", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Exactly, and that's the very important point I'm trying to make, that there is a fundamental comparability and certainly Congress was aware of this, because I want to go back to Justice Breyer's question, that in the normal adjustments to reserves, things that happen without anything extraordinary, anything untoward or mischievous, potentially mischievous, and adjustments to reserves that result from changes in methods and assumptions.\nIt's the latter item that really is the adjustment item that can produce distortion, and I think both in the context of 1984 and in the context of 1986 the well known reserve strengthening kind of standard was the protection that Congress built in to protect against distortion, to protect against anybody taking undue advantage of the fresh start rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [418.089, 443.518], "stop_times": [443.518, 465.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 418.089}, "reply_to": "20720__0_018", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_020", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Okay.\nThe plausibility of what you say about the comparability of the way adjustments are made depends, I guess, on understanding the kinds of nonmethodological adjustments that are made in the life insurance area and you gave that rather a quick treatment, as if we understood, and I don't.\nCould you explain some of those nonmethodological adjustments in the reserves in the life insurance area that make it comparable to the kind of adjustments, nonmethodological adjustments that are made in the property and casualty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [465.661, 466.122, 483.826], "stop_times": [466.122, 483.826, 496.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 465.661}, "reply_to": "20720__0_019", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20720__0_021", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Actually, it's easier to think about it from the other side, Justice Souter.\nThe methodological assumptions happen in both cases, because actuaries determine reserves and actuaries determine formulas and actuaries change formulas and assumptions.\nOn the property casualty side, and I'm using that term in a... not an attack sense, just in the nature of that business... there are adjustments to reserves that result every year in a normal fashion by virtue of the existing formulas and existing methods that are used to determine those reserves.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [496.082, 500.736, 511.413], "stop_times": [500.736, 511.413, 530.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 496.082}, "reply_to": "20720__0_020", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_022", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Because insurance adjusters call in and they say, you know, there was a big loss, the roof fell in, things like that.\nThat's the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [530.765, 536.469], "stop_times": [536.469, 537.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 530.765}, "reply_to": "20720__0_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20720__0_023", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "That--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [537.579], "stop_times": [538.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 537.579}, "reply_to": "20720__0_022", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_024", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--The empirically based adjustments, in other words.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [538.04], "stop_times": [540.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 538.04}, "reply_to": "20720__0_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20720__0_025", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--There is certainly that element, but that is just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [540.541], "stop_times": [541.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 540.541}, "reply_to": "20720__0_024", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_026", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Okay.\nIs there any comparable element in life insurance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [541.402, 542.113], "stop_times": [542.113, 543.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 541.402}, "reply_to": "20720__0_025", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20720__0_027", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--No.\nOn that element there is not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [543.823, 544.314], "stop_times": [544.314, 545.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 543.823}, "reply_to": "20720__0_026", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_028", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [545.105], "stop_times": [545.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 545.105}, "reply_to": "20720__0_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20720__0_029", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "On that element there is not, but that is just one element of a determination of property and casualty reserves.\nIn this case the petitioner had a substantial portion of its reserves determined on the basis of the formulas and methods that actuaries had in place for determining the incurred but not reported losses of the insurance company and for determining loss adjustment expenses of the insurance company, and those formulas are formulas that... there are many possibilities for those formulas, but the actuaries in this company simply selected a formula and a method to apply, and it's that sort of formula that is... that was susceptible of being changed, adjusted, in manipulating the fresh start rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [545.954, 551.04], "stop_times": [551.04, 583.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 545.954}, "reply_to": "20720__0_028", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_030", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "The formula's not the problem.\nThat's right, yes.\nI'm still waiting to hear what nonformula factors exist in the life insurance area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [583.971, 584.822, 585.594], "stop_times": [584.822, 585.594, 591.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 583.971}, "reply_to": "20720__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20720__0_031", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Each and every year, life insurance reserves increase as a result... probably the simplest way to put this, of the insured becoming closer to death, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [591.107], "stop_times": [605.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 591.107}, "reply_to": "20720__0_030", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_032", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Right, but that's... that's considered in the formula, isn't it?\nI mean, that's a function of the methodology that they use, and that kind... if I understand what you're saying, that kind of adjustment does not reflect a change in methodology, it reflects an implementation of the methodology, and what I want to know is, what kind of reserve changes in the life area do not reflect implementations of previous methodology?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [605.637, 607.967], "stop_times": [607.967, 629.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 605.637}, "reply_to": "20720__0_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20720__0_033", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--I would think those... the kinds that do not reflect implementations of previous methodology are the kind that involve changes in methods and assumptions.\nI think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [629.592, 637.427], "stop_times": [637.427, 638.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 629.592}, "reply_to": "20720__0_032", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_034", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "I mean, isn't this the case, that suppose I have an insurance company and I insure people in Jacksonville, Florida, for life insurance, and through some kind of total fluke a terrible disease breaks out, unpredictable, in Florida, not elsewhere.\nThen I guess I could discover that through that fluke of happenstance my reserves were understated, and I guess that's an example where you might need to strengthen reserves in life insurance without changing methodology.\nAm I right?\nI'm testing out my understanding of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [638.398, 650.306, 662.815, 663.406], "stop_times": [650.306, 662.815, 663.406, 665.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 638.398}, "reply_to": "20720__0_033", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20720__0_035", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--I'm not sure... in your example, you simply discovered there was some... I'm sorry, I need to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [665.135], "stop_times": [671.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 665.135}, "reply_to": "20720__0_034", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_036", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Suddenly you happen to be in a city where your insurance company is, and suddenly a lot more people died there than you'd think.\nThey have... they discover some genetic feature.\nThey discover some kind of a disease that breaks... forget it.\nIt's not important.\nYou don't have to answer.\nI just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [671.701, 678.905, 680.965, 684.127, 684.818, 685.629], "stop_times": [678.905, 680.965, 684.127, 684.818, 685.629, 686.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 671.701}, "reply_to": "20720__0_035", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20720__0_037", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--I mean, I would think that ultimately that may require a change in methods and assumptions, but many of the things, underlying facts do require that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [686.3], "stop_times": [693.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 686.3}, "reply_to": "20720__0_036", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_038", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--Okay.\nYou're saying in life insurance it always requires changes in methods and assumptions, and in casualty it doesn't, and therefore--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [693.022, 693.643], "stop_times": [693.643, 699.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 693.022}, "reply_to": "20720__0_037", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20720__0_039", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--There--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [699.898], "stop_times": [700.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 699.898}, "reply_to": "20720__0_038", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_040", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--that's probably your problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [700.589], "stop_times": [701.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 700.589}, "reply_to": "20720__0_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20720__0_041", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--There are corrections of errors.\nI think the respondent issued a ruling in 1994 that really addressed a variety of things that distinguished changes in methods from corrections of errors and other types of adjustments, but I think there is... from that direction there is clearly some distinction between the normal adjustments in property and casualty and normal adjustments in life.\nBut that is really I think the wrong direction to be looking at this case on, because I think if you assume that this is... this being the reserve strengthening exclusion from the fresh start benefit that Congress intended, and if you attribute to it an objective to prevent mischievous, artificial things, you know you've accomplished that, I think, when you have caught people who have adjusted their methods and assumptions.\nI think frankly that is what Congress had to have meant when it used the term that it was well aware of.\nI think you always have to keep in mind here that the respondent's position and the regulation it wrote simply took the words, reserve strengthening, read them out of the Internal Revenue Code, read them out of the act and substituted the word, all increases.\nIt's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [701.771, 702.98, 722.464, 747.63, 754.125, 767.713], "stop_times": [702.98, 722.464, 747.63, 754.125, 767.713, 768.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 701.771}, "reply_to": "20720__0_040", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_042", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Mr. Abramowitz, if we could go back to the second part of Justice Breyer's question, that is, if one looked only at that Senate report one would say, you win, but the conference report seems to be much more inclusive than what you are now describing to us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [768.794], "stop_times": [784.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 768.794}, "reply_to": "20720__0_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20720__0_043", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, the conference report has, for all intents and purposes, the identical carve out from the fresh start rule.\nReserve strengthening is carved out.\nThe sentence in the Senate report that respondent has pointed out that Justice Breyer referred to had nothing whatever to do with the definition of reserve strengthening in a general way.\nThe sentence that the respondents pointed out and that Justice Breyer referred to is a sentence that relates specifically to the treatment of... in the life area, which is the comparable sentence, the treatment of reserves on newly issued contracts.\nIt in no way was intended by Congress to infuse the term reserve strengthening with its general, historic, longstanding meaning.\nAnd in fact in 1984, when this provision, the fresh start, the carve out all appeared in DefRA, in the House bill there was no comparable sentence.\nYou didn't need the sentence to define the term, reserve strengthening--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [784.923, 792.309, 794.49, 809.931, 826.84, 833.496, 847.615], "stop_times": [792.309, 794.49, 809.931, 826.84, 833.496, 847.615, 849.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 784.923}, "reply_to": "20720__0_042", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_044", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Well, am I correct... I just want to be sure about my memory.\nIs it not correct that the 1984 statute didn't use the term reserve strengthening?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [849.415, 851.188], "stop_times": [851.188, 854.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 849.415}, "reply_to": "20720__0_043", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20720__0_045", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--No, Justice Stevens.\nThat is exactly the term it used.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [854.77, 856.5], "stop_times": [856.5, 857.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 854.77}, "reply_to": "20720__0_044", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_046", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Pardon me again?\nDoes it use the term, reserve strengthening--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [857.972, 859.683], "stop_times": [859.683, 862.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 857.972}, "reply_to": "20720__0_045", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20720__0_047", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Yes, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [862.093], "stop_times": [863.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 862.093}, "reply_to": "20720__0_046", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_048", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--in the 1984 statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [863.035], "stop_times": [864.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 863.035}, "reply_to": "20720__0_047", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20720__0_049", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Yes, precisely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [864.056], "stop_times": [865.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 864.056}, "reply_to": "20720__0_048", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_050", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "And it defined it as a change in methodology?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [865.046], "stop_times": [867.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 865.046}, "reply_to": "20720__0_049", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20720__0_051", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "No, it didn't define it.\nThere was a sentence--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [867.367, 868.979], "stop_times": [868.979, 870.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 867.367}, "reply_to": "20720__0_050", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_052", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--I've got the statutes... the life insurance statute.\nThat's the 1984--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [870.799, 872.371], "stop_times": [872.371, 873.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 870.799}, "reply_to": "20720__0_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20720__0_053", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--Yes.\nThe life insurance... I'm sorry.\nThe life insurance statute had virtually the identical provision, an exception for reserve strengthening from the fresh start rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [873.592, 874.122, 875.454], "stop_times": [874.122, 875.454, 882.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 873.592}, "reply_to": "20720__0_052", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_054", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--And did it define the term, reserve strengthening?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [882.848], "stop_times": [884.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 882.848}, "reply_to": "20720__0_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20720__0_055", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "No, it did not.\nThere was a sentence that followed it that addressed the treatment of reserves on contracts issued during 1984, because Congress was concerned that there was some reason in that case to deal with people who... it had a mid year effective date, the 1984 act, and there was some reason to have a special rule to identify--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [884.631, 885.359], "stop_times": [885.359, 906.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 884.631}, "reply_to": "20720__0_054", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_056", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "What was that--\n--Which sentence made it clear that reserve strengthening meant what you say it means.\nThat sentence made that clear.\nYour position is simply that the purpose of the sentence was not to make it clear.\nThe purpose of the sentence was not to define it, but you don't deny that the sentence, whatever it was meant to do as a practical matter, makes it clear what reserve strengthening meant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [906.834, 907.715, 912.527, 914.179, 919.593], "stop_times": [907.715, 912.527, 914.179, 919.593, 932.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 906.834}, "reply_to": "20720__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20720__0_057", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--That sentence in 1984 was consistent with the notion that reserve practices were... were... changes in reserve practices involved reserve strengthening.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [932.312], "stop_times": [941.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 932.312}, "reply_to": "20720__0_056", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_058", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Changes in methodology.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [941.457], "stop_times": [943.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 941.457}, "reply_to": "20720__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20720__0_059", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [943.318], "stop_times": [944.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 943.318}, "reply_to": "20720__0_058", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_060", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Are those provisions of the 1984 statute quoted in any of the papers before us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [944.279], "stop_times": [947.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 944.279}, "reply_to": "20720__0_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20720__0_061", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Yes, Justice Stevens, on page--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [947.579], "stop_times": [949.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 947.579}, "reply_to": "20720__0_060", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_062", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Is it A-51?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [949.803], "stop_times": [951.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 949.803}, "reply_to": "20720__0_061", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20720__0_063", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--A-51 in the petition for certiorari.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [951.032], "stop_times": [955.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 951.032}, "reply_to": "20720__0_062", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_064", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "What was the reason for having a special rule with respect to the '83 contracts?\nYou say that was what the sentence addressed, but I've never understood why it needed to address it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [955.416, 960.979], "stop_times": [960.979, 965.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 955.416}, "reply_to": "20720__0_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20720__0_065", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "First off, it's peculiar because it's stated as a negative rule.\nIt is not stated as if one were expecting a definition of a reserve strengthening, reserve strengthening is, and it's not stated that way even in the context of the 1984 context.\nIt says, reserve strengthening shall not include--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [965.872, 969.375, 977.839], "stop_times": [969.375, 977.839, 980.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 965.872}, "reply_to": "20720__0_064", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_066", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [980.002], "stop_times": [980.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 980.002}, "reply_to": "20720__0_065", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20720__0_067", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--reserves on, and then what it really related to was reserve strengthening at the end of 1984, that that was consistent with practices at the end of '83, and while I am... I can point to evidence that the sentence, and we have pointed to evidence that the sentence was not intended to define reserve strengthening, there really is no actual evidence as to what particular case Congress had in mind under that rule, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [980.521], "stop_times": [1005.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 980.521}, "reply_to": "20720__0_066", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_068", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "All right, then why... what is your answer, then, to this argument.\nI mean, the argument is... would normally be raised, and the Government raises it, that the very fact that that sentence is in there saying, it shall not refer to this, implies that in the absence of that proviso it would refer to these kinds of practices.\nYour answer to that was, well, there apparently was a need to have a particular rule with respect to contracts for this particular year, but if we don't know what that reason was for a particular rule, then we're back to the negative implication, and the negative implication seems to support, clearly supports the Government.\nSo I don't understand in the... if you don't have a particular explanation for why there was a need for that sentence for those... for contracts of those years, I don't see how you get out of the negative implication.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1005.389, 1006.488, 1023.03, 1041.934], "stop_times": [1006.488, 1023.03, 1041.934, 1053.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1005.389}, "reply_to": "20720__0_067", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20720__0_069", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--Well, several things to point out.\nThe House bill in 1984 did not have the sentence.\nThe sentence came in, I believe, in the Senate bill with a view to accommodating the mid year effective date that existed for, or target date, announcement date for the change in 1984, and what the sentence I think had to do with was a need to provide some relief for some actions during 1984 that would have been captured under a normal definition of reserve strengthening.\nBut because they were taken and then adjusted by the end of 1984, Congress... the Senate first, and then ultimately the whole congress was providing a measure of relief for that situation, as long as the reserves did not exceed what the method... what reserves on the same method would have produced--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1053.661, 1055.09, 1058.773, 1089.185], "stop_times": [1055.09, 1058.773, 1089.185, 1107.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1053.661}, "reply_to": "20720__0_068", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_070", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Well, maybe I don't understand, but I... it seems to me that the companies could be taking those kinds of actions with respect to contracts entered into in any year, and why did they... why did they single out contracts entered into in one particular year?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1107.804], "stop_times": [1121.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1107.804}, "reply_to": "20720__0_069", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20720__0_071", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--Companies could take those actions with respect to contracts and enter into any year and, indeed, those are the very actions that are prescribed by the reserve strengthening rule.\nI think there must have been a unique set of circumstances that existed with respect to particular companies and particular taxpayers for new contracts in 1984.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1121.764, 1130.78], "stop_times": [1130.78, 1139.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1121.764}, "reply_to": "20720__0_070", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_072", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "But we don't know what it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1139.485], "stop_times": [1140.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1139.485}, "reply_to": "20720__0_071", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20720__0_073", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Congress didn't tell you what it was, but they didn't tell you in the House bill and they really didn't... in 1986, when they got rid of the mid year effective date, in effect, the trigger, which started out in the Senate bill as a March... reserve strengthening after March 1, and the final conference bill modified that treatment.\nIt was going to be effective for reserve strengthening during calendar year 1986, and when they did that, they eliminated the sentence, because they eliminated the need to respond to certain actions during that year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1140.256, 1155.707], "stop_times": [1155.707, 1166.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1140.256}, "reply_to": "20720__0_072", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_074", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Mr. Abramowitz, if we apply the Treasury regulation at issue here, does it answer the question of how we deal with this in the property and casualty context?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1166.766], "stop_times": [1179.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1166.766}, "reply_to": "20720__0_073", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20720__0_075", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Well, it provides a rule.\nThe problem is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1179.172, 1181.913], "stop_times": [1181.913, 1182.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1179.172}, "reply_to": "20720__0_074", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_076", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1182.604], "stop_times": [1183.085], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1182.604}, "reply_to": "20720__0_075", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20720__0_077", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1183.085], "stop_times": [1183.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1183.085}, "reply_to": "20720__0_076", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_078", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Yes.\nIt would answer the question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1183.706, 1184.595], "stop_times": [1184.595, 1186.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1183.706}, "reply_to": "20720__0_077", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20720__0_079", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "But it would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1186.308], "stop_times": [1187.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1186.308}, "reply_to": "20720__0_078", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_080", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--if we apply the regulation, I assume.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1187.958], "stop_times": [1189.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1187.958}, "reply_to": "20720__0_079", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20720__0_081", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--Yes.\nIt would... you would apply the respondent's interpretation and, I believe, frustrate the intent of Congress, because you would have cut back from effective date at the end of 1986 to effective date at the end of 1985--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1189.991, 1191.4], "stop_times": [1191.4, 1201.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1189.991}, "reply_to": "20720__0_080", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_082", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "What deference do we owe in the income tax context to a Treasury regulation?\nIs it an ordinary Chevron deference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1201.908, 1209.312], "stop_times": [1209.312, 1212.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1201.908}, "reply_to": "20720__0_081", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20720__0_083", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1212.685], "stop_times": [1213.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1212.685}, "reply_to": "20720__0_082", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_084", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "You do not quarrel with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1213.476], "stop_times": [1214.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1213.476}, "reply_to": "20720__0_083", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20720__0_085", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--I do not quarrel with that.\nI think that is the same standard that the Third Circuit applied.\nI think the Third Circuit erred because it simply failed to give proper credit to the plain meaning of the term, reserve strengthening, and failed to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1214.566, 1215.247, 1218.86], "stop_times": [1215.247, 1218.86, 1226.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1214.566}, "reply_to": "20720__0_084", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_086", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "May I... have you finished your answer to Justice O'Connor?\nI want to ask you this question, looking at the statute.\nI fumbled it a little bit before.\nWhat if one read the words reserve strengthening in the life insurance statute to have exactly the same meaning that the Government says they have in the property casualty insurance and then reads the subparagraph saying, but we're taking out of that broader definition those that do not involve a change in methodology.\nIsn't that the way... then the two... reserve strengthening would have the same meaning in both statutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1226.604, 1229.967, 1232.878, 1235.202, 1252.122], "stop_times": [1229.967, 1232.878, 1235.202, 1252.122, 1256.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1226.604}, "reply_to": "20720__0_085", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20720__0_087", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--You would, except you would have... you would have eliminated from the fresh start relief in the life area the vast... the overwhelming majority of reserve increases that were protected and intended to be the beneficiary of the fresh start relief, because you would have captured, as we were discussing earlier, all the increases, all the ordinary increases in life reserves.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1256.694], "stop_times": [1279.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1256.694}, "reply_to": "20720__0_086", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_088", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "No--\n--You say there aren't any.\nThey're all methodological increases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1279.699, 1280.199, 1280.78], "stop_times": [1280.199, 1280.78, 1283.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1279.699}, "reply_to": "20720__0_087", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20720__0_089", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "No, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1283.592], "stop_times": [1284.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1283.592}, "reply_to": "20720__0_088", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_090", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "In the life area you haven't given us any that would not come under the narrow meaning of reserve strengthening that you argue for.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1284.473], "stop_times": [1295.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1284.473}, "reply_to": "20720__0_089", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20720__0_091", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--All of the increases... life reserves, as I suggested earlier, grow each and every year by virtue of the formulas that are in place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1295.299], "stop_times": [1303.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1295.299}, "reply_to": "20720__0_090", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_092", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1303.324], "stop_times": [1303.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1303.324}, "reply_to": "20720__0_091", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20720__0_093", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "In answering Justice Stevens' question, if I apply the respondent's rule to the life area, all those ordinary increases, all of them would have been denied and separated--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1303.805], "stop_times": [1312.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1303.805}, "reply_to": "20720__0_092", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_094", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1312.25], "stop_times": [1312.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1312.25}, "reply_to": "20720__0_093", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20720__0_095", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--from the fresh start.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1312.791], "stop_times": [1313.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1312.791}, "reply_to": "20720__0_094", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_096", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "No.\nThey wouldn't, because of the proviso that follows right after.\nIt says, it shall not apply if such computation employs the reserve practice used in the past.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1313.983, 1314.434, 1315.261], "stop_times": [1314.434, 1315.261, 1320.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1313.983}, "reply_to": "20720__0_095", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20720__0_097", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "That rule, Justice Stevens, only applies to newly issued contracts, the contracts issued during 1984.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1320.497], "stop_times": [1326.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1320.497}, "reply_to": "20720__0_096", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_098", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "It doesn't limit it to '84, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1326.31], "stop_times": [1330.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1326.31}, "reply_to": "20720__0_097", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20720__0_099", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "The word issued appears in the... in the statute as it is written.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1330.512], "stop_times": [1334.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1330.512}, "reply_to": "20720__0_098", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_100", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Any contract issued.\nIt doesn't say issued in 1984.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1334.586, 1335.146], "stop_times": [1335.146, 1335.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1334.586}, "reply_to": "20720__0_099", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20720__0_101", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "The Senate report, the Senate bill which first contained that sentence--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1335.986], "stop_times": [1340.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1335.986}, "reply_to": "20720__0_100", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_102", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Well, stick with the text for a minute.\nLet me be a Justice Scalia for a minute and just work with the text and nothing else for a second.\n[Laughter]\nIf you have the text, why doesn't that completely protect all changes that result from changes in methodology, because it excludes those that employ the same reserve practice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1340.059, 1340.7, 1344.671, 1345.652], "stop_times": [1340.7, 1344.671, 1345.652, 1359.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1340.059}, "reply_to": "20720__0_101", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20720__0_103", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--It would if you read the word... if you read the word issued out of the statute.\nThe word issued is... Congress simply wouldn't have used the word issued.\nIt doesn't add anything to the equation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1359.692, 1364.434, 1367.958], "stop_times": [1364.434, 1367.958, 1370.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1359.692}, "reply_to": "20720__0_102", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_104", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Do you have reserves on anything except issued contracts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1370.028], "stop_times": [1372.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1370.028}, "reply_to": "20720__0_103", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20720__0_105", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "You do not, but you have reserves--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1372.021], "stop_times": [1373.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1372.021}, "reply_to": "20720__0_104", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_106", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Well, all reserves are reserves on contracts that have been issued.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1373.872], "stop_times": [1377.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1373.872}, "reply_to": "20720__0_105", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20720__0_107", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--That is certainly correct, Justice Stevens.\nHowever, we know from the title to that sentence that when it was added in the Senate report, that it was intended to covered newly issued contracts, because it said, reserves on newly issued contracts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1377.996, 1379.925], "stop_times": [1379.925, 1388.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1377.996}, "reply_to": "20720__0_106", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_108", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Does the Government agree with that?\nNewly means what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1388.061, 1390.081], "stop_times": [1390.081, 1391.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1388.061}, "reply_to": "20720__0_107", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20720__0_109", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Issued during the calendar year 1984.\nThat is exactly what the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1391.062, 1393.284], "stop_times": [1393.284, 1394.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1391.062}, "reply_to": "20720__0_108", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_110", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Issued during... I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1394.125], "stop_times": [1396.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1394.125}, "reply_to": "20720__0_109", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20720__0_111", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--I'm sorry, 1983.\nI'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1396.026, 1397.478], "stop_times": [1397.478, 1398.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1396.026}, "reply_to": "20720__0_110", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_112", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Does the Government agree with that interpretation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1398.048], "stop_times": [1399.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1398.048}, "reply_to": "20720__0_111", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20720__0_113", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "I do not think they agree with that interpretation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1399.607], "stop_times": [1402.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1399.607}, "reply_to": "20720__0_112", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_114", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "I'm... as to the contracts to which it's applicable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1402.619], "stop_times": [1404.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1402.619}, "reply_to": "20720__0_113", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20720__0_115", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "I'm sorry?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1404.73], "stop_times": [1405.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1404.73}, "reply_to": "20720__0_114", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_116", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "As to the insurance contracts to which it's applicable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1405.521], "stop_times": [1407.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1405.521}, "reply_to": "20720__0_115", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20720__0_117", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "I... in their brief they cited that without the word issued in there, so I think maybe they don't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1407.624], "stop_times": [1415.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1407.624}, "reply_to": "20720__0_116", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_118", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Okay.\nIs... just to go back to your general point, as a tax lawyer, I'm curious... you are, I'm not, but the... is it proper to give Chevron deference to the IRS?\nIf that's right, what do we do... do we give Chevron deference to the tax court?\nDoes the tax court give Chevron deference to the IRS?\nWhy do we have a tax court, then?\nI mean, I'm worried about this conceptual point.\nI'd like to get it right, and I'm not certain what the answer is, and it has much more implication that this case, and I just wondered what the tax court, which I guess was the Board of Tax Appeals, what their role is in all this if suddenly total Chevron authority is being given to the IRS.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1415.639, 1416.628, 1428.448, 1433.091, 1435.872, 1438.143, 1441.425], "stop_times": [1416.628, 1428.448, 1433.091, 1435.872, 1438.143, 1441.425, 1459.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1415.639}, "reply_to": "20720__0_117", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20720__0_119", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "I think when I answered Justice O'Connor's question I was really answering in the broad sense that at least in the past 5 or 6 years most courts interpreting... many courts interpreting tax regulations have, indeed, applied the Chevron standard.\nIf the intent in Congress is clear, they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1459.367, 1479.14], "stop_times": [1479.14, 1481.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1459.367}, "reply_to": "20720__0_118", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_120", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "But I just think that has quite a lot of implication and I don't know what the right answer to that is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1481.951], "stop_times": [1486.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1481.951}, "reply_to": "20720__0_119", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20720__0_121", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--I think even the tax court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1486.945], "stop_times": [1487.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1486.945}, "reply_to": "20720__0_120", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_122", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "And the tax court just defers to the IRS?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1487.735], "stop_times": [1491.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1487.735}, "reply_to": "20720__0_121", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20720__0_123", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--The tax court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1491.097], "stop_times": [1493.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1491.097}, "reply_to": "20720__0_122", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_124", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Is that... why do we have them, then?\nAnyone could do--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1493.25, 1493.839], "stop_times": [1493.839, 1494.59], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1493.25}, "reply_to": "20720__0_123", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20720__0_125", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--Well, they're a court.\nThey're not an agency or a, you know, agency making... rulemaking enterprise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1494.59, 1496.851], "stop_times": [1496.851, 1502.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1494.59}, "reply_to": "20720__0_124", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_126", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--Let me just ask one more question.\nIf you're... if you are correct that reserve strengthening has well settled meaning in the industry and in the statute, it would seem to me that the proviso is unnecessary, the clause-2-shall-not-apply language.\nIn other words, it says clause 2 shall not apply if the computation was the same.\nYou wouldn't need that proviso if reserve strengthening had the clear settled meaning that you say it had.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1502.925, 1504.247, 1515.675, 1520.757], "stop_times": [1504.247, 1515.675, 1520.757, 1526.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1502.925}, "reply_to": "20720__0_125", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20720__0_127", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Justice Stevens, you wouldn't need it in the ordinary course.\nYou didn't have it in the ordinary course.\nYou didn't have it in the House bill and I think the only explanation I can give is that it appears that it is responsive to a set of circumstances where there were changes made during 1983 by a particular taxpayers and Congress... they still let them have their relief as long as their reserves at the end of 1983 were the same as they were at the end of 1982.\nI would simply suggest that when you state a sentence... it would be extraordinary for Congress to state a sentence in the negative if that was their intended positive rule.\nIf there are no further questions, with the Court's permission I'd like to reserve the remainder--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1526.41, 1529.913, 1531.783, 1550.236, 1557.422], "stop_times": [1529.913, 1531.783, 1550.236, 1557.422, 1561.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1526.41}, "reply_to": "20720__0_126", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__0_128", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Very well, Mr. Abramowitz.\nMr. Jones, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1561.513, 1562.845], "stop_times": [1562.845, 1564.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1561.513}, "reply_to": "20720__0_127", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20720__1_000", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--\nThe term reserve strengthening has no plain and obvious meaning.\nIt is not defined in any dictionary or in any statute.\nIt lacks a consistent industry usage.\nThe scope and meaning of the term depends upon its context, and in the context of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 it is manifest that Congress consciously employed the term in its broadest sense to encompass any and all increases to existing reserves made during that year, the year that that act was pending before Congress.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1564.715, 1568.989, 1573.231, 1576.953, 1579.825], "stop_times": [1568.989, 1573.231, 1576.953, 1579.825, 1599.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1564.715}, "reply_to": "20720__0_128", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_001", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Now, I take it there's a reason under your theory of the case that Congress used the term strengthen rather than increase.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1599.961], "stop_times": [1609.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1599.961}, "reply_to": "20720__1_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20720__1_002", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1609.685], "stop_times": [1610.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1609.685}, "reply_to": "20720__1_001", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_003", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "And I... tell me if this is right.\nIt might not be right.\nIf it had used the word increase, then that wouldn't have done the trick, because then any reduction for actual loss payments would have absorbed some real increases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1610.846, 1613.788, 1614.74], "stop_times": [1613.788, 1614.74, 1627.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1610.846}, "reply_to": "20720__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20720__1_004", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "That's absolutely right.\nReserves can... the dollar amount of reserves can change without us knowing, in the abstract, whether that strengthened or weakened the reserves.\nThe conference committee made that point.\nIt's quoted at page 14 of our brief.\nIt says, in describing the types of additions to the reserves that the reserve strengthening provision in the '86 act covers, the first example that it gives is an increase in an estimate of a reserve and then it says, paren, taking into account the amount of claims paid you have to take into account the amount of claims paid to know whether the reserve has been increased or strengthened.\nYou might know whether it had been increased, but you wouldn't know whether it's been strengthened.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1627.407, 1628.198, 1635.964, 1638.796, 1640.657, 1663.48], "stop_times": [1628.198, 1635.964, 1638.796, 1640.657, 1663.48, 1667.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1627.407}, "reply_to": "20720__1_003", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_005", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Mr. Jones, could you tell me, the one thing that puzzles me about this is what is the evil that the statute is directed at on your interpretation of it?\nI mean, I can see that it's an evil if you're... you know, if you're playing games with the methodology and the Government wants to come down on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1667.464, 1677.162], "stop_times": [1677.162, 1685.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1667.464}, "reply_to": "20720__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20720__1_006", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1685.285], "stop_times": [1686.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1685.285}, "reply_to": "20720__1_005", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_007", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "If you're just taking account of verifiable real life occurrences, what... why would the Government not want that to be taken into account?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1686.214], "stop_times": [1696.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1686.214}, "reply_to": "20720__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20720__1_008", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--I wouldn't want to use the word evil.\nThe problem that the statute addresses is a problem that Congress created in the '86 act.\nIn the '86 act, Congress did something very uncharacteristic.\nThey gave property and casualty insurance companies a double deduction.\nThat's extraordinary in the tax law.\nIt's extremely generous.\nThe only function of the reserve strengthening clause is never to deny a deduction.\nIt is only to limit the scope of this uncharacteristic double deduction.\nWhat Congress did in 1986 was to say, well, you can have a double deduction for a portion of your insurance reserves, but we're not going to let you increase that double deduction by increasing your reserves in 1986, the year that this bill was pending.\nAs Judge Halperin pointed out in his dissent in the Western Mutual case, what is anomalous about this statute is not the broad mechanical rule that Congress plainly intended to apply to reserve strengthening.\nWhat was anomalous was that Congress allowed a double deduction in the first place, and that the breadth of the mechanical rule that Congress adopted for reserve strengthening is simply designed to reduce that anomaly that they created by permitting a double deduction in the first place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1696.943, 1698.553, 1704.217, 1707.96, 1712.662, 1714.535, 1716.455, 1721.31, 1726.253, 1741.882, 1753.531], "stop_times": [1698.553, 1704.217, 1707.96, 1712.662, 1714.535, 1716.455, 1721.31, 1726.253, 1741.882, 1753.531, 1768.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1696.943}, "reply_to": "20720__1_007", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_009", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "What kind of deference do you think we owe to a regulation of this kind?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1768.722], "stop_times": [1775.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1768.722}, "reply_to": "20720__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20720__1_010", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Well, we have taken a position in this case that this is an interpretive regulation.\nThe standard that this Court has applied for interpretive Treasury regulations is set out in its opinions in the National Muffler Dealers case and United States v. Correll, and that is that interpretive regulation must be sustained if it is not plainly inconsistent with the statute and is not unreasonable in light of what Congress sought to do.\nWe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1775.556, 1780.311, 1800.945], "stop_times": [1780.311, 1800.945, 1801.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1775.556}, "reply_to": "20720__1_009", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_011", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "And that was a pre Chevron case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1801.923], "stop_times": [1804.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1801.923}, "reply_to": "20720__1_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20720__1_012", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1804.105], "stop_times": [1804.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1804.105}, "reply_to": "20720__1_011", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_013", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "And it's been working okay in the tax area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1804.566], "stop_times": [1806.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1804.566}, "reply_to": "20720__1_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20720__1_014", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Absolutely, and I'm... I'm not familiar of a reason why you shouldn't cite Chevron on this case.\nI'm just pointing out that you have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1806.238, 1812.372], "stop_times": [1812.372, 1815.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1806.238}, "reply_to": "20720__1_013", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_015", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "You like that other test better.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1815.274], "stop_times": [1816.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1815.274}, "reply_to": "20720__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20720__1_016", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--You have long applied another test, and I think that other test has... even if it has a different emphasis it has the same conclusion, but I think that there is a particular practical side to the National Muffler Dealers and Correll test.\nAnd the practical side is that this agency really does make a careful study not only of the statute and the history of this provision but of the complicated surrounding and related provisions, and what the Court has said is that the agency is the master of the rules and it's appropriate to give it special deference to recognize the function that it serves and to provide certainty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1816.372, 1831.602], "stop_times": [1831.602, 1852.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1816.372}, "reply_to": "20720__1_015", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_017", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Any other agencies we should treat specially?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1852.387], "stop_times": [1854.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1852.387}, "reply_to": "20720__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20720__1_018", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "I'm not representing any other--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1854.667], "stop_times": [1856.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1854.667}, "reply_to": "20720__1_017", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_019", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "And have sort of a super Chevron--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1856.52], "stop_times": [1857.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1856.52}, "reply_to": "20720__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20720__1_020", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--I don't really think it's a super Chevron.\nI think it's a practical approach to the deference question.\nI think the Court takes a practical approach to Treasury regulations and realizes that this agency is entitled to special deference because of its extraordinary intricacy of the details, and this case I think may well be a prime example of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1857.929, 1859.672, 1862.373], "stop_times": [1859.672, 1862.373, 1878.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1857.929}, "reply_to": "20720__1_019", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_021", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--It's a variation of Skidmore, possibly.\nYou said we give them the deference that they're due in light of their power to persuade.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1878.434, 1880.296], "stop_times": [1880.296, 1885.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1878.434}, "reply_to": "20720__1_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20720__1_022", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Well... okay.\nI think the deference that's due is in light of the subject matter, I frankly do, and I wouldn't want to call it a super Chevron deference.\nI just think it's an application of the same principle in this specific context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1885.439, 1888.582, 1895.734], "stop_times": [1888.582, 1895.734, 1899.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1885.439}, "reply_to": "20720__1_021", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_023", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Academic writers have said it's Chevron minus.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1899.707], "stop_times": [1903.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1899.707}, "reply_to": "20720__1_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20720__1_024", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Yes.\nI think you could argue either side of it, and I certainly don't think it's been applied as a Chevron minus.\nI don't think the words are stronger, but I think the application of it is at least as strong as Chevron.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1903.33, 1904.289, 1908.303], "stop_times": [1904.289, 1908.303, 1912.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1903.33}, "reply_to": "20720__1_023", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_025", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Can we get the meaning of reserve strengthening from the statute alone?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1912.935], "stop_times": [1918.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1912.935}, "reply_to": "20720__1_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20720__1_026", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1918.631], "stop_times": [1918.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1918.631}, "reply_to": "20720__1_025", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_027", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Or do we have to look at that regulation to know what it means?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1918.979], "stop_times": [1922.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1918.979}, "reply_to": "20720__1_026", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20720__1_028", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--I think you can get the meaning of the statute by the ordinary application of interpretive principles that the Court applies.\nThe text of the regulation makes clear the broad intent simply by the fact that the Court's already discussed, which is that the Senate version of the bill had enclosed... included a limiting clause that would have made it applicable only to changes in reserves due to changes in methodologies.\nThat provision from the Senate bill was, of course, derived from the '84 reserve strengthening provision that had applied that same language in describing the transitional rule for life insurance provisions.\nCongress rejected that, took that provision out, and explained why they did so in the conference committee report and also Senator Wallop acknowledged the same thing.\nCongress wanted a broad prophylactic cook book, mechanical rule to prevent any increases in existing reserves to be added to the double deduction that was otherwise permitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1922.272, 1929.558, 1946.658, 1961.498, 1970.184], "stop_times": [1929.558, 1946.658, 1961.498, 1970.184, 1980.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1922.272}, "reply_to": "20720__1_027", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_029", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Mr. Jones, if your position is the right one here, what differences are there at bottom between the life insurance reserve strengthening and the property and casualty reserve strengthening?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1980.891], "stop_times": [1994.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1980.891}, "reply_to": "20720__1_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20720__1_030", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Well, the '84 act governs the life insurance reserve strengthening provision, and it is limited to changes in reserves caused by changes in the reserve methodologies.\nThe '86 act, as Congress could not have been more clear than stating in the conference report, and as the changes in the text also show, was designed to be much broader.\nIt was designed to cover three categories that the conference committee report discusses, changes in estimates of a particular reserve, changes in reserve methodology like in the '84 area, and then to make the breadth of its intent perfectly clear said, any other unspecified or unallocated additions to reserves.\nSo yes, there would be a different application of the property and casualty reserve strengthening provision in the '86 act than the prior provision for life--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [1994.61, 2005.149, 2013.434, 2030.454], "stop_times": [2005.149, 2013.434, 2030.454, 2040.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1994.61}, "reply_to": "20720__1_029", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_031", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "So for that period of time no increases of reserves qualify for the double deduction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2040.579], "stop_times": [2046.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2040.579}, "reply_to": "20720__1_030", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20720__1_032", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--For the eighty... in... no reserve strengthening in '86, no reserve increases for existing reserves get the double deduction under the '86 act.\nThat's what this case is about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2046.264, 2053.998], "stop_times": [2053.998, 2055.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2046.264}, "reply_to": "20720__1_031", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_033", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Now, you changed your position on the equivalence of the statutes in your brief to this Court or the lower court, or is that a mischaracterization?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2055.6], "stop_times": [2064.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2055.6}, "reply_to": "20720__1_032", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20720__1_034", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "I don't... I don't follow the question.\nWe haven't changed our characterization of the statutes.\nI think I know what you're referring to.\nPetitioner says in its reply brief that we've changed our pitch, if you will, about whether there had been a prior usage in the life insurance industry, about what in the life insurance industry reserve strengthening was used.\nThat's a misrepresentation of our position.\nWhat we have done in our brief is respond to a new argument that petitioner is making.\nIn the courts below, petitioner relied on the proposition that industry usage showed the plain meaning of the term, but the record in this case and its own witnesses don't support that.\nIts own witnesses acknowledge there are many different uses of the term and there is no well defined application of reserve strengthening in the property and casualty industry, so petitioner has abandoned the position about what industry usage means.\nWhat they argue here is that reserve strengthening is what they call a tax term.\nIt has a tax meaning that somehow exists wholly apart from industry usage and apart from legislative intent.\nThere isn't such a thing as a tax term of that ilk.\nThere are some tax terms like capital gains and ordinary and necessary business expenses that have distinctive meanings.\nReserve strengthening is an industry term.\nIt draws its meaning from industry usage.\nThe industry usage is mixed and depends on context and in the context of the '86 act Congress meant to give it its broadest scope.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2064.685, 2067.928, 2069.53, 2070.659, 2083.168, 2086.751, 2091.513, 2101.65, 2114.698, 2119.172, 2125.477, 2129.517, 2135.362, 2137.655, 2140.317], "stop_times": [2067.928, 2069.53, 2070.659, 2083.168, 2086.751, 2091.513, 2101.65, 2114.698, 2119.172, 2125.477, 2129.517, 2135.362, 2137.655, 2140.317, 2147.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2064.685}, "reply_to": "20720__1_033", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_035", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "And you have always interpreted the term to mean the same in the '84 and the '86 act, subject, of course, to the fact that there's a qualification in the '84 act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2147.088], "stop_times": [2156.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2147.088}, "reply_to": "20720__1_034", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20720__1_036", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Yes.\nWe have interpreted the term the same way, but what I thought you were asking me about was, do we accept that in the life insurance industry usage, not this tax term of art idea, but that there was an industry usage in life insurance to refer to reserve strengthening as meaning a change in reserve methodology.\nWe don't dispute that.\nWhat we have always disputed is that no such industry usage applies to property and casualty insurance, that the term has different meanings and different contexts, and that's what the witnesses in this case acknowledged, and that's certainly what the conference committee report of this legislation indicates.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2156.375, 2156.906, 2177.931, 2179.17, 2195.061], "stop_times": [2156.906, 2177.931, 2179.17, 2195.061, 2197.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2156.375}, "reply_to": "20720__1_035", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_037", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Well, let me just do it one more time.\nYou have always taken the position that the term, reserve strengthening, means the same in each act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2197.963, 2199.963], "stop_times": [2199.963, 2207.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2197.963}, "reply_to": "20720__1_036", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20720__1_038", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--The only--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2207.91], "stop_times": [2209.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2207.91}, "reply_to": "20720__1_037", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_039", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Subject, of course, to this special clause that's in the '84 act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2209.16], "stop_times": [2211.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2209.16}, "reply_to": "20720__1_038", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20720__1_040", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--Yes.\nIt's only been used twice, so it's easy to answer that question.\nIt doesn't appear anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code.\nThe only two times where this term has been used is in the '84 transitional rule and in the '86 transitional rule, and in the '84 rule it was confined by this phrase about it doesn't apply unless you've changed your methodology, and in the '86 rule that phrase was deleted.\nSo the term has been used by Congress with the same meaning in both places.\nIt's just that in the '84 act they limit it with the additional language that they didn't use in '86.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2211.761, 2212.212, 2214.984, 2217.438, 2232.915, 2237.099], "stop_times": [2212.212, 2214.984, 2217.438, 2232.915, 2237.099, 2241.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2211.761}, "reply_to": "20720__1_039", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_041", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "I thought maybe... help me out on this.\nI thought at one point you were saying to Justice Kennedy that the difference in agency usage in the life area was such that the proviso simply conformed the term exactly to the way the life people were using it.\nThat's not what you mean.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2241.721, 2244.513, 2259.042], "stop_times": [2244.513, 2259.042, 2259.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2241.721}, "reply_to": "20720__1_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20720__1_042", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "It may be that that's the effect of the proviso.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2259.973], "stop_times": [2264.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2259.973}, "reply_to": "20720__1_041", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_043", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2264.447], "stop_times": [2264.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2264.447}, "reply_to": "20720__1_042", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20720__1_044", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "But I don't think that was the object of it.\nI mean, you can't look at the proviso and say... if you look at the proviso in '84 and you think that reserve strengthening means what petitioner says, well, you don't need the proviso.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2264.995, 2266.307], "stop_times": [2266.307, 2276.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2264.995}, "reply_to": "20720__1_043", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_045", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "That's right, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2276.335], "stop_times": [2277.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2276.335}, "reply_to": "20720__1_044", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20720__1_046", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "And so it must have meant... if you will, it must have meant something more, and what... it certainly can mean more, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2277.256], "stop_times": [2283.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2277.256}, "reply_to": "20720__1_045", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_047", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "At least have been capable of meaning more.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2283.991], "stop_times": [2285.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2283.991}, "reply_to": "20720__1_046", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20720__1_048", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--It's certainly capable of meaning more, and in the '86 act, clearly Congress wanted it to mean more to prevent this double deduction from being expanded beyond what they were willing to tolerate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2285.403], "stop_times": [2294.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2285.403}, "reply_to": "20720__1_047", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_049", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "I don't know if you can correct my problem with the double deduction.\nI couldn't quite understand it.\nThe reason I couldn't understand it when I looked at your example was, I understood the idea of a person having a reserve, and they then discounted it, wrote it down from $10 to $9, and normally that would mean you have to take a dollar into income, but Congress forgave that.\nThen time passes, and 2 years go by, and at that point they pay the loss of $10, in which case they deduct that, and then they... they've increased their reserve by the 9, so you say, a ha, it's 9, not 10.\nIt doesn't offset.\nBut it should have grown to 10, so I mean, the whole point of the discount was that... was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2294.19, 2296.901, 2298.6, 2312.829, 2325.558, 2326.549], "stop_times": [2296.901, 2298.6, 2312.829, 2325.558, 2326.549, 2331.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2294.19}, "reply_to": "20720__1_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20720__1_050", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "It doesn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2331.733], "stop_times": [2332.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2331.733}, "reply_to": "20720__1_049", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_051", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--Why doesn't it grow to 10, and maybe it's not worth going into.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2332.444], "stop_times": [2335.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2332.444}, "reply_to": "20720__1_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20720__1_052", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "You may be thinking of life reserves instead of property and casualty reserves.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2335.586], "stop_times": [2338.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2335.586}, "reply_to": "20720__1_051", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_053", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "In property and casualty reserves, you didn't... didn't they discount it, because they wanted to have an amount here in year one such that it would grow to the point where it equaled the amount that they'd have to pay out in year three?\nWasn't that the whole purpose of discounting?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2338.849, 2348.783], "stop_times": [2348.783, 2350.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2338.849}, "reply_to": "20720__1_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20720__1_054", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2350.395], "stop_times": [2351.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2350.395}, "reply_to": "20720__1_053", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_055", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "And if that was, why didn't it grow?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2351.494], "stop_times": [2353.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2351.494}, "reply_to": "20720__1_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20720__1_056", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--The reserve strengthening rule doesn't cover 30--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2353.337], "stop_times": [2356.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2353.337}, "reply_to": "20720__1_055", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_057", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "No, it has nothing to do with reserve strengthening.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2356.57], "stop_times": [2358.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2356.57}, "reply_to": "20720__1_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20720__1_058", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2358.13], "stop_times": [2358.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2358.13}, "reply_to": "20720__1_057", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_059", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "I'm just trying to figure out this problem of what you call the double deduction in your example in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2358.62], "stop_times": [2362.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2358.62}, "reply_to": "20720__1_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20720__1_060", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2362.373], "stop_times": [2363.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2362.373}, "reply_to": "20720__1_059", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_061", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--Don't bother if it's too complicated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2363.372], "stop_times": [2365.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2363.372}, "reply_to": "20720__1_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20720__1_062", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "It is too complicated, but let me try.\n[Laughter]\nThe double deduction will accrete this additional dollar of deduction over the period that the claim remains outstanding and unpaid, so if you've got... if you've brought it back to present value over 10 years you will accrete a portion of that over that 10-year--each of that 10-year period, so you get the double deduction as time goes by.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2365.085, 2366.946, 2367.306], "stop_times": [2366.946, 2367.306, 2388.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2365.085}, "reply_to": "20720__1_061", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_063", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "But then, by the time you got to pay it out the reserves should have equaled 10, not 9.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2388.5], "stop_times": [2391.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2388.5}, "reply_to": "20720__1_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20720__1_064", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Well, then you've fully gotten the double deduction over the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2391.402], "stop_times": [2394.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2391.402}, "reply_to": "20720__1_063", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_065", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Ah, because... because you mean, you took it a little... as it was growing each year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2394.544], "stop_times": [2397.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2394.544}, "reply_to": "20720__1_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20720__1_066", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2397.386], "stop_times": [2397.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2397.386}, "reply_to": "20720__1_065", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_067", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Okay.\nI understand.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2397.877, 2398.408, 2398.928], "stop_times": [2398.408, 2398.928, 2400.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2397.877}, "reply_to": "20720__1_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20720__1_068", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "The only other point I think I need to address is the suggestion that the mechanical rule reaches absurd or anomalous results.\nThat argument's wrong for three reasons.\nThe first is, what the regulation does is exactly what Congress wanted to be done.\nIt can't be unreasonable for the agency to have adopted a rule that is precisely in conformance with what the conference committee explained reserve strengthening was supposed to mean.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2400.538, 2410.766, 2412.957, 2417.699], "stop_times": [2410.766, 2412.957, 2417.699, 2428.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2400.538}, "reply_to": "20720__1_067", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_069", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "You're saying this is all gravy, so taking away any of it can't possibly be unreasonable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2428.617], "stop_times": [2434.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2428.617}, "reply_to": "20720__1_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20720__1_070", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "I think that's... well, I think that's exactly right.\nThat is exactly right.\nIt is not unreasonable... it would not have been unreasonable for Congress to have allowed 1 penny of double deduction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2434.101, 2436.823, 2438.365], "stop_times": [2436.823, 2438.365, 2443.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2434.101}, "reply_to": "20720__1_069", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_071", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "In your view, if there's an old policy and an old loss in the casualty area, and it's just discovered, can you increase the reserve for that without strengthening the reserve?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2443.277], "stop_times": [2457.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2443.277}, "reply_to": "20720__1_070", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20720__1_072", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "No.\nIf you had an existing policy... let's say in 1986 you discovered a claim came up under a 1982 year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2457.206, 2458.348], "stop_times": [2458.348, 2464.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2457.206}, "reply_to": "20720__1_071", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_073", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2464.773], "stop_times": [2465.223], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2464.773}, "reply_to": "20720__1_072", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20720__1_074", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Would that cause reserve strengthening in '86, and the answer is, I don't know.\nThe answer... the reason I don't know is because you've got this account called reserve for claims incurred but not reported, and so you might simply transfer a portion of that reserve into a case reserve for this claim that you have now discovered that has now been reported, and if that's what happened, then there's been no reserve strengthening in '86.\nIt might be that you didn't do that.\nYou just created a new case reserve.\nThere was no corresponding reduction in the reserve for claims incurred but not reported, and yes, that would be reserve strengthening.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2465.223, 2469.398, 2487.779, 2490.22, 2491.881], "stop_times": [2469.398, 2487.779, 2490.22, 2491.881, 2497.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2465.223}, "reply_to": "20720__1_073", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_075", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "And in a way, if you didn't do that you are effectively changing your methodology anyhow, aren't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2497.935], "stop_times": [2502.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2497.935}, "reply_to": "20720__1_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20720__1_076", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2502.807], "stop_times": [2504.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2502.807}, "reply_to": "20720__1_075", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_077", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "If you have that reserve for that very purpose and you don't use it for that purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2504.579], "stop_times": [2508.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2504.579}, "reply_to": "20720__1_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20720__1_078", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--Well, that's... you could look at it that way, but I think frankly that the whole concept of reserve methodologies doesn't fit comfortably with property and casualty insurance, because property and casualty insurance look backwards.\nThey are an effort to estimate an indeterminate amount of damages for something that's already happened.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2508.603, 2523.523], "stop_times": [2523.523, 2529.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2508.603}, "reply_to": "20720__1_077", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_079", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Well, if that's so and we go strictly on an empirical basis, then it seems to me there ought to be an answer to my question one way or the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2529.374], "stop_times": [2535.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2529.374}, "reply_to": "20720__1_078", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20720__1_080", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "No, because it's... a judgment is involved.\nWhen the... in the property and casualty area, when they set up the new account--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2535.989, 2541.863], "stop_times": [2541.863, 2544.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2535.989}, "reply_to": "20720__1_079", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_081", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "The judgment is, we found the old loss, we didn't know about it, it hasn't been included in our account, we're going to add it.\nIs that strengthening?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2544.985, 2549.479], "stop_times": [2549.479, 2550.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2544.985}, "reply_to": "20720__1_080", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20720__1_082", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "--I don't think I can answer it better than I tried to the first time.\nIt depends on how you create the reserve.\nIf you create the reserve by saying, well, I've always had this account for claims incurred but not reported, and you use... take $10 out of that and create a case reserve for $10, it's a wash.\nIt's not a reserve strengthening.\nYou... insurance companies know today that they're going to get claims coming along over a goodsized period of years, even though the claims have already been incurred, they haven't been reported, and so they provide for that with a separate reserve for that kind of a claim, that situation.\nAnd as we tried to describe in our brief, the problem with the factual hypotheticals that petitioner gives us is, they don't give any consideration to that aspect of reserves, and they're based upon what I think is fairly described as a frivolous suggestion that insurance companies have only two or three claims a year.\nWe're supposed to look to the broad company wide data to decide whether reserve strengthening happened under the... under the regulation.\nThe regulation is designed to let the... or the statute is designed to let these insurance companies have their cake and eat it too.\nIt's a double deduction, but it's not as big a double deduction as they'd like.\nIt's not as big a double deduction as Congress plainly wanted... was willing to give them.\nAll the regulation does is enforce the legislative intent, and under the principles of deference that this Court customarily applies, the agency's reasonable interpretation should be sustained.\nIf there are no further questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2550.279, 2555.684, 2558.606, 2567.811, 2569.212, 2588.125, 2607.696, 2615.132, 2624.016, 2628.05, 2632.254, 2644.502], "stop_times": [2555.684, 2558.606, 2567.811, 2569.212, 2588.125, 2607.696, 2615.132, 2624.016, 2628.05, 2632.254, 2644.502, 2646.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2550.279}, "reply_to": "20720__1_081", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20720__1_083", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Jones.\nMr. Abramowitz, you have 3 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2646.455, 2648.265], "stop_times": [2648.265, 2650.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2646.455}, "reply_to": "20720__1_082", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20720__2_000", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "It would not have been unreasonable for Congress to have not provided the reserve strength... the fresh start rule.\nBut Congress did provide the fresh start rule.\nIt is unreasonable for this agency, the Internal Revenue Service, to have cut back that rule in a way that frustrated the intent of Congress.\nIn effect, what this regulation does is make reserves at the end of 1985 subject to the fresh start and not reserves at the end of 1986.\nThe Congress had a very specific purpose in providing the reserve strengthening exception, whatever their purpose was for the broad relief they were providing, and that very specific purpose that it had had to do with artificial, manipulative advantage taking of the fresh start rule that they were providing.\nThe historic definition of reserve strengthening, the historic meaning of that term satisfied that congressional objective.\nContrary to what respondent counsel just indicated, there was a 30-year history of the term reserve strengthening that began... it first appears in the legislative history for the 1959 act for life insurance companies.\nIt is in judicial decisions, it is in regulations, it is in revenue rulings for 30 years before Congress had... had it... actually had applied it in the 1984 act.\nNow, it didn't really have much reason to be in the statute before then because generally adjustments go two directions when you change methods or assumptions.\nThey can reserve increases or reserve decreases.\nOne is strengthening, one is weakening, so generally when you saw this in the statute from the '59 act it was referred to as changes in basis, which went both directions.\nBut when they needed the rule that they adopted in 1984, they looked to a term of art that they understood, this term that they understood and that the Internal Revenue Service understood.\nIn Commissioner v. Keystone, Consolidated Industries, this Court, at respondent's suggestion, identified the term, sale or exchange, as a term of art in tax law.\nIt is true that reserve strengthening doesn't quite go to the breadth of the term, sale or exchange.\nBy the same token, for insurance tax lawyers and insurance taxation the term reserve strengthening has a very precise meaning.\nThat is the meaning that Congress intended.\nTo the extent that Senator Wallop indicated he had some concern about changes in that meaning, those concerns were reflected in his comments sometime after the act, but the more important point is, he expressed some concern that he certainly didn't recollect any changes in definition that occurred or were discussed by the conferees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2650.406, 2656.61, 2660.554, 2667.258, 2676.374, 2694.286, 2703.353, 2718.072, 2728.919, 2735.283, 2737.274, 2744.3, 2754.284, 2764.192, 2771.337, 2778.57, 2781.012], "stop_times": [2656.61, 2660.554, 2667.258, 2676.374, 2694.286, 2703.353, 2718.072, 2728.919, 2735.283, 2737.274, 2744.3, 2754.284, 2764.192, 2771.337, 2778.57, 2781.012, 2803.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2650.406}, "reply_to": "20720__1_083", "speaker": "george_r_abramowitz"}
{"id": "20720__2_001", "conversation_id": "20720", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Abramowitz.\nThe cas is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-147", "start_times": [2803.147, 2804.629], "stop_times": [2804.629, 2805.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2803.147}, "reply_to": "20720__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20967__0_000", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Well, we'll hear argument first this morning in Number 96-653, Kenneth Lee Baker and Steven Robert Baker v. General Motors Corporation.\nMr. Tribe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [0.0, 8.367], "stop_times": [8.367, 9.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20967__0_001", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nOne judge in Michigan, without an adversary hearing, enters a consent decree as part of a stipulated monetary settlement between G.M. and an employee, Ron Elwell.\nThe employee can give testimony about G.M.'s practices that it considers damaging but is unable to suppress in the usual manner... that is, by persuading a judge that the testimony is inadmissible because of attorney-client privilege, trade secrets, and the like.\nThe decree permanently enjoins the employee from being deposed or testifying without the consent of General Motors as a witness of any kind in State or Federal litigation brought against G.M. anywhere by anyone, whether a private plaintiff seeking damages or a public official enforcing health and safety regulations or criminal statutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [9.847, 12.67, 24.557, 43.46], "stop_times": [12.67, 24.557, 43.46, 66.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.847}, "reply_to": "20967__0_000", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_002", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Mr. Tribe, you refer to the Michigan proceeding as a consent decree.\nWhat are you... what precisely do you mean by that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [66.173, 70.267], "stop_times": [70.267, 72.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 66.173}, "reply_to": "20967__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20967__0_003", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "What I mean, Mr. Chief Justice, is that there was no adversary hearing and though consent decree is sometimes used to refer to a class action, here it was a stipulated settlement entered on the record by the judge after--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [72.08], "stop_times": [86.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 72.08}, "reply_to": "20967__0_002", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_004", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Well, that's true of all settlements, isn't it, that there's no adversary hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [86.802], "stop_times": [90.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 86.802}, "reply_to": "20967__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20967__0_005", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Sure.\nThis is not... we're not suggesting that there was anything unique or unusual about it.\nWhat's unusual, or at least what some people think is unusual, is that the request for a subpoena to depose the employee or to call him as a witness comes from a litigant who was not a party to and had no notice of the little proceeding that led to the quite usual entry of the decree.\nNow, the district--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [90.954, 91.194, 94.456, 112.187], "stop_times": [91.194, 94.456, 112.187, 113.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 90.954}, "reply_to": "20967__0_004", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_006", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Well, even if Baker had had notice in Missouri, I take it your position is he wouldn't have to go to Michigan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [113.068], "stop_times": [119.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 113.068}, "reply_to": "20967__0_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20967__0_007", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--That's certainly true--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [119.814], "stop_times": [120.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 119.814}, "reply_to": "20967__0_006", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_008", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [120.285], "stop_times": [120.625], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 120.285}, "reply_to": "20967__0_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20967__0_009", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--but it makes it, if anything, worse that they didn't have notice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [120.625], "stop_times": [122.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 120.625}, "reply_to": "20967__0_008", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_010", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--I take it your position would be the same if there had been an adversarial proceeding and... which had resulted in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [122.746], "stop_times": [129.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 122.746}, "reply_to": "20967__0_009", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20967__0_011", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Absolutely.\nI make that point only because at various points in the brief by General Motors it's suggested that there were some elaborate findings that this was the only possible way of protecting privilege.\nOur position would be the same anyway, but I just wanted to note the fact.\nThe district--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [129.36, 130.43, 140.077, 142.891], "stop_times": [130.43, 140.077, 142.891, 143.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 129.36}, "reply_to": "20967__0_010", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_012", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--I thought, Mr. Tribe, that you made that point to underscore that issue preclusion has no part in this case at all, because nothing was ever actually litigated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [143.82], "stop_times": [153.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 143.82}, "reply_to": "20967__0_011", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20967__0_013", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--That's certainly true, Justice Ginsburg--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [153.146], "stop_times": [154.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 153.146}, "reply_to": "20967__0_012", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_014", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "So--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [154.548], "stop_times": [154.738], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 154.548}, "reply_to": "20967__0_013", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20967__0_015", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--and it's in addition true that if there had been litigation, it's somewhat ironic that a determination by Judge Hathaway in Michigan that, for example, some document was privileged in a proceeding between General Motors and Elwell would obviously not be binding against the Bakers here, and yet the intriguing thing is that this decree, the injunction, has this enormous effect on them.\nThe question is, does it matter that they weren't there?\nThe district court thought it mattered a great deal, invoked what it called the rights of third parties... at page 28a--and essentially took the position that the full--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [154.738, 178.703, 180.806], "stop_times": [178.703, 180.806, 190.161], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 154.738}, "reply_to": "20967__0_014", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_016", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--This is the district court in Missouri now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [190.161], "stop_times": [191.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 190.161}, "reply_to": "20967__0_015", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20967__0_017", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--No, I'm sorry, the district... yes, the district court below, in Missouri, Mr. Chief Justice... took the position that the full faith and credit statute should not be read to mean that a decree of this kind, and I quote him, forever defines the rights of innocent third parties who have a keen interest in the information that Elwell holds.\nNow, the Eighth Circuit disagreed, took the position that the whole point of the decree was to dispose of what it called these discovery rights of litigants, and to do so in all of the other lawsuits that the Michigan judge assumed would follow.\nOf course, if the Eighth Circuit is right, the consequences are pretty sweeping.\nThe old maxim that the public has a right to every man's evidence will need a footnote saying, unless he has sold his silence--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [191.904, 210.247, 224.789, 229.191], "stop_times": [210.247, 224.789, 229.191, 238.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 191.904}, "reply_to": "20967__0_016", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_018", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Why is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [238.427], "stop_times": [239.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 238.427}, "reply_to": "20967__0_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20967__0_019", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--evidence might expose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [239.448], "stop_times": [240.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 239.448}, "reply_to": "20967__0_018", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_020", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Why is that?\nIsn't the issue just whether the Baker... what's the... the plaintiff--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [240.267, 241.118], "stop_times": [241.118, 245.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 240.267}, "reply_to": "20967__0_019", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20967__0_021", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "The plaintiffs here are the Bakers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [245.753], "stop_times": [247.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 245.753}, "reply_to": "20967__0_020", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_022", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--The Bakers--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [247.152], "stop_times": [247.603], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 247.152}, "reply_to": "20967__0_021", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20967__0_023", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "The children.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [247.603], "stop_times": [247.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 247.603}, "reply_to": "20967__0_022", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_024", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--would have to go to Michigan and say, we're not bound by the Michigan decree.\nOf course they're not bound by it.\nSo they'd go to Michigan and they'd say, look, we've never litigated this, and therefore will you please modify the decree because, after all, we don't want to ask him about any privileged information.\nWe don't want to ask him about any confidential information.\nWe want information that we have a right to.\nYour decree is too broad, so modify it.\nWe were never parties.\nAnd they'd be totally right in that, wouldn't they?\nSo the issue is just what court they have to go to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [247.883, 251.245, 252.928, 263.384, 266.616, 269.137, 271.969, 273.01, 274.793], "stop_times": [251.245, 252.928, 263.384, 266.616, 269.137, 271.969, 273.01, 274.793, 277.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 247.883}, "reply_to": "20967__0_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20967__0_025", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Well, that's one way of putting it.\nIf that were the only issue, then I think this Court's decision... really several decisions.\nCrider v. Zurich, a decision of this Court, holds that a local venue rule like the one Michigan has saying that you've got to go to the original issuing court in order to make a change in a decree or a judgment or an injunction, because that denies the full faith and credit premise of the equal competence of the courts of other States to entertain the matter, that kind of venue rule is not entitled to full faith and credit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [277.314, 278.426, 283.621], "stop_times": [278.426, 283.621, 310.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 277.314}, "reply_to": "20967__0_024", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_026", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Well, isn't another way to answer the question to just say that it's not Baker's burden to undo the injunction, it's G.M.'s burden to show that Baker is bound, and it can't do that when Baker wasn't a party.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [310.579], "stop_times": [321.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 310.579}, "reply_to": "20967__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20967__0_027", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "That's certainly right, Justice Kennedy, and in fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [321.625], "stop_times": [322.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 321.625}, "reply_to": "20967__0_026", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_028", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "That's precisely the issue, because... you might come to this when you want, but what's worrying me is, if you require the Bakers to go to Michigan you run into the problem that Justice Kennedy raised.\nWhy should they have to go to Michigan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [322.896, 332.252], "stop_times": [332.252, 333.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 322.896}, "reply_to": "20967__0_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20967__0_029", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [333.784], "stop_times": [334.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 333.784}, "reply_to": "20967__0_028", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_030", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "All right.\nBut if you don't require them to go to Michigan, you run into the possibility that Elwell, the Elwells of the world, i.e., those under injunctions, will get under conflicting injunctions, and then they'll really be in a mess because in... you know, you have one State telling them you have to do a thing and another State saying you can't do a thing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [334.014, 334.365], "stop_times": [334.365, 352.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 334.014}, "reply_to": "20967__0_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20967__0_031", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Well, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [352.199], "stop_times": [352.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 352.199}, "reply_to": "20967__0_030", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_032", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--and that would produce a terrible practical mess, so between those two evils, it seems better to send them to Michigan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [352.428], "stop_times": [358.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 352.428}, "reply_to": "20967__0_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20967__0_033", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Well, let me back into that, Justice Breyer.\nI certainly don't agree that that's better, and I also don't agree that it's a hopeless clash of evils.\nThis very settlement took care of that.\nThere was a side agreement that said that if he is ordered to testify, then he cannot be sanctioned.\nHe, indeed, has testified against G.M. in some 30 trials.\nNot once--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [358.103, 359.382, 363.185, 365.566, 371.32, 374.223], "stop_times": [359.382, 363.185, 365.566, 371.32, 374.223, 374.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 358.103}, "reply_to": "20967__0_032", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_034", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "This is a really important point in the case.\nLet's assume there's no settlement agreement.\nLet's just talk about conflicting injunctions.\nWhat would be the answer if there were no settlement agreement?\nG.M. says, well... or, Elwell says well, I'm being told one thing in one State and the other thing in the other State, and what's the answer to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [374.743, 376.386, 377.979, 381.501, 384.072], "stop_times": [376.386, 377.979, 381.501, 384.072, 391.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 374.743}, "reply_to": "20967__0_033", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20967__0_035", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Well, I think the answer is that contempt requires a certain mens rea, and that in that case he cannot be held in contempt for following the order of a court that appears to have competent jurisdiction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [391.418], "stop_times": [403.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 391.418}, "reply_to": "20967__0_034", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_036", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Well, doesn't the Missouri court also have the capacity to instruct G.M. not to enforce the injunction against Elwell in defiance of Missouri's orders?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [403.125], "stop_times": [410.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 403.125}, "reply_to": "20967__0_035", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20967__0_037", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--I think that's certainly right.\nG.M. has to be before the Missouri court to create the problem.\nIn this case, the way it was indeed structured was with a side agreement that eliminated the very problem that the Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [410.779, 411.8, 415.074], "stop_times": [411.8, 415.074, 420.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 410.779}, "reply_to": "20967__0_036", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_038", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "But what I'm actually worried is not this case.\nI'm worried about custody cases, antitrust cases, dozens of cases in which very complicated injunctive decrees could have been entered against defendants in State 1, and then grandma in Florida in a custody case, or any supplier in an antitrust case produces a different action in Florida and puts Alcoa or Swift or mummy or daddy or somebody under a conflicting injunctive decree, and that's what I'm worried about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [420.877, 422.678], "stop_times": [422.678, 453.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 420.877}, "reply_to": "20967__0_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20967__0_039", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Well, but I do think first there's obviously a certain wisdom in taking these one case at a time, and it seems to me very clear that in a case like this, where it is just wordplay to say that this is not being used against the Bakers, that they're not being bound, of course they are.\nThey are being deprived of the procedures that would otherwise be available to get this evidence, and the only thing that's being invoked to deprive them of it, in a sense a legal defense to their claim, is the Michigan judgment.\nIn that circumstance, just as in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [453.178, 469.929, 483.298], "stop_times": [469.929, 483.298, 484.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 453.178}, "reply_to": "20967__0_038", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_040", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "That's what full faith and credit always produces, some result like that.\nSupposing the Michigan decree hadn't involved testimony.\nSuppose it involved a car, and you go to Missouri and you say well, why should this Missouri creditor be denied the resort to Missouri courts over this claim to a car?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [484.687, 488.481, 491.012], "stop_times": [488.481, 491.012, 501.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 484.687}, "reply_to": "20967__0_039", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20967__0_041", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Well, what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [501.921], "stop_times": [502.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 501.921}, "reply_to": "20967__0_040", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_042", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "And the answer is, full faith and credit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [502.181], "stop_times": [503.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 502.181}, "reply_to": "20967__0_041", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20967__0_043", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Well, Chief Justice Rehnquist, this Court in in personam as opposed to in rem cases, where there is, in fact, a finite object and it has to be allocated, and once it is you can't continually relitigate it, has never held that we can simply let the chips fall where they may when a judgment has been entered not over an object but over knowledge in someone's head, a judgment that says we're going to say you can't testify it.\nThat is, in Martin v. Wilks it could also have been said in response to your opinion for the court could also have been said, well, consent decrees often have side effects and, indeed, the way that General Motors tries to make this look like anything other than an easy case is to suggest that the decree is only being enforced against Mr. Elwell, and that my clients are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, the way their mother was in that car.\nNow, that, I think, is sheer sophistry.\nIt's not true, because unlike a judgment that changes something physical, it reduces the assets available, it eliminates a job, this judgment has effect on the Bakers only because it is used to preclude them from arguing to the court in Missouri that they are entitled to have Elwell's testimony.\nIt has preclusive effect.\nIt involves the absentee adjudication of their rights.\nThat's what this Court has never allowed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [503.762, 528.659, 556.809, 559.242, 584.027, 585.059, 589.924], "stop_times": [528.659, 556.809, 559.242, 584.027, 585.059, 589.924, 591.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 503.762}, "reply_to": "20967__0_042", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_044", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Mr. Tribe, would you distinguish what the... we're told by your colleague that this is just an incidental effect.\nIt's like, creditor 1 sues debtor, and debtor, paying that judgment, wipes out debtor's fortune.\nCreditor 2 comes along, just as good a case, tough luck.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [591.223, 605.024, 613.889], "stop_times": [605.024, 613.889, 617.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 591.223}, "reply_to": "20967__0_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20967__0_045", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Right, and this, Justice Ginsburg, is nothing like that.\nA case like that shows that a judgment can be for some people a natural disaster.\nThe landscape has changed and you can't reconstruct it.\nThe judgment in this case didn't change anything physical.\nIt's not, for example, as though this was a judgment that Mr. Elwell did something terrible and should be executed in the State of Michigan which would, of course, render him unavailable.\nThe only way... just... you have to ask yourself, I think, what the causal chain is.\nTheir argument is, so what, too bad, the judgment in Michigan has made this fellow essentially unavailable, just as though he were incarcerated.\nBut of course then, under the Federal rules, one could at least depose him.\nThe fact is, if you ask, what's the causal chain by which he was made unavailable, he's unavailable only to the extent... and this goes back to Justice Kennedy's question... that General Motors' request to the judge in the State of Missouri that the judgment in Michigan be treated as preclusive of the rights of the litigants in Missouri, who weren't there, weren't represented, weren't privies, had no notice, it's only to the extent that that request is granted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [617.983, 620.785, 626.738, 630.021, 634.135, 643.459, 647.411, 658.339, 661.123], "stop_times": [620.785, 626.738, 630.021, 634.135, 643.459, 647.411, 658.339, 661.123, 688.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 617.983}, "reply_to": "20967__0_044", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_046", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "But if Elwell really is not available, then couldn't you, on behalf of the Bakers, introduce Elwell's testimony from the Georgia case, where he did testify, I think about the same defect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [688.052], "stop_times": [703.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 688.052}, "reply_to": "20967__0_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20967__0_047", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Well, the testimony about the Ivey memorandum was particularly helpful here, and rather damning, I think, to General Motors, but certainly one ought not to be... it's really... the idea that there are second best solutions all build on the wrong premise, that you can bind them to this decree, bind in a strictly technical, legal sense.\nThat is, Justice Stevens, for example, in the dissent in Martin v. Wilks came up with a possible way that a consent decree in a case like that might be used against the other side without really binding them.\nThat is, it might bear on the state of mind of the person subject to the decree.\nIt might help the employer in a title VII case negate a claim of bad faith.\nNo such indirect use of the decree is involved here.\nThe decree is being brought to bear fully on the only people who are hurt by it.\nIt's not being enforced against Mr. Elwell, who's never sanctioned.\nThe entire structure of the situation is that General Motors obtains a settlement in which it has a chance to argue to courts around the country you ought to prevent the plaintiffs in these cases from getting this evidence that they could otherwise get, to which they would be entitled under the Federal rules, not because you have a right to some kind of evidence in the abstract, but because you have an entitlement to use the rules in place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [703.419, 724.944, 734.831, 740.397, 744.911, 749.455, 753.959, 757.292], "stop_times": [724.944, 734.831, 740.397, 744.911, 749.455, 753.959, 757.292, 780.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 703.419}, "reply_to": "20967__0_046", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_048", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "If we were to rule in your favor and cite the Full Faith and Credit Clause, would we also have to talk about due process, or would we say that the Full Faith and Credit Clause is complementary to the basic principles of the law of judgments, and that Baker is just not bound under standard principles of the laws of judgment?\nWould--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [780.428, 802.092], "stop_times": [802.092, 802.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 780.428}, "reply_to": "20967__0_047", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20967__0_049", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "The latter.\nThe latter, Justice Kennedy.\nThat is, and this Court's precedents make clear that full faith and credit and the law of judgments and of res judicata are bound up historically and analytically, and the only reason you might want to reach--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [802.322, 802.702, 803.553], "stop_times": [802.702, 803.553, 816.592], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 802.322}, "reply_to": "20967__0_048", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_050", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--We don't have any square holding.\nWe've intimated that in some of the cases, I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [816.592, 818.512], "stop_times": [818.512, 820.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 816.592}, "reply_to": "20967__0_049", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20967__0_051", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Well, I... there's certainly alternative holding in... some of the earlier cases before the 1970's, when the Court began positivizing procedural due process, there were cases, a fair number of them, including Hansberry v. Lee and others, in which the language of the Court is that it has been a principle since time immemorial that people are not bound by judgments in proceedings that they don't have a chance to participate in, and occasionally the phrase, full faith and credit, has entered those opinions.\nBut that has been axiomatic throughout.\nYou only reach procedural due process if you think that Congress for some reason in section 1738 departed from that normal understanding of full faith and credit and the law of judgments, in which case we argue that it would have been a deprivation of property in the form of an entitlement to invoke the procedural rules, much like Logan v. Zimmerman, without due process, even considering Justice Breyer's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [820.695, 857.227, 859.36], "stop_times": [857.227, 859.36, 883.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 820.695}, "reply_to": "20967__0_050", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_052", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Excuse me.\nThe property involved here is the right to invoke the procedural rules?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [883.078, 883.146], "stop_times": [883.146, 886.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 883.078}, "reply_to": "20967__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20967__0_053", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Yes, as in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [886.939], "stop_times": [888.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 886.939}, "reply_to": "20967__0_052", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_054", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "I thought the property was your cause of action, which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [888.532], "stop_times": [891.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 888.532}, "reply_to": "20967__0_053", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20967__0_055", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Well, there are two.\nThere's a State-created property, Justice Souter, the tort cause of action, and a second State-created property interest in the Missouri-created separate cause of action for damages for aggravated action.\nIt's a kind of punitive damage--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [891.484, 892.013, 903.121], "stop_times": [892.013, 903.121, 903.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 891.484}, "reply_to": "20967__0_054", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_056", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--I don't think you'll find much disposition on the Court to enlarge on Logan v. Zimmerman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [903.839], "stop_times": [909.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 903.839}, "reply_to": "20967__0_055", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20967__0_057", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--I don't have any desire to urge the Court to enlarge on Logan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [909.375], "stop_times": [912.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 909.375}, "reply_to": "20967__0_056", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_058", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "I think you'd have to to rely on it the way you said you did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [912.615], "stop_times": [915.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 912.615}, "reply_to": "20967__0_057", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20967__0_059", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Well, with respect to the federally created entitlement to invoke the rules, I don't think... the key point is, we're not talking, Mr. Chief Justice, about some takings argument.\nWe're only talking about the fact that when the rules provide a clear right to obtain or to seek to obtain a subpoena or a deposition, then that is enough of an entitlement so that it would not be constitutional for a court to say well, we'll decide that by a flip of a coin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [915.607, 929.228], "stop_times": [929.228, 946.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 915.607}, "reply_to": "20967__0_058", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_060", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Would you say that it's liberty or property, or do you have to say that it's one of the three?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [946.201], "stop_times": [949.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 946.201}, "reply_to": "20967__0_059", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20967__0_061", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "I don't think one has to choose--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [949.914], "stop_times": [950.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 949.914}, "reply_to": "20967__0_060", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_062", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "One of the two?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [950.031], "stop_times": [950.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 950.031}, "reply_to": "20967__0_061", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20967__0_063", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--but it could be... it could be either, but I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [950.441], "stop_times": [952.304], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 950.441}, "reply_to": "20967__0_062", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_064", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Does it have to be one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [952.304], "stop_times": [953.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 952.304}, "reply_to": "20967__0_063", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20967__0_065", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Well, I think it is both.\nIt would have to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [953.544, 955.116], "stop_times": [955.116, 956.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 953.544}, "reply_to": "20967__0_064", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_066", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "It has to be one, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [956.036], "stop_times": [957.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 956.036}, "reply_to": "20967__0_065", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20967__0_067", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--It certainly has to be one of the three, and it's not life.\nBut it doesn't really in this case have to be--\n[Laughter]\n--any of the three, because full faith and credit doesn't extend in this way, doesn't extend in this way to judgments that were rendered in a proceeding that one was an utter stranger to.\nI mean, whatever you think of the practical problems that Justice Breyer was discussing, I think you can rule out as one of the possible solutions a solution that says, well, the grandmother in his hypothetical, or the children in mine, will simply have to be bound by a judgment in another jurisdiction.\nThat can't be right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [957.018, 959.098, 961.191, 961.241, 973.319, 988.759], "stop_times": [959.098, 961.191, 961.241, 973.319, 988.759, 989.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 957.018}, "reply_to": "20967__0_066", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_068", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Mr.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [989.6], "stop_times": [989.981], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 989.6}, "reply_to": "20967__0_067", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20967__0_069", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Now, if you say, Justice Breyer, well, I'm not saying they're bound, I'm just saying they have to travel to Michigan to seek relief, Justice Brandeis in the Chase National Bank case in 1934 essentially was addressing that problem when he said that you should have a right to stay at home, mind your business, and know that the rights won't be affected by a judgment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [989.981], "stop_times": [1010.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 989.981}, "reply_to": "20967__0_068", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_070", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Fine.\nDo you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1010.284, 1010.494], "stop_times": [1010.494, 1010.875], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1010.284}, "reply_to": "20967__0_069", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20967__0_071", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--in a district court.\nBesides--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1010.875, 1011.866], "stop_times": [1011.866, 1012.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1010.875}, "reply_to": "20967__0_070", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_072", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--What has surprised me in this... maybe you can just suggest something I could read.\nIt seems to me in 200 years of history, it must have come up before that State A enters an injunction against Smith, and a person in a different State who wasn't a party and isn't bound would either have to go to the first State to get it modified or could sue in his own State and would discover that that person whom the injunction was aimed at could be made subject to conflicting injunctive orders.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1012.565, 1017.23], "stop_times": [1017.23, 1047.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1012.565}, "reply_to": "20967__0_071", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20967__0_073", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1047.798], "stop_times": [1048.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1047.798}, "reply_to": "20967__0_072", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_074", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "I'm amazed that there isn't something written that's absolutely clear, explaining--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1048.398], "stop_times": [1053.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1048.398}, "reply_to": "20967__0_073", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20967__0_075", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--What--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1053.264], "stop_times": [1053.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1053.264}, "reply_to": "20967__0_074", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_076", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--that it's either the one way or the other way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1053.524], "stop_times": [1055.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1053.524}, "reply_to": "20967__0_075", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20967__0_077", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Justice Breyer, I hate to disappoint you, but I have not found anything that is clear enough that it would bear on an injunction remotely like this one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1055.194], "stop_times": [1063.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1055.194}, "reply_to": "20967__0_076", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_078", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Well, but you see, maybe your injunction is not like what I'm saying, but what's bothering me is the instance that I'm saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1063.982], "stop_times": [1071.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1063.982}, "reply_to": "20967__0_077", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20967__0_079", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "The effect--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1071.585], "stop_times": [1071.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1071.585}, "reply_to": "20967__0_078", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_080", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--other injunctions, so is there something you can point me to that would say why it's better to have the possibility of conflicting injunctions than to require the plaintiff to travel to the State where he's not bound and get the modification.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1071.936], "stop_times": [1085.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1071.936}, "reply_to": "20967__0_079", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20967__0_081", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Well, the other party can travel, but his... I don't understand why General Motors, given its vehicular mobility--\n[Laughter]\n--couldn't just go back to Michigan and ask for some kind of relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1085.865, 1090.509, 1090.94], "stop_times": [1090.509, 1090.94, 1094.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1085.865}, "reply_to": "20967__0_080", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_082", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Mr. Tribe, I thought when you were concentrating on preclusion principles rather than a due process personal right that what you were talking about is one State's right to dictate the rules of admissibility of evidence in another State, and the full faith and credit is about relations to the... between the States in the national union more than it is about personal rights of individuals, and here there's a question of the allocation of authority between Michigan--\n--Right.\n--and Missouri.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1094.192, 1126.663, 1127.324], "stop_times": [1126.663, 1127.324, 1128.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1094.192}, "reply_to": "20967__0_081", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20967__0_083", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "If I might, Justice Ginsburg, simply jump to that for a moment, because it seems to me that's a very important feature of the case that I'm not sure is as thoroughly explicated in the briefs as it might be, and that is the following.\nSet aside for the moment the question of whether under normal principles of preclusion these children who were strangers to the proceeding could be bound.\nI think the answer to that is clearly no.\nSecondly, I think it's clear they're being bound.\nBut the point you make is the one that intrigues me most in a way, and that is, the whole premise of full faith and credit in a Federal union like ours is a premise of mutual respect, the premise that says a State is not to assume that the courts of another State just can't do justice as well as its courts can and, indeed, that premise pervades our system.\nThe Anti-Injunction Act and the Younger doctrine means the Federal courts can't presume inadequacy on the part of the State courts, and this Court's decisions in Donovan v. Dallas and General Atomic indicate, too, that a State court cannot tell litigants, even litigants in its courts, that they may not invoke certain procedures in a Federal court.\nIn General Atomic it wasn't even an antisuit injunction.\nThey were being told that they could not use Rule 14 as an impleader.\nThis case is a classic example of that.\nEssentially, if the Eighth Circuit's use of the decree from Michigan is affirmed, it will follow that the courts of a State can not only make decisions that will have res judicata and preclusive and sometimes collateral estoppel effect substantively in the courts of another State, it will follow that the courts of a State can control who can be called as a witness, who can be deposed, what evidence can be introduced in another State or in the Federal courts.\nThat, it seems to me, is impermissible.\nI mean, decisions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1128.485, 1141.173, 1148.879, 1150.361, 1152.684, 1177.36, 1196.292, 1199.216, 1204.579, 1207.301, 1235.678, 1238.48], "stop_times": [1141.173, 1148.879, 1150.361, 1152.684, 1177.36, 1196.292, 1199.216, 1204.579, 1207.301, 1235.678, 1238.48, 1239.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1128.485}, "reply_to": "20967__0_082", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_084", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "But... you know, this is troublesome because Michigan isn't telling Missouri what to do.\nMissouri can allow Elwell to be called to the stand, and Elwell can say, but I can't testify to this.\nI decline to answer.\nSo Missouri isn't being deprived of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1239.392, 1244.614, 1255.533, 1256.585], "stop_times": [1244.614, 1255.533, 1256.585, 1260.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1239.392}, "reply_to": "20967__0_083", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20967__0_085", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--No, Missouri, Justice O'Connor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1260.628], "stop_times": [1262.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1260.628}, "reply_to": "20967__0_084", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_086", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1262.308], "stop_times": [1262.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1262.308}, "reply_to": "20967__0_085", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20967__0_087", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Well, Missouri is being told that it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1262.809], "stop_times": [1264.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1262.809}, "reply_to": "20967__0_086", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_088", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Plenty of times witnesses have some privilege that can be asserted so that the Bakers wouldn't be entitled to certain testimony.\nThey can call the witness to the stand.\nThe witness says, sorry, I'm here, but this is privileged information.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1264.689, 1276.307, 1278.33], "stop_times": [1276.307, 1278.33, 1283.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1264.689}, "reply_to": "20967__0_087", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20967__0_089", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--But if it's privileged because of some background rule like the Fifth Amendment privilege, that's one thing, but if a State can create this kind of special witness protection program under which it can decide which witnesses it would be utterly futile to call in the courts of... in the Federal courts despite their own independent interest in the administration of justice, that would be an interpenetration--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1283.373], "stop_times": [1306.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1283.373}, "reply_to": "20967__0_088", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_090", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Do we know how other courts in Michigan would treat this injunction?\nHas it been tested in another suit against G.M. in Michigan, for instance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1306.196, 1311.73], "stop_times": [1311.73, 1318.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1306.196}, "reply_to": "20967__0_089", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20967__0_091", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--There are several cases, Justice O'Connor, in which judges have washed their hands of it and have said, under our venue rules go to Judge Hathaway.\nEven though it was the same court in Michigan, they treated the venue rule as a kind of rule of personality, and Judge Hathaway apparently has sort of washed his hands of it and has said, I put the injunction in place, so that it appears to be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1318.004, 1324.069], "stop_times": [1324.069, 1337.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1318.004}, "reply_to": "20967__0_090", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_092", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Mr. Tribe, can I ask you a question about your understanding of the meaning of the injunction?\nThere's some difference between the side agreement that says we won't seek contempt charges if you testify and the text of the injunction itself.\nDo you agree that the injunction in effect says to the... this witness, if you are subpoenaed to testify or ordered by a court in another State to testify, you shall not comply with that order?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1337.68, 1341.96, 1348.525], "stop_times": [1341.96, 1348.525, 1360.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1337.68}, "reply_to": "20967__0_091", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20967__0_093", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--The answer is yes.\nI think it probably means that, but it's ambiguous, and the record doesn't resolve the ambiguity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1360.343, 1362.995], "stop_times": [1362.995, 1367.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1360.343}, "reply_to": "20967__0_092", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_094", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Well, if it means that, do you concede or do you dispute that the Michigan court will have the power to enter such an order?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1367.729], "stop_times": [1373.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1367.729}, "reply_to": "20967__0_093", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20967__0_095", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "I dispute that the Michigan court has the power to enter an order that directly tells someone to defy the order of another jurisdiction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1373.644], "stop_times": [1383.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1373.644}, "reply_to": "20967__0_094", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_096", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Well then, if you're right on that, the order would not be entitled to full faith and credit under elementary jurisdictional principles.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1383.728], "stop_times": [1390.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1383.728}, "reply_to": "20967__0_095", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20967__0_097", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Well, I think that's right as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1390.343], "stop_times": [1391.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1390.343}, "reply_to": "20967__0_096", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_098", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "But you don't seem to make that argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1391.285], "stop_times": [1391.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1391.285}, "reply_to": "20967__0_097", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20967__0_099", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Well, we make it indirectly in the point that I was elaborating to Justice Ginsburg.\nThat is, if it is true that the courts of the united States and of the various States are not authorized to put people in this circumstance and in effect to make inroads in the internal operation of the systems of other States and of the Federal Government, then this order is completely void independent of the nonparty status of the Bakers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1391.945, 1397.88], "stop_times": [1397.88, 1416.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1391.945}, "reply_to": "20967__0_098", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_100", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "So you want us to have some kind of a standard to say that you can't interfere with the vital or important interests of the sister State?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1416.924], "stop_times": [1423.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1416.924}, "reply_to": "20967__0_099", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20967__0_101", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1423.978], "stop_times": [1424.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1423.978}, "reply_to": "20967__0_100", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_102", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "I mean, is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1424.199], "stop_times": [1424.639], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1424.199}, "reply_to": "20967__0_101", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20967__0_103", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--No, it's not quite as big as that, Justice Kennedy.\nI think as in Prince and in New York this is a case that's... that I think, though, there are much easier ways to decide it.\nUnder normal principles of judgments, I think it's possible to say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1424.639, 1426.42, 1434.006], "stop_times": [1426.42, 1434.006, 1438.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1424.639}, "reply_to": "20967__0_102", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_104", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Well, what--\n--What is the standard?\nExcuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1438.32, 1438.54, 1439.682], "stop_times": [1438.54, 1439.682, 1440.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1438.32}, "reply_to": "20967__0_103", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20967__0_105", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--That the internal operations of the judicial systems of each State cannot be manipulated or commandeered by the judgments of other States, but I don't myself suggest that a case that can be disposed of as simply as this one because of the Bakers' nonparty status should be the vehicle either for exploring the puzzles that Justice Breyer raises or for adopting this add-on to Prince.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1440.04], "stop_times": [1465.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1440.04}, "reply_to": "20967__0_104", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_106", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "What if the Michigan court had litigated the issue of privilege as between Elwell and General Motors--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1465.057], "stop_times": [1473.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1465.057}, "reply_to": "20967__0_105", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20967__0_107", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1473.102], "stop_times": [1473.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1473.102}, "reply_to": "20967__0_106", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_108", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--and had concluded that information about subject X was privileged, and made that determination and then said, and you can't disclose that, Mr. Elwell, anywhere, anytime.\nIs that entitled to full faith and credit when Elwell is called then as a witness in another jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1473.283, 1485.591], "stop_times": [1485.591, 1492.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1473.283}, "reply_to": "20967__0_107", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20967__0_109", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "I think as between Elwell and G.M., yes, although the Bakers or others like them are not bound by that determination under standard principles of preclusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1492.357], "stop_times": [1500.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1492.357}, "reply_to": "20967__0_108", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_110", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "That is no.\nI mean, your answer is no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1500.642, 1501.183], "stop_times": [1501.183, 1502.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1500.642}, "reply_to": "20967__0_109", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20967__0_111", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1502.561], "stop_times": [1502.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1502.561}, "reply_to": "20967__0_110", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_112", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--in the context of this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1502.821], "stop_times": [1503.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1502.821}, "reply_to": "20967__0_111", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20967__0_113", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--It depends whether there is a nonparty whom one is seeking to bind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1503.873], "stop_times": [1507.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1503.873}, "reply_to": "20967__0_112", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_114", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "The only point at which the one State is commandeering the process of the other, I take it, is the point at which the second State simply will not hear the third party.\nThe State... the second State says, I don't care what you tell me, there is a decree, full faith and credit, that's the end of the issue.\nThat's the point at which it commandeers, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1507.405, 1518.052, 1524.977], "stop_times": [1518.052, 1524.977, 1528.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1507.405}, "reply_to": "20967__0_113", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20967__0_115", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "I think, Justice Souter, yes, and that's what the Eighth Circuit is basically telling the courts of Missouri to do.\nI think I perhaps should reserve the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1528.34, 1533.763], "stop_times": [1533.763, 1537.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1528.34}, "reply_to": "20967__0_114", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__0_116", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Very well, Mr. Tribe.\nMr. Cappuccio, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1537.675, 1538.646], "stop_times": [1538.646, 1540.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1537.675}, "reply_to": "20967__0_115", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20967__1_000", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThere are two reasons why there cannot possibly be a due process objection to the application of full faith and credit here and Justice Breyer, your question raised one of those grounds and, Justice Kennedy, you picked up on it and I'm going to try to answer both of you, and Mr. Chief Justice, you raised the other ground, and probably the simplest reason is that ultimately by the application of full faith and credit here we are just talking about what court will decide whether or not in this case Elwell will be allowed to testify.\nThat's the application of full faith and credit, and that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1540.268, 1548.656, 1580.626], "stop_times": [1548.656, 1580.626, 1582.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1540.268}, "reply_to": "20967__0_116", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_001", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "The application of full faith and credit as far as I know, in all the history of that clause, this Court has never even said that full faith and credit is owed to a decree ordering a person to do an act.\nIndeed, wasn't it entirely clear under the regime that existed until the thirties under the First Restatement of Conflicts that a granting or denying... and I'm reading you from the First Restatement section 449... granting or denying equitable relief other than in order to pay money is a matter of discretion, and the decision of one court to give specific relief will not limit another court and thus exclude the use of discretion by the second court.\nThat was talking even as between the two parties to the first judgment, and here you're saying, oh, but we can enforce an order to act not only as to the party who was ordered to act, which this Court has never said comes within full faith and credit, but to... against a stranger.\nNow, that is really asking this Court to take a giant step.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1582.616, 1600.799, 1629.527, 1646.049], "stop_times": [1600.799, 1629.527, 1646.049, 1649.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1582.616}, "reply_to": "20967__1_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20967__1_002", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Your Honor, I respectfully disagree.\nI don't think it is.\nI think the Restatement is flatly wrong in what it said.\nThis Court has never denied full faith and credit to equitable decrees, and there is no basis for distinguishing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1649.582, 1652.764, 1653.335, 1657.238], "stop_times": [1652.764, 1653.335, 1657.238, 1665.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1649.582}, "reply_to": "20967__1_001", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_003", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Just give me one citation where this Court has said State 2 must compel X to do an act simply because State 1 compelled X to do an act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1665.914], "stop_times": [1679.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1665.914}, "reply_to": "20967__1_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20967__1_004", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Well, I can give you... a custody decree, for example, will require someone to have or not have the child.\nA... Cole v. Cunningham, which was an antisuit case which went very far--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1679.444, 1685.295], "stop_times": [1685.295, 1691.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1679.444}, "reply_to": "20967__1_003", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_005", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "All that Cole v. Cunningham said was that State 1 can issue an antisuit injunction.\nIt did not say that State 2 had to pay that injunction any mind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1691.479, 1696.774], "stop_times": [1696.774, 1701.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1691.479}, "reply_to": "20967__1_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20967__1_006", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--But Your Honor, there is no basis in either the language of section 1738 or any policy of full faith and credit to treat an injunction or an affirmative injunction, as opposed to a prohibitory one, any different.\nThey are both judicial proceedings--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1701.717, 1713.936], "stop_times": [1713.936, 1715.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1701.717}, "reply_to": "20967__1_005", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_007", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "I'm simply asking you, has there ever been such a case in the history of the United States... custody is a status, child custody.\nThose decrees are modifiable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1715.336, 1723.7], "stop_times": [1723.7, 1725.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1715.336}, "reply_to": "20967__1_006", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20967__1_008", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--I am unaware--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1725.723], "stop_times": [1728.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1725.723}, "reply_to": "20967__1_007", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_009", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "I am not aware... I am aware of some, as you no doubt know, the land cases, Fall v. Eastin, Klopp v. Klopp say even the very actor that was told to convey a piece of property in State 1 doesn't have to do it if he's in State 2 and that's where the property is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1728.104], "stop_times": [1747.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1728.104}, "reply_to": "20967__1_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20967__1_010", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Well, I'm not sure that's the holding of Fall v. Eastin.\nActually, the problem in that case was that the court tried to effect title to land directly.\nBut I think in that case the husband could be directed to convey the land, and I think the concurrence in that case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1747.239, 1748.942, 1753.215], "stop_times": [1748.942, 1753.215, 1759.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1747.239}, "reply_to": "20967__1_009", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_011", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Well, it's a long extension.\nI'm simply making the point that you are asking this Court to make a ruling that it has never made.\nYou may be right that it should.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1759.01, 1759.277, 1765.062], "stop_times": [1759.277, 1765.062, 1766.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1759.01}, "reply_to": "20967__1_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20967__1_012", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1766.604], "stop_times": [1768.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1766.604}, "reply_to": "20967__1_011", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_013", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "You may be right that the Restatement was wrong and that those cases were wrong, but it is something very novel you're asking us to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1768.964], "stop_times": [1776.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1768.964}, "reply_to": "20967__1_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20967__1_014", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Your Honor, two answers to that.\nFall v. Eastin is actually an example for me, because I think it was Justice Holmes in his concurrence thought it was quite plain that the order requiring the husband to convey the land was entitled to full faith and credit, and second, we cite a number of lower court cases in our briefs, including from the Seventh Circuit, that established that this is a fairly well-settled issue that full faith and credit is entitled to injunctions, both prohibitory injunctions and affirmative injunctions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1776.401, 1777.469], "stop_times": [1777.469, 1802.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1776.401}, "reply_to": "20967__1_013", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_015", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "But in all events, the other problem is that you're trying to make this applicable to Baker, and Baker is simply not bound.\nNow, if G.M. finds itself in the position of Elwell testifying, and it tries to hold Elwell in contempt back in Michigan, would Elwell have a defense on some sort of due process grounds, do you think, that he was ordered to do what the Missouri court told him to do because due process concerns and full faith and credit concerns simply did not allow the injunction to be enforced?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1802.348, 1808.041], "stop_times": [1808.041, 1840.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1802.348}, "reply_to": "20967__1_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20967__1_016", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "No, sir.\nHe would be in contempt of the injunction.\nBut I understand the problem here, and the problem here is to 1) ask what sort of effect is this having on third parties, and is that effect so great as to violate due process, or does it leave them with a way to defend their rights in a manner that is consistent with due process?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1840.032, 1840.553, 1842.376], "stop_times": [1840.553, 1842.376, 1860.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1840.032}, "reply_to": "20967__1_015", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_017", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Well, I'm not sure that we have to address it in the due process context and, frankly, I hope we don't have to.\nCan't we just ask whether this is required by the Full Faith and Credit Clause?\nWhy do we have to pin it on some due process--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1860.569, 1866.381, 1872.816], "stop_times": [1866.381, 1872.816, 1876.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1860.569}, "reply_to": "20967__1_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20967__1_018", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Well, Your Honor, because the application of full faith and credit is fairly straightforward here, and this picks up on another question you had.\nThe full faith and credit statute says that the Michigan injunction is entitled to the very same force and effect that it would have within the State of Michigan.\nThat's common ground.\nThe Michigan courts, we were fortunate in this case, have interpreted the force and effect of this very injunction, and the case that we cite in the red brief is the Brisborne case, and what second courts who people have gone to have said is that the force and effect that this injunction is due is that Ron Elwell is prohibited from testifying unless and until somebody goes back and presents their claim to the Wayne County, Michigan court to allow him to testify.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1876.566, 1882.601, 1890.866, 1892.008], "stop_times": [1882.601, 1890.866, 1892.008, 1920.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1876.566}, "reply_to": "20967__1_017", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_019", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--But those people were all within the jurisdiction of the Michigan courts, were they not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1920.485], "stop_times": [1923.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1920.485}, "reply_to": "20967__1_018", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20967__1_020", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "They were, and I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1923.499], "stop_times": [1924.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1923.499}, "reply_to": "20967__1_019", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_021", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "And that's different, because the Bakers are not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1924.919], "stop_times": [1928.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1924.919}, "reply_to": "20967__1_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20967__1_022", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, it is different from... on the due process question, I agree with you.\nIt is not different--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1928.513, 1933.628], "stop_times": [1933.628, 1934.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1928.513}, "reply_to": "20967__1_021", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_023", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "But as Justice O'Connor was indicating, it seems to me it's also different because of the fundamental law of judgments, which is that you can't apply a judgment or enforce a judgment against a person... against... where there was no personal jurisdiction over that person originally.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1934.35], "stop_times": [1948.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1934.35}, "reply_to": "20967__1_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20967__1_024", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Well, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1948.43], "stop_times": [1948.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1948.43}, "reply_to": "20967__1_023", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_025", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "It's just a simple personal jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1948.861], "stop_times": [1950.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1948.861}, "reply_to": "20967__1_024", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20967__1_026", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--That sort of raises the question as to whether these people are being bound by the judgment rather than being affected by the judgment in some incidental way, but I think that bound debate, which the Court has had in Martin v. Wilks, is just a proxy for the due process analysis.\nThe question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1950.603, 1966.873], "stop_times": [1966.873, 1967.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1950.603}, "reply_to": "20967__1_025", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_027", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Mr. Cappuccio, it isn't in this respect.\nYou know, you gave the creditor 1, creditor 2, and I followed that, creditor 2 comes too late, and it's just an incidental effect.\nBut here, the whole purpose of this injunction was to control litigation not in Michigan but elsewhere.\nThe whole purpose was to say, in effect, Michigan rules the world.\nIt determines what evidence will be admissible in courts all across the country, although... and I think you'll agree with me that to this extent the Restatement of Conflicts is right... each State applies its own rules to determine the admissibility of evidence.\nSo here is Michigan in effect preempting the ordinary operation of the rules of evidence of all the courts in the country--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [1967.674, 1969.665, 1976.49, 1985.327, 1990.411, 2005.681], "stop_times": [1969.665, 1976.49, 1985.327, 1990.411, 2005.681, 2015.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1967.674}, "reply_to": "20967__1_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20967__1_028", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Your--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2015.648], "stop_times": [2015.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2015.648}, "reply_to": "20967__1_027", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_029", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--and I've never seen any decree quite like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2015.848], "stop_times": [2018.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2015.848}, "reply_to": "20967__1_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20967__1_030", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Your Honor, this is just Michigan deciding something between Ron Elwell and General Motors and preventing Elwell from hurting General Motors.\nWhat makes this apply elsewhere is the Full Faith and Credit Clause, nothing that the Michigan court did, and what that says is, we have decided as a Nation because someone can step over the line and hurt General Motors just as well in another State, that the... that that judgment is enforceable everywhere.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2018.991, 2027.087], "stop_times": [2027.087, 2044.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2018.991}, "reply_to": "20967__1_029", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_031", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "May I--\n--Mr. Cappuccio, why isn't it the case that we say, in accordance with the Restatement rule, that the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not bind Bakers, who were not privy to that proceeding in Michigan, and that General Motors' remedy is to go after Elwell for contempt in Michigan--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2044.878, 2045.289], "stop_times": [2045.289, 2071.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2044.878}, "reply_to": "20967__1_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20967__1_032", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Because, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2071.266], "stop_times": [2072.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2071.266}, "reply_to": "20967__1_031", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_033", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--if he agrees to in fact testify?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2072.456], "stop_times": [2076.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2072.456}, "reply_to": "20967__1_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20967__1_034", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Because, Your Honor, with the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires, again, is that the Michigan injunction be given the same force and effect, and at a minimum I would argue that requires--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2076.36], "stop_times": [2085.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2076.36}, "reply_to": "20967__1_033", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_035", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Do you have any authority that the Michigan courts say that their judgments bind persons who were not before the court, and over whom the court had no personal jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2085.476], "stop_times": [2093.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2085.476}, "reply_to": "20967__1_034", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20967__1_036", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--I'm sorry, Your Honor, they do not say that.\nThe Michigan courts--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2093.239, 2094.572], "stop_times": [2094.572, 2095.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2093.239}, "reply_to": "20967__1_035", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_037", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Well then, it doesn't have the effect that you seek to give it here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2095.414], "stop_times": [2098.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2095.414}, "reply_to": "20967__1_036", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20967__1_038", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--No, I'm sorry, Your Honor, the Michigan courts' cases simply say that someone who is affected by the judgment and seeks to reopen it, or seeks to modify it or challenge it, must go back to the court that rendered it.\nIt is merely a litigation channeling provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2098.535, 2111.504], "stop_times": [2111.504, 2114.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2098.535}, "reply_to": "20967__1_037", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_039", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "If they're already in Michigan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2114.308], "stop_times": [2115.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2114.308}, "reply_to": "20967__1_038", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20967__1_040", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Well, but by... that's right, Your Honor, because that rule is just for Michigan, but by operation... this is the most important point.\nBy operation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, that Michigan rule applies to govern this judgment.\nIt is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2115.83, 2122.745, 2128.451], "stop_times": [2122.745, 2128.451, 2128.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2115.83}, "reply_to": "20967__1_039", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_041", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Mr. Cappuccio, would you tell me how Michigan has the power to drag somebody in Alaska, in Hawaii, and say you can't... plaintiff, you can't choose your own forum.\nYou have to come to Michigan to litigate.\nThe scene that I get from what Michigan... what you are attempting to extract from this Michigan judgment is in effect Michigan rules the world, like the old story about Tobago rules the world, only now it's Michigan is going to decide what evidence comes in all over.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2128.9, 2139.548, 2142.68], "stop_times": [2139.548, 2142.68, 2160.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2128.9}, "reply_to": "20967__1_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20967__1_042", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--I understand that, and I lay that at the feet of the U.S. Congress, and they were wise to have done that.\nThat is what section 1738 does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2160.121, 2165.865], "stop_times": [2165.865, 2167.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2160.121}, "reply_to": "20967__1_041", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_043", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "No, but Mr. Cappuccio, may I ask this question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2167.758], "stop_times": [2169.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2167.758}, "reply_to": "20967__1_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20967__1_044", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2169.879], "stop_times": [2170.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2169.879}, "reply_to": "20967__1_043", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_045", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "It only does it if the Michigan court had the power to enter the order it did enter.\nYou would agree with that much, I assume.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2170.059, 2172.79], "stop_times": [2172.79, 2174.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2170.059}, "reply_to": "20967__1_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20967__1_046", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Jurisdiction over the person or subject matter, yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2174.692], "stop_times": [2176.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2174.692}, "reply_to": "20967__1_045", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_047", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "And would you think there is any question at all about the power of a Michigan court to order a litigant before it to refuse to comply with any normally lawful court order that might be entered anywhere else in the country?\nDoes that bother you at all?\nI'm just looking... I'm not looking about third parties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2176.634, 2189.433, 2192.635], "stop_times": [2189.433, 2192.635, 2194.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2176.634}, "reply_to": "20967__1_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20967__1_048", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2194.856], "stop_times": [2195.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2194.856}, "reply_to": "20967__1_047", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_049", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "I'm just looking just at Elwell.\nYou are saying to him if... under your reading of the injunction, as I understand it, it in effect says no matter how lawful the court order may be that directs you to testify, you must refuse on pain of contempt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2195.027, 2196.028], "stop_times": [2196.028, 2207.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2195.027}, "reply_to": "20967__1_048", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20967__1_050", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "I agree.\nHe would be in contempt if he did that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2207.444, 2208.225], "stop_times": [2208.225, 2209.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2207.444}, "reply_to": "20967__1_049", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_051", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "And you think it's perfectly clear that there's no jurisdictional issue as to the power of a court to enter such an order as required full... must be given full faith and credit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2209.467], "stop_times": [2217.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2209.467}, "reply_to": "20967__1_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20967__1_052", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "I can't imagine what the jurisdictional issue would be.\nThe court had jurisdiction overt the persons, and the court had jurisdiction over the subject matter, and they entered an injunction that prevents Elwell from testifying against General Motors.\nWhat makes it extraterritorial in its effect--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2217.953, 2219.355, 2228.163], "stop_times": [2219.355, 2228.163, 2231.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2217.953}, "reply_to": "20967__1_051", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_053", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2231.583], "stop_times": [2231.823], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2231.583}, "reply_to": "20967__1_052", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20967__1_054", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--is the Full Faith and Credit Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2231.823], "stop_times": [2232.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2231.823}, "reply_to": "20967__1_053", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_055", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--as between Elwell and General Motors I suppose it's a settlement.\nIf it had been contested he could have appealed through the Michigan courts, but he can't collaterally attack the decree--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2232.925, 2239.22], "stop_times": [2239.22, 2244.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2232.925}, "reply_to": "20967__1_054", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20967__1_056", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2244.042], "stop_times": [2244.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2244.042}, "reply_to": "20967__1_055", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_057", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--just because it may be improper.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2244.412], "stop_times": [2247.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2244.412}, "reply_to": "20967__1_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20967__1_058", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--That's right, Your Honor.\nThat's absolutely right, and that's an important distinction here which is separating the difference between whether this injunction is overbroad, which I'm not asking this Court to decide... I'm not trying to stifle debate as to whether this injunction, by covering evidence that might not be privileged, is overbroad, and whether it's entitled to full faith and credit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2247.314, 2248.576], "stop_times": [2248.576, 2268.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2247.314}, "reply_to": "20967__1_057", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_059", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "But you're saying any claim that an injunction is overbroad in this sense must be litigated in the court entering the injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2268.071], "stop_times": [2272.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2268.071}, "reply_to": "20967__1_058", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20967__1_060", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Absolutely, sir, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2272.783], "stop_times": [2275.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2272.783}, "reply_to": "20967__1_059", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_061", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "May I propose a variant on Justice Stevens' question?\nLet's assume we're simply talking about proceedings in Michigan.\nAs I understand your characterization of what the Michigan court has already said, it is that it may bind a... an individual who was not party to the original litigation between Elwell and G.M. as to the opportunity of that third party to seek the normal process of any Michigan court.\nAs I understand it, you are saying that Michigan says, no, you may not, third party, now a plaintiff in a new case against G.M., go into the normal, whatever would be the normal venue in Michigan and say, I want this evidence.\nYou are bound by an earlier decree to which you were not party to come into a different court and raise a different issue, which is, should I be bound by a decree between these two other individuals?\nIsn't that the predicate for a due process issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2275.455, 2278.547, 2282.55, 2307.016, 2322.685, 2338.826], "stop_times": [2278.547, 2282.55, 2307.016, 2322.685, 2338.826, 2343.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2275.455}, "reply_to": "20967__1_060", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20967__1_062", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Your Honor, no, because I disagree with your use of the word bind there, because the question is, what sort of impact does it have on the third party?\nYou would... I assume that the Court would agree that if it were a merely incidental impact there'd be no due process problem at all, so the first question you have to ask is, what is the degree of the impact?\nDoes it foreclose a property right, which is the question the Chief Justice asked, and then second, what process are you given?\nAnd I'm saying there's no due process objection either to the Michigan rule or to the application of full faith and credit, or, I may add, to what Congress has mandated, which is the exact same thing in the 1991 Civil Rights Act in the wake of Martin v. Wilks.\nPetitioners in their brief cite the statute that was passed in the wake of Martin v. Wilks, and what Congress requires is exactly the same sort of channeling of third party collateral... not collateral attacks, third party challenges to consent decrees back to the court that issued it.\nPetitioners raised it.\nAllow me to read the rule.\nFirst of all, Congress precludes certain third parties from raising challenges... if they had notice, if they were adequately represented... but they recognized there might be new third parties who came along later who weren't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2343.068, 2351.376, 2360.853, 2367.507, 2383.238, 2400.31, 2401.632, 2403.094], "stop_times": [2351.376, 2360.853, 2367.507, 2383.238, 2400.31, 2401.632, 2403.094, 2412.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2343.068}, "reply_to": "20967__1_061", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_063", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "In other words, real third parties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2412.89], "stop_times": [2413.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2412.89}, "reply_to": "20967__1_062", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20967__1_064", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Real third parties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2413.781], "stop_times": [2414.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2413.781}, "reply_to": "20967__1_063", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_065", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "People who were not in fact substantially represented the first time.\nOkay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2414.683, 2417.835], "stop_times": [2417.835, 2418.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2414.683}, "reply_to": "20967__1_064", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20967__1_066", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Absolutely, Your Honor, and Congress says in that section, which is section 2000... 2000... do you have it here +/?\nit's 28 U.S.C. 2000e-2n.\nI have the actual bill.\nAny action not precluded under this section, meaning real third parties, the challenges in employment a consent judgment or order described in paragraph 1 shall be brought in the court and, if possible, before the judge that entered such judgment or order, and my position is the constitutionality here of the effect of full faith and credit is indistinguishable from the constitutionality of this provision by Congress, which is plainly constitutional, because all it does is require parties to go back to the court that issued it, and then the question is yours, Justice Kennedy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2418.075, 2426.48, 2430.133, 2431.363], "stop_times": [2426.48, 2430.133, 2431.363, 2463.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2418.075}, "reply_to": "20967__1_065", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_067", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Let me interrupt you again--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2463.984], "stop_times": [2463.994], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2463.984}, "reply_to": "20967__1_066", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20967__1_068", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2463.994], "stop_times": [2464.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2463.994}, "reply_to": "20967__1_067", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_069", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--If I just might... supposing the order... they found out he had a lot of documents that he had in his summer home in Wisconsin, and they were under subpoena, and the judge in Michigan said, I want you to burn those documents to protect General Motors from the unlawful access to those documents, and there was an order in Wisconsin said he can't, he could only get relief from that in Michigan, I guess.\nHe'd have to go burn the documents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2464.294, 2484.329], "stop_times": [2484.329, 2486.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2464.294}, "reply_to": "20967__1_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20967__1_070", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "That order would be entitled... well, it depends if there were a prior final order--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2486.069], "stop_times": [2490.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2486.069}, "reply_to": "20967__1_069", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_071", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Would that be entitled... section order be entitled to full faith and credit even though he had jurisdiction of the person and the subject matter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2490.773], "stop_times": [2494.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2490.773}, "reply_to": "20967__1_070", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20967__1_072", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--It would be entitled to full faith and credit, and it would be reversed in a split second, Your Honor, because it would be an abuse and an illegal order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2494.504], "stop_times": [2501.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2494.504}, "reply_to": "20967__1_071", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_073", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Why would that be reversed any more than this one?\nThey might claim they were privileged documents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2501.018, 2501.97], "stop_times": [2501.97, 2504.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2501.018}, "reply_to": "20967__1_072", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20967__1_074", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Well, but that would be reviewed, and that's the point.\nIt is not that the Michigan court has done something that nobody can review.\nThere are at least two opportunities to review.\nThere's an opportunity for direct review when it's entered, okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2504.133, 2506.344, 2509.967, 2512.0], "stop_times": [2506.344, 2509.967, 2512.0, 2515.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2504.133}, "reply_to": "20967__1_073", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_075", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "But you're talking about the party to it, but this is a consent decree.\nThe parties are not going to litigate anything.\nWe're talking about the effect in another forum on that forum and the normal operation of its courts, and someone who was a nonparty and can't be required to go any place.\nI asked you... I started out asking about the old Restatement, and you corrected me by saying that's flatly wrong, but the current restatement has this interpretation.\nIt's entitled, limitations on full faith and credit, not about due process.\nIt says, a judgment rendered in one State need not be recognized or enforced in a sister State if such recognition or enforcement is not required by the national policy of full faith and credit because it would involve an improper interference with important interests of the sister State, here the important business being determining for itself what evidence is admissible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2515.623, 2519.133, 2521.436, 2533.524, 2543.599, 2548.684], "stop_times": [2519.133, 2521.436, 2533.524, 2543.599, 2548.684, 2574.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2515.623}, "reply_to": "20967__1_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20967__1_076", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "And the cites to that proposition are dissents, and dicta, and concurrence is not essential to holding.\nAnd I commend to you, Justice Ginsburg, two law review articles, one written by a man named William Reynolds in the Maryland Law Review, and one written by a man named Ron Hecker, I think it... Hecker in the California Law Review, and you will see that there is absolutely no support for the rather inaptly called Restatement on that point, because in fact all of those cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2574.792, 2580.626], "stop_times": [2580.626, 2600.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2574.792}, "reply_to": "20967__1_075", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_077", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Well, you can quarrel for that one way or another, and I can say to you, you will see that there is no decision of this Court saying State 2 enforces X to do an act simply because State 1 did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2600.72], "stop_times": [2611.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2600.72}, "reply_to": "20967__1_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20967__1_078", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2611.779], "stop_times": [2611.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2611.779}, "reply_to": "20967__1_077", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_079", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "You may be right that we should--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2611.919], "stop_times": [2613.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2611.919}, "reply_to": "20967__1_078", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20967__1_080", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2613.181], "stop_times": [2613.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2613.181}, "reply_to": "20967__1_079", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_081", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--do that, but there... I could say there is no authority for it and be right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2613.401], "stop_times": [2617.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2613.401}, "reply_to": "20967__1_080", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20967__1_082", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Yes, that's absolutely right, Your Honor, but I come from just the opposite, which is, I start with 1738, which says they are all enforceable unless there is a reason to not make them enforceable, and this Court has never, ever recognized in any single case an exception based either upon the policy interests of the forum court, the, worded somewhat differently, institutional integrity of the forum court, or the nature of the decree, whether it's legal or injunctive, and I am saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2617.445], "stop_times": [2647.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2617.445}, "reply_to": "20967__1_081", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_083", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Well, didn't Fauntleroy v. Lum say there wasn't any public policy exception?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2647.244], "stop_times": [2651.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2647.244}, "reply_to": "20967__1_082", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20967__1_084", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Absolutely, Mr. Chief Justice, and my position is, in order to rule for petitioners in this case you would be effectively overruling Fauntleroy v. Lum, because in that case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2651.726], "stop_times": [2661.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2651.726}, "reply_to": "20967__1_083", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_085", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Fauntleroy was a question of a judgment, a litigated judgment, and a determination had been made, and then in State 2 a party to that judgment wanted to look behind it, and that's a no-no, and that's well-established.\nHere, we're not talking about Elwell.\nWe're talking about Bakers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2661.584, 2680.324, 2683.516], "stop_times": [2680.324, 2683.516, 2685.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2661.584}, "reply_to": "20967__1_084", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20967__1_086", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--We are, Your Honor, but I think the point that the Chief Justice was making with Fauntleroy is that this Court has never recognized that the effect on the policy forum is to be balanced against a final judgment.\nAnd what I am saying is, petitioner's formulation of the exception they're looking for, which is to interfere or commandeer the judicial process, is merely a reformulation of the policy interest in Fauntleroy.\nCertainly the supreme court of Mississippi would feel that it was being commandeered and its institutional integrity is being interfered with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2685.158, 2697.906, 2708.805], "stop_times": [2697.906, 2708.805, 2714.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2685.158}, "reply_to": "20967__1_085", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_087", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Yes, but that went to whether, and a question that's going to the merits of the holding rather than the power to enter the decree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2714.91], "stop_times": [2718.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2714.91}, "reply_to": "20967__1_086", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20967__1_088", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Excuse me, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2718.241], "stop_times": [2718.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2718.241}, "reply_to": "20967__1_087", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_089", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "But that reasoning went to the merits of the decision rather than the power to enter the judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2718.832], "stop_times": [2723.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2718.832}, "reply_to": "20967__1_088", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20967__1_090", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2723.765], "stop_times": [2725.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2723.765}, "reply_to": "20967__1_089", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_091", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "And that distinction is very clear in Fauntleroy, and the question I keep coming back to is the question of, is there no limit on the power to enter any kind of judgment whatsoever other than a personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction?\nI agree, just difference in policy, but here you're asking him to say you must disobey an order that every jurisdiction in the country would normally say is a valid order when you subpoena somebody to testify, and you're saying this decree says, we don't care how universal the approval is of such lawful order, you must disobey it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2725.237, 2737.866], "stop_times": [2737.866, 2755.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2725.237}, "reply_to": "20967__1_090", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20967__1_092", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Two answers to that.\nFirst, the decree is not saying to disobey an order.\nThere was no order in place.\nIt is the first judgment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2755.307, 2757.267, 2760.699, 2762.242], "stop_times": [2757.267, 2760.699, 2762.242, 2763.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2755.307}, "reply_to": "20967__1_091", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_093", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Well, the decree does say you don't have to interfere with the jurisdiction of the Georgia court, but presumably that means that any other court's jurisdiction must be interfered with.\nThat's in the decree itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2763.781, 2771.508], "stop_times": [2771.508, 2773.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2763.781}, "reply_to": "20967__1_092", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20967__1_094", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--It means only that Ron Elwell cannot testify, and the effect of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is to extend that extraterritorially.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2773.619], "stop_times": [2779.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2773.619}, "reply_to": "20967__1_093", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_095", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "And the question is whether that impairs the jurisdiction of any of these other courts, which the decree seems to assume it would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2779.883], "stop_times": [2784.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2779.883}, "reply_to": "20967__1_094", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20967__1_096", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Well, it would affect their ability to have one witness come in.\nI don't think it would impair their jurisdiction, but I do not see--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2784.916, 2788.629], "stop_times": [2788.629, 2790.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2784.916}, "reply_to": "20967__1_095", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_097", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Mr. Cappuccio, may I ask in reference--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2790.94], "stop_times": [2792.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2790.94}, "reply_to": "20967__1_096", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20967__1_098", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2792.322], "stop_times": [2792.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2792.322}, "reply_to": "20967__1_097", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_099", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--to Fauntleroy v. Lum there was a later decision by Justice Stone... was it Pacific Employers +/?\nand I'll just read you what he said some years after Fauntleroy v. Lum.\nPerhaps he was wrong, too.\nIt has often been recognized by this Court that there are some limitations upon the extent to which a State may be required by the Full Faith and Credit Clause to enforce even the judgment of another State in contravention of its own policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2792.623, 2800.516, 2803.849, 2805.912], "stop_times": [2800.516, 2803.849, 2805.912, 2820.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2792.623}, "reply_to": "20967__1_098", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20967__1_100", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "There is plainly some broad statements, particularly by Justice Stone, who dissented originally in Yarborough and threw some dicta in later, that makes it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2820.621], "stop_times": [2829.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2820.621}, "reply_to": "20967__1_099", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_101", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "This wasn't in a dissenting opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2829.007], "stop_times": [2830.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2829.007}, "reply_to": "20967__1_100", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20967__1_102", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--No, I understand it was in a majority opinion, but in that case it was absolutely unnecessary to the holding, because that case was a choice of law case and, of course, this Court has held precisely because Congress has not litigated the effect of acts, and because there's a necessity to balance interests--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2830.018], "stop_times": [2844.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2830.018}, "reply_to": "20967__1_101", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_103", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Yes, but this sentence was about judgments, so you say that was wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2844.348], "stop_times": [2847.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2844.348}, "reply_to": "20967__1_102", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20967__1_104", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--It is, Your Honor, one of the quotes that the Restatement relies on, and I am saying that if the proverbial, as Justice Scalia said once in his opinion, hapless law clerk goes back through those cases, in none of those cases does the Court hold that there is an exception to judgments when the interests of the other State need to be weighed.\nThere are statements--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2847.181, 2866.976], "stop_times": [2866.976, 2867.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2847.181}, "reply_to": "20967__1_103", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_105", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Let me just clarify one thing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2867.667], "stop_times": [2868.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2867.667}, "reply_to": "20967__1_104", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20967__1_106", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2868.586], "stop_times": [2868.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2868.586}, "reply_to": "20967__1_105", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_107", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--because you didn't quite finish your answer when Justice Gins... it is your position... I'm just not looking at authorities or law review articles or Restatement... it is your position that there is no full faith and credit limitation whatsoever, other than personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction in the court entering a judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2868.756], "stop_times": [2884.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2868.756}, "reply_to": "20967__1_106", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20967__1_108", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, that's it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2884.288], "stop_times": [2885.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2884.288}, "reply_to": "20967__1_107", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_109", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Well, Mr. Cappuccio, by way of another example, sometimes we see court orders ordering a... an employee or a former employee not to compete with the employer in situations where the employee and the first employer get in a dispute and go to court and there is a covenant not to compete, and that's enforced by a court order in, let's say, Michigan, and the Michigan court says, Mr. X, you will not compete for a period of 5 years with this employer number 1, and any contract you enter into anywhere to do that is void and of no effect.\nEmployee goes to State 2 and enters into a contract with a new employer to go to work in competition, in violation.\nNow, I guess on your theory that contract is unenforceable in the second State in any way for the employer, the new employer who tries to hire him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2885.897, 2928.946, 2937.902], "stop_times": [2928.946, 2937.902, 2951.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2885.897}, "reply_to": "20967__1_108", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20967__1_110", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Absolutely, Your Honor, and in that first judgment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2951.501], "stop_times": [2954.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2951.501}, "reply_to": "20967__1_109", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_111", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Let's add to the fact that it was not litigated, so that there's no... no, you know, res judicata effect.\nIt was a consent decree in the first suit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2954.923, 2960.817], "stop_times": [2960.817, 2962.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2954.923}, "reply_to": "20967__1_110", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20967__1_112", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Yes, sir, and my answer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2962.758], "stop_times": [2964.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2962.758}, "reply_to": "20967__1_111", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_113", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "And you'd still say that the second court is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2964.251], "stop_times": [2965.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2964.251}, "reply_to": "20967__1_112", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20967__1_114", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--My answer is, is that is preposterous to think that the person who is affected, the person who wants to enter into the contract--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2965.71], "stop_times": [2972.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2965.71}, "reply_to": "20967__1_113", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_115", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Mm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2972.395], "stop_times": [2972.735], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2972.395}, "reply_to": "20967__1_114", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20967__1_116", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--could go into the court of the second State and say, ignore the judgment.\nRather, they would have to go back to the first court and show that they had the kind of interest that was affected.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2972.735, 2976.508], "stop_times": [2976.508, 2982.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2972.735}, "reply_to": "20967__1_115", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_117", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Gee, I would have thought that in the second State the new employer could sue the employee who entered into this contract perhaps when he shouldn't have, and that the first employer could sue him for breaching the original order.\nI mean, what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2982.084, 2998.103], "stop_times": [2998.103, 2998.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2982.084}, "reply_to": "20967__1_116", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20967__1_118", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "No, Your Honor, I think in that case the suit in the second case, the first order would plainly be entitled to full faith and credit and if somebody wants to go back and claim that that is wrong, be it a party or a third party, they have to go back to the original court.\nThat's all full faith and credit is about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [2998.693, 3015.715], "stop_times": [3015.715, 3017.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2998.693}, "reply_to": "20967__1_117", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_119", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "But what is the authority for that?\nThat is... let me go through exactly the same question I asked Professor Tribe.\nIn Justice O'Connor's case you have a third person who was not party to the first action who wants the services of the employee.\nWe agree that that third person is not bound, and you agree that the Bakers here are not bound.\nMoreover, if the Bakers have a claim to this evidence, and it sounds as if they do, there's no doubt they get it.\nThey will get this evidence.\nOnly question is whether they have to go back to Michigan.\nWell, similarly, what's the authority?\nIn 200 years, there's never been a case that says that either this employer in the second State, i.e., the third party, that says either, of course the second State has to follow the injunction of the first against the employee, not the employer, so go to the first State, get it modified, or that says the opposite, and there's never been a law review article that explores that question deeply?\nI mean, what I'm looking for is the case or the law review article in 200 years that went into what I would think was the most simple basic question under injunctions and the Full Faith and Credit Clause.\nIs--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3017.417, 3018.826, 3022.659, 3031.594, 3038.3, 3045.015, 3047.586, 3051.699, 3053.901, 3081.129, 3092.048], "stop_times": [3018.826, 3022.659, 3031.594, 3038.3, 3045.015, 3047.586, 3051.699, 3053.901, 3081.129, 3092.048, 3093.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3017.417}, "reply_to": "20967__1_118", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20967__1_120", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, there are two questions, and let me try to answer the first one and then the second one.\nThe first... the answer to the first one is, it does not matter whether you say they are bound or not bound.\nThat is a legal conclusion about what due process requires.\nWhat matters is the degree of impact on him.\nDoes it affect a property right, and I agree with the Chief Justice, you're not going to... I hope you won't extend Logan v. Zimmerman.\nThey don't have a property right here.\nThat disposes of this case.\nBut even if it does, what process are they entitled to, and the only question is, is it too much of a burden to send them back to Michigan, and I'm saying no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3093.357, 3097.712, 3103.074, 3106.297, 3108.4, 3112.403, 3113.534, 3114.696], "stop_times": [3097.712, 3103.074, 3106.297, 3108.4, 3112.403, 3113.534, 3114.696, 3123.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3093.357}, "reply_to": "20967__1_119", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_121", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Back.\nBack.\nThat's a very revealing word.\nThey never were there in the first place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3123.391, 3123.672, 3124.012, 3124.302], "stop_times": [3123.672, 3124.012, 3124.302, 3126.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3123.391}, "reply_to": "20967__1_120", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20967__1_122", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Okay... sorry.\n[Laughter]\nWhether it's too much of a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3126.025, 3126.984, 3127.375], "stop_times": [3126.984, 3127.375, 3128.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3126.025}, "reply_to": "20967__1_121", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_123", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "You spoke... in your brief, you spoke about, you must return to Michigan, and now twice you said go back to Michigan.\nMichigan has no power over them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3128.436, 3133.099], "stop_times": [3133.099, 3135.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3128.436}, "reply_to": "20967__1_122", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20967__1_124", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said back, but this is the whole issue in this case, is it too much of a burden, does it violate due process, and I'm saying no.\nBecause of the important interest of full faith and credit to avoid conflicting judgments, as Justice Breyer talked about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3135.262, 3143.747], "stop_times": [3143.747, 3149.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3135.262}, "reply_to": "20967__1_123", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_125", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "So Michigan can rule the world to that extent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3149.651], "stop_times": [3151.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3149.651}, "reply_to": "20967__1_124", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20967__1_126", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--The Full Faith and Credit Clause--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3151.051], "stop_times": [3152.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3151.051}, "reply_to": "20967__1_125", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_127", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "It can require anybody from anyplace... even though Michigan would have no power over them, by having a judgment, a plaintiff against defendant, third party, wherever she may be, will have to go to that one place to litigate.\nIt sounds very strange.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3152.283, 3167.372], "stop_times": [3167.372, 3169.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3152.283}, "reply_to": "20967__1_126", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20967__1_128", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--That's exactly what Congress did in the Civil Rights Act of 1991.\nIt's exactly what Congress did by reason of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.\nAnd the burden, Justice Kennedy, is not an undue burden.\nIt's the same exact burden that a litigant faces when they want to get an out-of-State witness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3169.172, 3171.744, 3175.757, 3178.65], "stop_times": [3171.744, 3175.757, 3178.65, 3183.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3169.172}, "reply_to": "20967__1_127", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_129", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "I suppose, Mr. Cappuccio, that... I also... it was the exact example that Justice O'Connor gave which has occurred to me.\nThese injunctions against competition are very, very common, and I guess they're not worth a whole lot if they're only enforceable in the particular State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3183.214, 3190.27], "stop_times": [3190.27, 3200.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3183.214}, "reply_to": "20967__1_128", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20967__1_130", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Your Honor, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3200.344], "stop_times": [3201.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3200.344}, "reply_to": "20967__1_129", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_131", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "I would expect a lot of literature on the other side.\nI would have expected a lot of lawsuits in which people simply said, I don't have to obey this injunction in the other State because your writ doesn't run this far.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3201.516, 3204.188], "stop_times": [3204.188, 3212.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3201.516}, "reply_to": "20967__1_130", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20967__1_132", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--I would think that it would be... the reason we don't have anything is because it is so plain that that is a final judgment entitled to full faith and credit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3212.215], "stop_times": [3219.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3212.215}, "reply_to": "20967__1_131", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_133", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Cappuccio.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3219.729], "stop_times": [3221.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3219.729}, "reply_to": "20967__1_132", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20967__1_134", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3221.291], "stop_times": [3221.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3221.291}, "reply_to": "20967__1_133", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "20967__1_135", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Mr. Tribe, you have 2 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3221.712], "stop_times": [3224.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3221.712}, "reply_to": "20967__1_134", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20967__2_000", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nLet me begin by saying that the power of Congress in response to Martin v. Wilks to have a national venue provision has nothing to do with the power of a State to say, come back to Michigan though you've never been here.\nCongress was not acting in connection with full faith and credit.\nWhat Congress was doing was exactly analogous to Michigan's in-State rule saying venue is in the court that did it in the first place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3224.434, 3225.726, 3239.376, 3243.167], "stop_times": [3225.726, 3239.376, 3243.167, 3250.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3224.434}, "reply_to": "20967__1_135", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__2_001", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Mr. Tribe, I don't understand one thing about your position.\nIs it your position not only that the... that courts in States other than Michigan are not bound by the judgment, but that also, if he complies with the decrees of these other courts, that Mr. Elwood is not liable for contempt in Michigan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3250.102, 3253.244], "stop_times": [3253.244, 3270.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3250.102}, "reply_to": "20967__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20967__2_002", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "No.\nJustice Scalia, if third parties are effectively bound, that's my problem.\nI'm not saying that General Motors could not have arranged to have sanctions imposed on him as he travels around the country if he testifies in response to the... in response to orders.\nThat would be a matter of contract between General Motors and this employee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3270.828, 3271.777, 3275.991, 3288.997], "stop_times": [3271.777, 3275.991, 3288.997, 3292.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3270.828}, "reply_to": "20967__2_001", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__2_003", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "No, no, not by contract.\nMay the Michigan court cite him for contempt if he complies with the order of the court of another State and gives testimony?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3292.012, 3293.371], "stop_times": [3293.371, 3300.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3292.012}, "reply_to": "20967__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20967__2_004", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "I think not, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3300.945], "stop_times": [3302.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3300.945}, "reply_to": "20967__2_003", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__2_005", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Okay.\nThat's your position--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3302.067, 3302.367], "stop_times": [3302.367, 3303.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3302.067}, "reply_to": "20967__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20967__2_006", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Right.\nThat's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3303.159, 3303.349], "stop_times": [3303.349, 3304.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3303.159}, "reply_to": "20967__2_005", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__2_007", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--not only that the State court is not bound, but also that Elwood is not bound?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3304.16], "stop_times": [3308.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3304.16}, "reply_to": "20967__2_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20967__2_008", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "In all likelihood, though--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3308.313], "stop_times": [3309.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3308.313}, "reply_to": "20967__2_007", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__2_009", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "And what is the principle?\nWhy can't he be cited for contempt?\nWhat's the principle?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3309.834, 3311.513, 3313.115], "stop_times": [3311.513, 3313.115, 3314.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3309.834}, "reply_to": "20967__2_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20967__2_010", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--The principle is that as a matter of due process one cannot be held in contempt for refusing to comply with the order of a court.\nOne can--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3314.006, 3323.743], "stop_times": [3323.743, 3324.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3314.006}, "reply_to": "20967__2_009", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__2_011", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "But he could be held in contempt if he acquiesced, couldn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3324.183], "stop_times": [3326.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3324.183}, "reply_to": "20967__2_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20967__2_012", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--You can waive your right, certainly Justice Souter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3326.334], "stop_times": [3328.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3326.334}, "reply_to": "20967__2_011", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__2_013", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "No, but I mean, if he--\n--If he's not subpoenaed.\nIf he voluntarily testifies--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3328.665, 3330.027, 3331.006], "stop_times": [3330.027, 3331.006, 3333.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3328.665}, "reply_to": "20967__2_012", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20967__2_014", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Oh, yes, that's... sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3333.47], "stop_times": [3334.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3333.47}, "reply_to": "20967__2_013", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__2_015", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Or if his objection is a sham--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3334.118], "stop_times": [3335.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3334.118}, "reply_to": "20967__2_014", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20967__2_016", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Then there's no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3335.43], "stop_times": [3335.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3335.43}, "reply_to": "20967__2_015", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__2_017", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--then, of course they can go after--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3335.71], "stop_times": [3337.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3335.71}, "reply_to": "20967__2_016", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20967__2_018", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Then there's no problem.\nOf course--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3337.301, 3337.522], "stop_times": [3337.522, 3337.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3337.301}, "reply_to": "20967__2_017", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__2_019", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Or if he goes to that State in order to be subpoenaed, which is what happened here, apparently.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3337.682], "stop_times": [3341.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3337.682}, "reply_to": "20967__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20967__2_020", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--There's no evidence in the record of what... of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3341.104], "stop_times": [3344.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3341.104}, "reply_to": "20967__2_019", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__2_021", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "All right.\nWell, let's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3344.247, 3344.577], "stop_times": [3344.577, 3344.858], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3344.247}, "reply_to": "20967__2_020", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20967__2_022", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "And the briefs in opposition don't even suggest it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3344.858], "stop_times": [3346.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3344.858}, "reply_to": "20967__2_021", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__2_023", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Let's hypothesize it, then.\nSuppose he goes to that State expecting and hoping to be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3346.29, 3347.96], "stop_times": [3347.96, 3352.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3346.29}, "reply_to": "20967__2_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20967__2_024", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Yes.\nI would think if you have such a case he could be in contempt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3352.735, 3352.985], "stop_times": [3352.985, 3355.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3352.735}, "reply_to": "20967__2_023", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__2_025", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3355.216], "stop_times": [3355.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3355.216}, "reply_to": "20967__2_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20967__2_026", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "The opposition to cert didn't suggest this was such a case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3355.596], "stop_times": [3358.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3355.596}, "reply_to": "20967__2_025", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__2_027", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "You're not suggesting that it wouldn't be, just between those two parties, perfectly all right for General Motors to say, if you are indeed subpoenaed by somebody--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3358.609], "stop_times": [3367.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3358.609}, "reply_to": "20967__2_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20967__2_028", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3367.294], "stop_times": [3367.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3367.294}, "reply_to": "20967__2_027", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__2_029", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "--then you can't help it, but don't walk into a place that would otherwise have no power over you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3367.494], "stop_times": [3372.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3367.494}, "reply_to": "20967__2_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20967__2_030", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "That's right, and I'm afraid my time is up.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3372.436, 3374.709], "stop_times": [3374.709, 3374.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3372.436}, "reply_to": "20967__2_029", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "20967__2_031", "conversation_id": "20967", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-653", "start_times": [3374.92], "stop_times": [3377.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3374.92}, "reply_to": "20967__2_030", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20527__0_000", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "We'll hear argument now in No. 96-7185, Garrit Bates against the United States.\nMr. Oren.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [0.0, 8.754], "stop_times": [8.754, 10.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20527__0_001", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis case comes before you today as a result of the dismissal of an indictment by the District Court in the Northern District of Indiana in April of 1995, prior to the taking of any evidence in the case.\nHowever, the challenge to the sufficiency of the... of the indictment actually began many months prior to that in an official conference I had with Mr. Bates in my office.\nAt that time we went over the indictment paragraph by paragraph.\nAt the end of that process, Mr. Bates thought for a minute; he looked at me, and he said: Yes, but what is it they're telling me I did wrong?\nAnd I said: Well, Mr. Bates, I believe that they're saying that you misapplied Federal student loan funds.\nMr. Bates thought about that for a minute and then he said to me: Yes, I understand that, but what is it specifically they're saying I did that was illegal?\nAnd I went back and I looked at the indictment and I found that I could not really answer that question for him.\nI believe that exchange underscores the importance of this Court's standard for judging the sufficiency of an indictment.\nThat being that all elements of the offense charged must be stated and that the indictment should fairly inform the defendant of the charges against him, as well as be sufficiently specific to stand as a bar to further prosecutions should there be a conviction or an acquittal.\nSo what I'm asking of this Court is to strictly examine the indictment that was brought before Mr. Bates... that was brought against Mr. Bates.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [10.189, 14.324, 30.435, 44.612, 49.397, 62.49, 69.727, 83.654, 90.908, 102.799, 127.433], "stop_times": [14.324, 30.435, 44.612, 49.397, 62.49, 69.727, 83.654, 90.908, 102.799, 127.433, 139.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.189}, "reply_to": "20527__0_000", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_002", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "When you... you say strictly examine, Mr. Oren, are you suggesting some extremely skeptical scrutiny of the language of an indictment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [139.407], "stop_times": [150.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 139.407}, "reply_to": "20527__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20527__0_003", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "No, not extremely skeptical, Your Honor.\nI... I believe I'm using that in the sense that prior to evidence being taken, the only thing we have to look at is the indictment.\nIf... if there was dismissal after evidence had been taken, then I think that if there was no prejudice shown, then if the indictment was not sufficient, it would still not really--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [150.548, 153.398, 165.724], "stop_times": [153.398, 165.724, 181.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 150.548}, "reply_to": "20527__0_002", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_004", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "So here you're saying all we have to look at is the indictment and nothing more than that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [181.651], "stop_times": [185.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 181.651}, "reply_to": "20527__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20527__0_005", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--That's... that's correct, Mr. Chief Justice.\nThe indictment here is set forth in the joint appendix at pages 2 through 12.\nIt is actually structured in two portions.\nThe first portion is a series of basic background factual allegations.\nAnd the second portion are 12 specific charging counts, if you will.\nDirecting the Court's attention to the first, the factual allegations, it provides, first of all, various background information and then some specific allegations of conduct against Mr. Bates... or by Mr. Bates.\nAs a background information, it... it alleges that a James and Laurenda Jackson owned the Ax... Acme Institute of Technology.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [185.536, 186.554, 196.843, 201.314, 208.218, 215.222, 235.718], "stop_times": [186.554, 196.843, 201.314, 208.218, 215.222, 235.718, 245.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 185.536}, "reply_to": "20527__0_004", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_006", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Now... now, Mr.... Mr. Oren, the question presented here in the petition for certiorari is whether intent to injure or defraud the government is an element of the offense of knowingly and willingly... willfully misapplying Federal student loan funds, in violation of the statutory section.\nAnd I... I think the... the government apparently agrees that the indictment does not contain any allegation that it was done with an intent to injure or defraud the United States.\nSo the question we have before us, as I would understand it, is: Is that an element of... of the offense?\nAnd I don't see why we need to be concerned with the various detailed allegations of the indictment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [245.926, 261.702, 273.41, 280.516], "stop_times": [261.702, 273.41, 280.516, 285.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 245.926}, "reply_to": "20527__0_005", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20527__0_007", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "My reasoning for bringing this to the Court's attention is that the... again, the sufficiency of the indictment depends, I believe, on the actual setting forth of the elements of the offense in the indictment.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [285.985, 301.98], "stop_times": [301.98, 302.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 285.985}, "reply_to": "20527__0_006", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_008", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Yes, but we're... we're not canvassing the indictment for some shortcoming.\nIt's a very precise issues that's... that you have presented in the question for certiorari.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [302.413, 305.899], "stop_times": [305.899, 310.952], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 302.413}, "reply_to": "20527__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20527__0_009", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--Yes, all right.\nAssuming, then, that the government is agreeing that there is no factual allegations alleging... of the elements of the... of the offense, as we believe it to be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [310.952, 312.402], "stop_times": [312.402, 334.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 310.952}, "reply_to": "20527__0_008", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_010", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Well, there's no agreement on whether it's an element of the offense.\nI mean, whether fraudulent intent is an element, is there... there's no agreement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [334.501, 338.869], "stop_times": [338.869, 349.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 334.501}, "reply_to": "20527__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20527__0_011", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--No, there is not.\nIt is my understanding that, at least in the courts below, the government has agreed that conversion, or un... unauthorized use of property to the benefit of the defendant or a third party, is an element of the offense.\nBut where there is no agreement between the government and Mr. Bates is that... whether or not fraudulent intent or criminal intent is an element of the offense of knowingly and willfully misapplying student loan funds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [349.927, 351.427, 369.822], "stop_times": [351.427, 369.822, 390.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 349.927}, "reply_to": "20527__0_010", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_012", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Well, it doesn't say it's... here's the statute, 1097(a)... it doesn't say\n\"with intent to defraud the United States. \"\nWhy should we read that into it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [390.402, 398.674, 400.793], "stop_times": [398.674, 400.793, 403.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 390.402}, "reply_to": "20527__0_011", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20527__0_013", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Well, this does present an issue of statutory construction, Justice Ginsburg.\nI believe that there are four principles that... of statutory construction that would support this reading.\nThe first of that is... the first principle would be the actual language of the statute itself.\nI believe there are indications in there that... of the scienter element.\nThat being the words of the term \"knowingly and willfully\", as modifying \"misapplies\".", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [403.161, 409.215, 417.671, 423.975, 432.248], "stop_times": [409.215, 417.671, 423.975, 432.248, 441.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 403.161}, "reply_to": "20527__0_012", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_014", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Well, he was charged with that... several counts of knowingly and willfully misapplying Federal money, was he not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [441.103], "stop_times": [451.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 441.103}, "reply_to": "20527__0_013", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20527__0_015", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [451.809], "stop_times": [452.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 451.809}, "reply_to": "20527__0_014", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_016", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "That was the language used.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [452.276], "stop_times": [454.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 452.276}, "reply_to": "20527__0_015", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20527__0_017", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "That... that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [454.161], "stop_times": [455.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 454.161}, "reply_to": "20527__0_016", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_018", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "And your argument, as I understand it, is that \"knowingly and willfully\" somehow incorporates a fraudulent intent, even though the statute otherwise, in describing not merely the... in describing not the... the... the offense of misapplication, but a different kind of offense, of obtaining, refers expressly to fraud as one forbidden means of obtaining property.\nAnd... and isn't that the nub of your problem?\nThe statute refers to fraud elsewhere, but you want us to import the concept of fraud into... into a term which, on its face, has no apparent reference to fraud?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [455.963, 481.661, 485.215], "stop_times": [481.661, 485.215, 497.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 455.963}, "reply_to": "20527__0_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20527__0_019", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "I am using the term \"fraudulent intent\", I believe, as synonymous with or indicative of what would be called specific intent of the common law or illegal purpose.\nI think fraudulent intent is actually very descriptive of specific intent when it comes to the use or misuse of money.\nSo what I am suggesting is that fraudulent intent is specific intent or illegal purpose, and that that is in fact an element of the offense of misapplication of funds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [497.623, 517.852, 531.011], "stop_times": [517.852, 531.011, 550.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 497.623}, "reply_to": "20527__0_018", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_020", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Well, leaving aside whether you are entitled to or not, didn't you get... didn't the Seventh Circuit take the position that the government would have to prove... under the... the concept of \"willfully\", that the government would have to prove that the misapplication was made with an understanding of... of... of... that it violated the law?\nWasn't that the Seventh Circuit's definition of \"willfully\"?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [550.158, 573.504], "stop_times": [573.504, 576.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 550.158}, "reply_to": "20527__0_019", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20527__0_021", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "The Seventh Circuit, in my estimation, issued an opinion which was slightly confusing.\nBecause, in one part, they did refer to the burden of the United States to actually prove some knowledge of wrongdoing.\nYet, on the other hand, they said that the offense of willful... of willful... knowingly and willfully misapplying funds did not include the... the element of fraudulent intent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [576.891, 583.879, 595.52], "stop_times": [583.879, 595.52, 609.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 576.891}, "reply_to": "20527__0_020", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_022", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Yeah, but fraudulent intent, as we normally use the term, is something different from an intent to misuse property with knowledge that the misuse is in fact forbidden by a Federal statute.\nThose are two different concepts.\nAnd I don't see any inconsistency between those two aspects of the Circuit opinion.\nWhy are they inconsistent?\nTo obtain by fraud, as we normally mean it, is to... is to make a... a misrepresation... misrepresentation of fact to someone as a means of getting that person's property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [609.863, 626.056, 627.841, 633.312, 635.445], "stop_times": [626.056, 627.841, 633.312, 635.445, 653.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 609.863}, "reply_to": "20527__0_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20527__0_023", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [653.04], "stop_times": [653.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 653.04}, "reply_to": "20527__0_022", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_024", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "And that's something entirely distinct from committing an act, whatever the act may be, with the knowledge that there is a statute that forbids the act.\nAnd it seems to me that that's the... that's the distinction, certainly, inherent in the Seventh Circuit opinion.\nAnd I don't see why it's a distinction that isn't a perfectly valid one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [653.725, 664.847, 670.232], "stop_times": [664.847, 670.232, 674.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 653.725}, "reply_to": "20527__0_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20527__0_025", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "I would... I... I guess, rely on the Morissette case, where the... this Court held that a knowing conversion of government property included a criminal intent, which would require the government to show that the defendant, Morissette, had knowledge of all the facts, which would have made his conduct a conversion.\nAnd I do not believe that that holding is exactly what was being stated by the Seventh Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [674.803, 724.319], "stop_times": [724.319, 734.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 674.803}, "reply_to": "20527__0_024", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_026", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "It seems to me that... it seems to me the equivalent of that in the current context would be knowing all the facts that renders the... the action a misapplication.\nWouldn't that be the precise equivalent of what went on in Morissette?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [734.907, 748.334], "stop_times": [748.334, 752.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 734.907}, "reply_to": "20527__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20527__0_027", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [752.303], "stop_times": [753.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 752.303}, "reply_to": "20527__0_026", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_028", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "And... and do you think the... do you think the holding here did not require him to know all of the facts that... that rendered this a misapplication?\nUnless I'm mistaken, you're... you're demanding that he know more than the facts that rendered a misapplication.\nYou're demanding that he not only knew all those facts, but that he also had some... what should I say... criminal motive in the misapplication.\nAnd I thought that's what we're fighting about.\nAnd I don't see that Morissette speaks to that at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [753.405, 764.194, 769.764, 782.572, 785.607], "stop_times": [764.194, 769.764, 782.572, 785.607, 789.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 753.405}, "reply_to": "20527__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20527__0_029", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "I believe that Morissette speaks to this issue in this way.\nMorissette referred to a species... or it referred to every stealing being a conversion, yet not every conversion being a stealing.\nWhat Morissette, I believe, was doing was distinguishing between the tort of conversion as opposed to a criminal conversion.\nAnd in... in... again, in Morissette, they referred to a type of conversion which could occur when the property first came into possession of the defendant in a lawful manner, but was later misused.\nAnd I believe that that type of conversion, that species of conversion, is exactly what misapplication is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [789.078, 796.582, 817.895, 833.005, 854.603], "stop_times": [796.582, 817.895, 833.005, 854.603, 866.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 789.078}, "reply_to": "20527__0_028", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_030", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Well, Mor... Morissette was a statute which didn't contain any requirement of intent, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [866.428], "stop_times": [873.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 866.428}, "reply_to": "20527__0_029", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20527__0_031", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "I believe that it stated the modifying term of \"knowing conversion\" in... in the statute.\nTo that extent, it... it did indicate that there was an element of tent... of intent present.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [873.482, 884.29], "stop_times": [884.29, 894.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 873.482}, "reply_to": "20527__0_030", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_032", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "The words of Morissette are... are these: A knowing conversion requires more than knowledge that the defendant was taking property into his possession.\nHe must have had knowledge of the facts, though not necessarily of the law, that made the taking a conversion.\nNow, if you apply that same text to the present case, I think you'd say... you'd say, knowing misapplication requires more than knowledge that he was applying the property; he must have had knowledge of the facts, though not necessarily the law that made the application a misapplication.\nAnd... and there's no quarrel that that's properly charged, is there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [894.578, 904.536, 912.29, 936.238], "stop_times": [904.536, 912.29, 936.238, 941.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 894.578}, "reply_to": "20527__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20527__0_033", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "No.\nThat... I... I believe that would be a proper statement as to the offense of misapplication.\nAnd I don't believe that I was trying to suggest anything more than that in my use of the term \"fraudulent intent\".", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [941.376, 943.161, 952.434], "stop_times": [943.161, 952.434, 964.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 941.376}, "reply_to": "20527__0_032", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_034", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "But the... the Seventh Circuit would give you even more than Justice Scalia just suggested that you were entitled to.\nUnder the Seventh Circuit opinion, you would... you would be entitled to an instruction that the government had to prove that you knew you were violate... your client knew that he was violating the law.\nSo you're getting more, in fact, than... than... on your... on your own theory, Morissette would give you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [964.242, 970.161, 981.286], "stop_times": [970.161, 981.286, 987.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 964.242}, "reply_to": "20527__0_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20527__0_035", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "I really do not know how to answer that.\nI did not read the... the Seventh Circuit opinion in that... in that manner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [987.79, 997.296], "stop_times": [997.296, 1003.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 987.79}, "reply_to": "20527__0_034", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_036", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "What do you do with the... the 1097(d), which states, in so many words, that there must be an intent to defraud the United States, with intent to defraud the United States?\nThat very language in the same section, in (d), is omitted from (a).\nSo if it's in (d) and it's not in (a), wouldn't one infer that Congress didn't mean it to be read into (a)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1003.717, 1021.178, 1027.482], "stop_times": [1021.178, 1027.482, 1034.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1003.717}, "reply_to": "20527__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20527__0_037", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "I believe that, first of all, they're talking about two separate types of actions in (a) and in... and in (d).\nI think the... and in subsection (d), they're talking about destroying or concealing property with fraudulent intent.\nIn those words, in normal usage, would not be... destroying and concealing property would not ordinarily have a criminal consequence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1034.838, 1045.811, 1061.238], "stop_times": [1045.811, 1061.238, 1079.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1034.838}, "reply_to": "20527__0_036", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_038", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Didn't you win this?\nI mean, I... I'm trying to put your argument in a way that, to me, was the strongest.\nAnd maybe you don't mean it this way.\nBut... but there seem to be two parts.\nOne, in the \"willfully\" part... and I take it you won that... that the government is going to show that your client knew that what he was doing was unlawful.\nDidn't you win that part?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1079.467, 1081.569, 1086.537, 1088.656, 1091.525, 1101.815], "stop_times": [1081.569, 1086.537, 1088.656, 1091.525, 1101.815, 1104.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1079.467}, "reply_to": "20527__0_037", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20527__0_039", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "I believe perhaps we did, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1104.265], "stop_times": [1108.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1104.265}, "reply_to": "20527__0_038", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_040", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "All right.\nSo the government would have to show, whatever your client did, he knew it was unlawful, as far as the lower opinion goes.\nThen there seemed to be a second part, what you're calling fraudulent intent, which doesn't have to do with the first part.\nNow, in reading the opinion, but not your brief, I thought they were... the words \"fraudulent intent\" covered two separate things: intent to defraud, which isn't involved here because there isn't a misrepresentation, or intent to injure.\nThey worked with that second part, \"intent to injure or defraud\": intent to injure the government or to defraud the government.\nAnd, of course, the government would show intent to injure, in that it would be the known consequence of what your client allegedly did.\nHe deprived the government of the use of some money.\nThat injures the government.\nI took the Circuit as saying the issue is whether there has to be a specific intent to injure; i.e., do they have to show that your client wanted, in the sense of purpose, to hurt the government?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1114.456, 1108.552, 1114.539, 1120.776, 1137.702, 1147.26, 1157.116, 1159.818, 1161.351], "stop_times": [1108.552, 1114.539, 1120.776, 1137.702, 1147.26, 1157.116, 1159.818, 1161.351, 1175.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1114.456}, "reply_to": "20527__0_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20527__0_041", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1175.745], "stop_times": [1178.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1175.745}, "reply_to": "20527__0_040", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_042", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Now, if you're going to tell me this argument is not in the case, I'm prepared to forget it.\nAnd I don't want to make an argument for you, but I... I... I want to... when I read the... not necessarily the brief, but the opinion below, I thought maybe you were talking about specific intent to injure the government.\nIf you're not, if you're talking about specific intent to defraud the government, I agree with Justice Souter; I don't see that it's here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1178.696, 1182.35, 1195.574], "stop_times": [1182.35, 1195.574, 1201.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1178.696}, "reply_to": "20527__0_041", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20527__0_043", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Right.\nI believe I was using the term \"fraudulent intent\" to refer to specific intent and illegal purpose.\nAs that relates to this indictment, I do not believe that the Seventh Circuit opinion would have provided us with any greater information about what use the government was alleging was the problem with Mr. Bates' conduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1201.912, 1202.778, 1217.655], "stop_times": [1202.778, 1217.655, 1253.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1201.912}, "reply_to": "20527__0_042", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_044", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Do you agree that, if all of the facts in the indictment are established, that there was a misapplication?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1253.494], "stop_times": [1262.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1253.494}, "reply_to": "20527__0_043", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20527__0_045", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "No, I do not.\nI do not agree with that.\nI do not believe that the indictment states facts that show a misapplication, nor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1262.434, 1263.367, 1264.484], "stop_times": [1263.367, 1264.484, 1272.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1262.434}, "reply_to": "20527__0_044", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_046", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Well, is... is... is that the problem, then, and... and not the precise formulation of the scienter that's required, since we have \"knowing and willful\"?\nWhy was there no misapplication, in... in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1272.556, 1282.597], "stop_times": [1282.597, 1287.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1272.556}, "reply_to": "20527__0_045", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20527__0_047", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--The indictment does not state any factual allegation of any use of the funds by Mr. Bates.\nIt does... it states, I believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1287.065, 1298.44], "stop_times": [1298.44, 1302.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1287.065}, "reply_to": "20527__0_046", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_048", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Wait a minute.\nDoes... does he have to use the funds, if he... if... if one diverts funds from, say, a trust fund... I know that that wasn't what this was... but if one diverts funds for an unauthorized purposes, that's a misapplication, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1302.392, 1303.159], "stop_times": [1303.159, 1318.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1302.392}, "reply_to": "20527__0_047", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20527__0_049", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--Yes.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1318.02, 1318.653], "stop_times": [1318.653, 1319.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1318.02}, "reply_to": "20527__0_048", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_050", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "So it doesn't have to be for his own use.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1319.22], "stop_times": [1321.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1319.22}, "reply_to": "20527__0_049", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20527__0_051", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--The allegation is not in the indictment that Mr. Bates did anything with the funds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1321.388], "stop_times": [1328.209], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1321.388}, "reply_to": "20527__0_050", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_052", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "But what are the allegations as to Bates' conduct were sufficient to state an offense?\nThat's not the basis on which the District Court dismissed the indictment and that's not the basis on which the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court.\nAnd that's not presented in your question here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1328.209, 1335.046, 1342.969], "stop_times": [1335.046, 1342.969, 1345.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1328.209}, "reply_to": "20527__0_051", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20527__0_053", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "The argument that I have presented consistently from the District Court's opinion was that there were no factual allegations setting forth the elements of the offense.\nAnd if you look at the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1345.671, 1365.501], "stop_times": [1365.501, 1367.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1345.671}, "reply_to": "20527__0_052", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_054", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "You're... you're limited, Mr. Oren, to... to the question presented here.\nAnd the question presented in your petition is whether intent to injure or defraud the government is an element of the offense of knowingly and willfully misapplying Federal student loan funds, in violation of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1367.234, 1371.738], "stop_times": [1371.738, 1382.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1367.234}, "reply_to": "20527__0_053", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20527__0_055", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--Yes.\nYes.\nI agree that is the question presented.\nThe reason we got to that point as being the question presented is because there was nothing in the factual allegations to suggest the elements of the crime.\nAnd if you look at the actual charging counts, it states the words of the statute.\nAnd it's our position that the term \"misapplies\" is intrinsically vague.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1382.594, 1383.129, 1383.963, 1386.415, 1402.007, 1409.344], "stop_times": [1383.129, 1383.963, 1386.415, 1402.007, 1409.344, 1420.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1382.594}, "reply_to": "20527__0_054", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_056", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1420.219], "stop_times": [1421.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1420.219}, "reply_to": "20527__0_055", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20527__0_057", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "And--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1421.186], "stop_times": [1421.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1421.186}, "reply_to": "20527__0_056", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_058", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--But, now, it does allege that he did knowingly and willfully misapply; there's no doubt about that, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1421.921], "stop_times": [1427.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1421.921}, "reply_to": "20527__0_057", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20527__0_059", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--That's... that's correct.\nBut it is intrinsically vague.\nThus, I believe that to meet the standards of actually setting forth the elements, the... the indictment should have stated at least the conceptual elements of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1427.408, 1429.058, 1434.579], "stop_times": [1429.058, 1434.579, 1449.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1427.408}, "reply_to": "20527__0_058", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_060", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "But that... that's not the question you've brought here.\nThe... you know, I don't want to repeat it again.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1449.321, 1451.623], "stop_times": [1451.623, 1455.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1449.321}, "reply_to": "20527__0_059", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20527__0_061", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1455.075], "stop_times": [1455.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1455.075}, "reply_to": "20527__0_060", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_062", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "But we granted certiorari on a particular question, and it's not that one.\nDo you understand what I mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1455.491, 1459.277], "stop_times": [1459.277, 1462.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1455.491}, "reply_to": "20527__0_061", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20527__0_063", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Yes.\nYes, I do, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1462.645, 1462.945], "stop_times": [1462.945, 1464.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1462.645}, "reply_to": "20527__0_062", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_064", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Would it help if I asked what do you think they should have added... maybe that would... in terms of purpose of fraudulent purpose?\nWhat I read is that they say that Mr. Bates was the treasurer; that by March '89, the refund liability had grown to 85,000; that there was a report which said that the institution of which he was the treasurer didn't make the refund to the government, and instead loaned a lot of money to the chief trustee and other institutions.\nAnd in light of that, I take it, he... they charged that the defendant knowingly and willfully mis... misapplied the money, or some of that money.\nAll right.\nNow, what, in your opinion... what word should have been added to this indictment that would help, from your point of view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1464.264, 1477.404, 1501.02, 1511.142, 1511.959], "stop_times": [1477.404, 1501.02, 1511.142, 1511.959, 1518.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1464.264}, "reply_to": "20527__0_063", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20527__0_065", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Well, I think, at the very least, that the... the indictment should have stated that it... that the defendant did knowingly and willfully misapply funds, in a certain amount, by converting those funds to his use, with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1518.279], "stop_times": [1542.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1518.279}, "reply_to": "20527__0_064", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_066", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "By what?\nI'm sorry, I didn't hear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1542.894, 1543.328], "stop_times": [1543.328, 1544.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1542.894}, "reply_to": "20527__0_065", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20527__0_067", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--By converting those funds to his use, or the use of a third party, with intent to defraud.\nThat, I believe, would have made this indictment barely sufficient, so that Mr. Bates would have at least known the essence of the charges against him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1544.294, 1552.767], "stop_times": [1552.767, 1567.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1544.294}, "reply_to": "20527__0_066", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_068", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Well, he knew the charge was... was that he knowingly and willfully misapplied.\nIf I understand your position, he knows that the statute requires you to use the funds for X.\nHe knowingly and willfully uses the funds for Y, and, according to the Court of Appeals opinion, knowing that that's a violation of the law.\nHe not only knows that he's using it for Y instead of X, but he knows that that is a violation of the law.\nYou say that that's not enough, right?\nYou're saying he must, in... in addition to misapplying it, intend, by the misapplication, to defraud the government?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1567.527, 1571.812, 1578.982, 1591.975, 1596.86, 1599.479], "stop_times": [1571.812, 1578.982, 1591.975, 1596.86, 1599.479, 1611.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1567.527}, "reply_to": "20527__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20527__0_069", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "I really did not intend for the... I... fraudulent intent... I did not mean to convey the thought that... that fraudulent intent was specific as against the United States.\nThat, I believe, was the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1611.889, 1632.802], "stop_times": [1632.802, 1637.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1611.889}, "reply_to": "20527__0_068", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_070", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Or to defraud somebody.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1637.521], "stop_times": [1639.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1637.521}, "reply_to": "20527__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20527__0_071", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--To defraud someone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1639.789], "stop_times": [1640.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1639.789}, "reply_to": "20527__0_070", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_072", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "To defraud... defraud someone.\nIt's not enough that he knows the statute tells me to use the money for X; I'm going to use it for Y.\nAnd you say he can do that without violating this statute so long as, in ignoring the command to use it for X, he was not trying to defraud anybody.\nHe's just... he just... I don't know... he thought the statute was silly or inconsequential, so he said, I'm not going to use it for X, I'm going to use it for Y.\nAnd you say that's okay; that... that maybe... maybe they can get that corrected, but it's not a crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1640.756, 1642.175, 1647.395, 1655.882, 1664.821], "stop_times": [1642.175, 1647.395, 1655.882, 1664.821, 1671.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1640.756}, "reply_to": "20527__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20527__0_073", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "I believe my point was that we are not informed of what the factual misuse is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1671.344], "stop_times": [1689.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1671.344}, "reply_to": "20527__0_072", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_074", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "No, now you're back to the pleading question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1689.489], "stop_times": [1691.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1689.489}, "reply_to": "20527__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20527__0_075", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Right.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1691.508, 1691.808], "stop_times": [1691.808, 1692.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1691.508}, "reply_to": "20527__0_074", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_076", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--that the Chief Justice keeps telling you is not in this case.\nIt's really not in this case.\nI mean, you've got to get back to tell us what you... what it... what it is.\nAnyway, they do say what the factual thing is.\nThey say that it went to the... he used the money for these other people.\nHe... he gave it to the... he loaned substantial amounts of money to the chief trustee and a non-related profit-making institution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1692.224, 1693.874, 1695.376, 1699.994, 1703.315, 1708.617], "stop_times": [1693.874, 1695.376, 1699.994, 1703.315, 1708.617, 1716.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1692.224}, "reply_to": "20527__0_075", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20527__0_077", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "In which paragraph of the indictment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1716.889], "stop_times": [1722.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1716.889}, "reply_to": "20527__0_076", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_078", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "In... in paragraph 13.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1722.36], "stop_times": [1724.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1722.36}, "reply_to": "20527__0_077", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20527__0_079", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "That statement, or allegation, does not say anything about Mr. Bates' conduct.\nThey... there are a lot of allegations in this about other people; that doesn't inform us about Mr. Bates' conduct.\nAnd the reason that I have used the term \"fraudulent intent\" is that I was using it in the sense that it was used... in the sense that it is a specific intent, an illegal purpose, to distinguish the same type of... of behavior in a misapplication scenario, as was distinguished in Morissette, a... the tort of conversion from the crime of conversion.\nI believe this is just a subset of that, and that, at the very least, that element of fraudulent intent should have been set forth in the indictment, inasmuch as that would have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1724.062, 1742.273, 1752.962, 1795.991], "stop_times": [1742.273, 1752.962, 1795.991, 1812.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1724.062}, "reply_to": "20527__0_078", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_080", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Well, it really boils down to what does the word \"misapply\" or \"misapplication\" mean.\nThey said \"knowingly misapply\", and you say, when you say \"misapply\", it includes a lot of other stuff other than doing the wrong type of thing with the funds... knowing what the right thing was.\nBut this all turns on what the word \"misapply\" means, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1812.87, 1816.572, 1826.527], "stop_times": [1816.572, 1826.527, 1829.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1812.87}, "reply_to": "20527__0_079", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20527__0_081", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--Yes, it does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1829.979], "stop_times": [1831.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1829.979}, "reply_to": "20527__0_080", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_082", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "You read a lot into it; they read very little into it.\nThey wouldn't even read the... as I read their brief, they wouldn't even require you to know that it was a misapplication.\nAll you have to know is what you did with it.\nWhich seems a little extreme to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1831.164, 1834.45, 1840.02, 1841.92], "stop_times": [1834.45, 1840.02, 1841.92, 1843.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1831.164}, "reply_to": "20527__0_081", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20527__0_083", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1843.956], "stop_times": [1844.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1843.956}, "reply_to": "20527__0_082", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_084", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Yes.\nThank you, Mr. Oren.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1844.539, 1845.674], "stop_times": [1845.674, 1847.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1844.539}, "reply_to": "20527__0_083", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20527__0_085", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1847.624], "stop_times": [1848.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1847.624}, "reply_to": "20527__0_084", "speaker": "c_richard_oren"}
{"id": "20527__0_086", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Ms. Blatt, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1848.126], "stop_times": [1849.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1848.126}, "reply_to": "20527__0_085", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20527__1_000", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe decision below is correct, because both the text and structure of Section 1097 compel the conclusion that an intent to injure or defraud is not an element of the misapplication offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1849.926, 1862.802], "stop_times": [1862.802, 1875.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1849.926}, "reply_to": "20527__0_086", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_001", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "But would you agree with the... with the Circuit that the misuse has to be knowing, that it's an exercise of control or dominion that's a violation of the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1875.027], "stop_times": [1885.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1875.027}, "reply_to": "20527__1_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20527__1_002", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "No... I mean, yes, we disagree.\nIn our view, the word... all that's required is that the defendant know that his use of the money is unauthorized.\nThe defendant does not also have to know the source of the prohibition or that using the money in an... in an unauthorized manner was a violation of the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1885.399, 1887.835, 1895.441], "stop_times": [1887.835, 1895.441, 1905.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1885.399}, "reply_to": "20527__1_001", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_003", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "If the term \"misapply\" is not clearly established in the law, then does not that argue in favor of... of interpretation of \"willful and knowingly\" such as the Circuit gave, knowing that is a violation of the law?\nBecause \"misapply\" is... is, I take it, not a well-settled term in... in our jurisprudence... or is it?\nPerhaps.\nI don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1905.462, 1924.876, 1930.512, 1931.197], "stop_times": [1924.876, 1930.512, 1931.197, 1931.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1905.462}, "reply_to": "20527__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20527__1_004", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "The Court said in United States v. Britton, in 1883, that misapplication was not a technical or a word at common law; it was a word created by statute.\nAnd in that case, the Court gave it a definition of misapplication to one's use or the use of another of someone else's funds.\nAnd that meant it was a conversion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1931.747, 1942.837, 1952.21], "stop_times": [1942.837, 1952.21, 1954.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1931.747}, "reply_to": "20527__1_003", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_005", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "These funds did not have to be segregated at... at the time of the conduct here, did they?\nThey didn't have to be put in a segregated account, did they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1954.027, 1958.931], "stop_times": [1958.931, 1962.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1954.027}, "reply_to": "20527__1_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20527__1_006", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1962.233], "stop_times": [1963.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1962.233}, "reply_to": "20527__1_005", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_007", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Could a third-party creditor have levied on them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1963.418], "stop_times": [1966.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1963.418}, "reply_to": "20527__1_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20527__1_008", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "I... I don't know the answer to that.\nI don't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1966.203, 1970.339], "stop_times": [1970.339, 1972.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1966.203}, "reply_to": "20527__1_007", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_009", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Ms. Blatt, let me... let me just raise the difficulty that I have with... with the government's position that the... the source of the prohibition need not be shown; that the knowledge of specific illegality need not be shown.\nThe mens rea requirement is knowingly and willingly.\nWillfully.\nAnd if... if we exclude from the possible meaning of \"willingly\" this intent to defraud... and I... I will so assume, what's left for the meaning of \"willingly\" as... or \"willfully\"... I'm sorry... as something in addition to \"knowingly\"?\nThe... the Circuit, I thought, made a pretty good... good guess at it.\nAnd I realize that our prior cases that have construed it that way have been tax cases, but what else could it plausibly mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [1972.774, 1987.283, 1991.485, 1992.901, 2014.266, 2019.152], "stop_times": [1987.283, 1991.485, 1992.901, 2014.266, 2019.152, 2026.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1972.774}, "reply_to": "20527__1_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20527__1_010", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Well, we think here it means what it means in almost every case.\nAnd that is \"deliberately\".\nWhich is... which is how the Court construed the words v. Browder.\nAnd the... and so the common understanding of the word \"willfully\" is intentionally.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2026.508, 2029.86, 2031.426, 2038.466, 2044.018], "stop_times": [2029.86, 2031.426, 2038.466, 2044.018, 2044.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2026.508}, "reply_to": "20527__1_009", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_011", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "What... what is \"knowingly\", then?\nYeah, that's the... that's the trouble.\nBecause--\n--It just repeats \"knowingly\".\nI mean, surely \"knowingly\" means \"intentionally\", you know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2044.62, 2046.27, 2048.072, 2048.722, 2049.905], "stop_times": [2046.27, 2048.072, 2048.722, 2049.905, 2052.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2044.62}, "reply_to": "20527__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20527__1_012", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--Sure.\nLet... let me address that in... in several parts.\nThis Court, in Morissette, said... used the words, both \"intentional\" and \"knowing\".\nAnd you could certainly have a knowing act that's not deliberate.\nI agree that it would be very difficult to have a deliberate act that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2052.373, 2053.04, 2055.242, 2059.879, 2063.764], "stop_times": [2053.04, 2055.242, 2059.879, 2063.764, 2066.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2052.373}, "reply_to": "20527__1_011", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_013", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Well, you could have a knowing act that is not purposeful, in the sense that the model penal code makes the distinction.\nBut how can you have a knowing act that is not deliberate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2066.882, 2072.036], "stop_times": [2072.036, 2075.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2066.882}, "reply_to": "20527__1_012", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20527__1_014", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--I... I push you into someone and you knowingly hit that person, but you're not deliberately hitting that person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2075.889], "stop_times": [2085.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2075.889}, "reply_to": "20527__1_013", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_015", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "It's not voluntary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2085.178], "stop_times": [2086.197], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2085.178}, "reply_to": "20527__1_014", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20527__1_016", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Right, it's not vol... right--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2086.197], "stop_times": [2088.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2086.197}, "reply_to": "20527__1_015", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_017", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "So that that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2088.38], "stop_times": [2088.815], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2088.38}, "reply_to": "20527__1_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20527__1_018", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--right.\nIn our view, the word \"willfully\" means voluntary, deliberately, in the sense that the act is... is done voluntarily.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2088.815, 2089.199], "stop_times": [2089.199, 2096.303], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2088.815}, "reply_to": "20527__1_017", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_019", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--But when you--\n--Excuse me.\nI'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2096.303, 2096.985, 2097.386], "stop_times": [2096.985, 2097.386, 2097.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2096.303}, "reply_to": "20527__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20527__1_020", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Which is, again, I think, the way the Court construed it in Browder.\nBut let me make one other point.\nIf you construe the word \"willfully\" to mean a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty, as in Pomponio, I... I still think you have the same problem with the word \"knowing\".\nBecause it's hard to have an unknowing, intentional violation of a known legal duty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2097.988, 2101.556, 2102.889, 2114.197], "stop_times": [2101.556, 2102.889, 2114.197, 2117.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2097.988}, "reply_to": "20527__1_019", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_021", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "The government didn't cross-petition here, did it?\nThat's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2117.982, 2120.601], "stop_times": [2120.601, 2121.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2117.982}, "reply_to": "20527__1_020", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20527__1_022", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2121.12], "stop_times": [2121.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2121.12}, "reply_to": "20527__1_021", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_023", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "So we really don't have to decide--\n--Right.\n--whether the Court of Appeals was right in what it said?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2121.536, 2123.22, 2123.77], "stop_times": [2123.22, 2123.77, 2126.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2121.536}, "reply_to": "20527__1_022", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20527__1_024", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "That's exactly correct.\nWe just wanted you to know our view.\nAnd... and, in our view, the words \"willfully and knowingly\" would just require that the defendant know that his use of the funds was unauthorized.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2126.922, 2128.24, 2130.059], "stop_times": [2128.24, 2130.059, 2137.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2126.922}, "reply_to": "20527__1_023", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_025", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "But you... but you... you do seem to say that he had to know that it was unauthorized.\nSo he has to have some knowledge of the duty, some knowledge of what his duties were.\nIsn't that your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2137.73, 2142.699, 2147.167], "stop_times": [2142.699, 2147.167, 2149.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2137.73}, "reply_to": "20527__1_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20527__1_026", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Yes, the defendant must know that the money in... in this case belonged to the... the lender after the student withdrew.\nHe did not have to know that the source of the... of the prohibition of holding on to the money when it belonged to someone else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2149.353, 2156.357], "stop_times": [2156.357, 2162.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2149.353}, "reply_to": "20527__1_025", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_027", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "But did he not, un... under your view, have to know that there were regulations out there that required him to use the funds in one way rather than another?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2162.827], "stop_times": [2170.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2162.827}, "reply_to": "20527__1_026", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20527__1_028", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "No, not in the sense of specific regulations.\nNo.\nIt so happens in this case that it is alleged that the defendant was familiar with the Department of Education's regulations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2170.616, 2173.468, 2174.001], "stop_times": [2173.468, 2174.001, 2181.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2170.616}, "reply_to": "20527__1_027", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_029", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Well, at page 15 of... of your brief, you say the element requires that the defendant be aware that his use of the funds is unauthorized or wrongful.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2181.507], "stop_times": [2189.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2181.507}, "reply_to": "20527__1_028", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20527__1_030", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "That's correct.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2189.93, 2191.246], "stop_times": [2191.246, 2191.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2189.93}, "reply_to": "20527__1_029", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_031", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "I... I'm not quite sure how that squares with the answer you just gave Justice Stevens.\nSuppose he doesn't know about the regulation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2191.813, 2196.0], "stop_times": [2196.0, 2197.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2191.813}, "reply_to": "20527__1_030", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20527__1_032", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--Right.\nWell, he'd have to have some other way of knowing that the use was unauthorized, such as the school's manual required the refunds back to the lender in order to reduce the student's debt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2197.784, 2198.484], "stop_times": [2198.484, 2210.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2197.784}, "reply_to": "20527__1_031", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_033", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "So there... there's a... a felony if you violate the... the... the provisions in a school's guidebook or manual?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2210.407], "stop_times": [2218.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2210.407}, "reply_to": "20527__1_032", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20527__1_034", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "There's a felony if you knowingly and intentionally convert money when you know the money truly belonged to someone else.\nAnd that's a... it's definitely... it's a property crime.\nIt's the crime of conversion.\nAnd all we're saying here is that the defendant's acts must be deliberate and the defendant must know that this money belongs to someone else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2218.163, 2224.584, 2227.103, 2228.721], "stop_times": [2224.584, 2227.103, 2228.721, 2237.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2218.163}, "reply_to": "20527__1_033", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_035", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Well, the ordinary person, I guess, knows when he takes somebody else's money and uses it to buy something that the other person doesn't really want him to do, that that's probably a crime... ordinary conversion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2237.427], "stop_times": [2249.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2237.427}, "reply_to": "20527__1_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20527__1_036", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Right.\nAnd what this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2249.468, 2249.968], "stop_times": [2249.968, 2250.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2249.468}, "reply_to": "20527__1_035", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_037", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "And, all right, what about the 40,000 pages of... of rules that govern, in detail, how one is supposed to apply Federal money; anyone who violates any one of those rules is... is guilty of a crime?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2250.734], "stop_times": [2263.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2250.734}, "reply_to": "20527__1_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20527__1_038", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--No.\nI mean, there would have to be two things.\nThere'd have to be the requisite criminal intent, and there... there would also have to be the conduct of the conversion.\nAnd just a... a technical violation of the rule... for instance, if the defendant miscalculated the amount of the refund, that would be a violation of the regulation, but you wouldn't have the requisite criminal intent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2263.292, 2263.811, 2266.178, 2270.63], "stop_times": [2263.811, 2266.178, 2270.63, 2283.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2263.292}, "reply_to": "20527__1_037", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_039", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "What do you mean by requisite criminal intent?\nI don't understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2283.204, 2284.973], "stop_times": [2284.973, 2285.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2283.204}, "reply_to": "20527__1_038", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20527__1_040", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "That the defendant... that his conduct be deliberate, and the defendant know that the money should have been returned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2285.84], "stop_times": [2295.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2285.84}, "reply_to": "20527__1_039", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_041", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "For what reason should it have been re... just have some general hunch it should have been returned or must he know why it should have been returned?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2295.245], "stop_times": [2302.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2295.245}, "reply_to": "20527__1_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20527__1_042", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "In this case, and in most cases, the source of the knowledge is going to be the law, because it will be the Department of Education's regulations.\nOur point is that the word \"willfully\" does not have this meaning of requiring knowledge of illegality.\nWhich is the way the Court of Appeals construed it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2302.434, 2309.605, 2315.175], "stop_times": [2309.605, 2315.175, 2317.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2302.434}, "reply_to": "20527__1_041", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_043", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "But do you... do you understand this indictment to require the prosecutor in this case to prove that this defendant knew that there were regulations that he'd violated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2317.527], "stop_times": [2327.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2317.527}, "reply_to": "20527__1_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20527__1_044", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "No.\nThe indictment just said he had to act willfully.\nWhich, again, in our view, would mean he had to act deliberately.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2327.7, 2328.418, 2330.501], "stop_times": [2328.418, 2330.501, 2333.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2327.7}, "reply_to": "20527__1_043", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_045", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "But you also said with criminal intent... he could have criminal intent even if he did not know that the regulations prohibited what he did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2333.536], "stop_times": [2341.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2333.536}, "reply_to": "20527__1_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20527__1_046", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "As long as he has another... some knowledge that his conduct was prohibited.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2341.642], "stop_times": [2347.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2341.642}, "reply_to": "20527__1_045", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_047", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "But the only thing that prohibited the conduct was the regulations.\nThat's the... that's the source of his duty to do something else.\nAnd you say he does not have to know... he has to know the duty.\nHow could he know the duty without knowing what the regulations require?\nI don't understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2347.813, 2351.265, 2355.152, 2358.354, 2361.723], "stop_times": [2351.265, 2355.152, 2358.354, 2361.723, 2362.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2347.813}, "reply_to": "20527__1_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20527__1_048", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "He could have... the source of the duty could not only come from the school's manual, it could come from his boss--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2362.59], "stop_times": [2367.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2362.59}, "reply_to": "20527__1_047", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_049", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "But... but it didn't in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2367.725], "stop_times": [2369.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2367.725}, "reply_to": "20527__1_048", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20527__1_050", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2369.077], "stop_times": [2369.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2369.077}, "reply_to": "20527__1_049", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_051", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "We're trying a particular case in which it... there was a misapplication, because what he did, did not conform to some regulations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2369.477], "stop_times": [2376.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2369.477}, "reply_to": "20527__1_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20527__1_052", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2376.748], "stop_times": [2377.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2376.748}, "reply_to": "20527__1_051", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_053", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "You agree you must prove that he knew what he did was wrongful.\nAnd the only reason it would be wrongful was that he didn't comply with the regulations.\nBut you say you don't have to prove he... he knew he was not complying with the regulations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2377.35, 2380.302, 2384.253], "stop_times": [2380.302, 2384.253, 2387.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2377.35}, "reply_to": "20527__1_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20527__1_054", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "In this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2387.971], "stop_times": [2388.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2387.971}, "reply_to": "20527__1_053", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_055", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Your position is inconsistent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2388.255], "stop_times": [2389.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2388.255}, "reply_to": "20527__1_054", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20527__1_056", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--In this case, Justice Stevens, I think the proof would come, and the indictment does allege, that the defendant knew of the legal requirement to pay refunds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2389.823], "stop_times": [2397.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2389.823}, "reply_to": "20527__1_055", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_057", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "So, then, you are... are agreeing that in this case you must prove that he knew he was violating the regulations?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2397.561], "stop_times": [2402.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2397.561}, "reply_to": "20527__1_056", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20527__1_058", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "No; I'm saying in this case we can prove that.\nI'm not saying that we must prove it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2402.731, 2404.417], "stop_times": [2404.417, 2406.233], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2402.731}, "reply_to": "20527__1_057", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_059", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Well, how else could you prove a knowing misapplication in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2406.233], "stop_times": [2411.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2406.233}, "reply_to": "20527__1_058", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20527__1_060", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Oh, in this case, if the defendant had read the manual or if the defendant had a discussion with the financial aid director and the financial aid director said the Department of Education requires this.\nHe would understand that okay, this money needs to go to a lender.\nAnd he's intentionally engaging in a wrongful act by holding on to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2411.254, 2421.443, 2425.746], "stop_times": [2421.443, 2425.746, 2429.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2411.254}, "reply_to": "20527__1_059", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_061", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "But that's because you would have proved that he knew that the regulations required it.\nHis knowledge may have come through an oral conversation; he doesn't have to read the regulation.\nBut I... I do think you either have to agree that you have to prove that he knew he was violating a government command or you don't have to prove it.\nAnd I think you've admitted you do have to prove it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2429.632, 2433.15, 2437.054, 2445.244], "stop_times": [2433.15, 2437.054, 2445.244, 2447.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2429.632}, "reply_to": "20527__1_060", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20527__1_062", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "No; I... I've admitted we can prove it.\nI don't think we do have to prove it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2447.277, 2449.196], "stop_times": [2449.196, 2451.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2447.277}, "reply_to": "20527__1_061", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_063", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "But what other way could you prove know... knowing misapplication in this particular factual context?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2451.148], "stop_times": [2458.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2451.148}, "reply_to": "20527__1_062", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20527__1_064", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "If the school's manual set forth... which, in this case, it did... the duty to return money after a student's withdrawal.\nYou could also have a situation where the person--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2458.135, 2466.74], "stop_times": [2466.74, 2470.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2458.135}, "reply_to": "20527__1_063", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_065", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Do you think that would be a crime even if the government regulations didn't require it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2470.442], "stop_times": [2474.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2470.442}, "reply_to": "20527__1_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20527__1_066", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--No.\nThat wouldn't be a crime... not because of the intent, you just wouldn't have the crime of conversion.\nIf the money is in fact not used consistent with its authorized purposes, you would not have a crime to begin with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2474.244, 2474.561, 2479.065], "stop_times": [2474.561, 2479.065, 2485.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2474.244}, "reply_to": "20527__1_065", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_067", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Yeah, but, Ms. Blatt, I'd... I'd really like to at least get a... a few of your thoughts on the issue that was actually brought up before us.\nAnd... and if... if no one else thinks it's even worth talking about, I do anyway.\nLet's assume... it seems to me it... it's... it's not as cut and dried as... as you make it out.\nYou... you have a list of words: embezzles, steals, obtains by fraud, false statements or forgery.\nAnd in the midst of those words you have another word thrown in that... that doesn't have as much currency in... in the common law, \"misapplies\".\nNow, it's a rudimentary canon of interpretation... it's called ejusdem generis... that when... when you have a general word that's in a catalog of other words, you give it the same... the same coloration that those other words bear.\nThat seems very extraordinary to me to find the word \"misapplies\", as you interpret it, just, you know, well, I know it ought to go in this account, but, you know, I'm going to put it... what... what's the difference, you know.\nI'm not... I'm not stealing it.\nIt won't hurt the government.\nI'm just going to put it in this other account.\nI know it's the wrong account, but I think it's just as good, you know.\nTo find that word, as you interpret it, in the middle of these other ones... embezzles, steals, obtains by fraud, false statement or forgery... and then, you know, to have a... a 1-year--a 1-year imprisonment for it.\nWhy shouldn't I apply the... the... the canon of ejusdem generis and say, yeah, well, I know, you know, it's... it's a strange word, \"misapplies\"... but if it said \"takes\", I certainly wouldn't say, if... if you... if you took it without any intent of... of keeping it or anything like that, I... I think it's... it's very plausible that you have to have some wrongful intent in the misapplication, other than you just know you're putting it in the wrong account number.\nI put it in account 1001 instead of 1008.\nWho cares?\nThat's not embezzles, obtains by fraud and so forth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2485.719, 2494.141, 2499.879, 2506.299, 2515.321, 2524.677, 2540.289, 2551.929, 2553.413, 2554.631, 2556.065, 2559.683, 2576.379, 2604.546, 2607.498, 2608.816], "stop_times": [2494.141, 2499.879, 2506.299, 2515.321, 2524.677, 2540.289, 2551.929, 2553.413, 2554.631, 2556.065, 2559.683, 2576.379, 2604.546, 2607.498, 2608.816, 2613.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2485.719}, "reply_to": "20527__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20527__1_068", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Justice Scalia, we interpret the word \"misapply\" to mean convert.\nWhich is... in Morissette, this Court construed, in... in connection with similar words, such as \"stealing\" and \"embezzlement\".\nAnd the Court said that there are distinctions between those terms.\nAnd there's nothing innocent about using property in a way you're not supposed to use it.\nAnd... and... and as long as you are performing an act that's deliberate and you know that you're use is unauthorized, it should be a crime.\nYou don't separately need to prove fraudulent or injurious intent.\nAnd, again, not only do we have the... the text of the statute, where fraud is separately prohibited, but we have the words\n\"with intent to defraud the United States. \"\nin... in subsection 1097 (d).\nAnd it's... it's those textual features and structural features that make it clear that an intent to defraud or an intent to injure is not an element of the misapplication--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2613.587, 2618.056, 2627.412, 2631.548, 2638.135, 2645.975, 2650.61, 2658.616, 2660.818, 2663.687], "stop_times": [2618.056, 2627.412, 2631.548, 2638.135, 2645.975, 2650.61, 2658.616, 2660.818, 2663.687, 2673.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2613.587}, "reply_to": "20527__1_067", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_069", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Suppose that... that you have a university where you're a financial officer and you are dealing with lots of money.\nAnd there are probably rules that are... fill dozens of manuals.\nAnd you perhaps know them.\nAnd one day you say, my goodness, I'm going to pay the grounds men and not the professors for a week.\nAnd the reason you're doing it is there's some kind of odd shortage and they're poorer, so you want to pay them.\nIs it against the manual rule?\nYes.\nYou know it.\nYou'd never think it was a crime.\nNow, on your interpretation of the law, they're guilty.\nVery well.\nOn that interpretation of the law, looking at your statement of the question, which you thought was a rephrasing of his statement, why wouldn't you read the statute that there would not only have to be knowledge that your conduct was injuring the government, but that you would have to want to injure the government; i.e., you'd have to have a specific intent to injure the government before you would be guilty under such circumstances of a felony?\nNow, that's... that's taking your... I don't know that I agree with your interpretation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2673.226, 2679.963, 2684.766, 2686.383, 2693.622, 2698.674, 2700.276, 2700.86, 2701.86, 2704.412, 2708.382, 2709.582, 2738.151], "stop_times": [2679.963, 2684.766, 2686.383, 2693.622, 2698.674, 2700.276, 2700.86, 2701.86, 2704.412, 2708.382, 2709.582, 2738.151, 2742.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2673.226}, "reply_to": "20527__1_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20527__1_070", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2742.603], "stop_times": [2742.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2742.603}, "reply_to": "20527__1_069", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_071", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--but assuming that I did agree with your interpretation of 1 of 5,000 accounting manuals that are in a university, shouldn't that person at least have to want to hurt the government, rather than just knowing that the government will be deprived of 10 minutes use of some funds that he put in a different account?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2742.903], "stop_times": [2771.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2742.903}, "reply_to": "20527__1_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20527__1_072", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "We do not think an intent to injure is required.\nAnd even under the common understanding of conversion and embezzlement, the law is quite well... well settled that an intent to replace the money is not a defense.\nSo you could take your employer's money--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2771.472, 2775.341, 2785.216], "stop_times": [2775.341, 2785.216, 2787.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2771.472}, "reply_to": "20527__1_071", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_073", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Your view, then, is what Congress intended is to take any person in a university educational institution anywhere, and all they do is have to know that somebody in the organization told them, put the money over here rather than there, they're guilty of a felony?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2787.668], "stop_times": [2804.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2787.668}, "reply_to": "20527__1_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20527__1_074", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--Well, you still have to have the underlying conversion.\nAnd in the example you gave, I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2804.528, 2806.812], "stop_times": [2806.812, 2808.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2804.528}, "reply_to": "20527__1_073", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_075", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "The underlying conversion, according to you, is to take some government funds and use them in any manner, for however short a period of time, contrary to what your boss told you should be done--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2808.581], "stop_times": [2821.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2808.581}, "reply_to": "20527__1_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20527__1_076", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--Well, and... and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2821.222], "stop_times": [2822.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2821.222}, "reply_to": "20527__1_075", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_077", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--and the regulation supports the boss?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2822.122], "stop_times": [2824.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2822.122}, "reply_to": "20527__1_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20527__1_078", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--No.\nAnd of course you have to convert it to your own use or the use of another.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2824.524, 2824.824], "stop_times": [2824.824, 2827.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2824.524}, "reply_to": "20527__1_077", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_079", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Well, the use told about was not necessarily your personal desire.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2827.726], "stop_times": [2830.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2827.726}, "reply_to": "20527__1_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20527__1_080", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2830.095], "stop_times": [2830.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2830.095}, "reply_to": "20527__1_079", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_081", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "You desired to put it in account A rather than account B.\nIt may--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2830.411, 2833.78], "stop_times": [2833.78, 2834.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2830.411}, "reply_to": "20527__1_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20527__1_082", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Well, it still has to be for either your use or the use of a third party.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2834.413], "stop_times": [2839.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2834.413}, "reply_to": "20527__1_081", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_083", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--I suppose, under Justice Breyer's hypothetical construction, it would be a defense for a person to say, I knew I was taking $40,000 of the government's money, but I didn't intend to hurt them; they have millions back in Washington?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2839.601, 2853.626], "stop_times": [2853.626, 2854.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2839.601}, "reply_to": "20527__1_082", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20527__1_084", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Right.\nAnd it's... it's not a defense to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2854.093, 2854.41], "stop_times": [2854.41, 2857.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2854.093}, "reply_to": "20527__1_083", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_085", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "That suggests that something is wrong somewhere.\nYeah--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2857.162, 2859.614], "stop_times": [2859.614, 2860.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2857.162}, "reply_to": "20527__1_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20527__1_086", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--No--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2860.214, 2861.03], "stop_times": [2861.03, 2861.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2860.214}, "reply_to": "20527__1_085", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_087", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--Just another--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2861.632], "stop_times": [2862.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2861.632}, "reply_to": "20527__1_086", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20527__1_088", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "No.\nYou can't... I mean, it is... really, it is quite well settled that it's not a defense to either embezzlement or conversion to take money, hoping that the person is not hurt because you're going to give it back.\nAnd here, the school cannot defend on the argument that, well, we didn't intend to hurt the government, because these students are ultimately going to repay the loan; the government is not going to be hurt.\nOr we intended to pay the refund some day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2862.482, 2863.066, 2873.274, 2884.38], "stop_times": [2863.066, 2873.274, 2884.38, 2886.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2862.482}, "reply_to": "20527__1_087", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_089", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--Well, this wasn't embezzlement, because the funds could be commingled and... and be used, I take it, for other purposes, provided some other funds were adequate, ultimately, to make up the shortfall; isn't that the rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2886.598], "stop_times": [2897.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2886.598}, "reply_to": "20527__1_088", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20527__1_090", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "The... the crime here, Justice Kennedy, is... is on the failure to refund on the 60th day.\nAnd so the... how they spend the money up until the student withdrawal and the amount--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2897.389, 2902.174], "stop_times": [2902.174, 2907.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2897.389}, "reply_to": "20527__1_089", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_091", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "So if... if a thief comes in and... and takes... and takes the money, it's still a violation not to refund it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2907.078], "stop_times": [2912.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2907.078}, "reply_to": "20527__1_090", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20527__1_092", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--Oh, if... if they can't... if it's... if they... if it's not a voluntary act, because someone stole the money--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2912.915], "stop_times": [2918.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2912.915}, "reply_to": "20527__1_091", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_093", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "But I... I thought you said the vi... the violation is not making the refund within 60 days.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2918.986], "stop_times": [2922.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2918.986}, "reply_to": "20527__1_092", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20527__1_094", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--With the requisite intent.\nAnd that would have to be both a voluntary act and a knowing act.\nAnd if someone stole other monies--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2922.171, 2923.457, 2926.357], "stop_times": [2923.457, 2926.357, 2928.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2922.171}, "reply_to": "20527__1_093", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_095", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Well, they don't have the money because they... A, somebody stole it; B, they paid some other account.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2928.459], "stop_times": [2933.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2928.459}, "reply_to": "20527__1_094", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20527__1_096", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "--Well, the distinction, again... and I think the words \"knowingly and willfully\" would take care of that and you wouldn't, in any event, need to read intent to defraud into the statute... but the issue would turn on whether the act is voluntary and knowing or if, for some reason, it was beyond the defendant's control.\nAnd... but that would be the... the guiding principles.\nAnd if a defendant is intentionally spending this money that's not theirs and that's not earned until the student finishes the term, and doesn't pay the refund obligation, knowing the money has got to go back to the lender within 60 days, you have a misapplication of Title IV funds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2933.495, 2950.19, 2955.059], "stop_times": [2950.19, 2955.059, 2970.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2933.495}, "reply_to": "20527__1_095", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_097", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Suppose they think they're going to get other sums to make up the shortfall, and they just... and they... and they don't, something just happens?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2970.687], "stop_times": [2978.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2970.687}, "reply_to": "20527__1_096", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20527__1_098", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "They should not have been spending unearned money.\nAnd if they're intentionally spending that unearned money... and... and these schools are fiduciaries with respect to this money as well... if they do not organize their affairs, or intentionally organize their affairs such that money is not available and students withdraw, in our view, the statute would cover it.\nBut... but... but, again, I mean, the issue is whether an intent to defraud or injure would be required, when there's nothing in the text or the history or the structure of the statute to suggest that it should be read into it.\nI don't... in conclusion, if there are no questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [2978.941, 2981.809, 2997.255, 3009.895], "stop_times": [2981.809, 2997.255, 3009.895, 3020.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2978.941}, "reply_to": "20527__1_097", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20527__1_099", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Blatt.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [3020.184, 3022.136], "stop_times": [3022.136, 3023.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3020.184}, "reply_to": "20527__1_098", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20527__1_100", "conversation_id": "20527", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7185", "start_times": [3023.386], "stop_times": [3030.556], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3023.386}, "reply_to": "20527__1_099", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20467__0_000", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-370, the Bay Area Laundry and Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund v. Ferbar Corporation of California.\nMs. Berzon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [0.0, 7.136], "stop_times": [7.136, 9.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20467__0_001", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe 1980 ERISA amendments set up a complicated, complex scheme for assuring the long-run stability of multiemployer plans, pension plans, when employers for many perfectly valid reasons, legal reasons, cease making contributions to the plans.\nThat scheme requires that some but not all withdrawing employers make withdrawal liability payments in amounts that are dictated by the statute under a periodic payment scheme that can extend for as long as 20 years, and that is also largely dictated by the statute.\nThe question before the Court in this case is when a cause of action to collect one or more of those unpaid withdrawal liability payments accrues under the 1980 act.\nThe answer to that question in our view is rather simple and straightforward, and it depends on two fundamental principles of statute of limitations law.\nThe first, and on this point I don't think there's any dispute among the parties, is that ordinarily a limitations period runs from when a cause of action accrues, and in this statute that's made quite explicit by 1451(a), and that means when the plaintiff can first file a lawsuit, not before.\nThe statute here so states in 1451(a) that the... there's a cause of action... in 1451(f), I'm sorry, that the limitations period runs from when the cause of action arose.\nThe second principle, and here the consensus among the parties I think somewhat collapses, is that a plaintiff's right to file suit ordinarily is triggered by some breach of duty by the potential defendant as defined by the relevant legal rules.\nHere that's the 1980 act, and the rules that it sets up for determining when the defendant, potential defendant, the employer in this case, is required to make payments, so unless one knows when the employer has breached a legal obligation one really can't make a sensible decision about when the statute of limitations starts to run.\nThat is, there has to be a situation in which a court could issue a corrective order in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in order for a cause of action to accrue, so the limitations decision is really the flip side of a set of understandings about what obligations, duties, and rights the statute sets up to begin with and can't be looked at in isolation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [9.356, 12.139, 29.191, 46.412, 59.111, 68.106, 88.568, 100.248, 115.067, 135.462], "stop_times": [12.139, 29.191, 46.412, 59.111, 68.106, 88.568, 100.248, 115.067, 135.462, 156.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.356}, "reply_to": "20467__0_000", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__0_002", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Does interest run on withdrawal liability?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [156.674], "stop_times": [160.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 156.674}, "reply_to": "20467__0_001", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20467__0_003", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Interest runs on withdrawal liability payments, but in an odd way that was described by this Court in Schlitz.\nThat is, once the demand has been made, once there has been an assessment and a demand and a stated period in which the payments have to be made, then interest runs on payments--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [160.598, 168.442], "stop_times": [168.442, 178.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 160.598}, "reply_to": "20467__0_002", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__0_004", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "So interest would not run from the date of withdrawal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [178.109], "stop_times": [181.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 178.109}, "reply_to": "20467__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20467__0_005", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--It doesn't run from the date of withdrawal, and if the fund does not assess the withdrawal for some period of time it runs only, as described by this court in Schlitz, as if the payment was made on the first day of the date following withdrawal no matter when they're actually made, even if it the demand isn't to make them until sometime later.\nSo to apply these general principles to this case, there are really three factors that are the most important.\nThe first is that the withdrawal itself is not a violation of any legal obligation, ceasing to make contributions is not the violation of any legal obligation, and that the date of withdrawal is often determined after the fact by a set of events that occur after what is later decided to be the date of withdrawal.\nSo the date of withdrawal is really a datum in a bunch of calculations, and not a date on which an employer is supposed to do anything, and what that means for purposes of the limitations inquiry here is that if the fund had tried to sue the employer on the date of withdrawal they would have been summarily dismissed from their lawsuit because no demand had been made for payment and the employer had no obligation to pay anything.\nThe second critical factor is that the employer does violate the statute once it fails to pay any withdrawal liability payment on the schedule that is set by the fund in the demand letter, again largely prescribed by the statute.\nThat is the schedule and the amount both.\nSo what we have here is sort of like a... any bill, like a telephone or a credit card or a legal bill or a hospital bill in which there is a liability that is incurred regarding facts that occur on a certain date, but until you get a bill that requires you to make a payment there's no obligation to pay, no obligation that has been breached, and no potential lawsuit until that date.\nAnd this rule is a rule that, although the employer in this case seems to take issue with it, is one that has been understood by hundreds of courts over hundreds of years, including this Court in a series of cases including Rawlings v. Ray and others.\nThat is that ordinarily when you're dealing with a debt a cause of action accrues on a date that there is an obligation to pay the debt, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [181.192, 200.255, 208.72, 228.793, 254.06, 275.145, 277.478, 304.506, 321.859], "stop_times": [200.255, 208.72, 228.793, 254.06, 275.145, 277.478, 304.506, 321.859, 330.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 181.192}, "reply_to": "20467__0_004", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__0_006", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "So under your view, I mean, there would be a separate cause of action for each instalment payment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [330.917], "stop_times": [336.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 330.917}, "reply_to": "20467__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20467__0_007", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--Well, that's correct as well, although it was the third point that I was going to make, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [336.828], "stop_times": [343.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 336.828}, "reply_to": "20467__0_006", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__0_008", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "And that means that in theory it could continue on for 26 years or so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [343.283], "stop_times": [349.677], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 343.283}, "reply_to": "20467__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20467__0_009", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--There are two things to be said about that.\nOne is that the reason, of course, why it is possible that there could be suits for failure to pay, make payments for a long period, is because Congress allowed a long period in which these payments to be made.\nIn other words, Congress could have required that the payment be made up front, but in fact, and largely for the benefit of employers and so as not to require them to make huge payments immediately--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [349.677, 352.229, 366.49], "stop_times": [352.229, 366.49, 378.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 349.677}, "reply_to": "20467__0_008", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__0_010", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "And I suppose if there's an early default the plan's sponsor could accelerate the balance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [378.239], "stop_times": [382.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 378.239}, "reply_to": "20467__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20467__0_011", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--Correct.\nThis provision has an express permissive acceleration clause which says that the plan's sponsor may accelerate upon a default as defined in the statute.\nThe statute defines default in a particular way so that there needs to be a notice, first, of delinquency and then 60 days from that notice before a default could be declared.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [382.902, 383.212, 394.371], "stop_times": [383.212, 394.371, 406.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 382.902}, "reply_to": "20467__0_010", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__0_012", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "So under your theory the statute of limitations in this case would have started to run 6 years after the nonpayment of the first instalment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [406.74], "stop_times": [416.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 406.74}, "reply_to": "20467__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20467__0_013", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "On the first instalment, and on each instalment as it came due, because the debt was not in fact accelerated and because of the additional fact that under the more specific aspects of the statutory scheme it actually could not have been accelerated because although, as I said before, there is a permissive acceleration clause, it was not operative during the relevant periods in this case, and it wasn't operative because first it was too early, that is, the 60 days had not run at any period of time outside--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [416.837], "stop_times": [447.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 416.837}, "reply_to": "20467__0_012", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__0_014", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Ms. Berzon, you keep mentioning the 60 days, but as I understand it, that's... that has never been passed on by any court.\nWe have a decision from the court of appeals that we are reviewing that puts you out of the ball park entirely because it dates the time from the withdrawal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [447.917, 456.842], "stop_times": [456.842, 466.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 447.917}, "reply_to": "20467__0_013", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20467__0_015", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [466.479], "stop_times": [467.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 466.479}, "reply_to": "20467__0_014", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__0_016", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "The argument that you made in your brief about the 60-day period as I understand it was not passed on by any court below, so you may be wrong, or you may be right about it, but you are asking us to take a first view of that question, which ordinarily we don't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [467.361], "stop_times": [486.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 467.361}, "reply_to": "20467__0_015", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20467__0_017", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Let me see if I can understand.\nThere are two different time or issues that you might be referring to.\nOne is the question which, while not passed on by the court below because of the view it took that the date runs from withdrawal, has been addressed by other courts of appeals, that is, by the Third Circuit and by the Seventh Circuit, which is a purely legal issue, and that is, if one agrees that the limitations period runs from missed payments, not from the date of withdrawal, does it run as it would under the common law with respect to instalment payments generally--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [486.873, 488.436, 493.531], "stop_times": [488.436, 493.531, 520.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 486.873}, "reply_to": "20467__0_016", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__0_018", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Why should we reach that question when the court we're reviewing hasn't reached it?\nWe don't know what position they would take if they hadn't gotten the first thing wrong, if they hadn't used the withdrawal date, and you're arguing... that's your basic proposition.\nIf the court of appeals is right about that, that's the end of the case.\nIf they're wrong about that, then there are further issues that other courts of appeals have addressed but this one never reached.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [520.087, 524.169, 534.457, 537.59], "stop_times": [524.169, 534.457, 537.59, 543.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 520.087}, "reply_to": "20467__0_017", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20467__0_019", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--That's true.\nI would argue that this is an area in which some guidance and certainty is of some use to the practitioners and to the funds, and there is, I would say... the issue is certainly presented by the facts of the case, and the overall issue of when the statute of limitations runs or begins to run and in what manner is presented by the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [543.794, 545.384], "stop_times": [545.384, 569.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 543.794}, "reply_to": "20467__0_018", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__0_020", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "But if you're right about the 60 days, so your whole thing would be timely, this other question about each instalment is academic in your case because it wouldn't matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [569.45], "stop_times": [579.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 569.45}, "reply_to": "20467__0_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20467__0_021", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "It's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [579.828], "stop_times": [580.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 579.828}, "reply_to": "20467__0_020", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__0_022", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "The whole thing would be timely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [580.299], "stop_times": [581.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 580.299}, "reply_to": "20467__0_021", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20467__0_023", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--If... then I think that you are assuming a second issue, other than the time by... than the periodic-payment-by-periodic-payment issue, and that is whether or not the first payment... this lawsuit was timely with respect to the first payment, and we do argue that it was timely with respect to the first payment, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [581.728], "stop_times": [604.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 581.728}, "reply_to": "20467__0_022", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__0_024", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Yes, and if you're right about that, that... the rest of it doesn't matter because you're in under the wire.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [604.734], "stop_times": [610.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 604.734}, "reply_to": "20467__0_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20467__0_025", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--That's true.\nThere is some dispute as to whether that's the case, and if you accept our position that even as to the first missed payment this suit was timely, because the earliest that we could have required it to be paid was at the end of a 60-day period from the demand--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [610.596, 611.227], "stop_times": [611.227, 627.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 610.596}, "reply_to": "20467__0_024", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__0_026", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Yes, and that's something that you have urged and that has not been passed on by any other court, so I understand that the first question is certainly before us, but I don't understand that anything else is because it hasn't... we would be acting as a court of first view, not a court of review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [627.489], "stop_times": [649.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 627.489}, "reply_to": "20467__0_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20467__0_027", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--All right, but that is separate from the issue of whether we necessarily prevail without deciding that question, and the answer is we do not necessarily prevail because of the schedule here, and perhaps I can clarify that.\nWe filed suit here on February 9, 1993.\nThat was within the 6-year period from the date on which the demand letter required the entire withdrawal liability to be paid if the employer so choose... chose under the prepayment option.\nIt was within 6 years of the date on which we understand the statute to have permitted the first payment to have been required, also 60 days, but the demand letter actually said February 1, 1987, so the only argument on which we possibly do not prevail on the entire debt... and here we're talking about a difference of $345... is if one views the lawsuit as not timely from the date of the first missed payment, because we said in our demand letter that it was due on February 1, although in our view that was a legal error.\nActually it was due on February 10, if that's at all clarified.\nSo there are views of this case on which it does matter whether the limitations period runs on a instalment-by-instalment basis, and other views on which it doesn't matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [649.842, 661.98, 666.835, 680.212, 714.676, 717.2], "stop_times": [661.98, 666.835, 680.212, 714.676, 717.2, 730.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 649.842}, "reply_to": "20467__0_026", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__0_028", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "But if you're right about even the first payment, that you were timely, then why should we get to the question of instalment or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [730.978], "stop_times": [744.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 730.978}, "reply_to": "20467__0_027", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20467__0_029", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Well, if I'm right on the first payment being timely then you don't need to.\nI'm saying that's in some dispute.\nThat question is in some dispute.\nIf I can go briefly to what I understand--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [744.417, 747.659, 748.941, 751.662], "stop_times": [747.659, 748.941, 751.662, 757.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 744.417}, "reply_to": "20467__0_028", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__0_030", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Is... am I correct in understanding that the option that you think is correct is not any of the four that you listed in your cert petition, because you said your... first is the withdrawal date, second the date when the payment becomes overdue, you're not relying on that, then for each payment due, on the date the payment becomes overdue unless the plan's sponsor elects to evoke the statutory provision on acceleration or some other date, at some other date you think is right, is when the demand--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [757.485], "stop_times": [784.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 757.485}, "reply_to": "20467__0_029", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20467__0_031", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--No.\nActually we believe that it is for each payment due on the date that the payment becomes overdue, unless the plan's sponsor elects to invoke--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [784.284, 784.524], "stop_times": [784.524, 791.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 784.284}, "reply_to": "20467__0_030", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__0_032", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--And... but when does it become overdue, when it was not paid, or when you made a further demand?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [791.139], "stop_times": [795.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 791.139}, "reply_to": "20467__0_031", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20467__0_033", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--When it was not paid is when that particular payment is not due, but that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [795.029], "stop_times": [798.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 795.029}, "reply_to": "20467__0_032", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__0_034", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Well, then you're not in time for the first payment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [798.892], "stop_times": [801.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 798.892}, "reply_to": "20467__0_033", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20467__0_035", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--I sort of hate to get side-tracked on it, because it's a $345 problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [801.116], "stop_times": [806.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 801.116}, "reply_to": "20467__0_034", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__0_036", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [806.8], "stop_times": [807.007], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 806.8}, "reply_to": "20467__0_035", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20467__0_037", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "But we would maintain, and do in the briefs, that there is a view of the statute on which we were timely with respect to the first payment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [807.007], "stop_times": [815.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 807.007}, "reply_to": "20467__0_036", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__0_038", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "But the view of the statute is it did not... you could not have sued on the date it became overdue if you didn't... you couldn't have sued until he--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [815.415], "stop_times": [821.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 815.415}, "reply_to": "20467__0_037", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20467__0_039", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "No, the view of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [821.549], "stop_times": [821.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 821.549}, "reply_to": "20467__0_038", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__0_040", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--read the demand letter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [821.729], "stop_times": [822.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 821.729}, "reply_to": "20467__0_039", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20467__0_041", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--statute is that the statute required us to wait 60 days to collect the first missed payment, and that when we said that it was due on February 1 we were in error.\nIt couldn't have been that date.\nIt really had to be February 10.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [822.26, 830.866, 832.088], "stop_times": [830.866, 832.088, 833.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 822.26}, "reply_to": "20467__0_040", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__0_042", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "But was it not overdue on the first date?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [833.53], "stop_times": [836.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 833.53}, "reply_to": "20467__0_041", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20467__0_043", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "No.\nWe would maintain on that view that it couldn't have been overdue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [836.799, 837.03], "stop_times": [837.03, 839.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 836.799}, "reply_to": "20467__0_042", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__0_044", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "It was not overdue until 60 days after the date you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [839.263], "stop_times": [841.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 839.263}, "reply_to": "20467__0_043", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20467__0_045", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Of the demand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [841.544], "stop_times": [841.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 841.544}, "reply_to": "20467__0_044", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__0_046", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--it was supposed to have been made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [841.835], "stop_times": [842.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 841.835}, "reply_to": "20467__0_045", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20467__0_047", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [842.636], "stop_times": [842.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 842.636}, "reply_to": "20467__0_046", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__0_048", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [842.816], "stop_times": [843.365], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 842.816}, "reply_to": "20467__0_047", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20467__0_049", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "And that is the view on which every... we are timely with respect to the... every... each and every payment, but as I say, that is really in some ways the least important problem here, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [843.365], "stop_times": [853.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 843.365}, "reply_to": "20467__0_048", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__0_050", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Well, maybe it isn't important in this case, but you're saying it is certainly in the laws of some importance to people who practice in this area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [853.552], "stop_times": [860.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 853.552}, "reply_to": "20467__0_049", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20467__0_051", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--Right, exactly, and if you were to conclude that we were right about that, then you really wouldn't have to decide the payment-by-payment issue, and if you were not, then you would have to go on to decide whether, although the first missed payment had... was gone, every other payment was within the time period, as any instalment contract lawyer would, you know, quickly conclude.\nI want to just very briefly, before reserving the rest of my time, to comment on one issue that the employer here has harped on quite frequently, and that is the contention that on our view of the statute, that is that it can... the limitations period cannot possibly run from the date of withdrawal, that there is some fundamental problem because then we are... we can indefinitely delay assessment, and the plain answer to that is that the Congress did deal with that problem.\nIt dealt with... saw the timeliness issues here as two different ones, one dealing with the timeliness of the demand and one dealing with the timeliness of the lawsuit.\nWith respect to the timeliness of the demand, the statute specifically provides that that has to be done as soon as practicable.\nThat is an enforceable provision of the statute like any other provision of the statute, and does not at all lead to the kinds of problems that the employer suggests.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [860.187, 887.263, 920.616, 927.462, 933.285], "stop_times": [887.263, 920.616, 927.462, 933.285, 941.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 860.187}, "reply_to": "20467__0_050", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__0_052", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "In this case, in the complaint didn't you ask to accelerate the entire amount?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [941.871], "stop_times": [946.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 941.871}, "reply_to": "20467__0_051", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20467__0_053", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "We... in the alternative.\nThere were--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [946.645, 948.606], "stop_times": [948.606, 950.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 946.645}, "reply_to": "20467__0_052", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__0_054", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Doesn't that amount to an election of the option to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [950.018], "stop_times": [952.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 950.018}, "reply_to": "20467__0_053", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20467__0_055", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [952.6], "stop_times": [954.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 952.6}, "reply_to": "20467__0_054", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__0_056", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--Maybe that's not going to bar you anyway, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [954.63], "stop_times": [955.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 954.63}, "reply_to": "20467__0_055", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20467__0_057", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--I... it doesn't seem to me to amount to an election of the option for two reasons, first because it was a fourth cause of action which was simply for all the missed payments and a future injunction, and secondly because it was later in interrogatories in the case, which are not in the record before the Court, agreed that in fact that acceleration was improper.\nIt was improper both because it was too early and because there was a pending arbitration in the case, and under the PBGC's rules you cannot accelerate while there's a pending arbitration.\nSo even if one viewed the complaint as an attempt to accelerate, it was an ineffective attempt to accelerate, an invalid attempt to accelerate.\nThank you.\nI'd like to reserve the remainder of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [955.992, 977.324, 988.673, 995.228, 996.63], "stop_times": [977.324, 988.673, 995.228, 996.63, 998.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 955.992}, "reply_to": "20467__0_056", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__0_058", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--Very well, Ms. Berzon.\nMr. DuMont.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [998.032, 999.602], "stop_times": [999.602, 1001.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 998.032}, "reply_to": "20467__0_057", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20467__1_000", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "It's Mr. Terheyden, Your Honor... oh, I apologize, to Mr. DuMont, and to the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1001.224], "stop_times": [1010.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1001.224}, "reply_to": "20467__0_058", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__2_000", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis is a statutory collection action, and it may be helpful to return for a moment to the words of the statute at issue, which are reprinted at page 17a of the petitioner's brief.\n29 U.S.C. section 1451(a)(1) gives a cause of action to a plan fiduciary... I'm eliding some material... a plan fiduciary who is adversely affected by the act or omission of any party under this subtitle who may bring an action for appropriate legal or equitable relief.\nNow, our basic submission, along with that of petitioner's, is quite simple, first, that the only relevant adverse effects under the subtitle, under the statute, arose not from respondent's withdrawal from the plan, but from its failure to pay withdrawal liability on the schedule prescribed by the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1010.269, 1015.072, 1028.432, 1049.355], "stop_times": [1015.072, 1028.432, 1049.355, 1070.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1010.269}, "reply_to": "20467__1_000", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20467__2_001", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Why don't you take the position that counsel for the petitioner does that the 60-day rule with respect to the first payment actually makes the date of adverse consequence the date upon which it could have been demanded... the date upon which it could have been collected rather than the date upon which they demanded the payment to be made?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1070.889], "stop_times": [1091.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1070.889}, "reply_to": "20467__2_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20467__2_002", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "We... that is a conceivable reading of that section of the statute.\nWe don't think it's the best reading.\nWe think that the statutory section is best read to give that 60 days as a terminus before which the plan must make the payment due, but I think if you look at normal practice, from what I understand from the PBGC, and also the reported cases make this fairly clear, the normal practice is for plans to set a date that is within the 60 days but is not actually the sixty-first day from the date of demand.\nAnd that makes a lot of practical sense, because what you... what the plan often wants to do is make the payment due on the same day that the payments normally were due before the withdrawal, or on some day that's convenient for accounting purposes, as opposed to being tied to a specific thirtieth or sixtieth day from the date of demand, which would unduly constrain either the date you want to send the notice or the date that you set the payment to be due, so we think the best reading is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1091.802, 1096.077, 1097.319, 1122.927], "stop_times": [1096.077, 1097.319, 1122.927, 1146.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1091.802}, "reply_to": "20467__2_001", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20467__2_003", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "But would... if they sued on the stated day, which was before the sixty-first day, would they be subject to a motion to dismiss?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1146.822], "stop_times": [1153.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1146.822}, "reply_to": "20467__2_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20467__2_004", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--We believe the payment is due on the day that is specified in the schedule--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1153.307], "stop_times": [1157.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1153.307}, "reply_to": "20467__2_003", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20467__2_005", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "So the answer is no?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1157.801], "stop_times": [1158.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1157.801}, "reply_to": "20467__2_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20467__2_006", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--The answer is that suit would be timely if it was before the sixty-first day, but after the day that the payment was due under the schedule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1158.711], "stop_times": [1167.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1158.711}, "reply_to": "20467__2_005", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20467__2_007", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Well, so you're saying that even though the schedule set forth a date before the sixty-first day, suit would be timely 6 years after the sixty-first day, and that there was a failure to pay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1167.285], "stop_times": [1181.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1167.285}, "reply_to": "20467__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20467__2_008", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "No.\nThe suit would have to be filed within 6 years of the day specified in the plan's schedule as the day the first payment was due, is our position, which is not the position the petitioners are taking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1181.917, 1182.385], "stop_times": [1182.385, 1195.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1181.917}, "reply_to": "20467__2_007", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20467__2_009", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "So you are rejecting their 60-day--under your reading of the statute, the first... they sued too late to recover the first payment, is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1195.215], "stop_times": [1206.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1195.215}, "reply_to": "20467__2_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20467__2_010", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "That's correct, which is why in our view of the way the statute is best construed it is necessary for the Court to reach the question passed on by the Seventh Circuit, which is, was there only one cause of action and therefore when the first payment was missed was there a sort of automatic acceleration back to that point, so that if you missed the first payment you missed everything.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1206.392], "stop_times": [1228.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1206.392}, "reply_to": "20467__2_009", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20467__2_011", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--Then you think that 60-day is so clearly wrong on the petitioner's part that it shouldn't be something that we should remand to the court of appeals, which never considered it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1228.787], "stop_times": [1237.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1228.787}, "reply_to": "20467__2_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20467__2_012", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "I think it's perfectly within this Court's options to reject the rule that the Ninth Circuit came up with, which was running from the date of withdrawal, and to leave all the other issues for resolution below.\nThat would not be what we would think was the most appropriate outcome, and we think there are several questions that are fairly presented and fairly subsumed within the question, and that the Court could usefully make clear for the benefit of the bar, but certainly it would be proper for the Court merely to resolve the narrow question you suggest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1237.954, 1249.8], "stop_times": [1249.8, 1267.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1237.954}, "reply_to": "20467__2_011", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20467__2_013", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "This 60-day dispute for purposes of the present case is only relevant as to the first payment, but the issue, the issue of whether the 60 days is what counts or not, applies to every payment set under this scheme, doesn't it?\nIt's not just the first payment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1267.285, 1283.244], "stop_times": [1283.244, 1283.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1267.285}, "reply_to": "20467__2_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20467__2_014", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "That's correct.\nI'm sorry, which 60 days, now, are we talking about there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1283.985, 1284.365], "stop_times": [1284.365, 1288.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1283.985}, "reply_to": "20467__2_013", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20467__2_015", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Well, that's what I'm... as I read the statute, it says the failure of an employer to pay any overdue withdrawal liability payment, any payment, not just the first, within 60 days after the employer receives written notification from the plan's sponsor that the payment is overdue.\nIsn't that the 60-day provision you're talking about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1288.62, 1304.218], "stop_times": [1304.218, 1306.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1288.62}, "reply_to": "20467__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20467__2_016", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Well, no.\nThat is a different 60-day provision--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1306.909, 1307.2], "stop_times": [1307.2, 1309.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1306.909}, "reply_to": "20467__2_015", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20467__2_017", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1309.062], "stop_times": [1309.263], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1309.062}, "reply_to": "20467__2_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20467__2_018", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--which is the 60 days--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1309.263], "stop_times": [1310.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1309.263}, "reply_to": "20467__2_017", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20467__2_019", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Now, which one are you talking about here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1310.144], "stop_times": [1310.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1310.144}, "reply_to": "20467__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20467__2_020", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--We are talking about 1399(c)(2).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1310.885], "stop_times": [1316.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1310.885}, "reply_to": "20467__2_019", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20467__2_021", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Give me the U.S. Code cite, would you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1316.99], "stop_times": [1319.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1316.99}, "reply_to": "20467__2_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20467__2_022", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "It's... U.S. Code is 29 U.S.C. 1399(c)(2), and it's on page 15a of the petition... of the blue brief... which says the withdrawal liability is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1319.12], "stop_times": [1331.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1319.12}, "reply_to": "20467__2_021", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20467__2_023", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Where in the blue brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1331.051], "stop_times": [1332.35], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1331.051}, "reply_to": "20467__2_022", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20467__2_024", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--Page 15a.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1332.35], "stop_times": [1333.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1332.35}, "reply_to": "20467__2_023", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20467__2_025", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "(c)(2).\nI have it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1333.862, 1336.325], "stop_times": [1336.325, 1337.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1333.862}, "reply_to": "20467__2_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20467__2_026", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "(c)(2).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1337.255], "stop_times": [1337.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1337.255}, "reply_to": "20467__2_025", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20467__2_027", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Good.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1337.726], "stop_times": [1337.936], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1337.726}, "reply_to": "20467__2_026", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20467__2_028", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Withdrawal liability is payable... this is the actually payable part... in accordance with the schedule set forth by the plan, beginning no later than 60 days after the date of the demand, notwithstanding any request for review or appeal.\nThis is part of what goes into the pay-now-dispute-later feature of the statute, which we think is quite important.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1337.936, 1351.236], "stop_times": [1351.236, 1357.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1337.936}, "reply_to": "20467__2_027", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20467__2_029", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Well now, why wouldn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1357.139], "stop_times": [1359.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1357.139}, "reply_to": "20467__2_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20467__2_030", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "The 60 days that I believe you were referring to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1359.492], "stop_times": [1361.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1359.492}, "reply_to": "20467__2_029", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20467__2_031", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1361.092], "stop_times": [1361.342], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1361.092}, "reply_to": "20467__2_030", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20467__2_032", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--is the 60 days that is incorporated in the definition of default, which is on the next page, page 16a, really carrying over from 15a, that default means failure of an employer to make, when due, any payment if the failure is not cured within 60 days, and our submission there, which is fairly important, is that that default... the definition of default is relevant for only one thing, and that is whether or not the plan is entitled under the statute to accelerate the entire remaining unpaid liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1361.342], "stop_times": [1397.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1361.342}, "reply_to": "20467__2_031", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20467__2_033", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1397.286], "stop_times": [1397.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1397.286}, "reply_to": "20467__2_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20467__2_034", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "And that is quite different from the question of whether a particular payment or set of payments are overdue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1397.618], "stop_times": [1402.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1397.618}, "reply_to": "20467__2_033", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20467__2_035", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "You're saying it is a default, but not a default within the meaning of the provision of the act that allows acceleration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1402.452], "stop_times": [1408.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1402.452}, "reply_to": "20467__2_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20467__2_036", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Right.\nA missing of the first payment, yes, is exactly right.\nIt's an overdue... it's a delinquency rather than a default.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1408.637, 1411.018, 1414.063], "stop_times": [1411.018, 1414.063, 1418.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1408.637}, "reply_to": "20467__2_035", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20467__2_037", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "May I just inquire, to be sure I understand what you're saying, the provision on page 15a, the (c)(2) provision, that 60 days in your view merely sets an outer limit on the time... on when the payment can become due.\nThat... when the plan may request payment.\nIt must fix a date within that 60-day period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1418.073, 1433.474, 1441.338], "stop_times": [1433.474, 1441.338, 1444.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1418.073}, "reply_to": "20467__2_036", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20467__2_038", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "The one on 15a----", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1444.801], "stop_times": [1445.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1444.801}, "reply_to": "20467__2_037", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20467__2_039", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1445.912], "stop_times": [1446.163], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1445.912}, "reply_to": "20467__2_038", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20467__2_040", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--(c)(2).\nThat's right.\nIt only... our position is, it's for the protection of the beneficiaries, essentially.\nIt allows the plan some flexibility in setting the beginning of the schedule, but it sets an outer limit past which they may not go.\nThey must make the first payment due within that first 60 days, so it's really not for the protection of employers at all.\nIt's for the protection of the beneficiaries.\nReally, in sum we have only four points to make, first that accrual, as is the general rule everywhere, follows the right to sue, and here the right to sue under the statute arises not from withdrawal, as the Ninth Circuit held, but from the failure to make a statutory payment when due under the statute, and that's the only thing the plan could ever have sued for, and that's all they sued for here.\nThe further consequences of that we think follow from a routine application of principles of... general principles of law under the statutes of limitations and acceleration law, and all of these rules I think importantly work together to support Congress' fundamental purpose here in this entire scheme, which is to protect beneficiaries of these plans by strengthening and stabilizing the multiemployer pension plan system by ensuring, to the extent possible, a steady flow of even payments on which the plan can count, and with full provision for protecting the employer after an arbitration and after any determination of defenses on the merits by making a refund available.\nAll we are talking about here is interim payments while a dispute on the merits goes forward.\nThe statute makes quite clear that those are due and payable now, and this action is timely to collect them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1446.163, 1446.552, 1448.144, 1452.037, 1457.352, 1462.027, 1463.619, 1488.674, 1535.496, 1539.718], "stop_times": [1446.552, 1448.144, 1452.037, 1457.352, 1462.027, 1463.619, 1488.674, 1535.496, 1539.718, 1544.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1446.163}, "reply_to": "20467__2_039", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20467__2_041", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Is there an argument that the suit on the merits shouldn't go forward because an arbitration request, demand had been made and not responded to?\nHow does that play into this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1544.713, 1554.25], "stop_times": [1554.25, 1556.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1544.713}, "reply_to": "20467__2_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20467__2_042", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "When I speak of a dispute on the merits, I refer to a dispute before the arbitrator.\nIt is true that in the complaint, as a response to the complaint in this case, the employer raised an affirmative defense that there had been a failure to respond to the request for arbitration, and we think that is not well-taken, but certainly the court on remand could consider that.\nWe think the right result would be for it to go to arbitration and have all of the employer's objections to any particulars of the assessment here handled in arbitration between the parties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1556.463, 1562.474, 1576.085], "stop_times": [1562.474, 1576.085, 1588.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1556.463}, "reply_to": "20467__2_041", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20467__2_043", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "One minor question.\nI'm thinking of the first payment... oh, well, forget it.\nI'll ask the other... I'll ask--\n--Thank you, Mr. DuMont.\nMr. Terheyden.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1588.484, 1590.627, 1593.268, 1594.049, 1597.131], "stop_times": [1590.627, 1593.268, 1594.049, 1597.131, 1599.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1588.484}, "reply_to": "20467__2_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20467__3_000", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nUnder petitioner's interpretation of the statute of limitations in this case the trust fund would have absolute and final control over the commencement of the statute of limitations, over the running of the statute of limitations.\nMoreover, under their theory they would in effect ask the Court to extend what is now a minimum 6-year statute of limitations to some 26-plus years, and we submit that Congress could not and did not intend such a result.\nWe believe that... Your Honors, that the plain words of the statute, the plain reading of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1599.154, 1605.227, 1618.597, 1632.937], "stop_times": [1605.227, 1618.597, 1632.937, 1640.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1599.154}, "reply_to": "20467__2_043", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_001", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "But the extension to 26 years would be only for the last $350.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1640.503], "stop_times": [1644.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1640.503}, "reply_to": "20467__3_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20467__3_002", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--No.\nI think what they're saying, that there are these individual statutes of limitations for each monthly payment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1644.145, 1644.864], "stop_times": [1644.864, 1649.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1644.145}, "reply_to": "20467__3_001", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_003", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1649.218], "stop_times": [1649.468], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1649.218}, "reply_to": "20467__3_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20467__3_004", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Which would allow them to, if they wanted to wait till year 18 and sue for 6 years prior to that, they could do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1649.468], "stop_times": [1656.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1649.468}, "reply_to": "20467__3_003", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_005", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Well, they've pretty well conceded that if we don't read the statute that one way they lose the first payment.\nI don't know why they wouldn't lose 59 payments if they waited another appropriate number of 59 months.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1656.692, 1661.897], "stop_times": [1661.897, 1668.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1656.692}, "reply_to": "20467__3_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20467__3_006", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Well, I think that's one of the... you know, the fundamental issue here, one of the fundamental issues is, can they divide this up into separate statutes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1668.771], "stop_times": [1677.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1668.771}, "reply_to": "20467__3_005", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_007", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1677.048], "stop_times": [1677.218], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1677.048}, "reply_to": "20467__3_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20467__3_008", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--of limitations, or if they miss that first payment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1677.218], "stop_times": [1679.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1677.218}, "reply_to": "20467__3_007", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_009", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "And if they can, is one of the... then your 26-year statute of limitations applies to only $350, not to the entire amount.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1679.48], "stop_times": [1686.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1679.48}, "reply_to": "20467__3_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20467__3_010", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--I suppose that's one way of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1686.093], "stop_times": [1688.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1686.093}, "reply_to": "20467__3_009", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_011", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Well, how is... I mean, I thought it was... I have a 30-year mortgage, all right, and if I miss the 358th payment, which I guess would be in the year 2020, if I'm around, then I guess they could sue for that, and what they're saying is your interpretation would mean they're free to pay it or not.\nI mean, the bank would... I think... I don't think the bank would be very happy if I took that view.\nI'd say, I'm not going to pay you the 358th payment.\nSue me.\nUnfortunately, the statute of limitations began to run when I took out the mortgage.\nI mean, what kind of a law would that be, and why would Congress want such a law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1688.705, 1703.295, 1707.577, 1710.05, 1710.611, 1714.305], "stop_times": [1703.295, 1707.577, 1710.05, 1710.611, 1714.305, 1718.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1688.705}, "reply_to": "20467__3_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20467__3_012", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--Well, I don't think this is... can be really analogized to a mortgage situation, a loan mortgage situation.\nI think here the question is there's this underlying debt, this basic, fundamental debt, and it really is just one debt, one claim, and I don't think it can be broken up into a series of little claims, of small claims, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1718.838, 1725.463], "stop_times": [1725.463, 1739.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1718.838}, "reply_to": "20467__3_011", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_013", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "But you could say the same thing about a mortgage securing a loan, that it's... you know, you borrow $50,000, and the lender puts up $50,000, but your duty to repay is not to repay $50,000 in any lump sum, but to pay so much each month, representing principal and interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1739.731], "stop_times": [1758.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1739.731}, "reply_to": "20467__3_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20467__3_014", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--That's correct, but here when you have the one fundamental, underlying debt, and it's supposed to be paid on a certain period of time, whether it be a lump sum or the commencement of these... in the alternative the commencement of these monthly payments, when nothing is done, when nothing is paid within that time established under the law, under 1399(c)(2), I think there is no more opportunity to say, well, we really have a series of debts after that that we can collect on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1758.585], "stop_times": [1793.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1758.585}, "reply_to": "20467__3_013", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_015", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Are you saying that the statute begins to run at the time of withdrawal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1793.667], "stop_times": [1797.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1793.667}, "reply_to": "20467__3_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20467__3_016", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "That's what we're saying.\nThat's our fundamental point.\nThat is our fundamental position, that's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1797.811, 1798.181, 1800.082], "stop_times": [1798.181, 1800.082, 1803.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1797.811}, "reply_to": "20467__3_015", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_017", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "On the whole thing, so it has the result in effect of accelerating the entire debt, even though there are provisions in the statute that expressly say it won't be accelerated unless this plan's sponsor takes certain action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1803.335], "stop_times": [1817.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1803.335}, "reply_to": "20467__3_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20467__3_018", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Well, which they did in this case.\nThey accelerated in this case.\nThey gave the notice, and then in the lawsuit is when the acceleration took place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1817.074, 1818.193, 1819.424], "stop_times": [1818.193, 1819.424, 1824.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1817.074}, "reply_to": "20467__3_017", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_019", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "So the consequence, I take it, of what you're saying is, going back to Justice Breyer's question, that if they pay all their installments for 6 years and the seventh year comes, and they start paying, there's no possible collection action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1824.608], "stop_times": [1841.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1824.608}, "reply_to": "20467__3_018", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20467__3_020", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "That was a point that petitioners brought up, and it's a very good point.\nIn that situation they have effectively agreed to the whole payment process.\nIt's just like a contract.\nThere's a contract obligation.\nThis is what the Seventh Circuit has said, and the Ninth Circuit has said.\nThey've given their assent to this whole process, and in that situation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1841.241, 1845.201, 1851.307, 1852.388, 1854.341, 1857.484], "stop_times": [1845.201, 1851.307, 1852.388, 1854.341, 1857.484, 1861.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1841.241}, "reply_to": "20467__3_019", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_021", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Oh, so we have a whole new agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1861.927], "stop_times": [1863.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1861.927}, "reply_to": "20467__3_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20467__3_022", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--You have a whole new agreement in that particular situation.\nWithout question, I don't think it would make sense--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1863.948, 1867.49], "stop_times": [1867.49, 1869.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1863.948}, "reply_to": "20467__3_021", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_023", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "In what particular situation?\nI don't know what particular situation you're--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1869.283, 1871.204], "stop_times": [1871.204, 1872.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1869.283}, "reply_to": "20467__3_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20467__3_024", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--In the situation where they've made some payments.\nThey've made payments.\nIn that situation, they have given their assent to this payment process.\nA new contract... a new contract has effectively been created, and then they can sue in that situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1872.946, 1875.428, 1876.69, 1881.254], "stop_times": [1875.428, 1876.69, 1881.254, 1887.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1872.946}, "reply_to": "20467__3_023", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_025", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--Then it becomes like a regular mortgage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1887.328], "stop_times": [1890.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1887.328}, "reply_to": "20467__3_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20467__3_026", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "A regular contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1890.431], "stop_times": [1892.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1890.431}, "reply_to": "20467__3_025", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_027", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "You can sue payment by payment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1892.054], "stop_times": [1893.315], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1892.054}, "reply_to": "20467__3_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20467__3_028", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1893.315], "stop_times": [1893.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1893.315}, "reply_to": "20467__3_027", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_029", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "So in this case, then, all you're saying is there's a special rule when you miss your first payment.\nAnybody who misses the first payment's out of luck, and it's... for everybody--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1893.864, 1897.667], "stop_times": [1897.667, 1901.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1893.864}, "reply_to": "20467__3_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20467__3_030", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "If--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1901.801], "stop_times": [1902.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1901.801}, "reply_to": "20467__3_029", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_031", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--Everybody who makes a first payment, it... you agree with that.\nAll right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1902.349, 1904.522], "stop_times": [1904.522, 1904.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1902.349}, "reply_to": "20467__3_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20467__3_032", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--If you haven't made any payments whatsoever, then they have 6 years to do something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1904.883], "stop_times": [1910.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1904.883}, "reply_to": "20467__3_031", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_033", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "All right.\nOut of curiosity, in respect to that first payment, I take it that you and the Solicitor General are reading (c)(2), there has to be a cause of action.\nI take it everybody agrees you get 6 years from when the cause of action arises.\nThen the question is, when does it arise, and (c)(2) begins by saying, withdrawal liability shall be payable in accordance with the schedule set forth by the sponsor, but the schedule can't extend it beyond 60 days, all right.\nSo that I looked at the schedule, and the schedule seems to say, on page 24, that they have a choice.\nThey can either have a schedule of payments, in which case the first one is due on February 1, or they could pay the whole thing in a lump sum 60 days thereafter, which I take it would be February 10.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1910.649, 1912.079, 1921.646, 1925.89, 1940.428, 1946.673, 1959.663], "stop_times": [1912.079, 1921.646, 1925.89, 1940.428, 1946.673, 1959.663, 1961.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1910.649}, "reply_to": "20467__3_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20467__3_034", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "I would take it it would be February 1, with all due respect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1961.684], "stop_times": [1964.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1961.684}, "reply_to": "20467__3_033", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_035", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "It says you may pay the withdrawal liability set forth in the preceding paragraph, that's 45,000 some odd dollars, by a single lump sum payment within 60 days after your receipt of this letter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1964.285], "stop_times": [1974.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1964.285}, "reply_to": "20467__3_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20467__3_036", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "But they gave us the schedule here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1974.413], "stop_times": [1977.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1974.413}, "reply_to": "20467__3_035", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_037", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Oh, that's right.\nThey said you may either do it... you don't know what my question is, so... I just want to be sure the factual premise is right.\nThe factual premise is that they told you that you could either do it in a lump sum 60 days after, which would be February... it doesn't say you may pay the withdrawal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1977.973, 1978.574, 1984.769], "stop_times": [1978.574, 1984.769, 1992.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1977.973}, "reply_to": "20467__3_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20467__3_038", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "In their letter to us, they say you have until February 1, because they track... I think they track (c)(2).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1992.855], "stop_times": [1997.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1992.855}, "reply_to": "20467__3_037", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_039", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--Well, maybe I'm not reading the right letter.\nMy letter has a paragraph on page 24, you may pay in a lump sum within 60 days.\nThen the next paragraph, the act also permits a schedule, in which case the first payment is due by February 1.\nAm I reading the right thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [1997.898, 1998.128, 2003.614, 2009.26], "stop_times": [1998.128, 2003.614, 2009.26, 2011.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1997.898}, "reply_to": "20467__3_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20467__3_040", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "If that's the December 12, 19--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2011.261], "stop_times": [2014.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2011.261}, "reply_to": "20467__3_039", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_041", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "It's page 24.\nIf I'm reading the right thing, then I imagine it's now February 8.\nI wondered how there could be a cause of action on February 8, since the trustee would not yet know which had been chosen.\nIf the trustee did not know which had been chosen, how would there be a cause of action yet, since they have till February 10 to make the election, and if there is no cause of action on February 8, then how can it be that the statute starts to run?\nThat was my question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2014.012, 2015.933, 2020.016, 2028.871, 2045.882], "stop_times": [2015.933, 2020.016, 2028.871, 2045.882, 2048.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2014.012}, "reply_to": "20467__3_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20467__3_042", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--Okay, and we're assuming that it doesn't run from the time of withdrawal in this situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2048.353], "stop_times": [2054.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2048.353}, "reply_to": "20467__3_041", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_043", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "No, no, I will not make any assumption.\nI'm saying, I read you the two paragraphs, and I said, that... I am assuming that they say you have till February 10 to make the election.\nIf that's so, it sounds as if on February 8 there was no cause of action yet, because they had till February 10.\nNow, I'm putting it as a question.\nI'm not making a statement.\nI want to know what your response to that problem is.\nYou can it isn't a problem and explain why, whatever you'd like.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2054.016, 2055.589, 2063.493, 2072.099, 2073.31, 2074.38, 2077.663], "stop_times": [2055.589, 2063.493, 2072.099, 2073.31, 2074.38, 2077.663, 2080.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2054.016}, "reply_to": "20467__3_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20467__3_044", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "I guess we did view the letter as requiring either-or by February 1 and not February 10, in which case it would be... would have been late.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2080.726], "stop_times": [2095.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2080.726}, "reply_to": "20467__3_043", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_045", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "The court of appeals also, has my reading of it on page 2a, it says it could either make a lump sum payment in 60 days, or it could begin installment payments on February 1.\nBut if that's a correct reading, then is that the end of this matter?\nThen--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2095.755, 2107.914, 2111.887], "stop_times": [2107.914, 2111.887, 2112.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2095.755}, "reply_to": "20467__3_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20467__3_046", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "I don't know if that's... if it's... I don't know if it's the end of this matter, because we still have the ancillary question of whether it started at the time of withdrawal, which would set it all back at a time earlier.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2112.528], "stop_times": [2125.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2112.528}, "reply_to": "20467__3_045", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_047", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--Unless we say withdrawal, and if that's right then they can get the first payment and everything in your view, if we reject your argument as to the withdrawal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2125.618], "stop_times": [2138.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2125.618}, "reply_to": "20467__3_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20467__3_048", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Well, I guess I do view it as running, Your Honor, with one and the same time, February 1, and that the time of the first... the option was the time of the... February 1 a time when the payment schedules could be begin, or as an option, because it's an option here.\nCongress has given them an option to do one or the other, and so I view those options as coming into place at one and the same time, and so if the schedule of monthly payments was to begin on February 1, then, since those options run at one and the same time, we view the time for the lump sum payment also to have begun on February 1.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2138.256, 2160.891], "stop_times": [2160.891, 2184.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2138.256}, "reply_to": "20467__3_047", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_049", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Well, what is your theory, Mr. Terheyden, as to why the statute of limitations should begin running from the date of withdrawal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2184.185], "stop_times": [2193.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2184.185}, "reply_to": "20467__3_048", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20467__3_050", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Our theory there, Your Honor, is that Congress has spoken in section 1451(a).\nWe hunted around, could there be anything which says it only starts... any statutory provision that only starts at the time of the first missed payment.\nWe couldn't find anything, but section 1451 says that a fiduciary, in this case a trust fund, could bring a lawsuit, may maintain an action if it has been adversely affected by an act or omission of another party.\nIt may... Congress has said that.\nIt may bring an action.\nNow, at the time the company, an employer withdraws, the trust fund at that time is adversely affected.\nThe contributions are no longer flowing in, in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2193.712, 2200.097, 2207.923, 2222.294, 2224.124, 2225.596, 2233.312], "stop_times": [2200.097, 2207.923, 2222.294, 2224.124, 2225.596, 2233.312, 2236.666], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2193.712}, "reply_to": "20467__3_049", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_051", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "But there is a substitute that the statute provides, this payment... the series of payments, isn't there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2236.666], "stop_times": [2241.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2236.666}, "reply_to": "20467__3_050", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20467__3_052", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--Well, that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2241.938], "stop_times": [2243.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2241.938}, "reply_to": "20467__3_051", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_053", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Isn't that a compensation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2243.308], "stop_times": [2244.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2243.308}, "reply_to": "20467__3_052", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20467__3_054", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--No.\nThat's an option.\nAgain, that's an option.\nIt's not... it's... I know petitioner has fixated, fixed in on the payment, but I think that's an option.\nIt's one or the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2244.099, 2244.27, 2245.332, 2246.443, 2253.187], "stop_times": [2244.27, 2245.332, 2246.443, 2253.187, 2254.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2244.099}, "reply_to": "20467__3_053", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_055", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Well, what would the suit say if the suit were filed the day after their withdrawal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2254.358], "stop_times": [2258.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2254.358}, "reply_to": "20467__3_054", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20467__3_056", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "In the unlikely event that it was filed the day after the withdrawal they would be asking under 1451(a) for the amount to come from the employer, and I think it would be 1) in an amount of damages to be proved at trial, that's what it would say, and 2)--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2258.413], "stop_times": [2279.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2258.413}, "reply_to": "20467__3_055", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_057", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Well, what is the wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2279.805], "stop_times": [2280.035], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2279.805}, "reply_to": "20467__3_056", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20467__3_058", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--I think at that point in time it's not so much the... a wrong, but what has happened then is, Congress has said at the time... in 1381(a) at the time, employer, you withdraw, you are liable to the trust fund.\nIt's an instantaneous thing, and I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2280.035, 2295.826], "stop_times": [2295.826, 2297.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2280.035}, "reply_to": "20467__3_057", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_059", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Are you saying, then, you can have a claim for relief that's unripe?\nI mean, do you agree that at the point when withdrawal liability kicks in the employer has done nothing wrong?\nThere's no wrong until there's a payment due that has not been paid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2297.929, 2304.173, 2315.961], "stop_times": [2304.173, 2315.961, 2320.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2297.929}, "reply_to": "20467__3_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20467__3_060", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--I don't think it's... of course not.\nThere's not a wrong.\nIt's not illegal to withdraw, but there's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2320.323, 2321.374, 2322.526], "stop_times": [2321.374, 2322.526, 2326.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2320.323}, "reply_to": "20467__3_059", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_061", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "So what's the claim for relief for, when all that's been done is something that the statute doesn't say is unlawful?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2326.039], "stop_times": [2330.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2326.039}, "reply_to": "20467__3_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20467__3_062", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--The court has said there's a cause and effect... the court and the Congress has said there's a cause-effect relationship.\nThey're always speaking in the present tense.\nWhen you withdraw, you are liable to the trust fund, and the court in the Gray case and the Concrete Pipe case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2330.781, 2337.376, 2340.448], "stop_times": [2337.376, 2340.448, 2347.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2330.781}, "reply_to": "20467__3_061", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_063", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "But liable for what?\nIf you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2347.35, 2347.991], "stop_times": [2347.991, 2348.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2347.35}, "reply_to": "20467__3_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20467__3_064", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--You have this obligation to pay your fair share--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2348.802], "stop_times": [2352.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2348.802}, "reply_to": "20467__3_063", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_065", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--But you don't know what it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2352.916], "stop_times": [2353.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2352.916}, "reply_to": "20467__3_064", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20467__3_066", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--of the unfunded pension benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2353.597], "stop_times": [2354.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2353.597}, "reply_to": "20467__3_065", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_067", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "But you don't know what the obligation is until the plan sends out the notice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2354.007], "stop_times": [2359.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2354.007}, "reply_to": "20467__3_066", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20467__3_068", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "But Congress did something in this case very wise.\nIt said, you may sue.\nYou've been adversely affected, but it also at the same time said--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2359.11, 2363.194, 2365.155], "stop_times": [2363.194, 2365.155, 2368.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2359.11}, "reply_to": "20467__3_067", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_069", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "But that's a who--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2368.268], "stop_times": [2368.548], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2368.268}, "reply_to": "20467__3_068", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20467__3_070", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--you have 6 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2368.548], "stop_times": [2369.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2368.548}, "reply_to": "20467__3_069", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_071", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--I was struck by what you said, and I looked at this section 1451(a) on page 17a, and it says, persons entitled to maintain actions, and I said, yeah, I recognize that.\nThat answers who, and then I looked, I find out a plan fiduciary, et cetera.\nThat's typical of statutory... there's a who question and a when question, and you are referring us to the who question to answer the when question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2369.319, 2381.897, 2386.429], "stop_times": [2381.897, 2386.429, 2396.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2369.319}, "reply_to": "20467__3_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20467__3_072", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "But I think 1451(f) says it accrues... it talks about when the cause of action arises.\nThis is the one section which says when it arises.\nWhen you read that in conjunction with 1381(a), and listening to what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2396.016, 2403.702, 2407.455], "stop_times": [2403.702, 2407.455, 2412.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2396.016}, "reply_to": "20467__3_071", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_073", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Where does it say anything about where it arises?\nIt says persons entitled to maintain an action, and this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2412.939, 2414.281], "stop_times": [2414.281, 2418.315], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2412.939}, "reply_to": "20467__3_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20467__3_074", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--It says if you've been adversely affected.\nI think that is crucial here.\nA fund has been harmed.\nIt's been hurt at this time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2418.315, 2420.286, 2422.087, 2424.19], "stop_times": [2420.286, 2422.087, 2424.19, 2425.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2418.315}, "reply_to": "20467__3_073", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_075", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--It says, when you are adversely affected, you are the people who can sue.\nThese are the people who can sue.\nWhy isn't this just such a familiar, who may sue, like standing, who has standing to sue, not when you begin your action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2425.58, 2429.994, 2432.426], "stop_times": [2429.994, 2432.426, 2445.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2425.58}, "reply_to": "20467__3_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20467__3_076", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "I think it's the one possible definitional section in the statute which explains when the cause of action arises, and that this cause of action arises at the time... almost a traditional way that a cause of action can arise, when someone is harmed.\nIn this case the trust fund is harmed, or adversely affected at this point in time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2445.183, 2463.424], "stop_times": [2463.424, 2468.209], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2445.183}, "reply_to": "20467__3_075", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_077", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "But that's not necessarily true.\nSupposing you paid the full amount of the withdrawal liability.\nYou would have paid for all the unfunded liability, your share of the unfunded liability.\nWithdrawal doesn't necessarily harm the plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2468.209, 2470.029, 2472.3, 2476.924], "stop_times": [2470.029, 2472.3, 2476.924, 2480.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2468.209}, "reply_to": "20467__3_076", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20467__3_078", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "I think as no more contributions are coming in, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2480.157], "stop_times": [2484.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2480.157}, "reply_to": "20467__3_077", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_079", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "No, but if you promptly paid the assessment, there would have been no harmful consequences to the plan from the withdrawal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2484.6], "stop_times": [2489.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2484.6}, "reply_to": "20467__3_078", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20467__3_080", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--Well, I think the minute there's a... I think the minute there's a stopping of this flow of contributions these unfunded vested benefits are just going to get worse.\nPart of the contributions go to reduce the unfunded vested benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2489.262, 2498.629], "stop_times": [2498.629, 2502.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2489.262}, "reply_to": "20467__3_079", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_081", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Well, is that true 100 percent of the time?\nDoes every employer who withdraws always have to pay an additional amount?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2502.342, 2504.573], "stop_times": [2504.573, 2509.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2502.342}, "reply_to": "20467__3_080", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20467__3_082", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "No, not every time.\nCongress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2509.027, 2509.939], "stop_times": [2509.939, 2510.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2509.027}, "reply_to": "20467__3_081", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_083", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "No, because sometimes the fund is adequate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2510.55], "stop_times": [2512.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2510.55}, "reply_to": "20467__3_082", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20467__3_084", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--No... is adequate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2512.052], "stop_times": [2514.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2512.052}, "reply_to": "20467__3_083", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_085", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Sometimes it's... sometimes the fund is adequate for the... to pay the benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2514.243], "stop_times": [2518.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2514.243}, "reply_to": "20467__3_084", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20467__3_086", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--That's true.\nThat's true, but even... I think even if a fund is fully funded it is still harmed because these contributions are no longer coming in to fund these funded benefits, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2518.905, 2519.546], "stop_times": [2519.546, 2532.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2518.905}, "reply_to": "20467__3_085", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_087", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "If there's any analogy to contract law it seems to me the most you can say about the... it's like an anticipatory breach, saying that in the future I'm not going to do something that I'm obligated, and for an anticipatory breach, that's at the election of the payee.\nThey can exercise it or not.\nIsn't that true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2532.124, 2547.735, 2549.387], "stop_times": [2547.735, 2549.387, 2550.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2532.124}, "reply_to": "20467__3_086", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20467__3_088", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--In contract situations, but again here I don't believe that there is a contract situation, as the Seventh and Ninth--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2550.469], "stop_times": [2557.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2550.469}, "reply_to": "20467__3_087", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_089", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "What is it, then, because when I read the petitioner's brief I said, well, the closest analogy is a contract, and so that's... there's a lot of merit to her argument.\nThen I looked at your brief to see what is the analogous cause of action, the analogous type of wrong that you assert, and I couldn't find it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2557.983, 2566.008], "stop_times": [2566.008, 2572.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2557.983}, "reply_to": "20467__3_088", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20467__3_090", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2572.772], "stop_times": [2573.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2572.772}, "reply_to": "20467__3_089", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_091", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "I mean, is it some kind of breach of fiduciary duty, or something like that?\nI... no, that doesn't work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2573.623, 2578.017], "stop_times": [2578.017, 2579.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2573.623}, "reply_to": "20467__3_090", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20467__3_092", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--I think it's... it's Congress saying, this is your right, trustees of trust funds.\nThis is... and you may sue to perfect that right, and you have 6 years to do it.\nThat's a very long time, and during the 6 years you have to make the calculation and the demand, something that is very easy to do, very simple to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2579.528, 2586.112, 2590.925], "stop_times": [2586.112, 2590.925, 2601.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2579.528}, "reply_to": "20467__3_091", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_093", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Except that a contract somehow springs into existence if the withdrawing employer makes the first payment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2601.163], "stop_times": [2608.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2601.163}, "reply_to": "20467__3_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20467__3_094", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Makes... that's what the... that's precisely what the Seventh Circuit said, and the Ninth Circuit here in the case below.\nThey have given their assent to this process.\nThey have agreed that they can be... that this sum can be paid over a period of time.\nThey have agreed that suit may be brought at a later stage... points in time, but until that happens there is no mutual agreement as you would have in an ordinary contract situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2608.158, 2614.611, 2617.304, 2623.777], "stop_times": [2614.611, 2617.304, 2623.777, 2636.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2608.158}, "reply_to": "20467__3_093", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_095", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Is this implied in fact, or implied in law?\nI mean, do you really... is this supposed to be an estimation of what was genuinely in the mind of whoever made the first payment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2636.607, 2638.5], "stop_times": [2638.5, 2647.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2636.607}, "reply_to": "20467__3_094", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20467__3_096", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Implied in... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2647.583], "stop_times": [2648.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2647.583}, "reply_to": "20467__3_095", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_097", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2648.765], "stop_times": [2649.036], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2648.765}, "reply_to": "20467__3_096", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20467__3_098", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--I... the Ninth Circuit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2649.036], "stop_times": [2651.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2649.036}, "reply_to": "20467__3_097", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_099", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--I mean, you could say... you could say that.\nYou could say, you know, by doing this you have agreed to, but is it true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2651.065, 2652.537], "stop_times": [2652.537, 2657.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2651.065}, "reply_to": "20467__3_098", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20467__3_100", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--That's true--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2657.66], "stop_times": [2659.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2657.66}, "reply_to": "20467__3_099", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_101", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "I mean, have they agreed to it because you say so, or have they agreed to it because somehow the making of the payment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2659.082], "stop_times": [2664.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2659.082}, "reply_to": "20467__3_100", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20467__3_102", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--The making of the payment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2664.868], "stop_times": [2666.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2664.868}, "reply_to": "20467__3_101", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_103", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--genuinely represents some contractual undertaking?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2666.228], "stop_times": [2669.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2666.228}, "reply_to": "20467__3_102", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20467__3_104", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--It... that is an implied agreement with this process.\nIt's... I think the Ninth Circuit looked at Korman and they said the act of paying can be an implied agreement with the... in this case with the process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2669.24, 2672.613], "stop_times": [2672.613, 2683.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2669.24}, "reply_to": "20467__3_103", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_105", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "All right, so I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2683.961], "stop_times": [2684.691], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2683.961}, "reply_to": "20467__3_104", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20467__3_106", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "That's how the contract impliedly arises.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2684.691], "stop_times": [2688.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2684.691}, "reply_to": "20467__3_105", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_107", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--All right, so either they do... on your theory... I'm just interested in your theory.\nOn your theory, they agree to the schedule of payments or they don't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2688.383, 2692.336], "stop_times": [2692.336, 2698.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2688.383}, "reply_to": "20467__3_106", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20467__3_108", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2698.351], "stop_times": [2698.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2698.351}, "reply_to": "20467__3_107", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_109", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Okay.\nNow you're saying, if they do, then fine.\nThen we have the bank collecting the mortgage.\nBut if they don't, now, then what?\nThat's what I want to know.\nImagine they don't.\nThey're never going to agree to this condition of all the payments.\nThey're always never going to agree to it.\nVery well, then on that theory why isn't it the case that they withdraw, then they get a notice, then they have 60 days from that time, since they're never going to agree to the schedule, and then they can bring their lawsuit, and on that theory it would still be timely.\nIt would have been until February 10 they would have had.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2698.982, 2699.601, 2702.225, 2704.245, 2706.286, 2707.428, 2708.88, 2712.614, 2714.427, 2729.366], "stop_times": [2699.601, 2702.225, 2704.245, 2706.286, 2707.428, 2708.88, 2712.614, 2714.427, 2729.366, 2730.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2698.982}, "reply_to": "20467__3_108", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20467__3_110", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2730.908], "stop_times": [2731.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2730.908}, "reply_to": "20467__3_109", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_111", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "So how does your theory work on that branch of your--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2731.98], "stop_times": [2735.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2731.98}, "reply_to": "20467__3_110", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20467__3_112", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--On that, I... you know, I could well understand somebody... someone saying the employer hasn't absolutely refused yet, I suppose.\nUnfortunately the alternative to that, Mr. Justice Breyer, is that it leaves it entirely up into the hands of the petitioner to start this process going.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2735.401, 2744.366], "stop_times": [2744.366, 2754.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2735.401}, "reply_to": "20467__3_111", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_113", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--Oh, yes, just as for example, if I make a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2754.493], "stop_times": [2755.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2754.493}, "reply_to": "20467__3_112", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20467__3_114", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "You could never have a statute of limitations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2755.604], "stop_times": [2757.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2755.604}, "reply_to": "20467__3_113", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_115", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--Well, it's rather like the bank.\nLet's say we get into an odd agreement... I grant you this would be a little odd, but I don't have to make my first mortgage payment until the bank requests it.\nWell, I guess that would be up to them.\nYou're right, the thing would never come to rest as long as they didn't ask me to make my first payment.\nBut however, they might see a problem with that.\nI mean, they might ask, and I guess the trustee's in the same boat.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2757.616, 2758.798, 2765.854, 2768.335, 2774.109, 2777.341], "stop_times": [2758.798, 2765.854, 2768.335, 2774.109, 2777.341, 2780.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2757.616}, "reply_to": "20467__3_114", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20467__3_116", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Yes, I mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2780.352], "stop_times": [2781.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2780.352}, "reply_to": "20467__3_115", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_117", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Or a demand promissory note.\nThere's no due date, and so whenever the holder of the note says, okay, I want payment now, in 60 days, that triggers the running of the statute.\nIt's not a concept unknown in our legal system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2781.842, 2784.135, 2793.39], "stop_times": [2784.135, 2793.39, 2798.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2781.842}, "reply_to": "20467__3_116", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20467__3_118", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--Again... I don't want to beat this point into the ground.\nAgain, that would be a contract situation, which we don't have here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2798.225, 2800.726], "stop_times": [2800.726, 2804.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2798.225}, "reply_to": "20467__3_117", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_119", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Well, I actually think a demand note runs from the time it's made, but there are a number of... not a number, but there are some instances where there is a continuing wrong, and the statute of limitations is in effect in the hands of the plaintiff, because the plaintiff demands that you cease the wrong and can sue from that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2804.759], "stop_times": [2823.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2804.759}, "reply_to": "20467__3_118", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20467__3_120", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "I don't think this is a continuing obligation situation, as petitioner has submitted, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2823.121], "stop_times": [2830.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2823.121}, "reply_to": "20467__3_119", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_121", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Well, I was trying to think of an instance in which the statute of limitations is really in the hands of the plaintiff, and that's what I came up with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2830.405], "stop_times": [2837.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2830.405}, "reply_to": "20467__3_120", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20467__3_122", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--I think here... this whole law was enacted at a time of crisis for trust funds.\nEmployers were bailing left and right, and so Congress I think really wanted to see that these funds move as swiftly as possible.\nUnder our view, under our theory of the case, we're putting some teeth into Congress' exhortation to say act as soon as practical to go ahead and collect this.\nWe're putting some teeth into--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2837.19, 2844.397, 2851.903, 2863.651], "stop_times": [2844.397, 2851.903, 2863.651, 2865.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2837.19}, "reply_to": "20467__3_121", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_123", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Well, but the very idea of a 6-year statute of limitations suggests that they did not regard it as terribly urgent.\nI mean, we have 6-month statutes of limitations.\n6 years suggested that they were willing to have people take their time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2865.043, 2870.587, 2872.72], "stop_times": [2870.587, 2872.72, 2876.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2865.043}, "reply_to": "20467__3_122", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20467__3_124", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--6 years in which they have to file suit.\nHere we have almost 8 years before the suit was filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2876.423, 2877.525], "stop_times": [2877.525, 2880.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2876.423}, "reply_to": "20467__3_123", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_125", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "But on their view they had nothing to sue for because there was nothing... no wrong was done, no obligation was incurred until there was a payment schedule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2880.917], "stop_times": [2894.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2880.917}, "reply_to": "20467__3_124", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20467__3_126", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "That's true there was... in our view there is no obligation that... there's an underlying obligation, but not an obligation to pay pursuant to a payment schedule.\nThere is a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2894.716, 2904.893], "stop_times": [2904.893, 2905.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2894.716}, "reply_to": "20467__3_125", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_127", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Are there other examples where a statute of limitations starts to run before the claim ripens, at a point where we don't know whether there's going to be any claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2905.314], "stop_times": [2915.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2905.314}, "reply_to": "20467__3_126", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20467__3_128", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--I think... you know, I can't think of one precisely, but in this situation, as you know, we say the claim has ripened, but I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2915.109], "stop_times": [2925.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2915.109}, "reply_to": "20467__3_127", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_129", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "But it hasn't, because you would... I thought you conceded that if the complaint were to be filed the day after the withdrawal, the permanent withdrawal occurred there would be no relief possible because the employer hasn't done anything to be obligated to pay anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2925.888], "stop_times": [2944.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2925.888}, "reply_to": "20467__3_128", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20467__3_130", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--But I think, Your Honor, if this was a... if it were the last of the 6 years, the last day of the sixth year and the trust fund hadn't done anything, I think certainly it could--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2944.898], "stop_times": [2955.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2944.898}, "reply_to": "20467__3_129", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_131", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "But we're talking about when the claim accrued, not the last day of the 6 years.\nWe're talking about the starting gun.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2955.797, 2959.667], "stop_times": [2959.667, 2961.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2955.797}, "reply_to": "20467__3_130", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20467__3_132", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2961.53], "stop_times": [2962.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2961.53}, "reply_to": "20467__3_131", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_133", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "And I don't know of a situation where the starting gun goes off before you have a claim, before you have a ripe claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2962.191], "stop_times": [2972.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2962.191}, "reply_to": "20467__3_132", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20467__3_134", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "In the... this is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2972.598], "stop_times": [2973.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2972.598}, "reply_to": "20467__3_133", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_135", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Before the runners know in which direction to run, so to speak.\n[Laughter]\nOr how far.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2973.149, 2976.2, 2976.881], "stop_times": [2976.2, 2976.881, 2977.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2973.149}, "reply_to": "20467__3_134", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20467__3_136", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--I understand.\nThis is what happened in the Joyce case, which... one of the main cases petitioner relies on.\nThe trust fund sent out the demand on the very same day they filed the lawsuit, and the issue was brought up there, was this premature or not, and the reason... the trust fund said the reason we did it is because we weren't sure when the statute of limitations ran, but we'd better make sure we protect our rights, and I think that's what the fund would have to do here.\nIt could file the suit to protect it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [2977.732, 2978.333, 2983.366, 3001.808], "stop_times": [2978.333, 2983.366, 3001.808, 3005.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2977.732}, "reply_to": "20467__3_135", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_137", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "And they... and then Joyce gave them an answer, right, and the answer was the claim doesn't accrue until the first payment is due, until there's a... payment is due.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3005.401], "stop_times": [3015.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3005.401}, "reply_to": "20467__3_136", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20467__3_138", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--But by then it was no... yes, and then it was no longer premature.\nI think here they could file the suit and the court could--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3015.095, 3020.432], "stop_times": [3020.432, 3024.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3015.095}, "reply_to": "20467__3_137", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_139", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "I mean, when you... I'm not following your example of Joyce, because Joyce was presented, as you say, in a climate where the law was uncertain, so... but there was a determination of the payments that were due.\nThe schedule was out, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3024.585, 3037.375], "stop_times": [3037.375, 3039.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3024.585}, "reply_to": "20467__3_138", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20467__3_140", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--Yes, but the employer hadn't refused at that point, at time they filed suit, and they were able to stay into court, because by the time it came up through the court, the district court system, they... there was no payment by the employer, so they were legitimately able to file their lawsuit the same day they sent the payment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3039.386], "stop_times": [3058.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3039.386}, "reply_to": "20467__3_139", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_141", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "So... but there was a claim by the employer's... on the employer's part that that claim was untimely, right, in Joyce, because it wasn't within 6 years from when the withdrawal liability... from when the withdrawal occurred.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3058.97], "stop_times": [3071.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3058.97}, "reply_to": "20467__3_140", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20467__3_142", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "That's true.\nThey were saying, I think... there the employer said, as we do here, it adhered back to the time of the actual withdrawal.\nBut I think my point there is there's nothing to really... to stop them to meet this long 6-year statute of limitation where nothing has been done, where no... to meet this statute of limitation, where they haven't done anything to protect their rights and the court could very easily stay the action.\nThey could very easily... otherwise, I'm afraid it's just going to go further and further into the future.\nThey could... they'd come back and if nothing's done in 8 years or in 10 years--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3071.286, 3072.688, 3082.064, 3100.775, 3108.501], "stop_times": [3072.688, 3082.064, 3100.775, 3108.501, 3113.474], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3071.286}, "reply_to": "20467__3_141", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_143", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "If... you say there's nothing that impels the trustee, the plan trustees to do this faster?\nI mean, they are losing at least interest, aren't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3113.474, 3120.807], "stop_times": [3120.807, 3123.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3113.474}, "reply_to": "20467__3_142", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20467__3_144", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--They said, you know... that's true.\nThey're losing some interest.\nThey say perhaps a suit for breach of fiduciary obligation can be brought against the trustees, but our view, Your Honor, gives it some teeth.\nIt says there's a penalty here.\nIf you don't do anything here in 6 years you will incur a penalty.\nAnd look what happens when it goes on beyond the 6 years.\nWhen nothing is done is what happened in this case.\nWe now--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3123.919, 3124.5, 3126.923, 3136.489, 3139.981, 3144.245, 3147.728, 3150.309], "stop_times": [3124.5, 3126.923, 3136.489, 3139.981, 3144.245, 3147.728, 3150.309, 3150.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3123.919}, "reply_to": "20467__3_143", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_145", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Well, not as to penalty.\nYou say there's no liability at all because it's time-barred.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3150.439, 3150.88], "stop_times": [3150.88, 3154.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3150.439}, "reply_to": "20467__3_144", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20467__3_146", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--That's right.\nThey would lose it all, Your Honor.\nThey would lose it all, and here if this keeps going beyond the 6 years, what you have in this case, by this time you have an insolvent trust fund and a defunct employer because it's gone on so long.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3154.152, 3157.374, 3161.218], "stop_times": [3157.374, 3161.218, 3172.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3154.152}, "reply_to": "20467__3_145", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_147", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Yes, but the delay during this period is all to the advantage of the person who is obligated to pay.\nI mean, there's an incentive on the part of the trust, that if trustees are doing their job they'll get moving.\nThe longer they take, the better off you are.\nYou get an interest-free loan for this whole period of time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3172.497, 3176.688, 3181.863, 3184.415], "stop_times": [3176.688, 3181.863, 3184.415, 3186.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3172.497}, "reply_to": "20467__3_146", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20467__3_148", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "But I think policy wise the longer it goes on the employers could move, the employers could go out of business--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3186.758], "stop_times": [3192.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3186.758}, "reply_to": "20467__3_147", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_149", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3192.042], "stop_times": [3192.422], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3192.042}, "reply_to": "20467__3_148", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20467__3_150", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--the employers could become defunct--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3192.422], "stop_times": [3193.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3192.422}, "reply_to": "20467__3_149", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_151", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "The employers may be able to escape the liability, but that's certainly not anything they should be complaining about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3193.351], "stop_times": [3199.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3193.351}, "reply_to": "20467__3_150", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20467__3_152", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--No, but that certainly doesn't serve the purposes of the act, serve the purposes of the beneficiaries, I don't believe, if that happens.\nIf there's nothing that actually compels them to do it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3199.237, 3206.841], "stop_times": [3206.841, 3210.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3199.237}, "reply_to": "20467__3_151", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_153", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Well, they have a duty to act as soon as practical, or whatever the statute says.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3210.644], "stop_times": [3214.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3210.644}, "reply_to": "20467__3_152", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20467__3_154", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--Yes, that's true, as soon as practical, and I give absolute pause with that exhortation by Congress to act as soon as practical.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3214.008], "stop_times": [3219.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3214.008}, "reply_to": "20467__3_153", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_155", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "But it's sort of a strange way to penalize them to say that if you don't act promptly we'll let the employer... let the contributor off the hook.\nThat doesn't make any sense to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3219.978, 3225.163], "stop_times": [3225.163, 3226.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3219.978}, "reply_to": "20467__3_154", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20467__3_156", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Well, I think it really compels them to move forward and do something.\nI think it really gives them some real, definitive, objective hammer, if you will, that they'd better act now, especially in a situation where there's been nothing, nothing done.\nI understand it's different in a schedule payment situation where there has been something done.\nThere's been an effort, and that's why in those situations certainly you can... it can go on for a longer period.\nIf there's no further questions, I'll yield back the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3226.443, 3234.079, 3252.8, 3259.986, 3267.392], "stop_times": [3234.079, 3252.8, 3259.986, 3267.392, 3273.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3226.443}, "reply_to": "20467__3_155", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_157", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Terheyden.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3273.176], "stop_times": [3274.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3273.176}, "reply_to": "20467__3_156", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20467__3_158", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Thank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3274.407], "stop_times": [3274.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3274.407}, "reply_to": "20467__3_157", "speaker": "william_f_terheyden"}
{"id": "20467__3_159", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Ms. Berzon, you have 3 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3274.786], "stop_times": [3277.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3274.786}, "reply_to": "20467__3_158", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20467__4_000", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "I'd like to address two things.\nFirst, it's important to be clear that... and I think it is clear that this is a statutory obligation.\nThat is, the schedule is a statutory obligation, and the employer, while it has the option to prepay under 1399(c)(4), it doesn't have the option to not pay and say that it has chosen a total payment option but it isn't doing it.\nThe statute isn't set up that way.\nThe statute is set up with a baseline obligation to pay on a schedule, a periodic payment basis, and the only way that the employer doesn't have to meet that payment-by-payment obligation is if it prepays the entire amount.\nThis employer has not prepaid the entire amount, and therefore it had a prepay... a payment-by-payment obligation which was not contractual, which should not depend upon it making the first payment at all, but which went into effect with the demand letter and stayed there for the entire period that the payments were due.\nThat's the first point.\nAnd the second point is, which is related, is to respond to Justice Breyer's dealing with this case in particular, and I would agree with perhaps the slight twist in the explanation.\nOn page 24 of the joint appendix the demand letter does, indeed, say that $45,570 can be paid within 60 days after the receipt of this letter, which was actually probably sometime after February 10 would have been due, and then says that there is an option to make a payment-by-payment instalment instead.\nIf, in fact, for all the reasons we stated, it is the payment-by-payment obligation which is the statutory obligation, and absent a permissive acceleration by the fund at a time when it can make the acceleration, which it couldn't here, that's the only obligation.\nBut if somehow one thought that there was another obligation, i.e., a lump sum payment, we know when that was one due, and it was due within the limitations period, so there's no way to take the failure--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3277.841, 3281.961, 3289.228, 3307.129, 3308.041, 3322.801, 3339.663, 3341.524, 3356.684, 3385.121, 3402.225], "stop_times": [3281.961, 3289.228, 3307.129, 3308.041, 3322.801, 3339.663, 3341.524, 3356.684, 3385.121, 3402.225, 3411.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3277.841}, "reply_to": "20467__3_159", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__4_001", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "No, but according to the letter it would have been due before... they gave them... you gave them up to February 10, 60 days from December 12.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3411.342], "stop_times": [3417.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3411.342}, "reply_to": "20467__4_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20467__4_002", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--It was actually 60 days from when they received the letter, so it would have been a little after that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3417.047], "stop_times": [3420.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3417.047}, "reply_to": "20467__4_001", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__4_003", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Well, but in any event you gave them beyond February 1.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3420.037], "stop_times": [3422.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3420.037}, "reply_to": "20467__4_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20467__4_004", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3422.941], "stop_times": [3423.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3422.941}, "reply_to": "20467__4_003", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__4_005", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "So that the... under his reading and my reading of that paragraph you lose the first payment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3423.449], "stop_times": [3428.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3423.449}, "reply_to": "20467__4_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20467__4_006", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3428.514], "stop_times": [3430.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3428.514}, "reply_to": "20467__4_005", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__4_007", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Because they had no obligation to do anything--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3430.805], "stop_times": [3433.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3430.805}, "reply_to": "20467__4_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20467__4_008", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--That may be if you do it on a payment-by-payment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3433.166], "stop_times": [3433.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3433.166}, "reply_to": "20467__4_007", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__4_009", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--because they had an option to pay in full on February 8, because that's what you asked for.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3433.537], "stop_times": [3438.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3433.537}, "reply_to": "20467__4_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20467__4_010", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--On February 8 they didn't have an obligation to pay in full.\nThey only had an obligation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3438.219, 3443.204], "stop_times": [3443.204, 3443.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3438.219}, "reply_to": "20467__4_009", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__4_011", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "They didn't have an obligation, they had an option.\nThey had an option, because you demanded payment in full within 60 days, or if you don't do it you can pay monthly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3443.932, 3444.763], "stop_times": [3444.763, 3450.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3443.932}, "reply_to": "20467__4_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20467__4_012", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--That's correct, but on February--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3450.768], "stop_times": [3453.209], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3450.768}, "reply_to": "20467__4_011", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__4_013", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "So on February 8--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3453.209], "stop_times": [3453.49], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3453.209}, "reply_to": "20467__4_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20467__4_014", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--8 we don't know whether they're going to pay in full on February--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3453.49], "stop_times": [3456.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3453.49}, "reply_to": "20467__4_013", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__4_015", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--That's right, so you could not have sued.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3456.571], "stop_times": [3457.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3456.571}, "reply_to": "20467__4_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20467__4_016", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Berzon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3457.571], "stop_times": [3458.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3457.571}, "reply_to": "20467__4_015", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20467__4_017", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3458.771], "stop_times": [3459.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3458.771}, "reply_to": "20467__4_016", "speaker": "marsha_s_berzon"}
{"id": "20467__4_018", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3459.021], "stop_times": [3459.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3459.021}, "reply_to": "20467__4_017", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20467__4_019", "conversation_id": "20467", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until Wednesday, November12 at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-370", "start_times": [3459.687], "stop_times": [3466.239], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3459.687}, "reply_to": "20467__4_018", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20728__0_000", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 97-5310, David R. Beach v. the Ocwen Federal Bank.\nMr. Rogow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [0.0, 8.408], "stop_times": [8.408, 9.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20728__0_001", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nOcwen Bank agrees that there is a right of rescission in recoupment after 3 years.\nOcwen, however, says that that right in recoupment is a State safety net, that one can rescind in recoupment only if there is fraud or duress or coercion under State law principles.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [9.356, 12.79, 19.124], "stop_times": [12.79, 19.124, 33.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.356}, "reply_to": "20728__0_000", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_002", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Is right of rescission in recoupment, is that a term peculiar to Florida law, or is that how we speak of it generally?\nI always thought it... recoupment as simply being offset to damages, but rescission is an action of an equitable nature.\nI don't... and your brief talks in the same way.\nYou seem to conflate the two terms.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [33.115, 42.231, 51.427, 55.732], "stop_times": [42.231, 51.427, 55.732, 57.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 33.115}, "reply_to": "20728__0_001", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20728__0_003", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Justice Kennedy, rescission in this situation is statutory rescission, and I think it's important to note, too, that the right to rescind within 3 years is not an action in rescission under the truth-in-lending law.\nIt is merely sending a notice of rescission within the 3 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [57.742, 71.012], "stop_times": [71.012, 75.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 57.742}, "reply_to": "20728__0_002", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_004", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Well, can't we say that without coupling it with the term of recoupment, or does that somehow help your case to talk about recoupment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [75.026], "stop_times": [80.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 75.026}, "reply_to": "20728__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20728__0_005", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "It helps our case to talk about recoupment and, indeed, 1635(i)(3) talks about rescission in recoupment, a statute that the supreme court of Florida absolutely ignored in this analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [80.98], "stop_times": [93.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 80.98}, "reply_to": "20728__0_004", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_006", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "The statute itself talks about rescission in recoupment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [93.368], "stop_times": [96.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 93.368}, "reply_to": "20728__0_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20728__0_007", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Under State law, but the caption of (i)(3) is the right to recoupment under State law, and then the statute says, nothing in this section shall affect the right to rescission in recoupment under State law.\nOcwen suggests that that only means State law rescission for fraud, duress, or coercion, and our position is, is it means more than that.\nIt means the Federal Truth-in-Lending Act right to rescission, and several reasons support our position.\nThe first is the notion that, when one looks at this statute, the word rescission used throughout the statute is Federal TILA rescission, and this Court's decision last week in National Credit Union reasserted a principle that, when one looks at statutes and the same words are used throughout the statute, then the word has the same meaning, and here the word rescission is used throughout section 1635 and it is referring to TILA rescission, Truth-in-Lending Act rescission, so under that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [96.159, 108.658, 117.556, 124.121], "stop_times": [108.658, 117.556, 124.121, 154.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 96.159}, "reply_to": "20728__0_006", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_008", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Mr. Rogow, under the statute I guess, regardless of the timing of the discovery of a failure to comply with TILA, that the homeowner, your client, in effect, could in any event obtain damages that result from whatever failure to disclose was involved, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [154.771], "stop_times": [182.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 154.771}, "reply_to": "20728__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20728__0_009", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--That is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [182.788], "stop_times": [183.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 182.788}, "reply_to": "20728__0_008", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_010", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Without any time limit on that.\nYou can get actual damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [183.379, 185.202], "stop_times": [185.202, 186.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 183.379}, "reply_to": "20728__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20728__0_011", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--You can get actual damages, Justice O'Connor, and statutory--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [186.962], "stop_times": [190.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 186.962}, "reply_to": "20728__0_010", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_012", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "And also twice the amount of any finance charge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [190.775], "stop_times": [193.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 190.775}, "reply_to": "20728__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20728__0_013", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--A statutory penalty with a maximum... in this case it was $1,000, and there was $1,000, in effect a penalty under 1640, plus the overcharge, and plus another amount of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [193.517], "stop_times": [205.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 193.517}, "reply_to": "20728__0_012", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_014", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "So that's available without time limit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [205.704], "stop_times": [207.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 205.704}, "reply_to": "20728__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20728__0_015", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--That is available.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [207.637], "stop_times": [209.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 207.637}, "reply_to": "20728__0_014", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_016", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "But your client asserts in addition a right to rescind and recover all of the interest paid for the period of time that the mortgage was in effect and payments were made on it, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [209.437], "stop_times": [224.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 209.437}, "reply_to": "20728__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20728__0_017", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "That is right, Justice O'Connor, recover the interest paid, on the other hand have to pay back the principal.\nThe rescission--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [224.398, 229.481], "stop_times": [229.481, 230.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 224.398}, "reply_to": "20728__0_016", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_018", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Yes.\nI mean, it could have been 20 years of payment under the mortgage, presumably--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [230.112, 230.323], "stop_times": [230.323, 234.987], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 230.112}, "reply_to": "20728__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20728__0_019", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--It could be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [234.987], "stop_times": [236.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 234.987}, "reply_to": "20728__0_018", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_020", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--when you discover there's some $7 deficiency here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [236.376], "stop_times": [240.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 236.376}, "reply_to": "20728__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20728__0_021", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--Well, a $7 deficiency--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [240.31], "stop_times": [241.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 240.31}, "reply_to": "20728__0_020", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_022", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "I mean, that would be enough, wouldn't it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [241.882], "stop_times": [243.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 241.882}, "reply_to": "20728__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20728__0_023", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--No, it would not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [243.335], "stop_times": [243.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 243.335}, "reply_to": "20728__0_022", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_024", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--under your theory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [243.422], "stop_times": [244.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 243.422}, "reply_to": "20728__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20728__0_025", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--It wouldn't be enough, Justice O'Connor, because under Congress' construct it would have to be more, but I think the answer to this is... because I understand--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [244.183], "stop_times": [251.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 244.183}, "reply_to": "20728__0_024", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_026", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Well, no matter how small the failing, and this was pretty small, and no matter how much time has elapsed, it's your position that there's this indefinite right of rescission to get back all of the interest paid, in addition to the damages and in addition to the statutory penalty, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [251.619], "stop_times": [270.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 251.619}, "reply_to": "20728__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20728__0_027", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--Yes, Justice O'Connor, because Congress has said that is right, because the remedy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [270.69], "stop_times": [275.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 270.69}, "reply_to": "20728__0_026", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_028", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Well, that's what we're here to decide.\nI'm not a bit sure that's what they said, but that's your position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [275.655, 276.837], "stop_times": [276.837, 280.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 275.655}, "reply_to": "20728__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20728__0_029", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--That is our position, Justice O'Connor, but we think it's informed by how one construes these statutes.\nBeginning with the first point that I make, Congress certainly has said rescission in recoupment, nothing in this section, which would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [280.46, 285.936], "stop_times": [285.936, 293.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 280.46}, "reply_to": "20728__0_028", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_030", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Mr. Rogow, can I ask just one other detailed practical question?\nYou do have to tender back the amount of the loan to principal, don't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [293.572, 296.545], "stop_times": [296.545, 301.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 293.572}, "reply_to": "20728__0_029", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20728__0_031", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [301.787], "stop_times": [301.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 301.787}, "reply_to": "20728__0_030", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_032", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "And your client is here in forma pauperis, as I understand it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [301.987], "stop_times": [305.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 301.987}, "reply_to": "20728__0_031", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20728__0_033", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [305.181], "stop_times": [305.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 305.181}, "reply_to": "20728__0_032", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_034", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Does he have the money to do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [305.561], "stop_times": [307.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 305.561}, "reply_to": "20728__0_033", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20728__0_035", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Well, at this moment, of course, he doesn't have the money to do that and what happens in these cases generally is, is that if the right to rescission is invoked, then the borrower is entitled to the return of the interest, but the borrower has to pay the principal back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [307.23], "stop_times": [321.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 307.23}, "reply_to": "20728__0_034", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_036", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [321.76], "stop_times": [321.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 321.76}, "reply_to": "20728__0_035", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20728__0_037", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "And in some situations, indeed, if one's house has appreciated in value, you can then refinance your house and pay back the principal.\nBut I think the important thing here, Justice Stevens, is is that whatever the remedy is, is a remedy that Congress has constructed not as a penalty to the lender, but to force the lender to conform to the truth-in-lending law.\nThe truth-in-lending law, its purpose is to protect consumers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [321.95, 329.276, 342.364], "stop_times": [329.276, 342.364, 346.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 321.95}, "reply_to": "20728__0_036", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_038", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Mr. Rogow, you are so stressing the word rescission... you say that's used over repeatedly, and yet Congress used such distinctly different language in dealing with the 1-year time limit for damages.\nIt says no action should be brought, traditional statute of limitations.\nHere, it talks about the right to rescind shall expire.\nOne sounds like it's simply a typical statute of limitations and you can raise... and defensively you can recoup.\nThe other, it sounds like expire, dead, over, after 3 years it's gone, and you make... how do you explain that Congress picked this word expire to describe the right of rescission, and then talking about the 1-year limitation, used traditional statute of limitations language?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [346.318, 360.686, 364.179, 368.844, 377.559], "stop_times": [360.686, 364.179, 368.844, 377.559, 397.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 346.318}, "reply_to": "20728__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20728__0_039", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Two ways, Justice Ginsburg.\nThe first is the right that expires is the right to affirmatively rescind.\nThat right that they're talking about is the right within 3 years to say to the lender, I am rescinding this transaction.\nThat is the right that expires.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [397.631, 399.363, 405.28, 411.996], "stop_times": [399.363, 405.28, 411.996, 414.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 397.631}, "reply_to": "20728__0_038", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_040", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Well, you say so, but what is there in the statute that indicates that, and anything that indicates that it's only... the same thing... what you're saying is, it is the same thing as the extension of the statute of limitations, which doesn't count if you're seeking only to recoup.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [414.189], "stop_times": [433.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 414.189}, "reply_to": "20728__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20728__0_041", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, (i)(3) says the right to rescission in recoupment shall not be affected and is available under State law, so even if one looks at 1635(f), the shall expire language, that is revived by (i)(3).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [433.93], "stop_times": [450.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 433.93}, "reply_to": "20728__0_040", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_042", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Mr. Rogow, can I ask you about that?\nDo you want us to determine what Florida law says?\nI mean, let's assume we agree with you as to the meaning of (i)(3), should we determine that there is such a right of rescission in recoupment under Florida law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [450.621, 452.484, 457.609], "stop_times": [452.484, 457.609, 466.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 450.621}, "reply_to": "20728__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20728__0_043", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "No, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [466.517], "stop_times": [467.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 466.517}, "reply_to": "20728__0_042", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_044", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "You would want us to remand--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [467.597], "stop_times": [469.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 467.597}, "reply_to": "20728__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20728__0_045", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [469.159], "stop_times": [469.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 469.159}, "reply_to": "20728__0_044", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_046", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--to let the Florida supreme court decide that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [469.718], "stop_times": [471.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 469.718}, "reply_to": "20728__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20728__0_047", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Yes, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [471.811], "stop_times": [472.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 471.811}, "reply_to": "20728__0_046", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_048", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "So is that the most you're asking for?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [472.411], "stop_times": [473.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 472.411}, "reply_to": "20728__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20728__0_049", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--It is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [473.912], "stop_times": [474.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 473.912}, "reply_to": "20728__0_048", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_050", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "A right to remand to let the Florida court decide whether, under Florida law, there is such a right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [474.332], "stop_times": [480.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 474.332}, "reply_to": "20728__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20728__0_051", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "To let the Florida court decide whether or not, under Florida law properly applying Federal law.\nThe difficulty with the supreme court of Florida decision was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [480.165, 486.339], "stop_times": [486.339, 488.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 480.165}, "reply_to": "20728__0_050", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_052", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Well, wait, wait, wait.\nThat's not what it says.\nIt says, under State law, affects a consumer's right of rescission and recoupment under State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [488.813, 490.503, 491.144], "stop_times": [490.503, 491.144, 497.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 488.813}, "reply_to": "20728__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20728__0_053", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--It says the right to... the caption of it says, the right to recoupment under State law.\nThe question then becomes whether or not Florida permits recoupment under State law and whether or not it would permit rescission.\nFlorida, in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [497.309, 503.703, 511.58], "stop_times": [503.703, 511.58, 513.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 497.309}, "reply_to": "20728__0_052", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_054", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "But I mean, Florida may decide that this is a peculiar sort of an action, this rescission action, for which it will not allow recoupment.\nIs that not within the realm of permissibility?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [513.149, 524.476], "stop_times": [524.476, 530.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 513.149}, "reply_to": "20728__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20728__0_055", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--It is not if it misapplies Federal law.\nThe supreme court of Florida--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [530.29, 533.285], "stop_times": [533.285, 534.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 530.29}, "reply_to": "20728__0_054", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_056", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Well, why would it say under State law, then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [534.516], "stop_times": [535.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 534.516}, "reply_to": "20728__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20728__0_057", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--Well, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [535.488], "stop_times": [536.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 535.488}, "reply_to": "20728__0_056", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_058", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "I mean, if it's a matter of Federal law they could have left out the phrase in (i)(3) nothing... it could have just said, nothing in this subsection affects a consumer's right of rescission and recoupment, period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [536.568], "stop_times": [545.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 536.568}, "reply_to": "20728__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20728__0_059", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--In (i)(3), the caption, I come back, that says the right of recoupment under State law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [545.394], "stop_times": [550.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 545.394}, "reply_to": "20728__0_058", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_060", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "I don't care about the caption.\nI'm talking about the text.\nWe don't go by captions.\nWe go by the text.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [550.208, 550.997, 551.909, 553.521], "stop_times": [550.997, 551.909, 553.521, 554.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 550.208}, "reply_to": "20728__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20728__0_061", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--And the right of rescission, Justice Scalia, is the right of rescission... TILA rescission and State law rescission.\nWhat Ocwen is... Ocwen agrees there is a right of rescission.\nThey're claiming that that right of rescission is strictly a State law right of rescission, and when one reads a supreme court of Florida opinion, it is driven by its view that Congress has said that there shall be no right of rescission under Federal law.\nThat's the heart of our argument, that was a mistake.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [554.402, 561.948, 565.628, 578.838], "stop_times": [561.948, 565.628, 578.838, 581.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 554.402}, "reply_to": "20728__0_060", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_062", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "I understand that.\nThey say that under Federal law there can be no State law of... right of rescission, and you say that's wrong, but can't we... if we send it back, couldn't they still find that under State law, regardless of what the Federal law said, we don't think this is the kind of matter on which there should be recoupment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [581.391, 581.562], "stop_times": [581.562, 603.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 581.391}, "reply_to": "20728__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20728__0_063", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Not if they applied neutral principles of Florida law, because Florida law permits rescission in recoupment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [603.106], "stop_times": [609.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 603.106}, "reply_to": "20728__0_062", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_064", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Okay--\nMr. Rogow--\n--But it's a question of Florida law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [609.002, 609.421, 609.761], "stop_times": [609.421, 609.761, 611.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 609.002}, "reply_to": "20728__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20728__0_065", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "It's an ultimate question of Florida law applying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [611.784], "stop_times": [615.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 611.784}, "reply_to": "20728__0_064", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_066", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "And what you say is neutral principles of Florida law may not be what the Florida supreme court thinks are neutral principles.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [615.366], "stop_times": [620.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 615.366}, "reply_to": "20728__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20728__0_067", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--And they would not be if the Florida supreme court properly addressed 1635(f).\nBy misconstruing 1635(f) and 1635(i)(3) the supreme court of Florida came to the conclusion really on two foundations, 1) that 1635(f) is a statute of repose.\nThe right shall expire.\nIt failed to address... indeed, it said that (i)(3) is not even relevant to this inquiry, and clearly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [620.67, 624.673, 636.76, 637.981], "stop_times": [624.673, 636.76, 637.981, 643.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 620.67}, "reply_to": "20728__0_066", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_068", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "May I clarify one thing, Mr. Rogow, because I think we lost a piece of this that's essential.\nI think... you said at the very beginning that the bank agrees there is a right to rescission in recoupment, whatever you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [643.857, 648.229], "stop_times": [648.229, 658.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 643.857}, "reply_to": "20728__0_067", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20728__0_069", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [658.647], "stop_times": [658.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 658.647}, "reply_to": "20728__0_068", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_070", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--But solely under State law.\nThat is, as Justice Scalia asked the question, the... there is a concession, whatever, that whatever Florida law would be apart from TILA, TILA doesn't exist, if there's a right to rescission under State law that would apply here, but I think you're urging the double... the two things.\nThat is, you must get TILA into it, otherwise there's no difference in your position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [658.825, 660.958, 682.973], "stop_times": [660.958, 682.973, 689.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 658.825}, "reply_to": "20728__0_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20728__0_071", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "That is exactly right.\nOur position is, is that 1635 (i)(3) embraces TILA rescission and State law rescission.\nIt leaves the door open--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [689.478, 690.66, 697.184], "stop_times": [690.66, 697.184, 698.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 689.478}, "reply_to": "20728__0_070", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_072", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "But if you're right about TILA having this right of rescission in recoupment, then why do you need the provision that talks about State law?\nYou've got... you say that under TILA in 3 years or 10 years, it doesn't matter, you can rescind if you're sued.\nNow, what extra does this add?\nIf you have your right under Federal law, then what does the addition of the State law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [698.436, 708.073, 718.689, 723.874], "stop_times": [708.073, 718.689, 723.874, 728.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 698.436}, "reply_to": "20728__0_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20728__0_073", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--It makes it clear that Federal law is not preempting the field, but rescission in recoupment under State law would also be available for fraud, duress, or coercion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [728.288], "stop_times": [737.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 728.288}, "reply_to": "20728__0_072", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_074", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--It's not a matter of preemption.\nIt's a matter of ultimate source.\nYou're saying, I think, that the obligation to make these disclosures and to make these calculations correctly arises under Federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [737.955, 739.636, 741.979], "stop_times": [739.636, 741.979, 752.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 737.955}, "reply_to": "20728__0_073", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20728__0_075", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "It does, Justice Kennedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [752.147], "stop_times": [753.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 752.147}, "reply_to": "20728__0_074", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_076", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "And it's for that Federal law Congress has provided a remedy for breach, rescission, but it says it can only be for 3 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [753.579], "stop_times": [760.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 753.579}, "reply_to": "20728__0_075", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20728__0_077", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "It says it can only be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [760.345], "stop_times": [762.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 760.345}, "reply_to": "20728__0_076", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_078", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "So it seems to me, as Justice Ginsburg is indicating, you're trying to have it both ways, but that's quite different from saying that there is simply a State law cause of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [762.105], "stop_times": [771.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 762.105}, "reply_to": "20728__0_077", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20728__0_079", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--Well, what we're saying, Justice Kennedy, is... and the supreme court of Florida came to the conclusion that there is no Federal right to rescission after 3 years.\nIf they are wrong about that, then their decision is not properly informed, and that's what we're arguing, that they are wrong about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [771.781, 781.896], "stop_times": [781.896, 789.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 771.781}, "reply_to": "20728__0_078", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_080", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "But certainly section... subsection, or double subsection (3) of 1635(i), which says nothing in this subsection affects a consumer's right of rescission in recoupment... that does not give any Federal right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [789.913], "stop_times": [803.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 789.913}, "reply_to": "20728__0_079", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20728__0_081", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "It leaves open the door to the Federal right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [803.441], "stop_times": [806.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 803.441}, "reply_to": "20728__0_080", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_082", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "It leaves... well, it leaves open the possibility that the State may give you a right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [806.222], "stop_times": [811.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 806.222}, "reply_to": "20728__0_081", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20728__0_083", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "It certainly leaves open the State giving you a right, but it does not preclude, and I think that's the key to this case, is it does not preclude the use of the Federal right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [811.357], "stop_times": [820.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 811.357}, "reply_to": "20728__0_082", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_084", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "No, but it seems to me that your Federal right of rescission goes when it says an obligor's right of rescission shall expire 3 years after the date of consummation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [820.662], "stop_times": [828.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 820.662}, "reply_to": "20728__0_083", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20728__0_085", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "That's 1635(f).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [828.408], "stop_times": [831.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 828.408}, "reply_to": "20728__0_084", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_086", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Well, and that is your right of rescission under this statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [831.371], "stop_times": [836.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 831.371}, "reply_to": "20728__0_085", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20728__0_087", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "That is your right to affirmatively--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [836.793], "stop_times": [838.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 836.793}, "reply_to": "20728__0_086", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_088", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "What do you mean, affirmatively rescind?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [838.926], "stop_times": [840.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 838.926}, "reply_to": "20728__0_087", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20728__0_089", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--By--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [840.306], "stop_times": [840.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 840.306}, "reply_to": "20728__0_088", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_090", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "It doesn't say affirmatively rescind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [840.516], "stop_times": [842.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 840.516}, "reply_to": "20728__0_089", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20728__0_091", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--When one reads 1635(a) and 1635(b) in that section, they're talking about sending a notice of rescission within 3 years, affirmatively rescinding.\nWe are talking about rescinding in recoupment, something that happens after 3 years when one has been sued in foreclosure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [842.138, 852.204], "stop_times": [852.204, 858.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 842.138}, "reply_to": "20728__0_090", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_092", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "And that's a State law right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [858.318], "stop_times": [859.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 858.318}, "reply_to": "20728__0_091", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20728__0_093", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "That is, if State law permits recoupment, then there is a right to rescission and the question is, which right to rescission, State law rescission, or State law rescission and the Federal TILA rescission?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [859.81], "stop_times": [873.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 859.81}, "reply_to": "20728__0_092", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_094", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Mr. Rogow, did the petitioner ask for a rescission remedy as a matter of State law in the proceedings below?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [873.671], "stop_times": [884.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 873.671}, "reply_to": "20728__0_093", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20728__0_095", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "As a... the petitioner raised 1635 rescission, which was Federal rescission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [884.336], "stop_times": [889.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 884.336}, "reply_to": "20728__0_094", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_096", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "But not State law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [889.541], "stop_times": [891.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 889.541}, "reply_to": "20728__0_095", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20728__0_097", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "At the... that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [891.221], "stop_times": [891.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 891.221}, "reply_to": "20728__0_096", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_098", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--rescission.\nThat was not raised.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [891.942, 892.433], "stop_times": [892.433, 894.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 891.942}, "reply_to": "20728__0_097", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20728__0_099", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "It was not, and at the time (i)(3) was not in existence when the petitioner filed his... his and her affirmative defenses, so they were relying upon the right to rescission, which every court that had addressed this since 1984 found that there was a right to rescission in recoupment after 3 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [894.105], "stop_times": [912.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 894.105}, "reply_to": "20728__0_098", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_100", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Why is--\n--May I... no, please.\nMay I go back, though, to an earlier question.\nLeaving aside the fact that the word affirmative does not appear in 1635(f), how do you explain the distinction between the shall-not-be-brought language with respect to the damages remedy, which sounds like a normal statute of limitations, and the shall-expire language with respect to this rescission right?\nWhat is the reason, in effect, that I think you're telling us we should ignore that distinction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [912.268, 913.059, 914.228, 918.893, 941.416], "stop_times": [913.059, 914.228, 918.893, 941.416, 948.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 912.268}, "reply_to": "20728__0_099", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20728__0_101", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "No.\nThe cases, Bull, Reiter, Western Pacific, clearly make it plain that Congress... only the clearest congressional language would prevent a statute of limitations from being used in recoupment, and the language here, shall expire, is being read now as something other than a statute of limitations.\nI don't think the nomenclature makes any difference in this situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [948.882, 949.333, 970.587], "stop_times": [949.333, 970.587, 974.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 948.882}, "reply_to": "20728__0_100", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_102", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Well, but my question is, why shouldn't it make some difference?\nThe shall... the shall not be brought is standard limitation language.\nShall expire is not, and on its face it suggests that in fact a distinction is being made, and I don't know why we should ignore that distinction in language and find it of no significance, and I don't think you've answered that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [974.18, 978.334, 985.448], "stop_times": [978.334, 985.448, 1000.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 974.18}, "reply_to": "20728__0_101", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20728__0_103", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "I think, Justice Souter, that the answer lies in (i)(3), that if one views, as is right, as having expired, then (i)(3) revived it by its language that leaves open the notion that there can be rescission in recoupment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1000.277], "stop_times": [1015.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1000.277}, "reply_to": "20728__0_102", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_104", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Well, (i)(3) doesn't have to be read that way.\nCannot (i)(3) refer to State law recoupment permissions that do not rely upon this Federal statute?\nThat is to say, if the same failure to provide information under this Federal statute also constitutes a fraud under State law, this provision can be read to say, recoupment and rescission for that fraud is not affected by our 3-dyear termination of the rescission for violation of this act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1015.897, 1017.279, 1030.019], "stop_times": [1017.279, 1030.019, 1054.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1015.897}, "reply_to": "20728__0_103", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20728__0_105", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "But the question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1054.885], "stop_times": [1055.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1054.885}, "reply_to": "20728__0_104", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_106", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Violation of the act is also a fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1055.136], "stop_times": [1057.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1055.136}, "reply_to": "20728__0_105", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20728__0_107", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--But the question, Justice Scalia, is whether or not it can only be read that way.\nCongress had the opportunity--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1057.059, 1061.259], "stop_times": [1061.259, 1062.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1057.059}, "reply_to": "20728__0_106", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_108", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "No, it need not only be read that way.\nI'm saying, when you put that together with the indication that Justice Souter was just referring to, the indication that they use language different from the statute of limitations, those two go together very nicely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1062.731, 1064.344], "stop_times": [1064.344, 1076.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1062.731}, "reply_to": "20728__0_107", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20728__0_109", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--But the supreme court of Florida said it can only be read one way, and that, we think, is their error.\nIt can be read... unless there's clear language that says there is no rescission in recoupment under Reiter, Bull, and Western Pacific, then the Court should conclude that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1076.532, 1082.958], "stop_times": [1082.958, 1092.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1076.532}, "reply_to": "20728__0_108", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_110", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "But Mr. Rogow why isn't the word expire here?\nI mean, I dimly recall learning in law school that there were two kinds of time bars.\nOne extinguished the remedy, and that's no action shall be brought, and one was supposed to extinguish the right, and that was the right terminates, not just the remedy.\nNow, that's what the difference in language triggered in my mind immediately, that expire sounds like the one you've got no more right, and the other is, well, too bad you can't sue on it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1092.874, 1095.025, 1101.039, 1110.316], "stop_times": [1095.025, 1101.039, 1110.316, 1121.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1092.874}, "reply_to": "20728__0_109", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20728__0_111", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--And (i)(3) addresses that when it says that nothing in this section, which includes the 3-year limitation which is referred to in section (i), shall affect the right to rescission in recoupment under State law, so while that... your reading would be the usual reading, the fact that (i)(3) is added to this changes this from being that kind of statute of repose where the right has expired, died as often is suggested, into something that now has been revived.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1121.906], "stop_times": [1151.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1121.906}, "reply_to": "20728__0_110", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_112", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "No, but your argument, as I understand it, is that the reason (i) revives it is that (i), in effect... or State law looks to... would look to Federal law, and specifically this act, but when Federal... when State law does look to Federal law under this act, what it sees is what Justice Ginsburg just described.\nIt sees language that seems to say, with respect to the 1635 right, it expires, so whether (i) is there or whether (i) isn't there, you've got to deal with the expire language and I do not see that the formulaic incorpora... or reservation of State law has any bearing one way or the other on the significance of that distinction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1151.873, 1177.08], "stop_times": [1177.08, 1202.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1151.873}, "reply_to": "20728__0_111", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20728__0_113", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Justice Souter, Congress had the opportunity to make it specific that there will be no rescission in recoupment.\nThe AARP brief has in its appendix the four different bills, I think it was, that were offered to accomplish what Ocwen is now asking this Court.\nCongress rejected that.\nCongress did not include that language that made it clear that this right shall--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1202.069, 1209.962, 1220.07, 1221.132], "stop_times": [1209.962, 1220.07, 1221.132, 1226.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1202.069}, "reply_to": "20728__0_112", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_114", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Did they take a vote on that, the whole Congress said we do not want these statutes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1226.387], "stop_times": [1230.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1226.387}, "reply_to": "20728__0_113", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20728__0_115", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--No, but by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1230.609], "stop_times": [1231.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1230.609}, "reply_to": "20728__0_114", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_116", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Just a committee, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1231.681], "stop_times": [1233.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1231.681}, "reply_to": "20728__0_115", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20728__0_117", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--But by rejecting the bill, Justice Scalia, by rejecting the bill--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1233.163], "stop_times": [1236.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1233.163}, "reply_to": "20728__0_116", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_118", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Did the whole Congress reject the bill?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1236.803], "stop_times": [1238.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1236.803}, "reply_to": "20728__0_117", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20728__0_119", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--Well, in terms of how Congress voted, obviously the end result was (i)(3).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1238.416], "stop_times": [1243.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1238.416}, "reply_to": "20728__0_118", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_120", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Those bills were never presented to the whole Congress, were they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1243.048], "stop_times": [1245.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1243.048}, "reply_to": "20728__0_119", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20728__0_121", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "They did not come out of committee, but in this legislative process there has been no showing by Congress that this is what it intended, that this right shall expire.\nI think it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1245.299, 1256.207], "stop_times": [1256.207, 1256.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1245.299}, "reply_to": "20728__0_120", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_122", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "But it says in so many words that it shall expire.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1256.928], "stop_times": [1260.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1256.928}, "reply_to": "20728__0_121", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20728__0_123", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--It does for the affirmative right to rescind--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1260.15], "stop_times": [1262.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1260.15}, "reply_to": "20728__0_122", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_124", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "It doesn't say affirmative, Mr. Rogow.\nYou've been putting that word in front of rescission all during this argument and the statute simply doesn't say it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1262.251, 1263.833], "stop_times": [1263.833, 1268.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1262.251}, "reply_to": "20728__0_123", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20728__0_125", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--Justice... Chief Justice Rehnquist, by talking about that right in that section they are dealing specifically with that affirmative right to rescind within 3 years.\nI think it's important to note that the lender controls everything here.\nIf the lender conforms to Federal law, then there is no potential for rescission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1268.706, 1279.675, 1282.359], "stop_times": [1279.675, 1282.359, 1287.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1268.706}, "reply_to": "20728__0_124", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_126", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Is the... I'm back with Justice Kennedy.\nThat is, this seems like such an odd legal animal, rescission in recoupment.\nI don't understand what it is, that... is there any other place it exists in the law?\nMy understanding is that if you give me $2,000... suppose you gave me $2,000, and I was supposed to give it back to you.\nI never did, and you forgot about it.\n20 years later, I sue you for $10,000 on something else, and even though there's a statute of limitations you could say, wait, Breyer has my $2,000.\nDeduct it from the 10.\nThat's recoupment, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1287.143, 1290.375, 1293.948, 1298.272, 1305.087, 1307.26, 1317.205, 1318.787], "stop_times": [1290.375, 1293.948, 1298.272, 1305.087, 1307.26, 1317.205, 1318.787, 1320.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1287.143}, "reply_to": "20728__0_125", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20728__0_127", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "That is, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1320.059], "stop_times": [1321.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1320.059}, "reply_to": "20728__0_126", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_128", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "All right.\nWell, by analogy that would here permit the borrower, the homeowner to deduct, when 20 years later they try to foreclose on the mortgage, the bank tries to get its money back, it would permit him to deduct however much he was hurt by a failure to disclose, but everybody concedes he gets that.\nNow what he wants is something more.\nHe wants something he never gave me.\nHe wants me not to collect any interest over 20 years, so that doesn't sound like anything to do with recoupment, and it's something else.\nIt's like a penalty or something.\nSo is there... if TILA never existed, if you look across all State law, is there any other instance you came across where something like that sounded as if it was part of recoupment?\nIt just doesn't sound like recoupment.\nEverybody's saying, rescission in recoupment.\nI know it's written in a statute, but I want to know, is this like a normal legal animal, or is it something they invented out of TILA, or where did it ever come from?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1321.031, 1321.201, 1339.511, 1341.554, 1344.338, 1351.894, 1354.027, 1368.017, 1369.92, 1372.191], "stop_times": [1321.201, 1339.511, 1341.554, 1344.338, 1351.894, 1354.027, 1368.017, 1369.92, 1372.191, 1380.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1321.031}, "reply_to": "20728__0_127", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20728__0_129", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "I'm not aware of it anywhere else, Justice Breyer, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1380.348], "stop_times": [1383.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1380.348}, "reply_to": "20728__0_128", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_130", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "All right.\nSo if it's nowhere else in the law, and if it starts out by saying, nothing in this subchapter shall, you know, have any effect on something called rescission and recoupment, then it sounds like, if nothing in this subchapter, then, forget it, it's gone, because there is no such thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1383.801, 1384.122], "stop_times": [1384.122, 1402.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1383.801}, "reply_to": "20728__0_129", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20728__0_131", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--Well, then I think those words would be meaningless, the (i)(3) language would be meaningless.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1402.205], "stop_times": [1407.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1402.205}, "reply_to": "20728__0_130", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_132", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "No, but it's possible... you know, you go to Congress, people get all mixed up and somebody comes and tells them there's something called rescission in recoupment under State law, and everybody says well, we don't want to touch that.\nI mean--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1407.988, 1415.934, 1416.833], "stop_times": [1415.934, 1416.833, 1419.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1407.988}, "reply_to": "20728__0_131", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20728__0_133", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Well, this was considered and it was rejected, and I think two points I want to make before I reserve the rest of my time is, is that not only do the lenders have the right to cure this defect, because they can cure it and therefore render them not liable in rescission in recoupment, but they can conform to the law.\nAnd I think the beginning point of this is, this is a unique statute.\nIt is a consumer protection statute.\nIt's to inform and project the consumer, and rescission is not a penalty.\nIt puts the parties back in their original position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1419.056, 1439.359, 1441.923, 1444.217, 1448.771], "stop_times": [1439.359, 1441.923, 1444.217, 1448.771, 1451.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1419.056}, "reply_to": "20728__0_132", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_134", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "May I ask you just to comment on one thing before you sit down, Mr. Rogow?\nIt's a point that I came across and I thought I answered it, and then it occurred to me, maybe I didn't.\nYou've mentioned 1635(i)(3).\nWhat I have in mind is the significance of 1635 (i)(1).\nI could read it, but you probably know it.\nDoes that have any significance for your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1451.844, 1456.558, 1463.173, 1467.295, 1472.34, 1475.071], "stop_times": [1456.558, 1463.173, 1467.295, 1472.34, 1475.071, 1478.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1451.844}, "reply_to": "20728__0_133", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20728__0_135", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "No.\nThose provisions in 1635(i) give the consumer a right to rescind within 3 years in certain conditions and the 1995 amendments actually limited the right to rescission.\nThis made clear that there was a right to rescind within those 3 years for those reasons.\nA mortgage broker fee was not disclosed, those kinds of things.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1478.134, 1478.565, 1489.36, 1494.445], "stop_times": [1478.565, 1489.36, 1494.445, 1497.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1478.134}, "reply_to": "20728__0_134", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_136", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "But it's referring to the right which occurs at the time of foreclosure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1497.707], "stop_times": [1501.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1497.707}, "reply_to": "20728__0_135", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20728__0_137", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1501.53], "stop_times": [1501.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1501.53}, "reply_to": "20728__0_136", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_138", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "So it's a defensive... I assume it's a defensive right which functionally is being employed in the same way that you're arguing the general rescission right should be employed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1501.991], "stop_times": [1512.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1501.991}, "reply_to": "20728__0_137", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20728__0_139", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "It is, within 3 years, but that doesn't address recoupment, and recoupment is addressed in (i)(3)--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1512.148], "stop_times": [1516.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1512.148}, "reply_to": "20728__0_138", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_140", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Okay--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1516.432], "stop_times": [1516.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1516.432}, "reply_to": "20728__0_139", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20728__0_141", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--and (i)(4) makes it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1516.602], "stop_times": [1517.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1516.602}, "reply_to": "20728__0_140", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_142", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--I have a technical question.\nIf they do rescind 30 years later, the borrower, does he actually have to tender the value of the money, or is it that the bank simply has a legal claim to the value of the principal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1517.443, 1519.184], "stop_times": [1519.184, 1529.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1517.443}, "reply_to": "20728__0_141", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20728__0_143", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--Well, there are equitable principles here, and the court could adjust the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1529.542], "stop_times": [1532.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1529.542}, "reply_to": "20728__0_142", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_144", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Well, when you say... in other words, is it possible that 30 years later the homeowner comes back and says, yes, you are entitled, bank, to my original principal, $100,000.\nBy the way, I'm in bankruptcy, and you don't have any security.\nGood luck.\nI mean, has that happened?\nIs that possible, in your interpretation that would happen?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1532.326, 1541.911, 1546.115, 1547.367, 1549.39], "stop_times": [1541.911, 1546.115, 1547.367, 1549.39, 1551.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1532.326}, "reply_to": "20728__0_143", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20728__0_145", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--There is no record of that happening.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1551.853], "stop_times": [1553.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1551.853}, "reply_to": "20728__0_144", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_146", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "No, ever in the country?\nI mean, I'm trying to figure out--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1553.505, 1554.466], "stop_times": [1554.466, 1555.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1553.505}, "reply_to": "20728__0_145", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20728__0_147", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "I'm not aware of any, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1555.938], "stop_times": [1557.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1555.938}, "reply_to": "20728__0_146", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_148", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--So they'd actually have to have the $100,000 and give it back to the bank, otherwise they couldn't do the rescission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1557.38], "stop_times": [1564.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1557.38}, "reply_to": "20728__0_147", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20728__0_149", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "The rescission requires a give-and-take.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1564.175], "stop_times": [1566.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1564.175}, "reply_to": "20728__0_148", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_150", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Is there any reason why a borrower would act within 3 years instead of just sitting back, once he knows there's been a mistake in the original transaction, and waiting for foreclosure?\nMeanwhile, he's using the money interest-free.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1566.699, 1579.865], "stop_times": [1579.865, 1581.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1566.699}, "reply_to": "20728__0_149", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20728__0_151", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Because if that were a strategic default, then under equitable recoupment principles and even, indeed, under the rescission principles, the court could take into consideration if there were some bad faith in the way the borrower had addressed this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1581.808], "stop_times": [1594.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1581.808}, "reply_to": "20728__0_150", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_152", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "And I take it the court could also take into consideration the fact that there's a provision in here that mere computational errors in fact do not support any rescission right at all.\nI mean, one of the things that surprises me about this case is what is described as the error here sounds like somebody's adding machine mistake to me, and I presume that if the bank comes forward and affirmatively shows that that's the case, this whole discussion is academic, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1594.187, 1606.575], "stop_times": [1606.575, 1624.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1594.187}, "reply_to": "20728__0_151", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20728__0_153", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "You would only have the right to rescind if there have been material disclosure errors that the court found were in clear violation of TILA, yes, Justice Souter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1624.306], "stop_times": [1632.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1624.306}, "reply_to": "20728__0_152", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__0_154", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Mr. Phillips, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1632.093], "stop_times": [1635.866], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1632.093}, "reply_to": "20728__0_153", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20728__1_000", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nGiven the presentation in the first half-an-hour I'm not sure I'm going to gild this lily at great length, but a couple of points seem to me to warrant attention at this stage.\nFirst, Justice Breyer, in response to your question, the industry amicus brief talks about the problems that arise in the bankruptcy setting and the fact that there are lots of lenders who end up not being able to recover anywhere near the full amount of the outstanding loan in the rescission context, so that's some evidence of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1635.866, 1638.217, 1648.874], "stop_times": [1638.217, 1648.874, 1663.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1635.866}, "reply_to": "20728__0_154", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20728__1_001", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Why would that be?\nI mean, that's... I'm trying to figure out legally why would that be?\nIf, in order to rescind, the homeowner has to tender back the principal of the loan, why would the bank not get the principal of the loan?\nThat's what was confusing me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1663.225, 1663.976, 1666.778, 1676.055], "stop_times": [1663.976, 1666.778, 1676.055, 1677.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1663.225}, "reply_to": "20728__1_000", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20728__1_002", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--As I under... because the principal of the loan is essentially an unsecured debt--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1677.356], "stop_times": [1681.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1677.356}, "reply_to": "20728__1_001", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20728__1_003", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "No, but tendering back, I take it, means like you have a certified check and you hand it to the bank, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1681.069], "stop_times": [1686.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1681.069}, "reply_to": "20728__1_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20728__1_004", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--Well, the question is going to be then, as a matter of equity, whether the tender-back rule has to be applied in the first instance or whether the bankruptcy protections ought to apply in the first instance, and I think a lower court's probably divided with respect to that particular question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1686.353], "stop_times": [1698.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1686.353}, "reply_to": "20728__1_003", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20728__1_005", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--That's what I found out.\nIt sounds to me this is an empirical question that should have an answer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1698.14, 1699.38], "stop_times": [1699.38, 1702.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1698.14}, "reply_to": "20728__1_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20728__1_006", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--Well, we know in the Bothelo case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1702.311], "stop_times": [1703.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1702.311}, "reply_to": "20728__1_005", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20728__1_007", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--and it doesn't sound to me as if people know, particularly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1703.663], "stop_times": [1705.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1703.663}, "reply_to": "20728__1_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20728__1_008", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--Right.\nBut the Bothelo case was the one case in which that actually happened and they did, in fact, eliminate the tender-back requirement in its full measure.\nThat's the only one I know about that's cited in the briefs and that's a bankruptcy case, Your Honor.\nWith respect to where their case stands at this point, we begin with the language of the statute and section 1635 says as plainly as it can that the right that the petitioners seek to assert here expired, and it expired in 1989, and they came in 1991 and they sought to raise it again.\nAnd what they were able to do in 1991, that they were able to do specifically because of section 1640, is they were able to get actual compensatory damages and they were able to get statutory damages, in point of fact, even though the statute of limitations on violations of TILA had already run, and that's because Congress was very careful in devising the remedial scheme that it adopted here.\nIt recognized that that was an equitable response that frankly tracked this Court's decisions in Bull and Reiter v. Cooper and Western Pacific.\nCongress recognized that that was equitable to allow the borrower under those circumstances to come in and to assert that particular right, and they received that, and the question which Justice O'Connor began the argument with I think is really the one that we have to focus on.\nUnder these circumstances, where you've received full recompense, what sense does it make for Congress to go further and ask you to grant a right of rescission, and the petitioners say that we have to find something in the statute that says you cannot have a right of rescission, and we submit to you that the more reasonable assessment of the equities of the relationship between the parties is, we ought to be looking in this statute for some evidence that a right of rescission in recoupment should exist under the circumstances of this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1705.543, 1705.744, 1712.449, 1716.793, 1733.534, 1754.197, 1762.334, 1775.444], "stop_times": [1705.744, 1712.449, 1716.793, 1733.534, 1754.197, 1762.334, 1775.444, 1802.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1705.543}, "reply_to": "20728__1_007", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20728__1_009", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "His argument I think was, look at the language.\nIt says nothing in this subsection affects a consumer's right of rescission in recoupment under State law.\nHe says, that's an odd legal animal.\nThe only thing he's ever found that that exists is this kind of a case, so Congress must have had something in mind, and if they didn't have this thing in mind, which distinguishes between affirmative rescissions and rescissions later on in recoupment, what could they have had in mind, so it's either meaningless, or what he says.\nThat's what I take--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1802.652, 1803.931, 1809.658, 1811.438, 1828.889], "stop_times": [1803.931, 1809.658, 1811.438, 1828.889, 1829.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1802.652}, "reply_to": "20728__1_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20728__1_010", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Justice Breyer, I can't improve on your characterization of what probably happened in Congress, which is that somebody identified the possibility of a State law right in rescission and recoupment and the Congress quite rightly reacted negatively and said, wait a second, in this subsection we certainly don't mean to withdraw any of those kinds of State remedies.\nRemember, this is a statute that is very solicitous of State law in general, and all of these--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1829.439, 1846.362], "stop_times": [1846.362, 1851.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1829.439}, "reply_to": "20728__1_009", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20728__1_011", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--Florida--\n--Do you think there's any possibility that Congress meant rescission or recoupment?\nRescission in recoupment just sounds crazy to me and it would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1851.007, 1851.648, 1854.781], "stop_times": [1851.648, 1854.781, 1858.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1851.007}, "reply_to": "20728__1_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20728__1_012", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1858.915], "stop_times": [1859.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1858.915}, "reply_to": "20728__1_011", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20728__1_013", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--make perfect sense if it said rescission or recoupment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1859.275], "stop_times": [1861.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1859.275}, "reply_to": "20728__1_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20728__1_014", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--Well, I think it would have made more sense if they had simply said State law rescission and recoupment.\nAgain, I think all they wanted to make clear of was that State law would be protected.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1861.075, 1864.618], "stop_times": [1864.618, 1868.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1861.075}, "reply_to": "20728__1_013", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20728__1_015", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "But is there such an animal in State law as rescission in recoupment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1868.351], "stop_times": [1869.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1868.351}, "reply_to": "20728__1_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20728__1_016", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "There is a reference to that language in one of the... actually, one of the earlier Florida cases, where... it's not actually that language, but there is recoupment action, and they do talk about rescission, but you know, our footnote 6 in our brief goes to great lengths... we looked in vain for this to try to figure out where Congress came up with this particular animal and frankly couldn't find it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1869.943], "stop_times": [1889.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1869.943}, "reply_to": "20728__1_015", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20728__1_017", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Nobody thought of the possibility of a scrivener's error?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1889.184], "stop_times": [1891.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1889.184}, "reply_to": "20728__1_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20728__1_018", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Well, I'm always reluctant to press that as the basis for interpretation, Your Honor.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1891.957, 1895.95], "stop_times": [1895.95, 1897.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1891.957}, "reply_to": "20728__1_017", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20728__1_019", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "If it said or--\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1897.57, 1899.092], "stop_times": [1899.092, 1899.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1897.57}, "reply_to": "20728__1_018", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20728__1_020", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1899.452], "stop_times": [1901.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1899.452}, "reply_to": "20728__1_019", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20728__1_021", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--How would the case come out if it said or?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1901.445], "stop_times": [1904.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1901.445}, "reply_to": "20728__1_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20728__1_022", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Rescission or recoupment under State law?\nIt depends on whether State law applies to both.\nYou see, I think it's clear--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1904.917, 1907.951, 1911.124], "stop_times": [1907.951, 1911.124, 1912.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1904.917}, "reply_to": "20728__1_021", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20728__1_023", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "And what's the answer to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1912.105], "stop_times": [1913.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1912.105}, "reply_to": "20728__1_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20728__1_024", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--Well, I still think that Congress would have meant for State law to apply to both, so it wouldn't have made a difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1913.127], "stop_times": [1918.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1913.127}, "reply_to": "20728__1_023", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20728__1_025", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "But Mr. Phillips, as I understand your position, you're just saying there's no Federal right here, but I don't think you take the position that if Florida said we're going to treat even a trivial violation of TILA as a ground for State law rescission, you aren't saying that it would be preempted--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1918.162], "stop_times": [1930.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1918.162}, "reply_to": "20728__1_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20728__1_026", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "No, I'm not arguing it would be preempted, but I do think it's important in that regard, a la Justice Scalia's question about a remand in this case, is that the first half of the Florida supreme court's opinion analyzes the Federal statutory issue.\nThe second half of it analyzes it as a matter of State recoupment law and conclusively says that in our judgment this kind of a statute is not the kind of a statute in which we would exercise recoupment and therefore, as a matter of State law, there's no basis for recovery.\nThat's over and above the fact that they've never asked for recovery under State law at any time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1930.451, 1940.415, 1955.826], "stop_times": [1940.415, 1955.826, 1959.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1930.451}, "reply_to": "20728__1_025", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20728__1_027", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--Well, that's the other point I was going to ask is, when did their claim for a State law recoupment first assert itself?\nI didn't find it in the early opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1959.419, 1963.222], "stop_times": [1963.222, 1965.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1959.419}, "reply_to": "20728__1_026", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20728__1_028", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "It never asserted itself, to this day.\nI mean, there is a single sentence in the reply brief in which they make reference to seeking rescission under State law.\nThere's no support for it in the citations in the reply brief and there's nothing in the record and actually I heard counsel for petitioner today to effectively concede that the complaint clearly says nothing about State law, and nothing else arose throughout this litigation in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1965.343, 1966.745, 1972.321], "stop_times": [1966.745, 1972.321, 1985.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1965.343}, "reply_to": "20728__1_027", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20728__1_029", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "But you think that nonetheless, as you read the opinion of the Florida supreme court, it rejected any State law recovery, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1985.728], "stop_times": [1993.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1985.728}, "reply_to": "20728__1_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20728__1_030", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--Absolutely.\nAbsolutely, because at the end of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1993.043, 1993.442], "stop_times": [1993.442, 1994.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1993.043}, "reply_to": "20728__1_029", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20728__1_031", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Even though it wasn't requested.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1994.744], "stop_times": [1996.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1994.744}, "reply_to": "20728__1_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20728__1_032", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--That's correct, Justice O'Connor, because the question that was certified to the Florida supreme court was whether or not there was this kind of a right under State law, and if you look at the joint appendix on 164 to 165, the last line of 164 says, after analyzing all of the traditional grounds for statutory interpretation as to why this provision doesn't grant a Federal right it says, but that does not end our inquiry, and then it turns, in Florida, and I take the rest of that analysis really--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [1996.206], "stop_times": [2021.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1996.206}, "reply_to": "20728__1_031", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20728__1_033", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "And you don't think that the Florida court thought that it was simply not at liberty to confer some State law right of rescission on the theory that TILA had preempted State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [2021.473], "stop_times": [2034.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2021.473}, "reply_to": "20728__1_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20728__1_034", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--I don't see anything in the Court's opinion that remotely suggested that to be the case, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [2034.601], "stop_times": [2038.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2034.601}, "reply_to": "20728__1_033", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20728__1_035", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Well, the question presented here is, may an action for the statutory right of rescission provided by TILA be revived as a defense in recoupment beyond the 3-year limit on the right of rescission set forth in section 13... 1635(f).\nI'm not sure that even includes that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [2038.744, 2053.695], "stop_times": [2053.695, 2057.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2038.744}, "reply_to": "20728__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20728__1_036", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Well, I... no question about it, Mr. Chief Justice, it doesn't include that question, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [2057.117], "stop_times": [2061.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2057.117}, "reply_to": "20728__1_035", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20728__1_037", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "That certainly wasn't... that wasn't the question framed in the petition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [2061.529], "stop_times": [2064.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2061.529}, "reply_to": "20728__1_036", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20728__1_038", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "--I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [2064.303], "stop_times": [2064.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2064.303}, "reply_to": "20728__1_037", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20728__1_039", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "We rewrote the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [2064.763], "stop_times": [2065.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2064.763}, "reply_to": "20728__1_038", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20728__1_040", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Right.\nYes, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [2065.755, 2066.025], "stop_times": [2066.025, 2067.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2065.755}, "reply_to": "20728__1_039", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20728__1_041", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "So that's not what they present... yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [2067.157], "stop_times": [2068.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2067.157}, "reply_to": "20728__1_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20728__1_042", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Right, but the bottom line is, in terms of I think what is before this Court, is simply a question of Federal law and I think, based on all that's happened today, the question... the Federal question of law is unmistakable.\nThat is, the right expired.\nThere is nothing in this statute that remotely revives that right and certainly nothing in (i)(3), which as I think we've discussed now at sufficient length, which simply retains certain protection for State law.\nIt was a peculiar way, if all you're trying to do is... if what you were really trying to do was to revive a Federal right that you categorically declare to be expired, this is not the way you'd do it, and therefore I don't think that's a fair interpretation of that language of the statute.\nIf the Court has no further questions, I'll waive back the rest of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [2068.607, 2079.303, 2081.335, 2094.126, 2107.482], "stop_times": [2079.303, 2081.335, 2094.126, 2107.482, 2111.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2068.607}, "reply_to": "20728__1_041", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20728__1_043", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Phillips.\nMr. Rogow, you have 1 minute remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [2111.876, 2113.368], "stop_times": [2113.368, 2115.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2111.876}, "reply_to": "20728__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20728__2_000", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Several things.\nThe Florida supreme court opinion clearly is premised on its view that under 1635 there is no right to rescission, and that informed its view of State law also, and that's at page 171 of the joint appendix.\nThe courts that have looked at this... Dawes, Colorado, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Illinois... have all decided that there is a right to rescission in recoupment consistent with the Federal TILA right that could be asserted affirmatively within the first 3 years.\nThis Court has talked generally about recoupment.\nIt is an equitable remedy.\nThere is nothing inequitable here.\nThis is a consumer protection statute, and the lender controls both at the outset the duty to conform to the law and throughout the life of the loan the ability to cure the defect and, in this situation, the... without clear congressional language saying there shall be no recoupment, there is recoupment in rescission, and Florida permits rescission in recoupment and it should have permitted it in this case under Federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [2115.641, 2117.642, 2132.492, 2148.912, 2151.245, 2152.847, 2154.559], "stop_times": [2117.642, 2132.492, 2148.912, 2151.245, 2152.847, 2154.559, 2178.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2115.641}, "reply_to": "20728__1_043", "speaker": "bruce_s_rogow"}
{"id": "20728__2_001", "conversation_id": "20728", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Rogow.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5310", "start_times": [2178.334, 2180.037], "stop_times": [2180.037, 2181.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2178.334}, "reply_to": "20728__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21188__0_000", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 96-1569, Daniel Bogan v. Janet Scott-Harris.\nMr. Rothfeld.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [0.0, 9.606], "stop_times": [9.606, 57.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21188__0_001", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI have two principal points to make this morning.\nThe first is that State and regional legislators who are sued under section 1983 are entitled to absolute immunity if they acted in their legislative capacities.\nLocal legislators who were sued under the statute should be entitled to that same absolute immunity if they acted in their legislative capacities.\nMy second, and closely related point, is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [57.337, 59.622, 61.99, 70.477, 77.85], "stop_times": [59.622, 61.99, 70.477, 77.85, 79.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 57.337}, "reply_to": "21188__0_000", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_002", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "I can't hear you very well.\nI can't hear you at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [79.868, 81.034], "stop_times": [81.034, 82.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 79.868}, "reply_to": "21188__0_001", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21188__0_003", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Sorry, Your Honor.\nMy second and closely related point is that public officials at all levels of Government, regional officials, State officials, and local officials, do act legislatively, and therefore are entitled to absolute immunity when they propose legislation, vote for legislation, and enact legislation.\nNow, the facts--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [82.82, 84.186, 100.947], "stop_times": [84.186, 100.947, 101.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 82.82}, "reply_to": "21188__0_002", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_004", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Are you going to at some point address the court of appeals' reason for address... for your losing, which I didn't hear in either of the first two points, because I thought the court of appeals accepted both of those points.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [101.931], "stop_times": [113.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 101.931}, "reply_to": "21188__0_003", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21188__0_005", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Well, the court of appeals did accept that there is absolute immunity for actions that are taken in a legislative capacity, and we agree with the court of appeals' decision on that point, a decision that I add was endorsed by every circuit.\nI think... I will address the second point subsumed within my suggestion that legislators necessarily act legislatively when they propose legislation, enact legislation, which is what they did here.\nThere was a dispute in the court of appeals as to whether the legislation here was legislative in character within the meaning of the immunity doctrine, and I will get to that point.\nAs I say, the facts that underlie this are simply stated.\nRespondent was the Director of the Department of Health and Human Services of the City of Fall River, Massachusetts.\nThe mayor of Fall River proposed a budget which eliminated a number of city positions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [113.089, 123.445, 133.436, 141.858, 144.81, 149.612], "stop_times": [123.445, 133.436, 141.858, 144.81, 149.612, 153.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 113.089}, "reply_to": "21188__0_004", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_006", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Well, I think we've read the facts.\nCan we get on to the issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [153.999, 155.166], "stop_times": [155.166, 157.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 153.999}, "reply_to": "21188__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21188__0_007", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Certainly, Your Honor.\nThe reason I was touching on them simply is because I think they provide some useful context for the legal issue, but turning directly to I think what's the first underlying issue in this case, are legislators, local legislators entitled to absolute immunity--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [157.432, 158.284], "stop_times": [158.284, 171.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 157.432}, "reply_to": "21188__0_006", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_008", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "On that issue, would you tell me your view of what the status of the common law was at the time of the enactment of the statute and, secondly, what the general rule was in the courts of appeals before our decision in Tahoe?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [171.026], "stop_times": [185.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 171.026}, "reply_to": "21188__0_007", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21188__0_009", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--As to the first, I think the law, the common law was clearly settled in the 19th Century.\nI think that it was the established rule, unchallenged, that local legislators were entitled to absolute immunity for their legislative actions, for actions of the sort in this case.\nWe have searched diligently.\nWe have not found a single 19th Century decision holding legislators liable for discretionary acts related to the enactment of legislation, and respondent has not cited such a case.\nThat statement of the law was reflected in the leading 19th Century treatises, for example, Cooley's Treatise on Torts, Dillon's Treatise on Municipal Corporations, which were written shortly after the enactment of section 1983.\nJust to give you an example of a characteristic statement, Cooley in his Treatise on Torts, written in 1880, says that so far as... and I'm quoting here from Cooley.\nSo far as legislative officers are concerned, their rightful exemption from liability is very plain.\nLegislatures have complete discretion in the area of legislation, and it is not consistent with this that their members should be called to account for their acts and neglects.\nThis is also true... and again continuing to quote Cooley, this is also true of inferior legislative bodies such as boards of supervisors, county commissioners, city councils, and the like.\nAgain, we have searched diligently.\nWe have not found a single 19th Century treatise which states a contrary rule, and I don't believe that respondent has cited one either.\nThere was a single exception to this rule of absolute immunity recognized in the 19th Century, and that was for so-called ministerial acts.\nThere was a body of authority holding that local legislators could be called to account for failing to perform ministerial duties that were imposed by State law or by court order.\nThat was a very narrow and precisely defined doctrine.\nIt applied only when there was an imperative, nondiscretionary, mandatory, and precise duty, as I say imposed either by State law or by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [185.35, 189.904, 200.545, 202.028, 210.334, 222.709, 231.731, 236.051, 244.455, 253.578, 254.963, 260.916, 268.69, 278.211, 280.663], "stop_times": [189.904, 200.545, 202.028, 210.334, 222.709, 231.731, 236.051, 244.455, 253.578, 254.963, 260.916, 268.69, 278.211, 280.663, 289.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 185.35}, "reply_to": "21188__0_008", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_010", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Was that true of the slander cases, too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [289.436], "stop_times": [291.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 289.436}, "reply_to": "21188__0_009", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21188__0_011", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--I'm sorry, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [291.103], "stop_times": [291.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 291.103}, "reply_to": "21188__0_010", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_012", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Was that true of the slander cases, too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [291.886], "stop_times": [293.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 291.886}, "reply_to": "21188__0_011", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21188__0_013", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Well, I think that... we have searched also and have not found a single slander case against a member of a local legislative body for statements relating to their legislative actions.\nRespondent in her brief cites a number of decisions which we addressed in our reply brief, and I think that in fact none of them involve such statements by local legislators, and it was until quite recently, it may still be the common law rule, prevailing common law rule that local legislators have immunity in defamation suits for those actions.\nBut the important point for present purposes is that in the 19th Century so far as we've been able to determine there were no such suits, and so I think it's quite clear... returning to the ministerial point, it's quite clear that the actions here, the actions of petitioners in this case, would not have been regarded remotely as ministerial in the 19th Century, and respondent does not contend otherwise.\nAnd so I think it is fair to say that the Congress that enacted section 1983 would have regarded as remarkable the suggestion that any legislator at any level of Government could be held liable for actions of the sort in this case.\nA Member of Congress in 1871 who looked at the background of common law would have seen that an absolute rule of liability prevailed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [293.405, 304.946, 322.49, 340.452, 353.844], "stop_times": [304.946, 322.49, 340.452, 353.844, 361.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 293.405}, "reply_to": "21188__0_012", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_014", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Precisely what was the act done here?\nI perhaps am not as familiar with the record as Justice O'Connor is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [361.532, 364.334], "stop_times": [364.334, 367.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 361.532}, "reply_to": "21188__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21188__0_015", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Well, I think the acts that are at the center of respondent's case are proposing an ordinance, voting for the... supporting the ordinance at committee, voting for the ordinance, and then the mayor's act in signing the ordinance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [367.603], "stop_times": [377.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 367.603}, "reply_to": "21188__0_014", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_016", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "And what did the ordinance provide?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [377.225], "stop_times": [378.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 377.225}, "reply_to": "21188__0_015", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21188__0_017", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "The ordinance eliminated a Department of Health and Human Services of the City of Fall River.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [378.827], "stop_times": [383.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 378.827}, "reply_to": "21188__0_016", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_018", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "I thought that what... the particular action they're talking about is section 22 of the ordinance, which reads, by striking out the following in section 16-239 the words, Administrator of Health and Human Services--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [383.565], "stop_times": [400.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 383.565}, "reply_to": "21188__0_017", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21188__0_019", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [400.407], "stop_times": [400.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 400.407}, "reply_to": "21188__0_018", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_020", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--right, and there's a jury finding, I take it, that those words that I've just quoted are in this ordinance because the defendant's stated reason was wrong.\nIt wasn't their real reason.\nThe real reason those words find their way into this ordinance is because they wanted the defendant to take action against the plaintiff on the basis of her speech.\nI mean, those--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [400.707, 413.015, 414.765, 429.073], "stop_times": [413.015, 414.765, 429.073, 429.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 400.707}, "reply_to": "21188__0_019", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21188__0_021", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--That is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [429.708], "stop_times": [430.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 429.708}, "reply_to": "21188__0_020", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_022", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--are jury findings, right, so don't we have to take those as the facts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [430.225], "stop_times": [433.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 430.225}, "reply_to": "21188__0_021", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21188__0_023", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Yes, at this point, certainly, Justice Breyer we do not take issue with the jury's determination.\nThe issues of fact were sharply disputed at trial, but certainly for present purposes we accept the jury's determination that there was a wrongful motivation that lay behind that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [433.31, 437.444], "stop_times": [437.444, 445.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 433.31}, "reply_to": "21188__0_022", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_024", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Now, my... of course, my question would be... and I want you to continue with the Chief Justice's answer, but the question arising out of those facts for me is, why are those legislative acts?\nWhy, in these circumstances, aren't these particular words, and given the way they found their way into this bill and that they concerned one person and the removal of that one person from her job, why aren't those words in these circumstances an administrative action, which is what the court of appeals found?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [445.2, 453.973], "stop_times": [453.973, 473.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 445.2}, "reply_to": "21188__0_023", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21188__0_025", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Right.\nIf I may, Justice Breyer, I'll respond to the Chief Justice's question and finish with my response to Justice Stevens, and then turn to that, which is the second half of the argument.\nThe ordinance as a whole, the ordinance that was enacted, eliminated the Department of Health and Human Services.\nAs Justice Breyer has indicated, an aspect of that was eliminating the position of Director of the Department, which was the position that was filled by respondent, and so her allegation, which was accepted by the jury, is that the motivation for enacting that ordinance, and that portion of the ordinance, was to eliminate her position, and eliminate her as a city employee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [473.804, 474.004, 484.193, 488.328], "stop_times": [474.004, 484.193, 488.328, 505.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 473.804}, "reply_to": "21188__0_024", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_026", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Any other aspect?\nI thought that was the whole thing.\nThe Department was just created so that this other... divisions were consolidated so... I don't understand the aspect part of your answer.\nI thought the only thing they had to do to get rid of the Department was to get rid of the person who headed it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [505.773, 506.475, 507.891, 517.264], "stop_times": [506.475, 507.891, 517.264, 522.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 505.773}, "reply_to": "21188__0_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21188__0_027", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Right.\nWell, I... they actually, as a consequence of eliminating the Director of the Department of Health and Human Services there were consequences that followed from that for the organization of the city government.\nThere were other city officials who, under the ordinance creating the Department, reported to the Director, and so eliminating the position of the Director required various other steps to be taken.\nNow, I think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [522.985, 523.368, 532.524, 541.279], "stop_times": [523.368, 532.524, 541.279, 542.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 522.985}, "reply_to": "21188__0_026", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_028", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "But the only legislative thing, whether we call it ultimately legislative or administrative, there was only one action, and that was to end the position of head of HHS, no other legislation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [542.731], "stop_times": [556.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 542.731}, "reply_to": "21188__0_027", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21188__0_029", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--That's right.\nFor present purposes I think we can assume that.\nThere was an ordinance which eliminated the Department and the principal consequence of that was eliminating the position of Director of the Department, although I... there were these other subsidiary things that had to be taken care of when that was done.\nReserving just for a moment the question of whether that that kind of... and it's clear it was an ordinance.\nIt was enacted by the city council.\nIt was signed by the mayor.\nIt was recorded in the official ordinance books of the city.\nReserving for the moment whether that legislation is legislative in character, Justice Stevens asked about the status of absolute immunity prior to the Court's decision in Lake Country Estates.\nI think that there were a number of courts, and their decisions are cited by respondent, prior to that decision which recognized only qualified immunity under section 1983 for local legislators.\nI think that an examination of those decisions shows that they did not... I think did not benefit from the Court's subsequent decisions setting out the nature of the immunity inquiry under section 1983.\nFor example, they did not look at all at the common law history that prevailed in the 19th Century, which the Court has said is the paramount indicium here, and it's interesting that one of the decisions cited by respondents was written by then Judge Potter Stewart on the Sixth Circuit, indicating that only qualified immunity prevailed.\nThen Justice Stewart I think changed his view, because he joined Justice Powell's dissenting opinion in Owen v. City of Independence, which stated expressly that members of city councils are entitled to absolute immunity, and so I think that the law has... this Court's immunity doctrine has been clarified and sharpened and every court of appeals has now concluded that an absolute rule of immunity is the appropriate one.\nI should just add parenthetically that the common law history, which I think is quite compelling, is confirmed by looking at the considerations of policy that the Court has identified--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [556.372, 557.038, 559.74, 573.231, 578.283, 579.218, 580.268, 583.436, 594.144, 604.416, 617.224, 633.702, 656.301], "stop_times": [557.038, 559.74, 573.231, 578.283, 579.218, 580.268, 583.436, 594.144, 604.416, 617.224, 633.702, 656.301, 666.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 556.372}, "reply_to": "21188__0_028", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_030", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Before you get to policy, the scope of this absolute immunity, is it the same as speech or debate immunity for Members of Congress, or is it different for a State legislature, a regional lawmaking body, a municipal lawmaking body?\nIs the nature of the absolute immunity the same as we go down the ladder from Federal to municipal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [666.256, 683.802], "stop_times": [683.802, 692.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 666.256}, "reply_to": "21188__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21188__0_031", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--I think, Your Honor, the nature of the immunity is the same.\nThe Court has described the test for legislative immunity at least as for regional and State legislators in Lake Country Estates and in Tenney using exactly the same terms as it has used in the Speech and Debate Clause cases.\nIndeed, the Court has cited the Tenney holding as the nature... as the test for Speech and Debate Clause immunity, and so I think that the immunity is identical in substance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [692.224, 694.593, 707.15], "stop_times": [694.593, 707.15, 717.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 692.224}, "reply_to": "21188__0_030", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_032", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Even for a county that has just a single commissioner who is both the executive and the legislat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [717.589], "stop_times": [722.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 717.589}, "reply_to": "21188__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21188__0_033", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Well, I think that that raises the difficult problem of application.\nLet me say just preliminary that obviously this case is not in that mold.\nHere we have classic legislation.\nWe have a multi-member representative body responsible for lawmaking in the jurisdiction that passes laws that are signed by the executive, so we don't face that problem.\nI think that the unusual forms of local government, and you suggest one, present a more difficult case, but I think that if the single Member is acting legislatively by promulgating a law, promulgating an ordinance, that the same type of immunity would apply.\nAfter all, the same polices that the Court identified in Lake Country Estates and in Tenney as necessitating legislative immunity because of the fear that prospective liability will distort legislative decisionmaking, because of the fear that it will lead to distracting and burdensome litigation, because of the fear that it ultimately would discourage people from public service, all of those considerations apply to all types of municipal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [722.743, 726.695, 731.849, 733.715, 742.205, 759.249], "stop_times": [726.695, 731.849, 733.715, 742.205, 759.249, 781.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 722.743}, "reply_to": "21188__0_032", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_034", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--May I interrupt you with just a... I know you want to get to Justice Breyer's question, but do your comments about local legislators have the same impact on the mayor?\nYou mentioned they had to be signed by the executive, and it seems to me at least arguably the... it might not be the same rule.\nIs there any enlightenment you can shed on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [781.513, 791.553, 797.207], "stop_times": [791.553, 797.207, 799.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 781.513}, "reply_to": "21188__0_033", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21188__0_035", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Well, I think, Your Honor, that as the Court has said repeatedly, the question is not the branch in which the local official or a public official serves, or the, you know, the source of their salary, or their title, so in Butz v. Economu an executive official was entitled to judicial immunity because he exercised judicial functions.\nIn the Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union case, judges were entitled to legislative immunity because they were--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [799.074, 817.788], "stop_times": [817.788, 823.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 799.074}, "reply_to": "21188__0_034", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_036", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Yes, but I'm not talking about when the mayor cast his vote, but when he signed the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [823.875], "stop_times": [827.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 823.875}, "reply_to": "21188__0_035", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21188__0_037", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Well, and I think that what the mayor did here was clearly legislative in character.\nThe two... the acts that he did, proposing the legislation and signing the legislation, are essential elements of the legislative process of enacting the law, and the Court in the Federal context has described the President's power to veto or to sign legislation as legislative in character.\nThe Court has said that that is an explicit exception to the separation of powers and the Constitution, and so in cases like Buckley v. Valeo and others that we cite in our briefs, the Court has expressly said that power is a law-making legislative power.\nThat is the very power that was exercised by the mayor in this case, and so I think that as a functional matter it was legislative, directed to the enactment of a law, and therefore he is for those actions entitled to absolute legislative immunity, and again, all the considerations the Court identified in Tenney, Lake Country Estates, point to that sort of immunity in this case.\nNow, if that is correct, and if absolute immunity is the proper rule for local legislators, or local officials acting in a legislative capacity, the remaining question in this case is Justice Breyer's question, were the legislators here acting in a legislative way, and I would submit that the court of appeals' approach to that has a slightly Lewis Carrollish quality.\nThere is no question that all of the actions taken by the defendants here, as I say, proposing the ordinance, supporting the ordinance in committee, voting for the ordinance, and signing the ordinance, were directed to the enactment of a municipal law, to an ordinance.\nNow, the court of appeals argument, the court of appeals holding in this case, which is endorsed by respondent, is that some legislation is essentially more legislative than others, that legislation does not have a legislative quality if the sponsors are motivated by specific facts, what the court of appeals called specific facts, or if the legislation is excessively narrow in scope, if it affects only a small number of identifiable persons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [827.326, 832.464, 849.676, 861.132, 881.528, 903.311, 919.986], "stop_times": [832.464, 849.676, 861.132, 881.528, 903.311, 919.986, 941.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 827.326}, "reply_to": "21188__0_036", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_038", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Well, the court of appeals used the term, administrate, but you describe the common law immunity as extending to everything except ministerial action, and I think the word administrative connotes a much broader exception than the term ministerial, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [941.686], "stop_times": [956.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 941.686}, "reply_to": "21188__0_037", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21188__0_039", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Well, absolutely.\nClearly the court of appeals was not deriving its administrative exception from the common law.\nIt had nothing to do with the ministerial exception, or perhaps the immunity that prevailed then.\nI think the court of appeals' view, and respondent's view, is that legislation which is, as I say, based on... in which the legislator's motivation is based on what the court called specific facts, or if the legislation is too narrow, that legislation is simply not legislative in character, even though it is a duly promulgated law.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [956.028, 956.695, 961.413, 965.551, 983.529], "stop_times": [956.695, 961.413, 965.551, 983.529, 983.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 956.028}, "reply_to": "21188__0_038", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_040", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "But maybe what they had in mind is if the mayor just said, you're discharged, that would be, quote, administrative, that's not legislative, and so maybe the court of appeals is saying, well, that's a nice way to get around liability for administrative acts.\nDon't say, you're fired.\nGet the city council to pass an ordinance that says she's fired.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [983.913, 1000.224, 1001.807], "stop_times": [1000.224, 1001.807, 1004.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 983.913}, "reply_to": "21188__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21188__0_041", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Well, a couple of points in response to that, Your Honor, which, I think that is a very important question that goes to the heart of respondent's argument.\nFirst of all, just as a matter of clarification as to what exactly went on here, the city council did not say, this individual is fired.\nThe city council eliminated this position for all time, so that's a classic legislative action.\nIt passed a law providing there no longer is this position in the city government.\nI think that that is identical to what would occur if, for example, Congress passed a law eliminating funding for the coming fiscal year for the Office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services.\nThat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1004.842, 1013.079, 1020.018, 1025.154, 1028.54, 1037.896], "stop_times": [1013.079, 1020.018, 1025.154, 1028.54, 1037.896, 1038.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1004.842}, "reply_to": "21188__0_040", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_042", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "You wouldn't care if it were the opposite.\nI mean, as you define legislation, if the legislation said that the current incumbent of this office... assuming this is within the legislative power, you would still say that's okay, it's legislation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1038.079, 1040.146], "stop_times": [1040.146, 1052.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1038.079}, "reply_to": "21188__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21188__0_043", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--I would say that, although I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1052.204], "stop_times": [1053.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1052.204}, "reply_to": "21188__0_042", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_044", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "And you would say that if the mayor... if you accept the conclusion of Justice Ginsburg's question, this was a neat way around liability, you would say precisely--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1053.104], "stop_times": [1063.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1053.104}, "reply_to": "21188__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21188__0_045", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1063.309], "stop_times": [1064.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1063.309}, "reply_to": "21188__0_044", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_046", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--it is, that that's simply the law, that you're not liable for legislative action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1064.011], "stop_times": [1068.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1064.011}, "reply_to": "21188__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21188__0_047", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--As I say, there are a number of points to make in response to that.\nI think... first of all, that is our position, that if the legislative body passes a law, whatever it says, it is legislative in character.\nNow, there may be other constitutional defects in that law.\nIt may be a bill of attainder.\nIt may... I think in this case such a law would have been outside the city council's statutory authority under Massachusetts law and under its own city council, but I think it would be legislative in character, and if you look at--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1068.129, 1070.812, 1078.335, 1080.52, 1081.153], "stop_times": [1070.812, 1078.335, 1080.52, 1081.153, 1090.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1068.129}, "reply_to": "21188__0_046", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_048", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "What about the city itself being liable?\nI know that's dropped out of the case here as it comes to us, but can the city itself be liable for a... an ordinance that is racially motivated, for example?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1090.642, 1093.41], "stop_times": [1093.41, 1110.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1090.642}, "reply_to": "21188__0_047", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21188__0_049", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Well, the city certainly can be liable for unconstitutional actions, and I think that that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1110.539], "stop_times": [1116.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1110.539}, "reply_to": "21188__0_048", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_050", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "But the legislators enacting it are not personally liable, is your view.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1116.276], "stop_times": [1121.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1116.276}, "reply_to": "21188__0_049", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21188__0_051", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Absolutely.\nAbsolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1121.162, 1121.514], "stop_times": [1121.514, 1122.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1121.162}, "reply_to": "21188__0_050", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_052", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Whether it's at the city level or the State level.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1122.164], "stop_times": [1125.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1122.164}, "reply_to": "21188__0_051", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21188__0_053", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "That's true.\nNow, in fact, actually that points up a more compelling reason for immunity in the local context.\nIf someone is aggrieved by that kind of statute at the State level they may have no remedy at all.\nThey can't sue the legislature.\nIt clearly is immune under Tenney v. Brandhove, and they can't sue the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1125.199, 1125.499, 1130.484, 1134.555, 1135.538], "stop_times": [1125.499, 1130.484, 1134.555, 1135.538, 1138.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1125.199}, "reply_to": "21188__0_052", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_054", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "But at the city level they can sue the city.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1138.257], "stop_times": [1139.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1138.257}, "reply_to": "21188__0_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21188__0_055", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Precisely.\nAt the city level they can sue the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1139.959, 1140.276], "stop_times": [1140.276, 1141.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1139.959}, "reply_to": "21188__0_054", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_056", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Oh, but you can't sue the city if on its face... I mean, what I'm thinking about is there are many different forms of local government.\nIn some, probably local councilors do all the hiring and firing, and think of the Court's cases like Rutan, et cetera, or the Court's cases you can't discriminate against members of the opposite political party.\nIt would be very simple.\nInstead of the administrator of, let's call it a city beginning with C decides that we're going to fire 10,000 people who belong to a political party, the name of which begins with an R or a D, here's what we'll do, we simply run it through the city council.\nThat's simple.\nWe recommend an ordinance, simplest thing in the world, and therefore all those cases in which this Court has held you can't do this, or you can't do that administratively, all we'll have to do at the local level is run it through the city council, and instead of doing it, we just call it a recommendation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1141.426, 1148.996, 1161.138, 1161.654, 1176.83, 1178.246], "stop_times": [1148.996, 1161.138, 1161.654, 1176.83, 1178.246, 1193.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1141.426}, "reply_to": "21188__0_055", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21188__0_057", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Well, let me make--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1193.023], "stop_times": [1193.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1193.023}, "reply_to": "21188__0_056", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_058", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "That's the end of those cases, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1193.84], "stop_times": [1194.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1193.84}, "reply_to": "21188__0_057", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21188__0_059", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--a couple of points in response to that.\nFirst of all, if, as you suggested in the first part of your question, the city council actually has powers to appoint and fire individuals--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1194.958, 1196.158], "stop_times": [1196.158, 1203.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1194.958}, "reply_to": "21188__0_058", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_060", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "No, no, they'll do it by temporarily eliminating the position.\nI mean, we have a hiatus in the position, we rename it, and we hire a different person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1203.828, 1206.947], "stop_times": [1206.947, 1212.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1203.828}, "reply_to": "21188__0_059", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21188__0_061", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Well, I think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1212.082], "stop_times": [1213.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1212.082}, "reply_to": "21188__0_060", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_062", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Or are you going to look through that subterfuge which, after all, takes the same form.\nIt takes the form of legislation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1213.101, 1217.803], "stop_times": [1217.803, 1219.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1213.101}, "reply_to": "21188__0_061", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21188__0_063", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Well, if... the question is, would such a thing be legislative in character.\nLook at what would happen--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1219.505, 1224.207], "stop_times": [1224.207, 1224.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1219.505}, "reply_to": "21188__0_062", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_064", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "That's the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1224.909], "stop_times": [1225.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1224.909}, "reply_to": "21188__0_063", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21188__0_065", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--What would happen if Congress passed... Congress passes laws all the time that are intended to and have the effect of affecting only one person.\nEven leaving private bills aside, tax exemptions that are aimed at one person, a law that says, Chrysler is hereby bailed out because that's in the public interest--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1225.475, 1232.228], "stop_times": [1232.228, 1238.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1225.475}, "reply_to": "21188__0_064", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_066", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Oh, no, but now, once you're down that track, once you admit an exception to the absolute rule of the form of legislation, then this looks like a pretty good case for that exception, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1238.548], "stop_times": [1247.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1238.548}, "reply_to": "21188__0_065", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21188__0_067", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Well, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1247.738], "stop_times": [1248.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1247.738}, "reply_to": "21188__0_066", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_068", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Because there are jury findings that this one person was really being dismissed in this way because of her speech.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1248.054], "stop_times": [1253.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1248.054}, "reply_to": "21188__0_067", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21188__0_069", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--But I don't admit an exception for that.\nMy point is that legislators at all levels, Congress, State legislators, regional legislatures, State... local legislatures always have had the power, the legislative authority to enact specific provisions that affect only an individual, that affect only a small number of people and they don't lose their legislative quality simply because they are of that nature, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1253.557, 1255.557], "stop_times": [1255.557, 1274.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1253.557}, "reply_to": "21188__0_068", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_070", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "That's why they put the Bill of Attainder Clause in the Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1274.221], "stop_times": [1276.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1274.221}, "reply_to": "21188__0_069", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21188__0_071", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Precisely.\nThere would be no necessity for such a clause--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1276.84, 1277.09], "stop_times": [1277.09, 1278.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1276.84}, "reply_to": "21188__0_070", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_072", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Then you're prepared to accept the way around all the cases that you can't discriminate on the basis of whatever, race, politics, or any other thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1278.673], "stop_times": [1286.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1278.673}, "reply_to": "21188__0_071", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21188__0_073", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1286.113], "stop_times": [1286.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1286.113}, "reply_to": "21188__0_072", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_074", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "As long as it's run through the city council.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1286.496], "stop_times": [1288.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1286.496}, "reply_to": "21188__0_073", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21188__0_075", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--So far as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1288.398], "stop_times": [1288.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1288.398}, "reply_to": "21188__0_074", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_076", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "No matter how egregious, it's home free.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1288.848], "stop_times": [1290.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1288.848}, "reply_to": "21188__0_075", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21188__0_077", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Well, two points, Your Honor.\nSo far as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1290.515, 1292.683], "stop_times": [1292.683, 1293.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1290.515}, "reply_to": "21188__0_076", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_078", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Well, I thought you told me it isn't home free.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1293.2], "stop_times": [1295.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1293.2}, "reply_to": "21188__0_077", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21188__0_079", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1295.134], "stop_times": [1295.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1295.134}, "reply_to": "21188__0_078", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_080", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "The city can be liable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1295.734], "stop_times": [1296.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1295.734}, "reply_to": "21188__0_079", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21188__0_081", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1296.701], "stop_times": [1297.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1296.701}, "reply_to": "21188__0_080", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_082", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Of course it isn't home free.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1297.068], "stop_times": [1298.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1297.068}, "reply_to": "21188__0_081", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21188__0_083", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "But my--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1298.053], "stop_times": [1298.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1298.053}, "reply_to": "21188__0_082", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_084", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "But the individual legislators probably have a perfect defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1298.47], "stop_times": [1303.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1298.47}, "reply_to": "21188__0_083", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21188__0_085", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--My... that is precisely my point, stated better than I could do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1303.005], "stop_times": [1305.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1303.005}, "reply_to": "21188__0_084", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_086", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "But Mr. Rothfeld, you just told me that the... it's like the Speech or Debate Clause.\nHow would you... if the city is the defendant, and your charge is this thing that looks neutral on its face, it's just a budgetary action, we eliminated a position, how do you prove motive except by questioning the people whose motives are tainted, and yet the Speech or Debate Clause says, shall not be questioned any place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1305.624, 1311.159], "stop_times": [1311.159, 1332.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1305.624}, "reply_to": "21188__0_085", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21188__0_087", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1332.941], "stop_times": [1333.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1332.941}, "reply_to": "21188__0_086", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_088", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "So I'm not comforted by your quick answer that yes, the city would be liable.\nYou need to prove it, and you need to prove it through these actors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1333.174, 1337.876], "stop_times": [1337.876, 1342.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1333.174}, "reply_to": "21188__0_087", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21188__0_089", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Well, I think... let me clarify my answer to you.\nI think I may have been confused.\nI think the scope of the immunity is identical to the Speech and Debate Clause.\nNow, whether or not an individual could be sued, could be called... an individual local legislator could be called to testify in a suit against a third party, clearly 1983 immunity would not preclude them from being called for that, so in that sense there is no section 1983 speech and debate equivalent immunity.\nNow, whether there is some Federal evidentiary privilege that would... could be asserted in such a circumstance has not been determined by this Court and is certainly not going to be decided by this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1342.328, 1345.38, 1346.43, 1350.517, 1366.526], "stop_times": [1345.38, 1346.43, 1350.517, 1366.526, 1375.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1342.328}, "reply_to": "21188__0_088", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_090", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "But at least it is an open question.\nIt's not so clear that the city would... you'd have to answer that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1375.482, 1377.934], "stop_times": [1377.934, 1382.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1375.482}, "reply_to": "21188__0_089", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21188__0_091", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "The second part of my answer to your question, Justice Ginsburg, is that there are many ways of proving legislative motive that do not require individual testimony by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1382.886], "stop_times": [1393.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1382.886}, "reply_to": "21188__0_090", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_092", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Give me an example.\nHere, how would you prove that this city council passed this not because of a budget crunch but because they wanted to get rid of this woman?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1393.61, 1394.227], "stop_times": [1394.227, 1402.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1393.61}, "reply_to": "21188__0_091", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21188__0_093", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Well, I think in ways that respondent in this case did attempt to prove that.\nShe showed, or attempted to show, that there had been altercations between herself and members of the city council or other city employees that were brought to the attention of the city council.\nShe attempted to show that elimination of her position actually was a ruse, because the city ended up spending more money hiring replacements to do what she had been doing, and there are a wide range of circumstantial indicia.\nI think in the Equal Protection Clause area this Court has indicated Justice Stevens--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1402.715, 1406.603, 1417.392, 1429.183], "stop_times": [1406.603, 1417.392, 1429.183, 1431.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1402.715}, "reply_to": "21188__0_092", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_094", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Do you think that the... that Judge Sowerby was wrong when he said, ah, but that's not enough, there's nine people on that council, and you tell me that two of them, you've got circumstantial proof with respect to two of them, you can't prove a claim against the city on that basis?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1431.949], "stop_times": [1445.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1431.949}, "reply_to": "21188__0_093", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21188__0_095", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Well, I think that the First Circuit suggested that the reason the case came out this way, perhaps, as to municipal liability is the manner in which it was litigated, that respondent made virtually no attempt to demonstrate by any means the motivations of these other members of the city council and, for example, one could imagine that a plaintiff in a case like this might try to show that there is an individual member of the council, like the chair of the Budget Committee, who is... as to whom everyone defers automatically, and that is essentially a de facto policymaker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1445.942], "stop_times": [1474.795], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1445.942}, "reply_to": "21188__0_094", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_096", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "You're not saying, I--\n--Do you think have we achieved something for municipal government if we acknowledge your immunity for individual legislators but throw open suits against the city in all of these cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1474.795, 1475.612], "stop_times": [1475.612, 1487.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1474.795}, "reply_to": "21188__0_095", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21188__0_097", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1487.519], "stop_times": [1488.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1487.519}, "reply_to": "21188__0_096", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_098", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "I'm not comforted by your assurance that you can sue the city, because I'm... you know, most of the arguments you make in defense of your clients here it seems to me are makable just as well with respect to the city.\nI think it would be a very serious disruption of municipal governance if you could claim that legislation enacted and on its face valid was motivated for improper reasons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1488.352, 1500.993], "stop_times": [1500.993, 1514.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1488.352}, "reply_to": "21188__0_097", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21188__0_099", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Well, that, I think, Your Honor, goes to the substantive nature of the constitutional violation that's being alleged, and it doesn't turn on the nature of municipal liability.\nI mean, the Court has crossed the bridge of municipal liability in Owen, holding that municipalities are liable for their unconstitutional acts.\nNow, if acts based on impermissible motivation are unconstitutional--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1514.836, 1521.656, 1526.894], "stop_times": [1521.656, 1526.894, 1530.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1514.836}, "reply_to": "21188__0_098", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_100", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "It also... but it's also limited by Monell, I take it, that perhaps an ordinance might be, but it would have to be a policy type of thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1530.179], "stop_times": [1538.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1530.179}, "reply_to": "21188__0_099", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21188__0_101", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Well, that is certainly true.\nIf I may--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1538.702, 1539.885], "stop_times": [1539.885, 1540.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1538.702}, "reply_to": "21188__0_100", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_102", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "What you're saying, I take it, or tell me if I'm correct, is that there may well be a constitutional wrong here.\nLegislators may well have violated their constitutional oath, but there's simply no remedy as against them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1540.987, 1549.141], "stop_times": [1549.141, 1555.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1540.987}, "reply_to": "21188__0_101", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21188__0_103", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1555.128], "stop_times": [1556.761], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1555.128}, "reply_to": "21188__0_102", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_104", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "But against the municipality, what bothers me... I don't know the answer to this.\nThe... on your approach, you take legislation that's neutral on its face, and you hold the city liable if it's passed for an unconstitutional motive, which brings you into a very big problem of how you prove motive for individual legislators, how many, et cetera.\nThat was what was... all right.\nWell then, isn't it easier just to segregate out those actions which are really administrative in nature for the municipality?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1556.761, 1561.115, 1578.826, 1580.576], "stop_times": [1561.115, 1578.826, 1580.576, 1586.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1556.761}, "reply_to": "21188__0_103", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21188__0_105", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Well, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1586.647], "stop_times": [1587.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1586.647}, "reply_to": "21188__0_104", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_106", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Or there's no liability?\nWhat is your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1587.599, 1588.532], "stop_times": [1588.532, 1589.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1587.599}, "reply_to": "21188__0_105", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21188__0_107", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--If I can give you a short answer and then sit down, I think that it would be a very dangerous thing for public officials if it were possible to look behind the form of the legislation and say, well, maybe on the face of it this does not in terms appear unconstitutional, but there were facts in their minds which render it unconstitutional and therefore legislative immunity goes by the boards until we are able to establish the nature of their motivation.\nOnce you've done that, immunity is swept off the books altogether, because you've had a trial and you've had discovery before immunity is determined, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1589.282, 1613.564], "stop_times": [1613.564, 1619.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1589.282}, "reply_to": "21188__0_106", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_108", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Well, what does Washington v. Davis require?\nI thought... I mean, what do we do with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1619.987, 1621.587], "stop_times": [1621.587, 1624.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1619.987}, "reply_to": "21188__0_107", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21188__0_109", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Well, I think that there are... as I suggest, there are means of getting at the motivation of the jurist... of the decisionmaking entity which do not require holding them liable, which is the only issue which is before the Court in this case.\nAnd if I may reserve the balance of my time, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1624.539, 1639.03], "stop_times": [1639.03, 1641.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1624.539}, "reply_to": "21188__0_108", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__0_110", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Very well, Mr. Rothfeld.\nMr. Schwartz.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1641.88, 1644.48], "stop_times": [1644.48, 1647.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1641.88}, "reply_to": "21188__0_109", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21188__1_000", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe jury found in this case that the mayor of the City of Fall River and the city council vice president came up with a scheme to punish Janet Scott-Harris because she exercised her constitutionally protected right to complain that she and other minority employees of the city were being called names such as the black nigger bitch, and that... because she attempted to bring disciplinary charges against the well-connected long-time city employee who made these statements.\nThe mayor conceded at trial, he agreed with the trial judge that Ms. Scott-Harris' speech was constitutionally protected.\nSignificantly, the mayor also conceded at trial that he had authority under Massachusetts law... in fact, the Massachusetts statute was marked as Exhibit 85... that he had authority on his own, without any action by the city council, to fire, to lay off, to remove Ms. Scott-Harris from city government.\nHe had authority to put somebody else into her office.\nHe had authority to have other people, the people who had reported to her report to the city manager.\nEverything that was done by this ordinance the mayor could have done administratively, on his own.\nNow, as the court of appeals noted--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1647.415, 1650.783, 1680.552, 1688.039, 1705.418, 1708.12, 1713.856, 1719.427], "stop_times": [1650.783, 1680.552, 1688.039, 1705.418, 1708.12, 1713.856, 1719.427, 1723.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1647.415}, "reply_to": "21188__0_110", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_001", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "What does that prove?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1723.129], "stop_times": [1727.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1723.129}, "reply_to": "21188__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21188__1_002", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--That addresses two points.\nOne point is whether this was a legislative act at all if it was an action that could have been done administratively.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1727.414, 1728.964], "stop_times": [1728.964, 1736.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1727.414}, "reply_to": "21188__1_001", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_003", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Well, are you saying the two are mutually exclusive, and what's your authority for saying that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1736.034], "stop_times": [1741.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1736.034}, "reply_to": "21188__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21188__1_004", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "I'm not saying that they're necessarily mutually exclusive, but if you apply the Court's functionality test, if you say, is the firing of one employee an administrative function or is that a legislative function--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1741.236], "stop_times": [1755.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1741.236}, "reply_to": "21188__1_003", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_005", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "And where does the Court's functionality test that you refer to, where does that come from?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1755.928], "stop_times": [1764.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1755.928}, "reply_to": "21188__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21188__1_006", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--For example, in the Virginia supreme court case, Virginia Supreme Court v. Consumers Union.\nWhat the Court did in that case was say, we have different forms of immunity for different functions.\nWe have absolute legislative immunity when State actors function in a legislative capacity.\nWe have absolute judicial immunity when State actors function in a judicial capacity.\nWe have qualified immunity when State actors function in an administrative or executive capacity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1764.598, 1770.252, 1777.672, 1783.31, 1787.345], "stop_times": [1770.252, 1777.672, 1783.31, 1787.345, 1792.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1764.598}, "reply_to": "21188__1_005", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_007", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Well, Mr. Schwartz, I used to serve in a State legislature, and I can remember in the State legislature, because of personal animosity sometimes a position would be eliminated by the legislators.\nThey didn't like somebody who was holding some particular office in some agency, and the way around it, let's get rid of it, and they'd just legislate it out of existence.\nNow, were those State legislators entitled to absolute immunity, do you think, when they did that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1792.598, 1808.091, 1818.983], "stop_times": [1808.091, 1818.983, 1825.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1792.598}, "reply_to": "21188__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21188__1_008", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Well, I... under Tenney v. Brandhove, certainly they were.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1825.57], "stop_times": [1831.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1825.57}, "reply_to": "21188__1_007", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_009", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "I thought so, too.\n[Laughter]\nLet me ask you this.\nIs there any difference in the functions being carried out by these city council members in terms of enacting the legislation than what I've just described at the State level?\nI mean, it looks like the same sort of thing.\nNot that we're proud of it, or think it's good, and in fact it was... there was a bad motive here, but isn't it the same conduct, legislative conduct that we're dealing with?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1831.723, 1833.389, 1835.925, 1837.008, 1848.583, 1851.451], "stop_times": [1833.389, 1835.925, 1837.008, 1848.583, 1851.451, 1868.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1831.723}, "reply_to": "21188__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21188__1_010", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "If it's viewed in that light, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1868.477], "stop_times": [1870.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1868.477}, "reply_to": "21188__1_009", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_011", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1870.163], "stop_times": [1870.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1870.163}, "reply_to": "21188__1_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21188__1_012", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--I suggest that if the mayor had eliminated the position it would have been legislative conduct.\nIf the act... if the act of eliminating--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1870.679, 1878.268], "stop_times": [1878.268, 1882.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1870.679}, "reply_to": "21188__1_011", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_013", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "I don't see why.\nI mean, here we are dealing with the actual enactment of a city ordinance, presumably within the powers of the city.\nThey didn't have to do it, but they could.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1882.136, 1882.836, 1891.826], "stop_times": [1882.836, 1891.826, 1895.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1882.136}, "reply_to": "21188__1_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21188__1_014", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Well, in actuality, Your Honor, the act that we're looking at here is not the act of the city council.\nIt's the act of the mayor, who's the defendant who is before this Court, in submitting an ordinance to the city council, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1895.194, 1900.33], "stop_times": [1900.33, 1908.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1895.194}, "reply_to": "21188__1_013", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_015", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "And was he a member of it as well?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1908.752], "stop_times": [1910.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1908.752}, "reply_to": "21188__1_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21188__1_016", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--No, he was not, so the question would be whether... what the jury found, the action of submitting an ordinance that would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1910.585], "stop_times": [1919.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1910.585}, "reply_to": "21188__1_015", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_017", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Isn't that part of the legislative process?\nI mean, the legislative process as described in this town was the mayor initiating the bill, and the council passes it, and the mayor signs it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1919.858, 1921.31], "stop_times": [1921.31, 1931.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1919.858}, "reply_to": "21188__1_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21188__1_018", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1931.499], "stop_times": [1931.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1931.499}, "reply_to": "21188__1_017", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_019", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "And that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1931.932], "stop_times": [1932.232], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1931.932}, "reply_to": "21188__1_018", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21188__1_020", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1932.232], "stop_times": [1932.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1932.232}, "reply_to": "21188__1_019", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_021", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--So it's all part of a legislative process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1932.582], "stop_times": [1934.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1932.582}, "reply_to": "21188__1_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21188__1_022", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Oh, yes.\nI agree with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1934.618, 1934.968], "stop_times": [1934.968, 1936.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1934.618}, "reply_to": "21188__1_021", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_023", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "You're not trying to say that every time the mayor proposes a bill and every time he signs it he's not acting in a legislative capacity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1936.236], "stop_times": [1942.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1936.236}, "reply_to": "21188__1_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21188__1_024", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Oh, no.\nNo.\nI agree that he was acting in a legislative capacity, but I think it's important to focus on what the conduct was.\nHis conduct was, rather than acting on his own, on his own authority, an action that he admitted he would not have even had qualified immunity for, he never filed a qualified immunity... asserted a qualified immunity defense, because the right not to be fired because of your speech was clearly established.\nSo this was an action that he could have taken on his own.\nHe would have had no immunity of any kind.\nInstead, he chose to submit this to the city council.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1942.723, 1943.006, 1943.306, 1948.627, 1968.189, 1972.159, 1975.028], "stop_times": [1943.006, 1943.306, 1948.627, 1968.189, 1972.159, 1975.028, 1978.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1942.723}, "reply_to": "21188__1_023", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_025", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Which is a lot harder.\nI mean, he has to get a whole bunch of other people to agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1978.163, 1979.197], "stop_times": [1979.197, 1981.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1978.163}, "reply_to": "21188__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21188__1_026", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1981.765], "stop_times": [1982.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1981.765}, "reply_to": "21188__1_025", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_027", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Right?\nI mean, you... it isn't as easy as rolling off a log, so that you can avoid liability just like that, by getting... you have to get it through the city council.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1982.181, 1982.632], "stop_times": [1982.632, 1993.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1982.181}, "reply_to": "21188__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21188__1_028", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1993.172], "stop_times": [1993.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1993.172}, "reply_to": "21188__1_027", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_029", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "And there might have been people on the city council who thought, why should we eliminate this Department, and maybe some of the people who passed it thought it was simply a good idea to eliminate the Department.\nDo we know what the motivations of the individual legislators on the city council were?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [1993.889, 2003.328], "stop_times": [2003.328, 2007.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1993.889}, "reply_to": "21188__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21188__1_030", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Well, no, we don't.\nWe don't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2007.863, 2008.732], "stop_times": [2008.732, 2009.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2007.863}, "reply_to": "21188__1_029", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_031", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "I mean, maybe some of them thought it was a good idea to get rid of the Department.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2009.465], "stop_times": [2013.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2009.465}, "reply_to": "21188__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21188__1_032", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "And for all we know the mayor was successful in hoodwinking the other members of the city council.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2013.101], "stop_times": [2019.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2013.101}, "reply_to": "21188__1_031", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_033", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Well, the other point is, the Department is permanently abolished.\nIf this... if you're going to reinstate it, there has to be a new law enacted by the council.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2019.604, 2021.706], "stop_times": [2021.706, 2028.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2019.604}, "reply_to": "21188__1_032", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21188__1_034", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "And I suggest that the appendix... the appendices list 150 cases in which local governments have come up with very creative ways of doing just that, as Justice Breyer pointed out, that these 150 cases show example after example of excessive creativity at the local level.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2028.36], "stop_times": [2048.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2028.36}, "reply_to": "21188__1_033", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_035", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Well, what's the matter with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2048.438], "stop_times": [2050.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2048.438}, "reply_to": "21188__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21188__1_036", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Well, the creativity is used to evade liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2050.039], "stop_times": [2055.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2050.039}, "reply_to": "21188__1_035", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_037", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Well, but that's life.\nI mean, the Members of Congress will make statements on the floor of the House that they will not go out in public and make, because in one case they're protected by Speech and Debate, and you say, well, you know, why do they do that?\nWell, they prefer to do something in a way that gets the message across and avoids liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2055.177, 2056.493, 2071.286], "stop_times": [2056.493, 2071.286, 2077.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2055.177}, "reply_to": "21188__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21188__1_038", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "And the result of allowing conduct that a State official is empowered to do on his own, the result of allowing him to obtain immunity by running that exact same conduct through the city council is in effect to create a manual for violating constitutional rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2077.091], "stop_times": [2095.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2077.091}, "reply_to": "21188__1_037", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_039", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Gee, we do that in antitrust laws.\nI mean, Justice Breyer was bringing up antitrust in another situation.\nAn action which an individual, if he took on his own, would impose serious antitrust liability, if he walks it over to the State legislature and gets a law passed, lobbies the legislature for the same result, it's perfectly okay, so it doesn't surprise me that you can launder some pretty bad stuff by running it through the legislature.\nWe do it all the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2095.504, 2097.204, 2103.524, 2130.425], "stop_times": [2097.204, 2103.524, 2130.425, 2136.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2095.504}, "reply_to": "21188__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21188__1_040", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "I'm familiar with the Massachusetts legislature--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2136.06], "stop_times": [2138.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2136.06}, "reply_to": "21188__1_039", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_041", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Yes.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2138.31, 2138.676], "stop_times": [2138.676, 2140.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2138.31}, "reply_to": "21188__1_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21188__1_042", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--and I certainly would not urge their pristine character upon this Court.\nBut on the other hand, when it comes to constitutional violations, I don't think this Court should make it any easier to evade the Constitution, or to make it any easier to launder intentional, knowing violations of clearly established constitutional rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2140.678, 2143.214], "stop_times": [2143.214, 2158.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2140.678}, "reply_to": "21188__1_041", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_043", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Is it possible there's a distinction between the two defendants, one being a member of the city council and the other not, so that when, in fact, even if you have anything that... even if you were to say, whatever takes the form of an ordinance in a city council is legislation, you wouldn't necessarily have to say that as to the person who proposes to the city council an ordinance that takes the form of but does not in reality seem to amount to legislative rather than administrative action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2158.74], "stop_times": [2193.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2158.74}, "reply_to": "21188__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21188__1_044", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Yes, I would agree with that, Justice Breyer, that there certainly is a distinction between the two defendants, and if one looks at the form of the legislation, of the ordinance that was submitted as found by the jury, the form of that is, in other words, I propose the city council pass an ordinance that will remove Janet Scott-Harris from city government because of her constitutionally protected speech, I suggest that fits all of the elements of a bill of attainder.\nIt's contended--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2193.247, 2222.599], "stop_times": [2222.599, 2223.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2193.247}, "reply_to": "21188__1_043", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_045", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "I'm sorry, but in your response to Justice Breyer I thought you contradicted what you had responded to me.\nI asked you about the mayor, wasn't he performing part of a legislative function when he proposes the bill, and they pass it, and he signs it, that's all part of a legislative process, and now you're trying to say, no, we remove the legislative stamp from the mayor but not the council member.\nBefore, you were emphasizing it's the function that counts.\nIt's a legislative process.\nIt starts with initiating a bill, the bill passes, the bill gets signed.\nI thought maybe... maybe I didn't understand your answer correctly, but I thought you put a ring around that as the legislative process, initiation, passage, signature.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2223.732, 2230.688, 2249.149, 2253.368, 2255.137, 2258.605], "stop_times": [2230.688, 2249.149, 2253.368, 2255.137, 2258.605, 2272.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2223.732}, "reply_to": "21188__1_044", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21188__1_046", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Okay.\nI apologize if I haven't been clear.\nI certainly agree that step 1 of the legislative process is the submission of a proposed ordinance.\nOn the other hand, when it comes to matters of proof, matters of motivation, it's certainly much easier to prove the motivation of the one individual who submits the ordinance than it is to prove the collective motivation of the entire body, and I suggest that that's just what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2272.015, 2272.315, 2273.832, 2281.787], "stop_times": [2272.315, 2273.832, 2281.787, 2298.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2272.015}, "reply_to": "21188__1_045", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_047", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "In this case it might have been very easy, or just as easy, or even easier to prove, was it Roderick the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2298.749], "stop_times": [2304.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2298.749}, "reply_to": "21188__1_046", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21188__1_048", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2304.32], "stop_times": [2304.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2304.32}, "reply_to": "21188__1_047", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_049", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--as the mayor.\nSo I don't see anything inherent about the mayor that makes it easier to prove when you have somebody right there on the city council who was a friend of the offender, the alleged offender.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2304.686, 2306.952], "stop_times": [2306.952, 2317.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2304.686}, "reply_to": "21188__1_048", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21188__1_050", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Yes.\nThe difficulty found by the court of appeals, however, was, although it was easy to prove the motivation of the mayor and Roderick, the court of appeals found that we weren't able to prove the collective motivation of the board, or of a sufficient number of members of the board.\nI would like to address the more underlying question of the common law basis for this absolute legislative immunity at the local level, because I suggest that the common law, as it was established in 1871, is nowhere near as clearly established as petitioner suggests.\nEvery single case cited by petitioners, every single authority cited by petitioners relies on the discretionary ministerial doctrine, and petitioners say that the conduct at issue in this case was discretionary, therefore there's no liability.\nPetitioners also agree... and they cite an 1877 case, Jones v. Loving, at page 24 of their brief.\nThey also agree that this discretionary ministerial doctrine applied equally to the municipality itself as it did to the municipal decisionmakers, and they're correct in that, that Jones v. Loving says that members of the legislative body are clothed with the immunity of the municipality.\nThat immunity came from the discretionary ministerial doctrine.\nThe immunity was the same for the municipality as it was for the municipality's decisionmakers.\nNow, in Owens v. City of Independence this Court relied quite heavily on the discretionary ministerial doctrine to find that there was no immunity of any kind for municipalities under section 1983.\nThe Court said that there's no discretion to violate the Constitution, that the Constitution is mandatory, and that it is not a discretionary act to violate the Constitution.\nThe question in this case was, as found by the jury, did the mayor have the discretion to submit an ordinance to remove Janet Scott-Harris from city government to punish her for her constitutionally protected speech?\nI suggest that that was not a discretionary act.\nNow, what's significant about Owen is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2317.744, 2318.944, 2336.372, 2356.785, 2373.645, 2381.049, 2402.212, 2405.264, 2410.318, 2423.994, 2435.7, 2448.359, 2451.477], "stop_times": [2318.944, 2336.372, 2356.785, 2373.645, 2381.049, 2402.212, 2405.264, 2410.318, 2423.994, 2435.7, 2448.359, 2451.477, 2455.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2317.744}, "reply_to": "21188__1_049", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_051", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "What are you trying... you're proposing the category of discretionary on the one hand as opposed to what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2455.429], "stop_times": [2465.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2455.429}, "reply_to": "21188__1_050", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21188__1_052", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--In the common law it was called ministerial.\nThe term ministerial as we hear it implies a pretty menial task.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2465.201, 2468.57], "stop_times": [2468.57, 2475.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2465.201}, "reply_to": "21188__1_051", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_053", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Yes, almost obligatory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2475.141], "stop_times": [2476.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2475.141}, "reply_to": "21188__1_052", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21188__1_054", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Yes, and ministerial as applied by the common law, ministerial as applied by this Court in the Amy and Farr cases, in... just a month before section 1983 was enacted, ministerial meant that there was no legal discretion to the decisionmakers.\nIn Amy and Farr, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2476.842, 2496.054], "stop_times": [2496.054, 2498.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2476.842}, "reply_to": "21188__1_053", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_055", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "That they had to act that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2498.005], "stop_times": [2499.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2498.005}, "reply_to": "21188__1_054", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21188__1_056", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--They had to act that way, or, conversely, that they were forbidden to act in a certain manner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2499.988], "stop_times": [2505.592], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2499.988}, "reply_to": "21188__1_055", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_057", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Well, I don't think you would ever refer to a situation where a person was forbidden to act as ministerial.\nMinisterial that you had an obligation, affirmative obligation to do something.\nTo say that it was a ministerial act because you were forbidden to do it is a use of the word ministerial I've never heard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2505.592, 2512.929, 2518.4], "stop_times": [2512.929, 2518.4, 2525.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2505.592}, "reply_to": "21188__1_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21188__1_058", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Well, it was the way that the ministerial doctrine was applied by this Court in Owen v. City of Independence.\nThis Court said that since there is no discretion to violate the Constitution, the discretionary ministerial doctrine would not provide immunity for an intentional violation of the Constitution.\nNow, what's significant about Owen is that, while the Court said that the discretionary ministerial doctrine was the equivalent of no immunity under section 1983, the dissenting justices said that the discretionary ministerial doctrine parallels quite closely the qualified immunity standard of this Court under Harlow v. Fitzgerald, and I suggest that that discretionary ministerial doctrine does parallel this Court's present qualified immunity doctrine.\nUnder that doctrine, State officials have discretion... have immunity for their discretionary acts unless their discretionary act violates a clearly established legal duty.\nUnder the discretionary ministerial doctrine as applied under common law, a local official had immunity for his discretionary acts unless his discretionary act violated a clearly established legal duty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2525.154, 2530.64, 2544.133, 2572.034, 2584.275], "stop_times": [2530.64, 2544.133, 2572.034, 2584.275, 2598.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2525.154}, "reply_to": "21188__1_057", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_059", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Like libeling somebody?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2598.599], "stop_times": [2600.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2598.599}, "reply_to": "21188__1_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21188__1_060", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Well, the libel cases are a separate line of cases, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2600.285], "stop_times": [2607.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2600.285}, "reply_to": "21188__1_059", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_061", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Well, it's clearly unlawful to libel somebody, and yet I don't know that you can sue legislators for libel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2607.188], "stop_times": [2612.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2607.188}, "reply_to": "21188__1_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21188__1_062", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Well, the common... the common law of libel at present in the majority of States is that for local legislators, it's a different form of immunity at the local level now and in the 19th Century.\nFor local legislators, a local legislator was liable for libel if he acted maliciously.\nA member of the State legislature was not liable, had immunity in libel cases, whether or not he acted maliciously.\nI suggest the Massachusetts cases on this are pretty striking.\nCoffin v. Coffin was the one common law case relied upon by this Court in Tenney v. Brandhove, a libel action for statements made on the floor of the Massachusetts legislature.\nThis Court relied upon Coffin for the position that the common law provided absolute immunity to members of the State legislature in a libel action regardless of whether they acted maliciously or not.\nWell, 20 years after Coffin v. Coffin, the same Massachusetts court, the Massachusetts supreme judicial court, in the same form of action, a slander action brought against a member of a town governing board, the Brookline Board of Selectmen, did not apply that same absolute legislative immunity at the local level, but instead the Massachusetts supreme judicial court said that at the local level, in a slander action, if the person, State local official acted maliciously or abused his office, he had no immunity.\nSo under the libel cases the immunity rules under the tort law were different for members of the State legislature than they were for members of local legislative bodies.\nProsser, Keeton, Harper, the Restatement of Torts all say that that is still the rule.\nThey all state unequivocally that the absolute immunity in libel cases for members of State legislative bodies does not apply to municipal governing bodies.\nThat's a clear distinction in the common law, and I suggest that that distinction in the common law imposing liability at the local level to local legislators that was not imposed at the State level, and also the discretional ministerial doctrine that imposed liability in some circumstances at the local level, where there would not be liability at the State level, shows that the common law distinguished between State legislators and local legislators, and because the common law distinguished between the immunity of local legislators and State legislators, petitioners haven't met their very heavy burden of proving--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2612.675, 2630.47, 2639.593, 2647.431, 2651.05, 2662.572, 2677.617, 2708.137, 2719.944, 2725.181, 2735.037], "stop_times": [2630.47, 2639.593, 2647.431, 2651.05, 2662.572, 2677.617, 2708.137, 2719.944, 2725.181, 2735.037, 2774.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2612.675}, "reply_to": "21188__1_061", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_063", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Do you have one case?\nI mean, your opposing counsel says that you have not come up with a single case where a State legislator was held liable... a municipal legislator was held liable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2774.662, 2775.631], "stop_times": [2775.631, 2785.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2774.662}, "reply_to": "21188__1_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21188__1_064", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I suggest that a decision whether or not to levy a general tax by a legislative body would clearly today be considered a legislative act.\nOnly legislatures can levy taxes.\nThis Court in the Amy and Farr cases found members of local governing boards personally liable out of their own pockets for their decisions not to levy a general tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2785.137, 2797.945, 2800.563], "stop_times": [2797.945, 2800.563, 2812.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2785.137}, "reply_to": "21188__1_063", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_065", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "That was on the basis of the mandatory nondiscretionary act doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2812.871], "stop_times": [2818.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2812.871}, "reply_to": "21188__1_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21188__1_066", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2818.608], "stop_times": [2819.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2818.608}, "reply_to": "21188__1_065", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_067", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "On that alone, which you don't contend it exists here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2819.125], "stop_times": [2823.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2819.125}, "reply_to": "21188__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21188__1_068", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Oh, I... but I do... I do contend that exists here.\nWhat I contend is that that mandatory nondiscretionary act doctrine is awfully similar to the qualified immunity doctrine, that where a law is clearly established, a legal right or a legal duty is clearly established, thou shalt not fire an employee because of her constitutionally protected speech, that any... when the mayor does that, he's going beyond his discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2823.593, 2827.629], "stop_times": [2827.629, 2855.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2823.593}, "reply_to": "21188__1_067", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_069", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Well, if that's what you mean by a nondiscretionary act, every time a legislature is alleged to have violated the law, it will have been alleged to have violated the nondiscretionary act doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2855.631], "stop_times": [2867.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2855.631}, "reply_to": "21188__1_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21188__1_070", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Well, what I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2867.689], "stop_times": [2869.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2867.689}, "reply_to": "21188__1_069", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_071", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "The law is the law is the law.\nIf you're violating the law, you had no option but not to violate the law.\nI mean, you know, that just expands it to such a degree that there's nothing left of the liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2869.005, 2870.239, 2873.343], "stop_times": [2870.239, 2873.343, 2878.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2869.005}, "reply_to": "21188__1_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21188__1_072", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2878.144], "stop_times": [2879.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2878.144}, "reply_to": "21188__1_071", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_073", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Of the immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2879.144], "stop_times": [2881.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2879.144}, "reply_to": "21188__1_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21188__1_074", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--I'm not crafting this doctrine myself.\nI'm quoting from this Court's decision in Owen.\nI'm also quoting from the dissenting--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2881.429, 2883.896, 2886.614], "stop_times": [2883.896, 2886.614, 2888.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2881.429}, "reply_to": "21188__1_073", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_075", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Was that a case about legislators' absolute liability?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2888.416], "stop_times": [2894.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2888.416}, "reply_to": "21188__1_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21188__1_076", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--No.\nIt was a case about the municipality, obviously, about the municipality's liability.\nHowever, petitioners agree that under the common law the municipality and the legislators had exactly the same liability and exactly the same immunities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2894.337, 2894.62, 2899.407], "stop_times": [2894.62, 2899.407, 2912.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2894.337}, "reply_to": "21188__1_075", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_077", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "What is the best authority for the proposition that you just made?\nYou said the law of immunity has traditionally treated local legislators differently from State legislators, or you said something like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2912.615, 2918.285], "stop_times": [2918.285, 2927.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2912.615}, "reply_to": "21188__1_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21188__1_078", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2927.307], "stop_times": [2927.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2927.307}, "reply_to": "21188__1_077", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_079", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "All right.\nCan you give me your best authority for that proposition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2927.607, 2928.024], "stop_times": [2928.024, 2932.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2927.607}, "reply_to": "21188__1_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21188__1_080", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "The first authority would be that the discretionary ministerial doctrine did not apply at the State level.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2932.642], "stop_times": [2939.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2932.642}, "reply_to": "21188__1_079", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_081", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "I mean... yes, but I want to read all this, so if you just tell me what the cases are, or where you got... or what part of your brief, even, has them listed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2939.313], "stop_times": [2948.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2939.313}, "reply_to": "21188__1_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21188__1_082", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Yes.\nThe Amy and Farr cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2948.169, 2948.835], "stop_times": [2948.835, 2950.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2948.169}, "reply_to": "21188__1_081", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_083", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Amy?\nOkay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2950.669, 2953.371], "stop_times": [2953.371, 2955.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2950.669}, "reply_to": "21188__1_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21188__1_084", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Okay, that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2955.239], "stop_times": [2956.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2955.239}, "reply_to": "21188__1_083", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_085", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Give me... just give me enough of a clue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2956.606], "stop_times": [2958.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2956.606}, "reply_to": "21188__1_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21188__1_086", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2958.358], "stop_times": [2958.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2958.358}, "reply_to": "21188__1_085", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_087", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "I can jot it down and read it later.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2958.741], "stop_times": [2960.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2958.741}, "reply_to": "21188__1_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21188__1_088", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Well, my clue would be note 23--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2960.56], "stop_times": [2962.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2960.56}, "reply_to": "21188__1_087", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_089", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2962.227], "stop_times": [2962.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2962.227}, "reply_to": "21188__1_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21188__1_090", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--at page 17.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2962.66], "stop_times": [2963.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2962.66}, "reply_to": "21188__1_089", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_091", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2963.279], "stop_times": [2971.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2963.279}, "reply_to": "21188__1_090", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21188__1_092", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "As to whether or not the conduct at issue was legislative, or was not legislative, I would refer this Court to the Virginia Supreme Court case.\nIn the Virginia Supreme Court case, this Court set a standard for what action of a legislative nature is.\nThe standard that this Court set in the Virginia Supreme Court case was that legislation is a rule of general application, statutory in character, that acted not on particular parties, that did not arise out of a controversy, but instead out of a need to regulate conduct for the protection of all citizens.\nNow, if that is what a legislative act is, if that is what is protected in the Virginia Supreme Court case by absolute legislative immunity, what the jury found the mayor and the city council vice president did in this case does not come anywhere near those definitions.\nIt was certainly not a rule of general application.\nWhat the jury found the mayor and the city council vice president did was a rule aimed at one particular individual.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [2971.699, 2980.705, 2989.042, 3007.772, 3027.484, 3029.452], "stop_times": [2980.705, 2989.042, 3007.772, 3027.484, 3029.452, 3036.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2971.699}, "reply_to": "21188__1_091", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_093", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Well, its effect came down on one particular... they passed a law that eliminated the Department.\nThe Department is no more.\nI mean, that had general applicability, certainly.\nIt affects a lot of other people, I suppose.\nOther employees who used to be employees of that Department are no longer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3036.34, 3041.844, 3044.01, 3047.914, 3049.764], "stop_times": [3041.844, 3044.01, 3047.914, 3049.764, 3052.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3036.34}, "reply_to": "21188__1_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21188__1_094", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "The evidence at trial was that there was only one employee of that Department.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3052.633], "stop_times": [3056.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3052.633}, "reply_to": "21188__1_093", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_095", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Okay.\nWell, it affects people who in the future would have been that one employee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3056.751, 3057.435], "stop_times": [3057.435, 3064.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3056.751}, "reply_to": "21188__1_094", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21188__1_096", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "What the jury found--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3064.172], "stop_times": [3066.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3064.172}, "reply_to": "21188__1_095", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_097", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Are private bills that affect only one person not legislation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3066.005], "stop_times": [3069.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3066.005}, "reply_to": "21188__1_096", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21188__1_098", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Well, no.\nNo, but the limitation on private bills that affect only one person is the rule against bills of attainder, and a piece of private legislation that benefits one individual is certainly not a bill of attainder.\nA private legislation that says, these three people may not be employed by the Federal Government, or no Federal funds may be used to pay the salaries of these three people, legislation that says no member of the Communist Party may serve as an official of a labor union--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3069.493, 3070.076, 3087.704], "stop_times": [3070.076, 3087.704, 3105.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3069.493}, "reply_to": "21188__1_097", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_099", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Yes, but of course that's not what we have here.\nWe have a position abolished.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3105.582, 3107.282], "stop_times": [3107.282, 3108.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3105.582}, "reply_to": "21188__1_098", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21188__1_100", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Yes, and there was one specific person who held that position, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3108.784], "stop_times": [3115.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3108.784}, "reply_to": "21188__1_099", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_101", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Are you saying that a law saying that no member of the Communist Party may serve as an officer of the labor union is not legislation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3115.355], "stop_times": [3123.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3115.355}, "reply_to": "21188__1_100", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21188__1_102", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--I'm saying it's legislation, but I'm saying that in United States v. Brown this Court said that that was... constituted a bill of attainder, and it was not legitimate legislation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3123.543], "stop_times": [3136.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3123.543}, "reply_to": "21188__1_101", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_103", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "So that there's a definition of legitimate legislation which is narrower, I take it, than the definition of legislation otherwise?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3136.018], "stop_times": [3147.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3136.018}, "reply_to": "21188__1_102", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21188__1_104", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Well, yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3147.29], "stop_times": [3148.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3147.29}, "reply_to": "21188__1_103", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_105", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "So all unconstitutional legislation you can be sued for, then.\nAre you saying if a Federal legislator passes... votes to pass an unconsti... a statute that is later found to be unconstitutional, he loses all of his immunity for that whole process because, although it seemed to be legislation, it wasn't really legislation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3148.576, 3151.711], "stop_times": [3151.711, 3166.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3148.576}, "reply_to": "21188__1_104", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21188__1_106", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "No, I wouldn't say that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3166.803], "stop_times": [3168.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3166.803}, "reply_to": "21188__1_105", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_107", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "No, I don't think you would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3168.903], "stop_times": [3170.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3168.903}, "reply_to": "21188__1_106", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21188__1_108", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "No.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3170.003, 3170.219], "stop_times": [3170.219, 3171.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3170.003}, "reply_to": "21188__1_107", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_109", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "But why--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3171.386], "stop_times": [3172.105], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3171.386}, "reply_to": "21188__1_108", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21188__1_110", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Your Honor, the Speech or Debate Clause has been interpreted to be absolute and all-inclusive.\nBasically, if it's done in Congress by Congress there's immunity.\nApplying that sort of broad immunity at the local level, where the executive and the legislative functions are merged, sometimes in many cases merged into one individual, if one were to say that everything done by the town governing board is legislative, to which there is immunity, there are going to be tens of thousands of municipalities in this country where everything done will be immune, but everything that's done by these governing boards, boards of selectmen in my home town, hiring of individual employees, firing of individual employees--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3172.105, 3178.009, 3182.394], "stop_times": [3178.009, 3182.394, 3219.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3172.105}, "reply_to": "21188__1_109", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_111", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--But how about just talking about the enactment of local ordinances.\nLet's not talk about their action when they're doing something else, but let's talk about when they're enacting a local ordinance.\nThat just seems quintessentially legislative activity to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3219.752, 3225.323, 3233.744], "stop_times": [3225.323, 3233.744, 3239.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3219.752}, "reply_to": "21188__1_110", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21188__1_112", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--It depends on what the ordinance is.\nIf the ordinance is, we will hire John Brown to be an elementary school teacher, it might say ordinance at the top of the piece of paper, but I don't know that that makes it an ordinance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3239.398, 3241.499], "stop_times": [3241.499, 3252.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3239.398}, "reply_to": "21188__1_111", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_113", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "What does it say, when you have like a town meeting in New England, and every two hundredth resident is there, and you say, all right, now, this week we're going to buy pencils, and we're going to next week hire somebody, and all these little local actions, I never knew whether they're administrative or legislative or what they are, and I can't remember what the form would be.\nWhat does it say at the top of the page?\nDoes it say, ordinance?\nI don't know what it says.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3252.39, 3274.721, 3276.689, 3279.022], "stop_times": [3274.721, 3276.689, 3279.022, 3281.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3252.39}, "reply_to": "21188__1_112", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21188__1_114", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "I'm--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3281.872], "stop_times": [3282.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3281.872}, "reply_to": "21188__1_113", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_115", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "I mean, I know there are vast numbers of details that I think are run through selectmen, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3282.407], "stop_times": [3287.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3282.407}, "reply_to": "21188__1_114", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21188__1_116", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Oh, absolutely.\nWe had a resounding debate at my local town meeting about whether we should spend 25 dollars to repair the radar gun because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3287.026, 3287.542], "stop_times": [3287.542, 3293.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3287.026}, "reply_to": "21188__1_115", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_117", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--No, but the reason you were debating it was that the town had to appropriate money, which was a legislative act, isn't that the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3293.865], "stop_times": [3301.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3293.865}, "reply_to": "21188__1_116", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21188__1_118", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Well, not in that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3301.268], "stop_times": [3302.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3301.268}, "reply_to": "21188__1_117", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_119", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "The person who spent the money, I presume, was the board of selectmen, and I assume they weren't acting as legislators when they spent the money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3302.618], "stop_times": [3309.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3302.618}, "reply_to": "21188__1_118", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21188__1_120", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Well, not in that case.\nThe money had already been appropriated.\nIt was whether the police chief should be forbidden from spending it for that purpose, which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3309.022, 3310.29, 3311.757], "stop_times": [3310.29, 3311.757, 3318.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3309.022}, "reply_to": "21188__1_119", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_121", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Which is an amendment, I suppose, to the appropriation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3318.378], "stop_times": [3321.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3318.378}, "reply_to": "21188__1_120", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21188__1_122", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3321.58], "stop_times": [3325.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3321.58}, "reply_to": "21188__1_121", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_123", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "And that's legislative.\nIsn't that easy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3325.032, 3326.698], "stop_times": [3326.698, 3327.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3325.032}, "reply_to": "21188__1_122", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21188__1_124", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Well, that would be legislative, but if that were done... if that were done by the board of selectmen, if the board of selectmen on their own said, let's not spend that 25 dollars to repair the radar gun, that would not be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3327.817], "stop_times": [3340.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3327.817}, "reply_to": "21188__1_123", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_125", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Like any... like any executive official, the board of selectmen might decide not to use the authority that was given them, and when they make that decision I suppose that's an administrative or an executive decision, not a legislative one.\nBut I mean, aren't those pretty garden variety examples of classifications that are fairly easy to make?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3340.542, 3355.567], "stop_times": [3355.567, 3362.038], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3340.542}, "reply_to": "21188__1_124", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21188__1_126", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Well, if one were to say that anything done by a legislative body is legislation, but anything done by an executive body is executive, that would certainly be a simple solution, but I don't know that that would address the realities of local government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3362.038], "stop_times": [3379.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3362.038}, "reply_to": "21188__1_125", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_127", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Schwartz.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3379.933], "stop_times": [3380.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3379.933}, "reply_to": "21188__1_126", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21188__1_128", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3380.849], "stop_times": [3382.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3380.849}, "reply_to": "21188__1_127", "speaker": "harvey_a_schwartz"}
{"id": "21188__1_129", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Mr. Rothfeld.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3382.616], "stop_times": [3385.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3382.616}, "reply_to": "21188__1_128", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21188__2_000", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nI have a couple of points which I will endeavor to make quick.\nFirst of all, I think the easiest way to conceptualize the question of whether this is legislative action in this case is to... and perhaps it's built on Justice O'Connor's example from Arizona... is to imagine what would happen if this happened at the Federal level.\nIf the President fired the Secretary of HHS, that would be an administrative act.\nIf Congress passed a bill eliminating funding for the Office of the Secretary of HHS for the next fiscal year, everybody I think would acknowledge that would be a legislative act, and that the Members of Congress would be shielded by the Speech and Debate Clause if the incumbent Secretary of HHS sued them on a First Amendment theory.\nThis case I think is identical to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3385.282, 3385.901, 3389.353, 3400.142, 3403.779, 3418.02], "stop_times": [3385.901, 3389.353, 3400.142, 3403.779, 3418.02, 3419.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3385.282}, "reply_to": "21188__1_129", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__2_001", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Or the President, if he proposed that legislation, which would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3419.788], "stop_times": [3422.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3419.788}, "reply_to": "21188__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21188__2_002", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Or the President, if he proposed that legislation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3422.49], "stop_times": [3423.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3422.49}, "reply_to": "21188__2_001", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__2_003", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--parallel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3423.757], "stop_times": [3424.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3423.757}, "reply_to": "21188__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21188__2_004", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Second, I think that the court of appeals and respondent acknowledge that if this facially neutral ordinance had been promulgated for proper reasons, for... purely for the purpose of saving money, it would, in fact, be legislative in character.\nTherefore, their test requires in every case of this sort that there be a... in that circumstance, absolute immunity would be proper, because it would be legislative in character.\nTheir test requires that in every case of this sort there be an examination, therefore, into the legislative motive before an inquiry into immunity is conducted.\nThat means that there has to be discovery and a trial before immunity is decided, and yet--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3424.626, 3439.552, 3448.407, 3456.994], "stop_times": [3439.552, 3448.407, 3456.994, 3461.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3424.626}, "reply_to": "21188__2_003", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__2_005", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Of course, isn't that true in any case in which the constitutional violation has an element of motive in it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3461.279], "stop_times": [3465.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3461.279}, "reply_to": "21188__2_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21188__2_006", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "--Well, not if there's an absolute immunity rule for acts that are in the form of legislation, as we suggest.\nIf, having passed a law that determines that it is legislative in character, then I think at that point absolute immunity applies, and there's no need for an inquiry into motive, otherwise immunity really becomes entirely meaningless, because in every case of this sort there will be a possibility to argue that we... there was a specific fact in the minds of the legislators, and I should be entitled, the plaintiff will say, to obtain discovery into those facts, and therefore immunity goes by the boards.\nThe third point, relating to Owen, which was cited by respondent, I think Owen has no bearing in this case.\nThe Court suggested, looking at the common law history in Owen, that the... there was a discretionary immunity for acts of municipalities because common law judges were unwilling to substitute their judgments, their discretionary judgments for municipal acts in areas of the municipalities' proper purview.\nThe rationale for legislative immunity is quite distinct.\nThe idea there is that legislators should not be... should not have distorted judgment because of fear of liability, and therefore any act... thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3465.85, 3472.67, 3498.737, 3504.475, 3519.9, 3523.102], "stop_times": [3472.67, 3498.737, 3504.475, 3519.9, 3523.102, 3531.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3465.85}, "reply_to": "21188__2_005", "speaker": "charles_a_rothfeld"}
{"id": "21188__2_007", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Rothfeld.\nThe case is submitted and taken under advisement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3531.875, 3532.792], "stop_times": [3532.792, 3536.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3531.875}, "reply_to": "21188__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21188__2_008", "conversation_id": "21188", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until Monday next at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1569", "start_times": [3536.327], "stop_times": [3540.196], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3536.327}, "reply_to": "21188__2_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20147__0_000", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-8516, Kenneth Eugene Bousley v. United States.\nMr. Smith.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [0.0, 7.206], "stop_times": [7.206, 8.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20147__0_001", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis is an unusual case in that it may fairly be said that this defendant is in prison for acts that do not amount to a crime.\nThis Court's unanimous opinion in the Bailey case made it clear that mere possession of weapons near drugs does not amount to use under the Federal statute under which Mr. Bousley was convicted.\nIt is at the core of habeas corpus jurisprudence to release prisoners who are held without legal authority.\nMr. Bousley is in this position because at the time he entered his guilty plea to the charge under 924(c) the charges had been explained to him in language of possession.\nHowever, the Bailey case makes it clear that one cannot be convicted of this... violating this statute lest there's been proof of active employment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [8.257, 11.81, 21.464, 33.342, 42.999, 58.29], "stop_times": [11.81, 21.464, 33.342, 42.999, 58.29, 66.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 8.257}, "reply_to": "20147__0_000", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_002", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "In other words, this is just really a somewhat standard argument that the Rule 11 colloquy was inadequate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [66.664], "stop_times": [72.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 66.664}, "reply_to": "20147__0_001", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20147__0_003", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Your Honor, it's not... no, I wouldn't say that, Your Honor.\nThere's much more to it than that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [72.919, 78.082], "stop_times": [78.082, 80.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 72.919}, "reply_to": "20147__0_002", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_004", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, I take it that even pre Bailey you would have this same objection.\nYou talk about possession, not use.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [80.092, 85.907], "stop_times": [85.907, 87.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 80.092}, "reply_to": "20147__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20147__0_005", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "That's correct, the argument would be the same.\nThe difficulty here is that it's not just the colloquy but it's the entire presentation of the nature of the charges to Mr. Bousley led him to believe and, indeed, caused the reflection that this was a mere possession crime, rather than an active employment crime.\nAs a result, his guilty plea cannot be construed as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [87.529, 91.292, 112.085], "stop_times": [91.292, 112.085, 115.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 87.529}, "reply_to": "20147__0_004", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_006", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, but then that goes to the next argument that the law has changed in your view, et cetera, but if this were pre Bailey, and Bailey had never been on the books, would you... you would still say, I take it, that the plea was inadequately counseled and that the colloquy under Rule 11 was inadequate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [115.826], "stop_times": [137.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 115.826}, "reply_to": "20147__0_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20147__0_007", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, certainly the colloquy was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [137.782], "stop_times": [140.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 137.782}, "reply_to": "20147__0_006", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_008", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Because they talked about possession, not use.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [140.293], "stop_times": [141.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 140.293}, "reply_to": "20147__0_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20147__0_009", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--That's correct, but again, in order for a guilty plea to be valid, it must be knowledgeable and it must be intelligent and when the crime is explained as something other than what the statute actually describes, the plea cannot be intelligent or knowing, because the defendant is not aware and because the presentation does not comply with the statute, so it's more than just a Rule 11 violation.\nIt's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [141.753, 172.875], "stop_times": [172.875, 173.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 141.753}, "reply_to": "20147__0_008", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_010", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, I think that's a conventional argument and that the plea bargain and the fact that he had the indictment, the plea... he signed the plea agreement, did he not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [173.205], "stop_times": [183.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 173.205}, "reply_to": "20147__0_009", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20147__0_011", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--He did sign the plea agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [183.64], "stop_times": [184.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 183.64}, "reply_to": "20147__0_010", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_012", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "And that adequate... and that sets forth use.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [184.832], "stop_times": [186.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 184.832}, "reply_to": "20147__0_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20147__0_013", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "No.\nNo, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [186.491, 186.822], "stop_times": [186.822, 187.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 186.491}, "reply_to": "20147__0_012", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_014", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "It did not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [187.493], "stop_times": [188.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 187.493}, "reply_to": "20147__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20147__0_015", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "The plea agreement uses the word use.\nThe plea agreement, however, describes the nature of the conduct that amounts to use as ownership and possession, and this is consistent throughout the proceedings that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [188.184, 190.215], "stop_times": [190.215, 200.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 188.184}, "reply_to": "20147__0_014", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_016", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, it says count 2 charges that defendant was using a firearm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [200.991], "stop_times": [203.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 200.991}, "reply_to": "20147__0_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20147__0_017", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor, but it's... use is merely the label for the crime.\nThat's not the critical element.\nThe critical element of the crime is active employment and, as the Bailey case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [203.693, 207.336, 208.788], "stop_times": [207.336, 208.788, 214.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 203.693}, "reply_to": "20147__0_016", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_018", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, the statute doesn't talk about active employment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [214.462], "stop_times": [217.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 214.462}, "reply_to": "20147__0_017", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20147__0_019", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--No, but it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [217.264], "stop_times": [217.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 217.264}, "reply_to": "20147__0_018", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_020", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "So that the plea agreement, at least, was in terms of the statute, as was the indictment, of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [217.514], "stop_times": [223.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 217.514}, "reply_to": "20147__0_019", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20147__0_021", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nNow, the difficulty is, if a defendant is told the label for the crime but not the elements, as in the Henderson and Morgan case, it's not possible to appreciate what actually is involved for a conviction and therefore the plea cannot be knowing and intelligent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [223.168, 224.937], "stop_times": [224.937, 242.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 223.168}, "reply_to": "20147__0_020", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_022", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, may I ask you this.\nWhen the factual basis for the plea was stated, was that factual basis couched in terms of use, active employment in the sense that Bailey described, or was it couched in terms of mere possession?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [242.118, 243.3], "stop_times": [243.3, 257.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 242.118}, "reply_to": "20147__0_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20147__0_023", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "It was couched in terms of possession, Your Honor and the notion of active employment was not referred to at all during this proceedings.\nThe only reference was to possession as being the critical element in this charge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [257.7, 266.334], "stop_times": [266.334, 272.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 257.7}, "reply_to": "20147__0_022", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_024", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "And isn't it the case here that all participants, the judge, the prosecutor and the defendant, all of them in fact understood that the crime was possession, availability of guns and not active use, and that's what the judge explained to the defendant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [272.468], "stop_times": [289.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 272.468}, "reply_to": "20147__0_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20147__0_025", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, that's correct.\nThat's what all participants thought.\nIt turns out that that was incorrect, because, as the Court well knows, section 924 requires proof of active employment rather than mere possession.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [289.231, 290.621, 292.331], "stop_times": [290.621, 292.331, 301.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 289.231}, "reply_to": "20147__0_024", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_026", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Now, if he hadn't been told this, but was... by the court but was advised to that effect by his lawyer and had his own misimpression as to what the law meant, would you have a solid case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [301.888], "stop_times": [317.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 301.888}, "reply_to": "20147__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20147__0_027", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "I think that would be a much harder case, Your Honor, than the one we have here.\nHowever, the test, as reflected in the Henderson and Morgan case, is whether under all of the circumstances there's been an adequate explanation of the crucial elements of the charge and, under your hypothetical, it's quite likely that the defendant would not have had an adequate explanation even in that situation.\nHere, of course, it's quite clear that the explanation did not match the critical element of use as it's defined under section 92--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [317.499, 320.263, 342.356], "stop_times": [320.263, 342.356, 351.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 317.499}, "reply_to": "20147__0_026", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_028", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "But you can't demand that the trial judge do more than nature allows.\nHe gave a description of the crime that was the generally understood description.\nI mean, it's one thing to say it was misdescribed according to what the law was at the time and then you could invoke Rule 11 and say the court wasn't doing its job.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [351.372, 357.085, 362.689], "stop_times": [357.085, 362.689, 372.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 351.372}, "reply_to": "20147__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20147__0_029", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [372.476], "stop_times": [373.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 372.476}, "reply_to": "20147__0_028", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_030", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "But here, the court did its best on the basis of the current law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [373.157], "stop_times": [376.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 373.157}, "reply_to": "20147__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20147__0_031", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I have to disagree with the notion that this was the current law.\nIt was what the Eighth Circuit had described the law as.\nHowever, when section 924(c) was enacted, the Bailey case makes it clear that possession, mere possession was never a crime and, in fact, to the extent that there is any such thing, or ever was any such thing as possession of a weapon near drugs, that's a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [376.18, 381.422, 384.424], "stop_times": [381.422, 384.424, 403.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 376.18}, "reply_to": "20147__0_030", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_032", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "But a decision by this Court, you know, it is... it speaks finally to what the law means, but it doesn't simply change the legal world that existed 3 years before, where several courts of appeals may have said exactly the opposite.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [403.105], "stop_times": [417.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 403.105}, "reply_to": "20147__0_031", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20147__0_033", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor, but what it does do is create a class of defendants who are in prison for acts that Congress has never made into a crime, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [417.437], "stop_times": [428.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 417.437}, "reply_to": "20147__0_032", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_034", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, it seems to me that's an important substantive argument.\nI don't think it means the plea is involuntary.\nVoluntariness of the plea should be tested by the adequacy and competency of counsel based on the laws that exists at the time.\nThen if you want to say that the law has changed and he should be released anyway because it's substantively retroactive, that's another argument, but I don't think it invalidates the plea.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [428.463, 430.393, 433.105, 441.332], "stop_times": [430.393, 433.105, 441.332, 449.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 428.463}, "reply_to": "20147__0_033", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20147__0_035", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--Well, I understand your point, Your Honor, and I would say that in order to test the validity of the plea, the appropriate standard ought to be what the statute actually says.\nOnce one departs--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [449.667, 463.134], "stop_times": [463.134, 465.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 449.667}, "reply_to": "20147__0_034", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_036", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "May I interrupt?\nIsn't the test what the law was at the time, and in your view, what was the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [465.465, 465.756], "stop_times": [465.756, 469.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 465.465}, "reply_to": "20147__0_035", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20147__0_037", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--The law at the time, Your Honor, was what section 924(c) says.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [469.769], "stop_times": [473.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 469.769}, "reply_to": "20147__0_036", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_038", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Yes.\nThe fact that the court of appeals has misconstrued the law didn't make it the law, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [473.052, 473.312], "stop_times": [473.312, 477.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 473.052}, "reply_to": "20147__0_037", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20147__0_039", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThe law has--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [477.374, 478.515], "stop_times": [478.515, 478.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 477.374}, "reply_to": "20147__0_038", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_040", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Didn't we squarely hold that in Rivers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [478.996], "stop_times": [480.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 478.996}, "reply_to": "20147__0_039", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20147__0_041", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--That's exactly right, Your Honor.\nThe law has always been, under section 924(c), that mere possession does not violate that code section.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [480.426, 482.319], "stop_times": [482.319, 487.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 480.426}, "reply_to": "20147__0_040", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_042", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "So you wanted this district judge to instruct in the Rule 11 colloquy contrary to the holding of the court of appeals of the circuit in which he sits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [487.692], "stop_times": [498.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 487.692}, "reply_to": "20147__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20147__0_043", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [498.879], "stop_times": [499.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 498.879}, "reply_to": "20147__0_042", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_044", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "That's what you want these... I guess each district judge would have to just sit back and figure out what he thinks the law is, never mind what his court of appeals says.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [499.63], "stop_times": [508.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 499.63}, "reply_to": "20147__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20147__0_045", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--Actually, Your Honor, what we're pointing out here is that in these unusual situations, when a Bailey case happens... and they don't happen very often.\nOrdinarily the circuit courts are quite effective in doing a... in explaining what the congressional intent is and what the statute actually says.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [508.065, 518.41], "stop_times": [518.41, 527.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 508.065}, "reply_to": "20147__0_044", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_046", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, they won't happen very often in the future, because we will be very, very reluctant to set aside a longstanding misinterpretation by the court of appeals if the consequence is going to be that every guilty plea rendered during that period is invalidated.\nI mean, don't you see that as a risk for the legal system?\nI certainly would give great second thought to setting aside any longstanding misinterpretation by the courts of appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [527.897, 546.82, 550.941], "stop_times": [546.82, 550.941, 559.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 527.897}, "reply_to": "20147__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20147__0_047", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Certainly, Your Honor, if there had been many of those, but the fact is there have not been many.\nThis just doesn't happen very often.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [559.339, 565.551], "stop_times": [565.551, 567.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 559.339}, "reply_to": "20147__0_046", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_048", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "But we... one of the reasons we grant certiorari on a statutory question is there's a difference of opinion among the courts of appeals, so many of the criminal statutes we decide are here solely because one court of appeals takes one position and another court of appeals takes another, so it's not as if this is going to be limited to the Bailey type situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [567.063], "stop_times": [587.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 567.063}, "reply_to": "20147__0_047", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20147__0_049", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, except for this, Your Honor, and this is an important distinction.\nThe thing that makes Bailey different from other statutory construction cases is, this is not just any construction of the statute.\nThis is the critical... the critical element in the statute, which is possession versus active employment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [587.196, 591.34, 598.483], "stop_times": [591.34, 598.483, 606.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 587.196}, "reply_to": "20147__0_048", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_050", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well now, most statutes have several elements, you know.\nYou have a certain intent, a general intent, mens rea... now, the next lawyer who comes before us for the city is going to say, well, it's the intent that's the critical element.\nYou really can't say that one element is more critical than the other, can you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [606.02, 609.813, 619.938], "stop_times": [609.813, 619.938, 623.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 606.02}, "reply_to": "20147__0_049", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20147__0_051", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, I... no, Your Honor, I'm not saying that one element is more critical than the other.\nWhat I am saying, however, is that when the critical element has been misapplied, as it was in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [623.791, 627.102], "stop_times": [627.102, 634.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 623.791}, "reply_to": "20147__0_050", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_052", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, why do you say this... this particular element, possession, that sort of thing, is critical, whereas there are other elements of the crime, too, the intent with which you have to do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [634.987], "stop_times": [647.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 634.987}, "reply_to": "20147__0_051", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20147__0_053", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--Yes.\nThat's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [647.276, 647.837], "stop_times": [647.837, 649.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 647.276}, "reply_to": "20147__0_052", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_054", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "So they're all critical?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [649.607], "stop_times": [650.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 649.607}, "reply_to": "20147__0_053", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20147__0_055", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, I can't say whether they're all critical until I would see them, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [650.518], "stop_times": [655.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 650.518}, "reply_to": "20147__0_054", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_056", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, isn't it true that that would be... of every essential element... imagine the case going to trial.\nThe judge charges the jury, in order to convict you must find A, B, and C.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [655.601, 661.926], "stop_times": [661.926, 665.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 655.601}, "reply_to": "20147__0_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20147__0_057", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [665.886], "stop_times": [667.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 665.886}, "reply_to": "20147__0_056", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_058", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--So one is no more or less important than the other, but it's what the law calls an essential element, something the jury must find.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [667.118], "stop_times": [674.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 667.118}, "reply_to": "20147__0_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20147__0_059", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "What makes up the crime when you put them together, and I would distinguish this from the situation where a court determines, for example, that an affirmative defense might or might not be recognized.\nAdditionally, Your Honor... and Justice Scalia, to respond to your concern... when cases such as this are sought to be reopened at the district court level it's not, certainly, an automatic situation where there would be, the guilty plea would be set aside.\nThe district judge would have to take into account all of the facts, as he's, or she is entitled to do under 2255, and determine--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [674.825, 685.29, 700.861], "stop_times": [685.29, 700.861, 708.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 674.825}, "reply_to": "20147__0_058", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_060", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, if your rule is that the plea is involuntary if he doesn't know all of the correct elements, all of the correct definition of the elements of the crime, then it seems to me the district judge doesn't have much to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [708.705], "stop_times": [721.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 708.705}, "reply_to": "20147__0_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20147__0_061", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--Well, except, Your Honor, what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [721.905], "stop_times": [724.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 721.905}, "reply_to": "20147__0_060", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_062", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "So I hope we can get beyond this.\nIt seems to me that the plea is clearly voluntary based on the law at the time.\nNow, if you want to say that it should be set aside in any event because the law has changed, that's quite a different argument.\nAnd I might just point out, you did not raise the involuntariness point as... in your petition for certiorari, did you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [724.196, 725.408, 729.302, 735.062], "stop_times": [725.408, 729.302, 735.062, 741.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 724.196}, "reply_to": "20147__0_061", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20147__0_063", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--The invalidity of the plea on the basis of the inaccurate description would, I believe, fit within the second question, although it's not specifically described there, so Your Honor is correct in that regard.\nThis--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [741.099, 759.7], "stop_times": [759.7, 760.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 741.099}, "reply_to": "20147__0_062", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_064", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Mr. Smith, there... this petitioner took an appeal, did he not, after the guilty plea?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [760.491], "stop_times": [768.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 760.491}, "reply_to": "20147__0_063", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20147__0_065", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--He did, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [768.936], "stop_times": [769.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 768.936}, "reply_to": "20147__0_064", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_066", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "And he was convicted not only of this 924 charge, use of a firearm, but also of a substantive drug offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [769.607], "stop_times": [781.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 769.607}, "reply_to": "20147__0_065", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20147__0_067", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Yes, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [781.934], "stop_times": [782.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 781.934}, "reply_to": "20147__0_066", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_068", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "The appeal was from the conviction of the substantive drug offense, I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [782.834], "stop_times": [786.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 782.834}, "reply_to": "20147__0_067", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20147__0_069", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Yes, it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [786.687], "stop_times": [787.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 786.687}, "reply_to": "20147__0_068", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_070", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "And the petitioner did not appeal from the 924(c)--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [787.308], "stop_times": [795.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 787.308}, "reply_to": "20147__0_069", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20147__0_071", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [795.313], "stop_times": [796.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 795.313}, "reply_to": "20147__0_070", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_072", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--conviction and sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [796.064], "stop_times": [797.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 796.064}, "reply_to": "20147__0_071", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20147__0_073", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [797.353], "stop_times": [797.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 797.353}, "reply_to": "20147__0_072", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_074", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "So presumably that was waived, and at the time he chose not to appeal, assertions were being made all over the country by defendants that 924(c) did not... was not a mere possession statute.\nI mean, those claims were being made across the United States, but this defendant did not raise that issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [797.714, 815.936], "stop_times": [815.936, 824.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 797.714}, "reply_to": "20147__0_073", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20147__0_075", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [824.071], "stop_times": [824.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 824.071}, "reply_to": "20147__0_074", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_076", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "So it was waived.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [824.662], "stop_times": [826.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 824.662}, "reply_to": "20147__0_075", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20147__0_077", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [826.324], "stop_times": [827.233], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 826.324}, "reply_to": "20147__0_076", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_078", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Now, is he stuck with that waiver?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [827.233], "stop_times": [829.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 827.233}, "reply_to": "20147__0_077", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20147__0_079", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--I would argue that he did not waive it, but if it were determined that he did based on Your Honor's position, I would argue that he should not be stuck with that for three important reasons.\nFirst, the notion of procedural default, which is what it's been labeled, in a sense this is bringing it full circle and perhaps makes a somewhat perverse use of the doctrine, because here's a defendant who's attempting to establish his actual innocence, and what's placed in front of him is a procedural bar that prevents him from establishing that.\nWhen a defendant is in this situation where the statute as interpreted now makes it clear that his conduct simply did not violate the statute, the notion of default should not be applied, and the notion of cause, as that's been found in this Court's prior jurisprudence, certainly should be found because of the string of Eighth Circuit opinions which would have prevented Mr. Bousley from knowing that he had the opportunity to bring this, as well as what the trial court told him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [829.316, 845.286, 868.199], "stop_times": [845.286, 868.199, 901.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 829.316}, "reply_to": "20147__0_078", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_080", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Mr. Smith, I think we often apply the doctrine of procedural default when its consequence is to exclude a claim of actual innocence.\nI mean, that's not at all unusual.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [901.952, 910.748], "stop_times": [910.748, 912.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 901.952}, "reply_to": "20147__0_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20147__0_081", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "With this case, however, it's different, Your Honor, in that what we're speaking here about is the critical element of the crime.\nThat's what's different.\nThose... the cases that have been--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [912.959, 919.965, 921.175], "stop_times": [919.965, 921.175, 923.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 912.959}, "reply_to": "20147__0_080", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_082", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "It's no different.\nI mean, in some cases... let's assume a witness was improperly excluded by the trial court and that witness would have shown the nonexistence of one of the elements of the crime--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [923.227, 924.379], "stop_times": [924.379, 935.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 923.227}, "reply_to": "20147__0_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20147__0_083", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--That's... that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [935.884], "stop_times": [936.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 935.884}, "reply_to": "20147__0_082", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_084", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--and you know, if it hasn't been raised on appeal, and he says I'm innocent, and this witness would have shown I'm innocent because one of the crucial elements of the crime didn't exist, we would say, well, you should have... you know, we have a trial system and you have to play by the rules.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [936.765], "stop_times": [950.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 936.765}, "reply_to": "20147__0_083", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20147__0_085", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--It's quite different, Your Honor, however, when the actual element of the crime is one that's never been enacted by Congress, and which forms the basis for the petitioner's imprisonment, is something that's never actually been a crime at all, and that's the situation that we have here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [950.164], "stop_times": [966.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 950.164}, "reply_to": "20147__0_084", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_086", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "But in the hypothetical I gave you he is going... gone to jail for doing something that Congress did not say is a crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [966.114], "stop_times": [972.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 966.114}, "reply_to": "20147__0_085", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20147__0_087", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [972.128], "stop_times": [973.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 972.128}, "reply_to": "20147__0_086", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_088", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Because one of the elements that Congress prescribed was not... you know, he was not given a chance to deny it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [973.45], "stop_times": [980.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 973.45}, "reply_to": "20147__0_087", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20147__0_089", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--The difference, however, Your Honor, is that as a matter of process and procedure here it's clear that the district court was applying the improper element from the very beginning and the explanation was improper from the very beginning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [980.335], "stop_times": [996.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 980.335}, "reply_to": "20147__0_088", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_090", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Yes, but the defendant could have taken the position, as many defendants all across the country were doing at that time, that the statute meant something else, and he could have preserved his right to challenge that throughout.\nI mean, that was happening all over the country, but this defendant didn't do that and I think that leads us to the question whether he should be held to the waiver or the procedural default.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [996.174, 1008.483], "stop_times": [1008.483, 1019.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 996.174}, "reply_to": "20147__0_089", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20147__0_091", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "I'd say two things.\nThere's an important principle which is that, because this defendant is actually innocent here of the charge, he ought not be held to the waiver.\nThere's also a very practical problem with taking the position that he should have raised this on appeal when there was uniform Eighth Circuit precedent to the contrary.\nIf the Court wishes to encourage guilty pleas and to encourage people to accept settled precedent, the appropriate thing to do is to accept the law as it is and in these unusual circumstance, when it turns out that there have been a series of mistakes made, to allow the remedy which Mr. Bousley seeks here, the remedy of habeas corpus, rather than saying to defendants, bring up these appeals every single time you have the opportunity, don't take guilty pleas, don't accept the law as it is, constantly challenge it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1019.809, 1021.231, 1030.744, 1041.344], "stop_times": [1021.231, 1030.744, 1041.344, 1077.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1019.809}, "reply_to": "20147__0_090", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_092", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "What about the other side of the bargain?\nI mean, the prosecutor didn't appeal from the amount of drugs that the judge determined in part because there had been this bargain on the 924(c).\nIf you are right, doesn't that have to be reopened, too, so that the prosecutor has a chance to contest the amount of drugs?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1077.476, 1079.419, 1090.776], "stop_times": [1079.419, 1090.776, 1098.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1077.476}, "reply_to": "20147__0_091", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20147__0_093", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "I would not agree with the notion that it should be reopened because there has been a full blown hearing at which there was an opportunity to present all the relevant facts.\nIn an appropriate case, however, the district court may determine that some remedy along the lines that you describe would be appropriate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1098.64, 1109.129], "stop_times": [1109.129, 1116.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1098.64}, "reply_to": "20147__0_092", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_094", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "But didn't the Government say, in this very case, that the reason we didn't appeal on the drug part of the... at least in part was that we had this defendant on the 924(c) charge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1116.883], "stop_times": [1129.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1116.883}, "reply_to": "20147__0_093", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20147__0_095", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "So the Government says now, Your Honor.\nHowever, the Government has not pointed out any basis upon which an appeal from that factual finding could have been made and, indeed, there was already an appeal made by the defendant on that very issue, that is, the drug quantity and the propriety of a sentence--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1129.591, 1131.382], "stop_times": [1131.382, 1144.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1129.591}, "reply_to": "20147__0_094", "speaker": "l_marshall_smith"}
{"id": "20147__0_096", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Smith.\nMr. Dreeben, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1144.751, 1145.961], "stop_times": [1145.961, 1148.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1144.751}, "reply_to": "20147__0_095", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20147__1_000", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe decision of this Court in Bailey, interpreting the use element of the section 924(c) offense, gives rise to a variety of fairly complicated legal issues involving whether Bailey is a new rule under the Teague decision, would affect the guilty plea the petitioner entered... has in this case, and whether petitioner is a... is subject to procedural default that he must overcome in order to get collateral relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1148.194, 1155.44], "stop_times": [1155.44, 1183.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1148.194}, "reply_to": "20147__0_096", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20147__1_001", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Mr. Dreeben, it seems to me that you exaggerate the extent to which Bailey makes this a unique case.\nAs the Chief Justice's question suggests, if the Government takes the position it has taken on the validity of the plea agreement, it seems to me that position will have to be applied not just in a case like this where the circuits were at one time virtually uniform, but in the case of any circuit split you would have to invalidate all of the plea agreements in that half of the circuit split that ultimately loses, because the district judges in that half of the circuits will have been instructing the... in the Rule 11 colloquy according to the law of their circuit, and would not all of those plea agreements be invalid whenever it turns out that the element of the crime in question is as the other circuits have said?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1183.078, 1190.094], "stop_times": [1190.094, 1236.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1183.078}, "reply_to": "20147__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20147__1_002", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Justice Scalia, that has, in fact, been the practice that the lower courts have followed when this Court has rendered a decision that cuts back on the reach of a Federal criminal statute as compared to the view that had prevailed in the lower courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1236.345], "stop_times": [1251.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1236.345}, "reply_to": "20147__1_001", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20147__1_003", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Let me put it this way.\nHas it been the practice of the district courts uniformly to say that the guilty pleas were involuntary, which is the position you surprisingly take in your brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1251.004, 1252.204], "stop_times": [1252.204, 1262.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1251.004}, "reply_to": "20147__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20147__1_004", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "That issue has not been litigated in that fashion, Justice Kennedy, so I can't say that there are a huge number of cases that address it in one way or the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1262.392], "stop_times": [1271.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1262.392}, "reply_to": "20147__1_003", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20147__1_005", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "To take the example that again the Chief Justice gave, I think it was in Ratzlaf that we held the defendant had to have knowledge of the banking regulation.\nUnder your view, a) all of those pleas that were previous to that are... were involuntary and, second, even if they're not the convictions are void, so I assume that all the fines have to be given back.\nIs the Government going to give back all the fines?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1271.857, 1283.006, 1296.494], "stop_times": [1283.006, 1296.494, 1298.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1271.857}, "reply_to": "20147__1_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20147__1_006", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, by and large, Justice Kennedy, the lower courts, when confronted with guilty pleas that were entered under a serious misunderstanding of the law, have left the defendant out of the plea subject to the inquiry that we think is critical in this case, which is whether the defendant can establish that, under the correct interpretation of the law, he is actually innocent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1298.026], "stop_times": [1317.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1298.026}, "reply_to": "20147__1_005", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20147__1_007", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "So they'll all have to go back and reconstruct a factual situation that may have occurred years ago.\nI can imagine the petitioner taking this position, but I'm surprised to see the Government taking it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1317.729, 1323.632], "stop_times": [1323.632, 1328.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1317.729}, "reply_to": "20147__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20147__1_008", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Chief Justice Rehnquist, we have taken a position that we think balances the fundamental interest in obtaining convictions under a correct understanding of the law with the interests in finality that we share with the courts.\nUnder section 924(c), we advocated for many years a position that in essence permitted us to obtain convictions based on a showing of possession of a firearm near guns.\nThis Court unanimously rejected that position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1328.154, 1342.354, 1353.802], "stop_times": [1342.354, 1353.802, 1357.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1328.154}, "reply_to": "20147__1_007", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20147__1_009", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Near drugs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1357.135], "stop_times": [1358.144], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1357.135}, "reply_to": "20147__1_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20147__1_010", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Near drugs.\nThank you.\nThis Court unanimously rejected that position.\nWe were left with quite a few convictions that we had obtained without ever proving the essential element of active use and which guilty pleas have been entered with the defendant never having conceded that element and the question is, what happens to those convictions in which the Government has not established and the courts have never determined whether an essential element of the offense was satisfied?\nIn our view, the progression of analysis here leads to the following conclusion.\nThe decision of this Court in Bailey says what the statute always meant.\nIt doesn't say what the statute meant from the date that this Court decided it, and we're prepared to accept that consequence, which means that, as to the convictions that we obtained before, there is the possibility, although not a certainty, that defendants may have either been pleaded guilty or been convicted based on conduct that is not a crime and that, to us, raises a question that ought to be available to be considered on habeas corpus if there's a statutory basis for asserting it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1358.144, 1358.865, 1359.556, 1362.32, 1385.695, 1390.097, 1394.391], "stop_times": [1358.865, 1359.556, 1362.32, 1385.695, 1390.097, 1394.391, 1423.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1358.144}, "reply_to": "20147__1_009", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20147__1_011", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, that's one way to go, and another way to go is to adopt the rule that when you plead guilty to the text of a statute, you take your chances as to whether the interpretation of that statute that you have assumed is correct or not.\nThe mistake of law is washed out by your agreement.\nThat's what a voluntary agreement is all about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1423.749, 1440.269, 1444.673], "stop_times": [1440.269, 1444.673, 1447.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1423.749}, "reply_to": "20147__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20147__1_012", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "That is certainly true, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1447.826], "stop_times": [1448.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1447.826}, "reply_to": "20147__1_011", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20147__1_013", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "It would be different if the... you know, if the court or your lawyer told you something that was contrary to what seemed to be the law in the circuit at the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1448.965], "stop_times": [1457.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1448.965}, "reply_to": "20147__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20147__1_014", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "But the circuit law at the time doesn't define what the crime is, and the premise of using a guilty plea as a basis for incarcerating an individual is that the individual has conceded that he is guilty of the elements of the crime.\nIf the defendant never gets an adequate explanation of what the elements are either from his lawyer or from the court, it's very difficult--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1457.391, 1469.168], "stop_times": [1469.168, 1477.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1457.391}, "reply_to": "20147__1_013", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20147__1_015", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1477.115], "stop_times": [1477.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1477.115}, "reply_to": "20147__1_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20147__1_016", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--to say that that plea knowingly concedes guilt of the offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1477.853], "stop_times": [1481.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1477.853}, "reply_to": "20147__1_015", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20147__1_017", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--Well, Justice Holmes said that law is what the courts say it is, and he wasn't speaking only of this Court.\nI mean, the idea that there's some sort of an abstract law up there in the sky that is finally delineated by this Court is... really doesn't correspond with reality in many senses.\nCertainly, this Court is the final expositor of the law, but there are all sorts of other courts in the meantime that are handing down decisions saying what a particular statute means, and the idea that when we say it means this, that everything that happened in the past is simply washed out is, I think, extraordinary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1481.026, 1486.59, 1498.937], "stop_times": [1486.59, 1498.937, 1515.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1481.026}, "reply_to": "20147__1_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20147__1_018", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, we don't think that everything that happened in the past is washed out by any means.\nThere is a judgment of conviction on the books, and the petitioner has the burden of explaining why it should be set aside, even though he did not challenge the issue that he now raises at the proper time, and for that reason we think two things are true.\nFirst, Congress is the one who determined what the elements of 924(c) are, and this Court said so in 1995 in Bailey, so that decision explained what the law was from the time that Congress enacted the statute.\nBut petitioner had the burden of bringing that issue to the attention to the courts at the timely way that the procedure of the law provides for him upon pain of procedural default and he did not do that here, so our position is that unless he can overcome his procedural default by showing either cause in prejudice or actual innocence, his conviction stands and the past--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1515.319, 1518.531, 1532.561, 1545.968], "stop_times": [1518.531, 1532.561, 1545.968, 1569.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1515.319}, "reply_to": "20147__1_017", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20147__1_019", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, he says actual innocence.\nHe says, I didn't... here were these drugs... here were the firearms in the closet.\nThat's what the factual basis showed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1569.454, 1571.417, 1576.7], "stop_times": [1571.417, 1576.7, 1580.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1569.454}, "reply_to": "20147__1_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20147__1_020", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--That's right, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1580.032], "stop_times": [1581.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1580.032}, "reply_to": "20147__1_019", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20147__1_021", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Actual innocence, he says.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1581.242], "stop_times": [1582.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1581.242}, "reply_to": "20147__1_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20147__1_022", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--That's his claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1582.624], "stop_times": [1583.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1582.624}, "reply_to": "20147__1_021", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20147__1_023", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1583.365], "stop_times": [1584.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1583.365}, "reply_to": "20147__1_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20147__1_024", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "And it is a narrow claim--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1584.002], "stop_times": [1585.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1584.002}, "reply_to": "20147__1_023", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20147__1_025", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Can that be defaulted or waived, that problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1585.213], "stop_times": [1587.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1585.213}, "reply_to": "20147__1_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20147__1_026", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--The actual innocence... I think it's very important to focus on this.\nActual innocence in our view is not an independent, freestanding legal claim that he has the right to bring into court.\nIt represents, as this Court said in the Schlup decision, a gateway that permits him to present a court... to a court a defaulted claim that would otherwise be permanently barred from judicial cognizance on 2255 or habeas corpus.\nIt is the last safety valve in the system for a defendant who was a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1587.985, 1591.117, 1598.414, 1613.564], "stop_times": [1591.117, 1598.414, 1613.564, 1617.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1587.985}, "reply_to": "20147__1_025", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20147__1_027", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, does it... can he get through that gateway in a situation where people all over the country were challenging 924(c) on what it meant... hadn't been successful, but they were challenging it, and he chose not to.\nHe didn't appeal on this ground.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1617.425, 1633.466], "stop_times": [1633.466, 1635.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1617.425}, "reply_to": "20147__1_026", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20147__1_028", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1635.547], "stop_times": [1636.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1635.547}, "reply_to": "20147__1_027", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20147__1_029", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "He appealed on something else.\nNow, should we open this up now--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1636.268, 1637.788], "stop_times": [1637.788, 1639.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1636.268}, "reply_to": "20147__1_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20147__1_030", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1639.781], "stop_times": [1640.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1639.781}, "reply_to": "20147__1_029", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20147__1_031", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--when he made that choice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1640.7], "stop_times": [1641.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1640.7}, "reply_to": "20147__1_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20147__1_032", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--That, Justice O'Connor, constitutes his default.\nHe should have done that.\nHe did not do that.\nBut once a defendant does procedurally default on a claim, they can get it into Federal court on 2255 under this Court's decision in United States v. Frady only by making one of two showings.\nFirst, they can show cause for their default, prejudice flowing from the error that they claim, and we say in this case he has no cause for not raising it.\nAs Your Honor has pointed out, defendant's were raising this issue all over the country.\nHe could have done that.\nHe elected not to.\nIt's a default, and we think that the court of appeals was correct in saying that he did default his claim.\nBut there is a safety valve above and beyond cause and prejudice that this Court articulated in Smith v. Murray and in Murray v. Carrier and other cases that says that even when a defendant has defaulted his claim, if he can make a colorable threshold showing that he is actually innocent of the offense and it is only as a result of the error, the constitutional error that he claims, that he remains in prison, a habeas court can reach the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1641.842, 1643.993, 1644.994, 1646.354, 1658.733, 1667.938, 1671.44, 1672.75, 1674.012, 1679.856], "stop_times": [1643.993, 1644.994, 1646.354, 1658.733, 1667.938, 1671.44, 1672.75, 1674.012, 1679.856, 1707.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1641.842}, "reply_to": "20147__1_031", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20147__1_033", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Does it have to be a constitutional error?\nSuppose we don't... I don't think this is a constitutional error.\nWhat's the constitutional error here?\nIs this a violation of due process here to hold an innocent man?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1707.095, 1708.985, 1712.047, 1713.799], "stop_times": [1708.985, 1712.047, 1713.799, 1715.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1707.095}, "reply_to": "20147__1_032", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20147__1_034", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "No, Justice Kennedy.\nI think that we may disagree on whether there is a constitutional error with respect to the voluntariness of the plea.\nThat is the constitutional error that we have identified that he can raise on 2255.\nThe statutory claim--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1715.91, 1717.012, 1724.225, 1730.33], "stop_times": [1717.012, 1724.225, 1730.33, 1732.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1715.91}, "reply_to": "20147__1_033", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20147__1_035", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, that's not linked to the actual innocence gateway exception that you just applied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1732.16], "stop_times": [1737.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1732.16}, "reply_to": "20147__1_034", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20147__1_036", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--The first thing that any defendant needs to show if they want to get in the door on 2255 is either a constitutional claim or a statutory claim that is cognizable in 2255 proceedings.\nWe don't think he has any statutory claim that's cognizable on 2255 because he did plead guilty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1737.684, 1749.701], "stop_times": [1749.701, 1755.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1737.684}, "reply_to": "20147__1_035", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20147__1_037", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "So what's the constitutional violation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1755.276], "stop_times": [1759.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1755.276}, "reply_to": "20147__1_036", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20147__1_038", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "The constitutional claim is that in order for a defendant to enter a valid guilty plea which waives his privilege against compulsory self incrimination and his right to a jury trial, he must have an adequate understanding of what elements of the offense he's admitting to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1759.107], "stop_times": [1772.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1759.107}, "reply_to": "20147__1_037", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20147__1_039", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "So we go back to the very beginning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1772.487], "stop_times": [1773.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1772.487}, "reply_to": "20147__1_038", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20147__1_040", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "We go back to the premise that when Congress enacts a statute that tells us what the elements of the crime are, and if that defendant didn't get any notice of that, his plea of guilty is not a reliable basis for concluding that he is guilty.\nIf the judge says, this statute has elements A, B, and C, do you admit that you did these elements, and he says yes, I do, judge, there's no question my conduct satisfies that, but the statute actually contains element D, which is an element of his conduct that has never been explained to him and that he does not admit doing, the guilty plea does not represent a reliable determination that he is, indeed, guilty of the offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1773.496, 1785.655], "stop_times": [1785.655, 1808.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1773.496}, "reply_to": "20147__1_039", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20147__1_041", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, another thing he says in the guilty plea is that he wants to end the criminal process.\nHe wants to begin that necessary reconciliation to return him to civilized society, and it seems to me that you are very much undercutting the whole purpose of a guilty plea by your argument and that your argument also requires such an arcane and abstract course of reasoning that it seems to cast doubt on the whole question of whether or not our decision is retroactive at all to a final judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1808.222, 1811.711], "stop_times": [1811.711, 1839.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1808.222}, "reply_to": "20147__1_040", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20147__1_042", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, I agree, Justice Kennedy, that there are a number of fairly arcane questions that are built into the analysis in a case like this because this Court has enunciated a number of doctrines that sharply limit and, we think, appropriately so the availability of relief on habeas corpus.\nAnd I am prepared to march through the various doctrines and explain them, but I wanted to state at the outset and at this point that our basic position is that if the defendant's guilty plea doesn't admit to all the elements of the crime because they have never been explained to him, and yet he did not challenge that at the appropriate time, he has a remedy in habeas corpus at present under the present statutory regime if, and only if, he can show he is actually innocent, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1839.44, 1857.181], "stop_times": [1857.181, 1884.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1839.44}, "reply_to": "20147__1_041", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20147__1_043", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Does that meant also if he was convicted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1884.631], "stop_times": [1886.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1884.631}, "reply_to": "20147__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20147__1_044", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1886.622], "stop_times": [1888.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1886.622}, "reply_to": "20147__1_043", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20147__1_045", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "I mean, how does it apply, how does it apply to a person convicted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1888.064], "stop_times": [1890.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1888.064}, "reply_to": "20147__1_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20147__1_046", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "It applies similarly, Justice Breyer.\nThere is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1890.555, 1892.905], "stop_times": [1892.905, 1893.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1890.555}, "reply_to": "20147__1_045", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20147__1_047", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "All right.\nIf it applies similarly, then is it... has it been the practice... you started off with something very important to me.\nYou said that... I'm thinking of many statutes... drug statutes have words in it like customs orders of the United States.\nWe had a bribery statute that was all State law bribery is connected with a Federal program.\nThere are thousands of statutes that have difficult statutory interpretations in them.\nIs it... you're saying that it's common practice until this case, I guess, that where there was an interpretation that was in doubt and a court resolved it, all the courts that had followed previous interpretations to the contrary released the people from prison, I take it, who were convicted at trial under the wrong interpretation and also let them withdraw guilty pleas if they wanted to.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1916.021, 1893.566, 1898.779, 1906.356, 1912.087, 1916.722, 1940.276], "stop_times": [1893.566, 1898.779, 1906.356, 1912.087, 1916.722, 1940.276, 1941.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1916.021}, "reply_to": "20147__1_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20147__1_048", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--Very few people actually get relief under the analysis that we propose, and very few people have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1941.027], "stop_times": [1946.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1941.027}, "reply_to": "20147__1_047", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20147__1_049", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "What has been the practice?\nHas... you started out by saying, it has been the practice that those lower courts which followed the erroneous interpretation would automatically let a person, no matter how long he'd been in prison, I guess... he comes in, he says, I want to withdraw my plea now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1946.26, 1947.64], "stop_times": [1947.64, 1962.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1946.26}, "reply_to": "20147__1_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20147__1_050", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--No, I didn't say that that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1962.072], "stop_times": [1964.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1962.072}, "reply_to": "20147__1_049", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20147__1_051", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "No, but that's... I'd like you to expound on that a little bit.\nWhat has been the practice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1964.103, 1965.933], "stop_times": [1965.933, 1967.295], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1964.103}, "reply_to": "20147__1_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20147__1_052", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--For example, when this Court decided the McNalley case and said that the intangible rights theory of good Government did not fall within the mail fraud statute, there were a lot of defendants who had been convicted, some under guilty pleas, some under trial, as to whom the Government had never shown the kind of fraud that this Court held was in the mail fraud statute.\nThose defendants were freely allowed to come back into court and attempt to make the case that they were innocent under the interpretation of the statute that this Court said was correct.\nMost of them failed, because in the process of proving an intangible rights violation, we most often did prove some injury to money or property that this Court said was the proper definition of the mail fraud statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [1967.295, 1985.677, 1994.315], "stop_times": [1985.677, 1994.315, 2005.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1967.295}, "reply_to": "20147__1_051", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20147__1_053", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "I have no problem with the people who were convicted protesting their innocence all along, had the same rule been applied to all those who pleaded guilty to the statute and in my view took their chances as to what the proper meaning of the statute was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2005.522], "stop_times": [2020.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2005.522}, "reply_to": "20147__1_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20147__1_054", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "There are relatively few cases, Justice Scalia, but I have not seen a single case in which a court said because of your guilty plea you are barred from even coming into court and saying that the statutory meaning changed and what you did is not a crime at the court of appeals level.\nThere are comparatively few cases before Bailey in which this issue was presented to courts and ruled upon.\nI think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2020.813, 2035.481, 2043.408], "stop_times": [2035.481, 2043.408, 2044.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2020.813}, "reply_to": "20147__1_053", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20147__1_055", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "There were cases in the wake of Ratzlaf, were there not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2044.039], "stop_times": [2046.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2044.039}, "reply_to": "20147__1_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20147__1_056", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--Yes, Justice Ginsburg, there were cases in the wake of Ratzlaf, and I'd have to say that in most of those cases where the Government had obtained either a guilty plea or a conviction after a trial and it had never established the defendant's knowledge of the law, as this Court said was required under Ratzlaf, we didn't object to giving the defendant an opportunity to get some form of relief if, indeed, he could establish that he had a colorable claim of innocence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2046.17], "stop_times": [2070.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2046.17}, "reply_to": "20147__1_055", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20147__1_057", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Mr. Dreeben, you've made out a perfectly good case for saying that we ought to look at the voluntariness of the plea in the light of the final resolution of what the elements of the crime are, but there is a case for looking at it the other way and saying there is no constitutional violation if, at least under the prevailing or the unobjected to law at the time of the plea, it was properly done.\nWhat's the Government's... what is your best reason for saying we ought to look at it your way rather than look at it the way that if it was okay at the time, no constitutional violation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2070.206, 2095.292], "stop_times": [2095.292, 2105.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2070.206}, "reply_to": "20147__1_056", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20147__1_058", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Justice Souter, in most contexts it is the law at the time of the plea that should govern the analysis of the question, and that is because if you look at a case like Brady, in which this Court basically said then existing law governs the validity of the plea, the question that is being asked is, the defendant has admitted his guilt of the substantive offense and now, should we let him after the fact say, in hindsight I miscalculated about what the law might have been, if I had known what the law would be, I never would have admitted my guilt.\nAnd I think the law quite properly says, that's not the kind of claim you can raise.\nYou must take your chances with what the consequences of pleading guilty might be, or whether you had a good suppression motion that you forewent, but this case is different, because the requirement for the valid admission of guilt that justifies holding somebody in prison in the first place is that he had an idea of what the crime was that he was pleading guilty to, in other words, as this Court said in Henderson v. Morgan, that he had true knowledge of the charges that he was admitting.\nThis defendant knew that he was admitting possession of a firearm near drugs and he was told that that made him guilty of a criminal offense and he said, I did that.\nThose facts are correct.\nI'm willing to take a guilty plea.\nBut in fact, that's not what the law meant, as we now know from Bailey, was required to obtain a valid admission of guilt, so Justice Souter, my distinction is that the core basis for allowing a guilty plea rather than a trial to establish guilt is that the defendant acknowledges that this conduct either was or can be shown to be satisfying of the elements of the offense under a proper understanding.\nIf he lacks that proper understanding, his admission of the crime is not a valid basis for holding him in prison, and that is distinct from all of the other considerations that he might have viewed in hindsight as impugning whether he would have made that admission.\nHere, he never really made it in the first place.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2105.3, 2138.011, 2142.192, 2170.382, 2180.097, 2181.569, 2183.062, 2209.508, 2225.52, 2228.742], "stop_times": [2138.011, 2142.192, 2170.382, 2180.097, 2181.569, 2183.062, 2209.508, 2225.52, 2228.742, 2233.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2105.3}, "reply_to": "20147__1_057", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20147__1_059", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Dreeben.\nMr. Walsh, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2233.034, 2235.177], "stop_times": [2235.177, 2236.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2233.034}, "reply_to": "20147__1_058", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20147__2_000", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nAs has been alluded to on a number of occasions already this morning the single most important fact in this case is that this petitioner, pursuant to a plea agreement, pleaded guilty to the gun charge in open court under oath in accordance with the language of count 2 of the indictment, which accused him of the use of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime.\nNow, guilty pleas are at the core of the administration of our criminal justice system.\nSome 75 to 90 percent of cases being resolved--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2236.446, 2239.268, 2264.564, 2270.218], "stop_times": [2239.268, 2264.564, 2270.218, 2273.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2236.446}, "reply_to": "20147__1_059", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_001", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "May I ask you to comment on Henderson v. Morgan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2273.78], "stop_times": [2275.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2273.78}, "reply_to": "20147__2_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20147__2_002", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--Henderson v. Morgan involved a case where the petitioner originally was charged with first degree murder and then, without ever having been recharged, pleaded guilty to second degree murder.\nThe indictment was never changed.\nHe was never charged with the offense.\nNow, by contrast, here, this defendant pleaded guilty to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2275.643, 2291.022, 2292.675, 2294.455], "stop_times": [2291.022, 2292.675, 2294.455, 2298.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2275.643}, "reply_to": "20147__2_001", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_003", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "What was the reason this Court gave for saying that the plea was involuntary in that case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2298.318], "stop_times": [2302.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2298.318}, "reply_to": "20147__2_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20147__2_004", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--Because he wasn't apprised of the charge that he was pleading guilty to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2302.521], "stop_times": [2305.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2302.521}, "reply_to": "20147__2_003", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_005", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "He wasn't apprised of one of the elements of the offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2305.902], "stop_times": [2308.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2305.902}, "reply_to": "20147__2_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20147__2_006", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, it was the offense itself, Your Honor.\nI mean, he was charged with first degree murder and he pleaded guilty to second, and the wilfulness aspect of second also was not explained to him, and that was part of the Court's reasoning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2308.506, 2310.166], "stop_times": [2310.166, 2318.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2308.506}, "reply_to": "20147__2_005", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_007", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "And that's the reason the Court said that there was a violation of due process of law in that he did not plead voluntarily because no one told him of one of the elements of the offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2318.049], "stop_times": [2326.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2318.049}, "reply_to": "20147__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20147__2_008", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "No one told--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2326.966], "stop_times": [2327.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2326.966}, "reply_to": "20147__2_007", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_009", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "And we set aside a State conviction on a guilty plea.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2327.617], "stop_times": [2330.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2327.617}, "reply_to": "20147__2_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20147__2_010", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--But that's a completely different case here, and let me explain what this defendant knew, because the Government seems to think it's very important what this particular petitioner's understanding was, and that's what Henderson said.\nIf he has such an incomplete understanding of the elements of the offense, then we have to take a hard look at his guilty plea.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2330.148, 2340.416], "stop_times": [2340.416, 2345.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2330.148}, "reply_to": "20147__2_009", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_011", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Right.\nIf there's one element of the offense he doesn't understand, you've got to set aside his guilty plea.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2345.249, 2345.449], "stop_times": [2345.449, 2348.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2345.249}, "reply_to": "20147__2_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20147__2_012", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, I wouldn't go that far, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2348.491], "stop_times": [2350.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2348.491}, "reply_to": "20147__2_011", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_013", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "That's what the opinion says.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2350.642], "stop_times": [2351.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2350.642}, "reply_to": "20147__2_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20147__2_014", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--But here, this defendant was charged both with possession of originally 7 pounds of meth... methamphetamine, and with the possession, or with the use of five guns during and in relation to his trafficking in those drugs.\nNow, in that scenario, on the drug count alone he was subjected potentially to a level 34 crime which could have brought him 188 months... when you take into account the two level enhancement for the use of the gun, 188 months to 235 months in prison on the drug charge alone.\nNow, he was told by his lawyer... and it's in the record.\nPages 133 to 143 of the appendix in this Court show that there was a dialogue between this defendant and his lawyer about the elements of this particular gun charge and the lawyer said, I have told you repeatedly that section 924(c) requires more than possession, and the petitioner wrote back to his lawyer and said, I feel so strongly I am not guilty of the use of a firearm that there is a good chance I would not be convicted of count 2.\nThat's at page 138 and 139 of the joint appendix.\nThe lawyer said, well, under present Eighth Circuit law I think you would be convicted, but it is your option, if you so desire, to move to set aside the plea and go to trial on that count, and for good reason, as part of a plea bargain, the defendant... the petitioner decided not to do that.\nAnd what did he get in return?\nIn addition to the fact that the Government did not appeal on the amount of drugs that were found he got the right to contest the amount of drugs with which he was going to be charged, and that ended up reducing the quantity from 3,100 grams to less than 1,000 grams, so instead of looking at a level 34 sentence, he started out with a base offense level of 30.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2351.463, 2369.164, 2388.446, 2392.87, 2422.93, 2427.091, 2445.974, 2447.146], "stop_times": [2369.164, 2388.446, 2392.87, 2422.93, 2427.091, 2445.974, 2447.146, 2468.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2351.463}, "reply_to": "20147__2_013", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_015", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Mr. Walsh, you're explaining things that went on behind the scenes, but the scene itself in the courtroom was a judge asking the defendant, do you know what you were charged with?\nDefendant answers, possession of a firearm.\nJudge Murphy then says, okay, if... the indictment charges you with possessing the firearms during a drug trafficking offense.\nSo in open court he is told by the judge... he pleads to something called possession of a firearm.\nThe judge affirms that the charge is possessing a firearm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2468.138, 2480.435, 2484.789, 2496.948, 2508.746], "stop_times": [2480.435, 2484.789, 2496.948, 2508.746, 2512.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2468.138}, "reply_to": "20147__2_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20147__2_016", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "And at page 28 of the colloquy, Your Honor, the defendant starts to quarrel with the court about what access he actually had to these guns, and the court explains, if you want a resolution of the gun issue and its relation to the drug issue and whether you used the gun, you have a right to ask for a jury determination of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2512.968], "stop_times": [2533.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2512.968}, "reply_to": "20147__2_015", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_017", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Where did she say use the gun?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2533.391], "stop_times": [2534.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2533.391}, "reply_to": "20147__2_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20147__2_018", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, she talked about the relationship of the gun to the drugs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2534.482], "stop_times": [2538.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2534.482}, "reply_to": "20147__2_017", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_019", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "She had in her mind that the crime was possession and proximity.\nI was not aware that she had at any point used the word used.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2538.296, 2542.287], "stop_times": [2542.287, 2546.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2538.296}, "reply_to": "20147__2_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20147__2_020", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "She said, I want you to understand that if you want to contest whether the guns are related to your drug trafficking you can go to trial to do that, do you understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2546.441], "stop_times": [2554.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2546.441}, "reply_to": "20147__2_019", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_021", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Yes, related to the drug trafficking, and that's what she explained to him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2554.335], "stop_times": [2557.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2554.335}, "reply_to": "20147__2_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20147__2_022", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2557.226], "stop_times": [2559.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2557.226}, "reply_to": "20147__2_021", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_023", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Possession and proximity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2559.089], "stop_times": [2560.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2559.089}, "reply_to": "20147__2_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20147__2_024", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--Which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2560.779], "stop_times": [2562.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2560.779}, "reply_to": "20147__2_023", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_025", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Not active use.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2562.021], "stop_times": [2563.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2562.021}, "reply_to": "20147__2_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20147__2_026", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--Well, I think that's semantical difference, Your Honor.\nI think they were talking about the same--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2563.591, 2565.934], "stop_times": [2565.934, 2567.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2563.591}, "reply_to": "20147__2_025", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_027", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Semantical difference?\nIt's what meant the difference between committing a crime and not committing a crime in Bailey, and in slews of cases that were backed up behind it, so it's hardly a semantical difference whether the crime is possession of guns in proximity to drugs and, as explained in the Bailey opinion, actively using the gun.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2567.494, 2568.556], "stop_times": [2568.556, 2589.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2567.494}, "reply_to": "20147__2_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20147__2_028", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--If the ultimate issue is whether this defendant knew what he was charged with, clearly the indictment in this case charged him with use, and that's how it's different from Henderson.\nIf the issue is whether the Rule 11 colloquy was somehow defective, then maybe that's a different issue, but that doesn't raise a constitutional question, and that has been the fault--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2589.717, 2597.744], "stop_times": [2597.744, 2607.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2589.717}, "reply_to": "20147__2_027", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_029", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, it surely does raise the constitutional... Henderson squarely holds, if you do not advise the guilty... the man before he pleads guilty of all the elements of the offense, the plea is involuntary, and that's what happened there, and that's what happened here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2607.742], "stop_times": [2620.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2607.742}, "reply_to": "20147__2_028", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20147__2_030", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--Well, in addition, Henderson failed to explain the state of the law at the time that the fellow pleaded guilty.\nIn this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2620.67, 2627.643], "stop_times": [2627.643, 2628.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2620.67}, "reply_to": "20147__2_029", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_031", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Yes, but the state of the law at the time here is what we say it is.\nIt's not what the district judge erroneously thought it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2628.615, 2631.577], "stop_times": [2631.577, 2633.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2628.615}, "reply_to": "20147__2_030", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20147__2_032", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--Well, I... the district judge can't explain the law in terms different than the law of the circuit in which he sits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2633.898], "stop_times": [2639.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2633.898}, "reply_to": "20147__2_031", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_033", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "He certainly can.\nHe certainly has a duty to do it if the law in fact is what Congress enacted as we interpret it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2639.121, 2640.092], "stop_times": [2640.092, 2645.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2639.121}, "reply_to": "20147__2_032", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20147__2_034", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2645.736], "stop_times": [2646.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2645.736}, "reply_to": "20147__2_033", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_035", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "We squarely held that in the Rivers case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2646.297], "stop_times": [2648.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2646.297}, "reply_to": "20147__2_034", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20147__2_036", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--Well, that... well, I don't know that that was a holding--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2648.067], "stop_times": [2650.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2648.067}, "reply_to": "20147__2_035", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_037", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "We said there the statute always has the same meaning.\nIt had that meaning since the date of enactment.\nThe fact that a lot of courts of appeals, and there were just as many there, had read it the other way didn't cut any ice at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2650.29, 2654.091, 2656.783], "stop_times": [2654.091, 2656.783, 2662.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2650.29}, "reply_to": "20147__2_036", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20147__2_038", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--But whether that trumps the rule that the defendant takes the law as he finds it when he decides to plead guilty is a different question, and also--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2662.158], "stop_times": [2669.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2662.158}, "reply_to": "20147__2_037", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_039", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "It's not the law as he finds it.\nIt's the law as is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2669.642, 2672.103], "stop_times": [2672.103, 2673.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2669.642}, "reply_to": "20147__2_038", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20147__2_040", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--Well, then that opens up Pandora's box for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2673.505], "stop_times": [2676.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2673.505}, "reply_to": "20147__2_039", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_041", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "You see, in Henderson the defendant was incorrectly advised by his counsel as to what the law was, and he acted on his advice of counsel and pleaded to a crime that had not been charged.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2676.868], "stop_times": [2689.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2676.868}, "reply_to": "20147__2_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20147__2_042", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--But in Broce, in Brady, and the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2689.066], "stop_times": [2691.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2689.066}, "reply_to": "20147__2_041", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_043", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Those are not elements of the offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2691.447], "stop_times": [2692.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2691.447}, "reply_to": "20147__2_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20147__2_044", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--Well, those are misinterpretations of the legal consequences of the plea, and when the defendant decides to take his chances with a guilty plea and save as much as 10 or 12 years off a drug sentence by pleading guilty to a crime that he may not be guilty of by his own acknowledgement in the record... people plead guilty for a lot of different reasons.\nHe might have wanted to save his family and friends the embarrassment or the humiliation of testifying.\nHe might have wanted to avoid dealing with his source for these drugs.\nHe might have had a lot of reasons for wanting to put finality to this criminal episode, and he also was very interested in trying to save as much time in prison as he could, so the fact that at the time he may have miscalculated the consequences of his actions should not allow him 8 years later to come in and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2692.757, 2713.79, 2718.745, 2721.785], "stop_times": [2713.79, 2718.745, 2721.785, 2739.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2692.757}, "reply_to": "20147__2_043", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_045", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "It's not a question of miscalculating the consequences of his actions.\nIt's a question of entering a plea without being advised of what the elements of the crime to which he's asked to plea were--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2739.686, 2742.738], "stop_times": [2742.738, 2748.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2739.686}, "reply_to": "20147__2_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20147__2_046", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--Well, he--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2748.362], "stop_times": [2748.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2748.362}, "reply_to": "20147__2_045", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_047", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--by either the court or his counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2748.763], "stop_times": [2750.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2748.763}, "reply_to": "20147__2_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20147__2_048", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--Well, he was advised by the terms of the indictment.\nHe was advised by the terms of the plea agreement that he signed, which is written in terms of use of drugs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2750.215, 2752.716], "stop_times": [2752.716, 2759.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2750.215}, "reply_to": "20147__2_047", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_049", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, but that... isn't that really an equivocation?\nSure, the word use was employed, but the explanation that was given to him, and the explanation that was presupposed by the statement of factual basis, was not use as we defined it in Bailey.\nIt was in effect proximity of possession, so that he was not told about use as Bailey described and defined use, was he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2759.471, 2761.532, 2775.181], "stop_times": [2761.532, 2775.181, 2785.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2759.471}, "reply_to": "20147__2_048", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20147__2_050", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2785.909], "stop_times": [2786.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2785.909}, "reply_to": "20147__2_049", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_051", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "All right.\nNow, let me try a different hypothetical.\nLet me go part way with your argument, and let me assume that there certainly are some cases in which, if... I'll take a Holmesian view that the law changed when Bailey came down, and I will assume for the sake of argument that there are a class of cases in which we shouldn't disturb the plea simply because the elements were explained improperly, as understood by hindsight.\nThe distinction I want to test out is this.\nI suppose there are... you know, there are infinite varieties of mistakes in the plea colloquys, but one broad distinction would be this.\nIn some cases, the law is explained to a defendant who wishes to plead in a way that simply does not make it clear what the distinction is between the offense that he's charged with and some related offense, first degree murder, second degree murder, that sort of thing.\nIn another class of cases, of which this is supposedly one, there is no other offense, so that if he pleads guilty to this kind of... under these circumstances, he's pleading guilty to something which under no possible set of legal facts would be punishable.\nShouldn't a distinction be drawn between those two kinds of plea cases, the argument being that in the first class of cases the public has a... at least an interest in having murderers generally locked up, but there is no discernible public interest, or no serious public interest in locking up people for something which is not a crime by anyone's definition, and for conduct which does not fit within a crime by anybody's definition.\nWould you admit that distinction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2786.62, 2786.847, 2790.47, 2819.68, 2824.313, 2834.349, 2850.891, 2875.366, 2908.988], "stop_times": [2786.847, 2790.47, 2819.68, 2824.313, 2834.349, 2850.891, 2875.366, 2908.988, 2910.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2786.62}, "reply_to": "20147__2_050", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20147__2_052", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, no, Justice Souter.\nI mean, I would think that the public does have an interest in locking up people who are trafficking in drugs, and even more so people who have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2910.838, 2911.719], "stop_times": [2911.719, 2918.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2910.838}, "reply_to": "20147__2_051", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_053", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "For trafficking... for trafficking in drugs, that's right, and that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2918.134], "stop_times": [2920.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2918.134}, "reply_to": "20147__2_052", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20147__2_054", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--and who use guns--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2920.946], "stop_times": [2921.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2920.946}, "reply_to": "20147__2_053", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_055", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--But that's... but he's not being locked up here for trafficking in drugs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2921.257], "stop_times": [2923.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2921.257}, "reply_to": "20147__2_054", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20147__2_056", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--Well, he is in part.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2923.968], "stop_times": [2925.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2923.968}, "reply_to": "20147__2_055", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_057", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "To the extent that we are concerned with his lock up, we're concerned with his lock up for the firearms offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2925.19], "stop_times": [2930.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2925.19}, "reply_to": "20147__2_056", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20147__2_058", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "And certainly Congress could have made mere possession in connection with a drug trafficking offense--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2930.103], "stop_times": [2936.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2930.103}, "reply_to": "20147__2_057", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_059", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "But it didn't.\nIt didn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2936.317, 2936.768], "stop_times": [2936.768, 2937.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2936.317}, "reply_to": "20147__2_058", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20147__2_060", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--It didn't yet, right, but it did provide for an enhancement in the guidelines, so that conduct is recognized as reprehensible, because it gets him two extra levels on his sentence if he's found with guns, even if he's not charged under 924(c).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2937.947], "stop_times": [2952.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2937.947}, "reply_to": "20147__2_059", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_061", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "So you're saying the Government... I don't... I think you're saying that the Government's interest is sufficiently weighty because we can more or less equate a guidelines enhancement with conviction for a separate crime.\nThat... you don't mean that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2952.146, 2964.794], "stop_times": [2964.794, 2965.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2952.146}, "reply_to": "20147__2_060", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20147__2_062", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "No, but we can take that into account in seeing whether that's conduct that the Government has the right to punish.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2965.775], "stop_times": [2969.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2965.775}, "reply_to": "20147__2_061", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_063", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "It's about 3 years difference, isn't it--\n--Right, yes.\n--between the enhancement and being convicted of a substantive offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2969.719, 2971.429, 2971.65], "stop_times": [2971.429, 2971.65, 2975.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2969.719}, "reply_to": "20147__2_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20147__2_064", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "2-1/2 or 3, yes, Your Honor.\nI'd like to move, if I could, to the procedural default question, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2975.022, 2976.713], "stop_times": [2976.713, 2980.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2975.022}, "reply_to": "20147__2_063", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_065", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "May I ask you just one question also on a procedural line, because I understood your brief to make no distinction, as I thought our cases had, in the so called Teague bar between a procedural issue... I think Teague itself uses the word procedural.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [2980.897], "stop_times": [3000.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2980.897}, "reply_to": "20147__2_064", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20147__2_066", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--Constitutional rules of procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [3000.429], "stop_times": [3002.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3000.429}, "reply_to": "20147__2_065", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_067", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Procedure... of procedure, and something that is substantive.\nHere we're not talking about any slip or change in the law about procedure.\nWe're talking about a definition of what the crime is, and I had not seen Teague applied to the substance, as distinguished from the procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [3002.902, 3006.054, 3010.896], "stop_times": [3006.054, 3010.896, 3021.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3002.902}, "reply_to": "20147__2_066", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20147__2_068", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, to the extent that the Teague progeny have been developed to date, I would agree that there has not been a case like this.\nI would suggest that the distinction to date has been between the constitutional rules Teague has addressed and this statutory rule, which this Court has never applied Teague to yet because it's never been asked to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [3021.953, 3030.949], "stop_times": [3030.949, 3043.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3021.953}, "reply_to": "20147__2_067", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_069", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "But we never... don't talk about what the crime is as being a new rule.\nMaybe there was merely a misconstruction, but it's not... the notion that... not the common law that you pull down from the sky, but words that Congress used to define an offense, we haven't, to my knowledge, spoken about this Court's interpretation as a, quote, new rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [3043.277, 3047.05], "stop_times": [3047.05, 3068.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3043.277}, "reply_to": "20147__2_068", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20147__2_070", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, under Teague a new rule is one that's not dictated by precedent, and Bailey clearly was not dictated by precedent.\nThat was a departure from--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [3068.854, 3075.87], "stop_times": [3075.87, 3078.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3068.854}, "reply_to": "20147__2_069", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_071", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "So are you urging that we extend... I mean, you've been candid in saying we haven't... we... that Teague itself uses the word procedural.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [3078.41], "stop_times": [3086.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3078.41}, "reply_to": "20147__2_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20147__2_072", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--Absolutely.\nWe think this case should be subject to Teague and should be Teague barred, and it's a small step in our view from the cases that have applied Teague so far to prisoners on death row, for instance, denying them retroactive application of constitutional provisions, to this case, which simply says that a new statutory rule won't be applied retroactively.\nBut if I could talk for a minute about procedural default, because not only did this petitioner commit what we would call the ultimate act of procedural default by pleading guilty, but then it was compounded by his failure to appeal on the gun charge after he was convicted, and the record again shows that he knew what his rights were, but he waived them.\nAnd as Justice O'Connor has indicated, there was plenty of litigation going on around the country, and we agree with the Government that there is no cause for his failure to assert his gun rights on the original appeal.\nIt was not futile, and even perceived futility under Engle v. Isaac and Smith v. Murray is not cause, so he procedurally defaulted--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [3086.357, 3087.086, 3106.079, 3127.233, 3140.331], "stop_times": [3087.086, 3106.079, 3127.233, 3140.331, 3149.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3086.357}, "reply_to": "20147__2_071", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_073", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Would you distinguish a case like... post Lopez, suppose somebody... direct appeal time is over, applies under 2255 to be released because he was convicted of the crime of carrying a gun within X distance of a school?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [3149.167], "stop_times": [3164.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3149.167}, "reply_to": "20147__2_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20147__2_074", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--Well, I think as far as procedural default is concerned I would have the same analysis there.\nThere might be other reasons why someone under that kind of a situation might be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [3164.657, 3168.608], "stop_times": [3168.608, 3172.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3164.657}, "reply_to": "20147__2_073", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_075", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, do you distinguish these two cases, or do you say they're saying too bad, you entered a plea, even though the Supreme Court said that that's not... that can't... not only it's not a crime, but can't be a crime?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [3172.332], "stop_times": [3181.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3172.332}, "reply_to": "20147__2_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20147__2_076", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--Well, as far as if a statute is held unconstitutional the Blackledge Menna exception might... might... give that particular petitioner the right to set aside the guilty plea, but that's... Blackledge and Menna don't apply to this situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [3181.949], "stop_times": [3197.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3181.949}, "reply_to": "20147__2_075", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_077", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "How do you deal with the argument made by the Solicitor General's Office that if there... there is, despite the waiver, a gateway for somebody who comes in with a colorable claim of actual innocence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [3197.93], "stop_times": [3216.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3197.93}, "reply_to": "20147__2_076", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20147__2_078", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, that would be a novel application of the doctrine of actual innocence, Justice O'Connor.\nNever has this Court, first of all, ever applied actual innocence, the gateway or freestanding actual innocence, to a situation in which a man pleaded guilty.\nBut... and the actual innocence paradigm that's been created by this Court most recently in Schlup just simply doesn't fit the situation where you have a plea of guilty, because in that case, for instance, the defendant--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [3216.82, 3222.955, 3231.48], "stop_times": [3222.955, 3231.48, 3245.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3216.82}, "reply_to": "20147__2_077", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_079", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "If this defendant had gone to trial and been convicted, would you be here making this same argument, or would you say under these circumstances that person could come in with his claim of actual innocence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [3245.408], "stop_times": [3258.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3245.408}, "reply_to": "20147__2_078", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20147__2_080", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--Well, he'd--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [3258.428], "stop_times": [3259.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3258.428}, "reply_to": "20147__2_079", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_081", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "No guilty plea.\nHe went to trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [3259.86, 3260.699], "stop_times": [3260.699, 3261.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3259.86}, "reply_to": "20147__2_080", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20147__2_082", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--He'd have a better claim, but still, this isn't actual innocence at the bottom.\nActual innocence means, I didn't do this.\nThere's a dead body on the floor, but I didn't do it.\nPrototypical actual innocence, as mentioned by this Court in one of its cases is, they got the wrong man.\nBut what we're talking about here, at best, is what the Court has described as legal innocence, or technical innocence.\nWhat it really is is a claim that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, whether obtained by a guilty plea or by jury verdict.\nThis--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [3261.42, 3267.344, 3269.676, 3271.926, 3278.801, 3285.906, 3297.153], "stop_times": [3267.344, 3269.676, 3271.926, 3278.801, 3285.906, 3297.153, 3297.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3261.42}, "reply_to": "20147__2_081", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_083", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Well, I think at bottom it's a little more than that.\nIt was that this statute was misinterpreted by the lower courts.\nJustice Harlan in Mackey and in Desist confined the retroactivity to conduct that could not be made a crime, flag burning and so forth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [3297.924, 3301.508, 3306.84], "stop_times": [3301.508, 3306.84, 3316.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3297.924}, "reply_to": "20147__2_082", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20147__2_084", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [3316.676], "stop_times": [3317.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3316.676}, "reply_to": "20147__2_083", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_085", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Was the reason that he did that because there was an extant body of jurisprudence or understanding that statutory interpretations are not retroactive to final judgments, or was this... do you think this was just the assumption of the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [3317.126], "stop_times": [3332.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3317.126}, "reply_to": "20147__2_084", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20147__2_086", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "I think he just felt that there were certain primary personal rights that were so fundamental that they're beyond the ability of Congress to proscribe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [3332.426], "stop_times": [3343.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3332.426}, "reply_to": "20147__2_085", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_087", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Neither side has a great case for us on that, on the substantive point of retroactivity of statutory reinterpretations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [3343.203], "stop_times": [3351.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3343.203}, "reply_to": "20147__2_086", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20147__2_088", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "That's correct.\nIt has not been decided by this Court.\nWe've cited a couple of cases from--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [3351.719, 3352.099, 3353.681], "stop_times": [3352.099, 3353.681, 3355.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3351.719}, "reply_to": "20147__2_087", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_089", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "You mean, all those books in my office, this thing has never come up?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [3355.02], "stop_times": [3359.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3355.02}, "reply_to": "20147__2_088", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20147__2_090", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "--Well, some of the lower courts have refused to apply decisions like Bailey retroactively, relying on the Davis case, but the Davis case is a total... that's a total misapplication of Davis, which was not a retroactivity case at all but a cognizability case, and to that extent, to that analysis we think he's just wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [3359.024], "stop_times": [3381.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3359.024}, "reply_to": "20147__2_089", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20147__2_091", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Walsh.\nYou were appointed as amicus by the Court, and the Court wishes to express its appreciation to you for your service.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [3381.048, 3382.168], "stop_times": [3382.168, 3387.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3381.048}, "reply_to": "20147__2_090", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20147__2_092", "conversation_id": "20147", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8516", "start_times": [3387.641], "stop_times": [3388.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3387.641}, "reply_to": "20147__2_091", "speaker": "thomas_c_walsh"}
{"id": "20170__0_000", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "We'll hear argument first this morning in Number 97-156, Randon Bragdon v. Sidney Abbott.\nMr. McCarthy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [0.0, 8.608], "stop_times": [8.608, 10.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20170__0_001", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--\nSome risks are acceptable.\nWe know when we build a major bridge or a tunnel that there are risks of death during the course of construction, despite reasonable precautions, but these risks are acceptable because there are benefits to society and because the workers are not compelled to participate.\nMs. Abbott and her supporters believe the risk to the lives of dentists is outweighed by providing inoffice treatment to HIV positive patients without additional precautions.\nDr. Bragdon believes that when he provides service in the face of the risk of death, he should be allowed to take additional precautions.\nThis raises one of the fundamental questions in this case.\nWhat is the proper legal standard for determining when to impose liability on a dentist facing a claim of discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act when the direct threat provisions are implemented?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [10.108, 14.991, 18.012, 37.536, 49.925, 58.971, 64.183], "stop_times": [14.991, 18.012, 37.536, 49.925, 58.971, 64.183, 78.994], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.108}, "reply_to": "20170__0_000", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_002", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Mr. McCarthy, may I ask you to clarify at the outset whether you recognize that once the symptoms are visible, what is now described as AIDS, once a person has that disease, that that would constitute a disability?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [78.994], "stop_times": [98.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 78.994}, "reply_to": "20170__0_001", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20170__0_003", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "I think that's very likely, Your Honor, but our position is that the definition applies for disability, and the definition is when there's a physical or mental impairment and here we're talking about HIV, that substantial limits a major life activity, if that comes into play, then the person's disabled, then it seems very likely it would come into play if a person had visible symptoms of HIV disease.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [98.135], "stop_times": [118.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 98.135}, "reply_to": "20170__0_002", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_004", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "You concede there is a physical impairment, or don't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [118.848], "stop_times": [121.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 118.848}, "reply_to": "20170__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20170__0_005", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "I don't... we don't concede that, although we see the force of the respondents' argument on that issue.\nWe note that the Fourth Circuit in Runnebaum found that there was no physical impairment and we're unwilling to concede that issue when a circuit court of appeals has made that finding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [121.941, 127.123], "stop_times": [127.123, 136.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 121.941}, "reply_to": "20170__0_004", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_006", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "I thought it was curious that the American Medical Association took the position that it is a physical impairment under the act from the beginning, and the dental association, on the other hand, takes the opposite view.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [136.801], "stop_times": [151.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 136.801}, "reply_to": "20170__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20170__0_007", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, I'm not sure what position the dental association takes with regard to physical impairment.\nWe don't think that it's really essential to the arguments that we are making in this matter.\nOur arguments are directed to disability and... rather than a physical impairment.\nThere was, it appears to us, a great deal of confusion about those terms in Congress, where Congressmen and women sometimes didn't seem to understand the difference between impairment and disability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [151.97, 157.626, 163.15, 167.381], "stop_times": [157.626, 163.15, 167.381, 177.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 151.97}, "reply_to": "20170__0_006", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_008", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, the act seems to go further, and say if someone is regarded as having the impairment it's covered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [177.729], "stop_times": [184.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 177.729}, "reply_to": "20170__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20170__0_009", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "I think that the language of the act says, if someone is regarded as having such impairment, and when they say such impairment they're referring to an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, so the regarded as only comes into play if you have an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [184.474], "stop_times": [202.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 184.474}, "reply_to": "20170__0_008", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_010", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Was that issue argued in the First Circuit, the regarded as?\nWas that point argued in the First Circuit, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [202.456, 205.518], "stop_times": [205.518, 207.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 202.456}, "reply_to": "20170__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20170__0_011", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "In our view it wasn't really argued aggressively, but the issue has appeared.\nThe Solicitor General, or the Department of Justice raised it in the First Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [207.839, 213.653], "stop_times": [213.653, 217.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 207.839}, "reply_to": "20170__0_010", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_012", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--Had it been raised in the district court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [217.745], "stop_times": [219.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 217.745}, "reply_to": "20170__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20170__0_013", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "I believe the respondent believes that it has, and the record is somewhat ambiguous on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [219.898], "stop_times": [226.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 219.898}, "reply_to": "20170__0_012", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_014", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Really a pretty skimpy record on that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [226.392], "stop_times": [228.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 226.392}, "reply_to": "20170__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20170__0_015", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "There's a very skimpy record on that issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [228.145], "stop_times": [229.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 228.145}, "reply_to": "20170__0_014", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_016", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "But you are contending that a rational Congress would draw the line and exclude from this protection a person whose symptoms are not yet visible, yet include someone who would pose perhaps at least equal danger whose symptoms are visible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [229.664], "stop_times": [247.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 229.664}, "reply_to": "20170__0_015", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20170__0_017", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "No.\nWe do not think that Congress excluded individuals with HIV disease.\nWe think that congress defined disability, and you have to meet it.\nWhether you are symptomatic or not symptomatic, you have to have a physical impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, and our argument goes directly to the statute, and there are certainly... although there may have been efforts to pass legislation that excluded contagious diseases, they were not successful, and we certainly don't take that position.\nWe take the position that you have to meet the definition, and the reason the issue is raised in a case like this is because this particular individual is a classic example of a person who had no symptoms, no difficulties whatsoever.\nThe record is very clear on that, that she doesn't have any of the sorts of attributes that are attributed to some asymptomatic and certainly some symptomatic HIV individuals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [247.196, 247.757, 251.63, 255.691, 273.404, 285.821], "stop_times": [247.757, 251.63, 255.691, 273.404, 285.821, 294.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 247.196}, "reply_to": "20170__0_016", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_018", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, do you say that we have to focus on daily public and economic life activities, as oppose to the more private activities that are the... really the basis for the respondent's contention?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [294.189], "stop_times": [303.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 294.189}, "reply_to": "20170__0_017", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20170__0_019", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "We get to that language when we look at reproduction as a major life activity, and there are sort of two parts of that, and the first part is, well, this... how do you get away from the idea that it's so major... obviously reproduction is so major, it must be a major life activity.\nAnd we escape from that argument, we believe successfully, by the fact that Congress already narrowed that definition to what's in the regulation, and I say Congress narrowed it to what's in the regulation because they adopted the language, major life activities, from the 1973 act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the 1988 Fair Housing Amendments Act, so it was already in place that major life activities is limited to functions such as living, breathing, working.\nWhen we get to that, the question then becomes is reproduction on that list of major life activities, and the reason it isn't is precisely for the reason I think you made inquiry with respect to, Your Honor, and that is, you have to look at the context and purposes of the Americans With Disabilities Act in order to determine what goes on that list, and the context and purposes are, day to day independent living and economic self sufficiency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [303.776, 319.826, 344.582], "stop_times": [319.826, 344.582, 369.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 303.776}, "reply_to": "20170__0_018", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_020", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Are you relying on the regulations issued by the Department of Justice or those issued by EEOC earlier?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [369.399], "stop_times": [376.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 369.399}, "reply_to": "20170__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__0_021", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "We're... I'm making reference to the Department of Justice title III regulations, but it's also important to make reference in the sense that I just described to the regulations that issued under the Rehabilitation Act and the Fair Housing Amendments Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [376.174], "stop_times": [387.994], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 376.174}, "reply_to": "20170__0_020", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_022", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Can I ask... and are they identical in that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [387.994], "stop_times": [390.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 387.994}, "reply_to": "20170__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__0_023", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "They are either identical or essentially identical in that regard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [390.025], "stop_times": [393.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 390.025}, "reply_to": "20170__0_022", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_024", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--What function does the Justice Department have under title III, other than issuing regulations?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [393.458], "stop_times": [401.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 393.458}, "reply_to": "20170__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__0_025", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "I'm not sure exactly what you mean.\nThey issued the regulations--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [401.322, 405.883], "stop_times": [405.883, 407.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 401.322}, "reply_to": "20170__0_024", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_026", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Do they do anything else under title III?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [407.465], "stop_times": [408.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 407.465}, "reply_to": "20170__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__0_027", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--under title III.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [408.675], "stop_times": [409.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 408.675}, "reply_to": "20170__0_026", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_028", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Do they administer title III in any sense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [409.376], "stop_times": [412.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 409.376}, "reply_to": "20170__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__0_029", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "I'm not aware of the Department of Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [412.338], "stop_times": [414.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 412.338}, "reply_to": "20170__0_028", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_030", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Suppose you have a Congress that's been taken over by the Republicans after 40 years of Democratic control and Democratic judicial appointments and Congress, this Republican Congress does not like the kind of decisions that Democratic judges are going to be making, can Congress say that the interpretation of statutes shall be governed by regulations issued by the Department of Justice?\nI find that extraordinary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [414.031, 443.82], "stop_times": [443.82, 446.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 414.031}, "reply_to": "20170__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__0_031", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--It certainly was unusual, and we don't... and we don't really rely on it in that sense.\nOur reliance comes upon... comes out of the fact that the... that Congress knew when it accepted the term, major life activities, that major life activities was already under a term under the Rehabilitation Act that had already had an existing regulation, so it incorporated that, and there are two... I think you're making a distinction that's worth noting, if I understand it correctly.\nThere are two different ways they look at that, and one is simply knowing that that language already existed, and the other is attempting to say through the Senate and committee reports that they were adopting that language, and those are two different ways of looking at--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [446.983, 453.457, 471.82], "stop_times": [453.457, 471.82, 484.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 446.983}, "reply_to": "20170__0_030", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_032", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "The whole Congress said that through the committee report.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [484.719], "stop_times": [487.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 484.719}, "reply_to": "20170__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__0_033", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--They attempted to say it through the committee reports.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [487.08], "stop_times": [489.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 487.08}, "reply_to": "20170__0_032", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_034", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--on those reports.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [489.181], "stop_times": [490.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 489.181}, "reply_to": "20170__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__0_035", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Oh, no, certainly the whole Congress did not, but the committee reports made that argument.\nWe're not suggesting that those committee reports are significant.\nWhat I'm trying to get at is an answer to the question of what role does independent... day to day independent living and economic self sufficiency play in defining what is and what is not a major life activity, and we think we've in a sense solved the riddle to how do you determine what goes on that list, and the riddle and answer is, you have this principle basis now for deciding what should be on the list, and that is these goals of the Americans With Disabilities Act.\nOnce you have those goals in mind and have this principal basis, you then say a major life activity is a activity which, if substantially limited by a physical or a mental impairment, interferes with the ability to achieve day to day independent living and economic self sufficiency, and when you apply that test you'll find reproduction doesn't fit that list in whatever fashion we describe as reproduction, but learning, hearing, working, breathing do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [490.302, 494.424, 498.528, 523.375], "stop_times": [494.424, 498.528, 523.375, 549.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 490.302}, "reply_to": "20170__0_034", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_036", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "If you stipulate that 3 or 4 years hence it is highly likely that major life activities of the kind you've been discussing will be affected, is the person disabled, have disability within the meaning of the act in the first year, when we know that it's inevitable that there will be an effect 3 or 4 years down the line?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [549.541], "stop_times": [571.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 549.541}, "reply_to": "20170__0_035", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20170__0_037", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, of course, in a sense it... we think of it as inevitable, but recent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [571.504], "stop_times": [576.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 571.504}, "reply_to": "20170__0_036", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_038", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Let's assume that it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [576.72], "stop_times": [577.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 576.72}, "reply_to": "20170__0_037", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20170__0_039", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--But if we assume it's inevitable the definition of disability certainly does not seem to attempt to affect future disabilities, which is the question that that raises.\nIn fact, I believe the EEOC guidelines for title I specifically say they're not addressing... and now I can't remember the term... gene based disabilities, or disabilities that are going to occur in the future in that sense, and the argument that because you know, almost know for sure you're going to have disabilities later on, you should be classified as disabilities now, I think simply goes beyond the statute.\nThe statute not only defines disabilities in a present sense, but if you open up the statute to future disabilities, then you start looking at hypertension, genetic problems, Huntington's chorea disease, whatever might exist in the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [577.389, 588.468, 610.702], "stop_times": [588.468, 610.702, 623.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 577.389}, "reply_to": "20170__0_038", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_040", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--But it doesn't mean, does it, the major life activity, that the life activity has to be related to the performance of the job?\nI mean, a person could be blind.\nThat doesn't mean the blind person would not be... would be not disabled simply because some jobs don't require seeing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [623.911, 630.466, 633.258], "stop_times": [630.466, 633.258, 639.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 623.911}, "reply_to": "20170__0_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20170__0_041", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "I think that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [639.61], "stop_times": [642.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 639.61}, "reply_to": "20170__0_040", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_042", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "All right.\nIf that's correct--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [642.431, 642.962], "stop_times": [642.962, 643.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 642.431}, "reply_to": "20170__0_041", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20170__0_043", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "I'm having a little bit of difficulty adjusting to a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [643.843], "stop_times": [644.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 643.843}, "reply_to": "20170__0_042", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_044", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--If that's correct, then let's take a person who had some eating disorder, or couldn't... that's not on the list, I don't think, eating disorders, but people are terribly frightened of getting it, so he can't eat except in very, very unusual ways, a very serious problem.\nPeople are frightened to death of getting it.\nDoes that fall within the act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [644.744, 661.067, 663.227], "stop_times": [661.067, 663.227, 664.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 644.744}, "reply_to": "20170__0_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20170__0_045", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--I think it's entirely possible that eating is a major life--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [664.699], "stop_times": [670.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 664.699}, "reply_to": "20170__0_044", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_046", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, I would think so.\n[Laughter]\nAnd then if that's so, why isn't reproductive activity, which includes the person having a sex life, I take it... I mean, you'd think perhaps that that is at least regarded in this society as a major activity, portion of human life.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [670.103, 670.834, 671.225], "stop_times": [670.834, 671.225, 686.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 670.103}, "reply_to": "20170__0_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20170__0_047", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--But that argument escapes from the idea that the term major life activities incorporates a definition that's already bounded by the regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [686.903], "stop_times": [696.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 686.903}, "reply_to": "20170__0_046", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_048", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, the regulation didn't refer to eating.\nI didn't see eating on there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [696.55, 698.233], "stop_times": [698.233, 700.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 696.55}, "reply_to": "20170__0_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20170__0_049", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [700.053], "stop_times": [700.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 700.053}, "reply_to": "20170__0_048", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_050", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "And what about a person who couldn't feel, some unusual disease where he can't feel at all.\nI mean, I take it you put that on there, even though it doesn't mention it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [700.643, 705.336], "stop_times": [705.336, 708.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 700.643}, "reply_to": "20170__0_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20170__0_051", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "The regulation says, such as, so it's not excluded.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [708.378], "stop_times": [711.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 708.378}, "reply_to": "20170__0_050", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_052", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [711.911], "stop_times": [712.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 711.911}, "reply_to": "20170__0_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20170__0_053", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "But now--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [712.461], "stop_times": [713.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 712.461}, "reply_to": "20170__0_052", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_054", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "So if that's so, my question is, if you're willing to put in things that relate to feeling, things that relate to eating, things that relate to those things which are part of our ordinary human life, and if you also say that sexual activity is an ordinary part of human life, and an important part, why isn't that on there, too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [713.102], "stop_times": [730.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 713.102}, "reply_to": "20170__0_053", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20170__0_055", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--Because the test is not important.\nThe test is, is it... does it fit within the terms of this regulation, which is such as eating, breathing, learning, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [730.673, 733.495], "stop_times": [733.495, 740.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 730.673}, "reply_to": "20170__0_054", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_056", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "May I ask about the regulation... I'm a little puzzled.\nYou want us to ignore the regulations that are issued by the Department of Justice pursuant to this statute and look at some other regulations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [740.679, 742.452], "stop_times": [742.452, 750.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 740.679}, "reply_to": "20170__0_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20170__0_057", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--No.\nThe regulation that I'm referring to that gives meaning to major life activities is part of this statute.\nI'm just pointing out that these same regulations--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [750.429, 751.511, 759.155], "stop_times": [751.511, 759.155, 762.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 750.429}, "reply_to": "20170__0_056", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_058", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, the regulations specifically list HIV as a physical or mental impairment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [762.115], "stop_times": [767.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 762.115}, "reply_to": "20170__0_057", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20170__0_059", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--And it almost certainly is a physical or mental impairment, but a physical or mental impairment is different than a disability, and we know that it's classified, probably classified as a physical impairment, certainly if you follow the regulations, but the question is, is it a disability, and we get to... in order for it to be a disability, it has to be a physical impairment that substantially limits a major life activity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [767.639], "stop_times": [788.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 767.639}, "reply_to": "20170__0_058", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_060", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "You're saying... you're... you're referring, when you keep referring to the examples in the regs, to the one set out on page... in the appendix to your brief, 36.104--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [788.824], "stop_times": [800.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 788.824}, "reply_to": "20170__0_059", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20170__0_061", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [800.782], "stop_times": [801.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 800.782}, "reply_to": "20170__0_060", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_062", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--which has the examples, and I take it your argument is that all of those examples go to the capacity of an individual in effect to survive personally.\nThey are the things that one has to do to live, but they do not go beyond that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [801.58, 811.298], "stop_times": [811.298, 816.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 801.58}, "reply_to": "20170__0_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20170__0_063", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "That's right.\nThey are... in other--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [816.49, 817.051], "stop_times": [817.051, 819.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 816.49}, "reply_to": "20170__0_062", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_064", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "So that's why you would pick up eating, but you would draw the line... one does not have to reproduce in order to survive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [819.194], "stop_times": [825.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 819.194}, "reply_to": "20170__0_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20170__0_065", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--In a sense.\nThey go to sustaining oneself, and reproduction is outside that... doesn't fit with the list.\nI mean the... sort of the game here are the... and of course that's a loose way of referring to it, but the whole idea here is, we're given this regulation that says what major life activities are, and it defines it in terms of examples, and one must understand why the examples are there to know what else goes on the list.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [825.486, 826.818, 832.162], "stop_times": [826.818, 832.162, 847.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 825.486}, "reply_to": "20170__0_064", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_066", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "What about sustaining oneself, the words you just used, including access to ordinary health care like going to the dentist?\nThis... a person who has the HIV virus, would you agree, needs to be checked more regularly than you or I, needs access to medical monitoring?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [847.332, 855.607], "stop_times": [855.607, 873.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 847.332}, "reply_to": "20170__0_065", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20170__0_067", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "I think it's arguable that if a person has a serious disease and the present medical regimen would include more visits to the office than perhaps some... not I, but somebody else makes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [873.398], "stop_times": [885.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 873.398}, "reply_to": "20170__0_066", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_068", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "And that access is rendered more difficult, as this very case shows.\nThat person needs the monitoring, and is impeded from getting it.\nWhy doesn't that qualify?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [885.096, 892.031, 900.126], "stop_times": [892.031, 900.126, 902.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 885.096}, "reply_to": "20170__0_067", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20170__0_069", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, if that argument is, you're substantially limited in the ability to care for yourself--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [902.557], "stop_times": [908.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 902.557}, "reply_to": "20170__0_068", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_070", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [908.25], "stop_times": [908.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 908.25}, "reply_to": "20170__0_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20170__0_071", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--Because you have to go to the doctor, first of all... or a dentist, first of all she's not substantially limited.\nThat part of the definition exists also.\nDr. Bragdon didn't prevent her from obtaining care.\nIn fact, he offered her care, and there's lots of other care available, so we can't mix up the discrimination and the disability questions, and the disability question is, is this caring for oneself come under that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [908.721, 914.385, 916.258, 920.839], "stop_times": [914.385, 916.258, 920.839, 931.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 908.721}, "reply_to": "20170__0_070", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_072", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Is there something in the record that indicates that someone in the position of Ms Abbott would have to go to the dentist more regularly than someone without that condition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [931.776], "stop_times": [940.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 931.776}, "reply_to": "20170__0_071", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20170__0_073", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--There's nothing in the record that I'm aware of that would suggest dental care would fit under that rubric.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [940.433], "stop_times": [944.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 940.433}, "reply_to": "20170__0_072", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_074", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "But do I under... I may not understand you.\nDo I understand you correctly that in response, for example, to Justice Ginsburg's question, that your point is that under the reg the substantial limitation goes to what the individual can do by himself alone.\nIt does not go to what others may do in relation... in other words, discrimination is not a... cannot amount itself to a disability?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [944.575, 947.098, 964.03], "stop_times": [947.098, 964.03, 973.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 944.575}, "reply_to": "20170__0_073", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20170__0_075", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "I think that's correct, that the... you can't get at what is a disability by what is allegedly discrimination, but what I was trying to get at is, we're now talking about reproduction as a... we're now talking about caring for oneself as a major life activity, and we know it is a major life activity because it's on the list, and the AMA tries to put health care services under that, and our first argument is it really doesn't belong there.\nIt's not caring for oneself, but we haven't even discussed that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [973.666, 997.971], "stop_times": [997.971, 1001.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 973.666}, "reply_to": "20170__0_074", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_076", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Is others caring for one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1001.063], "stop_times": [1002.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1001.063}, "reply_to": "20170__0_075", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20170__0_077", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--But the part that I was getting... attempting to get at was there is... you're not substantially limited in it simply because a single dentist says to you, I believe we should take additional precautions to treat you.\nThe other part of the major life activity argument that I wanted to get at is the idea, this idea of the principal basis in day to day independent living and economic self sufficiency being the guide.\nThe reason reproduction doesn't fit within that group is, people who have limitations in fertility, or impotent, don't normally have difficulties with day to day independent living or economic self sufficiency, and that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1002.204, 1014.321, 1024.347], "stop_times": [1014.321, 1024.347, 1041.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1002.204}, "reply_to": "20170__0_076", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_078", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "But even if you put... and I realize you're not doing it, but even if you put reproduction within the approved list of activities that the statute is getting at, I take it you make a distinction between, let's say, a person who is infertile and a person who simply has HIV.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1041.05], "stop_times": [1060.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1041.05}, "reply_to": "20170__0_077", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20170__0_079", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--Ultimately you do, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1060.974], "stop_times": [1065.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1060.974}, "reply_to": "20170__0_078", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_080", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Yes.\nAnd what is that distinction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1065.246, 1065.767], "stop_times": [1065.767, 1067.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1065.246}, "reply_to": "20170__0_079", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20170__0_081", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, if we're talking about HIV, the first question is, is it an impairment, and the regulation suggests that it is an impairment, and when we're talking about whether it substantially limits a major life activity, like being impotent or like being infertile, it has no relationship to this concept of day to day independent living.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1067.617], "stop_times": [1091.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1067.617}, "reply_to": "20170__0_080", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_082", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Yes, but let's assume we get over that point and we classify this as one of the activities that does, in fact, belong within the series of examples.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1091.154], "stop_times": [1099.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1091.154}, "reply_to": "20170__0_081", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20170__0_083", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Reproduction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1099.229], "stop_times": [1100.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1099.229}, "reply_to": "20170__0_082", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_084", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Yes.\nI understood you to make a distinction even at that point... you're sort of, not at the last ditch, but you're close to it.\nI understood you to be making a distinction at that point between the position of the individual with the HIV infection and the individual who is infertile or who is impotent or who is sterile, and you said yes, you did make such a distinction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1100.568, 1101.239, 1107.504], "stop_times": [1101.239, 1107.504, 1123.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1100.568}, "reply_to": "20170__0_083", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20170__0_085", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1123.834], "stop_times": [1124.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1123.834}, "reply_to": "20170__0_084", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_086", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "What is your distinction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1124.215], "stop_times": [1125.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1124.215}, "reply_to": "20170__0_085", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20170__0_087", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "I'm afraid I've lost that distinction as we discussed now.\nI do want to take a minute, while I still have the opportunity, to get that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1125.106, 1128.868], "stop_times": [1128.868, 1134.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1125.106}, "reply_to": "20170__0_086", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_088", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "I don't understand your answer.\nYou... is there a distinction or isn't there a distinction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1134.374, 1134.942], "stop_times": [1134.942, 1136.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1134.374}, "reply_to": "20170__0_087", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__0_089", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--I lost... I'm not aware of the distinction as I stand here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1136.955], "stop_times": [1139.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1136.955}, "reply_to": "20170__0_088", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_090", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "You would think that if HIV... if the inability to reproduce because of HIV qualifies under the statute, the inability to reproduce because of impotence or sterility would also--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1139.437], "stop_times": [1151.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1139.437}, "reply_to": "20170__0_089", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__0_091", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "That's correct, arguably.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1151.795], "stop_times": [1154.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1151.795}, "reply_to": "20170__0_090", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_092", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--But what about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1154.677], "stop_times": [1155.466], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1154.677}, "reply_to": "20170__0_091", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20170__0_093", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Those are being--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1155.466], "stop_times": [1156.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1155.466}, "reply_to": "20170__0_092", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_094", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--It's arguably, but do you take that position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1156.198], "stop_times": [1158.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1156.198}, "reply_to": "20170__0_093", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__0_095", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--Those are the... those are the physical impairments that relate to the major life activity of reproduction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1158.799], "stop_times": [1165.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1158.799}, "reply_to": "20170__0_094", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_096", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "No, but I thought your... the argument that was suggested you didn't... I don't think you went into it in great detail... was that the person with HIV can in fact perform the sexual function, can reproduce.\nThe person who is sterile, or infertile, or impotent, cannot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1165.383, 1177.281], "stop_times": [1177.281, 1182.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1165.383}, "reply_to": "20170__0_095", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20170__0_097", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Right.\nHaving HIV doesn't keep her from having a child or from reproducing.\nShe's still able to reproduce, so in that sense HIV is different than being infertile or being impotent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1182.226, 1183.244, 1188.157], "stop_times": [1183.244, 1188.157, 1195.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1182.226}, "reply_to": "20170__0_096", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_098", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "It's crucially different--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1195.434], "stop_times": [1196.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1195.434}, "reply_to": "20170__0_097", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20170__0_099", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1196.375], "stop_times": [1197.564], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1196.375}, "reply_to": "20170__0_098", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_100", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--if you get to that point, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1197.564], "stop_times": [1198.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1197.564}, "reply_to": "20170__0_099", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20170__0_101", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1198.386], "stop_times": [1198.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1198.386}, "reply_to": "20170__0_100", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_102", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Can I ask you a question about what you started with, which is what I think you wanted to get to, and that is, you were talking about was this dentist reasonable in his fear, and in respect to that you asked about the standard, and I gather that there are standards in the regs.\nThe direct threat must rely on an individualized assessment based on a reasonable judgment, relies on current medical knowledge, and in Arline this Court said courts should normally defer to the reasonable medical judgments of public health officials.\nOn those standards, assuming, as I think is correct, after 15 years and hundreds of thousands of people dead as a result of this disease, I gather after 15 years and hundreds of thousands of deaths, there isn't one case... maybe just one... in which a dentist, despite hundreds of thousands of dentists who do treat AIDS patients, there isn't one case in which one of those dentists documentedly caught AIDS from a patient.\nNow, if that's so, how could we say here that your client exercised reasonable medical judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1198.986, 1216.098, 1232.549, 1263.12], "stop_times": [1216.098, 1232.549, 1263.12, 1271.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1198.986}, "reply_to": "20170__0_101", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20170__0_103", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, there are two parts to that question, and first of all, we believe that assertion by the respondent is simply wrong.\nThe... in June of 1994 the CDC reported that there are seven HIV infected health care workers.\nSeven with known occupational injuries, seven with known HIV exposures, and no other identifiable source of HIV.\nThe respondent dismisses these seven as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1271.245, 1277.299, 1283.944, 1291.23], "stop_times": [1277.299, 1283.944, 1291.23, 1293.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1271.245}, "reply_to": "20170__0_102", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_104", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "No, no, he said they weren't dentists.\nHe said those were not dentists.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1293.02, 1294.512], "stop_times": [1294.512, 1296.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1293.02}, "reply_to": "20170__0_103", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20170__0_105", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--No, these are seven health care workers... I don't know if they're all dentists.\nCertainly at least some of them are dentists, and the point is that they are in the same position as dentists and that they suffer these--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1296.092, 1299.935], "stop_times": [1299.935, 1306.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1296.092}, "reply_to": "20170__0_104", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_106", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Why do you say certainly at least some of them are dentists?\nWhy is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1306.688, 1309.83], "stop_times": [1309.83, 1310.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1306.688}, "reply_to": "20170__0_105", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__0_107", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--Because they're all dental health care workers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1310.861], "stop_times": [1313.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1310.861}, "reply_to": "20170__0_106", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_108", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Oh, they're dental health care workers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1313.723], "stop_times": [1315.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1313.723}, "reply_to": "20170__0_107", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__0_109", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1315.203], "stop_times": [1315.614], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1315.203}, "reply_to": "20170__0_108", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_110", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1315.614], "stop_times": [1316.055], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1315.614}, "reply_to": "20170__0_109", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20170__0_111", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Yes, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1316.055], "stop_times": [1318.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1316.055}, "reply_to": "20170__0_110", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_112", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "That's rather an important qualifier, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1318.626], "stop_times": [1320.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1318.626}, "reply_to": "20170__0_111", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__0_113", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--Yes.\nI'm sorry if I--\n[Laughter]\nIf I said health care workers, I misspoke.\nThey're all dental health care workers, and the CDC labels these as possible because it uses the term possible to mean anything that's less than absolutely certain, but when you look at the way the CDC treats these, they're all apparent occupational transmissions that occurred in the dental care setting, and any logical analysis under our way of looking at things would... by ours, I mean the legal system's, would include these were more likely than not occurrences.\nAnd so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1320.158, 1320.649, 1321.21, 1321.617, 1323.991, 1348.567], "stop_times": [1320.649, 1321.21, 1321.617, 1323.991, 1348.567, 1349.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1320.158}, "reply_to": "20170__0_112", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_114", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "And that's in the record?\nThat study is in the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1349.008, 1349.639], "stop_times": [1349.639, 1351.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1349.008}, "reply_to": "20170__0_113", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20170__0_115", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--Yes.\nYes, it is, and the point is that the term documented that's used by respondent and others here, because that's a CDC term that refers to having an HI... having all of the circumstances we just described, and then having an HIV test immediately after the percutaneous exposure to establish that you don't already have HIV, that's the only distinction.\nAnd the studies go on to indicate more often, much more often than not there is no such HIV test, and this passive surveillance system that revealed this finding is by the CDC itself disclosed to be as much as 90 percent underreported.\nIt's a totally passive system.\nThere are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1351.129, 1351.75, 1370.763, 1386.422, 1387.944], "stop_times": [1351.75, 1370.763, 1386.422, 1387.944, 1388.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1351.129}, "reply_to": "20170__0_114", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_116", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "And the relevant date, I take it, is 1994, when the discrimination took place?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1388.605], "stop_times": [1392.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1388.605}, "reply_to": "20170__0_115", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20170__0_117", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--Yes.\nSeptember 16--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1392.787, 1393.157], "stop_times": [1393.157, 1393.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1392.787}, "reply_to": "20170__0_116", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_118", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Or the alleged discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1393.928], "stop_times": [1394.499], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1393.928}, "reply_to": "20170__0_117", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20170__0_119", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--Yes.\nSeptember 16, 1994.\nI want to speak for just a minute, if I can, to the question of then current medical knowledge.\nAssuming we get to the appropriate legal standard, which is good faith and reasonable judgment, relying on the objective standard of then current medical knowledge, what is advanced here by respondents and even by the First Circuit to a certain extent is the CDC, as if it were a public health authority that made a pronouncement here, and this is truly an emperor with no clothes.\nThe CDC has issued reports.\nThey are guidelines.\nIt establishes standards, and no place in the CDC guidelines does it indicate that there's no significant risk.\nIn fact, it specifically recognizes the unique nature of most dental procedures also may require specific surgery... strategies.\nUniversal precautions are minimum guidelines and there's no reason why additional precautions shouldn't be taken, and that's what the guidelines say, and if I can just say one more thing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1394.499, 1395.118, 1396.469, 1401.693, 1421.087, 1424.719, 1425.629, 1430.881, 1439.547], "stop_times": [1395.118, 1396.469, 1401.693, 1421.087, 1424.719, 1425.629, 1430.881, 1439.547, 1448.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1394.499}, "reply_to": "20170__0_118", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_120", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, let me ask you this.\nThis case arose in '92, '93?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1448.774, 1450.005], "stop_times": [1450.005, 1454.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1448.774}, "reply_to": "20170__0_119", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20170__0_121", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--September 16, 1994.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1454.019], "stop_times": [1455.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1454.019}, "reply_to": "20170__0_120", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_122", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "'94.\nHave the... has our knowledge about the risks changed since that time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1455.359, 1456.961], "stop_times": [1456.961, 1463.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1455.359}, "reply_to": "20170__0_121", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20170__0_123", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1463.203], "stop_times": [1464.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1463.203}, "reply_to": "20170__0_122", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_124", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Do we look at it as of that date, and how has our information changed since then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1464.044], "stop_times": [1470.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1464.044}, "reply_to": "20170__0_123", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20170__0_125", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--The standard is to look at thencurrent medical knowledge, and I think that's the only fair way to determine whether or not you're going to impose civil rights liability.\nThat's what's suggested by the amicus brief of the AMA here and in Arline, where they cite similar cases under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the point is that then current medical knowledge is the only way to judge it.\nI don't really think the information has changed, but there's one significant piece of evidence here, and the First Circuit pointed it out, and that's how this emperor ended up having no clothes, is they had the CDC at the district court level, through a witness who was testifying, a litigation witness in a litigation posture from the CDC, making four different declarations that ultimately say something like, the risk is safe to treat, the dentist care in the... in this setting, and the point is you don't have that any more.\nYou just have the CDC guidelines by themselves, and that's why I ask you to look at the CDC guidelines, because they don't say there's no risk.\nI'd like to reserve my time, except to say OSHA has very much similar supportive information that's... for our position that's noted in the record.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1470.929, 1478.305, 1494.247, 1522.394, 1527.797, 1534.492], "stop_times": [1478.305, 1494.247, 1522.394, 1527.797, 1534.492, 1535.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1470.929}, "reply_to": "20170__0_124", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__0_126", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Thank you, Mr. McCarthy.\nMr. Klein, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1535.373, 1536.413], "stop_times": [1536.413, 1537.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1535.373}, "reply_to": "20170__0_125", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20170__1_000", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--\nThe problem of discrimination against individuals with HIV was squarely before Congress when it enacted the ADA.\nAnd the committee reports reflect a concern that unless there were clear protections against discrimination for all individuals with HIV, people with HIV would hide their condition.\nAs the First Circuit correctly found, Sidney Abbott, a woman infected with the virus that causes AIDS has a disability within the meaning of the ADA.\nAnd this Court can affirm the First Circuit's decision on three alternative grounds.\nFirst of all, this Court can affirm the First Circuit if it finds that reproduction is a major life activity.\nIn addition, the Court can affirm the First Circuit if it finds, as reflected in the committee reports and as the First Circuit also noted in its decision, that everybody with HIV, a fatal, contagious, incurable disease, is substantially limited in many different major life activities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1537.815, 1541.458, 1549.123, 1561.092, 1570.637, 1577.071, 1581.846], "stop_times": [1541.458, 1549.123, 1561.092, 1570.637, 1577.071, 1581.846, 1601.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1537.815}, "reply_to": "20170__0_126", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_001", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, Mr. Klein, you say as noted in the committee reports.\nThat isn't the same as the statute, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1601.207, 1602.777], "stop_times": [1602.777, 1605.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1601.207}, "reply_to": "20170__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20170__1_002", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "It's not the same as the statute, and I think that what is noted in the committee reports, which is the people with HIV are limited in major life activities, is consistent with the plain meaning of the... the phrase that Congress did choose.\nWhich was substantially limited in one or more major life activities.\nAs an incurable, fatal and contagious disease, people with HIV cannot engage in procreation or intimate sexual relations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1605.96, 1618.388, 1621.831], "stop_times": [1618.388, 1621.831, 1630.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1605.96}, "reply_to": "20170__1_001", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_003", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, why can they not?\nThe... the difficulty that I'm having with your argument is that you are... you are using the judgment that your client made, a... a very responsible moral judgment, as being equivalent to the limitation that the statute talks about and that the regs talk about.\nAnd without certainly any disrespect for the moral judgment that your client has made, I don't find it that easy to transfer from the moral limitation that she has placed upon herself to the limitation that the statute is speaking of.\nThe statute speaks in terms of... of there being a substantial limit upon an activity.\nAnd the regulation... I take it the regulation that's closest to it is the one set out on... on page 7a of the Government's brief.\nAnd let me just read the sentence that gives me the... the greatest difficulty in... in relation to your case.\nI am reading from the middle of page 7a--\n\"A person is considered an individual with a disability for purposes of Test A, the first prong of the definition, when the individual's important life activities are restricted as to the condition, manner, or duration under which they can be performed in comparison to most people. \"\n\"Can be performed\" sounds to me like a physical capacity to perform them.\nIt doesn't sound like a responsibly, self imposed limitation.\nCould you address the difficulty I'm having in getting from \"can be\" to moral limitation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1630.986, 1632.276, 1649.92, 1663.248, 1670.782, 1677.536, 1683.941, 1687.394, 1703.205, 1709.677, 1716.142], "stop_times": [1632.276, 1649.92, 1663.248, 1670.782, 1677.536, 1683.941, 1687.394, 1703.205, 1709.677, 1716.142, 1722.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1630.986}, "reply_to": "20170__1_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20170__1_004", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Yes.\nAnd I'd like to address both under the... the meaning of the term \"substantial limitation\" and also the regulation that you quoted from.\nThe... the term \"substantial limitation\", by its plain meaning, doesn't mean that somebody is precluded from engaging in the activity, or even chooses not to engage in the activity.\n\"Substantially limited\" cannot have that meaning.\nIndeed, somebody couldn't be... ever be substantially limited in the major life activity of breathing if one had to be precluded from engaging in that activity.\nNow, the regulations, which you quoted, indicate that a person cannot engage in the activity or cannot perform the activity under the same conditions or manner or even duration as somebody who does not have that impairment, or the average member of the population.\nA person with HIV--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1722.767, 1723.177, 1728.271, 1737.167, 1740.259, 1747.084, 1761.543], "stop_times": [1723.177, 1728.271, 1737.167, 1740.259, 1747.084, 1761.543, 1763.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1722.767}, "reply_to": "20170__1_003", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_005", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "And the question is, why are those conditions moral conditions rather than physical conditions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1763.075], "stop_times": [1766.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1763.075}, "reply_to": "20170__1_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20170__1_006", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--Well, the... the limitation flows from the physical impairment of HIV.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1766.756], "stop_times": [1772.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1766.756}, "reply_to": "20170__1_005", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_007", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "No.\nBut the... the... the physical impairment of HIV, certainly at the asymptomatic stage that we're talking about here, does not in any... as I understand it... does not in any way limit the physical capacity to engage in reproductive function, whether it be male or female.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1772.57, 1773.111], "stop_times": [1773.111, 1788.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1772.57}, "reply_to": "20170__1_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20170__1_008", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, I think that a person is limited... a person cannot perform an activity under the same conditions as somebody without the impairment if... if, for example, they can transmit a deadly disease to a sexual partner, if they can infect their child, and also because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1788.681], "stop_times": [1805.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1788.681}, "reply_to": "20170__1_007", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_009", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "I mean, you can say that, but is it true?\nYes.\nI keep saying, why is the moral condition equal to the physical condition?\nWhy is that so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1805.041, 1806.022, 1806.523, 1809.885], "stop_times": [1806.022, 1806.523, 1809.885, 1810.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1805.041}, "reply_to": "20170__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__1_010", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--Because it all flows from the inevitable fact of the contagiousness of H... not only the contagiousness of HIV, but the fatality of HIV.\nFor example, reproduction is not simply the act of conception.\nIt... procreation and reproduction also involve raising and nurturing a child.\nAs a fatal disease--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1810.637, 1819.165, 1822.445, 1826.609], "stop_times": [1819.165, 1822.445, 1826.609, 1828.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1810.637}, "reply_to": "20170__1_009", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_011", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, there again, that... that's... that's a fine statement.\nAnd... and people who reproduce ought to consider how they're going to nurture.\nBut I'm not sure that that's what the statute is talking about.\nAnd I'm not sure that that is what the courts have meant thus far in talking about reproduction.\nI presume they have been talking about reproduction as in fact a physical, biological activity that results in the birth of a baby, in the normal course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1828.93, 1831.75, 1836.114, 1838.616, 1844.92], "stop_times": [1831.75, 1836.114, 1838.616, 1844.92, 1852.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1828.93}, "reply_to": "20170__1_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20170__1_012", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--Well, I think the plain meaning of the statute does not... does not preclude the re... does not require a preclusion of the activity.\nIn other words, just the phrase\n\"a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, but for that impairment. \"\n--but for the existence of HIV, reproduction and procreation and the choices and decisions that people have to make around it would be very different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1852.514, 1861.28, 1862.903, 1868.336], "stop_times": [1861.28, 1862.903, 1868.336, 1876.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1852.514}, "reply_to": "20170__1_011", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_013", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, do... do you concede that it's strictly a moral limitation or a moral mandate that you're client followed?\nI... I suppose a person with tuberculosis, which I assume can be very infectious and contagious, stays away from other people and we don't just call that a... a moral choice.\nIt is an objective limitation on that person's ability to interact with other people in society.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1876.631, 1885.657, 1899.107], "stop_times": [1885.657, 1899.107, 1906.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1876.631}, "reply_to": "20170__1_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20170__1_014", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1906.841], "stop_times": [1908.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1906.841}, "reply_to": "20170__1_013", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_015", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "I don't see... I don't think--\n--Is that right?\nAre there laws against it?\nI mean... I mean, I can understand that if we quarantine everybody with tuberculosis.\nThen it's not a moral choice.\nAnd then you're compelled.\nBut you think it's not a moral choice if someone... I mean, let's say I have a very contagious cold.\nAnd I decide, you know, not to... not to go on an airplane.\nIs... is that a moral choice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1908.832, 1909.853, 1910.364, 1910.915, 1914.237, 1915.529, 1917.829, 1921.623, 1924.665], "stop_times": [1909.853, 1910.364, 1910.915, 1914.237, 1915.529, 1917.829, 1921.623, 1924.665, 1926.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1908.832}, "reply_to": "20170__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__1_016", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, I don't think that the key choice is a moral choice.\nI think the limitation flows from the physical impairment.\nAnd as the First Circuit noted--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1926.014, 1929.808, 1932.049], "stop_times": [1929.808, 1932.049, 1933.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1926.014}, "reply_to": "20170__1_015", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_017", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "No, but it flows through a choice about what I ought to do in relation to other people.\nI ought not to expose the airplane full of people to my cold.\nThat's the way the limitation flows.\nAnd it seems to me that that moral choice is crucial to... to the... to the consequence that you draw from the physical act... the physical infection.\nBut... but are all good sens... I've been interrupted before you answered my question... are there... are all sensible safeguards for the public's safety moral choices?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1933.911, 1939.816, 1943.606, 1946.21, 1956.175], "stop_times": [1939.816, 1943.606, 1946.21, 1956.175, 1966.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1933.911}, "reply_to": "20170__1_016", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20170__1_018", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--I don't believe... I'm not sure I under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1966.653], "stop_times": [1972.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1966.653}, "reply_to": "20170__1_017", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_019", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Under the regulation, what difference does it make whether it's moral or not?\nThat's what I don't understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1972.236, 1973.426], "stop_times": [1973.426, 1974.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1972.236}, "reply_to": "20170__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20170__1_020", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--The... I don't think the fact that there's a volitional aspect to a limitation precludes it from being a substantial limitation under the statute.\nMany--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1974.698, 1984.094], "stop_times": [1984.094, 1985.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1974.698}, "reply_to": "20170__1_019", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_021", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Would it be a disability under the Act if... if I know that... that there is in my family a gene that causes manic depression, and... and I choose, therefore, not to have children?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1985.284], "stop_times": [1998.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1985.284}, "reply_to": "20170__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__1_022", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1998.273], "stop_times": [1999.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1998.273}, "reply_to": "20170__1_021", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_023", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Is that a disability under the Act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [1999.394], "stop_times": [2000.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1999.394}, "reply_to": "20170__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__1_024", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--I think that's a very separate and complex question that's not at issue in this case.\nBecause the Court would have to reach the question there--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2000.474, 2004.027], "stop_times": [2004.027, 2005.887], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2000.474}, "reply_to": "20170__1_023", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_025", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Oh, I thought it was an issue in this case.\nI'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2005.887, 2007.209], "stop_times": [2007.209, 2008.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2005.887}, "reply_to": "20170__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__1_026", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--The... well, I think... I think that is somewhat... somewhat distinct, Justice Scalia.\nBecause the Court would have to reach the issue there of whether a genetic condition is an impairment.\nAnd that depends on a scientific understanding of... of the effects of that genetic disorder.\nIn other words--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2008.02, 2011.3, 2016.355, 2022.4], "stop_times": [2011.3, 2016.355, 2022.4, 2023.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2008.02}, "reply_to": "20170__1_025", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_027", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Is it different?\nI don't understand that.\nAre you disabled under the Act if you know if you get out of the house you'll give the whole city bubonic plague?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2023.268, 2023.819, 2024.57], "stop_times": [2023.819, 2024.57, 2030.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2023.268}, "reply_to": "20170__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__1_028", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--I would certainly think so, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2030.334], "stop_times": [2032.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2030.334}, "reply_to": "20170__1_027", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_029", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Yes, I would think so, too.\n[Laughter]\nAnd the... then, even though you haven't shown symptoms yet, you haven't shown symptoms, you're not... you're not... you're not that... I mean, that... that is not so obvious, but I... can I ask you another... a different a slightly different--\n--May I say that I don't think that's so obvious.\nI... I--\n--But I agreed with you, it isn't obvious.\nIt is not obvious.\nBut I think that... that that's the kind of issue we're talking about.\nIf... if the... what I... what I'd like to... to know is just a quick factual question.\nI read the ABA brief.\nAnd it says none of the documented cases... the 42 they're talking about... involved a dental practitioner.\nYou know, I don't read these briefs with a absolute dental practitioner... was it a dental... I assumed it didn't have somebody who was in the dentist's office.\nNow, were these cases dental practitioners or were they not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2032.355, 2032.815, 2033.196, 2045.165, 2046.546, 2047.427, 2049.036, 2050.128, 2053.34, 2060.143, 2062.036, 2069.489, 2077.206], "stop_times": [2032.815, 2033.196, 2045.165, 2046.546, 2047.427, 2049.036, 2050.128, 2053.34, 2060.143, 2062.036, 2069.489, 2077.206, 2081.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2032.355}, "reply_to": "20170__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20170__1_030", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "There is no documented case of a dental practitioner who has been infected with HIV.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2081.206], "stop_times": [2086.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2081.206}, "reply_to": "20170__1_029", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_031", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "And by that, you're not using some technical loaded thing.\nYou mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2086.34, 2087.732], "stop_times": [2087.732, 2088.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2086.34}, "reply_to": "20170__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20170__1_032", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "No.\nThere is no dental health care worker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2088.303, 2088.804], "stop_times": [2088.804, 2089.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2088.303}, "reply_to": "20170__1_031", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_033", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--I mean, somebody like a person who's in the dentist's office and who is working, I would call a dental practitioner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2089.973], "stop_times": [2093.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2089.973}, "reply_to": "20170__1_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20170__1_034", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "That's right.\nRight.\nTo make it crystal clear, there has never been a case of occupational transmission of HIV from a patient to a dentist.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2093.344, 2093.826, 2094.257], "stop_times": [2093.826, 2094.257, 2099.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2093.344}, "reply_to": "20170__1_033", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_035", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "But what about the seven cases that the other side has mentioned, of dental health care workers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2099.713], "stop_times": [2104.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2099.713}, "reply_to": "20170__1_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20170__1_036", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Those are cases that the CDC has investigated and concluded that there's not sufficient evidence to determine occupational transmission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2104.715], "stop_times": [2112.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2104.715}, "reply_to": "20170__1_035", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_037", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "As of 1994?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2112.4], "stop_times": [2112.931], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2112.4}, "reply_to": "20170__1_036", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20170__1_038", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "As of 1994 and as of today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2112.931], "stop_times": [2114.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2112.931}, "reply_to": "20170__1_037", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_039", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, that would not enable you to say there has never been a case.\nYou... you say there has not been a documented case.\nWhat does documentation require?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2114.583, 2117.244, 2120.156], "stop_times": [2117.244, 2120.156, 2121.866], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2114.583}, "reply_to": "20170__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__1_040", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, documentation requires--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2121.866], "stop_times": [2123.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2121.866}, "reply_to": "20170__1_039", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_041", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "According to CDC, requires what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2123.879], "stop_times": [2124.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2123.879}, "reply_to": "20170__1_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__1_042", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--Requires that there be an initial injury and that the person then have a baseline HIV test so we know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2124.687], "stop_times": [2131.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2124.687}, "reply_to": "20170__1_041", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_043", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Immediately afterwards, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2131.173], "stop_times": [2132.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2131.173}, "reply_to": "20170__1_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__1_044", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2132.762], "stop_times": [2133.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2132.762}, "reply_to": "20170__1_043", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_045", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2133.293], "stop_times": [2133.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2133.293}, "reply_to": "20170__1_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__1_046", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2133.824], "stop_times": [2134.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2133.824}, "reply_to": "20170__1_045", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_047", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "So there are a lot of conditions that... that... that may not have been followed in the vast majority of cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2134.365], "stop_times": [2141.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2134.365}, "reply_to": "20170__1_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__1_048", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, we... we don't... all we know is what... what current medical knowledge can tell us.\nThe regulation requires that we... we base direct threat on a determination of current medical knowledge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2141.321, 2148.145], "stop_times": [2148.145, 2153.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2141.321}, "reply_to": "20170__1_047", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_049", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "It can't tell us that there's never been a case... which is what you said... they can't tell us that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2153.819], "stop_times": [2156.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2153.819}, "reply_to": "20170__1_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20170__1_050", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "It... it can't tell us that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2156.06], "stop_times": [2157.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2156.06}, "reply_to": "20170__1_049", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_051", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2157.071], "stop_times": [2157.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2157.071}, "reply_to": "20170__1_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20170__1_052", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "But we... what we know is that we have no known case.\nAnd, you know, there's been over a billion dental procedures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2157.612, 2161.313], "stop_times": [2161.313, 2163.915], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2157.612}, "reply_to": "20170__1_051", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_053", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Would you tell me again why it is that we should not give any weight to these seven cases?\nWhat... would you say that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2163.915, 2167.327], "stop_times": [2167.327, 2168.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2163.915}, "reply_to": "20170__1_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20170__1_054", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "I'm sorry?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2168.288], "stop_times": [2169.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2168.288}, "reply_to": "20170__1_053", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_055", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--Why... why are the seven cases that he relies on not relevant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2169.14], "stop_times": [2172.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2169.14}, "reply_to": "20170__1_054", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20170__1_056", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Because there's no... no documentation of HIV status arising from the occupational injury.\nAnd as... as there is testimony--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2172.572, 2179.325], "stop_times": [2179.325, 2182.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2172.572}, "reply_to": "20170__1_055", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_057", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "I mean, is it a question of causation that wasn't proved or that the... there was in fact no... no disease to the dental worker?\nI still am not quite clear why they're totally irrelevant.\nWhat was not documented?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2182.307, 2188.5, 2192.144], "stop_times": [2188.5, 2192.144, 2193.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2182.307}, "reply_to": "20170__1_056", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20170__1_058", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--What was not documented was that the causation of... of HIV transmission was through an occupational means.\nThe CDC determined that there is not valid scientific evidence to know that... that HIV transmission occurred through the dentist's occupational duties.\nThere are many other modes of HIV transmission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2193.296, 2199.959, 2210.647], "stop_times": [2199.959, 2210.647, 2212.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2193.296}, "reply_to": "20170__1_057", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_059", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, the question is whether or not it was reasonable for the dentist, in 1994, to assume that there was a significant risk.\nI'm not sure that he is... is bound by exactly what the CDC determines, especially at some later date.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2212.458, 2218.581], "stop_times": [2218.581, 2225.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2212.458}, "reply_to": "20170__1_058", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20170__1_060", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, the... the regulation requires that the determination be consistent with current medical knowledge.\nAnd certainly there is no known case of this happening.\nThe CDC's position is that... is that they have instructed dentists how to perform procedures safely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2225.447, 2233.431, 2236.853], "stop_times": [2233.431, 2236.853, 2244.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2225.447}, "reply_to": "20170__1_059", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_061", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, the statute doesn't say anything about the CDC.\nHe can... he can put in his own expert witnesses on this, just as on any issue, I suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2244.077, 2245.589], "stop_times": [2245.589, 2249.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2244.077}, "reply_to": "20170__1_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__1_062", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Yes, he--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2249.032], "stop_times": [2249.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2249.032}, "reply_to": "20170__1_061", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_063", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "And the CDC... I mean, that's very nice, but--\n--Why should... why should... why do we defer to the CDC?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2249.673, 2251.576], "stop_times": [2251.576, 2253.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2249.673}, "reply_to": "20170__1_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__1_064", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--Well, for two reasons.\nFirst of all, this Court, in Arline, indicated that when we're trying to determine whether... whether the risk of transmission of a contagious disease can be the basis for its prevention--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2253.717, 2255.917], "stop_times": [2255.917, 2264.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2253.717}, "reply_to": "20170__1_063", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_065", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "That was pretty much dicta in Arline, was it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2264.463], "stop_times": [2266.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2264.463}, "reply_to": "20170__1_064", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20170__1_066", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--No, I don't believe it was dicta.\nBut right after... right after Arline was decided, the Congress, a few years later, passed the ADA, adopting the same kind of direct threat test.\nAnd in Section 12201, referred back to... to standards under the Rehabilitation Act, which was Arline.\nAnd deference to the health care provider is inconsistent with the statute.\nBecause the statute covers health care providers as places of public accommodation.\nAnd... and Congress found, in 12101, that there was discrimination on the basis of disability in health services--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2266.126, 2267.475, 2276.26, 2282.995, 2288.258, 2292.633], "stop_times": [2267.475, 2276.26, 2282.995, 2288.258, 2292.633, 2299.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2266.126}, "reply_to": "20170__1_065", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_067", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Mr. Klein, may I ask you whether the plaintiff below relied on any impairment of a major life activity other than reproduction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2299.167], "stop_times": [2309.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2299.167}, "reply_to": "20170__1_066", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20170__1_068", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--We argued in the District Court that HIV is a disability, and specifically that Sidney Abbott was an example of that, through the limitation on her--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2309.683], "stop_times": [2320.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2309.683}, "reply_to": "20170__1_067", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_069", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Could you answer the question that I asked, which was whether the plaintiff relied on any other activity other than reproduction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2320.639], "stop_times": [2329.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2320.639}, "reply_to": "20170__1_068", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20170__1_070", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--The plaintiff did not present specific testimony and did not rely for her individualized planning of disability on any activity other than reproduction.\nBut we certainly argued in the District Court that HIV is always a disability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2329.506, 2336.34], "stop_times": [2336.34, 2340.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2329.506}, "reply_to": "20170__1_069", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_071", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "What... what is the best authority in the record or in the brief to sustain that position, that it's a disability on a major... or it impairs a major life function, other than reproduction?\nWhere would I look if I wanted to find that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2340.254, 2349.59], "stop_times": [2349.59, 2351.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2340.254}, "reply_to": "20170__1_070", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20170__1_072", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, I think in the section of our brief talking about the plain meaning of the terms\n\"substantial limitation of a major life activity. \"\nand in the legislation history, which indicates that the committees considered that HIV was always a disability, not only because it harmed... discrimination harmed individuals, but because there was a grave concern about the public health consequences, that if people could not be assured of nondiscrimination... and we had to rely on somebody's intentions about reproduction or sexual activity today, tomorrow or yesterday, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2351.132, 2355.504, 2357.647], "stop_times": [2355.504, 2357.647, 2380.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2351.132}, "reply_to": "20170__1_071", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_073", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Klein.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2380.453], "stop_times": [2381.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2380.453}, "reply_to": "20170__1_072", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20170__1_074", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2381.124], "stop_times": [2382.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2381.124}, "reply_to": "20170__1_073", "speaker": "bennett_h_klein"}
{"id": "20170__1_075", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Mr. Wallace, we'll hear from you.\nMr. Wallace, while you're coming up, will you tell me why the Justice Department regulations make any difference?\nI mean, I used to be in the Justice Department and I used to write opinions on behalf of the Attorney General.\nAnd it would have been very nice if the Congress had said, you know, whatever Scalia says the statute means, it means.\n[Laughter]\nI... I didn't think they could do that.\nAnd... and this statute is... it... am I correct?\nIt gives no responsibilities to the Justice Department except to issue interpretive regulations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2382.624, 2384.046, 2397.396, 2402.429, 2407.634, 2408.013, 2409.786, 2414.237], "stop_times": [2384.046, 2397.396, 2402.429, 2407.634, 2408.013, 2409.786, 2414.237, 2419.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2382.624}, "reply_to": "20170__1_074", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20170__2_000", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "That is not correct, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2419.67], "stop_times": [2423.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2419.67}, "reply_to": "20170__1_075", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20170__2_001", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "What else... what else does the Justice Department do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2423.853], "stop_times": [2424.855], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2423.853}, "reply_to": "20170__2_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20170__2_002", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "There is, in 42 U.S.C., Section 12188, a provision entitled \"Enforcement\".\nAnd Subsection B of that Section 12188 is entitled \"Enforcement by Attorney General\".\nAnd it gives in its subparts a duty to investigate possible violations of the public accommodations provision and authority to bring lawsuits.\nAnd, indeed, this is very important authority, because only the Attorney General can bring a suit for compensatory damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2424.855, 2434.259, 2444.377, 2456.235], "stop_times": [2434.259, 2444.377, 2456.235, 2465.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2424.855}, "reply_to": "20170__2_001", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20170__2_003", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, that's just like the criminal law.\nYes.\nCan we tell the Attorney General to interpret the criminal statutes, issue regulations as to what the criminal statutes mean?\nI have not thought that that's the kind of administration of the law that we talk about when we accord chevron deference to agencies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2465.811, 2467.16, 2467.721, 2474.407], "stop_times": [2467.16, 2467.721, 2474.407, 2482.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2465.811}, "reply_to": "20170__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__2_004", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "And then... and then, Section 12186 of Title 42 explicitly imposes a duty on the Attorney General to adopt regulations to implement Title III.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2482.471], "stop_times": [2500.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2482.471}, "reply_to": "20170__2_003", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20170__2_005", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, Mr. Wallace, supposing we have a standard criminal law statute, like carrying a gun in connection with a drug felony.\nAnd Congress, as a part of that statute, says And the Attorney General shall issue regulations telling what these section... sections mean.\nNow, do you think we would give deference to those regulations?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2500.003, 2507.588, 2515.453], "stop_times": [2507.588, 2515.453, 2518.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2500.003}, "reply_to": "20170__2_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20170__2_006", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, I should think so.\nYes.\nAnd there is a further... and there is a further provision here that is of... of direct relevance.\nAnd that is Section 12201, Subsection A of Title 42, which says\n\"Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to apply a lesser standard than the standards applied under Title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the regulations issued by Federal agencies pursuant to such Title. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2518.806, 2520.906, 2521.607, 2530.474, 2538.929], "stop_times": [2520.906, 2521.607, 2530.474, 2538.929, 2558.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2518.806}, "reply_to": "20170__2_005", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20170__2_007", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Mr. Wallace--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2558.382], "stop_times": [2559.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2558.382}, "reply_to": "20170__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20170__2_008", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "And... and many of the regulations were carried forward verbatim from the HHS regulations that Congress was referring to in this provision.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2559.294, 2570.301], "stop_times": [2570.301, 2571.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2559.294}, "reply_to": "20170__2_007", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20170__2_009", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--I have no trouble with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2571.513], "stop_times": [2572.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2571.513}, "reply_to": "20170__2_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20170__2_010", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--And--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2572.031], "stop_times": [2573.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2572.031}, "reply_to": "20170__2_009", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20170__2_011", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Mr. Wallace, may I ask... the... the provision directing the Attorney General to... to promulgate regulations says that they shall include standards applicable to facilities and vehicles covered under Section 12182 of this Title.\nWhat is that Section, 12182?\nWhat are the... the facilities and vehicles?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2573.763, 2585.451, 2587.931], "stop_times": [2585.451, 2587.931, 2591.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2573.763}, "reply_to": "20170__2_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20170__2_012", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--Well, let me look and see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2591.204], "stop_times": [2592.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2591.204}, "reply_to": "20170__2_011", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20170__2_013", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "I know it, but I'm not going to tell you.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2592.276, 2603.443], "stop_times": [2603.443, 2603.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2592.276}, "reply_to": "20170__2_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__2_014", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "That... that is a... it's entitled\n\"Prohibition of discrimination by public accommodations. \"\nAnd it's... it's in the... it's in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2603.933, 2613.277, 2617.752], "stop_times": [2613.277, 2617.752, 2626.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2603.933}, "reply_to": "20170__2_013", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20170__2_015", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Why don't you follow it with the Clerk later?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2626.467], "stop_times": [2630.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2626.467}, "reply_to": "20170__2_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20170__2_016", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--All right.\nWell, I'm sorry.\nI would have to... but... but that... that is the general prohibition of discrimination in the furnishing of public accommodations.\nAnd public accommodations or elsewhere defined to include these health facilities.\nNow, one of the regulations that has been carried over verbatim, as we were talking about, from the previous regulations, and one that was very much before Congress because it was quoted, set out in this Court's opinion in the Arline case, is the definition of physical impairment, to include any physiological disorder or condition affecting the hemic or lymphatic systems.\nAnd that of course includes HIV infection, as the current regulations specifically state it does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2630.571, 2630.928, 2632.19, 2645.02, 2650.773, 2688.978], "stop_times": [2630.928, 2632.19, 2645.02, 2650.773, 2688.978, 2699.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2630.571}, "reply_to": "20170__2_015", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20170__2_017", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Mr. Wallace--\n--It includes a mental impairment, too, doesn't it, the Act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2699.166, 2701.076], "stop_times": [2701.076, 2702.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2699.166}, "reply_to": "20170__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__2_018", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2702.728], "stop_times": [2704.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2702.728}, "reply_to": "20170__2_017", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20170__2_019", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Would... would you... would you regard a firm homosexual sexual orientation as being a disability under the Act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2704.338], "stop_times": [2712.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2704.338}, "reply_to": "20170__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__2_020", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, that is specifically excluded in another provision.\nAnd that is pointed out in an amicus brief filed by Senators Harkin, et al., who were sponsors and floor managers of the legislation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2712.744, 2715.705], "stop_times": [2715.705, 2729.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2712.744}, "reply_to": "20170__2_019", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20170__2_021", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "That's excluded where?\nDo you know the provision?\nI mean, in... in... in the regulations or in the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2729.386, 2730.766, 2731.977], "stop_times": [2730.766, 2731.977, 2737.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2729.386}, "reply_to": "20170__2_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__2_022", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "In... in the statute itself.\nAnd there is the point made that... in... it's Section 12211, I am told--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2737.743, 2740.575], "stop_times": [2740.575, 2753.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2737.743}, "reply_to": "20170__2_021", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20170__2_023", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Mr. Wallace, while that is on the burner, may I ask... as I understand it, there's no dispute here that HIV is a physical impairment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2753.532], "stop_times": [2767.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2753.532}, "reply_to": "20170__2_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20170__2_024", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--Yes, that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2767.48], "stop_times": [2769.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2767.48}, "reply_to": "20170__2_023", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20170__2_025", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "And so the only question is whether it's a disability.\nAnd those two questions shouldn't be confused.\nSo we're talking about is it a disability, given that it is a physical impairment?\nAnd there are some physical impairments that are not disabilities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2769.483, 2771.083, 2773.377, 2778.572], "stop_times": [2771.083, 2773.377, 2778.572, 2781.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2769.483}, "reply_to": "20170__2_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20170__2_026", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "In... in order to be a disability, it must substantially limit a major life activity.\nSo there are two further questions once it... it is determined that it is a physical impairment.\nOne is whether it affects a major life activity and whether... and the second is whether it substantially limits that major life activity.\nThe major life activity which was the focus of this case and on which both courts below relied was reproduction and impairment to the reproductive capacity.\nThat, in the very same regulation that I quoted, is really implicit in that regulation.\nSince impairment is defined as a disorder or condition that, among other things, affects the reproductive system, it is hard to see how that would have any relevance unless reproduction were a major life activity, a substantial limitation of which could be a disability under the Act.\nBecause it's hard to see how impairment of the reproductive system would relate to any other major life activity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2781.674, 2788.637, 2795.692, 2805.41, 2821.612, 2829.757, 2853.392], "stop_times": [2788.637, 2795.692, 2805.41, 2821.612, 2829.757, 2853.392, 2860.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2781.674}, "reply_to": "20170__2_025", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20170__2_027", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, you can have cancer.\nYou... you could have ovarian cancer.\nThat would be an impairment of the... of the reproductive system, which could cause a disability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2860.308, 2861.109, 2862.718], "stop_times": [2861.109, 2862.718, 2866.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2860.308}, "reply_to": "20170__2_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__2_028", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "It... it... it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2866.943], "stop_times": [2870.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2866.943}, "reply_to": "20170__2_027", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20170__2_029", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "And not necessarily a disability associated just with reproduction.\nI... I understood the regulations went through all the major physical functions of the body, or physical whatever doctors call them, including the reproductive system, the breathing system and so forth.\nIsn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2870.455, 2873.796, 2888.394], "stop_times": [2873.796, 2888.394, 2889.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2870.455}, "reply_to": "20170__2_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__2_030", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--And the... and I might add that the current regulations also refer to HIV disease specifically as an impairment.\nAnd the... the list--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2889.115, 2903.256], "stop_times": [2903.256, 2908.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2889.115}, "reply_to": "20170__2_029", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20170__2_031", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "We don't have a problem with whether it's an impairment.\nWe have... I have a problem with your saying Since reproductive disease is an impairment, the... affecting the ability to reproduce is a disability, in that automatically the ability to reproduce is a major life activity.\nI don't understand that leap.\nJust because they mention the reproductive system along with all the other organs of the body.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2908.85, 2910.31, 2929.593, 2931.944], "stop_times": [2910.31, 2929.593, 2931.944, 2935.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2908.85}, "reply_to": "20170__2_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__2_032", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--All right.\nAll right.\nWell, that is just one indication, perhaps not a conclusive indication, but it certainly looks in the direction of concern about impairment to the reproductive system.\nNow, the Court of Appeals approached this question in what we believe was an exemplary fashion.\nThe Act does not itself define what is a major life activity.\nAnd so the Court of Appeals said We'll think of the ordinary meaning of \"major\", which is significant in comparison with other activities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2935.306, 2937.408, 2937.928, 2950.107, 2957.413, 2961.386], "stop_times": [2937.408, 2937.928, 2950.107, 2957.413, 2961.386, 2972.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2935.306}, "reply_to": "20170__2_031", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20170__2_033", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Mr. Wallace, if we don't accept your view that reproduction is this major life activity, if we don't accept that, do... do you lose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2972.623], "stop_times": [2982.14], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2972.623}, "reply_to": "20170__2_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20170__2_034", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "No.\nAlthough a remand might be in order.\nWhat... there is protection, as Justice O'Connor pointed out and as the Court relied on quite strongly in the Arline case, for individuals who are regarded as having an impairment that affects a major life activity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [2982.14, 2985.752, 2988.154], "stop_times": [2985.752, 2988.154, 3005.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2982.14}, "reply_to": "20170__2_033", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20170__2_035", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Is that the only basis?\nCan't we find from the briefs that there are other impacts on major life activities, other than reproduction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3005.086, 3006.366], "stop_times": [3006.366, 3014.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3005.086}, "reply_to": "20170__2_034", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20170__2_036", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "I would say that is best documented in two of the amicus briefs, the one filed by the American Medical Association, which spends quite a few pages describing HIV--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3014.643], "stop_times": [3026.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3014.643}, "reply_to": "20170__2_035", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20170__2_037", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "But amicus briefs can't raise issues that are not raised by the parties, Mr. Wallace.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3026.689], "stop_times": [3030.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3026.689}, "reply_to": "20170__2_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20170__2_038", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--That is correct.\nAs well as the brief of Senator Harkin, et al. But--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3030.292, 3031.304], "stop_times": [3031.304, 3037.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3030.292}, "reply_to": "20170__2_037", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20170__2_039", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Let me ask... let me ask one other question.\nSuppose the dentist has AIDS, not the patient.\nWould it be discriminatory for an HMO with more than 15 people to refuse to hire the dentist or, alternatively, to require that the dentist disclose this to the patients?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3037.377, 3039.739, 3043.311], "stop_times": [3039.739, 3043.311, 3054.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3037.377}, "reply_to": "20170__2_038", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20170__2_040", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--Well, the last footnote in our brief points out that the... the question of HIV infection in health care workers and whether they are otherwise qualified really raises different issues.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3054.718], "stop_times": [3068.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3054.718}, "reply_to": "20170__2_039", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20170__2_041", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Why does it raise different issues if the... if the chance is infection because of the close proximity between the dentist and the patient?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3068.757], "stop_times": [3076.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3068.757}, "reply_to": "20170__2_040", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20170__2_042", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Because it's the health care worker that's in charge and control of whether the precautions are taken or not, the patient will be subjected to risks over which the patient has no control.\nBut if the health care worker follows the universal procedures that have been recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and the Dental Association and the Medical Association and other professional groups, the health care worker can limit any possible risk--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3076.163, 3087.21], "stop_times": [3087.21, 3106.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3076.163}, "reply_to": "20170__2_041", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20170__2_043", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "So then it would seem to me the answer to the question is that this doesn't have to be disclosed and the... and the dentist has to be hired.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3106.992], "stop_times": [3112.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3106.992}, "reply_to": "20170__2_042", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20170__2_044", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--Well, the... the question of disclosure really is not addressed by this Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3112.615], "stop_times": [3119.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3112.615}, "reply_to": "20170__2_043", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20170__2_045", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, suppose there were a policy by the HMO that the... the person has to disclose to the patient so the patient has a choice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3119.411], "stop_times": [3125.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3119.411}, "reply_to": "20170__2_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20170__2_046", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "There's... there's nothing in the Act that I'm aware of that addresses that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3125.535], "stop_times": [3131.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3125.535}, "reply_to": "20170__2_045", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20170__2_047", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, let's assume that that would be a discrimination under the Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3131.989], "stop_times": [3135.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3131.989}, "reply_to": "20170__2_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20170__2_048", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, it's very close to the question that the Court had in Arline, in which you tried to specify some standards to be used to be sure that there was meaningful protection afforded to what were handicapped individuals within the meaning of the Act, and that only real, rather than conjectural, risks of the kind found here by the Court of Appeals, after a very careful review of the evidence, would be used to hold the person unqualified for protection, because the Act is an anti discrimination act, which could be undermined if each person can choose for himself whether to discriminate.\nNow, I do say... want to say that implicit in the findings is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3135.212, 3177.958], "stop_times": [3177.958, 3184.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3135.212}, "reply_to": "20170__2_047", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20170__2_049", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "What... what findings?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3184.824], "stop_times": [3186.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3184.824}, "reply_to": "20170__2_048", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20170__2_050", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--In... in... in the findings of why it was that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3186.015], "stop_times": [3190.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3186.015}, "reply_to": "20170__2_049", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20170__2_051", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "But who made the finding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3190.647], "stop_times": [3191.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3190.647}, "reply_to": "20170__2_050", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20170__2_052", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals.\nThat the reason... and... and this is Petitioner's own contention... the reason that Dr. Bragdon refused ordinary dental treatment to the Respondent here was because of his fear of possible contagion from the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3191.759, 3195.291], "stop_times": [3195.291, 3215.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3191.759}, "reply_to": "20170__2_051", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20170__2_053", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "This case wasn't tried to a jury in the District Court, it was tried in the Court of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3215.185], "stop_times": [3217.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3215.185}, "reply_to": "20170__2_052", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20170__2_054", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--It was... summary judgment was granted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3217.666], "stop_times": [3220.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3217.666}, "reply_to": "20170__2_053", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20170__2_055", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--Summary judgment for whom?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3220.157], "stop_times": [3221.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3220.157}, "reply_to": "20170__2_054", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20170__2_056", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "For the Respondent.\nAnd that was upheld by the Court of Appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3221.259, 3223.861], "stop_times": [3223.861, 3226.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3221.259}, "reply_to": "20170__2_055", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20170__2_057", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "So if there's any factual dispute, that's wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3226.092], "stop_times": [3228.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3226.092}, "reply_to": "20170__2_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20170__2_058", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "If it's a factual dispute that can survive summary judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3228.683], "stop_times": [3234.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3228.683}, "reply_to": "20170__2_057", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20170__2_059", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Wallace.\nMr. McCarthy, you have 3 minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3234.788, 3236.5], "stop_times": [3236.5, 3239.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3234.788}, "reply_to": "20170__2_058", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20170__3_000", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nI would just like to address a couple of issues.\nOne, on the question of deferral, in this case, there isn't anything to defer to for the reasons we disclosed before.\nAnd even the Department of Justice, in its interpretive guidelines, indicates that when you're looking to public authorities, they are sources of information that include.\nThere's no suggestion that the public health authorities have any particular power here.\nNow, there very well... may very well be a different situation, where the public health authorities have addressed an issue directly and the courts would have reason to defer to them.\nBut there isn't in this situation, because there aren't any public authorities that have spoken to the issue.\nThat includes the American Dental Association, which isn't a public health authority, but gets cited as if it's one.\nIt's a... it's a 501(c)(6) business league, and it made a policy statement... and it made a political decision about what it recommends.\nAnd it shouldn't be determinative of whether or not an individual member is guilty of a civil rights violation, as opposed to following their policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3239.452, 3243.714, 3245.863, 3253.039, 3262.507, 3266.337, 3273.282, 3277.827, 3282.559, 3288.642], "stop_times": [3243.714, 3245.863, 3253.039, 3262.507, 3266.337, 3273.282, 3277.827, 3282.559, 3288.642, 3296.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3239.452}, "reply_to": "20170__2_059", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__3_001", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Did you introduce expert testimony at the trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3296.637], "stop_times": [3298.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3296.637}, "reply_to": "20170__3_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__3_002", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Yes, we did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3298.901], "stop_times": [3299.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3298.901}, "reply_to": "20170__3_001", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__3_003", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Of your own?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3299.439], "stop_times": [3300.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3299.439}, "reply_to": "20170__3_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20170__3_004", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Right.\nIt wasn't at trial, but introduced it in response to the motion for summary judgment.\nWith respect to the... I call them the reverse cases, where health care providers have brought these claims of violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and have lost every time.\nIt's important to note, I believe, that it's conceded in this case that it's easier to transmit HIV from a patient to a doctor than it is from a doctor to a patient.\nAnd there are... all the experts on both sides conceded this.\nDr. Molinari, the plaintiff's expert, wrote an article on it.\nIt's at Fed. App. 137a, and in his deposition at 139a.\nAnd Dr. Marianos, the CDC expert, made the same concession that there is not any argument about that particular question.\nThe plain... the Respondents have raised very many policy issues in this matter.\nAnd some of them are certainly worthy of serious consideration.\nBut those issues belong for consideration with Congress and not with the Court.\nWe rely on the statute.\nWe believe, if the statute is relied upon, the conclusions we've advanced will be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3300.12, 3300.62, 3305.765, 3317.123, 3328.112, 3331.955, 3334.557, 3339.141, 3344.414, 3348.935, 3352.738, 3357.122, 3359.073], "stop_times": [3300.62, 3305.765, 3317.123, 3328.112, 3331.955, 3334.557, 3339.141, 3344.414, 3348.935, 3352.738, 3357.122, 3359.073, 3362.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3300.12}, "reply_to": "20170__3_003", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__3_005", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "How many cases of AIDS had there been approximately as of 1994?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3362.566], "stop_times": [3366.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3362.566}, "reply_to": "20170__3_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20170__3_006", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "--I... I don't know that figure.\nI recall hearing the term \"million\", but I would be guessing wildly to say it.\nI do know that there are hundreds of thousands of cases of HIV, where it's not known how the transmission occurred.\nAnd that, we think, it important when you're looking at this question of under reporting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3366.497, 3368.841, 3372.891, 3378.866], "stop_times": [3368.841, 3372.891, 3378.866, 3382.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3366.497}, "reply_to": "20170__3_005", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__3_007", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "All right.\nSuppose the worst that could have happened is that he though there was a risk of 7... if he'd looked into it, 7 cases in a million.\nThat's about 1 in 120,000.\nThat's certainly not lightning.\nWhat are we supposed to do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3382.738, 3383.189, 3389.002, 3391.543, 3393.824], "stop_times": [3383.189, 3389.002, 3391.543, 3393.824, 3395.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3382.738}, "reply_to": "20170__3_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20170__3_008", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Well, the question is, does he... what's the then current medical knowledge?\nHe has all of this information before him, including OSHA, these seven cases, what's occurred in other cases.\nWe certainly believe there's good reason for him to believe and take the position that there could be risk.\nAnd it was a reasonable judgment for him to make.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3395.396, 3400.159, 3404.743, 3409.125, 3410.678], "stop_times": [3400.159, 3404.743, 3409.125, 3410.678, 3411.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3395.396}, "reply_to": "20170__3_007", "speaker": "john_w_mccarthy"}
{"id": "20170__3_009", "conversation_id": "20170", "text": "Thank you, Mr. McCarthy.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-156", "start_times": [3411.309, 3412.15], "stop_times": [3412.15, 3413.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3411.309}, "reply_to": "20170__3_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20772__0_000", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-1579, James Brogan v. the United States.\nMr. Holtzman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [0.0, 7.685], "stop_times": [7.685, 8.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20772__0_001", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors, may it please the Court--\nThe narrow issue presented by this case is whether or not a simple exculpatory no, unelaborated upon in any way, is actionable under 18 United States Code 1001.\nThe answer to that question is no.\nIt was never the intention of Congress that it should be, and Congress' intention is manifested by the 1934 incarnation of the statute, which is basically the one that we're dealing with here.\nAnd I base my conclusions on the fact that in United States v. Gilliland, a 1941 decision of this Court, the Court held that the purpose of the statute, and Congress' intention in passing it, was to protect the authorized functions of governmental departments and agencies from the perversion which might result from deceptive practices which are described in the act itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [8.92, 12.027, 23.803, 26.225, 40.672], "stop_times": [12.027, 23.803, 26.225, 40.672, 67.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 8.92}, "reply_to": "20772__0_000", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_002", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well, what part of the text of the act do you rely on for the exculpatory no?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [67.77], "stop_times": [72.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 67.77}, "reply_to": "20772__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20772__0_003", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well, the portion of the... the text itself does not have a provision excluding from its coverage the exculpatory no.\nHowever, it's my position that you cannot divorce the meaning of the statute from what it was that Congress intended the function... the statute to serve and, as I say, the Court in Gilliland recognized that, and most recently in United States v. Woodward the Court again indicated that that was the purpose of the statute and the intention with which the statute was passed by the Congress.\nAnd, indeed, I might also add that United States v. Lambert, which is a Circuit Court of Appeals case, the perversion of governmental function was characterized as the hallmark of a 1001 violation.\nIt's the petitioner's position that a simple exculpatory no made in response to a Federal agent's question as to whether or not the individual committed a particular crime cannot have the effect of perverting governmental functioning and, indeed, following Gilliland there ensued a landscape of jurisdiction which came to be conveniently called the exculpatory no doctrine which began in the 1950's in the district courts and then the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Paternostro in the early 1960's----", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [72.096, 82.28, 108.644, 124.465], "stop_times": [82.28, 108.644, 124.465, 171.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 72.096}, "reply_to": "20772__0_002", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_004", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Mr. Holtzman, may I clarify what your point is?\nIt's not that you're saying it isn't a false statement.\nAre you saying it isn't... it can't be material?\nIs that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [171.041, 175.242, 178.866, 181.381], "stop_times": [175.242, 178.866, 181.381, 182.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 171.041}, "reply_to": "20772__0_003", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20772__0_005", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--No.\nMy point is that... my point is that the statement is false, or the statement can be false--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [182.053, 182.475], "stop_times": [182.475, 190.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 182.053}, "reply_to": "20772__0_004", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_006", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--So if it's in the words, makes any false statement... but there's materially before that, so I was supposing maybe that's what you meant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [190.657], "stop_times": [198.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 190.657}, "reply_to": "20772__0_005", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20772__0_007", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--No, I think that's the new statute, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [198.795], "stop_times": [201.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 198.795}, "reply_to": "20772__0_006", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_008", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [201.278], "stop_times": [202.293], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 201.278}, "reply_to": "20772__0_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20772__0_009", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "As opposed to the one that's the subject--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [202.293], "stop_times": [204.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 202.293}, "reply_to": "20772__0_008", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_010", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Make any false statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [204.136], "stop_times": [205.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 204.136}, "reply_to": "20772__0_009", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20772__0_011", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Yes.\nThe statute that we're talking about is basically the 1934 incarnation of the statute, which had some subsequent changes but not of any significance in connection with the issues involved in this case.\nIn 1948, for example, the statute which, prior thereto, included false claims as well as false statements got divided up into two separate sections of the code.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [205.09, 205.465, 218.163], "stop_times": [205.465, 218.163, 234.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 205.09}, "reply_to": "20772__0_010", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_012", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "But still, it's... the words you're dealing with is any false statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [234.53], "stop_times": [239.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 234.53}, "reply_to": "20772__0_011", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20772__0_013", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Yes.\nIn fact, actually the statute, Your Honor, says false... when it refers to oral utterances refers to statements in the plural, and I'd like to reserve a little time to address that very directly, if I may.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [239.185, 240.028], "stop_times": [240.028, 256.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 239.185}, "reply_to": "20772__0_012", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_014", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "But your argument, then, is based on legislative history that, as you said, no is a false statement, and nonetheless it doesn't come under the words, any false statement because?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [256.116], "stop_times": [267.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 256.116}, "reply_to": "20772__0_013", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20772__0_015", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well, the courts have interpreted statement to mean those statements which are capable of perverting governmental functioning, and therefore the use of the term statement in the statute cannot refer to the type of statement that we're talking about, namely, the exculpatory no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [267.657], "stop_times": [286.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 267.657}, "reply_to": "20772__0_014", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_016", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well, this Court hasn't said that, certainly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [286.4], "stop_times": [287.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 286.4}, "reply_to": "20772__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20772__0_017", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [287.228], "stop_times": [287.915], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 287.228}, "reply_to": "20772__0_016", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_018", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "This Court has never said that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [287.915], "stop_times": [289.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 287.915}, "reply_to": "20772__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20772__0_019", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "This Court has not said that specifically, but in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [289.96], "stop_times": [292.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 289.96}, "reply_to": "20772__0_018", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_020", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "And in fact it is quite extraordinary that a court would take this rather simple language and derive some other meaning from it, isn't it?\nI mean, we have plenty of cases from this Court precedent saying the first thing we do is look at the language of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [292.428, 302.113], "stop_times": [302.113, 310.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 292.428}, "reply_to": "20772__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20772__0_021", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--I'm not disagreeing with that proposition as a general matter.\nWhat I am saying, however, is that this Court has repeatedly recognized that where the application of the statute, plain meaning application of the statute would pervert or thwart Congress' intent or produce absurd results, then there is the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [310.0, 313.794], "stop_times": [313.794, 332.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 310.0}, "reply_to": "20772__0_020", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_022", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "What would be absurd about the result here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [332.288], "stop_times": [334.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 332.288}, "reply_to": "20772__0_021", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20772__0_023", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Well, the absurd result that would ensue here is the fact that, as Gilliland indicated, the purpose of the statute, or the intention of the Congress was to prevent the perversion of governmental functioning.\nThe kind of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [334.959, 349.08], "stop_times": [349.08, 349.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 334.959}, "reply_to": "20772__0_022", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_024", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well, Gilliland gives this Court's opinion as to what Congress' intent was, but that simply doesn't prevail over the language of the statute, which, as Justice Ginsburg points out, your client's answer is clearly within it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [349.783], "stop_times": [364.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 349.783}, "reply_to": "20772__0_023", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20772__0_025", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--No... well, I respectfully disagree on this ground.\nAs I say, at one time as many as eight circuits took the position that I'm articulating, to wit that you had to look to Gilliland to find out what the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [364.557, 369.82], "stop_times": [369.82, 379.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 364.557}, "reply_to": "20772__0_024", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_026", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "That's why we granted certiorari, because there's a conflict between the Second Circuit and the other circuits.\nThat's why we're here, to resolve that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [379.925, 385.408], "stop_times": [385.408, 387.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 379.925}, "reply_to": "20772__0_025", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20772__0_027", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Yes, I understand that.\nI understand that very well.\nThe point that I was trying to make was that the exculpatory no, in the context that we're talking about, is incapable of, as a matter of law, and so the circuits have held, of perverting governmental functioning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [387.486, 389.391, 391.156], "stop_times": [389.391, 391.156, 407.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 387.486}, "reply_to": "20772__0_026", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_028", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "But there's no requirement in the statute that it pervert the governmental function.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [407.07], "stop_times": [410.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 407.07}, "reply_to": "20772__0_027", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20772__0_029", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "No, but this Court, as I say, has held in Gilliland that that is what the statute is about, that the statute was passed with the intention of preventing and punishing those false statements the effect of which is to pervert governmental functioning, and the juris... this... the juris... excuse me, the jurisprudence that has grown up surrounding this has pointed directly to that.\nIn other words, that the reference to the term statement does not embrace a statement that does not have the potency, the power to undermine governmental functioning in this particular--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [410.492, 435.434], "stop_times": [435.434, 449.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 410.492}, "reply_to": "20772__0_028", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_030", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well, does that mean that in every case in which the officer who hears the false statement knows that it is false, that the false statement is therefore outside the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [449.82], "stop_times": [457.271], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 449.82}, "reply_to": "20772__0_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20772__0_031", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--In substance, yes, it does, because as the lower courts have indicated, that an experienced Federal agent, when he hears the exculpatory no, especially in this case... this presents perhaps a wonderful context in which to view it... didn't ask the question, and doesn't normally ask the question as to whether or not the individual has committed the crime in order to evaluate the truth or the falsity of the statement.\nInstead, it's generally a... an investigative technique, and the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [457.271, 488.492], "stop_times": [488.492, 494.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 457.271}, "reply_to": "20772__0_030", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_032", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Yes.\nI assume if your client had given a truthful answer, the answer would have been used and admitted against him, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [494.662, 495.006], "stop_times": [495.006, 501.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 494.662}, "reply_to": "20772__0_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20772__0_033", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Indeed, I believe it would, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [501.738], "stop_times": [503.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 501.738}, "reply_to": "20772__0_032", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_034", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "So I assume it's a good reason to ask the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [503.518], "stop_times": [505.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 503.518}, "reply_to": "20772__0_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20772__0_035", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "It is a good reason, but on the other hand in the circumstance--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [505.283], "stop_times": [508.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 505.283}, "reply_to": "20772__0_034", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_036", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "It's not merely an investigatory technique.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [508.344], "stop_times": [510.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 508.344}, "reply_to": "20772__0_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20772__0_037", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Well, it is an investigatory technique in the sense that, certainly in this case, this was a prelude, so to speak, to induce the cooperation of the petitioner to perhaps testify against other individuals that the Government had evidence against were culpable in connection with this acceptance either of bribes or gratuities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [510.375], "stop_times": [533.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 510.375}, "reply_to": "20772__0_036", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_038", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "But in any case, whether there is or is not a statutory violation is a function of the governmental agent's state of mind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [533.411], "stop_times": [540.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 533.411}, "reply_to": "20772__0_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20772__0_039", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "No, it's not a function of the governmental--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [540.488], "stop_times": [542.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 540.488}, "reply_to": "20772__0_038", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_040", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Oh, I thought it was, because I thought you said that if the governmental agent who hears the false answer knows it's false, that it therefore does not fall within the violation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [542.939], "stop_times": [552.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 542.939}, "reply_to": "20772__0_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20772__0_041", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Well, certainly under those circumstances it does not fall within them.\nThat's one circumstance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [552.498, 557.292], "stop_times": [557.292, 558.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 552.498}, "reply_to": "20772__0_040", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_042", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--So I assume the state of mind of the governmental agent, therefore, is the touchstone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [558.511], "stop_times": [562.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 558.511}, "reply_to": "20772__0_041", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20772__0_043", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well, the touchstone is whether or not the response is going to send the Government off on a wild goose chase or, in the alternative, is the exculpatory no response, nothing different than, really, silence, and just sends the Government agent back to his office to continue doing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [562.384], "stop_times": [578.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 562.384}, "reply_to": "20772__0_042", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_044", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well, Mr. Holtzman--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [578.909], "stop_times": [580.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 578.909}, "reply_to": "20772__0_043", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20772__0_045", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--the investigative work that he normally does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [580.518], "stop_times": [581.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 580.518}, "reply_to": "20772__0_044", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_046", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--in the Bryson case we said our legal system provides methods for challenging the Government's right to ask questions, but lying isn't one of them.\nNow, what's your response to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [581.315, 590.92], "stop_times": [590.92, 594.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 581.315}, "reply_to": "20772__0_045", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20772__0_047", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well, my response to that is, first of all I don't take the position that lies are protected as a general proposition.\nI think that the Government took the view that the Fifth Amendment does not protect lies.\nI might say that the exculpatory no jurisprudence, in addition to articulating the considerations from Gilliland, have also expressed a solicitude for the Fifth Amendment, although they've never... no court that I know of has indicated that a violation of the Fifth Amendment occurs as a result of cornering a suspect into either, on the one hand incriminating himself, which is somewhat incompatible with the accusatorial nature of our system of justice or, on the other hand, committing a 1001 violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [594.091, 601.946, 606.07], "stop_times": [601.946, 606.07, 640.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 594.091}, "reply_to": "20772__0_046", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_048", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well, he can just be quiet, can't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [640.446], "stop_times": [642.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 640.446}, "reply_to": "20772__0_047", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20772__0_049", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [642.695], "stop_times": [643.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 642.695}, "reply_to": "20772__0_048", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_050", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "That's what Bryson said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [643.149], "stop_times": [645.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 643.149}, "reply_to": "20772__0_049", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20772__0_051", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Well, in Bryson there's a distinction because of the fact that... as I recall the facts in Bryson... I think we're talking also perhaps about Knox as well... there was the opportunity by the individuals in those cases to contest the questions that they wound up answering falsely.\nIn other words, in Bryson, if I remember correctly, it was a situation in which the individual had to file an affidavit with the NLRB indicating that he was not a communist.\nIn Knox it was a case involving the filing of tax forms with respect to gambling earnings and employees, et cetera.\nAnd in each of those cases certainly there's a distinguishing factor in that each of those individuals had the opportunity, by the process of litigation, if you will, rather than being confronted by agents in their house, of litigating the propriety of the questions being posed to them and whether or not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [645.006, 667.811, 679.899, 688.645], "stop_times": [667.811, 679.899, 688.645, 706.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 645.006}, "reply_to": "20772__0_050", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_052", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well, didn't your client have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [706.498], "stop_times": [708.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 706.498}, "reply_to": "20772__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20772__0_053", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--there was a selfincrimination factor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [708.497], "stop_times": [708.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 708.497}, "reply_to": "20772__0_052", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_054", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Your client did not have the opportunity to litigate that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [708.904], "stop_times": [710.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 708.904}, "reply_to": "20772__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20772__0_055", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well, the circumstances were such here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [710.793], "stop_times": [712.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 710.793}, "reply_to": "20772__0_054", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_056", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Do you have any reason to believe they would have won the litigation in those other two cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [712.979], "stop_times": [717.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 712.979}, "reply_to": "20772__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20772__0_057", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--I don't know.\nI think in one of those cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [717.009, 717.915], "stop_times": [717.915, 719.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 717.009}, "reply_to": "20772__0_056", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_058", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [719.46], "stop_times": [720.117], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 719.46}, "reply_to": "20772__0_057", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20772__0_059", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--I don't... I think in one of those cases there was an indication, and perhaps in both of them that there was an indication that subsequent case law indicated that the individuals in those cases would ultimately have prevailed had they taken that course.\nThat is my recollection of those cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [720.117, 732.378], "stop_times": [732.378, 734.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 720.117}, "reply_to": "20772__0_058", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_060", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--That is not my recollection, and not my belief.\nWhat... why do you say, assuming that it's part of the basis for this statute, and a necessary element for conviction under this statute, that Government functioning have been impaired?\nWhy isn't the conduct of an investigation concerning bribery and corruption within a Government agency, why isn't that investigation part of the Government's function?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [734.596, 736.86, 753.011], "stop_times": [736.86, 753.011, 762.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 734.596}, "reply_to": "20772__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20772__0_061", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "It is part of the Government's function, but the question is whether or not the false exculpatory no response perverts that function, and I suppose that one way in which I can dramatically illustrate it is the Rogers case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [762.958], "stop_times": [777.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 762.958}, "reply_to": "20772__0_060", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_062", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Had he told the truth, it would have certainly facilitated the function, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [777.204], "stop_times": [780.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 777.204}, "reply_to": "20772__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20772__0_063", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "It would have facilitated it.\nI don't deny that for a moment.\nBut on the other hand, the question is, did it pervert it?\nDid the Government do anything different than they would have done had he simply remained silent and, indeed, I might point out to you that there was not a scintilla of evidence at this trial that after the response from Grogan the Government went off and did anything that they wouldn't otherwise have done had he remained silent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [780.889, 781.467, 782.873, 785.075], "stop_times": [781.467, 782.873, 785.075, 804.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 780.889}, "reply_to": "20772__0_062", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_064", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Why is the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [804.099], "stop_times": [804.676], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 804.099}, "reply_to": "20772__0_063", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20772__0_065", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "There was not offered any evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [804.676], "stop_times": [805.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 804.676}, "reply_to": "20772__0_064", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_066", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Why is the alternative that I have to compare it with his remaining silent?\nWhy isn't the alternative his telling the truth?\nHe chose not to remain silent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [805.707, 810.033, 812.19], "stop_times": [810.033, 812.19, 815.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 805.707}, "reply_to": "20772__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20772__0_067", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [815.859], "stop_times": [816.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 815.859}, "reply_to": "20772__0_066", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_068", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Since he did, he had two options, to tell the truth or to lie.\nBy telling the truth, he would have facilitated the investigation.\nBy lying, he prevented that facilitation from occurring.\nWhy does that not impede the investigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [816.671, 819.654, 822.935, 828.605], "stop_times": [819.654, 822.935, 828.605, 830.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 816.671}, "reply_to": "20772__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20772__0_069", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "It doesn't pervert the investigation.\nPerhaps we're talking semantics between impeding.\nThe Government investigative agent's job is to go out and investigate the commission of crimes so as to bring them to prosecution.\nIf the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [830.433, 834.571, 837.334, 846.784], "stop_times": [834.571, 837.334, 846.784, 847.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 830.433}, "reply_to": "20772__0_068", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_070", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "People that ask questions, if they would incriminate themselves have no obligation to answer.\nThat's fine.\nBut if they choose to answer, they have to tell the truth, and if they don't tell the truth, they are impeding the investigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [847.644, 851.407, 852.501], "stop_times": [851.407, 852.501, 859.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 847.644}, "reply_to": "20772__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20772__0_071", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Well, when you say choose to answer, with all due respect to Your Honor, perhaps that something of... and I say with all due respect to you, perhaps a somewhat simplistic way to look at this, in the sense that the jurisprudence that is emanated on this subject, and when I refer to the subject I'm talking about the mind set of the individual confronted by a police officer in uniform, or an individual who appears at your house and displays a badge indicating that he's an FBI agent, and we've cited a series of cases in our brief, one doesn't have the feeling that they are volunteering responses to questions.\nOne has the feeling that the questions posed demand an answer, as opposed to, would you like to answer or would you like not to answer, so it's not as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [859.389, 903.122], "stop_times": [903.122, 912.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 859.389}, "reply_to": "20772__0_070", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_072", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Mr. Holtzman--\n--Well, I think it would be rather an extraordinary proposition for this Court to say that when you see a uniformed officer we have a preference to lying than to say nothing at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [912.54, 913.353], "stop_times": [913.353, 921.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 912.54}, "reply_to": "20772__0_071", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20772__0_073", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Well, I'm not saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [921.849], "stop_times": [923.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 921.849}, "reply_to": "20772__0_072", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_074", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "That's an astounding proposition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [923.771], "stop_times": [924.598], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 923.771}, "reply_to": "20772__0_073", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20772__0_075", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--No, no, I'm not asking the Court to hold that, by the way.\nI'd like to make that clear.\nWhat I'm saying is that certainly there are Fifth Amendment implications in this, as recognized by the circuit courts of appeals over the course of 30 years and while, as I said moments ago, no court of appeals has said that this practice violates the Fifth Amendment, certainly the courts have said that it comes uncomfortably close to doing that.\nAnd I don't know that the opinions of all of these courts of appeals on that subject, namely the notion of coming uncomfortably close, that the Government is going to corner you and either force you in effect to incriminate yourself or, alternatively, violate another criminal statute, especially where there's an opportunity, if the statute were to be so interpreted as to permit that, where you can have all kinds of absurd results.\nFor example, in this case the very offenses with respect to which the questioning occurred were ones, with one exception, one payment, the statute of limitations had passed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [924.598, 926.113, 927.238, 952.446, 980.465], "stop_times": [926.113, 927.238, 952.446, 980.465, 992.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 924.598}, "reply_to": "20772__0_074", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_076", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well, that's all the more reason for him to tell the truth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [992.399], "stop_times": [994.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 992.399}, "reply_to": "20772__0_075", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20772__0_077", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well, I might say to Your Honor that if he had been advised of that, that might be all the more reason to tell the truth.\nThe Government, of course, I might say had a theory about this case, namely that it was a continuing offense, and that therefore the statute of limitations hadn't passed, although the district court ultimately ruled that it had.\nBut what I'm suggesting to Your Honor is that if this statute is permitted to be wielded in this way, in disregard, in effect, of what the intention of Congress was in enacting it, then you have a situation in which it is subject to tremendous abuse, and I might also mention--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [994.242, 1002.332, 1013.25], "stop_times": [1002.332, 1013.25, 1028.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 994.242}, "reply_to": "20772__0_076", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_078", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "We don't limit statutes on the basis of the particular evil that Congress was trying to remedy.\nI mean, many statutes go beyond the narrow evil that Congress was immediately concerned with.\nTheir language is a bit broader, and it includes some stuff on the fringes, and that's simply the case here.\nThere is nothing whatever in the statute about impeding the investigation.\nThat's a substantial limitation on the statute, and you want us to read it in even though it's not expressed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1028.759, 1037.365, 1043.269, 1049.641, 1052.25], "stop_times": [1037.365, 1043.269, 1049.641, 1052.25, 1058.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1028.759}, "reply_to": "20772__0_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20772__0_079", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Yes, I do, because of the reasons that I indicated, namely that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1058.014], "stop_times": [1062.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1058.014}, "reply_to": "20772__0_078", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_080", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Do you know any other laws we do that to?\nWe say, well, the law doesn't say anything about this, but really... really, what Congress was really worried about was not what it expressed so expansively.\nIt was really worried about something more narrow, so we're going to just read the statute that way.\nThat's an extraordinary way to read statutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1062.075, 1063.388, 1072.602, 1078.256], "stop_times": [1063.388, 1072.602, 1078.256, 1080.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1062.075}, "reply_to": "20772__0_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20772__0_081", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Your Honor, I would respectfully disagree that it would be an extraordinary way, because it would divorce, in effect, the intention with which Congress passed the statute from the way in which it's being applied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1080.192], "stop_times": [1093.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1080.192}, "reply_to": "20772__0_080", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_082", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Where do you get Congress' intention from, except the statute itself?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1093.047], "stop_times": [1096.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1093.047}, "reply_to": "20772__0_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20772__0_083", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Right from Gilliland, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1096.717], "stop_times": [1097.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1096.717}, "reply_to": "20772__0_082", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_084", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well, but Gilliland--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1097.607], "stop_times": [1098.513], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1097.607}, "reply_to": "20772__0_083", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20772__0_085", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Right from Gilliland.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1098.513], "stop_times": [1099.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1098.513}, "reply_to": "20772__0_084", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_086", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--But Gilliland--\n--Did Congress write Gilliland?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1099.013, 1099.981], "stop_times": [1099.981, 1100.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1099.013}, "reply_to": "20772__0_085", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20772__0_087", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "No, no.\nThis Court interpreted the statute in Gilliland.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1100.81, 1101.372], "stop_times": [1101.372, 1104.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1100.81}, "reply_to": "20772__0_086", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_088", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Are there any words in the statute that you--\n--Well now, it seems to me--\n--I mean, do you put any weight on wilfully or knowingly at all, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1104.339, 1106.261, 1106.792], "stop_times": [1106.261, 1106.792, 1110.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1104.339}, "reply_to": "20772__0_087", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20772__0_089", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "No.\nI cannot... I can't... and I cannot place any emphasis on any particular words in the statute.\nAs I say, the exculpatory no jurisprudence evolved as a result of this Court's decision in Gilliland and the circuit courts of appeals' understanding as to how this statute was to operate, and one of the ways it was not to operate, and one of the things that Congress did not intend, was for this statute to be used in the fashion that it has been used.\nAnd even the Government, I might say, in its policy statement has eschewed the use of the statute in this very way.\nIf you look at the Government's policy statement with respect to prosecutions under 1001, the Government says that such prosecutions should not ensue where there's just a simple exculpatory no response, unadorned, unelaborated upon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1110.508, 1110.805, 1115.898, 1137.17, 1145.23], "stop_times": [1110.805, 1115.898, 1137.17, 1145.23, 1160.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1110.508}, "reply_to": "20772__0_088", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_090", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Well, maybe that's wrong.\nNobody would have standing to sue to make the Government do it differently, would they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1160.441, 1161.066], "stop_times": [1161.066, 1164.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1160.441}, "reply_to": "20772__0_089", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20772__0_091", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "No, but I would suggest to Your Honor that it's of some significance that the Government's own view, the agency that is in charge of prosecutions of the Federal law, has adopted this policy, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1164.425], "stop_times": [1178.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1164.425}, "reply_to": "20772__0_090", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_092", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "It seems to me--\n--It is significant.\nI would worry about it.\nIt seems to me that you're reading Gilliland for far too much.\nThe question in that case was whether or not the statute should be confined to property loss, or... to the Government, and the Court said, oh, no.\nThis statute was designed to prevent perverting the function of the Government, it applies to all agencies with all jurisdiction of the Government, and that ended it.\nIt was basically a way to reject a narrowing construction.\nIt was not itself a narrowing construction, or am I misreading Gilliland?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1178.793, 1179.387, 1179.84, 1181.558, 1187.196, 1196.787, 1205.768, 1209.891], "stop_times": [1179.387, 1179.84, 1181.558, 1187.196, 1196.787, 1205.768, 1209.891, 1214.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1178.793}, "reply_to": "20772__0_091", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20772__0_093", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--No.\nMy understanding is the enactment prior to 1934, which was interpreted in Cohn, or the statute was interpreted in Cohn, the incarnation prior to 1934, indicated it was directed only at pecuniary losses.\nThe Secretary of the Interior, in order to aid enforcement of New Deal legislation, went to Congress in view of the Cohn decision and apparently urged that there be a statute that would protect the Government against something beyond or in addition to pecuniary interests, and Gilliland indeed indicated that the statute, which was the '34 enactment, was calculated to prevent and the intention of the Congress was to prevent the perversion of governmental functioning, and it's from that point of departure--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1214.091, 1214.529, 1230.398], "stop_times": [1214.529, 1230.398, 1267.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1214.091}, "reply_to": "20772__0_092", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_094", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Yes, but that was in the context of rejecting a narrowing construction, much of the kind that you're offering to us here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1267.805], "stop_times": [1272.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1267.805}, "reply_to": "20772__0_093", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20772__0_095", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--No, no.\nIt may have been... it may have been... it may well have been in that context, but the fact of the matter is that Gilliland certainly was interpreted for 40 years in the way in which I'm indicating.\nNamely, the exculpatory no doctrine found its origin in the 1950's, and by the 1960's, and I'm talking about district courts in the fifties, but by 1960 Paternostro, the Fifth Circuit, based upon exactly what I'm referring to, namely the language of the Gilliland decision, interpreted the statute as not being applicable to this type of situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1272.74, 1273.099, 1286.75], "stop_times": [1273.099, 1286.75, 1311.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1272.74}, "reply_to": "20772__0_094", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_096", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "I don't... I agree with Justice Kennedy.\nI think your reading of Gilliland is, I believe, mistaken.\nI see only one sentence in there that... in the opinion that talks about the perversion, and it says the amendment indicated the congressional intent to protect the authorized functions of governmental departments and agencies from the perversion which might result from the deceptive practices described.\nNow, it doesn't say that was the only intent of Congress.\nIt says that is one of the intents of Congress, and I have great difficulty seeing how you can draw out of that one sentence, one statement, in fact how the courts of appeals have drawn out of that one statement--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1311.147, 1312.865, 1317.159, 1333.309, 1336.651], "stop_times": [1312.865, 1317.159, 1333.309, 1336.651, 1348.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1311.147}, "reply_to": "20772__0_095", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20772__0_097", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "I was about to say, I... thankfully I'm not alone in this interpretation.\nThere have been eight courts of appeals which have taken the same view that I have taken, or that I'm advocating at this point, and it's based, certainly, on the Gilliland decision coming from this august body.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1348.944, 1352.676], "stop_times": [1352.676, 1366.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1348.944}, "reply_to": "20772__0_096", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_098", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--That's a fair point, Mr. Holtzman.\nThey ought to be here with you.\nThat's--\n[Laughter]\nCould I ask you what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1366.655, 1368.264, 1369.842, 1370.122, 1372.606], "stop_times": [1368.264, 1369.842, 1370.122, 1372.606, 1373.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1366.655}, "reply_to": "20772__0_097", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20772__0_099", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "If Your Honor would permit me I'd like to go out, perhaps, and make a few phone calls.\nMaybe that's what's appropriate at this juncture.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1373.823, 1378.072, 1379.915], "stop_times": [1378.072, 1379.915, 1380.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1373.823}, "reply_to": "20772__0_098", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_100", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Could I ask you a question, please, counsel?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1380.243], "stop_times": [1384.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1380.243}, "reply_to": "20772__0_099", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20772__0_101", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1384.242], "stop_times": [1384.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1384.242}, "reply_to": "20772__0_100", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_102", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "If... on the Government's interpretation, what is the most abusive, unfair, or otherwise improper result that you could conceive of, because you've several times said it would produce unfair results.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1384.492], "stop_times": [1400.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1384.492}, "reply_to": "20772__0_101", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20772__0_103", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1400.266], "stop_times": [1400.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1400.266}, "reply_to": "20772__0_102", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_104", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Or could be used abusively, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1400.563], "stop_times": [1402.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1400.563}, "reply_to": "20772__0_103", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20772__0_105", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Number 1--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1402.609], "stop_times": [1403.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1402.609}, "reply_to": "20772__0_104", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_106", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--what is it... I mean, one... I... well, I don't see... assuming I don't think it's terrible to make it a separate crime to lie to somebody about what you've done before--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1403.062], "stop_times": [1412.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1403.062}, "reply_to": "20772__0_105", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20772__0_107", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--No, but you can use--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1412.214], "stop_times": [1413.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1412.214}, "reply_to": "20772__0_106", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_108", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--But what... I'm not... what is your... in your view--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1413.261], "stop_times": [1415.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1413.261}, "reply_to": "20772__0_107", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20772__0_109", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1415.65], "stop_times": [1416.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1415.65}, "reply_to": "20772__0_108", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_110", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--what is the most abusive, unfair, or inappropriate result?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1416.119], "stop_times": [1418.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1416.119}, "reply_to": "20772__0_109", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20772__0_111", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--The most abusive is to take a situation, for example, such as existed in this case, in which ultimately Judge Bryant in the district court held that the statute of limitations had passed with respect to these various payments, go to the guy's house, and in effect revive these offenses with respect to which the statute of limitations had passed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1418.899], "stop_times": [1440.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1418.899}, "reply_to": "20772__0_110", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_112", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "They'll say it's because he committed a new crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1440.375], "stop_times": [1442.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1440.375}, "reply_to": "20772__0_111", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20772__0_113", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "You could say that, but on the other hand, you can also see that there is a widespread opportunity for abuse if the statute is permitted to be used in this fashion and, as I say, it was not Congress' intention, and it may be that there is only one sentence in Gilliland, but the sentence, Your Honor, Mr. Chief Justice, is there, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1442.967], "stop_times": [1464.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1442.967}, "reply_to": "20772__0_112", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_114", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "I know you want to get back to that, but I do want to be certain I have in my mind a list of any of the things that in your view are abusive or unfair that could result from the Government's interpretation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1464.225], "stop_times": [1476.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1464.225}, "reply_to": "20772__0_113", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20772__0_115", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--You could take a situation, for example, in which the Government suspects or strongly suspects that an individual has committed a crime but for one reason or another cannot prove, for example, a particular element of that crime.\nA convenient way to get that person, so to speak, is to go and see him and ask whether or not he committed the crime under circumstances analogous to the ones I'm talking about here.\nI'm not talking about calling someone in front of a grand jury, where they get an appointment, et cetera.\nI'm talking about knocking on the person's door and asking this question directly in an atmosphere that's fraught--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1476.173, 1487.403, 1497.946, 1502.085], "stop_times": [1487.403, 1497.946, 1502.085, 1509.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1476.173}, "reply_to": "20772__0_114", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_116", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Are you relying at all, Mr. Holtzman, on what might have happened if he were taken in custody and asked a question, and then he would have gotten Miranda warning and could have had a lawyer there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1509.098], "stop_times": [1517.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1509.098}, "reply_to": "20772__0_115", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20772__0_117", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Well, indeed that would present a different situation, obviously, but I won't take the position--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1517.062], "stop_times": [1521.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1517.062}, "reply_to": "20772__0_116", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_118", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well, it sounded to me that what you were developing was close to an entrapment kind of argument that the Government... you used the word corners, I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1521.95], "stop_times": [1529.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1521.95}, "reply_to": "20772__0_117", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20772__0_119", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Yes, and I think that there is an element of that, undoubtedly, just as there is an element of... as the circuit courts have articulated, of coming uncomfortably close to a violation of the Fifth Amendment, but I won't take the position and I don't take the position that it's simply a question of cornering.\nMy position is that it's a question of whether or not this statute embraces this type of conduct, notwithstanding its expansive language, and I say that because of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1529.339, 1549.847], "stop_times": [1549.847, 1563.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1529.339}, "reply_to": "20772__0_118", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_120", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "And yet you take... every word that... you put no weight at all on any of the words of the statute.\nSo far you've relied just on this, an interpretation of one case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1563.559, 1569.526], "stop_times": [1569.526, 1575.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1563.559}, "reply_to": "20772__0_119", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20772__0_121", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--A Supreme Court of the United States case, Your Honor, upon which, as Justice Scalia pointed out... not pointed out, but agreed with me that numerous other circuit courts of appeals have also taken that position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1575.46], "stop_times": [1596.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1575.46}, "reply_to": "20772__0_120", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_122", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well, I would say to you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1596.076], "stop_times": [1596.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1596.076}, "reply_to": "20772__0_121", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20772__0_123", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "To say that that's frivolous in the face of the exculpatory no jurisdiction, I would respectfully submit is inappropriate.\nIt may be that this Court will disagree with those--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1596.967, 1604.432], "stop_times": [1604.432, 1607.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1596.967}, "reply_to": "20772__0_122", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_124", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--What would happen, Mr. Holtzman, if the question had been asked, and no answer given, and then there wasn't the warning to your client that, do you know that it's a crime to make a false statement to an agent of the United States?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1607.65], "stop_times": [1627.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1607.65}, "reply_to": "20772__0_123", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20772__0_125", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--I'm not sure I understand your question, Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1627.72], "stop_times": [1630.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1627.72}, "reply_to": "20772__0_124", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_126", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well, here your client can say he didn't know.\nThe statute has a requirement that he act knowingly and wilfully.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1630.999, 1635.076], "stop_times": [1635.076, 1639.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1630.999}, "reply_to": "20772__0_125", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20772__0_127", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1639.856], "stop_times": [1641.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1639.856}, "reply_to": "20772__0_126", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_128", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "And the agent tells him, after he said no.\nI'm asking you, do you... would it have made any difference if he... do you put any weight on his having been told, after he says no, do you know it's a crime?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1641.245, 1646.056], "stop_times": [1646.056, 1659.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1641.245}, "reply_to": "20772__0_127", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20772__0_129", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well, having been told after he says no is utterly irrelevant as far as I'm concerned, because even if one were to contend, or were the Court to hold that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1659.411], "stop_times": [1672.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1659.411}, "reply_to": "20772__0_128", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_130", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well, is it relevant that he wasn't told before he said no?\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1672.124, 1674.717], "stop_times": [1674.717, 1675.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1672.124}, "reply_to": "20772__0_129", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20772__0_131", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Your Honor, I submit that it's not, because it's a question of statutory interpretation rather than giving warnings.\nThe fact of the matter is that the Second Circuit did comment on the fact that he was told that it was a crime to lie to Federal agents, but, of course--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1675.233, 1683.106], "stop_times": [1683.106, 1691.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1675.233}, "reply_to": "20772__0_130", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__0_132", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--I think you've answered the question, Mr. Holtzman.\nYour time has expired.\nMr.... General Waxman, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1691.946, 1693.945, 1695.395], "stop_times": [1693.945, 1695.395, 1697.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1691.946}, "reply_to": "20772__0_131", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20772__0_133", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1697.973], "stop_times": [1698.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1697.973}, "reply_to": "20772__0_132", "speaker": "stuart_a_holtzman"}
{"id": "20772__1_000", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--\nSection 1001 makes it a crime for anyone knowingly and wilfully to make any materially false statements within the jurisdiction of a Federal agency.\nThat language, by its terms, applies to Mr. Brogan's statements to investigative agents in this case.\nWhatever policy justifications one might proffer for an exculpatory no exception, there is no support for it in the statute or, for that matter, in its legislative history.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1698.613, 1704.423, 1714.702, 1721.105], "stop_times": [1704.423, 1714.702, 1721.105, 1732.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1698.613}, "reply_to": "20772__0_133", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_001", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "General Waxman, can I just... this was not on your watch, I'm sure, but I'm just curious as to why it took so long for this issue to come before this Court, and that there are so many circuit courts that have adopted the exculpatory no doctrine over what, 20 years, more than that, and the Justice Department itself has provided in its manual to United States attorneys that where the statement takes the form of an exculpatory no, 18 U.S.C. section 1001 does not apply regardless of who asks the question.\nHow did all this happen?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1732.351, 1767.087], "stop_times": [1767.087, 1769.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1732.351}, "reply_to": "20772__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20772__1_002", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well, that's a pretty broad question, and I'll try and give as many answers to it as I can.\nAs to why it hasn't come up before this Court more often, I think one reason may be that the Government frequently, in exercising its prosecutorial discretion about which crimes to devote its prosecutorial resources to, frequently prosecutes, tends to concentrate its resources on criminal behavior where something more than a mere exculpatory no was involved.\nBut even in cases where we prosecute a mere exculpatory no... for example, the Bryson case in this Court, the Woodward case in this Court... the doctrine of exculpatory no is so obscure and, notwithstanding the representation that there is some wall of authority out there by the court of appeals recognizing it, which in our view more resembles a rubble than a wall, it simply is not a doctrine that has stood as a major impediment to the kinds of prosecutions that the Government chooses to bring.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1769.243, 1772.975, 1795.435], "stop_times": [1772.975, 1795.435, 1826.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1769.243}, "reply_to": "20772__1_001", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_003", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "But your manual for United States attorneys recites it.\nWhere the statement takes the form of an exculp... frankly, I wouldn't have known what an exculpatory no was until this case came up, but your manual--\n[Laughter]\nYou know, where the statement takes the form of an exculpatory no, 1001 does not apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1826.78, 1829.732, 1837.135, 1837.62], "stop_times": [1829.732, 1837.135, 1837.62, 1843.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1826.78}, "reply_to": "20772__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20772__1_004", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Justice Scalia, our policy statement is just that.\nIt is not... does not purport to be an interpretation of what the law requires.\nThe Justice Department has never taken the position in any court that the exculpatory no is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1843.103, 1846.96, 1851.459], "stop_times": [1846.96, 1851.459, 1856.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1843.103}, "reply_to": "20772__1_003", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_005", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well, it does purport to be that.\nIt doesn't say, where the statement takes the form of an exculpatory no, leave the fellow alone.\nIt doesn't say that.\nIt says, where it takes the form of an exculpatory no, 1001 does not apply.\nI mean, so it does purport to be an interpretation of the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1856.753, 1858.721, 1863.392, 1864.405, 1867.623], "stop_times": [1858.721, 1863.392, 1864.405, 1867.623, 1870.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1856.753}, "reply_to": "20772__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20772__1_006", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--With all due respect, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1870.372], "stop_times": [1873.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1870.372}, "reply_to": "20772__1_005", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_007", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "I thought it didn't say that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1873.496], "stop_times": [1874.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1873.496}, "reply_to": "20772__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20772__1_008", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--No, it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1874.231], "stop_times": [1875.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1874.231}, "reply_to": "20772__1_007", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_009", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "I thought it said it's not appropriate to charge a section 1001 violation where a suspect during an investigation merely denies his guilt in response to questioning by the Government.\nI had read that as not saying the statute is inapplicable, but as a policy matter the Government... the Justice Department didn't want them to charge it.\nNow, is that how you read it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1875.027, 1886.429, 1895.441], "stop_times": [1886.429, 1895.441, 1896.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1875.027}, "reply_to": "20772__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20772__1_010", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--That is not only how we read it, but it is what we appended to our brief in reply to the petition for certiorari in this case, and the language, the exact language is found at page 4a.\nNow, the language of that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1896.628, 1907.999], "stop_times": [1907.999, 1909.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1896.628}, "reply_to": "20772__1_009", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_011", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Yet it was charged here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1909.015], "stop_times": [1910.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1909.015}, "reply_to": "20772__1_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20772__1_012", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--It was charged here, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1910.014], "stop_times": [1911.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1910.014}, "reply_to": "20772__1_011", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_013", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "And do you... can you tell us how often it is used, and that charges are brought?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1911.56], "stop_times": [1918.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1911.56}, "reply_to": "20772__1_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20772__1_014", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Our experience, and I think this is reflected in pages 8 and 9 of our brief at the petition stage, is that in light of this policy, which in one form or another has been outstanding for several decades, there... it is relatively infrequent for the Government to charge a defendant where there is nothing more than a simple exculpatory no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1918.292], "stop_times": [1938.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1918.292}, "reply_to": "20772__1_013", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_015", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well, if we were to agree with the Government in this case, and reject the doctrine, is it likely that the Justice Department would alter its guidelines?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1938.612], "stop_times": [1949.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1938.612}, "reply_to": "20772__1_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20772__1_016", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "I... I'm not in charge of writing the guidelines.\nI would suggest that the answer is no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1949.31, 1954.448], "stop_times": [1954.448, 1956.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1949.31}, "reply_to": "20772__1_015", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_017", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "But presumably you have some voice in what goes on over there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1956.495], "stop_times": [1958.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1956.495}, "reply_to": "20772__1_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20772__1_018", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "If it were my decision, and I think I do have a voice, I would say that we might alter the language of the guideline a little bit.\nI don't like the use of the word appropriate in the guideline, but the U.S. Attorney's manual is full of policies that represent just that, determinations by the Attorney General about how to allocate what are, after all, scarce prosecutorial resources.\nNow, one of the reasons that motivated our policy was that in the broad scheme... realm of possible Federal crimes a simple exculpatory no, or a false statement to an agent, is not up in the pantheon, along with many of the other things that we have to deal with, but another reason--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1958.948, 1963.992, 1980.672], "stop_times": [1963.992, 1980.672, 1998.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1958.948}, "reply_to": "20772__1_017", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_019", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "But General Waxman, just to make clear I was not making this up, I was quoting the description of the manual in petitioner's brief at page 20.\nNow, that was the 1988 manual.\nMaybe it's been revised since then, but at least in the 1988 manual it did say that 1001 does not apply, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [1998.384, 2008.41, 2011.035], "stop_times": [2008.41, 2011.035, 2018.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1998.384}, "reply_to": "20772__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20772__1_020", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2018.767], "stop_times": [2019.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2018.767}, "reply_to": "20772__1_019", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_021", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Maybe that's been changed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2019.156], "stop_times": [2020.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2019.156}, "reply_to": "20772__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20772__1_022", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2020.313], "stop_times": [2020.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2020.313}, "reply_to": "20772__1_021", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_023", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "You tell me the current manual does not say that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2020.719], "stop_times": [2022.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2020.719}, "reply_to": "20772__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20772__1_024", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--The current man... the manual that was in effect at the time the petition was filed was... is reprinted at pages 3a and 4a of our brief in reply to the petition for certiorari.\nThe manual is frequently changed.\nIn fact, I only learned last week that in the new updated online CDROM version of the manual, which came out 2 weeks ago, there in fact has been a further change in this particular provision, in that it deletes the words, that it is, and the word appropriate.\nNow... but the point is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2022.921, 2036.479, 2038.15, 2056.33], "stop_times": [2036.479, 2038.15, 2056.33, 2058.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2022.921}, "reply_to": "20772__1_023", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_025", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "So that it now says what on the CDROM?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2058.562], "stop_times": [2061.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2058.562}, "reply_to": "20772__1_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20772__1_026", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--It now says that it's the Department's policy to... it is the Department's policy not to charge a section 1001 violation where a suspect during an investigation merely denies his guilt in response to questioning by the Government, and then it just goes on as it's recited on page 4a.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2061.578], "stop_times": [2077.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2061.578}, "reply_to": "20772__1_025", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_027", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "May I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2077.087], "stop_times": [2077.947], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2077.087}, "reply_to": "20772__1_026", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20772__1_028", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "But this is purely an instruction to our prosecutors in the field about how to allocate prosecutorial resources, and the manual--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2077.947], "stop_times": [2085.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2077.947}, "reply_to": "20772__1_027", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_029", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--General Waxman, may I ask if it's simply a question that it's not a big deal, so we want to aim at larger crimes, or is it some reflection of the abuse that Mr. Holtzman was addressing?\nFor example, the statute of limitations runs on a crime, you go to the suspect's house and you say, did you do it, and he says no, so you get him for a false statement.\nIs there any such thing?\nIt doesn't fit the definition of entrapment, but you have been saying so far it's not a very serious crime, but is there also some concern with abusive use of this question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2085.679, 2099.422, 2110.84, 2112.777], "stop_times": [2099.422, 2110.84, 2112.777, 2127.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2085.679}, "reply_to": "20772__1_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20772__1_030", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Well, first of all I'm not... I don't want to suggest that an exculpatory no, or, just to take it out of the jargon, false statements knowingly and wilfully given to investigative agents is not a serious crime and, in fact, in certain circumstances it may be a very serious crime--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2127.568], "stop_times": [2145.592], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2127.568}, "reply_to": "20772__1_029", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_031", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "But in a situation like--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2145.592], "stop_times": [2146.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2145.592}, "reply_to": "20772__1_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20772__1_032", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--depending on what the agents are doing, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2146.842], "stop_times": [2147.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2146.842}, "reply_to": "20772__1_031", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_033", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Here, as I understand it, the agent knew, had evidence before the question was asked, that a bribe had been taken by this defendant, so... well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2147.904], "stop_times": [2161.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2147.904}, "reply_to": "20772__1_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20772__1_034", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Well, here... if I can just respond, here what the record shows is not that the agent, or the agency, or the prosecutor had determined that Mr. Brogan had committed a crime.\nThe agents came to his door, and this is reflected in the relevant pages that are attached in the joint appendix, came to his door and said, we are agents of the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Labor, we're investigating possible misconduct with respect to a company you used to work for and a union, may we come in and talk to you.\nIf you'... he said yes.\nThey said, if you would like to cooperate with us you should get an attorney, or we'll get an attorney for you and you can come down to the U.S. Attorney's Office, would you mind if we ask you a few questions, he said no, and they didn't ask him, are you guilty of bribery.\nThey asked him whether he'd ever received any money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2161.618, 2171.894, 2192.886, 2194.542, 2208.584], "stop_times": [2171.894, 2192.886, 2194.542, 2208.584, 2211.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2161.618}, "reply_to": "20772__1_033", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_035", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--My only question was, is it there... here is a policy.\nYou read it to us.\nYou gave one reason that there are bigger fish to fry.\nMy other question is, is there anything behind this that has to do with good prosecutorial conduct, or is it simply a question, as you said, about allocation of resources?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2211.489, 2214.846, 2215.893, 2221.016], "stop_times": [2214.846, 2215.893, 2221.016, 2232.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2211.489}, "reply_to": "20772__1_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20772__1_036", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "It may be about things other than an allocation of resources, and I'll address that in a moment, but it is not about prosecutorial misconduct.\nWe have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2232.246, 2239.587], "stop_times": [2239.587, 2240.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2232.246}, "reply_to": "20772__1_035", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_037", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well, is one of those things that it can elevate a misdemeanor into a felony?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2240.04], "stop_times": [2244.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2240.04}, "reply_to": "20772__1_036", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20772__1_038", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2244.102], "stop_times": [2245.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2244.102}, "reply_to": "20772__1_037", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_039", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "I mean, if I tell the policeman on the GW Parkway, oh, I was only going 40, I guess that's a felony if I was going 45, so I get the ticket plus the felony?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2245.554], "stop_times": [2252.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2245.554}, "reply_to": "20772__1_038", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20772__1_040", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Well, the answer to your first question is no, it's not about prosecutorial abuse in any fashion.\nNow, whether the Government could prove that statement as a false statement would depend on our being able to establish that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2252.661, 2259.112], "stop_times": [2259.112, 2265.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2252.661}, "reply_to": "20772__1_039", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_041", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well, I mean, that's a danger in this statute, is it not, that it can escalate a misdemeanor to a felony?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2265.344], "stop_times": [2270.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2265.344}, "reply_to": "20772__1_040", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20772__1_042", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--This statute could... I mean, I suppose if you wanted to try and find dangers, it could escalate completely innocent conduct into a felony.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2270.046], "stop_times": [2278.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2270.046}, "reply_to": "20772__1_041", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_043", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Of course, the exculpatory no doctrine wouldn't solve that problem on the GW Parkway.\nI mean, you... the policeman would have to go up and say, were you going over 40?\nI mean, he wouldn't have to say, you were going over 40.\nHe would have to ask the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2278.277, 2281.948, 2285.759, 2288.991], "stop_times": [2281.948, 2285.759, 2288.991, 2289.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2278.277}, "reply_to": "20772__1_042", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20772__1_044", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "That's correct, and one of the reasons why a lot of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2289.818], "stop_times": [2291.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2289.818}, "reply_to": "20772__1_043", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_045", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "And the motorist would say no, the exculpatory no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2291.709], "stop_times": [2293.176], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2291.709}, "reply_to": "20772__1_044", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20772__1_046", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--One of the reasons why a lot of policy concerns that seem to revolve around the exculpatory... the champions of the exculpatory no doctrine are really quite irrelevant to the exculpatory no doctrine itself and why, among those courts of appeals that at one time or another have adopted the exculpatory no doctrine or genuflected in the direction of the exculpatory no doctrine, have come up with so many different formulations and tests, even among the seven circuits that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2293.176], "stop_times": [2323.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2293.176}, "reply_to": "20772__1_045", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_047", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "May I interrupt you with a question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2323.181], "stop_times": [2325.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2323.181}, "reply_to": "20772__1_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20772__1_048", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Oh, sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2325.415], "stop_times": [2325.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2325.415}, "reply_to": "20772__1_047", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_049", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--about the text, Mr. Waxman.\nGenerally, the basic argument, you ought to read this statute for what it says.\nDoes it, in your view, cover false statements by the agents during an investigation?\nIts plain language clearly would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2325.899, 2327.149, 2331.629, 2336.581], "stop_times": [2327.149, 2331.629, 2336.581, 2338.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2325.899}, "reply_to": "20772__1_048", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20772__1_050", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "False statements... I'm sorry, by the agents--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2338.847], "stop_times": [2340.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2338.847}, "reply_to": "20772__1_049", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_051", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "By the agents--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2340.925], "stop_times": [2341.315], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2340.925}, "reply_to": "20772__1_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20772__1_052", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--to the suspect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2341.315], "stop_times": [2342.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2341.315}, "reply_to": "20772__1_051", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_053", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2342.346], "stop_times": [2342.783], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2342.346}, "reply_to": "20772__1_052", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20772__1_054", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Sure--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2342.783], "stop_times": [2345.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2342.783}, "reply_to": "20772__1_053", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_055", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "It would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2345.516], "stop_times": [2345.907], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2345.516}, "reply_to": "20772__1_054", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20772__1_056", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--if it's a statement that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2345.907], "stop_times": [2347.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2345.907}, "reply_to": "20772__1_055", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_057", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "So that a false statement by the agent who posed as a narcotics vendor would violate the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2347.734], "stop_times": [2351.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2347.734}, "reply_to": "20772__1_056", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20772__1_058", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--If the statement is material--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2351.468], "stop_times": [2354.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2351.468}, "reply_to": "20772__1_057", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_059", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "And it's material.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2354.279], "stop_times": [2354.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2354.279}, "reply_to": "20772__1_058", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20772__1_060", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--If it's made--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2354.779], "stop_times": [2355.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2354.779}, "reply_to": "20772__1_059", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_061", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "He says, I'm not a... don't shoot me, I'm not a police officer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2355.311], "stop_times": [2357.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2355.311}, "reply_to": "20772__1_060", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20772__1_062", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--If it's made knowingly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2357.371], "stop_times": [2360.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2357.371}, "reply_to": "20772__1_061", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_063", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Does he not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2360.401], "stop_times": [2361.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2360.401}, "reply_to": "20772__1_062", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20772__1_064", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--If it's made knowingly, wilfully, and in a matter within the jurisdiction of a Federal agency, and it is material to the matter that the agency is investigating, it's an offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2361.026], "stop_times": [2369.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2361.026}, "reply_to": "20772__1_063", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_065", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--So undercover agents routinely violate this statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2369.819], "stop_times": [2371.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2369.819}, "reply_to": "20772__1_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20772__1_066", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "In other words--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2371.318], "stop_times": [2375.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2371.318}, "reply_to": "20772__1_065", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_067", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "An undercover agent, by posing as not being officers, routinely violate this statute, in your view.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2375.473], "stop_times": [2381.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2375.473}, "reply_to": "20772__1_066", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20772__1_068", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Well, I don't know whether a... I think it would be quite arguable whether a ruse or a misrepresentation, a false statement by an undercover agent, could ever be deemed to be material for purposes of the investigation.\nIn other words, the very purpose of the undercover operation, and the very purpose of the misrepresentation, is to facilitate the investigation that the agency is engaging in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2381.252, 2394.013], "stop_times": [2394.013, 2405.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2381.252}, "reply_to": "20772__1_067", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_069", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "In other words, the agent can lie in the course of an investigation and not be covered by the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2405.07], "stop_times": [2410.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2405.07}, "reply_to": "20772__1_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20772__1_070", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "If it were deemed not material, but I mean, I'm confident that this statute can be and has been applied to Federal agents who are abusing their authority and making knowing and wilful material misstatements of fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2410.287], "stop_times": [2425.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2410.287}, "reply_to": "20772__1_069", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_071", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "But in the... under the law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2425.063], "stop_times": [2426.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2425.063}, "reply_to": "20772__1_070", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20772__1_072", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "I mean, we prosecute Federal agents just as we prosecute people who aren't Federal agents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2426.422], "stop_times": [2430.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2426.422}, "reply_to": "20772__1_071", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_073", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--But under the statute as it existed in this case, there was no express materiality requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2430.108], "stop_times": [2435.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2430.108}, "reply_to": "20772__1_072", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20772__1_074", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "That is true, and this case, of course, was prosecuted and the jury was instructed after, although it was just after this Court rendered its decision in Gaudin.\nThe jury was instructed that materiality was an element of the offense, and... you know, on our request, and it was submitted to the jury as an element of the offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2435.575, 2445.46], "stop_times": [2445.46, 2457.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2435.575}, "reply_to": "20772__1_073", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_075", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "That was always a... it was always an element of perjury offenses at common law anyway, and would have been read into the statute even though it wasn't expressed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2457.05], "stop_times": [2464.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2457.05}, "reply_to": "20772__1_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20772__1_076", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well, it's interesting, at the time that this Court decided Gaudin, all of the circuits, except coincidentally the Second Circuit, had agreed that materiality was an element of the false statement prong of the statute as it had previously existed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2464.64], "stop_times": [2478.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2464.64}, "reply_to": "20772__1_075", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_077", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "But if that is so, and if the Government's position is that that was appropriate, then how can the Government take the position here that the only thing we're concerned with in this statute is just what is plainly in the text?\nYou're agreeing that materiality comes in.\nWhy doesn't the likelihood of perversion come in, too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2478.166, 2489.318, 2493.425], "stop_times": [2489.318, 2493.425, 2499.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2478.166}, "reply_to": "20772__1_076", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20772__1_078", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well, the word material does appear in the text even as it existed at the time.\nThe only question is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2499.47, 2504.39], "stop_times": [2504.39, 2505.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2499.47}, "reply_to": "20772__1_077", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_079", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Where is... where... I didn't know--\n--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2505.327, 2506.326], "stop_times": [2506.326, 2506.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2505.327}, "reply_to": "20772__1_078", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20772__1_080", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--It says, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and wilfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2506.78], "stop_times": [2519.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2506.78}, "reply_to": "20772__1_079", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_081", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "I beg your pardon.\nYou're right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2519.571, 2519.899], "stop_times": [2519.899, 2520.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2519.571}, "reply_to": "20772__1_080", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20772__1_082", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--And the question, and it was a good question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2520.337], "stop_times": [2522.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2520.337}, "reply_to": "20772__1_081", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_083", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Although material doesn't apply in the next part.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2522.554], "stop_times": [2524.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2522.554}, "reply_to": "20772__1_082", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20772__1_084", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Well, it doesn't, and that's why there was a question, which I think this Court actually didn't resolve in Gaudin, as to whether in fact materiality was an element of the next phrase.\nI mean, the Court did assume, had to have assumed that it was an element, because it found that in a false statement prosecution, which is what was at issue in Gaudin, the jury had to be instructed on it, but as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2524.023, 2537.377], "stop_times": [2537.377, 2548.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2524.023}, "reply_to": "20772__1_083", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_085", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "That was also the Government's position?\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2548.482, 2550.965], "stop_times": [2550.965, 2551.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2548.482}, "reply_to": "20772__1_084", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20772__1_086", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--It was the Government... the Government has always maintained that materiality is an element... although it appears before the comma, it is an element of all three, probably because at common law, as Justice Scalia pointed out, it was an element of perjury, but I... you know, even if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2551.246], "stop_times": [2566.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2551.246}, "reply_to": "20772__1_085", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_087", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--General Waxman on materiality, suppose it's crystal clear that the agent knows the answer, has proof positive of the crime that he's asking about, did you take a bribe, and the agent has the sworn statement of the briber, and then there's the exculpatory no, is that material if the agent already knows the answer?\nWould that meet the materiality requirement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2566.6, 2598.165], "stop_times": [2598.165, 2601.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2566.6}, "reply_to": "20772__1_086", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20772__1_088", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Absolutely, and the lower courts are uniformly concluded that.\nThe reason is that the decisionmaker for purposes of the materiality test articulated in Kungis and Gaudin is the decisionmaking agency, it's not the individual agent, and the cases are legion--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2601.32, 2605.271], "stop_times": [2605.271, 2621.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2601.32}, "reply_to": "20772__1_087", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_089", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "But don't we attribute the agent's knowledge... he made a report to the agency.\nHe says, the employer said that these union representatives took bribes, gave a list.\nNow it's in the records of the agency.\nWould it still be... meet the materiality requirement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2621.405, 2624.201, 2629.651, 2633.853], "stop_times": [2624.201, 2629.651, 2633.853, 2637.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2621.405}, "reply_to": "20772__1_088", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20772__1_090", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--We think... that's far from this case, but we think it would.\nEven if the agent was bound and determined to charge Mr. Brogan with receiving improper payments under the Labor Management Relations Act, and just decided to swing by his house on the way to the U.S. Attorney's Office to ask for an indictment to be returned, and asked him the question knowing that the answer would be... well, I mean, knowing that he had done it, I think it is material.\nIt may very well, you know, alter the judgment of the agency itself in deciding whether to recommend, the prosecutor in deciding whether this is a case that's worth prosecuting and, as Justice Scalia pointed out in response to my colleague's questions, his response to that question, even assuming that the agent... agents in this case believed that he had taken bribes, or taken payments prohibited by the Labor Management Relations Act, his response, no, did... was capable of influencing, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2637.664, 2640.461, 2666.184], "stop_times": [2640.461, 2666.184, 2695.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2637.664}, "reply_to": "20772__1_089", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_091", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Suppose his response had been, not guilty, instead of no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2695.954], "stop_times": [2698.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2695.954}, "reply_to": "20772__1_090", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20772__1_092", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Well, it wouldn't be a false statement because it's not responsive.\nIn other words, we have to prove... there is the literally true doctrine that this Court recognized in Bronsten, and presumably a... an answer which amounts to a non sequitur can't be prosecuted as a false statement.\nWe have to prove that it was false, and that it was knowingly and wilfully so when he said--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2698.578, 2702.668, 2715.351], "stop_times": [2702.668, 2715.351, 2720.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2698.578}, "reply_to": "20772__1_091", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_093", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "But under your view, I take it that an average motorist who is driving down the street, comes to a stop sign, makes a rolling California stop--\n[Laughter]\nThe police officer is parked on the corner behind a bush and comes around with the red light, stops the motorist, says, sir, did you stop at that stop sign back there on the corner?\nYes, says the motorist, yes, I did.\nNow, the officer can charge him with a felony under 1001.\nAll the elements are there, I assume.\nMaterial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2720.459, 2732.049, 2732.61, 2745.417, 2748.416, 2753.023, 2756.491], "stop_times": [2732.049, 2732.61, 2745.417, 2748.416, 2753.023, 2756.491, 2756.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2720.459}, "reply_to": "20772__1_092", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20772__1_094", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Well, assuming that the officer was in fact... that this happened, for example, on the GW Parkway, within the jurisdiction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2756.975], "stop_times": [2764.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2756.975}, "reply_to": "20772__1_093", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_095", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2764.956], "stop_times": [2765.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2764.956}, "reply_to": "20772__1_094", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20772__1_096", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--of the park police, you... if you could prove... and this, I think, would require some proof.\nYou would have to prove that the defendant in the case knew that he or she did not come to a complete stop.\nIt would be an--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2765.503, 2769.783, 2778.577], "stop_times": [2769.783, 2778.577, 2779.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2765.503}, "reply_to": "20772__1_095", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_097", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well, even in California they prove that all the time.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2779.389, 2780.888], "stop_times": [2780.888, 2782.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2779.389}, "reply_to": "20772__1_096", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20772__1_098", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--It would be an extraordinary, I would submit, abuse of the Government's resources, and I'm not aware, in terms of these parade of horribles--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2782.526], "stop_times": [2790.289], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2782.526}, "reply_to": "20772__1_097", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_099", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Why does it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2790.289], "stop_times": [2790.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2790.289}, "reply_to": "20772__1_098", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20772__1_100", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--where the Government has ever actually done that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2790.899], "stop_times": [2792.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2790.899}, "reply_to": "20772__1_099", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_101", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Why does it shock you?\nI... it doesn't shock... I... the only difference is, I suppose, that a lot of us, it is thought, don't always come to a full stop, whereas very few of us take bribes, but the principle--\n[Laughter]\nBut the principle is the same.\nYou shouldn't lie.\nWell, there may be requirements there.\nThere may be requirements in respect to what you have to tell the person, mightn't there be, that the policeman has to say, I'm warning you, as the person did here, there is a statute that makes it a crime for you to answer the following question falsely, and if you do, et cetera... is there some requirement like that built into the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2792.398, 2793.319, 2804.331, 2804.784, 2805.612, 2807.424, 2809.423], "stop_times": [2793.319, 2804.331, 2804.784, 2805.612, 2807.424, 2809.423, 2826.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2792.398}, "reply_to": "20772__1_100", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20772__1_102", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2826.696], "stop_times": [2827.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2826.696}, "reply_to": "20772__1_101", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_103", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "No, okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2827.149], "stop_times": [2828.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2827.149}, "reply_to": "20772__1_102", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20772__1_104", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Absolutely not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2828.102], "stop_times": [2828.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2828.102}, "reply_to": "20772__1_103", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_105", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "If that's so, then let me go back to where I think is... what I think is... at least convinced me is the strongest argument against you, which I'm not saying I'm accepting.\nBut what about a perjury case?\nDoes the Government prosecute perjury where all that's happened is, the defendant's taken the stand, answered every question truthfully but one.\nThe one was, are you guilty of this crime?\nNo.\nDoes the Government prosecute such cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2828.743, 2836.349, 2839.067, 2848.439, 2851.328, 2851.797], "stop_times": [2836.349, 2839.067, 2848.439, 2851.328, 2851.797, 2854.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2828.743}, "reply_to": "20772__1_104", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20772__1_106", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "We don't prosecute... I'm not aware that the Government has ever prosecuted--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2854.843], "stop_times": [2858.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2854.843}, "reply_to": "20772__1_105", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_107", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "All right.\nI think perhaps this doctrine of the exculpatory no arose out of such cases.\nI'm not clear as to precisely what the history of the doctrine is, but I think it's pretty well established, and I think it arose out of the problem of prosecuting a person for precisely that kind of perjury, you know, that... in... I don't think it happens.\nI just don't think it happens, and I think the reason--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2858.341, 2858.763, 2862.277, 2879.426], "stop_times": [2858.763, 2862.277, 2879.426, 2882.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2858.341}, "reply_to": "20772__1_106", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20772__1_108", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--I'm only aware of one instance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2882.144], "stop_times": [2883.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2882.144}, "reply_to": "20772__1_107", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_109", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2883.191], "stop_times": [2883.831], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2883.191}, "reply_to": "20772__1_108", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20772__1_110", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "One decided case.\nIt's a case called the United States v. Endo, I think in the Fourth Circuit, where the question arose whether a plea of not guilty--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2883.831, 2884.424], "stop_times": [2884.424, 2891.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2883.831}, "reply_to": "20772__1_109", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_111", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "This was... a plea of not guilty would not fall within it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2891.39], "stop_times": [2894.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2891.39}, "reply_to": "20772__1_110", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20772__1_112", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--But the question you're raising is, in fact, akin to it.\nI mean, the plea of not guilty is the means by which our adversarial criminal justice system uses--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2894.171, 2898.215], "stop_times": [2898.215, 2905.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2894.171}, "reply_to": "20772__1_111", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_113", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Right.\nAll right.\nSo... but now let me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2905.447, 2905.947, 2906.541], "stop_times": [2905.947, 2906.541, 2907.086], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2905.447}, "reply_to": "20772__1_112", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20772__1_114", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--to essentially invoke the defendant's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2907.086], "stop_times": [2908.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2907.086}, "reply_to": "20772__1_113", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_115", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--I agree.\nNow, let me extrapolate a little.\nOnce you accept that, like most statutes, this statute won't be taken with complete literalness.\nThen the next part of the argument, I take it, is, let's look to where this statute... what it was aimed at.\nIt was aimed at procurement, getting money from the Government, and then Harold Ickes said, let's extend it to all regulatory programs, and then no one thought at the time, apparently, that one function of one Government agency is to investigate crime, and therefore, by happenstance, it makes every statement made to a criminal investigator a separate crime.\nI'm not saying it doesn't do that, but it could have been happenstance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2908.055, 2908.539, 2910.053, 2917.427, 2923.395, 2948.024], "stop_times": [2908.539, 2910.053, 2917.427, 2923.395, 2948.024, 2951.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2908.055}, "reply_to": "20772__1_114", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20772__1_116", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2951.945], "stop_times": [2952.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2951.945}, "reply_to": "20772__1_115", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_117", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "So that being so, it wouldn't be so surprising to exempt from that statute which makes making statements not under oath the same evil as making perjury under oath, under amazingly strict conditions.\nAnd now we write a little exception into that statute which is the same in the statute as the fairly wellknown prosecutorial exception for the exculpatory no is in respect to perjury.\nIn other words, carry it over, all done sub silentio, without a word in the statute.\nNow, I take it that that's what the courts of appeals were doing, and it isn't totally without support, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2952.85, 2965.94, 2980.073, 2984.962], "stop_times": [2965.94, 2980.073, 2984.962, 2991.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2952.85}, "reply_to": "20772__1_116", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20772__1_118", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--I think... I'm not... I don't, actually don't think that is what many of the courts of appeals were doing, and I think it is totally without support.\nIf you say, we could just write a little exception in, if you're referring to we, Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [2991.475, 2997.629], "stop_times": [2997.629, 3003.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2991.475}, "reply_to": "20772__1_117", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_119", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well, there are some exceptions implicitly.\nThere are some exceptions implicitly in every statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3003.081, 3004.174], "stop_times": [3004.174, 3007.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3003.081}, "reply_to": "20772__1_118", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20772__1_120", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3007.094], "stop_times": [3007.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3007.094}, "reply_to": "20772__1_119", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_121", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "So I take it your strongest case here would be to say, take the prosecutorial history of the perjury statutes, note the problem of abuse with the exculpatory no there, and sub silentio bring it in here in a statute that really, just by happenstance, covers all crimes being investigated as opposed to what Harold Ickes thought.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3007.828], "stop_times": [3027.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3007.828}, "reply_to": "20772__1_120", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20772__1_122", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Well, if Congress wanted to create an exculpatory no exception of some sort limited to... I mean, a guilty plea or a statement I'm not guilty is not really a statement of fact, it's a statement that you can't prove my guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, or I challenge you to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3027.353], "stop_times": [3042.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3027.353}, "reply_to": "20772__1_121", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_123", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "The new statute excludes that anyway.\nParties to judicial proceedings are excluded from the amended statute.\nGeneral Waxman, I hope you're not conceding the point that the Government will not prosecute even a criminal defendant who chooses to take the stand and perjures himself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3042.517, 3043.845, 3047.156], "stop_times": [3043.845, 3047.156, 3056.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3042.517}, "reply_to": "20772__1_122", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20772__1_124", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--To the contrary.\nWe not only prosecute them if it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3056.138, 3057.402], "stop_times": [3057.402, 3059.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3056.138}, "reply_to": "20772__1_123", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_125", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "I assume that's why we have perjury laws, to stop people from doing this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3059.34], "stop_times": [3062.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3059.34}, "reply_to": "20772__1_124", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20772__1_126", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--In Grayson and Dunnegin this Court has upheld the Government's efforts to require or encourage judges to consider enhancement of sentences if perjury was established--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3062.01], "stop_times": [3073.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3062.01}, "reply_to": "20772__1_125", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_127", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "There was an exception in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3073.382], "stop_times": [3074.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3073.382}, "reply_to": "20772__1_126", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20772__1_128", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--even if perjury is not charged.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3074.834], "stop_times": [3075.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3074.834}, "reply_to": "20772__1_127", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_129", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--There was an exception in the Sentencing Guidelines for the exculpatory no for the instance where the person gets on the stand and might otherwise tell a long story that would subject him to an increase in the punishment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3075.428], "stop_times": [3088.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3075.428}, "reply_to": "20772__1_128", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20772__1_130", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3088.859], "stop_times": [3089.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3088.859}, "reply_to": "20772__1_129", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_131", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "And there were also... now, I'm not saying what the statute is.\nI'm just saying, it's... there is a long history, it seems to me, of exculpatory no that's relevant here.\nIt's not just a doctrine that was made up by six courts of appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3089.249, 3091.748, 3098.996], "stop_times": [3091.748, 3098.996, 3102.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3089.249}, "reply_to": "20772__1_130", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20772__1_132", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--I think what's interesting, Justice Breyer, is, if you look at the perjury cases there is no exculpatory no doctrine under the perjury statutes.\nIt's not something that has arisen under the perjury statutes, and the Government feels perfectly free, where it can prove a knowing, false statement under oath in a judicial matter, and it's something that comes within 1621 or 1623, to charge it.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3102.089, 3111.194, 3125.797], "stop_times": [3111.194, 3125.797, 3126.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3102.089}, "reply_to": "20772__1_131", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_133", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "General Waxman, perjury is a statement under oath, and I was thinking in the noncommunist affidavit case, when you have to write out your signature, and you affirm that this is true, there's a more deliberate quality to that than just blurting out no.\nSo the cases that you were asked about that involved an oath, it seems to me that there is more of a deliberation involved on the defendant's part, and that's why I thought you had the statement in the manual that it's not appropriate.\nI didn't think that that was... it didn't sound to me like it was simply a resource allocation decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3126.453, 3145.679, 3164.579], "stop_times": [3145.679, 3164.579, 3172.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3126.453}, "reply_to": "20772__1_132", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20772__1_134", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Well, I'm happy, personally happy to see that the word is gone, but in any event, you know, it's interesting, your pointing out a distinction that is between a false denial that's deliberative, as opposed to one that's not quite deliberative.\nThat's a distinct... the various courts of appeals that have recognized some form of this \"doctrine\" have come up with an amazing number of distinctions, but to my knowledge that's not one of them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3172.028, 3186.366], "stop_times": [3186.366, 3198.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3172.028}, "reply_to": "20772__1_133", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_135", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well, suppose the rule were, when you just say no, that's an exculpatory no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3198.159], "stop_times": [3203.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3198.159}, "reply_to": "20772__1_134", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20772__1_136", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well, that, of course, is not the law in almost any of the circuits that have adopted this doctrine, and it's also one that would be totally artificial.\nI mean, what will we do, just train Government agents to ask the followup question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3203.283, 3213.497], "stop_times": [3213.497, 3217.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3203.283}, "reply_to": "20772__1_135", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_137", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "It is what's happened in this case, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3217.293], "stop_times": [3218.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3217.293}, "reply_to": "20772__1_136", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20772__1_138", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well, it's what... insofar as what the judge allowed into the record it's what happened in this case.\nThat is not what happened in this case, and it's also why this prosecution was not even in fact inconsistent with this policy, but the judge excluded from evidence the conversation that followed the socalled \"exculpatory no\" in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3218.089, 3223.806], "stop_times": [3223.806, 3238.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3218.089}, "reply_to": "20772__1_137", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_139", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Do you think there's a--\n--General... go ahead.\nDo you think there's a distinction under the statute between no answer to an investigator's question, have you ever committed the crime of bribery, as distinct from the investigator's question, did you ever receive money from this company?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3238.956, 3240.048, 3240.845], "stop_times": [3240.048, 3240.845, 3253.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3238.956}, "reply_to": "20772__1_138", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20772__1_140", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "There is not a... an absolute, a priori distinction, but there is a... there... the following distinction does exist.\nThe latter question is a pure question of fact.\nThe former question is a mixed question of fact and law, and in order for the Government to convict somebody with respect to a false no in response to the former question, presumably we would have to prove that the defendant knew the elements of the crime of bribery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3253.794, 3262.087, 3264.976], "stop_times": [3262.087, 3264.976, 3282.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3253.794}, "reply_to": "20772__1_139", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_141", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Knew law as well as fact, right.\nRight.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3282.203, 3282.625, 3282.937], "stop_times": [3282.625, 3282.937, 3283.14], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3282.203}, "reply_to": "20772__1_140", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20772__1_142", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "But I think that we could prosecute it if we could carry that heavy burden.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3283.14], "stop_times": [3287.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3283.14}, "reply_to": "20772__1_141", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_143", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "General Waxman, in addition to prosecutorial discretion which you've been assuring us about, this is a felony, and you're entitled to a jury trial, am I not right about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3287.202], "stop_times": [3295.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3287.202}, "reply_to": "20772__1_142", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20772__1_144", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3295.949], "stop_times": [3296.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3295.949}, "reply_to": "20772__1_143", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_145", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "And would you want to prosecute somebody for rolling through a stop sign and making the exculpatory no?\nYou think it would enhance your record as a winning prosecutor?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3296.511, 3302.945, 3307.49], "stop_times": [3302.945, 3307.49, 3308.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3296.511}, "reply_to": "20772__1_144", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20772__1_146", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "No, and it would be an incredible waste of resources.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3308.646], "stop_times": [3312.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3308.646}, "reply_to": "20772__1_145", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_147", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "But there are prosecutors who have brought prosecutions for motives that are not entirely honorable.\nThat's part of the problem with a statute like this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3312.254, 3316.705], "stop_times": [3316.705, 3318.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3312.254}, "reply_to": "20772__1_146", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20772__1_148", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3318.267], "stop_times": [3318.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3318.267}, "reply_to": "20772__1_147", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_149", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "I'm not... you're of course conscious of that.\nThis case... this statute, by the way, does not require knowledge that the person who asked the question was a Government agent, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3318.611, 3321.031], "stop_times": [3321.031, 3326.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3318.611}, "reply_to": "20772__1_148", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20772__1_150", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "--Absolutely not.\nI mean, this Court so held in Yermian.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3326.997, 3327.779], "stop_times": [3327.779, 3329.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3326.997}, "reply_to": "20772__1_149", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_151", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3329.7], "stop_times": [3330.7], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3329.7}, "reply_to": "20772__1_150", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20772__1_152", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "But there... I mean, in response to your point about abuse with respect to this statute, I mean, there... if there are unscrupulous agents and unscrupulous prosecutors, there are... there is an entire volume, title 18, that can be used in improper fashions, and we have mechanisms within the Justice Department, the bar has mechanisms, both using the criminal law and under our professional ethics standards for dealing with that.\nThis is a statute which I think the record shows has been applied by the Government over the years in a very responsible fashion.\nI mean, the fact that, notwithstanding all the years that this has been in effect, the petitioner is not able to come up with, even hypothetically, let alone a real decided case in which the Government has abused its authority speaks volumes.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3330.7, 3355.611, 3363.28, 3377.54], "stop_times": [3355.611, 3363.28, 3377.54, 3377.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3330.7}, "reply_to": "20772__1_151", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20772__1_153", "conversation_id": "20772", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Waxman.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1579", "start_times": [3377.961, 3379.044], "stop_times": [3379.044, 3380.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3377.961}, "reply_to": "20772__1_152", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20895__0_000", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 96-8422, Sillasse Bryan v. United States.\nDo not talk until you get out of the courtroom.\nThe Court remains in session.\nMr. Adler.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [0.0, 9.257, 9.457, 9.668], "stop_times": [9.257, 9.457, 9.668, 9.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20895__0_001", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis case is about whether Congress' use of a wilful mens rea standard in title 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(1)(D) requires proof of knowledge of Federal licensure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [9.858, 11.06], "stop_times": [11.06, 24.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.858}, "reply_to": "20895__0_000", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_002", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Mr. Adler, our acoustics are very good here.\nYou don't have to speak quite that loudly to get through to us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [24.856, 27.178], "stop_times": [27.178, 30.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 24.856}, "reply_to": "20895__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20895__0_003", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nPetitioner urges the Court and petitioner adopts the reasoning of the Circuit Courts of Appeal of the Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh in following this Court's holding in Ratzlaf v. the United States that wilfully, as used in this statute, requires proof of actual knowledge of licensure.\nHere, this Court should know that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [30.18, 31.021, 52.046], "stop_times": [31.021, 52.046, 54.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 30.18}, "reply_to": "20895__0_002", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_004", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Mr. Adler, do you take the position that, in order to act wilfully within the meaning of this particular statute, that the defendant has to have knowledge of the specific statutory provision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [54.637], "stop_times": [66.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 54.637}, "reply_to": "20895__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20895__0_005", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nWe part company with the Government by indicating that it is knowledge that there is a Federal licensing requirement.\nChapter and verse are not required in order to convict the defendant, beyond a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [66.945, 67.914, 74.83], "stop_times": [67.914, 74.83, 79.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 66.945}, "reply_to": "20895__0_004", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_006", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Well, you urge, then, that the defendant has to know there is a Federal licensing requirement for gun dealers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [79.905], "stop_times": [86.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 79.905}, "reply_to": "20895__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20895__0_007", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, knowledge or suspicion of the existence of a State licensing requirement, municipal ordinance or the like, will not suffice under respect for federalism this statute penalizes, as only it can, a violation of a Federal licensing requirement, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [86.878], "stop_times": [102.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 86.878}, "reply_to": "20895__0_006", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_008", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "It isn't enough for him to know he can't sell firearms with out a license, generally?\nHe has to know that he can't sell it without a Federal license?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [102.169, 106.819], "stop_times": [106.819, 110.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 102.169}, "reply_to": "20895__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20895__0_009", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--That is what Congress wrote.\nThat was the intent of the drafters of the Firearm Owners Protection Act, and let me put this into a context, if I may.\nThe Government in this case has knowingly chosen to pick the most difficult subdivision under section 924 by proceeding to prosecute under subdivision (a)(1)(D).\nIt chose not to prosecute on a lesser standard of knowingly for making a false statement in the context of the application to acquire the weapon under 924(a)(1)(A).\nIt chose not to prosecute under 18 U.S.C. 922(k), trafficking in defaced firearms.\nIt chose not to proceed under a violation of the Travel Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [110.092, 111.274, 118.487, 131.868, 143.556, 149.549], "stop_times": [111.274, 118.487, 131.868, 143.556, 149.549, 153.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 110.092}, "reply_to": "20895__0_008", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_010", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Well, why would the Congress want to exonerate or not to punish under this statute a man who was quite sure that a license was required but he thought it was a State license.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [153.202], "stop_times": [169.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 153.202}, "reply_to": "20895__0_009", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20895__0_011", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [169.782], "stop_times": [171.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 169.782}, "reply_to": "20895__0_010", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_012", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "You say respect for federalism means that we have to accept your view that he has to know that it's a Federal statute.\nIt seems to me that Congress wanted to punish people who had a guilty mind and who were dealing in drugs knowing... or dealing in weapons knowing that it was illegal to transfer without a license, and the fact that State, municipal, Federal license, it seems to me certainly the state of mind is the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [171.643, 177.968], "stop_times": [177.968, 194.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 171.643}, "reply_to": "20895__0_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20895__0_013", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Well, quite to the contrary, and I think it has to be viewed in the following context, Justice Kennedy.\nA majority of the States do not have statutory controls with respect to firearms, and in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [194.877, 200.791], "stop_times": [200.791, 209.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 194.877}, "reply_to": "20895__0_012", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_014", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "No, but in the hypothetical case he thinks that... he knows that there... what he's doing is illegal, and he knows that it's illegal because he doesn't have a license.\nHe's not sure if the license is State or Federal.\nAnd your answer to Justice O'Connor and I think also to Justice Scalia was, he has to know that it's a Federal requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [209.897, 219.925, 222.336], "stop_times": [219.925, 222.336, 229.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 209.897}, "reply_to": "20895__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20895__0_015", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [229.491], "stop_times": [229.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 229.491}, "reply_to": "20895__0_014", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_016", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "And I'm asking, why would Congress want to exonerate him in the first instance where he thinks it's a State license.\nWhat possible function is served by that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [229.962, 236.495], "stop_times": [236.495, 238.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 229.962}, "reply_to": "20895__0_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20895__0_017", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Part of the background to the enactment of the so called FOPA statute in 1986 reflected, as the legislative history indicates, a concern by the Congress.\nA 7-year effort was mounted in order to react to complaints from those who were gun enthusiasts who believed that, since the 1968 statute went into effect, the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms had been too overzealous, had targeted unfairly, and basically come down upon those who enjoyed utilizing firearms, going to gun shows and the like.\nThe basis of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [238.427, 249.014, 272.198], "stop_times": [249.014, 272.198, 273.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 238.427}, "reply_to": "20895__0_016", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_018", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "What was that statute you said, the FOPA statute?\nIs that what you said?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [273.52, 275.511], "stop_times": [275.511, 276.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 273.52}, "reply_to": "20895__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20895__0_019", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Firearm Owners Protection Act.\n[Laughter]\nAnd, indeed... and, indeed, the very statute, I respectfully submit, Justice Scalia, sends the message to the court of the intent of the drafters of the Congress.\nIt was intended to provide protection to firearm owners, dealers, and the like.\nIt was intended to make it more difficult for the Government to convict individuals of violating the statute, and this particular subdivision, and the only subdivision which is before this Court in this case, deals with the section of the statute which, following a textual analysis, chose the mens rea standard of wilfully, a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [276.072, 277.661, 277.951, 289.409, 295.543], "stop_times": [277.661, 277.951, 289.409, 295.543, 316.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 276.072}, "reply_to": "20895__0_018", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_020", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Mr. Adler, supposing you were to accept, hypothetically, the idea that all that was required under (D) was to know that there was a licensing requirement, be it State or Federal, the district court, as I understand this case, charged that the Government is not required to prove that petitioner knew that a license was required.\nI would think even if you accepted hypothetically the idea that it could be knowledge of a State requirement, that instruction would be contrary to that view.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [316.477, 338.934], "stop_times": [338.934, 349.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 316.477}, "reply_to": "20895__0_019", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20895__0_021", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--That is correct, Mr. Chief Justice.\nAs a matter of fact, Justice Trager, in denying the request to charge, I think wrote the ticket that brings me before your... this panel today.\nOn page 18 of the appendix Justice Trager directs me, go to the Supreme Court and see if they agree, I will not put the end to this statute, and so at that request I have brought myself to Washington to urge this Court to give meaning to subdivision (1)(D), which indicates that a wilful standard, which as Justice White, writing in Cheek v. the United States, indicated was a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty, and in this case the known legal duty is the duty to have a Federal firearm dealers license.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [349.189, 351.111, 359.647], "stop_times": [351.111, 359.647, 394.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 349.189}, "reply_to": "20895__0_020", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_022", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Mr. Adler, why do you need to put Federal in there.\nIf I read from the charge, in this case the Government is not required to prove that petitioner knew that a license was required, nor is the Government required to prove that he had knowledge he was breaking the law.\nWhy can't you just say, whatever the wilfulness means, it can't mean that he doesn't have to know he was breaking the law, he doesn't have to know the license was required, and why are you making this yes, you must know that it was a Federal law?\nOur federalism may be a big thing here, but not all the public appreciates that distinction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [394.278, 396.239, 407.947, 424.51], "stop_times": [396.239, 407.947, 424.51, 430.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 394.278}, "reply_to": "20895__0_021", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20895__0_023", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "I appreciate that, Justice Ginsburg and petitioner respectfully submits that, under the charge as given to this jury, and presuming that the jury followed the law, you're absolutely correct that petitioner should prevail.\nThe Government's view could not be found based on the trial court's charge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [430.252, 441.249], "stop_times": [441.249, 444.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 430.252}, "reply_to": "20895__0_022", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_024", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Well, but you didn't raise that issue.\nThat's not one of the questions presented.\nYour questions turn entirely on the need to prove a Federal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [444.562, 446.983, 449.324], "stop_times": [446.983, 449.324, 455.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 444.562}, "reply_to": "20895__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20895__0_025", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [455.498], "stop_times": [455.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 455.498}, "reply_to": "20895__0_024", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_026", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--firearm dealers license--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [455.928], "stop_times": [457.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 455.928}, "reply_to": "20895__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20895__0_027", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Because we do not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [457.671], "stop_times": [458.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 457.671}, "reply_to": "20895__0_026", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_028", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--That's all you brought here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [458.05], "stop_times": [459.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 458.05}, "reply_to": "20895__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20895__0_029", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [459.061], "stop_times": [459.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 459.061}, "reply_to": "20895__0_028", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_030", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Now, the instructions may have been totally bad, but we don't reach that, presumably.\nWe address--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [459.362, 464.494], "stop_times": [464.494, 465.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 459.362}, "reply_to": "20895__0_029", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20895__0_031", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Well, it's the second question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [465.826], "stop_times": [466.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 465.826}, "reply_to": "20895__0_030", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_032", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Well, I don't think it is.\nYour second question, was the jury's... was the jury charge deficient because it failed to require a finding of petitioner's knowledge that a Federal firearm dealer's license was required.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [466.086, 466.887], "stop_times": [466.887, 479.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 466.086}, "reply_to": "20895__0_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20895__0_033", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Yes, and petitioner's position is that the Congress lacks the power to create a Federal crime for failing to follow a municipal county or State statute that may relate to dealership and, indeed, the legislative intent in the statute was clear.\nThe villain perceived by the drafters of the amendment... and there was a unique legislative history, 7-year effort, a discharge petition getting this legislation out of the Judiciary Committee.\nThis was clearly a regional effort of those who were close to gun users and possessors who wanted to trim the tail of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.\nThe legislative debates, with the greatest respect, Justice O'Connor, are devoid of an indication of a concern that the firearm enthusiasts had a problem with State or local individuals, so the statute was clearly aimed at the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.\nWe have a troika of three reasons which basically support our... petitioner's view that knowledge of licensure is required.\nThe statutory title telegraphs the intent of statute... Firearm Owners Protection Act... in the same way that the Clean Water Act telegraphs a congressional intent to take a strong line to protect the environment and to hold corporations to a higher standard of proof.\nThe plain wording of the statute, the use of the word wilfully as opposed to the use of the term knowingly in other sections, of section 924 also sends the very same message of congressional intent.\nAnd lastly, the congressional report which, as the Chief Justice has noted on prior occasions such as in Garcia v. The United States, is marked as the defining document to which the Court, if it reaches legislative intent, should look indicates that the Congress was on notice... Representative Hughes in the floor debates indicated if you adopt wilfully you're going to require knowledge of the licensing requirement... that Congress was aware of it, and they voted it, and they inserted that language into the statute which was passed and signed into law and became the law of the land.\nIn addition--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [479.096, 492.625, 504.631, 515.24, 530.539, 537.793, 554.406, 565.853, 598.335], "stop_times": [492.625, 504.631, 515.24, 530.539, 537.793, 554.406, 565.853, 598.335, 599.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 479.096}, "reply_to": "20895__0_032", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_034", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Did the President know about it, too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [599.554], "stop_times": [600.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 599.554}, "reply_to": "20895__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20895__0_035", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--In addition to the knowledge of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [600.956], "stop_times": [604.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 600.956}, "reply_to": "20895__0_034", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_036", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Do we know if the President knew about it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [604.449], "stop_times": [605.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 604.449}, "reply_to": "20895__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20895__0_037", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--We must presume that all officials, including the President, had knowledge of the law and followed their duties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [605.378], "stop_times": [611.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 605.378}, "reply_to": "20895__0_036", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_038", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Why don't we do that for Congress?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [611.431], "stop_times": [612.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 611.431}, "reply_to": "20895__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20895__0_039", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "In addition to the contextual analysis that we have spoken to, the statute itself, 924, uses knowingly as noted on three other occasions.\nInterestingly, the statute itself, when it speaks to sales by gun dealers to out of State individuals, inserts a presumption that the seller of the firearms to an out of State buyer is presumed to have knowledge of the law... Section 922(b)(3)... once again supporting the notion that the Congress understood that it was actual knowledge that was necessary.\nAnd, to the extent that there might be a class of individuals who would not necessarily know the law of the sister State from which the buyer had come, Congress inserted a presumption in order to deal with that situation.\nNo presumption is found in subdivision (D), once again indicating clear support that whether the Solicitor General's Office is comfortable with that view, the Congress knew what it wanted and it intentionally made prosecutions more difficult.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [612.713, 622.309, 648.858, 661.914], "stop_times": [622.309, 648.858, 661.914, 676.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 612.713}, "reply_to": "20895__0_038", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_040", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "How much weight do you put on the distinction between knowingly, the word knowingly, the adverb in sections (A), (B), (C), and the word wilfully in section (D)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [676.605], "stop_times": [686.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 676.605}, "reply_to": "20895__0_039", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20895__0_041", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Oh, I think the use of wilfully in subdivision (D) connotes the highest mens rea standard that our law, our criminal law recognizes, whereas knowingly speaks to only an awareness of one's acts, or conduct.\nWhen we speak of wilfully violates, and the section says a provision of this chapter, it is much similar to Justice Ginsburg's opinion for the Court in Ratzlaf v. the United States.\nWilfully modifies not conduct but this section of this chapter, so when we see wilfully married to a chapter, a clause, a section, then we know that the Congress has telegraphed the intent that wilfully modifies in this case the chapter, and it is knowledge of the chapter which the statute requires.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [686.823, 700.751, 711.957], "stop_times": [700.751, 711.957, 732.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 686.823}, "reply_to": "20895__0_040", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_042", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Well, now, you say that we know that Congress has married wilfully to the chapter.\nI must say I don't quite follow that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [732.91, 740.895], "stop_times": [740.895, 742.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 732.91}, "reply_to": "20895__0_041", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20895__0_043", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Well, a reading of section 924(a)(1)(D) indicates, most respectfully, that it punishes those who wilfully violate any provision of this chapter, and so the use of the term, wilfully violates any section of this chapter, connotes it is wilfully violates the chapter, not wilfully engages, or knowingly engages in certain conduct.\nThe prior three subdivisions, most respectfully, we concede speak to merely engaging in knowing behavior and not wilful behavior.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [742.678, 763.783], "stop_times": [763.783, 772.488], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 742.678}, "reply_to": "20895__0_042", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_044", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "And you say knowingly simply means you're aware of the act that you're performing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [772.488], "stop_times": [775.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 772.488}, "reply_to": "20895__0_043", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20895__0_045", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "And don't act by reason of mistake or misapprehension of the law, but so it's clear, we concede that one could wilfully violate this chapter by engaging in what is frequently called conscious avoidance behavior of a kind such as if there were a sign posted in a gunshop and a particular defendant operated through what is sometimes called straw purchases, sending in an accomplice to purchase the weapon.\nThat would provide no defense in a prosecution for wilfully, because the individual acted in a way to consciously avoid gaining knowledge that was readily apparent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [775.36, 801.226], "stop_times": [801.226, 811.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 775.36}, "reply_to": "20895__0_044", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_046", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "I thought they were straw persons used here, and there was misrepresentation of the purchaser's criminal record and, unlike Ratzlaf and the Cheek case, where the conduct looked okay, except that there was a statute that said no structuring on the one case, but here the whole thing looks bad, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [811.841], "stop_times": [833.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 811.841}, "reply_to": "20895__0_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20895__0_047", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Well, there are individuals who can engage in conduct that may violate a provision of law, or simply is inappropriate behavior.\nThe question is, does it violate this section, which requires proof of knowledge of licensure.\nCertainly, the Government could have proceeded on a proper charge to prosecute the defendant for crossing State lines with defaced firearms, for making false statements and aiding and abetting in the false statements.\nThey chose not to proceed under those subdivisions.\nThey chose the highest burden, that he knew that he required a dealer's license.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [833.197, 841.231, 846.146, 857.373, 859.053], "stop_times": [841.231, 846.146, 857.373, 859.053, 863.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 833.197}, "reply_to": "20895__0_046", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_048", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "But Mr. Adler, is it not correct that one could still draw a distinction between knowingly and wilfully?\nKnowingly would mean you just knew what you were doing... you didn't know whether it was illegal or not, but you knew you were doing these various act... and wilfully, requiring a proof that you knew you were violating the law, without adding a still additional requirement that you had to know exactly what law you were violating.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [863.567, 868.35], "stop_times": [868.35, 881.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 863.567}, "reply_to": "20895__0_047", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20895__0_049", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Well, it's not our contention, Justice Stevens, that you have to know exactly what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [881.859], "stop_times": [885.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 881.859}, "reply_to": "20895__0_048", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_050", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Well, you can know that there's a Federal licensing requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [885.392], "stop_times": [887.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 885.392}, "reply_to": "20895__0_049", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20895__0_051", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--You have to know it's a Federal licensing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [887.413], "stop_times": [888.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 887.413}, "reply_to": "20895__0_050", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_052", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [888.712], "stop_times": [888.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 888.712}, "reply_to": "20895__0_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20895__0_053", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--and... because the wilfully in this case is followed not by a description of specific factual behavior, it is coupled with the use of the term, wilfully violates this chapter, and this chapter is speaking to in this case the Federal firearm dealers license.\nNot every transaction is a per se violation of this section.\nOne is only a... covered as a, quote, dealer within the meaning of this statute if one engages in purposeful activity and so on, so the Congress was clearly concerned about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [888.923, 907.175, 911.328], "stop_times": [907.175, 911.328, 921.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 888.923}, "reply_to": "20895__0_052", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_054", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "So you're not merely relying on the difference between knowingly and wilfully, and (A), (B) and (C) versus (D), you're also putting heavy reliance on violates any other provision of this chapter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [921.895], "stop_times": [930.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 921.895}, "reply_to": "20895__0_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20895__0_055", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [930.661], "stop_times": [931.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 930.661}, "reply_to": "20895__0_054", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_056", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "You'd read into that he must know he's violating--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [931.312], "stop_times": [933.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 931.312}, "reply_to": "20895__0_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20895__0_057", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "As--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [933.261], "stop_times": [933.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 933.261}, "reply_to": "20895__0_056", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_058", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--That's not a necessary reading, but certainly I understand your position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [933.773], "stop_times": [937.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 933.773}, "reply_to": "20895__0_057", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20895__0_059", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Yes, and the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [937.235], "stop_times": [938.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 937.235}, "reply_to": "20895__0_058", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_060", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "You'd say if it meant the other it would have been written, or should have been written, wilfully... wilfully sells a gun without a license.\nThat would arguably be different.\nAll you would have to know is that selling the gun without a license was unlawful under some law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [938.226, 948.652, 951.514], "stop_times": [948.652, 951.514, 956.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 938.226}, "reply_to": "20895__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20895__0_061", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Yes.\nAnything less than actual knowledge will not suffice.\nThe Congress could have used the word--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [956.537, 956.827, 959.429], "stop_times": [956.827, 959.429, 960.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 956.537}, "reply_to": "20895__0_060", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_062", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Well, wilfully selling a gun without a license wouldn't necessarily mean that you knew you had to have a license.\nYou wilfully... you're still wilfully selling the gun.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [960.641, 965.363], "stop_times": [965.363, 969.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 960.641}, "reply_to": "20895__0_061", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20895__0_063", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--With the knowledge that you're intentionally violating a known legal duty.\nIn this case the known legal duty is the acting without a Federal firearms dealer's license.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [969.245, 972.017], "stop_times": [972.017, 978.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 969.245}, "reply_to": "20895__0_062", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_064", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "But known legal duty also can mean knowing that you have a legal duty, so you are violating... you don't have to necessarily know which one.\nSuppose I... suppose that's my view of it, that wilfully means you have to know that what you're doing is a violation of the criminal law.\nSuppose I think that.\nThen you lose this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [978.301, 987.227, 996.414, 997.643], "stop_times": [987.227, 996.414, 997.643, 999.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 978.301}, "reply_to": "20895__0_063", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20895__0_065", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "No.\nIt... you have to have the... what the statute penalizes is knowledge of the dealer's license.\nThe fact that there may be other sections that you suspect--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [999.356, 1000.117, 1006.579], "stop_times": [1000.117, 1006.579, 1009.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 999.356}, "reply_to": "20895__0_064", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_066", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "No, you're not following what I'm saying.\nI'm back to where Justice Ginsburg and Justice O'Connor were.\nI believe... in fact, I probably do believe this, that wilfully means you must know that your conduct is in violation of a criminal law, not which criminal law.\nMost criminals are not familiar with the U.S. Code in depth.\nWhat they think... but it is possible to say that they have to know that what they're doing is a violation of Federal criminal law.\nI also think, as Justice Ginsburg might have suggested, that this instruction is ambiguous in that respect, that it certainly could be read as saying, you can convict this person even though he did not know that what he did violated the criminal law.\nBut then I'm with Justice O'Connor.\nI don't see your objection to that, and so that's what I would like you to respond to, and that was my question.\nIf taking the view I just take, do you win, or do you lose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1009.752, 1010.773, 1013.705, 1026.924, 1030.906, 1038.883, 1058.413, 1061.385, 1069.042], "stop_times": [1010.773, 1013.705, 1026.924, 1030.906, 1038.883, 1058.413, 1061.385, 1069.042, 1074.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1009.752}, "reply_to": "20895__0_065", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20895__0_067", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--We take the position that 1) under the judge's charge the Government cannot prevail because even the standard that the court would suggest, generalized knowledge that there's some section of Federal law prohibits the behavior--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1074.185], "stop_times": [1087.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1074.185}, "reply_to": "20895__0_066", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_068", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "All right.\nNow would you go to the point that I think Justice O'Connor raised, which is instruction request number 8 does not seem to request... it seems to request an instruction that he has to know the U.S. code, and then I didn't see here anywhere an objection to the instruction the judge actually gave, and that's why I started this out thinking you must win because the instruction's ambiguous, but I'm not certain that's right.\nNow I think maybe you must lose.\nSo since I've thought you must win, then I think you must lose, I think that I'd like your response.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1087.254, 1087.584, 1116.012, 1117.804, 1122.346], "stop_times": [1087.584, 1116.012, 1117.804, 1122.346, 1122.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1087.254}, "reply_to": "20895__0_067", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20895__0_069", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--The charge is deficient and was objected to.\nThe request to charge focused the court... we cited to Ratzlaf indicating that it is knowledge of the licensing requirement that had to be charged.\nThat charge was not given.\nThe judge went further.\nHe told the jury that the defendant did not have to know of the licensing requirement and did not have to know he was breaking the law, so under this charge he took the issue out of the case that you suggested, and we objected to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1122.606, 1128.951, 1136.645, 1138.385, 1140.018], "stop_times": [1128.951, 1136.645, 1138.385, 1140.018, 1157.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1122.606}, "reply_to": "20895__0_068", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_070", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "You objected to, he did not have to know he was breaking the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1157.339], "stop_times": [1160.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1157.339}, "reply_to": "20895__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20895__0_071", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Yes, and indeed our request to charge asked the Court to make it clear that this defendant, who was learning disabled and acting in a State which has no licensing requirement in Ohio to begin with, certainly had no basis to know that there was a Federal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1160.05], "stop_times": [1173.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1160.05}, "reply_to": "20895__0_070", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_072", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "I've read... I've read number--\n--You objected in some manner other than filing the requested charge, which insisted upon knowledge of the Federal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1173.25, 1173.959], "stop_times": [1173.959, 1179.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1173.25}, "reply_to": "20895__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20895__0_073", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Yes, and we had a charge conference, and we objected to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1179.753], "stop_times": [1182.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1179.753}, "reply_to": "20895__0_072", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_074", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Fine.\nIs that in the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1182.434, 1182.665], "stop_times": [1182.665, 1183.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1182.434}, "reply_to": "20895__0_073", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20895__0_075", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1183.266], "stop_times": [1183.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1183.266}, "reply_to": "20895__0_074", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_076", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Where?\nWhat I've read here is page 17, which has your request number 8, which has the details in depth about you have to know the U.S. Code.\nThen I believe that you said the word objection, but where is it that you... you know, district judges are busy, they don't catch every mistake, and so someone has to say to the judge, judge, you've made a mistake.\nThe particular mistake that you've made is... and then you spell it out so he understands it.\nWhere is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1183.626, 1183.967, 1192.091, 1202.688, 1207.992], "stop_times": [1183.967, 1192.091, 1202.688, 1207.992, 1209.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1183.626}, "reply_to": "20895__0_075", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20895__0_077", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "I don't have that charge reference with me here today, Your Honor.\nI can supply it to the Court in a post argument submission.\nBut I do recall the charge conference did have specific discussions, and I did take exception, and it was at that point that it prompted Justice... Judge Trager to indicate, take it to the Supreme Court, so it was in that exchange--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1209.071, 1212.664, 1214.975], "stop_times": [1212.664, 1214.975, 1227.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1209.071}, "reply_to": "20895__0_076", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_078", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "In other words, you're saying that even assuming that you'd lost the battle over Ratzlaf you made the further objection that this instruction is wrong--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1227.204], "stop_times": [1236.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1227.204}, "reply_to": "20895__0_077", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20895__0_079", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1236.781], "stop_times": [1237.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1236.781}, "reply_to": "20895__0_078", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_080", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--even under the Government's theory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1237.282], "stop_times": [1238.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1237.282}, "reply_to": "20895__0_079", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20895__0_081", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Yes, we do, and we respectfully submit that where the Government is coming from on this case is attempting to hold that guns are inherently dangerous substances, and relying on cases like Balint, that deal with narcotics, hand grenades, such as United States v. Freed, and silencers, such as in the cases, the circuit court cases cited in our brief.\nAnd it's a position, we respectfully submit, which is wholly unsupported by the history of decisions by this Court.\nThe area itself is constitutionally protected, the Second Amendment, and in the context of decisions that Congress has made in other areas it has used wilfully in a very sparing way.\nThey know how heavy this burden is.\nThey've used it, for instance, in areas such as this.\nThey've used it in the OSHA area.\nThere's a recent Seventh Circuit case, United States v. Ladish Moulting, a Judge Easterbrook opinion that came down the end of January, that once again indicates how sparing the wilfully standard is.\nOnce again, the Government's position would have been better had they prosecuted under a different section, or a subdivision of section 924 that had a knowing requirement and not a wilfully requirement.\nIn terms of the Government's view they have created the veritable straw man.\nThey ask the Court in effect to feel sorry for the heavy burden that they have because they selected a particularly difficult section with the highest known burden of proof.\nThe standard that they urge this Court to adopt is a general knowledge of unlawfulness.\nThis invites the greatest conjecture and speculation on the part of lay jurors.\nIt is a standard that was never submitted to this jury.\nIt is a standard that will not be found, we respectfully submit, in the House debates, in the committee report--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1238.641, 1259.427, 1264.55, 1275.997, 1278.828, 1283.42, 1286.562, 1298.39, 1311.089, 1315.231, 1325.989, 1332.003, 1337.967, 1342.221], "stop_times": [1259.427, 1264.55, 1275.997, 1278.828, 1283.42, 1286.562, 1298.39, 1311.089, 1315.231, 1325.989, 1332.003, 1337.967, 1342.221, 1349.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1238.641}, "reply_to": "20895__0_080", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_082", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "But you say it was never submitted to this jury, but the instruction... one of the sentences says, a person acts intentionally if he acts deliberately and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids.\nThat submitted that to the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1349.275, 1358.932], "stop_times": [1358.932, 1360.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1349.275}, "reply_to": "20895__0_081", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20895__0_083", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--But then unfortunately the court at the same time then instructed the jury that in the context of deciding mens rea knowledge and intent the jury should know that the defendant was not... need not be shown to have known the licensing requirement or, most importantly, Justice Stevens, the knowledge that he was breaking the law.\nThis is a... the type of a charge I would respectfully--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1360.982, 1378.052], "stop_times": [1378.052, 1380.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1360.982}, "reply_to": "20895__0_082", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_084", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Well, the instructions are internally inconsistent, and the Government... the Government argues, in effect, that the message was the one that I described, and the question, though, is whether you really focused on that narrower objection, because the portion of your objection that's quoted on page 18, right before the judge says take it to the Supreme Court, relied entirely on the absence of an instruction about the licensee.\nThat's what you... you call attention to Ratzlaf right there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1380.764, 1402.299], "stop_times": [1402.299, 1405.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1380.764}, "reply_to": "20895__0_083", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20895__0_085", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Yes, in the context--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1405.06], "stop_times": [1405.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1405.06}, "reply_to": "20895__0_084", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_086", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "I haven't found in the papers that we have the narrower objection to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1405.791], "stop_times": [1411.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1405.791}, "reply_to": "20895__0_085", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20895__0_087", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1411.024], "stop_times": [1412.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1411.024}, "reply_to": "20895__0_086", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_088", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--You know what I'm talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1412.456], "stop_times": [1413.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1412.456}, "reply_to": "20895__0_087", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20895__0_089", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Yes, sir, I do.\nI simply want to point out that the Government urges the difficulty of convictions, cases such as United States v. Rodrigues from the Fifth Circuit, cited in our brief United States v. Allah out of the Second Circuit, provide the kind of fact patterns which we respectfully submit under a fair and correct charge can result in verdicts that are sustainable by the courts of appeal and sustainable by this Court.\nWe respectfully submit that this is nothing more than a red herring in order to encourage the court to give the Government a lesser burden of proof.\nIn essence, what the Government has done here in its brief today is to argue the reverse of Bates v. the United States.\nIn Bates, it was the defense that argued that this Court should somehow read something more into a statute dealing with the fraudulent use of student loan moneys.\nNow, the statute indicates wilfully violates this chapter and the Government says, well, you should read something out of it.\nOur textual argument on behalf of petitioner recognized that the bar is set for all.\nIt does not vary.\nIf it helps the defendant, so be it, if it hurts the defendant, so be it, that's what the Congress wrote, and accordingly we respectfully submit that the Government's approach ought not be followed.\nBefore I sit down, reserving the balance of my time, I simply want to indicate in response to Justice Stevens' question that we rely on Francis v. Franklin as an example of the case of internally conflicting jury instructions as a basis for this Court granting relief under the charge.\nThe Government does not argue harmless error.\nIndeed, under Sullivan v. Louisiana we respectfully submit they could not, and we respectfully urge this Court to reverse the conviction, and remand it to the United States Court of Appeals for further proceedings.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1413.115, 1413.485, 1437.702, 1445.206, 1451.66, 1461.287, 1468.152, 1474.785, 1475.786, 1485.534, 1503.686, 1506.337, 1516.012], "stop_times": [1413.485, 1437.702, 1445.206, 1451.66, 1461.287, 1468.152, 1474.785, 1475.786, 1485.534, 1503.686, 1506.337, 1516.012, 1516.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1413.115}, "reply_to": "20895__0_088", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__0_090", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Adler.\nMr. Jones, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1516.854, 1518.005], "stop_times": [1518.005, 1519.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1516.854}, "reply_to": "20895__0_089", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20895__1_000", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIn 1992 petitioner began making repeated trips from New York to Ohio, where, with the aid of several accomplices, he submitted false information on Federal forms.\nHe surreptitiously purchased numerous semiautomatic pistols.\nHe undertook to conceal these acts by filing the identification numbers off the guns, and then he transferred the guns to New York, where he sold them for a profit at weed spots on street corner locations in Brooklyn.\nNow, these facts lie at the very heart--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1519.796, 1523.189, 1533.717, 1537.18, 1550.677], "stop_times": [1523.189, 1533.717, 1537.18, 1550.677, 1553.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1519.796}, "reply_to": "20895__0_090", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_001", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "He's only 19 and he had a hard childhood, though.\nWould that solve something like this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1553.238, 1555.219], "stop_times": [1555.219, 1556.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1553.238}, "reply_to": "20895__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20895__1_002", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--I'm not... I can't endorse that conclusion.\nI'm not... I do know that he was... I think that he may have been 19 at the time that he committed this offense.\nThis... these set of facts lie at the heart of the statutory--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1556.841, 1559.593, 1567.528], "stop_times": [1559.593, 1567.528, 1573.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1556.841}, "reply_to": "20895__1_001", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_003", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Well, wilfully means something more than knowingly, so we have to figure out--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1573.121], "stop_times": [1576.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1573.121}, "reply_to": "20895__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20895__1_004", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1576.765], "stop_times": [1577.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1576.765}, "reply_to": "20895__1_003", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_005", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--what it does mean, and in any event the instructions seem to be totally confused.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1577.085], "stop_times": [1583.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1577.085}, "reply_to": "20895__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20895__1_006", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Well, let's start--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1583.579], "stop_times": [1584.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1583.579}, "reply_to": "20895__1_005", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_007", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "They could be said not even to require knowingly, so I don't know where we are on this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1584.738], "stop_times": [1591.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1584.738}, "reply_to": "20895__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20895__1_008", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Let's start with what wilfully means.\nSince this Court's decisions in Murdock, Screws, and Thurston the Court has described what a wilful behavior is.\nWilful behavior is an act taken with the bad purpose to disobey or disregard the law.\nIt is act taken with what the Court described in Murdock as an unjustified indifference to the requirements of the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1591.623, 1593.256, 1600.88, 1606.953], "stop_times": [1593.256, 1600.88, 1606.953, 1612.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1591.623}, "reply_to": "20895__1_007", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_009", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Well now, Mr. Jones, do you think the word wilfully just has a uniform meaning no matter what the other context in which Congress has used it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1612.997], "stop_times": [1621.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1612.997}, "reply_to": "20895__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20895__1_010", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "No.\nIt clearly has a meaning that can depend upon context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1621.904, 1622.124], "stop_times": [1622.124, 1625.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1621.904}, "reply_to": "20895__1_009", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_011", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "And here you have it juxtaposed with three previous sections, all of which used the word knowingly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1625.446], "stop_times": [1631.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1625.446}, "reply_to": "20895__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20895__1_012", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Yes, and the word knowingly, as this Court has said in cases like Staples, is simply knowledge of the facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1631.503], "stop_times": [1636.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1631.503}, "reply_to": "20895__1_011", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_013", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Knowledge that... conscious of your actions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1636.095], "stop_times": [1638.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1636.095}, "reply_to": "20895__1_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20895__1_014", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "That's right.\nKnowledge of the facts that constitute the violation.\nThe ordinary definition of wilfulness is something in addition.\nIt is knowledge of those facts plus action taken with the bad purpose to disobey or disregard the law.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1638.656, 1638.907, 1641.078, 1644.459, 1649.482], "stop_times": [1638.907, 1641.078, 1644.459, 1649.482, 1649.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1638.656}, "reply_to": "20895__1_013", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_015", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Wilful--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1649.732], "stop_times": [1650.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1649.732}, "reply_to": "20895__1_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20895__1_016", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--wilful behavior is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1650.383], "stop_times": [1651.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1650.383}, "reply_to": "20895__1_015", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_017", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Just a minute, Mr. Jones.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1651.963], "stop_times": [1652.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1651.963}, "reply_to": "20895__1_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20895__1_018", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1652.815], "stop_times": [1653.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1652.815}, "reply_to": "20895__1_017", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_019", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Actions taken with a bad purpose to disregard the law.\nDoes that mean knowing that the law prohibits something?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1653.485, 1656.488], "stop_times": [1656.488, 1658.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1653.485}, "reply_to": "20895__1_018", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20895__1_020", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "It could include that, certainly, but it could also include the situation where someone is, as the Court said again in Murdock, unjustifiably indifferent to the requirements of the law.\nIt is... if you think about where the word wilful comes from, wilful behavior, what does that mean?\nIt means doing what you want to do because you want to do it without sufficient concern for the interests and rights of others.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1658.608, 1668.276, 1673.018], "stop_times": [1668.276, 1673.018, 1680.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1658.608}, "reply_to": "20895__1_019", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_021", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Well now, how does a judge charge the jury?\nWithout sufficient concern for the law, what on earth does that mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1680.034, 1681.814], "stop_times": [1681.814, 1685.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1680.034}, "reply_to": "20895__1_020", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20895__1_022", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Well, the basic charge that this Court has approved in cases like Pomponio is exactly the charge that the Court gave, which is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1685.807], "stop_times": [1692.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1685.807}, "reply_to": "20895__1_021", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_023", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "This confused--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1692.241], "stop_times": [1693.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1692.241}, "reply_to": "20895__1_022", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20895__1_024", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Not all of it, but the portion of the charge the Court gave that says that the act must be with the... the Government has the burden of showing that the act was with the bad purpose to disobey or disregard the law.\nI mean, that's the fundamental elementary concept.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1693.541, 1703.548], "stop_times": [1703.548, 1706.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1693.541}, "reply_to": "20895__1_023", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_025", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Well, okay.\nNow, you... let's think that through.\nThe bad purpose to disobey or disregard the law.\nDoes that mean knowledge that the law prohibits it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1706.281, 1706.501, 1708.401, 1711.803], "stop_times": [1706.501, 1708.401, 1711.803, 1714.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1706.281}, "reply_to": "20895__1_024", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20895__1_026", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Certainly that would satis--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1714.925], "stop_times": [1716.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1714.925}, "reply_to": "20895__1_025", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_027", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Well, I mean, answer my question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1716.267], "stop_times": [1717.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1716.267}, "reply_to": "20895__1_026", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20895__1_028", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--It includes that, Justice... Chief Justice.\nIt includes that.\nIf you have knowledge of what the law is then you are disobeying it.\nIf you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1717.667, 1720.128, 1720.769, 1725.102], "stop_times": [1720.128, 1720.769, 1725.102, 1725.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1717.667}, "reply_to": "20895__1_027", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_029", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "But what else does it include?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1725.831], "stop_times": [1727.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1725.831}, "reply_to": "20895__1_028", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20895__1_030", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Well, it can include an appreciation or an understanding that's short of knowledge that there are legal requirements that apply here.\nThat is what the Court talked about in Murdock as indifference to the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1727.203, 1733.658], "stop_times": [1733.658, 1737.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1727.203}, "reply_to": "20895__1_029", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_031", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "How would one prove in a trial that a person was indifferent to the law although not knowing that it was violative of the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1737.499], "stop_times": [1746.195], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1737.499}, "reply_to": "20895__1_030", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20895__1_032", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1746.195], "stop_times": [1746.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1746.195}, "reply_to": "20895__1_031", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_033", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "He failed to look up the U.S. Code?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1746.686], "stop_times": [1749.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1746.686}, "reply_to": "20895__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20895__1_034", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Well, no.\nThe Court has approved something quite different from that.\nWhat the Court has approved in cases like Spies is... would be exactly applicable here, and that is that evidence of concealment or of covering up of illicit activity is the type of evidence that shows a bad purpose to disobey or disregard the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1749.077, 1749.448, 1752.68], "stop_times": [1749.448, 1752.68, 1767.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1749.077}, "reply_to": "20895__1_033", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_035", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "So if you act furtively, that would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1767.569], "stop_times": [1769.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1767.569}, "reply_to": "20895__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20895__1_036", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Furtively, or as Spies said, to cover it up or to hide it.\nNow, in only two cases has this Court imposed a higher standard for wilfulness, the standard for which the petitioner argues, which is a knowing violation of a known legal duty, and in those two precise contexts the Court made clear that it was adopting a special rule for the special facts of the statutes that were then before it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1769.662, 1772.822], "stop_times": [1772.822, 1792.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1769.662}, "reply_to": "20895__1_035", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_037", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--That's the tax case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1792.608], "stop_times": [1794.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1792.608}, "reply_to": "20895__1_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20895__1_038", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "The tax cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1794.068], "stop_times": [1794.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1794.068}, "reply_to": "20895__1_037", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_039", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--and the welfare... the food stamps?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1794.779], "stop_times": [1796.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1794.779}, "reply_to": "20895__1_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20895__1_040", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--No.\nThe tax case in Cheek, and the structuring case in Ratzlaf, and the special reasons that the Court said justified this higher standard in those particular contexts just don't apply here.\nIn Cheek the Court was concerned about an Internal Revenue Code that applies with intricate complexity to almost every facet of the economic life of every citizen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1796.939, 1797.15, 1807.867], "stop_times": [1797.15, 1807.867, 1817.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1796.939}, "reply_to": "20895__1_039", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_041", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "I... let me think that wilful sometimes means two totally opposite things, sort of like unpeeled.\nI mean, let's forget the instance where it means intentional and knowing, you know, words meant to be very broad.\nLet's focus only on the instance where it's supposed to mean something more than knowing, all right.\nNow, focusing on that instance, which I think we have here, I go back to the Chief Justice.\nWe could say, in order to clarify earlier cases, that the defendant, the jury must be charged the defendant must know that he is violating the law, though not which law, criminal law, and add, of course, reckless disregard for the law in this instance, i.e., reckless disregard for whether or not there exists a criminal law that forbids it is equivalent to knowledge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1817.602, 1824.928, 1832.192, 1838.797, 1844.17], "stop_times": [1824.928, 1832.192, 1838.797, 1844.17, 1875.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1817.602}, "reply_to": "20895__1_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20895__1_042", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Or is a sufficient substitute for it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1875.772], "stop_times": [1877.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1875.772}, "reply_to": "20895__1_041", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_043", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Or... now, we could say that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1877.633], "stop_times": [1879.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1877.633}, "reply_to": "20895__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20895__1_044", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "And you have said that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1879.433], "stop_times": [1880.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1879.433}, "reply_to": "20895__1_043", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_045", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "If you... if we said that, is there anything in your opinion that would wrongly be left out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1880.364], "stop_times": [1886.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1880.364}, "reply_to": "20895__1_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20895__1_046", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "I think that that sort of description can be found in decisions like--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1886.608], "stop_times": [1896.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1886.608}, "reply_to": "20895__1_045", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_047", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "I'm not asking whether it could be found.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1896.893], "stop_times": [1898.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1896.893}, "reply_to": "20895__1_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20895__1_048", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1898.946], "stop_times": [1899.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1898.946}, "reply_to": "20895__1_047", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_049", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "I'm asking, if we clarified it in that way--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1899.715], "stop_times": [1902.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1899.715}, "reply_to": "20895__1_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20895__1_050", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--You're--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1902.169], "stop_times": [1902.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1902.169}, "reply_to": "20895__1_049", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_051", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--is there anything that would be wrongly, in your opinion, left out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1902.429], "stop_times": [1905.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1902.429}, "reply_to": "20895__1_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20895__1_052", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--I... the only... the only... the hesitation that I have is that the Court has adopted a variety of formulations that address this ordinary meaning of wilfulness, and I'm a little bit uncomfortable in saying that you can pick out a single one of them and be certain that it accomplishes everything that the Court has done with the other formulations.\nFor example--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1905.413, 1924.154], "stop_times": [1924.154, 1924.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1905.413}, "reply_to": "20895__1_051", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_053", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Another thing we could say... could we say this, because you can't think of an example.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1924.554], "stop_times": [1928.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1924.554}, "reply_to": "20895__1_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20895__1_054", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1928.498], "stop_times": [1929.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1928.498}, "reply_to": "20895__1_053", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_055", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Could you say, it includes... normally it means--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1929.156], "stop_times": [1932.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1929.156}, "reply_to": "20895__1_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20895__1_056", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1932.82], "stop_times": [1933.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1932.82}, "reply_to": "20895__1_055", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_057", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Normally it means you must know the legal duty, as in this case, know that there is a legal duty.\nWe leave up in the air whether there could be instances where they are equivalent to knowledge, though not actual knowledge.\nIs that, in your opinion, what the Court should say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1933.24, 1939.625, 1947.029], "stop_times": [1939.625, 1947.029, 1950.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1933.24}, "reply_to": "20895__1_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20895__1_058", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "No.\nI think that it's... that you can act with indifference to a legal requirement that you do not know, as you may have been intending when you used the word, and so I think that's precisely why the Court has adopted broader formulations.\nI want to... I think one thing that's a little bit confusing here is the fact that the statute talks about what is criminal as a wilful violation and petitioner says, oh well, how can you wilfully violate a law if you don't know what the law means?\nThe answer to that is in the Court's opinion in the International Minerals case, where the Court had a similar statute, and what the Court explained was that that is a shorthand.\nWhen Congress says wilfully violate A, B, C, D, E, F, G, which is essentially what it did here, that that's a shorthand for saying wilfully engaged in the conduct that is proscribed under A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and so what we're focusing on here is, what is the wilful behavior, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [1950.291, 1950.522, 1963.0, 1978.39, 1988.946], "stop_times": [1950.522, 1963.0, 1978.39, 1988.946, 2006.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1950.291}, "reply_to": "20895__1_057", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_059", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Well, except that that conflates it, it seems to me, with knowing, and we weren't trying to distinguish knowing and wilful, were we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2006.768], "stop_times": [2015.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2006.768}, "reply_to": "20895__1_058", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20895__1_060", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--You have distinguished knowing from wilful, and we want to make... I want to be clear on that, especially since this the statute distinguishes it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2015.073], "stop_times": [2021.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2015.073}, "reply_to": "20895__1_059", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_061", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "No, but did we do it... and I just don't know the answer to this.\nWere we distinguishing those two terms in the case that you cited?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2021.027, 2022.339], "stop_times": [2022.339, 2026.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2021.027}, "reply_to": "20895__1_060", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20895__1_062", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "In Murdock... Murdock would have been a statute that contained separate offenses for knowing and wilful, but that's not the issue there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2026.47], "stop_times": [2037.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2026.47}, "reply_to": "20895__1_061", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_063", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "I guess my only point is, sure, I can understand circumstances, textual circumstances in which it would make perfect sense for us to explain wilfully just as you have done.\nThe tough thing for me here is, that sounds like a shorthand for knowingly in a statute that uses knowingly, and if we've got to make the distinction, it does not seem to me that that is a legitimate distinction, is a legitimate definition for wilfully when we've got the two of them together in the same statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2037.98, 2047.333], "stop_times": [2047.333, 2063.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2037.98}, "reply_to": "20895__1_062", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20895__1_064", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Well, what this Court's cases have explained to me in reading them is that the Court has distinguished between a knowing violation in cases like Staples and Freed, which is simply proceeding with knowledge of the facts that constitute the violation, and a wilful violation in cases like Murdock and Screws and Thurston, which is knowledge of the facts plus action with taking those acts with the bad purpose to disobey or disregard the law.\nThere is an additional requirement to wilfulness that's beyond knowing, but it's not, except in two exceptional circumstances, this higher level of specific proof of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2063.996, 2088.911], "stop_times": [2088.911, 2098.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2063.996}, "reply_to": "20895__1_063", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_065", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Mr. Jones, I'm not sure Ratzlaf is an exception, because there the violation was structuring the transaction in a way that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2098.698], "stop_times": [2105.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2098.698}, "reply_to": "20895__1_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20895__1_066", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2105.594], "stop_times": [2106.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2105.594}, "reply_to": "20895__1_065", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_067", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--evaded the reporting requirement, but the... my understanding of the facts was that the defendant in that case didn't even know that it was unlawful to structure the transaction.\nHe knew about the reporting requirement, but he didn't know that evading the reporting requirement was prohibited by a criminal statute, so even that case, it seems to me, fits your general category.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2106.342, 2114.85], "stop_times": [2114.85, 2123.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2106.342}, "reply_to": "20895__1_066", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20895__1_068", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Yes.\nThe peculiarity of the statute in Ratzlaf was that the statute contained as part of its substantive element this additional bad purpose to disobey or disregard the law that was the... that is the component of wilfulness, and since the statute contained both wilful, and then this language about, for the purpose of evading the law, what the Court said in Ratzlaf was, we have to give wilfully in that statute a special meaning, or it will be surplusage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2123.026, 2123.216], "stop_times": [2123.216, 2146.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2123.026}, "reply_to": "20895__1_067", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_069", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Well, I'm not sure it even needed a special meaning, other than the meaning you have here, because the assumption was that a person would not necessarily know that breaking up a $100,000 transaction into $10,000 components was itself prohibited, and that had to be found in order to satisfy the ordinary definition of wilfully.\nI mean, I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2146.139, 2164.532], "stop_times": [2164.532, 2166.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2146.139}, "reply_to": "20895__1_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20895__1_070", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Especially since the statute only applied if it was with the purpose of evading the other requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2166.012], "stop_times": [2170.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2166.012}, "reply_to": "20895__1_069", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_071", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Right.\nAre you going to talk about the ambiguity of the instructions under any test?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2170.505, 2170.876], "stop_times": [2170.876, 2176.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2170.505}, "reply_to": "20895__1_070", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20895__1_072", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Yes.\nThe... first of all I want to point out that we certainly agree with Justice O'Connor that this aspect of the contention that this portion of the instruction was invalid wasn't raised or preserved below.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2176.269, 2176.988], "stop_times": [2176.988, 2190.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2176.269}, "reply_to": "20895__1_071", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_073", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Do we have that?\nI mean, are we supposed to get the record on that?\nI mean, I imagine we'd get it and look at it, and when I go and look at the charging conference, they say when we look at the charging conference we'll discover that they did object.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2190.569, 2191.33, 2193.751], "stop_times": [2191.33, 2193.751, 2200.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2190.569}, "reply_to": "20895__1_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20895__1_074", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Petition... the charging conference is not in the record to the... whatever--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2200.584], "stop_times": [2204.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2200.584}, "reply_to": "20895__1_073", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_075", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Well, we can get the record, can't we?\nWe can get it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2204.808, 2206.619], "stop_times": [2206.619, 2207.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2204.808}, "reply_to": "20895__1_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20895__1_076", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--But our point is beyond that, and frankly I don't mean to stand here telling you that I am certain whether he's wrong about what he says he may have said at the charging--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2207.099], "stop_times": [2215.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2207.099}, "reply_to": "20895__1_075", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_077", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "All right.\nIf he said that, then why doesn't he win?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2215.433, 2215.663], "stop_times": [2215.663, 2217.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2215.433}, "reply_to": "20895__1_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20895__1_078", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Because he didn't raise it in the court of appeals and he didn't raise it in this Court in the question presented.\nThe question presented... I mean, his point throughout this case has been, he was entitled to an additional instruction that the Government had to prove that he had a knowing violation of a known legal duty.\nHe wanted to use the Ratzlaf, the Cheek special rule which doesn't apply in this case.\nNow he's saying, well, but accepting the Government's understanding of what a wilful violation, this instruction doesn't do it.\nThat's not a contention raised in the court of appeals nor in the question presented in this Court.\nNow, is the instruction adequate to do what we think it's supposed to do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2217.395, 2222.158, 2231.214, 2237.879, 2246.324, 2250.909], "stop_times": [2222.158, 2231.214, 2237.879, 2246.324, 2250.909, 2254.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2217.395}, "reply_to": "20895__1_077", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_079", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Just before you get there, when the defendant proffers an instruction, which he did, and it's rejected, and the judge then gives his instructions, does he have the duty to make the further objection?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2254.999], "stop_times": [2265.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2254.999}, "reply_to": "20895__1_078", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20895__1_080", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "He has a duty to preserve the objection for sure, and I think he should... yes, he should object to each instruction given that's inconsistent with his theory of the case, but beyond that he has to raise it in the court of appeals.\nHe has to present it as a question for this Court to properly preserve it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2265.998, 2278.027], "stop_times": [2278.027, 2282.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2265.998}, "reply_to": "20895__1_079", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_081", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "I was talking just about at the trial, at the trial court level.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2282.118], "stop_times": [2283.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2282.118}, "reply_to": "20895__1_080", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20895__1_082", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "At the trial court he should object to any instruction that he thinks is improper.\nNow, what he did was, certainly what the record in this Court and the court of appeals reflects is that he asked for an additional instruction, which was denied, and it was denial... the denial of that instruction that has been the focus of this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2283.831, 2287.411], "stop_times": [2287.411, 2298.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2283.831}, "reply_to": "20895__1_081", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_083", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "No, he--\n--It's a little hard for him to object when he's already in disagreement with the whole theory of the instruction and say, well now judge, even if you're right you're still wrong.\nThat's a little hard--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2298.53, 2299.108, 2305.834], "stop_times": [2299.108, 2305.834, 2307.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2298.53}, "reply_to": "20895__1_082", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20895__1_084", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Litigants bear the burden--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2307.115], "stop_times": [2308.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2307.115}, "reply_to": "20895__1_083", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_085", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--to do in the trial context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2308.425], "stop_times": [2308.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2308.425}, "reply_to": "20895__1_084", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20895__1_086", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Well, that's precisely for the reason the court mentioned.\nLitigants bear the burden of focusing the court on any defects that they believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2308.956, 2310.678], "stop_times": [2310.678, 2314.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2308.956}, "reply_to": "20895__1_085", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_087", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Mr. Jones, he did object on page 18 of the joint appendix... he objected, but he gave as the reason for it the failure to require specific knowledge of the license.\nNow, the question whether that preserves this objection is a little different than--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2314.69, 2321.494], "stop_times": [2321.494, 2324.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2314.69}, "reply_to": "20895__1_086", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20895__1_088", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--If it hypothetically preserved the objection at that point, it has been waived by not raising it in the court of appeals or in this Court.\nNow, is the instruction adequate to accomplish what the Government thinks that it should have done, and the answer to that is, as the Court knows, you have to look to the context of the entire instruction.\nAnd that rule is especially applicable here, because the language that now defendant objects to is both preceded and followed by language that directs the jury to determine that this particular defendant acted with the bad purpose to disobey or disregard the law.\nAnd it's also accompanied by an instruction that says, which we think is clearly correct, that the Government doesn't have to prove he had specific knowledge of the Federal licensing requirement, and to us the two sentences that follow that he didn't... that we don't have... that the defendant doesn't have to be shown to have known about the licensing requirement or to have intended to violate the law refer to that specific law, the Federal licensing requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2324.616, 2332.08, 2340.825, 2354.626], "stop_times": [2332.08, 2340.825, 2354.626, 2379.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2324.616}, "reply_to": "20895__1_087", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_089", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--What about this one?\nIt says, nor is the Government required to prove that he had knowledge that he was breaking the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2379.641, 2380.362], "stop_times": [2380.362, 2388.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2379.641}, "reply_to": "20895__1_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20895__1_090", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "I believe that's the sentence that follows the instruction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2388.079], "stop_times": [2390.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2388.079}, "reply_to": "20895__1_089", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_091", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2390.31], "stop_times": [2390.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2390.31}, "reply_to": "20895__1_090", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20895__1_092", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "That he doesn't have to... the Government doesn't have to show that he had--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2390.828], "stop_times": [2394.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2390.828}, "reply_to": "20895__1_091", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_093", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "That's right.\nHe's applying what he's just said to this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2394.502, 2395.133], "stop_times": [2395.133, 2397.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2394.502}, "reply_to": "20895__1_092", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20895__1_094", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2397.664], "stop_times": [2397.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2397.664}, "reply_to": "20895__1_093", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_095", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "And he says in this case the Government is not required to prove that the defendant knew that a license is required.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2397.904], "stop_times": [2403.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2397.904}, "reply_to": "20895__1_094", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20895__1_096", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2403.928], "stop_times": [2404.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2403.928}, "reply_to": "20895__1_095", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_097", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Nor is the Government required to prove that he had knowledge that he was breaking the law.\nIt's pretty hard to take the words following the nor and say they meant the same thing as the words preceding the nor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2404.478, 2411.053], "stop_times": [2411.053, 2417.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2404.478}, "reply_to": "20895__1_096", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20895__1_098", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Well, in the context of this instruction which, as I said, was preceded by the clarity that you don't have to... the Government doesn't have to prove he had specific knowledge of this requirement, it's our understanding that this adequately informed the jury that the witness... that the defendant does not have to have been shown to have known that by not having a Federal license his conduct was unlawful.\nAnd that's followed again by the instruction, but the Government does have to show that he did something... that he acted with the intent to do something that was unlawful.\nThat is, that he acted with the bad purpose to disobey or disregard the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2417.355, 2441.131, 2448.387], "stop_times": [2441.131, 2448.387, 2452.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2417.355}, "reply_to": "20895__1_097", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_099", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Are you prejudiced in any way if we were to say, take your interpretation of wilfully and then say that on... even on that interpretation the judge didn't apply it because of the language I quoted?\nIf we thought that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2452.729, 2465.998], "stop_times": [2465.998, 2466.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2452.729}, "reply_to": "20895__1_098", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20895__1_100", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "It would just be the expense and delay.\nIt would not be a fundamental prejudice, because the fundamental--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2466.72, 2469.291], "stop_times": [2469.291, 2472.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2466.72}, "reply_to": "20895__1_099", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_101", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--I mean, you've argued it, I mean.\nI notice the last point in your brief argues that the thing was correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2472.594, 2473.565], "stop_times": [2473.565, 2476.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2472.594}, "reply_to": "20895__1_100", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20895__1_102", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Yes.\nI mean, we believe that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2476.975, 2477.356], "stop_times": [2477.356, 2479.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2476.975}, "reply_to": "20895__1_101", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_103", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2479.637], "stop_times": [2480.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2479.637}, "reply_to": "20895__1_102", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20895__1_104", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--I mean, instructions are reviewed with a certain amount of latitude for the realities of the concrete problems that the court has addressed, and especially when we don't have this objection preserved throughout the case.\nIt seems inappropriate for the court to try to parse the instruction at this point to come up with a better one, because it's almost always possible to come up with a better one--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2480.468, 2491.364], "stop_times": [2491.364, 2500.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2480.468}, "reply_to": "20895__1_103", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_105", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "This was not urged in the court of appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2500.45], "stop_times": [2502.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2500.45}, "reply_to": "20895__1_104", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20895__1_106", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--No, sir.\nNor is it within the scope of the question presented in this Court.\nI would like to address a couple of arguments that weren't... that I didn't hear made--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2502.573, 2503.211, 2506.253], "stop_times": [2503.211, 2506.253, 2512.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2502.573}, "reply_to": "20895__1_105", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_107", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Mr. Jones, do I understand that to the extent that the defendant made requests to charge and they were denied it's not necessary to say exception after that.\nIf the request is denied, then it may be that it wasn't raised on appeal, but there's no further need to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2512.147, 2521.024], "stop_times": [2521.024, 2528.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2512.147}, "reply_to": "20895__1_106", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20895__1_108", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--We're not contending that he can't continue to raise the objection that he wanted the instruction that was denied.\nWe're just saying he didn't preserve any objection to the instructions that were given.\nIn the brief, petitioner relies on some pre-1986 cases involving the use of the word wilfully under other provisions of the act and says that those cases reflect that courts had understood this term to talk about knowing violation of a known legal duty before Congress added the word wilfully in 1986 to section 924.\nAll I want to say about that argument is that the cases that they cite don't support it.\nIn fact, the principal appellate authority that they cite, the Stein's, Inc. case, applies the longstanding rule that a wilful violation, a wilful behavior is action taken with the bad purpose to disobey or disregard the law, and cites appellate authority of its own circuit, which in turn cites this Court's opinion in Murdock.\nSo actually, to the extent that preexisting precedent is relevant, it supports the understanding that Congress used the term in its ordinary meaning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2528.7, 2533.563, 2537.495, 2563.363, 2568.996, 2588.068], "stop_times": [2533.563, 2537.495, 2563.363, 2568.996, 2588.068, 2595.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2528.7}, "reply_to": "20895__1_107", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_109", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Mr. Jones, you focus exclusively on the word wilfully, but it seems to me that in lining up all these cases you have to look at what follows wilfully, wilfully what, and it's particularly hard in this case to argue your point.\nIf it had said, wilfully sells a firearm without a Federal license, then I think it's much easier to say he did it with a bad purpose, with a bad intent, what not, but it says wilfully violates... wilfully violates a provision of this chapter--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2595.783, 2616.967], "stop_times": [2616.967, 2635.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2595.783}, "reply_to": "20895__1_108", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20895__1_110", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "But actually--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2635.75], "stop_times": [2636.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2635.75}, "reply_to": "20895__1_109", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_111", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--and that just brings to mind, you know, knowledge that he is violating the provision of this chapter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2636.752], "stop_times": [2643.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2636.752}, "reply_to": "20895__1_110", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20895__1_112", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Justice Scalia, that's the point I was addressing earlier about the Court's opinion in the International Minerals case, that the right way to read this statute is that it... that what has... what Congress has proscribed is a wilful, in this case dealing in firearms without a license, because what the statute says is, wilfully violate any other provision of this chapter.\nAnd what Congress... I mean, what this Court said in International Minerals that phrasing means is that it's a shorthand, that it's a simplified way of essentially adding wilfully to each of those other subsections and making it a crime, and so the statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2643.104, 2664.508], "stop_times": [2664.508, 2680.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2643.104}, "reply_to": "20895__1_111", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_113", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "With the same... the same... the very same text?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2680.04], "stop_times": [2681.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2680.04}, "reply_to": "20895__1_112", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20895__1_114", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Yes.\nIt said... the text that was involved in the International Minerals was wilfully violate any regulation, and in the Court's... and the Court said, well, that doesn't mean that they knew that it was a regulation they were violating.\nIt means that they knew that their conduct was wilful, and so you... I'm sorry.\nThat case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2681.913, 2684.605, 2694.91, 2701.056], "stop_times": [2684.605, 2694.91, 2701.056, 2701.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2681.913}, "reply_to": "20895__1_113", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_115", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Was that a statute that also had a... had knowingly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2701.204], "stop_times": [2703.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2701.204}, "reply_to": "20895__1_114", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20895__1_116", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Actually, that was what I was about to correct myself.\nWhat that statute said was knowingly violate a regulation, but what the Court explained was that knowingly violate is just a shorthand way of saying, knowingly doing the acts that are elsewhere in the statute described as violations of the acts, and so... and that it was simply a shorthand.\nCongress doesn't have to write for each of these criminalizations of various violations of the subchapter a separate subchapter that says, and knowingly... and knowingly dealing in firearms without a license, and knowingly doing this and knowingly doing that, or wilfully doing this.\nThat's the point of the International Minerals case, and Congress surely can rely on that decision in its choice of draftsmanship.\nThe legislative history of this statute, if it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2703.895, 2706.667, 2723.099, 2739.38, 2745.413], "stop_times": [2706.667, 2723.099, 2739.38, 2745.413, 2750.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2703.895}, "reply_to": "20895__1_115", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_117", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--You flatter Congress to think that they had that case in mind in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2750.956], "stop_times": [2753.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2750.956}, "reply_to": "20895__1_116", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20895__1_118", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Well, I certainly think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2753.838], "stop_times": [2755.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2753.838}, "reply_to": "20895__1_117", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_119", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--this careful drafting that they do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2755.14], "stop_times": [2756.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2755.14}, "reply_to": "20895__1_118", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20895__1_120", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--They're entitled... I would think that they would have that case in mind, because it's not uncommon for Congress to have this sort of provision that... about a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2756.092], "stop_times": [2762.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2756.092}, "reply_to": "20895__1_119", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_121", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "But that's a case that doesn't have knowing, for some section, wilful for others, and so would you just clarify once more what the difference would be if this statute had read knowing instead of, as it does, wilful?\nYou agree that wilful adds something, and I don't understand quite what that something is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2762.376, 2779.186], "stop_times": [2779.186, 2783.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2762.376}, "reply_to": "20895__1_120", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20895__1_122", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--A knowing violation, this Court has said in numerous cases, is acting with knowledge of the facts that constitute the violation.\nFor example, in Staples it was acting with knowledge that this thing that the guy had was a machine gun.\nIt doesn't mean that he had to know that it was improper for him to have such a machine gun.\nHe just had to know that it was one.\nWhereas a wilful violation would be knowing that it was a machine gun plus holding it with the bad purpose to disobey or disregard the law.\nThat's the ordinary meaning of wilful.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2783.75, 2791.864, 2797.688, 2803.532, 2805.794, 2813.848], "stop_times": [2791.864, 2797.688, 2803.532, 2805.794, 2813.848, 2816.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2783.75}, "reply_to": "20895__1_121", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_123", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "In other words, knowing that there was some law that prohibited this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2816.059], "stop_times": [2819.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2816.059}, "reply_to": "20895__1_122", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20895__1_124", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "That would certainly be evidence of the bad purpose--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2819.963], "stop_times": [2822.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2819.963}, "reply_to": "20895__1_123", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_125", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "No, but what else would suffice?\nWhat else would suffice?\nSure, it would be evidence.\nWhat else would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2822.924, 2824.286, 2825.658, 2826.557], "stop_times": [2824.286, 2825.658, 2826.557, 2827.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2822.924}, "reply_to": "20895__1_124", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20895__1_126", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--This Court has never really tried to answer that question except--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2827.118], "stop_times": [2829.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2827.118}, "reply_to": "20895__1_125", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_127", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Well, we're trying now.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2829.539, 2829.83], "stop_times": [2829.83, 2830.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2829.539}, "reply_to": "20895__1_126", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20895__1_128", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--No... well, maybe you are, but you've answered it only indirectly by saying, as in Spies, well clearly evidence of concealment, covering up would be sufficient.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2830.25], "stop_times": [2841.137], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2830.25}, "reply_to": "20895__1_127", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_129", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Because that is circumstantial evidence that he knew what he was doing was prohibited by some law, so ultimately that gets us I think to a standard that says there's got to be knowledge with some degree of specificity that he is violating the law in doing these acts which he understands he's doing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2841.137], "stop_times": [2857.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2841.137}, "reply_to": "20895__1_128", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20895__1_130", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "I don't think that there has to be evidence of that.\nI mean, that may be where--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2857.959, 2861.729], "stop_times": [2861.729, 2863.161], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2857.959}, "reply_to": "20895__1_129", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_131", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Well, that is the conclusion--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2863.161], "stop_times": [2864.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2863.161}, "reply_to": "20895__1_130", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20895__1_132", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--I'm having trouble--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2864.851], "stop_times": [2865.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2864.851}, "reply_to": "20895__1_131", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_133", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--that has to be drawn.\nThat is what the jury ultimately has to find, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2865.122, 2866.173], "stop_times": [2866.173, 2867.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2865.122}, "reply_to": "20895__1_132", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20895__1_134", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Yes.\nThe jury ultimately has to find, as they were instructed in this case, that the action was taken for the purpose of disobeying the law or disregarding it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2867.984, 2868.254], "stop_times": [2868.254, 2876.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2867.984}, "reply_to": "20895__1_133", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_135", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "The purpose--\n--That presupposes that you know there's a law that you are disobeying or disregarding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2876.499, 2876.89], "stop_times": [2876.89, 2880.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2876.499}, "reply_to": "20895__1_134", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20895__1_136", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "I think that the general knowledge instruc... the general knowledge articulation given by the court of appeals in this case is directed at that.\nWhat they're trying to describe is a sufficient knowledge.\nIt may be of the law.\nIt may be of some fact.\nIt is a sufficient knowledge that it is appropriate to find that this particular defendant acted with the bad purpose of disregarding the law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2880.943, 2887.367, 2890.43, 2891.449, 2893.071], "stop_times": [2887.367, 2890.43, 2891.449, 2893.071, 2900.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2880.943}, "reply_to": "20895__1_135", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_137", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Why do you keep saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2900.776], "stop_times": [2901.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2900.776}, "reply_to": "20895__1_136", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20895__1_138", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--acted, as the Court said in Murdock, with unjustified indifference to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2901.587], "stop_times": [2904.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2901.587}, "reply_to": "20895__1_137", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_139", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Why do you keep saying purpose, because again, if we're supposed to clarify, it seems that purpose isn't right.\nI mean, the defendant here didn't want to violate the law.\nHe would have been perfectly happy if the law had made what he did legal, I guess, or many would, so why do you... normally people wouldn't have the purpose to violate the law.\nThey would have the knowledge that what they are doing is a violation of law, so why do we want to say purpose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2904.599, 2911.532, 2915.556, 2924.501], "stop_times": [2911.532, 2915.556, 2924.501, 2929.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2904.599}, "reply_to": "20895__1_138", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20895__1_140", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "One of the formulations the Court has given is, with the bad purpose or evil intent of violating the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2929.414], "stop_times": [2934.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2929.414}, "reply_to": "20895__1_139", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_141", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Well, is there any reason to use--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2934.439], "stop_times": [2935.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2934.439}, "reply_to": "20895__1_140", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20895__1_142", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "It's a blameworthiness standard.\nWe're talking about something that's sort of like fundamental to the criminal law, that the party has done something blameworthy, and that the court has used numerous formulations to accomplish that essential goal.\nAnd our own... and what this case is really about is whether there's any requirement that we have some extraordinary standard that applies in this particular case, and for the reasons our brief said, and that I've tried to summarize, no, the extraordinary standard isn't applicable.\nThe ordinary standard is.\nAnd if I can't tell you exactly what that ordinary standard is, it's because this Court has given us several different descriptions of it, and so if I were to say that only one applied, I think it would be an incomplete description, because criminal blameworthiness is maybe not something that is capable of crystalline definition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2935.678, 2936.409, 2949.469, 2964.429, 2966.769], "stop_times": [2936.409, 2949.469, 2964.429, 2966.769, 2987.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2935.678}, "reply_to": "20895__1_141", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_143", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Yet criminal statutes are supposed to be clear, are they not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2987.563], "stop_times": [2990.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2987.563}, "reply_to": "20895__1_142", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20895__1_144", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Well, it's... I think jurors in their common experience understand what wilful behavior is, and certainly this Court has long upheld statutes that impose that as an element of the offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [2990.856], "stop_times": [3000.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2990.856}, "reply_to": "20895__1_143", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_145", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Are you suggesting the judge just read them wilful and not define it for them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [3000.561], "stop_times": [3004.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3000.561}, "reply_to": "20895__1_144", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20895__1_146", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "The purpose of instructions is to assist the jury.\nI think that the instructions that the Court approved in Murdock and in Pomponio about bad purpose to disobey and disregard the law, it appears in form instruction manuals.\nI think it assists the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [3004.725, 3007.125, 3015.39], "stop_times": [3007.125, 3015.39, 3016.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3004.725}, "reply_to": "20895__1_145", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_147", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "No, but the question was, does he have to instruct them at all?\nDo you simply--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [3016.522, 3019.213], "stop_times": [3019.213, 3020.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3016.522}, "reply_to": "20895__1_146", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20895__1_148", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [3020.505], "stop_times": [3021.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3020.505}, "reply_to": "20895__1_147", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_149", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--I think Justice Ginsburg's question was, is wilful sufficiently clear so that there is, in fact, no need to instruct at all?\nJust say, got to act willfully, period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [3021.164, 3026.698], "stop_times": [3026.698, 3029.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3021.164}, "reply_to": "20895__1_148", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20895__1_150", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "I think some assistance is appropriate.\nThe Court has always approved the instructions for wilfulness.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [3029.301, 3030.24, 3035.606], "stop_times": [3030.24, 3035.606, 3035.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3029.301}, "reply_to": "20895__1_149", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_151", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "It's sort of like, beyond a reasonable doubt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [3035.926], "stop_times": [3038.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3035.926}, "reply_to": "20895__1_150", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20895__1_152", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--Perhaps.\nI mean, I frankly... I don't know the criteria that the court applies in deciding whether to give an instruction.\nI've never seen that discussed.\nBut certainly I can tell you that the court has customarily given instructions on terms like wilful.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [3038.187, 3039.178, 3043.841, 3046.412], "stop_times": [3039.178, 3043.841, 3046.412, 3050.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3038.187}, "reply_to": "20895__1_151", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_153", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "But the reason you've said purpose... I'm thinking of the clarification, my impression of what you just said.\nTell me, is... and I... is it if we were to abandon the word purpose, there's an... there are a large number of books there that have that word purpose in it, and that would make you... that's your reason.\nIs that right, basically?\nI mean, is that what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [3050.926, 3056.948, 3065.846, 3066.754], "stop_times": [3056.948, 3065.846, 3066.754, 3068.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3050.926}, "reply_to": "20895__1_152", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20895__1_154", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [3068.387], "stop_times": [3068.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3068.387}, "reply_to": "20895__1_153", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_155", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--I'm trying to pin down what's making you nervous about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [3068.835], "stop_times": [3071.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3068.835}, "reply_to": "20895__1_154", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20895__1_156", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "--You've asked me what my reason was.\nI didn't have that particular reason in mind, but now that you've mentioned it I certainly think that that would be a problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [3071.008, 3071.299], "stop_times": [3071.299, 3075.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3071.008}, "reply_to": "20895__1_155", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_157", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [3075.159], "stop_times": [3075.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3075.159}, "reply_to": "20895__1_156", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20895__1_158", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "It would be... the Court's treading here over decades of statutes, and it's important that we don't reinvent the wheel in a way that maybe leaves a spoke out that we need somewhere and that, frankly, I'm not in a position to describe at this point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [3075.81], "stop_times": [3089.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3075.81}, "reply_to": "20895__1_157", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_159", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [3089.88], "stop_times": [3090.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3089.88}, "reply_to": "20895__1_158", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20895__1_160", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "If there are no further questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [3090.951], "stop_times": [3092.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3090.951}, "reply_to": "20895__1_159", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20895__1_161", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Jones.\nMr. Adler, you have 3 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [3092.951, 3094.443], "stop_times": [3094.443, 3095.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3092.951}, "reply_to": "20895__1_160", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20895__2_000", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Petitioner waives rebuttal time.\nThank you for your time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [3095.983, 3097.365], "stop_times": [3097.365, 3098.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3095.983}, "reply_to": "20895__1_161", "speaker": "roger_b_adler"}
{"id": "20895__2_001", "conversation_id": "20895", "text": "Very well.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8422", "start_times": [3098.434, 3098.655], "stop_times": [3098.655, 3099.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3098.434}, "reply_to": "20895__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20280__0_000", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 96-8400, Douglas McArthur Buchanan v. Ronald J. Angelone.\nMr. Zerkin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [0.0, 9.857], "stop_times": [9.857, 59.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20280__0_001", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nDouglas Buchanan was sentenced to death by a jury entirely uninstructed as to those fundamental Eighth Amendment principles which could have saved his life.\nIndeed, neither the word mitigation, or anything related to mitigation, ever crossed the judge's lips.\nThere are only a couple of Virginia inmates who, like Douglas Buchanan, have been sentenced to death and have preserved challenges to the absence of mitigation instructions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [59.54, 62.571, 73.139, 81.525], "stop_times": [62.571, 73.139, 81.525, 94.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 59.54}, "reply_to": "20280__0_000", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_002", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Mr. Zerkin, is the instruction given here typical of the instruction that is routinely given in Virginia in these capital cases, or is it different?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [94.254], "stop_times": [105.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 94.254}, "reply_to": "20280__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20280__0_003", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Justice O'Connor, it is... it was somewhat typical.\nThere is now recently, as of about 1993, a Virginia model jury instruction which is more expansive and has a definition of mitigation in it.\nIt came about from a case called Stewart v. Commonwealth in which the trial judge gave an expansive mitigation instruction, and the Virginia supreme court did not rule on whether that instruction was proper because it had been given.\nIt did say that a further instruction, which was really not very much more expansive, would have been duplicative of what was given, but the model jury instructions now have that... the instruction from Stewart in the book.\nThat did not exist at the time of Mr. Buchanan's trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [105.29, 108.863, 119.619, 136.099, 149.228], "stop_times": [108.863, 119.619, 136.099, 149.228, 152.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 105.29}, "reply_to": "20280__0_002", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_004", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "What is the specific test that you say we must employ in determining whether these instructions necessitate overturning--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [152.21], "stop_times": [164.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 152.21}, "reply_to": "20280__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20280__0_005", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [164.849], "stop_times": [166.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 164.849}, "reply_to": "20280__0_004", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_006", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--the sentence or the trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [166.93], "stop_times": [167.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 166.93}, "reply_to": "20280__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20280__0_007", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Yes.\nIt's our position that the instructions must reasonably accommodate the dual interest that this Court has discussed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [167.932, 168.202], "stop_times": [168.202, 178.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 167.932}, "reply_to": "20280__0_006", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_008", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Well, but what's the test that we employ?\nNow, I had thought... and you correct me if I'm wrong.\nI thought the test was, is there a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the instruction in such a way that the jury was prevented from considering constitutionally relevant evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [178.177, 180.549, 183.72], "stop_times": [180.549, 183.72, 197.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 178.177}, "reply_to": "20280__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20280__0_009", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Your Honor, that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [197.949], "stop_times": [199.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 197.949}, "reply_to": "20280__0_008", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_010", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [199.131], "stop_times": [199.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 199.131}, "reply_to": "20280__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20280__0_011", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Well, I don't think that that's the test that applies here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [199.721], "stop_times": [202.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 199.721}, "reply_to": "20280__0_010", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_012", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [202.433], "stop_times": [202.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 202.433}, "reply_to": "20280__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20280__0_013", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--because there's no instruction at all on the issue of mitigation.\nIf there were... the Court has applied--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [202.824, 206.147], "stop_times": [206.147, 208.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 202.824}, "reply_to": "20280__0_012", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_014", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Applied the instructions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [208.087], "stop_times": [209.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 208.087}, "reply_to": "20280__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20280__0_015", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--The Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [209.647], "stop_times": [211.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 209.647}, "reply_to": "20280__0_014", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_016", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--in the case in such a way that they were prevented from considering constitutionally relevant evidence.\nNow, I thought that was the test we employed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [211.519, 217.083], "stop_times": [217.083, 219.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 211.519}, "reply_to": "20280__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20280__0_017", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--The Court has--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [219.074], "stop_times": [219.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 219.074}, "reply_to": "20280__0_016", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_018", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Right or wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [219.725], "stop_times": [220.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 219.725}, "reply_to": "20280__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20280__0_019", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--In other contexts, right, and the reason I say other contexts, and it's critical here, or it's significant here, I think in fact we pass that test as well, and I will discuss that, but that arises in cases such as Boyde v. California, in which the question is whether or not the instructions are expansive enough to allow for consideration of all of the mitigating evidence.\nHere, there's an instruction that violates Gregg in that it provides absolutely no guidance and doesn't discuss mitigation at all, and at the same time... but at the same time violates Lockett, because what the judge... what the trial judge says is, I will instruct you as to what the law is that you should consider.\nHe says it repeatedly, and a number of jurors, including those who sat in the case, under oath testified that they would accept the instructions and follow the instructions that the judge gives.\nThe judge then, having said that, is now absolutely silent about the concept of mitigation.\nIn addition, the instruction that's given--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [220.146, 241.77, 262.384, 273.179, 278.403], "stop_times": [241.77, 262.384, 273.179, 278.403, 280.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 220.146}, "reply_to": "20280__0_018", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_020", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Well, the judge says to the jury, you are to consider all of the evidence that comes in at trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [280.603], "stop_times": [287.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 280.603}, "reply_to": "20280__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20280__0_021", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [287.459], "stop_times": [288.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 287.459}, "reply_to": "20280__0_020", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_022", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "And certainly there was evidence that came in of a mitigating nature.\nThere was such.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [288.19, 294.614], "stop_times": [294.614, 295.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 288.19}, "reply_to": "20280__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20280__0_023", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [295.974], "stop_times": [296.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 295.974}, "reply_to": "20280__0_022", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_024", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "And the judge says, consider everything here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [296.164], "stop_times": [298.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 296.164}, "reply_to": "20280__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20280__0_025", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "But then what he says is, your decision is, impose life if you find from this consideration of all the evidence that death is not justified.\nNow, justification sounds a lot more like aggravation than it sounds like mitigation.\nIt says--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [298.596, 309.704, 314.947], "stop_times": [309.704, 314.947, 315.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 298.596}, "reply_to": "20280__0_024", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_026", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "All right.\nWould your answer be different if the judge had modified his instruction in this respect.\nInstead of saying, if after considering all of the evidence you may determine that death is not justified, if he had said, after considering all the evidence, including such evidence as you find to be in mitigation, that the death penalty is not justified, would that pass muster?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [315.238, 315.618, 319.582], "stop_times": [315.618, 319.582, 337.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 315.238}, "reply_to": "20280__0_025", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20280__0_027", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Our position would be that that probably would pass muster and obviously even that wasn't done here.\nThe baseline at best is the instruction that's set forth in the footnote of the first Zant opinion, which although the Court didn't rule on it, has significantly more about mitigation than exists here.\nThat is, the judge contrasted it with aggravation.\nThe judge talked about it in terms of mitigation or extenuation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [337.442, 344.648, 359.048, 362.581], "stop_times": [344.648, 359.048, 362.581, 366.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 337.442}, "reply_to": "20280__0_026", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_028", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "But we're talking about the constitutional minimum, not the model charge, which I take it is a considerable improvement.\nBut what you're saying is, essentially four words were missing.\nAfter the words telling the jury that they were to consider all the evidence, if the judge had said, including the mitigating evidence, those four words, that would have brought it within the constitutional zone?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [366.765, 372.519, 376.92], "stop_times": [372.519, 376.92, 389.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 366.765}, "reply_to": "20280__0_027", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20280__0_029", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "On one level, Your Honor, yes, and not on the other level.\nThe other level is that in Virginia, unlike in Georgia, which was the subject of the decision in Zant, the General Assembly has set forth a specific list of mitigating factors, and that those factors are, under the decisions in Gregg and the decision in Ramos, the factors that the State, representing organized society, believes are most relevant to the sentencing decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [389.849, 392.761], "stop_times": [392.761, 414.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 389.849}, "reply_to": "20280__0_028", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_030", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "I thought the jury had to be able to consider any mitigating factors.\nIf I were a trial judge I'd be worried about specifically reciting mitigating factors lest a defense attorney come before an appellate court and say, the jury got the impression that these were the only mitigating.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [414.646, 418.15], "stop_times": [418.15, 430.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 414.646}, "reply_to": "20280__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20280__0_031", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "It was not a problem here, Your Honor, nor is it theoretically.\nThe problem is solved first of all in every State, because every State has found it perfectly able to define mitigating circumstances, including statutory circumstances, and still have a catch all that avoids that, but in this particular case, Justice Scalia, the defense attorneys proposed a jury instruction that said that this was not an exclusive list, and that they could consider any other facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [430.745, 433.687], "stop_times": [433.687, 456.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 430.745}, "reply_to": "20280__0_030", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_032", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "But Mr. Zerkin, I think you answered my question, yes, it would have been enough.\nI mean, you are now arguing for more, but I think when I asked you, suppose those four words had been included, including the mitigating evidence without a laundry list, that that would have been enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [456.522, 459.884], "stop_times": [459.884, 473.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 456.522}, "reply_to": "20280__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20280__0_033", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Well, I have... Justice Ginsburg, I have two positions on that.\nOne is in terms of the general instruction that is correct, but that where, as in Virginia, you do have a declaration of the relevant mitigating evidence, which we have, unlike in Georgia, then that also should be part of the equation.\nWe, I suggest, prevail in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [473.815, 477.466, 490.726], "stop_times": [477.466, 490.726, 493.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 473.815}, "reply_to": "20280__0_032", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_034", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Well, you're giving very confusing answers.\nLet me ask you this way.\nSuppose the judge here had instructed on Virginia statutory mitigating evidence and that's all.\nWould you be here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [493.807, 495.518, 497.32, 505.905], "stop_times": [495.518, 497.32, 505.905, 507.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 493.807}, "reply_to": "20280__0_033", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20280__0_035", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [507.335], "stop_times": [508.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 507.335}, "reply_to": "20280__0_034", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_036", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Suppose the judge had done that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [508.216], "stop_times": [509.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 508.216}, "reply_to": "20280__0_035", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20280__0_037", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "If he did not include the catch all it would be a Lockett violation, clearly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [509.408], "stop_times": [512.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 509.408}, "reply_to": "20280__0_036", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_038", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "And are you saying that he had to read the list from the statute of the mitigating evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [512.57], "stop_times": [517.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 512.57}, "reply_to": "20280__0_037", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20280__0_039", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "The ones that were supported by the evidence, it's our position that he did have to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [517.052], "stop_times": [520.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 517.052}, "reply_to": "20280__0_038", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_040", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "But now, the only... the only objection that you preserved, as I understand it, was that you requested the judge to charge that in several instances a particular kind of evidence was mitigating evidence.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [520.865, 532.483], "stop_times": [532.483, 533.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 520.865}, "reply_to": "20280__0_039", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20280__0_041", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "No--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [533.302], "stop_times": [534.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 533.302}, "reply_to": "20280__0_040", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_042", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "You didn't ask for a definition of mitigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [534.093], "stop_times": [537.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 534.093}, "reply_to": "20280__0_041", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20280__0_043", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--At every stage of the proceedings, from the trial on, counsel for Mr. Buchanan has argued that they were entitled to... that he was entitled to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [537.035], "stop_times": [546.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 537.035}, "reply_to": "20280__0_042", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_044", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Are you... I'm talking to you about what instructions you requested.\nWhen you say every stage of the proceedings from the trial on, are you answering my question, or are you framing it differently?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [546.862, 550.695], "stop_times": [550.695, 556.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 546.862}, "reply_to": "20280__0_043", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20280__0_045", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--No, I think I'm answering the question, Judge.\nAt trial, for example, at pages 74 and 75 of the joint appendix, instruction (A)(B) said, in addition to mitigating factors specified in other instructions you shall consider the circumstances surrounding the offense, the history and background of Douglas Buchanan, Jr., and any other facts in mitigation of the offense.\nSo beginning at the trial level and carried all through the proceedings Mr. Buchanan has maintained the fact that he was entitled to an instruction that included this.\nNow, we're not here to prescribe what the instructions should be.\nWhat we're here to say is, he got absolutely nothing, and he... whatever he's entitled to, he's entitled to more than nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [556.158, 558.329, 575.0, 584.625, 588.709], "stop_times": [558.329, 575.0, 584.625, 588.709, 595.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 556.158}, "reply_to": "20280__0_044", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_046", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Well, but if the test is as I articulated it, is there a reasonable likelihood that the jury was prevented from considering the evidence, the answer to that may be no, because the judge said you will consider all the evidence.\nAnd there's one other factor that you haven't talked about here.\nBoth the prosecutor and defense counsel argued to the jury that they should consider, of course, the mitigating evidence, so is there a reasonable likelihood under those circumstances that this jury was prevented from considering evidence in mitigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [595.422, 610.993, 614.246], "stop_times": [610.993, 614.246, 634.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 595.422}, "reply_to": "20280__0_045", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20280__0_047", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, because the trial attorney, the... excuse me.\nThe trial judge said repeatedly I am the one that's going to instruct you about the law.\nThis Court has looked to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [634.398, 639.691, 644.847], "stop_times": [639.691, 644.847, 646.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 634.398}, "reply_to": "20280__0_046", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_048", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Well, judges always say that, but this Court also in other cases has looked to the whole picture and what was argued to the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [646.937], "stop_times": [655.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 646.937}, "reply_to": "20280__0_047", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20280__0_049", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--But--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [655.063], "stop_times": [655.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 655.063}, "reply_to": "20280__0_048", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_050", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "And there is no question, is there, that both the prosecutor and the defense counsel told the jury, yes, you're going to consider these--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [655.333], "stop_times": [662.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 655.333}, "reply_to": "20280__0_049", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20280__0_051", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Well, actually there was some conflicting argument, because the prosecutor at one point said, you may sentence based upon your own caprice, and he told the jury that they can... that you may... you're entitled to consider this.\nHe didn't tell them that you had to.\nAnother place he told them that they had to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [662.118, 674.385, 675.775], "stop_times": [674.385, 675.775, 677.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 662.118}, "reply_to": "20280__0_050", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_052", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Well, let's just take the judge's instructions.\nHe says, you may fix the punishment of the defendant at death, or, if you believe from all the evidence that the death penalty is not justified, then... then you shall fix the punishment of the defendant at life imprisonment.\nNow, if you believe from all the evidence.\nThere was something like 2 days of testimony--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [677.497, 678.406, 693.257, 695.37], "stop_times": [678.406, 693.257, 695.37, 698.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 677.497}, "reply_to": "20280__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20280__0_053", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "2 days--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [698.372], "stop_times": [698.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 698.372}, "reply_to": "20280__0_052", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_054", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--in this trial about his abused youth, and about his psychological problems.\nIsn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [698.84, 705.024], "stop_times": [705.024, 705.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 698.84}, "reply_to": "20280__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20280__0_055", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [705.685], "stop_times": [706.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 705.685}, "reply_to": "20280__0_054", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_056", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "What do you think the jury thought this evidence was coming in for?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [706.236], "stop_times": [709.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 706.236}, "reply_to": "20280__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20280__0_057", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Well, we don't... we don't know what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [709.298], "stop_times": [710.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 709.298}, "reply_to": "20280__0_056", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_058", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Any jury that had sat through 2 days of mitigating testimony about, you know, the terrible childhood and so forth, and then gets this instruction, if you believe from all the evidence that the death penalty is not justified--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [710.688], "stop_times": [722.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 710.688}, "reply_to": "20280__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20280__0_059", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--But--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [722.796], "stop_times": [723.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 722.796}, "reply_to": "20280__0_058", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_060", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--My goodness, you really think there's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [723.016], "stop_times": [724.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 723.016}, "reply_to": "20280__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20280__0_061", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Yes, because the jury can look at this instruction and it can say, the question is whether it's justified or not, and there are four victims in this case, and that's what it's about.\nIt's about justification.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [724.859, 733.715], "stop_times": [733.715, 734.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 724.859}, "reply_to": "20280__0_060", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_062", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--But the jury in its form of verdict said that it had considered the mitigating evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [734.204], "stop_times": [740.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 734.204}, "reply_to": "20280__0_061", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20280__0_063", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Well, but we don't know when that was even looked at, and the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [740.048], "stop_times": [742.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 740.048}, "reply_to": "20280__0_062", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_064", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [742.631], "stop_times": [743.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 742.631}, "reply_to": "20280__0_063", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20280__0_065", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--The practical... I'm sorry, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [743.06], "stop_times": [745.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 743.06}, "reply_to": "20280__0_064", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_066", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Well, you know, we don't really know what the verdict of the jury was except from this same certificate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [745.253], "stop_times": [750.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 745.253}, "reply_to": "20280__0_065", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20280__0_067", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "The practical difficulty, the reality of trying cases, is that juries make decisions based upon what the... primarily what the judge instruction of the law is.\nAt least, the system is set up to assume that.\nIf they looked at this, and we don't know when they looked at it, at the end, after the deliberative process was over, if they looked at this form and they said, oh, this says we're supposed to consider the mitigation, having already made their decision about whether it was justified or not based upon what the judge told them, and that's the first reference they see to mitigation, we can hardly expect that they then go back to the drawing board and start all over again making a new decision about the appropriate sentence based upon a consideration of mitigation.\nSo yes, they did... they signed... they signed the form, and they swore that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [750.906, 761.351, 763.582, 791.221], "stop_times": [761.351, 763.582, 791.221, 795.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 750.906}, "reply_to": "20280__0_066", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_068", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Did any juror, other than the foreman--\n--Are you suggesting that the form saying that the verdict was... was signed at the beginning of the deliberations?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [795.953, 797.415], "stop_times": [797.415, 804.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 795.953}, "reply_to": "20280__0_067", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20280__0_069", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nIt was probably signed at the end of the deliberations, that's my point, and therefore they had made their decision.\nBy the time they saw anything from the judge that used the word mitigation they had already--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [804.401, 804.761, 809.053], "stop_times": [804.761, 809.053, 814.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 804.401}, "reply_to": "20280__0_068", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_070", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Well, but the foreman is saying that they considered mitigating evidence, just as the foreman is saying they voted unanimously.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [814.516], "stop_times": [820.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 814.516}, "reply_to": "20280__0_069", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20280__0_071", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--That is correct, and we have absolutely... because nothing was given to the jury about what mitigation was, or what it meant, or how it was supposed to be used, there was no context for it at all, we have no idea what role that played in the deliberative process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [820.811], "stop_times": [835.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 820.811}, "reply_to": "20280__0_070", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_072", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Well, can we not consider this.\nAs Justice Scalia... number 1, we start with a jury instruction that did refer to consideration of all of the evidence in determining what is justified.\nNumber 2, we have, as Justice Scalia pointed out, a trial record in which there were several days of testimony which could only be regarded as testimony intended to be mitigating in the defendant's favor.\nThe testimony came in.\nThe jurors I assume are entitled to assume that the judge is not allowing in effect irrelevant testimony in.\nAnd number 3, although we do not allow the arguments of counsel to substitute for a jury instruction, I suppose it is appropriate, in determining whether a jury instruction which would allow consideration of mitigation to be sufficient, to bear in mind that the prosecutor got up and in his own argument admitted that there was mitigating evidence and addressed the question whether the jury ought to find that mitigation adequate.\nIn that total context, instruction that would allow it on its face, number 2, much evidence that came in, number 3, a concession on the part of the prosecutor that there was mitigating evidence, shouldn't we consider all three of those factors in determining whether the instruction here is sufficient?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [835.921, 837.791, 846.386, 857.555, 860.247, 866.8, 895.37], "stop_times": [837.791, 846.386, 857.555, 860.247, 866.8, 895.37, 916.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 835.921}, "reply_to": "20280__0_071", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20280__0_073", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Not where the instruction is completely devoid, as in this case, of any reference to mitigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [916.023], "stop_times": [922.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 916.023}, "reply_to": "20280__0_072", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_074", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "It's the missing word, or the missing four words.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [922.188], "stop_times": [925.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 922.188}, "reply_to": "20280__0_073", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20280__0_075", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Or the missing concept, and however it does it, that concept must be given the imprimatur of the presiding judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [925.4], "stop_times": [931.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 925.4}, "reply_to": "20280__0_074", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_076", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "But it's got to be expressed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [931.695], "stop_times": [932.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 931.695}, "reply_to": "20280__0_075", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20280__0_077", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Yes.\nIt must be expressed, and he must be told that and, indeed, as early as Gregg this Court said that merely giving information under fair procedural rules to the jury is not enough.\nIt would be unthinkable--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [932.884, 933.174, 943.322], "stop_times": [933.174, 943.322, 945.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 932.884}, "reply_to": "20280__0_076", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_078", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Yes, but this is more than information.\nThis is information of a mitigating sort, admitted by opposing counsel to be of a mitigating sort, which could be considered consistently with a jury instruction as mitigating evidence.\nThat's more than just allowing fact in without any instructional basis for considering it in mitigation at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [945.322, 946.972, 958.359], "stop_times": [946.972, 958.359, 965.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 945.322}, "reply_to": "20280__0_077", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20280__0_079", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--I disagree with the premise that the jury instruction allows for that, and that's because of the use of the word justification.\nThe standard set forth here is whether the death penalty is not justified.\nThe jury can decide--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [965.335, 971.56, 976.675], "stop_times": [971.56, 976.675, 978.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 965.335}, "reply_to": "20280__0_078", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_080", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Based on all the evidence, and all of the evidence is not merely, as you pointed out, the number of victims, but the evidence of mitigation which consumed several days of trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [978.465], "stop_times": [988.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 978.465}, "reply_to": "20280__0_079", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20280__0_081", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--To do that the Court has to abandon what I think has been its principle throughout the course of its Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, that we must provide careful guidance as to both aggravation and mitigation.\nIt's been a guiding principle from the very beginning.\nAnd to do that we have to say, well, we don't really care about whether there's careful guidance from the court, or any guidance from the court, as long as the judge throws it out there that you're free to do whatever you want, for whatever reason you want.\nAs long as you think that it's justified--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [988.492, 1001.81, 1004.33, 1017.11], "stop_times": [1001.81, 1004.33, 1017.11, 1019.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 988.492}, "reply_to": "20280__0_080", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_082", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "What about Franklin?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1019.151], "stop_times": [1020.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1019.151}, "reply_to": "20280__0_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20280__0_083", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--you can go out and do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1020.262], "stop_times": [1020.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1020.262}, "reply_to": "20280__0_082", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_084", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "What about Franklin?\nWell, guidance about mitigation, I thought we have said quite the opposite, that you cannot constrain the mitigation.\nYou tell them... you tell the jury, mitigate.\nYou know, you can consider in mitigation whatever you like.\nDo you consider that careful guidance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1020.593, 1021.442, 1026.465, 1028.767, 1031.417], "stop_times": [1021.442, 1026.465, 1028.767, 1031.417, 1033.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1020.593}, "reply_to": "20280__0_083", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20280__0_085", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "There has to be both.\nThose are dual principles all coming from Furman.\nIt's dual principles.\nWhat you can't do is cut off mitigation, and what you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1033.04, 1035.582, 1037.752, 1038.684], "stop_times": [1035.582, 1037.752, 1038.684, 1041.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1033.04}, "reply_to": "20280__0_084", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_086", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Furman wasn't even a Court opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1041.445], "stop_times": [1043.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1041.445}, "reply_to": "20280__0_085", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20280__0_087", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--But the theories all stem from Furman, and it goes to Gregg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1043.347], "stop_times": [1047.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1043.347}, "reply_to": "20280__0_086", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_088", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "The Court in a case... I don't even know how to pronounce it.\nTuilaepa?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1047.29, 1050.422], "stop_times": [1050.422, 1051.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1047.29}, "reply_to": "20280__0_087", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20280__0_089", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Tuilaepa.\nI hope so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1051.444, 1051.704], "stop_times": [1051.704, 1052.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1051.444}, "reply_to": "20280__0_088", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_090", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Hard to pronounce... said that States need not instruct juries as to how to weigh any particular fact in a capital sentencing decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1052.515], "stop_times": [1061.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1052.515}, "reply_to": "20280__0_089", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20280__0_091", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "We're not talking about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1061.652], "stop_times": [1063.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1061.652}, "reply_to": "20280__0_090", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_092", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "They don't have to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1063.061], "stop_times": [1063.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1063.061}, "reply_to": "20280__0_091", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20280__0_093", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--We're not talking about weighing.\nWe've never asked for a weighing instruction.\nIt's not a weighing system.\nWe talked about the judge impressing upon the jury that this stuff is important.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1063.572, 1064.744, 1066.574, 1067.585], "stop_times": [1064.744, 1066.574, 1067.585, 1072.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1063.572}, "reply_to": "20280__0_092", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_094", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "What about Franklin?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1072.568], "stop_times": [1073.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1072.568}, "reply_to": "20280__0_093", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20280__0_095", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "The... I don't... I don't see Franklin as affecting the equation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1073.569], "stop_times": [1079.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1073.569}, "reply_to": "20280__0_094", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_096", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Well Franklin, as I read it, I... you've probably read it more carefully and more recently, but I thought that they upheld a Texas instruction that never mentioned the word mitigation, that the Court rejected the need to have an instruction that told them about, you have to consider evidence that mitigates, that all the judge said in Franklin, the only relevant thing, was he read number 2... you know, that second part of the Texas thing that says, the jury must, to sentence a person to death, have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a probability he will commit future crimes, and that was it.\nI don't think there was any other relevant instruction there, except take into account all the evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1079.042, 1116.015], "stop_times": [1116.015, 1121.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1079.042}, "reply_to": "20280__0_095", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20280__0_097", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "That's correct, but remember that you're dealing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1121.338], "stop_times": [1123.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1121.338}, "reply_to": "20280__0_096", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_098", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Why doesn't that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1123.431], "stop_times": [1123.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1123.431}, "reply_to": "20280__0_097", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20280__0_099", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--You're dealing with the uniqueness of the Texas statutory scheme, and the standard the court has set up for the Texas scheme is that there must be a vehicle for giving effect to the mitigating evidence.\nThe court decided in Franklin, unlike what it decided in Penry, where it reaches a different result and says it has to be an additional instruction, the court says in Franklin that you may give... that the aggravating circumstances created the vehicle for discussing with the jury the mitigating evidence, so even though you didn't talk abut mitigation, the unique aspects of the Texas scheme created the vehicle for doing that.\nThat's not at issue here.\nWe don't have those questions where you could argue age, for example, in the context of talking about future dangerousness or some other... or deliberativeness.\nThat is, if you're talking about mental health issues, whether that's a vehicle for it or not.\nSo the Texas scheme is unique, and the courts... and in fact, when the court had to deal with an issue such as mental retardation, where it felt that that vehicle was not provided by the statutory questions in the Texas scheme, it said it's not enough, and you have to go back and tell them about mitigation so they can do it.\nAnd as I understand it, in fact, Texas has now added a fourth question so that there is that vehicle, and every other State, every State has provided instructions on mitigation... whether it's a weighing State or nonweighing State, every State but Virginia, and even now maybe in Virginia under the new model jury instructions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1123.732, 1134.398, 1159.523, 1160.965, 1169.09, 1172.293, 1191.316], "stop_times": [1134.398, 1159.523, 1160.965, 1169.09, 1172.293, 1191.316, 1210.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1123.732}, "reply_to": "20280__0_098", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_100", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Mr. Zerkin, the counsel discussed mitigation at length, both defense counsel and the prosecutor.\nDid the trial judge say anything at all to the jury before or after the summations?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1210.176, 1215.65], "stop_times": [1215.65, 1223.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1210.176}, "reply_to": "20280__0_099", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20280__0_101", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--He--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1223.927], "stop_times": [1225.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1223.927}, "reply_to": "20280__0_100", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_102", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Sometimes a judge will say, you take the law from me and not from the counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1225.548], "stop_times": [1229.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1225.548}, "reply_to": "20280__0_101", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20280__0_103", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Now... yeah.\nYes, he did.\nexcuse me, Your Honor.\nHe said... he didn't say, and not from counsel.\nHe said, I will instruct you as to what the law is.\nHe did it a couple of times, including as he was about to give the jury instruction.\nHe says, it's the duty of the court now to instruct you as to the law applicable in this phase of the proceeding, and he then went into the instruction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1229.151, 1230.102, 1231.15, 1232.001, 1235.164, 1238.016, 1242.43], "stop_times": [1230.102, 1231.15, 1232.001, 1235.164, 1238.016, 1242.43, 1250.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1229.151}, "reply_to": "20280__0_102", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_104", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "What did he say about the role of counsel?\nDid he say something to the effect that what the lawyers say is not evidence but it may help... or the law, but it may help you to understand the law and the evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1250.244, 1252.826], "stop_times": [1252.826, 1261.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1250.244}, "reply_to": "20280__0_103", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20280__0_105", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "I don't believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1261.692], "stop_times": [1263.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1261.692}, "reply_to": "20280__0_104", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_106", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "That's a typical instruction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1263.502], "stop_times": [1264.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1263.502}, "reply_to": "20280__0_105", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20280__0_107", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--He did not... he did not instruct them on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1264.854], "stop_times": [1266.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1264.854}, "reply_to": "20280__0_106", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_108", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "I don't find all of these instructions in the appendix filed here.\nI don't find the one you just read or anything else, just a few of them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1266.975, 1270.999], "stop_times": [1270.999, 1276.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1266.975}, "reply_to": "20280__0_107", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20280__0_109", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Your Honor, the... what I just read to you comes from page 1573 of the transcript.\nIt's the introduction to jury instruction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1276.641, 1280.832], "stop_times": [1280.832, 1282.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1276.641}, "reply_to": "20280__0_108", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_110", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "So we have to go to the transcript rather than the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1282.935], "stop_times": [1284.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1282.935}, "reply_to": "20280__0_109", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20280__0_111", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "For that particular--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1284.054], "stop_times": [1285.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1284.054}, "reply_to": "20280__0_110", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_112", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--appendix for these other instructions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1285.857], "stop_times": [1288.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1285.857}, "reply_to": "20280__0_111", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20280__0_113", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--For that particular statement, it is not in the joint appendix, that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1288.469], "stop_times": [1291.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1288.469}, "reply_to": "20280__0_112", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_114", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Did he say, Mr. Zerkin, as you have told us, I will instruct you as to the law, or did he say, I will instruct you as to the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1291.361], "stop_times": [1297.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1291.361}, "reply_to": "20280__0_113", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20280__0_115", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "He said, it's the duty of the court... he said, it's the duty of the court now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1297.625], "stop_times": [1301.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1297.625}, "reply_to": "20280__0_114", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_116", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "He said, it is the duty of the court to instruct you as to the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1301.446], "stop_times": [1304.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1301.446}, "reply_to": "20280__0_115", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20280__0_117", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1304.619], "stop_times": [1304.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1304.619}, "reply_to": "20280__0_116", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_118", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Or did he say, it is the duty of the court to instruct you as to the law?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1304.999, 1307.47], "stop_times": [1307.47, 1307.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1304.999}, "reply_to": "20280__0_117", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20280__0_119", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "I'm not sure which way he did it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1307.801], "stop_times": [1308.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1307.801}, "reply_to": "20280__0_118", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_120", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Well, I know you aren't.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1308.842, 1310.041], "stop_times": [1310.041, 1310.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1308.842}, "reply_to": "20280__0_119", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20280__0_121", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "I don't know which way he did it, and I don't think that would make the difference, or make up for the complete lack of guidance we have here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1310.361], "stop_times": [1316.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1310.361}, "reply_to": "20280__0_120", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_122", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "May I ask you if the instructions went to the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1316.836], "stop_times": [1319.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1316.836}, "reply_to": "20280__0_121", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20280__0_123", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "The written instruction, one instruction and the verdict form went to the jury, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1319.157], "stop_times": [1325.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1319.157}, "reply_to": "20280__0_122", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_124", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "The written instructions, all of them, or what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1325.112], "stop_times": [1328.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1325.112}, "reply_to": "20280__0_123", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20280__0_125", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Well, there's only one jury instruction, and that and the verdict forms went to the jury.\nThey always go back in Virginia, so they had those.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1328.384, 1335.249], "stop_times": [1335.249, 1337.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1328.384}, "reply_to": "20280__0_124", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_126", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "And the verdict form included the word mitigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1337.622], "stop_times": [1340.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1337.622}, "reply_to": "20280__0_125", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20280__0_127", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "It said... the verdict form said, we... having considered the evidence in mitigation.\nThat's correct.\nThe difficulty again is with the trial judge not only saying, I'm going to instruct you, or the court is going to instruct you, but also saying that the state... the question here is whether it's justified or not, and without giving any concept of mitigation, or any imprimatur to it that it's valid, I mean, it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1340.074, 1342.775, 1343.516], "stop_times": [1342.775, 1343.516, 1359.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1340.074}, "reply_to": "20280__0_126", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_128", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Mr. Zerkin, you've not made any mention... I don't think I found any in your brief... about whether the rule you're arguing for might be Teague barred.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1359.205], "stop_times": [1370.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1359.205}, "reply_to": "20280__0_127", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20280__0_129", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--We certainly think it is not Teague barred, Judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1370.735], "stop_times": [1373.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1370.735}, "reply_to": "20280__0_128", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_130", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "But you did not address this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1373.295], "stop_times": [1374.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1373.295}, "reply_to": "20280__0_129", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20280__0_131", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "We did not address it there, and we think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1374.836], "stop_times": [1376.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1374.836}, "reply_to": "20280__0_130", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_132", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Although the State has addressed it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1376.627], "stop_times": [1378.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1376.627}, "reply_to": "20280__0_131", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20280__0_133", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--The State has addressed it, and we think that their argument on two points is so clearly wrong.\nOne is, they say that we have... that the Eighth Amendment jurisprudence on vagueness has never been applied to the selection phase of the process as opposed to the eligibility phase.\nThis Court did that in Tuilaepa and did it in Stringer v. Black as well.\nIn Stringer, there was a vague aggravating circumstance that was not necessary for eligibility, and the Court decided that it affected the weighing process which, of course, is at the selection phase, so the Court has very definitely applied its Eighth Amendment jurisprudence in terms of vagueness and jury instructions to the selection phase as well as to the other phase.\nAnd as I've indicated, this rule comes clearly from the roots.\nIt appears over and over in Proffitt, it appears in Gregg, it appears in Ramos.\nIn every instance the Court is telling the jury... and in Penry, and it's telling the jury that mitigation, that this is something, that mitigation matters, and the flaw of instruction clearly must be that that's contained in Zant.\nAlthough the Court didn't rule specifically on the Zant instruction, that in any event provided the jury with some guidance as to mitigation, and indicated that mitigation was something that mattered, and under these instructions, the judge... 2 days of evidence comes in, and the judge says nothing about it.\nI will save, unless the Court has other questions, my remaining time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1378.7, 1383.321, 1395.89, 1400.822, 1421.045, 1424.828, 1428.662, 1443.862, 1459.821], "stop_times": [1383.321, 1395.89, 1400.822, 1421.045, 1424.828, 1428.662, 1443.862, 1459.821, 1464.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1378.7}, "reply_to": "20280__0_132", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__0_134", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Very well, Mr. Zerkin.\nMs. Baldwin, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1464.486, 1466.136], "stop_times": [1466.136, 1467.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1464.486}, "reply_to": "20280__0_133", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20280__1_000", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI think it's very important in this case to understand what issue is before the Court, and what the instructions are that Buchanan asked for at trial, and in this respect, first of all there was never an objection made whatsoever to the Virginia pattern jury instructions.\nNot only was there no objection made, defense counsel expressly agreed that that instruc... those instructions should be given, the ones that were given in this case, as well as an express agreeal that the... agreement that the verdict forms as written should be presented to the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1467.979, 1478.723, 1495.214], "stop_times": [1478.723, 1495.214, 1513.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1467.979}, "reply_to": "20280__0_134", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_001", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "But weren't there additional instructions that were requested and specifically denied, and wasn't there--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1513.136], "stop_times": [1518.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1513.136}, "reply_to": "20280__1_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20280__1_002", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Yes, Justice Ginsburg, and I think it's very important to know exactly what those instructions were as far as what this Court has said the Eighth Amendment requires.\nThis is what... on page 75 of the appendix... this is what Buchanan asked the court for, and this is what Buchanan says the Eighth Amendment requires that juries be instructed, and that is that if the jury... there are four factors which he identified, page 75 and 76 of the appendix, and in each one of those the instruction reads that if the jury finds a particular factor to be present,\n\"then that is a fact which mitigates against imposing the death penalty. \"\nNow, this Court has never held that the Eighth Amendment extends to instructing a jury in a capital murder... a sentencing hearing that a particular fact is mitigating.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1518.999, 1527.585, 1556.186, 1561.547], "stop_times": [1527.585, 1556.186, 1561.547, 1576.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1518.999}, "reply_to": "20280__1_001", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_003", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--May I ask... I think you're right in what you're saying, but do you think it would have been error for the judge to give the instruction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1576.478], "stop_times": [1580.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1576.478}, "reply_to": "20280__1_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20280__1_004", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Under Virginia law, the Virginia supreme court has interpreted the Virginia statutory system to say that trial courts should not give specific instructions on specific factors, because to do so could--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1580.79], "stop_times": [1596.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1580.79}, "reply_to": "20280__1_003", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_005", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "It suggests that there may be no catch all.\nThat's their... isn't that their point?\nThere... but what would have been wrong with giving the instruction supplemented by a statement saying, of course, you may also consider any other mitigating evidence?\nWould that have been error?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1596.741, 1598.592, 1599.983, 1607.269], "stop_times": [1598.592, 1599.983, 1607.269, 1608.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1596.741}, "reply_to": "20280__1_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20280__1_006", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Under the Virginia supreme court rule it would, and the issue before the Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1608.448], "stop_times": [1613.271], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1608.448}, "reply_to": "20280__1_005", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_007", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Why would it have been... under... if the error is in not letting... letting them think they can't consider other mitigating evidence if the judge expressly said you may do so, how could that violate the Virginia rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1613.271], "stop_times": [1624.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1613.271}, "reply_to": "20280__1_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20280__1_008", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Well, because what the Virginia supreme court has said, and the issue before the Court today, is whether that was constitutionally reasonable.\nWhat the Virginia supreme court has said is that that could run the risk of having the jury think that they can only consider certain factors to the exclusion of others.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1624.578, 1631.233], "stop_times": [1631.233, 1639.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1624.578}, "reply_to": "20280__1_007", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_009", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "How could it run that risk if he expressly said otherwise?\nI don't understand that argument.\nI mean... I'm not... that really doesn't go to the constitu--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1639.0, 1640.569, 1641.821], "stop_times": [1640.569, 1641.821, 1644.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1639.0}, "reply_to": "20280__1_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20280__1_010", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "If he was... Justice Stevens, if he was also given the catch all, is that the question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1644.142], "stop_times": [1649.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1644.142}, "reply_to": "20280__1_009", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_011", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Yeah, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1649.014], "stop_times": [1649.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1649.014}, "reply_to": "20280__1_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20280__1_012", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Well, it's our position that the Virginia pattern instructions which were given in this case accomplished that fact.\nThey tell the jury to consider all the evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1649.234, 1654.487], "stop_times": [1654.487, 1656.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1649.234}, "reply_to": "20280__1_011", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_013", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--But don't--\n--I understand you're saying... but I'm trying to find out if... why it would have been error if he had given the instruction.\nYou seem to... and I don't... think it's not necessary to your position if they fail--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1656.66, 1657.22, 1662.865], "stop_times": [1657.22, 1662.865, 1666.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1656.66}, "reply_to": "20280__1_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20280__1_014", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "No... no, you are correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1666.067], "stop_times": [1667.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1666.067}, "reply_to": "20280__1_013", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_015", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1667.077], "stop_times": [1667.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1667.077}, "reply_to": "20280__1_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20280__1_016", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "And in fact in some cases a particular judge has used his discretion to give instructions further than... that go further--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1667.308], "stop_times": [1673.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1667.308}, "reply_to": "20280__1_015", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_017", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1673.782], "stop_times": [1674.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1673.782}, "reply_to": "20280__1_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20280__1_018", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--than the Virginia pattern instructions, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1674.012], "stop_times": [1675.592], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1674.012}, "reply_to": "20280__1_017", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_019", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "No, but I thought it would be error... say, for example, take the age instruction.\nThe requested instruction... I put it away, but in effect was you may consider the age, and may consider it as a mitigating factor, or a mitigating circumstance.\nThat would be an incorrect statement of law, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1675.592, 1678.124, 1689.63], "stop_times": [1678.124, 1689.63, 1692.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1675.592}, "reply_to": "20280__1_018", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20280__1_020", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1692.724], "stop_times": [1692.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1692.724}, "reply_to": "20280__1_019", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_021", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "I mean, the jury may or may not decide that his given age was a factor in mitigation, but it would have been error, I take it, to instruct the jury that it was a mitigating factor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1692.893], "stop_times": [1705.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1692.893}, "reply_to": "20280__1_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20280__1_022", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1705.602], "stop_times": [1705.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1705.602}, "reply_to": "20280__1_021", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_023", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "And that's what he asked for.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1705.853], "stop_times": [1706.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1705.853}, "reply_to": "20280__1_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20280__1_024", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Yes, you're absolutely... in fact, the age instruction, which is on page 76 of the appendix, is different from the other three.\nIn fact, it goes even further.\nIt... it doesn't say the age is something that you may consider as a mitigating factor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1706.924, 1712.858, 1714.558], "stop_times": [1712.858, 1714.558, 1719.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1706.924}, "reply_to": "20280__1_023", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_025", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1719.061], "stop_times": [1719.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1719.061}, "reply_to": "20280__1_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20280__1_026", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "It says, the age of Douglas Buchanan is a fact which mitigates.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1719.291], "stop_times": [1722.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1719.291}, "reply_to": "20280__1_025", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_027", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Well, so do the other ones.\nThen--\n--Yes.\nThe other ones do, too.\nCommitted while he was under the influence of extreme--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1722.342, 1723.143, 1723.333, 1723.624, 1724.595], "stop_times": [1723.143, 1723.333, 1723.624, 1724.595, 1727.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1722.342}, "reply_to": "20280__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20280__1_028", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1727.697], "stop_times": [1728.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1727.697}, "reply_to": "20280__1_027", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_029", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--mental or emotional disturbance.\nThat is a fact which mitigates against.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1728.076, 1728.897], "stop_times": [1728.897, 1731.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1728.076}, "reply_to": "20280__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20280__1_030", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "That--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1731.679], "stop_times": [1731.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1731.679}, "reply_to": "20280__1_029", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_031", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Whereas the Virginia statute says, facts in mitigation may include, but shall not be limited to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1731.899], "stop_times": [1738.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1731.899}, "reply_to": "20280__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20280__1_032", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--That's correct, and that's why the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1738.203], "stop_times": [1738.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1738.203}, "reply_to": "20280__1_031", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_033", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "It does not say facts in mitigation--\n--Yeah.\n--do include.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1738.894, 1740.093, 1740.314], "stop_times": [1740.093, 1740.314, 1740.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1738.894}, "reply_to": "20280__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20280__1_034", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--And that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1740.894], "stop_times": [1741.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1740.894}, "reply_to": "20280__1_033", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_035", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "It's up to the jury whether--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1741.295], "stop_times": [1742.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1741.295}, "reply_to": "20280__1_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20280__1_036", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--That's right, and that is why the Virginia supreme court has interpreted the statutory system to... such that the courts should not and may not give specific instructions that highlight or single out certain factors which may or may not be mitigating.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1742.016], "stop_times": [1758.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1742.016}, "reply_to": "20280__1_035", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_037", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--What about what I think is a separate argument, a totally separate argument, is not on page 75 but on page 74, and in instruction (A)(B) what he does is, he asks the judge in a separate matter that was separately refused simply to tell the jury that they can consider anything in mitigation growing out of the person or the crime.\nNow, I take it his basic separate argument is that he asked the judge in that instruction, not the ones you quoted, to consider... just consider mitigation, and there was nothing else in the other pattern instructions that told him that.\nSo if your argument is he hasn't properly raised the question he's trying to raise, I'm slightly stymied, because it seems to me he has in instruction (A)(B) on page 74.\nNow, is there any response to what I just said?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1758.238, 1779.292, 1796.202, 1809.562], "stop_times": [1779.292, 1796.202, 1809.562, 1812.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1758.238}, "reply_to": "20280__1_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20280__1_038", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "No, I disagree with you, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1812.383], "stop_times": [1814.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1812.383}, "reply_to": "20280__1_037", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_039", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Oh, you do.\nThat's why I asked.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1814.384, 1814.604], "stop_times": [1814.604, 1815.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1814.384}, "reply_to": "20280__1_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20280__1_040", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Because I think... and my argument is not that he has not preserved an objection to the refusal of these instructions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1815.426], "stop_times": [1823.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1815.426}, "reply_to": "20280__1_039", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_041", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "All right.\nWell then, if you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1823.31, 1823.581], "stop_times": [1823.581, 1824.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1823.31}, "reply_to": "20280__1_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20280__1_042", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "My argument is, that is all that he has preserved, not that he's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1824.031], "stop_times": [1826.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1824.031}, "reply_to": "20280__1_041", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_043", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Oh, fine.\nBut... yeah, but then, isn't he in section (A)(B) raising the point he wants to make, which is that the judge has to tell the jury something about mitigation, because (A)(B) is very generally phrased.\nIt refers to nothing specific.\nNow, what is your response to that specific point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1826.663, 1826.853, 1839.46, 1841.213], "stop_times": [1826.853, 1839.46, 1841.213, 1844.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1826.663}, "reply_to": "20280__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20280__1_044", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--My response is still that he is not... I don't believe... his argument on brief and his argument this morning is to look at the Virginia pattern instructions that are given and to complain that the phrase, all the evidence, does not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1844.335], "stop_times": [1858.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1844.335}, "reply_to": "20280__1_043", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_045", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "I thought--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1858.103], "stop_times": [1858.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1858.103}, "reply_to": "20280__1_044", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20280__1_046", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Does not allow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1858.343], "stop_times": [1859.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1858.343}, "reply_to": "20280__1_045", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_047", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Mr. Zerkin made it clear that that was the model instruction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1859.415], "stop_times": [1863.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1859.415}, "reply_to": "20280__1_046", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20280__1_048", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1863.037], "stop_times": [1863.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1863.037}, "reply_to": "20280__1_047", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_049", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "He did say to me, although it was somewhat equivocal, that it would be enough to say, and you may take into account all the evidence, including the mitigating evidence, which, as Justice Breyer pointed out, is essentially what instruction (A)(B) seeks, and that was denied.\nThat is, if you find any facts which mitigate a death penalty, mitigate against the death penalty, you shall consider those facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1863.706, 1883.1], "stop_times": [1883.1, 1892.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1863.706}, "reply_to": "20280__1_048", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20280__1_050", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "If his argument is somehow only married to that one instruction... and I don't think so.\nI think his argument is that he should have all the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1892.256, 1900.27], "stop_times": [1900.27, 1902.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1892.256}, "reply_to": "20280__1_049", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_051", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "He has a separate argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1902.011], "stop_times": [1902.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1902.011}, "reply_to": "20280__1_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20280__1_052", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1902.802], "stop_times": [1903.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1902.802}, "reply_to": "20280__1_051", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_053", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Which I think is married to the instruction, which is that the pattern instruction would be fine if they'd given (A)(B).\nBut (A)(B)--\n--If they didn't give (A)(B), it wouldn't be fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1903.323, 1910.028, 1911.187], "stop_times": [1910.028, 1911.187, 1912.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1903.323}, "reply_to": "20280__1_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20280__1_054", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "But it's merely duplicative.\nIt's merely cumulative of the instruction that already was given.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1912.75, 1914.069], "stop_times": [1914.069, 1917.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1912.75}, "reply_to": "20280__1_053", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_055", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Counsel, (A)(B) includes as its first words, in addition to the mitigating factors specified in other instructions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1917.051], "stop_times": [1925.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1917.051}, "reply_to": "20280__1_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20280__1_056", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Right.\nIt's a package.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1925.118, 1925.716], "stop_times": [1925.716, 1926.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1925.118}, "reply_to": "20280__1_055", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_057", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Do you think (A)(B)... meaning the ones later on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1926.807], "stop_times": [1929.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1926.807}, "reply_to": "20280__1_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20280__1_058", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1929.481], "stop_times": [1929.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1929.481}, "reply_to": "20280__1_057", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_059", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "The things did come in a package.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1929.849], "stop_times": [1931.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1929.849}, "reply_to": "20280__1_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20280__1_060", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Correct, and in fact the record... it's not in the appendix, but in the record of the case, what the... what Buchanan actually asked for initially, and then he himself voluntarily withdrew, were a number of jury verdict forms and other instructions that clearly set the whole system up as a weighing system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1931.141], "stop_times": [1949.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1931.141}, "reply_to": "20280__1_059", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_061", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Okay, but didn't... I want to get clear on (A)(B) and the question whether we've got a case here.\nAs I read (A)(B), there are two parts to it one is the part that refers to other instructions.\nIt then goes on to say... this is the first sentence.\nYou shall consider the circumstances surrounding the offense, the history, background, et cetera, and any other facts in mitigation.\nThat part of the request I assume has the same flaw, as you see it, that the age request had.\nIt in effect implies that the facts surrounding the killing were mitigating, and I take it you say that was properly refused.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1949.142, 1954.506, 1962.401, 1964.894, 1972.227, 1979.573], "stop_times": [1954.506, 1962.401, 1964.894, 1972.227, 1979.573, 1987.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1949.142}, "reply_to": "20280__1_060", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20280__1_062", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Mm hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1987.588], "stop_times": [1987.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1987.588}, "reply_to": "20280__1_061", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_063", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "But then there's a second sentence.\nIf you find the existence of any facts which mitigate, then you shall consider these facts.\nThat, I take it, even on your view, was not a request which it would have been erroneous to give as an instruction, and that's the request that raises this issue.\nAm I correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [1987.839, 1989.137, 1996.694, 2007.671], "stop_times": [1989.137, 1996.694, 2007.671, 2008.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1987.839}, "reply_to": "20280__1_062", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20280__1_064", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "I'm looking at the second sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2008.672], "stop_times": [2011.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2008.672}, "reply_to": "20280__1_063", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_065", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2011.754], "stop_times": [2012.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2011.754}, "reply_to": "20280__1_064", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20280__1_066", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "And there would be nothing wrong with that, that one sentence, but that's not the instruction that was offered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2012.035], "stop_times": [2016.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2012.035}, "reply_to": "20280__1_065", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_067", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Oh, I quite agree, but I mean, we've got two issues here.\nNumber 1 is, did he truly raise the issue that we've taken this case for, and I assume that the second sentence is at least enough to get him across the line on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2016.387, 2018.898], "stop_times": [2018.898, 2030.558], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2016.387}, "reply_to": "20280__1_066", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20280__1_068", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Well, frankly it's been hard for me to figure out exactly what the issue is that he is saying the Eighth Amendment requires in this case, because it seems to me he's changed it from trial to direct appeal to collateral review to here, and I think that the important issue for this Court to decide is, this is a coll... this is a case that is 10 years old.\nIt is here on collateral review, and the Court must, before it can consider granting relief, determine whether what he's asking for is a new rule.\nAnd to do that, what we have to do is look at what was done in the case and the rulings that were made, and were those constitutionally reasonable, and on that score we have, I believe, a strong argument that considering what this Court has said the Eighth Amendment required in capital sentencing hearings in 1989, when the Virginia supreme court decided this case, 1990 when it became final, or even today, clearly the Virginia supreme court rule and the instructions that were given fell well within constitutional parameters.\nWhat this Court has made very clear is that there are only two requirements from the Eighth Amendment as far as capital sentencing hearings, and one is that the class of persons eligible for the death penalty in the first place has to be narrowed and, secondly, that the jury not be prevented from considering any evidence, relevant evidence in mitigation.\nThis Court has never held that specific instructions need to be given to a jury considering the sentencing hearing and, in fact, has said over and over that States are free to structure and shape what types... what the procedure is going to be in the hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2030.558, 2047.348, 2057.141, 2090.415, 2110.377], "stop_times": [2047.348, 2057.141, 2090.415, 2110.377, 2126.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2030.558}, "reply_to": "20280__1_067", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_069", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Ms. Baldwin, the questions presented in petitioner's petition for certiorari, the first question... I think it's the first one that we granted cert on... does say, is the Eighth Amendment right to be free from arbitrary and capricious imposition of the death penalty violated when the jury is not instructed regarding the existence of statutorily defined mitigating circumstances, so I really... I took it to be a requirement that the jury... (A)(B) wasn't at issue.\nIt was rather the later instructions, AH and so forth, which does say you will consider age and so forth in mitigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2126.669, 2155.737], "stop_times": [2155.737, 2163.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2126.669}, "reply_to": "20280__1_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20280__1_070", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Well, what Buchanan has argued all... what he argued on direct appeal, which is what we say is preserved, was that his instructions that were refused were a violation of the Eighth Amendment, and that included instruction (A)(B).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2163.892], "stop_times": [2176.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2163.892}, "reply_to": "20280__1_069", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_071", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Well, in fairness to the petitioner, the question presented also concludes with, where the jury charge is devoid of any reference to the concept of mitigation, so we can... can we discuss just that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2176.952], "stop_times": [2188.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2176.952}, "reply_to": "20280__1_070", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20280__1_072", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Now, that was definitely not preserved, Justice Kennedy, absolutely not, because there was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2188.991], "stop_times": [2193.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2188.991}, "reply_to": "20280__1_071", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_073", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Well, let's assume... let's assume that it was preserved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2193.722], "stop_times": [2195.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2193.722}, "reply_to": "20280__1_072", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20280__1_074", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2195.753], "stop_times": [2196.474], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2195.753}, "reply_to": "20280__1_073", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_075", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "His argument is that, given our Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, you have to give the jury some framework, some guidance for considering whether or not factors that have been introduced into evidence may be mitigating.\nNow, would you tell us what's wrong with that position, if that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2196.474, 2210.363], "stop_times": [2210.363, 2214.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2196.474}, "reply_to": "20280__1_074", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20280__1_076", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "To my knowledge, this Court has never held that.\nWhat the Court has held is that a defendant... is that a jury may not be prevented from considering any relevant mitigating evidence.\nThere's never been a question in this case the jurors understood their duty when they were told to consider all the evidence, and the Court has never said we hold--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2214.066, 2217.108, 2225.684], "stop_times": [2217.108, 2225.684, 2234.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2214.066}, "reply_to": "20280__1_075", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_077", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Can a... does a juror perform his or her constitutional duty when he says, I'm not going to consider any evidence of mitigation in this case?\nI don't want to even talk about it.\nI don't want to even consider it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2234.908, 2242.683, 2244.395], "stop_times": [2242.683, 2244.395, 2245.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2234.908}, "reply_to": "20280__1_076", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20280__1_078", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--No, he... that's a violation of the Eighth Amendment.\nWhen the sentencer says, I refuse to consider it, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2245.367, 2247.668], "stop_times": [2247.668, 2251.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2245.367}, "reply_to": "20280__1_077", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_079", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "And it's a violation of a judge's charge to the jury here if he tells them to consider all the evidence, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2251.579], "stop_times": [2256.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2251.579}, "reply_to": "20280__1_078", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20280__1_080", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2256.414], "stop_times": [2257.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2256.414}, "reply_to": "20280__1_079", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_081", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "I mean, if a juror that Justice Kennedy hypothesized were to say, I'm not going to consider any mitigating... he would be violating the judge's charge to the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2257.783], "stop_times": [2268.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2257.783}, "reply_to": "20280__1_080", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20280__1_082", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--That's exactly right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2268.362], "stop_times": [2269.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2268.362}, "reply_to": "20280__1_081", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_083", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Which told the jury to consider all the evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2269.213], "stop_times": [2270.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2269.213}, "reply_to": "20280__1_082", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20280__1_084", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "That's exactly right.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2270.333, 2270.964], "stop_times": [2270.964, 2271.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2270.333}, "reply_to": "20280__1_083", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_085", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Is that right?\nThat's the part that I'm actually interested in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2271.194, 2271.895], "stop_times": [2271.895, 2274.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2271.194}, "reply_to": "20280__1_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20280__1_086", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Yes.\nIt... yes.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2274.706, 2275.334, 2275.554], "stop_times": [2275.334, 2275.554, 2275.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2274.706}, "reply_to": "20280__1_085", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_087", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Leaving aside the structural thing and whether you have to structure it or not, let me go back to Justice O'Connor's original point.\nIs there a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the instruction in such a way that the jury was prevented from considering constitutionally relevant evidence?\nAll right.\nThat's the standard I'm focusing on.\nLet me read to you exactly what's bothering me, and I'll leave a few words out of that instruction and I'll use my tone of voice so you can see what's bothering me, even though, I grant you, as Justice Scalia said, he probably read this, the judge, in a monotone.\nBut I won't.\nThis is the instruction, modified a little, I think in harmless ways.\nIf you find from the evidence that the Commonwealth has proved vileness, then you may fix the punishment at death.\nAll right?\nOr, if you believe from all the evidence the death penalty is not justified, then you shall fix the punishment at life.\nNow, I've read that two or three different ways in my mind, but it seems to me one big way that stands out is the possibility the jury thinks if we find vileness, we can fix death.\nIf we don't find vileness, we can fix life.\nYou see?\nAnd it's because of the presence of that word justified, and the presence of the word, or, and certainly one of the arguments he makes... of course, that would be totally wrong.\nThat would be incorrect under the Constitution.\nIt would meet the standard that Justice O'Connor mentioned.\nAnd I've read that three times in my mind, and I've come to thinking that well, gee, the way I just read it with my tone of voice is certainly a way the jury might have understood it, and that's... that's what I want you to respond to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2275.985, 2281.319, 2306.647, 2290.555, 2292.468, 2307.408, 2308.067, 2313.61, 2325.229, 2326.379, 2336.446, 2348.334, 2352.338, 2353.056, 2361.601, 2364.683, 2367.195], "stop_times": [2281.319, 2306.647, 2290.555, 2292.468, 2307.408, 2308.067, 2313.61, 2325.229, 2326.379, 2336.446, 2348.334, 2352.338, 2353.056, 2361.601, 2364.683, 2367.195, 2380.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2275.985}, "reply_to": "20280__1_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20280__1_088", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Well, the standard comes from Boyde, and Boyde says that the standard is not if there's a possibility that there was some misunderstanding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2380.485], "stop_times": [2388.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2380.485}, "reply_to": "20280__1_087", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_089", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Yeah, a reasonable likelihood--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2388.21], "stop_times": [2388.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2388.21}, "reply_to": "20280__1_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20280__1_090", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Or incorrect--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2388.841], "stop_times": [2389.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2388.841}, "reply_to": "20280__1_089", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_091", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Mm hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2389.031], "stop_times": [2389.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2389.031}, "reply_to": "20280__1_090", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20280__1_092", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--But there has to be a reasonable likelihood--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2389.491], "stop_times": [2391.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2389.491}, "reply_to": "20280__1_091", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_093", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "That's why I used my voice... isn't there a reasonable likelihood.\nNo.\nOkay.\nWell--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2391.532, 2393.413, 2393.713, 2394.134], "stop_times": [2393.413, 2393.713, 2394.134, 2394.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2391.532}, "reply_to": "20280__1_092", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20280__1_094", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--There can't be in this case.\nIt is impossible for that to have occurred in this case, because of the considerations that you look at under Boyde.\nIt is not just the instruction.\nNow, I would argue that that reading--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2394.423, 2396.203, 2402.859, 2404.481], "stop_times": [2396.203, 2402.859, 2404.481, 2406.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2394.423}, "reply_to": "20280__1_093", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_095", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Well, you say it's not because you have to look at the arguments of counsel and so forth, I assume.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2406.33], "stop_times": [2411.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2406.33}, "reply_to": "20280__1_094", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20280__1_096", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--That you have to look at everything.\nYou have to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2411.493, 2413.116], "stop_times": [2413.116, 2413.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2411.493}, "reply_to": "20280__1_095", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_097", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "But if you read it as Justice Breyer did, that is troublesome indeed, because the instruction has collapsed both the eligibility for a death penalty factor in with the sentencing factors in a single instruction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2413.546], "stop_times": [2433.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2413.546}, "reply_to": "20280__1_096", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20280__1_098", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2433.029], "stop_times": [2433.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2433.029}, "reply_to": "20280__1_097", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_099", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "That is troublesome.\nNow, I'm not sure the petitioner raised that.\nIt is very hard to know, looking at the petition, that that was even raised, even though I personally would find it somewhat troublesome had it been raised.\nDo you have comments about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2433.329, 2434.481, 2437.72, 2449.511], "stop_times": [2434.481, 2437.72, 2449.511, 2451.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2433.329}, "reply_to": "20280__1_098", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20280__1_100", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, I don't think it does... collapses the two parts at all, because the eligibility instructions are in the first... are in the second paragraph.\nThese are a number of instructions that happened to be in various different paragraphs, but there are a number of instructions.\nYou have to understand something that Virginia does.\nVirginia triple narrows for the class of eligibles, I think unlike any other State that I know of.\nIn Virginia, in the guilt phase we can't get a capital murder unless it is a premeditated murder and unless it is a premeditated murder coupled with another circumstance, such as in this case, the killing of more than one person in a single transaction.\nAnd then in the sentencing phase, we have a third narrowing of class eligibles by a requirement of finding one of two additional aggravating factors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2451.851, 2462.218, 2468.823, 2470.974, 2478.93, 2491.907], "stop_times": [2462.218, 2468.823, 2470.974, 2478.93, 2491.907, 2501.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2451.851}, "reply_to": "20280__1_099", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_101", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "What about Justice O'Connor's question?\nWas the point that she commented on and that Justice Breyer made, was that argument... is that preserved here under the question presented in the proceedings in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2501.674, 2503.547], "stop_times": [2503.547, 2512.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2501.674}, "reply_to": "20280__1_100", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20280__1_102", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "I don't believe it is at all, and I think especially because the record shows that Buchanan agreed to these... to the pattern instructions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2512.623], "stop_times": [2520.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2512.623}, "reply_to": "20280__1_101", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_103", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Well, I also what to say, I don't agree that the words that Justice Breyer left out are inconsequential.\nI think the problem is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2520.107, 2525.051], "stop_times": [2525.051, 2526.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2520.107}, "reply_to": "20280__1_102", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20280__1_104", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "They're the whole guts of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2526.731], "stop_times": [2528.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2526.731}, "reply_to": "20280__1_103", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_105", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Everything is summarized in the second paragraph, the requirements that must be proven, and then the court says, if you find from the evidence that the Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable doubt the requirements of the preceding paragraph, then you may fix the punishment of the defendant at death, or if you believe from all the evidence that the death penalty is not justified, then you shall fix the punishment of the defendant at life.\nI don't see how that lends itself to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2528.552, 2548.636], "stop_times": [2548.636, 2550.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2528.552}, "reply_to": "20280__1_104", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20280__1_106", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "It is complete... it is our position that it is completely--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2550.738], "stop_times": [2553.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2550.738}, "reply_to": "20280__1_105", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_107", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Well, I think the only words I left out were the word life imprisonment and reasonable doubt.\nI mean, I don't... the sentence I'm reading... I'll read the whole thing if you want, but I won't read it again.\nI must say I think there's some merit to Justice Breyer's point that this... the instruction is in the dysjunctive, with the or.\nThat's right.\nSo that it indicates that if you go through step 1... if you find from the evidence that the Government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating factors exist, that were specified in the previous paragraph, then you can stop.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2553.579, 2558.462, 2562.284, 2569.728, 2570.299], "stop_times": [2558.462, 2562.284, 2569.728, 2570.299, 2581.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2553.579}, "reply_to": "20280__1_106", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20280__1_108", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2581.446], "stop_times": [2583.289], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2581.446}, "reply_to": "20280__1_107", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_109", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "And--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2583.289], "stop_times": [2583.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2583.289}, "reply_to": "20280__1_108", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20280__1_110", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--you can't stop because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2583.87], "stop_times": [2585.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2583.87}, "reply_to": "20280__1_109", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_111", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Well, if you believe from all the evidence that a death penalty is not justified, that indicates that maybe the aggravating factors have not been established.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2585.009], "stop_times": [2592.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2585.009}, "reply_to": "20280__1_110", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20280__1_112", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Well, the important word here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2592.926], "stop_times": [2594.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2592.926}, "reply_to": "20280__1_111", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_113", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "And so... so all the defendant is saying is, in this context you should say something about mitigation, what I want you to tell them about is the statutory factors.\nNow, maybe he's wrong about that, but his question presented indicates that where the jury charge is devoid of any reference to the concept of mitigation, don't you have to do something?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2594.416, 2602.1], "stop_times": [2602.1, 2610.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2594.416}, "reply_to": "20280__1_112", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20280__1_114", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Well, and it's our position that Virginia does that.\nJustice Kennedy, it's important... and I don't believe that this issue we're talking about, and that is an interpretation of this paragraph as being somehow ambiguous, I don't believe that's preserved at all.\nIt was not raised, an objection to this.\nHowever, the Fourth Circuit, in other cases where it has been preserved, has rejected this exact argument by saying that what a jury is... what a jury may do, they're free not to do, and this is in essence a followup to the second paragraph that says, jury, before you can even consider a death penalty, before you can even consider two options, you have to find that it's vile.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2610.207, 2612.998, 2623.324, 2626.256], "stop_times": [2612.998, 2623.324, 2626.256, 2650.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2610.207}, "reply_to": "20280__1_113", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_115", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Is it correct--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2650.251], "stop_times": [2651.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2650.251}, "reply_to": "20280__1_114", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20280__1_116", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Now, if you find--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2651.313], "stop_times": [2651.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2651.313}, "reply_to": "20280__1_115", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_117", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--I'm sorry.\nI didn't want to interrupt you.\nYou finish.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2651.934, 2653.313, 2653.834], "stop_times": [2653.313, 2653.834, 2654.315], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2651.934}, "reply_to": "20280__1_116", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20280__1_118", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Thank you.\nNow, if you find that it's vile... this is in the third paragraph... you may sentence him to death, or if you believe from all the evidence that the death penalty is not justified... I... to say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2654.315, 2655.106], "stop_times": [2655.106, 2667.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2654.315}, "reply_to": "20280__1_117", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_119", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "It seems to me that you're--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2667.793], "stop_times": [2668.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2667.793}, "reply_to": "20280__1_118", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20280__1_120", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--To say that the jury is going to read this and stop there and not read the rest of their instructions is a presumption that I don't think this Court has ever indulged in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2668.544], "stop_times": [2675.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2668.544}, "reply_to": "20280__1_119", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_121", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--But isn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2675.189], "stop_times": [2676.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2675.189}, "reply_to": "20280__1_120", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20280__1_122", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "That a jury doesn't read it's instructions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2676.158], "stop_times": [2677.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2676.158}, "reply_to": "20280__1_121", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_123", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Isn't it correct that you're assuming that the jury would interpret the word or in that instruction as saying, in effect, but even if you do so find, you may nevertheless do the rest?\nBecause that's... you're assuming that they understand the or means, even if you find that, then there's this other alternative, but as Justice Breyer points out that a reasonable juror might think there are two alternatives, either the first clause or the second.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2677.79, 2689.037], "stop_times": [2689.037, 2702.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2677.79}, "reply_to": "20280__1_122", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20280__1_124", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Well, I think the... I think instruction is incredibly simple, and I think that no... it's not a reasonable probability, I don't think it's any probability that a jury, reading this entire instruction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2702.027], "stop_times": [2714.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2702.027}, "reply_to": "20280__1_123", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_125", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2714.706], "stop_times": [2715.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2714.706}, "reply_to": "20280__1_124", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20280__1_126", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--could possibly come away with the belief that they somehow can't consider mitigation, they can't consider the evidence that the defendant's put on for 2 days--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2715.115], "stop_times": [2724.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2715.115}, "reply_to": "20280__1_125", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_127", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--It is dysjunctive, and the question, I suppose, is whether a reasonable jury would think that what the dysjunction is is between, if you find, and then you... or if you believe, or whether it's between, then you may fix the punishment at death, or, then you shall fix the punishment at life imprisonment, and it seems to me that the latter dysjunction is much more reasonable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2724.07], "stop_times": [2755.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2724.07}, "reply_to": "20280__1_126", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20280__1_128", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Yes, I agree, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2755.292], "stop_times": [2757.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2755.292}, "reply_to": "20280__1_127", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_129", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "May I ask another... I... we sort of milked this paragraph to death.\nMay I ask you to respond before you're through, and do it at your own leisure, to the argument that they make, and I don't know whether it's valid or not, that in every other State in the country that has capital punishment this instruction would not have been sufficient.\nIs that correct, do you think?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2757.713, 2762.255, 2775.254], "stop_times": [2762.255, 2775.254, 2777.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2757.713}, "reply_to": "20280__1_128", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20280__1_130", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "That's not correct because... I think because of what the Court has said in case after case about States being free to structure and shape their sentencing hearings.\nIn this... and the argument that Buchanan makes as to all the other States is completely beside the point, because there's really no State that's like another State completely.\nI mean, that's a comparison that has no constitutional significance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2777.044, 2787.122, 2798.7], "stop_times": [2787.122, 2798.7, 2803.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2777.044}, "reply_to": "20280__1_129", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_131", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Well, maybe that's not an argument that should persuade us, but I'm just kind of asking you, can you name another State in which this instruction would have been sufficient?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2803.783], "stop_times": [2811.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2803.783}, "reply_to": "20280__1_130", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20280__1_132", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "I think what Justice Breyer pointed out in Texas.\nIn Texas... in fact, in Texas, not only is the word mitigation not used under the cases where the system has been upheld, but it's a much more restrictive system than Virginia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2811.778, 2814.32], "stop_times": [2814.32, 2825.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2811.778}, "reply_to": "20280__1_131", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_133", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2825.667], "stop_times": [2826.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2825.667}, "reply_to": "20280__1_132", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20280__1_134", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "The Virginia system is that even if an aggravating factor is found--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2826.007], "stop_times": [2829.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2826.007}, "reply_to": "20280__1_133", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_135", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2829.548], "stop_times": [2830.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2829.548}, "reply_to": "20280__1_134", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20280__1_136", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--and no mitigating factors, a jury in Virginia is still free to give a life sentence.\nThat's the argument that Penry asked for, and that this Court said you didn't have to go that far.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2830.339, 2835.004], "stop_times": [2835.004, 2840.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2830.339}, "reply_to": "20280__1_135", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_137", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "We're not challenging the system as a whole.\nThat certainly is acceptable.\nThe question is whether that latitude is adequately made known to the jury.\nThat's the question under this instruction, and they... and my specific question to you... you named Texas.\nAre they correct that no other State would have accepted this instruction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2840.037, 2841.827, 2843.289, 2848.141, 2853.253], "stop_times": [2841.827, 2843.289, 2848.141, 2853.253, 2856.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2840.037}, "reply_to": "20280__1_136", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20280__1_138", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "I don't know that their argument is that no other State would have accepted it, Justice Stevens.\nTheir argument is, look at this compilation of statutes and instructions from apparently today and see how different they are from Virginia.\nI'm not sure that... no other State supreme court could pass on that, because they don't have the system that we have.\nOur system under this instruction, and under Boyde I think it's very important to look at, you're not only looking at this instruction, because even if the Court believes that there is some ambiguity in the instruction, and I don't believe there is, but even if the Court does, under Boyde there's no possibility that the jury in this case believes that it was prevented from considering mitigating evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2856.045, 2860.379, 2870.327, 2877.771], "stop_times": [2860.379, 2870.327, 2877.771, 2896.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2856.045}, "reply_to": "20280__1_137", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_139", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Well, on that particular point, I'm a little bit concerned, because what the prosecutor said in the course of virtually conceding that they should take into account mitigation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2896.533], "stop_times": [2905.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2896.533}, "reply_to": "20280__1_138", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20280__1_140", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2905.379], "stop_times": [2905.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2905.379}, "reply_to": "20280__1_139", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_141", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--He says, well, you are entitled to follow your own caprice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2905.689], "stop_times": [2909.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2905.689}, "reply_to": "20280__1_140", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20280__1_142", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2909.042], "stop_times": [2909.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2909.042}, "reply_to": "20280__1_141", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_143", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Well, I mean, I'm sitting there, a jury, thinking maybe he means that we don't have to follow the law.\nHe says we can follow our own caprice.\nI mean, that isn't exactly a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2909.24, 2913.284, 2915.455], "stop_times": [2913.284, 2915.455, 2916.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2909.24}, "reply_to": "20280__1_142", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20280__1_144", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "I think that's taking a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2916.897], "stop_times": [2918.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2916.897}, "reply_to": "20280__1_143", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_145", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--a clear statement that you can take mitigation into account under the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2918.036], "stop_times": [2921.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2918.036}, "reply_to": "20280__1_144", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20280__1_146", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--I think that's taken--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2921.639], "stop_times": [2923.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2921.639}, "reply_to": "20280__1_145", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_147", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "So I'm raising this to get your response.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2923.191], "stop_times": [2924.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2923.191}, "reply_to": "20280__1_146", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20280__1_148", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--I think that's one word taken out of context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2924.012], "stop_times": [2925.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2924.012}, "reply_to": "20280__1_147", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_149", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Mm hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2925.543], "stop_times": [2925.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2925.543}, "reply_to": "20280__1_148", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20280__1_150", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "And if you look at the context of the prosecutor's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2925.793], "stop_times": [2927.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2925.793}, "reply_to": "20280__1_149", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_151", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "He said enough in the rest of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2927.473], "stop_times": [2927.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2927.473}, "reply_to": "20280__1_150", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20280__1_152", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--argument he made very clear that what he was talking about specifically was, even if you find vileness, jury, it's your duty to consider his mitigation, and you can come back with a life sentence, and I'm not going to tell you anything different because that's not the law, and that's what the prosecutor said over and over.\nPlus at the very end of the prosecutor's rebuttal closing argument, he read the jury verdict form to the jury, and in that jury verdict form is where it says, where the jury certifies that it considered mitigating evidence, and then the jury came--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2927.894, 2943.344], "stop_times": [2943.344, 2960.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2927.894}, "reply_to": "20280__1_151", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_153", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Couldn't the jury say, the prosecutor and the defense counsel spoke about mitigation.\nThat judge, look at this charge.\nHe didn't say one word about mitigation, and I'm thinking about how this Court has handled the reasonable doubt charge.\nThose words must be spoken.\nThe court doesn't have to define them, but it has to at least speak the words, and here you're saying the charge is okay even though it doesn't even mention the word mitigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2960.255, 2966.529, 2968.362, 2978.046, 2979.966], "stop_times": [2966.529, 2968.362, 2978.046, 2979.966, 2991.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2960.255}, "reply_to": "20280__1_152", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20280__1_154", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--But there has never been a ruling that a State court has to use a specific word, even the word mitigation.\nMitigation is a lawyer word.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2991.704, 2997.259], "stop_times": [2997.259, 2999.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2991.704}, "reply_to": "20280__1_153", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_155", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "But it is used now.\nI mean, at least that model charge that we've been hearing about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [2999.872, 3001.171], "stop_times": [3001.171, 3004.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2999.872}, "reply_to": "20280__1_154", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20280__1_156", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Yes.\nThere... it has been incorporated in it now, but under the instructions that Buchanan's jury were given, they were absolutely constitutionally reasonable.\nWhat the jury was told is, consider all the evidence, and then in their verdict form they were told, you have to certify that you considered all the evidence in mitigation, and then you have both attorneys arguing not just that they have to consider mitigation, but telling the jury what mitigation was, and describing it to them in great detail in general sense and in a statutory sense, and this is a jury that knew how to ask questions, too, because in the guilt phase they came back and asked for a definition of a particular instruction.\nThis jury asked no questions when they were sent back to the jury room with the jury instructions and the written verdict forms, and when they came back and the written verdict form certifying that they had considered all the evidence in mitigation was read in open court, the trial judge polled each juror individually and said, is that your verdict, and each one said that it was, so the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [3004.433, 3004.633, 3011.888, 3039.786], "stop_times": [3004.633, 3011.888, 3039.786, 3059.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3004.433}, "reply_to": "20280__1_155", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_157", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "The instructions were given to them in writing and they took them into the jury room, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [3059.37], "stop_times": [3063.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3059.37}, "reply_to": "20280__1_156", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20280__1_158", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--As well as two written verdict forms, one for life and one for death, and the judge read in open court the jury instructions and said I'm also sending back the jury verdict forms with you, and then the prosecutor in his closing argument read the jury verdict form, including the words certifying that they had considered the evidence in mitigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [3063.632], "stop_times": [3081.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3063.632}, "reply_to": "20280__1_157", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_159", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "But the instructions went into the jury room, too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [3081.063], "stop_times": [3082.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3081.063}, "reply_to": "20280__1_158", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20280__1_160", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "And the instructions went into the jury room, and it is I think a cynical view of juries to say that they did not read these instructions, or did not read the verdict form, and then certified that they had in fact considered the evidence in mitigation, when that was the only issue before the jury for 2 days of evidence.\nIt was conceded by both sides what their duty was, what the evidence was, even the fact that there had been mitigation that had been proven.\nThe prosecutor said if the only issue was, is there mitigation, we could have all gone home Thursday night.\nI mean, this was... there was no question in this case, much less a reasonable probability, that the jury took these instructions that they were given and then somehow believed when they went back to the jury room after hearing that, the prosecutor's argument, and after reading the instructions, and after listening to 2 days of evidence, that somehow they were precluded from considering the evidence in the defendant's favor that he had put on, and this Court has never held that the word mitigation has to be used in a jury instruction sentencing phase, or that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [3082.905, 3102.507, 3110.602, 3115.895], "stop_times": [3102.507, 3110.602, 3115.895, 3146.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3082.905}, "reply_to": "20280__1_159", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_161", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Baldwin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [3146.356], "stop_times": [3147.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3146.356}, "reply_to": "20280__1_160", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20280__1_162", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [3147.047], "stop_times": [3147.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3147.047}, "reply_to": "20280__1_161", "speaker": "katherine_p_baldwin"}
{"id": "20280__1_163", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Mr. Zerkin, you have 5 minutes remaining.\nCould you address, Mr. Zerkin, whether or not you preserved the point that this instruction in itself is flawed and that therefore some corrective measure is required?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [3147.378, 3149.148], "stop_times": [3149.148, 3161.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3147.378}, "reply_to": "20280__1_162", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20280__2_000", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Yes, sir.\nIt was raised throughout.\nIt was raised on direct appeal.\nThe argument on direct appeal was that the jury had received no guidance.\nIn the State habeas petition we raised the fact that there was a failure to instruct as to mitigating circum--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [3161.225, 3161.546, 3163.899, 3165.72, 3169.743], "stop_times": [3161.546, 3163.899, 3165.72, 3169.743, 3175.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3161.225}, "reply_to": "20280__1_163", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__2_001", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Well, but I would think... Justice Kennedy can speak better than I, what he's talking about... what I would be interested in, and if... is this particular point, that this third paragraph of the instruction, the word or, because of its dysjunctive phrasing, was that raised, and if so when and where?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [3175.447], "stop_times": [3194.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3175.447}, "reply_to": "20280__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20280__2_002", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--The issue of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [3194.178], "stop_times": [3195.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3194.178}, "reply_to": "20280__2_001", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__2_003", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Answer... I think that can be answered yes or no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [3195.389], "stop_times": [3198.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3195.389}, "reply_to": "20280__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20280__2_004", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--I think the answer to that is no, that it was not specifically... that that was not specifically raised.\nWhat's been raised is the failure... throughout has been the failure to mention mitigation, to discuss it, to describe it, to give the statutory mitigating circumstances, to do anything with mitigation at all.\nIt's been Mr. Buchanan's position throughout that the difficulty here was that nothing was done, and that the Court had... if he didn't like his jury instructions, understanding there was no model jury instruction at the time that dealt with mitigation, if you don't like the ones that I've done, do one yourself, come up with the issue, and you know, do something with mitigation.\nIt was raised in the Virginia courts throughout, and the Virginia court in the State habeas proceeding ruled that when we raised it, we were raising the same claim that had been raised on direct appeal.\nThey applied the rule of the case Hawks v. Cox, which is that we dealt with this on direct appeal, it was raised, it's preserved, and in that we raised all... the failure to mention mitigation and all of those issues.\nSo that's come up all along, and in the cert petition at pages 19 to 20 we raised... the issue that we talked about was the failure to do anything in reference to mitigation, so that issue has in fact been put before every court that's looked at it, and the Virginia supreme court recognized when it came up on State habeas that it was exactly the same thing that had been presented before, and the same issue was presented.\nJustice Breyer, let me note that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [3198.702, 3203.925, 3212.8, 3232.444, 3242.079, 3252.868, 3274.52], "stop_times": [3203.925, 3212.8, 3232.444, 3242.079, 3252.868, 3274.52, 3276.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3198.702}, "reply_to": "20280__2_003", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__2_005", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "You say it's on page 19 to 20 of your cert petition?\nLet me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [3276.353, 3280.555], "stop_times": [3280.555, 3280.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3276.353}, "reply_to": "20280__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20280__2_006", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--At the bottom of 19 it talk--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [3280.855], "stop_times": [3284.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3280.855}, "reply_to": "20280__2_005", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__2_007", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [3284.558], "stop_times": [3284.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3284.558}, "reply_to": "20280__2_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20280__2_008", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--It talks about, absent any instruction on the meaning of mitigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [3284.799], "stop_times": [3287.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3284.799}, "reply_to": "20280__2_007", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__2_009", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "On the meaning of mitigation and what kinds of evidence comprise mitigation, which I think goes to the same point that you raise in question 1 of the question presented, that the specific mitigating circumstances, the statutorily defined ones, were not the subject of the instruction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [3287.65], "stop_times": [3304.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3287.65}, "reply_to": "20280__2_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20280__2_010", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "But as Justice Breyer pointed out, also in that question is that, despite counsel's request for such instructions, and where the jury charge is devoid of any reference to mitigation.\nI mean, that's... that goes... that clearly raises that part of the issue.\nThere are two parts to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [3304.66, 3314.427, 3318.05], "stop_times": [3314.427, 3318.05, 3318.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3304.66}, "reply_to": "20280__2_009", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__2_011", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "But that doesn't specify the dysjunctive, or.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [3318.719, 3321.033], "stop_times": [3321.033, 3321.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3318.719}, "reply_to": "20280__2_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20280__2_012", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Yes, you are correct.\nYou are correct.\nThe issue that you raise, Justice Breyer, is... I think is actually exacerbated by the verdict form.\nI mean, if we assume that the jury looks at the verdict form, on page 77 and 78 of the joint appendix, what it... one of the verdict forms recites the fact that they have found an aggravating circumstance.\nThe other verdict form does not have the recitation of an aggravating circumstance, so the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [3321.711, 3323.563, 3324.442, 3329.738, 3340.284], "stop_times": [3323.563, 3324.442, 3329.738, 3340.284, 3344.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3321.711}, "reply_to": "20280__2_011", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__2_013", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--So what you raised... I'm trying to be favorable to you in this question, because I want to see if you... and so don't let me be too favorable, but I take it you'd raise the fact that the instruction, perhaps because of the word or, or without it, or it didn't mention it, is a zero, and since it's a zero, there's nothing about mitigation and you have to say something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [3344.889], "stop_times": [3367.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3344.889}, "reply_to": "20280__2_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20280__2_014", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--That's correct.\nWe have argued--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [3367.352, 3368.842], "stop_times": [3368.842, 3369.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3367.352}, "reply_to": "20280__2_013", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__2_015", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "And in your calling it a zero, did you talk about the word or, or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [3369.383], "stop_times": [3373.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3369.383}, "reply_to": "20280__2_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20280__2_016", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "--I don't think we talked about the word or.\nWhat we talked about was the fact that the jury instruction was devoid of any reference to mitigation.\nThe difficulty that we have with the verdict form is that you have... it exacerbates the problem of confusing mitigation with aggravation, because what it says is, once you find an aggravating circumstance you then... the only choice you have, the only place that's recited is in the first verdict form, and that verdict form provides one possibility, and that's death.\nThe other alternative form which provides for a life verdict doesn't recite the fact that you found an aggravating circumstance, so once again, it doesn't provide clarification for the jury.\nIt actually provides further confusion for the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [3373.136, 3374.286, 3378.76, 3399.823, 3409.798], "stop_times": [3374.286, 3378.76, 3399.823, 3409.798, 3412.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3373.136}, "reply_to": "20280__2_015", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__2_017", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Well, it does say having considered... it does say having considered all of the evidence in aggravation and mitigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [3412.83], "stop_times": [3416.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3412.83}, "reply_to": "20280__2_016", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20280__2_018", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "It does, and if we assume that that's part of the jury instruction and the jury looked at it, we have that additional problem that the aggravating circumstance only results in death, and it's... where no aggravating circumstance is found results in life.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [3416.834], "stop_times": [3429.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3416.834}, "reply_to": "20280__2_017", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__2_019", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "I think you've answered the question, Mr. Zerkin.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [3429.542], "stop_times": [3431.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3429.542}, "reply_to": "20280__2_018", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20280__2_020", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [3431.463], "stop_times": [3431.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3431.463}, "reply_to": "20280__2_019", "speaker": "gerald_t_zerkin"}
{"id": "20280__2_021", "conversation_id": "20280", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8400", "start_times": [3431.664], "stop_times": [3432.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3431.664}, "reply_to": "20280__2_020", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20420__0_000", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "We'll hear argument now in No. 97-569, Burlington Industries v. Kimberly Ellerth.\nMr. Casey.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [0.0, 9.356], "stop_times": [9.356, 10.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20420__0_001", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIs an employer strictly or automatically liable for job-related threats made in conjunction with sexual advances when the employee has suffered no tangible job detriment for the rejection of those advances... in other words, the unfulfilled threat?\nWe submit that the answer to that question is no.\nStrict or automatic liability should not be applied in a situation of unfulfilled threats, but rather should be analyzed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [10.439, 14.224, 31.435, 34.737], "stop_times": [14.224, 31.435, 34.737, 43.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.439}, "reply_to": "20420__0_000", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_002", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Mr. Casey.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [43.41], "stop_times": [44.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 43.41}, "reply_to": "20420__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20420__0_003", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [44.279], "stop_times": [44.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 44.279}, "reply_to": "20420__0_002", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_004", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "It sounds to me like you're asking question 2 of the questions presented on petition for certiorari, which is whether strict liability is the proper standard.\nNow, I thought the Court didn't grant certiorari on question 2.\nI thought we granted certiorari on question 1.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [44.729, 56.92, 60.972], "stop_times": [56.92, 60.972, 64.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 44.729}, "reply_to": "20420__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20420__0_005", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [64.239], "stop_times": [65.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 64.239}, "reply_to": "20420__0_004", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_006", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Most of your brief addresses question 2.\nI mean, are we going to talk about question 1, on which cert was granted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [65.108, 67.808], "stop_times": [67.808, 73.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 65.108}, "reply_to": "20420__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20420__0_007", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Justice, the... the... the question... question 1 is the un... is whether or not the strict liability standard ought to apply in the unfulfilled threat situation, where... where there is no adverse job consequence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [73.279], "stop_times": [86.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 73.279}, "reply_to": "20420__0_006", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_008", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well, it doesn't address strict liability actually.\nIt says whether a claim of quid pro quo sexual harassment may be stated under Title VII, when the plaintiff has neither submitted to the sexual advances nor suffered any tangible effects.\nThat's the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [86.106, 89.891, 102.699], "stop_times": [89.891, 102.699, 103.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 86.106}, "reply_to": "20420__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20420__0_009", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Yes, Justice.\nUnder--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [103.199, 103.983], "stop_times": [103.983, 104.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 103.199}, "reply_to": "20420__0_008", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_010", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "It... it doesn't refer to strict liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [104.617], "stop_times": [106.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 104.617}, "reply_to": "20420__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20420__0_011", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Under... under the assumption, Justice, that in... that most courts, who have addressed the issue, have addressed quid pro quo as a strict liability issue.\nAnd that's why I referred to the strict liability for the unfulfilled threat.\nAnd... and that's why I believe it is... it is cognizable under question 1, which is the question that the Court did accept.\nYou are quite correct about that.\nBut almost all of the courts who have addressed quid pro quo sexual harassment have addressed it under the theory of strict liability for the employer, where there has been a adverse job action, such as a termination of employment, a demotion, a transfer to a less fulfilling job, a loss of benefits.\nThese are all tangible job detriments, where the company has acted, through... through a supervisor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [106.519, 116.291, 120.743, 127.349, 128.449, 150.346], "stop_times": [116.291, 120.743, 127.349, 128.449, 150.346, 156.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 106.519}, "reply_to": "20420__0_010", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_012", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well, there... there's really no other reason to have the quid pro quo category, is there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [156.952], "stop_times": [162.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 156.952}, "reply_to": "20420__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__0_013", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Absolutely not, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [162.356], "stop_times": [164.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 162.356}, "reply_to": "20420__0_012", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_014", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Except to establish a different standard of liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [164.239], "stop_times": [166.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 164.239}, "reply_to": "20420__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__0_015", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nAnd... and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [166.658, 167.308], "stop_times": [167.308, 167.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 166.658}, "reply_to": "20420__0_014", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_016", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "The statute doesn't... doesn't establish different kinds of sexual harassment... quid pro quo and... and environmental harassment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [167.908], "stop_times": [175.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 167.908}, "reply_to": "20420__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__0_017", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--No, it does not.\nIt--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [175.747, 176.364], "stop_times": [176.364, 177.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 175.747}, "reply_to": "20420__0_016", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_018", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "That's not in the statute, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [177.03], "stop_times": [177.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 177.03}, "reply_to": "20420__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__0_019", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--It does not, Your Honor.\nBut the courts who have addressed the other violations of Title VII, for example, in race cases, have attached strict liability to the employer when the... the supervisor has taken an adverse job action, such as a termination of someone because of their race, a refusal to hire someone because of their race, a termination of someone because of their national... their national origins, because of their religion.\nCourts have viewed that as employer strict liability.\nOn the other hand, when... when in a race case, for example, a... a person is living in... in a hostile racial work environment, or a hostile environment to one's religion, or a hostile environment because one happens to be Korean or Indian or... or English, that has been viewed as whether or not the company has been negligent in permitting that hostile work environment to exist.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [177.449, 178.332, 203.064, 206.718], "stop_times": [178.332, 203.064, 206.718, 234.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 177.449}, "reply_to": "20420__0_018", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_020", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "When you say VII, you are just asserting that there is a different standard for the employer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [234.118], "stop_times": [254.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 234.118}, "reply_to": "20420__0_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20420__0_021", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Oh, absolutely, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [254.616], "stop_times": [255.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 254.616}, "reply_to": "20420__0_020", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_022", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "So everybody agrees that this kind of claim is stated under Title VII?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [255.282], "stop_times": [258.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 255.282}, "reply_to": "20420__0_021", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20420__0_023", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "This is a... this is a claim for discrimination by reason of one's gender.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [258.817], "stop_times": [262.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 258.817}, "reply_to": "20420__0_022", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_024", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "And then how did we come to this distinction, then?\nBecause the statute doesn't say a word about quid pro quo and it doesn't say a word about hostile environment.\nIt says: same terms and conditions of employment, period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [262.686, 266.155, 271.458], "stop_times": [266.155, 271.458, 274.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 262.686}, "reply_to": "20420__0_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20420__0_025", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "It... it does, indeed.\nThis Court, in Meritor, acknowledged at least a distinction between the hostile work environment and quid pro quo.\nThis Court, in the Harris Forklift opinion, by noting that the Harris case was not a quid pro quo case, implicitly recognized the distinction.\nI think the same distinction, Your Honor, has been made in the other... in the other type violations of Title VII, in terms of... of race and national origin, where there has been an act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [274.66, 276.112, 286.551, 298.443], "stop_times": [276.112, 286.551, 298.443, 311.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 274.66}, "reply_to": "20420__0_024", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_026", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Do we have a race or national origin case where there's a negligence, as opposed to vicarious liability?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [311.035], "stop_times": [319.122], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 311.035}, "reply_to": "20420__0_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20420__0_027", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Not from this Court.\nThere have been... there are many circuits who have... who have recognized that... that the hostile environment... the racially hostile environment is... is a negligence issue.\nAnd... and the standard the company or the employer is held to is whether the... whether the employer knew or should have known of the... of the racially hostile environment.\nAnd... and the same distinction is... is what we are urging the Court to adopt in the sexual harassment case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [319.122, 320.141, 328.414, 338.703], "stop_times": [320.141, 328.414, 338.703, 345.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 319.122}, "reply_to": "20420__0_026", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_028", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "So suppose this supervisor... let's use race as an example... suppose a supervisor says, I'm not going to promote you because you're Asian, Hispanic, whatever, and a week later does promote the person.\nAnd the person is no longer even working for that supervisor... promoted out of the department.\nIs there a violation there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [345.34, 359.933, 363.051], "stop_times": [359.933, 363.051, 364.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 345.34}, "reply_to": "20420__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20420__0_029", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "In that one instance, I would say there is not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [364.67], "stop_times": [370.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 364.67}, "reply_to": "20420__0_028", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_030", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "There is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [370.074], "stop_times": [371.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 370.074}, "reply_to": "20420__0_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20420__0_031", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "There is not a violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [371.141], "stop_times": [372.474], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 371.141}, "reply_to": "20420__0_030", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_032", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "There is not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [372.474], "stop_times": [373.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 372.474}, "reply_to": "20420__0_031", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20420__0_033", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "If... if there was repeated... repeated and... and repeatedly hostile comments made by the supervisor to the employee because of his national... I think there then would be a violation.\nBut here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [373.457, 384.782], "stop_times": [384.782, 385.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 373.457}, "reply_to": "20420__0_032", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_034", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "And do you analogize what happened here to the hypothetical that I... I gave you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [385.615], "stop_times": [389.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 385.615}, "reply_to": "20420__0_033", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20420__0_035", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--I do.\nI do exactly.\nHere there was an implicit threat: I could make your job easier or harder for you.\nThat was... that's the kind of threat we talked about.\nAnd it was at... at a job promotion instance.\nAnd in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [389.019, 390.186, 391.236, 398.291, 401.16, 405.712], "stop_times": [390.186, 391.236, 398.291, 401.16, 405.712, 407.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 389.019}, "reply_to": "20420__0_034", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_036", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well, suppose in the case that I... that I put the promotion... the case where I put it was... that she was promoted the next week.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [407.58], "stop_times": [412.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 407.58}, "reply_to": "20420__0_035", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20420__0_037", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [412.884], "stop_times": [413.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 412.884}, "reply_to": "20420__0_036", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_038", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Suppose in the race hypothetical the promotion isn't going to come up for a year, but the supervisor has said that.\nCould the employee bring a cause of action injunction?\nOr is there just no... it's just kind of a violation in the air, with no damage?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [413.618, 420.972, 424.157], "stop_times": [420.972, 424.157, 430.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 413.618}, "reply_to": "20420__0_037", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20420__0_039", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "I think... I think there is no harm.\nI think there is no harm.\nAlthough--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [430.263, 431.546, 433.381], "stop_times": [431.546, 433.381, 435.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 430.263}, "reply_to": "20420__0_038", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_040", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Despite... despite the insult and the personal hurt, et cetera, et cetera?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [435.064], "stop_times": [437.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 435.064}, "reply_to": "20420__0_039", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20420__0_041", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Well, I don't think, Your Honor, that one insult is sufficiently severe to rise to... to a hostile environment, as... as bad as it may--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [437.416], "stop_times": [448.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 437.416}, "reply_to": "20420__0_040", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_042", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well, what if... what if you have a situation of a supervisor for a large corporate employer who routinely orders a female employee under his supervision to go to a certain isolated place, where the supervisor can be alone with this employee and repeatedly then tries to use that opportunity for sexual gratification... repeatedly?\nNo... no change in promotion status or discharge.\nIs... is there vicarious liability there for the employer or only if the employer is, as you put it, negligent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [448.807, 477.124, 483.944], "stop_times": [477.124, 483.944, 493.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 448.807}, "reply_to": "20420__0_041", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20420__0_043", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Your Honor, in... in the example you just gave, I believe that there... there is very likely a quid pro quo.\nShe has been ordered off--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [493.919, 501.942], "stop_times": [501.942, 503.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 493.919}, "reply_to": "20420__0_042", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_044", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "No.\nI... I left that out of the assumption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [503.508, 503.875], "stop_times": [503.875, 505.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 503.508}, "reply_to": "20420__0_043", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20420__0_045", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--All right.\nThe assumption is that... that she's ordered to an isolated--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [505.894, 507.846], "stop_times": [507.846, 510.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 505.894}, "reply_to": "20420__0_044", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_046", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "That the supervisor uses his supervisor... supervisory authority to place the employee in... in this situation, where he can then take advantage of her.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [510.612], "stop_times": [521.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 510.612}, "reply_to": "20420__0_045", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20420__0_047", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [521.153], "stop_times": [521.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 521.153}, "reply_to": "20420__0_046", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_048", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "And does so repeatedly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [521.403], "stop_times": [522.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 521.403}, "reply_to": "20420__0_047", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20420__0_049", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Okay.\nHe has acted.\nHe has... he has used the authority vested in him by... by his employer.\nHe has then acted on behalf of the employer, and I believe there may well then be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [522.436, 522.837, 524.02, 529.175], "stop_times": [522.837, 524.02, 529.175, 533.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 522.436}, "reply_to": "20420__0_048", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_050", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "But the employer is not negligent, the employer tells all their supervisors to be careful, don't do this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [533.477], "stop_times": [539.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 533.477}, "reply_to": "20420__0_049", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20420__0_051", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--By... by issuing orders to isolate an employee, I believe he is using the authority vested in... in... in... vested in him by the... by the employer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [539.448], "stop_times": [550.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 539.448}, "reply_to": "20420__0_050", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_052", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "All right.\nThen why not, in... in one instance alone... let... let's take Justice O'Connor's example, but change it in this respect.\nLet's assume the supervisor orders the... the employee into his office.\nAnd instead of being subtle about it or comparatively so, he is very explicit about it.\nHe said: You are going nowhere with this company.\nYou are not going to get your promotion 12 months hence unless in the meantime you grant sexual favors to me.\nIsn't that sufficient to create at least the hostile environment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [550.423, 550.856, 557.426, 562.746, 567.134, 570.002, 576.323], "stop_times": [550.856, 557.426, 562.746, 567.134, 570.002, 576.323, 579.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 550.423}, "reply_to": "20420__0_051", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20420__0_053", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [579.692], "stop_times": [582.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 579.692}, "reply_to": "20420__0_052", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_054", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [582.477], "stop_times": [582.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 582.477}, "reply_to": "20420__0_053", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20420__0_055", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Because it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [582.894], "stop_times": [583.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 582.894}, "reply_to": "20420__0_054", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_056", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "What could be more hostile than that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [583.677], "stop_times": [585.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 583.677}, "reply_to": "20420__0_055", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20420__0_057", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Because he... he... he has one... well, in terms of the hostile environment, Your Honor, the... the courts have routinely... the circuit courts of appeal have routinely held that a single incident--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [585.262], "stop_times": [597.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 585.262}, "reply_to": "20420__0_056", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_058", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Oh, quite.\nBut... but the... the point of the single incident cases, as I understand them, is that there's a certain amount of... of necessary rough give and take in life.\nAnd the fact that there may be one or two employees in a company who occasionally make a remark... the one-incident case to be literal about it... does not suffice to modify the entire environment to the point where a discrimination can be inferred.\nBut when one is talking about a supervisor, with the undoubted authority, in effect, to... to change the entire future of a given employee in that company, and that supervisor is explicit about it, nothing is left to chance, it seems to me that the... that the... the very power of the employer, the explicitness of what he does in... in this hypothetical should... should be enough, whereas one remark from a fellow employee wouldn't be enough.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [597.736, 598.436, 608.109, 622.769], "stop_times": [598.436, 608.109, 622.769, 651.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 597.736}, "reply_to": "20420__0_057", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20420__0_059", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--For liability... Your Honor, for liability, for an employer to attach in an hostile work environment, there has to be some... some indication to the employer that he knew... the employer knew or should have known.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [651.204], "stop_times": [664.298], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 651.204}, "reply_to": "20420__0_058", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_060", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "But why... why not?\nWhy, if... if in a series of cases the employer is going to be liable because the supervisor has been authorized, has been given a particular power and repeatedly abuses it, so that the abuse is clear, why shouldn't the employer, by a parity of reasoning, be liable when the abuse is equally clear when it is made very explicitly clear in... in one instance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [664.298, 665.664], "stop_times": [665.664, 688.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 664.298}, "reply_to": "20420__0_059", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20420__0_061", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Because, Your Honor, in... in the... in the example... or the hypothetical that Your Honor posits, the supervisor has done nothing but speak words.\nHe has not exer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [688.913, 699.352], "stop_times": [699.352, 700.137], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 688.913}, "reply_to": "20420__0_060", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_062", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well, but he has done nothing in Justice O'Connor's hypo except speak words, except that he has done so somewhat less explicitly than he does in my case.\nSo it may take a while to make it very clear that he means what he says.\nBut in... in my case, the... the same inference can be drawn after the first instance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [700.137, 708.125, 711.427], "stop_times": [708.125, 711.427, 718.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 700.137}, "reply_to": "20420__0_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20420__0_063", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--On the contrary, Your Honor, in Justice O'Connor's hypothetical, as I understood it, the... the supervisor repeatedly ordered the employee off to a isolated place where... where he could then take advantage of the employee.\nAnd... and it's the acting--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [718.033, 731.24], "stop_times": [731.24, 733.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 718.033}, "reply_to": "20420__0_062", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_064", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "But she resisted.\nShe resisted every time.\nIt was awful for her, but she resisted.\nWhat... where do you put that case?\nI assume that if she succumbs in order to get the promotion, then you would say we don't have to prove negligence; is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [733.275, 734.242, 735.977, 737.81, 741.048], "stop_times": [734.242, 735.977, 737.81, 741.048, 749.987], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 733.275}, "reply_to": "20420__0_063", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20420__0_065", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Your Honor, in a... in a submission case, I would... I would argue that, in a submission case, that if the employee reasonably believed that submission was a term and condition of employment, I believe then there would be strict liability... if she reasonably believed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [749.987], "stop_times": [749.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 749.987}, "reply_to": "20420__0_064", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_066", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Okay.\nNow she reasonably... she reasonably believes that it's going to be very hard to put up resistance, but she's going to do it.\nShe reasonably believes that she's got to resist this.\nAnd she does.\nAnd in those two cases, as far as the employer is concerned, there's no more likelihood that the employer will know about one situation than the other, is there?\nBut you told me that if she succumbs, then there's liability.\nAnd if she doesn't, then what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [749.987, 769.698, 774.983, 778.72, 780.237, 790.528, 794.897], "stop_times": [769.698, 774.983, 778.72, 780.237, 790.528, 794.897, 798.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 749.987}, "reply_to": "20420__0_065", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20420__0_067", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--In... if I can modify my... not modify my answer, but if I can clarify my answer on... on the submission.\nI do not believe in a case such as we have here, where there is a clear policy against sexual harassment, where there are avenues of redress which... which... in which you can avoid the complaint... complaining through the offending supervisor, as is this case here, where... that no employee then could reasonably believe what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [798.282, 805.121], "stop_times": [805.121, 827.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 798.282}, "reply_to": "20420__0_066", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_068", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well, that's... that would all be for a trial if there were a trial.\nBut this... that's... this was decided only on summary judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [827.885, 831.003], "stop_times": [831.003, 835.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 827.885}, "reply_to": "20420__0_067", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20420__0_069", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--On summary judgment.\nThat's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [835.121, 835.287], "stop_times": [835.287, 835.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 835.121}, "reply_to": "20420__0_068", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_070", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "So we don't know anything about what employees... we know that there was a policy.\nWe don't know anything about how effective it was, how other employees reacted to it.\nSo all we know at this stage in the game is that there was a policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [835.654, 839.423, 843.775], "stop_times": [839.423, 843.775, 847.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 835.654}, "reply_to": "20420__0_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20420__0_071", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "We... we know... we know something in addition to that, Your Honor.\nWe know, one, there was a policy.\nWe know, two, in... in... in following this Court's guidance in Meritor, that there were avenues of redress in which one could avoid the... the... the offending supervisor.\nAnd, three, we know that... that the Respondent in this case was aware of the policy, understood the policy, and intentionally... intentionally did not follow the policy.\nAnd in fact stated the reason she didn't tell her--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [847.095, 848.862, 850.881, 862.104, 872.56], "stop_times": [848.862, 850.881, 862.104, 872.56, 875.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 847.095}, "reply_to": "20420__0_070", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_072", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "We... we know... we know two things: That there was a policy and she didn't use it.\nWe don't know any... anything about why.\nIt may be that she thought it would... was a totally ineffective policy.\nBut we really can't go beyond the summary judgment record.\nAnd we don't know any of these things, other than the fact that there was a policy and the fact that she didn't use it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [875.679, 879.298, 881.783, 887.137, 889.339], "stop_times": [879.298, 881.783, 887.137, 889.339, 895.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 875.679}, "reply_to": "20420__0_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20420__0_073", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Your... Your Honor, and... and I'm not going beyond the summary judgment record.\nWhat she... what she testified to... and it... and it is part of the summary judgment record... what she testified to is that she intentionally did not report it to her supervisor because, and I quote, it would be his duty to report it.\nAnd we do know that.\nAnd we do--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [895.843, 899.027, 912.371, 913.904], "stop_times": [899.027, 912.371, 913.904, 914.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 895.843}, "reply_to": "20420__0_072", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_074", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Where is that?\nWhat are you referring to?\nWhat testimony?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [914.221, 914.989, 916.523], "stop_times": [914.989, 916.523, 917.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 914.221}, "reply_to": "20420__0_073", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20420__0_075", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--That's in the record, Your Honor, at... I will find it, Your Honor.\nBut it is... it is clearly in the record, and it's quoted directly in our brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [917.223, 933.451], "stop_times": [933.451, 936.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 917.223}, "reply_to": "20420__0_074", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_076", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "What... what is the relationship between your reasonably believe standard and the standard either of employer negligence or, for that matter, employer strict liability?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [936.253], "stop_times": [946.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 936.253}, "reply_to": "20420__0_075", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20420__0_077", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "I... I don't understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [946.275], "stop_times": [949.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 946.275}, "reply_to": "20420__0_076", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_078", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well, I understood you to say a moment ago, in response to Justice Ginsburg's variant on the question, that if the employee reasonably believed that he could carry out... that the employer could carry out threats, even though those threats had not at that point been carried out, that there would be a hostile environment.\nAnd I... I was going to say, what is the relationship between that standard and the standard of employer negligence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [949.377, 968.458], "stop_times": [968.458, 976.295], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 949.377}, "reply_to": "20420__0_077", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20420__0_079", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Your Honor, I... I... perhaps I misspoke.\nWhat I said was if... what I meant was... if an employee reasonably believed that... that submission was a term and condition of employment and she did submit, and the relief was reasonable, then I believe there is... there would be a... an adverse tangible job consequence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [976.295, 980.515], "stop_times": [980.515, 997.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 976.295}, "reply_to": "20420__0_078", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_080", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "But... but if she reasonably believed it and did not submit, even on a claim of hostile work environment, there would be no liability, period?\nThere could be no liability; is that your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [997.358, 1005.381], "stop_times": [1005.381, 1007.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 997.358}, "reply_to": "20420__0_079", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20420__0_081", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "In the hostile work environment, unless there... there is some evidence that the employer knew or should have known.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1007.583], "stop_times": [1012.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1007.583}, "reply_to": "20420__0_080", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_082", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "May I ask a question on that point?\nSupposing in the Chicago office you had conditions that clearly amounted to a hostile work environment, much... much worse facts than you have here.\nEverybody is being very, very rude to the female employees.\nAnd the only person outside of that office who knows about it is the vice president in charge of sales in New York... this particular individual.\nWould that be notice to the company of the hostile work environment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1012.92, 1014.92, 1022.508, 1025.21, 1032.631], "stop_times": [1014.92, 1022.508, 1025.21, 1032.631, 1035.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1012.92}, "reply_to": "20420__0_081", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20420__0_083", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Your Honor, I think in this... in the... in the situation you describe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1035.665], "stop_times": [1039.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1035.665}, "reply_to": "20420__0_082", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_084", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1039.904], "stop_times": [1040.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1039.904}, "reply_to": "20420__0_083", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20420__0_085", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--there would be... there would be the standard of the company should have known.\nIf it is as open and notorious as Your Honor describes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1040.354, 1045.708], "stop_times": [1045.708, 1047.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1040.354}, "reply_to": "20420__0_084", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_086", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well, but it's open only in Chicago.\nAnd the only higher executive who knows about it is this particular individual, Mr. Slowik.\nWould that be sufficient notice to the company?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1047.925, 1048.476, 1052.778], "stop_times": [1048.476, 1052.778, 1055.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1047.925}, "reply_to": "20420__0_085", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20420__0_087", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "And he was responsible for this office?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1055.664], "stop_times": [1057.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1055.664}, "reply_to": "20420__0_086", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_088", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well, he had exactly the duties he has in this case.\nHe's the vice president in charge of the sales in a large part of the country.\nIs that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1057.932, 1060.05, 1063.169], "stop_times": [1060.05, 1063.169, 1063.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1057.932}, "reply_to": "20420__0_087", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20420__0_089", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "I believe... I believe, Your Honor, if he was aware of open--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1063.602], "stop_times": [1066.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1063.602}, "reply_to": "20420__0_088", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_090", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Yes, he's aware of it.\nThat's my--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1066.621, 1067.187], "stop_times": [1067.187, 1067.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1066.621}, "reply_to": "20420__0_089", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20420__0_091", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--and... open and notorious conduct, of... of a hostile environment for female employees, it would be notice to the company.\nI think so.\nJust--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1067.754, 1072.941, 1073.275], "stop_times": [1072.941, 1073.275, 1073.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1067.754}, "reply_to": "20420__0_090", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_092", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Well, then why isn't it notice to the company when he does it himself?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1073.975], "stop_times": [1076.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1073.975}, "reply_to": "20420__0_091", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20420__0_093", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Because, Your Honor, he did not fulfill the threat.\nHe... he simply implied a threat, never carried it out.\nShe in fact got promoted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1076.31, 1082.297, 1085.933], "stop_times": [1082.297, 1085.933, 1087.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1076.31}, "reply_to": "20420__0_092", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_094", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "What if he told the president about... about the case, the president of the company.\nWould she then have... have a case?\nHe told the president everything that she's put in the record here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1087.201, 1090.737, 1092.939], "stop_times": [1090.737, 1092.939, 1097.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1087.201}, "reply_to": "20420__0_093", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20420__0_095", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "I'm missing the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1097.074], "stop_times": [1100.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1097.074}, "reply_to": "20420__0_094", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_096", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "The question... part of the question is, A, is there a violation?\nAnd, B, if so, is the company responsible for it?\nAnd I'm trying to assume that... that what he said would be a violation.\nMaybe that's where we... we part company.\nI don't know.\nBut if the things that happened here were not only known by Mr. Slowik, but by the board of directors of the company, would there be liability?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1100.009, 1103.829, 1105.812, 1109.65, 1111.266, 1111.816], "stop_times": [1103.829, 1105.812, 1109.65, 1111.266, 1111.816, 1119.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1100.009}, "reply_to": "20420__0_095", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20420__0_097", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--I do not believe so.\nI do not believe this is a hos... I do not be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1119.756, 1124.576], "stop_times": [1124.576, 1126.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1119.756}, "reply_to": "20420__0_096", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_098", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "So... so it isn't a question of whether we hold the company responsible.\nThe question, in your view, is whether there was a violation at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1126.976, 1129.712], "stop_times": [1129.712, 1132.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1126.976}, "reply_to": "20420__0_097", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20420__0_099", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Well, if there's no liability, there's no... there's no violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1132.23], "stop_times": [1135.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1132.23}, "reply_to": "20420__0_098", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_100", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Right.\nI thought you said earlier that... that, in your view, the acts were not repeated enough to constitute a hostile work environment.\nWas I wrong about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1135.266, 1135.749, 1142.371], "stop_times": [1135.749, 1142.371, 1143.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1135.266}, "reply_to": "20420__0_099", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20420__0_101", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "No, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1143.421], "stop_times": [1143.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1143.421}, "reply_to": "20420__0_100", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_102", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1143.904], "stop_times": [1144.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1143.904}, "reply_to": "20420__0_101", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20420__0_103", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "And... and... and I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1144.737], "stop_times": [1145.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1144.737}, "reply_to": "20420__0_102", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_104", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "So that's the reason, if there were notice to the company--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1145.573], "stop_times": [1147.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1145.573}, "reply_to": "20420__0_103", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__0_105", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--and I don't think it rises to a hostile work environment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1147.339], "stop_times": [1148.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1147.339}, "reply_to": "20420__0_104", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_106", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Can... can I ask you something about Justice O'Connor's hypothetical?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1148.858], "stop_times": [1151.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1148.858}, "reply_to": "20420__0_105", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__0_107", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Yes, certainly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1151.893], "stop_times": [1153.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1151.893}, "reply_to": "20420__0_106", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_108", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "You said that where... where the company officer takes the woman aside to an isolated place where he can make his sexual advances, that that would... that would be automatic liability on the part of the employer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1153.059], "stop_times": [1165.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1153.059}, "reply_to": "20420__0_107", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__0_109", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1165.867], "stop_times": [1166.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1165.867}, "reply_to": "20420__0_108", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_110", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "That would be a quid pro quo case?\nIs that why... why... because he's using his power as an officer to take her aside to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1166.45, 1167.75], "stop_times": [1167.75, 1172.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1166.45}, "reply_to": "20420__0_109", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__0_111", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--To order her to isolated parts of the... of the factory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1172.937], "stop_times": [1176.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1172.937}, "reply_to": "20420__0_110", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_112", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--What would you call that?\nWould you call that quid pro quo?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1176.388, 1176.788], "stop_times": [1176.788, 1177.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1176.388}, "reply_to": "20420__0_111", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__0_113", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "I would... in... in that circumstance, Your Honor, I would say that is quid pro quo, because... because he is exercising the... precisely the authority--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1177.94], "stop_times": [1187.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1177.94}, "reply_to": "20420__0_112", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_114", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well, what if he tells her to come over to the water cooler?\nI mean, boy, you've expanded quid pro quo an enormous amount if you accept that.\nWhat if he tells her, you know, Come on over to the water cooler, I want to tell you something, and she goes over to the water cooler?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1187.696, 1189.246, 1193.517], "stop_times": [1189.246, 1193.517, 1198.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1187.696}, "reply_to": "20420__0_113", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__0_115", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--I don't... I'm making the distinction, Your Honor.\nI interpreted Justice O'Connor's question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1198.236, 1201.29], "stop_times": [1201.29, 1203.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1198.236}, "reply_to": "20420__0_114", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_116", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "I had thought the quid pro quo was just those... those company actions which, in themselves, amount to an alteration of the terms and conditions of employment, like firing, promotion and so forth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1203.356], "stop_times": [1215.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1203.356}, "reply_to": "20420__0_115", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__0_117", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1215.596], "stop_times": [1216.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1215.596}, "reply_to": "20420__0_116", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_118", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "But you're willing to say quid pro quo is... is what, any... any action that... that an officer of the company has authority to tell somebody to do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1216.346], "stop_times": [1225.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1216.346}, "reply_to": "20420__0_117", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__0_119", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--No.\nI think, Your... I think, Your Honor, that isolation and constant isolation on orders of a supervisor is... is an adverse tangible job consequence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1225.035, 1225.369], "stop_times": [1225.369, 1233.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1225.035}, "reply_to": "20420__0_118", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_120", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well, it isn't constant isolation, as I understood her hypothetical.\nHe just took her aside to an isolated place to make his proposition.\nI mean if he assigned her to a... you know, to Timbuktu or something, yes, then--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1233.958, 1236.743, 1240.445], "stop_times": [1236.743, 1240.445, 1244.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1233.958}, "reply_to": "20420__0_119", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__0_121", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1244.849], "stop_times": [1245.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1244.849}, "reply_to": "20420__0_120", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_122", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--then I could see a quid pro quo.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1245.583], "stop_times": [1246.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1245.583}, "reply_to": "20420__0_121", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__0_123", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1246.783], "stop_times": [1247.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1246.783}, "reply_to": "20420__0_122", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_124", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "But he just pulled her aside to make his proposition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1247.316], "stop_times": [1249.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1247.316}, "reply_to": "20420__0_123", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__0_125", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Justice O'Connor's question was repeatedly... repeatedly ordered her to an isolated part of the factory so he could do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1249.068], "stop_times": [1255.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1249.068}, "reply_to": "20420__0_124", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_126", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Oh, I see.\nSo she's working... you... you understood her question to mean that she's working in an isolated part of the factory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1255.139, 1255.389], "stop_times": [1255.389, 1259.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1255.139}, "reply_to": "20420__0_125", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__0_127", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1259.923], "stop_times": [1260.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1259.923}, "reply_to": "20420__0_126", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_128", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "All by herself there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1260.223], "stop_times": [1260.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1260.223}, "reply_to": "20420__0_127", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__0_129", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "That's correct.\nThat's how... exactly how I interpreted it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1260.656, 1261.042], "stop_times": [1261.042, 1262.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1260.656}, "reply_to": "20420__0_128", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_130", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Mr. Casey--\n--Well, that wasn't the question.\n[Laughter]\nBut you're altering it to suit your needs now.\nMr. Casey, would you explain this to me?\nIn the... I take it it's common ground here with you and everybody else that in a hostile environment claim there does not have to be any change in conditions beyond those conditions which are constituted by the hostility of the environment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1262.658, 1263.125, 1264.66, 1265.077, 1268.279, 1271.164], "stop_times": [1263.125, 1264.66, 1265.077, 1268.279, 1271.164, 1285.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1262.658}, "reply_to": "20420__0_129", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20420__0_131", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1285.738], "stop_times": [1287.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1285.738}, "reply_to": "20420__0_130", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_132", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Okay.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1287.39, 1287.924], "stop_times": [1287.924, 1288.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1287.39}, "reply_to": "20420__0_131", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20420__0_133", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Environmental hostility, correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1288.959], "stop_times": [1291.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1288.959}, "reply_to": "20420__0_132", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_134", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Right.\nIf the environmental hostility is created by threats of personnel action, threats of a quid pro quo nature in other words, which are not carried out, why isn't the hostility of the environment just as clear, even though there are no other changes in condition, as... as may be the case in a non-unfulfilled quid pro quo hostile environment case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1291.309, 1291.828], "stop_times": [1291.828, 1322.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1291.309}, "reply_to": "20420__0_133", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20420__0_135", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "It... Justice Souter, it may well be a hostile environment.\nAnd if it is a hostile environment, then... then we look at it as a... as a standard of negligence.\nDid the employer know or should the employer have known?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1322.03, 1326.899, 1333.321], "stop_times": [1326.899, 1333.321, 1335.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1322.03}, "reply_to": "20420__0_134", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_136", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well, but I'm leaving aside the... and maybe... maybe I'm isolating the question too much for... for... for your tastes... but I'm... I'm suggesting for a minute let's leave aside the standard for imputing liability to the employer.\nLet's just look at whether there's been a violation.\nAnd... and forget whether it's negligence or whether it's strict liability for the moment.\nAnd I take it your answer is yes, there can be a hostile environment by unfulfilled quid pro quo kinds of threats?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1335.905, 1348.08, 1350.23, 1355.401], "stop_times": [1348.08, 1350.23, 1355.401, 1364.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1335.905}, "reply_to": "20420__0_135", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20420__0_137", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1364.59], "stop_times": [1365.474], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1364.59}, "reply_to": "20420__0_136", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_138", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "And your... your only point of difference then, I guess, with your opponents on that isolated point is that you say there's got to be more than one threat, just as there has got to be more than one hostile remark, if you will, in order to create the environment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1365.474], "stop_times": [1383.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1365.474}, "reply_to": "20420__0_137", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20420__0_139", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1383.837], "stop_times": [1385.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1383.837}, "reply_to": "20420__0_138", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_140", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "One... one instance--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1385.653], "stop_times": [1386.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1385.653}, "reply_to": "20420__0_139", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20420__0_141", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "One instance does not create a hostile environment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1386.872], "stop_times": [1388.289], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1386.872}, "reply_to": "20420__0_140", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_142", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--And you're saying that the fact that the hostile environment and the unfulfilled quid pro quo situation is created by a supervisor, with more authority than let's say just a fellow employee, that doesn't make any difference in the calculus of how many instances there have got to be before we can conclude that the environment has in fact become hostile; you're saying that really is not relevant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1388.289], "stop_times": [1412.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1388.289}, "reply_to": "20420__0_141", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20420__0_143", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "I... I don't... I do not believe that to be relevant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1412.321], "stop_times": [1414.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1412.321}, "reply_to": "20420__0_142", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_144", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Okay.\nMr. Casey, you... you formulated this question, a claim of quid pro quo sexual harassment.\nNow, what... what is your understanding of the term \"quid pro quo sexual harassment\"?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1414.607, 1414.973, 1420.594], "stop_times": [1414.973, 1420.594, 1425.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1414.607}, "reply_to": "20420__0_143", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20420__0_145", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "My understanding, Your Honor, is... is this for that.\nYou give me something, and I will do something either negatively or positively to you.\nThere's a quid and a quo.\nAnd... and I believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1425.997, 1429.466, 1435.436, 1436.386], "stop_times": [1429.466, 1435.436, 1436.386, 1437.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1425.997}, "reply_to": "20420__0_144", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_146", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Simply where it's proposed or where it happens?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1437.755], "stop_times": [1439.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1437.755}, "reply_to": "20420__0_145", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__0_147", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Where it happens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1439.774], "stop_times": [1440.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1439.774}, "reply_to": "20420__0_146", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_148", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Where it happens?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1440.44], "stop_times": [1441.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1440.44}, "reply_to": "20420__0_147", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__0_149", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1441.257], "stop_times": [1442.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1441.257}, "reply_to": "20420__0_148", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_150", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "You mean--\n--Where it happens?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1442.174, 1443.042], "stop_times": [1443.042, 1443.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1442.174}, "reply_to": "20420__0_149", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20420__0_151", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--where... where... where something is proposed by... by the... by the supervisor, but not necessarily acquiesced in by the employee, I take it?\nSleep with me or I won't promote you, I mean, is the classic example that we all use.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1443.726, 1451.648], "stop_times": [1451.648, 1456.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1443.726}, "reply_to": "20420__0_150", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_152", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Yes.\nBut... and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1456.767, 1457.0], "stop_times": [1457.0, 1458.086], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1456.767}, "reply_to": "20420__0_151", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20420__0_153", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "And I don't promote you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1458.086], "stop_times": [1459.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1458.086}, "reply_to": "20420__0_152", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_154", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Yes.\nBut it's curious, because you say that where... where the woman says, Okay, I will sleep with you, and he does promote her, so that there is a quid and there is quo for the quid, that is not quid pro quo.\nBut where she refuses, she does not give the quid, and therefore does not get the quo, that is quid pro quo?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1459.852, 1460.504, 1475.93, 1483.501], "stop_times": [1460.504, 1475.93, 1483.501, 1484.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1459.852}, "reply_to": "20420__0_153", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__0_155", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Your Honor, if... if he gets--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1484.053], "stop_times": [1485.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1484.053}, "reply_to": "20420__0_154", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_156", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "It's an interesting theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1485.036], "stop_times": [1486.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1485.036}, "reply_to": "20420__0_155", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__0_157", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--No... no, it's... but that's... but that's not precisely the theory.\nThe theory is if... if she gets the promotion for having slept with him, she... she got something she's not otherwise entitled to.\nAnd I think that is... that is discrimination.\nAnd I think that is a violation if she actually didn't get the promotion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1486.103, 1488.255, 1495.392, 1497.794], "stop_times": [1488.255, 1495.392, 1497.794, 1500.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1486.103}, "reply_to": "20420__0_156", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_158", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "And in the case where it is... in the case where it is the violation, he makes the proposition, it's refused, and she is not promoted, and the person who did it is the vice president of the company, why doesn't the company know about it?\nHe knows about it.\nHe's the vice president.\nHe is the company.\nSo why isn't the company the actor?\nWhy does he--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1500.396, 1518.007, 1519.376, 1521.392, 1522.661, 1525.363], "stop_times": [1518.007, 1519.376, 1521.392, 1522.661, 1525.363, 1526.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1500.396}, "reply_to": "20420__0_157", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20420__0_159", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Because he... he... excuse me, I didn't mean to interrupt you... because he didn't act with the authority given him by the employer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1526.513], "stop_times": [1531.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1526.513}, "reply_to": "20420__0_158", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_160", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--All right.\nSo then you're just using the same arguments that were in this other case.\nThere's nothing new here?\nI guess it puzzles me that--\n--Is that right?\n--if she does acquiesce, the law gives her a remedy.\nIf she doesn't, it doesn't give her a remedy.\nSo the law favors submission, as I understand it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1531.934, 1532.517, 1534.719, 1535.686, 1536.286, 1536.838, 1540.79, 1542.673], "stop_times": [1532.517, 1534.719, 1535.686, 1536.286, 1536.838, 1540.79, 1542.673, 1545.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1531.934}, "reply_to": "20420__0_159", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20420__0_161", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "No, I don't... I don't think that's actually the case, Your Honor.\nI don't think it's safer for submission in... in any event.\nI don't think there's a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1545.474, 1547.709, 1550.411], "stop_times": [1547.709, 1550.411, 1552.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1545.474}, "reply_to": "20420__0_160", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_162", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "But if we're talking--\n--I'm assuming he's bluffing in both cases.\nIn both cases he's bluffing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1552.763, 1553.097, 1554.313], "stop_times": [1553.097, 1554.313, 1554.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1552.763}, "reply_to": "20420__0_161", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20420__0_163", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--If he's bluffing in both cases and she had no reasonable belief, I think there's no violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1554.979], "stop_times": [1557.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1554.979}, "reply_to": "20420__0_162", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_164", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "But in your view, there... in your view... this is what I was trying to get at... there is nothing in this case in respect to authority, apparent authority, agency... all the things that we discussed in previous cases that were recently argue... in that area, there is nothing different here; the only thing that is different in this case is whether or not the quid pro quo is in fact substantively irrespective, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1557.931], "stop_times": [1582.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1557.931}, "reply_to": "20420__0_163", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20420__0_165", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "In the face... in the face of a clear policy in the company, she could not reasonably believe that he had the authority to do... there is no apparent authority--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1582.38], "stop_times": [1590.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1582.38}, "reply_to": "20420__0_164", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_166", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "I mean, but I know that you... I'm trying to figure out, is there anything in the question that we are being asked to decide that is different from the question in the two cases that were recently argued here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1590.152], "stop_times": [1600.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1590.152}, "reply_to": "20420__0_165", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20420__0_167", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1600.342], "stop_times": [1601.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1600.342}, "reply_to": "20420__0_166", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_168", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "And there is one thing that seemed different.\nWe're asked... which is what I thought the question meant... whether there is a substantive violation of the statute, nothing to do with vicarious liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1601.225, 1603.294], "stop_times": [1603.294, 1612.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1601.225}, "reply_to": "20420__0_167", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20420__0_169", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1612.333], "stop_times": [1613.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1612.333}, "reply_to": "20420__0_168", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_170", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "And now, other than that, is there anything different?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1613.518], "stop_times": [1616.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1613.518}, "reply_to": "20420__0_169", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20420__0_171", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, the difference--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1616.035], "stop_times": [1617.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1616.035}, "reply_to": "20420__0_170", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_172", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "And what is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1617.236], "stop_times": [1617.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1617.236}, "reply_to": "20420__0_171", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20420__0_173", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--The difference in this case is the standard of liability to be applied.\nIs it strict liability or is it a negligence issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1617.736, 1621.171], "stop_times": [1621.171, 1624.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1617.736}, "reply_to": "20420__0_172", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_174", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "So if I believe it's strict liability, there's nothing different?\nIf I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1624.123, 1626.409], "stop_times": [1626.409, 1627.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1624.123}, "reply_to": "20420__0_173", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20420__0_175", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Other than standard liability, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1627.459], "stop_times": [1629.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1627.459}, "reply_to": "20420__0_174", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_176", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--But that... that's what we didn't grant certiorari on.\nThat's the second question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1629.194, 1630.794], "stop_times": [1630.794, 1632.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1629.194}, "reply_to": "20420__0_175", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20420__0_177", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Your Honor, I'm... I'm tying the strict liability to the quid pro quo.\nIf it is a quid pro quo case, this for that, I believe the... the cases are... are quite uniform that there is strict liability.\nAnd in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1632.579, 1637.133, 1644.704], "stop_times": [1637.133, 1644.704, 1645.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1632.579}, "reply_to": "20420__0_176", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_178", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Mr. Casey, how did all this come up?\nIt really is mystifying, with a statute that doesn't use any of these terms.\nIt just says no... thou shall not discriminate in hiring, firing or terms and conditions of employment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1645.237, 1646.739, 1650.358], "stop_times": [1646.739, 1650.358, 1656.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1645.237}, "reply_to": "20420__0_177", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20420__0_179", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Justice, it came up in the context, really, of the other violations of Title VII, in the race cases.\nFor example, the company is automatically liable if... if the person is fired or demoted or not promoted because of his race.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1656.344, 1663.7, 1670.604], "stop_times": [1663.7, 1670.604, 1671.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1656.344}, "reply_to": "20420__0_178", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_180", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Why... why should that be?\nWhy should there be a distinction between quid pro quo and hostile work environment?\nWhat is the law trying to achieve by adopting that category... by adopting that dichotomy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1671.654, 1673.237, 1677.456], "stop_times": [1673.237, 1677.456, 1683.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1671.654}, "reply_to": "20420__0_179", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20420__0_181", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Well, this Court has... has instructed us, in Meritor, that we should look to agency principles.\nAnd... and when one is acting on behalf of the employer and using his authority, that is in effect the employer acting.\nWhen... when there is simply a hostile environment, there... the standard for agency should be \"known\" or \"should have known\".", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1683.26, 1689.782, 1698.971], "stop_times": [1689.782, 1698.971, 1706.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1683.26}, "reply_to": "20420__0_180", "speaker": "james_j_casey"}
{"id": "20420__0_182", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Casey.\nMr. Rossiello, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1706.975, 1708.677], "stop_times": [1708.677, 1711.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1706.975}, "reply_to": "20420__0_181", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20420__1_000", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe express language of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifies that three elements, and three elements only, must be demonstrated to establish a violation of that statute.\nThere must first be employer action; secondly, posited upon a discriminatory basis; and, third, the discriminatory conduct must alter the terms and conditions of employment.\nThe only issue for this Court to decide is whether or not Mr. Slowik's conduct in this case was employer action within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2 (a)(1).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1711.279, 1721.385, 1738.679, 1751.689], "stop_times": [1721.385, 1738.679, 1751.689, 1765.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1711.279}, "reply_to": "20420__0_182", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_001", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Mr. Rossiello--\n--Well, why does quid... I'm sorry, go ahead.\nI'd like to ask you, in... in a situation like this, where we take it that the supervisor doesn't follow through on any threat, actual or implied, of failure to promote or something, some employment action, where the employer does not follow through on that, the harm to the employee seems to be very much the same as that under hostile environment claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1765.18, 1765.93, 1767.199], "stop_times": [1765.93, 1767.199, 1800.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1765.18}, "reply_to": "20420__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20420__1_002", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1800.27], "stop_times": [1801.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1800.27}, "reply_to": "20420__1_001", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_003", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "I mean, I... I don't see a lot of difference here than there would be to simply a hostile environment situation, where... where the threat is... is not carried out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1801.789], "stop_times": [1813.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1801.789}, "reply_to": "20420__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20420__1_004", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well, the harm could or might be the same.\nFor purposes of damage... for purposes of damages or the harm inflicted, it could be the same for hostile work environment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1813.228, 1815.296], "stop_times": [1815.296, 1821.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1813.228}, "reply_to": "20420__1_003", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_005", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well, I... I just don't see much difference now.\nAnd in that regard, what role does the existence of an employer policy and method for handling complaints of this type play?\nDoes it go to the reasonableness of the employee's belief or does it go to the amount of damages if there's liability?\nWhat role does that play?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1821.75, 1822.868, 1834.343, 1844.199], "stop_times": [1822.868, 1834.343, 1844.199, 1845.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1821.75}, "reply_to": "20420__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20420__1_006", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "It goes to the amount of damages.\nThe existence of a policy has little or no effect on the liability issue.\nIn this particular case, the policy we're talking about is a single, flimsy sentence, buried amid two very brief paragraphs--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1845.901, 1847.534, 1851.972], "stop_times": [1847.534, 1851.972, 1861.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1845.901}, "reply_to": "20420__1_005", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_007", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well, let's suppose it's a fabulous policy and very effective.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1861.243], "stop_times": [1864.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1861.243}, "reply_to": "20420__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20420__1_008", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--If we can find--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1864.962], "stop_times": [1865.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1864.962}, "reply_to": "20420__1_007", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_009", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Now, what role does it play?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1865.529], "stop_times": [1866.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1865.529}, "reply_to": "20420__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20420__1_010", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Excuse me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1866.731], "stop_times": [1867.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1866.731}, "reply_to": "20420__1_009", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_011", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "What role should it play, if it's a perfect policy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1867.364], "stop_times": [1871.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1867.364}, "reply_to": "20420__1_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20420__1_012", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Little to none on the liability issue.\nBecause the express language of Title VII does not require that the plaintiff follow a policy or complain to the employer before it goes to the EEOC--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1871.266, 1873.301], "stop_times": [1873.301, 1886.209], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1871.266}, "reply_to": "20420__1_011", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_013", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well, but might it go to the reasonableness of the employee's understanding when some comment is made?\nI mean if she knows perfectly well, look, this company has a... a good policy, and if I say something higher up the ladder, it's going to be taken care of.\nThen is it reasonable to... for her to believe that there is some serious threat out there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1886.209, 1891.513, 1901.904], "stop_times": [1891.513, 1901.904, 1907.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1886.209}, "reply_to": "20420__1_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20420__1_014", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--The short answer to that is yes.\nThe existence of a policy does affect the reasonableness of the plaintiff's conduct.\nMost often that would be in a hostile work environment-type case.\nIn a quid pro quo-type case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1907.039, 1908.705, 1916.145, 1920.013], "stop_times": [1908.705, 1916.145, 1920.013, 1921.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1907.039}, "reply_to": "20420__1_013", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_015", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well, but we've already explored the possibility that this is very much like hostile environment if the threat isn't carried out.\nYou're... you're back to hostile environment.\nWell, it's sort of a hybrid.\nIf--\n--Well, Mr. Rossiello, a hybrid of what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1921.882, 1929.452, 1931.07, 1932.587, 1933.27], "stop_times": [1929.452, 1931.07, 1932.587, 1933.27, 1935.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1921.882}, "reply_to": "20420__1_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20420__1_016", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Well, some case... if you look at Judge Wood's opinion, the first one, that was vacated in the Seventh Circuit, she seems to believe that quid pro quo sexual harassment also is a hostile work environment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1935.689], "stop_times": [1951.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1935.689}, "reply_to": "20420__1_015", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_017", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well, what's wrong with that belief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1951.116], "stop_times": [1952.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1951.116}, "reply_to": "20420__1_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20420__1_018", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Nothing.\nI think it's... not... nothing at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1952.734, 1953.151], "stop_times": [1953.151, 1955.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1952.734}, "reply_to": "20420__1_017", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_019", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Could I follow up on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1955.436], "stop_times": [1956.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1955.436}, "reply_to": "20420__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__1_020", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1956.736], "stop_times": [1957.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1956.736}, "reply_to": "20420__1_019", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_021", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "You... you agree that where... where either she complies and... and the job action... threatened job action isn't taken or she doesn't comply and the job action still isn't taken, it's like hostile work environment.\nIsn't it also true that where she doesn't comply and the job action is taken... she's not given the promotion or she's fired... is anything added to the Title VII analysis by saying it was quid pro quo?\nThat is to say, suppose the... the officer of the company, without making a quid pro quo proposition, you know, didn't say, you know, Unless you sleep with me, you won't get the promotion, but simply asked the woman to sleep with him, she didn't, and he fired her for that reason.\nWithout having made any quid pro quo proposal, would... would the case come out any differently if that could be established than it would if he had made the proposal?\nIn other words, isn't the... isn't the proposal simply evidence of the fact that the reason she was fired or the reason she didn't get the promotion was sexual discrimination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [1957.12, 1968.911, 1985.872, 2003.334, 2013.808], "stop_times": [1968.911, 1985.872, 2003.334, 2013.808, 2022.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1957.12}, "reply_to": "20420__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__1_022", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2022.497], "stop_times": [2023.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2022.497}, "reply_to": "20420__1_021", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_023", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2023.014], "stop_times": [2023.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2023.014}, "reply_to": "20420__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__1_024", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Because... right.\nThe... if the threat is discriminatory in nature and if it affects--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2023.897, 2024.497], "stop_times": [2024.497, 2029.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2023.897}, "reply_to": "20420__1_023", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_025", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "You don't even need a threat.\nI mean if... if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2029.984, 2030.651], "stop_times": [2030.651, 2031.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2029.984}, "reply_to": "20420__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__1_026", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--You don't need much necessarily.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2031.186], "stop_times": [2032.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2031.186}, "reply_to": "20420__1_025", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_027", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--if he just makes a sexual advancement, she doesn't comply, she is fired thereafter, and if you can show that the reason for the firing was that she was not compliant, you... you've established a case, haven't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2032.853], "stop_times": [2044.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2032.853}, "reply_to": "20420__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__1_028", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Yes, you have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2044.827], "stop_times": [2045.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2044.827}, "reply_to": "20420__1_027", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_029", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Whether there's been the threat or not.\nThe threat only serves as evidence of the reason for the job action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2045.727, 2046.427], "stop_times": [2046.427, 2051.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2045.727}, "reply_to": "20420__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__1_030", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2051.33], "stop_times": [2051.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2051.33}, "reply_to": "20420__1_029", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_031", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Okay.\nBut in a... in a situation in... in which the threat is not carried out, then I take it quid pro quo... the quid pro quo distinction makes a difference in this sense... and tell me whether you think I'm right.\nAs I understand the way we've been using the term, a quid pro quo threat is, by definition, a threat that only a supervisor can make, because only the supervisor has got the power to do whatever is threatened.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2051.813, 2052.397, 2062.705], "stop_times": [2052.397, 2062.705, 2074.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2051.813}, "reply_to": "20420__1_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20420__1_032", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2074.679], "stop_times": [2075.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2074.679}, "reply_to": "20420__1_031", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_033", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "I suppose that a supervisor's threat, simply because it is that of a supervisor, may have more force, may be more powerful in creating a hostile work environment, even if it's only made once, than would one off-color remark or one proposition by a fellow employee without such power.\nDo you agree that in the unfulfilled quid pro quo situation there might be that difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2075.663, 2100.045], "stop_times": [2100.045, 2105.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2075.663}, "reply_to": "20420__1_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20420__1_034", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2105.699], "stop_times": [2106.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2105.699}, "reply_to": "20420__1_033", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_035", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Which is essentially an evidentiary difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2106.901], "stop_times": [2108.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2106.901}, "reply_to": "20420__1_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20420__1_036", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--There is.\nIt's a question of proof.\nRight.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2108.101, 2108.517, 2109.334], "stop_times": [2108.517, 2109.334, 2109.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2108.101}, "reply_to": "20420__1_035", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_037", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2109.769], "stop_times": [2110.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2109.769}, "reply_to": "20420__1_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20420__1_038", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "We're only on summary judgment here.\nThe District Court has--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2110.203, 2112.353], "stop_times": [2112.353, 2113.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2110.203}, "reply_to": "20420__1_037", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_039", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "With respect to that, if you've got a supervisor who just loves to... never makes kind of a thing,\n\"If you don't, then I will. \"\nbut just likes to make the atmosphere fun for the guys and dreadful for the... for the women, doesn't ask for any favors, there's just all of these remarks, light touching, just makes it... do you remember way back in the beginning of the world, there was a case called Bundy, and there were secretaries who said, We don't want a promotion, and nobody is threatening to fire us, but this is awful to live under these conditions.\nSo, Court, don't give us money, just tell them to stop.\nNow, where does that kind of case fit in this picture?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2113.471, 2120.225, 2122.844, 2148.144, 2151.346], "stop_times": [2120.225, 2122.844, 2148.144, 2151.346, 2154.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2113.471}, "reply_to": "20420__1_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20420__1_040", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Well, that is discriminatory conduct within the meaning of Title VII.\nAs both... both cases, Harris and Meritor, stated when the work environment is permeated with intimidation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2154.798, 2159.084], "stop_times": [2159.084, 2165.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2154.798}, "reply_to": "20420__1_039", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_041", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "But nobody ever suggested in those days that there was something different between quid pro quo and a hostile environment and... and vicarious liability on the one hand versus knew or should have known on the other.\nIt seemed to be all one... it was under Title VII and there was one standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2165.94, 2177.045], "stop_times": [2177.045, 2181.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2165.94}, "reply_to": "20420__1_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20420__1_042", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Well, we believe there should be one standard.\nI mean, with all due respect, I think Meritor is a wonderful opinion, but I don't think the Court or the author of the opinion intended to wreak the havoc that it did when it used those words, \"quid pro quo\", and \"hostile work environment\", in that opinion.\nThe circuit courts of appeals and the district courts have had a field day with those two expressions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2181.699, 2184.317, 2197.459], "stop_times": [2184.317, 2197.459, 2201.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2181.699}, "reply_to": "20420__1_041", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_043", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well, let me ask you this.\nSuppose it were a given... suppose we would hold that in a hostile work environment case there is liability only if the employer is negligent.\nSuppose that were our holding.\nWould the quid pro quo distinction then be important to you?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2201.529, 2202.613, 2212.92, 2215.137, 2221.074], "stop_times": [2202.613, 2212.92, 2215.137, 2221.074, 2222.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2201.529}, "reply_to": "20420__1_042", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20420__1_044", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Yes, it would be.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2222.192, 2225.144], "stop_times": [2225.144, 2225.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2222.192}, "reply_to": "20420__1_043", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_045", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "And in fact, I noticed that in answering Justice O'Connor's question you said, but in a quid pro quo case.\nAnd now, see, you attack this distinction and yet you use it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2225.794, 2233.584], "stop_times": [2233.584, 2236.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2225.794}, "reply_to": "20420__1_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20420__1_046", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well, it's so hard to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2236.702], "stop_times": [2237.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2236.702}, "reply_to": "20420__1_045", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_047", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Or at least you want to hold it in reserve.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2237.752], "stop_times": [2239.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2237.752}, "reply_to": "20420__1_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20420__1_048", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--You see, it's so hard to avoid it.\nThere is just such a large body of case law throwing these two terms around.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2239.352, 2241.321], "stop_times": [2241.321, 2245.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2239.352}, "reply_to": "20420__1_047", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_049", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "And we didn't start it, Mr. Rossiello, lest... lest silence indicate consent.\n[Laughter]\nWhen we used the... the expression in... in Meritor, we were referring to by... what was by then a well-established body of... of court of appeals law.\nI mean don't... don't put it on us.\nWe were just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2245.023, 2261.651, 2250.677, 2259.365, 2261.067], "stop_times": [2261.651, 2250.677, 2259.365, 2261.067, 2262.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2245.023}, "reply_to": "20420__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__1_050", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "All right.\nI promise not to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2262.367, 2262.851], "stop_times": [2262.851, 2264.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2262.367}, "reply_to": "20420__1_049", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_051", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "I don't see why it's a problem.\nWhy is it a problem, but for the circumstance that you have here, where there is a proposition that is refused and no punishment?\nIn any other situation, isn't it perfectly useful, or is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2264.103, 2265.903, 2273.292], "stop_times": [2265.903, 2273.292, 2277.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2264.103}, "reply_to": "20420__1_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20420__1_052", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well, it is... it is instructive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2277.577], "stop_times": [2279.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2277.577}, "reply_to": "20420__1_051", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_053", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Instructive.\nBut I mean more, doesn't it happen, propositions, every day of the week?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2279.529, 2280.563], "stop_times": [2280.563, 2283.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2279.529}, "reply_to": "20420__1_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20420__1_054", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2283.398], "stop_times": [2283.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2283.398}, "reply_to": "20420__1_053", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_055", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "And they're sometimes are followed by punishment.\nAnd they're also sometimes accepted and followed by the lack thereof.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2283.767, 2285.4], "stop_times": [2285.4, 2288.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2283.767}, "reply_to": "20420__1_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20420__1_056", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "In many cases, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2288.552], "stop_times": [2289.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2288.552}, "reply_to": "20420__1_055", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_057", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "So there is actually... but if there is... if... to go back to our case, where... where there's a proposition turned down and no punishment, if it were true in that subset, in that subset of quid pro quo, that it is not a violation unless it is a hostile work environment, which depends upon circumstance and a lot more than just the bare facts I stated, how can you win?\nBecause what I'm interested in your answering is, in the opinions below, I have some kind of impression that you either waive that or they said that that isn't in the case or... what... can you explain to me what I'm... what... it may be a hostile work environment, but it requires further factual exploration, and there is a Seventh Circuit opinion that suggests this whole matter was waived or something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2289.671, 2314.536], "stop_times": [2314.536, 2339.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2289.671}, "reply_to": "20420__1_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20420__1_058", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2339.567], "stop_times": [2340.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2339.567}, "reply_to": "20420__1_057", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_059", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Could you respond to my... what I'm worried about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2340.019], "stop_times": [2342.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2340.019}, "reply_to": "20420__1_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20420__1_060", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Yes... yes, I can.\nAnd that inquiry of Your Honor is treated at great length in our cross-petition for certiorari.\nBy the time the Seventh Circuit got through its 203-page decision below, I think that hostile work environment claim got lost in the shuffle.\nWe think there's enough in the record that we... it hasn't been waived.\nAnd if the Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2342.888, 2343.171, 2348.34, 2357.279, 2359.998], "stop_times": [2343.171, 2348.34, 2357.279, 2359.998, 2361.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2342.888}, "reply_to": "20420__1_059", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_061", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "What are we supposed to do if... if... or what am I supposed to do if I thought that might still be there, in light of what the Seventh Circuit did hold, not what they should have hold... held?\nAnd... and in light of the fact that your cross-petition, I take it, is not before us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2361.267, 2370.289], "stop_times": [2370.289, 2374.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2361.267}, "reply_to": "20420__1_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20420__1_062", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2374.741], "stop_times": [2375.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2374.741}, "reply_to": "20420__1_061", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_063", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "All right.\nSo what are... what would I do in this case if I... on the assumption... I'm not saying I really think that... but on the assumptions that I gave you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2375.075, 2375.693], "stop_times": [2375.693, 2382.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2375.075}, "reply_to": "20420__1_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20420__1_064", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well, I would remand this case for reconsideration of the whole claim.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2382.096, 2389.584], "stop_times": [2389.584, 2390.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2382.096}, "reply_to": "20420__1_063", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_065", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "He should regret that we did not accept your cross-petition, I suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2390.119], "stop_times": [2391.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2390.119}, "reply_to": "20420__1_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__1_066", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2391.569], "stop_times": [2392.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2391.569}, "reply_to": "20420__1_065", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_067", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "We didn't accept it.\nI mean that's the fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2392.136, 2393.738], "stop_times": [2393.738, 2395.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2392.136}, "reply_to": "20420__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__1_068", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Well, it's still pending.\nWe have our foot in the door.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2395.021, 2395.788], "stop_times": [2395.788, 2397.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2395.021}, "reply_to": "20420__1_067", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_069", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Mr. Rossiello, as I understood what... what happened, was that you didn't surrender a hostile environment case, but you did surrender a simple negligence.\nSo, in other words, what you said is hostile environment, quid pro... whatever you want to call it, there's vicarious liability here.\nSo I think what the majority of the Seventh Circuit judges said you gave up was hostile environment, simple negligence, not that you gave up hostile environment and the standard is vicarious liability.\nIs that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2397.356, 2406.629, 2413.985, 2427.292], "stop_times": [2406.629, 2413.985, 2427.292, 2428.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2397.356}, "reply_to": "20420__1_068", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20420__1_070", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Yes, I believe that's an accurate characterization.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2428.494], "stop_times": [2430.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2428.494}, "reply_to": "20420__1_069", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_071", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "So that in the next round of this... let's assume you win this round... in the next round, if it is determined that in fact when a supervisor is involved and the action involves a threat of using the authority that the supervisor has been given by the company, negligence is not required.\nA stricter standard of vicarious liability applies.\nThen you're home free?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2430.41, 2452.192, 2455.644], "stop_times": [2452.192, 2455.644, 2456.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2430.41}, "reply_to": "20420__1_070", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20420__1_072", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Yes.\nJust as Justice Breyer said a few minutes ago, you know, when this... this type of conduct is engaged in by a vice president, he is the company and the company is him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2456.911, 2457.744], "stop_times": [2457.744, 2467.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2456.911}, "reply_to": "20420__1_071", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_073", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Right.\nBut the... the point that I was making is the only thing that you have conceded out is company liability on a negligence theory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2467.785, 2468.219], "stop_times": [2468.219, 2475.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2467.785}, "reply_to": "20420__1_072", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20420__1_074", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "For sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2475.123], "stop_times": [2475.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2475.123}, "reply_to": "20420__1_073", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_075", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Yes, okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2475.573], "stop_times": [2476.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2475.573}, "reply_to": "20420__1_074", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20420__1_076", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "If there are no more questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2476.475], "stop_times": [2478.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2476.475}, "reply_to": "20420__1_075", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_077", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well, I don't... I just don't understand your response about his using authority that the company has given him.\nThe company hasn't given him authority to... to make a sexual proposition to any of the employees, has it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2478.76, 2483.129], "stop_times": [2483.129, 2491.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2478.76}, "reply_to": "20420__1_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__1_078", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--That's true, the company has not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2491.234], "stop_times": [2493.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2491.234}, "reply_to": "20420__1_077", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_079", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "And I assume the company also hasn't given him authority to fire a woman for her failure to comply with his sexual proposition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2493.067], "stop_times": [2499.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2493.067}, "reply_to": "20420__1_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__1_080", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "No, absolutely not.\nThat's why the cases in our brief, which are other types of Title VII cases, where--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2499.554, 2500.321], "stop_times": [2500.321, 2506.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2499.554}, "reply_to": "20420__1_079", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_081", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "I mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2506.708], "stop_times": [2508.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2506.708}, "reply_to": "20420__1_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__1_082", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--where a firing or discharge or a demotion or a pay... a pay differential is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2508.16], "stop_times": [2512.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2508.16}, "reply_to": "20420__1_081", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_083", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--where it occurs, you can say the employer has acted.\nI don't care whether this officer was involved or not, the employer has acted, where the firing has occurred.\nBut where the firing hasn't occurred, where there's been no employer action, I... I find it... I find it much more difficult to leap to employer responsibility on a theory that the supervisor was using authority employment... the employer gave him.\nThe employer didn't give him any authority to fire somebody for failure to comply with his sexual advances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2512.279, 2515.397, 2519.968, 2537.06], "stop_times": [2515.397, 2519.968, 2537.06, 2542.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2512.279}, "reply_to": "20420__1_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__1_084", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Well, there's where you... we get into the hair splitting.\nThat's very true.\nThe employer did not give the authority to sexual harass.\nNo employer does that as far as I know.\nIn fact, in the face of an explicit policy against sexual harassment, this type of conduct still occurs.\nBut where a supervisor, like in this case, Mr. Slowik... should I just finish?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2542.214, 2545.416, 2546.202, 2549.404, 2552.189, 2557.724], "stop_times": [2545.416, 2546.202, 2549.404, 2552.189, 2557.724, 2563.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2542.214}, "reply_to": "20420__1_083", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_085", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "You can finish your answer briefly to Justice Scalia's question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2563.228], "stop_times": [2566.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2563.228}, "reply_to": "20420__1_084", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20420__1_086", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "All right.\nBut where a supervisor uses the authority delegated in him in general to accomplish the sexual harassment, Title VII has been violated.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2566.18, 2566.564, 2573.602], "stop_times": [2566.564, 2573.602, 2574.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2566.18}, "reply_to": "20420__1_085", "speaker": "ernest_t_rossiello"}
{"id": "20420__1_087", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Rossiello.\nMs. Underwood, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2574.685, 2575.519], "stop_times": [2575.519, 2576.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2574.685}, "reply_to": "20420__1_086", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20420__2_000", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nWhen a supervisor tells an employee she has to provide sexual favors in order to get a promotion, he is, at that moment, imposing a term or condition on her employment because of her sex, in violation of Title VII.\nThat's true whether she complies or refuses.\nAnd if she refuses, whether she's punished immediately or has to suffer anxiety about the result.\nNo matter how she responds, this supervisor has used the power of the employer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2576.887, 2590.647, 2604.205, 2607.507, 2613.911], "stop_times": [2590.647, 2604.205, 2607.507, 2613.911, 2618.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2576.887}, "reply_to": "20420__1_087", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_001", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Even when the employer's policy, which the woman knew about, specifically prohibits this, how... how could you possibly say that the employer was... was changing her terms and conditions of employment?\nThe... the supervisor was violating an employer policy that she knew about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2618.381, 2631.606], "stop_times": [2631.606, 2635.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2618.381}, "reply_to": "20420__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__2_002", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Just as when a supervisor fires someone or demotes someone--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2635.26], "stop_times": [2640.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2635.26}, "reply_to": "20420__2_001", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_003", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Yes, but in... but in... but in that instance, the... the company is acting... the company has acted.\nSo it is within the scope of employment.\nBut if it's just a threat, there's no action within the scope of employment for agency principles.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2640.128, 2646.049, 2649.52], "stop_times": [2646.049, 2649.52, 2656.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2640.128}, "reply_to": "20420__2_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20420__2_004", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Justice Kennedy, there is.\nThe power to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2656.673, 2658.875], "stop_times": [2658.875, 2660.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2656.673}, "reply_to": "20420__2_003", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_005", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "And we'll... we'll leave aside hostile environment and repeated acts and pervasive discrimination and so forth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2660.075], "stop_times": [2666.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2660.075}, "reply_to": "20420__2_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20420__2_006", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--The power to fire or to hire, to promote or demote, includes the power to state what the conditions are for doing that, to hold out threats and promises.\nIn fact, that's the way that power is most commonly and effectively and predictably used in the management of a company.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2666.279, 2678.087], "stop_times": [2678.087, 2686.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2666.279}, "reply_to": "20420__2_005", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_007", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well, you could say that, but it's not true.\nIn fact, that power does not reside in that officer.\nIt has explicitly been taken away from him by the company.\nWhat more can the company do than to... you know, than to make that the company policy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2686.276, 2687.895, 2692.097, 2695.048], "stop_times": [2687.895, 2692.097, 2695.048, 2699.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2686.276}, "reply_to": "20420__2_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__2_008", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "No, the company has given him the power to hire and fire, but not to do it for wrongful reasons.\nAnd just so, the company has given him the power to hold out the prospect of hiring and firing, promoting and demoting--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2699.666, 2705.772], "stop_times": [2705.772, 2713.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2699.666}, "reply_to": "20420__2_007", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_009", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well, but that's... that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2713.176], "stop_times": [2713.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2713.176}, "reply_to": "20420__2_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20420__2_010", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--but not to do it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2713.743], "stop_times": [2714.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2713.743}, "reply_to": "20420__2_009", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_011", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--But that's the difference.\nSuppose you have a model employer, with... with policies, with grievance procedures and so forth.\nThen you have a threat that is not carried out.\nUnder agency principles, there's... the scope of employment doesn't come into play, because nothing has happened other than an environment, which we can take care of under a different analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2714.545, 2715.512, 2721.799, 2724.484], "stop_times": [2715.512, 2721.799, 2724.484, 2736.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2714.545}, "reply_to": "20420__2_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20420__2_012", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Well, a great deal has happened.\nThe employee has now been told that her work assignment and the conditions of her work are different and the terms on which she can get a promotion are different.\nJust--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2736.808, 2738.91, 2746.814], "stop_times": [2738.91, 2746.814, 2747.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2736.808}, "reply_to": "20420__2_011", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_013", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "But... but that's never... that's never... never carried out.\nAnd she knows that's not true.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2747.23, 2749.33, 2750.599], "stop_times": [2749.33, 2750.599, 2750.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2747.23}, "reply_to": "20420__2_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20420__2_014", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Well, she doesn't know it's not true.\nShe knows that the company has stated that it's against company policy.\nThat's not quite--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2750.916, 2753.551, 2757.003], "stop_times": [2753.551, 2757.003, 2758.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2750.916}, "reply_to": "20420__2_013", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_015", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well, then she also learns that it's not carried out because she doesn't acquiesce and nothing happens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2758.053], "stop_times": [2762.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2758.053}, "reply_to": "20420__2_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20420__2_016", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--If there are no damages, then that would be a matter for damages.\nIn this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2762.49, 2771.18], "stop_times": [2771.18, 2772.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2762.49}, "reply_to": "20420__2_015", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_017", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well, but there... there... my sense of the thing, if... if that is true, is that there simply isn't any liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2772.23], "stop_times": [2779.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2772.23}, "reply_to": "20420__2_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20420__2_018", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Well, suppose the company fires somebody and she complains and she immediately is reinstated.\nThere will still be a violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2779.166, 2785.439], "stop_times": [2785.439, 2787.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2779.166}, "reply_to": "20420__2_017", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_019", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2787.455], "stop_times": [2787.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2787.455}, "reply_to": "20420__2_018", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20420__2_020", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "There will be minor damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2787.805], "stop_times": [2789.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2787.805}, "reply_to": "20420__2_019", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_021", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "And suppose they don't discharge the person.\nHe says, I'll discharge you; are you discharged?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2789.991, 2791.593], "stop_times": [2791.593, 2795.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2789.991}, "reply_to": "20420__2_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20420__2_022", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2795.545], "stop_times": [2796.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2795.545}, "reply_to": "20420__2_021", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_023", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "He's wanting you to go collect unemployment insurance.\nI don't think they'll give it to you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2796.695, 2798.663], "stop_times": [2798.663, 2799.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2796.695}, "reply_to": "20420__2_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20420__2_024", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "No, you're not discharged.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2799.713], "stop_times": [2800.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2799.713}, "reply_to": "20420__2_023", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_025", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "All right.\nAnd this doesn't penalize an attempt to discharge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2800.449, 2800.982], "stop_times": [2800.982, 2803.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2800.449}, "reply_to": "20420__2_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20420__2_026", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "No, it doesn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2803.067], "stop_times": [2804.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2803.067}, "reply_to": "20420__2_025", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_027", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "All right.\nSo it... it... if it's say you can't discharge, you can't hire, you can't discriminate on terms of employment.\nSo why, if in fact you don't discharge the person but say you're going to but you don't, if that doesn't violate the statute, why would it violate it to say, I'm not going to give you a promotion, and then you do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2804.001, 2804.434, 2810.305], "stop_times": [2804.434, 2810.305, 2820.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2804.001}, "reply_to": "20420__2_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20420__2_028", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well, this... this isn't just, I'm not going to give you a promotion.\nIf it were just, I'm not going to give you a promotion--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2820.695, 2823.045], "stop_times": [2823.045, 2824.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2820.695}, "reply_to": "20420__2_027", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_029", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "But suppose it is, I'm going to make you work in Timbuktu, or, I'm going to make you do some other thing terrible, but you don't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2824.73], "stop_times": [2831.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2824.73}, "reply_to": "20420__2_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20420__2_030", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--No, what... what distinguishes this is the... the coercive effect it has right now.\nI'm not going to give you a promotion because you're a woman, I would say, is... is not a... is not now changing the condition--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2831.318, 2834.503], "stop_times": [2834.503, 2843.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2831.318}, "reply_to": "20420__2_029", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_031", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "But if it has... if it has... if it has the bad effect, if they do something bad, she's hurt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2843.776], "stop_times": [2845.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2843.776}, "reply_to": "20420__2_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20420__2_032", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2845.828], "stop_times": [2846.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2845.828}, "reply_to": "20420__2_031", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_033", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "But you're saying the simple statement of saying it... so if you say something that never happens, because the person is a woman and it doesn't create a hostile environment, it still is actionable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2846.478], "stop_times": [2856.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2846.478}, "reply_to": "20420__2_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20420__2_034", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "No, not if they say because she's a woman, because that isn't attempting to coerce her to do anything.\nThere's nothing really she can do to stop being a woman.\nIt's when the statement is, I won't promote you unless you do something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2856.452, 2860.32, 2862.605], "stop_times": [2860.32, 2862.605, 2867.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2856.452}, "reply_to": "20420__2_033", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_035", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Ms. Underwood, supposing this supervisor had two employees, one a man and one a woman.\nAnd he says to the man, I can make your life a lot easier here if you let me... you let me use your beach place every weekend, and he says to the woman what was said here.\nNow, is a case of discrimination on the basis of sex made out there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2867.057, 2872.728, 2882.401], "stop_times": [2872.728, 2882.401, 2886.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2867.057}, "reply_to": "20420__2_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20420__2_036", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well, if it's on the basis of using your beach place, then it's not on the basis of sex.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2886.638], "stop_times": [2892.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2886.638}, "reply_to": "20420__2_035", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_037", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well, but he's... he's asking favors from both males and females.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2892.625], "stop_times": [2897.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2892.625}, "reply_to": "20420__2_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20420__2_038", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Oh, I see.\nWell, I think that if he's asking female... favors from females on the basis of sex, then he is discriminating on the basis of sex against them.\nAnd he may also be engaging in other improper conduct with respect to other people.\nBut I think the... the point--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2897.244, 2898.429, 2910.753, 2914.722], "stop_times": [2898.429, 2910.753, 2914.722, 2916.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2897.244}, "reply_to": "20420__2_037", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_039", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "I see.\nSo... so your answer might be different if he hadn't asked the male employee to lend him his beach place, but rather made a sexual overture to the male employee.\nThen he would have been making sexual overtures indiscriminately, and there would have been no sexual discrimination towards either party; is that your--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2916.324, 2916.974, 2924.513], "stop_times": [2916.974, 2924.513, 2932.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2916.324}, "reply_to": "20420__2_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__2_040", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Well, that... that's the hardest case for the sex discrimination proposition.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2932.0, 2934.702], "stop_times": [2934.702, 2934.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2932.0}, "reply_to": "20420__2_039", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_041", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Yes, it is.\nIt's an impossible case, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2934.986, 2935.319], "stop_times": [2935.319, 2937.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2934.986}, "reply_to": "20420__2_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__2_042", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Yes.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2937.238, 2937.754], "stop_times": [2937.754, 2938.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2937.238}, "reply_to": "20420__2_041", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_043", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Ms. Underwood--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2938.321], "stop_times": [2939.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2938.321}, "reply_to": "20420__2_042", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20420__2_044", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "But... but... yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2939.106], "stop_times": [2940.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2939.106}, "reply_to": "20420__2_043", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_045", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--No, finish... I thought you were finished.\nGo ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2940.256, 2942.307], "stop_times": [2942.307, 2942.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2940.256}, "reply_to": "20420__2_044", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20420__2_046", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "No, I want... I wanted, in response to some of those questions, to suggest that, for instance, if an employer said to the women employees or to the black employees that you have to work twice as hard as the men do in order to keep your job or to get a promotion or you have to do twice as much work or you have to work twice as fast or you have to do the... the... you have to, in addition to doing all the other aspects of your job--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2942.641], "stop_times": [2964.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2942.641}, "reply_to": "20420__2_045", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_047", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "And... and then the next... and the next day, a new supervisor comes in and says, We're sorry about that; that's wrong.\nWas there a violation?\nThey worked for 1 hour under the... under the employee who behaved wrongfully.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2964.221, 2968.09, 2968.807], "stop_times": [2968.09, 2968.807, 2975.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2964.221}, "reply_to": "20420__2_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20420__2_048", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--There's a violation with de minimus consequences.\nYou can always produce a trivial version of a violation.\nThere was a violation.\nThere have been cases in the lower courts where there was a remand to the district court for a factual inquiry to determine whether what happened was so trivial, so de minimus as not to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2975.779, 2978.315, 2982.017, 2982.833], "stop_times": [2978.315, 2982.017, 2982.833, 2991.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2975.779}, "reply_to": "20420__2_047", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_049", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Is there any case in any area of the law... I'll focus on the word \"discharge\", because it clarifies it conceptually.\nI want to take out of your thought the problem of the bad environment.\nSo we're not talking about a bad environment at all.\nIs there any case in labor law, law of contract?\nYou know, there... there is lots and lots of law where it's unlawful civilly to discharge someone.\nAnd is there any instance where a person could recover where he wasn't discharged?\nIt's somebody who said, I will discharge you, but he didn't.\nI... I can't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [2991.722, 2998.359, 3002.596, 3005.648, 3010.434, 3016.44, 3020.975, 3024.843], "stop_times": [2998.359, 3002.596, 3005.648, 3010.434, 3016.44, 3020.975, 3024.843, 3026.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2991.722}, "reply_to": "20420__2_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20420__2_050", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Not... not if the only--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [3026.711], "stop_times": [3027.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3026.711}, "reply_to": "20420__2_049", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_051", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--All right.\nThen--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [3027.195, 3027.845], "stop_times": [3027.845, 3028.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3027.195}, "reply_to": "20420__2_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20420__2_052", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--there is not the case that to... that a discharge is equivalent to a promise to discharge.\nBut Title VII prohibits more than discharges.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [3028.33, 3033.199], "stop_times": [3033.199, 3035.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3028.33}, "reply_to": "20420__2_051", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_053", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Is there any case, then, under Title VII... well, but it's... you see, it's in... it's lined up certain things: hiring, discharge and discriminating in terms of conditions of employment.\nSo the question would be the same for each.\nThat is, where there was no discharge, where there was no hiring, where there was no discrimination in terms or conditions of employment, but simply a threat to make... to do those things that was not carried out.\nNow, is there any precedent that would make the threat in any of those areas equivalent to the reality?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [3035.484, 3046.042, 3048.409, 3062.219], "stop_times": [3046.042, 3048.409, 3062.219, 3068.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3035.484}, "reply_to": "20420__2_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20420__2_054", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well, I would describe the threat... if... if you describe the threat as altering her job responsibilities, altering what she has been told she must do to get a promotion, then the answer is yes.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [3068.788, 3080.363], "stop_times": [3080.363, 3080.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3068.788}, "reply_to": "20420__2_053", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_055", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "And can we tell from just the first threat... and this is the problem, Ms. Underwood, that I had understanding the government's position... there could be a threat and the company could have a very strong policy.\nSo you really, looking at it as an observer, you can't tell whether it would be reasonable for the worker to believe that the threat is anything more than a... a slight of the kind that is... we... we all have to accept.\nSo I can understand a series of threats as making for a hostile environment.\nBut I don't understand just a single threat.\nAnd you seem to say that a single threat, whether carried out or not, it... it qualifies for liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [3080.763, 3091.904, 3108.365, 3114.936, 3117.221], "stop_times": [3091.904, 3108.365, 3114.936, 3117.221, 3125.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3080.763}, "reply_to": "20420__2_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20420__2_056", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--A genuine, credible threat, which could be communicated, depending on the circumstances of the particular case, by one, serious, credible statement by somebody who is known, for instance, to have carried out such threats in the past, notwithstanding the wonderful policy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [3125.661], "stop_times": [3141.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3125.661}, "reply_to": "20420__2_055", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_057", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "But suppose all you have is this... you have this vice president, who is a pest.\nAnd you have a strong policy.\nAnd you have only those two things.\nHow do you... how do you know, when he makes his first threat?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [3141.004, 3145.705, 3147.49, 3149.157], "stop_times": [3145.705, 3147.49, 3149.157, 3153.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3141.004}, "reply_to": "20420__2_056", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20420__2_058", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Well, I think you have an issue of fact about whether a genuine, credible threat, sufficient to support liability, has been made.\nI think that on this record, more was alleged than one statement.\nAnd sum... enough was alleged to resist summary judgment.\nWhat we have in this case, after all, is the initial statement, I can make life difficult for you; then, I'm reluctant to promote you; then, after she's promoted, I won't give you permission to do the... the job that you need to do for your customer unless you comply with my sexual demands.\nIn each case, a coercive statement is made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [3153.478, 3160.398, 3164.869, 3168.154, 3184.782], "stop_times": [3160.398, 3164.869, 3168.154, 3184.782, 3187.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3153.478}, "reply_to": "20420__2_057", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_059", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Why does the threat... why does the threat make a difference?\nIn the example you gave earlier, about racial... racial discrimination in employment, why... why is it any worse... why does it affect the working conditions any more if the... if the officer of the company says, Because you're black, I'm going to make your work... unless you work twice as hard, unless you black employees work twice as hard, you're going to be fired... why is that any worse than... than the officer who says, Because you're black employees, I'm going to give you twice as much work?\nNow, there... there's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [3187.817, 3190.401, 3219.104], "stop_times": [3190.401, 3219.104, 3223.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3187.817}, "reply_to": "20420__2_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__2_060", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "I... I... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [3223.075], "stop_times": [3223.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3223.075}, "reply_to": "20420__2_059", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_061", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--there is no quid pro quo in the latter case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [3223.625], "stop_times": [3225.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3223.625}, "reply_to": "20420__2_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__2_062", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--No, I think they're the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [3225.625], "stop_times": [3226.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3225.625}, "reply_to": "20420__2_061", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_063", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "They're not saying, Unless you do this, I'll do that.\nThey're saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [3226.359, 3227.676], "stop_times": [3227.676, 3228.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3226.359}, "reply_to": "20420__2_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__2_064", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "They are, in each case, imposing a new term or condition on employment by reason of race, in... in the hypotheticals that you've posed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [3228.409], "stop_times": [3235.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3228.409}, "reply_to": "20420__2_063", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_065", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Right.\nBut the problem--\n--So the threat makes no difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [3235.382, 3235.665, 3236.382], "stop_times": [3235.665, 3236.382, 3237.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3235.382}, "reply_to": "20420__2_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20420__2_066", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "No, the threat... the threat can be the mechanism by which the new condition is imposed.\nAnd in this case, and in other sexual harassment cases, it sometimes is.\nBut no, it's not the only way a new term or condition can be imposed on someone's employment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [3237.465, 3242.869, 3246.821], "stop_times": [3242.869, 3246.821, 3251.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3237.465}, "reply_to": "20420__2_065", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_067", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "What you're saying is--\n--But you're saying it's a term or condition even if the person is bluffing all the way through?\nYou're saying it's still a term or condition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [3251.523, 3252.408, 3255.51], "stop_times": [3252.408, 3255.51, 3258.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3251.523}, "reply_to": "20420__2_066", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20420__2_068", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "I'm saying it's a term or condition if it is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [3258.129], "stop_times": [3261.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3258.129}, "reply_to": "20420__2_067", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_069", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Even... even... even if the... if the supervisor says, You're going to have to work twice as hard because you're a woman, and she doesn't work twice as hard and nothing happens, he was bluffing all along, that's still a violation as soon as he said it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [3261.597], "stop_times": [3270.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3261.597}, "reply_to": "20420__2_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20420__2_070", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Well, if he says it in a... in a sufficiently credible manner, so that she now... and everyone... and other people in the work place to whom it's said... anybody to whom it's said understands that to be a new term of employment under which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [3270.602], "stop_times": [3281.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3270.602}, "reply_to": "20420__2_069", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_071", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "But how do you judge that just on the basis of the threat alone?\nI mean, we... and let me ask you how you factor in the existence of a policy that this kind of thing shouldn't happen and this is how you complain when it does?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [3281.208, 3283.141], "stop_times": [3283.141, 3295.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3281.208}, "reply_to": "20420__2_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20420__2_072", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Well, in general, it seems to me a good complaint procedure will serve many functions.\nOne is that it will prevent some violations.\nAnother is that prompt reporting will tend to corroborate the plaintiff, and failure to use it will tend to raise questions about her credibility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [3295.449, 3301.586, 3304.305], "stop_times": [3301.586, 3304.305, 3312.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3295.449}, "reply_to": "20420__2_071", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_073", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "But... but strict liability, which is what you're arguing for, will not encourage that.\nStrict liability for a hostile work environment, say, or for a quid pro quo, say, if we were going to make a distinction, does... does not encourage use of grievance procedures.\nIt encourages laying back and filing a lawsuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [3312.977, 3317.547, 3328.855], "stop_times": [3317.547, 3328.855, 3330.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3312.977}, "reply_to": "20420__2_072", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20420__2_074", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Well, I don't... it's not so clear that that's so.\nBecause one consequence of laying back and filing a lawsuit is to minimize, to reduce the credibility of the plaintiff who says that something happened but never complained to anybody about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [3330.822, 3333.824], "stop_times": [3333.824, 3343.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3330.822}, "reply_to": "20420__2_073", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_075", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "It certainly will go to damages, won't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [3343.449], "stop_times": [3345.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3343.449}, "reply_to": "20420__2_074", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20420__2_076", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "It would go absolutely to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [3345.365], "stop_times": [3346.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3345.365}, "reply_to": "20420__2_075", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_077", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "All right.\nLet me... let me... let me ask you this question, which... which I think is behind some of the things that are bothering us.\nTake an easy case in which there's a company policy, but there have been 25 threats from the... from the particular supervisor.\nAnd he had done everything that... that he could reasonably do to make it clear that he's going to follow through on the threat, but the moment for doing so has not yet occurred.\nThe... the next job evaluation has not come up yet.\nThe reason, if I understand your argument, that those threats... repeatedly, et cetera... changed the terms and conditions of employment is the same reason that we say other actions, perhaps even of co-employees, create hostile environments.\nIt does create a hostile environment, and the hostility is in fact a change of condition.\nIs that your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [3346.234, 3346.517, 3350.685, 3356.756, 3365.112, 3368.33, 3386.526, 3391.679], "stop_times": [3346.517, 3350.685, 3356.756, 3365.112, 3368.33, 3386.526, 3391.679, 3393.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3346.234}, "reply_to": "20420__2_076", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20420__2_078", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--Well, it is similar to the hostile environment created by coworkers in the way that you suggest.\nThe difference is that when hostile environment is created by coworkers, there is an issue about whether the company is properly responsible, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [3393.062, 3401.051], "stop_times": [3401.051, 3409.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3393.062}, "reply_to": "20420__2_077", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_079", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Okay.\nBut leave... leave aside the question of what the standard of imputed liability is going to be.\nJust go the question of violation.\nAnd I take it on the question of violation, the two... the two instances are identical in your analysis?\nThere are evidentiary differences, but conceptually they're identical; is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [3409.574, 3410.057, 3414.295, 3416.997, 3422.049], "stop_times": [3410.057, 3414.295, 3416.997, 3422.049, 3426.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3409.574}, "reply_to": "20420__2_078", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20420__2_080", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "--The harm... yes, the harm that's caused is caused in the same way.\nI see the light.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [3426.436, 3430.887], "stop_times": [3430.887, 3431.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3426.436}, "reply_to": "20420__2_079", "speaker": "barbara_d_underwood"}
{"id": "20420__2_081", "conversation_id": "20420", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Underwood.\nThe case... the case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-569", "start_times": [3431.839, 3433.172], "stop_times": [3433.172, 3436.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3431.839}, "reply_to": "20420__2_080", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20377__0_000", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 97-391, Arthur Calderon v. Troy Ashmus.\nSpectators are admonished, do not talk until you get out of the courtroom.\nThe Court remains in session.\nMr. Matthias, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [0.0, 8.487, 9.487, 10.27], "stop_times": [8.487, 9.487, 10.27, 22.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20377__0_001", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis suit was initiated by a California death row inmate to prevent State officials from claiming in habeas cases that California is a Chapter 154 qualifying jurisdiction.\nThe principal issue before this Court is a threshold question.\nThat question is whether this suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment or, alternatively, whether it qualifies or is authorized under the ex parte Young exception to the Eleventh Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [22.461, 24.996, 36.804, 41.006], "stop_times": [24.996, 36.804, 41.006, 53.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 22.461}, "reply_to": "20377__0_000", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_002", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Mr. Matthias, do you think this suit could have been brought as a class action in a State court in California?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [53.397], "stop_times": [59.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 53.397}, "reply_to": "20377__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20377__0_003", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "As a declaratory judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [59.967], "stop_times": [64.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 59.967}, "reply_to": "20377__0_002", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_004", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [64.12], "stop_times": [64.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 64.12}, "reply_to": "20377__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20377__0_005", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "There is a... Your Honor, there is a provision of California law for declaratory judgments.\nI'm not intimately familiar with the provisions of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [64.736, 72.477], "stop_times": [72.477, 76.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 64.736}, "reply_to": "20377__0_004", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_006", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Well, I'm just wondering what the alternatives might have been.\nYou're objecting because the suit was filed in Federal court, but presumably had it been filed this same kind of issue and demand in State court, it would be all right as far as you're concerned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [76.429, 80.131], "stop_times": [80.131, 92.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 76.429}, "reply_to": "20377__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20377__0_007", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Well, I'm not sure that the State courts would have thought themselves to be an appropriate forum for entertaining the question insofar as the issue of 154 compliance or not only has significance for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [92.205], "stop_times": [106.298], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 92.205}, "reply_to": "20377__0_006", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_008", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Well, a State court can decide that just as well as a Federal court, couldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [106.298], "stop_times": [109.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 106.298}, "reply_to": "20377__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20377__0_009", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--Certainly I'm convinced that a State court could read the Federal statute, interpret it, and would be actually in a better position to understand the issue at least insofar as the 154 compliance question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [109.416], "stop_times": [123.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 109.416}, "reply_to": "20377__0_008", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_010", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Well, as a practical matter it makes a lot of sense to have the whole issue resolved and not do it case-by-case in every separate Federal habeas petition that's filed.\nI mean, that makes some sense, I would think, from the standpoint of the State as well as the defendants.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [123.741, 134.116], "stop_times": [134.116, 139.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 123.741}, "reply_to": "20377__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20377__0_011", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--It does make some sense.\nIt also makes some sense to allow issues to percolate, especially an issue as difficult as this one has evidently proved for many Federal courts.\nObviously not Federal courts within California, because in fact only one Federal court has been allowed, has allowed itself, effectively, to consider this question, but I certainly don't dispute that there is some economy in somehow aggregating these issues, and there are procedures for that.\nYour Honor's suggestion about perhaps going to State court at least on some of the subissues that will turn critically on questions of State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [139.202, 140.636, 150.91, 168.872], "stop_times": [140.636, 150.91, 168.872, 176.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 139.202}, "reply_to": "20377__0_010", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_012", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Not just the subissues, the whole thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [176.526], "stop_times": [178.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 176.526}, "reply_to": "20377__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20377__0_013", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--That, too, might have been available.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [178.026], "stop_times": [180.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 178.026}, "reply_to": "20377__0_012", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_014", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Did... has California complied... by the way, has California adopted a statute in the interim, since we took this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [180.811], "stop_times": [190.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 180.811}, "reply_to": "20377__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20377__0_015", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Yes.\nThere was a change in the law the effect of which... the effective date of which is January 1 of this year, and a handful, and I think three to five death row inmates have since had their counsel appointed under that new procedure and, theoretically, when they finish their State proceeding in however many years that takes, and they then move to Federal court if that proves necessary, then the issue of Chapter 154 compliance at/or... I should say, the issue of Chapter 154 applicability to their Federal habeas proceedings will then turn on what we call the new law.\nI will indicate, though, that obviously the vast majority of the class is utterly unaffected.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [190.166, 190.582, 227.839], "stop_times": [190.582, 227.839, 233.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 190.166}, "reply_to": "20377__0_014", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_016", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--Now, you're arguing, Mr. Matthias, that the Eleventh Amendment bars this proceeding.\nThere are a number of State officials joined.\nWas the State of California also joined?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [233.993, 240.313, 243.099], "stop_times": [240.313, 243.099, 245.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 233.993}, "reply_to": "20377__0_015", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20377__0_017", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "No.\nThe State itself was never named as a defendant formally.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [245.967, 246.451], "stop_times": [246.451, 251.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 245.967}, "reply_to": "20377__0_016", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_018", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "And so you're arguing this is not an appropriate ex parte Young situation, I guess.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [251.103], "stop_times": [256.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 251.103}, "reply_to": "20377__0_017", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20377__0_019", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Precisely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [256.156], "stop_times": [256.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 256.156}, "reply_to": "20377__0_018", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_020", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "And who were the State officials who were joined?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [256.672], "stop_times": [261.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 256.672}, "reply_to": "20377__0_019", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20377__0_021", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "It's two wardens.\nIt's the warden at San Quentin, where the men's death row is housed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [261.642, 263.845], "stop_times": [263.845, 267.547], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 261.642}, "reply_to": "20377__0_020", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_022", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Were the wardens going around making contentions about what California had done by way of providing counsel?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [267.547], "stop_times": [273.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 267.547}, "reply_to": "20377__0_021", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20377__0_023", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "To my knowledge the wardens had never breathed a word on the subject of 154--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [273.884], "stop_times": [279.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 273.884}, "reply_to": "20377__0_022", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_024", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Was there an allegation in the complaint that the wardens had made these contentions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [279.022], "stop_times": [283.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 279.022}, "reply_to": "20377__0_023", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20377__0_025", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--No.\nThere was an allegation in the complaint, I think generically, and I think the theory here was that insofar as the Warden Calderon and Warden Farmon would be the named defendants in any habeas proceeding, they would be the ones who would be urging Federal courts to apply chapter 154.\nAnd the Attorney General of the State of California, approximately 1 year before the AEDPA passed, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee praised the AEDPA and expressed the view that it would work very well in California insofar as it took account of California's unitary review procedure where collateral claims and direct appeal claims can be processed at or about the same time.\nThey're on a roughly parallel temporal track, and those comments--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [283.24, 284.926, 304.403, 332.073], "stop_times": [284.926, 304.403, 332.073, 336.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 283.24}, "reply_to": "20377__0_024", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_026", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "And he's a defendant, the Attorney General's a defendant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [336.524], "stop_times": [339.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 336.524}, "reply_to": "20377__0_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20377__0_027", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--Yes.\nThe Attorney General himself is a defendant and as I read the complaint the sole wrongful conduct attributed to the Attorney General in this case were his statements to the Senate expressing approval of the AEDPA and expressing rather optimistically the hope that it would work well in California.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [339.143, 339.526], "stop_times": [339.526, 361.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 339.143}, "reply_to": "20377__0_026", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_028", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Are you suggesting by what you just said that California's position really is kind of iffy, non-final on this matter of whether the State complies with 154, because I thought that the lawsuit was premised on the idea that California has said yes, we make it, we fit under 154, but now you seem to be saying something that would... doesn't even get us to something fancy like the Eleventh Amendment, that California really hasn't taken a firm position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [361.092], "stop_times": [392.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 361.092}, "reply_to": "20377__0_027", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20377__0_029", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Well, California officials certainly spoke to the issue publicly.\nWe had precious little chance to actually advocate this position in the context of any actual pending habeas proceeding because Mr. Ashmus filed his lawsuit about 4 hours after the AED--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [392.695, 396.265], "stop_times": [396.265, 409.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 392.695}, "reply_to": "20377__0_028", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_030", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Well, what is California's position right now, yes we fit, or maybe we fit, we hope we fit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [409.24], "stop_times": [415.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 409.24}, "reply_to": "20377__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20377__0_031", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--No, it's not maybe.\nWe believe firmly that we have qualified under the provisions of Chapter 154 since June of 1989.\nWe have since that time regularly appointed counsel to represent death row inmates--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [415.643, 417.109, 424.249], "stop_times": [417.109, 424.249, 429.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 415.643}, "reply_to": "20377__0_030", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_032", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "So now you're backing off from what you said before.\nIt was suggested to me that you were saying, it's still iffy, he just made that one statement or two statements, and he was under pressure and all that, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [429.986, 432.503], "stop_times": [432.503, 441.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 429.986}, "reply_to": "20377__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20377__0_033", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--Your Honor, I didn't say he was under pressure.\nI was simply describing what the allegation was in the petition.\nWhat was the alleged wrongdoing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [441.009, 443.211, 445.913], "stop_times": [443.211, 445.913, 447.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 441.009}, "reply_to": "20377__0_032", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_034", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--But now you say, forget all that, yes we have crossed swords here, we are saying we've made a final decision, we comply, is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [447.379], "stop_times": [459.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 447.379}, "reply_to": "20377__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20377__0_035", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--We believe we have complied, and I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [459.772], "stop_times": [461.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 459.772}, "reply_to": "20377__0_034", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_036", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--You say you've complied, but you didn't say you had complied earlier.\nYou're saying at the time this complaint was filed there was no... no evidence that you had... that the State had taken a firm position we were in compliance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [461.372, 464.89], "stop_times": [464.89, 473.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 461.372}, "reply_to": "20377__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20377__0_037", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--That's correct.\nWe had made... there had been State officials who had made statements to the media, there were State officials who had testified before Congress and expressed the view that we had complied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [473.913, 474.848], "stop_times": [474.848, 483.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 473.913}, "reply_to": "20377__0_036", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_038", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "So when did you join issue on this point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [483.621], "stop_times": [486.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 483.621}, "reply_to": "20377__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20377__0_039", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "During the litigation I think it became clear that the plaintiffs had correctly anticipated our position.\nThey understood, anticipated that we would take the position that we are a Chapter 154--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [486.073, 493.31], "stop_times": [493.31, 498.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 486.073}, "reply_to": "20377__0_038", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_040", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "So a plaintiff is predicting what a defense would be, and then the defendant says, yes, that's our defense, and that's the basis for a lawsuit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [498.63], "stop_times": [507.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 498.63}, "reply_to": "20377__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20377__0_041", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--That appears to be the basis for this lawsuit.\nYes, Your Honor, that appears to be the basis for this lawsuit, and I frankly don't think it matters whether or not we had managed to somehow get ourselves into a courtroom and assert to the Federal district court judge, Your Honor, we believe this new law applies, or if we hadn't.\nEither way, our role in Federal habeas corpus is purely adversarial.\nIt's not within our power to command the application of the AEDPA.\nIf the AEDPA would be applied to any California inmate wrongly because we're not in compliance, that would be a Federal judicial error, if it's anything.\nWe are not in a position to violate the AEDPA.\nThe AEDPA, and Chapter 154 in particular, does not impose any duties on State officials--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [507.819, 510.938, 527.614, 532.768, 538.338, 550.146, 554.281], "stop_times": [510.938, 527.614, 532.768, 538.338, 550.146, 554.281, 561.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 507.819}, "reply_to": "20377__0_040", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_042", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "It's to be applied by Federal courts, which is why I'm not sure that there could have been a declaratory judgment in State court.\nWhat would the State courts declare, that Federal courts must follow the AEDPA?\nI don't think State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [561.371, 571.993, 580.082], "stop_times": [571.993, 580.082, 581.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 561.371}, "reply_to": "20377__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20377__0_043", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--No, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [581.065], "stop_times": [581.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 581.065}, "reply_to": "20377__0_042", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_044", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--courts would give that kind of a declaratory judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [581.45], "stop_times": [583.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 581.45}, "reply_to": "20377__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20377__0_045", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--I don't think it would be that, Your Honor, but I think... and the reason I responded affirmatively to Justice O'Connor's question is, I thought we both understood, and it's true that there are State law subquestions lurking in the AEDPA.\nIn order to qualify under the AEDPA, State law provisions must be of a certain character.\nThe State must have done certain things.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [583.217, 597.56, 603.448], "stop_times": [597.56, 603.448, 605.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 583.217}, "reply_to": "20377__0_044", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_046", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "But unless California has a very unusual declaratory judgment procedure, you usually declare the existence of nonexistence of a certain right.\nYou just don't come in and say, I want an abstract interpretation of this subproposition of law, am I right or wrong about it.\nI mean, you usually say you're entitled to this or you're not entitled to this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [605.65, 615.006, 623.444], "stop_times": [615.006, 623.444, 626.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 605.65}, "reply_to": "20377__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20377__0_047", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "I quite agree, although there's another relevant change in the law, a very recent development that speaks to this precise question.\nWhen this lawsuit was filed, California did not have a certified question procedure.\nLet me make this very concrete.\nOne of the questions, one of the subquestions that lurks in a question of compliance, is a State in compliance or not, is whether or not a State has a rule of court governing the appointment of counsel and standards.\nNow, California clearly has written published standards, and you can find them in your own law library, I'm confident, clearly has had that.\nThe claim of the inmates was that that did not have the dignity of a rule of court within the meaning of California law.\nThat's actually not that easy a question, because there are many things that go by that label, rule of court, under California law, and the district court quite clearly did not understand that and applied one very rigid question of California law, one very rigid definition, the most limited definition possible.\nNow, if California standards for the employment of counsel deserve dignity as a rule of law, that's a State law question.\nThe Federal courts we had hoped would understand that and correctly construe it, but in this case that failed.\nI'm just using this as one example.\nThere really would have been... when this lawsuit was filed there was no mechanism for the Federal courts to turn to the State courts in California and effectively ask for guidance on that State procedural question.\nFortunately, that, too, has changed, and although the district court would not today have any mechanism for asking for guidance on a certified question basis from the district court, the Ninth Circuit surely would have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [626.729, 633.05, 637.454, 640.004, 653.547, 660.884, 667.573, 684.4, 691.839, 699.361, 700.778, 711.05], "stop_times": [633.05, 637.454, 640.004, 653.547, 660.884, 667.573, 684.4, 691.839, 699.361, 700.778, 711.05, 724.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 626.729}, "reply_to": "20377__0_046", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_048", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Can... I see that.\nAre you finished with that, because I've one question only that I'd like to ask, if you're finished.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [724.893, 726.345], "stop_times": [726.345, 730.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 724.893}, "reply_to": "20377__0_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20377__0_049", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Surely, Your Honor.\nGo ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [730.964, 732.166], "stop_times": [732.166, 732.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 730.964}, "reply_to": "20377__0_048", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_050", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "What in your opinion is the right route?\nThat is to say, I believe that you think the State of California thinks it has complied with the counsel requirements in AEDPA, and a group of prisoners on death row think they have not.\nAnd so what the group of prisoners says is, if we file our first habeas within 180 days, we can't complain about the statute because we complied with it, and if we wait until after 180 days, and it turns out we're wrong, we are literally without a remedy to complain about being sentenced to death.\nNow, that seems a terrible dilemma to be in, and that's why they filed this lawsuit, and I want to know, in your opinion, are they without any remedy, or if they have a remedy to test out the situation in advance, so they don't get into that dilemma, specifically, what is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [732.616, 737.218, 752.294, 774.493], "stop_times": [737.218, 752.294, 774.493, 794.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 732.616}, "reply_to": "20377__0_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20377__0_051", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "There are many, and they all arise in the context of the habeas corpus proceeding itself.\nIt's the earliest opportunity, perhaps, for an inmate to learn whether or not the judge before whom he appears with his habeas proceedings, it's... the earliest opportunity for him to learn whether or not that judge is of the mind that 154 should apply is probably the very first appearance he makes in that court, when he asks for the appointment of Federal counsel and seeks a stay, because if Chapter 154 is applicable in that jurisdiction, the court's authority for entering that stay is 2262(a).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [794.823, 799.893], "stop_times": [799.893, 830.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 794.823}, "reply_to": "20377__0_050", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_052", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "But there's a problem with that, because he has to file the petition in order to see the judge, and I thought that the problem was how much time does he have to file the petition.\nIf it's 154, half the time, or something like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [830.079, 842.72], "stop_times": [842.72, 846.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 830.079}, "reply_to": "20377__0_051", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20377__0_053", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Your Honor, I'm speaking to a point in time that typically precedes the actual filing of a petition by years.\nI'm talking about the first appearance in Federal court... not a physical appearance, but the filing of a document that requests... State proceedings are done, you turn to Federal court and you say, I would like a lawyer, I want to pursue Federal habeas corpus review, I have a execution date pending, and I would like that stayed for the purpose of appointing a lawyer, the procedure that this Court essentially described in McFarland.\nThat is well pre-petition, well pre-petition, years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [846.339, 851.326, 872.989], "stop_times": [851.326, 872.989, 877.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 846.339}, "reply_to": "20377__0_052", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_054", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "But is the applicant going to... is he going to know any particular judge at that point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [877.81], "stop_times": [882.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 877.81}, "reply_to": "20377__0_053", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20377__0_055", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [882.345], "stop_times": [883.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 882.345}, "reply_to": "20377__0_054", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_056", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "He would be dealing with a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [883.178], "stop_times": [883.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 883.178}, "reply_to": "20377__0_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20377__0_057", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "The procedure in the Northern District and all the districts of California is that the request for appointment of counsel gets docketed, it gets a number, it gets the initials, it goes to a court, and that judge almost invariably that day enters the stay, signs the order, and the search for a lawyer begins.\nAnd if the judge is going to enter a stay in a death penalty case, that judge must at that point in the procedure, at that early stage must ask himself, is this going to be a Chapter 154 case, or is this going to be a Chapter 153 case?\nAnd the reason the judge must consider... concern himself with that question is that the authority for entering a stay in a jurisdiction where Chapter 154 does apply is 2262.\nThe judge must ask himself, what am I staying, and what is my authority for staying it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [883.561, 900.557, 916.482, 928.04], "stop_times": [900.557, 916.482, 928.04, 933.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 883.561}, "reply_to": "20377__0_056", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_058", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--So does the death row prisoner argue, I want the stay, and I'm entitled to a stay only if California has not complied with these legal requirements?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [933.028], "stop_times": [946.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 933.028}, "reply_to": "20377__0_057", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20377__0_059", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "No.\nHe's entitled to a stay--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [946.585, 947.051], "stop_times": [947.051, 948.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 946.585}, "reply_to": "20377__0_058", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_060", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "He's entitled to a stay only if your position on the merits is wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [948.12], "stop_times": [954.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 948.12}, "reply_to": "20377__0_059", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20377__0_061", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--No.\nHe's entitled to stay--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [954.624, 955.024], "stop_times": [955.024, 956.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 954.624}, "reply_to": "20377__0_060", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_062", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Only if it's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [956.309], "stop_times": [957.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 956.309}, "reply_to": "20377__0_061", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20377__0_063", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--No.\nHe's entitled to a stay whether we are Chapter 153 or 154.\nThe difference is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [957.143, 957.843, 961.695], "stop_times": [957.843, 961.695, 963.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 957.143}, "reply_to": "20377__0_062", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_064", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "I'm saying, how does he get to raise his claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [963.047], "stop_times": [965.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 963.047}, "reply_to": "20377__0_063", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20377__0_065", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--He raises that claim by identifying the provision of law under which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [965.415], "stop_times": [968.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 965.415}, "reply_to": "20377__0_064", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_066", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Well, he said the judge would say it doesn't matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [968.701], "stop_times": [970.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 968.701}, "reply_to": "20377__0_065", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20377__0_067", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--The judge could say that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [970.517], "stop_times": [971.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 970.517}, "reply_to": "20377__0_066", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_068", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "All right.\nWell, what he's trying to do is to require a court to say that he's right about California's not complying and California thinks he's wrong, and my question is, although this is a very unusual action, what other kind of action could be bring to get that raised, and the answer may be none, but I want to know what you think about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [971.819, 972.153], "stop_times": [972.153, 996.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 971.819}, "reply_to": "20377__0_067", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20377__0_069", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "The answer is no other action, but numerous other courses of conduct, numerous other avenues of recourse.\nOne would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [996.351, 1006.659], "stop_times": [1006.659, 1007.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 996.351}, "reply_to": "20377__0_068", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_070", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Let's get one.\nLet's get one--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1007.942, 1008.292], "stop_times": [1008.292, 1008.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1007.942}, "reply_to": "20377__0_069", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20377__0_071", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--One would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1008.592], "stop_times": [1009.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1008.592}, "reply_to": "20377__0_070", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_072", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--because the first one I'm not too happy with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1009.278], "stop_times": [1010.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1009.278}, "reply_to": "20377__0_071", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20377__0_073", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--One would be asking for a stay, and having the court decide whether or not the stay is pursuant to 2262, which does not apply unless Chapter 154 applies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1010.378], "stop_times": [1019.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1010.378}, "reply_to": "20377__0_072", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_074", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Okay.\nIs there another one?\nLet's try another one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1019.467, 1020.184, 1020.817], "stop_times": [1020.184, 1020.817, 1021.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1019.467}, "reply_to": "20377__0_073", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20377__0_075", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "He could ask... he could ask the court for guidance on that, and the judge would have to provide it, because the judge is required to determine whether Chapter 154 applies or not, because if it does, the judge is statutorily obligated to give that matter priority, so the Federal district judge must concern himself with this question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1021.169], "stop_times": [1040.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1021.169}, "reply_to": "20377__0_074", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_076", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Is it essential to your case to show that there was some other way for these people to get an advanced declaration of what their rights were?\nI mean, many litigants are faced with the problem, is my cause barred under a 2-year statute of limitation, under a 3-year statute of limitation, and ordinarily the cautious ones will take the 2-year statute of limitations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1040.463, 1049.903], "stop_times": [1049.903, 1064.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1040.463}, "reply_to": "20377__0_075", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20377__0_077", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "That's exactly right, Your Honor.\nI quite agree, it is utterly unessential for us to demonstrate the existence of these other opportunities.\nI was simply responding to the concern that wouldn't guidance be a good thing early on, and guidance would certainly be a good thing early on, and it's manifestly attainable without suing State officials in a separate cause of action for a declaratory judgment and enjoining them from ever breathing a word of their view again about the question of compliance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1064.496, 1065.864, 1070.999], "stop_times": [1065.864, 1070.999, 1090.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1064.496}, "reply_to": "20377__0_076", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_078", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "A lot of the questions from the bench up to now, and the... your argument have been devoted to the second question presented, is this a proper injunction, but you also contend it's a violation of the Eleventh Amendment.\nCould you state briefly what the basis for that contention is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1090.663, 1103.721], "stop_times": [1103.721, 1106.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1090.663}, "reply_to": "20377__0_077", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20377__0_079", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Ex parte Young was developed, which was the doctrine that was ultimately invoked by the Ninth Circuit in support of this cause of action, of this proceeding.\nEx parte Young exists to harmonize the Eleventh Amendment with the well-recognized importance of having Federal courts be open to interpret and enforce Federal rights against State conduct that illegally infringes upon it.\nState officials do not act illegally by expressing a legal point of view to a Federal district court on a question that's in dispute.\nThat's not an illegal act.\nAt worst, it's mistaken.\nAt worst, it's that.\nBut that's the question that the suit was designed to resolve, whether or not it's... who's right or who's wrong.\nThe AEDPA is not something that State officials have any capacity to violate one way or the other.\nIt's a reform measure.\nIt's not directed to us.\nIt's directed to inmates, primarily, and secondarily it's directed to the conduct of Federal district courts and Federal courts of appeal.\nWe're not in the... it imposes no duty on us.\nIt establishes no prohibitions that we can fail to heed.\nThe most we can do on this question of AEDPA applicability, Chapter 154 applicability in particular, the absolute most we can do is explain to a Federal court what our view of its applicability is and why.\nIf there's going to be a violation of its provisions, which would be their application to a situation where the law would not have them applicable, that would be judicial error.\nThat's the sort of thing you take care of by an appeal, if you feel aggrieved by a ruling by a district court that you think is wrong.\nNot illegal.\nThe district court is not in a position to act illegally by erring.\nThat's just pure judicial error, if it's anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1106.941, 1116.297, 1135.942, 1146.25, 1147.833, 1149.284, 1151.45, 1157.438, 1162.342, 1163.742, 1165.294, 1174.732, 1178.117, 1181.403, 1195.163, 1208.204, 1214.809, 1215.526, 1219.528], "stop_times": [1116.297, 1135.942, 1146.25, 1147.833, 1149.284, 1151.45, 1157.438, 1162.342, 1163.742, 1165.294, 1174.732, 1178.117, 1181.403, 1195.163, 1208.204, 1214.809, 1215.526, 1219.528, 1222.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1106.941}, "reply_to": "20377__0_078", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_080", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Well, you're right on that.\nThe thing that... I think the thing that's bothering me that makes this a serious case is this.\nEx parte Young essentially had I think two justifications, and they did not have to be separated in Ex parte Young.\nIn the first place, there was the threat in effect of the imposition or the threat of the... an illegal restriction upon the imposition of a tax, so that if it was an improper restriction, the State officials were acting illegally.\nSecondly, there was what the Court described as rather a fear of draconian consequences if an Ex parte Young proceeding could not be brought because, in fact, if it should turn out that those who wanted to protest the State restriction were wrong, the consequences, the exactions that the State would then be entitled to would virtually, economically would destroy the person who had objected.\nThe stakes, to put it crudely, were too high for normal litigation.\nWhat we've got here, arguably, is half of Ex parte Young.\nYou're entirely right, we don't have the kind of threatened illegal action that Ex parte Young was talking about.\nBut as Justice Breyer's question indicated, there does seem to be an argument that if in fact the prisoner who claims that the State is not in compliance, that that prisoner either has to play it safe and act in accordance with a shorter period, or the prisoner has to take an awful risk, because if the prisoner is wrong, the prisoner, in effect, will be executed without the benefit of Federal process.\nSo it seems to me that arguably half of Ex parte Young is here, and the question is, to me is, is that enough?\nI will agree with you that the other half seems to be missing, but is the draconian consequence half here, and is that enough for us to say Ex parte Young should apply?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1222.046, 1223.498, 1228.986, 1239.342, 1259.421, 1292.826, 1297.296, 1302.165, 1309.621, 1347.063, 1355.483], "stop_times": [1223.498, 1228.986, 1239.342, 1259.421, 1292.826, 1297.296, 1302.165, 1309.621, 1347.063, 1355.483, 1366.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1222.046}, "reply_to": "20377__0_079", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20377__0_081", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "It is not here.\nThat draconian choice does not exist.\nThat Hobson's choice, that dilemma that you see referred to in the respondent's brief, does not exist.\nThis lawsuit is not a way out from a bind.\nIf any inmate in California wants guidance on the question, will I or will I not be held to the time lines of Chapter 154 or any other provision of the AEDPA, for that matter, all he need do is ask the judge, and Mr. Ashmus knows this first-hand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1366.625, 1368.06, 1370.593, 1377.332, 1381.2], "stop_times": [1368.06, 1370.593, 1377.332, 1381.2, 1398.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1366.625}, "reply_to": "20377__0_080", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_082", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Well, what if the judge says, look, I'm not here giving you advisory opinions.\nI'm just going to appoint counsel for you and you'll have to worry about your time limits.\nThe judge can perfectly well respond that way, can't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1398.912, 1404.733, 1409.304], "stop_times": [1404.733, 1409.304, 1412.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1398.912}, "reply_to": "20377__0_081", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20377__0_083", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "The judge must concern himself with that question.\nHe must concern himself with that question at the threshold the first time he meets that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1412.172, 1414.456], "stop_times": [1414.456, 1418.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1412.172}, "reply_to": "20377__0_082", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_084", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Tell me... that's the point that I think I'm not getting.\nWhy does he have to concern himself with it at the threshold?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1418.658, 1421.193], "stop_times": [1421.193, 1424.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1418.658}, "reply_to": "20377__0_083", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20377__0_085", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--Because it's a different provision of law that will authorize--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1424.145], "stop_times": [1427.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1424.145}, "reply_to": "20377__0_084", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_086", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Yes, but as Justice Breyer said, he says, look, I'll appoint him under this section or that section.\nI'm still going to make an appointment.\nI mean, that would be open to the judge, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1427.263, 1431.882, 1433.001], "stop_times": [1431.882, 1433.001, 1436.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1427.263}, "reply_to": "20377__0_085", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20377__0_087", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--I think the judge would more than likely want to inform himself not only what is the authority for the stay, and I realize it could be one of two places, he would also need to inform himself whether the entire proceeding is one which he will be statutorily required to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1436.535], "stop_times": [1451.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1436.535}, "reply_to": "20377__0_086", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_088", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "But wouldn't it be premature for the... I mean, the one thing he has to do, whether it's 153 or 154, is appoint a lawyer, and you said this could happen years before the actual petition is filed, so why would a judge want to make a determination at that threshold state that might well be different down the road when the petition is actually filed?\nI mean, you just pointed out that California has passed new legislation and everything.\nWhy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1451.478, 1474.042, 1478.112], "stop_times": [1474.042, 1478.112, 1478.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1451.478}, "reply_to": "20377__0_087", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20377__0_089", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--It won't change.\nThe question whether a particular proceeding will be conducted under 154 or 153 will not change as a result of changes in the law that occur after you get into Federal court, because Chapter 154 looks to the mechanism that was in place--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1478.945, 1480.397], "stop_times": [1480.397, 1497.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1478.945}, "reply_to": "20377__0_088", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_090", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--You say... but when is getting into Federal court?\nIs it when you file the application for the stay of execution, or when you file the habeas petition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1497.657, 1500.193], "stop_times": [1500.193, 1505.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1497.657}, "reply_to": "20377__0_089", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20377__0_091", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--Well, you get into Federal court under McFarland for the purpose of asking for a lawyer and getting a stay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1505.763], "stop_times": [1511.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1505.763}, "reply_to": "20377__0_090", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_092", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Yes, but not for the purpose of making a determination whether it's 153 or 154.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1511.251], "stop_times": [1515.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1511.251}, "reply_to": "20377__0_091", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20377__0_093", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Well, that may not be the purpose, but that's the effect, because if the judge grants the stay, the judge must concern himself with his statutory authority for entering such a stay, and the source of that authority will differ, depending on whether it's 153 or 154.\nThe judge must also concern himself--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1515.655, 1529.712], "stop_times": [1529.712, 1531.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1515.655}, "reply_to": "20377__0_092", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_094", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "But it... for the purpose of what the judge is doing at the moment, does it make any difference... does it have anything to do with what counsel he can appoint, how much that counsel will be paid, whether at that point he says 153 or 154?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1531.58], "stop_times": [1544.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1531.58}, "reply_to": "20377__0_093", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20377__0_095", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--It does, because the judge will have read the statute and will understand that the minute that petition is filed he's obligated to treat it with priority over all other noncapital matters.\nThe judge must concern himself, and I think it's inconceivable that a court would concern itself with that question and indulge in case management process and somehow keep it a secret from the inmate, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1544.738, 1553.261], "stop_times": [1553.261, 1565.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1544.738}, "reply_to": "20377__0_094", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_096", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Well, if that was all so clear, why didn't the district judge and the Ninth Circuit just tell us that?\nThey said this... this is a nonissue, because the minute he files for the say of execution the judge, district judge is going to put a stamp, 153 or 154 on it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1565.135, 1570.372], "stop_times": [1570.372, 1580.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1565.135}, "reply_to": "20377__0_095", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20377__0_097", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--I can't tell you why the Ninth Circuit did not take stock of the fact that there are many mechanisms for determining that short of a separate lawsuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1580.145], "stop_times": [1591.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1580.145}, "reply_to": "20377__0_096", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_098", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "What's another one?\nYou've given us one.\nWhat's another?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1591.636, 1592.203, 1592.988], "stop_times": [1592.203, 1592.988, 1593.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1591.636}, "reply_to": "20377__0_097", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20377__0_099", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "You could simply file a motion.\nWhen attorneys are in Federal court they get extensions of time to file the petition, and stays of execution in connection with their efforts to get more time to file a petition.\nIf we're talking about a due date it wouldn't make any sense to discuss that between and among the parties without some sense of what the controlling law would be.\nYou don't need to confront this at the last minute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1593.488, 1595.357, 1607.914, 1616.936], "stop_times": [1595.357, 1607.914, 1616.936, 1620.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1593.488}, "reply_to": "20377__0_098", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_100", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "But ordinarily, you know, if you're going to get a ruling from a district court you ordinarily would have one party actually present, the other party present.\nTo simply kind of casually ask a judge, you know, what's the law in this case, I think most judges would tell you, well, you know, you brief me.\nI'm not going to brief you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1620.638, 1631.613, 1639.718], "stop_times": [1631.613, 1639.718, 1640.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1620.638}, "reply_to": "20377__0_099", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20377__0_101", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Well, that's right, except Mr. Ashmus knows very well that it's entirely possible to go to your Federal district court judge with questions, uncertainties that you have about the application of AEDPA, and you get lickety-split answers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1640.718], "stop_times": [1653.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1640.718}, "reply_to": "20377__0_100", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_102", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Yes, but may I just go... you never completed your answer to Justice Breyer as far as I was concerned, because you gave the example if he thinks 134 applies, or 154 applies then he'll act pursuant to 2262, grant the stay, and so forth.\nIt seems to me most judges in the Ninth Circuit, district judges are probably going to think that the court of appeals was right on the ultimate issue, and that 153 applies, just as a practical matter, even if we vacate the decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1653.776, 1666.953], "stop_times": [1666.953, 1679.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1653.776}, "reply_to": "20377__0_101", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20377__0_103", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "No.\nAs... I suspect strongly Your Honor is exactly correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1679.094, 1679.66], "stop_times": [1679.66, 1683.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1679.094}, "reply_to": "20377__0_102", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_104", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "But then what happens if the judge thinks, well, I'll follow 153, when he comes in and asks for a lawyer and a stay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1683.545], "stop_times": [1690.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1683.545}, "reply_to": "20377__0_103", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20377__0_105", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Then he gets the benefit, the inmate knows that he will not be held to 154, we express our objections, and that will become an issue that will be reviewed in due course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1690.401], "stop_times": [1701.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1690.401}, "reply_to": "20377__0_104", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_106", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "And--\n--But in due course it may turn out the inmate's wrong--\n--He's wrong--\n--and end of line.\nThat's the dilemma.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1701.274, 1702.876, 1705.994, 1706.344, 1707.161], "stop_times": [1702.876, 1705.994, 1706.344, 1707.161, 1709.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1701.274}, "reply_to": "20377__0_105", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20377__0_107", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Well, it may still turn out--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1709.113], "stop_times": [1710.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1709.113}, "reply_to": "20377__0_106", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_108", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "I mean, you just backed yourself into it.\nThere is a problem, and I would think that California would be as interested as the prisoners in knowing whether or not it is correct that California has a unitary procedure within the meaning of the statute, and much of that's going to be determined as a matter of State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1710.296, 1712.232], "stop_times": [1712.232, 1731.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1710.296}, "reply_to": "20377__0_107", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20377__0_109", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--We are enormously interested--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1731.793], "stop_times": [1733.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1731.793}, "reply_to": "20377__0_108", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_110", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Which is why I asked you in the first place whether they couldn't go into State court and determine whether there are State laws that establish what is required for a unitary proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1733.645], "stop_times": [1746.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1733.645}, "reply_to": "20377__0_109", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20377__0_111", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--Your Honor, I assure you the State is enormously interested in attaining resolution of this question.\nWe are simply not interested in being sued under circumstances where we are immune in order to attain resolution to that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1746.453, 1750.571], "stop_times": [1750.571, 1758.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1746.453}, "reply_to": "20377__0_110", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_112", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Well, let me ask you, suppose you had conferred in the Office of the Attorney General and you said, you know, this suit is a vehicle for us to get a quick answer.\nWe'll know one way or the other.\nWe'll know if we have to adopt a special rule or statute, so we'll accept the jurisdiction of the court, but we don't want an injunction.\nWould that have made any sense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1758.011, 1764.747, 1765.831, 1774.02], "stop_times": [1764.747, 1765.831, 1774.02, 1775.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1758.011}, "reply_to": "20377__0_111", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20377__0_113", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "It certainly would have been... it would have made enormous sense to insist up on no injunction, because that's preposterous and unprecedented.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1775.972], "stop_times": [1782.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1775.972}, "reply_to": "20377__0_112", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_114", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Well, but then what good would the class action have done without the injunction, because then these petitioners would be in the same position as if they hadn't filed a class action at all.\nThey still have to look at their calendar and file their petitions, or am I wrong about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1782.309, 1790.898], "stop_times": [1790.898, 1798.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1782.309}, "reply_to": "20377__0_113", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20377__0_115", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "My only response to that is, I... to the extent that there is an insoluble dilemma created by the AEDPA, and I don't believe it's at all insoluble, but to the extent it is troubling and the stakes are indisputably high, that is a function of the AEDPA itself, not what State officials say about the AEDPA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1798.819], "stop_times": [1815.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1798.819}, "reply_to": "20377__0_114", "speaker": "ronald_s_matthias"}
{"id": "20377__0_116", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Matthias.\nMr. Laurence, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1815.597, 1816.98], "stop_times": [1816.98, 1818.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1815.597}, "reply_to": "20377__0_115", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20377__1_000", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe question before this Court is when a State has declined to participate in a Federal program, does Ex parte Young permit a declaratory judgment action to prevent State officials from unlawfully, not necessarily illegally, obtaining the benefits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1818.765, 1830.19], "stop_times": [1830.19, 1848.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1818.765}, "reply_to": "20377__0_116", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_001", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "What's the difference between unlawfully and illegally?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1848.817], "stop_times": [1851.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1848.817}, "reply_to": "20377__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20377__1_002", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "The unlawfully aspect of this case is that Ex parte Young doesn't focus merely on whether the State's actions are illegal, but rather whether or not the State's actions interfere with a cognizable Federal right, and that is precisely what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1851.853], "stop_times": [1867.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1851.853}, "reply_to": "20377__1_001", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_003", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Well, that's not really right.\nIt's only been used to enjoin some kind of continuing violation of Federal law and as I understood this new Federal procedure, the State isn't obliged to opt for a unitary review procedure.\nIt's an option open to a State that meets certain requirements, and California now has passed a statute apparently trying to opt in, but it doesn't violate the law by not doing so, or by taking a position on whether it wants to or doesn't want to.\nI mean, that's just the strangest complaint that you've made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1867.196, 1869.481, 1890.728, 1913.61], "stop_times": [1869.481, 1890.728, 1913.61, 1919.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1867.196}, "reply_to": "20377__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20377__1_004", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--The question of whether or not California's entitled to the benefits of Chapter 154 is one that Congress determined by the presence of a statute.\nEither 153 applies--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1919.414, 1928.603], "stop_times": [1928.603, 1931.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1919.414}, "reply_to": "20377__1_003", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_005", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "No, the State does not have to try to opt in to unitary review.\nIt's an option open to the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1931.138, 1937.708], "stop_times": [1937.708, 1940.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1931.138}, "reply_to": "20377__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20377__1_006", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--That's absolutely correct.\nThe State does not have to opt in under Chapter 154.\nThey can maintain the status quo under Chapter 153, and States cannot be sued to be forced to opt in under Chapter 154, but Congress did say that if the State does not opt in to Chapter 154, they are not entitled to the benefits of Chapter 154.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1940.494, 1942.394, 1945.981], "stop_times": [1942.394, 1945.981, 1963.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1940.494}, "reply_to": "20377__1_005", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_007", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "But your injunction that you obtained in the district court prohibits the State from taking the position that 154 applies, and the State says, it seems to me with considerable justification, that there is nothing illegal about our arguing the position, and you have therefore taken away one of the principal threshold primary tests for Ex parte Young.\nThe State is doing nothing illegal in arguing a position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1963.943, 1988.725], "stop_times": [1988.725, 1991.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1963.943}, "reply_to": "20377__1_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20377__1_008", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "What the district court found as a matter of fact as well as a matter of law is that the effect of the threats that the State of California would invoke Chapter 154 in future habeas proceedings was that petitioners were forced to comply with 154 in... without regard to the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [1991.76], "stop_times": [2010.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1991.76}, "reply_to": "20377__1_007", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_009", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "But that has nothing to do with the State's position, the State violating the law.\nSo it put these death row inmates to their option, but that doesn't... the State has a perfect right, I would think, to make an argument that thus-and-such is so.\nIf it's wrong, it will be told so, but to make an argument of law that ultimately turns out to be incorrect surely is not violating the law.\nThe district court... you know, a lot of mumbojumbo doesn't change that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2010.721, 2017.077, 2029.135, 2037.408], "stop_times": [2017.077, 2029.135, 2037.408, 2041.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2010.721}, "reply_to": "20377__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20377__1_010", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "What the district court found was that Chapter 154 does not apply in California.\nThat was the basis for the declaratory judgment.\nTo give effect to that declaratory judgment, however, the court found it necessary to enact a re... antirelitigation injunction, preventing the State from going to the next courtroom and saying, we don't care what this judge said over here, Chapter 154 does apply here, in an attempt at creating divergence opinions, and divergent opinions are precisely what Justice O'Connor pointed to as the problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2041.61, 2046.864, 2049.88], "stop_times": [2046.864, 2049.88, 2073.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2041.61}, "reply_to": "20377__1_009", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_011", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "But Mr. Laurence, I take it from what you said about the declaratory judgment that nothing really turns on California's bragging or... that the defendants on death row would be in precisely the same position if the California Attorney General didn't speak one word, as long as there was a realistic suspicion that California might take this position.\nSuppose somebody in the AG's office said, yeah, we might take that position.\nI don't see where you have made a lawsuit on the basis of what the Attorney General said he would do any... I don't see that your case is any stronger than it would be if all there was was a suggestion that California might make such a claim.\nIf your death row inmate is differently situated in those cases, explain to me why.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2073.164, 2098.962, 2103.016, 2123.68], "stop_times": [2098.962, 2103.016, 2123.68, 2132.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2073.164}, "reply_to": "20377__1_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20377__1_012", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "That is absolutely correct, that whether or not you're entitled to a declaratory judgment does not turn on whether or not the State officials have already asserted compliance with Chapter 154.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2132.369], "stop_times": [2142.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2132.369}, "reply_to": "20377__1_011", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_013", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "So you're saying every death row inmate in every State in the country could come in and say, district court, give us the assurance that when we file our petition it will be under 153 and not 154.\nNothing peculiar to California and the Attorney General having acted in a certain way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2142.908, 2155.299], "stop_times": [2155.299, 2160.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2142.908}, "reply_to": "20377__1_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20377__1_014", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "I think there are two limiting principles here that would prevent that kind of result.\nThe first one is the operation of Ex parte Young can only apply when Congress has established two mutually exclusive procedures for governing habeas procedures and the State is the gatekeeper.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2160.001, 2163.905], "stop_times": [2163.905, 2176.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2160.001}, "reply_to": "20377__1_013", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_015", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "But I'm not even getting up to Ex parte Young.\nI'm getting up to, do we have a case or controversy fit for Federal adjudication?\nLooked at one way, this is a plaintiff coming in and saying, Federal court, please knock out what would be an affirmative defense to my habeas case.\nOrdinarily, you simply can't go to a court and say now, I've got this lawsuit, but there's a defense in it, and I'd like to have a separate lawsuit about that defense to knock out that defense, and then I'll come in with my lawsuit.\nThat in any other context would be unimaginable, that a plaintiff could come in with a lawsuit and say, but I've got a threshold lawsuit which will be to knock out this affirmative defense, and then we can have a nice clean lawsuit, without that defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2176.462, 2179.581, 2186.318, 2196.376, 2209.767], "stop_times": [2179.581, 2186.318, 2196.376, 2209.767, 2226.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2176.462}, "reply_to": "20377__1_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20377__1_016", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "That goes to the second limiting principle that I think is present in this case, and let me first say that standing, ripeness, and cause of action were all litigated below, and the State has waived any consideration by this Court of those issues.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2226.895], "stop_times": [2239.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2226.895}, "reply_to": "20377__1_015", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_017", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Oh, you cannot waive the presence of an actual case or controversy within Article III.\nNobody can waive that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2239.886, 2244.857], "stop_times": [2244.857, 2246.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2239.886}, "reply_to": "20377__1_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20377__1_018", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Absolutely not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2246.074], "stop_times": [2246.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2246.074}, "reply_to": "20377__1_017", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_019", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "We're obliged to raise that on our own.\nYou can raise standing.\nAnd that's what I'm raising.\nThis, I thing you'll agree with me, is a plaintiff saying, I am a potential habeas petitioner.\nIn my habeas case, I don't want them to raise that defense, because it will be literally death for me, so I want an anticipatory suit to get rid of what would be an affirmative defense in my full-blown lawsuit.\nI don't know of any other situation like this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2246.642, 2248.308, 2249.342, 2251.51, 2258.533, 2276.994], "stop_times": [2248.308, 2249.342, 2251.51, 2258.533, 2276.994, 2281.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2246.642}, "reply_to": "20377__1_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20377__1_020", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "And I agree, Your Honor, and to clarify my earlier remarks, the cause of action argument was the one that was expressly raised by the petitioners in the reply brief, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2281.546], "stop_times": [2293.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2281.546}, "reply_to": "20377__1_019", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_021", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Well, that's a 12(b)(6) question.\nI'm--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2293.671, 2295.123], "stop_times": [2295.123, 2295.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2293.671}, "reply_to": "20377__1_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20377__1_022", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2295.589], "stop_times": [2296.056], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2295.589}, "reply_to": "20377__1_021", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_023", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--way short of that.\nI'm really asking, do we have a justiciable case or controversy under Article III when a plaintiff comes to court and says, before I bring my complaint, please knock out an affirmative defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2296.056, 2297.408], "stop_times": [2297.408, 2310.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2296.056}, "reply_to": "20377__1_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20377__1_024", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "If we fulfill the requirements of the Declaratory Judgment Act, which is a discretionary jurisdiction but is limited to specific circumstances where the rights and responsibilities of the parties must be decided before there's irreparable injury, then I believe we are properly before this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2310.798], "stop_times": [2327.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2310.798}, "reply_to": "20377__1_023", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_025", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Well, the declaratory judgment is a remedy.\nIt isn't... doesn't create jurisdiction that wouldn't exist otherwise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2327.51, 2330.712], "stop_times": [2330.712, 2333.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2327.51}, "reply_to": "20377__1_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20377__1_026", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "That's correct, and under section 1331 there's no question that this Court has jurisdiction because this dispute arose from a Federal statute.\nWhich of the two competing procedures apply to habeas petitioners in California.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2333.831, 2343.187], "stop_times": [2343.187, 2348.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2333.831}, "reply_to": "20377__1_025", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_027", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Do you know any other instance in which someone has gotten a declaratory judgment on just an abstract issue of law, whether 153 or 154 applies, as opposed to whether I am entitled to occupy this property, or whether, you know, a particular right... this is no adjudication of any right of your clients at all, whether they're entitled to get out of prison, whether they're... you know, it's just a declaratory judgment for a declaration about an abstract proposition of law.\nI didn't know you could use declaratory judgment for that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2348.274, 2377.027], "stop_times": [2377.027, 2379.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2348.274}, "reply_to": "20377__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20377__1_028", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "It's not an abstract--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2379.027], "stop_times": [2380.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2379.027}, "reply_to": "20377__1_027", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_029", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "I thought you had to have a cause of action.\nMaybe it was a little early that you're asserting it, but you have to be making a claim of right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2380.979, 2381.979], "stop_times": [2381.979, 2386.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2380.979}, "reply_to": "20377__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20377__1_030", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--And the claim of right I believe stems from Chapter 153 and 154.\nCongress said--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2386.281, 2391.935], "stop_times": [2391.935, 2392.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2386.281}, "reply_to": "20377__1_029", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_031", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--not claim of right.\nYou're claiming that... as Justice Ginsburg said, you're raising an anticipatory defense and saying that defense is invalid.\nThat's not a right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2392.6, 2393.036, 2400.773], "stop_times": [2393.036, 2400.773, 2402.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2392.6}, "reply_to": "20377__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20377__1_032", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--Congress I believe established that these two procedures cannot coexist, that habeas petitioners, by default, as this Court recognized in Lindh v. Murphy, are entitled to the benefits of Chapter 153.\nThey have 1... up to 1 year to file their Federal petitions.\nThey have the normal rules of amending those petitions, and they have the additional procedures that are governed by 153.\nChapter 154 is far more restrictive, requiring habeas petitioners to do far more faster than anything we ever saw in Chapter 153.\nIf Congress intended our rights to be vindicated under Chapter 153, the only way to obtain those rights is a declaration that we are entitled to those rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2402.892, 2416.133, 2418.668, 2425.341, 2434.946], "stop_times": [2416.133, 2418.668, 2425.341, 2434.946, 2446.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2402.892}, "reply_to": "20377__1_031", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_033", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Well, Mr. Laurence, supposing in a somewhat different context you have a claim that you want to bring under 1983, some sort of a civil rights claim, but you're not ready to bring the claim yet, and you're worried which statute of limitations, which State statute of limitations will the Federal court apply to your case.\nDo you think you can go in and say, I'm not ready to file yet, I just want to know what statute of limitations is going to apply?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2446.421, 2468.501], "stop_times": [2468.501, 2474.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2446.421}, "reply_to": "20377__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20377__1_034", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "I believe in most circumstances the answer is no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2474.904], "stop_times": [2477.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2474.904}, "reply_to": "20377__1_033", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_035", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Why should it be different here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2477.956], "stop_times": [2480.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2477.956}, "reply_to": "20377__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20377__1_036", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "A statute of limitations that does not depend upon an assertion of a defense by a State officer does not involve the same kind of problems that were recognized in Ex parte Young.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2480.058], "stop_times": [2491.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2480.058}, "reply_to": "20377__1_035", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_037", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Yes, but the problems are... certainly that doesn't make it any easier for you.\nIt makes it harder.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2491.05, 2494.985], "stop_times": [2494.985, 2496.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2491.05}, "reply_to": "20377__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20377__1_038", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "I'm sorry, it does make it more difficult to understand what the law is, but Congress has not established these two independent statute of limitations depending on what the State officials do after you have filed in excess of the time permitted by one of those statute of limitations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2496.187], "stop_times": [2515.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2496.187}, "reply_to": "20377__1_037", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_039", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Mr. Laurence, is it clear that the application of the statute of limitations depends, as you say, upon the assertion of a defense by the State?\nSuppose California comes in and says, we don't qualify for 154 treatment, whereas they plainly do.\nDo you think a Federal court can ignore 154?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2515.315, 2525.873, 2533.943], "stop_times": [2525.873, 2533.943, 2536.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2515.315}, "reply_to": "20377__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20377__1_040", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Absolutely not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2536.829], "stop_times": [2538.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2536.829}, "reply_to": "20377__1_039", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_041", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "And say, because California wants to do it the old way, and they like these lengthy procedures, we're going to subject the Federal court to these lengthy procedures?\nDoes it make any difference whether California asserts it or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2538.431, 2546.786], "stop_times": [2546.786, 2549.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2538.431}, "reply_to": "20377__1_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20377__1_042", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "It makes a difference in that they can only apply if the State qualifies, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2549.904], "stop_times": [2555.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2549.904}, "reply_to": "20377__1_041", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_043", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "If the State qualifies, not if the State asserts that it qualifies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2555.123], "stop_times": [2559.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2555.123}, "reply_to": "20377__1_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20377__1_044", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "I don't believe that any court has held that we are going to apply Chapter 154 despite the fact the State has not demonstrated--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2559.344], "stop_times": [2568.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2559.344}, "reply_to": "20377__1_043", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_045", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Well, I'll be darned if I'm going to let a State make the Federal process more cumbersome than Congress has said just because it chooses to.\nYou don't think a Federal court is going to allow that, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2568.283, 2576.139], "stop_times": [2576.139, 2578.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2568.283}, "reply_to": "20377__1_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20377__1_046", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--I respectfully disagree.\nI do believe that this is a unique situation where Congress has said the States must come forward and demonstrate that they opt in to get these beneficial provisions.\nIf a State fails to do that, then the habeas petitioners have the right under Chapter 153 to have their habeas proceedings processed by that chapter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2578.406, 2580.591, 2591.315], "stop_times": [2580.591, 2591.315, 2602.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2578.406}, "reply_to": "20377__1_045", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_047", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "I... we know the substantive part, but I'm having the same problem.\nI don't... and I think your case turns on this.\nI don't see any need for an injunction here if you can get a declaratory judgment.\nAfter all, you get a declaratory judgment, appeal that, you'll get an authoritative ruling, but what right do you have to a declaratory judgment?\nNow, you must have read about declaratory judgments in preparation for this.\nEverybody's asking you I think the same question.\nCan you find any analogy at all... I mean, I can be helpful, I think.\nI know that you can get a declaratory judgment against the State where the State's threatening to do something bad to you.\nI know you can get a declaratory judgment against the State where the State's threatening to bring a lawsuit against you and there's good reason for proceeding first.\nI know you can get a declaratory judgment about a defense if they think almost certainly the thing's going to be raised and there's very good reason, you know, for finding out the defense first.\nSo you've read those cases.\nI haven't.\nWhat's your best way of saying, even if there's nothing right on point, we can get a declaratory judgment here even though it's about a defense likely to be brought in a lawsuit called habeas corpus that I, who want the declaratory judgment, are going to bring?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2602.337, 2605.991, 2609.277, 2614.514, 2622.668, 2627.571, 2629.69, 2635.26, 2640.729, 2648.485, 2658.793, 2660.443, 2661.393], "stop_times": [2605.991, 2609.277, 2614.514, 2622.668, 2627.571, 2629.69, 2635.26, 2640.729, 2648.485, 2658.793, 2660.443, 2661.393, 2678.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2602.337}, "reply_to": "20377__1_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20377__1_048", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "I think the case most on point is this court's decision in Steffel v. Thompson, in which this Court said a threat for future proceedings brought by State officers which interferes with a person's Federal rights is a proper... proper forum to bring it within a declaratory judgment act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2678.604], "stop_times": [2698.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2678.604}, "reply_to": "20377__1_047", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_049", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "But there the people had been arrested and the threat was to continue the arrests.\nIt wasn't just taking a position on some legal point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2698.585, 2704.655], "stop_times": [2704.655, 2708.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2698.585}, "reply_to": "20377__1_048", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20377__1_050", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "If I remember the facts correctly, the two people who brought the lawsuit originally had not been arrested.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2708.274], "stop_times": [2713.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2708.274}, "reply_to": "20377__1_049", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_051", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "But there was... they proved a continuing threat of arrest, did they not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2713.76], "stop_times": [2717.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2713.76}, "reply_to": "20377__1_050", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20377__1_052", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "The continuing threat was the threat to take action.\nThat is absolutely correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2717.831, 2720.95], "stop_times": [2720.95, 2722.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2717.831}, "reply_to": "20377__1_051", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_053", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Well, to take action of arresting them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2722.05], "stop_times": [2723.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2722.05}, "reply_to": "20377__1_052", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20377__1_054", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "But this Court hasn't distinguished between arresting or threatening some other type of proceeding for the purposes of the Declaratory Judgment Act, and in fact the State's position in this case before the district court was that, despite the fact that a Declaratory Judgment Act... declaratory judgment would be entered, they planned and were wishing to seek a divergent opinion in the very next courtroom.\nThat is the basis for the injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2723.818, 2748.934], "stop_times": [2748.934, 2751.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2723.818}, "reply_to": "20377__1_053", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_055", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "But if... cases like Great Lakes v. Huffman and others say that you have to comply with virtually the same requirements to get a declaratory judgment that you have to comply with to get an injunction, so it's not as if you can avoid the principles of injunctive law on the merits by saying all I want is a declaratory judgment.\nYou have to make a showing there, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2751.052, 2773.733], "stop_times": [2773.733, 2775.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2751.052}, "reply_to": "20377__1_054", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20377__1_056", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "You certainly have to make a showing that there's an actual case or controversy as well as the particular requirements of standing, Federal jurisdiction, and everything else, but the State here has conceded that a declaratory judgment was proper in the district court if it had been made in a habeas proceeding in behalf of an individual petitioner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2775.285], "stop_times": [2797.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2775.285}, "reply_to": "20377__1_055", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_057", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Well, that wouldn't be so much of a declaratory judgment.\nThat would simply be a ruling on the habeas petition that it was timely filed.\nYou know, in that sense you can say that any number of rulings are declaratory judgments.\nI don't think the State concedes that a separate declaratory judgment would be proper.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2797.533, 2801.835, 2806.187, 2811.341], "stop_times": [2801.835, 2806.187, 2811.341, 2815.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2797.533}, "reply_to": "20377__1_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20377__1_058", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Well, in the district court they did, Your Honor, and I refer to the proceedings that were conducted on May 6, 1996, where they actually... I'm... pardon me.\nThey stated that a declaratory... you can get a declaratory judgment in the actual habeas proceeding brought by Mr. Troy Ashmus.\nNow, of course, they can't concede Federal court jurisdiction, nor can they concede any of the other aspects.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2815.662, 2826.684, 2835.991], "stop_times": [2826.684, 2835.991, 2842.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2815.662}, "reply_to": "20377__1_057", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_059", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "I don't understand that point, because it seems to me if they bring it, say, after 180 days the judge makes a ruling of law in that case.\nThey don't have to label it a declaratory judgment or anything.\nThis is... how is it any different from a defendant pleads statute of limitations, the judge rules on that affirmative defense and rejects it?\nWhy do you label that declaratory judgment?\nIt's just a ruling on the timeliness of the lawsuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2842.561, 2850.917, 2854.703, 2866.926, 2870.812], "stop_times": [2850.917, 2854.703, 2866.926, 2870.812, 2873.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2842.561}, "reply_to": "20377__1_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20377__1_060", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "It certainly doesn't have the label of a declaratory judgment, necessarily, but when we were discussing the alternatives in the district court and the Ninth Circuit the State took the position that you would get the same declaratory judgment in Mr. Ashmus' habeas proceeding.\nThat would be a binding order that would provide some protection to Mr. Ashmus.\nNow, of course, this case wasn't brought only on behalf of Mr. Ashmus.\nIt is a class action--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2873.747, 2890.126, 2895.28, 2898.315], "stop_times": [2890.126, 2895.28, 2898.315, 2899.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2873.747}, "reply_to": "20377__1_059", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_061", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "But the problem is... you gave us Steffel v. Thompson, where I suppose the defendant... the petitioner is trying to ward off the State instituting criminal proceedings against him.\nWasn't that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2899.732, 2914.158], "stop_times": [2914.158, 2914.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2899.732}, "reply_to": "20377__1_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20377__1_062", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--The person actually wanted to handbill at a mall and was threatened with arrest for loitering, for distributing the handbills.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2914.658], "stop_times": [2925.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2914.658}, "reply_to": "20377__1_061", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_063", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Right.\nSo that has all the feel of a concrete... I mean, he said, I've done it, they told they're going to arrest me, I'm going to do it again, they're going to arrest me again.\nBut here we just... we have an... a question abstracted from a controversy down the road, and I think there are all kinds of courts in the world, even in some States that can say, this is what the law means, but the Federal courts don't have that kind of authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2925.982, 2926.465, 2935.905], "stop_times": [2926.465, 2935.905, 2961.722], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2925.982}, "reply_to": "20377__1_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20377__1_064", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Maybe it would be helpful if I bring it to actually one individual case.\nMr. Clarence Ray, who was affirmed... his convictions and death sentence was affirmed by the California supreme court on May 6, 1996.\nA reading of Chapter 154 by anyone would say that the time for filing his Federal petition has begun to run unless he takes some further action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2961.722, 2965.59, 2974.88], "stop_times": [2965.59, 2974.88, 2988.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2961.722}, "reply_to": "20377__1_063", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_065", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "But that's true... what you're saying now is true of every person in every State that might say 154 applies.\nEvery death row inmate is identically situated to the person you're just describing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [2988.206, 2998.597], "stop_times": [2998.597, 3005.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2988.206}, "reply_to": "20377__1_064", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20377__1_066", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Where they have to make some decision about how to proceed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3005.001], "stop_times": [3008.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3005.001}, "reply_to": "20377__1_065", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_067", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Where they... whether the State has said anything as long as there is any genuine concern that the State might attempt to qualify, that person is going to be facing the kind of dilemma that you're bringing to our attention.\nSo I don't see anything that you... anything additional stemming from what the California Attorney General said unless a State says, look, we're know we're so far away from compliance, and some of them have, I understand, so it's going to be 153 for us, because we could never prove that we have all our ducks in line.\nUnless a State is saying that it's 153 for us because we can't comply with 154, then every defendant, every person on death row in any State that might claim 154 could bring exactly the case that you're bringing, a class action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3008.453, 3025.063, 3045.726], "stop_times": [3025.063, 3045.726, 3067.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3008.453}, "reply_to": "20377__1_066", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20377__1_068", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "I would think they would have to show some actual case or controversy.\nThey would have to demonstrate that the State could plausibly claim entitlement to Chapter 154.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3067.492, 3072.044], "stop_times": [3072.044, 3077.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3067.492}, "reply_to": "20377__1_067", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_069", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3077.548], "stop_times": [3077.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3077.548}, "reply_to": "20377__1_068", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20377__1_070", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "But I would think that those kinds of situations likely are going to be resolved either by this, resorting to this mechanism, or by individuals in cases such as Maryland, which has only six people on death row at the time they filed their complaint, in any individual case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3077.748], "stop_times": [3097.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3077.748}, "reply_to": "20377__1_069", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_071", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Mr. Laurence, getting down to one of the themes that we have here, which is what's different about the claim that you're making from the claim of any litigant who says, I'm not quite sure when to sue, so I'd like to bring a preliminary threshold action to litigate the possibility of affirmative defense of the statute of limitations--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3097.361], "stop_times": [3118.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3097.361}, "reply_to": "20377__1_070", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20377__1_072", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "I think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3118.275], "stop_times": [3119.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3118.275}, "reply_to": "20377__1_071", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_073", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--What is at stake here that's not at stake there?\nIn each of those cases, if the litigant comes in on the assumption that the shorter statute applies, the litigant is going to lose some luxury of time which the litigant would have had if the longer statute applies, so no question, you would lose that, too.\nDo you lose anything else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3119.725, 3122.976, 3143.64], "stop_times": [3122.976, 3143.64, 3145.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3119.725}, "reply_to": "20377__1_072", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20377__1_074", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--You do if you're uncertain as to the law and you don't know, for example, in Mr. Ray's case what he should have done on May 6, his options are this:\nHe could have filed a pro se Federal petition without the assistance of counsel to toll the time for the Chapter 154 statute of limitations.\nHe could have filed a pro se State habeas petition.\nHis first petition would toll the statute of limitations, yet he would have done so without the basis of investigation or resources that Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3145.508, 3158.066, 3169.29, 3173.259], "stop_times": [3158.066, 3169.29, 3173.259, 3182.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3145.508}, "reply_to": "20377__1_073", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_075", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "So you're saying if one or the other applies, he better get his petition for counsel in fast.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3182.198], "stop_times": [3188.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3182.198}, "reply_to": "20377__1_074", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20377__1_076", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--He has to make some decisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3188.685], "stop_times": [3190.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3188.685}, "reply_to": "20377__1_075", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_077", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "All right.\nIs that enough to elevate this to the level of a case or controversy whereas a normal statute of limitations doubt would not suffice as a case or controversy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3190.402, 3190.885], "stop_times": [3190.885, 3203.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3190.402}, "reply_to": "20377__1_076", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20377__1_078", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "I think the Congress has set up this statutory scheme where it intends one of the two circumstances to apply, and those circumstances involve the risk that people will be executed because they have made the wrong choice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3203.961], "stop_times": [3222.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3203.961}, "reply_to": "20377__1_077", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_079", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "What about his suggestion that you could structure this differently?\nI take it to be that you file it within 180 days.\nYou move for a stay for a year-and-a-half.\nThe State comes in and says, that's absurd, a stay for a year-and-a-half, because the Congress wants this quickly.\nYou stipulate that it is absurd, unless they don't comply, you see, making your legal argument.\nThe judge decides one way or the other.\nYou ask for a certified appeal.\nYou get an appeal to the Ninth Circuit.\nI take it he's suggesting something like that as a route.\nIs there anything wrong... of course, I don't know if you can structure it that way or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3222.156, 3226.643, 3230.179, 3232.964, 3238.868, 3246.188, 3247.64, 3249.123, 3250.425, 3253.46], "stop_times": [3226.643, 3230.179, 3232.964, 3238.868, 3246.188, 3247.64, 3249.123, 3250.425, 3253.46, 3257.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3222.156}, "reply_to": "20377__1_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20377__1_080", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "It is possible for the 110 individuals who are in Federal court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3257.912], "stop_times": [3261.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3257.912}, "reply_to": "20377__1_079", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_081", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "I mean, you couldn't get a class, but you could get a test case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3261.983], "stop_times": [3263.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3261.983}, "reply_to": "20377__1_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20377__1_082", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--But the test case would not have been resolved until after the running of that 6 months.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3263.733], "stop_times": [3270.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3263.733}, "reply_to": "20377__1_081", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_083", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Everybody would have to file the protective and ask for the stay.\nI mean... I'm trying to make something of what he was saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3270.053, 3275.874], "stop_times": [3275.874, 3278.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3270.053}, "reply_to": "20377__1_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20377__1_084", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3278.159], "stop_times": [3278.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3278.159}, "reply_to": "20377__1_083", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_085", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "And everybody would have to file within the 180 days, immediately move for a stay, so he can bring it a year later, and the issue of whether that stay is proper or not proper would turn on exactly what you want to raise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3278.609], "stop_times": [3291.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3278.609}, "reply_to": "20377__1_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20377__1_086", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "And that would have been a remedy for the 50 or so individuals in Federal court at the time we brought this lawsuit who hadn't filed petitions yet, but our class contains 300 members who were not in Federal court or who were in Federal court without counsel.\nMr. Monteo, who's case was affirmed on April 26, had to wait 6 months before he got counsel from the district court.\nDuring that time period, if he had not been part of this lawsuit, he would have had to make a decision to either file a declaratory judgment motion by himself or a Federal petition by himself in order to stay the tolling of the time period.\nIt is those individuals who don't have counsel or the ability to get into Federal court who had to know which of these two provisions apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3291.316, 3308.928, 3319.57, 3337.531], "stop_times": [3308.928, 3319.57, 3337.531, 3346.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3291.316}, "reply_to": "20377__1_085", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_087", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "But isn't it also true that it's not just a stay.\nThe first petition he files may be incomplete.\nHe may not have thought of all his claims.\nThe question would be whether he has a right to amend after the period goes by if 154 applies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3346.987, 3349.605, 3352.724, 3354.176], "stop_times": [3349.605, 3352.724, 3354.176, 3359.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3346.987}, "reply_to": "20377__1_086", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20377__1_088", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "That's absolutely correct, because if you file your petition and you're governed by Chapter 153, the normal rules of amendments apply, but if you're... if you file a petition and you're governed by Chapter 154, you cannot--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3359.73], "stop_times": [3373.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3359.73}, "reply_to": "20377__1_087", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_089", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Amend it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3373.204], "stop_times": [3374.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3373.204}, "reply_to": "20377__1_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20377__1_090", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--except under exceptional circumstances amend that petition.\nAll the petitioners and the plaintiffs in this case are asking for is some guidance as to how the rules are going to be played in Federal court.\nThey ask for no more, but they certainly ask for no less.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3374.004, 3377.524, 3385.678], "stop_times": [3377.524, 3385.678, 3389.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3374.004}, "reply_to": "20377__1_089", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_091", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--Well, we have certain rules, too, you know, as to when various pleadings have to be filed, as well as statutory rules about, you know, how long after the judgment in the court of appeals you can seek certiorari.\nWhy is your case different from the case in which someone claims that the judgment in the court of appeals was entered at a much later date than the other side could plausibly claim?\nCan that person bring a suit against the other side asserting that the judgment in the court of appeals was entered at the later date in order that he can assure himself of having another year to prepare his petition for certiorari?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3389.432, 3401.807, 3416.983], "stop_times": [3401.807, 3416.983, 3432.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3389.432}, "reply_to": "20377__1_090", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20377__1_092", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "I don't believe so.\nI don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3432.426, 3433.861], "stop_times": [3433.861, 3434.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3432.426}, "reply_to": "20377__1_091", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_093", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3434.395], "stop_times": [3434.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3434.395}, "reply_to": "20377__1_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20377__1_094", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--I don't believe that the rules governing when you must file the cert petition depend upon the actions of the other party.\nThat is precisely the situation here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3434.811, 3441.532], "stop_times": [3441.532, 3443.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3434.811}, "reply_to": "20377__1_093", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_095", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Oh, it doesn't depend on the... oh, I see.\nIt depends... you mean, it depends on the action of whether the State has adopted the rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3443.967, 3445.919], "stop_times": [3445.919, 3449.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3443.967}, "reply_to": "20377__1_094", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20377__1_096", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3449.704], "stop_times": [3450.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3449.704}, "reply_to": "20377__1_095", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_097", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Not on whether the State has... is taking the position that they satisfy the statute.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3450.27, 3456.976], "stop_times": [3456.976, 3457.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3450.27}, "reply_to": "20377__1_096", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20377__1_098", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Exactly, and the other option that the habeas--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3457.843], "stop_times": [3459.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3457.843}, "reply_to": "20377__1_097", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_099", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "That is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3459.676], "stop_times": [3459.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3459.676}, "reply_to": "20377__1_098", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20377__1_100", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--petitioners had is that they could have waited until their petitions were finally complete, filing them 6, 7, 8, 9 months after their direct appeal was concluded, and risk having the State come in and say, I'm sorry, you will be executed because you failed to comply with the 6-month statute of limitations.\nAnd Justice O'Connor's question at the beginning of this proceeding I think was completely appropriate, which is, do we want to have a uniform resolution of the systemic question, and I think the answer has to be yes, and you have to provide habeas petitioners with some means of ascertaining their rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3459.843, 3479.672], "stop_times": [3479.672, 3499.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3459.843}, "reply_to": "20377__1_099", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_101", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--And that answer would be yes even if the State had said nothing at all on this question, just the fact that they might do it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3499.17], "stop_times": [3505.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3499.17}, "reply_to": "20377__1_100", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20377__1_102", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "I believe so.\nI believe that it does not depend on whether or not they assert compliance if they have the capability of asserting compliance.\nIf they sat in their offices and said, we'll let you know in 6 months whether or not the statute is going to apply to you, then I think you have a Declaratory Judgment Act that allows you to come in and say, we have a real controversy here, because Congress says there are two competing mechanisms.\nPlease decide--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3505.324, 3506.057, 3512.811, 3530.189], "stop_times": [3506.057, 3512.811, 3530.189, 3531.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3505.324}, "reply_to": "20377__1_101", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_103", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "I just want to be clear on what your position is, that this could be done in every State except for those States that have admitted that they fall far short of what's required to fit under 154.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3531.272], "stop_times": [3542.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3531.272}, "reply_to": "20377__1_102", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20377__1_104", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--Or where the issue has... doesn't have to address 400 individuals.\nFor example, Maryland, which could have done this in a simple district court action in which the habeas petitioner could have resolved that issue on his behalf.\nWe're talking about California, that has--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3542.83, 3546.698, 3557.404], "stop_times": [3546.698, 3557.404, 3559.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3542.83}, "reply_to": "20377__1_103", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_105", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Well, the fact that there are only six people in... maybe, if that's what you're talking about in Maryland on death row, it still would have to bring this kind of a threshold case, because whether we're talking about six or 600 they all still face the dilemma that you say.\nIf we file now, when we haven't investigated, it's going to be an inadequate complaint, so that shouldn't matter.\nThat there are only six shouldn't affect whether you can bring this kind of lawsuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3559.456, 3576.884, 3585.907], "stop_times": [3576.884, 3585.907, 3590.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3559.456}, "reply_to": "20377__1_104", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20377__1_106", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor, if you've satisfied the requirements for the Declaratory Judgment Act.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3590.811, 3597.148], "stop_times": [3597.148, 3597.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3590.811}, "reply_to": "20377__1_105", "speaker": "michael_laurence"}
{"id": "20377__1_107", "conversation_id": "20377", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Laurence.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-391", "start_times": [3597.831, 3598.815], "stop_times": [3598.815, 3600.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3597.831}, "reply_to": "20377__1_106", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21087__0_000", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 97-215, Arthur Calderon v. Thomas Thompson.\nMs. Wilkens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [0.0, 8.788], "stop_times": [8.788, 49.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21087__0_001", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court--\nWhen this Court denied Thomas Thompson's petition for certiorari on June 2, 1997, his first Federal habeas proceedings became final.\nFrom that point forward, any litigation in either the district court or the court of appeals would constitute an impermissible second bite of the apple unless the specific limitations of the Effective Death Penalty Act were met.\nIt makes no difference if that second bite of the apple occurs upon the motion of the inmate or on the court's own motion.\nThe adverse effect upon the State's judgment and the State's interest in comity and finality of that judgment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [49.364, 53.275, 63.923, 79.264, 86.82], "stop_times": [53.275, 63.923, 79.264, 86.82, 94.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 49.364}, "reply_to": "21087__0_000", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_002", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Ms. Wilkens, what are the limits on a court of appeals' power and authority to recall a mandate sua sponte?\nDo we know?\nI mean, what cases do we look to to determine that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [94.655, 104.602, 105.931], "stop_times": [104.602, 105.931, 109.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 94.655}, "reply_to": "21087__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21087__0_003", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--Well, first, in distinguishing between an ordinary civil case and a 2254 case I don't perceive any limitations on an ordinary civil case.\nHowever--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [109.474, 119.301], "stop_times": [119.301, 120.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 109.474}, "reply_to": "21087__0_002", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_004", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Even after a judgment has become final?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [120.892], "stop_times": [123.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 120.892}, "reply_to": "21087__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21087__0_005", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.\nI note that there are these standards that have been cited in the cases that have been cited.\nIt is a very... apparently a very broad standard.\nIt's made on a case by case ad hoc decision with respect to exceptional or extraordinary circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [123.125, 124.164, 129.568, 132.64], "stop_times": [124.164, 129.568, 132.64, 139.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 123.125}, "reply_to": "21087__0_004", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_006", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "And what do we look to in the case of a habeas proceeding, which we've said is a civil action?\nWhat do we look to there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [139.675, 147.989], "stop_times": [147.989, 149.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 139.675}, "reply_to": "21087__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21087__0_007", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "I would invite the Court to look to the Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22a, wherein Congress has recently delineated a role for the courts of appeal as a gatekeeper.\nThey have removed significantly the original jurisdiction for habeas corpus proceedings from the court of appeals and instead have transferred the screening process that was previously in the district courts, and they have placed that with the court of appeals, thereby significantly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [149.791, 160.859], "stop_times": [160.859, 180.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 149.791}, "reply_to": "21087__0_006", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_008", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Do you think that the new Federal Antiterrorism and Death Penalty Act speaks to the question of what a court of appeals can do concerning recalling its own mandate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [180.151], "stop_times": [195.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 180.151}, "reply_to": "21087__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21087__0_009", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--Well, it does not specifically reference the recall of the mandate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [195.912], "stop_times": [198.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 195.912}, "reply_to": "21087__0_008", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_010", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [198.813], "stop_times": [199.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 198.813}, "reply_to": "21087__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21087__0_011", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "It most assuredly speaks to finality, and, in fact, section 2244 as amended by the Effective Death Penalty Act is entitled finality, interjects res judicata into habeas corpus, and specifically delineates the narrow circumstances under which additional litigation will occur.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [199.284], "stop_times": [217.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 199.284}, "reply_to": "21087__0_010", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_012", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Well, it talks about a second or successive habeas corpus application.\nHere, the Ninth Circuit was quite explicit about saying that it was resting just on the previous application.\nIt added no new facts.\nSuppose the three judge panel issues a mandate in a habeas corpus action and the very next day recalls its mandate because it made a mistake.\nIs this a successive application?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [217.767, 221.718, 229.344, 230.473, 241.121], "stop_times": [221.718, 229.344, 230.473, 241.121, 243.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 217.767}, "reply_to": "21087__0_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21087__0_013", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Once... it would be if the first petition were final and it becomes final upon the expiration of time for filing certiorari in this Court or this Court's denial of certiorari.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [243.082], "stop_times": [256.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 243.082}, "reply_to": "21087__0_012", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_014", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Yes, but finality, as I understand your answer to an earlier question, there isn't a finality issue under the general rule for civil cases, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [256.302], "stop_times": [267.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 256.302}, "reply_to": "21087__0_013", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21087__0_015", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [267.139], "stop_times": [267.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 267.139}, "reply_to": "21087__0_014", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_016", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "All right.\nNow, why is there a finality rule here, as Justice Kennedy said, a finality rule here when the action is taken, as we will assume that it was, on the court's own motion?\nThe new statute certainly limits what may be done in response to a petition or a request by the habeas petitioner, but how do those provisions enact a, as it were, a finality rule to govern this class of civil cases when there is generally no finality rule and the action is taken by the court on its own motion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [267.88, 268.338, 280.807], "stop_times": [268.338, 280.807, 309.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 267.88}, "reply_to": "21087__0_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21087__0_017", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Well, Your Honor, there's precedent for the actions of the court being considered within the confines of the abuse of the writ doctrine.\nIn In re Blodgett the court of appeals was instructed of its duty not to delay habeas corpus proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [309.664, 319.691], "stop_times": [319.691, 328.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 309.664}, "reply_to": "21087__0_016", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_018", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Well, but that's a different argument.\nIf you want to say that there was an abuse of discretion here I think that's quite a substantial argument, but you're talking about first the fact that it's a successive petition barred by the act, and it just seems to me that that's a very, very rigorous reading of the act, that once the mandate issues you can't correct it even if there's no abuse of discretion.\nYour opening argument is that this is a violation of the new act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [328.218, 329.369, 348.92], "stop_times": [329.369, 348.92, 354.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 328.218}, "reply_to": "21087__0_017", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21087__0_019", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [354.665], "stop_times": [356.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 354.665}, "reply_to": "21087__0_018", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_020", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "And if you want to spend your time on that, fine.\nBut it seems to me it's abuse of the writ is the more substantial claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [356.087, 357.606], "stop_times": [357.606, 362.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 356.087}, "reply_to": "21087__0_019", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21087__0_021", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Well, certainly there are several ways to analyze it, and if this Court does not consider that we have passed into the successive petition area within respect to the Effective Death Penalty Act, most assuredly, as this court was informed by the Effective Death Penalty Act in determining Felker, we do not believe that the Ninth Circuit should be any less informed by the limitations upon relitigating the same claims on the same facts and the same law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [362.769], "stop_times": [395.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 362.769}, "reply_to": "21087__0_020", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_022", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Let me go back a moment to the questions I believe Justice O'Connor asked about the general standard for reviewing, recalling a mandate, or for a court, an appellate court... are any of those Federal cases, did the recall of the mandate occur after this Court had denied certiorari?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [395.881], "stop_times": [416.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 395.881}, "reply_to": "21087__0_021", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21087__0_023", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "I believe there are instances where that has in fact occurred, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [416.636], "stop_times": [419.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 416.636}, "reply_to": "21087__0_022", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_024", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "And are they in the brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [419.868], "stop_times": [421.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 419.868}, "reply_to": "21087__0_023", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21087__0_025", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "I believe so, and again this unique nature of 2254 cases has been repeatedly recognized by this Court, and most recently, even in the Agostini case, there was a citation to Teague as an express acknowledgement as to the distinctions between procedural rule's ordinary application in the ordinary civil case.\nThe recall of the mandate standard is entirely too broad to be applied in a habeas corpus proceeding whether it's upon the court's own motion or not.\nThe effect upon the State's interest remains the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [421.049, 449.196, 459.334], "stop_times": [449.196, 459.334, 462.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 421.049}, "reply_to": "21087__0_024", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_026", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "I don't understand what AEDPA has to do with this.\nI mean, I thought the Ninth Circuit specifically says at the beginning we're not taking this en banc because of any new evidence, because of anything Thompson did, because of any second or successive claim for relief.\nWe're simply doing what we normally do, which is to review a panel en banc if a majority want.\nThe only unusual aspect of this is the fact that they issued this sua sponte, isn't it?\nThey issued this sua sponte, this recall of the mandate, so we have an ordinary recall of a mandate case.\nI mean, maybe it's an abuse of discretion, maybe it isn't, but I'm simply adding, I'd like to know why it's an abuse of discretion, because that seems to me to be the issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [462.877, 465.599, 478.405, 484.75, 491.765, 497.989], "stop_times": [465.599, 478.405, 484.75, 491.765, 497.989, 507.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 462.877}, "reply_to": "21087__0_025", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21087__0_027", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Well, it's most assuredly an abuse of discretion, but we need not even reach the traditional abuse of discretion standard because they're applying the wrong standard, because you must turn to the applicable law.\nThe abuse of the writ doctrine, which has been--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [507.574, 521.465], "stop_times": [521.465, 524.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 507.574}, "reply_to": "21087__0_026", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_028", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "In other words, you're saying, suppose a circuit decides in favor of a petitioner, and then we agree to review it, does that have anything to do with AEDPA?\nWe're just reviewing the initial decision, and why is it any different if a circuit court en banc reviews a panel decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [524.275, 534.512], "stop_times": [534.512, 543.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 524.275}, "reply_to": "21087__0_027", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21087__0_029", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--In a timely manner I would agree with Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [543.688], "stop_times": [547.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 543.688}, "reply_to": "21087__0_028", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_030", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "All right.\nThen the problem is, I take it, that what they did is, they did this later, sua sponte.\nThey recalled the mandate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [547.091, 547.571, 551.952], "stop_times": [547.571, 551.952, 553.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 547.091}, "reply_to": "21087__0_029", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21087__0_031", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nOnce this Court denied certiorari, the first Federal habeas proceeding came to an end, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [553.304, 554.065], "stop_times": [554.065, 560.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 553.304}, "reply_to": "21087__0_030", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_032", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Ms. Wilkens, who did it sua sponte?\nThis is a question I have in this case.\nI'm not sure that Justice Breyer's description fits the panel.\nThe panel, the en banc panel, which is not a majority, even, of the entire circuit, decided that it would not take any account of the application and just do the matter sua sponte, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [560.18, 562.611, 564.481, 569.865], "stop_times": [562.611, 564.481, 569.865, 586.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 560.18}, "reply_to": "21087__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21087__0_033", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [586.647], "stop_times": [587.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 586.647}, "reply_to": "21087__0_032", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_034", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "But how did it get en banc?\nIt wasn't the panel that put it in banc.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [587.878, 589.4], "stop_times": [589.4, 591.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 587.878}, "reply_to": "21087__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21087__0_035", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [591.88], "stop_times": [593.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 591.88}, "reply_to": "21087__0_034", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_036", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "It was a vote of the majority of all the judges in active service, as rule, what is it, 35a requires.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [593.249], "stop_times": [600.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 593.249}, "reply_to": "21087__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21087__0_037", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [600.606], "stop_times": [601.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 600.606}, "reply_to": "21087__0_036", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_038", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "And that majority of all the active judges, what did they vote to put en banc?\nWas it the question of whether they should sua sponte recall their mandate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [601.126, 605.59], "stop_times": [605.59, 608.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 601.126}, "reply_to": "21087__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21087__0_039", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nIt's our position that the full court voted on the question whether or not to reconsider what was before the three judge panel, and that was Mr. Thompson's motion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [608.813, 609.594], "stop_times": [609.594, 617.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 608.813}, "reply_to": "21087__0_038", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_040", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Yes.\nSo as far as how the thing got to this en banc panel, it was on a decision to respond to a motion by the defendant, who had previously lost the habeas corpus case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [617.929, 618.46], "stop_times": [618.46, 634.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 617.929}, "reply_to": "21087__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21087__0_041", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "That's correct, and we have questioned how you can rehear something that was not before the three judge panel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [634.248], "stop_times": [640.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 634.248}, "reply_to": "21087__0_040", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_042", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Is that unusual, too, because isn't it a... I mean, it happens sometimes an appellant says to a court, we'd like you to issue a writ of... we'd like you to review this on appeal, and you hear it then as the court, and then the court says, gee, we can't decide this on appeal, but we have the power anyway to issue, say, a writ of mandamus, so we do it for that reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [640.232], "stop_times": [664.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 640.232}, "reply_to": "21087__0_041", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21087__0_043", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "I would say this is clearly distinguishable, Your Honor.\nThe only indication that the action was sua sponte--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [664.8, 668.683], "stop_times": [668.683, 672.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 664.8}, "reply_to": "21087__0_042", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_044", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Is what they said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [672.875], "stop_times": [673.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 672.875}, "reply_to": "21087__0_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21087__0_045", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--is what they said at the time they acted sua sponte.\nThere's nothing contemporaneous with the full court vote, or even notifying the parties prior to argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [673.836, 676.448], "stop_times": [676.448, 683.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 673.836}, "reply_to": "21087__0_044", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_046", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Let me tell you precisely, rather than... what's bothering me... at some point we'll get to this point.\nMy problem is, if you win on this issue, on the issue of issuing the mandate sua... et cetera, I worry about the implications for courts of appeals, who very often are presented with unusual circumstances, I mean, at least unusually, and they normally think they have the power to deal with an unusual circumstance that calls for it by recalling a writ where there is such a circumstance, and what's worrying about... me about your side of this case is that an opinion of this Court would limit that power in other circumstances where it is clearly necessary.\nThat's what I'd like you at some point to respond to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [683.403, 686.907, 729.042], "stop_times": [686.907, 729.042, 731.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 683.403}, "reply_to": "21087__0_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21087__0_047", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nI can only address that by emphasizing that this is a collateral review of a collateral review of a State court decision, and with respect to collaterally reviewing the collateral review, which is the types of unusual circumstances that may be of concern, there is absolutely nothing improper, or even harsh, about limiting the courts of appeals' ability to undertake the types of things that occurred in this case.\nThis is a State court judgment and conviction in a murder case, and it is not akin to a civil litigant who perhaps may be denied access to the Federal court in a trial level or even in the direct appeal.\nThe direct appeal concluded in this case 10 years ago, and it has been collaterally reviewed in State and Federal court since, and any of the unusual circumstances that would ordinarily be of concern should be of no concern at this point in the process.\nIf we continue to allow such a vague general standard out of concern for the courts of appeals' power, we are in effect adding an additional layer of review in State capital cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [731.926, 732.455, 760.013, 774.332, 789.662], "stop_times": [732.455, 760.013, 774.332, 789.662, 802.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 731.926}, "reply_to": "21087__0_046", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_048", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "But isn't there an analogy... you were asked whether the court of appeals acted sua sponte.\nYou asked for a petition... you petitioned for mandamus, and we decided that wasn't the right way to go about it, and we sua sponte decided to hear the case and grant the writ of certiorari.\nDo you think that's very different from what the court of appeals did?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [802.212, 806.443, 817.171], "stop_times": [806.443, 817.171, 820.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 802.212}, "reply_to": "21087__0_047", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21087__0_049", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nIt's different because there's no restrictions upon this Court entertaining additional litigation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [820.551, 821.583], "stop_times": [821.583, 828.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 820.551}, "reply_to": "21087__0_048", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_050", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "But then what are the restrictions on the court of appeals?\nThat's what we're trying to figure out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [828.198, 829.299], "stop_times": [829.299, 830.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 828.198}, "reply_to": "21087__0_049", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21087__0_051", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--Again, the courts of appeals no longer have original habeas corpus jurisdiction.\nThis is because Congress has determined that there is no further need--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [830.409, 836.112], "stop_times": [836.112, 840.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 830.409}, "reply_to": "21087__0_050", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_052", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "No, but they didn't issue a writ of habeas corpus.\nThey just recalled their mandate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [840.517, 842.587], "stop_times": [842.587, 844.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 840.517}, "reply_to": "21087__0_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21087__0_053", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--Our position, Your Honor, once that first Federal habeas proceeding--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [844.149], "stop_times": [847.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 844.149}, "reply_to": "21087__0_052", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_054", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Anything else any other court would do in the proceeding would be a petitioner acting on a writ of habeas corpus, in effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [847.87], "stop_times": [855.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 847.87}, "reply_to": "21087__0_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21087__0_055", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--It must--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [855.516], "stop_times": [856.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 855.516}, "reply_to": "21087__0_054", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_056", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "If so, why wasn't our grant basically looked the same way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [856.635], "stop_times": [859.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 856.635}, "reply_to": "21087__0_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21087__0_057", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--Because you're not a court of appeal.\nYou're the highest court in this country, and your jurisdiction is not limited.\nThe jurisdiction of the courts of appeal has been limited.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [859.627, 861.958, 864.79], "stop_times": [861.958, 864.79, 868.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 859.627}, "reply_to": "21087__0_056", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_058", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Well--\n--I suppose that your position, then, is not that there is going to be any overall restriction.\nYou don't submit there should be any overall contraction of the authority of a court of appeals to recall its mandate, but that just in the light of the AEDPA, perhaps, as we said in Felker, informed by that, that it's in those kind of cases that there would be some restriction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [868.263, 869.585, 879.142], "stop_times": [869.585, 879.142, 895.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 868.263}, "reply_to": "21087__0_057", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21087__0_059", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nWhen the first Federal habeas proceeding comes to a close the courts of appeal must be mindful of the limitations upon successive litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [895.401, 896.402], "stop_times": [896.402, 903.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 895.401}, "reply_to": "21087__0_058", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_060", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "How do you define when the first court of... habeas corpus proceeding comes to a close?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [903.896], "stop_times": [908.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 903.896}, "reply_to": "21087__0_059", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21087__0_061", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "That would be with the denial of certiorari by this Court or the expiration of time for seeking certiorari.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [908.15], "stop_times": [913.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 908.15}, "reply_to": "21087__0_060", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_062", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "The reason they said--\n--And what's the authority you have for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [913.093, 914.475], "stop_times": [914.475, 916.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 913.093}, "reply_to": "21087__0_061", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21087__0_063", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Griffith v. Kentucky, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [916.005], "stop_times": [917.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 916.005}, "reply_to": "21087__0_062", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_064", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [917.607], "stop_times": [917.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 917.607}, "reply_to": "21087__0_063", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21087__0_065", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Griffith v. Kentucky, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [917.915], "stop_times": [919.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 917.915}, "reply_to": "21087__0_064", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_066", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "I thought the reason they said they waited was because they wanted to see what the State courts would do.\nThey wanted to see what this Court would do.\nThat's awfully normal.\nDon't make a tough decision, you know, when you don't have to if it's before another court.\nDoes that make a difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [919.237, 925.562, 926.811, 928.153, 933.286], "stop_times": [925.562, 926.811, 928.153, 933.286, 934.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 919.237}, "reply_to": "21087__0_065", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21087__0_067", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "I think that in the context of habeas corpus litigation that that is an inappropriate... an inappropriate consideration.\nBy waiting to see what other courts do, you're no different than a habeas corpus litigant who gambles and then interjects into the process in the eleventh hour that there is a difficulty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [934.398, 941.821], "stop_times": [941.821, 955.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 934.398}, "reply_to": "21087__0_066", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_068", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "But this was a case where the court said, yes, we slipped up, there was a lot of carelessness going on, but the one thing we want you to know is, we are not entertaining a second habeas.\nWe're going back to that first one, and it was the court's own sloppiness and carelessness that takes us back there, and we think that when there is a grave consequence to a human being, we ought not let the sloppiness of some of our members control.\nBut you keep saying that we have to bring into the picture the new legislation.\nThe Ninth Circuit majority was insistent that they were back before the new legislation, that all they were doing was correcting the mistakes of some of their colleagues, and they were focusing precisely on the first habeas, nothing after.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [955.191, 967.399, 986.25, 992.224], "stop_times": [967.399, 986.25, 992.224, 1016.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 955.191}, "reply_to": "21087__0_067", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21087__0_069", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Your Honor, significantly, it really matters little in the context of Federal habeas corpus in the long run as to whether or not this was pre Effective Death Penalty Act or post Effective Death Penalty Act, because it would be our position that the abuse of the writ doctrine should also have informed the Ninth Circuit.\nThere have been cases where you do not entertain a 60(b) motion in a district court in a habeas corpus proceeding without considering this Court's doctrines and evolving law in terms of concern for endless repetitive habeas corpus litigation.\nAnd with respect to the concerns of the court over its mistakes and the very serious nature of this case, I can only indicate that this Court prior to Congress, and now Congress, has balanced the competing interests of criminal defendants and the State, and they have decided that a mistake by a court of appeal is not sufficient to litigate the same claims on the same facts and the same law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1016.752, 1033.962, 1054.117], "stop_times": [1033.962, 1054.117, 1084.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1016.752}, "reply_to": "21087__0_068", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_070", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Well, Ms. Wilkens, let me ask you a question here about, suppose we think that the new Federal death penalty act does not mean that a circuit court cannot recall its own mandate.\nLet's assume we reject that motion, that it's open to the court to do it.\nWhat is the standard for abuse of discretion, if any, that would be applicable in our examination of what the court of appeals in fact does?\nIs there any different standard that we apply if the situation is one in which a case has become final, or is it the same standard if it hadn't become final, and what is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1084.816, 1103.298, 1108.24, 1122.72], "stop_times": [1103.298, 1108.24, 1122.72, 1136.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1084.816}, "reply_to": "21087__0_069", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21087__0_071", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Your Honor, I believe there must be a distinct standard once the first habeas corpus proceeding has become final, otherwise it is a way to circumvent all of this Court's law controlling--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1136.811], "stop_times": [1149.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1136.811}, "reply_to": "21087__0_070", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_072", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "And do you think that standard should be different in death penalty cases than in ordinary civil cases, or in a criminal case versus... I mean, a criminal habeas proceeding versus a normal civil case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1149.538], "stop_times": [1164.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1149.538}, "reply_to": "21087__0_071", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21087__0_073", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--Yes, definitely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1164.758], "stop_times": [1165.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1164.758}, "reply_to": "21087__0_072", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_074", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "And what is the standard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1165.92], "stop_times": [1166.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1165.92}, "reply_to": "21087__0_073", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21087__0_075", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "I would urge this Court to engraft the standard from Congress' enactment of the Effective Death Penalty Act, otherwise a vehicle is left open to circumvent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1166.961], "stop_times": [1180.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1166.961}, "reply_to": "21087__0_074", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_076", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "You mean, there's just no authority at all to withdraw the mandate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1180.299], "stop_times": [1182.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1180.299}, "reply_to": "21087__0_075", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21087__0_077", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--The only means by which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1182.269], "stop_times": [1185.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1182.269}, "reply_to": "21087__0_076", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_078", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "It's very odd for us to say, well now, suppose the AEDPA does not apply, what is the standard for withdrawing a mandate, what is the standard for... or to determine whether or not there was an abuse of discretion, and you say... and then you say, AEDPA.\nWell, that doesn't seem to advance the analysis very much.\nIsn't it something like miscarriage of justice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1185.602, 1199.31, 1202.913], "stop_times": [1199.31, 1202.913, 1204.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1185.602}, "reply_to": "21087__0_077", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21087__0_079", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--Well, miscarriage of justice has been heightened by the Effective Death Penalty Act, and I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1204.475], "stop_times": [1209.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1204.475}, "reply_to": "21087__0_078", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_080", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Well, but if you... I think what's bothering all of us is that if you import the... a standard out of the Effective Death Penalty Act, then you are acting on exactly the opposite assumption of Justice O'Connor's questions and all the questions that have been asked.\nThat assumption was that the new act limits what a petitioner can do, but it does not necessarily limit what a court can do on its own motion, and your answer saying, well, you should look to the act for your standard, in effect says it limits the court the same way it limits the petitioner, and we're assuming that is not the case, and I think there's a good reason, perhaps, to assume that.\nBut isn't it so that, if you simply look to the act, you are really saying the act binds a court just as if a court were a petitioner?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1209.448, 1226.047, 1251.015], "stop_times": [1226.047, 1251.015, 1260.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1209.448}, "reply_to": "21087__0_079", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21087__0_081", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--Your Honor, it's not my intention to identify the court with the petitioner.\nHowever--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1260.342, 1266.796], "stop_times": [1266.796, 1268.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1260.342}, "reply_to": "21087__0_080", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_082", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "But isn't that the way you're ending up?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1268.156], "stop_times": [1269.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1268.156}, "reply_to": "21087__0_081", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21087__0_083", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--Well, the interests of the State need to be preserved, and if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1269.698], "stop_times": [1274.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1269.698}, "reply_to": "21087__0_082", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_084", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Well, the act has made it clear that the interests of the State are being served by limiting what petitioners can do, and now I think you're saying the State's interest in effect cannot be served at all unless you likewise limit what a court sua sponte can do.\nIn fact, if I may just add one thing, you said a moment ago if you don't limit what a court can do you in effect are really destroying the protection of the act, and that, it seems to me, assumes that the court is being disingenuous in a case like this, that it's not really doing what it says sua sponte.\nWhat it's really doing is just using some words to make an end run around the limitation upon the petitioner, and if that's the basis on which you think we should decide this case, then I think we should... I think you and we should be explicit in talking about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1274.26, 1292.983, 1313.586], "stop_times": [1292.983, 1313.586, 1328.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1274.26}, "reply_to": "21087__0_083", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21087__0_085", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I tried not to delineate between disingenuous and well intentioned with the belief that it's important to preserve the State's interests, and if a recall of a mandate is upon anything less than a miscarriage of justice, whether sua sponte or by the inmate, then the State's interests are not being preserved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1328.816], "stop_times": [1351.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1328.816}, "reply_to": "21087__0_084", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_086", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Well, Ms. Wilkens, in our Felker opinion we dealt with several different issues, and one of them was a case where it was not clear whether the AEDPA had restricted our... the court of jurisdiction of this Court, but we nonetheless said that the exercise of our discretion would be guided by the standards that were made applicable to the lower courts.\nCan't you make the same argument here, not that the AEDPA flatly controls the action of a court as opposed to the... sua sponte court as opposed to acting on a motion, but that a court, in exercising its discretion to recall the mandate, has to bear in mind what the AEDPA says?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1351.3, 1375.917], "stop_times": [1375.917, 1396.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1351.3}, "reply_to": "21087__0_085", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21087__0_087", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, that would protect the State's interests.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1396.662], "stop_times": [1399.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1396.662}, "reply_to": "21087__0_086", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_088", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "But how does the... I think the reason I'm having trouble is, the only cases I can think of where as a circuit we recalled a mandate were things like, there was a clerk error.\nThe clerk sent the mandate out when he was supposed to keep it, to allow time for cert, for example, or maybe he didn't record a vote that somebody got in late, or there was a mix up.\nNow, surely you can't suddenly have a heightened standard from AEDPA.\nIt just doesn't make sense to apply it in such a case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1399.683, 1409.33, 1421.789, 1426.293], "stop_times": [1409.33, 1421.789, 1426.293, 1428.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1399.683}, "reply_to": "21087__0_087", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21087__0_089", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1428.774], "stop_times": [1429.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1428.774}, "reply_to": "21087__0_088", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_090", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "So you must be thinking of a certain subset of recalls of mandates.\nYou must be thinking of certain circumstances of recalls of mandates.\nI would have thought it might be a good reason to recall a mandate that one of the judges got mixed up about what time he had to have the vote in, nothing to do with AEDPA.\nThat's why I'd like you to go back to the question you've been asked.\nWhat is the standard that you propose for deciding here that there's an abuse of discretion?\nWhat's the subcategory you're applying it to?\nWhat's the rule that you want us to adapt... adopt in that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1429.866, 1435.238, 1440.221, 1449.908, 1453.601, 1458.835, 1461.937], "stop_times": [1435.238, 1440.221, 1449.908, 1453.601, 1458.835, 1461.937, 1464.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1429.866}, "reply_to": "21087__0_089", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21087__0_091", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "The rule of law would be that a court entertaining a motion to recall would deem that... if it came from the inmate would deem it to be a successive application.\nIf the court were acting sua sponte, it must be informed by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1464.848, 1473.974], "stop_times": [1473.974, 1478.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1464.848}, "reply_to": "21087__0_090", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_092", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Even if there was just a simple clerical mistake, I mean, the court of appeals has no power--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1478.156], "stop_times": [1482.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1478.156}, "reply_to": "21087__0_091", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21087__0_093", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--No, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1482.309], "stop_times": [1483.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1482.309}, "reply_to": "21087__0_092", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_094", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--I mean, this is a... it seems to me a very difficult rule that you're asking us to adopt for a case where you have some other substantial arguments.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1483.19], "stop_times": [1490.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1483.19}, "reply_to": "21087__0_093", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21087__0_095", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--No, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1490.306], "stop_times": [1491.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1490.306}, "reply_to": "21087__0_094", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_096", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "If you don't want to make them, that's your problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1491.287], "stop_times": [1492.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1491.287}, "reply_to": "21087__0_095", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21087__0_097", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--We are not addressing clerical error.\nThese are situations where the court intended to issue the mandate, and the mandate has issued.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1492.188, 1493.619], "stop_times": [1493.619, 1496.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1492.188}, "reply_to": "21087__0_096", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_098", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "What were you do if there were a clerical error and the mandate had been issued?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1496.951], "stop_times": [1500.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1496.951}, "reply_to": "21087__0_097", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21087__0_099", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "They could correct the clerical error.\nThey could not alter the judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1500.433, 1502.935], "stop_times": [1502.935, 1504.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1500.433}, "reply_to": "21087__0_098", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_100", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "You know, your time's about up.\nWhat would you tell us if we said, we don't accept any of that?\nIt's just like a 60(b) motion, and do you take the position that the en banc ruling was improper, and in... that we should reverse it, applying ordinary 60(b) standards to what the en banc panel did?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1504.504, 1506.737, 1510.758], "stop_times": [1506.737, 1510.758, 1529.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1504.504}, "reply_to": "21087__0_099", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21087__0_101", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "If you apply the Rule 60(b) standards--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1529.191], "stop_times": [1532.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1529.191}, "reply_to": "21087__0_100", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_102", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1532.364], "stop_times": [1532.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1532.364}, "reply_to": "21087__0_101", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21087__0_103", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--consistent with this Court's own authority you must engraft the applicable law from habeas corpus, and if the actions of the Ninth Circuit, sua sponte or otherwise, are considered under ordinary rules applicable to 60(b), the result in this case could not have occurred, and we do urge the Court to make it abundantly clear that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1532.845], "stop_times": [1549.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1532.845}, "reply_to": "21087__0_102", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_104", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "And why do you say that?\nI mean, I just... what's the thrust of your reason for saying what they did under any ordinary 60(b) standard was wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1549.898, 1551.177], "stop_times": [1551.177, 1560.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1549.898}, "reply_to": "21087__0_103", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21087__0_105", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--Because it undermines every decision from this Court on abuse of the writ.\nIt certainly undermines every act of Congress designed to curtail the abuse of the writ.\nIt opens the door--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1560.153, 1564.296, 1568.589], "stop_times": [1564.296, 1568.589, 1570.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1560.153}, "reply_to": "21087__0_104", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_106", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Why can't you say that you can't recall it when the basis on which you're recalling it is a determination that it was wrong on the merits, which would be the same basis for a recall... for a habeas corpus subsequent review, but if the basis is that there has been some clerical error, or some other defect of that sort, then it can be recalled?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1570.061], "stop_times": [1592.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1570.061}, "reply_to": "21087__0_105", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21087__0_107", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nYou cannot use this as a vehicle to simply revisit a case to apply well established--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1592.064, 1592.805], "stop_times": [1592.805, 1598.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1592.064}, "reply_to": "21087__0_106", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_108", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "We examine the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1598.638], "stop_times": [1599.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1598.638}, "reply_to": "21087__0_107", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21087__0_109", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--Right, establish well established law to the same facts and come up with a contrary result--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1599.179], "stop_times": [1603.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1599.179}, "reply_to": "21087__0_108", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_110", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Unless there's a miscarriage of justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1603.563], "stop_times": [1604.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1603.563}, "reply_to": "21087__0_109", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21087__0_111", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--Exactly.\nYou must meet that standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1604.963, 1605.624], "stop_times": [1605.624, 1606.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1604.963}, "reply_to": "21087__0_110", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_112", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "All right.\nApplying Justice Scalia's standard, where does that take you in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1606.813, 1607.484], "stop_times": [1607.484, 1610.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1606.813}, "reply_to": "21087__0_111", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21087__0_113", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Well, in this case it's quite clear that Mr. Thompson could not make a showing of a miscarriage of justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1610.887], "stop_times": [1615.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1610.887}, "reply_to": "21087__0_112", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_114", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "That's right, but it's also clear, isn't it, that the court of appeals said, we made a procedural error, and a stage in our review, the en banc stage, was cut short by this procedural error.\nTwo judges didn't realize, I guess, that they could call for what they wanted to call for.\nSo which prong of Justice Scalia's standard does this case fall under?\nDoes it fall under the... the, in effect the procedural mistake prong, and therefore we say it's okay, or does it fall under the error of law, which we want a revised prong, in which case we say it doesn't?\nWhat's your answer to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1615.83, 1629.679, 1633.651, 1639.344, 1653.286], "stop_times": [1629.679, 1633.651, 1639.344, 1653.286, 1654.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1615.83}, "reply_to": "21087__0_113", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21087__0_115", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "It certainly does not fall under the procedural prong because Mr. Thompson was not entitled to en banc process.\nYou certainly apply the miscarriage of justice standard.\nMr. Thompson is not... was not scheduled to be executed because he was denied the benefit of an en banc vote.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1654.785, 1661.48, 1664.292], "stop_times": [1661.48, 1664.292, 1670.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1654.785}, "reply_to": "21087__0_114", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_116", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "No, but... I don't want to play with words, but I think it's the case that under the rules the members of the court were entitled to call for an en banc standard themselves.\nIs that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1670.866, 1680.002], "stop_times": [1680.002, 1681.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1670.866}, "reply_to": "21087__0_115", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21087__0_117", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "In a timely manner.\nNot after the denial of certiorari.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1681.493, 1682.634], "stop_times": [1682.634, 1683.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1681.493}, "reply_to": "21087__0_116", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_118", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Yes, but they say the reason it wasn't timely was that we made a procedural mistake.\nIs that the kind of mistake which, under prong 1 of the standard, may be considered and hence legitimize what happens?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1683.723, 1687.406], "stop_times": [1687.406, 1694.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1683.723}, "reply_to": "21087__0_117", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21087__0_119", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "No, because it could conceivably alter the judgment.\nIt is not a mandate issued erroneously.\nThe court knew that Judge X and Y had not called for a vote.\nThe full court knew it.\nThey sat silent for 5 months until this Court denied certiorari, until there were additional State court proceedings.\nThat is not a mandate that was issued inadvertently by the clerk without the knowledge of the court, and it is not a clerical mistake.\nIt is a change in the perceptions of the court, and in capital cases we cannot have those kinds of uncertainties in the eleventh hour characterized as a procedural defect justified.\nThat's not a clerical mistake.\nThat's not that there's something in the judgment that's wrong, or that the mandate issued by the clerk's office without communication between the court, and I think that it's important to be mindful of the fact that this case has been 17 years in the making, and was brought back to the court of appeal... the en banc process is not a sufficient process to take the State and add another level of collateral review at that point in time.\nMr. Chief Justice, I would reserve.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1694.212, 1696.663, 1698.614, 1702.928, 1704.237, 1710.732, 1718.588, 1733.869, 1735.248, 1763.606], "stop_times": [1696.663, 1698.614, 1702.928, 1704.237, 1710.732, 1718.588, 1733.869, 1735.248, 1763.606, 1765.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1694.212}, "reply_to": "21087__0_118", "speaker": "holly_d_wilkens"}
{"id": "21087__0_120", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "There's nothing to reserve, Ms. Wilkens.\nMr. Long, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1765.288, 1768.901], "stop_times": [1768.901, 1770.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1765.288}, "reply_to": "21087__0_119", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21087__1_000", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--\nThe sua sponte decision of the court of appeals to rehear Mr. Thompson's first petition en banc was a proper exercise of judicial authority, and in no way implicates the Effective Death Penalty Act.\nThat is for two reasons here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1770.551, 1774.664, 1789.795], "stop_times": [1774.664, 1789.795, 1791.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1770.551}, "reply_to": "21087__0_120", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_001", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Of course, the full court of appeals didn't decide to rehear it sua sponte.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1791.556], "stop_times": [1795.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1791.556}, "reply_to": "21087__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21087__1_002", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "I think that we don't know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1795.857], "stop_times": [1797.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1795.857}, "reply_to": "21087__1_001", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_003", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "After it got to the panel the panel... oh, I think it's very clear that what the court of appeals did was to grant the motion for rehearing in banc of the petitioner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1797.429], "stop_times": [1806.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1797.429}, "reply_to": "21087__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21087__1_004", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--Certainly they did that, Your Honor.\nAt joint appendix 194 is the order of the court signed by Judge Hug, the chief judge, setting forth the decision of the full court to set the matter down for argument to determine whether to rehear it en banc, and of course the full court was asked by an active judge of the court to disavow the decision of the panel, and that motion failed because it failed to obtain a majority of the active judges to support it, so in fact at least at two points in time the full court, all active judges considered this issue, agreed that there should be an en banc hearing, or at least the consideration of an en banc hearing, and then later--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1806.957, 1808.285], "stop_times": [1808.285, 1842.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1806.957}, "reply_to": "21087__1_003", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_005", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "On the motion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1842.2], "stop_times": [1843.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1842.2}, "reply_to": "21087__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21087__1_006", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--No, on no motion.\nSua sponte.\nThere's no motion whatsoever.\nAs the court mentions there was a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1843.031, 1845.231, 1846.19, 1847.672], "stop_times": [1845.231, 1846.19, 1847.672, 1850.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1843.031}, "reply_to": "21087__1_005", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_007", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Let's find where it is.\nI do have an important point to make.\nWhere--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1850.604, 1852.354, 1853.686], "stop_times": [1852.354, 1853.686, 1854.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1850.604}, "reply_to": "21087__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21087__1_008", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--There was a sua sponte suggestion that the court should take the matter en banc.\nThat was after the mandate issued, but before the mandate was spread in the district court.\nAt that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1854.367, 1860.16, 1864.793], "stop_times": [1860.16, 1864.793, 1865.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1854.367}, "reply_to": "21087__1_007", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_009", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--Do you have any pages?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1865.323], "stop_times": [1868.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1865.323}, "reply_to": "21087__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21087__1_010", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--Yes.\nI think at about 215 of the joint appendix, Chief Justice, and if I may check for one moment, I believe that's where it's discussed.\nYes, at page 215 of the joint appendix, at the first full paragraph, a sua sponte request--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1868.055, 1868.716, 1876.43], "stop_times": [1868.716, 1876.43, 1885.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1868.055}, "reply_to": "21087__1_009", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_011", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--en banc opinion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1885.406], "stop_times": [1887.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1885.406}, "reply_to": "21087__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21087__1_012", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--This is the en banc opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1887.199], "stop_times": [1888.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1887.199}, "reply_to": "21087__1_011", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_013", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1888.908], "stop_times": [1889.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1888.908}, "reply_to": "21087__1_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21087__1_014", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "A sua sponte request to consider en banc whether to recall the mandate was made shortly thereafter, meaning after the mandate issued, but before it was spread.\nThrough a consultative process the court decided to postpone action on whether sua sponte to recall the mandate until after Thompson concluded his State court, et cetera, proceedings.\nI take it from that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1889.429, 1897.014, 1907.692], "stop_times": [1897.014, 1907.692, 1909.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1889.429}, "reply_to": "21087__1_013", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_015", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Well, wait, a sua sponte request to consider en banc.\nWhat is a sua sponte request?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1909.172, 1912.865], "stop_times": [1912.865, 1914.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1909.172}, "reply_to": "21087__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21087__1_016", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--I take it that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1914.264], "stop_times": [1915.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1914.264}, "reply_to": "21087__1_015", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_017", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "One of the judges made a request.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1915.316], "stop_times": [1916.866], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1915.316}, "reply_to": "21087__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21087__1_018", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--I know no more than what is set forth in the opinion, Your Honor, so we're left to speculate on that.\nI don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1916.866, 1922.863], "stop_times": [1922.863, 1923.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1916.866}, "reply_to": "21087__1_017", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_019", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "This doesn't remotely say that the full court, a majority of the judges in active service, decided sua sponte to reexamine that decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1923.26], "stop_times": [1933.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1923.26}, "reply_to": "21087__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21087__1_020", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--Well, I believe that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1933.277], "stop_times": [1934.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1933.277}, "reply_to": "21087__1_019", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_021", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "It doesn't remotely say that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1934.489], "stop_times": [1935.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1934.489}, "reply_to": "21087__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21087__1_022", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--I believe that the en banc court makes that clear in its opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1935.168], "stop_times": [1937.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1935.168}, "reply_to": "21087__1_021", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_023", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Oh, the... I have no doubt that the en banc court, in order to avoid the impediment of the Effective Death Penalty Act, said we are not considering this at the instance of the petitioner, we're considering it on our own, but the question is whether the majority of the judges in active service did that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1937.99], "stop_times": [1955.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1937.99}, "reply_to": "21087__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21087__1_024", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "My answer is yes, clearly they did, and the reason they did clearly is that after the opinion was issued an active judge in the Ninth Circuit called for the full court to vote on whether to withdraw the matter from the en banc panel.\nThat motion failed, because it failed to garner the support of a majority of the active judges of the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1955.922, 1968.802], "stop_times": [1968.802, 1974.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1955.922}, "reply_to": "21087__1_023", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_025", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "And that proves that a majority of the active judges voted to do this sua sponte?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1974.715], "stop_times": [1978.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1974.715}, "reply_to": "21087__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21087__1_026", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "It... what it proves to me, Justice Scalia, is that a majority of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1978.338], "stop_times": [1981.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1978.338}, "reply_to": "21087__1_025", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_027", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "It proves that they probably had enough of this by then.\nThe whole thing was quite unseemly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1981.768, 1983.731], "stop_times": [1983.731, 1986.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1981.768}, "reply_to": "21087__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21087__1_028", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--What it proves to me, Justice Scalia, is that all of the active judges had an opportunity to question or to repudiate a misstatement of fact contained in the en banc court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1986.062], "stop_times": [1995.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1986.062}, "reply_to": "21087__1_027", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_029", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "I agree with that.\nThat's quite a different thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1995.499, 1996.06], "stop_times": [1996.06, 1996.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1995.499}, "reply_to": "21087__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21087__1_030", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "And further, under Missouri v. Jenkins, this Court's decision, this Court has often indicated that it will accept at its word an explanation given by a court of appeals for its actions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [1996.691], "stop_times": [2005.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1996.691}, "reply_to": "21087__1_029", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_031", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "It wasn't the full court of appeals.\nIt was a panel.\nI mean, let's be honest here.\nThis panel was being technical.\nIt was using a technicality.\nThe only reason it said we're going to do this sua sponte, we're not reexamining the motion, was precisely because that technicality would get it out of the prohibitions of the Effective Death Penalty Act, so don't... you know, it seems to me improper for you to say, let's not be technical, when we look at whether the full court had decided to do that or not.\nThis whole thing is based upon technicalities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2005.905, 2007.617, 2008.288, 2009.548, 2012.479, 2014.422, 2035.744], "stop_times": [2007.617, 2008.288, 2009.548, 2012.479, 2014.422, 2035.744, 2038.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2005.905}, "reply_to": "21087__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21087__1_032", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "I respectfully disagree with you on that, Justice Scalia.\nI don't think it's based on technicalities at all.\nI think that if we follow your line of reasoning, then we must assume that all actions of an en banc panel as it's constituted under Rule 35 of the circuit are less than the actions of the en banc court, and that cannot be, and therefore it seems to me that when the en banc panel of the court speaks, it speaks with all of the dignity of the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2038.345, 2041.328, 2043.031], "stop_times": [2041.328, 2043.031, 2059.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2038.345}, "reply_to": "21087__1_031", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_033", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "No, I don't think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2059.911], "stop_times": [2060.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2059.911}, "reply_to": "21087__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21087__1_034", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "The court then is at liberty to withdraw from the panel.\nIt did not do so.\nIt specifically declined to do so in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2060.692, 2062.632, 2063.473], "stop_times": [2062.632, 2063.473, 2066.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2060.692}, "reply_to": "21087__1_033", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_035", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--When you say, en banc panel, you mean the eleven judges, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2066.123], "stop_times": [2069.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2066.123}, "reply_to": "21087__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21087__1_036", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2069.938], "stop_times": [2070.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2069.938}, "reply_to": "21087__1_035", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_037", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "There is some enlightenment, perhaps, in Judge Kozinski's opinion, who says, on July 7, 1997, Judge Z sent a memorandum, which memorandum he said called for a belated en banc, and then the court's order as a whole issued on July 30, 1997, and it says, the full court has voted to consider whether to recall mandate, so that what the full court did, it looks like from the timing, July 7, a judge requested a belated en banc, and on July 30 the full court votes to consider whether to recall the mandate.\nI don't know if that's helpful.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2070.766, 2109.692], "stop_times": [2109.692, 2111.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2070.766}, "reply_to": "21087__1_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21087__1_038", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "I believe, Your Honor, that that is consistent with the procedure in which all of the active judges of the circuit must vote on whether to do so.\nI assume that that vote occurred, but I have no visibility into the internal workings of the court, and similarly I think that's why this Court in Missouri v. Jenkins said that this Court will accept the word of the court of honor... excuse me, of the court of appeals on that issue, and I believe in that case it was the en banc court in the Eighth Circuit.\nEven if this act were to apply to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2111.085, 2118.459, 2135.879], "stop_times": [2118.459, 2135.879, 2138.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2111.085}, "reply_to": "21087__1_037", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_039", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Excuse me.\nAll the en banc court said was that it, the en banc court, was acting sua sponte.\nThe en banc court never said that the full majority of active judges in the Ninth Circuit was acting sua sponte.\nThey never said that.\nI can take them at their word, but their word only establishes that 11 of the judges were acting sua sponte.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2138.771, 2139.342, 2146.177, 2153.46, 2154.311], "stop_times": [2139.342, 2146.177, 2153.46, 2154.311, 2160.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2138.771}, "reply_to": "21087__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21087__1_040", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--But Justice Scalia, they were acting as the Ninth Circuit, properly constituted in accordance with the rules of that circuit and with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.\nTo follow your line of reasoning, then, whatever they say would not speak on behalf of the whole court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2160.977, 2170.173], "stop_times": [2170.173, 2174.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2160.977}, "reply_to": "21087__1_039", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_041", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "No, only insofar as Rule 35a is concerned, which is a very narrowly segregable rule which requires that the en banc vote have the acquiescence, or the affirmative vote of a majority of active judges, and if the issue is whether the Ninth Circuit was considering this sua sponte or rather upon the motion of the petitioner, the only thing the Ninth Circuit did under 35a was to consider it on the motion of the petitioner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2174.605], "stop_times": [2203.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2174.605}, "reply_to": "21087__1_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21087__1_042", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Except that there was the later requires to withdraw it from the panel, also under Rule 35a, that was declined by the full court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2203.615], "stop_times": [2210.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2203.615}, "reply_to": "21087__1_041", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_043", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "I understand.\nThat's like saying that Congress' failure to enact legislation is the equivalent of its enacting the opposite, but it isn't.\nI mean, there's a wholly different inertia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2210.238, 2210.769, 2219.475], "stop_times": [2210.769, 2219.475, 2223.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2210.238}, "reply_to": "21087__1_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21087__1_044", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I think that in light of my time I must beg to differ with the Court on this issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2223.198], "stop_times": [2229.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2223.198}, "reply_to": "21087__1_043", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_045", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "I'm sorry for taking so much of your time on this, but this is an important point to my view of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2229.432], "stop_times": [2234.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2229.432}, "reply_to": "21087__1_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21087__1_046", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "I understand that it is, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2234.165], "stop_times": [2235.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2234.165}, "reply_to": "21087__1_045", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_047", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "I will--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2235.787], "stop_times": [2236.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2235.787}, "reply_to": "21087__1_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21087__1_048", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "I wish I could convince you to the contrary, but I think I must move on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2236.876], "stop_times": [2240.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2236.876}, "reply_to": "21087__1_047", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_049", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--Do I understand that your basic position on this is that those 11 members of the Ninth Circuit are like the 12 members of, say, the D.C. Circuit for all purposes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2240.568], "stop_times": [2249.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2240.568}, "reply_to": "21087__1_048", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21087__1_050", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Absolutely, Your Honor.\nBoth the safety valve that the full court has given the opportunity on request of any active judge to vote to withdraw that reference, as it were, from the en banc panel, and to take the matter as a full court with all of the active judges sitting.\nHere, they expressly declined to do so after they had an opportunity to review the disposition of the en banc panel.\nI... Justice Scalia and I disagree about the implications to be drawn from that.\nTo me, it is as if it were affirmed on all of its reasons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2249.574, 2250.436, 2263.847, 2269.46, 2273.514], "stop_times": [2250.436, 2263.847, 2269.46, 2273.514, 2276.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2249.574}, "reply_to": "21087__1_049", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_051", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "This is the only circuit that has this at the moment, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2276.946], "stop_times": [2279.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2276.946}, "reply_to": "21087__1_050", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21087__1_052", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "I believe that's correct.\nEven if the act were to apply to this case, it seems to me that no different result would obtain, because the act is not addressed by its language.\nThe power of the courts of appeals to withdraw their mandate and to hear cases en banc--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2279.676, 2280.626, 2291.875], "stop_times": [2280.626, 2291.875, 2296.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2279.676}, "reply_to": "21087__1_051", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_053", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "But that power I assume is controlled by an abuse of discretion standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2296.47], "stop_times": [2300.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2296.47}, "reply_to": "21087__1_052", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21087__1_054", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nAs the Chief Justice suggested in the Hawaii Housing case, as in Chambers, the abuse of discretion standard would apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2300.783, 2301.943], "stop_times": [2301.943, 2308.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2300.783}, "reply_to": "21087__1_053", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_055", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "And how does the judge exercise his or her discretion in a case such as this, where habeas proceedings have gone on for some, I think, 9 years, 7 years in the Federal courts alone.\nWhat is the standard for upsetting a previously final judgment by withdrawing the mandate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2308.868, 2322.445], "stop_times": [2322.445, 2329.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2308.868}, "reply_to": "21087__1_054", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21087__1_056", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Well, if I may quarrel with the previously final judgment a bit later, I'll answer your question directly.\nIt seems to me that the standard for exercising discretion to withdraw the mandate is no different in this case than it is in any other case, and that standard has been variously described by the courts of appeals in their decisions for good cause, to preserve the integrity of the judicial process--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2329.561, 2335.287], "stop_times": [2335.287, 2350.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2329.561}, "reply_to": "21087__1_055", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_057", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Well, in the context that's habeas corpus, don't you think it ought to be to avoid a miscarriage of justice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2350.207], "stop_times": [2354.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2350.207}, "reply_to": "21087__1_056", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21087__1_058", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--No, I do... I would not agree with that standard, Your Honor.\nI would not cabin the authority of the courts of appeals in this limited range of cases, because I do not see any principle basis for distinguishing between them on the one hand and the wide variety of civil cases on the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2354.428, 2356.881], "stop_times": [2356.881, 2367.577], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2354.428}, "reply_to": "21087__1_057", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_059", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Well, except that's the standard that we've applied generally in habeas corpus successive petition cases, and this circumstance that we're faced with raises all of the intrusive concerns on... that we have with reference to the Federal system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2367.577], "stop_times": [2384.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2367.577}, "reply_to": "21087__1_058", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21087__1_060", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "I do not believe that this is similar to a successive petition case, and I believe that's the case for several reasons.\nFirst, Congress was very careful in striking the balance in the legislation that it adopted after a number of years of debate and reviewing a number of bills.\nTo speak in terms of a second--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2384.328, 2392.805, 2399.428], "stop_times": [2392.805, 2399.428, 2402.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2384.328}, "reply_to": "21087__1_059", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_061", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "But what happens here, the court of appeals waits until this Court has denied certiorari, until the State has mobilized all of its forces and its moral will to execute this penalty, the Governor has held lengthy and very careful clemency hearings, and then the court of appeals, based on the recitation that two of the judges didn't read their E mail, stops the process, and it seems to me that that quite squarely invokes the question of whether or not there's an abuse of discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2402.148], "stop_times": [2437.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2402.148}, "reply_to": "21087__1_060", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21087__1_062", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2437.502], "stop_times": [2438.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2437.502}, "reply_to": "21087__1_061", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_063", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "And it seems to me that discretion can only be exercised if there was a... if necessary to avoid a manifest miscarriage of justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2438.654], "stop_times": [2445.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2438.654}, "reply_to": "21087__1_062", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21087__1_064", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--There are a number of points that you raised in your question.\nFirst of all, it was not simply a mistake by two judges.\nThe en banc panel sets forth at pages 214 through 216 of the appendix a series of misunderstandings and mistakes that involve at least six judges of the court, not two, and further, if it be a mistake that the Ninth Circuit waited to take the vote on whether to hear it en banc until at some later point in time, then again that is not a mistake that is due to my client's failure to do something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2445.749, 2449.219, 2452.993], "stop_times": [2449.219, 2452.993, 2474.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2445.749}, "reply_to": "21087__1_063", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_065", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Yes, but it does compound the injury done to the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2474.898], "stop_times": [2478.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2474.898}, "reply_to": "21087__1_064", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21087__1_066", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "It's a 53-day injury, Your Honor.\nIt's not a significant--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2478.391, 2481.093], "stop_times": [2481.093, 2482.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2478.391}, "reply_to": "21087__1_065", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_067", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Well, you measure the 53 days after the matter has been pending for 7 years, and this Court has acted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2482.733], "stop_times": [2488.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2482.733}, "reply_to": "21087__1_066", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21087__1_068", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--But my point is, Your Honor, if they had withdrawn the mandate, let us say, before it was spread in the district court, then would we be here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2488.626], "stop_times": [2497.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2488.626}, "reply_to": "21087__1_067", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_069", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Before it was what in the district court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2497.251], "stop_times": [2498.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2497.251}, "reply_to": "21087__1_068", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21087__1_070", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Before it was spread in the district court, Your Honor... would we be here?\nI doubt it.\nIf we had been accorded the opportunity that every other litigant is accorded to have an en banc suggestion considered in accordance with the proper procedures set forth by the Ninth Circuit in its local rules, no one would be quarreling with where we are right now, or with the decision of the en banc court.\nThere may be a quarrel, but certainly not on the grounds we're discussing now.\nWhat the Ninth Circuit did was to preserve the integrity of its processes by putting us back to the status quo ante before--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2498.793, 2501.735, 2502.304, 2518.176, 2521.018], "stop_times": [2501.735, 2502.304, 2518.176, 2521.018, 2528.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2498.793}, "reply_to": "21087__1_069", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_071", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Yes, but it couldn't do that until it withdrew the mandate, and the mandate indicates sufficient finality for this Court to act.\nIt indicates sufficient finality for the Governor to act.\nIt indicates sufficient finality for the sentence of death to be executed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2528.263, 2534.885, 2538.068], "stop_times": [2534.885, 2538.068, 2541.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2528.263}, "reply_to": "21087__1_070", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21087__1_072", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--Well, that is true, Your Honor, but that sort of... in my view that is circular in reasoning, because you... it's like saying that it's not final until it's final, or it's final because it's final.\nHere, if we recognize the continuing authority of the courts of appeals to recall their mandates--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2541.42, 2552.417], "stop_times": [2552.417, 2558.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2541.42}, "reply_to": "21087__1_071", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_073", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Well, but even you agree, and I think you have to, that an abuse of discretion standard must be imposed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2558.143], "stop_times": [2564.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2558.143}, "reply_to": "21087__1_072", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21087__1_074", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2564.355], "stop_times": [2564.995], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2564.355}, "reply_to": "21087__1_073", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_075", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "And you don't have to have an abuse of discretion before you have an en banc hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2564.995], "stop_times": [2567.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2564.995}, "reply_to": "21087__1_074", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21087__1_076", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "No, you do not.\nIt's clear under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2567.456, 2568.848], "stop_times": [2568.848, 2571.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2567.456}, "reply_to": "21087__1_075", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_077", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "So the issuance of the mandate is a very highly significant fact in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2571.54], "stop_times": [2575.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2571.54}, "reply_to": "21087__1_076", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21087__1_078", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--But, Your Honor, there are any number of cases in which mandates have been recalled after the certiorari has been denied and the mandate has issued.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2575.554], "stop_times": [2583.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2575.554}, "reply_to": "21087__1_077", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_079", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "I don't know that there are any number.\nThere are some, of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2583.171, 2584.032], "stop_times": [2584.032, 2585.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2583.171}, "reply_to": "21087__1_078", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21087__1_080", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "There... we cite the Sargent case, we cite the Alphin case, and there are others in our brief that we can refer to, so this is not a peculiar act either in this case or in this category of cases.\nThe courts of appeals have, for 200 years, and before that the courts of England had the authority to withdraw their mandates to protect the integrity of the process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2585.431, 2595.168], "stop_times": [2595.168, 2604.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2585.431}, "reply_to": "21087__1_079", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_081", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "I'm not questioning that.\nI'm asking whether a miscarriage of justice standard shouldn't apply because of the special concerns with habeas corpus and intrusion on the processes of the States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2604.806, 2605.467], "stop_times": [2605.467, 2613.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2604.806}, "reply_to": "21087__1_080", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21087__1_082", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "And my answer is no, it should not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2613.621], "stop_times": [2615.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2613.621}, "reply_to": "21087__1_081", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_083", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "In England there isn't any collateral review of criminal conviction, so that to say the abuse of discretion standard has applied in England, I don't think carries you over to this very particular situation where you're dealing with something where this Court has gradually circumscribed the free wheeling availability of the writ, and Congress has circumscribed it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2615.15], "stop_times": [2640.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2615.15}, "reply_to": "21087__1_082", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21087__1_084", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "No, Your Honor, I'm not suggesting that.\nThat's merely something that this Court observed in Hazel Atlas, when it was talking about the inherent authority of the courts to recall their mandates, and this Court noted that that authority had existed even before the republic was founded.\nIt's continued to exist up to this point in time.\nI'm not suggesting that that authority can be exercised without any boundaries, nor am I suggesting that this Court was wrong in Felker when it said that the actions of the court ought to be informed by AEDPA.\nIndeed, the Ninth Circuit has demonstrated already to this Court and to all others that it is informed by that.\nThat's the Nevius case, where they refused--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2640.059, 2641.711, 2653.047, 2654.977, 2666.046, 2671.689], "stop_times": [2641.711, 2653.047, 2654.977, 2666.046, 2671.689, 2673.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2640.059}, "reply_to": "21087__1_083", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_085", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "It certainly isn't this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2673.981], "stop_times": [2675.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2673.981}, "reply_to": "21087__1_084", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21087__1_086", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--Well, no, Your Honor, I think that the court was at pains to point out that first the act does not apply to this case because the petition was filed before the effective date of the act, so under this Court's decision in Lindh there is no application whatsoever.\nThat's why I think that we need not discuss AEDPA and its application to this case.\nEven if the act applied, it's my view that Congress certainly did not remove the authority of the courts of appeals to recall their mandates and hear cases en banc.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2675.183, 2687.588, 2692.013], "stop_times": [2687.588, 2692.013, 2701.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2675.183}, "reply_to": "21087__1_085", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_087", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "But I think... isn't it just as likely Congress didn't remove it because they couldn't conceive of something like this happening?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2701.028], "stop_times": [2708.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2701.028}, "reply_to": "21087__1_086", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21087__1_088", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "No, Your Honor, I... in the first place, we would be speculating about congressional intent, but I think that the statute is carefully drafted.\nIf you look at 2244(b)(1) and then at 2244 (b)(3)(E), you see that what Congress is talking about is second or successive petitions, and it's saying that those may not be entertained by the court of appeals and, indeed, that no petition for a rehearing of a denial or grant of the right to file a successor petition could be heard.\nIt does not speak at all to withdrawing the mandate or to the authority of the court to entertain a suggestion to rehear it en banc.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2708.324, 2714.617, 2735.571], "stop_times": [2714.617, 2735.571, 2743.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2708.324}, "reply_to": "21087__1_087", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_089", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "I think that Congress perhaps contemplating this legislation could have canvassed courts of appeals habeas opinions and not found any example in those particular opinions where a... where the mandate had been withdrawn under circumstances like this.\nIt just didn't seem to be a problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2743.086, 2759.406], "stop_times": [2759.406, 2761.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2743.086}, "reply_to": "21087__1_088", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21087__1_090", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Well, and I think that is true, Your Honor, and the court of appeals in this case was very careful to note this is a once in a decade, or many decades case.\nI don't believe that this is a case that's going to invite the avalanche of similar cases.\nI would refer to the Court's opinion, Justice O'Connor writing for the Court in Agostini, where she indicated that that case was very much confined to the context of the case.\nSimilarly here.\nWe have a series of misunderstandings and errors by a United States court of appeal that deprived an individual of the rights that all other individuals have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2761.328, 2769.073, 2775.228, 2783.463, 2784.684], "stop_times": [2769.073, 2775.228, 2783.463, 2784.684, 2794.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2761.328}, "reply_to": "21087__1_089", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_091", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Well, there were... there is no right, though, to an en banc hearing.\nYou have to concede that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2794.559, 2797.323], "stop_times": [2797.323, 2798.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2794.559}, "reply_to": "21087__1_090", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21087__1_092", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--I absolutely concede that, Your Honor.\nThe right under this Court's decisions in Shenker and Western Pacific Railway Company is to know the procedures that are available and to have the opportunity to put them into motion.\nIt seems to me that at least in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2798.754, 2799.964, 2809.1], "stop_times": [2799.964, 2809.1, 2810.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2798.754}, "reply_to": "21087__1_091", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_093", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "They were put in motion, but they didn't take effect, and in the meantime the habeas proceedings became final, and they are habeas proceedings, so we are confronted with what standard to apply, and there certainly are arguments to make it a fairly high standard for a reversal here, it seems to me, by the Ninth Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2810.881], "stop_times": [2835.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2810.881}, "reply_to": "21087__1_092", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21087__1_094", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--I don't think that there is a principle basis for distinguishing these cases from all other civil cases, Justice O'Connor.\nIf there were, I would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2835.638, 2841.941], "stop_times": [2841.941, 2843.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2835.638}, "reply_to": "21087__1_093", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_095", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Simply the fact that it's a habeas proceeding, where we have established some higher standards generally.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2843.133], "stop_times": [2851.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2843.133}, "reply_to": "21087__1_094", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21087__1_096", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--As Ms. Wilkens considered earlier in response to a question, the standard has always been the same, so what the State is asking this Court to do now is to be a back up legislature and to amend the AEDPA, as it were, to infer that Congress meant to take away authority from the courts of appeals that it does not explicitly do so.\nIt's our position that in adopting that legislation Congress was very careful to strike a balance in a very complex area of the law.\nIf one reviews the legislative history, it is replete with statements from Congresspersons and Senators.\nThere were two concepts that they were concerned about.\nOne is cutting down second and successive petitions by petitioners, and the other was to make certain that every petitioner had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his or her case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2851.058, 2869.751, 2875.926, 2882.731, 2885.94], "stop_times": [2869.751, 2875.926, 2882.731, 2885.94, 2895.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2851.058}, "reply_to": "21087__1_095", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_097", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Do you think this petitioner's motions, if they were governed here by AEDPA, and maybe they're not because of the effective date problem, but if they were, would his motions under 60(b) and so forth be in violation of AEDPA, and in effect be a second--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2895.317], "stop_times": [2915.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2895.317}, "reply_to": "21087__1_096", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21087__1_098", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "That, of course, is a question that I need not decide, and I think it's not the question that's posed to this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2915.63], "stop_times": [2922.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2915.63}, "reply_to": "21087__1_097", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_099", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2922.506], "stop_times": [2923.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2922.506}, "reply_to": "21087__1_098", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21087__1_100", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "I would go so far as to say this.\nUnder the Ninth Circuit authority, if the 60(b) motion were to attempt to place new or different claims before the Court, then under the Greenawalt case, which is at 85 F. 3d, the Ninth Circuit has said that that will not be permitted.\nThat's another example, Chief Justice Rehnquist, of the court of appeals in the Ninth Circuit being informed by the intent of the act, just as this Court announced that it would be informed by the intent of the act--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2923.267, 2925.026, 2937.616], "stop_times": [2925.026, 2937.616, 2949.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2923.267}, "reply_to": "21087__1_099", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_101", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Was that an en banc decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2949.454], "stop_times": [2951.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2949.454}, "reply_to": "21087__1_100", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21087__1_102", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--No, Your Honor, it was not.\nIt was not.\nThere also is the Nevius case, which I mentioned earlier, where the circuit declined to recall its mandate when the purpose was to present new and different claims, and that's why this case is very different from that, but Nevius should indicate to this Court that the Ninth Circuit does recognize that its discretion should be informed by the act.\nIt is quite capable of turning away end runs around the act, and it has demonstrated that it has done so in the past, so I think that this fear is much exaggerated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2951.104, 2952.966, 2953.715, 2971.496], "stop_times": [2952.966, 2953.715, 2971.496, 2979.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2951.104}, "reply_to": "21087__1_101", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_103", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "What standard would you apply for abuse of discretion?\nI'm thinking particularly, because you mentioned earlier, you said it isn't... it... some things... the most obvious case where you would withdraw mandate is... it doesn't happen too often because of local rules, but under the rules, the opinion is written at the court of appeals, it comes down, then you can file a petition for rehearing.\nThis is nothing to do with en banc.\nThen seven days after the filing of that petition, the mandate issues.\nNow, I take it under the appellate rules a litigant could any time, perhaps, or sometime thereafter, or after the petition for rehearing, file a petition en banc, and by the time the court as a whole has considered that petition the 7 days may have passed and the mandate is issued, so obviously, if they grant the en banc they'll jerk the mandate back.\nNow, that's the most obvious situation where the... all right.\nNow, given that situation and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedures, it could happen, which would I think be an abuse, that a court decides on its own 10 years later, you see, to review en banc, and jerks back the mandate.\nWell, that can't be right, so there must be some kind of standard in between what would be the rules foreseeing a not totally unusual circumstance... you know, we as a court of appeals grant the en banc, the mandate went out last week, we'd better jerk it back, because after all we're considering it en banc... and 10 years later.\nThere must be some standard, and you mentioned... or maybe it's a different thing, nothing to do with jerking the mandate back, but whether you can have an en banc at all, all right.\nI mean, so those are... that's what's going on in my mind, and you mentioned that you had in mind some kind of standard, or some kind of criteria for resolving this problem, and so I'd like to hear it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [2979.283, 2983.344, 3003.349, 3005.12, 3010.211, 3032.077, 3034.509, 3049.668, 3067.86, 3078.288], "stop_times": [2983.344, 3003.349, 3005.12, 3010.211, 3032.077, 3034.509, 3049.668, 3067.86, 3078.288, 3088.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2979.283}, "reply_to": "21087__1_102", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21087__1_104", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Well, I think, Justice Breyer, that the courts of appeals have struggled with precisely that question over the course of many years, and as one reviews the cases that are set out in notes 17 and 19 of our brief you see that the courts have come up with certain phrases that they use to describe the process they go through... protecting the integrity of the court's processes, to... for good cause, to prevent injustice, et cetera, et cetera.\nNow, any time that one tries to channelize the exercise of discretion in the myriad of cases, one runs into exactly the problem that you adverted to earlier, Your Honor, which was, well, how can I possibly anticipate every variety of case that's going to come before a court of appeals over the next century or half century in this country, and the answer is, one cannot.\nI assume that had one been able to do that, that either Congress or this Court previously would have done so.\nThe very fact that they have not done so and that they have left to the courts of appeals and, indeed, to the district courts of this country areas of discretion is an indication to me that not only is it impossible to further cabinet, but it's entirely appropriate that that discretion be left there.\nNow, having said that, I would concede to you, using your example, that, for instance, if a significant period of time passed, 10 or 12 years after the mandate was issued, the judgment was issued, a litigant, he or she detrimentally changed his or her position in reliance on that judgment and then the losing litigant were to come back into the court and say, eureka, I have found some idea, I think that you ought to recall the mandate and hear this en banc, perhaps in a situation like that discretion would be exceeded.\nI would think that the courts of appeals would be entirely capable of seeing that that situation would be an abuse of discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [3088.736, 3118.245, 3139.7, 3145.364, 3161.084, 3188.252], "stop_times": [3118.245, 3139.7, 3145.364, 3161.084, 3188.252, 3197.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3088.736}, "reply_to": "21087__1_103", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_105", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Wouldn't you also look to the effect on the parties, or those generally who rely on the decision, even if the recall were a more prompt one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [3197.32], "stop_times": [3207.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3197.32}, "reply_to": "21087__1_104", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21087__1_106", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "I think that one might, Your Honor, but I don't think that it would be dispositive, certainly not in our case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [3207.164], "stop_times": [3214.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3207.164}, "reply_to": "21087__1_105", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_107", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "As a guide, how about the old common law rule that during the term you could recall a mandate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [3214.889], "stop_times": [3221.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3214.889}, "reply_to": "21087__1_106", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21087__1_108", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Yes, and that, of course, was set aside in 1948, as Your Honor knows, by statute, and the term limit no longer has anything to do with the ability of the courts of appeals to reach beyond or backward farther and, of course, this Court recognized in Hazel Atlas that even when the term limit was in place, in certain circumstances, fraud on the court or miscarriage of justice, the court was free to ignore the term limit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [3221.975], "stop_times": [3247.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3221.975}, "reply_to": "21087__1_107", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_109", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "All right, now--\n--But it might give you some handle on how many... how long is too long.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [3247.64, 3248.561], "stop_times": [3248.561, 3251.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3247.64}, "reply_to": "21087__1_108", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21087__1_110", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "It could be certainly a rule of thumb or a guideline, Your Honor, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [3251.834], "stop_times": [3258.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3251.834}, "reply_to": "21087__1_109", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_111", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "You said in response to my question that if we did look to the effect on others, even if a more prompt recall, your case would still turn out favorably to you, and maybe you're right.\nShould we consider the fact that the court of appeals, before it exercised its sua sponte authority, waited for all of these other bodies to go through various procedures of review?\nThey sat back to see what would happen.\nIs that something we should consider, and how does that cut?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [3258.029, 3272.288, 3287.187, 3290.239], "stop_times": [3272.288, 3287.187, 3290.239, 3292.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3258.029}, "reply_to": "21087__1_110", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21087__1_112", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Well, certainly it is something before the Court, so it may be something that the Court may wish to consider.\nI don't think that it would affect what I believe the proper outcome is in this case, for several reasons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [3292.82, 3299.575], "stop_times": [3299.575, 3307.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3292.82}, "reply_to": "21087__1_111", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_113", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Yes, but did... well, because time is short, there's one thing that I wish you would address.\nDoes it go to the seriousness with which we should consider the claim that they were trying, in effect, to protect the integrity of their own procedures?\nBecause if that had been weighted given a very high weight, wouldn't they have said, we've got to protect the integrity of our own procedures regardless of what all these other courts and executive agencies may be doing, and would it be fair for us to say, the circuit really did not give a very high weight to the integrity of their procedures, and that bears on whether it was an abuse of discretion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [3307.91, 3313.765, 3324.753], "stop_times": [3313.765, 3324.753, 3348.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3307.91}, "reply_to": "21087__1_112", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21087__1_114", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "I don't think that one need necessarily view the facts in that fashion, Justice Souter, the reason being that it appears that there was a discussion between the time the mandate returned to the circuit and was sent to the district court and the time that it was spread.\nAt that point there were proceedings going on in the State court and, as the opinion points out, for reasons of comity, to use their word, they decided to wait and allow the State court to first address the issues that had been brought to the attention of the State court.\nIt was entirely possible that the California supreme court would have allowed Mr. Thompson a new trial based upon the pleading that was then pending before them.\nIf that were to have occurred, then the Ninth Circuit would not have made... have needed to make public the rather messy story that is now public, and perhaps that speaks to protecting the integrity of the process as well.\nI don't know.\nI wasn't privy to those conversations.\nWhat I do know is that they attempted, I believe in good faith, to return us to the position in which we were before they made these errors, and it was not just the error of two judges misplacing an E mail, or two clerks not speaking to one another.\nIf, indeed, they waited too long, that was an error, and in fact that... the second call after the amended opinion from the panel issued was a timely call under the rules of the court, 5.4.C, and yet the entire court misunderstood the timeliness of that call and no vote was taken.\nIf the court had not made a mistake at that point, which may have been due partially to the author of the panel opinion and partially to the en banc coordinator and how their positions were related to the judge who called for the en banc--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [3348.629, 3362.648, 3376.406, 3385.051, 3399.522, 3400.492, 3402.264, 3414.181, 3431.882], "stop_times": [3362.648, 3376.406, 3385.051, 3399.522, 3400.492, 3402.264, 3414.181, 3431.882, 3444.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3348.629}, "reply_to": "21087__1_113", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_115", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "It's hard to conceive that wanting to conceal its own ineptitude takes priority over allowing the State to execute its criminal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [3444.049], "stop_times": [3452.525], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3444.049}, "reply_to": "21087__1_114", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21087__1_116", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "--I don't think that was the trade off, Your Honor.\nI'm merely suggesting... and I don't know what the trade off was, obviously, so I don't want to speak for the Ninth Circuit.\nI couldn't.\nBut let us assume that they decided that they would give the court, the supreme court of the State of California, an opportunity to consider the claims that were before it.\nIf that court were to take one action, then the Ninth Circuit would not have had to pursue this course of action, as it did.\nThere are any number of considerations that would make it advisable for the Ninth Circuit not to have had to go to the lengths that it did go to, which merely underlines for me the seriousness with which they viewed this, and the seriousness with which they viewed their obligation to correct their error to give Mr. Thompson exactly the same right that all others had had to pursue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [3452.525, 3456.429, 3460.963, 3461.781, 3470.049, 3478.274], "stop_times": [3456.429, 3460.963, 3461.781, 3470.049, 3478.274, 3500.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3452.525}, "reply_to": "21087__1_115", "speaker": "gregory_a_long"}
{"id": "21087__1_117", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Long.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [3500.149, 3501.491], "stop_times": [3501.491, 3502.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3500.149}, "reply_to": "21087__1_116", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21087__1_118", "conversation_id": "21087", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-215", "start_times": [3502.757], "stop_times": [3507.793], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3502.757}, "reply_to": "21087__1_117", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20087__0_000", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-1400, California and State Lands Commission v. the Deep Sea Research, Inc.--\nMr. Rusconi.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [0.0, 10.288], "stop_times": [10.288, 64.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20087__0_001", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe action below was one in rem by a private party to try title as against all the world and for exclusive salvage rights to a vessel lying upon the sovereign submerged lands of the State of California.\nIn this situation, California claims title and rights to salvage over that same vessel, and the Eleventh Amendment prevents the adjudication of California's interests in this case without its consent.\nUnder this Court's Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence, the guiding principle in these cases is the effect of the relief requested on the State.\nThis conclusion is not dependent upon formalisms or upon the manipulation of captions or pleadings.\nHad this suit been in personam against the State under the same circumstances there is no doubt that the suit would have been barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and this result cannot be changed by the substitution of the vessel as defendant for the State of California.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [64.414, 68.024, 80.723, 98.295, 105.801, 114.146], "stop_times": [68.024, 80.723, 98.295, 105.801, 114.146, 133.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 64.414}, "reply_to": "20087__0_000", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_002", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, there's really no such thing as an in rem action, then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [133.828], "stop_times": [136.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 133.828}, "reply_to": "20087__0_001", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__0_003", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "No, that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [136.5], "stop_times": [137.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 136.5}, "reply_to": "20087__0_002", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_004", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, I mean, you cannot possibly adjudicate the rights to a particular piece of property.\nYou always have at least 50 claimants--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [137.822, 142.734], "stop_times": [142.734, 146.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 137.822}, "reply_to": "20087__0_003", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__0_005", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [146.246], "stop_times": [147.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 146.246}, "reply_to": "20087__0_004", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_006", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--who can come in and say, no, it's really mine, and this adjudication was for naught.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [147.899], "stop_times": [152.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 147.899}, "reply_to": "20087__0_005", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__0_007", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Justice Scalia, all we're asking in this case is that the State be dismissed.\nNow, they can move forward in this with an in rem judgment against the rest of the world.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [152.872, 157.473], "stop_times": [157.473, 161.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 152.872}, "reply_to": "20087__0_006", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_008", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Then it's not an in rem judgment.\nThe whole point, historically, of an in rem judgment in these admiralty actions is that it binds the world, and it seems to me that the implication of what you're saying here is, a State is always part of the world and, therefore, in any admiralty in rem action a State could come forward and say, got to dismiss it, Eleventh Amendment, can't bind me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [161.988, 162.746], "stop_times": [162.746, 187.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 161.988}, "reply_to": "20087__0_007", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20087__0_009", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Justice Souter, I believe that is what we are saying.\nHowever, the practical effect of that, States are not going to run around willy nilly and make these type of claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [187.342, 190.686], "stop_times": [190.686, 197.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 187.342}, "reply_to": "20087__0_008", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_010", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "And isn't the reason that they're not... isn't the reason that you're not going to file this kind of an objection on, let's say, an East Coast salvage case is that there is no colorable basis, in your mind or anybody else's, for your doing so, for your having a claim that might be cut off and therefore in fact adjudicated by the in rem action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [197.31], "stop_times": [215.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 197.31}, "reply_to": "20087__0_009", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20087__0_011", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "That will be the practical effect, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [215.641], "stop_times": [217.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 215.641}, "reply_to": "20087__0_010", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_012", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "All right.\nThen what would be wrong with a rule, and maybe it would be a softer rule than the circuit applied here, which says you have at least got to come forward and make a sufficient showing that you are within the class of those whose interests might, in fact, be adjudicated here?\nYou've done that, in fact, in part by what you've done so far.\nAfter all, in this case the original in rem process describes the location, so you said, look, we're within the class of those geographically that might be affected, and what would be wrong with carrying that one step further and simply saying, all right, make an equally colorable showing that you're also within the class as defined by other criteria, abandonment, embeddedness, historic register?\nIt doesn't mean... this rule would not mean that you have ultimately to prove your entitlement, but it would mean that you've got to make a showing that there is a practical reason for stopping this in rem proceeding, and the reason, the justification for that is to avoid the absurd situation in which, simply by claiming that you're part of the world, you could defeat any in rem proceeding.\nWhat would be wrong with that rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [217.945, 218.613, 237.065, 242.23, 272.518, 295.683], "stop_times": [218.613, 237.065, 242.23, 272.518, 295.683, 296.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 217.945}, "reply_to": "20087__0_011", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20087__0_013", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Justice Souter, the problem with that rule is that by inquiring into the location, inquiring into the issues that you mentioned, you're adjudicating the merits of the claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [296.925], "stop_times": [307.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 296.925}, "reply_to": "20087__0_012", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_014", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "No, I'm simply... my suggestion was that you've at least got to come forward with a basis for saying, yes, there is a reasonable basis for saying that State interests are involved here, as distinct from the case that would occur if the wreck were beyond the 3-mile limit, or the wreck were in the Gulf of Mexico, or in Europe.\nAnd I'm not suggesting that there needs to be a final adjudication, but I'm suggesting that in order to preserve the value of in rem actions there at least ought to be a sufficient showing for the court... from which the court could conclude that you or your State has a serious interest implicated here that justifies recognizing your Eleventh Amendment claim and, in effect, defeating the Federal in rem action, that's all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [307.951, 328.736], "stop_times": [328.736, 356.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 307.951}, "reply_to": "20087__0_013", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20087__0_015", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "I understand, Justice Souter, but I do not see as a practical matter how this inquiry that you're talking about about preliminary matters cannot but implicate a question on the merits, and this is what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [356.604], "stop_times": [369.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 356.604}, "reply_to": "20087__0_014", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_016", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Oh, it implicates it, but it doesn't determine it.\nIn other words, you've got to come forward with some evidence.\nThat's a very different thing from saying that you've got to, in effect, present a full case and prevail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [369.024, 371.234, 374.707], "stop_times": [371.234, 374.707, 381.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 369.024}, "reply_to": "20087__0_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20087__0_017", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--We think that the... the State of California thinks that the broad concept of sovereign immunity in the Eleventh Amendment means that even the type of preliminary inquiry that you're asking for is forbidden.\nNow, when a State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [381.132, 393.186], "stop_times": [393.186, 394.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 381.132}, "reply_to": "20087__0_016", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_018", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "I think I might agree with that, and then suggest that perhaps the Eleventh Amendment doesn't apply at all to an in rem action where the res is not in the custody, the actual custody of the State.\nIf you don't accept Justice Souter's lifeline it seems to me that this shows that perhaps the in... the utility of in rem actions is substantially destroyed by your position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [394.057, 409.689], "stop_times": [409.689, 425.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 394.057}, "reply_to": "20087__0_017", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20087__0_019", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, we don't think we're destroying the utility of in rem actions.\nThere has... this... there has not been a history of States making unsubstantiated claims based on the Eleventh Amendment, and it's certainly not the case in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [425.909, 430.943], "stop_times": [430.943, 441.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 425.909}, "reply_to": "20087__0_018", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_020", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, but there is some indication, isn't there, that when the Framers were drafting the Constitution and when the Eleventh Amendment was adopted that it was thought that certain types of suits in admiralty weren't covered by the Eleventh Amendment at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [441.659], "stop_times": [459.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 441.659}, "reply_to": "20087__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20087__0_021", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [459.602], "stop_times": [461.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 459.602}, "reply_to": "20087__0_020", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_022", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "The prize cases, for example... and very possibly in rem cases of this type, where the State isn't in possession, as such, of the property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [461.322], "stop_times": [474.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 461.322}, "reply_to": "20087__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20087__0_023", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Your Honor, since the early cases, which we do not believe stand for the citation by the other parties in this case, those cases did not involve in rem actions at all, or possession was not central to the holding.\nIn this case, title is being... is going to be adjudicated against the State in this in rem action.\nIn this case, its regulatory authority has been infringed by the orders of the district court, as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [474.581, 493.192, 498.858], "stop_times": [493.192, 498.858, 505.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 474.581}, "reply_to": "20087__0_022", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_024", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, Mr. Rusconi, your opponents cite the old Peters case from this Court as standing for the proposition that a Federal court can adjudicate an action so long as the property is not in the possession of the State.\nNow, do you disagree with that reading of Peters?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [505.822, 521.361], "stop_times": [521.361, 523.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 505.822}, "reply_to": "20087__0_023", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20087__0_025", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Yes, we do.\nThat case was not an in rem action.\nThat case was an in personam action by rival claimants against the executrices of the estate of the ex State Treasurer.\nNow, in that case, when you look at Justice Marshall's quote about the State not being able to sit back and then destroy this ongoing action, that makes sense.\nNormal principles of estoppel would not bind the State on a judgment in an in personam case when they're not named, and so there's no problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [523.312, 523.881, 527.416, 535.211, 545.438], "stop_times": [523.881, 527.416, 535.211, 545.438, 554.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 523.312}, "reply_to": "20087__0_024", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_026", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "What's your answer to The Davis?\nAs I recall, you said in your brief, well, Davis isn't on point, or... here because the title was not involved, but the question is the Eleventh Amendment applicability, and I would suppose that there's an Eleventh Amendment violation or not an Eleventh Amendment violation regardless.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [554.484, 556.765], "stop_times": [556.765, 575.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 554.484}, "reply_to": "20087__0_025", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20087__0_027", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, yes, title was not involved in The Davis, and that involved--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [575.318], "stop_times": [578.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 575.318}, "reply_to": "20087__0_026", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_028", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, why should that make a difference here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [578.8], "stop_times": [579.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 578.8}, "reply_to": "20087__0_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20087__0_029", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [579.96], "stop_times": [580.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 579.96}, "reply_to": "20087__0_028", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_030", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Regardless of what's being adjudicated you're saying we have the right to an Eleventh Amendment immunity even though we weren't in possession and even though it is in rem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [580.721], "stop_times": [589.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 580.721}, "reply_to": "20087__0_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20087__0_031", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--That's correct.\nIn The Davis the title to the cargo was not at issue, and it also involved the sovereign immunity of the United States, so it's not an Eleventh Amendment immunity.\nIn this case we have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [589.647, 590.678, 601.474], "stop_times": [590.678, 601.474, 602.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 589.647}, "reply_to": "20087__0_030", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_032", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "No, but if sovereign immunity of the United States would not have prevailed in that case, there's at least a pretty fair argument that it's unlikely that the concept of sovereign immunity recognized in the Eleventh Amendment for State purposes would, in fact, be somehow more powerful or broader.\nI mean, I don't see that as a distinction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [602.533, 618.506], "stop_times": [618.506, 620.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 602.533}, "reply_to": "20087__0_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20087__0_033", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Well, I believe that the cases have diverged on the Eleventh Amendment immunity that is given to the States versus the sovereign immunity of the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [620.105], "stop_times": [629.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 620.105}, "reply_to": "20087__0_032", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_034", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "No, but do you take the position that State sovereign immunity in fact is broader than Federal sovereign immunity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [629.552], "stop_times": [633.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 629.552}, "reply_to": "20087__0_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20087__0_035", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "I believe that under the... let me... I think the best way to answer that is, under this Court's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [633.795], "stop_times": [638.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 633.795}, "reply_to": "20087__0_034", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_036", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, how about a yes or no, and then explain?\n[Laughter]\nDo you take the position that State sovereign immunity is, in fact, a broader concept than Federal sovereign immunity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [638.087, 639.569, 640.13], "stop_times": [639.569, 640.13, 647.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 638.087}, "reply_to": "20087__0_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20087__0_037", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--I think it is broader in that the Congress can change the immunity, sovereign immunity of the United States.\nHowever, Congress cannot change the Eleventh Amendment immunity, and in that way--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [647.564, 656.179], "stop_times": [656.179, 660.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 647.564}, "reply_to": "20087__0_036", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_038", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, is there any indication that the concept of sovereign immunity understood at the time of The Davis was in fact a weaker concept under the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [660.503], "stop_times": [669.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 660.503}, "reply_to": "20087__0_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20087__0_039", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [669.73], "stop_times": [669.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 669.73}, "reply_to": "20087__0_038", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_040", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [669.98], "stop_times": [670.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 669.98}, "reply_to": "20087__0_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20087__0_041", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "I... but I also want to add that we're talking here about a vessel that is on the sovereign lands of the State of California, and whose title is being tried, and whose... the State is not making a bound... a baseless claim in this case, and the recent jurisprudence of this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [670.238], "stop_times": [687.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 670.238}, "reply_to": "20087__0_040", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_042", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "You say it's on the--\n--All property in California is on the sovereign land of the State of California.\nI mean, so any in rem action against any piece of property in California you could say the same thing about, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [687.301, 688.55, 691.552], "stop_times": [688.55, 691.552, 699.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 687.301}, "reply_to": "20087__0_041", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20087__0_043", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Perhaps I misunderstand your question.\nNot all property within our jurisdiction is the sovereign lands of the State of California.\nThose are... these are lands that were granted according to the... by the Submerged Lands Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [699.028, 699.987, 704.282], "stop_times": [699.987, 704.282, 709.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 699.028}, "reply_to": "20087__0_042", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_044", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "You have greater sovereignty over the sea bed than you have over the dry land in California?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [709.194], "stop_times": [713.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 709.194}, "reply_to": "20087__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__0_045", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "It is held subject to a public trust, a unique trust that all sovereign lands in the State of California are held that are not held, say, on proprietary lands, which may be sold, whereas sovereign lands, it takes a unique statutory scheme to get rid of them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [713.708], "stop_times": [730.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 713.708}, "reply_to": "20087__0_044", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_046", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "I don't understand.\nWell--\n--I don't know where the sovereign lands argument takes you, because if... to the extent that you're going to rely on sovereign lands rather than Eleventh Amendment immunity, period, it seems to mean you're open to the argument that the reason you've got those lands is that the Congress of the United States gave them to you, and if you're going to take the benefit of those lands, presumably it would be fair to say you ought to take them subject to the burden of taking them without destroying the utility of in rem actions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [730.507, 731.098, 731.409], "stop_times": [731.098, 731.409, 762.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 730.507}, "reply_to": "20087__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__0_047", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "This is a difficult case, Justice Souter.\nHowever, just last term in the Coeur D'Alene case the Court was very--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [762.719, 764.849], "stop_times": [764.849, 768.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 762.719}, "reply_to": "20087__0_046", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_048", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, is my... I... Coeur D'Alene is fine, but I mean, is there something wrong with the, kind of the equity argument that I just made that if you're going to depend on sovereign lands I think you've got to take the burden as well as the benefit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [768.842], "stop_times": [781.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 768.842}, "reply_to": "20087__0_047", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20087__0_049", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--I don't see what the burden is here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [781.312], "stop_times": [784.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 781.312}, "reply_to": "20087__0_048", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_050", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "The burden is that you are going to be subject to some incidents of in rem jurisdiction.\nMaybe that incident is that you're going to lose your title, and you don't have an Eleventh Amendment claim if you're not in possession.\nMaybe that incident is that you're going to have to make at least a colorable showing that you are in a position at least to claim an interest subject to Eleventh Amendment protection.\nBut whatever the burden is, the argument is that you got the sovereign lands from the United States, they weren't your historical entitlement, and you ought to take them subject to this burden.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [784.834, 792.559, 800.044, 811.001], "stop_times": [792.559, 800.044, 811.001, 821.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 784.834}, "reply_to": "20087__0_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20087__0_051", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "A couple of things.\nYes, but we did not get them under the equal footing doctrine, but why should we be treated any differently by the fact that the lands were conveyed by the Submerged Lands Act when they're adjacent to lands given under the equal footing doctrine?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [821.727, 823.279], "stop_times": [823.279, 837.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 821.727}, "reply_to": "20087__0_050", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_052", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, the reason is that you got this boon out of Congress in 1953, and presumably Congress did not intend to destroy the utility of in rem admiralty actions in the course of doing it.\nThat's the answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [837.728, 849.876], "stop_times": [849.876, 851.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 837.728}, "reply_to": "20087__0_051", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20087__0_053", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "I understand your argument, Justice Souter, but California believes that its title and its regulatory authority transcend questions such as possession.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [851.457], "stop_times": [860.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 851.457}, "reply_to": "20087__0_052", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_054", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "May I interrupt you with just one question there?\nI understand the Ninth Circuit... because they wrote the opinion, but is it not correct that the issues of title and regulatory authority really are quite different, that it might well be true that the in rem action would bind you as to title, but not necessarily as to regulatory control?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [860.553, 862.865], "stop_times": [862.865, 878.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 860.553}, "reply_to": "20087__0_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20087__0_055", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "They are different actions.\nHowever, both of those impact the sovereignty of the State of California in that this... the title question goes right to... it's as if our Treasury was being invaded.\nIt is that invasive.\nTo decide that a piece of property does not belong to the State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [878.514, 880.055, 891.782, 892.854], "stop_times": [880.055, 891.782, 892.854, 896.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 878.514}, "reply_to": "20087__0_054", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_056", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "No, but all I'm saying is, is it not... would you not agree that you might lose on the title argument and still win on the regulatory argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [896.707], "stop_times": [902.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 896.707}, "reply_to": "20087__0_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20087__0_057", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [902.761], "stop_times": [903.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 902.761}, "reply_to": "20087__0_056", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_058", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Okay.\nJust want to be--\n--I am just curious about the practical effects of this.\nWhat is supposed to happen in respect to all of the ships or other pieces of property that for the last 200 years admiralty courts have adjudicated the title of in rem?\nAre all of those adjudications, past, present, and future, now not final because any one of 50 sovereigns can say, we weren't bound?\nAnd my related question is, what's supposed to happen in bankruptcy proceedings, another instance, I take it, where every day courts decide who owns property as of against the world?\nAre now all those property decisions up for grabs?\nWhat do title insurance companies do or say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [903.042, 903.881, 904.341, 906.802, 918.78, 926.446, 937.713, 940.696], "stop_times": [903.881, 904.341, 906.802, 918.78, 926.446, 937.713, 940.696, 943.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 903.042}, "reply_to": "20087__0_057", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20087__0_059", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "First question, theoretically yes, but again, I don't see the practical implication of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [943.688], "stop_times": [949.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 943.688}, "reply_to": "20087__0_058", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_060", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Title companies... I'm interested in that because, of course, the title insurance companies often raise rates a lot when there's just a theoretical objection, so I'm quite interested.\nI don't want to stop you.\nI want to encourage you to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [949.422, 958.577, 959.589], "stop_times": [958.577, 959.589, 960.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 949.422}, "reply_to": "20087__0_059", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20087__0_061", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--The... I'm not an expert in marine title insurance law.\nHowever, the practical effects of the application of the rule that we're asking I think, or the State thinks it will be very minimal.\nNow, as to bankruptcy, the type of claim which is made in bankruptcy under 106 is something that is almost reduced to money.\nIt's a money debt that is owed, and California acknowledges that in bankruptcy if we do not file a proof of claim under operation of law that debt will be discharged as to the State of California, but a suit to quiet title is an entirely different matter.\nIt is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [960.587, 967.303, 974.266, 984.503, 1002.356], "stop_times": [967.303, 974.266, 984.503, 1002.356, 1004.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 960.587}, "reply_to": "20087__0_060", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_062", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--I don't understand that.\nWhat... why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1004.596, 1005.227], "stop_times": [1005.227, 1006.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1004.596}, "reply_to": "20087__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__0_063", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Because an... a suit to quiet title is an adjudication of a State's right.\nUnder bankruptcy, there is no adjudication.\nIt is by operation of law that the claim is discharged.\nIt's not an adjudication that it's a bad... it's... that there was no debt, or that the debt exists.\nIt is just a simple congressional enactment that unless you file a claim it's discharged, and that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1006.539, 1011.842, 1014.203, 1018.437, 1023.33], "stop_times": [1011.842, 1014.203, 1018.437, 1023.33, 1028.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1006.539}, "reply_to": "20087__0_062", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_064", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "We're talking here about an in rem action in admiralty which I think has long had special characteristics that might not carry over to bankruptcy or to a quiet title action.\nAre you agreeing that the... whatever rule we devise or apply in this particular case would carry over totally unchanged into bankruptcy under quiet title actions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1028.742, 1039.509], "stop_times": [1039.509, 1057.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1028.742}, "reply_to": "20087__0_063", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20087__0_065", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--No, no, no.\nWhat I'm saying is that they're apples and oranges, that claims to debts under bankruptcy law is an apple, and a quiet title suit is an orange.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1057.133, 1057.792], "stop_times": [1057.792, 1067.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1057.133}, "reply_to": "20087__0_064", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_066", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, but are you equating a quiet title action with this sort of in rem action in admiralty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1067.217], "stop_times": [1074.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1067.217}, "reply_to": "20087__0_065", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20087__0_067", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "What I'm saying is... yes, that the... the functional equivalent of the admiralty action is a direct quiet title action against the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1074.213], "stop_times": [1084.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1074.213}, "reply_to": "20087__0_066", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_068", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Yes, but the difference, traditionally, is that the in rem action adjudicates title against the world.\nIn a quiet title action, you have to join all the possible defendants, and then you get a quiet title action only as to them, unless you're dealing with some... the Massachusetts title system, which doesn't prevail in most places.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1084.889, 1090.603], "stop_times": [1090.603, 1102.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1084.889}, "reply_to": "20087__0_067", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20087__0_069", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "But what's the effect of that in rem judgment that Deep Sea Research owns the Brother Jonathan?\nThe effect is that it forecloses the State of California.\nThe effect is, it's the same thing as that quiet title--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1102.991, 1110.565, 1114.188], "stop_times": [1110.565, 1114.188, 1116.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1102.991}, "reply_to": "20087__0_068", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_070", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, you can intervene in the case if you want to.\nI mean, it's not as if you're prevented from making California's claim.\nAll that you're prevented from doing is saying... is sitting back and saying you've adjudicated title against all the rest of the world but not against us, and you say the Eleventh Amendment entitles you to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1116.74, 1118.873, 1123.735], "stop_times": [1118.873, 1123.735, 1135.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1116.74}, "reply_to": "20087__0_069", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20087__0_071", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Correct, we do, and as a practical matter States are not going to sit back.\nThey're going to bring actions in their own courts, where these actions belong.\nI... we don't see it as a crippling interference to require that one action against the rest of the world be in Federal court and the other action against the State be in the State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1135.313, 1138.996, 1142.187], "stop_times": [1138.996, 1142.187, 1152.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1135.313}, "reply_to": "20087__0_070", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_072", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Isn't that practically the end of such actions, because let's take this case.\nYou say California is out, but the admiralty court can adjudicate everything else.\nWell, what else?\nThere's a claim by the United States, and there's a claim by the salvors, but how could this Federal district court adjudicate finally even those claims, because the State is... won't be bound by it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1152.503, 1159.158, 1164.361, 1165.073], "stop_times": [1159.158, 1164.361, 1165.073, 1177.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1152.503}, "reply_to": "20087__0_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20087__0_073", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, they adjudicate the claims amongst the claimants that are brought into Federal court, but the Eleventh Amendment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1177.681], "stop_times": [1184.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1177.681}, "reply_to": "20087__0_072", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_074", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, what kind of litigant would be satisfied with the judgment that has a big player looming out there saying, whatever this district court does, it won't touch us and we can reargue the whole thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1184.784], "stop_times": [1196.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1184.784}, "reply_to": "20087__0_073", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20087__0_075", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Well, the litigant is going to have to come into State court against the State, and this type of split jurisdiction is not uncommon.\nIn the Pennhurst case the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1196.021, 1201.777], "stop_times": [1201.777, 1204.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1196.021}, "reply_to": "20087__0_074", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_076", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Do you think your position is entirely consistent with our Treasure Salvors decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1204.218], "stop_times": [1207.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1204.218}, "reply_to": "20087__0_075", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20087__0_077", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Yes, we do.\nWe think that Treasure Salvors, at least eight justices there were quite specific that what the court of appeal did in actually adjudicating the merits of the State's claim to those artifacts was prevented by the Eleventh Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1207.06, 1208.84], "stop_times": [1208.84, 1226.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1207.06}, "reply_to": "20087__0_076", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_078", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "No, but shouldn't... under your view shouldn't the action have been dismissed?\nUnder your view, should not the action have not survived in Federal court at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1226.101, 1227.713], "stop_times": [1227.713, 1232.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1226.101}, "reply_to": "20087__0_077", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20087__0_079", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "No, the... as to the State of Florida it should have been dismissed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1232.686], "stop_times": [1235.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1232.686}, "reply_to": "20087__0_078", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_080", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Right, which it was not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1235.948], "stop_times": [1237.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1235.948}, "reply_to": "20087__0_079", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20087__0_081", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Which it was not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1237.5], "stop_times": [1238.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1237.5}, "reply_to": "20087__0_080", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_082", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Yes.\nWe asked you about some of the old cases.\nJustice Washington's case on circuit, The Bright, is really a very strong position for your opponents, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1238.54, 1239.231, 1244.273], "stop_times": [1239.231, 1244.273, 1253.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1238.54}, "reply_to": "20087__0_081", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20087__0_083", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "It is, but we believe that The Bright case, which purports to say that the Eleventh Amendment does not apply to in rem actions, has very little authority left after the New York number II case, and after Treasure Salvors, which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1253.18], "stop_times": [1268.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1253.18}, "reply_to": "20087__0_082", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_084", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, except in the... The Bright is very much like this case, is it not, in that what we are dealing with is a res that was not in the possession of the Government, or is that incorrect, or of the State?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1268.329], "stop_times": [1280.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1268.329}, "reply_to": "20087__0_083", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20087__0_085", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--No, it was not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1280.648], "stop_times": [1284.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1280.648}, "reply_to": "20087__0_084", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_086", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "You see, in New York I and II you could plausibly make the argument that this was a disguised or ineffective damages remedy against the State, but this was the case that Justice Story relied on in his commentaries.\nI'm not sure if it was decided subsequently by our Court as authoritative.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1284.03, 1298.41], "stop_times": [1298.41, 1302.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1284.03}, "reply_to": "20087__0_085", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20087__0_087", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "I believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1302.672], "stop_times": [1305.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1302.672}, "reply_to": "20087__0_086", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_088", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "But it does indicate the practice at the time was to recognize that admiralty in rem proceedings ought to be able to proceed efficiently, and that is to bind all of the probable claimants.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1305.603], "stop_times": [1316.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1305.603}, "reply_to": "20087__0_087", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20087__0_089", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--That may have been what Justice Washington was purporting to hold, but again, I think the recent jurisdiction of this Court gets... has gotten away from the type of formalistic, what pigeon hole does the action fit into, and looks at the effect of the judgment on the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1316.151], "stop_times": [1331.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1316.151}, "reply_to": "20087__0_088", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_090", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "But in New York, both of those cases were... they did repudiate formalism, and they said that in those cases it was basically an in personam action against the State, so I don't think that supports your theory here, because this Court did not treat them as in rem actions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1331.331], "stop_times": [1347.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1331.331}, "reply_to": "20087__0_089", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20087__0_091", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "That's true, but in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1347.15], "stop_times": [1348.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1347.15}, "reply_to": "20087__0_090", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_092", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "So why do you cite them for that proposition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1348.151], "stop_times": [1349.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1348.151}, "reply_to": "20087__0_091", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20087__0_093", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--In the plurality decision in Welch and also in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1349.912], "stop_times": [1353.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1349.912}, "reply_to": "20087__0_092", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_094", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "But I'm talking to you about the two Ex parte New York cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1353.635], "stop_times": [1357.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1353.635}, "reply_to": "20087__0_093", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20087__0_095", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Yes, but the Court in both Welch and in the Treasure Salvors case cites the New York number II for the broad concept that the Eleventh Amendment does apply in in rem actions.\nIt has not been limited to the specific holding in the cases many, as Mr. Frederick--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1357.107, 1369.796], "stop_times": [1369.796, 1375.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1357.107}, "reply_to": "20087__0_094", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_096", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Why do you think... just to move on there, I mean, there's a few other issues in the case.\nWhy do you think this wreck has been abandoned?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1375.951, 1378.953], "stop_times": [1378.953, 1380.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1375.951}, "reply_to": "20087__0_095", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__0_097", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--This wreck has been abandoned because under general maritime law as it's developed in this country abandonment can be shown through the passage of time and the failure to salvage on the part of the owner.\nIn this case, we have a claimant who has alleged claim to one-sixth of the cargo, five-sixths of the cargo and the vessel itself having clearly been abandoned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1380.504, 1389.959], "stop_times": [1389.959, 1399.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1380.504}, "reply_to": "20087__0_096", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_098", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, let's assume in the old days, never mind new technology, that a vessel goes down into a coral reef.\nIt's simply... there's no way to get it up from under the coral reef, and 2 years later... so nobody tries to get it up.\n2 years later, a hurricane comes through, lifts it up, and it's floated to the shore.\nHas that been abandoned, and the people who own the ship and what's in the ship have lost all claim to it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1399.516, 1405.749, 1412.663, 1418.438], "stop_times": [1405.749, 1412.663, 1418.438, 1425.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1399.516}, "reply_to": "20087__0_097", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__0_099", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Under general maritime law, there... as it's developed there must be objective steps taken by the owner of that ship to try and salvage it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1425.063], "stop_times": [1431.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1425.063}, "reply_to": "20087__0_098", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_100", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "If it's... even if it's not salvageable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1431.947], "stop_times": [1433.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1431.947}, "reply_to": "20087__0_099", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__0_101", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Even if it's not salvageable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1433.907], "stop_times": [1435.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1433.907}, "reply_to": "20087__0_100", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_102", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "What case do you cite for that proposition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1435.339], "stop_times": [1437.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1435.339}, "reply_to": "20087__0_101", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__0_103", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "The cases that we cite in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1437.55], "stop_times": [1440.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1437.55}, "reply_to": "20087__0_102", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_104", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "You must... the... if I understand, you're saying the law requires you to do what is obviously not doable, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1440.014], "stop_times": [1447.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1440.014}, "reply_to": "20087__0_103", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__0_105", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Yes.\nThat is the way the it has developed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1447.347, 1447.608], "stop_times": [1447.608, 1448.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1447.347}, "reply_to": "20087__0_104", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_106", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "The law requires a vain act.\nThere's a new proposition of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1448.349, 1449.758], "stop_times": [1449.758, 1451.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1448.349}, "reply_to": "20087__0_105", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__0_107", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "It's a unique aspect of abandonment law because in that case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1451.751], "stop_times": [1456.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1451.751}, "reply_to": "20087__0_106", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_108", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--It certainly is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1456.185], "stop_times": [1456.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1456.185}, "reply_to": "20087__0_107", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__0_109", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--In that case a salvager could come in and take that property and be entitled to a salvage award up to and including the full value of the vessel, and so it's possible under circum... I'm not saying it's likely in that case, but it's possible under the circumstances that by the nonaction or the disappearance of the owner of the vessel that you're talking about it could be abandoned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1456.425], "stop_times": [1478.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1456.425}, "reply_to": "20087__0_108", "speaker": "joseph_c_rusconi"}
{"id": "20087__0_110", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Rusconi.\nMr. Frederick, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1478.709, 1479.97], "stop_times": [1479.97, 1482.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1478.709}, "reply_to": "20087__0_109", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20087__1_000", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nAlthough we agree with petitioners that the courts below misconstrued the Abandoned Shipwreck Act, we disagree with them that the Eleventh Amendment applies because this is not a suit against the State.\nThe State was not a named party, and the coercive process of the Federal court is not necessary to dispossess State agents of property.\nThe filing of a claim by a State in an admiralty in rem action does not transform that into a suit commenced or prosecuted against the State within the meaning of the Eleventh Amendment.\nJust like in a bankruptcy proceeding, if a State is a creditor the filing of a claim by the State does not transform a bankruptcy action into a suit proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1482.692, 1486.656, 1497.164, 1507.028, 1517.877], "stop_times": [1486.656, 1497.164, 1507.028, 1517.877, 1529.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1482.692}, "reply_to": "20087__0_110", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20087__1_001", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Was this a case within the admiralty jurisdiction of the court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1529.244], "stop_times": [1533.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1529.244}, "reply_to": "20087__1_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20087__1_002", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "This one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1533.426], "stop_times": [1534.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1533.426}, "reply_to": "20087__1_001", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20087__1_003", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1534.397], "stop_times": [1534.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1534.397}, "reply_to": "20087__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20087__1_004", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1534.808], "stop_times": [1535.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1534.808}, "reply_to": "20087__1_003", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20087__1_005", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "And the ASA does not change that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1535.129], "stop_times": [1538.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1535.129}, "reply_to": "20087__1_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20087__1_006", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "No.\nThe ASA--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1538.441, 1539.54], "stop_times": [1539.54, 1541.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1538.441}, "reply_to": "20087__1_005", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20087__1_007", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "So cases under the ASA are within the admiralty jurisdiction of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1541.142], "stop_times": [1543.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1541.142}, "reply_to": "20087__1_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20087__1_008", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--No.\nWhat happens is in this case the process, the admiralty process brought this case, this vessel within the admiralty jurisdiction of the court.\nAt that point, when the court exercises in rem jurisdiction it has to decide among the competing claimants who owns what.\nThe Abandoned Shipwreck Act says that if the statutory requisites are met, the United States assumes title and transfers it to the State, and at that point the ASA divests the Federal court of admiralty jurisdiction with respect to that property that falls within the requisites of the Abandoned Shipwreck Act.\nSo at the initiation of the proceeding the court has admiralty jurisdiction, but if it is found that the ASA applies to a part of the wreck, or maybe the whole wreck, at that point the court no longer has admiralty jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1543.283, 1543.523, 1552.8, 1560.032, 1581.198], "stop_times": [1543.523, 1552.8, 1560.032, 1581.198, 1595.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1543.283}, "reply_to": "20087__1_007", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20087__1_009", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Does that mean the Eleventh Amendment objection of the State then becomes active, whereas... and a problem, whereas before we could have displaced it by saying that historically in rem admiralty jurisdiction is sufficient to bind the State, but once we're in... within the Federal question jurisdiction the State then makes the argument that the Eleventh Amendment sort of springs back into play?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1595.756], "stop_times": [1621.195], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1595.756}, "reply_to": "20087__1_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20087__1_010", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "That becomes a much more difficult proposition, Justice Kennedy, because what happens in practical effect is that once the State owns it by operation of the Abandoned Shipwreck Act there are other consequences that might flow from admiralty courts' orders, and it might be appropriate at that point for the State to say that the perpetuation and continuation of the suit is in effect an action against the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1621.195], "stop_times": [1648.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1621.195}, "reply_to": "20087__1_009", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20087__1_011", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Mr. Frederick, do you agree that if the... if this property were in the possession of the State that the Eleventh Amendment would prevent an in rem adjudication of title?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1648.0], "stop_times": [1657.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1648.0}, "reply_to": "20087__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20087__1_012", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Yes.\nThis Court's precedents historically with respect to foreign sovereigns, States, and the United States make clear that the immunity of the sovereign turns on whether its agents are in actual possession or custody of the property that's being adjudicated, and there were several practical reasons for that.\nThe first was that courts recognized that they could not issue coercive process against a sovereign's agents to dispossess those agents and create a conflict between the court and the sovereign's agents.\nThere was also the practical reality that if the property wasn't in the possession of the sovereign's agents it likely was not doing the sovereign's work, and so there was a recognition that, as Chief Justice Waite stated while riding on circuit, that the mere fact that a sovereign claims title to property doesn't make the property part of the sovereignty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1657.177, 1657.577, 1675.218, 1686.525], "stop_times": [1657.577, 1675.218, 1686.525, 1706.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1657.177}, "reply_to": "20087__1_011", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20087__1_013", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, under the Abandoned Shipwreck Act, if it applies, if the requirements are met, does that automatically then put the State in possession of the wreck?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1706.0], "stop_times": [1717.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1706.0}, "reply_to": "20087__1_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20087__1_014", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "No.\nNo, it does not.\nThey still have to have State agents who go on to the site and take possession, and it would depend upon the court's adjudication of that, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1717.747, 1718.478, 1719.717], "stop_times": [1718.478, 1719.717, 1728.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1717.747}, "reply_to": "20087__1_013", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20087__1_015", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Here, I gather they don't even know where it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1728.162], "stop_times": [1730.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1728.162}, "reply_to": "20087__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__1_016", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--That's correct, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1730.055], "stop_times": [1731.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1730.055}, "reply_to": "20087__1_015", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20087__1_017", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Do... is that true now?\nI mean, what has happened?\nIs this thing being explored now by the respondents, and are people going down on behalf of the respondents and recovering property?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1731.735, 1733.796, 1734.858], "stop_times": [1733.796, 1734.858, 1745.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1731.735}, "reply_to": "20087__1_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20087__1_018", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Yes, Justice O'Connor, I believe that is the case.\nWhat the court did in this case was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1745.663, 1747.866], "stop_times": [1747.866, 1749.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1745.663}, "reply_to": "20087__1_017", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20087__1_019", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "They're doing it at night in the dark?\nIs that... why doesn't the State know where these people are?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1749.808, 1750.639], "stop_times": [1750.639, 1753.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1749.808}, "reply_to": "20087__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__1_020", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Respondent's counsel is better positioned to know what its officials and representatives are doing than I am, but what the district court did here, Justice O'Connor, was to draw a circle basically and to say that the shipwreck is somewhere within that circle, and allow the salvage to proceed.\nBefore turning to abandonment I do want to address just one point, and that's the sovereignty interests of the State here in terms of regulatory authority.\nThe State did not appeal the district court's order with respect to an infringement upon its regulatory authority over salvage, so that question is not properly presented in the questions upon which this Court granted certiorari.\nMoreover, it's clear here that Federal interests might supplant State sovereignty interests if shipwrecks are in certain places.\nThere was... is an express preservation of rights in the Abandoned Shipwreck Act so that if the Brother Jonathan had sunk below the current site of the Golden Gate Bridge, for instance, and the Army Corps of Engineers needed to clear it out for navigation and national defense purposes, there would be no question that the United States could do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1753.701, 1770.992, 1778.006, 1789.872, 1799.359], "stop_times": [1770.992, 1778.006, 1789.872, 1799.359, 1815.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1753.701}, "reply_to": "20087__1_019", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20087__1_021", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Mr. Frederick, I'm just curious about where the Government saw the light, because you made a rather strong argument in the Ninth Circuit that the Eleventh Amendment does apply, and that... and now you've switched positions on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1815.841], "stop_times": [1829.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1815.841}, "reply_to": "20087__1_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20087__1_022", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, when the Court granted certiorari in this case we carefully examined the requisites of immunity and when immunity is appropriate in in rem actions, and the courts since the Treasure Salvors case have been in confusion over whether or not a colorable claim needs to be asserted.\nWe concluded that that is not a helpful way of analyzing an immunity question when the sovereign is not in actual possession of the property, because this Court's cases uniformly say that when the sovereign is not in possession the colorable claim analysis is really out of the equation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1829.309, 1847.151], "stop_times": [1847.151, 1864.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1829.309}, "reply_to": "20087__1_021", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20087__1_023", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "So you say Treasure Salvors was wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1864.553], "stop_times": [1867.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1864.553}, "reply_to": "20087__1_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20087__1_024", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "No.\nWhat we're saying is that Treasure Salvors is what Treasure Salvors is.\nThe State agents had possession of property there.\nThey do not here, and it is a much simpler case when State agents do not have possession of property that is subject to the in rem jurisdiction of the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1867.795, 1868.256, 1871.328, 1874.09], "stop_times": [1868.256, 1871.328, 1874.09, 1882.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1867.795}, "reply_to": "20087__1_023", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20087__1_025", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Mr. Alford, I--\n--no, please.\nWell, I'm trying to get him onto another subject.\nI'd like to get him onto--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1882.187, 1883.397, 1884.178, 1886.849], "stop_times": [1883.397, 1884.178, 1886.849, 1888.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1882.187}, "reply_to": "20087__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__1_026", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Yes, and I... may I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1888.12], "stop_times": [1889.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1888.12}, "reply_to": "20087__1_025", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20087__1_027", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Abandonment, which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1889.51], "stop_times": [1890.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1889.51}, "reply_to": "20087__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__1_028", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Yes, I would like to address abandonment, Justice Scalia.\nI think technology here has been used by the courts below to displace the inferences that might naturally be drawn by the passage of time.\nIt would be logical to infer that someone who did not have the technological capability to recapture property has in fact abandoned--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1890.532, 1891.871, 1899.357], "stop_times": [1891.871, 1899.357, 1908.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1890.532}, "reply_to": "20087__1_027", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20087__1_029", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Why?\nI thought that abandonment was a voluntary, I don't want this property any more.\nSuppose I drop a silver dollar down a grate, and I try to bring it up with a piece of gum on a stick, and I can't do it, and I shrug my shoulders and walk off because I have not gotten it, and then somebody comes up and lifts up the grate and gets my silver dollar.\nIs that his silver dollar?\nHave I abandoned it just because I could not get it?\nI still think it's my silver dollar.\nI haven't said, you know, I don't want it any more.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1908.213, 1908.694, 1914.138, 1929.916, 1931.288, 1934.31, 1936.14], "stop_times": [1908.694, 1914.138, 1929.916, 1931.288, 1934.31, 1936.14, 1938.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1908.213}, "reply_to": "20087__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__1_030", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Justice Scalia, if you waited 130 years without attempting--\n[Laughter]\n--to get your silver dollar, it might be appropriate to infer that you have abandoned it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1938.641, 1943.246, 1944.007], "stop_times": [1943.246, 1944.007, 1947.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1938.641}, "reply_to": "20087__1_029", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20087__1_031", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "You have the insurance companies who paid off the money and who are still in existence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1947.797], "stop_times": [1951.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1947.797}, "reply_to": "20087__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__1_032", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1951.131], "stop_times": [1951.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1951.131}, "reply_to": "20087__1_031", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20087__1_033", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "I don't see how 130 years makes any difference.\nIf abandonment requires a voluntary... a willing cessation of claim to ownership, it seems to me that is not demonstra... and that's why I always thought it was.\nThat is certainly not demonstrated by leaving a wreck where you cannot possibly bring it up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1951.541, 1953.702, 1964.41], "stop_times": [1953.702, 1964.41, 1969.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1951.541}, "reply_to": "20087__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__1_034", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Justice Scalia, in this case respondents don't even know that it was a silver dollar that they lost.\nThey purchased something from insurance companies who have no records of what property they insured aboard the shipwreck, so to use your analogy, they're searching for something in the grate, but they don't know what it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1969.102, 1974.355], "stop_times": [1974.355, 1986.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1969.102}, "reply_to": "20087__1_033", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20087__1_035", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, but that's a different issue as to whether... that's the issue of who owns it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1986.383], "stop_times": [1990.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1986.383}, "reply_to": "20087__1_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__1_036", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1990.336], "stop_times": [1991.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1990.336}, "reply_to": "20087__1_035", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20087__1_037", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "But not the issue of whether the person who owns it has abandoned it or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1991.077], "stop_times": [1994.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1991.077}, "reply_to": "20087__1_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__1_038", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "You have to know what property you own before you can know whether or not you did not abandon it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1994.961], "stop_times": [1999.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1994.961}, "reply_to": "20087__1_037", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20087__1_039", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "But your answer, your answer to Justice Scalia... because he's saying voluntary abandonment.\nYou're arguing for two things, voluntary abandonment or the passage of time.\nNow, you said 130 years, but apparently with his grate it's just 3 minutes, and you seem to make some... quite a lot of that, and I want to know what the standard is precisely.\nIs it the 2-year hurricane?\nIs it the 3 minutes at the grate?\nIs it 130 years?\nExactly, in your view, when does the passage of time, in and of itself, amount to an abandonment?\nWhat's the standard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [1999.933, 2004.765, 2009.309, 2017.374, 2019.214, 2021.187, 2022.117, 2028.591], "stop_times": [2004.765, 2009.309, 2017.374, 2019.214, 2021.187, 2022.117, 2028.591, 2029.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1999.933}, "reply_to": "20087__1_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20087__1_040", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Justice Breyer, I can't give you a firm time.\nIt's all based on the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2029.302, 2031.073], "stop_times": [2031.073, 2031.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2029.302}, "reply_to": "20087__1_039", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20087__1_041", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Give me a hint.\nWhat's the legal--\n[Laughter]\nWhat's the legal standard?\nWe'll have to write something.\nThere has to be something in words.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2031.924, 2032.265, 2034.124, 2034.235, 2035.266, 2036.247], "stop_times": [2032.265, 2034.124, 2034.235, 2035.266, 2036.247, 2037.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2031.924}, "reply_to": "20087__1_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20087__1_042", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--No.\nNo, you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2037.887, 2038.158], "stop_times": [2038.158, 2038.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2037.887}, "reply_to": "20087__1_041", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20087__1_043", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "What about lives in being plus 21 years?\nThat sounds pretty good.\n[Laughter]\nI don't think you need answer that question.\nMr. Alford.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2038.348, 2039.838, 2049.245, 2041.821, 2050.166], "stop_times": [2039.838, 2049.245, 2041.821, 2050.166, 2056.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2038.348}, "reply_to": "20087__1_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__2_000", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI think it's quite clear that this case is properly before the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal court.\nIndeed, the Federal admiralty court is the only court where such an action could have been brought.\nThis Court has consistently held that admiralty in rem actions against shipwrecked vessels are uniquely and exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and this Court has never held that a sovereign, simply by asserting the claim of ownership to the res in the possession of the court divests the court of its constitutionally mandated exclusive jurisdiction.\nRather, this... a long line of this Court's jurisprudence stands for the proposition that only where the property is within the actual physical possession of the sovereign is the action at that point deemed to be an action against the sovereign itself.\nWhere the property is not in the actual possession of the sovereign, the rule is that the case may go forward and the sovereign, if it wishes to do so, may enter into the suit and assert a claim and prove that claim just like any other claimant in the world.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2056.15, 2057.79, 2063.213, 2068.168, 2088.07, 2101.698], "stop_times": [2057.79, 2063.213, 2068.168, 2088.07, 2101.698, 2114.488], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2056.15}, "reply_to": "20087__1_043", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_001", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "You don't want to go the whole hog and say that in fact there simply is no Eleventh Amendment applicability to an admiralty in rem action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2114.488], "stop_times": [2122.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2114.488}, "reply_to": "20087__2_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20087__2_002", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Your Honor, I do not think that is consistent with this Court's cases, and I certainly don't think it's necessary to decide this case.\nI think it would be appropriate to decide this case on a narrower rule that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2122.351, 2128.956], "stop_times": [2128.956, 2132.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2122.351}, "reply_to": "20087__2_001", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_003", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "A possession rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2132.41], "stop_times": [2132.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2132.41}, "reply_to": "20087__2_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20087__2_004", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--A possession rule, that's right, Your Honor, and the possession rule has been applied not only to States but also to foreign sovereigns and to the Federal Government and, you know, the question is, why should any different rule apply to the States?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2132.91], "stop_times": [2144.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2132.91}, "reply_to": "20087__2_003", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_005", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "What does the possession rule mean, strictly speaking?\nSupposing there's a State marina with State water police boats in it, and there's an admiralty action brought against... to adjudicate title in one of those boats, but actually it isn't owned by the State, but it's in this State-owned marina.\nNow, would that be in the possession of the State, or does it have to be actually owned by the State?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2144.478, 2147.64, 2164.82], "stop_times": [2147.64, 2164.82, 2169.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2144.478}, "reply_to": "20087__2_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20087__2_006", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, I don't think possession and ownership necessarily have to be equated, Your Honor.\nI think, if I understand Your Honor's hypothetical correctly, this is a situation where a slip in a State-owned marina is leased to a private party.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2169.763, 2173.266], "stop_times": [2173.266, 2180.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2169.763}, "reply_to": "20087__2_005", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_007", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2180.341], "stop_times": [2180.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2180.341}, "reply_to": "20087__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20087__2_008", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Then certainly in that case the private party would be deemed to be the one in possession of the boat that is in the slip that it has leased from the Government, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2180.762], "stop_times": [2189.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2180.762}, "reply_to": "20087__2_007", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_009", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, can I just vary the Chief Justice's question a little?\nIt seems to me that under your rule it would be wise, if States want to get control of these abandoned vessels, or sunken vessels, as soon as they hear about it, send the local police out in the appropriate vessels and just take possession, and then let the litigation go forward.\nDoesn't this... doesn't your rule encourage States to use self help in these situations?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2189.896, 2193.679, 2208.258], "stop_times": [2193.679, 2208.258, 2214.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2189.896}, "reply_to": "20087__2_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20087__2_010", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, no, I don't think so.\nI think our rule encourages States to locate these wrecks if they want to exercise control over them, and I think that's certainly the purpose of the Abandoned Shipwreck also, which was to encourage States to locate these wrecks and, indeed, the Abandoned Shipwreck Act requires States to give public notice of the location of wrecks to which it claims title under the ASA, so I think this encourages States, if they really want to exercise dominion over these wrecks, to at least locate them.\nThat's a fundamental threshold issue, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2214.002, 2215.494, 2240.559], "stop_times": [2215.494, 2240.559, 2243.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2214.002}, "reply_to": "20087__2_009", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_011", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "But if they had located them, and had sent a diver down affixing a sign saying, claimed by the State, that would be enough for the possession rule, would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2243.13], "stop_times": [2253.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2243.13}, "reply_to": "20087__2_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20087__2_012", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I think so.\nIn the Navemar, for instance, in a foreign sovereign immunities context, this Court defined actual possession as some act of physical dominion or control, so at a threshold, certainly the State would need to know where the wreck is located.\nI mean, it's absurd to say that the State has possession of something and it doesn't even know where it's at, it can't find it, so that has to be a threshold issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2253.168, 2255.74, 2269.688], "stop_times": [2255.74, 2269.688, 2277.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2253.168}, "reply_to": "20087__2_011", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_013", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, maybe it doesn't have to send a diver down.\nIt could just go and drop a big rock.\nI mean, get right above it and drop a big rock that says the State owns this.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2277.114, 2278.456, 2280.056, 2283.088], "stop_times": [2278.456, 2280.056, 2283.088, 2283.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2277.114}, "reply_to": "20087__2_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__2_014", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, Your Honor, there has to be some act of physical dominion and control.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2283.86], "stop_times": [2288.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2283.86}, "reply_to": "20087__2_013", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_015", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, I mean, the rock hits the... it lands right on the deck.\n[Laughter]\nThat's physical.\nWhat about putting a buoy, as divers often do.\nYes.\nPutting a buoy on the surface, above where the wreck is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2288.511, 2291.193, 2291.543, 2292.655, 2294.665, 2294.975], "stop_times": [2291.193, 2291.543, 2292.655, 2294.665, 2294.975, 2299.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2288.511}, "reply_to": "20087__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__2_016", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Your Honor, I do think that would be sufficient.\nIf the State knew where the wreck was located and marked it as State property, I think that would be sufficient, but that is... it's undisputed that that has not happened here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2299.248, 2301.19], "stop_times": [2301.19, 2311.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2299.248}, "reply_to": "20087__2_015", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_017", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, you're not talking about possession, then.\nYou're just simply... an assertion of ownership.\nIs that the same thing as possession?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2311.107, 2312.567, 2315.73], "stop_times": [2312.567, 2315.73, 2316.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2311.107}, "reply_to": "20087__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__2_018", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nI think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2316.919, 2317.89], "stop_times": [2317.89, 2318.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2316.919}, "reply_to": "20087__2_017", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_019", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "I thought possession and an assertion of ownership are two different things.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2318.211], "stop_times": [2320.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2318.211}, "reply_to": "20087__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__2_020", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--They absolutely are, Your Honor, but taking physical... some act that shows physical dominion over the property I think is possession.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2320.462], "stop_times": [2329.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2320.462}, "reply_to": "20087__2_019", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_021", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, why would posting a buoy above it be an act of possession?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2329.408], "stop_times": [2333.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2329.408}, "reply_to": "20087__2_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20087__2_022", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, Your Honor, traditionally that's the way that it's indicated in the admiralty law with the case of sunken property.\nFor instance, a salvor, when it locates a shipwreck, often posts a buoy on the site and, in the traditional Federal admiralty law, when the court arrests sunken property it often puts a buoy on the site with the arrest papers on the buoy, so I think by analogy, if the State were to locate the wreck and mark the wreck with its sign in some way, then I think that would be possession.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2333.871, 2340.654], "stop_times": [2340.654, 2365.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2333.871}, "reply_to": "20087__2_021", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_023", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Are you going to talk about the abandonment issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2365.171], "stop_times": [2366.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2365.171}, "reply_to": "20087__2_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20087__2_024", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThe State and the Federal Government suggest that there's some dispute or uncertainty about the definition of abandonment.\nI disagree.\nI think abandonment is a fundamental, well-known concept in the common law.\nAs Justice Scalia noted, it has to be some type of voluntary relinquishment of ownership to property.\nIf it's not a voluntary relinquishment, then it's a taking, so there has to be some indication of a voluntary relinquishment of title.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2366.974, 2368.143, 2377.9, 2378.852, 2383.944, 2390.189], "stop_times": [2368.143, 2377.9, 2378.852, 2383.944, 2390.189, 2397.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2366.974}, "reply_to": "20087__2_023", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_025", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, can we infer a voluntary relinquishment simply on the basis of insufficient activity to pursue the claim?\nIn other words, I don't... I assume I don't have... one way to abandon would be to stand there and say, I wash my hands of it.\nI want nothing more to do with it.\nBut another way, I suppose, would be simply to do nothing for too long a period of time in which the relinquishment would be inferred.\nDo you agree there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2397.002, 2403.766, 2410.221, 2411.383, 2419.708], "stop_times": [2403.766, 2410.221, 2411.383, 2419.708, 2421.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2397.002}, "reply_to": "20087__2_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20087__2_026", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "I agree certainly, Your Honor, that abandonment can be inferred from the circumstances.\nI do not agree that simply the passage of time without any kind of notice would be sufficient.\nI think that would be a due process problem.\nI think it would also be a takings problem.\nFor instance, in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2421.04, 2425.04, 2431.104, 2432.546, 2434.186], "stop_times": [2425.04, 2431.104, 2432.546, 2434.186, 2436.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2421.04}, "reply_to": "20087__2_025", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_027", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "But you have it in your adverse possession all the time in real estate.\nIf somebody else gets on your land and stays there whatever the period of time is, you've lost it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2436.299, 2440.091], "stop_times": [2440.091, 2444.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2436.299}, "reply_to": "20087__2_026", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20087__2_028", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--That's true, Your Honor, but it's my understanding in those cases that the possession has to be open and notorious, such that it would give any claimant notice that another person is occupying the property, and that's certainly not the case here.\nI think there's a fundamental distinction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2444.695, 2457.472], "stop_times": [2457.472, 2459.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2444.695}, "reply_to": "20087__2_027", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_029", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, except you know you've lost something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2459.285], "stop_times": [2461.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2459.285}, "reply_to": "20087__2_028", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20087__2_030", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--You certainly know you've lost something, Your Honor, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2461.115], "stop_times": [2463.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2461.115}, "reply_to": "20087__2_029", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_031", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Under your rule, I... if there has to be some voluntary act relinquishing all claim of title, I suppose that no one would ever do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2463.936], "stop_times": [2473.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2463.936}, "reply_to": "20087__2_030", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20087__2_032", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2473.532], "stop_times": [2475.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2473.532}, "reply_to": "20087__2_031", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_033", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "You'd teach a child when you're 3 years old, don't ever abandon that dollar in the steam grate, because some day it might be yours.\nI'm not sure the law requires that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2475.132, 2479.998], "stop_times": [2479.998, 2482.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2475.132}, "reply_to": "20087__2_032", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20087__2_034", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--I agree with Your Honor.\nI do not think the law requires any kind of explicit act, and I think the lower courts did not interpret the law in that manner, but in any event, it requires some evidence of a voluntary relinquishment of ownership.\nIt doesn't require an explicit statement, but some evidence of intent on the part of the original owner to relinquish ownership.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2482.138, 2483.568, 2495.548], "stop_times": [2483.568, 2495.548, 2501.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2482.138}, "reply_to": "20087__2_033", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_035", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "What about the Park Service that they quote in the amicus brief?\nThe Park Service in the House report say that you could indicate that intent in one of two ways at least.\nThere may be others.\nBut one way is that you never assert any control and, of course, there they couldn't do it.\nThe technology wasn't there.\nAnd the other way was not otherwise indicating a claim, i.e., you didn't mark it.\nAnd I guess, suppose 100 years passes and nobody says anything.\nThey don't have to get a submarine, but they could at least announce, you know, put a buoy up or do something, and if they don't have to do anything like that, how would we ever decide these cases?\nThere could be a million heirs.\nYou know, there could be 10 million heirs from the year 1520, each of which owns a nickel's worth of gold.\nI mean, why don't you have to at least say that you want to keep it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2501.8, 2505.243, 2510.565, 2511.176, 2515.461, 2516.56, 2521.765, 2526.638, 2536.936, 2538.817, 2543.812], "stop_times": [2505.243, 2510.565, 2511.176, 2515.461, 2516.56, 2521.765, 2526.638, 2536.936, 2538.817, 2543.812, 2547.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2501.8}, "reply_to": "20087__2_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20087__2_036", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, Your Honor, there has to be some evidence that there is a relinquishment of ownership or, on the converse, there has to be some evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2547.144], "stop_times": [2554.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2547.144}, "reply_to": "20087__2_035", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_037", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "The evidence is, they never marked it.\nThe evidence is, 130 years passed, and not only didn't they go there, which is understandable, but they never even said to anybody, even in their annual report, or even passing it down by family tradition, or even putting up a buoy or a flag, they did none of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2554.517, 2557.018], "stop_times": [2557.018, 2570.987], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2554.517}, "reply_to": "20087__2_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20087__2_038", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, Your Honor, the problem is we don't know whether that's this case.\nWe simply don't know, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2570.987, 2574.089], "stop_times": [2574.089, 2575.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2570.987}, "reply_to": "20087__2_037", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_039", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, so far as the standard is concerned, are you... are we trying to find a subjective state of mind, or are we trying to determine what objectively is reasonable so far as ownership of ancient property?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2575.912], "stop_times": [2587.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2575.912}, "reply_to": "20087__2_038", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20087__2_040", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I think it's part of both.\nI think there has to be some subjective intent to relinquish ownership, but it certainly can be proven by objective factors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2587.51, 2590.17], "stop_times": [2590.17, 2597.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2587.51}, "reply_to": "20087__2_039", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_041", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, subjective, I'm never sure... I'm not sure you're ever going to be able to show it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2597.704], "stop_times": [2601.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2597.704}, "reply_to": "20087__2_040", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20087__2_042", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "I think you can, Your Honor.\nI think it would be appropriate in certain circumstances to infer from all the facts that the original owner had an intent to abandon the property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2601.758, 2605.041], "stop_times": [2605.041, 2613.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2601.758}, "reply_to": "20087__2_041", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_043", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "You don't mean subjective.\nYou wouldn't really insist that if I had a secret subjective intent not to abandon ownership, but I... all my actions suggest the contrary, that I have an abandonment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2613.556, 2614.688], "stop_times": [2614.688, 2623.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2613.556}, "reply_to": "20087__2_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__2_044", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I think the fundamental issue is, is the owner's intent, but certainly the court can look to objective factors and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2623.553], "stop_times": [2629.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2623.553}, "reply_to": "20087__2_043", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_045", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "So your answer to my question is yes.\nIf I have a secret intent, and I even... I put a sign on it that says, I don't own this any more.\nI don't care about it.\nI have a sign on it.\nBut deep in my heart, I really do care.\n[Laughter]\nMy real intent is that I... you wouldn't say that, would you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2629.658, 2630.816, 2635.32, 2636.029, 2636.851, 2639.082, 2639.422], "stop_times": [2630.816, 2635.32, 2636.029, 2636.851, 2639.082, 2639.422, 2643.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2629.658}, "reply_to": "20087__2_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__2_046", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2643.385], "stop_times": [2643.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2643.385}, "reply_to": "20087__2_045", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_047", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Of course not.\nSo it isn't the subjective intent that matters.\nIt's the objective manifestations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2643.896, 2644.547, 2646.307], "stop_times": [2644.547, 2646.307, 2648.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2643.896}, "reply_to": "20087__2_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__2_048", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "That's right.\nI think it's the objective manifestations of a subjective intent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2648.118, 2649.48], "stop_times": [2649.48, 2652.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2648.118}, "reply_to": "20087__2_047", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_049", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, but that's exactly contrary to the--\n[Laughter]\nIf you say that the objective manifestations are useful only as a basis from which one can infer subjective intent, you're saying that the basic criterion remains subjective intent.\nNow, in the light of Justice Scalia's withering example do you still--\nDo you still adhere to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2652.662, 2673.195, 2655.924, 2668.841, 2674.016], "stop_times": [2673.195, 2655.924, 2668.841, 2674.016, 2675.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2652.662}, "reply_to": "20087__2_048", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20087__2_050", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "If I understand Your Honor's question correctly, yes, I think it is... ultimately that subjective intent is the key issue, but it can be proven by objective factors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2675.326], "stop_times": [2684.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2675.326}, "reply_to": "20087__2_049", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_051", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, so here, whose intent do we look for?\nIs it the chief executive officer of the various insurance companies in the year 1868, or whenever it was that the Brother Jonathan went down?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2684.853, 2687.144], "stop_times": [2687.144, 2695.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2684.853}, "reply_to": "20087__2_050", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20087__2_052", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "I think it's that, Your Honor, but it's also more.\nIt's the present claimants, and I think that's one of the problems here.\nAt this early stage in the litigation I submit that the district court had no choice but to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2695.208, 2697.492, 2701.013], "stop_times": [2697.492, 2701.013, 2705.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2695.208}, "reply_to": "20087__2_051", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_053", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, the present claimants claim only by virtue of an assignment from the insurance company, don't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2705.767], "stop_times": [2711.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2705.767}, "reply_to": "20087__2_052", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20087__2_054", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--No.\nThere are other claims as well, Your Honor.\nFor instance, the United States claims that it had original title to the property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2711.189, 2711.7, 2712.849], "stop_times": [2711.7, 2712.849, 2717.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2711.189}, "reply_to": "20087__2_053", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_055", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Yes, but don't your clients, or at least some of them, claim by virtue of assignment from the insurance company?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2717.033], "stop_times": [2722.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2717.033}, "reply_to": "20087__2_054", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20087__2_056", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nThey also have a salvage claim which is not an ownership claim--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2722.747, 2723.398], "stop_times": [2723.398, 2726.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2722.747}, "reply_to": "20087__2_055", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_057", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Yes, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2726.392], "stop_times": [2727.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2726.392}, "reply_to": "20087__2_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20087__2_058", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--but it's a claim based on Federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2727.602], "stop_times": [2727.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2727.602}, "reply_to": "20087__2_057", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_059", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--let's analyze the claim that you get by assignment from the insurance company.\nIs it the intent of some person or persons at the insurance company in 1868 that we look for?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2727.963, 2732.404], "stop_times": [2732.404, 2740.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2727.963}, "reply_to": "20087__2_058", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20087__2_060", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "I think it's the intent of the company as a whole, Your Honor, and I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2740.031], "stop_times": [2742.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2740.031}, "reply_to": "20087__2_059", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_061", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "And how do we find that out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2742.943], "stop_times": [2743.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2742.943}, "reply_to": "20087__2_060", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20087__2_062", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Factors that the court can consider... well, I think it would be inappropriate for the Court to constrain the district court's discretion in this regard, but, for example, factors the district court might consider are whether the insurance company's ever made any effort to locate the vessel--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2743.704], "stop_times": [2756.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2743.704}, "reply_to": "20087__2_061", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_063", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, now we're talking about objective factors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2756.99], "stop_times": [2758.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2756.99}, "reply_to": "20087__2_062", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20087__2_064", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2758.723], "stop_times": [2759.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2758.723}, "reply_to": "20087__2_063", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_065", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "But you say the subjective intent we're looking for is the,\n\"the intent of the company as a whole? \"", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2759.291, 2763.075], "stop_times": [2763.075, 2765.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2759.291}, "reply_to": "20087__2_064", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20087__2_066", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, but as evidenced by objective factors, and I think the objective factors in this case, for instance, could include whether the company ever made any effort to locate the vessel, whether they... whether it was technologically feasible for them to locate the vessel, whether they wrote it off as a loss on their books--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2765.729], "stop_times": [2781.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2765.729}, "reply_to": "20087__2_065", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_067", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "It seems to me we can almost take judicial notice that no one, especially an insurance company, ever wants to give up claim of ownership to anything it might have.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2781.568, 2788.272], "stop_times": [2788.272, 2790.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2781.568}, "reply_to": "20087__2_066", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20087__2_068", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I assume that's true, but again I think there's a fundamental distinction here between property that's lost and property that is abandoned, and property that's lost is not necessarily abandoned.\nThere's no doubt this wreck was lost to the original owners, but the question is, has it been abandoned by them, and I think Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2790.443, 2801.591], "stop_times": [2801.591, 2806.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2790.443}, "reply_to": "20087__2_067", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_069", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well now, let's talk specifically about the property here.\nThe ship contained considerable property.\nOnly part of it was property that was covered by insurance, I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2806.805, 2812.089, 2818.663], "stop_times": [2812.089, 2818.663, 2824.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2806.805}, "reply_to": "20087__2_068", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20087__2_070", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.\nThat was indicated in one newspaper article, but that's another problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2824.738, 2826.256], "stop_times": [2826.256, 2829.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2824.738}, "reply_to": "20087__2_069", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_071", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "And so do we look at specific pieces of property to determine whether that property has been abandoned, or do we treat it as a whole somehow?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2829.779], "stop_times": [2841.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2829.779}, "reply_to": "20087__2_070", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20087__2_072", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Your Honor, I think it has to be treated as a whole, particularly under the ASA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2841.367], "stop_times": [2844.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2841.367}, "reply_to": "20087__2_071", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_073", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Why?\nI mean, I would think if you have cargo, discrete cargo and it was different types of things... you were carrying gold bullion that belonged to the United States, and you were carrying something else of value that belonged to other people... conceivably you might have some of it abandoned and others not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2844.65, 2844.79], "stop_times": [2844.79, 2863.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2844.65}, "reply_to": "20087__2_072", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20087__2_074", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Your Honor, under the Abandoned Shipwreck Act, section 2102(e), I believe, of the act, it defines a shipwreck as\n\"a vessel or wreck, its cargo and other contents. \"\nA single, unified entity.\nIt doesn't parse the wreck up into separate pieces.\nIt says that a shipwreck is a single thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2863.7, 2871.227, 2875.971, 2877.993, 2881.114], "stop_times": [2871.227, 2875.971, 2877.993, 2881.114, 2883.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2863.7}, "reply_to": "20087__2_073", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_075", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, which way do you treat it?\nYou say you treat it as a unit.\nDoes that mean if some of it is not abandoned, all of it is not abandoned, or does it mean that if some of it is abandoned, all of it is abandoned?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2883.075, 2884.156, 2885.288], "stop_times": [2884.156, 2885.288, 2892.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2883.075}, "reply_to": "20087__2_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__2_076", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Your Honor, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2892.971], "stop_times": [2894.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2892.971}, "reply_to": "20087__2_075", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_077", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Is there any reason to pick one rather than the other?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2894.694], "stop_times": [2896.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2894.694}, "reply_to": "20087__2_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__2_078", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Well, there is, Your Honor, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2896.304], "stop_times": [2897.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2896.304}, "reply_to": "20087__2_077", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_079", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "What's that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2897.486], "stop_times": [2897.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2897.486}, "reply_to": "20087__2_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__2_080", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Because if the court finds that because part of the property was abandoned the entire property is abandoned, then you certainly have a takings problem, particularly in a context like this, where no notice was given to particular claimants.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2897.884], "stop_times": [2910.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2897.884}, "reply_to": "20087__2_079", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_081", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2910.293], "stop_times": [2911.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2910.293}, "reply_to": "20087__2_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__2_082", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "That's why it was essential for the district court to find at this stage that the wreck was not abandoned, because there was no notice to potential claimants.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2911.124], "stop_times": [2920.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2911.124}, "reply_to": "20087__2_081", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_083", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Was that a preliminary finding of some kind?\nI thought the district court didn't really resolve that issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2920.451, 2923.014], "stop_times": [2923.014, 2926.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2920.451}, "reply_to": "20087__2_082", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20087__2_084", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nThe district court found that it was convinced the wreck was not abandoned, but it was not prepared to say that specific items of property either were or were not abandoned, because again the court stressed that notice had not been given to potential claimants, and that once notice had been given to the world by publication, claimants might continue to come forward.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2926.468, 2927.416], "stop_times": [2927.416, 2946.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2926.468}, "reply_to": "20087__2_083", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_085", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "How do you read the Ninth Circuit opinion on the abandonment issue?\nDid it go further than the district court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2946.86, 2950.701], "stop_times": [2950.701, 2952.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2946.86}, "reply_to": "20087__2_084", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20087__2_086", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "I don't think the Ninth Circuit did, Your Honor.\nI think the Ninth Circuit simply affirmed the district court's finding that at that stage of the litigation the district court could not say that the wreck was abandoned because no notice had been given to any potential claimants.\nAnd in fact the district court's judgment in this regard has been validated, because potential claimants have continued to come forward since publication of the notice, and it would have been entirely premature at that stage of the litigation for the district court to say that the property was abandoned and therefore cut off all potential claimants.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2952.553, 2954.114, 2965.411], "stop_times": [2954.114, 2965.411, 2981.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2952.553}, "reply_to": "20087__2_085", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_087", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "May I ask you, under your view of abandonment, was the gold in the hull of the ship that was involved in the Treasure Salvors case abandoned by the Spanish?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2981.213], "stop_times": [2991.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2981.213}, "reply_to": "20087__2_086", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20087__2_088", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Your Honor, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2991.009], "stop_times": [2993.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2991.009}, "reply_to": "20087__2_087", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_089", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "There's no evidence of affirmative, you know, voluntary relinquishment of interest in all that money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2993.4], "stop_times": [2998.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2993.4}, "reply_to": "20087__2_088", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20087__2_090", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Right.\nI don't completely know the facts of that case, but as I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [2998.112, 2998.603], "stop_times": [2998.603, 3001.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2998.112}, "reply_to": "20087__2_089", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_091", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, let me give them to you, then.\nA ship is found that went down in 14 or 1500, somewhere back... loaded with gold that everybody knew belonged to Spain at the time the ship went down.\nWas it abandoned, or not?\nThat's all you know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3001.705, 3002.416, 3009.991, 3011.413], "stop_times": [3002.416, 3009.991, 3011.413, 3012.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3001.705}, "reply_to": "20087__2_090", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20087__2_092", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--I believe so, Your Honor, because it's my understanding the Government did not come forward after notice in that case.\nIn other words--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3012.164, 3016.755], "stop_times": [3016.755, 3017.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3012.164}, "reply_to": "20087__2_091", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_093", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "The abandonment took place after the finding of the vessel, then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3017.727], "stop_times": [3020.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3017.727}, "reply_to": "20087__2_092", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20087__2_094", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Well, the finding of abandonment was appropriate once the court issued notice to the public and no claimants came forward.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3020.95], "stop_times": [3027.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3020.95}, "reply_to": "20087__2_093", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_095", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "No, but I don't... the word finding was bad.\nThe time the abandonment occurred was after the discovery of the vessel.\nIs that your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3027.401, 3028.643, 3033.565], "stop_times": [3028.643, 3033.565, 3034.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3027.401}, "reply_to": "20087__2_094", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20087__2_096", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "I don't know the answer to that question, Your Honor.\nI'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3034.136, 3037.138], "stop_times": [3037.138, 3037.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3034.136}, "reply_to": "20087__2_095", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_097", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "It seems to me it's precisely the same situation we have here, except instead of Spanish gold it's American dollars.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3037.508], "stop_times": [3042.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3037.508}, "reply_to": "20087__2_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20087__2_098", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, the critical difference, Your Honor, is that in Treasure Salvors notice was given to the public and no one came forward claiming ownership.\nThat is perhaps--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3042.662, 3048.896], "stop_times": [3048.896, 3049.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3042.662}, "reply_to": "20087__2_097", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_099", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "But that's almost a default type of thing rather than abandonment, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3049.637], "stop_times": [3053.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3049.637}, "reply_to": "20087__2_098", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20087__2_100", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3053.298], "stop_times": [3054.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3053.298}, "reply_to": "20087__2_099", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_101", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Default of judicial proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3054.569], "stop_times": [3056.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3054.569}, "reply_to": "20087__2_100", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20087__2_102", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--That's true, Your Honor.\nI think that abandonment could be found by default in that circumstance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3056.511, 3058.073], "stop_times": [3058.073, 3061.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3056.511}, "reply_to": "20087__2_101", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_103", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, no.\nI'm suggesting that you can have a concept of default in a judicial proceeding, failure to appear and assert a claim, that may have nothing to do with historical abandonment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3061.105, 3061.535], "stop_times": [3061.535, 3072.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3061.105}, "reply_to": "20087__2_102", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20087__2_104", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, but I think the issues are related in at least one respect and that is, in a sense, if notice was given to the public and no one comes forward claiming the property, that is, I think, powerful evidence that the property is abandoned.\nIt's not only a legal default, but I think it also goes to evidence of intent to relinquish ownership of the property.\nNo one's come forward to claim it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3072.261, 3085.53, 3090.674], "stop_times": [3085.53, 3090.674, 3091.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3072.261}, "reply_to": "20087__2_103", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_105", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "But if we have a rule like the Ninth Circuit rule, which is bothering me, what we do about the Ninth Circuit's statement?\nTheir statement seems to be that if a long time passes, hundreds of years, and nobody does anything, it's not abandoned.\nNow, if that's the rule, then I guess once we announce it you won't have problems with people coming forward.\nMaybe I have a claim.\nWho knows?\nThere may be thousands of people who have little bits of claims, and they'll all come forward.\nWhy do we think any bit of this was abandoned?\nAnd so why do we think there's parts that wasn't abandoned?\nThey just don't know they have a right to it yet, but they'll know.\nNow, my question is, am I right in that worry, and if so, what do you think we should do about it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3091.713, 3098.438, 3107.944, 3115.839, 3117.251, 3118.821, 3123.185, 3126.127, 3128.858, 3131.74], "stop_times": [3098.438, 3107.944, 3115.839, 3117.251, 3118.821, 3123.185, 3126.127, 3128.858, 3131.74, 3139.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3091.713}, "reply_to": "20087__2_104", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20087__2_106", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "No, Your Honor, I do not think you're right in that worry.\nAgain, claimants have to come forward and prove their claims.\nIt's not enough for them to come forward and say, I understand that property is never abandoned, therefore I own a piece of it.\nThey would be required to prove that they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3139.105, 3141.926, 3145.338, 3149.992], "stop_times": [3141.926, 3145.338, 3149.992, 3151.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3139.105}, "reply_to": "20087__2_105", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_107", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "No, no, somebody's great-great-grandmother had some cargo and she left a will, and those things can be traced.\nI overstated hundreds.\nIt's only 130, 135 years ago, whatever, and those things can be traced through wills and so forth.\nIt's those thousands of people now, perhaps divided as property passed intestate.\nIt's those, not millions of people but hundreds or thousands that might come forward.\nThat's my worry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3151.893, 3158.768, 3159.888, 3166.773, 3172.006, 3177.45], "stop_times": [3158.768, 3159.888, 3166.773, 3172.006, 3177.45, 3178.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3151.893}, "reply_to": "20087__2_106", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20087__2_108", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I think the passage of time in itself, without anything more, is not sufficient to infer abandonment where claimants actually come forward.\nThe loss should not start with a presumption that the property is abandoned.\nCalifornia speaks in its brief about a presumption of abandonment.\nThere's absolutely no authority for that position.\nI think that if claimants come forward they ought to be allowed to prove their claim, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3178.241, 3188.048, 3191.801, 3194.974, 3196.724], "stop_times": [3188.048, 3191.801, 3194.974, 3196.724, 3201.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3178.241}, "reply_to": "20087__2_107", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_109", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "That's consistent with what I take it to be your answer to Justice Stevens.\nI just infer this, that if the Spanish Government had come forward that would have been sufficient, even though they had done nothing for 500 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3201.047, 3203.879], "stop_times": [3203.879, 3212.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3201.047}, "reply_to": "20087__2_108", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20087__2_110", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3212.484], "stop_times": [3213.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3212.484}, "reply_to": "20087__2_109", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_111", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "And that seems to me a very extraordinary position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3213.834], "stop_times": [3216.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3213.834}, "reply_to": "20087__2_110", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20087__2_112", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThe fact that they simply come forward is not enough in itself to prove not abandoned... nonabandonment.\nMy point, however, inartfully made, perhaps, was that before we even give notice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3216.656, 3217.768, 3223.331], "stop_times": [3217.768, 3223.331, 3228.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3216.656}, "reply_to": "20087__2_111", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_113", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Would it be fair to say that it's your point that the Spanish are not foreclosed unless it has been shown that they affirmatively took some act to abandon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3228.486], "stop_times": [3239.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3228.486}, "reply_to": "20087__2_112", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20087__2_114", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nI don't think abandonment needs to be proven by some affirmative act.\nIt can be proven by inference from the circumstances, and that was certainly recognized by the lower courts here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3239.515, 3240.106, 3242.958], "stop_times": [3240.106, 3242.958, 3247.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3239.515}, "reply_to": "20087__2_113", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_115", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Now, if, in fact, this shipwreck was abandoned, if at the bottom line that's the finding, then your clients are just out, I take it.\nThey get no salvage rights because the Federal act eliminates that.\nThey get no finder's law, because it eliminates that.\nThey're just out.\nThey will have done all of this work, made all of this effort, and they will get nothing.\nIs that the bottom line if the wreck is determined to be abandoned?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3247.379, 3257.867, 3261.758, 3266.613, 3267.692, 3273.466], "stop_times": [3257.867, 3261.758, 3266.613, 3267.692, 3273.466, 3279.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3247.379}, "reply_to": "20087__2_114", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20087__2_116", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "That's exactly correct, Your Honor, because of the operation of the Abandoned Shipwreck Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3279.831], "stop_times": [3282.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3279.831}, "reply_to": "20087__2_115", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_117", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "May I ask just one other question?\nOr, I guess, two parts to this.\nOne, is it perfectly clear that the term abandoned in this statute has the same meaning it had at admiralty law before the statute was enacted?\nThat's my first question.\nMy second question is, is it not likely that Congress assumed that this statute would apply to a lot of sunken vessels, and if we adopt your view of abandonment, it won't apply to any?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3282.512, 3283.844, 3285.314, 3293.31, 3294.159], "stop_times": [3283.844, 3285.314, 3293.31, 3294.159, 3304.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3282.512}, "reply_to": "20087__2_116", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20087__2_118", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, Your Honor, on the first question, I think we have to start from the presumption that Congress did not intend to change the fundamental concept of abandonment that has been applied for years both in the common law and in the general maritime law, and indeed that Congress is not free to define abandonment in some way other than as a voluntary process, and there's no evidence, certainly, in the legislative record that Congress intended to depart from the traditional standard of abandonment.\nCertainly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3304.016, 3330.674], "stop_times": [3330.674, 3332.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3304.016}, "reply_to": "20087__2_117", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_119", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "But there is evidence that they thought the statute would apply to a large number of vessels.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3332.073], "stop_times": [3335.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3332.073}, "reply_to": "20087__2_118", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20087__2_120", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3335.266], "stop_times": [3336.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3335.266}, "reply_to": "20087__2_119", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_121", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "And I don't think, under your view, it would apply to any.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3336.287], "stop_times": [3338.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3336.287}, "reply_to": "20087__2_120", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20087__2_122", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, I respectfully disagree, Your Honor.\nAgain, if no claimants come forward, then certainly the court would be justified in finding, both as a matter of default and as a matter of evidence, that the property is abandoned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3338.869, 3341.31], "stop_times": [3341.31, 3350.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3338.869}, "reply_to": "20087__2_121", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_123", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "But that's the line that you draw... for example, the United States.\nThe United States didn't do anything to get the gold.\nAll it did was, when it found out it was there, it filed a claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3350.816, 3353.429, 3355.492], "stop_times": [3353.429, 3355.492, 3358.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3350.816}, "reply_to": "20087__2_122", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20087__2_124", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, we don't know yet, Your Honor, and that's the problem.\nThat's the essential feature here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3358.892, 3361.495], "stop_times": [3361.495, 3363.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3358.892}, "reply_to": "20087__2_123", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_125", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "But suppose that's the case.\nSuppose the United States was just sitting there doing nothing about this, thinking that ship would never be found, but the moment it was found, put in a claim, would you say that the United States, because it had done absolutely nothing, is not claiming that it's done anything... it abandoned it because it didn't step forward until someone else found the vessel, and then it said, we have stuff on it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3363.206, 3364.395], "stop_times": [3364.395, 3385.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3363.206}, "reply_to": "20087__2_124", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20087__2_126", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Your Honor, an inference of abandonment might well be appropriate in those circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3385.679], "stop_times": [3389.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3385.679}, "reply_to": "20087__2_125", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_127", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, not against a sovereign.\nSovereigns have covered this, haven't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3389.061, 3390.053], "stop_times": [3390.053, 3392.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3389.061}, "reply_to": "20087__2_126", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__2_128", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, that's true.\nThe United States says that it has--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3392.575, 3392.926], "stop_times": [3392.926, 3394.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3392.575}, "reply_to": "20087__2_127", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_129", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Abandonment never applies against a sovereign.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3394.138], "stop_times": [3396.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3394.138}, "reply_to": "20087__2_128", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__2_130", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--That's right, but barring that, that complication, I think an inference of abandonment would be appropriate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3396.118], "stop_times": [3401.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3396.118}, "reply_to": "20087__2_129", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_131", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "The United States might well be on the other side of this issue if there were not that convenient rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3401.373], "stop_times": [3404.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3401.373}, "reply_to": "20087__2_130", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20087__2_132", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3404.155, 3405.544], "stop_times": [3405.544, 3405.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3404.155}, "reply_to": "20087__2_131", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_133", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "But you say it's all or nothing, that the fact that the Federal Government hasn't abandoned the gold under legal theory means nothing, because we're going to look at this as one unit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3405.955], "stop_times": [3417.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3405.955}, "reply_to": "20087__2_132", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20087__2_134", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3417.402], "stop_times": [3418.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3417.402}, "reply_to": "20087__2_133", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_135", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "And it's just too bad for the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3418.243], "stop_times": [3420.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3418.243}, "reply_to": "20087__2_134", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20087__2_136", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--No, to the contrary, Your Honor, the United States claim is preserved.\nThey have a claim here, and they are certainly capable of proving that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3420.834, 3424.388], "stop_times": [3424.388, 3428.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3420.834}, "reply_to": "20087__2_135", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_137", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "But your position was that it can't... it isn't severable, that the abandonment is of the wreck and all it's contents, or nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3428.579], "stop_times": [3434.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3428.579}, "reply_to": "20087__2_136", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20087__2_138", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Well, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3434.723], "stop_times": [3435.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3434.723}, "reply_to": "20087__2_137", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_139", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "It's all or nothing.\nThat was what you told me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3435.514, 3436.085], "stop_times": [3436.085, 3437.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3435.514}, "reply_to": "20087__2_138", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20087__2_140", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "It's all or nothing if one--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3437.174], "stop_times": [3438.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3437.174}, "reply_to": "20087__2_139", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_141", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Can't parcel it out.\nCan't determine that the gold bars belong to the Federal Government and it's still theirs.\nCan't do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3438.937, 3439.668, 3444.34], "stop_times": [3439.668, 3444.34, 3444.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3438.937}, "reply_to": "20087__2_140", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20087__2_142", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "--Your Honor, I partly agree with that, and I say partly because it would be inappropriate for this Court to say that because part of the property on the wreck is abandoned the whole thing is abandoned.\nThat would constitute a relinquishment of the rights of the owners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3444.991, 3454.747], "stop_times": [3454.747, 3458.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3444.991}, "reply_to": "20087__2_141", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_143", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Alford.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3458.439], "stop_times": [3459.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3458.439}, "reply_to": "20087__2_142", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20087__2_144", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3459.605], "stop_times": [3460.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3459.605}, "reply_to": "20087__2_143", "speaker": "fletcher_c_alford"}
{"id": "20087__2_145", "conversation_id": "20087", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1400", "start_times": [3460.005], "stop_times": [3461.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3460.005}, "reply_to": "20087__2_144", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20599__0_000", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 96-1584, Terry Campbell v. Louisiana.\nMr. Burnes, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [0.0, 7.998], "stop_times": [7.998, 48.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20599__0_001", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--\nPetitioner Terry Campbell has been improperly denied standing to raise the equal protection, due process, and Sixth Amendment fair crosssection objections to the grand jury which indicted him.\nDespite the acknowledged and undisputed de facto racial discrimination practiced against African Americans in Evangeline Parish, petitioner was denied the opportunity to object solely because he is white.\nThe case is about race, and the case is about racial discrimination.\nThe case is about petitioner's equal protection, due process, and Sixth Amendment claims.\nThe case is not about gender, retroactive application to other cases, or overturning Hobby.\nThe facts in the case are simple and undisputed.\nNumber 1, African Americans were not being selected as grand jury forepersons and number 2, petitioner was prevented from objecting to number 1 solely because he is white.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [48.231, 51.151, 62.147, 75.688, 79.734, 84.904, 89.761, 93.135], "stop_times": [51.151, 62.147, 75.688, 79.734, 84.904, 89.761, 93.135, 103.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 48.231}, "reply_to": "20599__0_000", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_002", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Is it true that there's never been a nonwhite foreman in Evangeline County?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [103.069], "stop_times": [110.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 103.069}, "reply_to": "20599__0_001", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20599__0_003", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "I would not know past the evidence presented to the trial court.\nFor the period of evidence presented to the trial court there was never a black selected.\nI don't know historically, back through the Louisiana Purchase--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [110.206, 117.391, 122.498], "stop_times": [117.391, 122.498, 125.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 110.206}, "reply_to": "20599__0_002", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_004", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "But you're saying from the years... what time frame are we talking about that there has been no nonwhite?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [125.325], "stop_times": [132.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 125.325}, "reply_to": "20599__0_003", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20599__0_005", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--A 16-1/2 year time period during which generally there are supposed to be two grand juries selected each year.\nOne year I believe there was only one grand jury selected, so it was a string of 35 consecutive white grand jury forepersons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [132.745, 141.225], "stop_times": [141.225, 148.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 132.745}, "reply_to": "20599__0_004", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_006", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "There's a difference in the way the foreperson is selected in New Orleans, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [148.91], "stop_times": [159.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 148.91}, "reply_to": "20599__0_005", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20599__0_007", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "I believe there is, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [159.733], "stop_times": [161.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 159.733}, "reply_to": "20599__0_006", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_008", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Is the experience any different there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [161.186], "stop_times": [164.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 161.186}, "reply_to": "20599__0_007", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20599__0_009", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "I would not know that.\nI haven't looked into that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [164.825, 166.543], "stop_times": [166.543, 167.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 164.825}, "reply_to": "20599__0_008", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_010", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "So you don't know whether Evangeline County is unique in Louisiana or represents the general way things are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [167.918], "stop_times": [175.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 167.918}, "reply_to": "20599__0_009", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20599__0_011", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "I would say, Your Honor, that there have been cases brought up in a lot of the parishes in Louisiana, in Sabine Parish, I believe in Lafayette Parish and Lake Charles.\nI don't have a list of exactly which parishes, but I know that this has been brought up in a lot of the parishes there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [175.493, 185.302], "stop_times": [185.302, 190.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 175.493}, "reply_to": "20599__0_010", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_012", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--This same issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [190.784], "stop_times": [192.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 190.784}, "reply_to": "20599__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20599__0_013", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "The issue of nonselection of whites to the grand jury--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [192.846], "stop_times": [196.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 192.846}, "reply_to": "20599__0_012", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_014", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "So apparently other parishes are doing the same thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [196.906], "stop_times": [200.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 196.906}, "reply_to": "20599__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20599__0_015", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--To a greater or lesser extent, yes, sir.\nYes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [200.483, 203.466], "stop_times": [203.466, 204.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 200.483}, "reply_to": "20599__0_014", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_016", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Uhhuh.\nLet me ask you, since you're interrupted, how... you make a faircrosssectionofthejury claim with regard to the foreperson of the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [204.232, 204.763], "stop_times": [204.763, 218.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 204.232}, "reply_to": "20599__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20599__0_017", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.\nFair crosssection, Sixth Amendment fair crosssection claims, generally--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [218.367, 219.82], "stop_times": [219.82, 224.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 218.367}, "reply_to": "20599__0_016", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_018", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "How would that work in connection with a single person, a foreperson?\nHow would we apply a faircrosssection theory to that?\nI guess you have a couple of other theories, equal protection and due process, but it certainly isn't clear to me how a fair crosssection claim could be made out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [224.099, 229.19, 235.25], "stop_times": [229.19, 235.25, 245.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 224.099}, "reply_to": "20599__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20599__0_019", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--You're right, Your Honor, in prior courts... in prior cases this Court has found problems in applying fair crosssection to a single person.\nThe Court has concentrated on groups that the fair crosssection applies to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [245.246, 253.805], "stop_times": [253.805, 258.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 245.246}, "reply_to": "20599__0_018", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_020", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Right, so... but you're pursuing that claim, nonetheless.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [258.741], "stop_times": [260.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 258.741}, "reply_to": "20599__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20599__0_021", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Oh, yes, Your Honor, definitely.\nIn fact, there are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [260.788, 262.537], "stop_times": [262.537, 262.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 260.788}, "reply_to": "20599__0_020", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_022", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Well, would you like to justify it, since you're pursuing it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [262.897], "stop_times": [265.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 262.897}, "reply_to": "20599__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20599__0_023", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nIn fact, there are two groups that the fair crosssection claim can be focused upon.\nOne is a grand jury group as a whole.\nYou have a grand jury where 11 of them are chose randomly and fairly, we would submit, and then the twelfth member is chosen unfairly, always chosen as a white person.\nThat's going to distort that group.\nYou don't have the fair crosssection in the grand jury itself.\nBut even more importantly, the... if you look at the grand jury venire, the approximately 300 people called to court that day whose names are going to be drawn and placed on the grand jury, the judge gets to the point where he selects the grand jury foreman, and you no longer have the representative crosssection sitting up there.\nYou only have the white people sitting in the room that the judge selects from.\nThat effective grand jury venire--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [265.927, 266.818, 269.894, 272.393, 281.39, 283.031, 286.217, 304.473, 308.238], "stop_times": [266.818, 269.894, 272.393, 281.39, 283.031, 286.217, 304.473, 308.238, 311.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 265.927}, "reply_to": "20599__0_022", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_024", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "How does this work?\nThere are 300 people on the big venire that are called?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [311.002, 312.86], "stop_times": [312.86, 317.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 311.002}, "reply_to": "20599__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20599__0_025", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Your Honor, I'm not 100-percent sure about the number of 300.\nA large number of people are called, given summons to show up for jury duty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [317.313, 322.108], "stop_times": [322.108, 325.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 317.313}, "reply_to": "20599__0_024", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_026", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "And the judge selects someone from that large number to be the foreperson of the grand jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [325.902], "stop_times": [331.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 325.902}, "reply_to": "20599__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20599__0_027", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [331.572], "stop_times": [332.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 331.572}, "reply_to": "20599__0_026", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_028", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "And then subsequently the other members of the grand jury are selected at random by a clerk or something of that sort.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [332.697], "stop_times": [342.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 332.697}, "reply_to": "20599__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20599__0_029", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Your Honor, that's the way the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 413 reads.\nThe judge... I don't know that the code article specifically means that he has to make his selection before the other ones are chosen.\nWhen I looked through the minutes for the past 16-1/2 years, generally they seemed to indicate that the 12... the 11 were drawn at random and then the judge selected someone else sitting in there, and again occasionally minutes are entered very loosely or just from a form, so I don't know if that does mean he was first or second on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [342.77, 346.863, 354.437], "stop_times": [346.863, 354.437, 373.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 342.77}, "reply_to": "20599__0_028", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_030", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "What does the foreperson of a grand jury do in Louisiana?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [373.587], "stop_times": [377.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 373.587}, "reply_to": "20599__0_029", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20599__0_031", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Your Honor, that is pointed out in the State's brief at page 26.\nThe statutory provisions provide that the foreman shall preside over all hearings, may delegate duties to other grand jurors, and may determine rules or procedures.\nThis basically means that he leads the discussions, he decides when to vote, how to vote, and what to vote on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [377.132, 382.754, 393.14], "stop_times": [382.754, 393.14, 399.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 377.132}, "reply_to": "20599__0_030", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_032", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Can he cast a vote himself?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [399.186], "stop_times": [400.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 399.186}, "reply_to": "20599__0_031", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20599__0_033", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Oh, yes, he does.\nHe is one of the 12 voting members of the grand jury, and that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [400.42, 401.092], "stop_times": [401.092, 404.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 400.42}, "reply_to": "20599__0_032", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_034", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "And that was left out of the State's description of his powers at page 26.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [404.357], "stop_times": [409.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 404.357}, "reply_to": "20599__0_033", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20599__0_035", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--I don't think the State was trying to mislead.\nI think the State was at that point in 26 attempting to show some of the other powers of the grand jury foreman--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [409.509, 411.992], "stop_times": [411.992, 418.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 409.509}, "reply_to": "20599__0_034", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_036", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Well, it said it's ministerial, because he has some duties that might be called ministerial, but he's also a vote... or she is also a voting member.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [418.989], "stop_times": [426.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 418.989}, "reply_to": "20599__0_035", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20599__0_037", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--And that I believe is the very important fact in here.\nPetitioner Campbell takes the position that this... this Court has had previous cases saying you cannot pick a grand jury unfairly.\nHere, one voting member of the grand jury is picked unfairly.\nPetitioner Campbell has equal... has raised equal protection--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [426.472, 430.19, 438.436, 441.701], "stop_times": [430.19, 438.436, 441.701, 448.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 426.472}, "reply_to": "20599__0_036", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_038", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Is that different, then, from the situation in the Hobby case that we had?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [448.323], "stop_times": [453.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 448.323}, "reply_to": "20599__0_037", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20599__0_039", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--In the Hobby case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [453.32], "stop_times": [455.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 453.32}, "reply_to": "20599__0_038", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_040", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Where the Court said the grand jury foreman in that case had a ministerial role?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [455.555], "stop_times": [462.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 455.555}, "reply_to": "20599__0_039", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20599__0_041", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--The basic difference is, in the Hobby case a grand jury, the entire grand jury is selected in a fair manner and then that one person, the grand jury foreman, is given the job of doing the clerk duties for the grand jury, but the point is that whole grand jury was chosen in a fair manner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [462.661], "stop_times": [481.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 462.661}, "reply_to": "20599__0_040", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_042", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "But in Hobby how was the foreman chosen?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [481.388], "stop_times": [484.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 481.388}, "reply_to": "20599__0_041", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20599__0_043", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "I believe he was chosen by the judge, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [484.356], "stop_times": [486.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 484.356}, "reply_to": "20599__0_042", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_044", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Why is that different?\nWhy is that different from your case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [486.292, 487.682], "stop_times": [487.682, 490.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 486.292}, "reply_to": "20599__0_043", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20599__0_045", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "It's different because the judge is looking at the grand jury, the entire grand jury panel who was chosen in a fair fashion.\nIn Louisiana, 11/12ths of the grand jury is chosen in a fair fashion and then the grand jury foreman is chosen not from the panel but from the venire sitting out there, and that choice is made in a discriminatory fashion.\nThat choice is always made for a white grand jury foreperson.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [490.071, 495.804, 510.11], "stop_times": [495.804, 510.11, 513.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 490.071}, "reply_to": "20599__0_044", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_046", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "But in Hobby it was the same objection, wasn't it?\nThe foreman or foreperson was always white.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [513.39, 516.655], "stop_times": [516.655, 519.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 513.39}, "reply_to": "20599__0_045", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20599__0_047", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "The objection... yes, the objection was that the foreperson was always white.\nThe objection here is that the foreperson was always white, but here it's that the voting member was chosen in a discriminatory manner to sit on the grand jury.\nIn Hobby, there was no voting member chosen in a discriminatory fashion to sit on the grand jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [519.466, 523.308, 532.929], "stop_times": [523.308, 532.929, 538.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 519.466}, "reply_to": "20599__0_046", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_048", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "But a choice was just made in a discriminatory fashion by people already chosen.\nI mean, the discrimination is still there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [538.506, 542.956], "stop_times": [542.956, 545.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 538.506}, "reply_to": "20599__0_047", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20599__0_049", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Oh, there is a discrimination and at that point you would look to... and Hobby focused on what is the harm that is going to come from this.\nI don't think Hobby said there was never... the opinion in Hobby said there was never any discrimination.\nIt said there was.\nBut then when you stop and you look, you don't find a due process harm involved there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [545.19, 552.016, 555.999, 557.31], "stop_times": [552.016, 555.999, 557.31, 560.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 545.19}, "reply_to": "20599__0_048", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_050", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Well, Hobby focused on the remedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [560.872], "stop_times": [562.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 560.872}, "reply_to": "20599__0_049", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20599__0_051", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "On the remedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [562.526], "stop_times": [563.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 562.526}, "reply_to": "20599__0_050", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_052", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "And what do we have to look at here, just standing?\nWe're not concerned here today with remedy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [563.651, 566.729], "stop_times": [566.729, 571.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 563.651}, "reply_to": "20599__0_051", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20599__0_053", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Well, we would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [571.21], "stop_times": [572.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 571.21}, "reply_to": "20599__0_052", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_054", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--but just standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [572.179], "stop_times": [572.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 572.179}, "reply_to": "20599__0_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20599__0_055", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--We would submit that remedy is implicated and that standing is implicated.\nStanding was the issues cited, or the questions presented in the writ for petition.\nHowever, this Court's rules do say that all questions fairly subsumed are also included and here we have... if we were sitting now before the trial and it hadn't gone forward, this case... this Court would probably only be looking at standing, but the case has gone forward.\nPetitioner Campbell has been convicted and sentenced to a life sentence, simply because of the time delays of getting through the courts, so now--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [572.96, 577.598, 583.627, 599.355], "stop_times": [577.598, 583.627, 599.355, 606.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 572.96}, "reply_to": "20599__0_054", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_056", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Well, I thought that all... of the questions in the petition refer to whether your client has standing to raise the equal protection claim, the due process claim, and the fair crosssection claim.\nIt didn't occur to me that you intended to ask us to apply a remedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [606.665, 620.816], "stop_times": [620.816, 625.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 606.665}, "reply_to": "20599__0_055", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20599__0_057", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Your Honor, the questions do--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [625.642], "stop_times": [628.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 625.642}, "reply_to": "20599__0_056", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_058", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Other than to rule on the standing claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [628.656], "stop_times": [632.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 628.656}, "reply_to": "20599__0_057", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20599__0_059", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Your Honor, we do need to have rulings from this Court on standing.\nOnce this Court does rule on standing the question is, then what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [632.717, 636.637], "stop_times": [636.637, 640.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 632.717}, "reply_to": "20599__0_058", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_060", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Send it back, I assume.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [640.105], "stop_times": [642.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 640.105}, "reply_to": "20599__0_059", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20599__0_061", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Well, Your Honor, that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [642.354], "stop_times": [643.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 642.354}, "reply_to": "20599__0_060", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_062", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "If we were to determine there was standing on some or all of these matters.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [643.963], "stop_times": [648.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 643.963}, "reply_to": "20599__0_061", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20599__0_063", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Your Honor, that is one option open to this Court.\nAnother--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [648.712, 650.851], "stop_times": [650.851, 651.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 648.712}, "reply_to": "20599__0_062", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_064", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Mr. Burnes, going back from Peters v. Kiff on, in any case where this Court allowed someone to challenge as discriminatory the selection of the petit jury or the grand jury, in any one of those cases, has the result ever been anything other than the conviction got set aside?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [651.335], "stop_times": [671.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 651.335}, "reply_to": "20599__0_063", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20599__0_065", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Well, of course, the Hobby case, Your Honor, the conviction was not set aside.\nIn Rose v. Mitchell, a leading case in this area, the petitioner, this Court held that the petitioner failed to prove his prima facie case and did not set aside the conviction, so there are cases, there are times when this Court may find standing, may find a right, may even find a remedy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [671.826, 677.06], "stop_times": [677.06, 695.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 671.826}, "reply_to": "20599__0_064", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_066", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Might... conceivably in this case if standing were recognized the Court could say, but you haven't shown that there was, in fact, discrimination in the selection of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [695.942], "stop_times": [707.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 695.942}, "reply_to": "20599__0_065", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20599__0_067", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Conceivably the Court could take that opinion.\nHowever, the facts here are very clear.\nThey've never been disputed.\nThere are multiple places in the record where the judge repeatedly says, we all know what happened here.\nWe all know blacks haven't been chosen.\nAt the actual hearing on the motion to quash the judge allowed Mr. Campbell's thenattorney to present a prima facie case.\nHe then turned to the State and said, now let's here from you, what do you have to say to it, basically.\nThe State then only argued on standing, never made any rebuttal with respect to that prima facie case, even--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [707.735, 709.86, 712.406, 713.575, 720.729, 722.822, 733.551, 738.786], "stop_times": [709.86, 712.406, 713.575, 720.729, 722.822, 733.551, 738.786, 746.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 707.735}, "reply_to": "20599__0_066", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_068", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Mr. Burnes, if you wanted to bring that issue here you're obligated to put it in your question presented, I think, as Justice O'Connor has pointed out.\nYou have three subdivisions and every one of them is limited to standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [746.954, 755.731], "stop_times": [755.731, 760.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 746.954}, "reply_to": "20599__0_067", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20599__0_069", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--And again, Your Honor, those... the questions do raise the issue of standing, which has been a roadblock in this case.\nThis Court also has rules that any question is fairly derived... and I don't remember the exact statement, fairly derived from those questions, subsumed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [760.072, 767.336], "stop_times": [767.336, 777.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 760.072}, "reply_to": "20599__0_068", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_070", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Fairly subsumed, I think.\nI think that means that the general... that the language of the question includes something that perhaps is lesser, or... but it seems to me standing and remedy are two very distinct things.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [777.332, 777.754], "stop_times": [777.754, 789.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 777.332}, "reply_to": "20599__0_069", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20599__0_071", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Your Honor is correct, standing and remedy are distinct.\nIn this case, Mr. Campbell has been denied the standing on the equal protection claims, on the due process and Sixth Amendment fair crosssection claims.\nThis Court, if it rules that Mr. Campbell has standing on any or all of those, it is then faced with the question, does it go forward and say what the remedy in this case is, or does it not.\nWe believe that this case in the record shows that there has been evidence put on for the prima facie case.\nThe State's been offered a chance to rebut and has not.\nWe believe the case at this point is just turning on the remedy then.\nI would like to make it clear that Mr. Campbell has raised equal protection claims.\nThere's the bare, straightforward claim.\nWhy can I, Terry Campbell, a white man, be indicted by this illegal grand jury when a black man cannot?\nThat's the dominant feature of this case, and that's how it's really been viewed by most of Louisiana courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [789.718, 793.809, 804.571, 814.942, 822.453, 825.094, 829.748, 836.214, 837.369, 843.836], "stop_times": [793.809, 804.571, 814.942, 822.453, 825.094, 829.748, 836.214, 837.369, 843.836, 849.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 789.718}, "reply_to": "20599__0_070", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_072", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Now, in this case your client raised this... these claims all along--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [849.193], "stop_times": [857.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 849.193}, "reply_to": "20599__0_071", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20599__0_073", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [857.518], "stop_times": [858.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 857.518}, "reply_to": "20599__0_072", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_074", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--in the proceedings below.\nThere's no problem of waiver or anything of that kind.\nThese have been preserved, I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [858.096, 859.424, 862.985], "stop_times": [859.424, 862.985, 864.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 858.096}, "reply_to": "20599__0_073", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20599__0_075", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, and I haven't had a chance to say it yet, but the equal protection claim has that bare naive claim I just mentioned and also has the more sophisticated third party standing.\nIf you look in the appendix--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [864.671, 875.074], "stop_times": [875.074, 877.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 864.671}, "reply_to": "20599__0_074", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_076", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "I'm sorry, I didn't understand what you... has the bare what claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [877.275], "stop_times": [880.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 877.275}, "reply_to": "20599__0_075", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20599__0_077", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--The bare, or naive equal protection claim.\nWhy can I, a white man, be indicted by this illegal grand jury?\nThat's just a straightforward equal protection claim.\nWhy does a black man have protection from being indicted by this unconstitutionally selected grand jury but I, a white man, don't have protection from being indicted by this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [880.618, 883.366, 886.022, 888.286], "stop_times": [883.366, 886.022, 888.286, 896.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 880.618}, "reply_to": "20599__0_076", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_078", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Are you also raising... urging that the... Campbell has standing to raise the denial of equal protection to the nonwhite who might have been selected?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [896.97], "stop_times": [909.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 896.97}, "reply_to": "20599__0_077", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20599__0_079", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--That is correct, Your Honor.\nThat is the second part, the more sophisticated equal protection claim that comes under the Powers third party standing, that Mr. Campbell is in a position to adequately put forth their rights, all of the analysis that was in the Powers case, that he has a relationship with the excluded jurors, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [909.185, 910.794], "stop_times": [910.794, 928.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 909.185}, "reply_to": "20599__0_078", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_080", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "The first equal protection question is sort of... I mean, it's a very strange assertion of equal protection.\nWhy isn't a perfectly valid answer to that that, well, a black man could object to this... to this grand jury, but a black man couldn't have objected to a grand jury in which the foreman was always a black?\nThat's perfectly fair.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [928.738, 935.111, 954.401], "stop_times": [935.111, 954.401, 956.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 928.738}, "reply_to": "20599__0_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20599__0_081", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--In the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [956.79], "stop_times": [958.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 956.79}, "reply_to": "20599__0_080", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_082", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "It's almost gameplaying to say that this is an equal protection violation.\nIt's just a standing question, simple... simply put.\nDoes he have standing or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [958.96, 963.428, 966.849], "stop_times": [963.428, 966.849, 968.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 958.96}, "reply_to": "20599__0_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20599__0_083", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--It is a standing question, Your Honor, and that's the way the trial court and the supreme court of the State of Louisiana have ruled, is that Mr. Campbell did not have standing to raise--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [968.207], "stop_times": [977.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 968.207}, "reply_to": "20599__0_082", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_084", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Right, and it would be perfectly equal protection if Louisiana rules a black man has standing to challenge the exclusion of blacks, and a white man has standing to challenge the exclusion of whites, and neither one has a standing to challenge the opposite.\nWhat's unequal about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [977.063, 992.057], "stop_times": [992.057, 994.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 977.063}, "reply_to": "20599__0_083", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20599__0_085", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Well, the cases in the past, Your Honor, have held that, for instance in Batson, on a preemptory challenge, it doesn't matter whether the defendant is black or white.\nThey can object... they have a standing to object to the discrimination question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [994.197, 1004.739], "stop_times": [1004.739, 1008.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 994.197}, "reply_to": "20599__0_084", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_086", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "That's right.\nIt was ruled as a standing question.\nIt wasn't dressed up as an equal protection claim.\nI don't understand... I don't understand your equal protection claim, that's all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1008.799, 1009.049, 1010.253, 1012.892], "stop_times": [1009.049, 1010.253, 1012.892, 1017.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1008.799}, "reply_to": "20599__0_085", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20599__0_087", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Your Honor, I'm--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1017.953], "stop_times": [1020.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1017.953}, "reply_to": "20599__0_086", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_088", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "The standing question is right or wrong.\nIt doesn't become right or wrong because there's a denial of equal protection involved if you come out the other way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1020.109, 1021.624], "stop_times": [1021.624, 1026.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1020.109}, "reply_to": "20599__0_087", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20599__0_089", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Perhaps the reason I'm arguing this way is because the trial courts and the supreme court of the State of Louisiana have couched their rulings in terms of the fact that Mr. Campbell, you are a white man accused of killing a white man, therefore you don't have standing to raise this claim or that claim or the other claim, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1026.857], "stop_times": [1045.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1026.857}, "reply_to": "20599__0_088", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_090", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "That's either right or wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1045.114], "stop_times": [1047.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1045.114}, "reply_to": "20599__0_089", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20599__0_091", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--That... and I believe in this case Mr. Campbell has a right to raise the equal protection claim.\nPart of the reason I'm arguing this way is also that the State's brief has attacked whether there's Article III standing.\nI believe in this bare claim that there's Article III standing, there's an injury, there's causation, there's redressability.\nIn the sophisticated... what I call the sophisticated equal protection claim there is the third party standing and the due process, I think there's Article III standing.\nIn the Sixth Amendment claim there's Article III standing.\nThat is why I'm explaining the claims somewhat, is to show how they fit within the standing requirements of Article III and the exceptions for third party standing as in Powers.\nYour Honors, I'd also like to direct your attention, if I could, to the State's brief.\nThe State in its brief does agree in some forms with the petitioner Campbell's claims on all three grounds.\nWith respect to the equal protection ground, at page 22, note 9, the State of Louisiana recognizes this Court's decision that if discrimination in the selection of the grand jury itself occurs, the proper remedy is reversal of the subsequent conviction, and that's what happened here.\nThere was discrimination in the selection of the grand jury itself.\nGrand juror number 12 was chosen in a discriminatory manner.\nWith respect to the due process claim on page 26 and note 12, in Guice 2 the Fifth Circuit noted that because the foreman in Louisiana is selected from the venire rather from the grand jury itself, any discrimination in the selection of a foreman necessarily taints the composition of the grand jury as well.\nOnly 11 of its 12 members were chosen at random.\nIf that is so, the petitioner may obtain relief by challenging the composition of the grand jury, and this he has failed to do.\nBut, in fact, that is what Mr. Campbell has been doing from the beginning.\nHe's been saying that this twelfth member of the grand jury was chosen in a discriminatory manner, has always been chosen white.\nAnd on page 30, under the B heading with respect to the Sixth Amendment argument, the State writes, if this Court decides that the Sixth Amendment itself is implicated regardless of whether the judicial body at issue is the grand jury or just the grand jury foreman, then the State concedes that under Holland v. Illinois petitioner has standing to assert a Sixth Amendment challenge.\nIt's the law, the Constitution and its amendments and the prior decisions of this Court, that have forced the State to make concessions on these issues.\nIn the dissent by Justice Scalia, to which Chief Justice Rehnquist joined in the case of Powers v. Ohio, there's a statement.\nIt would be absurd to... and this is at page 1379 in the Supreme Court Recorder 111.\nIt would be absurd to suppose that a black juror has a right not to be discriminated against through peremptory strike in the trial of a black defendant but not in the trial of a white defendant.\nHowever, this is the absurd position the State has taken.\nAn African American prospective grand juror has a right not to be discriminated against in the selection of the grand jury foreperson in cases involving black defendants but not in cases involving white defendants.\nIn its conclusion to its brief in page 34 the State says, Louisiana in no way condones race discrimination in the administration of criminal justice in any corner.\nHowever, the State's presence here today shows otherwise.\nThis Court has the opportunity and has the power to correct the racial discrimination in the administration of criminal justice which is currently accepted in and by the State of Louisiana.\nIf there are no further questions, I'd reserve the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1047.176, 1052.267, 1058.875, 1063.076, 1072.666, 1076.415, 1087.706, 1096.719, 1105.762, 1122.192, 1125.441, 1129.237, 1147.761, 1151.025, 1156.07, 1159.663, 1164.91, 1185.714, 1192.226, 1200.756, 1209.408, 1219.559, 1221.902, 1233.46, 1245.673, 1248.267, 1257.809], "stop_times": [1052.267, 1058.875, 1063.076, 1072.666, 1076.415, 1087.706, 1096.719, 1105.762, 1122.192, 1125.441, 1129.237, 1147.761, 1151.025, 1156.07, 1159.663, 1164.91, 1185.714, 1192.226, 1200.756, 1209.408, 1219.559, 1221.902, 1233.46, 1245.673, 1248.267, 1257.809, 1261.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1047.176}, "reply_to": "20599__0_090", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__0_092", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Very well, Mr. Burnes.\nGeneral Ieyoub, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1261.386, 1263.744], "stop_times": [1263.744, 1265.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1261.386}, "reply_to": "20599__0_091", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20599__1_000", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--\nFirst of all, Your Honors, I would like to correct some of the statements made by counsel for petitioner.\nHe seems to indicate that there is wholesale discrimination around the State of Louisiana as to the selection of grand jury foremen.\nThere's never been any proof of this.\nIn fact, I know from personal knowledge that there have been black foremen of grand juries throughout the State of Louisiana--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1265.509, 1272.475, 1277.957, 1284.97, 1286.734], "stop_times": [1272.475, 1277.957, 1284.97, 1286.734, 1293.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1265.509}, "reply_to": "20599__0_092", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_001", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "But then it's not a problem.\nI mean, he just wants to have standing so he can make the claim.\nThen you'd prove it out, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1293.67, 1293.967, 1296.512], "stop_times": [1293.967, 1296.512, 1297.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1293.67}, "reply_to": "20599__1_000", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20599__1_002", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1297.777], "stop_times": [1299.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1297.777}, "reply_to": "20599__1_001", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_003", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "And you'd say there wasn't, and he'd say there was, so we'd have an argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1299.23], "stop_times": [1301.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1299.23}, "reply_to": "20599__1_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20599__1_004", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nAlso, insofar as the selection of the foreman is concerned in Louisiana, the judge does not select from the large grand jury venire, the general venire of 300 persons.\nWhat happens is that a grand jury venire is brought into the courtroom.\nIt can be as few as 20 and as many as 100, but the grand jury venire is brought into the courtroom, the judge selects the foreman from the grand jury venire after that venire has been shown to satisfy the general qualifications to serve as grand jurors and then the other 11 are chosen.\nIt takes 9 out of 12 to reach an indictment, so the fact that the grand jury foreman is necessarily a voting member of the grand jury does not necessarily portend that his responsibility should not be classified as merely ministerial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1301.355, 1302.056, 1314.38, 1318.707, 1336.293], "stop_times": [1302.056, 1314.38, 1318.707, 1336.293, 1352.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1301.355}, "reply_to": "20599__1_003", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_005", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "General Ieyoub, you don't dispute, do you the figures that were presented that for the last 16 years there's never been a nonwhite grand jury foreperson in Evangeline County?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1352.927], "stop_times": [1367.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1352.927}, "reply_to": "20599__1_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20599__1_006", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThat was stipulated to by the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1367.264, 1367.967], "stop_times": [1367.967, 1369.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1367.264}, "reply_to": "20599__1_005", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_007", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "So it wouldn't matter what went on in other counties.\nExcept for... there's a curiosity in Louisiana law, and I'm sure you can tell me why this is so.\nIt doesn't work that way in New Orleans.\nIn New Orleans, the foreperson is selected from the group of 12 instead of separately.\nWhy is that so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1369.81, 1373.012, 1380.432, 1382.681, 1390.083], "stop_times": [1373.012, 1380.432, 1382.681, 1390.083, 1391.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1369.81}, "reply_to": "20599__1_006", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20599__1_008", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Your Honor, Orleans Parish is treated differently throughout Louisiana law.\nNobody knows why, except for the fact that those people in Orleans Parish think that they're different from the rest of the State, but in fact there... throughout Louisiana law there are exceptions for Orleans Parish.\nI can't give Your Honor a reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1391.427, 1395.957, 1407.733], "stop_times": [1395.957, 1407.733, 1409.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1391.427}, "reply_to": "20599__1_007", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_009", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "But you wouldn't have this problem if you did it throughout the State the way they do it in that parish.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1409.622], "stop_times": [1415.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1409.622}, "reply_to": "20599__1_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20599__1_010", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Well, Your Honor, in Orleans Parish the judge does choose the foreman and then the judge also selects the other 11.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1415.573], "stop_times": [1422.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1415.573}, "reply_to": "20599__1_009", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_011", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "But--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1422.398], "stop_times": [1422.758], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1422.398}, "reply_to": "20599__1_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20599__1_012", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "That's how I understand it done in Orleans Parish.\nNow, in other places, other than Orleans Parish, the judge will select the grand jury foreman and then the other 11 are randomly selected out of the box and that's the way it's done in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1422.758, 1426.788], "stop_times": [1426.788, 1438.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1422.758}, "reply_to": "20599__1_011", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_013", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Maybe I remember the statute wrong.\nI thought the others were selected in New Orleans just like they are in Evangeline, and it was only the foreperson that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1438.908, 1440.079], "stop_times": [1440.079, 1447.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1438.908}, "reply_to": "20599__1_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20599__1_014", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--No, Your Honor, I don't think that that's the case.\nIn Evangeline Parish, of course, as I've stated the judge selects from the grand jury venire, and then the 11 are chosen randomly, the other 11 grand jurors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1447.264, 1449.184], "stop_times": [1449.184, 1459.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1447.264}, "reply_to": "20599__1_013", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_015", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--So you're saying in New Orleans there's no random selection at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1459.697], "stop_times": [1462.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1459.697}, "reply_to": "20599__1_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20599__1_016", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "It doesn't appear that way, Your Honor.\nBasically--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1462.867, 1464.163], "stop_times": [1464.163, 1465.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1462.867}, "reply_to": "20599__1_015", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_017", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "I just have one other quick thing that you had in your brief.\nIt says that... when you say... you said it was... the grand jury foreman's role is ministerial, but it says in your brief that the grand jury may determine rules of procedure.\nWhat does that mean, may determine rules of procedure?\nIf you have the power to determine rules of procedure, that's an enormously important power.\nI mean, can... what does that involve?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1465.726, 1467.599, 1477.612, 1479.704, 1483.906], "stop_times": [1467.599, 1477.612, 1479.704, 1483.906, 1486.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1465.726}, "reply_to": "20599__1_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20599__1_018", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Your Honor, what I think that involves is basically ensuring that the proceedings go through in a very orderly way, not setting forth specific, distinct rules of procedure.\nThe grand jury foreman, as stated by the Louisiana supreme court, the Louisiana supreme court has interpreted Louisiana law to mean that the grand jury foreman's duties are, in fact, ministerial and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1486.858, 1497.759], "stop_times": [1497.759, 1511.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1486.858}, "reply_to": "20599__1_017", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_019", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Well, is the foreman a voting member of the grand jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1511.644], "stop_times": [1514.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1511.644}, "reply_to": "20599__1_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20599__1_020", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, the foreman is a voting member of the grand jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1514.003], "stop_times": [1516.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1514.003}, "reply_to": "20599__1_019", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_021", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "And has some power to set procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1516.892], "stop_times": [1518.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1516.892}, "reply_to": "20599__1_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20599__1_022", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Has some power to set the procedure, but there is also a codal article in the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure that states that any of the other grand jurors may rule him into court if they disagree with what he's doing relative to the procedure that takes place in the grand jury, which is some indication that his power is no greater than the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1518.861], "stop_times": [1538.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1518.861}, "reply_to": "20599__1_021", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_023", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Well, Mr.--\n--That still doesn't his power is just ministerial, unless you were to say that his power as foreman is ministerial but he has every bit as much power as any other grand juror in voting on indictments.\nThat's correct, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1538.945, 1539.773, 1552.283], "stop_times": [1539.773, 1552.283, 1553.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1538.945}, "reply_to": "20599__1_022", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20599__1_024", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "That's correct, Your... Mr. Chief Justice.\nThat is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1553.236, 1554.861], "stop_times": [1554.861, 1555.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1553.236}, "reply_to": "20599__1_023", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_025", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "And in Vasquez v. Hillery this Court referred to the grave constitutional trespass that occurs when jurors of a particular race are intentionally excluded from the grand jury, so if the proof is that in the case of one member of the grand jury that blacks are always excluded from this foreperson selection, then why doesn't that fit under Vasquez v. Hillery?\nWhy isn't there standing to raise that on the part of this petitioner?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1555.813, 1583.146], "stop_times": [1583.146, 1587.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1555.813}, "reply_to": "20599__1_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20599__1_026", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Your Honor, in Vasquez v. Hillery the petitioner, as I understand it, was a member of the excluded class.\nIn this case, there is no Article III standing as to equal protection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1587.02, 1594.61], "stop_times": [1594.61, 1599.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1587.02}, "reply_to": "20599__1_025", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_027", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "In the case of Powers, when the issue was with respect to a trial jury we didn't think that mattered.\nWould there be a different rule on a grand jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1599.374, 1605.637], "stop_times": [1605.637, 1608.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1599.374}, "reply_to": "20599__1_026", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20599__1_028", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Your Honor, insofar as Powers is concerned, I would point out to the Court that Powers granted third party standing, not personal standing under Article III insofar as equal protection goes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1608.901], "stop_times": [1619.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1608.901}, "reply_to": "20599__1_027", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_029", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Well, I guess that's an argument here, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1619.787], "stop_times": [1621.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1619.787}, "reply_to": "20599__1_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20599__1_030", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1621.427], "stop_times": [1623.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1621.427}, "reply_to": "20599__1_029", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_031", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Do you concede that at least the petitioner has third party standing under Powers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1623.114], "stop_times": [1626.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1623.114}, "reply_to": "20599__1_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20599__1_032", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "No, Your Honor, not in any sense and the reason I don't is because, in finding that the petitioner in Powers satisfied the three criteria necessary for third party standing, that is, injury in fact, relationship to the third party, and hindrance to the third party itself being able to bring an action, the Court placed strong emphasis on the importance of the voir dire phase of the trial and the adverse impact that discrimination during voir dire... the voir dire stage would have on the fairness of the trial itself.\nIn finding injury in fact, this Court pointed out that when there's discrimination during the voir dire stage by the use of peremptory challenges the discrimination is in the body that's going to decide guilt or innocence.\nThat's not true insofar as the grand jury is concerned.\nThe discrimination takes place during the trial itself.\nObviously, grand jury proceedings are long before--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1626.894, 1658.131, 1672.282, 1675.048, 1678.608], "stop_times": [1658.131, 1672.282, 1675.048, 1678.608, 1681.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1626.894}, "reply_to": "20599__1_031", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_033", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "That's why I referred you to the Vasquez v. Hillery description of the grave constitutional injury that occurs on a grand jury situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1681.545], "stop_times": [1692.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1681.545}, "reply_to": "20599__1_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20599__1_034", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--I agree with you Your Honor, and I think the cases relative to... there's no question that there are grave consequences for discrimination, racial discrimination on grand juries.\nMost of the cases have been whenever the petitioner has attacked the entire grand jury venire.\nPeters v. Kiff was such a case, where the entire venire was attacked.\nRose v. Mitchell did involve attacking discrimination as to the foreman, but the petitioner in that particular case was a member of the excluded class.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1692.135, 1702.879, 1709.455, 1716.046], "stop_times": [1702.879, 1709.455, 1716.046, 1726.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1692.135}, "reply_to": "20599__1_033", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_035", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "It was also prePowers the Court made that statement, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1726.011], "stop_times": [1731.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1726.011}, "reply_to": "20599__1_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20599__1_036", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, but again, I think that Powers should not be extended to cover this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1731.072], "stop_times": [1737.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1731.072}, "reply_to": "20599__1_035", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_037", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--But to this extent, why are they just the same.\nOne of the points made in Powers was that the person who was excluded from being on the jury in one case, yes, the grand jury, that is... was a most unlikely challenger, so you have to have this kind of surrogate standing because the person who was excluded, either from being on a petit jury or from serving here as the foreperson, that you... that would be something that you can't imagine, walking into court, that somebody says, oh, I could have been the foreperson so I'm going to sue, I'm going to spend my resources suing for that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1737.787, 1740.879], "stop_times": [1740.879, 1774.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1737.787}, "reply_to": "20599__1_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20599__1_038", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Your Honor, in Powers the Court, in speaking of the third criteria, that is, hindrance to the party excluded itself from bringing the action stated that, as you said, Your Honor, that it would be very difficult for an individual juror excluded during the voir dire to bring... such actions are very rare.\nSecondly, it's very difficult for the individual juror to prove that there would be discrimination against him or her recurring in the voir dire stage.\nThat doesn't hold true in this particular case.\nI think the Court pointed out in Powers that discrimination with the use of peremptory exceptions as to individual jurors is different from when you have a systematic exclusion by clerks, by jury commissioners, by judges... there have been numerous actions brought by individual blacks alleging that there has been discrimination on... discrimination as to the selection of the foreman in the grand jury.\nThere seems to be no hindrance.\nTerry Campbell is a very poor champion of third party rights in this particular case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1774.618, 1794.077, 1805.01, 1807.76, 1838.56, 1839.763], "stop_times": [1794.077, 1805.01, 1807.76, 1838.56, 1839.763, 1845.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1774.618}, "reply_to": "20599__1_037", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_039", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "But how is that any different from, say, Taylor v. Louisiana, where Taylor was certainly... Taylor was complaining that there were no women in the jury, and he was a man who raped a woman in front of her child and still he had standing to assert that claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1845.26], "stop_times": [1860.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1845.26}, "reply_to": "20599__1_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20599__1_040", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Taylor v. Louisiana?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1860.27], "stop_times": [1862.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1860.27}, "reply_to": "20599__1_039", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_041", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1862.44], "stop_times": [1862.706], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1862.44}, "reply_to": "20599__1_040", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20599__1_042", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Again, Your Honor, I would suggest in Taylor, Taylor made a valid due process claim that the entire grand jury venire, that in that entire venire there had been an exclusion, systematic exclusion of women.\nAs such, that particular grand jury did not represent the varieties of human experience and the qualities of human--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1862.706, 1877.232], "stop_times": [1877.232, 1885.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1862.706}, "reply_to": "20599__1_041", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_043", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "No, but now you're going to the substance of the claim rather than the issue of standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1885.916], "stop_times": [1889.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1885.916}, "reply_to": "20599__1_042", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20599__1_044", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1889.79], "stop_times": [1891.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1889.79}, "reply_to": "20599__1_043", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_045", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Taking you at your argument here, would it be your position that if the State were to say, we will... in fact, we'll announce this, that we will in fact discriminatorily exclude blacks from 1/12th of all grand jury positions, one of the 12 positions will always go to a white, that in fact that would not support a claim with respect to the invalid composition of the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1891.102], "stop_times": [1919.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1891.102}, "reply_to": "20599__1_044", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20599__1_046", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Your Honor, as to equal protection, as to an equal protection claim--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1919.574], "stop_times": [1926.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1919.574}, "reply_to": "20599__1_045", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_047", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Well, no, I'm responding to your argument and your argument, if I understood it correctly, was that somehow we can respond to standing here by saying that there is no claim with respect to the composition of the grand jury as a whole.\nIf I misunderstood your argument, tell me, but I thought that's what you were arguing and so I want to see how far you will go with that and I'm saying, I'm asking you, if the State announced right up front, we are going to discriminate with respect to 1/12th of the positions on every grand jury, would that, in fact, be insufficient to support a claim with respect to the invalid composition of the jury and, on your argument, insufficient to result in standing for anybody?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1926.384, 1941.346], "stop_times": [1941.346, 1970.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1926.384}, "reply_to": "20599__1_046", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20599__1_048", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Your Honor, I would... if the claim... if there is a claim that due process has been violated with the court's announcement that there's discrimination as to 1/12th of the grand jury, that being the grand jury foreman, then I think that we have to do an analysis as to whether or not discrimination as to that one person is so significant that it has an appreciable impact on the administration of criminal justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1970.022], "stop_times": [1996.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1970.022}, "reply_to": "20599__1_047", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_049", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Then the answer to my question is no, that alone would not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1996.746], "stop_times": [1998.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1996.746}, "reply_to": "20599__1_048", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20599__1_050", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1998.762], "stop_times": [1998.887], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1998.762}, "reply_to": "20599__1_049", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_051", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--support a claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1998.887], "stop_times": [1999.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1998.887}, "reply_to": "20599__1_050", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20599__1_052", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [1999.715], "stop_times": [2000.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1999.715}, "reply_to": "20599__1_051", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_053", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "But why wouldn't it?\nI mean, why isn't there... you say that a white person has standing to say the grand jury that indicted me was too white.\nThat's right.\nYou concede that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2000.262, 2002.152, 2013.414, 2015.303], "stop_times": [2002.152, 2013.414, 2015.303, 2015.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2000.262}, "reply_to": "20599__1_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20599__1_054", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "That a white person--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2015.912], "stop_times": [2018.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2015.912}, "reply_to": "20599__1_053", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_055", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "A white person can say there weren't enough black people on the grand jury that indicted me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2018.662], "stop_times": [2025.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2018.662}, "reply_to": "20599__1_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20599__1_056", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2025.486], "stop_times": [2027.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2025.486}, "reply_to": "20599__1_055", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_057", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "You concede that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2027.001], "stop_times": [2027.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2027.001}, "reply_to": "20599__1_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20599__1_058", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Yes, I concede that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2027.392], "stop_times": [2028.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2027.392}, "reply_to": "20599__1_057", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_059", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "All right.\nNow, somebody says, fine, that's my claim.\nMy claim is, if even one position was always white, then there were not enough black people on the grand jury that indicted me, so how could a person have standing to make the first argument but not have standing to make the second argument--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2028.173, 2028.47, 2031.234], "stop_times": [2028.47, 2031.234, 2050.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2028.173}, "reply_to": "20599__1_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20599__1_060", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2050.928], "stop_times": [2051.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2050.928}, "reply_to": "20599__1_059", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_061", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--since the second argument is the first argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2051.85], "stop_times": [2054.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2051.85}, "reply_to": "20599__1_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20599__1_062", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Hobby v. United States felt... of course, Hobby was remedied, there's no question about that, but in Hobby v. United States the Court, or this Court found that if there is discrimination as to one individual, who in fact maintains a ministerial position and the rest of the grand jury as a whole meets the representational requirements or values of due process, then that... there has not been a violation of due--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2054.021], "stop_times": [2084.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2054.021}, "reply_to": "20599__1_061", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_063", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "So then you would win on the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2084.291], "stop_times": [2085.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2084.291}, "reply_to": "20599__1_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20599__1_064", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--We would win on the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2085.681], "stop_times": [2086.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2085.681}, "reply_to": "20599__1_063", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_065", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "But why would the person not have standing to argue that systematically discriminating in one position--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2086.181], "stop_times": [2094.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2086.181}, "reply_to": "20599__1_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20599__1_066", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2094.583], "stop_times": [2095.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2094.583}, "reply_to": "20599__1_065", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_067", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--creates as bad a grand jury from the point of view of the Constitution, or nearly as bad as discriminating in eight or nine or ten or three or four?\nI would like to make the argument that constitutionally speaking those things are equivalent, or just about as bad, or wrong in any event.\nCan't he at least make that argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2095.956, 2107.782, 2116.871], "stop_times": [2107.782, 2116.871, 2118.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2095.956}, "reply_to": "20599__1_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20599__1_068", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nFirst of all, the individual has to show an injury in fact.\nThat injury has to be palpable.\nIt has to be distinct.\nIt can't be hypothetical or analytical.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2118.543, 2119.933, 2123.354, 2125.962, 2127.024], "stop_times": [2119.933, 2123.354, 2125.962, 2127.024, 2129.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2118.543}, "reply_to": "20599__1_067", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_069", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Mr. Attorney General, why didn't Hobby answer the standing question?\nThere you had a white defendant who complained about the very same thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2129.554, 2133.053], "stop_times": [2133.053, 2136.315], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2129.554}, "reply_to": "20599__1_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20599__1_070", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Your Honor, the Court, or this Court did not speak of standing in Hobby.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2136.315], "stop_times": [2140.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2136.315}, "reply_to": "20599__1_069", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_071", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "I know, but that's a threshold issue.\nNobody questioned standing in Hobby.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2140.987, 2142.267], "stop_times": [2142.267, 2144.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2140.987}, "reply_to": "20599__1_070", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20599__1_072", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2144.532], "stop_times": [2145.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2144.532}, "reply_to": "20599__1_071", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_073", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "And of course, in Hobby there was... the foreman was chosen from among the 12 who had already been picked in a satisfactory crosssection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2145.703], "stop_times": [2154.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2145.703}, "reply_to": "20599__1_072", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20599__1_074", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2154.013], "stop_times": [2154.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2154.013}, "reply_to": "20599__1_073", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_075", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "So why isn't Hobby the answer to the standing issue in this case and that's the end of the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2154.2], "stop_times": [2158.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2154.2}, "reply_to": "20599__1_074", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20599__1_076", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "We have different circumstances in this case than existed in Hobby, Your Honor and let me explain.\nFirst of all--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2158.855, 2162.806], "stop_times": [2162.806, 2163.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2158.855}, "reply_to": "20599__1_075", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_077", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "And they're relevant to the standing issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2163.337], "stop_times": [2164.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2163.337}, "reply_to": "20599__1_076", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20599__1_078", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Relevant to the standing issue.\nFirst of all, injury in fact.\nIn this case, for instance, Campbell's injury in fact, Mr. Campbell has not suffered an injury in fact.\nHe has not suffered a palpable, distinct injury and I think Hobby shows that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2164.884, 2166.289, 2169.038, 2174.786], "stop_times": [2166.289, 2169.038, 2174.786, 2180.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2164.884}, "reply_to": "20599__1_077", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_079", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Did Hobby suffer a palpable, distinct injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2180.362], "stop_times": [2182.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2180.362}, "reply_to": "20599__1_078", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20599__1_080", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "No.\nNo, Your Honor, he did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2182.423, 2182.736], "stop_times": [2182.736, 2183.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2182.423}, "reply_to": "20599__1_079", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_081", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "So that... the cases are alike in that regard, then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2183.672], "stop_times": [2185.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2183.672}, "reply_to": "20599__1_080", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20599__1_082", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "They're alike in that regard.\nSecondly, causation, as to causation there has... the injury has to be fairly traceable to the conduct complained of, or the illegal injury.\nIn this case, the State respectfully submits that in no way is the injury to petitioner fairly traceable to the fact that there might have been discrimination as to the grand jury foreman.\nIn fact, in this case the petitioner's grand jury had three blacks on the grand jury.\nHe had six blacks on the petit jury that convicted him.\nHe used five of his peremptory exceptions to knock off five blacks, where the State only used one peremptory exception.\nHow can it be said that there's causation as to standing here?\nAnd finally, redressability.\nIt has to be shown--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2185.89, 2186.639, 2196.777, 2207.928, 2213.503, 2217.096, 2224.765, 2228.124, 2229.06], "stop_times": [2186.639, 2196.777, 2207.928, 2213.503, 2217.096, 2224.765, 2228.124, 2229.06, 2230.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2185.89}, "reply_to": "20599__1_081", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_083", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Excuse me.\nYou're assuming that the injury is the ultimate conviction, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2230.918, 2231.746], "stop_times": [2231.746, 2234.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2230.918}, "reply_to": "20599__1_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20599__1_084", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2234.636], "stop_times": [2235.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2234.636}, "reply_to": "20599__1_083", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_085", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Well, I mean, if that's the criterion I suppose there's never any standing to challenge the grand jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2235.277], "stop_times": [2241.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2235.277}, "reply_to": "20599__1_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20599__1_086", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2241.322], "stop_times": [2241.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2241.322}, "reply_to": "20599__1_085", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_087", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "I mean, no harm, no foul.\nThe grand jury is only meant to determine whether there's probable cause to bring you to trial and if they do indict, no matter how badly it's set up, even if you make up a grand jury, once you're tried by a petit jury and found guilty, you haven't been harmed, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2241.868, 2242.727], "stop_times": [2242.727, 2258.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2241.868}, "reply_to": "20599__1_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20599__1_088", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, this Court has held that if, in fact, there's... discrimination can be found--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2258.204], "stop_times": [2266.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2258.204}, "reply_to": "20599__1_087", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_089", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "In--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2266.81], "stop_times": [2267.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2266.81}, "reply_to": "20599__1_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20599__1_090", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Racial discrimination--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2267.497], "stop_times": [2268.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2267.497}, "reply_to": "20599__1_089", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_091", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--In the grand jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2268.482], "stop_times": [2269.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2268.482}, "reply_to": "20599__1_090", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20599__1_092", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--In the grand jury, that is, if there is discrimination--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2269.309], "stop_times": [2272.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2269.309}, "reply_to": "20599__1_091", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_093", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Right, which suggests that your argument is wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2272.073], "stop_times": [2273.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2272.073}, "reply_to": "20599__1_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20599__1_094", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--No, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2273.479], "stop_times": [2274.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2273.479}, "reply_to": "20599__1_093", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_095", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "The harm is not the ultimate conviction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2274.432], "stop_times": [2276.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2274.432}, "reply_to": "20599__1_094", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20599__1_096", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2276.432], "stop_times": [2277.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2276.432}, "reply_to": "20599__1_095", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_097", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "There must be some other harm involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2277.01], "stop_times": [2278.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2277.01}, "reply_to": "20599__1_096", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20599__1_098", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Even if we say that the harm is the fact that the individual was indicted, you must... again, I will show that in order for an indictment to come down in Terry Campbell's case it just took 9... 9 out of the 12.\nWe don't know what the vote was in this grand jury, whether or not the foreman actually voted for indictment or not, but in any event, I don't see how his injury is in any way fairly traceable to the alleged misconduct here, or any misconduct that might be alleged.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2278.103, 2292.754], "stop_times": [2292.754, 2309.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2278.103}, "reply_to": "20599__1_097", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_099", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "But if we're talking about the alleged injury being the conviction, then wouldn't that be true in all the cases where someone who was not a member of the class, whether it was racial or gender, is allowed to make the challenge?\nThe case that I brought up before, is it likely that women on the jury would have been more favorable to Taylor?\nHe certainly didn't have to prove that, did he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2309.465, 2323.428, 2330.957], "stop_times": [2323.428, 2330.957, 2333.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2309.465}, "reply_to": "20599__1_098", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20599__1_100", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nNow... but insofar as due process is concerned, in addition to injury in fact and causation, there has to be redressability.\nThat means that the petitioner must be... there has to be... it has to be likely that a favorable decision of the Court, that is, as to standing, would grant the relief that he's asking for and that would not the case, I don't think, in here, in light of Hobby v. United States.\nIf this Court would find, for instance, that he might have standing under the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2333.612, 2334.485, 2344.56, 2360.164], "stop_times": [2334.485, 2344.56, 2360.164, 2364.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2333.612}, "reply_to": "20599__1_099", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_101", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Well, may I interrupt you with this question, then.\nAs I think all of our questions have indicated and you yourself agree, the difference between Hobby and this case was that in Hobby the discrimination did not affect the composition of the grand jury.\nHere, it does.\nIf there was discrimination here, it affected the composition of the grand jury.\nIsn't that the distinction between this case and Hobby?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2364.146, 2365.911, 2376.969, 2378.295, 2382.607], "stop_times": [2365.911, 2376.969, 2378.295, 2382.607, 2385.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2364.146}, "reply_to": "20599__1_100", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20599__1_102", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Your Honor, you say that discrimination did not affect the Hobby... in Hobby--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2385.137], "stop_times": [2392.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2385.137}, "reply_to": "20599__1_101", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_103", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "As I understand it, and you correct me if I'm wrong, in Hobby a grand jury was selected.\nAfter that selection process, one person was designated to be the foreman.\nIn this case, one person is designated to be the foreman and the claim is that that discriminatory designation determines the composition of one out of 12 members of the grand jury.\nTherefore, the discrimination here, if it is shown, affects the composition of the grand jury, who is one of the 12, whereas in Hobby it did not affect who was one of the 12, or whatever the number is.\nIsn't... is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2392.729, 2397.305, 2402.63, 2418.467, 2430.728], "stop_times": [2397.305, 2402.63, 2418.467, 2430.728, 2431.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2392.729}, "reply_to": "20599__1_102", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20599__1_104", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor, but even if it affects the composition of the grand jury, we have to determine whether or not that particular effect violates due process values if he is making a claim under the Due Process Clause.\nWhat I am saying is that the fact that there may have been discrimination as to the foreman in this case in no way violates the due process values because we have stated, and I think the Louisiana supreme court in interpreting our law has stated, that basically the grand jury foreman's duties are ministerial.\nIn addition, Hobby--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2431.884, 2444.863, 2463.934], "stop_times": [2444.863, 2463.934, 2465.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2431.884}, "reply_to": "20599__1_103", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_105", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Well, his duties as foreman may be ministerial.\nWe can accept that for the sake of argument.\nHis duty as a voting member of the grand jury isn't ministerial, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2465.089, 2468.478, 2471.259], "stop_times": [2468.478, 2471.259, 2475.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2465.089}, "reply_to": "20599__1_104", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20599__1_106", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--No, Your Honor, but in Federal... in the Federal grand jury the foreman is also a voting member, if I'm not mistaken, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2475.772], "stop_times": [2484.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2475.772}, "reply_to": "20599__1_105", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_107", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Let me suggest the point this way.\nAs I understand the petitioner here, the argument really would be essentially the same if the person selected by this method of designation by the Court were not the foreman at all, were just one random member of the grand jury and therefore it seems to me, although it's... it certainly makes it a harder case, if you will--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2484.41, 2487.674], "stop_times": [2487.674, 2514.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2484.41}, "reply_to": "20599__1_106", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20599__1_108", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2514.491], "stop_times": [2514.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2514.491}, "reply_to": "20599__1_107", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_109", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--in one sense if the grand jury is... if the foreman's responsibilities are ministerial.\nIt doesn't eliminate the case, because the composition is still affected.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2514.85, 2519.334], "stop_times": [2519.334, 2525.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2514.85}, "reply_to": "20599__1_108", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20599__1_110", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "The composition is affected, Your Honor, but how is it affected?\nAnd let me point out that Hobby, in addition to talking--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2525.128, 2530.376], "stop_times": [2530.376, 2533.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2525.128}, "reply_to": "20599__1_109", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_111", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Well, the claim is.\nIt is affected in a discriminatory way in that 1/12th of every grand jury is going to be the result of a racial discrimination.\nThat's what the claim is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2533.531, 2534.235, 2542.623], "stop_times": [2534.235, 2542.623, 2544.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2533.531}, "reply_to": "20599__1_110", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20599__1_112", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2544.232], "stop_times": [2545.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2544.232}, "reply_to": "20599__1_111", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_113", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "That's all that's affected.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2545.498], "stop_times": [2547.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2545.498}, "reply_to": "20599__1_112", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20599__1_114", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Well, of course, the petitioner would have to prove a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2547.779], "stop_times": [2550.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2547.779}, "reply_to": "20599__1_113", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_115", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2550.045], "stop_times": [2550.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2550.045}, "reply_to": "20599__1_114", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20599__1_116", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Right, would have to prove--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2550.342], "stop_times": [2551.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2550.342}, "reply_to": "20599__1_115", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_117", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "And that's why we have trials, but that doesn't go to... the question is, how does it affect standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2551.263], "stop_times": [2555.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2551.263}, "reply_to": "20599__1_116", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20599__1_118", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--In addition, Your Honor, just speaking of the foreman and the ministerial responsibilities of the foreman in Hobby, the Court pointed out that if there is discrimination as to one individual... in Hobby it happened to be the foreman, but that if there was discrimination as to one individual and the grand jury as a whole, the rest of the grand jury satisfied the representational requirements of due process, then that would not be enough to find that there had been a violation of the petitioner's rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2555.277], "stop_times": [2587.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2555.277}, "reply_to": "20599__1_117", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_119", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "How many would it take, 2 out of 12, 3 out of 12, 4 out of 12?\nWhen do we cross the line, on your reading of Hobby?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2587.044, 2591.872], "stop_times": [2591.872, 2594.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2587.044}, "reply_to": "20599__1_118", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20599__1_120", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Your Honor, I think that if in fact it can be shown that there is systematic exclusion of a number of individuals--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2594.324], "stop_times": [2603.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2594.324}, "reply_to": "20599__1_119", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_121", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Well, how many?\nOne is not enough.\nWhat's enough?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2603.383, 2604.257, 2604.944], "stop_times": [2604.257, 2604.944, 2606.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2603.383}, "reply_to": "20599__1_120", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20599__1_122", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Your Honor, I would say that one is not enough.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2606.819], "stop_times": [2608.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2606.819}, "reply_to": "20599__1_121", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_123", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "All right.\nHow many is enough?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2608.661, 2609.224], "stop_times": [2609.224, 2609.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2608.661}, "reply_to": "20599__1_122", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20599__1_124", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "We would have to take that on a casebycase basis, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2609.91], "stop_times": [2614.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2609.91}, "reply_to": "20599__1_123", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_125", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Well, you're not taking this on a casebycase basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2614.018], "stop_times": [2615.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2614.018}, "reply_to": "20599__1_124", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20599__1_126", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "I would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2615.673], "stop_times": [2616.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2615.673}, "reply_to": "20599__1_125", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_127", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "You're saying one, as a matter of law, is not enough.\nWhen do we get to the point at which, as a matter of law, it might be possible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2616.048, 2617.986], "stop_times": [2617.986, 2622.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2616.048}, "reply_to": "20599__1_126", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20599__1_128", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Whenever the petitioner makes the claim that the grand jury venire, the entire venire or a large part of the venire has been selected in a discriminatory way so that due process values have been violated.\nIn this particular--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2622.032, 2633.698], "stop_times": [2633.698, 2634.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2622.032}, "reply_to": "20599__1_127", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_129", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Well, the claim here is not that the venire was discriminatorily chosen, but that individuals were discriminatorily chosen from the venire, so if your argument is correct there never would be standing to make a claim because there never would be a claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2634.557], "stop_times": [2646.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2634.557}, "reply_to": "20599__1_128", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20599__1_130", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Your Honor, I don't think that there would be standing to make a claim, as I said earlier, if there's an allegation that only... that there was discrimination as to the foreman of the grand jury, or any one of the other 12.\nI don't think that there would be standing to make that claim there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2646.833, 2659.125], "stop_times": [2659.125, 2661.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2646.833}, "reply_to": "20599__1_129", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_131", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Even though we found standing in Hobby.\nYou want us to ignore that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2661.655, 2664.638], "stop_times": [2664.638, 2666.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2661.655}, "reply_to": "20599__1_130", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20599__1_132", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, because I don't think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2666.887], "stop_times": [2669.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2666.887}, "reply_to": "20599__1_131", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_133", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Well, I don't see how we can or should.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2669.511], "stop_times": [2672.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2669.511}, "reply_to": "20599__1_132", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20599__1_134", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I don't think that the petitioner in this case, as I have argued, has really satisfied the criteria for Article III standing under Allen v. Wright.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2672.776], "stop_times": [2684.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2672.776}, "reply_to": "20599__1_133", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_135", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "If there were no Article III standing in Hobby, this Court would have had to say so on its own motion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2684.88], "stop_times": [2691.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2684.88}, "reply_to": "20599__1_134", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20599__1_136", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, but I don't know why the Court didn't address... necessarily address standing in Hobby.\nThey found that there was no violation of due process rights and we would argue that Hobby should hold here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2691.815, 2700.968], "stop_times": [2700.968, 2707.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2691.815}, "reply_to": "20599__1_135", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_137", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "We said there was no remedy required in that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2707.277], "stop_times": [2710.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2707.277}, "reply_to": "20599__1_136", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20599__1_138", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Remedy, yes, Your Honor, no remedy.\nThe basic claim of the petitioner in this particular case has been that he has third party standing to assert the rights of a third party.\nThat's his basic claim.\nThat's his chief claim.\nHis lawyer stood up at the motion to quash and argued, saying Terry's rights have not been violated.\nHe is asserting the rights of the third party that has been excluded.\nIt has always been third party standing and we suggest that, under Powers v. Ohio, that he doesn't have third party standing.\nPowers v. Ohio granted third party standing because of the particular nature of the voir dire phase of the trial and the types of discrimination that took place at that time.\nThat did not occur.\nHow in the world can we say, with respect, Your Honors, that there is a bond of trust that is created between the petitioner and the third party whenever there's a selection of a grand jury foreman.\nThe defendant is not even present in court for... as a practical matter.\nAs long--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2710.651, 2712.276, 2723.662, 2725.114, 2725.942, 2732.361, 2736.047, 2744.574, 2755.461, 2756.82, 2771.33, 2774.938], "stop_times": [2712.276, 2723.662, 2725.114, 2725.942, 2732.361, 2736.047, 2744.574, 2755.461, 2756.82, 2771.33, 2774.938, 2775.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2710.651}, "reply_to": "20599__1_137", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_139", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "I guess it's the case, isn't it... I mean, suppose a judge or the system deliberately excluded blacks from position number 4.\nPosition number 4 was always white.\nThat's illegal, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2775.64, 2784.214, 2787.058], "stop_times": [2784.214, 2787.058, 2788.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2775.64}, "reply_to": "20599__1_138", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20599__1_140", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2788.619], "stop_times": [2793.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2788.619}, "reply_to": "20599__1_139", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_141", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Pure racial discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2793.055], "stop_times": [2794.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2793.055}, "reply_to": "20599__1_140", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20599__1_142", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Yes.\nYes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2794.618, 2794.805], "stop_times": [2794.805, 2795.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2794.618}, "reply_to": "20599__1_141", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_143", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2795.133], "stop_times": [2795.399], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2795.133}, "reply_to": "20599__1_142", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20599__1_144", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2795.399], "stop_times": [2795.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2795.399}, "reply_to": "20599__1_143", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_145", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "So if it's... they exclude blacks always from 5, 6, and 7 as well, then the white person has standing, in your view.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2795.852], "stop_times": [2802.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2795.852}, "reply_to": "20599__1_144", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20599__1_146", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Not as to equal protection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2802.052], "stop_times": [2804.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2802.052}, "reply_to": "20599__1_145", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_147", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Well, 9, 10, 11... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.\nNow, does the white person have standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2804.443, 2808.033], "stop_times": [2808.033, 2809.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2804.443}, "reply_to": "20599__1_146", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20599__1_148", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "I think under due process the white person would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2809.846], "stop_times": [2813.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2809.846}, "reply_to": "20599__1_147", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_149", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Yes, all right.\nNow, what's your theory under which the white person has the standing if it's 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 but it's not 1?\nThey're both illegal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2813.595, 2813.921, 2820.263], "stop_times": [2813.921, 2820.263, 2821.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2813.595}, "reply_to": "20599__1_148", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20599__1_150", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--That--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2821.2], "stop_times": [2821.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2821.2}, "reply_to": "20599__1_149", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_151", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "They're both grand juries, they're both... I mean, that's I think what people have been trying to get at.\nWhat would the theory of the thing be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2821.778, 2825.917], "stop_times": [2825.917, 2827.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2821.778}, "reply_to": "20599__1_150", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20599__1_152", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Well, the theory of it would be, Your Honor, that this has a significant impact, that there's more of a significant impact on the administration of criminal justice, that due process representational values are not satisfied in the second case.\nBut as in this case he does not have third party standing.\nHe does not have... he has not shown that he satisfies the criteria in Article III that is stated, that is, injury in fact, causation, and redressability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2827.167, 2842.895, 2848.221], "stop_times": [2842.895, 2848.221, 2858.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2827.167}, "reply_to": "20599__1_151", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_153", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "General Ieyoub, may I ask you another question about how things work in Louisiana?\nIn your brief on page 28 you said that the... that the foreperson is presumably replaced every 6 months, as is the entire grand jury.\nIs there any reason why you... it's only presumably?\nIs it... does the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2858.481, 2862.417, 2872.913, 2875.475], "stop_times": [2862.417, 2872.913, 2875.475, 2876.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2858.481}, "reply_to": "20599__1_152", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20599__1_154", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nI think that they are replaced.\nGrand juries in Louisiana sit for not less than 4 months nor more than 8, and when a grand jury is dispensed with, then the grand jury foreman changes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2876.912, 2877.381, 2878.88], "stop_times": [2877.381, 2878.88, 2890.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2876.912}, "reply_to": "20599__1_153", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_155", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--So it's always... they all change, including.\nThere's no difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2890.704, 2893.219], "stop_times": [2893.219, 2893.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2890.704}, "reply_to": "20599__1_154", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20599__1_156", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2893.937], "stop_times": [2894.795], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2893.937}, "reply_to": "20599__1_155", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_157", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "There's no carryover, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2894.795], "stop_times": [2895.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2894.795}, "reply_to": "20599__1_156", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20599__1_158", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, unlike Tennessee in the Rose case, where the grand juror, jury foreman could sit for 2 years, or as long as a judge wanted him to sit.\nBut Your Honors, with all due respect, we feel that Petitioner Powers' conviction should be affirmed.\nThis court is always adding stories to the temples of constitutional law, but Your Honors, if the Court please, we urge Justice Jackson's caution and that is that the temples have a way of collapsing if one too many stories is added.\nYour Honors, we request that the conviction be affirmed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2895.748, 2905.37, 2917.083, 2933.139], "stop_times": [2905.37, 2917.083, 2933.139, 2938.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2895.748}, "reply_to": "20599__1_157", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20599__1_159", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Thank you, General Ieyoub.\nMr. Burnes, you have 8 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2938.996, 2940.855], "stop_times": [2940.855, 2942.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2938.996}, "reply_to": "20599__1_158", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20599__2_000", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "May it please the Court--\nI would like to address a few of the points raised by General Ieyoub.\nThe injury here, the harm involved when you're looking at the claims which would fall under Article III standing, is the right not to be indicted by a nonimpartial grand jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2942.932, 2946.4, 2949.492], "stop_times": [2946.4, 2949.492, 2962.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2942.932}, "reply_to": "20599__1_159", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__2_001", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "But look... look... I mean, I have no problem with your due process standing.\nI do have a problem on the merits of the due process claim, which is supposed to be an assertion that the conviction here was fundamentally unfair.\nYour client had a petit jury, fairly chosen... you made no claim that that wasn't fairly chosen... which found your client guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime alleged.\nNow, the only function of the grand jury beforehand is not to find whether he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but to find whether there's reason to believe, adequate reason to believe that he might have committed it, to have him tried.\nWell, my goodness, we've gone beyond that.\nI mean, the game's over.\nA petit jury has said yeah, there's not only reason to believe, he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.\nWhat is fundamentally unfair about your client's conviction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [2962.378, 2966.891, 2976.638, 2990.32, 3002.236, 3004.501, 3005.813, 3010.562], "stop_times": [2966.891, 2976.638, 2990.32, 3002.236, 3004.501, 3005.813, 3010.562, 3013.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2962.378}, "reply_to": "20599__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20599__2_002", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "That he was denied the opportunity to have an impartial grand jury look at the evidence presented to that grand jury and say, we're only going to indict him for manslaughter, or we're not even going to indict him at all.\nThat is a right that the citizens have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [3013.498, 3024.103], "stop_times": [3024.103, 3025.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3013.498}, "reply_to": "20599__2_001", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__2_003", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "But there could be no possible mistake a grand jury's having found there to be probable cause, given that a petit jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that he's guilty.\nI mean, I... you know, it's a terrible thing to exclude people like that, and maybe somebody had... I'm sure a black grand juror who has been excluded could set it right, or the Justice Department could bring suit to set it right, but I don't see why your client has been convicted in a fundamentally unfair manner.\nHe's had a petit jury that, fairly chosen, found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [3025.914, 3033.834, 3052.31], "stop_times": [3033.834, 3052.31, 3056.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3025.914}, "reply_to": "20599__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20599__2_004", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Mr. Campbell was convicted.\nHowever, he has the right to have the grand jury look at the evidence and say, we're only going to indict for manslaughter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [3056.23, 3059.072], "stop_times": [3059.072, 3065.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3056.23}, "reply_to": "20599__2_003", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__2_005", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "He has that right and there was an error made and somebody should correct that, but did that error deprive him of... make his conviction fundamentally unfair?\nIt's only his conviction.\nI mean, if you're asking for something else, money damages or, you know, something different, maybe you've got a claim there, but your client's conviction was fundamentally unfair--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [3065.43, 3076.816, 3077.612], "stop_times": [3076.816, 3077.612, 3088.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3065.43}, "reply_to": "20599__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20599__2_006", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Your Honor, we aren't arguing that the conviction was fundamentally unfair.\nWe are arguing that he was denied his rights at that grand jury stage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [3088.216, 3092.621], "stop_times": [3092.621, 3097.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3088.216}, "reply_to": "20599__2_005", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__2_007", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Well, in the Mechanic case in the Federal courts we held that even though a Federal grand jury does not conform to the requirements set up by Congress, nonetheless, if the person is convicted, the shortcomings of the grand jury are harmless error.\nWhy doesn't the same thing follow in this situation insofar as your due process claim is concerned?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [3097.729, 3114.894], "stop_times": [3114.894, 3120.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3097.729}, "reply_to": "20599__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20599__2_008", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Your Honor, there's... because the long line of cases from this Court which find that racial discrimination at the grand jury--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [3120.283], "stop_times": [3127.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3120.283}, "reply_to": "20599__2_007", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__2_009", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "But those are not due process cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [3127.763], "stop_times": [3130.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3127.763}, "reply_to": "20599__2_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20599__2_010", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Well, with respect to the due process, I believe there is a due process harm there when, in order to be convicted and sentenced to a life sentence in Louisiana, the citizen has a right to the indictment by the grand jury and the grand jury here was not impartial, did not have... he was not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [3130.262], "stop_times": [3151.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3130.262}, "reply_to": "20599__2_009", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__2_011", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Well, when you say not impartial that suggests that some members of the grand jury were prejudiced against your client.\nNow, there's no evidence of that, is there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [3151.083, 3157.549], "stop_times": [3157.549, 3159.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3151.083}, "reply_to": "20599__2_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20599__2_012", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Well, as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [3159.47], "stop_times": [3160.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3159.47}, "reply_to": "20599__2_011", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__2_013", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Is there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [3160.283], "stop_times": [3160.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3160.283}, "reply_to": "20599__2_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20599__2_014", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Your Honor, there is no evidence in the record of that and you can't see the evidence in the record of that and that's pointed out very clearly in the Vasquez v. Hillery case, where--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [3160.908], "stop_times": [3168.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3160.908}, "reply_to": "20599__2_013", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__2_015", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Which was an equal protection case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [3168.544], "stop_times": [3170.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3168.544}, "reply_to": "20599__2_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20599__2_016", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Which says that you cannot determine--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [3170.245], "stop_times": [3173.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3170.245}, "reply_to": "20599__2_015", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__2_017", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "You're just melding together the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Due Process Clause, it seems to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [3173.573], "stop_times": [3179.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3173.573}, "reply_to": "20599__2_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20599__2_018", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, the analysis, the argument right there that you cannot tell what the harm is because you're not allowed to look at those deliberations and look at those votes is equally as strong in the due process area as in the equal protection area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [3179.883], "stop_times": [3192.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3179.883}, "reply_to": "20599__2_017", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__2_019", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "You know, this seems to be sort of the gaming theory of criminal justice.\nYour client, with a different grand jury, might have been lucky enough to get a grand jury that didn't find sufficient cause to bring an indictment, might have been that lucky, although it's clear there was sufficient cause to bring an indictment.\nIndeed, he was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.\nI find it hard to find that a deprivation of fundamental fairness.\nThe only issue for the grand jury was whether there was enough evidence here to bring the prosecution and that's been established by the conviction.\nIt's been established a fortiori.\nIt's been established 10 times over by conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.\nI find it hard to see that your client's been deprived of fundamental fairness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [3192.753, 3196.502, 3214.54, 3216.946, 3221.616, 3230.472, 3232.721, 3236.907], "stop_times": [3196.502, 3214.54, 3216.946, 3221.616, 3230.472, 3232.721, 3236.907, 3241.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3192.753}, "reply_to": "20599__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20599__2_020", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Your Honor, that's where we would disagree with Your Honor, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [3241.997], "stop_times": [3245.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3241.997}, "reply_to": "20599__2_019", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__2_021", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Does Peters v. Kiff help you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [3245.34], "stop_times": [3246.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3245.34}, "reply_to": "20599__2_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20599__2_022", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--Peters v. Kiff, Your Honor, is a case involving I believe petit juries.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [3246.684], "stop_times": [3255.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3246.684}, "reply_to": "20599__2_021", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__2_023", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "And grand jury both, I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [3255.961], "stop_times": [3258.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3255.961}, "reply_to": "20599__2_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20599__2_024", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "And extended to grand juries.\nHere, the harm is that he's not given a chance for the grand jury to say, you know, this defendant may or may not have done that, we're going to only find for manslaughter, and not subject him to that life sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [3258.898, 3261.226], "stop_times": [3261.226, 3277.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3258.898}, "reply_to": "20599__2_023", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__2_025", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Was there a majority opinion for the Court in Kiff?\nI thought there was not.\nI thought we really don't know what was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [3277.093, 3279.654, 3280.482], "stop_times": [3279.654, 3280.482, 3282.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3277.093}, "reply_to": "20599__2_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20599__2_026", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "I don't recall, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [3282.638], "stop_times": [3283.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3282.638}, "reply_to": "20599__2_025", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__2_027", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "--3-3-3, as I recall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [3283.528], "stop_times": [3287.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3283.528}, "reply_to": "20599__2_026", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20599__2_028", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Okay.\nYour Honor, I'd like to... Your Honors, I'd like to address a few more issues.\nOne is that General Ieyoub raised the point that only 9 votes were needed by the grand jury again on that case that would seem to be urging an issue, urging a rule that we could discriminate on 3 out of the 12 grand jury members, still get 9 votes from the other ones and have a valid indictment.\nI don't believe that is a good rule.\nGeneral Ieyoub has also argued that the Louisiana supreme court has said that the grand jury foreman is ministerial, but you have to look at where the grand jury... where the Louisiana supreme court said that.\nThat was in this case which is under review here.\nThe problem here that there was systematic exclusion by the judge and that Petitioner Campbell has been denied standing to raise these claims.\nWhenever the State has argued against it they start going to the merits of the claims.\nThey start saying how he's got to prove this or prove that with respect to due process, yet Petitioner Campbell isn't given an opportunity to prove whether there was a due process violation or an equal protection violation or a Sixth Amendment violation when he's not given standing to assert them.\nIf there's no other questions, I'd yield my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [3287.292, 3287.636, 3291.54, 3312.251, 3314.532, 3324.2, 3326.778, 3338.475, 3342.645, 3356.062], "stop_times": [3287.636, 3291.54, 3312.251, 3314.532, 3324.2, 3326.778, 3338.475, 3342.645, 3356.062, 3360.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3287.292}, "reply_to": "20599__2_027", "speaker": "dmitrc_i_burnes"}
{"id": "20599__2_029", "conversation_id": "20599", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Burnes.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1584", "start_times": [3360.764, 3361.68], "stop_times": [3361.68, 3362.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3360.764}, "reply_to": "20599__2_028", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20149__0_000", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 97-6270, Gerald Caron v. The United States.\nSpectators are admonished do not talk until you get out of the courtroom.\nThe Court remains in session.\nWe will wait just a minute, Mr. Walker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [0.0, 8.067, 13.582, 15.063], "stop_times": [8.067, 13.582, 15.063, 40.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20149__0_001", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [40.139], "stop_times": [40.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 40.139}, "reply_to": "20149__0_000", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_002", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Mr. Walker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [40.48], "stop_times": [50.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 40.48}, "reply_to": "20149__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20149__0_003", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nIf a person is pardoned or has civil rights restored, the statute at issue says his conviction is considered a predicate conviction under Federal firearms law only if the pardon or restoration of rights expressly provides that he may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.\nMy client's... when my client's rights were restored, Massachusetts law told him that he could possess rifles and shotguns and, indeed, possess a handgun in his home.\nHe's now serving an additional 12 years on his sentence for possessing the very firearms that Massachusetts law told him that he could possess.\nWe say it's self-evident that the statute... that it cannot be said that Massachusetts expressly provides that he could not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [50.216, 53.037, 72.671, 84.429, 95.275], "stop_times": [53.037, 72.671, 84.429, 95.275, 106.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 50.216}, "reply_to": "20149__0_002", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_004", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Of course, if we accept your interpretation of the law it wouldn't matter that the firearms he had were the kind that Massachusetts allows him to have.\nEven if he had the kind that Massachusetts didn't allow him to have he would not be subject to this provision of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [106.144, 115.74], "stop_times": [115.74, 122.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 106.144}, "reply_to": "20149__0_003", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20149__0_005", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "That is the... what the statute literally says, and it is the... we contend the only literal reading of the statute.\nIf the Court chooses to follow that literal reading, that is fine as far as my client is concerned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [122.245, 130.109], "stop_times": [130.109, 136.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 122.245}, "reply_to": "20149__0_004", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_006", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "What is the literal reading?\nWould you go through that again?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [136.695, 137.806], "stop_times": [137.806, 139.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 136.695}, "reply_to": "20149__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20149__0_007", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "The literal reading is that if the... a conviction... if a pardon says... only if a pardon says you can have no firearms, only if a pardon says no firearms can the conviction be considered a conviction.\nThis is... he was not told no firearms.\nHe was told a lot of firearms, indeed, most firearms, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [139.188, 157.79, 160.243], "stop_times": [157.79, 160.243, 164.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 139.188}, "reply_to": "20149__0_006", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_008", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "He wasn't pardoned, was he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [164.145], "stop_times": [165.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 164.145}, "reply_to": "20149__0_007", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20149__0_009", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "--I beg your pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [165.186], "stop_times": [166.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 165.186}, "reply_to": "20149__0_008", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_010", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Was he pardoned?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [166.288], "stop_times": [166.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 166.288}, "reply_to": "20149__0_009", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20149__0_011", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "No.\nHis situation is a restoration of civil rights, Your Honor, but the analysis is the same.\nThe so-called--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [166.919, 167.119, 172.112], "stop_times": [167.119, 172.112, 172.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 166.919}, "reply_to": "20149__0_010", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_012", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "That's where I'm having trouble, because I read this statute... I'd always thought that a felon in possession of a gun was committing a Federal crime.\nThen when I read this statute, the words civil rights restored, I discovered that 24 States restore civil rights virtually automatically, so in half the country it isn't a crime, unless, of course, in those States, and they are a random set thereof, that have some other gun law of their own for their own felons.\nAnd so we have about... I found about, like 11 or 12 of them anyway that seem to say, your rights are restored automatically, they're never taken away, as soon as you get out of prison, and by the way, you can have guns, so there, I guess, there is no such law.\nAnd then another set, about 11 say you can have some guns and not other guns, and I guess that's what we have here, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [172.983, 182.019, 202.772, 220.086], "stop_times": [182.019, 202.772, 220.086, 226.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 172.983}, "reply_to": "20149__0_011", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20149__0_013", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [226.049], "stop_times": [226.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 226.049}, "reply_to": "20149__0_012", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_014", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "So how do we deal with this?\nI honestly do not know.\nI'm very interested in your--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [226.3, 227.772, 229.772], "stop_times": [227.772, 229.772, 231.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 226.3}, "reply_to": "20149__0_013", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20149__0_015", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Well, I would suggest that the Court should follow the words of the statute.\nThe statute does not say that a conviction remains a Federal predicate if there are firearms that the pardon, or restoration of civil rights, expressly provides the person can't have.\nIt doesn't say that the conviction remains a predicate if the pardon or restoration of rights restricts firearms privileges, and it would have been very easy for Congress to say those things.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [231.124, 235.076, 249.117], "stop_times": [235.076, 249.117, 260.666], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 231.124}, "reply_to": "20149__0_014", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_016", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "--I don't think it has to be read that way.\nI mean, you're taking the literal meaning.\nSuppose it just prohibits his not possessing handguns.\nAren't handguns firearms?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [260.666, 260.925, 262.277, 267.27], "stop_times": [260.925, 262.277, 267.27, 268.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 260.666}, "reply_to": "20149__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20149__0_017", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Well, that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [268.341], "stop_times": [268.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 268.341}, "reply_to": "20149__0_016", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_018", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "So in prohibiting handguns it's prohibiting his possession of firearms.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [268.942], "stop_times": [274.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 268.942}, "reply_to": "20149__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20149__0_019", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "--There is a false syllogism in the circuit court's reading of the statute, and it goes like this.\nLet's say you like lawyers.\nYou like almost all lawyers, but A, B, and C are particular lawyers that you don't like, so the syllogism that is false goes like this.\nI do not like A, B, and C. A, B, and C are lawyers.\nTherefore, I do not like lawyers.\nIt comes out completely the opposite of the truth, almost completely the opposite.\nThe fact is, you like lawyers, but if you follow that logic, you end up with almost a contrary meaning.\nThe statute says no firearms.\nIt says the State law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [274.565, 281.04, 282.57, 291.706, 296.461, 299.462, 304.055, 311.558, 313.971], "stop_times": [281.04, 282.57, 291.706, 296.461, 299.462, 304.055, 311.558, 313.971, 315.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 274.565}, "reply_to": "20149__0_018", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_020", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "It does not say that.\nI... unless I have the wrong statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [315.232, 317.534], "stop_times": [317.534, 318.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 315.232}, "reply_to": "20149__0_019", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20149__0_021", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "--Well... you're correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [318.836], "stop_times": [320.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 318.836}, "reply_to": "20149__0_020", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_022", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "It does not say no firearms.\nThat's the whole point.\nIt says, shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter unless such pardon or restoration expressly provides that the person may not ship, possess, or receive firearms, and it doesn't say any firearms, it says firearms.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [320.596, 321.738, 322.499], "stop_times": [321.738, 322.499, 337.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 320.596}, "reply_to": "20149__0_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20149__0_023", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nFor example--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [337.637, 339.019], "stop_times": [339.019, 339.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 337.637}, "reply_to": "20149__0_022", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_024", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "So you have to be very, very careful.\nSo you misstated the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [339.57, 340.511], "stop_times": [340.511, 342.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 339.57}, "reply_to": "20149__0_023", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20149__0_025", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "--Well, I beg to differ, Your Honor.\nIf the Governor told her staffer, draw up the pardon for Smith, and I want it to expressly provide that Smith cannot ship, transport, possess or receive firearms.\nThe staffer goes and writes those words and also adds... staffer, let's say, likes hunting and says, but the person can have rifles and shotguns to go hunting.\nSo the Governor is looking the next day through her papers, is about to sign the pardon, and she looks down and says, what's this about rifles and shotguns.\nI told you to draw up a pardon that expressly provided that Smith couldn't ship, transport, possess or receive firearms.\nIt's perfectly clear what that means.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [342.344, 344.517, 356.035, 364.229, 373.485, 380.892], "stop_times": [344.517, 356.035, 364.229, 373.485, 380.892, 382.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 342.344}, "reply_to": "20149__0_024", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_026", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Let me take your lawyers example.\nIt isn't perfectly clear.\nIt could mean all or it could mean some, in all of these examples.\nSuppose, with lawyers, someone says, I have been cheated by lawyers.\nDoes that mean I have been cheated by all lawyers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [382.522, 383.924, 384.925, 388.058, 393.273], "stop_times": [383.924, 384.925, 388.058, 393.273, 396.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 382.522}, "reply_to": "20149__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20149__0_027", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "That... that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [396.376], "stop_times": [398.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 396.376}, "reply_to": "20149__0_026", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_028", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "I have been cheated by A, B, and C, and wouldn't I make the statement, I've been cheated by lawyers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [398.359], "stop_times": [403.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 398.359}, "reply_to": "20149__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20149__0_029", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "--Well, that is a different... there's no prohibition in that.\nThere are no words of prohibition.\nFor example, if you tell your children, you can't have candy, and later in the day you find out that they have had some candy, and they said, their answer is, well, you didn't say that we couldn't have some candy.\nYou just said we can't have candy, and that's true.\nM&M's, we didn't eat them, but they are candy, and the parent says, I said you can't have candy, and the statute says--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [403.071, 408.464, 409.966, 424.276, 427.328], "stop_times": [408.464, 409.966, 424.276, 427.328, 434.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 403.071}, "reply_to": "20149__0_028", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_030", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "It doesn't work.\nIt doesn't work even for a prohibition.\nSuppose you prohibited your child from eating gumdrops, and someone asks you, have you ever prohibited your children from eating candy?\nWouldn't you reply, yeah, on one occasion I prohibited them from eating gumdrops.\nGumdrops are candy.\nI have prohibited them from eating candy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [434.694, 435.015, 436.845, 444.552, 448.274, 449.464], "stop_times": [435.015, 436.845, 444.552, 448.274, 449.464, 452.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 434.694}, "reply_to": "20149__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20149__0_031", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "--You would say there's certain candy that I prohibited my child from eating, but if the question is, have you ever expressly told your children not to eat candy, the answer would be no, if you've only limited it to M&M's.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [452.065], "stop_times": [467.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 452.065}, "reply_to": "20149__0_030", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_032", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "I wouldn't say no.\nI'd say, on one occasion I told them they couldn't eat gumdrops.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [467.125, 467.335], "stop_times": [467.335, 469.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 467.125}, "reply_to": "20149__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20149__0_033", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Right, I couldn't eat... but you wouldn't say, on one occasion I told them they couldn't eat candy.\nThe other person may be asking about their teeth, for example.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [469.216, 475.22], "stop_times": [475.22, 479.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 469.216}, "reply_to": "20149__0_032", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_034", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Mr. Walker, can we get away from grammar for a moment and say, why isn't... since you can read this at least three ways, say why isn't the question, is this person, this ex-felon, now like everybody else with respect to guns, so if he can have guns like someone who never committed a crime, fine.\nThen we know that he doesn't fit in this category, but if he's not like everyone else, then he does.\nWhy isn't that the most sensible reading of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [479.213, 498.965, 504.742], "stop_times": [498.965, 504.742, 507.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 479.213}, "reply_to": "20149__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20149__0_035", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "I think that is the most sensible reading.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [507.296], "stop_times": [508.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 507.296}, "reply_to": "20149__0_034", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_036", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "But your client is not like everyone else because he can't have handguns on the street.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [508.868], "stop_times": [515.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 508.868}, "reply_to": "20149__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20149__0_037", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Other people can't have handguns on the street unless they get a special license.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [515.092], "stop_times": [521.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 515.092}, "reply_to": "20149__0_036", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_038", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Yes, but as I understand it, under Massachusetts law ex-felons can never be equated to people who never committed a crime because there's always a prohibition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [521.238], "stop_times": [531.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 521.238}, "reply_to": "20149__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20149__0_039", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nThat's correct.\nBut the... well, there's certainly... I have to address the question of congressional intent, which clearly weighs heavily on our side, deference to State lawmakers, and Justice Breyer has pointed out that 12 or so States make this distinction, the some but not all guns distinction.\nThe statute is this... the changes were based... in the statute were based on deference to the States.\nThe name of the statute, Firearms Owners Protection Act, and there's all kinds of history about how the ATF was bothering innocent-minded people--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [531.974, 533.256, 533.873, 559.151, 567.506], "stop_times": [533.256, 533.873, 559.151, 567.506, 577.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 531.974}, "reply_to": "20149__0_038", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_040", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Yes, but deference I don't think really... assuming that was the intent, I don't think that gets you where you want to go, because they could defer in either of two ways.\nThey could say, if the State legalizes it, it's okay with us, or they could say, this is a very dangerous situation, and unless the State wants to legalize it across the board and equate the convicted felon with the person who has never been convicted, we're not taking any chances and we're going to treat the felon as a felon.\nIn either case, the Congress would be deferring ultimately to a State determination, but in one case you win, in one case you lose, so deference isn't going to win the case for you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [577.973, 587.27, 605.974], "stop_times": [587.27, 605.974, 618.271], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 577.973}, "reply_to": "20149__0_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20149__0_041", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "--I disagree, Your Honor.\nI think first of all they aren't... certainly aren't deferring to the 12 or... 11 or 12 States that make the distinction.\nWhat they're saying is, we'll defer to you... if you want to ban all guns, Federal law... for ex-felons, Federal law will coincide.\nIf you want them to have all firearms, Federal law will coincide.\nBut if you try to split the difference, if you try to make reasonable compromises about what kinds of guns ex-felons can have, that's out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [618.271, 619.112, 625.925, 634.484, 638.508], "stop_times": [619.112, 625.925, 634.484, 638.508, 647.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 618.271}, "reply_to": "20149__0_040", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_042", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "There's no room for the Rule of Lenity here, then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [647.674], "stop_times": [650.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 647.674}, "reply_to": "20149__0_041", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20149__0_043", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Well, there's... I do not think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [650.686], "stop_times": [654.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 650.686}, "reply_to": "20149__0_042", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_044", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Rule of Lenity, I assume, is a compromise rule.\nIt says, if there is ambiguity, then, in fact, we will apply the Rule of Lenity.\nYou're saying you shouldn't read this as... I think you're saying that you shouldn't read this as raising the possibility of ambiguity.\nIt's got to be read 100 percent in my favor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [654.27, 656.323, 661.196, 667.22], "stop_times": [656.323, 661.196, 667.22, 670.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 654.27}, "reply_to": "20149__0_043", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20149__0_045", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "--I am just saying... I am saying, Your Honor, that there was only one reading that is grammatically correct that the ordinary person who had a pardon that says on it, pardon, you can have all the hunting guns you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [670.773], "stop_times": [683.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 670.773}, "reply_to": "20149__0_044", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_046", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "I thought we're not talking about a pardon.\nWe're talking about a statutory--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [683.963, 685.092], "stop_times": [685.092, 686.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 683.963}, "reply_to": "20149__0_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20149__0_047", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "--Well, there... if Your Honor please, the issue of some but not all is exactly the same for the pardon as it is for restoration of civil rights.\nIndeed, I suggest that the reason the lower courts, or some lower courts read this wrong is, they got into this whole question of restoration of civil rights, which has confounded all kinds of courts on all kinds of issues.\nThe simplest example is the some but not all pardon, the person that holds the pardon that says that he can have rifles and shotguns but not handguns.\nHe looks at it, says I can have rifles and shotguns, he looks at the statute and he says, does this statute expressly provide that I can't have firearms?\nNo.\nIt says I can have most firearms.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [686.294, 695.22, 708.169, 719.335, 727.46, 727.69], "stop_times": [695.22, 708.169, 719.335, 727.46, 727.69, 731.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 686.294}, "reply_to": "20149__0_046", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_048", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "--That's why I couldn't understand why you were running away from the Rule of Lenity that Justice Souter brought up.\nThe Rule of Lenity cuts in your favor, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [731.153, 736.336], "stop_times": [736.336, 737.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 731.153}, "reply_to": "20149__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20149__0_049", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Well, I think it does ultimately.\nIt's certainly in my brief, and I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [737.678, 739.288], "stop_times": [739.288, 740.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 737.678}, "reply_to": "20149__0_048", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_050", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "It says only if you're totally prohibited will this criminal law apply to you.\nIf you're only partially prohibited it won't.\nThat's the more lenient interpretation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [740.54, 745.642, 747.425], "stop_times": [745.642, 747.425, 749.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 740.54}, "reply_to": "20149__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20149__0_051", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "--I agree, Your Honor, completely, but I do think the Government's attempt to come up with a different interpretation of the literal interpretation is very strange, this question about there's four verbs in the statute rather than only one; that suddenly changes the whole meaning of the statute; that's why the First Circuit was right; they didn't realize it, but it was because there were four verbs there.\nI don't think that cuts the mustard, and therefore I don't think the Rule of Lenity is necessary, but reasonable people may disagree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [749.538, 772.263], "stop_times": [772.263, 780.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 749.538}, "reply_to": "20149__0_050", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_052", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "May I interrupt just a minute, because the question is, is it not... the question is whether Massachusetts law, which has restored the civil rights, expressly provides that a felon may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms, and does... is it not clear the Massachusetts law does provide that a felon may not possess, transport or ship certain firearms that other people can--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [780.088], "stop_times": [802.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 780.088}, "reply_to": "20149__0_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20149__0_053", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "There are firearms which Massachusetts law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [802.954], "stop_times": [806.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 802.954}, "reply_to": "20149__0_052", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_054", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "--Well then, why isn't the plain language against you?\nThat's what I don't quite understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [806.116, 807.695], "stop_times": [807.695, 808.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 806.116}, "reply_to": "20149__0_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20149__0_055", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "--There is a difference between, there are certain items that are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [808.756], "stop_times": [814.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 808.756}, "reply_to": "20149__0_054", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_056", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "The question is whether what he cannot ship, transport, or possess is a firearm, and there are certain firearms that he may not ship, transport, possess or receive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [814.42], "stop_times": [822.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 814.42}, "reply_to": "20149__0_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20149__0_057", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "--Exactly, Your Honor, and if Congress had--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [822.927], "stop_times": [825.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 822.927}, "reply_to": "20149__0_056", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_058", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "And other citizens may.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [825.249], "stop_times": [825.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 825.249}, "reply_to": "20149__0_057", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20149__0_059", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "--If Congress had said that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [825.75], "stop_times": [826.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 825.75}, "reply_to": "20149__0_058", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_060", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "But that's what it did say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [826.828], "stop_times": [828.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 826.828}, "reply_to": "20149__0_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20149__0_061", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "--No, it said... it doesn't say, if there are firearms--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [828.24], "stop_times": [831.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 828.24}, "reply_to": "20149__0_060", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_062", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "No, it says, unless such pardon, restoration... expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess or receive firearms.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [831.562], "stop_times": [838.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 831.562}, "reply_to": "20149__0_061", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20149__0_063", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [838.606], "stop_times": [839.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 838.606}, "reply_to": "20149__0_062", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_064", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "And it does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [839.066], "stop_times": [839.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 839.066}, "reply_to": "20149__0_063", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20149__0_065", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [839.427], "stop_times": [840.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 839.427}, "reply_to": "20149__0_064", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_066", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "His restoration of civil rights is not total.\nIt is limited by the fact that he may not possess, transport or receive certain firearms.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [840.088, 842.129], "stop_times": [842.129, 847.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 840.088}, "reply_to": "20149__0_065", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20149__0_067", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "I dis... I completely agree that there are firearms that Massachusetts prohibits the ex-felon from having, but I disagree that Massachusetts expressly provides that a felon may not have firearms.\nAn express provision--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [847.492, 862.082], "stop_times": [862.082, 862.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 847.492}, "reply_to": "20149__0_066", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_068", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Well, he may not have those firearms, the ones that he's prohibited from having.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [862.843], "stop_times": [865.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 862.843}, "reply_to": "20149__0_067", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20149__0_069", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "--That's correct, but when you say candy is prohibited to a child... I expressly provide you can't have candy, you're saying to the child, no candy, no M&M's or whatever.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [865.904], "stop_times": [877.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 865.904}, "reply_to": "20149__0_068", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_070", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Mr. Walker, I think I agree with your analysis generally that when a prohibition is expressed without qualification... no candy, no firearms... that means absolutely none, and that's not what we have here in Massachusetts.\nI'll grant you that.\nThe trouble with that analysis, and the trouble with saying therefore plain meaning governs in your favor, is that it leads to a crazy result which I find it very difficult to believe Congress could have intended, because it... I mean, it leads to the result of saying that the fact that Massachusetts draws a line, and we are referring to Massachusetts law at least for some purpose here, the line is nonetheless irrelevant.\nAnd it seems to me that it is the strangeness of that result which it is very difficult for me to believe that Congress could possibly have intended.\nE.g., Massachusetts says, rifles are okay but no machine guns, the fellow possesses a machine gun and Congress would have meant to say, machine guns are therefore fine.\nThat's hard to accept.\nIsn't that the problem with your case, and isn't that why we should not look at this as a plain meaning case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [877.321, 892.372, 893.153, 925.985, 935.091, 945.389, 947.061], "stop_times": [892.372, 893.153, 925.985, 935.091, 945.389, 947.061, 952.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 877.321}, "reply_to": "20149__0_069", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20149__0_071", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "If Your Honor please, the only literal... my position is, the only literal reading produces that result, but as the Court recently said, a literal reading that dramatically separates a statute from its purpose should not be followed that far, and that's in the Lewis case on any enactment in the Assimilated Crimes Act.\nAnd I would suggest the ordinary person that is holding the pardon that says, you can have rifles, if somebody says, the statute doesn't expressly provide I can't have firearms, some clever person comes along and says, this is great, you don't have a conviction now, therefore you can go out and get concealed weapons and you can go up to the ATF and thumb your nose at them, that's really great, and the ordinary person isn't going to say, oh, great.\nThe ordinary person is going to say, that's not what my pardon... my pardon doesn't extend that far.\nThat's a nice technical reading.\nThat's a nice sort of philosophical cuteness, but it obviously isn't what Congress probably meant to say.\nIt's what Congress said, but it does go beyond the purpose of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [952.784, 974.137, 1000.045, 1003.866, 1005.458, 1012.704], "stop_times": [974.137, 1000.045, 1003.866, 1005.458, 1012.704, 1017.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 952.784}, "reply_to": "20149__0_070", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_072", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Take the... take that case, because I'd like to go back to Justice Ginsburg's question, which I'm not certain I see the answer to.\nSay, does Virginia's law prohibit felons from having firearms?\nI don't know.\nAnd if it has some firearms and not others, I'm not sure how to answer the question, so I think it's ambiguous.\nBut if it is ambiguous, then what she said applied to pardons or to expungements or to restoration of civil rights, that the basic objective of the statute is to ask whether or not the State is treating this felon as if he's now like everybody else or whether he isn't, so if you pardon him, you assume he's back in the group of people that are like everybody else.\nWe wiped it out, and the same, en masse, with the civil rights restoration.\nBut it isn't wiped out... it isn't wiped out, and he's not like everybody else, if that wiping out had a condition attached, which condition was, we're not treating you like everybody else in respect to firearms.\nAnd now, if that's the purpose, what's the point, either in the pardon case, the expungement case or the civil rights case, of insisting that the States say, oh, we're really not treating you like everybody else in that you can't even have cannons, atomic bombs, all this stuff.\nWe have to put it all in there, and why isn't it enough to say that, well, most of the firearms are in there so they're not like somebody else, or even a significant amount?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1017.386, 1023.681, 1028.645, 1030.195, 1036.81, 1061.357, 1066.17, 1080.649, 1100.601], "stop_times": [1023.681, 1028.645, 1030.195, 1036.81, 1061.357, 1066.17, 1080.649, 1100.601, 1108.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1017.386}, "reply_to": "20149__0_071", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20149__0_073", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Because in fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1108.448], "stop_times": [1109.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1108.448}, "reply_to": "20149__0_072", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_074", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "That's the policy question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1109.707], "stop_times": [1110.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1109.707}, "reply_to": "20149__0_073", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20149__0_075", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "--Because in fact, Your Honor, restoration of civil rights does not treat... result in treating somebody as if they'd basically never been convicted.\nIt's very narrow.\nIt's right to jury, hold public office, et cetera... serve on a jury, hold public office.\nAnd the... in fact, you can be on parole in several States... and Massachusetts is one.\nYou can be on parole for a long, long time, 20 years.\nAfter 7 years your civil rights are restored, you're allowed to have some firearms and not other firearms, but the State hasn't declared you like all other citizens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1110.858, 1119.955, 1120.836, 1126.86, 1133.756, 1138.328], "stop_times": [1119.955, 1120.836, 1126.86, 1133.756, 1138.328, 1148.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1110.858}, "reply_to": "20149__0_074", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_076", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "The Federal statute is saying when these three happen in respect to firearms, any of these three things, the felon is, in effect, put back in the big pool of everybody, but he's not put back in the big pool of everybody if that event, which to a degree at least made him like everybody, is conditioned in a firearmsrelated way.\nNow, if that's what we're doing, why wouldn't the common sense of it be, is there a significant firearms condition, not is there a perfect complete firearms condition, but just is there a significant firearms condition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1148.085, 1169.409], "stop_times": [1169.409, 1183.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1148.085}, "reply_to": "20149__0_075", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20149__0_077", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Well, if Your Honor please, I'm not making myself clear.\nA person can have his rights, civil rights restored and every week have to report to a parole officer, every week, or he has to register as a sex offender, let's say.\nHe can't testify in a trial without being impeached.\nHe's not trust... he's considered rather untrustworthy by the State, yet his civil rights have been restored and he's like everybody else with respect to firearms.\nThis trustworthiness rationale that the Sixth Circuit came up with and the First Circuit followed does not work.\nThe person is not treated as being free of stigma, having a clean record.\nThat is not necessary to be reinstated to one's firearms rights under Massachusetts law and several other States, so there's no policy here that... the reason that you... that you can't have rifles if you can't have handguns is that basically that means that we don't really trust you.\nIn fact, you can have rifles even though we think you should report to a parole officer, should register, or whatever, so there is no policy rationale that supports the Government's position.\nBut the question of deference and the Federal deference to State authorities is a very significant one, and it's... the words of the congressional history about honoring the intent of the States, giving the States flexibility, all cut our way, and it is very odd... it would be, I would say, very odd for Congress to say look, if you want to be able to let your civil-rights-restored felon go hunting, then you've got to give him Saturday night specials, concealed weapons, and everything else.\nIt doesn't make any sense to suggest--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1183.287, 1185.68, 1196.067, 1199.829, 1209.587, 1217.692, 1223.018, 1244.849, 1257.98, 1291.93], "stop_times": [1185.68, 1196.067, 1199.829, 1209.587, 1217.692, 1223.018, 1244.849, 1257.98, 1291.93, 1294.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1183.287}, "reply_to": "20149__0_076", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_078", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Well, I think you can make sense out of the policy that this statute has to be enforced Nationwide.\nI mean, this man might well have been arrested in California, and we would have had to look back at the Massachusetts law, and the Federal Government might say if there are any... they didn't put it in precisely these terms, but their policy might be, if your civil rights have been restored but there is a condition, and you do not have full restoration as to any firearms at all, that's enough for us.\nYou cannot carry... you will be deemed a felon in possession for the Federal statute.\nThat's a perfectly sensible policy so far as I'm concerned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1294.604, 1299.406, 1322.021, 1328.596], "stop_times": [1299.406, 1322.021, 1328.596, 1330.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1294.604}, "reply_to": "20149__0_077", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20149__0_079", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "--Well, there... if Congress had said that, if the Congress had said, if there are firearms you can't possess, and we're just not going to make these interstate distinctions in that kind of thing, that would be a sensible policy.\nBut I would... I have to say to the Court that Congress rejected this simplicity rationale in the previous sentence on what defines a conviction, and basically... I don't know how to say this tactfully, but it basically said that this Court in the Dickerson case, that said you have to interpret the word conviction federally one way, it said... it overruled this Court.\nIt says, you've got to look each time a felon possession case comes up to determine whether the person--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1330.958, 1344.749, 1367.403], "stop_times": [1344.749, 1367.403, 1373.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1330.958}, "reply_to": "20149__0_078", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_080", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "It didn't overrule us.\nIt just changed one of its statutes, which was broken.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1373.439, 1374.621], "stop_times": [1374.621, 1376.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1373.439}, "reply_to": "20149__0_079", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20149__0_081", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "--Well, thank you, Your Honor.\n[Laughter]\nBut at any rate, it paid... the parade of... or the problems that this Court pointed out with the other interpretation Congress ignored.\nIt said, you've got to do a lot of work, judges, here, to figure out what the law is, even though you're an Idaho case with a Massachusetts prior conviction.\nIf the Court has no other questions I would ask to reserve.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1376.774, 1379.346, 1380.207, 1391.514, 1401.321], "stop_times": [1379.346, 1380.207, 1391.514, 1401.321, 1405.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1376.774}, "reply_to": "20149__0_080", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__0_082", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Very well, Mr. Walker.\nMr. Nuechterlein, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1405.696, 1407.556], "stop_times": [1407.556, 1409.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1405.696}, "reply_to": "20149__0_081", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20149__1_000", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIn our view the unless clause of section 921(a)(20) means that a past felony conviction counts for purposes of Federal firearms law if the convicting jurisdiction gives continuing effect to the conviction in a manner that relates to firearms.\nThat is the majority view among the courts of appeals that have addressed this issue.\nUnder the minority view, which is what the petitioner has supported here, a past State conviction counts for Federal purposes only if the convicting State prohibits its felons from possessing the kind of gun that the felon is caught with in the present--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1409.595, 1417.212, 1430.87, 1434.544], "stop_times": [1417.212, 1430.87, 1434.544, 1449.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1409.595}, "reply_to": "20149__0_082", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20149__1_001", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Well, the fact that there are these differences of opinion may point in the direction of suggesting that the language is ambiguous, and therefore we have to apply the Rule of Lenity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1449.252], "stop_times": [1460.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1449.252}, "reply_to": "20149__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20149__1_002", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "--Well, in our brief we've noted that there are two possible grammatical ways to read this language, but one of them is not what petitioner proposes here.\nA conviction either counts as a conviction for purposes of Federal law or it doesn't.\nThe inquiry under section 921(a)(20) turns on whether a State has restored a felon's civil rights and, if so, whether it has continued to impose restrictions on his firearms possession.\nIf that is the case, then the conviction remains a conviction with respect to any firearms that the felon may possess in the present.\nIt triggers the prohibition under the felon-in-possession statute, section 922(g), that a felon may not possess any firearms.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1460.93, 1469.786, 1474.358, 1487.959, 1497.354], "stop_times": [1469.786, 1474.358, 1487.959, 1497.354, 1503.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1460.93}, "reply_to": "20149__1_001", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20149__1_003", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Well, there's a certain incongruity in saying that you're following State law and yet... this person was apparently allowed to possess long guns under State law, and yet he's being prosecuted as a felon in possession.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1503.949], "stop_times": [1518.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1503.949}, "reply_to": "20149__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20149__1_004", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Well, Federal law requires a court to look to the law of the convicting jurisdiction for its purpose, and everyone acknowledges that, but the purpose is to determine whether or not that convicting jurisdiction has continued to give the conviction effect with respect to firearms, and that is the only respect in which Federal law defers to State law in this context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1518.769], "stop_times": [1539.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1518.769}, "reply_to": "20149__1_003", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20149__1_005", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "So you say it's not deference across the board.\nIt's just deference in one particular.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1539.683, 1541.515], "stop_times": [1541.515, 1543.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1539.683}, "reply_to": "20149__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20149__1_006", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "That is correct, and it's important to remember that even under petitioner's position there are a variety of contexts in which Federal law would criminalize the possession of a firearm by a felon where a State law would not.\nFor example, in this case petitioner has prior convictions in California and also under Federal law, so no matter what Massachusetts does to restore his civil rights for his Massachusetts convictions, and no matter what Massachusetts says with respect to his firearms privileges, he still remains a felon in possession for purposes of Federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1543.215, 1552.612], "stop_times": [1552.612, 1570.614], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1543.215}, "reply_to": "20149__1_005", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20149__1_007", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Yes, but not for sentencing under the three-strikes-you're-out proposal, because if the Massachusetts convictions don't qualify then he'd be sentenced differently.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1570.614], "stop_times": [1582.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1570.614}, "reply_to": "20149__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20149__1_008", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Well, I think that the fact that this case arises as a 924(e) case dealing with the recidivism sentencing provision, merely serves to emphasize why this reading has to be correct.\nIt's implausible to believe that Congress would want the recidivism inquiry, which is... looks to how dangerous this particular person is based on his past convictions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1582.433, 1594.519], "stop_times": [1594.519, 1603.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1582.433}, "reply_to": "20149__1_007", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20149__1_009", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Well, I think the reading you espoused may be the one that most closely tracks what Congress must have intended, but I'm not certain that the language requires it, and in that posture I ask you again whether we don't have to be concerned about the Rule of Lenity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1603.766], "stop_times": [1619.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1603.766}, "reply_to": "20149__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20149__1_010", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "--Well, I think again the Rule of Lenity can only be used to advocate a position that is consistent with the statutory text, and this statutory text cannot be read to turn on what kind of firearm a felon happens to possess in the present.\nReturning back to the fact that this is a section 924(e) proceeding, it's very unlikely, we believe, that Congress would want the recidivism inquiry to turn on whether petitioner brought a rifle or a handgun to the scene of his July 1993 assault.\nWhat matters is that with respect to none of these violent felony convictions had the State wiped his slate clean.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1619.586, 1630.674, 1644.054], "stop_times": [1630.674, 1644.054, 1651.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1619.586}, "reply_to": "20149__1_009", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20149__1_011", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Well, Mr. Nuechterlein--\n--Your example assumes not just application of the Rule of Lenity, but also rewriting of the statute pursuant to the Rule of Lenity, because even if you applied the Rule of Lenity, that doesn't... that gets you to the point where it wouldn't matter whether he brought a shotgun or a short gun, it would... he would simply be able to have all firearms or be able to have no firearms.\nThat is to say, even if he had a firearm that was forbidden by the State, if you take the reading given by petitioner, even if he brought a handgun, which the State prohibits, he wouldn't be sentenced as a recidivist under this provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1651.037, 1651.948, 1677.384], "stop_times": [1651.948, 1677.384, 1693.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1651.037}, "reply_to": "20149__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20149__1_012", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "That is correct, and as this Court has repeatedly stated the Rule of Lenity cannot be used to support a reading of a statute that gives rise to implausible results and that would be one of them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1693.005], "stop_times": [1703.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1693.005}, "reply_to": "20149__1_011", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20149__1_013", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "But I think the--\n--That's what the--\n--I was going to yield to Justice Souter the remainder of my time.\n[Laughter]\nThere are three possible readings, and I think that the petitioner will take two out of those three, so it doesn't have to be all or nothing, or--\n--Only if you don't want to make up language that the statute doesn't contain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1703.883, 1704.514, 1704.874, 1710.919, 1713.2, 1726.3], "stop_times": [1704.514, 1704.874, 1710.919, 1713.2, 1726.3, 1732.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1703.883}, "reply_to": "20149__1_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20149__1_014", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "The Rule of Lenity would not... could not be used to support a reading of the statute that is either implausible or is grammatically incompatible with the language of the statute.\nThe reading that the First Circuit shows here is the only reading that is both grammatical and plausible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1732.985, 1743.41], "stop_times": [1743.41, 1748.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1732.985}, "reply_to": "20149__1_013", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20149__1_015", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Well, I question the plaus... here's the problem that I have with the plausibility.\nThe plausibility problem on the other side I think is clear.\nYou know, you allow the person under State law to buy a single-shot.22 and he says, that means I can buy a machine gun.\nCongress couldn't have meant that.\nThe implausibility on your side, though, it seems to me, is this, that on your reading State law becomes a trap.\nI find it implausible to believe that Congress wrote that statute having State law in mind as relevant for some purpose, nonetheless assuming that even though State law says you can have the single-shot.22, you follow State law, you do what is lawful under State law, and you still get caught under the Federal statute.\nThat turns State law into a trap, and that seems to me the source of the implausibility for your all-or-nothing reading.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1748.324, 1752.646, 1757.389, 1763.493, 1764.765, 1774.002, 1798.217], "stop_times": [1752.646, 1757.389, 1763.493, 1764.765, 1774.002, 1798.217, 1805.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1748.324}, "reply_to": "20149__1_014", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20149__1_016", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "I disagree for two reasons.\nOne is that there are many circumstances in which both State and Federal law address the same subject matter under criminal law, and a person is assumed to both know about and to comply with both, but more importantly, under any interpretation of the statute, and that includes petitioner's, there will be a broad range of circumstances in which Federal law would criminalize what State law expressly permits, and this is an example of such a case.\nIf you disregard the three previous Massachusetts convictions it would still remain the case that in 1970 petitioner was convicted of attempted murder in California.\nNo matter what Massachusetts, the jurisdiction of his long-time residence, says to him about his right to possess firearms, he would still be barred under Federal law from possessing them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1805.974, 1807.636, 1831.842, 1839.937], "stop_times": [1807.636, 1831.842, 1839.937, 1848.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1805.974}, "reply_to": "20149__1_015", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20149__1_017", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Okay, but he would not be barred, in effect, through the use of the Massachusetts scheme as a pitfall, or as a trap for him.\nFederal law would straightforwardly say, no.\nBut this is not a case where State... I mean, the argument here is not a case where Federal law is straightforwardly saying no.\nFederal law is making a reference to State law.\nState law says it's okay, and then Federal law in effect says, well, on one all-or-nothing grammatical reading, that isn't good enough.\nThat's a strange scheme when you're dealing with convicted felons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1848.374, 1859.141, 1862.604, 1868.659, 1870.892, 1879.277], "stop_times": [1859.141, 1862.604, 1868.659, 1870.892, 1879.277, 1882.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1848.374}, "reply_to": "20149__1_016", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20149__1_018", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Well, Federal law in our view does, in fact, expressly prohibit possession of a firearm by a felon if the convicting jurisdiction has not... or has continued to give effect to his conviction in a manner that relates to firearms.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1882.319], "stop_times": [1894.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1882.319}, "reply_to": "20149__1_017", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20149__1_019", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "In any way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1894.377], "stop_times": [1894.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1894.377}, "reply_to": "20149__1_018", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20149__1_020", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "But even in Massachusetts, even if you look only at Massachusetts, then there are two additional circumstances under which the Federal law prohibition will be broader than the State law prohibition under anybody's construction of the statute.\nFor example, he committed a Federal felony in Massachusetts.\nNotwithstanding anything that Massachusetts tells him about his firearms privileges, he is still a felon in possession under the Federal criminal prohibition, and there's also--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1894.968, 1906.345, 1909.407], "stop_times": [1906.345, 1909.407, 1918.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1894.968}, "reply_to": "20149__1_019", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20149__1_021", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "But he has to commit a felony, and he would say, well, you know... and in the circumstances of this case I don't feel too sorry for him, because it's just a question of how much of a penalty he gets for a later felony that he committed, but the statute also covers a case where he hasn't committed any later felony, and he's just following the State law which says, you may now possess long guns, and suddenly he's guilty, nonetheless, of a Federal firearms offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1918.884], "stop_times": [1945.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1918.884}, "reply_to": "20149__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20149__1_022", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "--Justice Scalia, if Congress had wanted simply to track in every respect the State law prohibition it would have been very easy for it to have done that, and it didn't.\nBut the more important point is that even if he only had one felony conviction and that felony conviction was in Massachusetts, there is a 2-year window after which Massachusetts restores some of its firearms privileges but does not restore his civil rights.\nThere are jurisdictions that restore firearms privileges before civil rights, and even with respect to those jurisdictions the Federal prohibition still obtains.\nThere's still... because we have a two-step inquiry it's inconceivable that Congress meant to defer to State law in every respect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1945.971, 1953.116, 1967.508, 1975.111], "stop_times": [1953.116, 1967.508, 1975.111, 1985.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1945.971}, "reply_to": "20149__1_021", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20149__1_023", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Why wouldn't... I mean, I don't understand what Congress was driving at.\nThat's what I... and the reason is, as Justice Souter was saying, is it's plausible Congress could have meant, once the State decides to let these previously convicted felons carry some guns, Federal law jumps out of the business and we leave it up to State law, and he'll be punished if he's carrying the kinds of guns he shouldn't and he won't be punished if he's carrying the kinds of guns he should.\nI mean, that's a possible reading of the statute, in which case the anomaly of him being able to carry anything, even if the State lets him carry some things, is no longer anomalous.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [1985.248, 1990.772, 2016.929], "stop_times": [1990.772, 2016.929, 2028.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1985.248}, "reply_to": "20149__1_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20149__1_024", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Right.\nIt's important, though--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [2028.757, 2029.107], "stop_times": [2029.107, 2029.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2028.757}, "reply_to": "20149__1_023", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20149__1_025", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "So that's a possible reading.\nWhat I can't get at is, what was Congress up to?\nI mean, as I said before, it seems to me that with this word civil rights they've sort of taken this statute away from half the country, and then when you start looking to how these 24 States get back into it there's a whole nightmare of different rules and regulations as to when some guns can be carried and you can't carry others, et cetera.\nSo what was Congress doing, in other words, if it didn't mean to take the Federal Government out of the business entirely in respect to prior felons if the State was willing to let those prior felons carry some guns?\nWhat other purpose could Congress have had?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [2029.397, 2030.258, 2033.171, 2057.525, 2074.279], "stop_times": [2030.258, 2033.171, 2057.525, 2074.279, 2076.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2029.397}, "reply_to": "20149__1_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20149__1_026", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "--It's important to remember the historical backdrop against which Congress legislated.\nUp till 1986 it was always a felony for a felon to possess firearms if he had a State conviction for a felony, notwithstanding anything the State had done to restore his rights, either monolithically or partially.\nCongress then began in this legislation with the presumption that felons are too dangerous to have firearms, but it made an exception in cases where a State has decided not to give continuing effect to the conviction for purposes of civil rights for firearms privileges, and that is the bright-line rule that Congress imposed here, and it is a rule of national application.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [2076.129, 2080.062, 2095.411], "stop_times": [2080.062, 2095.411, 2119.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2076.129}, "reply_to": "20149__1_025", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20149__1_027", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Am I right in understanding that there was a lot of labor lost, if your interpretation is correct, with all the time that the First Circuit spent figuring out if civil rights had been restored?\nThat was academic.\nThey should have gone right to the gun prohibition.\nThey should have seen that X felon for life is barred from carrying at least some guns, and that's the end of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [2119.9, 2131.567, 2133.807, 2136.829], "stop_times": [2131.567, 2133.807, 2136.829, 2144.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2119.9}, "reply_to": "20149__1_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20149__1_028", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Well, the district court had never reached the firearms restriction question, because under binding First Circuit precedent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [2144.135], "stop_times": [2149.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2144.135}, "reply_to": "20149__1_027", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20149__1_029", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "But shouldn't the district court have gone right to that question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [2149.378], "stop_times": [2153.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2149.378}, "reply_to": "20149__1_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20149__1_030", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "--It was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [2153.141], "stop_times": [2153.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2153.141}, "reply_to": "20149__1_029", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20149__1_031", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Why get into this whole hassle about whether civil rights had been restored if the Federal legislation means so long as the State bars you from carrying any gun you don't come out from this category?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [2153.732], "stop_times": [2169.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2153.732}, "reply_to": "20149__1_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20149__1_032", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "--It was because at the time the district court ruled, the First Circuit law was crystal clear.\nIf you hadn't received an individualized pardon or restoration of civil rights, then that was the end of the inquiry, so that was the simplest basis on which the district court could have resolved the case, and it was on that basis that the First Circuit then revisited its earlier precedent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [2169.214, 2174.305], "stop_times": [2174.305, 2189.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2169.214}, "reply_to": "20149__1_031", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20149__1_033", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "What do... if my... the question I just asked you... you remember that one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [2189.145], "stop_times": [2195.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2189.145}, "reply_to": "20149__1_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20149__1_034", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [2195.199], "stop_times": [2195.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2195.199}, "reply_to": "20149__1_033", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20149__1_035", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "All right.\nThat wasn't necessarily my view, but suppose the view that underlay that question was right, then I guess when you went back to the history of this statute, they would have not just... they would have been gutting the prior law, so you would have thought that there would have been huge arguments about it, whether this basic statute, you know, that forbids felons to possess guns was really going to be... half of it chopped away.\nThere would have been an enormous argument.\nOn the other hand, on your reading of it, it makes a kind of odd, bizarre, but narrow exception that has weird, jagged edges.\nVery well, maybe there wasn't a lot of debate about that.\nMaybe it went unnoticed.\nWell, when you look into this, what was it?\nWhat was the debate like?\nI mean, what was the discussion like when they passed this statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [2195.419, 2195.79, 2222.429, 2223.892, 2231.906, 2235.369, 2236.561, 2238.852, 2241.363], "stop_times": [2195.79, 2222.429, 2223.892, 2231.906, 2235.369, 2236.561, 2238.852, 2241.363, 2244.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2195.419}, "reply_to": "20149__1_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20149__1_036", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "There wasn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [2244.745], "stop_times": [2245.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2244.745}, "reply_to": "20149__1_035", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20149__1_037", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Was this meant to be a major change in the statute that really would have eradicated half the statute, or was it meant to be some minor thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [2245.537], "stop_times": [2253.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2245.537}, "reply_to": "20149__1_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20149__1_038", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "--No.\nIn fact, the statute does not reflect a belief by Congress that it was overhauling the Federal felon-in-possession prohibition.\nCongress was responding to this Court's decision in Dickerson that held that whether something should be counted as a conviction to begin with under... for purposes of the statute, this Court had held that that question should be held purely as a matter of Federal law.\nWhat was at issue there was a State procedure of deferred adjudication, and this Court held that even though the State didn't characterize deferred adjudication as a conviction, that it would be deemed a conviction for purposes of Federal law, so that was... that, along with situations where someone is given a blanket pardon and his conviction is treated as a nullity, were the two situations that Congress was focused on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [2253.013, 2253.181, 2260.687, 2275.406], "stop_times": [2253.181, 2260.687, 2275.406, 2299.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2253.013}, "reply_to": "20149__1_037", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20149__1_039", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "How many States are there that allow ex-felons free access to guns just like everyone else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [2299.122], "stop_times": [2307.659], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2299.122}, "reply_to": "20149__1_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20149__1_040", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "States have 50 different approaches to this problem, and I've... I couldn't give you an exact figure, but I do know that most States do not restore firearms privileges immediately upon release from confinement.\nThat occurs gradually over time.\nAbout half the States--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [2307.659, 2323.999, 2327.752], "stop_times": [2323.999, 2327.752, 2329.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2307.659}, "reply_to": "20149__1_039", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20149__1_041", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "You mean, even for embezzlers and bigamists?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [2329.272], "stop_times": [2330.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2329.272}, "reply_to": "20149__1_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20149__1_042", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "--I think most State statutes are phrased in terms of whether or not you've committed a felony.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [2330.974], "stop_times": [2336.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2330.974}, "reply_to": "20149__1_041", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20149__1_043", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "No matter what felony, whether it's a violent crime or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [2336.498], "stop_times": [2339.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2336.498}, "reply_to": "20149__1_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20149__1_044", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Some States I think also have fine-tuned this to focus--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [2339.48], "stop_times": [2342.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2339.48}, "reply_to": "20149__1_043", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20149__1_045", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Maybe embezzlers have their check-writing privileges restored gradually.\n[Laughter]\nI'm trying to find out whether this statute... whether there's any ex-felon that benefits from this provision.\nI've had all my civil rights restored, but... so if there are States that say, ex-felon, after a certain amount of time you can buy guns, and you're subject to the prohibitions that everyone else is, but no more.\nIf there aren't States that do that, then I would resist interpreting a statute to do nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [2342.584, 2346.505, 2347.116, 2357.094, 2371.954], "stop_times": [2346.505, 2347.116, 2357.094, 2371.954, 2380.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2342.584}, "reply_to": "20149__1_044", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20149__1_046", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, there are States that do that.\nThe question is how long it takes for firearms privileges to be restored.\nAbout half of the States in the Federal system are all-or-nothing States, such that they either prohibit possession of all firearms, or they permit possession of all firearms after a certain point.\nSome States, like Vermont, restore firearms privileges immediately upon release from prison.\nOthers take 10 years, 15 years, but there are a substantial number of cases... there are a substantial number of States in which firearms privileges are either completely withheld or completely restored.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [2380.229, 2381.891, 2386.473, 2396.28, 2400.364], "stop_times": [2381.891, 2386.473, 2396.28, 2400.364, 2410.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2380.229}, "reply_to": "20149__1_045", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20149__1_047", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "And in Massachusetts your view is that no ex-felon... the Massachusetts conviction will always stick because there's always a bar on at least some gun possession.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [2410.782], "stop_times": [2422.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2410.782}, "reply_to": "20149__1_046", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20149__1_048", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Unless the felon were to have that removed under State law processes.\nIf there are no further questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [2422.65, 2426.924], "stop_times": [2426.924, 2431.547], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2422.65}, "reply_to": "20149__1_047", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20149__1_049", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Nuechterlein.\nMr. Walker, you have 6 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [2431.547, 2433.489], "stop_times": [2433.489, 2438.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2431.547}, "reply_to": "20149__1_048", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20149__2_000", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "May it please the Court, unless the Court has further questions, I have no further argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [2438.041], "stop_times": [2442.666], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2438.041}, "reply_to": "20149__1_049", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__2_001", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Just the difference... the difference... the consequence of this, am I right that it was 120 months versus 262 months?\nIs that what we're--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [2442.666, 2451.691], "stop_times": [2451.691, 2452.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2442.666}, "reply_to": "20149__2_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20149__2_002", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "The maximum would have been 10 years, that's correct, Your Honor, so the add-on because of the fact that he did what... well, because of the court's... circuit's interpretation of this statute was 12 additional years.\nWell, 11 years and 10 months additionally.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [2452.853, 2466.372], "stop_times": [2466.372, 2470.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2452.853}, "reply_to": "20149__2_001", "speaker": "owen_s_walker"}
{"id": "20149__2_003", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Walker.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [2470.575, 2471.837], "stop_times": [2471.837, 2473.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2470.575}, "reply_to": "20149__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20149__2_004", "conversation_id": "20149", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6270", "start_times": [2473.437], "stop_times": [2478.322], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2473.437}, "reply_to": "20149__2_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21218__0_000", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 97-174, Cass County, Minnesota v. Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians.\nMr. Maus, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [0.0, 11.549], "stop_times": [11.549, 29.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21218__0_001", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Thank you.\nMr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--\nIt's Cass County's position in this case that the alienable land patented in fee by the Federal Government and subsequently reacquired in fee by the Indian tribe is subject to State and local taxation absent treaty or statutory exceptions to the contrary.\nIn 1889, Congress passed the Nelson Act, which provided for the complete cession and relinquishments of lands to the Federal Government.\nThe Federal Government in turn, pursuant to section 3 of the Nelson Act and in conformity with section 5 of the General Allotment Act, issued individual allotments to Indians in conformity with the section 5.\nPursuant to sections 4 and 5 of the Nelson Act, they sold pinelands, which were basically timberlands, on the open market to individuals.\nPursuant to section 6, they issued homestead patents, or gave patents in fee under the Homestead Act to various individuals, again on the open market.\nIn 1993, Cass County began taxing all of the above lands and that was following the 1992 Yakima decision which was set forth by this case... 1992, Yakima County v. Yakima Indian Nation.\nAt that time, there were 21 parcels, 13 of those parcels involved a lot of land, and that issue has already been resolved in the Eighth Circuit, and it was a petition for further review of that, and that was denied on cross petition for that.\nSo at issue here today are the pinelands parcels, seven of those, and one homestead parcel.\nThese various parcels, I'd point out to the court, are now... the ones that are left, they're all in trust at the present time, have been placed in trust and I believe it's a matter of public record since about 1995.\nWhy we're here today, there's still the issue of back taxes that were sued for.\nIn addition, obviously, both sides want to know how to deal with lands--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [29.771, 30.462, 32.392, 49.285, 59.361, 76.043, 86.498, 99.609, 119.723, 139.916, 145.851, 161.051, 168.104], "stop_times": [30.462, 32.392, 49.285, 59.361, 76.043, 86.498, 99.609, 119.723, 139.916, 145.851, 161.051, 168.104, 173.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 29.771}, "reply_to": "21218__0_000", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_002", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Are these parcels within the boundaries of the tribal reservation here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [173.379], "stop_times": [181.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 173.379}, "reply_to": "21218__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21218__0_003", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--For purposes of this lawsuit we have stipulated that the lands are within the reservation boundaries.\nWhether or not they're within accepted reservation boundaries based on some of the Court's recent cases or not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [181.915, 187.959], "stop_times": [187.959, 193.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 181.915}, "reply_to": "21218__0_002", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_004", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "But--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [193.805], "stop_times": [194.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 193.805}, "reply_to": "21218__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21218__0_005", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--is a matter for another day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [194.154], "stop_times": [195.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 194.154}, "reply_to": "21218__0_004", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_006", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--Right.\nThey're within the reservation boundaries and held in trust for the benefit of the tribe, by virtue of the reacquisition by the tribe?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [195.206, 196.007], "stop_times": [196.007, 205.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 195.206}, "reply_to": "21218__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21218__0_007", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "That's correct.\nThey've subsequently been put in the trust, and in... obviously the period that we were taxing them was while they were being held in fee, up and until they were put in the trust, and once they're put into the trust there's no dispute that we cannot tax them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [205.611, 207.333], "stop_times": [207.333, 219.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 205.611}, "reply_to": "21218__0_006", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_008", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "And if they had never been sold off as pinelands and homesteads, you concede that no county tax would have been possible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [219.471], "stop_times": [228.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 219.471}, "reply_to": "21218__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21218__0_009", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "That's correct.\nIf they hadn't been placed on the open market, and it's our contention that the Nelson Act did that and, indeed, they have been taxed since their inception or their sale on the open market back in the early 1900's----", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [228.427, 230.858], "stop_times": [230.858, 243.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 228.427}, "reply_to": "21218__0_008", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_010", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "And there were additional parcels that were reacquired pursuant to the lands covered by the Dawes Act as amended by the Burke Act, but they're not at issue here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [243.526], "stop_times": [256.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 243.526}, "reply_to": "21218__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21218__0_011", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--They're no longer at issue, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [256.546], "stop_times": [257.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 256.546}, "reply_to": "21218__0_010", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_012", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "And as to those parcels the tax is being levied and the Burke Act expressly says that taxation is possible, I take it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [257.846], "stop_times": [268.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 257.846}, "reply_to": "21218__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21218__0_013", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Well, the Burke Act says that but we believe that the Court went a step farther than that in the Yakima case in finding that the Burke Act made it more clear, but that section 5 of the General Allotment Act made it clear and made those lands taxable as they were alienable following the logic, basically, of Goudy v. Meath, which was decided in 1906, and decided also by this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [268.975], "stop_times": [292.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 268.975}, "reply_to": "21218__0_012", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_014", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "May I be sure I understood something you said?\nWhen the land was reacquired by the tribe, did you tell me that you seek to tax it while it was owned by the tribe, but you say you cannot tax it after the tribe had it put back in trust?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [292.44, 295.371], "stop_times": [295.371, 306.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 292.44}, "reply_to": "21218__0_013", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21218__0_015", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [306.18], "stop_times": [307.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 306.18}, "reply_to": "21218__0_014", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_016", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "And who's the trustee?\nIs the United States the trustee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [307.041, 308.391], "stop_times": [308.391, 309.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 307.041}, "reply_to": "21218__0_015", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21218__0_017", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Yes, they are.\nUnder the trust process, pursuant to the Reorganization Act, which was passed in 1934, there's a trust process where the band can acquire lands, apply to put them into trust, and the Department of Interior makes a decision based on whether or not they're to be put in trust, and one of the criteria for that decision is basically the effect on local units of government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [309.723, 310.442], "stop_times": [310.442, 336.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 309.723}, "reply_to": "21218__0_016", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_018", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "I don't quite understand why it should make a difference whether the land is owned outright by the tribe or held for the tribe in trust by the United States.\nI don't understand why that should make a difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [336.989, 346.005], "stop_times": [346.005, 347.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 336.989}, "reply_to": "21218__0_017", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21218__0_019", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "You know, basically that's... the difference being this, is that's what Congress decided to do, and they did a balancing test, obviously, when they did the... passed the Indian Reorganization Act, and wanted to look at land as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [347.748], "stop_times": [362.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 347.748}, "reply_to": "21218__0_018", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_020", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "The answer in other words is, that's required by the 1934 statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [362.527], "stop_times": [366.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 362.527}, "reply_to": "21218__0_019", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21218__0_021", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--That's correct, and there is specific language that says, once it's put into trust, that it's not taxable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [366.257], "stop_times": [372.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 366.257}, "reply_to": "21218__0_020", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_022", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "I see.\nIs it also not alienable if it's in trust?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [372.334, 373.062], "stop_times": [373.062, 376.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 372.334}, "reply_to": "21218__0_021", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21218__0_023", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "That's correct.\nIt could not be sold.\nIt would have to go back through... the Department of Interior would have to approve any sale.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [376.836, 377.537, 378.986], "stop_times": [377.537, 378.986, 383.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 376.836}, "reply_to": "21218__0_022", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_024", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "And so--\n--And that's the second 465 procedure that you said, if they want to get tax exempt... it doesn't happen automatically.\nI think when Justice O'Connor asked you when the tribe reacquires it, does it then gain exemption, and I think your answer is no, not unit there is this 465 procedure to put it back in trust, at which point it's neither alienable nor taxable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [383.09, 384.7, 392.407], "stop_times": [384.7, 392.407, 407.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 383.09}, "reply_to": "21218__0_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21218__0_025", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [407.436], "stop_times": [408.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 407.436}, "reply_to": "21218__0_024", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_026", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "So how many years are we talking about that it was in this state where it was reacquired by the tribe but not yet put in trust?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [408.855], "stop_times": [417.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 408.855}, "reply_to": "21218__0_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21218__0_027", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Okay.\nAll of the parcels in issue, all 21 of them, have been purchased... were purchased since 1980.\nThat was the earliest of those.\n14 out of those original 21 had been purchased in 1993.\nWe began taxing them in 1993.\nI guess there was some confusion in the... within the State, you know, can this land be taxed or not, you know, prior to being put into trust, and after the Yakima decision came out, at least at the county level we received one of the State memos basically saying that it appears that this land is taxable and we put it on the tax roll.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [417.143, 417.682, 422.667, 423.789, 429.041, 432.054], "stop_times": [417.682, 422.667, 423.789, 429.041, 432.054, 450.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 417.143}, "reply_to": "21218__0_026", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_028", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "So we're talking about 2 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [450.504], "stop_times": [452.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 450.504}, "reply_to": "21218__0_027", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21218__0_029", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "We're talking about... well, basically if we... if it went on the tax rolls in 1993 it would have been taxes payable in 1994, and the lawsuit was commenced in '95, and towards the latter part of '95 all of these parcels, or at least the remaining parcels were put into trust, so we're talking about a year and a half, basically, I guess of actual, payable taxes for most of the parcels, maybe more or less for some of them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [452.186], "stop_times": [477.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 452.186}, "reply_to": "21218__0_028", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_030", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Does the provision of the law which enables these parcels to be put in trust, does that say that when they go into trust they are no longer taxable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [477.212], "stop_times": [487.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 477.212}, "reply_to": "21218__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21218__0_031", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Yes.\nSection 465 specifically says that once lands are in trust they are not taxable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [487.809, 489.179], "stop_times": [489.179, 495.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 487.809}, "reply_to": "21218__0_030", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_032", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "That probably wouldn't be necessary if they're not taxable anyway so long as the tribe acquires them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [495.554], "stop_times": [502.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 495.554}, "reply_to": "21218__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21218__0_033", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "That's correct.\nIt's our belief that the legislature could have, had they wanted to with the Indian Reorganization Act clearly made all lands that were acquired by the tribe not taxable, or reacquired, but they didn't do that.\nThey stopped short of that, in effect set forth that process to give us some input.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [502.579, 503.659, 515.236, 519.24], "stop_times": [503.659, 515.236, 519.24, 520.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 502.579}, "reply_to": "21218__0_032", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_034", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "But your point is that there's a distinction because if it's not put into trust the tribe can sell it and do whatever it wants to with it, but if they put it in a trust they have to get the consent of the United States to do something with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [520.642], "stop_times": [529.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 520.642}, "reply_to": "21218__0_033", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21218__0_035", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [529.419], "stop_times": [530.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 529.419}, "reply_to": "21218__0_034", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_036", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [530.349], "stop_times": [530.869], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 530.349}, "reply_to": "21218__0_035", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21218__0_037", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "And I... you know, I point out to the Court that I know that the tribe in this particular case and United States is taking an opposite position saying, well, we just can't sell the land, and I would submit to this Court that that... I don't believe that that's the case, and that's not our position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [530.869], "stop_times": [546.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 530.869}, "reply_to": "21218__0_036", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_038", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "You're talking about the Indian Nonintercourse Act--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [546.76], "stop_times": [549.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 546.76}, "reply_to": "21218__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21218__0_039", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [549.613], "stop_times": [550.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 549.613}, "reply_to": "21218__0_038", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_040", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [550.622], "stop_times": [551.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 550.622}, "reply_to": "21218__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21218__0_041", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "It--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [551.393], "stop_times": [552.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 551.393}, "reply_to": "21218__0_040", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_042", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Well, that... what is your answer to the Indian Nonintercourse Act?\nI mean if you read it, it does say that, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [552.334, 554.727], "stop_times": [554.727, 556.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 552.334}, "reply_to": "21218__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21218__0_043", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--But it's real simple.\nIt... one of the parts that it says early on... you know, it's passed in 1834, okay, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [556.368, 557.99], "stop_times": [557.99, 563.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 556.368}, "reply_to": "21218__0_042", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_044", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "I thought it was earlier than that.\nIs that when it started?\nI thought it was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [563.724, 564.315, 564.743], "stop_times": [564.315, 564.743, 565.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 563.724}, "reply_to": "21218__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21218__0_045", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--Yes.\nIt was actually before then, but the latest version, I guess--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [565.434, 565.954], "stop_times": [565.954, 568.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 565.434}, "reply_to": "21218__0_044", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_046", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--Oh--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [568.616], "stop_times": [569.157], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 568.616}, "reply_to": "21218__0_045", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21218__0_047", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--that Congress had addressed was 1834, and it provided that lands couldn't be sold without the permission of Congress.\nIn other words, Congress was to sell lands.\nIn other words, States couldn't take lands and start ceding them to individuals.\nWell, the simple answer to that, the real short one is, along comes the Nelson Act.\nThere's Congress' authority.\nIn fact, they take the land, they cede it and relinquish any title of it and give it to the Federal Government, who then puts it on the open market, so is there authority to get around the Nonintercourse Act?\nAbsolutely.\nIn addition to that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [569.157, 576.612, 578.844, 581.295, 587.529, 589.172, 599.698, 600.469], "stop_times": [576.612, 578.844, 581.295, 587.529, 589.172, 599.698, 600.469, 601.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 569.157}, "reply_to": "21218__0_046", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_048", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--Well, there was at the time of the... there was at the time of the allotment and the other distributions, but the question is, doesn't the term... don't the terms of the act cover it now that it is back in Indian or tribal ownership?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [601.988], "stop_times": [613.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 601.988}, "reply_to": "21218__0_047", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21218__0_049", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--Two basic answers to that, I guess.\nThere's one... you know, if you look at the logic of reacquired lands, if you're looking at that pure logic, you have the Indian Reorganization Act, which deals with the reacquisition of lands and a determination of whether or not they should be taxable or not, whether or not they should be put into trust or not, and second of all--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [613.655, 617.549], "stop_times": [617.549, 633.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 613.655}, "reply_to": "21218__0_048", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_050", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "The point that there would have been no point in making that, the taxability a consideration when it went into trust if... unless it were taxable before it goes into trust.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [633.45], "stop_times": [644.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 633.45}, "reply_to": "21218__0_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21218__0_051", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [644.339], "stop_times": [645.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 644.339}, "reply_to": "21218__0_050", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_052", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Right, okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [645.03], "stop_times": [645.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 645.03}, "reply_to": "21218__0_051", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21218__0_053", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "And second of all, with respect to that, you know, the Court couldn't have decided the Yakima case the way it did had that been the case, because in Yakima I believe that there were some parcels of land that were due to go tax forfeited and that was at issue also, because there was some government lands and some individual.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [645.459], "stop_times": [661.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 645.459}, "reply_to": "21218__0_052", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_054", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "That may imply that alienability simply is not the sole criterion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [661.91], "stop_times": [666.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 661.91}, "reply_to": "21218__0_053", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21218__0_055", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [666.232], "stop_times": [667.474], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 666.232}, "reply_to": "21218__0_054", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_056", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Why... what... is this... it seems to me if we're talking about these particular parcels, they're the same as any other parcels that have been out there, occupied and owned by people who are not Indians in fee simple.\nThere could be many such parcels, and it could have ended up in the hands of non Indians for many such... many reasons.\nAnd so one day a tribe comes along and buys a parcel of land that previously didn't belong to the tribe, on the reservation, and isn't the issue whether, once the tribe acquires that, whether it ever... whatever it is, it's in the reservation.\nThey bought it.\nNow, is it taxable or not?\nAnd if the principle is, well, it's not taxable only because it's in the tribe's hands, however it got there, unless Congress clearly says so, where did Congress clearly say so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [667.474, 679.843, 685.957, 698.926, 699.477, 701.908], "stop_times": [679.843, 685.957, 698.926, 699.477, 701.908, 713.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 667.474}, "reply_to": "21218__0_055", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21218__0_057", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "We believe that Congress clearly said that the land was taxable first, I guess, looking at the Nelson Act itself.\nI mean, it gave absolute fee title to everyone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [713.137, 721.924], "stop_times": [721.924, 723.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 713.137}, "reply_to": "21218__0_056", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_058", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Yes, but that has nothing to do with the issue.\nThe issue... that's an issue of what happens when the tribe owns the land and gets rid of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [723.713, 724.914], "stop_times": [724.914, 728.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 723.713}, "reply_to": "21218__0_057", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21218__0_059", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [728.516], "stop_times": [729.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 728.516}, "reply_to": "21218__0_058", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_060", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Now, that's not our issue.\nOur issue is, there's some land out there that doesn't belong to the tribe.\nWe don't care how or why it doesn't belong to the tribe.\nIt doesn't.\nNow, the tribe acquires it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [729.166, 730.198, 733.831, 736.382, 736.973], "stop_times": [730.198, 733.831, 736.382, 736.973, 739.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 729.166}, "reply_to": "21218__0_059", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21218__0_061", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [739.524], "stop_times": [740.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 739.524}, "reply_to": "21218__0_060", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_062", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "All right, once it's acquired, is it now no longer taxable, and if the principle is, it's no... not taxable once it's in the hands of the tribe, however it got there, unless Congress clearly says so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [740.724], "stop_times": [752.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 740.724}, "reply_to": "21218__0_061", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21218__0_063", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Mm hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [752.334], "stop_times": [753.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 752.334}, "reply_to": "21218__0_062", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_064", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--where did Congress clearly say so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [753.484], "stop_times": [755.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 753.484}, "reply_to": "21218__0_063", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21218__0_065", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "We believe that Congress clearly said so by making it alienable, and again I don't want to pound on the Nelson Act, but that's what... what made alienable, and then looking at the logic of Goudy v. Meath and the Yakima case, which basically are allowing for the taxability of the land because it's alienable, the tax is on the land itself, and I think that Congress has specifically acted in the area of lands and addressed that, you know, both in the Nelson Act and then later, of course, in the Indian Reorganization Act.\nAnd if you look at the intent of Congress... and clearly we have to put up unmistakably clear intent, and that's a burden we accept, and we do think that's the correct burden of proof here.\nWe think that is all met when you add up, you know, the way it's put into fee, okay, the logic of the alienability of the Yakima and Goudy decisions... Congress clearly made it taxable... and if you look at, you know, the allotted lands, you know, they made them taxable after 25 years as opposed to immediately.\nYou know, that was part of the General Allotment Act.\nSo clearly, you know, you could look at that and say, well, in the case we have here, would it make sense to tax people that reacquired lands that were originally allotted to them and not tax lands that were put open in the general market?\nI mean, that kind of logic doesn't make much sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [755.156, 787.076, 798.246, 818.167, 821.109, 837.671], "stop_times": [787.076, 798.246, 818.167, 821.109, 837.671, 840.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 755.156}, "reply_to": "21218__0_064", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_066", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "And of course, then they have the trust thing you were talking about.\nSo, why do they need the trust thing if they're not taxable in... I mean, you know, if it isn't nontaxable once they reacquire it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [840.504, 842.794], "stop_times": [842.794, 850.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 840.504}, "reply_to": "21218__0_065", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21218__0_067", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "That's correct, and obviously it... well, there's been a history of abuse of getting it into trust, and so one could look at it and say, well, you could always apply for trust.\nWell, what are you going to do to stop that?\nWell, we don't know what will happen in the future.\nMore recently the Department of Interior has changed some rules which now allow for 30 days after they decide to put land into trust for counties or local units the Government to appeal under the Administrative Procedures Act if we feel that the decision was not appropriate, so we do have that ability now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [850.11, 860.806, 862.178, 864.179], "stop_times": [860.806, 862.178, 864.179, 881.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 850.11}, "reply_to": "21218__0_066", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_068", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Mr. Maus... I'm not sure we have to reach it, but maybe we do.\nI'm really troubled by the Indian Nonintercourse Act.\nSuppose the tribe... suppose this is land that was never tribal land?\nIt was never allotted.\nIt was never opened to homesteading or anything.\nIt was just never Indian land.\nAnd the tribe, as a tribe, buys this parcel of land that used to be owned by the Duke of Albemarle.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [881.923, 887.217, 891.027, 896.492, 898.854, 901.524, 902.436], "stop_times": [887.217, 891.027, 896.492, 898.854, 901.524, 902.436, 909.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 881.923}, "reply_to": "21218__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21218__0_069", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Okay.\nSure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [909.489, 910.711], "stop_times": [910.711, 911.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 909.489}, "reply_to": "21218__0_068", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_070", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "It was never tribal land.\nWhy isn't that land covered by the Indian Nonintercourse Act, so that once the tribe has it, the tribe cannot again resell it without a treaty or authority from Congress?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [911.801, 912.712], "stop_times": [912.712, 929.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 911.801}, "reply_to": "21218__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21218__0_071", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "So in your scenario you'd be talking about land that was acquired for the first time outside the reservation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [929.252], "stop_times": [936.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 929.252}, "reply_to": "21218__0_070", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_072", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [936.156], "stop_times": [936.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 936.156}, "reply_to": "21218__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21218__0_073", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Okay.\nI think the Reorganization Act deals with land acquisitions by the tribe in general, either reacquired or acquired, and I think that those same provisions would apply, and it could certainly be argued that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [936.717, 937.669], "stop_times": [937.669, 949.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 936.717}, "reply_to": "21218__0_072", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_074", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "What provisions, the provisions that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [949.966], "stop_times": [952.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 949.966}, "reply_to": "21218__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21218__0_075", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--The trust provisions under 465.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [952.219], "stop_times": [955.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 952.219}, "reply_to": "21218__0_074", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_076", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--And which imply, according to you, that if they are not put into trust they are taxable, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [955.331], "stop_times": [962.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 955.331}, "reply_to": "21218__0_075", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21218__0_077", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Correct.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [962.635, 963.646], "stop_times": [963.646, 964.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 962.635}, "reply_to": "21218__0_076", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_078", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "And then you would reason, and since they are taxable, you'd sort of go backwards from your reasoning for the purposes of this case, you're saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [964.595], "stop_times": [971.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 964.595}, "reply_to": "21218__0_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21218__0_079", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [971.89], "stop_times": [972.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 971.89}, "reply_to": "21218__0_078", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_080", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Since they're taxable, they must be alienable, just as for this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [972.441], "stop_times": [975.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 972.441}, "reply_to": "21218__0_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21218__0_081", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [975.533], "stop_times": [975.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 975.533}, "reply_to": "21218__0_080", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_082", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--you'd say if they're alienable they must be taxable.\nThat's how you get there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [975.983, 977.493], "stop_times": [977.493, 978.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 975.983}, "reply_to": "21218__0_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21218__0_083", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [978.795], "stop_times": [979.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 978.795}, "reply_to": "21218__0_082", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_084", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "That's ingenious.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [979.695, 980.336], "stop_times": [980.336, 980.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 979.695}, "reply_to": "21218__0_083", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21218__0_085", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--Well, I don't know about that, but the alienability results in taxability absent treaty or statutory exceptions.\nNow, there may be some treaties that make land that might be alienable.\nMaybe you can sell it, but it's not necessarily taxable because it specifically says it's not taxable.\nAnd also, in addition to that, you know, the tribe also has the ability to apply for State exemptions without even going through the trust process, maybe to keep their land alienable, and maybe it's exempt for some... if it's for some governmental type purpose that's viewed by the States as being exempt.\nFor example, maybe a highway maintenance garage, or similar, like, you know, local units of government are exempt from taxation, just like cities are exempt from county taxation unless they have investment type properties.\nThose would probably be found taxable.\nSo there is a difference there.\nI would submit to the Court that deciding this decision to say alienability results in taxability absent treaty or statutory exceptions to the contrary would establish a bright line rule that could be applied.\nIt doesn't go too far, in that if there are individual treaties out there, or individual statutes with some of the various tribes or States that prohibit this, that they couldn't be taxed, and I think that would be fair for all.\nI think that this would certainly allow the... both units of government input in the decision making process which it appears clear that Congress has given through the trust process, to allow the local units of government at least to have their say.\nSecond, you know that as a... or another point, as I also indicated, they have the ability to apply for State exemptions.\nI mean, that's part of the overall rule too, and if they're appropriate they can do that.\nAn adverse ruling in this case to the county and other local units of government could have an adverse ruling, or an adverse effect on local units of government in particular by shrinking what has been heretofore a tax base that encompassed these lands by taking, you know, these off in a large fashion or in a regular fashion, which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [980.756, 990.754, 994.514, 999.36, 1020.523, 1035.704, 1038.025, 1040.778, 1056.638, 1070.537, 1088.509, 1099.186, 1103.067], "stop_times": [990.754, 994.514, 999.36, 1020.523, 1035.704, 1038.025, 1040.778, 1056.638, 1070.537, 1088.509, 1099.186, 1103.067, 1129.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 980.756}, "reply_to": "21218__0_084", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_086", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "But you told us that's in fact what happened.\nIt's only a year and a half we're talking about because the Government did put this land back in trust, and... which made it exempt, so the argument that the counties are losing all this revenue, it wouldn't have had the opportunity to get any if the Government had moved fast enough on the 465, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1129.635, 1131.277], "stop_times": [1131.277, 1150.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1129.635}, "reply_to": "21218__0_085", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21218__0_087", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--Well, I would submit to the Court that if we're looking at the future, you know, the trust process has changed, and will the tribes be able to get land into trust in the future the way they have in the past?\nBasically, throughout the history of the county we've opposed them all and never been successful, but now there's a new appeal process and we haven't... we haven't tried that yet, and that may result in the slowing down of lands put into trust, or at least give us some input, or more input into that process.\nYou know, is it going to hurt the tax base, for example?\nFor example, putting... one of these parcels involved a casino.\nYou know, is taking a casino and putting it into trust going to hurt the county's tax... taxing authority, or will it hurt the county?\nBecause you know, obviously when you have larger parcels, or larger investments, you're certainly talking about more Government services that are needed for those parcels.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1150.628, 1162.937, 1184.031, 1186.365, 1190.616, 1198.994], "stop_times": [1162.937, 1184.031, 1186.365, 1190.616, 1198.994, 1209.161], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1150.628}, "reply_to": "21218__0_086", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_088", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "How close is Cass County to the Twin Cities?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1209.161], "stop_times": [1213.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1209.161}, "reply_to": "21218__0_087", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21218__0_089", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Cass County is about 200 miles north.\nIt's actually in the north central part of the State of Minnesota.\nIt's a large county, as counties go.\nIt's probably close to the size of Rhode Island, out here, and the portion where the reservation is located certainly in there is a large lake.\nThat's probably 20 miles by 20 miles, with a lot of bays.\nIt's kind of shaped like a maple leaf.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1213.465, 1216.956, 1221.019, 1223.67, 1235.919, 1239.722], "stop_times": [1216.956, 1221.019, 1223.67, 1235.919, 1239.722, 1240.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1213.465}, "reply_to": "21218__0_088", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_090", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Is that Leech Lake?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1240.811], "stop_times": [1242.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1240.811}, "reply_to": "21218__0_089", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21218__0_091", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Yes, and then there's some other large lakes around it, and the economy up there, just so you've got a picture of that, is basically one of tourism.\nThat's the number 1 business up there, and there are a lot of parcels of land up there, obviously, that are owned by nonresidents that come up there and they have seasonal cabins up there, and reside there for the summer, and so the increase of services is obviously, I suppose, almost three or fourfold in the summer than it is during the regular part of the year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1242.303, 1254.592], "stop_times": [1254.592, 1274.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1242.303}, "reply_to": "21218__0_090", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_092", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Can I ask you if... you've called our attention to section 465, about the land going into trust.\nDid the courts below give any attention to that section, or has it been briefed at all?\nOr did it just come out of the blue this morning?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1274.154, 1281.029, 1285.221], "stop_times": [1281.029, 1285.221, 1288.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1274.154}, "reply_to": "21218__0_091", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21218__0_093", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Well, we certainly raised it all along, and I would say in the Eighth Circuit court that the decision basically gave us the... you know, the allotted lands similar to what was in Yakima... didn't... the holding was there basically didn't find for the pinelands and the homestead lands, saying that they believed that this Court relied on the Burke Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1288.312], "stop_times": [1315.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1288.312}, "reply_to": "21218__0_092", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_094", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "The proviso--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1315.901], "stop_times": [1317.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1315.901}, "reply_to": "21218__0_093", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21218__0_095", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--to find that language, and it's our position that court, you know, looked at Goudy v. Meath and in fact didn't find the Burke Act necessary but did say that it made it more clear.\nI guess if something's clear they make it more clear, so it had to have been clear all along, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1317.313, 1328.82], "stop_times": [1328.82, 1333.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1317.313}, "reply_to": "21218__0_094", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_096", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--Do you wish to reserve the balance of your time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1333.404], "stop_times": [1339.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1333.404}, "reply_to": "21218__0_095", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21218__0_097", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--Yes.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1339.198, 1339.749], "stop_times": [1339.749, 1341.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1339.198}, "reply_to": "21218__0_096", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__0_098", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Very well.\nMr. Schoessler, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1341.189, 1341.749], "stop_times": [1341.749, 1342.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1341.189}, "reply_to": "21218__0_097", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21218__1_000", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--\nAs a preliminary matter I'd like to address a question that was raised about the Indian Reorganization Act and 25 U.S.C. section 465, which is the section that allows the United States Government to take land into trust for Indian tribes.\nI think there was an implication made to the Court that that section somehow granted taxing jurisdiction to States and counties over land by negative implication.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1342.941, 1350.267, 1364.866], "stop_times": [1350.267, 1364.866, 1378.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1342.941}, "reply_to": "21218__0_098", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_001", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Well, what it says, the negative... it does expressly say that if the Secretary does acquire the land in trust for the Indians, the land shall therefore be tax exempt, which one assumes that before it was acquired it was not tax exempt.\nThat's the argument, as I understand it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1378.364, 1391.904], "stop_times": [1391.904, 1393.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1378.364}, "reply_to": "21218__1_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21218__1_002", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1393.484], "stop_times": [1394.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1393.484}, "reply_to": "21218__1_001", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_003", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1394.015], "stop_times": [1394.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1394.015}, "reply_to": "21218__1_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21218__1_004", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "It's basically a negative implication, to which I think two responses are required.\nThe first one probably is that that kind of a negative implication would be completely antithetical to the philosophy that was behind the adoption of the Indian Reorganization Act and the promotion of tribal independence and self sufficiency that forms the basis of the act and the rebuilding of the reservation land base that, at least partially, that act was all about.\nThe second thing I would point out is that, in fact, this Court has addressed the negative implication question in the past in a decision that was issued in 1973, Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones.\nThe Court had an opportunity to look at the legislative history and the wording of the trust provisions of the Indian Reorganization Act and the Court there specifically said that there was nothing in that act or its history which indicated an intent on the part of Congress to remove the traditional tax exemptions that tribes had within reservations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1394.526, 1398.159, 1422.405, 1435.953], "stop_times": [1398.159, 1422.405, 1435.953, 1457.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1394.526}, "reply_to": "21218__1_003", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_005", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Well, but that leaves open the question, doesn't it, because the question here is whether this particular tax exemption in fact would... is of the traditional variety, or whether, because of the history traced in Yakima, it's in a different position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1457.587], "stop_times": [1472.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1457.587}, "reply_to": "21218__1_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21218__1_006", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Yes, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1472.936], "stop_times": [1474.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1472.936}, "reply_to": "21218__1_005", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_007", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "So I think what the Court said really leaves the question right where we find it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1474.528], "stop_times": [1478.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1474.528}, "reply_to": "21218__1_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21218__1_008", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--The point that I was simply making is that there is no authority within the Indian Reorganization Act and section 465 to find a grant of jurisdiction, even by negative implication to counties or States to tax tribal lands.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1478.82], "stop_times": [1493.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1478.82}, "reply_to": "21218__1_007", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_009", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "That may be.\nI think... I thought the point was simply that it confirms a conclusion that we might reach on other ground.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1493.462, 1493.96], "stop_times": [1493.96, 1499.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1493.462}, "reply_to": "21218__1_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21218__1_010", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "It does bring up, I think, what the basic point of this case is anyway, and the basic rule of law that should govern this case.\nIt's a rule of law that even the county agrees with.\nIt's not disputed.\nIt was cited as authoritative by the county, and it's well known to this Court.\nIt's the unmistakably clear intent rule, what's called the per se rule, against taxation of Indians and tribes in Indian country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1499.135, 1509.08, 1513.524, 1514.743, 1518.878], "stop_times": [1509.08, 1513.524, 1514.743, 1518.878, 1526.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1499.135}, "reply_to": "21218__1_009", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_011", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "The trouble is we say that on the one hand and we also have language very similar to that.\nThat is, that it's almost irrefutable implication that where there is alienability there is taxability.\nYou've also said something along those lines, and these two absolutes seem to be clashing head on in the present case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1526.913, 1532.566, 1543.692], "stop_times": [1532.566, 1543.692, 1552.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1526.913}, "reply_to": "21218__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21218__1_012", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Your Honor, I would suggest that the unmistakably clear intent rule, or the per se rule, if you will, has a long and honorable history in this country's jurisprudence.\nIt's about 150 years old.\nIt has been--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1552.2, 1563.947, 1565.788], "stop_times": [1563.947, 1565.788, 1566.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1552.2}, "reply_to": "21218__1_011", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_013", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Well, but Goudy v. Meath also has a long and, I suspect, equally honorable... and it seems to me if Goudy v. Meath controls in this case, you lose.\nMaybe you can see a way to distinguish it.\nI can't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1566.529, 1576.984, 1579.635], "stop_times": [1576.984, 1579.635, 1580.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1566.529}, "reply_to": "21218__1_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21218__1_014", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--Give me an opportunity to do that now, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1580.226], "stop_times": [1583.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1580.226}, "reply_to": "21218__1_013", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_015", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "By all means, yes.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1583.68, 1584.2], "stop_times": [1584.2, 1584.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1583.68}, "reply_to": "21218__1_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21218__1_016", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "I would like to talk about Goudy v. Meath--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1584.631], "stop_times": [1585.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1584.631}, "reply_to": "21218__1_015", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_017", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1585.61], "stop_times": [1586.071], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1585.61}, "reply_to": "21218__1_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21218__1_018", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--because, after all, it is probably the foundation of the county's argument here.\nIt's the case which the county asserts set forth an alienability equals taxability rule, and I'd like to make a few observations about that case.\nNumber 1, the unmistakably clear intent rule was even at that time a fairly longstanding principle in the law going back to the Kansas Indians and probably Russo v. Georgia for that matter, so the Goudy court was well aware of that principle.\nThe Goudy opinion, it seems to us just on the face of it, is a somewhat odd decision on which to base a fairly major shift from that per se rule against taxation.\nThe opinion itself was only two pages long.\nThere was a one page statement of facts and a less than one page opinion by Justice Brewer.\nThe opinion does not examine in detail prior Indian law precedent relating to jurisdictional matters.\nThe opinion does not seem to indicate that new Indian law ground is being plowed, or is intended to be plowed in that short opinion, and there's no indication, it seems to us, that the Court is clearly establishing a new generic rule of law that says alienability equals taxability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1586.071, 1590.084, 1601.171, 1620.624, 1633.973, 1636.647, 1641.809, 1649.764], "stop_times": [1590.084, 1601.171, 1620.624, 1633.973, 1636.647, 1641.809, 1649.764, 1668.887], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1586.071}, "reply_to": "21218__1_017", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_019", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Was the Indian Nonintercourse Act in effect, or its predecessor, at the time of Goudy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1668.887], "stop_times": [1674.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1668.887}, "reply_to": "21218__1_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21218__1_020", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Yes, it was, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1674.521], "stop_times": [1676.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1674.521}, "reply_to": "21218__1_019", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_021", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "And what are we to make of that nonintercourse act as part and parcel of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1676.333], "stop_times": [1682.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1676.333}, "reply_to": "21218__1_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21218__1_022", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "I think the Court in Goudy did not address or consider the Indian Nonintercourse Act and I think it was for this reason, and it's probably I think the most critical factor in Goudy and perhaps one of the more misunderstood factors in Goudy, and that is the fact that the Goudy court treated the plaintiff in that case, James Goudy, not as an Indian but as a non Indian citizen.\nIt was stipulated to in that case that Goudy was to be treated as a non Indian citizen.\nThat was referred to by the Court and I think it was terribly important to the decision in that case.\nIt was terribly important because it reversed presumptions.\nAs a non Indian citizen Goudy was presumed already to be subject to State law unless he could show an express Federal exemption from that law.\nIf he were treated as an Indian, he would have been presumed protected from State jurisdiction unless the county could have shown an unmistakably clear delegation of authority over him.\nWhat the Goudy court did is rule on the exemption question.\nIt ruled that James Goudy could not demonstrate an unmistakably clear exemption from the taxation that was presumed valid over him as a non Indian citizen.\nThe court did not decide and declare that the alienability of his land provided the jurisdiction over him.\nThat jurisdiction already existed because he was a non Indian citizen within the boundaries of the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1682.956, 1709.383, 1715.277, 1721.662, 1725.525, 1736.882, 1748.93, 1752.743, 1764.03, 1773.006], "stop_times": [1709.383, 1715.277, 1721.662, 1725.525, 1736.882, 1748.93, 1752.743, 1764.03, 1773.006, 1778.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1682.956}, "reply_to": "21218__1_021", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_023", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--If we did distinguish Goudy along the lines you suggest, or said it doesn't really apply any more, what would prevent an Indian tribe from buying 5 acres of downtown Minneapolis and setting up some hotels, restaurants, and various other things and saying, all right, yes, they're casinos, and saying we're immune from taxation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1778.279], "stop_times": [1801.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1778.279}, "reply_to": "21218__1_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21218__1_024", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Then I think, Your Honor, you have the on reservation off reservation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1801.003], "stop_times": [1804.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1801.003}, "reply_to": "21218__1_023", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_025", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Yes, but I mean, you've now... where did that come from?\nI mean, why suddenly is it so inherently absolutely clear that Congress wanted to permit Minneapolis to tax the casino owned by the tribe but not indisputably absolutely clear that Congress wanted Cass County to tax the five alienable acres owned by the tribe on the reservation?\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1804.536, 1807.217, 1832.005], "stop_times": [1807.217, 1832.005, 1833.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1804.536}, "reply_to": "21218__1_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21218__1_026", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--Your Honor, to answer that I think you have to go back basically to the foundations of the country and the beginning of the per se rule against taxation of Indians--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1833.164], "stop_times": [1843.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1833.164}, "reply_to": "21218__1_025", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_027", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--I see where you're--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1843.492], "stop_times": [1844.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1843.492}, "reply_to": "21218__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21218__1_028", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--Indian reservations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1844.073], "stop_times": [1845.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1844.073}, "reply_to": "21218__1_027", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_029", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--I see where you're going, so let me then, ask you, is it, although in this case quite clear what's on a reservation and what isn't on a reservation, it seems to me we've had quite a few cases where that's not at all clear, and how will we manage that kind of distinction, which is another one you tried to draw, where we have Indian tribes in Alaska or other places where there is a lot of dispute as to what the boundaries of the reservation are?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1845.052], "stop_times": [1869.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1845.052}, "reply_to": "21218__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21218__1_030", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "That kind of a distinction goes far beyond the taxation questions in this case, and frankly it's always going to be with us in the context of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1869.739], "stop_times": [1879.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1869.739}, "reply_to": "21218__1_029", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_031", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "It's not going to be with us if the rule is alienability means taxability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1879.315], "stop_times": [1882.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1879.315}, "reply_to": "21218__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21218__1_032", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--If the rule turns out to be alienability equals taxability, what has been said essentially is that the only land or property on reservations that is exempt from State jurisdiction is trust property, property actually owned by the United States in trust for individual Indians or tribes.\nThat... excuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1882.899, 1907.553], "stop_times": [1907.553, 1909.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1882.899}, "reply_to": "21218__1_031", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_033", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "You don't rely on the Indian Nonintercourse Act?\nI mean, the argument... I thought that both you and the United States made the argument that that in fact renders everything held by the tribe not freely alienable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1909.416, 1912.338], "stop_times": [1912.338, 1926.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1909.416}, "reply_to": "21218__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21218__1_034", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Your Honor, we certainly do argue that, but our most serious concern is the alienability equals taxability rule.\nCertainly the nonintercourse act we believe would prevent the lands from being taxed if there was such a rule in this country's jurisprudence, so we seriously argue about the validity of the rule itself, and that's our primary concern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1926.787, 1935.452], "stop_times": [1935.452, 1953.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1926.787}, "reply_to": "21218__1_033", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_035", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "But the broad statement you just made that if we adopted that rule all Indian land would be taxable except trust land is not true if we accept your INA argument, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1953.524], "stop_times": [1966.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1953.524}, "reply_to": "21218__1_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21218__1_036", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Yes, that's correct.\nThe other point that I would make about that is by adopting such a rule you have essentially de facto disestablished reservations, because the rule of Indian country generally is, as you well know, is that State jurisdiction is limited in Indian country.\nIt's limited over both Indians and tribes within Indian country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1966.492, 1967.383, 1982.773], "stop_times": [1967.383, 1982.773, 1985.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1966.492}, "reply_to": "21218__1_035", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_037", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Let me go back a minute, Mr. Schoessler, to your comment about the Indian Nonintercourse Act.\nIt seems to me if we held that to mean what you and the Government say it should mean here that a tribe today or tomorrow seeking to convey land in a business transaction is up against a very real burden.\nHow would a tribe that wished to convey some land that it owned today go about it if the Indian Intercourse Act means what you say it means?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [1985.735, 1992.859, 2008.309], "stop_times": [1992.859, 2008.309, 2016.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1985.735}, "reply_to": "21218__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21218__1_038", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, you're correct, it does, in fact, impose a burden on the potential transfer of lands that are purchased in fee by Indian tribes.\nWe understand that, and we would hope that if not now, in the future, rules for allowing such transfer under perhaps more flexible circumstances than exist now for allowing transfers of trust lands would be developed and the tribes could obtain that permission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2016.623, 2026.801], "stop_times": [2026.801, 2046.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2016.623}, "reply_to": "21218__1_037", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_039", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "So that would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2046.243], "stop_times": [2046.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2046.243}, "reply_to": "21218__1_038", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21218__1_040", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "We understand it's a two edged sword.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2046.764], "stop_times": [2047.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2046.764}, "reply_to": "21218__1_039", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_041", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--And that would take an amendment by Congress, I take it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2047.735], "stop_times": [2049.987], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2047.735}, "reply_to": "21218__1_040", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21218__1_042", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Yes, it would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2049.987], "stop_times": [2050.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2049.987}, "reply_to": "21218__1_041", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_043", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--of the Indian Intercourse Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2050.496], "stop_times": [2051.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2050.496}, "reply_to": "21218__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21218__1_044", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2051.409], "stop_times": [2052.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2051.409}, "reply_to": "21218__1_043", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_045", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Gee, I don't think it's a... I mean, it's a sword on the one side and a pen knife on the other.\nI think it's a good deal for the tribes.\nThey just ought to buy up all land in sight and they have a great economic advantage over all other landholders.\nMaybe they don't have to pay taxes and what they ought to do is acquire vast, you know, acreage and then lease it out to other people, which can be done very profitably because the scheme just exempts the real estate from taxes.\nIt's really a wonderful opportunity for the tribes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2052.368, 2055.82, 2058.139, 2065.056, 2079.906], "stop_times": [2055.82, 2058.139, 2065.056, 2079.906, 2082.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2052.368}, "reply_to": "21218__1_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21218__1_046", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Your Honor, two points on that.\nNumber 1, we still have to maintain the distinction between on reservation and off reservation.\nIt certainly would not allow the tribes to go off reservation, purchase land--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2082.998, 2085.429, 2090.692], "stop_times": [2085.429, 2090.692, 2097.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2082.998}, "reply_to": "21218__1_045", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_047", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2097.027], "stop_times": [2098.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2097.027}, "reply_to": "21218__1_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21218__1_048", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--and then essentially say they're not taxable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2098.099], "stop_times": [2101.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2098.099}, "reply_to": "21218__1_047", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_049", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Why not?\nThere's nothing in the statute that suggests there's any distinction between reservation or nonreservation lands.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2101.02, 2101.58], "stop_times": [2101.58, 2108.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2101.02}, "reply_to": "21218__1_048", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21218__1_050", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Your Honor, I would suggest that the nonintercourse act would prevent conveyance of lands that were purchased off reservation but not necessarily the taxability of those lands.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2108.015], "stop_times": [2120.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2108.015}, "reply_to": "21218__1_049", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_051", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Well, why is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2120.872], "stop_times": [2122.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2120.872}, "reply_to": "21218__1_050", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21218__1_052", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "I would base it actually on the plain wording of the act.\nThe wording of the act does not talk about taxation.\nThe wording of the act talks about conveyance, and I think there is nothing that is necessarily mutually exclusive or improper about a piece of land being purchased off reservation that the United States would not allow to be conveyed without its approval as differentiated from land being purchased off the reservation that might be taxable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2122.064, 2126.426, 2128.89], "stop_times": [2126.426, 2128.89, 2149.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2122.064}, "reply_to": "21218__1_051", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_053", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "But if you're right about the intercourse act, it isn't just a question of the Secretary of Interior approving a conveyance.\nIt's a... it has to be done either pursuant to treaty or convention, so that some administrative approval in the Interior Department isn't going to help you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2149.052, 2155.484], "stop_times": [2155.484, 2164.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2149.052}, "reply_to": "21218__1_052", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21218__1_054", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Your Honor, unless Congress passed a procedure which allowed that to happen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2164.691], "stop_times": [2169.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2164.691}, "reply_to": "21218__1_053", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_055", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2169.615], "stop_times": [2170.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2169.615}, "reply_to": "21218__1_054", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21218__1_056", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Which is what we presume would occur in that kind of instance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2170.096], "stop_times": [2173.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2170.096}, "reply_to": "21218__1_055", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_057", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Mr.--\n--a couple of hundred years?\nI mean, it's been around since 1790.\nIsn't that when the thing first came up?\nI don't know why they're going to suddenly pass a statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2173.076, 2173.657, 2174.809, 2178.431, 2181.242], "stop_times": [2173.657, 2174.809, 2178.431, 2181.242, 2184.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2173.076}, "reply_to": "21218__1_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21218__1_058", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "It is... Your Honor, it's only been very recently that tribes have been in any sort of position to attempt to rebuild their tribal land bases on their own reservations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2184.235], "stop_times": [2195.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2184.235}, "reply_to": "21218__1_057", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_059", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Mr.--\n--Why wouldn't that act apply to the Indian allottees, because one of the curiosities about the Eighth Circuit decision is the land that was allotted to homesteads then reverts to the tribe and becomes nontaxable, but the land that was allotted to Indians doesn't acquire that status when it goes back to the tribe, so what would a rational legislature be thinking about saying if the land went to a non Indian then it immediately reacquires its tax exempt status, but if it went to an Indian, then it stays subject to tax?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2195.091, 2195.682], "stop_times": [2195.682, 2234.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2195.091}, "reply_to": "21218__1_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21218__1_060", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Your Honor, you're referring to the Indian Nonintercourse Act implications?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2234.177], "stop_times": [2237.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2234.177}, "reply_to": "21218__1_059", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_061", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Yes.\nWhy doesn't that cover the... why wouldn't that take care of the whole case, not just the parcels that went to homesteaders?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2237.84, 2238.231], "stop_times": [2238.231, 2244.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2237.84}, "reply_to": "21218__1_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21218__1_062", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "If my recollection is correct and it... I believe it is, the original versions of the Indian Nonintercourse Act included language relating to individual Indians, the last version did not, so the nonintercourse act as it reads now only applies to tribes, to tribal lands, not individual lands.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2244.506], "stop_times": [2262.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2244.506}, "reply_to": "21218__1_061", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_063", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "But you know, ironically, if you read it literally I think it would have foreclosed a transfer from the tribe to the United States in trust for the tribe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2262.386], "stop_times": [2269.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2262.386}, "reply_to": "21218__1_062", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21218__1_064", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Your Honor, except for the proposition that Congress established a procedure to allow that to happen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2269.362], "stop_times": [2276.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2269.362}, "reply_to": "21218__1_063", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_065", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "But it hadn't.\nI mean, nothing in the statute authorized that, as I read it.\nMaybe I'm missing something.\nNothing in the nonintercourse act authorizes conveyances by Indian tribes to the United States in trust for the tribe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2276.656, 2277.357, 2281.719, 2282.82], "stop_times": [2277.357, 2281.719, 2282.82, 2288.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2276.656}, "reply_to": "21218__1_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21218__1_066", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.\nThat was authorized later by act of Congress when it passed the Indian Non... or the Indian Reorganization Act and provided for repurchases of tribal land base--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2288.884, 2290.495], "stop_times": [2290.495, 2300.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2288.884}, "reply_to": "21218__1_065", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_067", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Not from the tribes necessarily.\nIt provided that the United States could acquire land in trust for the tribes, but they could acquire it from private... and indeed, I think that's mainly what was envisioned, acquiring it from private sources so it wouldn't collide with the nonintercourse act at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2300.421, 2302.171], "stop_times": [2302.171, 2317.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2300.421}, "reply_to": "21218__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21218__1_068", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--You're correct, Your Honor, in terms of... in terms of the purchases of land, as opposed to the conveyancing away of land.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2317.562], "stop_times": [2324.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2317.562}, "reply_to": "21218__1_067", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_069", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2324.828], "stop_times": [2325.259], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2324.828}, "reply_to": "21218__1_068", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21218__1_070", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "The purchase of land has really only become an issue probably in the last couple of decades as tribal governments have built themselves up enough to actually consider being able to rebuild some of their tribal land bases.\nThose land bases were devastated during the allotment era.\nThe Leech Lake Reservation is an example of that, where over 90 percent of the land, 95 percent of the land was lost to Indians and the tribe during the allotment era.\nThe whole thrust of current... of the current attempts are for the tribes to attempt to rebuild some of their reservations that were taken away during the allotment era and it makes a great deal of difference to them and it's very important to the tribes for several reasons, not only for economic development and self sufficiency, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2325.259, 2339.307, 2342.83, 2354.167], "stop_times": [2339.307, 2342.83, 2354.167, 2376.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2325.259}, "reply_to": "21218__1_069", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_071", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Well, they weren't taken away, they were conveyed away, weren't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2376.38], "stop_times": [2378.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2376.38}, "reply_to": "21218__1_070", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21218__1_072", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--They were removed from tribal ownership, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2378.744], "stop_times": [2381.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2378.744}, "reply_to": "21218__1_071", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_073", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2381.454], "stop_times": [2381.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2381.454}, "reply_to": "21218__1_072", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21218__1_074", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--suppose that's a more correct--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2381.903], "stop_times": [2383.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2381.903}, "reply_to": "21218__1_073", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_075", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "By voluntary transaction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2383.105], "stop_times": [2384.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2383.105}, "reply_to": "21218__1_074", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21218__1_076", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--Or by act of Congress.\nBut the last point that I was going to make is that it's also important for the tribes to rebuild these land bases because it is becoming increasingly apparent that much of the jurisdiction that tribes have as semisovereigns is being related to the land ownership that they have within their reservations.\nSo it makes a great deal of difference, both economically and in terms of self government and in terms of the sovereign jurisdiction that they can exert, that lands within the reservations be rebuilt and that they be reacquired by the tribes, and that's actually one of the reasons we're here, is because the tribes are starting to do that and the counties and States are objecting to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2384.587, 2386.528, 2405.88], "stop_times": [2386.528, 2405.88, 2429.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2384.587}, "reply_to": "21218__1_075", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_077", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "If I understand it, there is an out, which you wouldn't like, but it prevents downtown Minneapolis from becoming inalienable, and that is that the Indian Nonintercourse Act only applies to lands that have not been sold in fee simple and thereby become alienable, but if the tribe reacquires land like that, well, it remains alienable, and that kind of interpretation applies on reservation and off reservation, et cetera.\nIf you accept that, you don't get into this problem of downtown Minneapolis, but of course, then, if you also accept taxation follows alienability, it means that this land would be taxable.\nThat's a long question.\nI'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2429.765, 2458.216, 2469.672, 2470.732], "stop_times": [2458.216, 2469.672, 2470.732, 2471.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2429.765}, "reply_to": "21218__1_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21218__1_078", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Your Honor, I would simply suggest that if that kind of thing is read into the Indian Nonintercourse Act, one could just as easily read into the act that it applies only to Indian country and reservation lands, and if we're reading words into the act that would be a more acceptable way of doing it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2471.333], "stop_times": [2486.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2471.333}, "reply_to": "21218__1_077", "speaker": "james_m_schoessler"}
{"id": "21218__1_079", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Schoessler.\nMs. McDowell, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2486.933, 2488.583], "stop_times": [2488.583, 2490.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2486.933}, "reply_to": "21218__1_078", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21218__2_000", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2490.636], "stop_times": [2497.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2490.636}, "reply_to": "21218__1_079", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "21218__2_001", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Ms. McDowell--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2497.972], "stop_times": [2498.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2497.972}, "reply_to": "21218__2_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21218__2_002", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2498.743], "stop_times": [2499.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2498.743}, "reply_to": "21218__2_001", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "21218__2_003", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--may I ask you, not necessarily now, but at some point during your argument, to comment on the argument that Mr. Maus made, and I understood it to go basically like this.\nHe accepts the unmistakability doctrine.\nHe then says, look what you've done so far, look what you've held so far.\nYou've held that allotment lands that ultimately are reconveyed, or ultimately end up at the present time in the hands of an Indian or of a tribe are taxable.\nIf those lands are taxable, how could you possibly attribute to Congress an intent not to provide the like treatment to lands that come back... that come to the tribe or the Indian after having been through the pinelands conveyance process, or the process in... pursuant to the Homestead Act?\nIt's an a fortiori kind of argument, and at some point will you comment on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2499.274, 2508.908, 2511.72, 2517.386, 2531.414, 2555.17], "stop_times": [2508.908, 2511.72, 2517.386, 2531.414, 2555.17, 2559.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2499.274}, "reply_to": "21218__2_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21218__2_004", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Yes.\nWe would initially take the position that there's been no statement here or clear expression of congressional intent to tax--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2559.962, 2560.643], "stop_times": [2560.643, 2567.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2559.962}, "reply_to": "21218__2_003", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "21218__2_005", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Well, he... but I think we accept, and I mean I think the premise of his argument was, the statement does not have to have an express reference to the particular land or category of land.\nIt's simply got to be unmistakably clear.\nAnd if it's unmistakably clear for allotment lands, it's got to be... you've got to have the same rule for nonallotment lands that would convey out.\nI mean, it would just be bizarre otherwise, and that's where the unmistakability comes from, as I understand it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2567.516, 2578.014, 2579.795, 2588.79], "stop_times": [2578.014, 2579.795, 2588.79, 2594.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2567.516}, "reply_to": "21218__2_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21218__2_006", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--We do not believe it's unmistakably clear that Congress intended to tax even the allotment lands in the hands of the tribe.\nThere's only a reference in the General Allotment Act to taxation of lands in the hands of individual Indians.\nWe would submit, given the governmental status of a tribe, that Congress would have needed to make a clearer statement of an intent to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2594.386, 2600.488, 2606.983], "stop_times": [2600.488, 2606.983, 2614.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2594.386}, "reply_to": "21218__2_005", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "21218__2_007", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Didn't we say that in Yakima?\nDidn't we equate land in the hands of the tribes and of the Indians?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2614.87, 2616.359], "stop_times": [2616.359, 2621.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2614.87}, "reply_to": "21218__2_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21218__2_008", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--The Court didn't draw the distinction in Yakima.\nHowever, the distinction is not based--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2621.753, 2623.906], "stop_times": [2623.906, 2625.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2621.753}, "reply_to": "21218__2_007", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "21218__2_009", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "But it did expressly refer... it expressly referred to both, didn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2625.986], "stop_times": [2628.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2625.986}, "reply_to": "21218__2_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21218__2_010", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--It expressly referred to the fact that there were tribally owned lands there, as well.\nHowever, neither--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2628.046, 2632.14], "stop_times": [2632.14, 2633.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2628.046}, "reply_to": "21218__2_009", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "21218__2_011", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Yes, which were an issue, as I understand it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2633.179], "stop_times": [2634.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2633.179}, "reply_to": "21218__2_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21218__2_012", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--Yes, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2634.401], "stop_times": [2635.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2634.401}, "reply_to": "21218__2_011", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "21218__2_013", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "All right.\nIf you take that as your starting place, that allotment lands which by whatever process end up back in the hands of the tribe, or end up in the hands of the tribe are going to be taxable, isn't it a pretty strong argument that lands that went out by way of the pinelands or the Homestead Act kind of conveyances have got to be in the same position, or you're attributing a certain sort of bizarreness to Congress.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2635.062, 2635.523], "stop_times": [2635.523, 2665.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2635.062}, "reply_to": "21218__2_012", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21218__2_014", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "This Court's rule is that there must be some sort of unmistakably clear expression of what Congress intended, and it's impossible to tell here what Congress would have intended about land that came back into the possession of the tribe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2665.363], "stop_times": [2680.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2665.363}, "reply_to": "21218__2_013", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "21218__2_015", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "But once the Court has determined that it is clear with respect to land that was allotted to individual Indians, once the Court has made that determination that that is clear, then why isn't it, as Justice Souter says, equally clear that no rational Congress could have envisioned a different treatment for the land that went out not under allotments to individual Indians?\nWhat rational Congress would say, yeah, we meant that if it was allotted to Indians, it's reacquired by the tribe tax free, but if it went out under the Homestead Act, then the tribe has its exemption?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2680.873, 2705.782], "stop_times": [2705.782, 2723.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2680.873}, "reply_to": "21218__2_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21218__2_016", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Congress obviously would have understood at the time that there were many different tax statuses that might have occurred with respect to the homestead lands and the pinelands, depending on whether and how they were actually acquired.\nThe lands, after all, were ceded by the tribe to the United States.\nIt was possible that the lands would never be sold by the United States and thus would never become taxable at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2723.563, 2738.062, 2741.434], "stop_times": [2738.062, 2741.434, 2745.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2723.563}, "reply_to": "21218__2_015", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "21218__2_017", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Yes, but we're talking about land that was sold by the United States.\nThat's what we've got here and, as I understand, the object of those two categories of conveyances were either settlement or exploitation of natural resources, and certainly those are two paradigm examples of land uses that Congress would have assumed would be taxable in the normal course and that, if anything, makes the a fortiori argument all the stronger.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2745.536, 2748.357], "stop_times": [2748.357, 2768.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2745.536}, "reply_to": "21218__2_016", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21218__2_018", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Well, Congress doubtless would have assumed that they would be taxable in the hands of an ordinary non Indian individual or business taxpayer, but we cannot conclude what Congress would have intended had the lands been reacquired by a tribe within the boundaries of an existing reservation.\nCongress was legislating in 189... 89 at the time of the Nelson Act and subsequently, in light of this Court's decision, for example, in the New York Indians, which squarely held that tribally owned fee lands were not taxable to the tribe, so there was the background there that suggests that we cannot conclude what Congress would have intended back then with the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2768.641, 2784.422], "stop_times": [2784.422, 2804.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2768.641}, "reply_to": "21218__2_017", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "21218__2_019", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Is it part of your submission that we overlooked the significance of tribal ownership in the Yakima case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2804.417], "stop_times": [2808.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2804.417}, "reply_to": "21218__2_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21218__2_020", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nIt wasn't raised by the parties, by the United States, or focused on by the Court.\nThere are a couple of reasons why I think that might have been the case.\nOne is that there was a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2808.497, 2809.739, 2813.042, 2815.744], "stop_times": [2809.739, 2813.042, 2815.744, 2816.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2808.497}, "reply_to": "21218__2_019", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "21218__2_021", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Why did we take the trouble to comment that there were both tribal and nontribal lands, then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2816.905], "stop_times": [2821.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2816.905}, "reply_to": "21218__2_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21218__2_022", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--Oh, that was certainly part of the factual background of the case, Your Honor.\nThen you would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2821.468, 2824.89], "stop_times": [2824.89, 2826.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2821.468}, "reply_to": "21218__2_021", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "21218__2_023", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Oh, but if it was an irrelevant portion, we shouldn't have mentioned it.\nI mean, we've just created a lot of difficulty by mentioning that.\nYou don't have to mention stuff that has nothing to do with your decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2826.089, 2828.172, 2831.234], "stop_times": [2828.172, 2831.234, 2834.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2826.089}, "reply_to": "21218__2_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21218__2_024", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--The distinction was not drawn perhaps because the focus of the tribe was on the parcels that was owned by individuals.\nThose were the only parcels on which the county had been attempting to foreclose in Yakima.\nAlso, there was a special statute in Yakima that applied to at least some of the tribally owned lands that provided that they would not be entitled to any special tax status by virtue of their ownership by the tribe that suggested that in the Yakima situation the only protection that the tribe might have would be the same status, same protections as would be available to individual Indians.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2834.336, 2842.311, 2846.612], "stop_times": [2842.311, 2846.612, 2868.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2834.336}, "reply_to": "21218__2_023", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "21218__2_025", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Could you possibly just quickly say what your view is on the question of, if you followed Goudy and followed the rule, taxability follows alienability, you'd have to get to the question, is this alienable, and then we'd get to the nonintercourse act, et cetera?\nWhat's your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2868.559, 2882.526], "stop_times": [2882.526, 2883.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2868.559}, "reply_to": "21218__2_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21218__2_026", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "These lands are not alienable.\nGoudy is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2883.607, 2885.709], "stop_times": [2885.709, 2886.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2883.607}, "reply_to": "21218__2_025", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "21218__2_027", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Is downtown Minneapolis alienable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2886.65], "stop_times": [2888.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2886.65}, "reply_to": "21218__2_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21218__2_028", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--We would take the position that the nonintercourse act was intended to apply only within Indian country.\nDowntown Minneapolis is not Indian country.\nThis is consistent with the legislative history of the 1834 act.\nThe question arose about section 465 and its meaning.\nIt's not a clear statement, obviously, of congressional intent with respect to the taxable status of tribally owned reservation lands.\nIt should be emphasized that 465 was designed to allow the United States to take in trust both lands on the reservation and lands off the reservation, lands that clearly would have been taxable prior to their being taken into trust.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2888.05, 2894.033, 2896.236, 2900.799, 2907.595, 2913.607], "stop_times": [2894.033, 2896.236, 2900.799, 2907.595, 2913.607, 2926.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2888.05}, "reply_to": "21218__2_027", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "21218__2_029", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Why is this a big problem?\nI mean, the United States, who argues here on behalf of the Indians, can obviously achieve what it wants to achieve simply by taking these lands into trust, can't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2926.645, 2927.456], "stop_times": [2927.456, 2936.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2926.645}, "reply_to": "21218__2_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21218__2_030", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "That's correct, but there are many tribes that have held lands for over a century now that have not... never been taken into trust and have always been recognized to be exempt from tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2936.532], "stop_times": [2946.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2936.532}, "reply_to": "21218__2_029", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "21218__2_031", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Taken into trust?\nBut they're protected by... those lands aren't... they're protected by the rule, aren't they, of alienability equals taxability?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2946.47, 2947.689], "stop_times": [2947.689, 2954.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2946.47}, "reply_to": "21218__2_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21218__2_032", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Well, traditionally those lands have been understood to be protected by the fact of Indian tax immunity, the absence of a clear statement, and the fact that those lands were within an existing reservation, the New York Indians being an example of that case.\nCertainly it's hard to attribute to Congress an unexpressed intent to overrule the New York Indians and other cases of that kind when it passed section 465.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2954.504, 2967.043], "stop_times": [2967.043, 2976.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2954.504}, "reply_to": "21218__2_031", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "21218__2_033", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Was 465 the source of the authority exercised in this case to acquire the... these lands in trust by the United States to hold in trust for the Indians, for the tribes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2976.367], "stop_times": [2987.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2976.367}, "reply_to": "21218__2_032", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21218__2_034", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "That's my understanding, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2987.076], "stop_times": [2988.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2987.076}, "reply_to": "21218__2_033", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "21218__2_035", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "You say in your brief that Yakima... it's evident that it rested primarily on section 6.\nI guess Justice Scalia can... is best equipped to respond to that, but I read his decision to say when section 5 rendered the lands alienable it also rendered them assessable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [2988.168, 2995.861], "stop_times": [2995.861, 3009.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2988.168}, "reply_to": "21218__2_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21218__2_036", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "But the decision then goes on to say that it took section 6 and the Burke Act proviso to make that implication clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [3009.148], "stop_times": [3017.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3009.148}, "reply_to": "21218__2_035", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "21218__2_037", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "To make it more clear.\nIt said, reaffirmed, made it more clear, reaffirmed, but reaffirmed sounds to me like it was confirming what was already--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [3017.035, 3017.794], "stop_times": [3017.794, 3024.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3017.035}, "reply_to": "21218__2_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21218__2_038", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "I think it's important to look at section 3 of the Court's opinion in Yakima, where the Court actually starts applying the clear statement rule to the actual two taxes at issue in that case and there, when the Court decides that the ad valorem tax in Yakima is permissible, it is because it constitutes, quote, taxation of property within the meaning of section 6 of the General Allotment Act and the Burke Act proviso.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [3024.66], "stop_times": [3050.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3024.66}, "reply_to": "21218__2_037", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "21218__2_039", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--But if everything rides on the Burke Act, then why didn't that protect only the parcels where there was premature patenting?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [3050.327], "stop_times": [3057.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3050.327}, "reply_to": "21218__2_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21218__2_040", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "May I answer, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [3057.641], "stop_times": [3060.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3057.641}, "reply_to": "21218__2_039", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "21218__2_041", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Yes, you may.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [3060.042], "stop_times": [3060.983], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3060.042}, "reply_to": "21218__2_040", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21218__2_042", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "The Court looked back at section 5 of the Burke Act, of the General Allotment Act, rather, to determine that Congress' intent, as clearly expressed in section 6, also referred back to section 5.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [3060.983, 3073.602], "stop_times": [3073.602, 3074.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3060.983}, "reply_to": "21218__2_041", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "21218__2_043", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Thank you, Ms. McDowell.\nMr. Maus, do you have rebuttal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [3074.08, 3074.761], "stop_times": [3074.761, 3077.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3074.08}, "reply_to": "21218__2_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21218__3_000", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Real briefly, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [3077.644], "stop_times": [3078.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3077.644}, "reply_to": "21218__2_043", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__3_001", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Good.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [3078.615, 3079.186], "stop_times": [3079.186, 3080.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3078.615}, "reply_to": "21218__3_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21218__3_002", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "A couple of things, I guess, one just on the Burke Act, just to comment on that.\nThe Burke Act needed to say that the land given and early fee patented was taxable, because if it hadn't said that, I submit to the Court, there was still that provision out there that had the 25-year trust period, and that would have meant that the land would have become alienable, not taxable to the... at the end of that 25 years, so the Court had to... I mean, the proviso needed to say that for the early fee patenting.\nI think that clears that one up, and... hopefully.\nAlso, she... you know, the U.S. referred briefly to section 3 of the Yakima decision.\nWell, that dealt with the excise tax, and we're not here about that today.\nWe're here on land, and I think the rest of the Court's decision dealt solely with land, and those taxes are certainly distinguishable from this.\nAnd one final thing, the New York case that was cited several times here, that involved the nonintercourse act, but in that New York case there was never any act of Congress to sell those lands.\nThose lands were aboriginal lands that were just merely put on the tax roll, and so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [3080.375, 3086.91, 3110.396, 3113.927, 3122.122, 3125.456, 3135.841, 3151.072], "stop_times": [3086.91, 3110.396, 3113.927, 3122.122, 3125.456, 3135.841, 3151.072, 3156.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3080.375}, "reply_to": "21218__3_001", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__3_003", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Weren't those lands that had never been alienated before?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [3156.875], "stop_times": [3160.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3156.875}, "reply_to": "21218__3_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21218__3_004", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [3160.508], "stop_times": [3161.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3160.508}, "reply_to": "21218__3_003", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__3_005", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "They'd been Indian territory from the beginning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [3161.749], "stop_times": [3164.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3161.749}, "reply_to": "21218__3_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21218__3_006", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "That's correct, and it would be our position that the nonintercourse act applies to lands that have never been alienable.\nIn other words, Congress has never made them alienable and they've kept them just as they were.\nI have nothing further, unless there's further questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [3164.531, 3174.877, 3178.801], "stop_times": [3174.877, 3178.801, 3183.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3164.531}, "reply_to": "21218__3_005", "speaker": "earl_edwin_maus"}
{"id": "21218__3_007", "conversation_id": "21218", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Maus.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-174", "start_times": [3183.372, 3184.714], "stop_times": [3184.714, 3186.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3183.372}, "reply_to": "21218__3_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20549__0_000", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-1925, Caterpillar, Inc. v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America.\nMr. Gangemi.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [0.0, 11.67], "stop_times": [11.67, 13.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20549__0_001", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe issue for consideration, in a nutshell, is whether it is lawful for an employer and a union to agree that the employer shall pay the wages of a union official, or union officials, for their services as union officials, where the union official used to be an employee of the payor employer.\nOur position is, is that under section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act and a fair reading of the plain language of that statute, such an arrangement is clearly unlawful.\nThis Court in Arroyo many years ago said that a literal reading of the language of the statute does no offense... does no violence, I believe the term was... to common sense and so I believe it is useful at the threshold to consider for a moment what common sense would suggest is the answer to the question in light of what we all know to be bedrock Federal labor policy and that is, is that notwithstanding the fact that ultimately there is an economic interdependence between labor and management, that the relationship is to be maintained as one of adversarial independence.\nIn light of that fundamental policy that has been expressed by this Court on numerous occasions, from insurance agents on forward, to ask the question, is it lawful for an employer to pay a union official for his services as a union official is to answer the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [13.61, 17.424, 43.059, 59.53, 102.088], "stop_times": [17.424, 43.059, 59.53, 102.088, 119.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 13.61}, "reply_to": "20549__0_000", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_002", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Well, let me ask you this, Mr. Gangemi, do you think the wage payments would be lawful if the employees actually worked for the employer an hour a day and the rest of the time for the union?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [119.569], "stop_times": [135.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 119.569}, "reply_to": "20549__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20549__0_003", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "I believe that the statute provides that an employer may pay for the services of that individual as an employee, but may not pay--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [135.56], "stop_times": [146.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 135.56}, "reply_to": "20549__0_002", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_004", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "For the hour a day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [146.808], "stop_times": [148.257], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 146.808}, "reply_to": "20549__0_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20549__0_005", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--For the hour that he works as an employee of the employer, but for the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [148.257], "stop_times": [152.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 148.257}, "reply_to": "20549__0_004", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_006", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "So on the no-docking arrangements, you think a fortiori they would be invalid, where there's been full pay but only part work for the employer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [152.751], "stop_times": [164.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 152.751}, "reply_to": "20549__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20549__0_007", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [164.008], "stop_times": [164.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 164.008}, "reply_to": "20549__0_006", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_008", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "No?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [164.379], "stop_times": [165.04], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 164.379}, "reply_to": "20549__0_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20549__0_009", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "I believe that to understand whether or not a payment is lawful under a no-docking arrangement one must go to the safe harbor language of the 8 (a)(2) proviso of the National Labor Relations Act, which is from whence the no-docking provision gets its genesis.\nThat language, that section says that notwithstanding anything else, it... an employer shall not be prohibited from permitting an employee to confer with him during regular hours without loss of pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [165.04, 182.622], "stop_times": [182.622, 200.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 165.04}, "reply_to": "20549__0_008", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_010", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "That isn't all... that isn't all that a shop steward does, unfortunately.\nI mean, if you're appealing to plain language, that would allow the shop steward to be paid only for the time that he spends conferring with the employer and not with consulting the employees who have grievances, and so forth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [200.713, 204.635], "stop_times": [204.635, 217.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 200.713}, "reply_to": "20549__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__0_011", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "The board and the courts have extended that language, rightly or wrongly, to include conferring with each other, conferring with fellow employees, in preparation for or in conjunction with conferring with management.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [217.975], "stop_times": [234.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 217.975}, "reply_to": "20549__0_010", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_012", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Okay.\nWhat about a full-time shop steward?\nHe spends his full time--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [234.163, 234.474, 238.037], "stop_times": [234.474, 238.037, 240.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 234.163}, "reply_to": "20549__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__0_013", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "If--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [240.158], "stop_times": [241.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 240.158}, "reply_to": "20549__0_012", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_014", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--conferring with other employees and with the employer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [241.69], "stop_times": [243.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 241.69}, "reply_to": "20549__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__0_015", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--Again, Your Honor, it depends on the nature of the relationship.\nIf a steward has ceased to be an employee of the employer and instead become a full-time agent, or to the extent that he is acting as an officer of the union--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [243.91, 248.703], "stop_times": [248.703, 261.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 243.91}, "reply_to": "20549__0_014", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_016", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "I don't know what you mean, to the extent that he's acting as an officer.\nHe spends his full time on union work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [261.351, 264.825], "stop_times": [264.825, 267.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 261.351}, "reply_to": "20549__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__0_017", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--Your Honor, I do not think the distinction is one of full-time versus part-time.\nI think the distinction is, is he being paid for his services as a union official, which is unlawful, or is he being paid for his services as an employee, which is lawful.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [267.776, 273.73], "stop_times": [273.73, 285.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 267.776}, "reply_to": "20549__0_016", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_018", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "But that's not the... I mean, you acknowledge that if he's conferring with the employer on a grievance, that isn't spending his time as an employee of the employer.\nThat's spending his time as a union member, isn't it, and you concede that that is payable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [285.278, 298.255], "stop_times": [298.255, 303.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 285.278}, "reply_to": "20549__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__0_019", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Section 8, the proviso... Your Honor, the proviso to section 8 (a)(2) creates, in our view, a safe harbor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [303.771], "stop_times": [312.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 303.771}, "reply_to": "20549__0_018", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_020", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "And all I'm asking you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [312.924], "stop_times": [315.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 312.924}, "reply_to": "20549__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__0_021", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--which allows this type of conflict.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [315.178], "stop_times": [316.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 315.178}, "reply_to": "20549__0_020", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_022", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--All I'm asking you is, how wide is the harbor?\nIs it enough that the steward does nonunion work for an hour, a half-hour, 15 minutes a day?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [316.046, 319.148], "stop_times": [319.148, 328.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 316.046}, "reply_to": "20549__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__0_023", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Again, Your Honor, in our judgment the distinction is not the issue... the issue is not whether the individual works full-time or part-time.\nIf you look at the statutory language, it says nothing about whether someone is full-time or part-time.\nA full-time union agent could not fall within the ambit of the 8 (a)(2) proviso--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [328.745, 338.924, 345.178], "stop_times": [338.924, 345.178, 351.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 328.745}, "reply_to": "20549__0_022", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_024", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Well, it depends on whether he's an employee, you say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [351.309], "stop_times": [353.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 351.309}, "reply_to": "20549__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__0_025", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--Because he would no longer be an employee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [353.071], "stop_times": [355.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 353.071}, "reply_to": "20549__0_024", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_026", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--Is it enough to make him an employee that he works for the employer 15 minutes a day?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [355.292], "stop_times": [359.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 355.292}, "reply_to": "20549__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__0_027", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Your Honor, I do not think so.\nI do not think that working for a few moments a day for an employer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [359.877, 363.267], "stop_times": [363.267, 367.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 359.877}, "reply_to": "20549__0_026", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_028", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Okay.\nWhat is the line you're drawing, because I... I frankly... I think it's in my view crucial to your case that the no-docking rules are not cast aside, and the Government has really portrayed your argument as an attack upon that.\nYou say it's not an attack upon that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [367.12, 367.391, 387.112], "stop_times": [367.391, 387.112, 389.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 367.12}, "reply_to": "20549__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__0_029", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [389.225], "stop_times": [389.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 389.225}, "reply_to": "20549__0_028", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_030", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "I want to know how much of the nodocking law remains.\nThe majority of the employee's time has to be for the employer and he ceases to be an employee if he's not spending most of his time for the employer as opposed to the union?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [389.784, 393.868], "stop_times": [393.868, 405.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 389.784}, "reply_to": "20549__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__0_031", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--I do not think that section 8(a)(2) proviso is a matter of the amount of time.\nI believe, and we argue, that it is a function of the nature of the activity that the representative of the union, the employee, is engaging in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [405.516, 411.37], "stop_times": [411.37, 424.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 405.516}, "reply_to": "20549__0_030", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_032", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "He's engaging in two types of activities.\nSome of it is for the employer, and some of it is as a shop steward, which is not for the employer, okay.\nHe's doing both.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [424.88, 427.531, 434.194], "stop_times": [427.531, 434.194, 435.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 424.88}, "reply_to": "20549__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__0_033", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "The analysis would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [435.436], "stop_times": [436.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 435.436}, "reply_to": "20549__0_032", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_034", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "And your answer is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [436.925], "stop_times": [438.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 436.925}, "reply_to": "20549__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__0_035", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--My answer is, is that you go to the statutory language--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [438.096], "stop_times": [441.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 438.096}, "reply_to": "20549__0_034", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_036", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [441.479], "stop_times": [441.87], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 441.479}, "reply_to": "20549__0_035", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20549__0_037", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--And under 302(c)(1) he cannot be paid for his services as a union representative.\nHe may be paid for his services as an employee of the employer in a dual capacity situation, unless... unless--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [441.87, 450.035], "stop_times": [450.035, 457.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 441.87}, "reply_to": "20549__0_036", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_038", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Yes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [457.81], "stop_times": [458.601], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 457.81}, "reply_to": "20549__0_037", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20549__0_039", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--You then go to section 8(a)(2) and if the nature of the activity falls within the ambit of 8(a)(2), then Congress has allowed a safe harbor for that conduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [458.601], "stop_times": [469.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 458.601}, "reply_to": "20549__0_038", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_040", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Even if all his time is spent on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [469.567], "stop_times": [471.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 469.567}, "reply_to": "20549__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__0_041", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Even if all his time is spent on that, if it falls within the ambit of section 8(a)(2).\nSo, for example, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [471.399, 476.101], "stop_times": [476.101, 477.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 471.399}, "reply_to": "20549__0_040", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_042", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Yes, I must say you're not being helpful to me on... really on my main... on my main concern.\nYou're saying it depends on whether he's really an employee of the employer or an employee of the union.\nI have no idea how to answer that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [477.653, 482.977, 488.79], "stop_times": [482.977, 488.79, 491.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 477.653}, "reply_to": "20549__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__0_043", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [491.102], "stop_times": [491.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 491.102}, "reply_to": "20549__0_042", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_044", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "He's spending all his time as a shop steward and you say you cannot tell me whether that makes him an employee of the employer or of the union.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [491.983], "stop_times": [501.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 491.983}, "reply_to": "20549__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__0_045", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--If an individual is spending all of his time and has ceased to... has ceased to engage in activity on behalf of the employer, he is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [501.049], "stop_times": [514.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 501.049}, "reply_to": "20549__0_044", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_046", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [514.176], "stop_times": [514.546], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 514.176}, "reply_to": "20549__0_045", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20549__0_047", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--no longer controlled by the employer and doesn't meet the control test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [514.546], "stop_times": [518.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 514.546}, "reply_to": "20549__0_046", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_048", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Good, and the next question is 15 minutes.\nHe works 15 minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [518.46, 520.9], "stop_times": [520.9, 523.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 518.46}, "reply_to": "20549__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__0_049", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "To the extent that he works 15 minutes for the employer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [523.631], "stop_times": [527.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 523.631}, "reply_to": "20549__0_048", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_050", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "He is an employee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [527.085], "stop_times": [528.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 527.085}, "reply_to": "20549__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__0_051", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--He is an employee for those 15 minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [528.307], "stop_times": [530.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 528.307}, "reply_to": "20549__0_050", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_052", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "And will the no-docking provision apply to all the rest of his time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [530.809], "stop_times": [533.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 530.809}, "reply_to": "20549__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__0_053", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Not in my judgment, because with regard to the remainder of that day, what you're positing here is a situation where you have a dual capacity employee.\nHe is a agent of the union, similar to the case in Town & Country, and he is an agent of the employer.\nHe's an employee of the employer.\nIn that situation, 302(c)(1) is clear.\nIt sets up a dichotomy.\nIt says that it is lawful to pay a union official to be an employee of the employer but it is not lawful to pay a employee of the employer to be a union official with the very limited proviso that if you can fit the conduct, if you can fit the nature of the activity, regardless of how many hours, Justice Scalia, within the confines... and they're very narrow confines.\nThe harbor of 8(a)(2) is very narrow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [533.94, 546.217, 554.213, 556.294, 559.967, 561.349, 591.088], "stop_times": [546.217, 554.213, 556.294, 559.967, 561.349, 591.088, 594.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 533.94}, "reply_to": "20549__0_052", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_054", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Can you be concrete, then, about what is this conduct, because you seem to be dividing it up not on the basis of number of hours, but conduct, and let me give you a specific example.\nLet's take the job of grievance settlor, and instead of giving it to one person who's called the chairman to do it full-time, it's given to two shop stewards, each one working 4 hours a day at that job and 4 hours a day at the plant job.\nIs that arrangement... shop steward works 4 hours at the plant, 4 hours settling grievances, two of them, so it adds up to a total of 8 hours a day, are those two shop stewards legitimately within the no-docking exception that you derive from section 8(a)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [594.39, 607.268, 628.462], "stop_times": [607.268, 628.462, 651.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 594.39}, "reply_to": "20549__0_053", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20549__0_055", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Well, those were the facts in the BASF case, where an individual was a part-time, albeit regular union official.\nHe was not just representing his fellow employees on an as-needed basis in connection with particular grievances.\nHe was performing regular representational functions, albeit 4 hours a day.\nThe provision in the contract said that the employer could pay for reasonable time spent in representation of employees up to 4 hours a day, and what BASF was complaining about, as I understood the facts, is that this had become de rigueur, that every day, day-in and day-out, this was... this individual had become a regular, albeit part-time union official, and the BASF felt that under the terms of that... and I agree with BASF in this regard.\nI disagree with the Second Circuit in this regard, that under... that where that individual has ceased to be a shop steward merely conferring with the employer considering grievances on an as-needed basis, and thus fits neatly within the ambit of the 8(a)(2) proviso, when the representation becomes a regular full... part-time, albeit part-time representation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [651.638, 663.178, 673.613, 679.467, 712.68], "stop_times": [663.178, 673.613, 679.467, 712.68, 742.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 651.638}, "reply_to": "20549__0_054", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_056", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Well, that's where--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [742.229], "stop_times": [743.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 742.229}, "reply_to": "20549__0_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20549__0_057", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--then it's prohibited to pay that individual.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [743.409], "stop_times": [745.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 743.409}, "reply_to": "20549__0_056", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_058", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--That's where I'm not following your argument, because we're talking about parties bargaining for a contract, so I'd like to know the contract term for which the union and the employer can bargain, the nodocking contract term--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [745.502], "stop_times": [761.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 745.502}, "reply_to": "20549__0_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20549__0_059", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "I under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [761.56], "stop_times": [762.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 761.56}, "reply_to": "20549__0_058", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_060", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--that you would say is legitimate, and you can't do it on the basis of, well, when it becomes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [762.181], "stop_times": [766.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 762.181}, "reply_to": "20549__0_059", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20549__0_061", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--I think this case gives a perfect example and I direct the Court's attention to pages 4 and 5 of our reply brief, where we reproduce the two provisions.\nOne of them is a no-docking provision in the labor contract that we do not think is at issue and we think it is perfectly lawful under the 8(a)(2) proviso and the other one is 4.6, which we do not believe is a nodocking provision and we do not believe is lawful.\nThe 2.2 says, Your Honor, stewards may--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [766.555, 779.883, 794.993], "stop_times": [779.883, 794.993, 800.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 766.555}, "reply_to": "20549__0_060", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_062", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--Where are you reading from, Mr. Gangemi?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [800.376], "stop_times": [802.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 800.376}, "reply_to": "20549__0_061", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20549__0_063", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--I am reading from pages 4 and 5 of the reply brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [802.326], "stop_times": [805.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 802.326}, "reply_to": "20549__0_062", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_064", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Whereabouts on page 4?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [805.17], "stop_times": [806.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 805.17}, "reply_to": "20549__0_063", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20549__0_065", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Well, also I can direct your attention, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [806.831], "stop_times": [813.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 806.831}, "reply_to": "20549__0_064", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_066", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Well, you've refer... if you'd just tell us where in the reply--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [813.265], "stop_times": [816.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 813.265}, "reply_to": "20549__0_065", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20549__0_067", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--It's the middle.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [816.448], "stop_times": [816.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 816.448}, "reply_to": "20549__0_066", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_068", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--The middle of page 4.\nGo ahead, rather than... well, we'll find it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [816.738, 818.238], "stop_times": [818.238, 822.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 816.738}, "reply_to": "20549__0_067", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20549__0_069", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "I had that in my notes.\nI am reading now from the middle of page 4, the quotation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [822.652, 824.723], "stop_times": [824.723, 829.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 822.652}, "reply_to": "20549__0_068", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_070", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [829.696], "stop_times": [830.537], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 829.696}, "reply_to": "20549__0_069", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20549__0_071", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "In short, that says... and that's a no-docking provision, 2.2 of the local agreement.\nStewards may, without loss in pay for regularly scheduled hours, discuss a grievance with the aggrieved employer, provided the aggrieved employ--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [830.537, 837.619], "stop_times": [837.619, 847.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 830.537}, "reply_to": "20549__0_070", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_072", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Employee, not employer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [847.967], "stop_times": [849.577], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 847.967}, "reply_to": "20549__0_071", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20549__0_073", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--With the aggrieved employee.\nI'm sorry, Your Honor.\nProvided the aggrieved employee first informs his immediate supervisor and also with the employee's supervisor and, if the grievance is not satisfactorily settled, with the plant grievance committeeman.\nThat is a classic no-docking clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [849.577, 850.278, 851.279, 865.779], "stop_times": [850.278, 851.279, 865.779, 869.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 849.577}, "reply_to": "20549__0_072", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_074", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "And you concede that that's okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [869.132], "stop_times": [870.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 869.132}, "reply_to": "20549__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__0_075", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Absolutely, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [870.832], "stop_times": [871.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 870.832}, "reply_to": "20549__0_074", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_076", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Even though I assume a particular steward might spend his entire time doing that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [871.813], "stop_times": [877.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 871.813}, "reply_to": "20549__0_075", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__0_077", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "On a given day, Your Honor, it might be the case that he would spend a full day--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [877.196], "stop_times": [881.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 877.196}, "reply_to": "20549__0_076", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_078", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "There's no exclusion if he spent his whole year doing that.\nI mean, maybe the union wants to economize on stewards, so it only has one steward for the whole plant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [881.53, 884.411], "stop_times": [884.411, 893.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 881.53}, "reply_to": "20549__0_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__0_079", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--Shop stewards have regular jobs and regular job duties.\nShop stewards have a regular function that they perform in the factory which they come off of and they return to upon the completion of their task.\nFor example, if the 2.2 provision doesn't ring true to Your Honor in terms of the distinction, take a look at the 1950 Department of Labor sample that is cited in appellee's brief, or respondent's brief, I should say, as a sample of a classic no-docking clause.\nI read--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [893.477, 897.791, 910.75, 940.42], "stop_times": [897.791, 910.75, 940.42, 941.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 893.477}, "reply_to": "20549__0_078", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_080", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Where is this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [941.128], "stop_times": [942.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 941.128}, "reply_to": "20549__0_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__0_081", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--It is in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [942.52], "stop_times": [943.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 942.52}, "reply_to": "20549__0_080", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_082", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Do they quote it, or do they just cite it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [943.76], "stop_times": [945.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 943.76}, "reply_to": "20549__0_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__0_083", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--They just cite it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [945.353], "stop_times": [946.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 945.353}, "reply_to": "20549__0_082", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_084", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Oh, okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [946.431], "stop_times": [946.772], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 946.431}, "reply_to": "20549__0_083", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20549__0_085", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "So I do not have it, but I am reading from the 1950 BLS bulletin.\nQuote, It is understood... this is a sample clause that the Government is giving as an example of the no-docking provision.\nIt is understood that stewards and grievance committeemen are employed by the company to perform fulltime production and maintenance work, but it is further understood and agreed that they may take time off during their regular working hours and be paid at their regular rate of pay to perform... and then it lists investigate and present grievances, attend meetings for the discussion of matters arising out of the application of the agreement.\nIt's an example of what a no-docking provision is.\nNow, Justice Scalia, this may be a matter... ultimately a matter of degree, but matters of degree are as real in the law as matters of qualitative distinction.\nI believe that that type of provision is qualitatively different from the 4.6 that is at issue here wherein the employer and the company... the employer and the union agree that the chairman shall conduct his business from the local union office, he shall be considered on leave of absence, and he will be paid by the company for his regular shift hours.\nHowever, the company shall not pay for time spent, and then it lists a couple of exceptions, activities not directly related to the functions of his office.\nIn other words, this individual is not a regular worker in the plant, not a real employee, to use your terminology.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [946.772, 952.305, 961.612, 991.992, 996.135, 1009.113, 1033.609, 1044.686], "stop_times": [952.305, 961.612, 991.992, 996.135, 1009.113, 1033.609, 1044.686, 1053.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 946.772}, "reply_to": "20549__0_084", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_086", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Can they negotiate legitimately for any retention of any benefits for someone selected from among the employees to do this job for a term?\nFor example, how about retaining the right to return to work, the seniority provision... are there any benefits connected with employment that are retained, or can be bargained for to be retained?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1053.662, 1066.051], "stop_times": [1066.051, 1079.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1053.662}, "reply_to": "20549__0_085", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20549__0_087", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "I believe... it depends on what you mean by the word retain, Your Honor, but I believe that one can retain the rights that have already accrued to that person while they were an employee.\nFor example, the pension that has been earned to the date that he ceases to be an employee and becomes a union agent.\nHe can retain them, and he can draw down on them.\nHe can be paid out--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1079.608, 1094.01, 1100.803, 1104.106], "stop_times": [1094.01, 1100.803, 1104.106, 1105.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1079.608}, "reply_to": "20549__0_086", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_088", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "But not accrue any more.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1105.508], "stop_times": [1106.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1105.508}, "reply_to": "20549__0_087", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20549__0_089", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--He cannot accrue any more.\nSeniority, or the right of seniority it seems to me is nothing more than holding the place in the queue.\nIt is not a payment of money or a thing of value to a union official.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1106.768, 1108.34, 1115.522], "stop_times": [1108.34, 1115.522, 1121.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1106.768}, "reply_to": "20549__0_088", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_090", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "You pay him when he goes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1121.166], "stop_times": [1122.308], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1121.166}, "reply_to": "20549__0_089", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20549__0_091", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "It is only of value if the union official comes back and becomes again at some point in the future an employee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1122.308], "stop_times": [1129.233], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1122.308}, "reply_to": "20549__0_090", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_092", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--You pay him when he goes on vacation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1129.233], "stop_times": [1131.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1129.233}, "reply_to": "20549__0_091", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20549__0_093", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Excuse me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1131.074], "stop_times": [1131.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1131.074}, "reply_to": "20549__0_092", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_094", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "You pay him when he goes on vacation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1131.584], "stop_times": [1133.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1131.584}, "reply_to": "20549__0_093", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20549__0_095", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "In this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1133.395], "stop_times": [1134.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1133.395}, "reply_to": "20549__0_094", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_096", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "I mean, employees are paid all the time when they go on vacation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1134.867], "stop_times": [1137.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1134.867}, "reply_to": "20549__0_095", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20549__0_097", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Ah--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1137.799], "stop_times": [1138.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1137.799}, "reply_to": "20549__0_096", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_098", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "And if they're hurt, they get compensation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1138.658], "stop_times": [1141.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1138.658}, "reply_to": "20549__0_097", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20549__0_099", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--This is the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1141.529], "stop_times": [1142.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1141.529}, "reply_to": "20549__0_098", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_100", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "And if they're permanently crippled they get compensation and their health benefits continue, and all kinds of things continue.\nWhat's the difference between that and this same person who works for both taking a year off to handle grievances?\nWhat is the difference?\nI'm not saying there isn't one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1142.611, 1147.622, 1156.358, 1158.331], "stop_times": [1147.622, 1156.358, 1158.331, 1159.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1142.611}, "reply_to": "20549__0_099", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20549__0_101", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--I will... I will--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1159.751], "stop_times": [1161.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1159.751}, "reply_to": "20549__0_100", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_102", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "I just want to know the implications there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1161.333], "stop_times": [1162.084], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1161.333}, "reply_to": "20549__0_101", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20549__0_103", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--It's an important question and the bottom line is, is that this is the argument that there are various types of contingent benefits for... that are paid to an employee for time not worked.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1162.084], "stop_times": [1177.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1162.084}, "reply_to": "20549__0_102", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_104", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "To put all the cards out, so to speak, I mean, you're willing to let them do that when it's 15 minutes as a shop steward talking to the immediate supervisor.\nYou're willing to let that happen when it's a plant committeeman, a grievance committeeman, I take it, talking to his counterpart the... slightly higher up in the employer's hierarchy.\nI don't know if you're willing to do it when he's actually even higher up and talks to... but it seems like sometimes you're willing to see it that way, sometimes not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1177.055, 1187.781, 1200.419], "stop_times": [1187.781, 1200.419, 1208.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1177.055}, "reply_to": "20549__0_103", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20549__0_105", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1208.764], "stop_times": [1209.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1208.764}, "reply_to": "20549__0_104", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_106", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "But go back to the first.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1209.555], "stop_times": [1211.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1209.555}, "reply_to": "20549__0_105", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20549__0_107", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--Let me go back to the first one for a moment.\nThe difference between other paid time off provisions and this one is, simply speaking, the statute.\nThere is no statute that prohibits an employer from paying someone to go on sabbatical.\nThere is no statute that prohibits an employer for paying someone to go on political--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1211.556, 1213.346, 1223.624, 1231.638], "stop_times": [1213.346, 1223.624, 1231.638, 1237.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1211.556}, "reply_to": "20549__0_106", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_108", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "In each instance, I'm assuming there is a person who has a dual capacity.\nThat is, he works for the employer, but he's also a union rep.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1237.743, 1241.446], "stop_times": [1241.446, 1244.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1237.743}, "reply_to": "20549__0_107", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20549__0_109", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--Well, or he... or in this case he used to work for the employer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1244.819], "stop_times": [1248.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1244.819}, "reply_to": "20549__0_108", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_110", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Yes, so the statute applies.\nThe question would be, is the payment by reason of his employer service?\nIs it by reason of, those are the key words, by reason of and if it's not, of course, I get--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1248.539, 1248.75, 1253.665], "stop_times": [1248.75, 1253.665, 1260.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1248.539}, "reply_to": "20549__0_109", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20549__0_111", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Well, and the phrase by reason of, Your Honor, is nothing more than a prepositional phrase.\nThe important issue is what is the object that that prepositional phrase takes, and the object, reading the literal language, is service as an employee, or his service as an employee of the employer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1260.387, 1266.761], "stop_times": [1266.761, 1282.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1260.387}, "reply_to": "20549__0_110", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_112", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--Well, let me ask you this.\nCan it be said that the employer derives any benefit from the work done by the employee for the union?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1282.653, 1282.944], "stop_times": [1282.944, 1290.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1282.653}, "reply_to": "20549__0_111", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20549__0_113", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "I do not believe, and I believe the court below recognized, that there is anything but a theoretical benefit that the employer derives from these individuals.\nThese individuals work--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1290.297, 1306.027], "stop_times": [1306.027, 1307.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1290.297}, "reply_to": "20549__0_112", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_114", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "It's enough to be by reason of.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1307.597], "stop_times": [1308.649], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1307.597}, "reply_to": "20549__0_113", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20549__0_115", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1308.649], "stop_times": [1309.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1308.649}, "reply_to": "20549__0_114", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_116", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "The benefit, theoretical though it may be, is on your view, I take it, enough to qualify as a payment by reason of.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1309.42], "stop_times": [1318.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1309.42}, "reply_to": "20549__0_115", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20549__0_117", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "I thought Her Honor's question went to a benefit that the employer receives from a grievance administration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1318.186], "stop_times": [1325.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1318.186}, "reply_to": "20549__0_116", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_118", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "I asked whether the employer could be said to receive any benefit from the work done by the employee for the union.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1325.339], "stop_times": [1332.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1325.339}, "reply_to": "20549__0_117", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20549__0_119", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "In our judgment that's... in theory that may be the case, but it is irrelevant if it is the case.\nThe individual... and it was found by the district court and it was confirmed by the appellate court... is working solely and exclusively for the benefit of the union.\nNow, that there may be some indirect tangential benefit to the employer, theoretical or otherwise, does not mean that that person is working for the benefit of the employer.\nLikewise, that individual is not subject to the control of the employer and the record is clear below that everyone who has looked at this situation, the district court, the appellate court, and the administrative law judge, found that these individuals are no longer employees of the employer and have become employees of the union by virtue of the classic test for that, control and benefit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1332.055, 1340.44, 1355.009, 1367.849], "stop_times": [1340.44, 1355.009, 1367.849, 1392.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1332.055}, "reply_to": "20549__0_118", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_120", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Yes, but to the extent that the employee is being paid on a no-docking scheme the same argument can be made with respect to the period covered by the no-docking rule, can't it?\nI mean, it seems to me that your... I understand your argument, but I don't see why your argument, if we accept it, does not force us to say that the no-docking rule is prohibited.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1392.504, 1403.301], "stop_times": [1403.301, 1415.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1392.504}, "reply_to": "20549__0_119", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20549__0_121", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Because, Your Honor, Congress has dealt with that for you.\nLet us assume for the sake of argument that that... it has created a safe harbor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1415.51, 1419.912], "stop_times": [1419.912, 1425.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1415.51}, "reply_to": "20549__0_120", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_122", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Well, it hasn't done so in terms of plain language.\nI mean, it really hasn't.\nSo I don't know how the argument flows.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1425.878, 1426.906, 1429.157], "stop_times": [1426.906, 1429.157, 1434.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1425.878}, "reply_to": "20549__0_121", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20549__0_123", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I mean, we may... we may disagree with regard to the plain language.\nI think 8(a)(2) has very plain language.\nBut in passing a... but if you do not think the language is plain and you wish to go to the legislative history, then go to the legislative history and you will find that in 1935 it was proposed that the language have within it an exception allowing employers to pay, quote, local union representatives and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1434.28, 1438.785, 1441.446], "stop_times": [1438.785, 1441.446, 1464.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1434.28}, "reply_to": "20549__0_122", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_124", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "I was... I just want to go back, can I, to my question, because I think if you answer it directly you will get a conceptual distinction that will help you.\nI'm not... but I'm thinking of an employee, and the employee is a union representative as well, so when the employer writes a check he is paying money to a representative of one of his employees, all right, so he fits in the statute and it also happens to be his employee, all right?\nHe's a representative of the union.\nHe's also his employee.\nNow, that person is disabled and so health benefits, vacation benefits, money checks flow to that person who is the representative of the employee for many years into the future.\nThat's fine, isn't it?\nThat is not, in your view, money paid by reason of.\nThat is money paid by reason of.\nAll right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1464.83, 1471.675, 1493.582, 1494.691, 1496.253, 1511.13, 1512.632, 1517.225, 1519.588], "stop_times": [1471.675, 1493.582, 1494.691, 1496.253, 1511.13, 1512.632, 1517.225, 1519.588, 1520.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1464.83}, "reply_to": "20549__0_123", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20549__0_125", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1520.327], "stop_times": [1521.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1520.327}, "reply_to": "20549__0_124", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_126", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Now tell me why that is money paid by reason of, why the docking is... no-docking is money paid by reason of, but the payment to the man who takes the year off to be the grievance committee chairman is not money paid by reason of.\nIf you could explain that very clearly, I think I would understand how you're trying to make the distinction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1521.198, 1539.091], "stop_times": [1539.091, 1544.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1521.198}, "reply_to": "20549__0_125", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20549__0_127", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Your Honor, the money paid to a former employee who is... again, let's say had a workplace injury and is on disability and is entitled, by virtue of his disability, to compensation, can be paid that compensation notwithstanding the fact that he has now become a union official, because it was... he was entitled to it by virtue of, by reason of his service as an employee of the employer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1544.584], "stop_times": [1577.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1544.584}, "reply_to": "20549__0_126", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_128", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Just like the grievance committee chairman is here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1577.765], "stop_times": [1579.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1577.765}, "reply_to": "20549__0_127", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20549__0_129", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "For his services as an employee of the employer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1579.456], "stop_times": [1584.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1579.456}, "reply_to": "20549__0_128", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_130", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Yes.\nThat's why the employ... the employer would never pay him if he weren't also an employee of the employer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1584.34, 1584.969], "stop_times": [1584.969, 1588.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1584.34}, "reply_to": "20549__0_129", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20549__0_131", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Pay him for what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1588.501], "stop_times": [1589.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1588.501}, "reply_to": "20549__0_130", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_132", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "For all the things he's done in the past to earn this year to go up and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1589.873], "stop_times": [1591.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1589.873}, "reply_to": "20549__0_131", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20549__0_133", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1591.914], "stop_times": [1592.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1591.914}, "reply_to": "20549__0_132", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_134", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--All right.\nNow, I'm not... I'm not taking the position.\nI want to see what your response is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1592.184, 1592.545, 1594.916], "stop_times": [1592.545, 1594.916, 1596.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1592.184}, "reply_to": "20549__0_133", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20549__0_135", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--My response is, is the district court's response, Your Honor.\nThe record here is devoid of any evidence that the chairman's wages for services rendered are for services rendered while he was employed at Caterpillar, appendix petition 61.\nThe Third Circuit, the chairman does nothing for Caterpillar.\nThe payments at issue here do not relate back to these former employee services on the shop floor, page 8 of the petition... appendix to the petition.\nIt is difficult to, indeed, to comprehend how years and even decades of paid union leave can realistically be thought of as compensation for time spent on the factory floor.\nIt's even--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1596.428, 1599.758, 1611.416, 1615.81, 1628.159, 1639.455], "stop_times": [1599.758, 1611.416, 1615.81, 1628.159, 1639.455, 1640.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1596.428}, "reply_to": "20549__0_134", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_136", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "On the difficulty... on the difficulty of comprehending that, you were about to say if the statute is ambiguous, and legislative history, does it count for anything that for decades in the industry, it appeared, this kind of arrangement was accepted.\nFor... one of the startling things about this case is that you are coming forward and now saying that for nearly 20 years your client has been engaged in a felonious course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1640.266, 1660.94], "stop_times": [1660.94, 1673.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1640.266}, "reply_to": "20549__0_135", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20549__0_137", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--Well, first of all, Your Honor, it is not a wide industry practice.\nThere is no evidence here that it is widespread in anything but the auto industry, number 1.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1673.546, 1678.902], "stop_times": [1678.902, 1683.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1673.546}, "reply_to": "20549__0_136", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_138", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "But this particular employer has been doing it for nearly 20 years, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1683.884], "stop_times": [1686.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1683.884}, "reply_to": "20549__0_137", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20549__0_139", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "This particular employer entered into this arrangement in 1973 under threat of strike and has had it for five or six contract terms, that's correct, Your Honor, but I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1686.626], "stop_times": [1698.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1686.626}, "reply_to": "20549__0_138", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_140", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "There must have been some kind of judgment that it was legal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1698.104], "stop_times": [1700.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1698.104}, "reply_to": "20549__0_139", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20549__0_141", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--I think that's an untoward assumption, that... or an unjustified assumption, I should say, Your Honor.\nIt is very easy to be lulled into a belief that, you know, if you pay a part-timer, or if you pay a shop steward, you should be able to pay a regular union rep, too.\nThat's easy to fall into that, to be lulled into that sense that there is no difference when in fact there is.\nAnd then one day you wake up and the union is demanding that full-time union agents be paid full-time pay at 54 hours a week, at top rates and shift premiums, because it's time they got a raise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1700.365, 1707.361, 1718.056, 1725.391], "stop_times": [1707.361, 1718.056, 1725.391, 1740.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1700.365}, "reply_to": "20549__0_140", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_142", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "I guess we should--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1740.041], "stop_times": [1742.723], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1740.041}, "reply_to": "20549__0_141", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20549__0_143", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "These are slippery slopes, Your Honor and I don't think that the fact that we have slid down it necessitates that we stay at the bottom.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1742.723], "stop_times": [1751.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1742.723}, "reply_to": "20549__0_142", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_144", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--I guess we should not reject virtue even if it comes late.\nIs that your argument here?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1751.938, 1756.04, 1757.592], "stop_times": [1756.04, 1757.592, 1758.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1751.938}, "reply_to": "20549__0_143", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__0_145", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Virtue is virtue, Your Honor.\nI would like to... with the Court's permission I'd like to reserve the balance of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1758.183, 1760.744], "stop_times": [1760.744, 1769.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1758.183}, "reply_to": "20549__0_144", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__0_146", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Very well, Mr. Gangemi.\nMr. Silberman, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1769.821, 1770.98], "stop_times": [1770.98, 1773.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1769.821}, "reply_to": "20549__0_145", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20549__1_000", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nDiscussion to this point I think has made quite clear that there is no principle basis for distinguishing a collective bargaining agreement that provides an employee who assumes a union position part time off to perform those duties from one that provides full time off, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1773.594, 1783.439], "stop_times": [1783.439, 1803.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1773.594}, "reply_to": "20549__0_146", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_001", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Well, one principle I think has been suggested.\nIt didn't get very far in the argument here but at least, as I understand it, this principle was suggested, that in fact the language in, what is it, (c)(1) was in fact added in an effort to in effect equalize the position of those who are working for an affiliated union and an unaffiliated union.\nBut the point was to allow, how ill-defined it may have been, some no-docking practice for all of them.\nWhatever that means, and however facially inconsistent that might be with the general prohibition, it was at least something less than 100 percent of one's time and a payment of 100 percent of one's salary for that time and that, at least on the basis of legislative intent, in construing an ill-drafted statute we should recognize the basic distinction between no docking for some work and full payment for no work for the employer.\nWhat about that distinction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1803.254, 1805.724, 1830.128, 1840.496, 1878.682], "stop_times": [1805.724, 1830.128, 1840.496, 1878.682, 1880.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1803.254}, "reply_to": "20549__1_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20549__1_002", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--Well, Justice Souter, first, as a historical matter, at the time the statute was enacted there was as much evidence of no... of payment of the type we had here, where it was recognized that an employee would have full time off to perform certain union functions, representational functions, as part-time positions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1880.462], "stop_times": [1898.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1880.462}, "reply_to": "20549__1_001", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_003", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Can I find that in the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1898.714], "stop_times": [1899.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1898.714}, "reply_to": "20549__1_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20549__1_004", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "You can find that in our brief.\nWe cite the... we would begin by reviewing the 1941 Ford contract with the UAW--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1899.996, 1901.245], "stop_times": [1901.245, 1907.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1899.996}, "reply_to": "20549__1_003", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_005", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1907.931], "stop_times": [1908.201], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1907.931}, "reply_to": "20549__1_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20549__1_006", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--which is the agreement.\nWe quote that, which expressly provides that a full-time position--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1908.201, 1909.561], "stop_times": [1909.561, 1912.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1908.201}, "reply_to": "20549__1_005", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_007", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "You're talking about this industry.\nYou're not talking about economy-wide.\nYou're talking about the automotive industry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1912.902, 1914.104, 1916.465], "stop_times": [1914.104, 1916.465, 1918.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1912.902}, "reply_to": "20549__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__1_008", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--It was... the automotive industry... historically, Justice Scalia, it was... the industrial unions began in the automotive industry, so this was certainly the lead industry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1918.927], "stop_times": [1927.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1918.927}, "reply_to": "20549__1_007", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_009", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1927.382], "stop_times": [1927.843], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1927.382}, "reply_to": "20549__1_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20549__1_010", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "And this was specific... this industry's practice was specifically called to the attention of the 1947 Congress, both the Ford contract, which was a de jure full-time contract and the Chrysler contract which, as we explained in our brief, was de facto full time in that employees were given as much time as they needed and, in fact, the chief steward spent full time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1927.843], "stop_times": [1948.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1927.843}, "reply_to": "20549__1_009", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_011", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "What is the significance of having these practices 1947 Congress?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1948.527], "stop_times": [1957.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1948.527}, "reply_to": "20549__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20549__1_012", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Well, Chief Justice Rehnquist, I was... I thought I understood Justice Souter to be suggesting that a distinction could be drawn between part time and full time based on historical practice, and that you could understand the statute as only going as far as history had taken it, and I'm suggesting that that doesn't provide a basis for distinction.\nObviously, the ultimate answer to the question here is going to turn on the language and structure of this statute as informed by its history.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1957.502, 1973.644], "stop_times": [1973.644, 1981.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1957.502}, "reply_to": "20549__1_011", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_013", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "You can draw a distinction based on the language of the statute.\nI mean, it has to... are your people employees or former employees, in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1981.489, 1983.44], "stop_times": [1983.44, 1987.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1981.489}, "reply_to": "20549__1_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20549__1_014", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "They are employees, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1987.562], "stop_times": [1989.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1987.562}, "reply_to": "20549__1_013", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_015", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "The ones who work full time at the union get no pay... do no services whatsoever for the company for 5 years in a row.\nThey're employees of the company.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1989.243, 1995.486], "stop_times": [1995.486, 1996.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1989.243}, "reply_to": "20549__1_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20549__1_016", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "They... although we would say nothing turns on that in terms of interpreting this statute, we think the correct analytic answer is that they are employees, and they are employees for the same reason that an employee who is on leave to take an educational... pursue a college education or is on sabbatical, that the statute defines employee for the purpose of 302 it's the same definition as for the purpose of NRA.\nThe labor board law since 1935 on has been very clear that an employee who is on leave, as long as he still has some right to return and hasn't severed all employment ties, continues to have the status as an employee.\nHe can't be discriminated against, et cetera.\nSo we think if anything turned on it these people are employees, but since the statute here is written in the disjunctive and allows payments either to employees--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [1996.007, 2019.631, 2031.57, 2033.492], "stop_times": [2019.631, 2031.57, 2033.492, 2041.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1996.007}, "reply_to": "20549__1_015", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_017", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2041.888], "stop_times": [2042.128], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2041.888}, "reply_to": "20549__1_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20549__1_018", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--or to current employees, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2042.128], "stop_times": [2044.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2042.128}, "reply_to": "20549__1_017", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_019", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "But your theory is there, your theory is they are current employees even though the company has no control over their--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2044.189], "stop_times": [2050.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2044.189}, "reply_to": "20549__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20549__1_020", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--That's right.\nWe would not say they are currently rendering service to the employer as an employee, but if the question is, do they have the status of an employee, you would answer that in the affirmative.\nBut as I say, whether they are employees or former employees, we turn to this statutory language and the statutory structure to understand the structure--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2050.123, 2050.674, 2059.469], "stop_times": [2050.674, 2059.469, 2070.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2050.123}, "reply_to": "20549__1_019", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_021", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--But the point wouldn't be whether they're an employee.\nWhat is crucial is whether these... whether the company is paying them as compensation for his service as an employee, and do you think that the money that the company is paying while he's on leave is compensation for his service as an employee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2070.485, 2072.937], "stop_times": [2072.937, 2093.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2070.485}, "reply_to": "20549__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__1_022", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--I would say, Justice... the statute is compensation for or by reason of his service as an employee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2093.01], "stop_times": [2098.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2093.01}, "reply_to": "20549__1_021", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_023", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Oh.\nYou say, you think it's by reason of his service as an employee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2098.205, 2099.424], "stop_times": [2099.424, 2102.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2098.205}, "reply_to": "20549__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__1_024", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "I think it is at the very least that.\nCompensation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2102.557, 2104.109], "stop_times": [2104.109, 2105.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2102.557}, "reply_to": "20549__1_023", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_025", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "If everybody got paid leave to do whatever they want, then I would agree with you, but this is a... but that is not the rule here.\nI assume everybody in this company can't just go off on leave and continue to draw his pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2105.969, 2114.454], "stop_times": [2114.454, 2118.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2105.969}, "reply_to": "20549__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__1_026", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2118.988], "stop_times": [2119.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2118.988}, "reply_to": "20549__1_025", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_027", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "This fellow gets his pay only because he's working for the union.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2119.947], "stop_times": [2122.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2119.947}, "reply_to": "20549__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__1_028", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2122.619], "stop_times": [2122.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2122.619}, "reply_to": "20549__1_027", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_029", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "How can you say that he's being compensated by reason of his service as an employee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2122.99], "stop_times": [2127.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2122.99}, "reply_to": "20549__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__1_030", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--Well, he's not getting pay only because he's working for the union.\nThere are two preconditions, Justice Scalia.\nThe first is, of course, that he has... he is an employee, has rendered service as an employee, and then this is a form of contingent leave.\nHe's... as an employee the employees are entitled to paid leave under certain contingencies.\nAs Justice Breyer pointed out, if they become disabled, if they're called for military services and, in this case, if they assume a union position they are entitled to a paid leave, and we would say that that payment is payment by reason of service as an employee just as, in the Bingler case in the tax context, this Court had no trouble saying that an employee who was on full-time leave to pursue a degree, and he's drawing pay from his employer, was getting that pay by reason of his service as an employee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2127.514, 2130.266, 2132.607, 2140.731, 2147.907], "stop_times": [2130.266, 2132.607, 2140.731, 2147.907, 2178.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2127.514}, "reply_to": "20549__1_029", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_031", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "No, but what that boils down to saying is, he gets it simply because the only people they have contracted to pay it to are those who have the status of employee and therefore the entire issue becomes one of whether the employer has, in fact, recognized this as something it would like or is willing to do to an employee, and that's the substance of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2178.916], "stop_times": [2200.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2178.916}, "reply_to": "20549__1_030", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20549__1_032", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "I think, Justice Souter, that is essentially right, subject to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2200.631], "stop_times": [2203.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2200.631}, "reply_to": "20549__1_031", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_033", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Then there's nothing left of the prohibition.\nNo, I think that's... I don't think that is fair.\nThere's nothing... the prohibition, the broad prohibition is a prohibition on payments of money to union officials.\nIt was an antibribery prohibition.\nThere is in... we do think that 302(c)(1) is a very broad exception and we suggest to the Court that it be contrasted with the exceptions stated in subsections (c)(4) and (c)(5).\n(c)(4) deals with withholding of union dues and Congress there laid down a very specific set of rules and subrules as to when, under what circumstances those kinds of payments should be lawful and when they should be unlawful.\nBut it seems to me... you talk about a broad exception, and if the collective bargaining agreement provided... it listed all the people who have ever had a job with the union, the president of the union on down, and said they all should be employed in the company from January 1 to January 3.\nThereafter, they should be put on leave and remain on leave as long as they want to stay and do everything... and as long as they do something for the union that has helped in the collective bargaining negotiations the exception would apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2203.793, 2205.523, 2208.027, 2213.681, 2216.072, 2227.679, 2240.008, 2254.607], "stop_times": [2205.523, 2208.027, 2213.681, 2216.072, 2227.679, 2240.008, 2254.607, 2267.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2203.793}, "reply_to": "20549__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20549__1_034", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--I think not quite... I would not take it that far, Justice Stevens.\nIn Arroyo this Court made clear that there is a point at which a payment which in form satisfies one of the exceptions, satisfies part of (c), subsection (c), nonetheless can be illegal, if it's a sham, if it's really an attempt... if it's really an attempt not to further a legitimate purpose but to line the pockets of particular union representatives, and if what you're positing is a collective bargaining agreement which they know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2267.584, 2272.209], "stop_times": [2272.209, 2298.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2267.584}, "reply_to": "20549__1_033", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_035", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Not to line their pockets, just pay them enough so they'd be a little more friendly during collective bargaining negotiations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2298.095], "stop_times": [2304.098], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2298.095}, "reply_to": "20549__1_034", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20549__1_036", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--Well, I... if what you're positing is an agreement... a negotiation in which they... in which what is said is that Jones is going to get some additional money, we want to keep Jones happy, I think that would fall outside of... that would fall within the sham exception.\nIt would fall outside section (c)(1).\nThat is not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2304.098, 2318.818, 2320.328], "stop_times": [2318.818, 2320.328, 2321.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2304.098}, "reply_to": "20549__1_035", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_037", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "It seems to me this program wants to make a lot of union officials happy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2321.139], "stop_times": [2325.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2321.139}, "reply_to": "20549__1_036", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20549__1_038", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--I don't think that's quite accurate, Justice Stevens.\nWhen the union comes to the bargaining table it's not bargaining for pay for any particular individuals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2325.063, 2328.686], "stop_times": [2328.686, 2333.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2325.063}, "reply_to": "20549__1_037", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_039", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Isn't this demand for 54 hours wages, isn't that pay for the union officials?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2333.508], "stop_times": [2339.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2333.508}, "reply_to": "20549__1_038", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20549__1_040", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "It is pay for particular positions, not for particular... to be filled--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2339.442], "stop_times": [2344.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2339.442}, "reply_to": "20549__1_039", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_041", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Particular union positions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2344.234], "stop_times": [2345.175], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2344.234}, "reply_to": "20549__1_040", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20549__1_042", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--Union positions to be filled not necessarily by the individuals who are negotiating, to be filled by people... to be filled by union... the people elected by the employees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2345.175], "stop_times": [2355.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2345.175}, "reply_to": "20549__1_041", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_043", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Yes, but it doesn't really matter because they're not getting this money for being union officials.\nThey're getting this money because they used to be employees, so we shouldn't be so suspicious about it.\nThey're not really getting the money for being union officials.\nThey're getting it because they used to be company employees.\nThat's why they want the raise.\nI don't understand that.\nIt seems to me that if the statute meant what you want it to mean, it would... instead of having that exception in (c)(1) it would be easier to say in (a)(1) to any representative of any of his employees who are employed in an industry affecting commerce except such representatives as are former employees of the employer himself.\nThat would have done the trick.\nWe wouldn't have all this argument.\nIt would be a lot clearer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2355.083, 2358.974, 2364.269, 2367.59, 2371.372, 2372.694, 2374.044, 2400.571, 2402.852, 2404.504], "stop_times": [2358.974, 2364.269, 2367.59, 2371.372, 2372.694, 2374.044, 2400.571, 2402.852, 2404.504, 2406.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2355.083}, "reply_to": "20549__1_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__1_044", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "That may well have been a clearer way to write the statute, Justice Scalia.\nit would not have, however, allowed for the possibility... Congress clearly wanted... the difference in language as it now stands is that a situation in which an employer makes a side deal with one of... somebody who used to be one of his employees having nothing to do with the fact that he is... is or was an employee... he says, look, you come to the negotiating table with me.\nHere's some money.\nThat's still illegal under the statute as drafted.\nIt would not be illegal under the statute you posit, so that the structure that's... that Congress did seize upon does allow for the possibility that if payments are made that are... where the employment status is an irrelevancy, it's a convenience, but it's an artifice, those could be condemned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2406.174, 2409.787, 2430.641, 2431.542, 2433.753], "stop_times": [2409.787, 2430.641, 2431.542, 2433.753, 2450.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2406.174}, "reply_to": "20549__1_043", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_045", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Why can't you use those words to apply to this very situation?\nIsn't the former employment status just a convenience for the people who the union wants to run the union affairs?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2450.895, 2454.317], "stop_times": [2454.317, 2460.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2450.895}, "reply_to": "20549__1_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20549__1_046", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "I don't think so at all, Justice Stevens.\nI think in part the employer would not have done this but for the fact these are employees.\nWhat this... what this practice is about, and 60 years of experience tells us, this practice is about trying to create a system of workplace representation where people who come from the plant, who know the plant and know the players, know the practices, will be able to step into positions of workplace representation.\nIt's not irrelevant that they were... that they served as employees or serve as employees.\nIt's central to this... what this system was about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2460.03, 2461.472, 2466.324, 2484.837, 2489.329], "stop_times": [2461.472, 2466.324, 2484.837, 2489.329, 2492.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2460.03}, "reply_to": "20549__1_045", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_047", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Of course, they can do the best negotiating, too, as the... I don't understand that argument.\nI really don't.\nIt seems to me that's... you're just describing what makes a good union negotiator, or a good union arbitrator, experience in the plant and experience in the company, but... and you're saying that the company shall pay for all of this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2492.121, 2496.805, 2497.965], "stop_times": [2496.805, 2497.965, 2509.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2492.121}, "reply_to": "20549__1_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20549__1_048", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Saying that this is what... how this system evolved, and it was very well-evolved at the time the statute was written, that there is no evidence at all that there was... that anybody in Congress thought the system as it has evolved, which was no different than it is today, was corrupt, was illicit, should be criminalized.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2509.802], "stop_times": [2528.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2509.802}, "reply_to": "20549__1_047", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_049", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "May I ask you another fact question I didn't find in the briefs?\nAre these full-time union people paid... is their entire compensation derived from the company or is part of it supplemented by the union?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2528.836, 2530.306], "stop_times": [2530.306, 2537.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2528.836}, "reply_to": "20549__1_048", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20549__1_050", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Insofar... these, quote, full-time people are not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2537.863], "stop_times": [2542.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2537.863}, "reply_to": "20549__1_049", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_051", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "The most senior people in the union that we're talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2542.054], "stop_times": [2544.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2542.054}, "reply_to": "20549__1_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20549__1_052", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--Right.\nThey are not entitled to pay for certain kinds... they're only entitled to pay from the company for performing the duties--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2544.227, 2544.905], "stop_times": [2544.905, 2551.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2544.227}, "reply_to": "20549__1_051", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_053", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "No, my question is, do they get their entire income from the company or is their company pay supplemented by the union?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2551.549], "stop_times": [2556.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2551.549}, "reply_to": "20549__1_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20549__1_054", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--And I... there's not... what I want to say is that there are times when they are... they're only paid for certain functions, and when they stop doing those functions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2556.983], "stop_times": [2565.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2556.983}, "reply_to": "20549__1_053", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_055", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "It would help me if you'd answer that yes, no, or sometimes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2565.418], "stop_times": [2568.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2565.418}, "reply_to": "20549__1_054", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20549__1_056", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--I'm--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2568.32], "stop_times": [2568.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2568.32}, "reply_to": "20549__1_055", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_057", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Answer the question and then explain.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2568.67, 2571.673], "stop_times": [2571.673, 2571.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2568.67}, "reply_to": "20549__1_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20549__1_058", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--I'm not... I suppose, as... if those are the two choices, the answer is they're supplemented from the company.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2571.963], "stop_times": [2576.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2571.963}, "reply_to": "20549__1_057", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_059", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "You have three choices, yes, no, or sometimes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2576.397], "stop_times": [2578.458], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2576.397}, "reply_to": "20549__1_058", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20549__1_060", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Sometimes, then.\n[Laughter]\nIn the sense that there are certain functions for which they are not paid by the company.\nThey are paid for those functions by the union.\nIt's not the case, and why I was... I didn't mean to be quibbling, but it's not the case that for the functions they are paid for the company but the union provides pay on top of that, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2578.458, 2580.108, 2581.13, 2585.871, 2589.875], "stop_times": [2580.108, 2581.13, 2585.871, 2589.875, 2597.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2578.458}, "reply_to": "20549__1_059", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_061", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "What are those functions for which the union pays--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2597.481], "stop_times": [2600.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2597.481}, "reply_to": "20549__1_060", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20549__1_062", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--The contract says that they are not entitled to pay from the company for negotiations, for time spent in any meeting outside of the union office, and for any other activity unrelated to the duties of their office.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2600.003], "stop_times": [2613.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2600.003}, "reply_to": "20549__1_061", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_063", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--All right.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2613.669, 2613.96], "stop_times": [2613.96, 2614.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2613.669}, "reply_to": "20549__1_062", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20549__1_064", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "If the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2614.601], "stop_times": [2614.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2614.601}, "reply_to": "20549__1_063", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_065", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--when you talk about office, are they office... are they officers by reason of the union charter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2614.981], "stop_times": [2621.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2614.981}, "reply_to": "20549__1_064", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20549__1_066", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--They are... I believe the answer to that question is no, Justice Kennedy.\nIt... the record is not entirely clear, but I believe the answer to that is no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2621.576, 2625.197], "stop_times": [2625.197, 2628.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2621.576}, "reply_to": "20549__1_065", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_067", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Mr. Silberman, what about retirement pay?\nWhen these senior officers retire as union officials, have they accumulated company retirement pay as well during the period that they're serving as union officials, so their retirement pay also comes from the company rather than from the union?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2628.86, 2631.141], "stop_times": [2631.141, 2646.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2628.86}, "reply_to": "20549__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__1_068", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "If we are talking about the grievance chairman, these employees elected to this full-time position--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2646.572], "stop_times": [2651.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2646.572}, "reply_to": "20549__1_067", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_069", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2651.364], "stop_times": [2651.744], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2651.364}, "reply_to": "20549__1_068", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20549__1_070", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--For the 3 years that he serves in that office--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2651.744], "stop_times": [2654.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2651.744}, "reply_to": "20549__1_069", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_071", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2654.436], "stop_times": [2654.827], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2654.436}, "reply_to": "20549__1_070", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20549__1_072", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--he continues to accrue credit in the company's pension plan, so that yes, if he were to continue, he would be... he's earning pension credits for those years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2654.827], "stop_times": [2662.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2654.827}, "reply_to": "20549__1_071", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_073", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "What do you say... I take it the question is not... the word is payable, not compensation.\nThere is money... is the question is, is this money payable by reason of his service as an employee to the employer, all right.\nNow, you've heard the petitioner say, just look at the record.\nThere are specific findings, which he began to list, which said that this money wasn't payable by reason of his former service, and so what is your response to that, that why is this money payable by reason of his service?\nWhat, in other words, just as every... we were asking the petitioner, I would ask you, what clearly, or what line, or what conceptual line distinguishes those payments, in your view, that are by reason of his former service from those that are not, and what do you do about the district court, having found that these were not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2662.984, 2667.967, 2677.702, 2683.646, 2702.077], "stop_times": [2667.967, 2677.702, 2683.646, 2702.077, 2724.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2662.984}, "reply_to": "20549__1_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20549__1_074", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "First, Justice Breyer, I don't believe there are any district court findings that bear on the subject at all.\nWe have some legal conclusions, and this is essentially a legal question we're discussing.\nAnd I... our answer is that we understand the phrase compensation for or by reason of service to cover any payment that is made to someone who is or has been an employee of the employer, and that is a payment that is provided in return for services that were provided to the employer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2724.772, 2729.486, 2733.67], "stop_times": [2729.486, 2733.67, 2753.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2724.772}, "reply_to": "20549__1_073", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_075", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "All right.\nNow, here they say this is not in return for services that were provided to the employer.\nThis is in return for services that are being provided to the union, and what is your response to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2753.793, 2754.462, 2760.216], "stop_times": [2754.462, 2760.216, 2767.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2753.793}, "reply_to": "20549__1_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20549__1_076", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "My response, Justice Breyer, is no, that is not the case, that these are... it is true that one of the conditions to receive these payments is that you must perform these services as a union representative, just as in an educational leave situation one of the conditions to receive that money is that you must be going to school full-time.\nBut that doesn't mean that it's not also by reason of the fact that you are an employee, for precisely, I believe, the reason you indicated in your earlier question, that this is only paid to employees and is paid as part of service to an employee, and I would say that if there are any questions about the language, and certainly one thing that I think has to be clear 60 years... 40... 50 years after the statute was enacted it can hardly be said that this language plainly and unmistakably condemns a practice that nobody has thought was illegal for 50 years.\nIf there's any doubt about what the language means--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2767.672, 2789.726, 2822.426], "stop_times": [2789.726, 2822.426, 2825.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2767.672}, "reply_to": "20549__1_075", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_077", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Well, nobody.\nThe court of appeals though it was illegal till they changed their mind, didn't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2825.388, 2825.948], "stop_times": [2825.948, 2829.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2825.388}, "reply_to": "20549__1_076", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20549__1_078", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--There was... there were... the Trailways court held that a particular kind of agreement, not necessarily this agreement, there are a number of courts the other way... certainly the parties to collective bargaining have been negotiating these things for 50 years without anybody thinking that there was a legal problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2829.421], "stop_times": [2844.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2829.421}, "reply_to": "20549__1_077", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_079", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "But on the other side of that argument is a principle that exceptions to a statutory provision are to be construed narrowly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2844.973], "stop_times": [2851.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2844.973}, "reply_to": "20549__1_078", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20549__1_080", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Justice Rehnquist, I'm not sure that that... whether that principle necessarily applies to a criminal statute.\nI think it's particularly inapt here for two reasons.\nThe first is, as I was saying earlier, we have some exceptions to this statute that are crafted in a way to indicate that Congress was making the kinds of legislative and policy judgments that Congress makes in treating with this... with the subjects of welfare funds and the subject of dues check off in that way.\nThese are much more categorical exceptions which bespeak an effort to pull the entire area outside of the ambit of this criminal statute and leave it for treatment under other law.\nThe second critical point here is that we have very clear legislative history.\nThese provisions, these practices were called to Congress' intention.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2851.915, 2859.281, 2862.123, 2879.273, 2888.74, 2893.592], "stop_times": [2859.281, 2862.123, 2879.273, 2888.74, 2893.592, 2897.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2851.915}, "reply_to": "20549__1_079", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_081", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "I'm really not impressed by that legislative history.\nHere Congress is making substantial revisions in the labor laws, and I... and you say these practices were called to its attention.\nSo what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2897.505, 2900.958, 2907.333], "stop_times": [2900.958, 2907.333, 2909.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2897.505}, "reply_to": "20549__1_080", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20549__1_082", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Well, Justice Rehnquist, let me try to impress you in the following two respects.\nFirst, that we know that this... in 1947 those who were making these changes were not at all shy about saying this practice that's going on today in collective bargaining is illegal, it's illegitimate, we're trying to change it, and they made that very clear about a number of types of collective bargaining agreements.\nThey said nothing to suggest that this practice was something they were trying to reach.\nPerhaps even more important, at the very same time that Congress did that, they enacted the changes to section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act to provide essentially a rule of equality whose purpose, the legislative history tells us, was precisely to allow company unions the same privilege that unions like the UAW already enjoyed under the law to negotiate for lost time arrangements of this sort.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2909.113, 2913.067, 2931.68, 2936.231], "stop_times": [2913.067, 2931.68, 2936.231, 2960.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2909.113}, "reply_to": "20549__1_081", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_083", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "May I ask you just one factual question before your time runs out?\nMost of what I notice in your brief and the Government brief seem clearly to refer to no-docking arrangements.\nWhat is the most persuasive and clearest example you can point me to in that legislative materials where the full-time people were also being treated the same?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2960.796, 2964.569, 2970.743], "stop_times": [2964.569, 2970.743, 2980.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2960.796}, "reply_to": "20549__1_082", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20549__1_084", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "The 194--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2980.019], "stop_times": [2981.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2980.019}, "reply_to": "20549__1_083", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_085", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Full-time for the union, I mean.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2981.679], "stop_times": [2983.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2981.679}, "reply_to": "20549__1_084", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20549__1_086", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--The 1941 Ford-UAW agreement which we quote in our brief expressly provides for full-time people.\nIt is the subject of a colloquy between Senator Ball and former... Gerald Reilly, who was a member of the National Labor Relations Board, in 1947.\nThe Chrysler agreement in practice provided for full-time union people.\nIt was the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [2983.061, 2989.546, 2999.464, 3003.645], "stop_times": [2989.546, 2999.464, 3003.645, 3004.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2983.061}, "reply_to": "20549__1_085", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_087", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "So that colloquy is the strongest example for the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3004.487], "stop_times": [3007.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3004.487}, "reply_to": "20549__1_086", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20549__1_088", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--It's the strongest example, Justice Stevens, of this being called to Congress' attention.\nThe absence of any congressional response and the 10(c) changes, it seems to me, altogether are what establish the legislative intent not to proscribe these kinds of practices.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3007.478, 3013.722], "stop_times": [3013.722, 3025.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3007.478}, "reply_to": "20549__1_087", "speaker": "david_silberman"}
{"id": "20549__1_089", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--Thank you, Mr. Silberman.\nMs. Brinkmann, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3025.25, 3026.149], "stop_times": [3026.149, 3028.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3025.25}, "reply_to": "20549__1_088", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20549__2_000", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI'd like to first address the relationship between section 302(c)(1) and section 8(a)(2).\nThe payments by reason of service as an employee that are excepted from the criminal provision of 302(a) are not limited to the section 8(a)(2) proviso of the National Labor Relations Act.\nWhen the board has upheld no-docking practices, it's not because the board has held that it fits inside that proviso.\nIt's because the board has held that it doesn't violate the general prohibition or unfair labor practices of 8(a)(2).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3028.032, 3036.808, 3042.871, 3056.278, 3064.343], "stop_times": [3036.808, 3042.871, 3056.278, 3064.343, 3070.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3028.032}, "reply_to": "20549__1_089", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20549__2_001", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "No, but they're current payments to current employees for services being performed currently, but the by-reason-of language would naturally be read to preserve the pension benefits of people who work for the union later and then get their pension benefits.\nSo you're right about the language with respect to the part-time people, but I'm not so sure you're right about it with regard to the full-time people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3070.658, 3084.509], "stop_times": [3084.509, 3090.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3070.658}, "reply_to": "20549__2_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20549__2_002", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Well, Your Honor, we think that there is a three-step inquiry here that demonstrates that they are by reason of.\nFirst of all, these are payments that were bargained for in a collective bargaining agreement that defines terms of payment.\nSecond of all, it is a but-for causation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3090.962, 3096.797, 3103.289], "stop_times": [3096.797, 3103.289, 3106.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3090.962}, "reply_to": "20549__2_001", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20549__2_003", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "What's the fact that it's in a collective bargaining agreement got to do with it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3106.121], "stop_times": [3109.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3106.121}, "reply_to": "20549__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20549__2_004", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Because it talks about payments for services, Your Honor, and the quintessential location where one looks in a labor environment to find out what services and payment are due is in the collective bargaining agreement.\nThe second thing is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3109.905, 3123.133], "stop_times": [3123.133, 3124.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3109.905}, "reply_to": "20549__2_003", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20549__2_005", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "You don't think the statute really meant that you can get around the prohibition--\n--By putting in an agreement.\n--against paying employees of the union by simply saying I'm really paying them as my employees--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3124.785, 3128.657, 3129.557], "stop_times": [3128.657, 3129.557, 3137.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3124.785}, "reply_to": "20549__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__2_006", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--No, we don't, Your Honor, and that is a necessary predicate.\nIt's certainly an indication that it's by reason of.\nIt's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3137.112, 3140.843, 3143.126], "stop_times": [3140.843, 3143.126, 3144.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3137.112}, "reply_to": "20549__2_005", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20549__2_007", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--Well, it certainly has to be in the agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3144.126], "stop_times": [3145.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3144.126}, "reply_to": "20549__2_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20549__2_008", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3145.598], "stop_times": [3145.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3145.598}, "reply_to": "20549__2_007", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20549__2_009", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "But I don't know that the agreement solves anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3145.848], "stop_times": [3147.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3145.848}, "reply_to": "20549__2_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__2_010", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Another... well, there are two.\nAnother thing is that it's a but-for cause.\nUnion officers who may be involved in the grievance process who are not employees or former employees are not paid this.\nThe third step is the close nexus between the grievance chairman's prior service as an employee and the payments he's getting, in this case for adjusting grievances.\nThe grievance system that's structured in this industrial setting is a four-step process.\nAt each step the employee with the complaint is represented by another employee from that production unit, the steward at the first level, then a committeeman, and then the grievance chairman.\nIt is because of that service as an employee, as a production worker, that these people both in the nodocking situation and in this situation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3147.418, 3148.89, 3151.772, 3157.906, 3169.794, 3176.526, 3189.186], "stop_times": [3148.89, 3151.772, 3157.906, 3169.794, 3176.526, 3189.186, 3197.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3147.418}, "reply_to": "20549__2_009", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20549__2_011", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "This only applies to grievance chairmen?\nIt wouldn't apply to other union officials?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3197.421, 3198.593], "stop_times": [3198.593, 3201.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3197.421}, "reply_to": "20549__2_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__2_012", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--It would be a very different inquiry in different circumstances, Your Honor.\nWe think this is a clear case not only because of this close... because of this close nexus we do think that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3201.044, 3204.907], "stop_times": [3204.907, 3212.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3201.044}, "reply_to": "20549__2_011", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20549__2_013", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Oh, but what about that, because that seems an awfully good question.\nThe... suppose this was the same circumstance, what the employer was paying for was an employee who became the chief negotiator for the union, okay, to write all the collective bargaining agreements.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3212.35, 3215.001], "stop_times": [3215.001, 3226.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3212.35}, "reply_to": "20549__2_012", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20549__2_014", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Mm-hmm.\nThat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3226.499, 3226.799], "stop_times": [3226.799, 3227.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3226.499}, "reply_to": "20549__2_013", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20549__2_015", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "I mean, what about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3227.36], "stop_times": [3228.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3227.36}, "reply_to": "20549__2_014", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20549__2_016", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--We certainly think that closer inquiry would have to be looked at, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3228.251], "stop_times": [3231.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3228.251}, "reply_to": "20549__2_015", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20549__2_017", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "But when you say close inquiry, I mean, that's... then you see, that's what I'm... doesn't that make you a bit nervous that the employer is paying for someone who's spending his full time, for example, being the union's chief negotiator in the collective bargaining contract?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3231.844], "stop_times": [3246.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3231.844}, "reply_to": "20549__2_016", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20549__2_018", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Well, Your Honor, there is the section 8(a)(2) proviso that prohibits domination interference.\nThis is a criminal prohibition, and when we look to enforce this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3246.935, 3252.249], "stop_times": [3252.249, 3256.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3246.935}, "reply_to": "20549__2_017", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20549__2_019", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Suppose they happen to pay a million dollars for doing it?\nIs it just... is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3256.469, 3258.382], "stop_times": [3258.382, 3261.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3256.469}, "reply_to": "20549__2_018", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20549__2_020", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--Those are several things... no.\nThose are several things... we prosecute sham compensation, corrupt transaction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3261.153, 3262.795], "stop_times": [3262.795, 3265.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3261.153}, "reply_to": "20549__2_019", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20549__2_021", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--Well, if, in fact, you were to prevail here, would that reasoning that allows you to prevail also permit the employer to pay for a full-time employee who is the negotiator for the union in respect to the collective bargaining agreement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3265.998], "stop_times": [3285.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3265.998}, "reply_to": "20549__2_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20549__2_022", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--It's certainly one... we would be looking at that.\nOne thing that we would look at, for example, is industry acceptance of whether or not that is something that an employer bargains to pay for, which in the grievance context the answer is yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3285.649, 3289.953], "stop_times": [3289.953, 3300.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3285.649}, "reply_to": "20549__2_021", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20549__2_023", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "In other words--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3300.87], "stop_times": [3301.301], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3300.87}, "reply_to": "20549__2_022", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20549__2_024", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "I'm--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3301.301], "stop_times": [3301.792], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3301.301}, "reply_to": "20549__2_023", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20549__2_025", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--you're saying that the nature of the activity here is one you... it's the nature of the activity, the grievance, the nature of that activity, grievance, working out of grievances that makes the difference--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3301.792], "stop_times": [3312.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3301.792}, "reply_to": "20549__2_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20549__2_026", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--It certainly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3312.548], "stop_times": [3313.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3312.548}, "reply_to": "20549__2_025", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20549__2_027", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--that makes this clear?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3313.349], "stop_times": [3313.93], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3313.349}, "reply_to": "20549__2_026", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20549__2_028", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--It certainly makes it clear in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3313.93], "stop_times": [3315.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3313.93}, "reply_to": "20549__2_027", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20549__2_029", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "And why does it make it clear?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3315.7], "stop_times": [3316.551], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3315.7}, "reply_to": "20549__2_028", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20549__2_030", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Because it's not a sham.\nBecause it's not some kind of corrupt transaction.\nThe questions that would raise suspicion, for example, is incommensurate pay, the kind of situation that occurred in the Phillips case in the Eleventh Circuit, retroactive negotiating, secret deals.\nThose are the kinds of factors that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3316.551, 3317.831, 3320.445, 3335.203], "stop_times": [3317.831, 3320.445, 3335.203, 3336.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3316.551}, "reply_to": "20549__2_029", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20549__2_031", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "No, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3336.383], "stop_times": [3336.734], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3336.383}, "reply_to": "20549__2_030", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20549__2_032", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--look at as criminal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3336.734], "stop_times": [3337.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3336.734}, "reply_to": "20549__2_031", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20549__2_033", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--for a whole different section of the shop, I mean, a section of the shop he never worked in, would that be a different situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3337.595], "stop_times": [3345.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3337.595}, "reply_to": "20549__2_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__2_034", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--I think that in this case it would not be so unrelated.\nYou'd have to again look at industry practice.\nThese are longstanding--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3345.119, 3349.711, 3351.674], "stop_times": [3349.711, 3351.674, 3353.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3345.119}, "reply_to": "20549__2_033", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20549__2_035", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "I don't really see why negotiating the contract is unrelated, either.\nAs long as they... he's worked for the company for 3 or 4 days, then he becomes a full-time negotiator and he gets paid regular wages by the company and maybe they're supplemented a little by the union, and it's all out in the open.\nIt's... I agree with you, it's got to be all out in the open, but does that make it comply with the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3353.023, 3357.438, 3368.504], "stop_times": [3357.438, 3368.504, 3373.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3353.023}, "reply_to": "20549__2_034", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20549__2_036", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--Well, the relationship to the services to the employee is not as clear, Your Honor.\nThe grievance adjustment process is part of the production--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3373.008, 3377.3], "stop_times": [3377.3, 3383.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3373.008}, "reply_to": "20549__2_035", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20549__2_037", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Oh, I understand your policy reasons for saying grievance... it's important that the grievers be paid, but in terms of the language of the statute, I don't see the distinction between the grievance person and the negotiator.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3383.183], "stop_times": [3393.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3383.183}, "reply_to": "20549__2_036", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20549__2_038", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--We think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3393.292], "stop_times": [3395.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3393.292}, "reply_to": "20549__2_037", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20549__2_039", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "In terms of the language of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3395.382], "stop_times": [3396.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3395.382}, "reply_to": "20549__2_038", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20549__2_040", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--When you're interpreting the words by reason of, Your Honor, we think that it is something more than a but-for clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3396.914], "stop_times": [3403.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3396.914}, "reply_to": "20549__2_039", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20549__2_041", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Well, it's much easier to negotiate with somebody who knows the business, familiar with the history, all of the informal rules that have developed over the years, than it is with a total stranger who just happens to be a lawyer or something like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3403.847], "stop_times": [3413.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3403.847}, "reply_to": "20549__2_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20549__2_042", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "The fact is, Your Honor, experience shows that there's far less reason to believe that that is by reason of their service.\nIn this case, there's every reason to believe it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3413.814, 3420.329], "stop_times": [3420.329, 3423.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3413.814}, "reply_to": "20549__2_041", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20549__2_043", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Is there anything in that that... just on that particular point that you're... in thinking about that, I'm thinking of grievances itself as being in a modern unionized context the very heart of the production process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3423.75], "stop_times": [3436.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3423.75}, "reply_to": "20549__2_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20549__2_044", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3436.208], "stop_times": [3436.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3436.208}, "reply_to": "20549__2_043", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20549__2_045", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Well, I... but I don't want to just... I knew you would agree with that, but I--\n[Laughter]\nBut I mean, I want to... I'd like you to say a little bit more.\nAs I think of the distinction, but is there anything in case law, or anything that I, you know, that would suggest that, or support it, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3436.949, 3440.282, 3440.572, 3446.565], "stop_times": [3440.282, 3440.572, 3446.565, 3456.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3436.949}, "reply_to": "20549__2_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20549__2_046", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Well, Your Honor, certainly not only is it because of production, I think it's also because it's just so part and parcel of the no-docking provision that the courts have all upheld--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3456.821], "stop_times": [3468.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3456.821}, "reply_to": "20549__2_045", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20549__2_047", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--We'd have to say that the grievance process is part of the production process in a way that the negotiating process is not part of the production process, or a line to be drawn in that way.\nIs that a satisfactory thing from your point of view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3468.629, 3479.997], "stop_times": [3479.997, 3483.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3468.629}, "reply_to": "20549__2_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20549__2_048", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--We certainly think that in a criminal prosecution one would still have to look at the industry accepted practices and all, but I think that certainly is an indication that it may not be by reason of.\nTo the contrary, another example--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3483.239, 3495.547], "stop_times": [3495.547, 3497.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3483.239}, "reply_to": "20549__2_047", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20549__2_049", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "If we agreed with you, how would we come out in this case?\nDid the contractual provision limit it just to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3497.907, 3500.719], "stop_times": [3500.719, 3503.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3497.907}, "reply_to": "20549__2_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__2_050", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3503.423], "stop_times": [3503.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3503.423}, "reply_to": "20549__2_049", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20549__2_051", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--Just to grievance--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3503.672], "stop_times": [3505.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3503.672}, "reply_to": "20549__2_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20549__2_052", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "No, to activities directly related to its office, and its office was defined in conjunction with the grievance system.\nAnd this is a declaratory judgment action, Your Honor, to... so it's looking forward to declare whether or not these are per se invalid and petitioner's not entitled to that judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3505.134, 3512.097], "stop_times": [3512.097, 3522.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3505.134}, "reply_to": "20549__2_051", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20549__2_053", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--The Government was taking the position below that further facts needed to be developed and then there was kind of a shift up here.\nCan you explain, are there further facts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3522.836, 3530.05], "stop_times": [3530.05, 3532.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3522.836}, "reply_to": "20549__2_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20549__2_054", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Your Honor, when we looked at the case on Caterpillar petitioner had not requested a remand at that point, and we don't... we believe that those would be additional factors that could be looked into to see if there was some kind of sham compensation or corrupt transaction.\nWe don't think that there is evidence in this record of that, but it could be appropriate to remand it, Your Honor, for the lower courts to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3532.421, 3546.841], "stop_times": [3546.841, 3554.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3532.421}, "reply_to": "20549__2_053", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20549__2_055", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "So if this chairman was spending part of his time negotiating the bargaining contract, would that come out from under what you think is permissible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3554.496], "stop_times": [3564.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3554.496}, "reply_to": "20549__2_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20549__2_056", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--My understanding of the collective bargaining agreement is that was not to be paid for.\nThe terms of the collective bargaining agreement omitted paying for negotiation of vacation, things that were not directly related to its office, so the way in which this case comes to the court, I believe it's a declaratory judgment action, that payments under that collective bargaining agreement are per se a violation of 302(c).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3564.934, 3569.786], "stop_times": [3569.786, 3587.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3564.934}, "reply_to": "20549__2_055", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20549__2_057", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "It seems to me that your reference to the collective bargaining agreement and the inclusion of the compensation in part of those negotiations cuts against you as much as for you.\nI should have thought that the very purpose of this statute was to eliminate this from the collective bargaining context so that the union could not make demands that its officials be compensated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3587.397, 3598.544], "stop_times": [3598.544, 3612.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3587.397}, "reply_to": "20549__2_056", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20549__2_058", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3612.104], "stop_times": [3612.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3612.104}, "reply_to": "20549__2_057", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20549__2_059", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "It seems to me that works very much against you.\nThe whole purpose of this is to take this out of the collective bargaining context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3612.902, 3615.236], "stop_times": [3615.236, 3618.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3612.902}, "reply_to": "20549__2_058", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20549__2_060", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "--Your Honor, we don't believe so.\nAgain, there is this... 302(c) was enacted against this whole backdrop of the National Labor Relations Act which had already been enacted and was amended at the same time, and now provides for unfair labor practices civil penalties, not criminal sanctions.\n302(a) is a broad criminal prohibition against employers paying union officials.\n302(c)(1) is the first exception, carving out an exception recognizing that employers and employees have a different relationship.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3618.867, 3622.43, 3637.41, 3642.172], "stop_times": [3622.43, 3637.41, 3642.172, 3650.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3618.867}, "reply_to": "20549__2_059", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20549__2_061", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Brinkmann.\nMr. Gangemi, you have a minute remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3650.068, 3651.779], "stop_times": [3651.779, 3654.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3650.068}, "reply_to": "20549__2_060", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20549__3_000", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "The bottom line, both respondent and the United States conflate the concept of service with the concept of the status of a prior employee.\nThe statute allows the employer to pay for the services of an individual as an employee.\nIt does not allow the company and the union to agree to pay someone to be a union official because of their former status as an employee of the employer.\nThe statute sets up a clear dichotomy.\nYou can pay a union official to be an employee, but you cannot pay an employee to be a union official, and it makes a mockery of that dichotomy for the company and the union to... or for the union to argue here that you can override that dichotomy by declaring one to be the other, by declaring service as an employ... service as a union official to be and payment for it to be a benefit for having been an employee of the employer in the past.\nIt collapses, or conflates those two very distinct concepts which the statute recognized, that you could have a dual capacity employee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3654.44, 3669.691, 3677.795, 3687.973, 3692.216, 3728.421], "stop_times": [3669.691, 3677.795, 3687.973, 3692.216, 3728.421, 3738.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3654.44}, "reply_to": "20549__2_061", "speaker": "columbus_r_gangemi"}
{"id": "20549__3_001", "conversation_id": "20549", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Gangemi.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1925", "start_times": [3738.597, 3740.079], "stop_times": [3740.079, 3741.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3738.597}, "reply_to": "20549__3_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20688__0_000", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-910, the City of Chicago v. The International College of Surgeons.\nMs. Solomon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [0.0, 4.748], "stop_times": [4.748, 6.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20688__0_001", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nRespondent International College of Surgeons owns two of the last seven remaining mansions reflecting an illustrious part of history around the turn of the century in the City of Chicago.\nICS sought permission to demolish all but the facades of the landmark four-story buildings and to build a 41-story condominium in its place.\nThe city's Landmark Commission refused both the demolition permits and the subsequent requests for hardship exceptions, and ICS challenged both decisions in State court.\nThe city removed the complaints to Federal court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [6.763, 9.778, 20.228, 31.519, 43.577], "stop_times": [9.778, 20.228, 31.519, 43.577, 46.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6.763}, "reply_to": "20688__0_000", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_002", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "That's a little odd, isn't it?\nWhy did the city want to take it out of State court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [46.451, 48.372], "stop_times": [48.372, 52.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 46.451}, "reply_to": "20688__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20688__0_003", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--Your Honor, we find that on Federal questions the Federal courts have more expertise with the questions, they tend to see them more often, and we find that that gives us greater predictability as we try to assess litigation risks.\nWhen there is case law in the Federal courts, as there was on all of the Federal claims that ICS pled in this case, we can review that case law, and we can make a determination whether we should litigate or whether we should settle.\nIn State court, because the cases are not so frequently litigated there, there's a paucity of case law on some subjects.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [52.09, 66.707, 82.64], "stop_times": [66.707, 82.64, 89.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 52.09}, "reply_to": "20688__0_002", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_004", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Well, this was a mix of issues.\nThere was a... Chicago wanted presumably to... well, the respondents, I guess, had sought administrative review of the decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [89.933, 92.291], "stop_times": [92.291, 109.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 89.933}, "reply_to": "20688__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20688__0_005", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Respondents sought a variety of things, Your Honor.\nRespondents sought to have the ordinance declared... the landmarks ordinance declared unconstitutional, to have the specific ordinance delegating ICS's property as a landmark declared unconstitutional, to have a variety of State law claims litigated in the first instance, they had takings claims, nondelegation claims, vested rights... they had five State law claims.\nThey also had two claims that were presented on the administrative record, so there were a variety of claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [109.596, 111.83, 137.398], "stop_times": [111.83, 137.398, 144.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 109.596}, "reply_to": "20688__0_004", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_006", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "But to the extent this was brought as a review of a municipal agency decision, to the extent that this was a review of the decision of the Landmarks Commission, I was struck by the comment that the Ninth Circuit made in its recent decision that the prospect of a Federal court sitting as an appellate court over State administrative proceedings is rather jarring.\nIndeed, it's so jarring that I don't know of any instance of a court other than this Court sitting in direct review of a State court proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [144.941, 171.665], "stop_times": [171.665, 184.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 144.941}, "reply_to": "20688__0_005", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20688__0_007", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, the Ninth Circuit case, like the Armistead case and the Fairfax County case that were also recently decided in the courts of appeals, are diversity cases.\nThey are unlike this case.\nOf all the recent courts of appeals cases only this one was removed to the Federal court on the basis of Federal questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [184.19, 196.217, 197.873], "stop_times": [196.217, 197.873, 205.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 184.19}, "reply_to": "20688__0_006", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_008", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "But my question was the function of lower appellate courts vis-a-vis State agencies, and even in the Federal question domain, I know of no precedent where a district court, or even a court of appeals, sits as an appellate reviewer as distinguished from... a case might come up, say on habeas, on collateral review, but to my knowledge only this Court, from the highest court of the State, acts in the direct review line, so I don't know any precedent for this Court, for a lower court, for a district court sitting in direct review of a decision of a State agency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [205.199], "stop_times": [255.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 205.199}, "reply_to": "20688__0_007", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20688__0_009", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Our argument on that, Your Honor, is in two parts.\nIt is first that the district court had original jurisdiction over the civil claim, over the portion of ICS's complaint that fell within the district court's original jurisdiction.\nICS pled numerous Federal constitutional violations, and on the strength of those Federal constitutional violations, we removed the case to district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [255.553, 258.099, 272.327], "stop_times": [258.099, 272.327, 283.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 255.553}, "reply_to": "20688__0_008", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_010", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "But when one challenges an agency action, say, a liquor license or funeral home license, one challenges a State or local agency decision and normally brings up all possible arguments.\nIt violates the State law.\nIt violates the State constitution.\nIt violates the Federal Constitution.\nMy question really is, isn't the implication of the argument you're making today that every decision of every licensing board in every city can become... can have a right of initial access to a Federal forum?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [283.151, 299.145, 301.051, 302.581, 304.641], "stop_times": [299.145, 301.051, 302.581, 304.641, 321.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 283.151}, "reply_to": "20688__0_009", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20688__0_011", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Our argument, Your Honor, rests on the plain language of section 1441, which permits--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [321.214], "stop_times": [327.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 321.214}, "reply_to": "20688__0_010", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_012", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Well, do I follow... I followed your argument and it seemed to me that was right.\nLooking at 1441(c), which requires the case to be within the original jurisdiction of the district court, then all of these cases could start out... you're removing, but you can't remove what couldn't start there, so am I correct that as you read the statute any agency decision at the State level, so long as there is a Federal claim stuck in there by the plaintiff, could be begun in the Federal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [327.837, 332.632], "stop_times": [332.632, 363.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 327.837}, "reply_to": "20688__0_011", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20688__0_013", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--Your Honor is correct.\nWe certainly make no distinction between a case that could be begun in the Federal district court, or a case that could be removed to the district court.\nThe language of 1331 and 1441 are certainly the same.\nBut we don't think that that opens the floodgates, for a variety of reasons.\nFirst of all, as Your Honor points out, there has to be at least a substantial Federal question in the case, something that would make it a civil action.\nNow, we rely on the presence of the substantial Federal claims in this case to say that this was a civil action within original jurisdiction.\nWe then turn to section 1367, the supplemental jurisdiction statute, which provides the district court with additional supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are related to the claim within the original jurisdiction of the district court.\nNow, in the other cases, the other courts of appeals cases that went... that were removed on the basis of diversity, that element might well be lacking.\nWe don't make an argument here about the diversity cases.\nOur argument is that, under the plain terms of section 1441, the Federal allegations in this complaint were a civil action within original jurisdiction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [363.618, 364.633, 372.38, 376.348, 380.924, 390.342, 401.806, 420.581, 431.559, 435.027], "stop_times": [364.633, 372.38, 376.348, 380.924, 390.342, 401.806, 420.581, 431.559, 435.027, 446.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 363.618}, "reply_to": "20688__0_012", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_014", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "At what point did it become a civil action?\nWas it such when it was still in the hands of the commission?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [446.507, 448.757], "stop_times": [448.757, 453.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 446.507}, "reply_to": "20688__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20688__0_015", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--We don't make that argument, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [453.863], "stop_times": [455.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 453.863}, "reply_to": "20688__0_014", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_016", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Well, what is your answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [455.722], "stop_times": [456.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 455.722}, "reply_to": "20688__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20688__0_017", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Our answer is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [456.612], "stop_times": [457.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 456.612}, "reply_to": "20688__0_016", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_018", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Was it a civil action at that stage?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [457.736], "stop_times": [459.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 457.736}, "reply_to": "20688__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20688__0_019", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--It was not.\nIt was a civil action when a complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County.\nIt was... under the terms of the administrative review law at that point, it was a proceeding to review a final decision, and the Illinois supreme court has made clear, and the Seventh Circuit discloses this in its opinion, that under Illinois law additional claims may be brought to the circuit court along with the claims for administrative review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [459.955, 460.548, 466.592], "stop_times": [460.548, 466.592, 490.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 459.955}, "reply_to": "20688__0_018", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_020", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "So it becomes a civil action at the first time that it goes to a State court of general jurisdiction?\nI mean, is that what we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [490.551, 498.017], "stop_times": [498.017, 499.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 490.551}, "reply_to": "20688__0_019", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20688__0_021", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "At a minimum, Your Honor, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [499.235], "stop_times": [501.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 499.235}, "reply_to": "20688__0_020", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_022", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--Well, isn't the term civil action kind of a word of art?\nYou find it in a particular section of the Federal jurisdiction statute, and it may not have counterparts in State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [501.032, 505.733], "stop_times": [505.733, 514.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 501.032}, "reply_to": "20688__0_021", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20688__0_023", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Well, the term civil action, as we describe in our brief, is a historical term.\nThe components civil and action are well-described in this Court's cases.\nCivil is used only in contradistinction to something that is criminal, so the case was clearly a civil action.\nIt was clearly civil.\nLet me say that.\nIt was also an action, as the Court described, for example, in the Upshur case and a variety of the other cases.\nAn action is one before a judicial tribunal, between the parties, seeking a remedy that is provided by law.\nThere is no question that in the Circuit Court of Cook County this was a civil action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [514.073, 519.914, 524.412, 530.567, 531.707, 533.191, 540.079, 547.279], "stop_times": [519.914, 524.412, 530.567, 531.707, 533.191, 540.079, 547.279, 552.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 514.073}, "reply_to": "20688__0_022", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_024", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "So that, to follow up on Justice Ginsburg's earlier questions, and she indicated that this was jarring, in California as in some other States there are certain agencies whose findings are conclusive, and review is then in the State court of appeals, so that's the point at which, when the aggrieved party goes to the State court of appeals, there could be an action in United States district... it could be removed to the United States district court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [552.276], "stop_times": [580.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 552.276}, "reply_to": "20688__0_023", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20688__0_025", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Justice Kennedy, it might be different in some other situations, but what we have here in this case was a complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, and at that point we filed a notice of removal to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [580.843], "stop_times": [592.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 580.843}, "reply_to": "20688__0_024", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_026", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "What about the instance I explained, where you go from the agency directly to the three-judge court of appeals in California.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [592.854], "stop_times": [601.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 592.854}, "reply_to": "20688__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20688__0_027", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [601.538], "stop_times": [602.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 601.538}, "reply_to": "20688__0_026", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_028", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "It's State system, and as I understand your argument, at that point the defendant could remove to a United States district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [602.194], "stop_times": [610.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 602.194}, "reply_to": "20688__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20688__0_029", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--I would see no basis for saying that that was something other than a civil action.\nIf it's civil as opposed to criminal, and if it is an action, as the Court has described, as I said, in a variety of cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [610.066, 615.297], "stop_times": [615.297, 621.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 610.066}, "reply_to": "20688__0_028", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_030", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "So you can remove.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [621.936], "stop_times": [622.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 621.936}, "reply_to": "20688__0_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20688__0_031", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--I would see no reason why it could not be, but of course that is not this case.\nThis case was a straightforward removal from the Circuit Court of Cook County--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [622.217, 628.09], "stop_times": [628.09, 632.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 622.217}, "reply_to": "20688__0_030", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_032", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "But it would be just as straightforward.\nSo your point is, you could remove whether the State puts its review in the middle tier or in the court of first instance.\nThey're equally removable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [632.244, 633.4, 640.367], "stop_times": [633.4, 640.367, 642.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 632.244}, "reply_to": "20688__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20688__0_033", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--Our point, Your Honor, yes, is that any... by the plain terms of section 1441, a statute that Congress wrote providing for the removal jurisdiction, a civil action within the original jurisdiction of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [642.037], "stop_times": [656.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 642.037}, "reply_to": "20688__0_032", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_034", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Stop right there, because there in your prior statement seems to put you out of the 1441 territory, a civil action that could originally be commenced in the Federal court.\nYou have said that it wasn't a civil action before the Landmarks Commission.\nIt didn't become a civil action until it was commenced in a State court.\nTherefore, doesn't it follow that it could not have been commenced originally in the Federal court?\nIt must be commenced in the State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [656.187, 670.026, 674.227, 680.084, 686.66], "stop_times": [670.026, 674.227, 680.084, 686.66, 690.722], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 656.187}, "reply_to": "20688__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20688__0_035", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--We don't see that, Justice Ginsburg.\nWhat we see is that at the point that ICS was attempting to decide how to obtain judicial review of the Landmark Commission's decisions denying it demolition permits and denying it hardship exceptions in part on the grounds that they alleged that it violated the Takings Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, the Due Process Clause, that the landmarks ordinance was unconstitutional on its face, it was unconstitutional as applied, at the point that they were deciding how to obtain judicial review, they could have drafted the complaint that appears in the joint appendix in this case, they could have walked down the street to the Federal district court, and they could have filed that complaint there invoking the Federal district court's original jurisdiction over the Federal claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [690.722, 693.002], "stop_times": [693.002, 739.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 690.722}, "reply_to": "20688__0_034", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_036", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "But you just said it doesn't become a Federal case until it's first filed in a State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [739.45], "stop_times": [743.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 739.45}, "reply_to": "20688__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20688__0_037", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [743.043], "stop_times": [744.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 743.043}, "reply_to": "20688__0_036", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_038", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "You now seem to be saying they could have gone from the Landmarks Commission directly into Federal court, passing any State court forum.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [744.496], "stop_times": [753.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 744.496}, "reply_to": "20688__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20688__0_039", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "I'm sorry if I was unclear, Justice Ginsburg.\nWhat I intended to say is that at the point where the action is going to be filed in court, it is at a minimum at that point a civil action.\nIt is civil in nature, and it is an action between the parties.\nIt is seeking a remedy from a judicial tribunal.\nThese are the factors that the Court has historic--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [753.884, 755.726, 767.58, 770.953, 774.25], "stop_times": [755.726, 767.58, 770.953, 774.25, 776.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 753.884}, "reply_to": "20688__0_038", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_040", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "But you're not saying that someone seeking review of the Landmarks Commission could file directly in Federal court before it had gone to the State court, have you... are you?\nBecause that's contrary to our Stude case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [776.968, 787.76], "stop_times": [787.76, 790.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 776.968}, "reply_to": "20688__0_039", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20688__0_041", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--Your Honor, we do take that position, and I don't think it's counter to the Stude case, if I could explain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [790.088], "stop_times": [797.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 790.088}, "reply_to": "20688__0_040", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_042", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [797.053], "stop_times": [797.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 797.053}, "reply_to": "20688__0_041", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20688__0_043", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "The Stude case, as you are aware, had two portions, one seeking an original filing in the district court and the other seeking removal on the basis of diversity.\nAs for the removal portion, the Court indicated it could not be removed because under Federal law, regardless of how Iowa labeled the parties, under Federal law the railroad was the plaintiff, and the plaintiff could not remove.\nAs for the other portion, the portion originally filed within... filed as a diversity action in the district court, the Court indicated that the defect in that case was simply that the railroad was attempting to obtain review only of the question of damages.\nIt was attempting to separate the question of damages from the underlying liability.\nAnd the Court is very clear about this, because in the first portion of the Court's opinion it says, in terms, it could have been removed by the defendant if it had really been by the defendant, and that dicta in Stude, of course, became the holding of Horton, that a Federal defendant... I'm sorry, a defendant on a Federal ques... in a diversity case... excuse me again... can remove a State administrative action.\nThat was the holding of Horton.\nFiled... it could file it in the district court invoking diversity jurisdiction, that it would be a civil action within the original jurisdiction of the district--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [797.803, 811.921, 825.277, 842.941, 847.797, 875.131, 877.74], "stop_times": [811.921, 825.277, 842.941, 847.797, 875.131, 877.74, 888.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 797.803}, "reply_to": "20688__0_042", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_044", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Horton was filed initially in the Federal court, right?\nIt wasn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [888.125, 890.827], "stop_times": [890.827, 892.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 888.125}, "reply_to": "20688__0_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20688__0_045", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--Horton was filed... I misspoke, Your Honor.\nIt was a diversity case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [892.139, 893.421], "stop_times": [893.421, 894.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 892.139}, "reply_to": "20688__0_044", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_046", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--And the Court there said, under that Texas scheme, the administrative procedure, it's as though it didn't exist, because you start it all over in Federal court, so it wasn't a review of any administrative decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [894.732], "stop_times": [906.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 894.732}, "reply_to": "20688__0_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20688__0_047", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor, and that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [906.337], "stop_times": [907.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 906.337}, "reply_to": "20688__0_046", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_048", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "That's how... go ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [907.68], "stop_times": [908.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 907.68}, "reply_to": "20688__0_047", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20688__0_049", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--That is why the parties here agree--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [908.462], "stop_times": [910.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 908.462}, "reply_to": "20688__0_048", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_050", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "And that's how it's distinguished from Stude, was it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [910.617], "stop_times": [913.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 910.617}, "reply_to": "20688__0_049", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20688__0_051", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--This case is the first case to come before the Court seeking either removal or an original filing of a case that includes, as one component... and I want to be very clear about that.\nIt includes, as one component, a portion that could... that by State law is reviewed on the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [913.115, 926.266], "stop_times": [926.266, 934.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 913.115}, "reply_to": "20688__0_050", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_052", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "It--\n--But as to that portion, I guess the supplemental jurisdiction statute, section 1367 of title 28, would enable the Federal district court, if, in fact, this is removable there, to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the administrative review claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [934.482, 934.935], "stop_times": [934.935, 960.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 934.482}, "reply_to": "20688__0_051", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20688__0_053", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "That is, of course, correct, Your Honor.\nOur point is simply that it was a civil action within the meaning of 1441.\nIt was removable because of that provision.\nOnce removed, the district court obtained supplemental jurisdiction over all related State claims.\nICS does not argue that it's administrative review claims were not claims.\nIt does not argue that they were not related to the Federal claims, and the plain terms of section 1367 contain no qualifier for de novo or original claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [960.111, 961.955, 967.936, 970.779, 977.699, 982.462], "stop_times": [961.955, 967.936, 970.779, 977.699, 982.462, 994.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 960.111}, "reply_to": "20688__0_052", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_054", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Do we have the abstention issue before us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [994.426], "stop_times": [997.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 994.426}, "reply_to": "20688__0_053", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20688__0_055", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "I don't believe you do, Your Honor, but the abstention in any event... abstention doctrine recognizes jurisdiction.\nThe Seventh Circuit's holding, of course, was that Federal district court lacked jurisdiction over the action, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [997.051, 1004.625], "stop_times": [1004.625, 1011.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 997.051}, "reply_to": "20688__0_054", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_056", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Because it could not have originally... because a proceeding to review an agency decision, in the views of the Seventh Circuit, could not originally have been commenced in the Federal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1011.513], "stop_times": [1022.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1011.513}, "reply_to": "20688__0_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20688__0_057", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--I think more precisely, Your Honor, it is that because one portion of the complaint would not be reviewed de novo--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1022.572], "stop_times": [1031.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1022.572}, "reply_to": "20688__0_056", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_058", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "To the extent that it was a proceeding to review the Landmarks Commission decision, it could not have been brought in the Federal court.\nThat was the view of the Seventh Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1031.255, 1039.688], "stop_times": [1039.688, 1041.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1031.255}, "reply_to": "20688__0_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20688__0_059", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--And as a result, none of it could.\nThe Seventh Circuit's view was that this was not a civil action within original jurisdiction because of the mere presence within the case of one portion that would be reviewed on the record, and we think that is faulty for a variety of reasons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1041.375, 1043.313], "stop_times": [1043.313, 1059.869], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1041.375}, "reply_to": "20688__0_058", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_060", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "If you were concerned about having access to the Federal forum on the Federal question, the due process question, could you not have done before the State court something comparable to what was done in the England case?\nThat is to say, State court, decide the State law questions.\nThey're prior anyway, aren't they, because you would not reach a due process question unless you said that under the State Landmarks Commission law, or under the city law, you couldn't do this, so couldn't you say... preserve your interest in having the Federal question in Federal court by saying, State court, don't reach the Federal question, we want to preserve that ultimately to bring in Federal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1059.869, 1074.565, 1079.47], "stop_times": [1074.565, 1079.47, 1107.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1059.869}, "reply_to": "20688__0_059", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20688__0_061", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Your Honor, as I understand the England reservation, it is a basis to avoid decision of the Federal claims of... if the State claims are remanded, not as an original matter within the State court, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1107.443], "stop_times": [1122.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1107.443}, "reply_to": "20688__0_060", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_062", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "I don't mean that, precisely that pattern.\nI mean the technique of saying, if you want the Federal claim in Federal court, but the State claims are logically prior.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1122.827, 1126.138], "stop_times": [1126.138, 1134.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1122.827}, "reply_to": "20688__0_061", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20688__0_063", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--There are a variety of techniques that are available to the district courts to avoid deciding the State law claims.\nThe abstention doctrines are always available.\nSection 13--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1134.604, 1141.382, 1144.849], "stop_times": [1141.382, 1144.849, 1145.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1134.604}, "reply_to": "20688__0_062", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_064", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Well, I understood Justice Ginsburg to be interested in what the State court could do to go ahead and resolve State issues and not decide the Federal law questions, but I suppose the State court wouldn't have to refrain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1145.88], "stop_times": [1161.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1145.88}, "reply_to": "20688__0_063", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20688__0_065", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--I think that's right, Justice O'Connor.\nI do not know any way of saying to the State court, although these claims are present before you, and although they have not been removed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1161.359, 1163.216], "stop_times": [1163.216, 1170.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1161.359}, "reply_to": "20688__0_064", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_066", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "There's no Federal rule that says, State court you have to lay off because the City of Chicago doesn't want you to hear it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1170.089], "stop_times": [1175.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1170.089}, "reply_to": "20688__0_065", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20688__0_067", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--Nor even any requirement like the Pullman doctrine that the State courts should not decide constitutional questions first.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1175.978], "stop_times": [1185.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1175.978}, "reply_to": "20688__0_066", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_068", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Ms. Solomon, in the Stude opinion at page 581 the Court says, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa does not sit to review on appeal action taken administratively or judicially in a State proceeding.\nNow, do you agree with that, or do you want us to repudiate that?\nWe certainly agree with it in the context in which it was written.\nMy only point is that it does not prevent the Federal district court from hearing the State administrative review claims in this case, and I say that for two reasons.\nFirst of all, because Stude was a de novo proceeding, whatever that language means... and we indicate in our brief what we think it means.\nWe think it means, cannot separate the question of damages, but whatever that language means, the Court could not have been referring to a case within deferential review, because that was not what the Stude case was.\nStude was a case about de novo review, and the Court subsequently made clear in Horton that any case that does require de novo review is within the original jurisdiction.\nYes, but the opposite part of that was that Horton--\n--Yes--\n--The fair reading of Horton, it seems to me, is that if it required deferential review there would not have been original jurisdiction.\nI... would you say that that's a permissible reading of Horton?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1185.974, 1201.669, 1205.747, 1209.667, 1220.616, 1229.362, 1242.606, 1255.867, 1258.85, 1259.163, 1266.394], "stop_times": [1201.669, 1205.747, 1209.667, 1220.616, 1229.362, 1242.606, 1255.867, 1258.85, 1259.163, 1266.394, 1270.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1185.974}, "reply_to": "20688__0_067", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20688__0_069", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "I would until you get to Califano v. Sanders, Your Honor, and Califano v. Sanders clearly holds that Federal administrative review actions under the Administrative Procedure Act, which in the vast, vast majority of cases require deferential review, are civil actions within original jurisdiction under 1331.\nThat's the holding of Califano v. Sanders, and if that is incorrect, as the Court held in Califano, there simply is no basis under which to review--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1270.83, 1290.743], "stop_times": [1290.743, 1299.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1270.83}, "reply_to": "20688__0_068", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_070", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "But it was really en passant in Sanders, wasn't it, because the main thing that was held there was that you didn't have 1331 review in these social security cases and, as I recall, didn't the Chief write separately to say there was no need to discuss 1331 at all, because the review route under the Social Security Act was 205?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1299.022], "stop_times": [1322.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1299.022}, "reply_to": "20688__0_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20688__0_071", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--The question in Califano, Your Honor, as we understand it was, is there jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act itself, and in that sense the Court did kind of back into the discussion on 1331.\nPerhaps that's what you mean by en passant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1322.95, 1337.6], "stop_times": [1337.6, 1339.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1322.95}, "reply_to": "20688__0_070", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_072", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Well, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1339.896], "stop_times": [1340.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1339.896}, "reply_to": "20688__0_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20688__0_073", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "The whole--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1340.709], "stop_times": [1341.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1340.709}, "reply_to": "20688__0_072", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_074", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--what I meant was that Sanders was a social security review case, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1341.131], "stop_times": [1344.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1341.131}, "reply_to": "20688__0_073", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20688__0_075", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--That was the factual situation, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1344.066], "stop_times": [1346.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1344.066}, "reply_to": "20688__0_074", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_076", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "And the Court said... the holding was you don't have 1331 available there, because you have only 205.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1346.3], "stop_times": [1356.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1346.3}, "reply_to": "20688__0_075", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20688__0_077", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "The holding as we understand it, Your Honor, is that you don't have administrative jurisdiction directly under the Administrative Procedure Act, and that was the question the Court granted certiorari on because it was a conflict in the circuits on that question.\nAnd the Court says, well, you know, we actually don't have to decide that any more, because since we granted certiorari the Congress has amended 1331 to delete the jurisdictional amount, and whatever impediment there might have been before, there isn't now, we read section 31 as conferring jurisdiction on the district courts to hear these administrative review cases, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1356.062, 1369.057], "stop_times": [1369.057, 1391.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1356.062}, "reply_to": "20688__0_076", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_078", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Well, I don't want to quibble about what Sanders held versus what it says en passant, because you're unquestionably right that under the APA 1331 now, without the amount--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1391.798], "stop_times": [1403.293], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1391.798}, "reply_to": "20688__0_077", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20688__0_079", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--Right, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1403.293], "stop_times": [1403.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1403.293}, "reply_to": "20688__0_078", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_080", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--controversy, works, but do you think that the part when it was talking about review of Federal agency decisions had in mind at all that every municipal agency, every county agency, every State agency by virtue of that decision was going to come into Federal court initially as a civil action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1403.714], "stop_times": [1424.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1403.714}, "reply_to": "20688__0_079", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20688__0_081", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--Well, of course, the Court was construing the statute there, and we are attempting to do that here as well.\nWe're attempting to construe the words in section 1331 which said, civil action within original jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1424.206, 1429.314], "stop_times": [1429.314, 1436.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1424.206}, "reply_to": "20688__0_080", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_082", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "But if it doesn't, if, as Strudesaid... and maybe Strude got this point wrong... if it doesn't become a civil action until it's lodged in a State court, then it could not have been commenced originally.\nIt would have to be commenced originally in the State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1436.639, 1450.742], "stop_times": [1450.742, 1453.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1436.639}, "reply_to": "20688__0_081", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20688__0_083", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "I hope I haven't confused the... our argument here.\nThe... what the cases say, and Upshur is one of the best expositions of it, is that there comes a point in the proceeding where something is a civil action, and it... at the point where it would be filed in court it could be filed in Federal court, it could be filed in State court and removed.\nWe certainly make no argument that 1331 and 1341 should not be read as two sides of the same coin.\nOur point is that, under 1331, we know the district courts are jurisdictionally competent to hear deferential review actions.\nThey hear them every day of the week.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1453.694, 1460.473, 1480.528, 1488.054, 1498.114], "stop_times": [1460.473, 1480.528, 1488.054, 1498.114, 1500.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1453.694}, "reply_to": "20688__0_082", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_084", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Well, but may I interrupt you there?\nThey are competent at least on the assumptions that Califano was making, but the one feature here that Califano didn't have, and the one... I guess the feature which is perhaps more jolting to me than others, is that even though the review is deferential, it's still a deferential review which ultimately turns on making value judgments on State policy, aesthetic judgments about the character of the neighborhood here, economic judgments about hardship.\nAnd if, in fact, that is going to be a constant feature of the cases in the class that we're talking about here, so that there would be a good argument, for example, for abstention of those particular... on those particular issues, why wouldn't that be a good reason for us to recognize a different meaning for civil action so that we would not constantly be dragging these State review cases into the court only to be faced with an abstention claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1500.363, 1502.097, 1538.191], "stop_times": [1502.097, 1538.191, 1569.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1500.363}, "reply_to": "20688__0_083", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20688__0_085", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "I think, Your Honor, the simple answer is because the language won't allow it.\nThe language says, a civil action within original jurisdiction.\nIt makes no difference--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1569.585, 1573.832, 1577.363], "stop_times": [1573.832, 1577.363, 1578.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1569.585}, "reply_to": "20688__0_084", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_086", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Why?\nThe same words mean different things in different contexts.\nTake arising under.\nIt means different things in the statute than it means when those very same words are used in the Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1578.707, 1578.941, 1582.158, 1583.25], "stop_times": [1578.941, 1582.158, 1583.25, 1589.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1578.707}, "reply_to": "20688__0_085", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20688__0_087", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--But these are two jurisdictional statutes, 1341, and if ever there is a reason and a place to be clear about the meaning, it is in the jurisdictional statutes, otherwise you have people litigating to judgment only to find out they were in the wrong court.\nWe don't resist the abstention doctrines as far as they go.\nOur point about them is simply that it is not a denial of jurisdiction in those cases.\nAbstention will come into play in appropriate cases, perhaps the vast majority of the cases, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1589.858, 1605.851, 1609.287, 1614.644], "stop_times": [1605.851, 1609.287, 1614.644, 1620.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1589.858}, "reply_to": "20688__0_086", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_088", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "When you talk about abstention, are you talking about exercise... about declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1620.563], "stop_times": [1630.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1620.563}, "reply_to": "20688__0_087", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20688__0_089", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--I am.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1630.013], "stop_times": [1630.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1630.013}, "reply_to": "20688__0_088", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_090", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--under section 1367?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1630.81], "stop_times": [1632.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1630.81}, "reply_to": "20688__0_089", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20688__0_091", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "As well as the... as other abstention doctrines.\nAnd with that I'll reserve the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1632.637, 1635.105], "stop_times": [1635.105, 1637.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1632.637}, "reply_to": "20688__0_090", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__0_092", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Very well, Ms. Solomon.\nMr. Brennan, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1637.464, 1640.103], "stop_times": [1640.103, 1641.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1637.464}, "reply_to": "20688__0_091", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20688__1_000", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIn view of the questions the Court has put to counsel, it strikes me that the best place for me to begin is with the city's landmark ordinance, which in its specific provision of 2-120-810 says that final administrative decisions shall be appealable to the Circuit Court of Cook County under the Illinois Administrative Review Act, and what the respondents did in this case was exactly to follow that ordinance, and we filed a one-count... I mean, no count.\nThe complaint was simply a complaint for administrative review, and the elements of that were very, very simple.\nWe had to file two complaints for administrative review, one from the decision of the commission denying the demolition permit, the second from the commission's decision denying the economic hardship exception, and we also had to file a third action from the decision of the Chicago Plan Commission denying our application under the Chicago and Lake Michigan lake front protection ordinance, so we had three cases that we had to go to court with at that point.\nWe were well aware that we might have exercised our Federal constitutional rights by marching down to the Federal court and filing an action under 1983.\nWe chose not to do that, very deliberately.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1641.228, 1646.132, 1677.947, 1684.601, 1711.606, 1722.242], "stop_times": [1646.132, 1677.947, 1684.601, 1711.606, 1722.242, 1724.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1641.228}, "reply_to": "20688__0_092", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_001", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "May I ask, is it your position that the complaint for administrative review that you just did... that you did file, if you just changed the caption of it as... called it civil action in Federal court under 1983, or something like that, that had exactly the same allegations in it, could you have filed it originally in the United States district court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1724.85], "stop_times": [1743.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1724.85}, "reply_to": "20688__1_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20688__1_002", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "No, we could not have, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1743.217], "stop_times": [1744.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1743.217}, "reply_to": "20688__1_001", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_003", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1744.452], "stop_times": [1745.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1744.452}, "reply_to": "20688__1_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20688__1_004", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--and the reason we could not have is because that cause of action arises out of a final decision of an administrative agency, and therefore that case, if we tried to file it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1745.17], "stop_times": [1756.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1745.17}, "reply_to": "20688__1_003", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_005", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Even the aspects of it in which you allege the ordinances are unconstitutional under both the Federal and State constitution on their face?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1756.119], "stop_times": [1762.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1756.119}, "reply_to": "20688__1_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20688__1_006", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--If they were combined together, if that cause of action had sought review of both the adminis... the final decision and also had a count under 1983, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1762.881], "stop_times": [1774.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1762.881}, "reply_to": "20688__1_005", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_007", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "No, I'm assuming the complaint is word-for-word the same, except the jurisdictional allegation's a little different.\nSay this arises under Federal law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1774.267, 1779.766], "stop_times": [1779.766, 1782.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1774.267}, "reply_to": "20688__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20688__1_008", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1782.296], "stop_times": [1782.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1782.296}, "reply_to": "20688__1_007", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_009", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--and so forth and so on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1782.671], "stop_times": [1783.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1782.671}, "reply_to": "20688__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20688__1_010", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "And we could not have filed that because this lawsuit, this dispute is not a civil action within the original jurisdiction of the district court because it comes out of, it arises out of a final decision of an administrative agency, and so the terms in the statutes, in the removal statute and the jurisdictional statute, which speak in terms of a civil action of which the court has original jurisdiction, this is not that kind of a case.\nIt's... it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1783.171, 1811.956], "stop_times": [1811.956, 1813.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1783.171}, "reply_to": "20688__1_009", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_011", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Why should a precisely identical case involving the Federal agency be a civil action, whereas this is not a civil action?\nIt seems to me its actionness is exactly the same--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1813.704, 1825.857], "stop_times": [1825.857, 1830.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1813.704}, "reply_to": "20688__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20688__1_012", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1830.277], "stop_times": [1830.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1830.277}, "reply_to": "20688__1_011", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_013", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--in the two situations.\nYou may appeal to some principle of... I don't know, States ought to review their own agencies, but I don't know how you can say that they're not equivalently civil actions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1830.604, 1831.26], "stop_times": [1831.26, 1840.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1830.604}, "reply_to": "20688__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20688__1_014", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Your Honor, I think the answer is very clear and is very simple, and it's found in Califano.\nIn Califano this Court found that there was jurisdiction to review decisions of Federal agencies under 1331 because Congress had amended 1331 by explicitly providing that the then-required jurisdictional amount was not necessary to bring an action against a Federal agency.\nThere is a Federal statute that says in Califano that actions can be brought under 1331 challenging decisions of Federal administrative agencies.\nOurs is a State agency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1840.803, 1845.348, 1865.529, 1877.819], "stop_times": [1845.348, 1865.529, 1877.819, 1879.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1840.803}, "reply_to": "20688__1_013", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_015", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "I'm sorry, 1331 says that actions can be brought challenging decisions of Federal agencies?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1879.756], "stop_times": [1887.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1879.756}, "reply_to": "20688__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20688__1_016", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "I think that's the import of the holding in Califano.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1887.019], "stop_times": [1891.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1887.019}, "reply_to": "20688__1_015", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_017", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "What it says in 1331 is that district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions--\n--That's all it says.\n--arising under the Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1891.345, 1897.625, 1898.235], "stop_times": [1897.625, 1898.235, 1899.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1891.345}, "reply_to": "20688__1_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20688__1_018", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1899.905], "stop_times": [1900.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1899.905}, "reply_to": "20688__1_017", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_019", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "And so I think the question was, or at least mine would be, which I think is the same, how can it be a civil action if what you're asking for is to review a Federal administrative agency, but suddenly it isn't a civil action when what you're asking for is to review a State agency?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1900.374], "stop_times": [1914.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1900.374}, "reply_to": "20688__1_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20688__1_020", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "And I believe the answer to that is that you have to look at the entire jurisdictional language, which is a civil action arising under the original--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1914.586], "stop_times": [1923.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1914.586}, "reply_to": "20688__1_019", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_021", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Oh, absolutely you're quite correct that a State agency is a civil action not arising under the Constitution.\nThat is not what... or the laws of the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1923.52, 1930.095], "stop_times": [1930.095, 1932.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1923.52}, "reply_to": "20688__1_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20688__1_022", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--No, it says--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1932.282], "stop_times": [1932.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1932.282}, "reply_to": "20688__1_021", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_023", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "It would be in court because it is a civil action which is removable because it is, in fact, a claim so related to claims in the action that they're part of the same case or controversy.\nThat's why it would come in, not under 1331.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1932.657, 1947.511], "stop_times": [1947.511, 1950.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1932.657}, "reply_to": "20688__1_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20688__1_024", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--Well, I think that's a 1441(c) analogy, but I think in either case the conclusion and the analysis, the correct analysis and the bar is that this civil action is not an action of which the district court has original jurisdiction because it comes out of a final decision of an administrative agency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1950.977], "stop_times": [1973.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1950.977}, "reply_to": "20688__1_023", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_025", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "And then now the question is, why does that make a difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1973.265], "stop_times": [1976.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1973.265}, "reply_to": "20688__1_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20688__1_026", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Because all of the jurisdictional statutes use the phrase, a civil action of which the district court has original jurisdiction, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1976.28], "stop_times": [1985.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1976.28}, "reply_to": "20688__1_025", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_027", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Are you relying on what the Strude case said about, it doesn't become a civil action until it's lodged in State court.\nJustice Minton thought that at that point it could be removed, but if it's... if it doesn't become a civil action until it must be commenced in State court, then it would not qualify as an action that could originally be brought?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [1985.245, 1992.961], "stop_times": [1992.961, 2010.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1985.245}, "reply_to": "20688__1_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20688__1_028", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, as I read Stude and Horton and the four circuit courts of appeals that have addressed this issue, it seems to me that the initial inquiry all four of those courts have made is, what is the nature of the action, and when the action arises to challenge a decision of a State administrative agency, it then becomes in nature an appellate case, and is not within the original jurisdiction of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2010.094], "stop_times": [2036.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2010.094}, "reply_to": "20688__1_027", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_029", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "But you just said you could have... you could have forgotten all about the State review proceeding, and you could have brought a 1983 action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2036.131], "stop_times": [2044.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2036.131}, "reply_to": "20688__1_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20688__1_030", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2044.439], "stop_times": [2045.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2044.439}, "reply_to": "20688__1_029", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_031", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "And then you could have gone into Federal court.\nSo suppose you just split up this complaint and you have one complaint that you want review of the land law decision.\nYou bring that in the Cook County court.\nAnd then the other complaint is that you're denied due process, and you bring that in the Federal court.\nThat you could have done, couldn't you have?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2045.127, 2047.594, 2054.561, 2056.076, 2061.793], "stop_times": [2047.594, 2054.561, 2056.076, 2061.793, 2063.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2045.127}, "reply_to": "20688__1_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20688__1_032", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "I don't believe I could have combined the two of them at all, Your Honor.\nI believe that by virtue of the fact that the action that we're complaining about, the final decision of the Landmarks Commission is a final decision which is being attacked in a lawsuit which challenges that decision, that that makes it a review, an appellate review, a deferential review of the decision of the Landmarks Commission, and so the 1983 action, of which the Federal district court might arguably have jurisdiction if we file that separately, would be a de novo action.\nIt is then an... it is a civil action of which the Court has original jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2063.935, 2067.84, 2100.092], "stop_times": [2067.84, 2100.092, 2105.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2063.935}, "reply_to": "20688__1_031", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_033", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Mr. Brennan--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2105.339], "stop_times": [2106.23], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2105.339}, "reply_to": "20688__1_032", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20688__1_034", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "But this case is purely a complaint for administrative review that seeks solely and exclusively deferential review of the final decision of the Landmark--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2106.23], "stop_times": [2116.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2106.23}, "reply_to": "20688__1_033", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_035", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--Well, is that true of the constitutional issues that are raised?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2116.007], "stop_times": [2119.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2116.007}, "reply_to": "20688__1_034", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20688__1_036", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--Yes, it is, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2119.725], "stop_times": [2121.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2119.725}, "reply_to": "20688__1_035", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_037", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "How is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2121.053], "stop_times": [2121.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2121.053}, "reply_to": "20688__1_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20688__1_038", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Because the constitutional issues still arise out of the decision and the ordinance and the statutes under which that decision is made.\nUnder Illinois administrative review law, when the... when that... those constitutional issues, State or Federal, get to the Circuit Court of Cook County, they are entitled to be reviewed by a de novo standard of review, but nevertheless, the action itself is not a de novo action.\nThe nature of the action is one which is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2121.771, 2132.718, 2153.992], "stop_times": [2132.718, 2153.992, 2156.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2121.771}, "reply_to": "20688__1_037", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_039", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "No, but those constitutional law issues are resolved de novo.\nWe just don't know how the administrative review part is going to come out.\nNow, why couldn't the Federal court, if the case is removed to Federal court why can't the Federal court judge decline to exercise jurisdiction over these related State claims?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2156.928, 2162.362, 2167.377], "stop_times": [2162.362, 2167.377, 2184.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2156.928}, "reply_to": "20688__1_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20688__1_040", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--Because he does not have jurisdiction to hear the constitutional claims, and the reason for that is that the nature of the complaint, the nature of the lawsuit that is filed, the essential facts and elements of it, are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2184.651], "stop_times": [2198.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2184.651}, "reply_to": "20688__1_039", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_041", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Well, I know that's your position, but if you're wrong, presumably the district court judge could simply decline to exercise jurisdiction over these State law matters.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2198.411], "stop_times": [2211.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2198.411}, "reply_to": "20688__1_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20688__1_042", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--Theoretically he could, Your Honor, but... but I guess what I'm really saying, I mean, reduced to its simplest terms, is that the fact that when the plaintiff comes to court, and in their complaint they're complaining about this final decision of an administrative agency, that's the lawsuit that's filed following that action.\nThe nature of that lawsuit, whatever caption it's put under, whether it's in one count or two count, whether it includes 1983 claims or not, it is nevertheless a cause of action that arises out of a final decision of an administrative agency, and for that fact and that fact alone it then is not within the original jurisdiction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2211.233, 2232.32], "stop_times": [2232.32, 2255.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2211.233}, "reply_to": "20688__1_041", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_043", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "If that's your view, I'd like you to expand, if you would, please, on your response to Justice O'Connor.\nYou said the word theoretically, sort of underlining theoretically, and I thought that was important because I think one of the problems is whether this would lead to a flood of reviews of State court administrative cases in Federal court.\nAnd what I'd like you to respond to is the suggestion, no, because the State administrative claims can be remanded in any instance where a judge has decided the Federal question, where they predominate, or for any other fairly good reason, and by the way, if the judge in the Federal court needs to know the answer to the State question before he can answer the Federal one, Pullman abstention with an England reservation if necessary, or if it's really going to mix up the State court system--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2255.263, 2261.511, 2277.458], "stop_times": [2261.511, 2277.458, 2312.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2255.263}, "reply_to": "20688__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20688__1_044", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2312.241], "stop_times": [2312.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2312.241}, "reply_to": "20688__1_043", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_045", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--Burford abstention.\nSo we have Burford, Pullman, England, and three clauses in the supplemental jurisdiction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2312.491, 2313.771], "stop_times": [2313.771, 2319.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2312.491}, "reply_to": "20688__1_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20688__1_046", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2319.957], "stop_times": [2320.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2319.957}, "reply_to": "20688__1_045", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_047", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--We can make up another one, if necessary.\nI mean, it's--\n[Laughter]\nThat's why I picked up on your word theoretically, because it seems more than theoretically.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2320.301, 2321.707, 2322.346, 2322.815], "stop_times": [2321.707, 2322.346, 2322.815, 2327.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2320.301}, "reply_to": "20688__1_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20688__1_048", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "And thank you for raising that, because it really gets to what I think is the important opportunity that the Court has in this case, and that is an opportunity to avoid, if you will, all of the litigation that comes under the arising under cases, as to whether or not this is an action arising under, and the abstention cases.\nThe much better rule as a matter of judicial policy that I think this Court should adopt is the rule that says, we do not have... Federal district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction to review final decisions of administrative agencies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2327.58, 2349.882], "stop_times": [2349.882, 2366.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2327.58}, "reply_to": "20688__1_047", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_049", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "So--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2366.876], "stop_times": [2367.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2366.876}, "reply_to": "20688__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20688__1_050", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "So that jurisdictional rule to the practitioners is very clear.\nWe don't get into all the arguments that we can in abstention cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2367.329, 2371.874], "stop_times": [2371.874, 2375.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2367.329}, "reply_to": "20688__1_049", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_051", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--Well, we can't hold that as you just put it, because we have held that we have jurisdiction to review administrative agencies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2375.107], "stop_times": [2380.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2375.107}, "reply_to": "20688__1_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20688__1_052", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Excuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2380.792], "stop_times": [2381.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2380.792}, "reply_to": "20688__1_051", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_053", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Federal administrative--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2381.228], "stop_times": [2382.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2381.228}, "reply_to": "20688__1_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20688__1_054", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "State... thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2382.135], "stop_times": [2383.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2382.135}, "reply_to": "20688__1_053", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_055", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--And now--\n--Yes, but then you have to tell me why Federal versus State makes one be an action whereas the other isn't an action, or makes one be civil whereas the other isn't civil.\nI mean, we have to squeeze this theory within the text of the statute, and you haven't given me a, you know, a gimmick to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2383.228, 2383.836, 2393.333], "stop_times": [2383.836, 2393.333, 2400.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2383.228}, "reply_to": "20688__1_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20688__1_056", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2400.909], "stop_times": [2401.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2400.909}, "reply_to": "20688__1_055", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_057", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "So I'd... it's easier to invent a new abstention.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2401.3, 2404.283], "stop_times": [2404.283, 2406.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2401.3}, "reply_to": "20688__1_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20688__1_058", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--There is no gimmick in the statute, because when you're looking at the jurisdictional issue you're necessarily looking for where is jurisdiction found, where is jurisdiction conferred on the district court in the first instance.\nLimited jurisdiction.\nBurden is on the plaintiff who's attempting... the party who's attempting to get into Federal court to show that there is Federal court jurisdiction.\nThose are all well-settled principles.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2406.095, 2420.137, 2422.059, 2428.57], "stop_times": [2420.137, 2422.059, 2428.57, 2430.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2406.095}, "reply_to": "20688__1_057", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_059", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "But--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2430.492], "stop_times": [2431.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2430.492}, "reply_to": "20688__1_058", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20688__1_060", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "And the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2431.178], "stop_times": [2432.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2431.178}, "reply_to": "20688__1_059", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_061", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--But the district court does have jurisdiction over a civil action.\nWe have held that an appeal from a Federal administrative agency to the district court is a civil action.\nYou're saying it should be different if it's a State admin... now, say why, just directly, if you would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2432.35, 2436.988, 2443.658], "stop_times": [2436.988, 2443.658, 2450.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2432.35}, "reply_to": "20688__1_060", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20688__1_062", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--Because there is no statutory authority for the district court's to have jurisdiction over State administrative--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2450.187], "stop_times": [2458.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2450.187}, "reply_to": "20688__1_061", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_063", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "But there was no specific jurisdiction for them to have jurisdiction over appeals from Federal agencies.\nThat was found to be a civil action, was it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2458.528, 2463.509], "stop_times": [2463.509, 2466.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2458.528}, "reply_to": "20688__1_062", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20688__1_064", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--It was found to be a civil action in Califano when the court found that the 1976 amendments to 1331, in essence in the legislative history, and it's set forth clearly, I think, in footnote 4 of the opinion to Califano, basically says Congress amended the statute and took... and added a provision which says that actions under 1331 can be filed as arising under actions against Federal agencies because they removed the prior--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2466.273], "stop_times": [2500.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2466.273}, "reply_to": "20688__1_063", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_065", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "So the legislative history causes 1331 to have in it some imaginary language, this applies only to Federal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2500.104], "stop_times": [2510.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2500.104}, "reply_to": "20688__1_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20688__1_066", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2510.304], "stop_times": [2510.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2510.304}, "reply_to": "20688__1_065", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_067", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--a review of Federal administrative action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2510.648], "stop_times": [2512.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2510.648}, "reply_to": "20688__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20688__1_068", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "The existing jurisdictional statutes, any one of the three first provisions of 1441, the removal statute, never speak to the issue and never have any... do not have any language in them that supports the idea that district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions within their original jurisdiction where there are State appellate reviews involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2512.256], "stop_times": [2540.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2512.256}, "reply_to": "20688__1_067", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_069", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "The question was, in Califano was review or not, not review which court, because if it was going to be any court it was going to be the Federal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2540.167], "stop_times": [2549.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2540.167}, "reply_to": "20688__1_068", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20688__1_070", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Well, exactly, because it was the action of a Federal agency, and the suit was filed against the Social Security Administration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2549.773], "stop_times": [2555.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2549.773}, "reply_to": "20688__1_069", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_071", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "But you conceded that if you had divided up your complaint... you want review of the land law commission in State court, you want your Federal questions in Federal court... that you could have done that, so why can't the city remove at least to the extent that you have a divisible complaint?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2555.52], "stop_times": [2578.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2555.52}, "reply_to": "20688__1_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20688__1_072", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2578.776], "stop_times": [2580.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2578.776}, "reply_to": "20688__1_071", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_073", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "And then say to the district court, we can remove the part that's pure Federal, and for the rest, the State claims, district court you can either exercise supplemental jurisdiction or remand those.\nWhy couldn't the city say, at least to the extent that there are Federal claims here, it's removable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2580.165, 2594.223], "stop_times": [2594.223, 2603.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2580.165}, "reply_to": "20688__1_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20688__1_074", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--Because 1441(c) says whenever a separate and independent claim or a cause of action within the jurisdiction conferred by section 1331 is joined with a nonremovable action, and you don't... we never pass the first test.\nThis is never an action under 1331, because under 1331 it must be a civil action within the original jurisdiction of the district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2603.999, 2619.477], "stop_times": [2619.477, 2630.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2603.999}, "reply_to": "20688__1_073", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_075", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Moreover, isn't it true, as I read the complaint, that most of your Federal claims are... overlap State law claims that would be based on precisely the same factual disputes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2630.067], "stop_times": [2641.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2630.067}, "reply_to": "20688__1_074", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20688__1_076", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Yes, that is true, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2641.204], "stop_times": [2643.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2641.204}, "reply_to": "20688__1_075", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_077", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "So that you couldn't really say there's a series of Federal claims involving facts A, B, and C, and State claims involving D, E, and F.\nThe same facts are going to be involved in both the State and Federal claims.\nIs that not right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2643.36, 2649.669, 2654.854], "stop_times": [2649.669, 2654.854, 2655.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2643.36}, "reply_to": "20688__1_076", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20688__1_078", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2655.494], "stop_times": [2656.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2655.494}, "reply_to": "20688__1_077", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_079", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Mr. Brennan, let me try another way of getting where you want to go, which seems to me more feasible.\nThis case is a... these State administrative proceedings are appealable to State courts under a State statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2656.026, 2663.116], "stop_times": [2663.116, 2673.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2656.026}, "reply_to": "20688__1_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20688__1_080", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2673.051], "stop_times": [2673.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2673.051}, "reply_to": "20688__1_079", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_081", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Which says they will be appealable to a State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2673.863], "stop_times": [2677.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2673.863}, "reply_to": "20688__1_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20688__1_082", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "The city's ordinance expressly provides for that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2677.393], "stop_times": [2679.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2677.393}, "reply_to": "20688__1_081", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_083", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Federal review of Federal administrative action is conducted under statutes... the APA... that give Federal courts review, or under special appeals statutes that give Federal courts review, or under mandamus, and injunction before the APA.\nWe used to review them just under our general mandamus authority.\nBut I don't... did we ever have mandamus authority to mandamus State officers?\nI doubt it.\nSo maybe what we're talking about here is not so much a jurisdictional defect as a lack of cause of action that the State law created this cause of action against the State agency, and it limited the bringing of that cause of action to State courts.\nNow, normally a State cannot do that.\nIf you create a cause of action I'm sure it can be... you can bring it in Federal as well as in State courts, but perhaps a different rule should apply where the cause of action is a cause of action for review of, effectively mandamus review of State officers.\nThat's what's going on here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2679.673, 2701.647, 2705.427, 2710.472, 2711.863, 2733.665, 2736.274, 2753.643], "stop_times": [2701.647, 2705.427, 2710.472, 2711.863, 2733.665, 2736.274, 2753.643, 2755.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2679.673}, "reply_to": "20688__1_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20688__1_084", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "I think that analysis is sound, Justice Scalia, and I think it's sound because it begins with the point that this cause of action arises in a State statute in a city ordinance, and for us to have marched down to Federal court and tried to file it there, most judges in the Northern District of Illinois would have dismissed it sua sponte on the grounds that this is not a Federal case.\nThere is no Federal jurisdictional statute that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2755.361, 2782.116], "stop_times": [2782.116, 2785.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2755.361}, "reply_to": "20688__1_083", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_085", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Are you suggesting that in Sanders, which had its own jurisdictional provision, the 1331 was for cases where there was... the nonstatutory review cases, cases where there was not a specific statute that said, for example, Railroad Retirement Board decisions go to the D.C. Circuit, not the district court?\nNo specific statute.\nBut here you're saying you do have a specific statute, only it's a State statute, so therefore the 1331 does not supplant a specific provision any more than it supplanted 205 in the social security case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2785.567, 2810.416, 2812.26], "stop_times": [2810.416, 2812.26, 2828.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2785.567}, "reply_to": "20688__1_084", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20688__1_086", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--I think I'm saying two things, Justice Ginsburg.\nThe first thing I'm saying is that in Califano the Court found that there was jurisdiction to review the Federal agency because of the amendment that was made in 1976 to 1331.\nThe Court did not address at all the issue of whether the Federal courts have original jurisdiction over State administrative agency actions, and my basic point is that there is no Federal statute that one can point to which clearly intends to give the district courts appellate jurisdiction over final decisions of State administrative agencies, and that would include those cases where there is some Federal constitutional claim in them.\nAnother reason why that rule makes a great deal of sense is that in all these administrative review cases, whether they come out of liquor agencies or aviation authorities or zoning authorities, the Federal constitutional questions should not be addressed until the plaintiff has failed to prevail on any of the State law issues.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2828.111, 2831.47, 2842.669, 2876.64], "stop_times": [2831.47, 2842.669, 2876.64, 2895.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2828.111}, "reply_to": "20688__1_085", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_087", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "I... that's... I don't know if Justice Scalia's idea is so sound.\nThe... I think what you're trying to do is to carve out some kind of special box for State administrative law cases, and I don't know how you do it.\nYou're talking about the word appeal, as if that might do it.\nThen you talk about discretionary review as if that might do it.\nBut a State could have a law saying all State laws applicable to State government officials are always determined through an appeal to a court, so it can't just be the word appeal.\nIt would then be possible to immunize every State government action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2895.693, 2900.301, 2911.954, 2915.389, 2919.263, 2933.194], "stop_times": [2900.301, 2911.954, 2915.389, 2919.263, 2933.194, 2936.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2895.693}, "reply_to": "20688__1_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20688__1_088", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "But--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2936.006], "stop_times": [2936.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2936.006}, "reply_to": "20688__1_087", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_089", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "It can't just be the question of discretionary review, because I don't even know what that is, discretionary review.\nI mean, you're trying to simplify it, but it seems to me you're going to complexify, if there is such a word.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2936.319, 2941.098], "stop_times": [2941.098, 2947.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2936.319}, "reply_to": "20688__1_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20688__1_090", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--Well, Stude stands for the proposition--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2947.657], "stop_times": [2951.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2947.657}, "reply_to": "20688__1_089", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_091", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2951.063], "stop_times": [2951.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2951.063}, "reply_to": "20688__1_090", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20688__1_092", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--that State legislatures cannot enact laws that will confer jurisdiction on Federal courts, and I don't think there's any dispute about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2951.313], "stop_times": [2957.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2951.313}, "reply_to": "20688__1_091", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_093", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "No dispute about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2957.248], "stop_times": [2958.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2957.248}, "reply_to": "20688__1_092", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20688__1_094", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "The... it seems to me that the correct jurisdictional analysis is, what Federal statutes gives the Federal court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2958.153], "stop_times": [2968.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2958.153}, "reply_to": "20688__1_093", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_095", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Right, and they're saying what does it is 13--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2968.04], "stop_times": [2969.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2968.04}, "reply_to": "20688__1_094", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20688__1_096", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--jurisdiction over this complaint for administrative--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2969.585], "stop_times": [2971.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2969.585}, "reply_to": "20688__1_095", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_097", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--1441, 1367.\nThat's the answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2971.523, 2973.177], "stop_times": [2973.177, 2973.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2971.523}, "reply_to": "20688__1_096", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20688__1_098", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--Right, and 1367, which the city curiously relies on, not on 1441(c).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2973.802], "stop_times": [2979.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2973.802}, "reply_to": "20688__1_097", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_099", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Both.\nNo, (b)... (a).\nGo ahead.\nSorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2979.535, 2980.3, 2982.361, 2982.705], "stop_times": [2980.3, 2982.361, 2982.705, 2983.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2979.535}, "reply_to": "20688__1_098", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20688__1_100", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "It doesn't do it for them because you can't get over the original hurdle in 1367, which is that the Federal court... it must be a civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2983.189], "stop_times": [2999.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2983.189}, "reply_to": "20688__1_099", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_101", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Has the Congress provided, under the Education with... for Disabilities Act, review from State administrative agencies in the United States district courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [2999.621], "stop_times": [3011.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2999.621}, "reply_to": "20688__1_100", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20688__1_102", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--I don't know, Justice Kennedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3011.209], "stop_times": [3012.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3011.209}, "reply_to": "20688__1_101", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_103", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "That's a wholly Federal law scheme, and the States are used... State offices are used to administer it, but the law is Federal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3012.944], "stop_times": [3025.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3012.944}, "reply_to": "20688__1_102", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20688__1_104", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--Yes, and in the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Shamrock Motors they cite two RTC cases which get into this whole area of what happens when legislatures might deliberately, if you will, attempt to confer jurisdiction, and I think under the communications law somebody told me there are some of those.\nBut I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3025.486, 3043.524], "stop_times": [3043.524, 3044.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3025.486}, "reply_to": "20688__1_103", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_105", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "But they... it seemed to me that might help you in one sense, that if Congress wants this sort of scheme, whether it's Federal law or State law or a combination, it can... it can provide so by specific exemption, and that would follow your legislative history argument with reference to Califano.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3044.399], "stop_times": [3062.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3044.399}, "reply_to": "20688__1_104", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20688__1_106", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3062.72], "stop_times": [3063.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3062.72}, "reply_to": "20688__1_105", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_107", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "I don't know if that gets you there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3063.922], "stop_times": [3064.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3063.922}, "reply_to": "20688__1_106", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20688__1_108", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--Well, that's true, Justice Kennedy, but I still contend that the point that gets me there that says that the district court does not have jurisdiction in this case is that there is no provision in the U.S. Code in the removal statute or in the jurisdictional statutes which says or suggests, directly or indirectly, that district courts have jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3064.766], "stop_times": [3088.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3064.766}, "reply_to": "20688__1_107", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_109", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Well, but you really--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3088.132], "stop_times": [3089.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3088.132}, "reply_to": "20688__1_108", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20688__1_110", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--to review appellate decisions of State administrative agencies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3089.554], "stop_times": [3091.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3089.554}, "reply_to": "20688__1_109", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_111", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--It seems to me your argument really begs the question.\nIt doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, but the question as I see it is whether this is a civil action arising under the Constitution and laws and so forth of the United States.\nAnd it seems to me you might arguably take the position that there's a distinction between civil actions arising, et cetera, on the one hand and Federal claims on the other, and it may well be that an action that arises under a State statute like this, even though it includes Federal claims, does not arise under the Federal, so forth and so on, within the meaning of that provision.\nIf you don't take that position, I don't know how you get to your destination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3091.318, 3093.49, 3102.393, 3126.118], "stop_times": [3093.49, 3102.393, 3126.118, 3130.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3091.318}, "reply_to": "20688__1_110", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20688__1_112", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Well, I get to my destination by saying that 1331 speaks about the district courts having original jurisdiction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3130.787], "stop_times": [3139.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3130.787}, "reply_to": "20688__1_111", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_113", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Right--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3139.237], "stop_times": [3139.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3139.237}, "reply_to": "20688__1_112", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20688__1_114", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--of civil actions, and this is not a case involving original jurisdiction, and going back to Stude, and Horton, and the four cases that have been decided by the four circuits, it seems to me what the court in each one of those cases has done, as well as other cases that are cited in the brief, is they look at what they characterize as the nature of the action, and nature of the action as it's used there is, does this case come out of a dispute which grows out of a final decision of a State administrative agency?\nIs it an appellate decision of its nature, or is it a de novo decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3139.549, 3170.787], "stop_times": [3170.787, 3175.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3139.549}, "reply_to": "20688__1_113", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_115", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--How do you distinguish Sanders in that event, because surely there was a final agency action there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3175.285], "stop_times": [3181.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3175.285}, "reply_to": "20688__1_114", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20688__1_116", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Sure, and I don't think... it doesn't appear to me that Sanders as filed was necessarily an appellate action.\nThere are two reasons that I think Sanders is distinguishable.\nThe first is that while there was a decision of the Social Security Administration, the action that was filed was really a de novo action that challenged that decision, secondly in Sanders is distinguishable, because there you're talking about Federal court jurisdiction over Federal administrative agencies, and I'm not troubled by that, and I don't think the Court is troubled by that.\nThat's not our case.\nOur case is review of State administrative agencies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3181.579, 3188.981, 3192.777, 3218.142, 3219.657], "stop_times": [3188.981, 3192.777, 3218.142, 3219.657, 3222.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3181.579}, "reply_to": "20688__1_115", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_117", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Yes, but it's one thing to say the facts are different here, but you also have to say that... and it makes some difference that the facts are different.\nJust to point out to a difference that doesn't really make... a distinction that doesn't make much difference I don't think gets you there, and so if you're relying on the fact that this is an appellate proceeding in the district court, I think you have to distinguish Sanders in a way that you haven't.\nIf you're relying on the definition of civil action or something else, that needn't bother you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3222.438, 3231.011, 3247.177], "stop_times": [3231.011, 3247.177, 3252.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3222.438}, "reply_to": "20688__1_116", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20688__1_118", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Well, if... I guess what I would suggest, Mr. Chief Justice, is that Sanders does not in any way support the proposition that the city is arguing here that State... that Federal district courts should have jurisdiction over cases which are of their very nature appeals from State administrative agencies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3252.831], "stop_times": [3275.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3252.831}, "reply_to": "20688__1_117", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_119", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Yes, but your key distinction should not be the distinction between appellate and original, but rather between arising under Federal law on the one hand and arising under State law on the other.\nIt seems to me you might make a colorable argument that this case, notwithstanding the presence of Federal claims, really arises under the State administrative review statute, and therefore it doesn't come within 1331.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3275.65, 3284.287], "stop_times": [3284.287, 3295.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3275.65}, "reply_to": "20688__1_118", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20688__1_120", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "That's true, Justice Stevens, and that's the second point in our brief, and we make that point, that if you... that if this Court were to hold that for some reason the court does have jurisdiction, then it doesn't arise under, and if we lose on that, then we get--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3295.97], "stop_times": [3309.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3295.97}, "reply_to": "20688__1_119", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_121", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "If it doesn't arise under, they don't have jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3309.528], "stop_times": [3311.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3309.528}, "reply_to": "20688__1_120", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20688__1_122", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--Right.\nIf there are no further questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3311.652, 3311.918], "stop_times": [3311.918, 3317.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3311.652}, "reply_to": "20688__1_121", "speaker": "richard_j_brennan"}
{"id": "20688__1_123", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Brennan.\nMs. Solomon, you have 3 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3317.383, 3319.742], "stop_times": [3319.742, 3321.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3317.383}, "reply_to": "20688__1_122", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20688__2_000", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nI'd like to make two brief points in rebuttal.\nThe first is that our primary submission here is in reliance on section 1441, which allows for removal of any civil action within original jurisdiction, and with the reference to the Federal constitutional allegations in the complaints which would be reviewed de novo as to the law and fact in the Circuit Court of Cook County.\nAs ICS concedes, that portion, at least, they could have filed in Federal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3321.725, 3323.787, 3326.442, 3349.559], "stop_times": [3323.787, 3326.442, 3349.559, 3355.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3321.725}, "reply_to": "20688__1_123", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__2_001", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "I believe their position was that it wouldn't satisfy... at least that was the implication, I think, of Justice Stevens' question, that it wouldn't satisfy a separate and independent claim.\nIf they're right about the State part being nonremovable by itself--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3355.305, 3366.285], "stop_times": [3366.285, 3373.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3355.305}, "reply_to": "20688__2_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20688__2_002", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "We--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3373.126], "stop_times": [3373.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3373.126}, "reply_to": "20688__2_001", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__2_003", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--then the... there is no separate, separation between those two because they're so tied together by the facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3373.923], "stop_times": [3382.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3373.923}, "reply_to": "20688__2_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20688__2_004", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--1441(c) we think comes into play only if 1441(a) is not sufficient, and we think 1441(a) is sufficient.\nCivil action within original jurisdiction coupled with supplemental jurisdiction under 1367, and that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3382.029, 3390.979], "stop_times": [3390.979, 3398.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3382.029}, "reply_to": "20688__2_003", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__2_005", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "What's your response to my argument?\nDo you understand it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3398.162, 3399.037], "stop_times": [3399.037, 3400.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3398.162}, "reply_to": "20688__2_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20688__2_006", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--Arising under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3400.146], "stop_times": [3401.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3400.146}, "reply_to": "20688__2_005", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__2_007", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "My suggested reading, that although the claim is a Federal claim, that the viewing the action as a whole as distinguished from claims in the supplemental jurisdiction statute... you use the word claims, not actions... that the action itself didn't arise under the Federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3401.178], "stop_times": [3415.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3401.178}, "reply_to": "20688__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20688__2_008", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "--Our response to that quite simply is the Gully test, the Gully test of arising under any right or immunity as in the claims that <ICS> [= ICS] alleged in this case, the Federal constitutional claims would be decided solely by reference to the Federal Constitution.\nThey're not decided as a matter of State law.\nThe arising under cases, where a court considers a State cause of action and finds that it does not arise under, as we read the cases are limited to two circumstances, first where the plaintiff actually forgoes any Federal claims, and ICS did nothing if not plead numerous Federal constitutional claims.\nThe second is the situation in Merrell Dow, where Federal law intentionally precluded a right of action, or there was no Federal right of action, and there was a Federal right of action for each and every constitutional allegation that ICS pled in its complaint.\nThe only basis on which the court of appeals dismissed the entire case was that the mere presence in the complaint of some few claims that would be reviewed on the record required it to remand the entire case.\nEven ICS does not embrace that theory of contagion, and for good reason, because the Federal claims were within the district court's original jurisdiction, and the State law claims were within the district court's supplemental jurisdiction, and they were all properly decided in the district court.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3415.234, 3432.369, 3434.101, 3454.265, 3471.993, 3487.845, 3504.807], "stop_times": [3432.369, 3434.101, 3454.265, 3471.993, 3487.845, 3504.807, 3505.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3415.234}, "reply_to": "20688__2_007", "speaker": "benna_ruth_solomon"}
{"id": "20688__2_009", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Solomon.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3505.588, 3507.619], "stop_times": [3507.619, 3508.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3505.588}, "reply_to": "20688__2_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20688__2_010", "conversation_id": "20688", "text": "The honorable Court is now adjourned until tomorrow at 10 o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-910", "start_times": [3508.869], "stop_times": [3515.383], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3508.869}, "reply_to": "20688__2_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20439__0_000", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 97-1374, William J. Clinton v. The City of New York.\nGeneral Waxman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [0.0, 8.936], "stop_times": [8.936, 10.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20439__0_001", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nConstitutional principles of separation of powers govern both the standing and merits issues of the case.\nWith respect to standing, this Court recognized last term in Raines v. Byrd that the Article III inquiry is especially rigorous when plaintiffs challenge the allocation of constitutional power, yet here, in the New York case, the State, which is not even a party, has not been denied a single dollar in medicaid reimbursement and the Secretary of HHS has not even determined that it should.\nIn Snake River, the plaintiffs include no entity whose taxes could possibly be affected by the challenged cancellation and they have not shown that the cancellation interfered with any transaction from which they likely would have benefited.\nOn the merits, the President's cancellations violated neither Article I nor the separation of powers.\nThe Presentment Clause was fully satisfied when the President signed the Balanced Budget and Taxpayer Relief Acts making them laws.\nWhen the President subsequently cancelled sections 4722(c) and 968, he was not returning portions of the presented bills while signing other portions into law.\nHe was implementing a limited discretionary authority to execute the law as it had been enacted by Congress.\nCancellations under the Line Item Veto Act do not prevent Congress from making whatever laws it wants.\nCongress could readily have exempted sections 4722 (c) and 968 from the President's authority.\nIt chose not to do so and, indeed, it identified section 968 in the Taxpayer Relief Act as an item subject to cancellation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [10.498, 13.841, 21.124, 46.823, 62.234, 69.777, 77.912, 89.83, 97.597, 104.87, 112.644], "stop_times": [13.841, 21.124, 46.823, 62.234, 69.777, 77.912, 89.83, 97.597, 104.87, 112.644, 122.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.498}, "reply_to": "20439__0_000", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_002", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Is this more constitutionally defensible than what we might call a pure line item veto in which he--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [122.822], "stop_times": [128.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 122.822}, "reply_to": "20439__0_001", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20439__0_003", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "It is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [128.335], "stop_times": [128.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 128.335}, "reply_to": "20439__0_002", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_004", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--In which he can veto the minute that... before the bill ever becomes law, and is the reason for that because for a moment in time, at least, there's a little law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [128.615], "stop_times": [134.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 128.615}, "reply_to": "20439__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20439__0_005", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [134.919], "stop_times": [135.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 134.919}, "reply_to": "20439__0_004", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_006", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Or a big law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [135.59], "stop_times": [136.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 135.59}, "reply_to": "20439__0_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20439__0_007", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "No.\nThe critical reason is the point I just identified, which is in a true line item veto, which everybody understands is unconstitutional, the Congress does not retain control to determine which spending or tax items the President can't cancel.\nIf the President has the authority... and this is critical.\nIf the President has the authority to cancel a provision before it becomes a law, under the Presentment Clause he can cancel a designated tax or spending item and then sign the law and Congress has thereby deprived itself of the opportunity to create the law.\nHere, the President signs the law and it becomes a law under the Presentment Clause, and when he does so, if the law contains a designated cancellable item, Congress has made a law telling the President that, subject to certain determinations and certain considerations, and certain certifications, you have a single, binary choice.\nYou can either spend the money as provided, or you can spend it for deficit reduction by putting that money into a lockbox, and in that manner the President is executing the law that Congress has enacted, not vetoing an item or repealing a provision that Congress has enacted.\nIt's no different, I sus... I suggest, for Article I purposes, than if, instead of enacting the Line Item Veto Act, Congress had simply decided to put in as section 1 of every spending and taxing bill that it enacts what is now section 961 of the Line Item Veto Act.\nIt says, we have the following spending and taxing provisions, but subject to these articulable principles and these constraints, the President may decide, if he signs this law, not to do certain things.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [136.241, 136.852, 152.102, 154.986, 173.666, 197.344, 215.243, 235.478], "stop_times": [136.852, 152.102, 154.986, 173.666, 197.344, 215.243, 235.478, 248.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 136.241}, "reply_to": "20439__0_006", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_008", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Well, so far as the locked box is concerned, this bill is the same as a line item veto.\nI mean, it's in a locked box that's going to contribute to reducing the deficit.\nSo that's not a distinction between the two.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [248.356, 255.162, 259.105], "stop_times": [255.162, 259.105, 261.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 248.356}, "reply_to": "20439__0_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20439__0_009", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Well, I think the... I think it's... the lockbox feature of this, which is the feature that gives the President a single binary choice, tends to make this much less of a delegation problem under separation of powers than might otherwise exist, because in contradistinction to cases in which the Court has upheld, for example, delegation of authority to the FCC or the SEC to essentially create an entire code of conduct for the securities industry, the Line Item Veto Act is not... and in this respect I think it's unique and uniquely constrained.\nIt's not self-executing.\nThe President can't do anything with his cancellation authority unless Congress subsequently passes an act that has a cancellable item in it and does not provide that the President's authority will not be subject to cancellation.\nIt's almost the... a mirror image of the Impoundment Control Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [261.357, 298.272, 300.863, 316.304], "stop_times": [298.272, 300.863, 316.304, 320.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 261.357}, "reply_to": "20439__0_008", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_010", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "But that's... that also sounds to me the same as what we might call the pure line item veto.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [320.117], "stop_times": [324.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 320.117}, "reply_to": "20439__0_009", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20439__0_011", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Well, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [324.462], "stop_times": [325.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 324.462}, "reply_to": "20439__0_010", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_012", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "A single, simple binary choice.\nSign it or X it out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [325.173, 327.272], "stop_times": [327.272, 329.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 325.173}, "reply_to": "20439__0_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20439__0_013", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--The problem... the constitutional deficiency in the line item veto, the... a pure, a true item veto, is that it violates the Presentment Clause, which provides, among other things, that the bill that the President signs making it a law has to be the bill that each... a majority of each House of Congress enacted, and if the President can excise a provision before he signs the law, that's violated and, as this Court has indicated--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [329.282], "stop_times": [356.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 329.282}, "reply_to": "20439__0_012", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_014", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "But Mr. Waxman, you wouldn't... General Waxman, you wouldn't say that that's remedied if, by the simple fact that it only applies to later laws where Congress says he can do that.\nI mean, I don't see how that argument carries any water at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [356.01, 368.698], "stop_times": [368.698, 371.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 356.01}, "reply_to": "20439__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__0_015", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [371.401], "stop_times": [371.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 371.401}, "reply_to": "20439__0_014", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_016", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Your argument that, after all, he cannot exercise this function on any legislation, but only later legislation where Congress chooses to let him exercise it.\nYou wouldn't say that that would make an invalid line item veto provision good, would you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [371.821, 381.288], "stop_times": [381.288, 387.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 371.821}, "reply_to": "20439__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__0_017", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--I... if... there are two bases for a constitutional challenge to this authority.\nOne is under Article I and whether... and asks the question whether, in fact, the operation of this statute violates the formal requirements of the Presentment Clause or, in effect, effects a repeal.\nThe other large issue is whether this represents a violation of the separation of powers as applied to Congress through the \"non-delegation doctrine\", and we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [387.702, 394.908, 407.677], "stop_times": [394.908, 407.677, 418.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 387.702}, "reply_to": "20439__0_016", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_018", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Right, but what I'm suggesting is, I don't see how the fact that it only applies to later legislation where Congress lets it apply has any bearing upon either of those questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [418.164], "stop_times": [427.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 418.164}, "reply_to": "20439__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__0_019", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Well, if it... it has a bearing on the Article I issue.\nI don't think that the timing of this relates to the scope or breadth of the delegation except... I take that back.\nI think it relates to both.\nWhat Congress... by making this bill... this act forward-looking, what it basically is saying, Congress has reserved for itself the right, in every subsequent spending or taxing bill that has a cancellable provision, to decide, at the time that it passes those bills, whether it will or will not allow the President to exercise that authority.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [427.821, 431.454, 437.368, 438.85, 461.025], "stop_times": [431.454, 437.368, 438.85, 461.025, 461.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 427.821}, "reply_to": "20439__0_018", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_020", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "That's fine, but once it decides that it will, you have the same problem, that the... I mean, you may argue that it's no problem on other grounds, but I don't see how it becomes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [461.214], "stop_times": [471.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 461.214}, "reply_to": "20439__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__0_021", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [471.171], "stop_times": [471.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 471.171}, "reply_to": "20439__0_020", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_022", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--no problem simply because Congress has said the President can do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [471.391], "stop_times": [475.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 471.391}, "reply_to": "20439__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__0_023", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--There are many historical examples where Congress has given the President authority to, if you will, repeal the effect of a prior enacted statute, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [475.125], "stop_times": [488.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 475.125}, "reply_to": "20439__0_022", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_024", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Yes, but not to repeal the statute, and I mean, that's the difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [488.505], "stop_times": [491.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 488.505}, "reply_to": "20439__0_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20439__0_025", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [491.217], "stop_times": [491.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 491.217}, "reply_to": "20439__0_024", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_026", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "The examples that you give are sort of the kind of fact-finding examples in which, if the President finds a given fact to be the case, then a consequence follows and he must declare that consequence and implement it, but that's not what we've got here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [491.467], "stop_times": [506.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 491.467}, "reply_to": "20439__0_025", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20439__0_027", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Well, I... with all due respect, Justice Souter, this is not a repeal of a provision.\nRepeals of provisions of acts, or acts themselves, have got to follow the Presentment Clause.\nThere's no question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [506.576, 512.841, 518.205], "stop_times": [512.841, 518.205, 518.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 506.576}, "reply_to": "20439__0_026", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_028", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Well, but I mean, that's the... you say it's not, but that's one of the questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [518.785], "stop_times": [522.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 518.785}, "reply_to": "20439__0_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20439__0_029", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--I... let me try and explain why it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [522.698], "stop_times": [524.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 522.698}, "reply_to": "20439__0_028", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_030", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Well, is the effect is... in effect, is it... it says the law is no longer there.\nThe law is no longer applicable.\nYou can call it a different word, but it's the same thing.\nIt's gone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [524.88, 527.702, 529.685, 533.375], "stop_times": [527.702, 529.685, 533.375, 534.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 524.88}, "reply_to": "20439__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20439__0_031", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Well, Justice Ginsburg, let me try and respond to these two questions in two ways.\nFirst of all, under the lockbox provisions of 691c, a cancelled provision does retain real, legal budgetary effect.\nIt removes the amount... that amount of money under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings and the Budget Enforcement Act from Congress' ability to spend that equivalent amount of money.\nUnder the Budget Enforcement Act, ordinarily, if a particular provision were vetoed, or not... money were not used by the President, Congress has the authority, up to the budget baseline, to enact another provision and spend that money.\nA cancellation of a provision in this act requires that that money be devoted to deficit reduction, so first of all it is not true that it has no remaining effect, but even--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [534.286, 537.798, 546.944, 559.643, 573.103], "stop_times": [537.798, 546.944, 559.643, 573.103, 584.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 534.286}, "reply_to": "20439__0_030", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_032", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Well, that's just an effect on Congress' own internal rules.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [584.692], "stop_times": [587.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 584.692}, "reply_to": "20439__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__0_033", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [587.683], "stop_times": [587.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 587.683}, "reply_to": "20439__0_032", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_034", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [587.934], "stop_times": [588.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 587.934}, "reply_to": "20439__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__0_035", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [588.404], "stop_times": [588.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 588.404}, "reply_to": "20439__0_034", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_036", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [588.775], "stop_times": [589.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 588.775}, "reply_to": "20439__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__0_037", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "It is not.\nThe Budget Enforcement Act as amending the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act of 1985 are statutes, laws that bind Congress and the President.\nThey provide mandatory sequestration authority in the President and in Congress in the event that the baseline is exceeded, and what the lockbox provision of the Line Item Veto Act does is to say, if this is not an issue of whether the President wants to implement this provision or not.\nThe President must implement this provision in accordance with the law that Congress enacted, and that means that you can either spend the money, give effect to this provision to build a new dam in West Virginia, or take the money that would have been spent for that and put it in the deficit lockbox which, under the Budget Enforcement Act, means that you cannot by... enact a compensating piece of legislation to otherwise spend the money.\nIt reduces the amount of money that Congress and the President can spend.\nBut even if it didn't have that effect, we think that even without the lockbox provision this act would be constitutional, because there are many examples, and I respectfully submit that they are not all so easily distinguishable, Justice Souter, of instances where Congress has given one of the other two branches the authority to take acts unilaterally that repeal not the provision but the effect of the provision.\nI mean, maybe the best example is the Rules Enabling Act, which provides under 28 U.S.C. section 2072b, that the court may promulgate rules for the district courts of procedure and evidence and that any... and that those rules will v. Degas--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [589.116, 589.406, 598.853, 617.426, 643.545, 648.139, 673.867], "stop_times": [589.406, 598.853, 617.426, 643.545, 648.139, 673.867, 699.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 589.116}, "reply_to": "20439__0_036", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_038", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "What's the... I don't want to cut you off because you're giving other examples, but I'd like an example that is the closest you can come to the following, that Congress passes a law that says next year Mr. Smith, Mr. Jones, and 18 other people will not have to pay taxes amounting to $18 million.\nAnd then it says to the President, Mr. President, as you wish, in the national interest you can decide whether Mr. Smith or Mr. Jones or any group of the other 18 will, in fact, pay taxes, up to $10 million.\nNow, is there... the standard being, in the national interest.\nSo he can choose to tax four people, 16 people no people, as he wishes, without a standard but for the national interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [699.565, 720.649, 737.0, 740.612], "stop_times": [720.649, 737.0, 740.612, 749.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 699.565}, "reply_to": "20439__0_037", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20439__0_039", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [749.749], "stop_times": [749.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 749.749}, "reply_to": "20439__0_038", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_040", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Now, what example is there that's the closest, in the past, to the President having that kind of authority to pick and choose whom to tax, whom not to tax, with the standard of the national interest being the only control?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [749.999], "stop_times": [764.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 749.999}, "reply_to": "20439__0_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20439__0_041", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Justice Breyer, the question that you're raising is raising a question not under Article I but under the delegation doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [764.822], "stop_times": [772.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 764.822}, "reply_to": "20439__0_040", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_042", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [772.268], "stop_times": [772.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 772.268}, "reply_to": "20439__0_041", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20439__0_043", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "I want to make sure that I understand--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [772.378], "stop_times": [773.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 772.378}, "reply_to": "20439__0_042", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_044", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "That's exactly right.\nI'm accepting all your arguments up to that point, hypothetically.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [773.16, 773.851], "stop_times": [773.851, 776.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 773.16}, "reply_to": "20439__0_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20439__0_045", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--I'll bank that.\n[Laughter]\nThe... under the delegation doctrine, the question always is, after... well, at least in this century, whether Congress has supplied an intelligible principle or whether, as... under the test that this Court frequently announces, it is constitutionally significant if Congress clearly delineates the general policy, the public agency that is to implement the policy, and the boundaries of the delegated authority.\nNow, in your question you have posited an example in which Congress has given the President no intelligible principle other than the national interest.\nI think that raises a much more difficult question than we have here, because an argument could be made that the President is constitutionally required to act in the national interest, but the issue would be, is the principle sufficiently intelligible.\nNow, the best cases that we have for the historical precedence for giving the President discretionary authority to cancel limited tax cuts or revenue-generating or nonrevenue-losing provisions would be the cases that are recited in J. W. Hampton and in Skinner, where the President was often authorized to decide whether or not to collect duties or tariffs and several of these temporary provisions were permanent, and I think... you know, it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [776.582, 777.483, 779.787, 809.506, 819.444, 834.116], "stop_times": [777.483, 779.787, 809.506, 819.444, 834.116, 866.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 776.582}, "reply_to": "20439__0_044", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_046", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "But those were based on factual determinations that the President was entitled to make under the statute, weren't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [866.099], "stop_times": [872.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 866.099}, "reply_to": "20439__0_045", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20439__0_047", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--They were, and the issue... sometimes the determinations were specifically outlined, as in Field v. Clark, where it was very specific, and sometimes they were very, very general, and the issue then is only whether the President has a sufficiently intelligible principle.\nYou know, what's interesting about these old cases, and there are many, many of them, is that these were authorities that the President was exercising.\nThis was discretion he was exercising at a time in our country before we had an income tax and when in general the very large portion of the Federal revenues were raised by tariffs and custom duties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [872.163, 887.32, 896.287], "stop_times": [887.32, 896.287, 908.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 872.163}, "reply_to": "20439__0_046", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_048", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Well, in Justice Breyer's hypothetical, you and he seemed readily to agree that we can just look at this as a delegation problem.\nFrom the taxpayer's standpoint, this was a law that's been cancelled, and the taxpayer has an expectation the law's not going to be cancelled unless both Houses of Congress agree on it.\nDelegation is not just a subset of this larger problem, it seems to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [908.105, 916.853, 928.109], "stop_times": [916.853, 928.109, 933.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 908.105}, "reply_to": "20439__0_047", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20439__0_049", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [933.062], "stop_times": [933.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 933.062}, "reply_to": "20439__0_048", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_050", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "I don't think that larger problem goes away with Justice Breyer's hypothetical.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [933.292], "stop_times": [937.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 933.292}, "reply_to": "20439__0_049", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20439__0_051", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "I didn't mean to suggest that it would.\nI... there are two different bases for constitutional challenge.\nOne which I was discussing with Justice Breyer is whether or not there is a delegation of authority that exceeds what Congress may do under the Separation of Powers Clause.\nThe other constellation of issues relate to Article I, and I respectfully suggest that with respect to these limited tax cuts the Article I problem is even less than with respect to the other provisions, because this is not an example of the President repealing a provision of the law that Congress has enacted.\nWith respect to the limited tax cuts under section 691f, the Joint Committee on Taxation is required to go through and specify in the actual tax bill which provisions of the bill are limited tax cuts subject to the President's cancellation, so... and that's exactly what was done in this case in the Taxpayer Relief Act.\nThere is a provision in which the Congress has said, attention, Mr. President, please look at the following provisions.\nThese are limited tax cuts as to which you will have cancellation authority if you wish it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [937.035, 938.567, 943.059, 952.716, 972.62, 994.405, 1001.491], "stop_times": [938.567, 943.059, 952.716, 972.62, 994.405, 1001.491, 1007.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 937.035}, "reply_to": "20439__0_050", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_052", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "How does that affect a constitutional question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1007.444], "stop_times": [1009.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1007.444}, "reply_to": "20439__0_051", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20439__0_053", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Well, it... what it demonstrates, Chief Justice Rehnquist, is that what the President is doing is not repealing a provision of a law that Congress has enacted, but executing a discretionary authority that Congress has given him.\nLet me give you an example that was helpful to me when I first started thinking about this problem.\nIf Congress enacted a law... and there is a very precise historical precedence for this.\nCongress passed a law that contained 10 different spending items, but they put a provision in that basically said, in legalese, look, Mr. President, we think all 10 of these projects are worthwhile, but we're very concerned about the deficit, and we don't really think that the country ought to be funding more than eight of them.\nUse the following factors and pick whichever eight of the 10 you want.\nNobody, I suggest, would suggest that there is an Article I problem there.\nThe President--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1009.847, 1023.637, 1028.361, 1034.298, 1053.648, 1057.662, 1063.864], "stop_times": [1023.637, 1028.361, 1034.298, 1053.648, 1057.662, 1063.864, 1064.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1009.847}, "reply_to": "20439__0_052", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_054", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Well, if the factors are not factual, someone would suggest that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1064.625], "stop_times": [1069.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1064.625}, "reply_to": "20439__0_053", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20439__0_055", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--They--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1069.11], "stop_times": [1069.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1069.11}, "reply_to": "20439__0_054", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_056", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "If the... if in your example the factors that the Congress specified were straight fact as opposed to normative factors, we'd be back in the old cases that you and I referred to earlier, but if the example is a normative example, as in the public interest, then those cases are not authority, and you have, it seems to me, a very different Article I problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1069.798], "stop_times": [1094.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1069.798}, "reply_to": "20439__0_055", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20439__0_057", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1094.334], "stop_times": [1094.614], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1094.334}, "reply_to": "20439__0_056", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_058", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Or at least if you make some of those 10 not simply refusal to spend money, but elimination of taxes.\nI mean, you could get anything through on the basis of the prior authority the President has always had simply not to expend money which Congress has authorized but not... not compelled him to spend.\nThat's easy.\nBut make some of those 10 tax provisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1094.614, 1101.29, 1114.708, 1115.73], "stop_times": [1101.29, 1114.708, 1115.73, 1118.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1094.614}, "reply_to": "20439__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__0_059", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Well, again, this Court in Skinner stated that the standard for separation of powers analysis with respect to tax provisions is no different than it is with respect to spending provisions or any other provision in the Constitution under Article I.--\nThat is, the same standard of nondelegation applies, and it applies with particular force here because in the tax provision the Line Item Veto Act provides that the Congress will specify for the President in the actual bill that's... taxing bill that's presented to him which items he should... he may or may not cancel.\nNow, that may be... that may leave a delegation doctrine issue if you think that he doesn't have sufficient intelligible principles, but it is not a question of the President, by exercising a discretionary choice that Congress gives him in the law that's passed, an Article I problem, unless I'm seriously astray.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1118.932, 1138.643, 1160.919], "stop_times": [1138.643, 1160.919, 1180.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1118.932}, "reply_to": "20439__0_058", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_060", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Is there anything like, here's a laundry list of items, Mr. President.\nHere's a capital gains treatment for so-and-so, and relief from taxes from so-and-so.\nWe don't want to take the political heat for making the choice, so you pick.\nThat sounds to me like legislating.\nI mean, whatever legal dressing that you give to it, it's saying to the President, you make this hard choice that we don't want to make.\nWe're giving out all these plums to everybody and we don't want to take away any of them.\nYou do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1180.412, 1186.287, 1193.352, 1198.645, 1201.657, 1211.104, 1215.088], "stop_times": [1186.287, 1193.352, 1198.645, 1201.657, 1211.104, 1215.088, 1215.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1180.412}, "reply_to": "20439__0_059", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20439__0_061", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "And what's troublesome about your example, Justice Ginsburg, relates not to Article I, because the law has been passed and signed by the President, but to the separation of powers.\nCongress cannot, we know, delegate its law-making power.\nIt can't delegate the authority to make the laws, and if it just passes a law that says, here are two things we think are really nice, but we don't really have the money to spend and you just pick whichever one you want, I think the Court would appropriately say, look, the Congress has delegated its law-making function because it has not provided a \"intelligible principle\" by which the executive can exercise his discretion.\nIn this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1215.949, 1226.076, 1230.11, 1254.967], "stop_times": [1226.076, 1230.11, 1254.967, 1255.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1215.949}, "reply_to": "20439__0_060", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_062", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "What is the constitutional distinction between what you call law-making and law-repealing?\nThere isn't any.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1255.949, 1261.252], "stop_times": [1261.252, 1263.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1255.949}, "reply_to": "20439__0_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20439__0_063", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Between law-making and law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1263.693], "stop_times": [1265.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1263.693}, "reply_to": "20439__0_062", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_064", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "In Justice Ginsburg's example an appeal is being effected, and that is law-making.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1265.416], "stop_times": [1271.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1265.416}, "reply_to": "20439__0_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20439__0_065", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--If Congress... there is... it is not our contention that a repeal of a law can be effectuated by any means other than those specified in Article I.--\nIt is our contention, Justice Souter, that when Congress passes a law that contains two spending or taxing or tax cut provisions and says to the President, with whatever principles or not, you may choose which one of these to execute and which one not to, the President is exercising a discretionary authority that Congress has given him, and if they've given him sufficient intelligible principles, it's constitutional.\nNow, in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1271.391, 1282.599, 1311.479], "stop_times": [1282.599, 1311.479, 1312.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1271.391}, "reply_to": "20439__0_064", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_066", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Well, of course, that... this case is different, because it says you have... you can either implement both, one, or neither.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1312.33], "stop_times": [1318.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1312.33}, "reply_to": "20439__0_065", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20439__0_067", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--But--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1318.965], "stop_times": [1319.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1318.965}, "reply_to": "20439__0_066", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_068", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "That's what this case is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1319.626], "stop_times": [1320.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1319.626}, "reply_to": "20439__0_067", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20439__0_069", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Well, first of all, the Line Item Veto Act applies to three very, very specifically defined provisions relating to spending and revenue that account for a very small portion of the Federal budget deficit, and it provides that before an item will be cancellable it must satisfy each of three criteria, and even if it does, the President must make three different... make certain determinations.\nHe must take into consideration a number of factors that are specified, and he must identify for the Congress a number of factors in his cancellation message.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1320.657, 1349.495], "stop_times": [1349.495, 1360.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1320.657}, "reply_to": "20439__0_068", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_070", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Well, General Waxman, you say it applies only to a very small amount of spending, but if we uphold it here, it could then be extended to a vast amount of spending.\nI don't see that's a constitutional distinction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1360.064, 1370.001], "stop_times": [1370.001, 1372.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1360.064}, "reply_to": "20439__0_069", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20439__0_071", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "I think there would be a different question... we might be prepared to defend it, but there would be a different question if the President was given the authority to cancel existing items of direct spending, which would be the equivalent of the repeal of the effect of a prior law.\nHere, we're only talking about new spending, discretionary spending and new items of direct spending account for one-third, approximately one-third of the Federal budget.\nThe discretionary spending part is the same authority that the Presidents have clearly had since the first Congress not to spend the full amount of appropriated funds or to... you know, to act with almost complete discretion under lump sum appropriation authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1372.174, 1390.806, 1401.104], "stop_times": [1390.806, 1401.104, 1416.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1372.174}, "reply_to": "20439__0_070", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_072", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "This is--\n--You equate with spending letting people keep their money, and that is to say, not enforcing a tax?\nI mean, I'm not sure that's a proper equation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1416.615, 1416.825, 1424.762], "stop_times": [1416.825, 1424.762, 1428.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1416.615}, "reply_to": "20439__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__0_073", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Well, I'm not suggesting that there is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1428.144], "stop_times": [1429.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1428.144}, "reply_to": "20439__0_072", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_074", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Appropriations bills have always been treated differently, and when you extend it from simple appropriations and say the President, even though it's been appropriated, doesn't have to spend it, to... to the fact he can be given the option, you know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1429.516], "stop_times": [1441.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1429.516}, "reply_to": "20439__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__0_075", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--No, Justice Scalia, I... I was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1441.404], "stop_times": [1443.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1441.404}, "reply_to": "20439__0_074", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_076", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--It's your choice, enforce the tax or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1443.267], "stop_times": [1443.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1443.267}, "reply_to": "20439__0_075", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__0_077", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--We're not saying that.\nIt's not our position that, because the President has had historical discretionary authority, when Congress has given it to him, to decline to spend items or to abolish agencies, or transfer agency functions, therefore there's no difference with taxes.\nThe point I was making with the Chief Justice was the analogy between discretionary spending and what the law calls new items of direct spending.\nWith respect to the tax provisions, this ship is prepared to stand on its own bottom, which is, we think that there is independent historical precedent for Congress giving the President the discretionary authority to decline to implement certain revenue provisions upon the application of certain intelligible principles.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1443.797, 1445.33, 1460.751, 1468.827], "stop_times": [1445.33, 1460.751, 1468.827, 1487.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1443.797}, "reply_to": "20439__0_076", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_078", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "But throughout on that, on the particular... it's the same point, that I want to get something you almost said, and you stopped--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1487.13], "stop_times": [1493.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1487.13}, "reply_to": "20439__0_077", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20439__0_079", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1493.304], "stop_times": [1493.795], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1493.304}, "reply_to": "20439__0_078", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_080", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--just before you said it, and that is the reason that the... to uphold the tax provisions, you say, is not to give the President total authority under the Constitution to rule by decree, should Congress want him to do it, because there's an intelligible principle.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1493.795], "stop_times": [1512.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1493.795}, "reply_to": "20439__0_079", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20439__0_081", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1512.238], "stop_times": [1513.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1512.238}, "reply_to": "20439__0_080", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_082", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "And the intelligible principle, you say, is not just, do what's in the public interest, it is...?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1513.019], "stop_times": [1518.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1513.019}, "reply_to": "20439__0_081", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20439__0_083", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "The intelligible principle is that... first of all, in order for there to be a targeted tax cut, there has to be a baseline tax, but the President must determine, number 1, that cancellation will reduce the Federal budget deficit, and this is not, by the way, as the other side contends, an ipso facto claim, because many tax provisions are enacted on the notion and on the budgetary assumption that they will generate additional economic activity and raise taxes, and in that instance the President would not be able to make that determination... raise money and provide more taxes.\nSecondly, he must determine that it will not impair any essential Government function, that it will not harm the national interest, and in making those determinations the President is directed to consider the legislative history, the construction and purposes of the law which contains the item to be cancelled, which might relate, in the case of the State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1518.932, 1554.926], "stop_times": [1554.926, 1575.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1518.932}, "reply_to": "20439__0_082", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_084", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "How much time does he have to make these determinations?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1575.33], "stop_times": [1577.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1575.33}, "reply_to": "20439__0_083", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20439__0_085", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--He has 5 days after he signs the bill, which would give him a maximum of 10 days.\nNow, in the context of the... in the regime of the Budget Enforcement Act and Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, where OMB and CBO are required to make daily... weekly, if not daily calculations about where we are in terms of the budget baseline and the spending caps, there is a very important purpose to be served by requiring the President to decide yes or no, whether or not a particular item will be cancelled, and then to give the Congress the authority, particularly with respect to annual appropriations bills, to try and file... to enact, consider and enact a disapproval bill.\nI mean, the irony of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1577.881, 1582.494, 1620.25], "stop_times": [1582.494, 1620.25, 1621.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1577.881}, "reply_to": "20439__0_084", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_086", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "General Waxman, would you give... I'm coming back to Justice Breyer's question.\nWould you give me something a little more... that I can sink my teeth into?\nYou've told me what these things that the President cancels cannot be.\nThey cannot do this, and they cannot do that.\nThat limits the universe of what he can cancel.\nNow, once that universe is limited... they can't be this and they can't be that... what must they be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1621.281, 1624.463, 1627.765, 1632.62, 1635.682, 1639.975], "stop_times": [1624.463, 1627.765, 1632.62, 1635.682, 1639.975, 1645.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1621.281}, "reply_to": "20439__0_085", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__0_087", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Well, they must--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1645.959], "stop_times": [1647.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1645.959}, "reply_to": "20439__0_086", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_088", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "What is the criterion?\nI mean, to say you've just limited the universe of possible cancellations--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1647.489, 1647.759], "stop_times": [1647.759, 1652.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1647.489}, "reply_to": "20439__0_087", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__0_089", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Are we talking about tax benefits here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1652.624], "stop_times": [1653.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1652.624}, "reply_to": "20439__0_088", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_090", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Anything, the tax benefits or the elimination of spending.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1653.844], "stop_times": [1657.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1653.844}, "reply_to": "20439__0_089", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__0_091", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "The President... the only--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1657.346], "stop_times": [1658.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1657.346}, "reply_to": "20439__0_090", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_092", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "What is the criterion when he selects it?\nYou've told me what he can't cancel.\nNow, how does he decide what he must cancel?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1658.768, 1660.719, 1662.231], "stop_times": [1660.719, 1662.231, 1665.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1658.768}, "reply_to": "20439__0_091", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__0_093", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--He must determine, number 1, is this a cancellable item, which in the case of tax provisions, he's helped with by the legislation he's considering.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1665.604], "stop_times": [1673.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1665.604}, "reply_to": "20439__0_092", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_094", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1673.15], "stop_times": [1673.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1673.15}, "reply_to": "20439__0_093", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__0_095", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Because Congress tells him that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1673.381], "stop_times": [1674.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1673.381}, "reply_to": "20439__0_094", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_096", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "That just limits the universe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1674.56], "stop_times": [1675.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1674.56}, "reply_to": "20439__0_095", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__0_097", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Right.\nSecond of all, he must... he cannot cancel unless he makes the three determinations that I've said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1675.171, 1675.451], "stop_times": [1675.451, 1680.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1675.171}, "reply_to": "20439__0_096", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_098", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "All of which just limit the universe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1680.697], "stop_times": [1681.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1680.697}, "reply_to": "20439__0_097", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__0_099", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Right, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1681.605], "stop_times": [1682.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1681.605}, "reply_to": "20439__0_098", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_100", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "The universe is limited.\nWe have the universe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1682.196, 1682.937], "stop_times": [1682.937, 1683.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1682.196}, "reply_to": "20439__0_099", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__0_101", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--That's right, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1683.668], "stop_times": [1684.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1683.668}, "reply_to": "20439__0_100", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_102", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Now, how does he make the decision?\nWhat is the criterion that Congress has given him to pick what to cancel?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1684.429, 1685.411], "stop_times": [1685.411, 1689.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1684.429}, "reply_to": "20439__0_101", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__0_103", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--May I answer?\nHe is given in the statute a multitude of factors that he must consider and certify to Congress, and within that realm he has discretion, much less discretion than the FCC, or the SEC, or the ICC have been given.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1689.514, 1690.426, 1708.437], "stop_times": [1690.426, 1708.437, 1708.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1689.514}, "reply_to": "20439__0_102", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20439__0_104", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Thank you, General Waxman.\nMr. Cohen, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1708.787, 1709.999], "stop_times": [1709.999, 1712.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1708.787}, "reply_to": "20439__0_103", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20439__1_000", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI think the problem with the Line Item Veto Act is quite basic.\nThe legislative power is the power to write Federal statutes in their exact final form.\nThat power is vested in Congress, nontransferably.\nThe President's role in the legislative process is limited to approving or returning in whole each bill that's presented to him.\nThe act gives the President the power to edit tax and spending bills--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1712.331, 1720.088, 1724.242, 1730.447, 1735.281, 1744.206], "stop_times": [1720.088, 1724.242, 1730.447, 1735.281, 1744.206, 1750.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1712.331}, "reply_to": "20439__0_104", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_001", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Well, technically the President has to sign it, so it goes into effect, so you're really having to deal with what happens after that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1750.311], "stop_times": [1760.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1750.311}, "reply_to": "20439__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20439__1_002", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Yes, but what we have here, Justice O'Connor, is a device of saying, sign the bill first and then you can immediately cancel the parts you don't approve.\nThe two steps taken together signing and cancelling, together produce a statute that was not passed by either House of Congress.\nA post-enactment line item veto is functionally equivalent to a pre-enactment line item veto.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1760.046, 1776.137, 1785.074], "stop_times": [1776.137, 1785.074, 1791.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1760.046}, "reply_to": "20439__1_001", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_003", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "They say no.\nThey say that the statute... the provisions he cancels are not utterly ineffective, that they still have some legislative effect, namely the lockbox effect.\nWhat is your response to the lockbox argument, that those provisions at least have that effect of preventing future appropriations?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1791.066, 1791.647, 1802.866], "stop_times": [1791.647, 1802.866, 1811.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1791.066}, "reply_to": "20439__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__1_004", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "My response is that in my case, the Snake River case, where we're talking about cancelling a provision of the Internal Revenue Code, I don't think there is any lockbox effect, but even in the spending--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1811.033], "stop_times": [1822.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1811.033}, "reply_to": "20439__1_003", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_005", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "The lockbox applies only in he spending area?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1822.601], "stop_times": [1823.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1822.601}, "reply_to": "20439__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__1_006", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--I think that's right, but even in the spending context a lockbox is simply a congressional declaration that it won't otherwise spend money pursuant to a provision that Congress... that the President has cancelled.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1823.931], "stop_times": [1839.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1823.931}, "reply_to": "20439__1_005", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_007", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "That it won't, but it can, can't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1839.19], "stop_times": [1842.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1839.19}, "reply_to": "20439__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__1_008", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Well, it can by passing a new law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1842.033], "stop_times": [1844.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1842.033}, "reply_to": "20439__1_007", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_009", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Well, which the President has to sign.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1844.136], "stop_times": [1845.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1844.136}, "reply_to": "20439__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__1_010", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Which the President has to sign.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1845.916], "stop_times": [1847.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1845.916}, "reply_to": "20439__1_009", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_011", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "I mean, it can do anything by passing a new law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1847.258], "stop_times": [1848.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1847.258}, "reply_to": "20439__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__1_012", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Yes.\nI think that's my point, that the President's action here is final, and it takes congressional action to restore the appropriation that the President has cancelled or the tax provision that the President has cancelled.\nSeveral of General Waxman's arguments it seems to me pose the following hypothetical.\nHe suggests that because Congress is aware, when it passes a later statute, of the earlier Line Item Veto Act, it's no different from putting a cancellation provision in each bill.\nI think it is different in certain ways, but I also think that Congress couldn't do that, either.\nIf Congress were to pass an Internal Revenue Code of 1999 with a special provision saying, the President may cancel any one or more of the provisions of this law if the cancellation would raise tax revenues and not harm the United States, Congress would be abdicating its constitutional responsibility to write tax statutes, and I think the Court would say that as a matter of Article I law the Congress is giving the President something that the Constitution requires it to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1848.047, 1849.259, 1863.47, 1872.496, 1886.578, 1894.212], "stop_times": [1849.259, 1863.47, 1872.496, 1886.578, 1894.212, 1935.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1848.047}, "reply_to": "20439__1_011", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_013", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Suppose they add to it, and the cut must be in the public interest, convenience, and necessity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1935.549], "stop_times": [1940.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1935.549}, "reply_to": "20439__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__1_014", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Well, I said not contrary to the national interest.\nI don't think that helps.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1940.033, 1944.816], "stop_times": [1944.816, 1945.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1940.033}, "reply_to": "20439__1_013", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_015", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Oh, you think that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1945.647], "stop_times": [1945.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1945.647}, "reply_to": "20439__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__1_016", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "No, I think that's the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1945.817], "stop_times": [1946.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1945.817}, "reply_to": "20439__1_015", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_017", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Well, gee, we let the FCC do that.\nWhy wouldn't we trust the President at least as much as we trust the FCC?\nWe at least elect the President.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1946.829, 1948.63, 1951.832], "stop_times": [1948.63, 1951.832, 1953.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1946.829}, "reply_to": "20439__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__1_018", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "I think what we let the FCC do is regulate in the public interest as defined in a statutory context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1953.374], "stop_times": [1963.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1953.374}, "reply_to": "20439__1_017", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_019", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "There are many judgments that the FCC makes that are really constrained by nothing except public interest, convenience, and necessity, quite a few.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1963.002], "stop_times": [1969.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1963.002}, "reply_to": "20439__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__1_020", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "But the public interest itself has a historical and a statutory context.\nWe know what the FCC's responsibilities are.\nWe know who it regulates.\nBut I don't think you need even to get to the question whether this is delegation running riot, because I think you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1969.697, 1975.623, 1977.496, 1979.136], "stop_times": [1975.623, 1977.496, 1979.136, 1987.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1969.697}, "reply_to": "20439__1_019", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_021", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "It isn't running riot.\nIt's just a little bit.\nI think that's what saves the FCC.\nWell, it isn't the whole economy.\nIt's not like... you know, not like what Franklin Roosevelt tried to do with... in the sick chicken case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1987.604, 1987.915, 1988.586, 1990.679, 1991.761], "stop_times": [1987.915, 1988.586, 1990.679, 1991.761, 1999.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1987.604}, "reply_to": "20439__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__1_022", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1999.267], "stop_times": [1999.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1999.267}, "reply_to": "20439__1_021", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_023", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "But... it's very limited.\nBut this is very limited, too.\nIt's just a certain number of provisions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [1999.487, 2000.859, 2001.941], "stop_times": [2000.859, 2001.941, 2003.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1999.487}, "reply_to": "20439__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__1_024", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "No, it's 70--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2003.464], "stop_times": [2004.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2003.464}, "reply_to": "20439__1_023", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_025", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--of a certain sort.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2004.993], "stop_times": [2005.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2004.993}, "reply_to": "20439__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__1_026", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--It's 79 provisions, 79 tax provisions.\nIt could be 179 tax provisions.\nI don't see the difference between this and passing an entire code in which you say the President can cancel any of the provisions of this code if he determines that doing so would not be contrary to the national interest, which is all that this statute says, and I think what's wrong is that he is, by doing that, producing a truncated statute that Congress didn't pass, a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2005.194, 2008.706, 2011.848], "stop_times": [2008.706, 2011.848, 2044.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2005.194}, "reply_to": "20439__1_025", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_027", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Well, does your argument rest on our determining that somehow we look at it all together and decide that the Article I requirements were never met in the first place, or that, okay, it went into effect and it's an unconstitutional repeal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2044.489], "stop_times": [2062.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2044.489}, "reply_to": "20439__1_026", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20439__1_028", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, I think I win either way.\nI think that if you say there's no substantive, intervening event between these two steps, a long-winded President could take both steps literally in the same breadth, if he were alone in the room he could sign them in either order and just report what he's done, that there is no substantive distinction, and that this is a device to get around what General Waxman concedes would be unconstitutional.\nBut I also think that if you take that first step seriously, as a separate step, we now have an enacted law that the President is unilaterally repealing.\nTo be sure, Congress has given him the power to repeal it, but the question is whether Congress could constitutionally do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2062.051, 2064.364, 2089.88, 2105.01], "stop_times": [2064.364, 2089.88, 2105.01, 2114.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2062.051}, "reply_to": "20439__1_027", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_029", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Is the locked box provision in all respects constitutional, in your view?\nAt least it does give the President a choice between two different kinds of laws.\nHe spends or he locks, and the locking mechanism, according to the Government, has some very substantive, important effect.\nIt's different than just vetoing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2114.227, 2119.102, 2125.626, 2137.144], "stop_times": [2119.102, 2125.626, 2137.144, 2140.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2114.227}, "reply_to": "20439__1_028", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20439__1_030", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2140.727], "stop_times": [2141.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2140.727}, "reply_to": "20439__1_029", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_031", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Is the Government right about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2141.538], "stop_times": [2142.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2141.538}, "reply_to": "20439__1_030", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20439__1_032", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--No.\nFirst of all, as I said before, Justice Kennedy, it has no application to my Snake River case, which particularly relates to the Internal Revenue Code, but second, the lockbox I don't think saves a bill that says, you may declare a particular provision to be without legal force and effect.\nThe President isn't deciding to spend the money in some other way.\nHe's simply cancelling--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2142.63, 2142.87, 2167.817, 2171.62], "stop_times": [2142.87, 2167.817, 2171.62, 2172.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2142.63}, "reply_to": "20439__1_031", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_033", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Well, they say it's now going to have legal effect because it's in the locked box, and that's just a... that's another legal effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2172.752], "stop_times": [2177.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2172.752}, "reply_to": "20439__1_032", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20439__1_034", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--It's no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2177.146], "stop_times": [2180.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2177.146}, "reply_to": "20439__1_033", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_035", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "It's different, say, from simply vetoing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2180.518], "stop_times": [2182.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2180.518}, "reply_to": "20439__1_034", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20439__1_036", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Well, it's no different from the legal... I don't think it's any different from the legal effect of cancelling any other appropriation which Congress would therefore have to reappropriate if it wanted particular money spent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2182.431], "stop_times": [2197.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2182.431}, "reply_to": "20439__1_035", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_037", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Mr. Cohen, are you going to address the jurisdictional issues?\nI hate to ask this question, but you know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2197.732, 2199.865], "stop_times": [2199.865, 2203.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2197.732}, "reply_to": "20439__1_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__1_038", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Yes.\nI think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2203.077, 2204.279], "stop_times": [2204.279, 2204.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2203.077}, "reply_to": "20439__1_037", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_039", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--what's it to you?\n[Laughter]\nNone of these provisions directly affect your client at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2204.459, 2205.611, 2207.203], "stop_times": [2205.611, 2207.203, 2212.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2204.459}, "reply_to": "20439__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__1_040", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Yes, they do, and I really think our standing case is quite straightforward.\nCongress passed section 968 for the specific purpose of helping farmers buy processing facilities through their cooperatives.\nThis particular farmer and cooperative, Mr. Cranney and Snake River, were personally working actively to buy such facilities with the anticipated help of section 968.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2212.606, 2217.24, 2224.907], "stop_times": [2217.24, 2224.907, 2236.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2212.606}, "reply_to": "20439__1_039", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_041", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "It helped you to buy them by helping the seller to sell them--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2236.637], "stop_times": [2239.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2236.637}, "reply_to": "20439__1_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__1_042", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2239.939], "stop_times": [2240.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2239.939}, "reply_to": "20439__1_041", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_043", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2240.149], "stop_times": [2240.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2240.149}, "reply_to": "20439__1_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__1_044", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2240.369], "stop_times": [2240.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2240.369}, "reply_to": "20439__1_043", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_045", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "But what it did immediately was to help the seller to sell them.\nIf we had the seller in front of us, who said, I'm denied this tax benefit that I was going to get for selling the facility, I could understand it.\nBut what if you had a tax break that applied to somebody who was about to buy a car, and the automobile manufacturer comes in, he says, you know, he didn't buy the car because you took away the tax break.\nWould he have standing to come before us?\nAnd that's essentially the position that you're in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2240.81, 2243.384, 2250.2, 2264.051, 2265.613], "stop_times": [2243.384, 2250.2, 2264.051, 2265.613, 2267.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2240.81}, "reply_to": "20439__1_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__1_046", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "I think somebody who had taken sufficiently concrete steps toward... toward--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2267.416], "stop_times": [2275.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2267.416}, "reply_to": "20439__1_045", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_047", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Buying it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2275.941], "stop_times": [2276.351], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2275.941}, "reply_to": "20439__1_046", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20439__1_048", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Toward buying a car could have standing to challenge the cancellation of a tax provision that changed the price of the car.\nHere, the evidence--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2276.351, 2287.83], "stop_times": [2287.83, 2294.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2276.351}, "reply_to": "20439__1_047", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_049", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "I won't try to reduce it to the absurd, if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2294.084], "stop_times": [2296.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2294.084}, "reply_to": "20439__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__1_050", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2296.165], "stop_times": [2296.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2296.165}, "reply_to": "20439__1_049", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_051", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Are you relying on Congress' finding that the way to help the farmer's coops is to give this break to the potential seller?\nI mean, it was Congress'--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2296.515, 2309.644], "stop_times": [2309.644, 2310.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2296.515}, "reply_to": "20439__1_050", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20439__1_052", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Congress' finding and the Government's concession that that was the purpose of the statute, which they finally made in their reply brief, plus, the only evidence, and there is evidence in this case, which is Mr. Cranney's declaration, which is that he and Snake River were actively working, that there had been two actual transactions, that one of the actual transactions was more expensive because section 968 was not available, that they were working on another transaction which was premised on the availability of section 968--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2310.966], "stop_times": [2346.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2310.966}, "reply_to": "20439__1_051", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_053", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--I assume it was a transaction that was beneficial to both parties, or they wouldn't have entered into it right?\nIt was a voluntary deal.\nWhy isn't the seller here?\nI mean, you would think if this beneficial deal were destroyed by the law the seller would have had an objection, too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2346.739, 2350.312, 2351.333, 2352.535], "stop_times": [2350.312, 2351.333, 2352.535, 2359.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2346.739}, "reply_to": "20439__1_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__1_054", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Well, he simply chose not to litigate.\nWe're not talking just about one transaction.\nCranney's declaration also says there were ample other facilities available.\nThey... and that Snake River was interested in buying more than one facility... this was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2359.67, 2365.094, 2371.287, 2377.064], "stop_times": [2365.094, 2371.287, 2377.064, 2386.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2359.67}, "reply_to": "20439__1_053", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_055", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "I'm not just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2386.568], "stop_times": [2386.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2386.568}, "reply_to": "20439__1_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__1_056", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--an active program that Congress wanted to assist, and the assistance was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2386.818], "stop_times": [2391.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2386.818}, "reply_to": "20439__1_055", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_057", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--It might seem very reasonable for this case, but I really worry about what kind of standing law we establish if we say that someone who was indirectly benefited by a tax break and which... even if you add, and which indirect benefit was envisioned by Congress.\nCongress often envisions all sorts of indirect benefits from a tax break.\nIt's going to stimulate the economy.\nI mean, every... you know, there'll be more sales of hot dogs at the ball park or something.\nCan the hot dog vendor bring suit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2391.282, 2406.893, 2410.627, 2412.967, 2416.459], "stop_times": [2406.893, 2410.627, 2412.967, 2416.459, 2418.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2391.282}, "reply_to": "20439__1_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__1_058", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--It's got to be sufficiently specific, targeted toward a small group of beneficiaries, with beneficiaries who are actively pursuing it.\nIt seems to me that we're very much in the position of the plaintiffs in Associated General Contractors, the position of plaintiffs in Bryant v. Yellen, people who are interested in a business opportunity which they are actively pursuing, and an illegal act concretely and significantly, importantly interferes with their pursuit of a valuable business opportunity.\nEach case has got to be judged on its own merits on this kind of thing, but I think Judge Hogan's conclusion that it was highly likely that these plaintiffs would have been able to do particular transactions taking advantage of section 968 is amply supported by evidence that the Government never chose to challenge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2418.622, 2429.499, 2453.284], "stop_times": [2429.499, 2453.284, 2474.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2418.622}, "reply_to": "20439__1_057", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_059", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "And respect whether that was the raison d'etre for Congress passing in this.\nIt wasn't the processor, but it was the coop--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2474.92, 2480.564], "stop_times": [2480.564, 2483.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2474.92}, "reply_to": "20439__1_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20439__1_060", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Oh, I think that's very clear.\nI think that's very clear.\nThe congressional sponsors said that.\nThe structure of the act makes that clear.\nIt singles out... doesn't say the processor can sell to anybody it wants to and he gets the benefit.\nIt says the processor gets the benefit selling--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2483.087, 2484.398, 2485.69, 2487.222, 2489.666, 2494.982], "stop_times": [2484.398, 2485.69, 2487.222, 2489.666, 2494.982, 2496.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2483.087}, "reply_to": "20439__1_059", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_061", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--But that's not part of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2496.694], "stop_times": [2497.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2496.694}, "reply_to": "20439__1_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__1_062", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--The President agreed to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2497.626], "stop_times": [2498.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2497.626}, "reply_to": "20439__1_061", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_063", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--That's not part of the Article III analysis.\nWe don't ask for purposes of Article III whether you're within the scope of the intended benefit.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2498.414, 2501.028, 2507.323], "stop_times": [2501.028, 2507.323, 2507.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2498.414}, "reply_to": "20439__1_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__1_064", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2507.593], "stop_times": [2509.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2507.593}, "reply_to": "20439__1_063", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_065", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--That's discretionary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2509.125], "stop_times": [2511.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2509.125}, "reply_to": "20439__1_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__1_066", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--I think you ask for purposes of Article III whether the plaintiff has a sufficiently concrete--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2511.116], "stop_times": [2514.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2511.116}, "reply_to": "20439__1_065", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_067", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2514.218], "stop_times": [2514.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2514.218}, "reply_to": "20439__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__1_068", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--interest so that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2514.578], "stop_times": [2516.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2514.578}, "reply_to": "20439__1_067", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_069", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2516.69], "stop_times": [2517.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2516.69}, "reply_to": "20439__1_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__1_070", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--he would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2517.07], "stop_times": [2518.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2517.07}, "reply_to": "20439__1_069", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_071", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "It goes to concreteness, which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2518.633], "stop_times": [2521.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2518.633}, "reply_to": "20439__1_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__1_072", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--personally benefit in a tangible way--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2521.314], "stop_times": [2522.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2521.314}, "reply_to": "20439__1_071", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_073", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2522.974], "stop_times": [2523.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2522.974}, "reply_to": "20439__1_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__1_074", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--from the court's intervention.\nI think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2523.154, 2524.446], "stop_times": [2524.446, 2525.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2523.154}, "reply_to": "20439__1_073", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_075", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "And no proximity requirement.\nThere's no proximity requirement, just an Article III, just concrete injury, no matter how remote.\nIf you can show that that ripple in the pond affected you, no matter how remote it was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2525.357, 2526.267, 2532.23], "stop_times": [2526.267, 2532.23, 2538.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2525.357}, "reply_to": "20439__1_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__1_076", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2538.077], "stop_times": [2538.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2538.077}, "reply_to": "20439__1_075", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_077", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--you have Article III standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2538.454], "stop_times": [2539.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2538.454}, "reply_to": "20439__1_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__1_078", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "No.\nI think he has to have... there has to be a realistic possibility, at least, of a transaction.\nHere a transaction was highly likely, and there has to be a significant--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2539.466, 2539.676, 2547.643], "stop_times": [2539.676, 2547.643, 2552.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2539.466}, "reply_to": "20439__1_077", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_079", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "That doesn't go to remoteness.\nThat goes to whether you can show that it actually hurt you.\nYou say you... if you can show that it actually hurt you, no matter how remote from the... from what you're complaining about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2552.357, 2552.497, 2554.771], "stop_times": [2552.497, 2554.771, 2560.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2552.357}, "reply_to": "20439__1_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__1_080", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--I think the Court's opinion in Bennett v. Spear makes it clear that you can have a chain of causation and you don't have to have the last link in the chain--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2560.817], "stop_times": [2570.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2560.817}, "reply_to": "20439__1_079", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_081", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Thank you, Mr. Cohen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2570.873], "stop_times": [2571.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2570.873}, "reply_to": "20439__1_080", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20439__1_082", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2571.955], "stop_times": [2573.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2571.955}, "reply_to": "20439__1_081", "speaker": "deputy_solicitor_general_louis_r_cohen"}
{"id": "20439__1_083", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Mr. Cooper, we'll hear from you.\nSince we're already on the subject of standing, why don't you start with that for the New York petitioner... the respondents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2573.003, 2575.006], "stop_times": [2575.006, 2591.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2573.003}, "reply_to": "20439__1_082", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20439__2_000", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nCertainly, Justice O'Connor.\nMy friend General Waxman says that the plaintiffs in the New York City case have not got standing because they have not been denied a single dollar, and it is true that we haven't been denied a single dollar, but we nonetheless have actual harm and we have a very serious threat of imminent harm.\nFirst, with respect to actual harm, what if section 4722(c) had said that the United States Treasury will indemnify the State of New York, dollar for dollar, for any lost medicaid funds if HCFA doesn't grant the waivers?\nYour Honor, losing that insurance policy would clearly be an injury to my clients.\nThe insurance industry is based upon the notion that that is a valuable commodity, and trillions of dollars exchange hands every year on that reality.\nWe had something much better than an insurance policy against loss from an adverse decision.\nWe had a favorable decision, so as a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2591.155, 2594.127, 2596.05, 2615.593, 2634.355, 2642.249, 2655.847, 2661.781], "stop_times": [2594.127, 2596.05, 2615.593, 2634.355, 2642.249, 2655.847, 2661.781, 2666.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2591.155}, "reply_to": "20439__1_083", "speaker": "charles_j_cooper"}
{"id": "20439__2_001", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "I'm wondering, on your indemnity example, it would be at least premature to bring it.\nSuppose the chances were 99 percent that the indemnity would never have to be paid, could you then sue... oh, well, we might need this indemnity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2666.165, 2670.239], "stop_times": [2670.239, 2681.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2666.165}, "reply_to": "20439__2_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20439__2_002", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Your Honor, when I leave this Court I'll get in my car, and the chances are extremely slim that I will run into you, but I won't get into my car without liability insurance, and I've paid a lot of money for that liability insurance, Your Honor.\nHere, the chances that they're going to waive... that they're going to deny our waivers are very good.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2681.786, 2697.117], "stop_times": [2697.117, 2703.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2681.786}, "reply_to": "20439__2_001", "speaker": "charles_j_cooper"}
{"id": "20439__2_003", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Oh, but it's different, because your conduct is affected by knowing you have the insurance policy, and that's not true here.\nThis was an after-the-fact enactment by the Congress, so it's quite a different hypothetical, really.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2703.23, 2707.704], "stop_times": [2707.704, 2713.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2703.23}, "reply_to": "20439__2_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20439__2_004", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2713.158], "stop_times": [2713.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2713.158}, "reply_to": "20439__2_003", "speaker": "charles_j_cooper"}
{"id": "20439__2_005", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "It's as if there were already an injury and there might not be a lawsuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2713.749], "stop_times": [2719.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2713.749}, "reply_to": "20439__2_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20439__2_006", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--No, there was an injury before we received section 47229(c).\nThe Government said that the medicaid funds belonged to them and under the statute, that was true.\nThey were the property of the United States.\nAfter the cancellation, as a matter of law, that money belonged to my clients.\nNow, once the cancellation has gone into effect, the United States Government again says that as a matter of law, the medicaid laws, the money belongs to them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2719.165, 2724.64, 2733.015, 2737.086, 2743.051], "stop_times": [2724.64, 2733.015, 2737.086, 2743.051, 2753.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2719.165}, "reply_to": "20439__2_005", "speaker": "charles_j_cooper"}
{"id": "20439__2_007", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "It belongs to your clients, or does it belong to New York State?\nI guess I'm not up on these--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2753.178, 2755.319], "stop_times": [2755.319, 2757.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2753.178}, "reply_to": "20439__2_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__2_008", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Your Honor, New York State has enacted State laws that pass through that loss.\nThis burden will land on our shoulders.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2757.83, 2764.435], "stop_times": [2764.435, 2766.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2757.83}, "reply_to": "20439__2_007", "speaker": "charles_j_cooper"}
{"id": "20439__2_009", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Ah, but that's the problem in New York law.\nIt isn't... in other words, it isn't this statute that prevents the money from getting to your clients.\nIt's a New York statute, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2766.678, 2767.917, 2772.452], "stop_times": [2767.917, 2772.452, 2774.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2766.678}, "reply_to": "20439__2_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__2_010", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "That's true, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2774.355], "stop_times": [2775.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2774.355}, "reply_to": "20439__2_009", "speaker": "charles_j_cooper"}
{"id": "20439__2_011", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "You're saying that because there is this other thing, res inter alia... inter alius acta, right, something that pertains to somebody else, you won't get the money.\nWhat if you had a wager with somebody that you'd get the money, and that cancellation causes you to lose that wager, would that give you standing to come before us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2775.685, 2786.593], "stop_times": [2786.593, 2796.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2775.685}, "reply_to": "20439__2_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__2_012", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Your Honor, I doubt the wager could be enforced--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2796.089], "stop_times": [2798.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2796.089}, "reply_to": "20439__2_011", "speaker": "charles_j_cooper"}
{"id": "20439__2_013", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Oh, no, this is in a State that allows... encourages wagering, as a matter of fact.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2798.56, 2802.431], "stop_times": [2802.431, 2803.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2798.56}, "reply_to": "20439__2_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__2_014", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Your Honor, we have much more than a wager here.\nWe have a law of many years standing, or many laws of many years standing in New York State which say that if these waivers are denied, if the taxes themselves are declared impermissible, it follows as a matter of State law that the health care providers must pay... must essentially give that money back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2803.613, 2807.275], "stop_times": [2807.275, 2830.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2803.613}, "reply_to": "20439__2_013", "speaker": "charles_j_cooper"}
{"id": "20439__2_015", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "So the only contingency on your argument is whether the Secretary is going to act to bail you out, and your point there is, the President in effect has said that she won't, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2830.391], "stop_times": [2839.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2830.391}, "reply_to": "20439__2_014", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20439__2_016", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Your Honor, that's not the only contingency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2839.928], "stop_times": [2841.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2839.928}, "reply_to": "20439__2_015", "speaker": "charles_j_cooper"}
{"id": "20439__2_017", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "What's... what else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2841.741], "stop_times": [2843.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2841.741}, "reply_to": "20439__2_016", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20439__2_018", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Well, Congress could pass--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2843.501], "stop_times": [2844.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2843.501}, "reply_to": "20439__2_017", "speaker": "charles_j_cooper"}
{"id": "20439__2_019", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Okay, under existing law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2844.933], "stop_times": [2847.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2844.933}, "reply_to": "20439__2_018", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20439__2_020", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--another law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2847.324], "stop_times": [2847.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2847.324}, "reply_to": "20439__2_019", "speaker": "charles_j_cooper"}
{"id": "20439__2_021", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Under existing law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2847.504], "stop_times": [2848.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2847.504}, "reply_to": "20439__2_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20439__2_022", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Under existing law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2848.125], "stop_times": [2848.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2848.125}, "reply_to": "20439__2_021", "speaker": "charles_j_cooper"}
{"id": "20439__2_023", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "You know, New York could change it's law, too, but under existing law, there's the one contingency left, right, and you're saying that does not count against us for standing because the President in effect has said that's not going to happen, otherwise I wouldn't be reducing the deficit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2848.566], "stop_times": [2862.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2848.566}, "reply_to": "20439__2_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20439__2_024", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Your Honor, that's true.\nI mean, the President has not allowed the United States Congress to grant these waivers.\nIt is unlikely in the extreme he's going to allow little old HCFA to grant us these waivers, and Your Honor, the fact that there is another method for New York to achieve complete relief doesn't reduce in any way the value of the method that has already yielded complete success.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2862.417, 2863.827, 2868.731], "stop_times": [2863.827, 2868.731, 2889.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2862.417}, "reply_to": "20439__2_023", "speaker": "charles_j_cooper"}
{"id": "20439__2_025", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Mr. Cooper, I don't know why you didn't accept the wager hypothetical.\nIt seems to me a wager's a lot like a lawsuit, that if you have a lawsuit, a wager pending which you may win or may lose and Congress passes a law and says you lose, it seems to me you're hurt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2889.375, 2891.908], "stop_times": [2891.908, 2901.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2889.375}, "reply_to": "20439__2_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20439__2_026", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2901.164], "stop_times": [2902.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2901.164}, "reply_to": "20439__2_025", "speaker": "charles_j_cooper"}
{"id": "20439__2_027", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "So I think a wager's a very good example, is what I'm suggesting.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2902.777, 2906.781], "stop_times": [2906.781, 2907.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2902.777}, "reply_to": "20439__2_026", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20439__2_028", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "And I certainly accept your vast improvement over my answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2907.499], "stop_times": [2911.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2907.499}, "reply_to": "20439__2_027", "speaker": "charles_j_cooper"}
{"id": "20439__2_029", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Can I ask you one--\n--And that's all it takes, just that you're hurt?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2911.863, 2912.184], "stop_times": [2912.184, 2913.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2911.863}, "reply_to": "20439__2_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__2_030", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Excuse me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2913.416], "stop_times": [2914.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2913.416}, "reply_to": "20439__2_029", "speaker": "charles_j_cooper"}
{"id": "20439__2_031", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "If you're hurt, you can sue, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2914.634], "stop_times": [2916.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2914.634}, "reply_to": "20439__2_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__2_032", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "If you're injured in fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2916.577], "stop_times": [2917.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2916.577}, "reply_to": "20439__2_031", "speaker": "charles_j_cooper"}
{"id": "20439__2_033", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Injured in fact.\nYou're way out at the edge of the pond and a ripple reaches you.\nSo long as you prove that the ripple reaches you, you can come into court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2917.967, 2918.427, 2921.409], "stop_times": [2918.427, 2921.409, 2924.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2917.967}, "reply_to": "20439__2_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__2_034", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2924.972], "stop_times": [2925.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2924.972}, "reply_to": "20439__2_033", "speaker": "charles_j_cooper"}
{"id": "20439__2_035", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "No matter how many intervening actors, New York State, you know, the agricultural coop, whatever.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2925.392], "stop_times": [2931.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2925.392}, "reply_to": "20439__2_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__2_036", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Your Honor, I wouldn't be making this argument if I were here to say that New York might pass laws that would then shift this burden onto my shoulders.\nThat would be speculative.\nBut New York has passed the laws, Your Honor.\nThis will happen as a matter of law unless New York repeals its laws, which is no less speculative than if Congress acts now a third law to adjust these rights and interests.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2931.267, 2943.955, 2945.607, 2948.229], "stop_times": [2943.955, 2945.607, 2948.229, 2960.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2931.267}, "reply_to": "20439__2_035", "speaker": "charles_j_cooper"}
{"id": "20439__2_037", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Why didn't the State join this lawsuit, Mr. Cooper?\nWe don't have the State of New York in here, and that's puzzling.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2960.177, 2963.332], "stop_times": [2963.332, 2967.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2960.177}, "reply_to": "20439__2_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20439__2_038", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Your Honor, the record isn't revealing on this, and I have nothing other than rumor and speculation to offer to you on that issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2967.613], "stop_times": [2975.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2967.613}, "reply_to": "20439__2_037", "speaker": "charles_j_cooper"}
{"id": "20439__2_039", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Well, then, don't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2975.848], "stop_times": [2976.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2975.848}, "reply_to": "20439__2_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20439__2_040", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "But--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2976.479], "stop_times": [2977.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2976.479}, "reply_to": "20439__2_039", "speaker": "charles_j_cooper"}
{"id": "20439__2_041", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "It's disappointing though, you know.\nWe went into a big wind-up last year also, without a pitch, and you would have thought that whoever wanted to bring it back would have gotten somebody who had been immediately affected by this case, and it's astounding that we get two people who are... you know, they're down the line.\nWell, there are probably a lot of people who don't want to lose all their profits by paying lawyers.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [2977.19, 2978.812, 2994.353, 2999.147], "stop_times": [2978.812, 2994.353, 2999.147, 3002.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2977.19}, "reply_to": "20439__2_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__2_042", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Well, that answer definitely has some seriousness to it.\nThere are a lot of people in the back of the canoe not pulling an oar in this case, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [3002.758, 3007.221], "stop_times": [3007.221, 3013.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3002.758}, "reply_to": "20439__2_041", "speaker": "charles_j_cooper"}
{"id": "20439__2_043", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Can I ask you one--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [3013.268], "stop_times": [3013.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3013.268}, "reply_to": "20439__2_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20439__2_044", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--but we're injured, and that's the issue, perhaps downstream, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [3013.405], "stop_times": [3016.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3013.405}, "reply_to": "20439__2_043", "speaker": "charles_j_cooper"}
{"id": "20439__2_045", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--With respect to the... another piece of this threshold issue, you have no individuals in this group unless... you have a couple of unions, and they have members, so what is the harm to the unions and their members that would give them standing to be in this assemblage of plaintiffs?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [3016.648], "stop_times": [3040.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3016.648}, "reply_to": "20439__2_044", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20439__2_046", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Their harm is one step farther downstream, I will grant you.\nIt is that the loss of $2.6 billion in medicaid matching funds is going to have a very real and very serious effect on health care providers in the State of New York and will be visited directly in terms of the employment opportunities of those health care providers which the unions represent.\nBut I don't have to rely upon my union members, in my opinion, to satisfy the individual requirement of the Line Item Veto Act.\nThat term is amenable to an interpretation that it would include the other clients that I represent, Justice Ginsburg, and to interpret it the way General Waxman suggests would really be quite absurd.\nIt would make no sense at all for Congress to want this case in this Court for resolution of this constitutional issue as quickly as possible and then say only natural persons can take that expedited route, and all other persons, municipalities, States, my clients, have to go through a lengthy sojourn through the normal litigation process, including the court of appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [3040.904, 3045.658, 3066.3, 3074.637, 3090.155], "stop_times": [3045.658, 3066.3, 3074.637, 3090.155, 3115.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3040.904}, "reply_to": "20439__2_045", "speaker": "charles_j_cooper"}
{"id": "20439__2_047", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Can I ask you one question on the merits, if you're finished with the standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [3115.214], "stop_times": [3118.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3115.214}, "reply_to": "20439__2_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20439__2_048", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "I certainly am.\nI'd love to get to the merits, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [3118.346, 3118.906], "stop_times": [3118.906, 3120.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3118.346}, "reply_to": "20439__2_047", "speaker": "charles_j_cooper"}
{"id": "20439__2_049", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "I've one... the question I have, which is really my only question here, is this.\nAssume with me for a second that the Solicitor General... assume... is right that this isn't really a legislative veto statute.\nThat's the title, but that's not what it's about.\nThere is a law, a law of the United States.\nThe budget has been signed.\nThen the question is, could Congress delegate to the President the authority... and let's take what I think is the hardest part, the authority to take 100 human beings that have received in 100 provisions 100 tax benefits, all different ones, and the Congress says to the President, Mr. President, those people will not be taxed next year, but we give to you the authority to pick and choose among them and impose certain taxes on them, according to a standard.\nNow, I take it what he says is, the standard has to be... it has to be really revenue-raising, it can't harm an essential function, it has to be in the national interest and, Mr. President, you have to read the bill, you have to give your reasons, you have to look through the entire thing carefully, taking into account its history and purposes, and probably a word that might come to mind is, is it pork?\nAll right.\nAssuming that they tell the President to do all that in respect to taxes, how is that different than telling the FCC to go look through people in the communications area and give licenses or not, or make other rules and regs or not in respect to \"the public interest\"?\nIf you can do the one under the Constitution, why can't you do the other?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [3120.086, 3125.411, 3134.086, 3136.036, 3139.79, 3141.22, 3174.311, 3198.409, 3199.488, 3219.933], "stop_times": [3125.411, 3134.086, 3136.036, 3139.79, 3141.22, 3174.311, 3198.409, 3199.488, 3219.933, 3224.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3120.086}, "reply_to": "20439__2_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20439__2_050", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Your Honor, we don't tell the FCC that it can rescind a law, that it can render a law of no force and effect.\nThat's what Congress has told the President he may do.\nGeneral Waxman has said that repeals must satisfy the Presentment Clause, and there's no room for General Waxman or anyone else to argue otherwise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [3224.905, 3233.791, 3238.103], "stop_times": [3233.791, 3238.103, 3248.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3224.905}, "reply_to": "20439__2_049", "speaker": "charles_j_cooper"}
{"id": "20439__2_051", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "What about the lockbox effect?\nDo you maintain there is no effect once there is a cancellation?\nIs there an effect on what Congress can later enact?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [3248.24, 3249.309, 3254.484], "stop_times": [3249.309, 3254.484, 3257.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3248.24}, "reply_to": "20439__2_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__2_052", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Let me answer this, what different effect would there be if the statute, instead of using the term cancel, and defining it to mean repeal, had said repeal?\nThere would be no difference in the operation of this statute.\nAnd with respect to the lockbox specifically, Your Honor, that simply makes clear that the President has only a repeal power.\nHe doesn't have a power of revision.\nHe can't take that money and do something he would prefer to do with it, and neither can Congress.\nBut if Congress wants to spend that money again, whether it's in a lockbox or not, what does it have to do?\nIt has to pass a new law.\nAnd without the lockbox that would be true.\nWith the lockbox, that is true.\nThe only difference is, it may well be that they have to add another sentence to the statute that they enacted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [3257.617, 3266.933, 3270.056, 3278.831, 3280.183, 3284.744, 3292.211, 3294.301, 3297.153, 3299.336], "stop_times": [3266.933, 3270.056, 3278.831, 3280.183, 3284.744, 3292.211, 3294.301, 3297.153, 3299.336, 3304.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3257.617}, "reply_to": "20439__2_051", "speaker": "charles_j_cooper"}
{"id": "20439__2_053", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "No, but the lockbox puts into effect, as I understand it... correct me if I'm wrong... certain mechanisms under the Budget Deficit Reduction Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [3304.892], "stop_times": [3311.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3304.892}, "reply_to": "20439__2_052", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20439__2_054", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Yes.\nWell--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [3311.818, 3312.378], "stop_times": [3312.378, 3312.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3311.818}, "reply_to": "20439__2_053", "speaker": "charles_j_cooper"}
{"id": "20439__2_055", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "So that here the President is making one of two choices, each of which alter the situation from where it was before the law was enacted in the first place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [3312.859], "stop_times": [3322.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3312.859}, "reply_to": "20439__2_054", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20439__2_056", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Your Honor, I have to confess I've never met anyone who understood entirely the operation of the lockbox, but it... one thing that simply cannot be escaped or blinked is the fact that when the President cancels a provision, under the act itself, it extinguishes the authority.\nIt extinguishes the law itself.\nThat operates on the law, not the money.\nThis isn't a spending discretion, and the Solicitor General has made a very powerful presentation for the proposition that Congress can give sweeping spending authority to the President and has since the First Congress.\nWe don't resist that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [3322.634, 3347.091, 3349.024, 3352.149, 3365.369], "stop_times": [3347.091, 3349.024, 3352.149, 3365.369, 3366.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3322.634}, "reply_to": "20439__2_055", "speaker": "charles_j_cooper"}
{"id": "20439__2_057", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "May I ask you, Mr. Cooper, because I frankly am troubled with this lockbox idea, but is it any different if, after the particular item is put in the lockbox, than if it had never been enacted in the first place and, if so, what is the difference, the particular provision that goes into the lockbox?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [3366.37], "stop_times": [3384.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3366.37}, "reply_to": "20439__2_056", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20439__2_058", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Your Honor, I honestly am not entirely sure, but I will grant the Solicitor General that it may well be that that money is treated differently than if it had never--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [3384.502], "stop_times": [3403.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3384.502}, "reply_to": "20439__2_057", "speaker": "charles_j_cooper"}
{"id": "20439__2_059", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "It's counted against what expenditures have been made.\nEven if the President ultimately doesn't use it, it's counted, since the law has been passed which authorized it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [3403.533, 3406.146], "stop_times": [3406.146, 3412.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3403.533}, "reply_to": "20439__2_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20439__2_060", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "--Yes, but I think it's a function of fact that the money came into existence, the authority to spend the money came into existence, which is the only difference between that and a true line item veto, so that reality is what gives rise to the necessity--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [3412.21], "stop_times": [3428.271], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3412.21}, "reply_to": "20439__2_059", "speaker": "charles_j_cooper"}
{"id": "20439__2_061", "conversation_id": "20439", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Cooper.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1374", "start_times": [3428.271, 3429.473], "stop_times": [3429.473, 3449.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3428.271}, "reply_to": "20439__2_060", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20675__0_000", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-1923, Edward S. Cohen v. Hilda de la Cruz.\nMr. Ayer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [0.0, 9.137], "stop_times": [9.137, 10.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20675__0_001", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nSection 523 (a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code creates an exception to discharge for individual bankruptcies applicable to, quote, debts for money, property, services, or extensions of credit to the extent obtained by fraud.\nThe required fraud under that section includes not only representations that are consciously false, but also reckless false statements, and the issue in this case is whether this exception reaches beyond the amounts actually obtained by the debtor to except from discharge a treble damage award ordered for reckless fraud.\nWhere the fraud involves intentional falsehoods and results in wilful and malicious injury, the damages, punitive and otherwise, are nondischargeable under a different section, 523 (a)(6).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [10.018, 12.058, 26.148, 44.261], "stop_times": [12.058, 26.148, 44.261, 54.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.018}, "reply_to": "20675__0_000", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_002", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "And you agree with that reading?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [54.998], "stop_times": [56.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 54.998}, "reply_to": "20675__0_001", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20675__0_003", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "We do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [56.049], "stop_times": [56.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 56.049}, "reply_to": "20675__0_002", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_004", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "So then you would have a lack of parallelism between the section you're addressing here and subsections (4) and subsection (6).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [56.358], "stop_times": [64.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 56.358}, "reply_to": "20675__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20675__0_005", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "We would Your Honor and, in fact, we think that's quite clear from the language, that the structure of the 523 sections as they work, given the literal reading of 523 (a)(2), works quite well.\n523 (a)(2) is a provision which, by its terms, is directed to the actual fruits of the fraud.\nIt's a simple, clear directive that tells people, if they commit fraud, what they get by the fraud will not be discharged.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [64.995, 77.676, 84.571], "stop_times": [77.676, 84.571, 90.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 64.995}, "reply_to": "20675__0_004", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_006", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Would that include accounting... if the defrauding party, the wrongdoer, makes profits from the property that he steals, are those profits recoverable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [90.875], "stop_times": [101.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 90.875}, "reply_to": "20675__0_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20675__0_007", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "I think they would not be, Your Honor.\nI think that... that the other provisions that deal with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [101.2, 102.311], "stop_times": [102.311, 105.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 101.2}, "reply_to": "20675__0_006", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_008", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "That's property obtained by the fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [105.714], "stop_times": [107.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 105.714}, "reply_to": "20675__0_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20675__0_009", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--Well, it... I think the most reasonable interpretation is to focus upon the amounts obtained by the act of the fraud, which I would think most immediately would be the amounts obtained in the fraud.\nWhat is very--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [107.735, 118.732], "stop_times": [118.732, 119.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 107.735}, "reply_to": "20675__0_008", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_010", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "So you think it wouldn't even include attorney's fees and costs in the very action in which the recovery is made?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [119.533], "stop_times": [126.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 119.533}, "reply_to": "20675__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20675__0_011", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--I think it would not, Your Honor.\nI think that the other provisions, the (a)(6) provision in particular, which this Court will address tomorrow in the Geiger case, is a provision which is generally applicable, essentially, among other things, to all torts, and it sets a standard which says wilful and... a debt for wilful and malicious injury.\nThat has been interpreted reasonably, we think, to include punitive damages, to include other penalty sums, to include consequential damages, to include contractually arranged for attorney's fees, and is a reasonable and uniform way of dealing with what I'll call damages and consequential payments that are owed.\nOur--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [126.819, 127.3, 143.679, 162.182], "stop_times": [127.3, 143.679, 162.182, 162.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 126.819}, "reply_to": "20675__0_010", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_012", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Your answer to Justice O'Connor, it seems to me, follows easily from the answer you gave me.\nI think attorney's fees are even further removed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [162.432, 166.967], "stop_times": [166.967, 169.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 162.432}, "reply_to": "20675__0_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20675__0_013", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [169.108], "stop_times": [169.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 169.108}, "reply_to": "20675__0_012", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_014", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--under your interpretation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [169.308], "stop_times": [170.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 169.308}, "reply_to": "20675__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20675__0_015", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [170.5], "stop_times": [171.289], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 170.5}, "reply_to": "20675__0_014", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_016", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--than profits that the tortfeasor gains.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [171.289], "stop_times": [176.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 171.289}, "reply_to": "20675__0_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20675__0_017", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Correct.\nNow, one interesting result of our interpretation, and it actually is played out in some detail in a decision cited in the Solicitor General's brief, a Tenth Circuit case, In re Gerlach, is that actually the amount awarded under (a)(2), when you focus on the act of fraud and what is obtained, may actually exceed, in some cases, the damages that are otherwise owing, and in that sense it seems it is a very rational and sensible message to people who may commit fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [176.183, 177.125], "stop_times": [177.125, 204.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 176.183}, "reply_to": "20675__0_016", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_018", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Say that again.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [204.022], "stop_times": [204.159], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 204.022}, "reply_to": "20675__0_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20675__0_019", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Well, in the context... specifically, the context in Gerlach was a context where the operator of a business selling heavy equipment, selling John Deere tractors, initially got an extension of credit from John Deere, legitimately, but later on they got an extension of that credit by submitting false invoices to show they were doing business that they weren't doing.\nThe Court in Gerlach said that the later extensions of credit involved the obtaining of money by fraud, and as a result the entire amount of the debt that was owed was, in fact, covered by (a)(2), even though there might in that case be no damages at all, so I... the only point I want to make is that our point is that in (a)(2) you're dealing with what was obtained.\nThe other sections under the code, (a)(6) but also others, also (a)(4), also (a)(11), other... others deal with money that is gained by fraud, and they set up a different logic.\nThe logic is, what did you... what the debt is for, the injury, and the injury is interpreted broadly, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [204.159, 225.354, 247.918, 261.108], "stop_times": [225.354, 247.918, 261.108, 267.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 204.159}, "reply_to": "20675__0_018", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_020", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "How does Gerlach work?\nIn other words, the Bankruptcy Code supersedes State tort law on the measure of recovery for fraud, in the John Deere case that you're describing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [267.602, 268.333], "stop_times": [268.333, 276.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 267.602}, "reply_to": "20675__0_019", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20675__0_021", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--I think the net result is that... is that it... to whatever extent there is a debt it would be nondischargeable under (a)(2) if it is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [276.768], "stop_times": [287.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 276.768}, "reply_to": "20675__0_020", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_022", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Ah, to the extent there is a debt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [287.064], "stop_times": [288.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 287.064}, "reply_to": "20675__0_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20675__0_023", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--Well, there has to be a debt, obviously, but it may, in fact, be a debt that is larger than the amount that is damages as a result of the fraud.\nI guess that's the point that I want to make.\nBack briefly to the facts of this case, which I think are important.\nThe respondents here are some of the tenants of an 18-unit apartment building that was owned by the petitioner and his father between 1985 and 1989.\nWhen their apartment rental business failed in the late eighties as a result of falling real estate values, petitioner filed bankruptcy under Chapter 7.\nThereafter, the rent control administrator entered an order to the effect that there had been an overcharge of these tenants which amounted to $31,000 and the bankruptcy court held that the overcharge was nondischargeable under the (a)(2) provision.\nThe court found further that actual fraud existed in that case on the ground that the act of charging rents was itself an implicit representation of their legality and, second, that petitioner's recklessness in failing to determine what the correct rents were was sufficient to establish an intent to deceive and, finally, the bankruptcy court held that because the overcharges amounted to fraud, treble damages were appropriate under the New Jersey consumer fraud statute and then found that that amount, indeed, also was nondischargeable.\nOur view is, as is apparent already, I guess, that that result is wrong.\nIt's wrong essentially for three reasons: 1) the plain language of the statute, which talks about debts for money, property, services, extensions of credit to the extent obtained by fraud clearly doesn't include the amounts that are punitive in nature--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [288.356, 296.28, 298.291, 304.248, 313.661, 321.856, 337.498, 369.297, 375.314], "stop_times": [296.28, 298.291, 304.248, 313.661, 321.856, 337.498, 369.297, 375.314, 392.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 288.356}, "reply_to": "20675__0_022", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_024", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Well, I don't know that it's all that clear from the language.\nWhat does debt for mean?\nDoes it mean liability on a claim for?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [392.084, 395.446, 398.807], "stop_times": [395.446, 398.807, 401.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 392.084}, "reply_to": "20675__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20675__0_025", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--It does, Your Honor.\nThat's... it is defined as liability on a claim for money, property, services, et cetera.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [401.919, 402.6], "stop_times": [402.6, 408.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 401.919}, "reply_to": "20675__0_024", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_026", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Do you rely on the phrase, to the extent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [408.183], "stop_times": [411.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 408.183}, "reply_to": "20675__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20675__0_027", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "We do.\nWe think that... there's been a discussion back and forth in this case about whether to the extent modifies money, property, services, or whether it modifies debt.\nI think everyone agrees... in this case, at least, agrees that it modifies money, property, services.\nOur difference, I think, is that... how we understand the word for.\nIn the petitioner's view, a debt for a house, or a debt for any particular thing, is a debt for what you have to pay for that thing.\nIt's not a debt for the act of obtaining that thing.\nIt's a debt for the thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [411.907, 413.457, 420.642, 426.286, 432.0, 442.935, 445.819], "stop_times": [413.457, 420.642, 426.286, 432.0, 442.935, 445.819, 446.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 411.907}, "reply_to": "20675__0_026", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_028", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Well now, you indicate that before the 1984 amendments to the statute courts generally thought punitive damages were nondischargeable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [446.648], "stop_times": [459.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 446.648}, "reply_to": "20675__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20675__0_029", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Under (a)(2)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [459.788], "stop_times": [461.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 459.788}, "reply_to": "20675__0_028", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_030", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Mm hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [461.849], "stop_times": [462.66], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 461.849}, "reply_to": "20675__0_029", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20675__0_031", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Your Honor, what is very interesting about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [462.66], "stop_times": [465.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 462.66}, "reply_to": "20675__0_030", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_032", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Is that right?\nI mean, that was the general holding of the courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [465.452, 465.843], "stop_times": [465.843, 467.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 465.452}, "reply_to": "20675__0_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20675__0_033", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--I would say that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [467.973], "stop_times": [469.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 467.973}, "reply_to": "20675__0_032", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_034", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Well, at least that's what your brief says.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [469.383], "stop_times": [472.057], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 469.383}, "reply_to": "20675__0_033", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20675__0_035", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--That they were nondischarge... I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [472.057], "stop_times": [474.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 472.057}, "reply_to": "20675__0_034", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_036", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [474.587], "stop_times": [474.788], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 474.587}, "reply_to": "20675__0_035", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20675__0_037", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--I think not, Your Honor.\nI think that the interpret... the language prior to 1984 was language that said, debt for obtaining money, property, et cetera, by fraud.\nNow, we think that's ambiguous language.\nThere are a couple of cases, literally only a couple, that held necessarily that that language does, in fact, reach punitive amounts, and we don't think that it is illogical to reach that result, but what is important is that prior to 1984 and prior to 1978 even more so, there was... there were not occasions that came up that made courts decide this issue.\nThe main reason is that with the presence of the (a)(6) language that talks about debts for wilful and malicious injury, with that language being there, any time conduct results in wilful and malicious injury, it doesn't matter what (a)(2) means, or what is now (a)(2) means.\nIt doesn't matter what it means to have a debt for obtaining, and so courts in deciding these cases, as we talk in some detail about in footnotes 13 and 14 of our reply brief, of the yellow brief, the courts typically didn't focus specifically on the meaning of that prior language.\nThey didn't have a reason to, and so it isn't possible to say here, as the Court has said in a number of cases, there was an important pre-1978, or pre-1984 bankruptcy practice that had been established.\nIndeed, there was no clear practice that had been established.\nIt is not our mission here to tell you that the meaning of those words, if it mattered what the pre-'78 words meant and you didn't have (a)(6) and you had to decide, might a court decide that they in fact meant to include punitive damages.\nMaybe they did.\nIt isn't clear.\nI would only say that, when reviewing... what you review Justice Breyer for the Court's opinion in the O'Gilvie case, which talks about, under the different statute, under the IRS statute, whether damages on account of personal injury, whether those include punitive damages, and the Court ruled that they did not, if that is an admissible result, it seems to me it's certainly admissible to conclude... one could conclude that... that a debt for obtaining money by fraud doesn't include it.\nOur only point is that it was ambiguous.\nIt never got clearly resolved by the courts but in a single case that we're aware of, a Ninth Circuit case called Houtman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [474.788, 475.589, 484.413, 486.776, 512.062, 528.871, 545.875, 558.231, 561.563, 577.615, 578.905, 579.936, 609.515, 611.946], "stop_times": [475.589, 484.413, 486.776, 512.062, 528.871, 545.875, 558.231, 561.563, 577.615, 578.905, 579.936, 609.515, 611.946, 617.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 474.788}, "reply_to": "20675__0_036", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_038", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Why isn't that function of (6) still applicable?\nI mean, I don't understand why (6) would make the question irrelevant then and not make it irrelevant now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [617.379, 621.854], "stop_times": [621.854, 628.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 617.379}, "reply_to": "20675__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20675__0_039", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "It is still applicable, Your Honor, and I think that it is true that this case and this Court's decision in this case is only going to be determinative in the group of cases... and I debated whether to characterize it as the sliver of cases or a larger group of cases, but the group of cases that involves conduct that is fraudulent, meaning it's at least reckless, but it falls short of being wilful and malicious.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [628.148], "stop_times": [651.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 628.148}, "reply_to": "20675__0_038", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_040", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Then Mr. Ayer, you would concede that your argument leads to the result that is suggested in the Solicitor General's brief at page 21.\nThat is, the bolts that were sold with fraudulent representation for $5,000 and then there's a crash of the plane--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [651.954, 661.188], "stop_times": [661.188, 671.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 651.954}, "reply_to": "20675__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20675__0_041", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, I know your question, I think.\nIt does lead to the result that that conduct, like other kinds of tortious conduct, will produce nondischargeability of punitive damages only where the conduct is found wilful and malicious.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [671.246, 673.337], "stop_times": [673.337, 686.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 671.246}, "reply_to": "20675__0_040", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_042", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--So that if it isn't wilful and malicious, just reckless--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [686.736], "stop_times": [690.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 686.736}, "reply_to": "20675__0_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20675__0_043", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [690.299], "stop_times": [691.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 690.299}, "reply_to": "20675__0_042", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_044", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--then the result is $5,000 and not what it cost to rebuild the plane.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [691.268], "stop_times": [694.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 691.268}, "reply_to": "20675__0_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20675__0_045", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [694.86], "stop_times": [695.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 694.86}, "reply_to": "20675__0_044", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_046", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "It is clear to you that wilful and malicious does not include reckless?\nPunitive damages I had always thought were only given for intentional torts, and yet they're given for recklessness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [695.812, 698.804], "stop_times": [698.804, 706.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 695.812}, "reply_to": "20675__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20675__0_047", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [706.728], "stop_times": [707.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 706.728}, "reply_to": "20675__0_046", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_048", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "I assume they're given for recklessness because it amounts to wilful and malicious, as it does in the criminal law.\nYou know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [707.279, 712.963], "stop_times": [712.963, 713.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 707.279}, "reply_to": "20675__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20675__0_049", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--Well, that... I mean, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [713.193], "stop_times": [713.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 713.193}, "reply_to": "20675__0_048", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_050", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--firing the rifle into the empty house.\nYou don't know if somebody's there at all.\nYou really don't care.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [713.924, 714.623, 715.655], "stop_times": [714.623, 715.655, 716.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 713.924}, "reply_to": "20675__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20675__0_051", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--I mean, that I think is some part of the question pending in the Geiger case which will be argued tomorrow, and it has been our understanding from reading the cases that we're aware of that two things are clear under the law.\nOne is that reckless misrepresentations do come within (a)(2), that it is fraud under the Restatement and, as this Court incorporated in essence the Restatement into that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [716.396, 729.966], "stop_times": [729.966, 739.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 716.396}, "reply_to": "20675__0_050", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_052", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Sure they do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [739.83], "stop_times": [740.201], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 739.83}, "reply_to": "20675__0_051", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20675__0_053", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--And secondly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [740.201], "stop_times": [740.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 740.201}, "reply_to": "20675__0_052", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_054", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "So do wilful ones, though.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [740.992], "stop_times": [742.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 740.992}, "reply_to": "20675__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20675__0_055", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--Correct, and secondly... I mean, our best reading of the cases is that wilful and malicious requires a measure of intentionality and knowing conduct vis a vis the harm that results.\nNow, we could be wrong about that.\nIt's not an issue that has been raised in this case because thus far no one has suggested that the conduct here was wilful and malicious, and I guess I would submit that that's highly unlikely, given the fact that we're dealing with implicit representations based simply on the fact that he charged a certain rent, and recklessness in failing to ascertain what they thought the legal rent was.\nI would think that would be hard to find wilful and malicious, but I will not attempt to define, you know, the case, the outcome of the case tomorrow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [742.364, 755.662, 757.275, 777.227], "stop_times": [755.662, 757.275, 777.227, 784.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 742.364}, "reply_to": "20675__0_054", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_056", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "I think you may have the better view in a close question on the reading of (a)(2), but I'm concerned about the lack of parallelism with (4) and (6), which is what we've been addressing... addressing here.\nIf you prevail, there are going to be cases that might be classified under this section or section... the section on malicious conduct, and then we'd have to decide whether it falls under this... the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [784.11, 798.7], "stop_times": [798.7, 814.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 784.11}, "reply_to": "20675__0_055", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20675__0_057", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Well, I mean, our understanding of the statute as it now reads is that there are several provisions that make nondischargeable various damages.\nWe would submit that the (a)(2) provision is essentially not a damages... it doesn't deal with damages.\nIt deals with the specific act of obtaining something by fraud and it says, no, you're going to be stuck with that if you got it by fraud.\nThe other provisions, the (a)(4) provision relates to fraud by a fiduciary, among other things.\nThe (a)(11) provision is a special provision enacted with regard to fraud in the context of federally insured institutions and (a)(6), dealing with wilful and malicious, as the Court suggested in footnote 2 of the Grogan decision, that might be, the Court said there... didn't try to decide the issue, but suggested that that might be a sensible place to focus the discussion of whether or not fraudulent conduct is wilful.\nSo the lack of parallelism I would submit is the product of the fact that (a)(2) is looking at something else.\n(a)(2) is looking at the act, the obtaining, and saying no, you can't keep that, and the rest of it creates, you know, frankly I would say a uniform and sensible system.\nIf the line that's to be drawn as a matter of policy is that nondischargeability comes when conduct gets bad enough that you can say it's wilful and malicious, then why should fraudulent conduct be any different than other kinds of tortious conduct?\nWhy would you single that out?\nThey've already singled out the act of obtaining by fraud.\nThat's important.\nThat's a significant thing.\nBut why should we reach in and say... why should the court reach in and say, well, we know it only really matters when you have reckless fraud, and we know that it's going to make nondischargeable statutory treble damage awards such as in this case where somebody acts by an implicit representation based on reckless failure to determine facts.\nThat's really... the situation of reckless fraud is the only one where this case... I think it's the only one where this case makes any difference, because when you get beyond reckless fraud and you say wilful and malicious, then you're dealing with it under (a)(6), and I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [814.551, 823.716, 828.429, 835.885, 839.936, 864.313, 870.938, 881.574, 896.073, 897.956, 901.788, 902.878, 904.898, 925.262], "stop_times": [823.716, 828.429, 835.885, 839.936, 864.313, 870.938, 881.574, 896.073, 897.956, 901.788, 902.878, 904.898, 925.262, 938.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 814.551}, "reply_to": "20675__0_056", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_058", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--Mr. Ayer, your question presented in this case is phrased in terms of punitive damages and yet, as I read them, none of the statutory sections we're talking about refer to punitive damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [938.793], "stop_times": [953.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 938.793}, "reply_to": "20675__0_057", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20675__0_059", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.\nWe use that phrase, rightly or wrongly, as a generic reference to include not only common law punitive awards and statutory treble damage awards... is that addressing your question?\nWe don't mean by punitives to focus only on the amount of jury awards as a punitive damage award in the conventional sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [953.432, 954.503, 966.87], "stop_times": [954.503, 966.87, 975.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 953.432}, "reply_to": "20675__0_058", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_060", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Then what do you mean by it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [975.886], "stop_times": [977.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 975.886}, "reply_to": "20675__0_059", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20675__0_061", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Well, we mean to encompass awards that are in the nature of a penalty.\nThe court below specifically assumed for purposes of this case, without deciding, that the treble damage penalty... treble damage award in this case, the trebling, was solely for punitive purposes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [977.548, 982.88], "stop_times": [982.88, 994.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 977.548}, "reply_to": "20675__0_060", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_062", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "But now, supposing in an action, an ordinary tort action for fraud, ordinary damages or benefit of the bargain damages are recovered.\nWhat would be your view as to those?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [994.347, 1002.963], "stop_times": [1002.963, 1005.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 994.347}, "reply_to": "20675__0_061", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20675__0_063", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Well, our view would be that the (a)(2) provision should be read in accordance with its terms and that would mean that the amount that the debtor got by fraud would, in fact, go back.\nThe benefit of the bargain damages may or may not equal that.\nYou can conjure up all sorts of different factual--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1005.745, 1018.765, 1022.725], "stop_times": [1018.765, 1022.725, 1025.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1005.745}, "reply_to": "20675__0_062", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_064", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "They might be greater.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1025.707], "stop_times": [1026.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1025.707}, "reply_to": "20675__0_063", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20675__0_065", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--They might be greater.\nAs I indicated before, they might conceivably be less and I guess the affirmative point vis a vis (a)(2) is that, in doing what Congress said in this statute, they've created a very clear statement, we think, and a clear statement that is important as a... essentially a wall against fraudulent conduct.\nIt's a directive that says, if you've got it by fraud, you don't get to keep it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1026.508, 1027.359, 1049.456], "stop_times": [1027.359, 1049.456, 1052.137], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1026.508}, "reply_to": "20675__0_064", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_066", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "But it turn... the issue turns on whether there's fraud, not where there are punitive damages--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1052.137], "stop_times": [1056.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1052.137}, "reply_to": "20675__0_065", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20675__0_067", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1056.469], "stop_times": [1056.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1056.469}, "reply_to": "20675__0_066", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_068", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1056.78], "stop_times": [1057.15], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1056.78}, "reply_to": "20675__0_067", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20675__0_069", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Correct, and nor on, indeed, whether there are damages, whether there have been found to be specific damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1057.15], "stop_times": [1062.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1057.15}, "reply_to": "20675__0_068", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_070", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Mr. Ayer, it seems to me you somewhat understate the consequence of the rule you're urging on us.\nYou say it really only makes a difference when there's recklessness but not wilfulness and some kind of a punitive award, but it seems to me it also makes a difference when there isn't recklessness and the issue is whether you only get back under (a)(2) the money that the person... or whether there is covered by (a)(2) only the money that the person received, or also there is covered whatever profits are made from that money, which often happens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1062.673, 1067.715], "stop_times": [1067.715, 1102.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1062.673}, "reply_to": "20675__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20675__0_071", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Well, I... that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1102.908], "stop_times": [1106.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1102.908}, "reply_to": "20675__0_070", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_072", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "And frankly that's the part of your interpretation that troubles me more than the other one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1106.1], "stop_times": [1110.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1106.1}, "reply_to": "20675__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20675__0_073", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--Well, that is... I mean, in all honesty, Your Honor, that is a possible extension of the... of our reading of it that I will say in all honesty had not occurred to me, but it's a possibility, that in other words it is possible, perhaps, to say that you got this money by fraud and then you got profits by fraud, but... you got profits from that money and therefore all of that was obtained by fraud and I must say, I think that's... that is an interpretation which I do think could be reasonable in the context--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1110.294], "stop_times": [1139.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1110.294}, "reply_to": "20675__0_072", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_074", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "And that's where the distinction would be between the profits, which under this interpretation would be recoverable, and attorney's fees and costs incurred in recovering it, which is not recoverable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1139.824], "stop_times": [1148.659], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1139.824}, "reply_to": "20675__0_073", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20675__0_075", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--Right.\nI mean, I think that... I think that punitive damages, I think that consequential damages, I think that other damages which do not grow directly from what was obtained clearly are not encompassed within (a)(2), and that you deal with those damage issues in the context of either (a)(6) or one of the other special sort of egregious wrong provisions that are in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1148.659, 1148.91], "stop_times": [1148.91, 1168.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1148.659}, "reply_to": "20675__0_074", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_076", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Okay.\nBut you think that any funds that are actually received by the defendant could be regarded as obtained by the fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1168.211, 1168.521], "stop_times": [1168.521, 1176.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1168.211}, "reply_to": "20675__0_075", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20675__0_077", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--I think that's a reasonable reading, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1176.318], "stop_times": [1178.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1176.318}, "reply_to": "20675__0_076", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_078", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Is... did... am I right in thinking you've looked through the legislative history of the 1984 amendments, you've read the reports, you've looked at the floor statements, et cetera, and you couldn't find anything as to any reason why Congress made the linguistic change.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1178.019], "stop_times": [1192.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1178.019}, "reply_to": "20675__0_077", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20675__0_079", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "There is a one sentence reference that talks about the change being stylistic.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1192.848], "stop_times": [1197.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1192.848}, "reply_to": "20675__0_078", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_080", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1197.36], "stop_times": [1197.58], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1197.36}, "reply_to": "20675__0_079", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20675__0_081", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Words to that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1197.58], "stop_times": [1198.271], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1197.58}, "reply_to": "20675__0_080", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_082", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "If there is no reason, then... and if the language permits, as Justice O'Connor pointed out before, why shouldn't we read this exactly the same as it's always been read in the history, i.e., liability on the claim.\nThey're talking about a claim.\nIn other words, they're talking about a judgment, i.e. they're talking about what is normally in a bankruptcy proceeding a piece of paper.\nThe bankruptcy judge sits there, he says, I've a piece of paper it has a number on it.\nYou go read the number.\nYou ask the question, is this piece of paper in an action for fraud.\nIt is or it isn't.\nIf the answer's yes, you write in the number.\nIf the answer's no, you don't.\nNow, I take it, if there's no intent whatsoever to make a change... and we haven't found any.\nThey said it was stylistic... then that's the simple way that bankruptcy proceedings used to work, and what's the reason for making it more complicated now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1198.271, 1212.921, 1214.932, 1222.018, 1227.69, 1229.34, 1232.485, 1233.404, 1235.825, 1237.768, 1244.721], "stop_times": [1212.921, 1214.932, 1222.018, 1227.69, 1229.34, 1232.485, 1233.404, 1235.825, 1237.768, 1244.721, 1252.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1198.271}, "reply_to": "20675__0_081", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20675__0_083", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1252.247], "stop_times": [1253.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1252.247}, "reply_to": "20675__0_082", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_084", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "In other words, we ignore the language unless there's legislative history to indicate that the language really means something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1253.116], "stop_times": [1260.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1253.116}, "reply_to": "20675__0_083", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20675__0_085", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1260.662, 1261.754], "stop_times": [1261.754, 1262.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1260.662}, "reply_to": "20675__0_084", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_086", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "I... go back to my question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1262.042], "stop_times": [1264.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1262.042}, "reply_to": "20675__0_085", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20675__0_087", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1264.476], "stop_times": [1264.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1264.476}, "reply_to": "20675__0_086", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_088", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "If the language, as you read it, says liability on a claim, because debt is defined as liability on a claim, then we look to see whether the changes that were made in the lang... well you've heard my question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1264.766], "stop_times": [1277.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1264.766}, "reply_to": "20675__0_087", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20675__0_089", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1277.432], "stop_times": [1277.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1277.432}, "reply_to": "20675__0_088", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_090", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "There's no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1277.663], "stop_times": [1278.113], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1277.663}, "reply_to": "20675__0_089", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20675__0_091", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "The language... there are several parts to the answer.\nThe language says liability... if you put all the pieces together, the liability on a claim as relevant here for money to the extent obtained by fraud.\nThat is not the same as saying liability for the act of obtaining money by fraud.\nThat's our first point.\nOur second point is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1278.113, 1280.555, 1289.451, 1294.704, 1295.495], "stop_times": [1280.555, 1289.451, 1294.704, 1295.495, 1297.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1278.113}, "reply_to": "20675__0_090", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_092", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--That's... I understand.\nMy question is, is there any reason for treating the interpretation of the present language differently from the interpretation of the prior language and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1297.756, 1300.958], "stop_times": [1300.958, 1313.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1297.756}, "reply_to": "20675__0_091", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20675__0_093", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--Well, except for the fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1313.907], "stop_times": [1314.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1313.907}, "reply_to": "20675__0_092", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_094", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--All right.\nI... now, the answer might be yes, or it might be no, but I asked about the history--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1314.258, 1314.608], "stop_times": [1314.608, 1318.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1314.258}, "reply_to": "20675__0_093", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20675__0_095", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--Okay--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1318.91], "stop_times": [1319.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1318.91}, "reply_to": "20675__0_094", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_096", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--because they said it was just stylistic.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1319.251], "stop_times": [1320.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1319.251}, "reply_to": "20675__0_095", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20675__0_097", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--I guess I would make two points, one which I made before and that is, the prior language never needed to be and in fact I would submit, looking at our footnotes 13 and 14, never was definitively interpreted the way Your Honor has indicated, but the most important reason is that... well, I won't say the most im... I think the most important reason is the words of the statute.\nBeyond the words of the statute and the structure and the lack of a prior clear precedent, all of which we submit is dispositive, there is the very important fact that this whole set of provisions, 523(a), is a set of exceptions to discharge that applies only in the context of individual bankruptcies.\nMore than 90 percent of individual bankruptcies are now consumer bankruptcies relating to consumer debts, and what we know is that Congress in 1978 was substantially concerned about the problems of the ineffectiveness of the bankruptcy process vis a vis consumer debtors, was concerned about overreaching creditors, was concerned about creditors who were aggressively asserting positions using the nondischarge provision specifically referred to by this Court in Field v. Mans, talking in terms of the financial statement provisions and the abuses by such creditors.\nA broad construction of these words... the case before the Court involves certain facts.\nIt represents a relatively tiny proportion of the bankruptcy... individual bankruptcy cases in this country to which it will apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1320.582, 1341.544, 1359.535, 1397.691, 1403.697], "stop_times": [1341.544, 1359.535, 1397.691, 1403.697, 1411.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1320.582}, "reply_to": "20675__0_096", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_098", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Mr. Ayer, (a)(4) says in effect that a discharge does not discharge a debtor from any debt for fraud while acting in a fiduciary capacity.\nThere, there is no language about money, or property, or to the extent obtained by.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1411.4, 1426.061], "stop_times": [1426.061, 1431.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1411.4}, "reply_to": "20675__0_097", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20675__0_099", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1431.413], "stop_times": [1432.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1431.413}, "reply_to": "20675__0_098", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_100", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "So under (a)(4) would punitives be recoverable and attorney's fees and so forth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1432.094], "stop_times": [1437.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1432.094}, "reply_to": "20675__0_099", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20675__0_101", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "They have been so held, Your Honor.\nCorrect, they have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1437.187, 1437.477], "stop_times": [1437.477, 1438.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1437.187}, "reply_to": "20675__0_100", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_102", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "And in the petition for certiorari filed on behalf of your client on page 9, footnote 4, it says resort to legislative history is unnecessary, given the plain language and, prior to 1984, (a)(2) barred discharge of a debt for obtaining money by fraud, which courts construed to bar discharge of both compensatory and punitive damages in fraud cases, and that's language from your petition.\nI took it to mean that was what the interpretation was before the amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1438.418, 1467.508], "stop_times": [1467.508, 1471.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1438.418}, "reply_to": "20675__0_101", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20675__0_103", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Well, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1471.879], "stop_times": [1472.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1471.879}, "reply_to": "20675__0_102", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_104", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "And the amendment just added to the extent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1472.48], "stop_times": [1474.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1472.48}, "reply_to": "20675__0_103", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20675__0_105", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--It is true... it is true that the Houtman case in the Ninth Circuit did so hold and we discuss that in our brief.\nIt did so hold in a case that did involve reckless fraud.\nIt did not discuss the issue, however, in any detail.\nThere is that case that held that.\nThere are other cases that held punitives to be nondischargeable in a situation where the court said generally either 523 (a), or we have (a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(6)--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1474.761, 1482.638, 1485.79, 1488.151, 1490.202], "stop_times": [1482.638, 1485.79, 1488.151, 1490.202, 1500.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1474.761}, "reply_to": "20675__0_104", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_106", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "And under (a)(4) it would all be nondischargeable and the only difference in language of the two is the to extent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1500.519], "stop_times": [1507.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1500.519}, "reply_to": "20675__0_105", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20675__0_107", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--No, it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1507.292], "stop_times": [1507.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1507.292}, "reply_to": "20675__0_106", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_108", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--obtained by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1507.942], "stop_times": [1510.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1507.942}, "reply_to": "20675__0_107", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20675__0_109", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--The structure of (a)(2) says debt for money, property, services.\nIt's debt for a thing versus debt for an act.\n(a)(4), (a)(6), (a)(9), others of the provisions, use the construction debt for wilful and malicious injury, debt for fraud by a fiduciary... that construction, and I think it's quite reasonable, has been found to result in all of the damages for that act being found nondischargeable.\nThe construction that says debt for money, or debt for property, is a debt for the property, and that's our position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1510.173, 1513.766, 1516.849, 1533.599], "stop_times": [1513.766, 1516.849, 1533.599, 1540.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1510.173}, "reply_to": "20675__0_108", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_110", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--Mr. Ayer, following up on Justice O'Connor's thought, is it not true... you looked at the issue much more carefully when you... before you filed your merits brief, of course, and are backing away from the footnote, but doesn't the footnote express what the treatise writers thought the law was?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1540.615], "stop_times": [1554.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1540.615}, "reply_to": "20675__0_109", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20675__0_111", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "I think that the prior version of Collier's took that position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1554.213], "stop_times": [1557.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1554.213}, "reply_to": "20675__0_110", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_112", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1557.064], "stop_times": [1557.405], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1557.064}, "reply_to": "20675__0_111", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20675__0_113", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "I think that that's true, but I also think it's true that there was virtually no authority on it.\nMay it please the Court, I'd like to reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1557.405, 1562.55], "stop_times": [1562.55, 1566.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1557.405}, "reply_to": "20675__0_112", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__0_114", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Very well, Mr. Ayer.\nMr. Diebold, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1566.251, 1567.773], "stop_times": [1567.773, 1569.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1566.251}, "reply_to": "20675__0_113", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20675__1_000", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nWhen considered in light of the history and structure of the code, the clear purpose of the phrase, to the extent obtained by fraud, is to distinguish between legally obtained property or money and fraudulently obtained money or property.\nIn fact, the precise language that was used in the amendment was taken from a case, In re Danns, a Second Circuit case, which discussed that very issue, noted that there was a conflict in authority, and held that in a situation where a debtor obtains money through a legal credit transaction and then subsequently commits an act of fraud and then obtains additional money through a refinancing, the amount of money that gives rise to the debt is the amount obtained through fraud, but it's the debt which is nondischargeable, and the debt has been defined and is still defined by the code as the liability on a claim.\nThe liability on a claim is the amount that you become liable for as a result of the money that you obtained by fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1569.205, 1574.758, 1588.179, 1633.195], "stop_times": [1574.758, 1588.179, 1633.195, 1640.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1569.205}, "reply_to": "20675__0_114", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_001", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "It depends on how you use the word claim.\nI mean, you can say you have a claim for money that someone owes you, using the word, the object of the claim is what you're entitled to.\nBut you can also say you have a claim for fraud, or a claim for personal injury, and in that case you're using it to refer to the cause of action rather than what you're entitled to, and the point made by your colleague here is that this statute uses the word in different sections in different ways.\nIn (4) and in (6) and in (9) it's a claim for death, for personal injury, a claim for wilful injury, and so forth, whereas in this it says a claim for money.\nThat's quite different.\nAnd then it says, for money to the extent that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1640.521, 1644.773, 1656.641, 1677.925, 1689.683, 1692.077], "stop_times": [1644.773, 1656.641, 1677.925, 1689.683, 1692.077, 1694.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1640.521}, "reply_to": "20675__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20675__1_002", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Well, it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1694.037], "stop_times": [1694.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1694.037}, "reply_to": "20675__1_001", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_003", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "What's your response to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1694.897], "stop_times": [1696.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1694.897}, "reply_to": "20675__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20675__1_004", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--My response, Justice Scalia, is that it's a... what's nondischargeable is the debt.\nThe debt is based on a claim for money to the extent that the money was obtained by fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1696.058, 1700.61], "stop_times": [1700.61, 1706.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1696.058}, "reply_to": "20675__1_003", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_005", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Yes, but it's very difficult to say that the punitive damages were obtained by fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1706.815], "stop_times": [1712.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1706.815}, "reply_to": "20675__1_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20675__1_006", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "It's difficult to say that if you concede, which we don't, that obtained is used to limit the amount of debt that you occur... incur, but what you're... what we say obtained is limiting is to explain that the fraud, that there must be fraud in connection with the money you obtained and that gives rise to the nondischargeable debt, which in this case, under New Jersey law, is three times the amount of the overcharged rents.\nLike in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1712.788, 1746.311], "stop_times": [1746.311, 1747.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1712.788}, "reply_to": "20675__1_005", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_007", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "I just want to go back to that one case you said.\nI mean, the odd... I think the language that gives me the most trouble from your point of view is the words, to the extent.\nWhy did they put that in if they meant claim?\nYou know, liability on a claim, a claim for fraud, you just say the thing that's nondischargeable is liability on a claim for a fraud.\nThat's the end of it.\nWhy did they put this word, to the extent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1747.292, 1749.413, 1755.707, 1759.3, 1770.287, 1772.718], "stop_times": [1749.413, 1755.707, 1759.3, 1770.287, 1772.718, 1775.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1747.292}, "reply_to": "20675__1_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20675__1_008", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--I think they used to the extent as a way of showing that the debt was limited to the extent that you obtain money through fraud, but what is nondischargeable is that debt which arises from the obtaining--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1775.6], "stop_times": [1792.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1775.6}, "reply_to": "20675__1_007", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_009", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Where... is there such a thing as a claim, and the claim--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1792.901], "stop_times": [1796.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1792.901}, "reply_to": "20675__1_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20675__1_010", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--Well, the debt--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1796.443], "stop_times": [1796.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1796.443}, "reply_to": "20675__1_009", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_011", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--Was that the case that you just mentioned that?\nYou have a claim for money, or a claim for property and the claim is for money, and part of the claim is for money... some of the money is obtained by fraud and some of it's not obtained by fraud.\nI mean, is there such an animal as that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1796.954, 1799.124, 1812.494], "stop_times": [1799.124, 1812.494, 1814.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1796.954}, "reply_to": "20675__1_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20675__1_012", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--I think that happens all the time in the commercial world.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1814.385], "stop_times": [1816.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1814.385}, "reply_to": "20675__1_011", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_013", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "How does that work?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1816.476], "stop_times": [1816.886], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1816.476}, "reply_to": "20675__1_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20675__1_014", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Let me use an example in the credit transaction.\nIt very often happens that in a credit card situation you charge things, you incur bills, and then you decide you're going to file for bankruptcy, and a month before you go to the attorney and you file for bankruptcy you run up $10,000 worth of debt.\nCourts have held that that money is obtained by fraud, so to the extent that your credit card bill was obtained by fraud, that debt is nondischargeable, but if the State of New Jersey, as it has in this case, chooses to impose a penalty for that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1816.886, 1820.78, 1836.989], "stop_times": [1820.78, 1836.989, 1852.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1816.886}, "reply_to": "20675__1_013", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_015", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "But you don't usually think of one obtaining a bill.\nI mean, you obtain property for which you get a bill.\nObtain sounds like it's... you've succeeded in doing something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1852.901, 1856.153, 1859.816], "stop_times": [1856.153, 1859.816, 1864.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1852.901}, "reply_to": "20675__1_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20675__1_016", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--That's correct, you don't obtain... you obtain money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1864.128], "stop_times": [1869.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1864.128}, "reply_to": "20675__1_015", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_017", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1869.191], "stop_times": [1870.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1869.191}, "reply_to": "20675__1_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20675__1_018", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "But you obtain a debt for obtaining that money which is nondischargeable.\nThe debt here happened to be more than the money you actually obtained, three times more.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1870.042, 1874.685], "stop_times": [1874.685, 1880.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1870.042}, "reply_to": "20675__1_017", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_019", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Well, let me ask you another question.\nReferring to this general section of (a), subsection (a).\nSubsection (a)(7) says that it's not dischargeable to the extent such debt is for a penalty payable to a governmental unit and is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss, other than a tax penalty.\nThere the Congress has specified certain penalties that will be nondischargeable, those payable to the Government.\nDoes that mean that they thought about penalties such as punitive damages that aren't payable to the Government and didn't include them anywhere?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1880.978, 1882.941, 1889.613, 1908.196, 1917.151], "stop_times": [1882.941, 1889.613, 1908.196, 1917.151, 1926.258], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1880.978}, "reply_to": "20675__1_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20675__1_020", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "No, Justice, I don't think it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1926.258], "stop_times": [1927.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1926.258}, "reply_to": "20675__1_019", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_021", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "No?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1927.66], "stop_times": [1928.148], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1927.66}, "reply_to": "20675__1_020", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20675__1_022", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--it does.\nI think that first of all with (a)(7), the difference between (a)(7) and (a)(2) is that it has to be a debt owed to, or penalty owed to the Government, but there's nothing in the code itself which restricts or makes each of those sections exclusive.\na non Government--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1928.148, 1928.939, 1944.26], "stop_times": [1928.939, 1944.26, 1945.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1928.148}, "reply_to": "20675__1_021", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_023", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Well, at least we know from (a)(7) that Congress thought about penalties--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1945.272], "stop_times": [1949.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1945.272}, "reply_to": "20675__1_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20675__1_024", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--Exactly, and we also know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1949.854], "stop_times": [1950.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1949.854}, "reply_to": "20675__1_023", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_025", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--to the extent they're payable to the Government.\nSometimes punitive damages are payable to a governmental unit.\nMaybe in that case it would go under (7).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1950.956, 1952.796, 1956.378], "stop_times": [1952.796, 1956.378, 1959.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1950.956}, "reply_to": "20675__1_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20675__1_026", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--That's correct.\nThere's no requirement of fraud in (a)(7), so that the Government can recover those penalties regardless of what the reason for their imposition was.\nIn (a)(2), of course, there's a requirement that the private party show fraud.\nBut (a)(7) also demonstrates that Congress knew clearly how to distinguish between compensatory damages and punitive damages if they wanted to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1959.59, 1960.469, 1967.435, 1971.188], "stop_times": [1960.469, 1967.435, 1971.188, 1980.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1959.59}, "reply_to": "20675__1_025", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_027", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Is this... can I just... are you finished, because I want to get my... are you finished with that response?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1980.285], "stop_times": [1983.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1980.285}, "reply_to": "20675__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20675__1_028", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1983.988], "stop_times": [1984.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1983.988}, "reply_to": "20675__1_027", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_029", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "All right.\nThe... I want to be sure I understand this.\nThe credit card company says Smith went bankrupt, and Smith owes me $50,000, so my claim as the credit card company is, I have a claim... I say Smith is liable on my claim for $50,000.\nNow, $20,000 of that he obtained by fraud, so I have a claim for 50, and that claim for 50 is fraud... is for fraud to the extent of 20,000.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [1984.208, 1984.398, 1987.26, 2003.669], "stop_times": [1984.398, 1987.26, 2003.669, 2016.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1984.208}, "reply_to": "20675__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20675__1_030", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2016.969], "stop_times": [2018.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2016.969}, "reply_to": "20675__1_029", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_031", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "And your position, your view is that that claim is a claim for fraud to the extent of $20,000, and any liability on that claim for $20,000 is liability on a claim to the extent obtained by fraud.\nSo if liability on that portion of the claim $20,000 is $100,000 because of punitives, et cetera, the whole thing's nondischargeable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2018.1, 2031.258], "stop_times": [2031.258, 2039.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2018.1}, "reply_to": "20675__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20675__1_032", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "The $100,000 is nondischargeable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2039.154], "stop_times": [2040.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2039.154}, "reply_to": "20675__1_031", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_033", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "And the case that said all that is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2040.895], "stop_times": [2042.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2040.895}, "reply_to": "20675__1_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20675__1_034", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "In re Danns made the distinction between those.\nNow, in addition to that we have the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2042.127, 2045.196], "stop_times": [2045.196, 2047.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2042.127}, "reply_to": "20675__1_033", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_035", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Well, I'm not sure how Danns helps you, because in Danns it was just the first part of Justice Breyer's hypothetical, as I recall the case, the $20,000 and the $30,000, and they said that the $20,000 that was obtained by fraud, that is nondischargeable, not the 30, or am I misreading the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2047.129], "stop_times": [2066.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2047.129}, "reply_to": "20675__1_034", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20675__1_036", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--No, Your Honor is misreading... is not misreading the case, but the... Danns did not involve the imposition of a trebling punitive factor, but the... what Danns did hold is that the statutes permitted the discharge of that portion of the debt which was not obtained by fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2066.261], "stop_times": [2086.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2066.261}, "reply_to": "20675__1_035", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_037", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "So that the debt is severable for purpose of applying the dischargeability provisions, which is what the petitioner is saying, or am I misstating?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2086.313], "stop_times": [2094.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2086.313}, "reply_to": "20675__1_036", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20675__1_038", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "I respectfully think that Your Honor is.\nWe both agree that the statute... I believe we both agree that the statute permits a severing of that obtained legally and that obtained by fraud.\nThe question is, does the statute in addition prohibit the imposition of treble damages or other penalties or punitive damages based on the amount obtained by fraud, which in Your Honor's hypothetical would be the $20,000.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2094.949, 2098.671, 2108.229], "stop_times": [2098.671, 2108.229, 2126.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2094.949}, "reply_to": "20675__1_037", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_039", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Am I correct that in your answer to Justice Breyer's question you were assuming that debt or claim and money are synonymous, but it seems to me that under the statute they're not synonymous.\nThere are certain debts or claims, and those debts or claims may to some extent represent money obtained, so that if you recognize the distinction between claim on the one hand and the money that may or may not be represented by that claim on the other hand, you would have to answer differently, wouldn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2126.631, 2142.841], "stop_times": [2142.841, 2166.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2126.631}, "reply_to": "20675__1_038", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20675__1_040", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Well, I'm not sure I'm following--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2166.208], "stop_times": [2168.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2166.208}, "reply_to": "20675__1_039", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_041", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "You would have to... you would have to say that if you recognize the distinction you simply cannot amalgamate money obtained by fraud and damages assessed with respect to that money obtained by fraud and that, it seems to me, is what you consistently do in your argument.\nYou do identify or amalgamate those two things and yet the statute seems not to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2168.048, 2185.018], "stop_times": [2185.018, 2190.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2168.048}, "reply_to": "20675__1_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20675__1_042", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--Well, except that the statute defines debt as a liability on a claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2190.242], "stop_times": [2194.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2190.242}, "reply_to": "20675__1_041", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_043", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Mm hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2194.956], "stop_times": [2195.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2194.956}, "reply_to": "20675__1_042", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20675__1_044", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "And in this case the liability on the respondent's claim was, under New Jersey law, three times the amount of the money obtained by fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2195.847], "stop_times": [2205.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2195.847}, "reply_to": "20675__1_043", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_045", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Which means that part of the claim represents money obtained and part of the claim represents something else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2205.815], "stop_times": [2211.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2205.815}, "reply_to": "20675__1_044", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20675__1_046", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Well, if I can use an example to I think answer what I believe to be Your Honor's question, let's assume that in this case the legal rent is $500 and the landlord had a good faith reasonable belief that the rent was $600, but he decided to tack on another $100 because he thought he could get away with it.\nWhat we're saying is that the amount between $500 and $600 would be fully dischargeable.\nThe amount between $600 and $700 is the amount that he obtained by fraud but that... but the debt that that obtaining would create would be $300 under New Jersey law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2211.619, 2228.979, 2234.203], "stop_times": [2228.979, 2234.203, 2246.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2211.619}, "reply_to": "20675__1_045", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_047", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "But the statute does not, in terms, speak in subsection (2)(A) of debts, it speaks of money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2246.221], "stop_times": [2257.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2246.221}, "reply_to": "20675__1_046", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20675__1_048", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "It speaks--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2257.116], "stop_times": [2258.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2257.116}, "reply_to": "20675__1_047", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_049", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "And the money is less, in your example, than the debt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2258.648], "stop_times": [2261.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2258.648}, "reply_to": "20675__1_048", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20675__1_050", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--The statute, though, as a whole, deals with the nondischargeability of debt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2261.77], "stop_times": [2269.304], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2261.77}, "reply_to": "20675__1_049", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_051", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Yes, but when you start talking about statutes as a whole, that means this particular language is against me, but I'm going to try to find a broader purpose.\nDo you concede that as long as you make the distinction between the debt or claim and the money on the other hand, recognizing that the latter may be less than the former, the language of the statute is against you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2269.304, 2276.761], "stop_times": [2276.761, 2288.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2269.304}, "reply_to": "20675__1_050", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20675__1_052", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "No, I don't concede that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2288.819], "stop_times": [2291.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2288.819}, "reply_to": "20675__1_051", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_053", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Then I--\n--Let me try it another way.\nI think I'm asking the same question.\nIt seems to me perfectly reasonable to add on the trebling in those sections that speak of any debt for fraud, for wilful and malicious injury, when they talk about a debt for the wrongful act.\nAnything that you get by reason of the wrongful act, including the trebling, belongs to you.\nBut when they're using claim in the other way, or debt in the other way... that is, a liability for a claim... and they're saying debt for money, money isn't a wrongful act.\nWhen it says debt for money to the extent that, there it seems to me not proper to add on any trebling that you get.\nNow, what's the response for that?\nYou have to understand that (2) and maybe (7) are different from the other sections in that they refer to debt for what you're asking for, not for the wrongful act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2291.141, 2291.431, 2292.67, 2294.553, 2309.803, 2315.567, 2326.454, 2333.31, 2336.993], "stop_times": [2291.431, 2292.67, 2294.553, 2309.803, 2315.567, 2326.454, 2333.31, 2336.993, 2347.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2291.141}, "reply_to": "20675__1_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20675__1_054", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "I don't think it's possible to define debt in different ways depending on the subsection that you're using.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2347.348], "stop_times": [2353.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2347.348}, "reply_to": "20675__1_053", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_055", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "I'm not defining debt in different ways.\nI'm just noting that the object of the debt is phrased differently in these different subsections.\nIn some cases the object is the wrongful act.\nIn other cases, it is what you are asking for by reason of the wrongful act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2353.362, 2356.244, 2362.078, 2366.671], "stop_times": [2356.244, 2362.078, 2366.671, 2372.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2353.362}, "reply_to": "20675__1_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20675__1_056", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "I think as a matter of grammar that's a possible interpretation, but to reach that conclusion, Your Honor would have to assume that in 1984 Congress intended to change what was I believe concededly the... at least the majority position that punitive damages under (a)(2) were not dischargeable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2372.455], "stop_times": [2395.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2372.455}, "reply_to": "20675__1_055", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_057", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "But wasn't the prior law in exactly the form that Justice Scalia used as his contrast?\nWasn't the operative phrase in the prior law debt for obtaining, as opposed to debt for money obtained by?\nIsn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2395.83, 2401.313, 2409.378], "stop_times": [2401.313, 2409.378, 2410.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2395.83}, "reply_to": "20675__1_056", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20675__1_058", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "That's correct, but I think that the danger of looking at just the phrase that we're concerned about in this case is that it disregards the complete absence of any legislative history to support the position that the petitioner wishes you to adopt.\nI don't think that it's reasonable to assume that Congress would have decided to reduce the liability of a debtor for fraudulent conduct without at least some discussion or reference to it in the legislative history.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2410.35, 2426.272], "stop_times": [2426.272, 2440.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2410.35}, "reply_to": "20675__1_057", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_059", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Did the pre-1984 language deal in terms of punitive damages?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2440.871], "stop_times": [2446.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2440.871}, "reply_to": "20675__1_058", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20675__1_060", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "It didn't deal in terms of punitive damages specifically.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2446.524], "stop_times": [2449.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2446.524}, "reply_to": "20675__1_059", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_061", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "And this one doesn't either, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2449.647], "stop_times": [2450.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2449.647}, "reply_to": "20675__1_060", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20675__1_062", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2450.865], "stop_times": [2451.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2450.865}, "reply_to": "20675__1_061", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_063", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Are you saying that the petitioner, Mr. Ayer, is interpreting debt differently in (2) and in (6)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2451.316], "stop_times": [2463.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2451.316}, "reply_to": "20675__1_062", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20675__1_064", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2463.374], "stop_times": [2463.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2463.374}, "reply_to": "20675__1_063", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_065", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Because in (2) you look at it from the standpoint of what the debtor owns and in (4) and (6) you look at it from what the standpoint of what the creditor is owed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2463.985], "stop_times": [2475.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2463.985}, "reply_to": "20675__1_064", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20675__1_066", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "That's correct.\nThat would be my position, and I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2475.943, 2477.224], "stop_times": [2477.224, 2479.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2475.943}, "reply_to": "20675__1_065", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_067", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Well, but doesn't his argument use debt in exactly the same way?\nDebt is used synonymously with claim, but his argument simply depends upon the fact that the statute recognizes that some debt is for money obtained and other debt is for judgments rendered.\nThat is to say, and this is the same question, that debt means claim as further defined subsection by subsection by subsection?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2479.326, 2484.959, 2497.468], "stop_times": [2484.959, 2497.468, 2505.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2479.326}, "reply_to": "20675__1_066", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20675__1_068", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--I don't think that the language, the operative language in section (2) is attempting to further define debt, though.\nI think that even the petitioner concedes that the holding in the Levy case, which held that the phrase modified debt, is correct.\nI think that what Congress was intending to do, as was shown by the 1978 legislative report that's quoted at page 19 of the Solicitor General's brief, is to distinguish between how that debt was obtained.\nThe entire structure of the... of 523 is to define or list certain types of conduct for which debts will not be dischargeable.\nThe conduct that is non... that gives rise to a nondischargeable debt under (a)(2) is that conduct which is fraudulent.\nIf you obtain money legally and fraudulently, then the statute allows you to separate those two situations and only the debt based on the fraudulently obtained money would be nondischargeable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2505.803, 2512.545, 2524.263, 2537.172, 2547.631, 2558.036], "stop_times": [2512.545, 2524.263, 2537.172, 2547.631, 2558.036, 2572.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2505.803}, "reply_to": "20675__1_067", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_069", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "And that's what In re Danns was about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2572.125], "stop_times": [2573.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2572.125}, "reply_to": "20675__1_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20675__1_070", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2573.637], "stop_times": [2574.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2573.637}, "reply_to": "20675__1_069", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_071", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "And so you're saying, if you want to know why Congress used the language it did, read In re Danns and at that point you'll see what the drafter had in front of him, or whoever drafted it, and that's why they chose that language.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2574.198], "stop_times": [2584.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2574.198}, "reply_to": "20675__1_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20675__1_072", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "That's right, and the very language to the extent by is in the In re Danns opinion.\nOur position, if I may sum up, is that there is... there is really no question, if this case were brought 20 years ago, that the punitive damages would not be discharged.\nCongress in 1984, throughout the little--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2584.654, 2589.697, 2601.414], "stop_times": [2589.697, 2601.414, 2604.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2584.654}, "reply_to": "20675__1_071", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_073", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Of course, they dispute that.\nI mean, you say there's no question, but he thinks there's a question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2604.248, 2604.966], "stop_times": [2604.966, 2607.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2604.248}, "reply_to": "20675__1_072", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20675__1_074", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--Well, even this Court's opinions have talked about liabilities for fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2607.178], "stop_times": [2613.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2607.178}, "reply_to": "20675__1_073", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_075", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "There was no opinion of this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2613.032], "stop_times": [2615.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2613.032}, "reply_to": "20675__1_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20675__1_076", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "There was no opinion directly deciding this issue prior to 1984 under the old language of the code, but there are... there were opinions of this Court that used the term liabilities for fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2615.015], "stop_times": [2628.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2615.015}, "reply_to": "20675__1_075", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_077", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Judge Greenberg said, this statute says money obtained by fraud.\nIt doesn't say, monetary relief imposed because of fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2628.923, 2634.615], "stop_times": [2634.615, 2639.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2628.923}, "reply_to": "20675__1_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20675__1_078", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Well, that's correct, and perhaps Congress could have written this a little better but the fact is, I believe, that Congress would not have changed this statute and how it operates significantly in the way that the petitioner wishes you to read it without some discussion of it.\nThe discussion, what little there was, about consumer debt and bankruptcy show that Congress was concerned about curtailing debtor abuse.\nYou would have to conclude, in order to rule in favor of the petitioner, that what Congress did in 1984 was stop and say, okay, but let's give a break to fraudulent debtors and reduce their liability and I don't think that under the legislative history of this statute that that's what Congress intended to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2639.13, 2660.312, 2671.011], "stop_times": [2660.312, 2671.011, 2688.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2639.13}, "reply_to": "20675__1_077", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_079", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Well, there isn't any legislative... may I just ask this one question.\nWe've talked about a hypothetical in which the debt would be... Justice Breyer's $50,000, the $20,000 of it was obtained by fraud and that you're only talking about the consequence of that $20,000.\nAre there any real live cases out there that you can cite that present situations similar to that hypothetical?\nThis one doesn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2688.923, 2690.842, 2700.08, 2705.093], "stop_times": [2690.842, 2700.08, 2705.093, 2705.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2688.923}, "reply_to": "20675__1_078", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20675__1_080", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Well, I can't cite actually reported cases, but I think it occurs all of the time that credit card companies seek the nondischargeability of debts which are run up, say, at the last minute, prior to filing bankruptcy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2705.974], "stop_times": [2720.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2705.974}, "reply_to": "20675__1_079", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_081", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Oh, I understand, but they would not have added onto them any penalty, as you do here.\nThat's the problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2720.952, 2724.964], "stop_times": [2724.964, 2725.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2720.952}, "reply_to": "20675__1_080", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20675__1_082", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Well, they may.\nUnder New Jersey law they would, if the court determined--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2725.785, 2726.696], "stop_times": [2726.696, 2729.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2725.785}, "reply_to": "20675__1_081", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_083", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Theoretically, but I... I'm just concerned about the absence of any litigated case that presents the hypothetical that you rely on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2729.478], "stop_times": [2734.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2729.478}, "reply_to": "20675__1_082", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20675__1_084", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--I'm not aware of any.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2734.731, 2735.682], "stop_times": [2735.682, 2736.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2734.731}, "reply_to": "20675__1_083", "speaker": "gregory_g_diebold"}
{"id": "20675__1_085", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Diebold.\nMr. Lamken, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2736.584, 2737.633], "stop_times": [2737.633, 2739.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2736.584}, "reply_to": "20675__1_084", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20675__2_000", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nFor nearly a century, bankruptcy law has excluded from discharge all liabilities arising from the debtor's fraud, including consequential and, where imposed, punitive damages.\nNothing in section 523(a)(2) alters that settled practice.\nThe code defines the term, debt, as liability on a claim.\nSection 523 (a)(2) thus exempts from discharge liability on a claim for money or services to the extent the money or services were obtained by fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2739.175, 2748.981, 2759.168, 2763.93, 2768.224], "stop_times": [2748.981, 2759.168, 2763.93, 2768.224, 2778.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2739.175}, "reply_to": "20675__1_085", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "20675__2_001", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Well, you don't define punitive damages as consequential damages, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2778.5], "stop_times": [2782.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2778.5}, "reply_to": "20675__2_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20675__2_002", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "No, I would not define punitive damages as consequential damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2782.323], "stop_times": [2786.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2782.323}, "reply_to": "20675__2_001", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "20675__2_003", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "That's the colloquy we had with Mr. Ayer, and I think he conceded that maybe some consequential damages are within (a)(2), even under his interpretation.\nWe're talking about... consequential and punitive are quite different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2786.327, 2796.431], "stop_times": [2796.431, 2799.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2786.327}, "reply_to": "20675__2_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20675__2_004", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "No, Your Honor, I don't think Mr. Ayer would concede that consequential damages to the creditor are within his interpretation.\nHis interpretation limits what is nondischargeable to the amount actually obtained by the debtor.\nNow, if the debtor also makes an additional profit, he was considering the possibility of including that, but the consequential damages are clearly excluded--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2799.132, 2805.106, 2810.79], "stop_times": [2805.106, 2810.79, 2817.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2799.132}, "reply_to": "20675__2_003", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "20675__2_005", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Well, I think of consequential damages in connection with contracts, in Hadley v. Baxendale, not torts.\nWhat do you mean by consequential damages?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2817.986, 2824.441], "stop_times": [2824.441, 2826.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2817.986}, "reply_to": "20675__2_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20675__2_006", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--Consequential damages do follow from torts.\nI think the example on page 21 of our brief, for example, where the defective bolts are sold to an airline with a representation that they're aircraft quality, the consequential damages would be the cost of actually replacing those bolts.\nThat would not represent money obtained by the debtor, but it would represent consequential damages and therefore a proper recovery under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2826.922, 2828.522, 2842.783], "stop_times": [2828.522, 2842.783, 2849.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2826.922}, "reply_to": "20675__2_005", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "20675__2_007", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Well, what's the difference between consequential damages and actual damages in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2849.476], "stop_times": [2853.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2849.476}, "reply_to": "20675__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20675__2_008", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--In this case... well, consequential damages I've used rather loosely.\nI should apologize.\nThose are actual damages, but they are not restitutionary damages.\nThey are damages that are incurred by the creditor but do not represent a gain to the debtor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2853.229, 2856.441, 2857.162, 2861.045], "stop_times": [2856.441, 2857.162, 2861.045, 2866.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2853.229}, "reply_to": "20675__2_007", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "20675__2_009", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "But don't you see a difference between what you can get for a claim for fraud and what you can get on a claim for money obtained by fraud?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2866.019], "stop_times": [2880.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2866.019}, "reply_to": "20675__2_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20675__2_010", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Your Honor, I think the question assumes that the phrase, a claim for money obtained by fraud, means a claim to acquire or to obtain the money which was obtained by fraud.\nI think it's clear that Congress did not use the phrase, debt for, or claim for, in that sense.\nFrom section (a)(2)(A) itself, that refers to a claim for services obtained by fraud.\nIt's clear that the creditor is not trying to acquire the services that were obtained by fraud.\nWhat the creditor wants is the liability that was imposed as a result and that liability can include punitive and consequential damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2880.597, 2889.753, 2894.796, 2900.312, 2904.774], "stop_times": [2889.753, 2894.796, 2900.312, 2904.774, 2913.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2880.597}, "reply_to": "20675__2_009", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "20675__2_011", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "That part, though, I don't think was conceded by Mr. Ayers.\nI don't know that they concede that even... so we go back to Danns and we say, this is all the same for the history of bankruptcy law.\nThey've always meant the same thing.\nBut what is that same thing, and at that point I think they have not conceded that even if you go back to 1890, that there would be liability for the punitives and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2913.108, 2916.25, 2922.855, 2924.655], "stop_times": [2916.25, 2922.855, 2924.655, 2935.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2913.108}, "reply_to": "20675__2_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20675__2_012", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "I don't think if you go back to 1898 it could be disputed.\nThe 1898 act excepted from discharge judgments in actions for fraud.\nI don't think that the phrase, judgments in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2935.484, 2938.366, 2943.879], "stop_times": [2938.366, 2943.879, 2945.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2935.484}, "reply_to": "20675__2_011", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "20675__2_013", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--But has it been clearly held that if you go back, let's say, to the 1898 act or the 1978 code, et cetera, that it does include punitives?\nI'm not... have they conceded that?\nI'm not certain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2945.949, 2954.745, 2956.237], "stop_times": [2954.745, 2956.237, 2956.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2945.949}, "reply_to": "20675__2_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20675__2_014", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--No.\nI think there's a concession in the petition, but I think the concession has been retracted.\nHowever, the cases, first the language itself, judgments in actions, is unmistakably clear.\nA judgment includes the consequential damages and the punitive damages.\nIn this case, the Court's case Brown v. Felsen explains that when the change was made to... from judgments in actions to liabilities for obtaining--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2956.878, 2957.316, 2962.321, 2966.523, 2970.126], "stop_times": [2957.316, 2962.321, 2966.523, 2970.126, 2978.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2956.878}, "reply_to": "20675__2_013", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "20675__2_015", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "But you might say, liabilities for means liabilities to this person and a punitive damage award, after all, is not in respect to a liability to this person and represents a liability to the whole community for bad action deterrent.\nYou know, that kind of argument.\nI'm not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2978.371, 2991.821, 2992.979], "stop_times": [2991.821, 2992.979, 2993.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2978.371}, "reply_to": "20675__2_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20675__2_016", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2993.24], "stop_times": [2993.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2993.24}, "reply_to": "20675__2_015", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "20675__2_017", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--I'm trying to generate a little more counterargument on your part.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2993.971], "stop_times": [2996.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2993.971}, "reply_to": "20675__2_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20675__2_018", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "I don't think that that construction of the word liability could be used, because the term debt, which is defined as liability unclaimed, has been held by this Court to include punitive damages where payable to private parties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [2996.382], "stop_times": [3008.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2996.382}, "reply_to": "20675__2_017", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "20675__2_019", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Well, the language of (a)(2) really does favor the petitioner.\nA discharge doesn't include a debt for, in this case, money to the extent obtained by fraud.\nIt favors the position taken by the petitioner, and you ask us to look back at the older provisions for guidance, I guess.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [3008.06, 3015.025, 3023.18], "stop_times": [3015.025, 3023.18, 3032.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3008.06}, "reply_to": "20675__2_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20675__2_020", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, but I would disagree that the language favors petitioner, because that is only true if you don't look at the definition of the word debt.\nThe word debt is liability on a claim.\nI don't think you could be any clearer that a claim for money or property or services obtained by fraud under New Jersey law is three times the damages so imposed and therefore the claim, the liability on the claim is the full amount of the judgment that would be entered by a New Jersey court in this context.\nThe structure of 523 (a) I believe confirms this.\nSection 523 (a)(6) and (a)(9) make nondischargeable liability on a claim for death or injury, or liability on a claim for wilful or malicious injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [3032.277, 3039.703, 3042.505, 3059.654, 3064.977], "stop_times": [3039.703, 3042.505, 3059.654, 3064.977, 3074.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3032.277}, "reply_to": "20675__2_019", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "20675__2_021", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "One of the arguments made by the respondent, and we didn't have time... I didn't have time to question him about it further, was that at the last minute, before going bankrupt, people run up a lot of bills, but that's covered by a separate section, is it not, or would subsection (c) not permit the nondischargeability under Mr. Ayer's theory for the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [3074.394], "stop_times": [3101.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3074.394}, "reply_to": "20675__2_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20675__2_022", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Yes, I think the run up--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [3101.522], "stop_times": [3103.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3101.522}, "reply_to": "20675__2_021", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "20675__2_023", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--person that runs up the debts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [3103.135], "stop_times": [3103.465], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3103.135}, "reply_to": "20675__2_022", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20675__2_024", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--The run up of credit card bills at the last minute has been specifically addressed.\nWhat has not been addressed, Your Honor, however, is the trans... repeated credit transactions in which some portion of credit is obtained by fraud and some portion is not.\nBefore 1970 there was a split in the courts on whether or not the full amount of credit was nondischargeable simply because a small portion thereof had been obtained by fraud, and that's the In re Danns decision.\nThe legislative history in 1978 shows that Congress was aware of this issue.\nI believe that the language added in 1984 is most reasonably read as making it unmistakably clear that there must be a parsing process to determine how much was obtained by fraud, how much was not obtained by fraud, and all of the liability on a claim for the portion that was obtained by fraud is nondischargeable, and that liability may include consequential and punitive damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [3103.465, 3106.147, 3115.093, 3126.419, 3130.523], "stop_times": [3106.147, 3115.093, 3126.419, 3130.523, 3149.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3103.465}, "reply_to": "20675__2_023", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "20675__2_025", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "You're saying, in a word... in a short phrase, I guess, that debt for money means exactly the same thing as the old statute meant when it said debt for fraud, except that it defines the money with respect to the fraudulent means of obtaining it, by a later phrase.\nIs that... in one sentence, is that your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [3149.854, 3170.978], "stop_times": [3170.978, 3173.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3149.854}, "reply_to": "20675__2_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20675__2_026", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "That is absolutely correct.\nLawyers often refer to a claim by what caused the claim to arise, and sometimes by the result.\nWe might speak of a claim for personal injury, the result, or we might speak of a claim for battery, what caused the injury.\nIn the context of this statute, Congress has used those two interchangeably, as lawyers often do.\nSometimes they spoke of a debt for fraud, the action that produced the injury, or a debt for wilful and malicious injury, the result.\nIn our portion, in (a)(2), it says a debt for money, property, or services to the extent obtained by fraud, the result, but that does not alter the amount of liability, necessarily.\nThe amount of liability is that amount which would be imposed by a State court and that amount, in this case, is three times the injury so imposed.\nIf there are no further questions, I'll cede the remainder of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [3173.229, 3174.581, 3179.684, 3185.849, 3190.283, 3196.405, 3206.872, 3214.767], "stop_times": [3174.581, 3179.684, 3185.849, 3190.283, 3196.405, 3206.872, 3214.767, 3217.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3173.229}, "reply_to": "20675__2_025", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "20675__2_027", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Lamken.\nMr. Ayer, you have 2 minutes remaining.\nI'm sure Mr. Lamken didn't mean to cede it to you.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [3217.939, 3219.979, 3222.911, 3225.693], "stop_times": [3219.979, 3222.911, 3225.693, 3225.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3217.939}, "reply_to": "20675__2_026", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20675__3_000", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nI just want to make one point, and it relates to Justice Breyer's hypothetical about the credit card situation.\nI would submit that a broad reading of this provision here so as to essentially use the prior language, read broadly, as it's read in (a)(6), reading debt for obtaining money by fraud creates... that broad reading to include all essentially consequential, punitive, and other damages would create a situation where a credit card company who could come in and argue reckless fraud with regard to the $20,000 that was spent, and then can argue $30,000 more in interest at 18 percent under their contract and then can argue another $10,000 in attorney's fees, that in that circumstance they can come in and make a credible, if not a winning argument that in fact all of that is something that's entitled to nondischarge.\nNow, that is something that's a real life issue.\nI would direct the Court, if it's interested, to the 1997 National Bankruptcy Review Commission report.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [3225.963, 3228.046, 3232.648, 3277.369, 3281.032], "stop_times": [3228.046, 3232.648, 3277.369, 3281.032, 3287.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3225.963}, "reply_to": "20675__2_027", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__3_001", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "You don't want them to get the interest.\nYou mean, all they can get is the $20,000 that the person got, and he gets it interest free, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [3287.135, 3287.543], "stop_times": [3287.543, 3296.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3287.135}, "reply_to": "20675__3_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20675__3_002", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "We would submit, Your Honor, that's correct, that they get the... well, they may get a market interest.\nWhether they get a contractual interest rate I would submit is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [3296.121, 3300.954], "stop_times": [3300.954, 3303.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3296.121}, "reply_to": "20675__3_001", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__3_003", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Why even the market interest rate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [3303.165], "stop_times": [3304.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3303.165}, "reply_to": "20675__3_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20675__3_004", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--Well, I'm sorry.\nThe measure under Justice Scalia's hypothetical earlier would be the benefit that... and I think it may be correct... the benefit that was obtained by the debtor, not the amount that's contractually owed to the credit card company.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [3304.997, 3305.926], "stop_times": [3305.926, 3318.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3304.997}, "reply_to": "20675__3_003", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__3_005", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Could I get you to comment on one question that came up in your opponent's argument?\nThe prior law is uncertain, you say, but what about the 1898 statute?\nThat was perfectly clear, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [3318.775, 3321.998, 3327.079], "stop_times": [3321.998, 3327.079, 3328.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3318.775}, "reply_to": "20675__3_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20675__3_006", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "The 1898 statute talked about judgments.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [3328.461], "stop_times": [3330.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3328.461}, "reply_to": "20675__3_005", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__3_007", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [3330.803], "stop_times": [3331.183], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3330.803}, "reply_to": "20675__3_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20675__3_008", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "It talked about judgments, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [3331.183], "stop_times": [3333.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3331.183}, "reply_to": "20675__3_007", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__3_009", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Which would necessarily include the punitive--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [3333.475], "stop_times": [3334.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3333.475}, "reply_to": "20675__3_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20675__3_010", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--Well, if that language were transported to today, when punitive damages is an issue, which really only started in a big way in the 1970's, that may well be where the Court would come out.\nThe fact is, no one has come up with a case construing that language.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [3334.944, 3345.072], "stop_times": [3345.072, 3348.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3334.944}, "reply_to": "20675__3_009", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "20675__3_011", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "--Of course, that language may be clear enough that you didn't need a case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [3348.855], "stop_times": [3351.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3348.855}, "reply_to": "20675__3_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20675__3_012", "conversation_id": "20675", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Ayer.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1923", "start_times": [3351.857, 3354.373], "stop_times": [3354.373, 3355.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3351.857}, "reply_to": "20675__3_011", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20883__0_000", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-1337, the County of Sacramento v. Teri Lewis and Thomas Lewis.\nMr. Cassidy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [0.0, 8.067], "stop_times": [8.067, 9.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20883__0_001", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nDeputy Smith is entitled to qualified immunity in this case on the grounds that the law regarding substantive due process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment was not clearly established at the time of the police pursuit in this case in May of 1990.\nIn that regard, the legal standard was not sufficiently well-developed, nor were the factual contours of such a claim developed so as to put a reasonable officer in the position of Deputy Smith on notice of what type of conduct would constitute a violation of substantive due process in the context of a police pursuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [9.346, 12.959, 29.93], "stop_times": [12.959, 29.93, 53.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.346}, "reply_to": "20883__0_000", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_002", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "May I ask you a question right at the start, please, Mr. Cassidy?\nThe County of Sacramento apparently takes the position that a substantive due process violation does arise from a negligently conducted police chase of someone.\nI mean, you don't raise the question whether there is a substantive due process violation at all.\nYou apparently assume there is, and then just want us to decide what standard to apply.\nDo I understand correctly that's your position on behalf of the county?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [53.047, 58.511, 76.141, 82.894, 90.13], "stop_times": [58.511, 76.141, 82.894, 90.13, 96.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 53.047}, "reply_to": "20883__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20883__0_003", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Justice O'Connor, no, we do not concede that a negligent claim would support a violation of substantive due process.\nIn fact, we have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [96.615, 101.608], "stop_times": [101.608, 102.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 96.615}, "reply_to": "20883__0_002", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_004", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Well, do you concede that on the facts in this case, the police pursuit case before us, that the only inquiry is what standard to apply, because there would be a substantive due process violation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [102.81], "stop_times": [119.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 102.81}, "reply_to": "20883__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20883__0_005", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--The petitioners in this case have asserted that the proper question presented is whether or not... what... the proper legal standard to be applied in a claim for substantive due process.\nThere are amici briefs which have asserted that no claim lies in this case because of the accidental nature of the conduct involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [119.529, 131.068], "stop_times": [131.068, 138.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 119.529}, "reply_to": "20883__0_004", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_006", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "But that's not the position taken by the county.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [138.783], "stop_times": [141.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 138.783}, "reply_to": "20883__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20883__0_007", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Upon reflection, I would agree with that position as asserted by amici.\nHowever, it had not been asserted in the lower court or by us in our briefing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [141.245, 146.386], "stop_times": [146.386, 152.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 141.245}, "reply_to": "20883__0_006", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_008", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "So what am I supposed to do?\nI mean, you give me two options, that it's a substantive due process violation if it's... if it shocks the conscience, or if it's grossly negligent conduct.\nWhat if I think none of the above?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [152.14, 155.563, 173.725], "stop_times": [155.563, 173.725, 177.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 152.14}, "reply_to": "20883__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__0_009", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [177.799], "stop_times": [180.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 177.799}, "reply_to": "20883__0_008", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_010", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Do I pick grossly negligent conduct because that's the closest to not having a substantive due process violation at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [180.441], "stop_times": [186.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 180.441}, "reply_to": "20883__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__0_011", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Well, no, Your Honor.\nWe would respectfully submit that in the event this Court determines to adopt the type of approach it did in Albright v. Oliver and determine that all claims perhaps involving a seizure fall within the Fourth Amendment standards, then there would be no claim available under the Fourteenth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [186.575, 187.924], "stop_times": [187.924, 206.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 186.575}, "reply_to": "20883__0_010", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_012", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Well, I certainly thought that's what this case was about when I first read about its facts.\nI mean, we've had a number of cases involving police chases and they always come up as unreasonable seizure cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [206.898, 210.601], "stop_times": [210.601, 217.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 206.898}, "reply_to": "20883__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__0_013", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "And I would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [217.274], "stop_times": [218.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 217.274}, "reply_to": "20883__0_012", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_014", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Lo and behold, I read this thing and it's somehow a substantive due process violation put in a whole different category of constitutional analysis, and the city just goes along with that.\nIs there any case on record in which somebody has asserted that something like this... a court has held that something of this sort is a substantive due process violation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [218.065, 228.773], "stop_times": [228.773, 239.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 218.065}, "reply_to": "20883__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__0_015", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--I believe that the courts of appeal have analyzed the case law involving police pursuits under substantive due process violations, or alleged violations, but if this Court then looks--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [239.298], "stop_times": [254.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 239.298}, "reply_to": "20883__0_014", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_016", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Certainly nothing in this Court has.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [254.369], "stop_times": [256.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 254.369}, "reply_to": "20883__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__0_017", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Correct, and if this Court were to look at the recent Mays opinion out of the Seventh Circuit, perhaps, and upon reflection by petitioners we would submit that that may be the correct analysis.\nIf only the Fourth Amendment were to apply in this case, then there would be no violation because, in fact, the means that were used to... or were involved in this accident were not intentionally applied, so there was no seizure.\nSo if this Court is left to analyze it under the Albright analysis, then there would be no violation.\nPetitioner would prevail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [256.069, 267.986, 283.878, 290.452], "stop_times": [267.986, 283.878, 290.452, 291.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 256.069}, "reply_to": "20883__0_016", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_018", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "I certainly... you know, you cannot expand the First Amendment, for example, by saying, well, this doesn't violate any of our First Amendment law, however, we think this was a deprivation of liberty under the Due Process Clause, apart from the First Amendment.\nWe wouldn't hear something like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [291.482, 307.063], "stop_times": [307.063, 308.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 291.482}, "reply_to": "20883__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__0_019", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [308.983], "stop_times": [310.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 308.983}, "reply_to": "20883__0_018", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_020", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Why should we do it for the Fourth?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [310.716], "stop_times": [311.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 310.716}, "reply_to": "20883__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__0_021", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Upon reflection, petitioners would submit that it should not be so expanded, and that perhaps the analysis by this Court in DeShaney v. Winnebago is the correct analysis, that in fact, if this Court were to allow the claim for substantive due process to go forward, it would substantially disrupt the political process.\nAs this Court's noted in DeShaney as well as in the recent Collins decision and the Washington v. Glucksberg, the political process is extremely important to allow the States to develop the appropriate law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [311.754, 330.198], "stop_times": [330.198, 342.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 311.754}, "reply_to": "20883__0_020", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_022", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "But could you not have a high speed chase that wouldn't involve the Fourth Amendment?\nFor example, think back to the days of the Freedom Riders.\nSuppose there had been State police involved in just following these people on the road to terrorize them for mile after mile, not for the purpose of seizing them for arrest, but to frighten them.\nCouldn't that be an appropriate situation for a due process rather than a Fourth Amendment approach?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [342.706, 350.41, 353.493, 376.988], "stop_times": [350.41, 353.493, 376.988, 387.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 342.706}, "reply_to": "20883__0_021", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20883__0_023", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, although that specific type of circumstance has not been decided by this Court, the Fifth Circuit in the Checki v. Webb case did take that approach, and therein lies the basis for the analysis that potentially there could be such a claim.\nHowever, I think that what that demonstrates is the fact that in the context of qualified immunity Deputy Smith could not have known, as a reasonable officer in the field, what type of standards should be applied not only at the present time but back in May of 1990, when this pursuit occurred.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [387.797, 406.036], "stop_times": [406.036, 428.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 387.797}, "reply_to": "20883__0_022", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_024", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Well, do you... if we assume for the sake of argument that this is properly a substantive due process case and not a Fourth Amendment case, are we supposed to take the case on the assumption that on at least one of the two alternative standards that has been proposed here there is a substantive due process violation?\nThat seems to be the assumption of the State's position, but I may be wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [428.262, 449.086], "stop_times": [449.086, 454.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 428.262}, "reply_to": "20883__0_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20883__0_025", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "No.\nI believe there was no violation of substantive due process, regardless of which standard may be adopted by this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [454.238, 456.991], "stop_times": [456.991, 464.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 454.238}, "reply_to": "20883__0_024", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_026", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "So it's not merely a question of, he didn't know which.\nWe may assume that in fact it would be findable today that there is no substantive due process violation, even assuming that this is a substantive due process case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [464.376, 465.538], "stop_times": [465.538, 477.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 464.376}, "reply_to": "20883__0_025", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20883__0_027", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Well, 1), if you assume--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [477.927], "stop_times": [485.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 477.927}, "reply_to": "20883__0_026", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_028", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Because usually we don't get wrapped around problems of qualified immunity unless we are at least assuming that now there's a violation, so that's why I want to know whether you are conceding that now, on at least one of these standards, there would be a substantive due process violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [485.069], "stop_times": [503.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 485.069}, "reply_to": "20883__0_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20883__0_029", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--No, we are not.\nIf the Court determines to reach the issue and make a determination as to what the proper legal standard is, petitioners do not concede, under either standard that has been posited, that in fact there may have been a violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [503.773, 504.364], "stop_times": [504.364, 516.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 503.773}, "reply_to": "20883__0_028", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_030", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "I suppose you take the position that there was... a) there was no violation, but b) if you should find a violation, there was nonetheless qualified immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [516.091], "stop_times": [526.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 516.091}, "reply_to": "20883__0_029", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20883__0_031", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [526.219], "stop_times": [527.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 526.219}, "reply_to": "20883__0_030", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_032", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Why wasn't this case disposed of on the basis of qualified immunity?\nI think our cases have said that the courts should make that inquiry first before they move on to decide the constitutional questions, and even if this is a substantive due process violation, it's surely a brand new one, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [527.728, 532.53], "stop_times": [532.53, 547.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 527.728}, "reply_to": "20883__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__0_033", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Well, in fact, Justice Scalia, petitioners would heartily agree, and in fact the district court did dispose of this matter on behalf of Deputy Smith with respect to the qualified immunity issue, and we believe correctly did so.\nWe believe that the Ninth Circuit's analysis rejects this Court's prior teachings in Harlow and Malley v. Briggs and determines that, under this very gray area of conduct that is sufficiently egregious, that somehow an officer, in the context of the rubric of the Fourteenth Amendment, should have known that his conduct may violate a constitutional right, and we believe that this case should have been disposed of on qualified immunity grounds.\nIn fact, in the recent Linear case, which analogizes to the qualified immunity context, this Court specifically pointed out that when the case law leaves open the general rule to be applied, then it's necessary that there be a very high degree of factual particularity in order to overcome that immunity.\nIn the context of a police pursuit that occurred in May of 1990, no such factual particularity was present.\nThere were several cases that had analyzed this issue.\nHowever, in those cases, excepting the Checki v. Webb case, there were no violations found, and only in Checki was there some suggestion there may have been a violation.\nBut circumstances in that case law had involved excessive speeds, traveling too closely, failing to activate lights and sirens, failing to call in by radio, alleged violations of departmental policies, alleged violations of State law, all of which had resulted in a finding of no liability, so certainly the factual contours were not sufficiently developed in May of 1990 to provide and put a reasonable officer on notice that he could be held liable.\nBut in the Malley case, this Court points out that, specifically, if reasonable officers could disagree as to whether there may have been a violation, then the immunity applies, and petitioners respectfully submit that in fact that's exactly what occurred in this case.\nReasonable officers could certainly disagree as to whether there was some potential for liability in May of 1990 arising out of the facts and circumstances of this case and the context of alleged violation of substantive due process, and on that basis petitioners respectfully request that this Court find that there was qualified immunity that Deputy Smith is entitled to, and therefore petitioners prevail.\nIf this Court proceeds to analyze what the proper legal standard is with respect to an alleged violation of substantive due process, then petitioners respectfully submit that the standard should be one that is either arbitrary or shocks the conscience.\nIn that regard, I think it's important to look at the policy considerations which may be affected.\nSpecifically, there should be deference given to the political process and the nature of the interests involved in the type of case in the circumstance or in the context of a police pursuit.\nThere's also the impact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [547.681, 560.44, 588.39, 613.334, 621.189, 624.942, 634.879, 666.709, 683.96, 707.235, 724.487, 730.86, 744.491], "stop_times": [560.44, 588.39, 613.334, 621.189, 624.942, 634.879, 666.709, 683.96, 707.235, 724.487, 730.86, 744.491, 747.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 547.681}, "reply_to": "20883__0_032", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_034", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "May I ask, on the political process, is it correct that in California the officers are immune for this kind of conduct, even if it's... no matter how gross?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [747.543], "stop_times": [755.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 747.543}, "reply_to": "20883__0_033", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20883__0_035", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--You are correct, Justice Stevens, in that the individual officer is immune.\nHowever, the entity may be held liable under appropriate circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [755.157, 761.642], "stop_times": [761.642, 765.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 755.157}, "reply_to": "20883__0_034", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_036", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "In other words, the city might be held liable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [765.265], "stop_times": [767.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 765.265}, "reply_to": "20883__0_035", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20883__0_037", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [767.947], "stop_times": [768.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 767.947}, "reply_to": "20883__0_036", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_038", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "On a respondeat superior type of approach, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [768.267], "stop_times": [771.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 768.267}, "reply_to": "20883__0_037", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20883__0_039", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "That's correct.\nHowever, they leave the individual officer out of the context of that civil liability, and there is a specific statutory scheme which has been adopted by California that not only allows for the potential for a municipality to be liable in the context of a Code 3 emergent vehicle operation, but also specifically the legislature has adopted a statute that encourages departments in California to adopt an appropriate police or law enforcement agency policy regarding pursuits so as to potentially avoid liability if the accident results from the vehicle operated by the suspect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [771.319, 771.889], "stop_times": [771.889, 812.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 771.319}, "reply_to": "20883__0_038", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_040", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Now, in this case did the plaintiff sue the county, too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [812.916], "stop_times": [817.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 812.916}, "reply_to": "20883__0_039", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20883__0_041", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [817.951], "stop_times": [818.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 817.951}, "reply_to": "20883__0_040", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_042", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "On State law grounds?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [818.412], "stop_times": [819.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 818.412}, "reply_to": "20883__0_041", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20883__0_043", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [819.081], "stop_times": [819.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 819.081}, "reply_to": "20883__0_042", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_044", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [819.551], "stop_times": [820.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 819.551}, "reply_to": "20883__0_043", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20883__0_045", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "And a portion of that was dismissed at the district court level and a portion of that was reserved, specifically whether or not the county of Sacramento would be immune from liability under the vehicle code section that provides for the adoption of an appropriate pursuit policy as well as the issue of whether or not it was an accident that resulted from the operation of the suspect's vehicle in this case.\nI think that if the less stringent standard is adopted by the Court in this case, then it will effectively remove this type of claim from the political process.\nThis type of claim is appropriate to be resolved by the States in adopting their State tort laws.\nSpecifically, the persons directly affected, whether it be the... in the category of suspects or in the category of innocent bystanders, it is clear that the States and those bystanders, being the very electorate that affect the laws of the State, should have a say in whether or not there should be recovery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [820.022, 843.167, 858.937, 864.411], "stop_times": [843.167, 858.937, 864.411, 884.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 820.022}, "reply_to": "20883__0_044", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_046", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Well, of course, we don't ordinarily say that if there's... when we're trying to interpret a provision of the Constitution that the public ought to have some input on it.\nI mean, certainly we hear argument and we try to figure out what those who adopted that provision may mean, but we don't generally say that, let's hear what the people have to say about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [884.494, 896.571], "stop_times": [896.571, 907.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 884.494}, "reply_to": "20883__0_045", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20883__0_047", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "But indirectly, Mr. Chief Justice, we do that through our State legislatures, and that is precisely what this Court has looked to to see whether or not States would adopt and should adopt appropriate laws to govern these types of situations, and that's what the Court referred to in Collins, directing to leave this to the area of the local representatives, rather than an interpretation of the charter of the Government for this entire country.\nThen it becomes a judicial interpretation as opposed to a political interpretation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [907.43, 941.964], "stop_times": [941.964, 946.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 907.43}, "reply_to": "20883__0_046", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_048", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "But I think Collins first evaluated whether or not there was a substantive due process violation and said no, and said, therefore this is left to the political process.\nI mean, I think you first have to do your reasoning on the constitutional point, then the result may be that it's left to the political process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [946.015, 959.505], "stop_times": [959.505, 967.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 946.015}, "reply_to": "20883__0_047", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20883__0_049", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "I understood that was the analysis in the Collins case.\nHowever, we would respect that there should be some deference given to the State political process as explored in the DeShaney decision, because that is important to determine whether this Court will expand its interpretation of claims for substantive violations of due process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [967.52, 974.075], "stop_times": [974.075, 990.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 967.52}, "reply_to": "20883__0_048", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_050", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Well, we do it if we first conclude that it is not arbitrary, that whatever the State action was that caused the injury was not arbitrary in the sense of just being beyond the realm of reason as something the State might choose to do, or a governmental actor might choose to do.\nIs it your argument here... I take it ultimately it is... that you simply cannot say that a high speed chase, assuming there is cause to apprehend in the first place, is so totally beyond the realm of reasonable conduct addressing a legitimate governmental object as ever to fall within that arbitrary character.\nIs that your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [990.717, 1010.419, 1039.848], "stop_times": [1010.419, 1039.848, 1041.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 990.717}, "reply_to": "20883__0_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20883__0_051", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Well, I believe that the initiation and continuing of high speed pursuits are not arbitrary, at least in most circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1041.55], "stop_times": [1050.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1041.55}, "reply_to": "20883__0_050", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_052", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "They may be unwise, but they are not, as it were, so totally beyond the realm of reason as to rise to the level of a substantive due process violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1050.845], "stop_times": [1059.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1050.845}, "reply_to": "20883__0_051", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20883__0_053", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "I believe that's correct.\nThere is a rational purpose, more often than not, I think, in the substantial number of police pursuits that allow for those pursuits to take place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1059.98, 1060.921], "stop_times": [1060.921, 1070.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1059.98}, "reply_to": "20883__0_052", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_054", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Now, how do you distinguish those... and I... I know I'm mixing apples and oranges here, but how do you distinguish those, your position there from the analysis that occurs in an unreasonable force situation under the Fourth Amendment?\nWhy is... why can we not say, let's say in unreasonable force cases that, sure, the force is always directed to the consummation of a legitimate governmental object, which is the apprehension of the suspect, or the person for whom there is a warrant.\nWhy don't we in effect dismiss all of those cases on the same analysis?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1070.719, 1087.509, 1109.863], "stop_times": [1087.509, 1109.863, 1115.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1070.719}, "reply_to": "20883__0_053", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20883__0_055", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Well, because I believe that, in terms of the Bill of Rights and specifically the Fourth Amendment, that those are directed toward guaranteeing certain minimal levels of safety, whereas the Fourteenth Amendment is essentially the residual provision.\nIt's a limitation on State powers as opposed to the guarantees that would fall within the Fourth Amendment, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1115.228, 1131.859], "stop_times": [1131.859, 1140.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1115.228}, "reply_to": "20883__0_054", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_056", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "But would it be fair to say that the force cases are all cases in which there can be, or could have been, or was an apprehension in the first place, and it's clear that by no stretch of the imagination was the force necessary to accomplish the object?\nWould that be a fair characterization?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1140.113, 1158.987], "stop_times": [1158.987, 1160.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1140.113}, "reply_to": "20883__0_055", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20883__0_057", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Well, that would be true, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1160.717], "stop_times": [1162.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1160.717}, "reply_to": "20883__0_056", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_058", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "And in this case it isn't correct to say that by no stretch of the imagination the speed was unnecessary to catch the person.\nIs that the distinction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1162.309, 1170.464], "stop_times": [1170.464, 1171.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1162.309}, "reply_to": "20883__0_057", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20883__0_059", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Well, that is true, and that we are still in the realm potentially of the show of authority, as opposed to the actual means put in motion to cause the apprehension.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1171.944], "stop_times": [1184.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1171.944}, "reply_to": "20883__0_058", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_060", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Well, Mr. Cassidy, doesn't the Fourth Amendment itself speak in terms of unreasonableness?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1184.723], "stop_times": [1190.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1184.723}, "reply_to": "20883__0_059", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20883__0_061", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1190.786], "stop_times": [1192.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1190.786}, "reply_to": "20883__0_060", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_062", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "So that that would supply the standard for the Fourth Amendment but perhaps would not supply the standard for some other analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1192.349], "stop_times": [1198.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1192.349}, "reply_to": "20883__0_061", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20883__0_063", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1198.491], "stop_times": [1199.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1198.491}, "reply_to": "20883__0_062", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_064", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Do you know of any case under substantive due process in which the deprivation in question was negligent, or even grossly negligent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1199.953], "stop_times": [1211.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1199.953}, "reply_to": "20883__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__0_065", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1211.501], "stop_times": [1212.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1211.501}, "reply_to": "20883__0_064", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_066", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Or even shocking the conscience but not intentional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1212.433], "stop_times": [1216.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1212.433}, "reply_to": "20883__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__0_067", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Under the Fourth Amendment, or Fourteenth?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1216.143], "stop_times": [1218.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1216.143}, "reply_to": "20883__0_066", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_068", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Under the substantive Due Process Clause.\nUnder the Due Process Clause, which we have interpreted to be a substantive clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1218.937, 1220.898], "stop_times": [1220.898, 1225.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1218.937}, "reply_to": "20883__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__0_069", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "I'm sorry, I... is there any case law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1225.469], "stop_times": [1230.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1225.469}, "reply_to": "20883__0_068", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_070", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Your argument concedes that if it shocks the conscience it doesn't matter if the officer did not intend to deprive this individual of his life.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1230.454], "stop_times": [1242.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1230.454}, "reply_to": "20883__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__0_071", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1242.352], "stop_times": [1244.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1242.352}, "reply_to": "20883__0_070", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_072", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Do you know of any other substantive due process cases where there has been a negligent, even grossly negligent deprivation of life that was held to violate substantive due process?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1244.012], "stop_times": [1255.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1244.012}, "reply_to": "20883__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__0_073", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "I don't know that we concede that it should be something less than intentional, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1255.87], "stop_times": [1261.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1255.87}, "reply_to": "20883__0_072", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_074", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "You don't make the argument anywhere, and I... you know, I was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1261.133], "stop_times": [1265.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1261.133}, "reply_to": "20883__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__0_075", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--I believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1265.486], "stop_times": [1266.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1265.486}, "reply_to": "20883__0_074", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_076", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--surprised not to see it made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1266.586], "stop_times": [1268.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1266.586}, "reply_to": "20883__0_075", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__0_077", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--I believe we did state that it would be necessary in the context of adopting the shocks-the-conscience standard that that be aligned with the need for intentional and deliberate conduct in order to support a violation for substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1268.158], "stop_times": [1284.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1268.158}, "reply_to": "20883__0_076", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_078", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Well, is what you're saying that conduct which is not intentional very likely would not shock the conscience?\nShock the conscience suggests something moral, and simply gross negligence perhaps does not raise any moral question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1284.688, 1291.894], "stop_times": [1291.894, 1298.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1284.688}, "reply_to": "20883__0_077", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20883__0_079", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "That's correct.\nWe believe that the logical extension of shocks the conscience, in terms of the framework of defining such a claim, would be that of the language previously adopted by Judge Friendly in Johnson v. Glick, whether in fact there was conduct on the part of an officer that was malicious or sadistic for the very purpose of causing harm, and only in those circumstances could there potentially be a claim asserted for a violation of substantive due process in the context of a police pursuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1298.997, 1299.869], "stop_times": [1299.869, 1328.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1298.997}, "reply_to": "20883__0_078", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_080", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Why couldn't there... so I'm thinking about it possibly a little differently, some things that you say.\nThere is a category of cases where Government officials deprive a person of life.\nThey're police officers, and most, but not all of those fall under the Fourth Amendment.\nThat's one category.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1328.977, 1335.001, 1341.987, 1346.648], "stop_times": [1335.001, 1341.987, 1346.648, 1348.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1328.977}, "reply_to": "20883__0_079", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20883__0_081", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1348.39], "stop_times": [1348.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1348.39}, "reply_to": "20883__0_080", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_082", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "And there's a second category where they behave in ways that shock the conscience.\nThat's a second category, not the first.\nThen there's possibly a third category that Justice Ginsburg mentioned where you could have conduct, perhaps it's rare, but someone who's not a policeman, someone who doesn't behave in a way that shocks the conscience, but nonetheless either negligently, recklessly, or intentionally deprives a person of his life.\nNow, that might be covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, mightn't it?\nI mean, at least where someone intentionally deprives a person of his life.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1348.901, 1353.043, 1356.165, 1378.56, 1383.174], "stop_times": [1353.043, 1356.165, 1378.56, 1383.174, 1388.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1348.901}, "reply_to": "20883__0_081", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20883__0_083", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1388.356], "stop_times": [1389.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1388.356}, "reply_to": "20883__0_082", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_084", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "What should the standard be there?\nMaybe it wasn't a policeman.\nMaybe it was a health officer.\nI don't know who it was.\nBut what should the standard be in that third category of cases?\nWould you say it never violates the Constitution to intentionally deprive a person of his life without justification?\nWould you say, reckless?\nWould you say, negligent?\nDoes it depend on whether the State provides an adequate tort remedy, so that the process is okay, or not okay?\nWhat's the standard in that third area?\nThat's what I'm not certain about, which is why I asked.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1389.548, 1392.279, 1393.341, 1394.479, 1395.431, 1401.586, 1410.291, 1414.074, 1417.595, 1428.113, 1430.934], "stop_times": [1392.279, 1393.341, 1394.479, 1395.431, 1401.586, 1410.291, 1414.074, 1417.595, 1428.113, 1430.934, 1434.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1389.548}, "reply_to": "20883__0_083", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20883__0_085", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--I believe that third area should be handled by the States under the States--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1434.096], "stop_times": [1438.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1434.096}, "reply_to": "20883__0_084", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_086", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "So even if a person--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1438.509], "stop_times": [1439.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1438.509}, "reply_to": "20883__0_085", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20883__0_087", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--process and should not be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1439.55], "stop_times": [1440.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1439.55}, "reply_to": "20883__0_086", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_088", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Even if a health officer, for example, intentionally murdered somebody under color of law, it didn't shock the conscience but it was awful, it doesn't violate the Constitution even if the State provides no remedy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1440.391], "stop_times": [1454.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1440.391}, "reply_to": "20883__0_087", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20883__0_089", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--I have difficulty finding that that perhaps would not shock the conscience.\nHowever, that may fall--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1454.82, 1460.134], "stop_times": [1460.134, 1461.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1454.82}, "reply_to": "20883__0_088", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_090", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "You're going to expand the shock-the-conscience category.\nI mean, that's a way of dealing with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1461.373, 1463.226], "stop_times": [1463.226, 1465.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1461.373}, "reply_to": "20883__0_089", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20883__0_091", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--That may also be a claim under the Fourth Amendment, because that person effected a seizure of that party.\nIf it's a nonpolice officer it may not be, but that... it's our position that that gray area... the Fourth Amendment would handle the claims for alleged unreasonable seizures of the person.\nThe Fourteenth Amendment, as petitioners have proposed, should be limited to only those claims that involve conduct that shocks the conscience.\nAny other areas should be covered by the State tort law and the political process in the States to adopt the appropriate tort remedies as the legislatures in the States see fit.\nA good example of that is all of the statistical data that was submitted to this Court in the context of police pursuits.\nThis Court should not, certainly, be forced to wade through all of those statistical statistics in order to make its decision in this case.\nHowever, the States are in the position to assess what statistical data is appropriate and to determine what remedies should be invoked, and with that, Mr. Chief Justice, I would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1465.217, 1471.911, 1485.659, 1492.474, 1503.831, 1511.397, 1518.51], "stop_times": [1471.911, 1485.659, 1492.474, 1503.831, 1511.397, 1518.51, 1529.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1465.217}, "reply_to": "20883__0_090", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_092", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "How about an individual instance, like Checki itself?\nWould you agree that that is an illustration of where you might have... where you have conduct that is shocking?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1529.319, 1531.6], "stop_times": [1531.6, 1540.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1529.319}, "reply_to": "20883__0_091", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20883__0_093", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--I believe Checki is an illustration.\nFor instance, another illustration would potentially be when an officer knows the identity of a suspect and could apprehend them at a later time, but however proceeds to intentionally harass and threaten that person by tail-gating them at 2 to 3 feet at speeds in excess of 100 miles an hour.\nMr. Chief Justice, I would like to reserve the remainder of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1540.306, 1542.578, 1558.538], "stop_times": [1542.578, 1558.538, 1560.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1540.306}, "reply_to": "20883__0_092", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_094", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "May I ask just one quick question, please, before you sit down?\nI wanted to get back to this case, and you said at the beginning that you thought if it were a Fourth Amendment case there's clearly no liability.\nWhy is that?\nWhy isn't an attempted seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1560.889, 1562.71, 1569.605, 1570.766], "stop_times": [1562.71, 1569.605, 1570.766, 1574.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1560.889}, "reply_to": "20883__0_093", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20883__0_095", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Because I believe that this Court has previously addressed that question regarding the show of authority in the Hodari case, and there is no seizure, and that was confirmed by this Court's opinion in Brower.\nWith that, Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to defer my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1574.179, 1584.445], "stop_times": [1584.445, 1586.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1574.179}, "reply_to": "20883__0_094", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__0_096", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Very well, Mr. Cassidy.\nMr. Hedlund, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1586.756, 1588.358], "stop_times": [1588.358, 1590.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1586.756}, "reply_to": "20883__0_095", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20883__1_000", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis Court and the Constitution protect fleeing felons from lethal force except in certain circumstances.\nIt would seem that this Court and the Constitution would do the same for people who only commit minor traffic infractions, and especially for innocent trapped passengers like Philip Lewis.\nFurthermore, it is submitted that it should not be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1590.118, 1596.522, 1606.83, 1619.918], "stop_times": [1596.522, 1606.83, 1619.918, 1623.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1590.118}, "reply_to": "20883__0_096", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_001", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Well, it sort of begs the question to call this lethal force.\nWhen you say lethal force, you... that indicates, you know, intentionally trying to kill the person.\nThat's not in this case at all, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1623.921, 1627.605, 1635.307], "stop_times": [1627.605, 1635.307, 1637.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1623.921}, "reply_to": "20883__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__1_002", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--The... well, I think in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1637.76], "stop_times": [1642.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1637.76}, "reply_to": "20883__1_001", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_003", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "It was at most an irresponsibly speedy chase.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1642.471], "stop_times": [1646.866], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1642.471}, "reply_to": "20883__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__1_004", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1646.866], "stop_times": [1647.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1646.866}, "reply_to": "20883__1_003", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_005", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Was there any indication that there was an intent to kill anybody, to apply lethal force?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1647.557], "stop_times": [1651.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1647.557}, "reply_to": "20883__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__1_006", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Well, actually, when you look at the end of the accident itself, the police officer during his deposition will not even concede that he hit the individual, that... you'll see on page, I think it's 106 of the appendix, that here is an individual who is ejected, or stands up in the center of a two-lane highway.\nHow in the world can the officer, who has 200 feet prior to impact, hit the individual, who's in the center of a two-lane highway?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1651.718, 1679.196], "stop_times": [1679.196, 1698.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1651.718}, "reply_to": "20883__1_005", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_007", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "If that's the case you shouldn't worry about the shocks-the-conscience standard, then.\nIf you have a case where a policeman, you know, just revved up and drove right into somebody, why should you worry about shocks the conscience?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1698.809, 1702.622], "stop_times": [1702.622, 1709.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1698.809}, "reply_to": "20883__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__1_008", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Well, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1709.687], "stop_times": [1710.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1709.687}, "reply_to": "20883__1_007", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_009", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "That certainly shocks my conscience.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1710.496], "stop_times": [1711.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1710.496}, "reply_to": "20883__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__1_010", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--It certainly shocks mine.\nI think I can prevail in any jury on any test this Court wishes to present.\nHowever, I think that the test, and that is really the crucial issue that was presented here originally, the test... and I think this case is properly analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment.\nI think all the lower courts have actually analyzed most cases under the Fourteenth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1711.618, 1712.659, 1719.482, 1731.711], "stop_times": [1712.659, 1719.482, 1731.711, 1736.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1711.618}, "reply_to": "20883__1_009", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_011", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Was that true after our opinion in Conner v. Graham, as well as before?\nI know that there had been some considerable use of the substantive due process in dealing with police use of force in arrests before our opinion in Conner, but in Conner, of course, we said those kinds of things come under the Fourth Amendment.\nAre the cases you're talking about, do they come after Conner?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1736.255, 1740.807, 1758.298], "stop_times": [1740.807, 1758.298, 1761.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1736.255}, "reply_to": "20883__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20883__1_012", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Oh, yes, and... I mean, there are legions of cases, and some of them use shocks the conscience, and some of them use reckless disregard.\nThe Ninth Circuit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1761.52, 1772.066], "stop_times": [1772.066, 1773.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1761.52}, "reply_to": "20883__1_011", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_013", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Those are two quite different concepts, aren't they?\nShocks the conscience certainly connotes something intentional, whereas reckless disregard connotes something... indifference, but not intent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1773.077, 1775.008], "stop_times": [1775.008, 1784.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1773.077}, "reply_to": "20883__1_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20883__1_014", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Well, I think it connotes reckless intent, which is, you know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1784.154], "stop_times": [1789.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1784.154}, "reply_to": "20883__1_013", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_015", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Well, reckless intent is a... kind of is an oxymoron.\nReckless means you don't care, and intent means you do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1789.998, 1793.329], "stop_times": [1793.329, 1796.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1789.998}, "reply_to": "20883__1_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20883__1_016", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Well, I think there is... that's exactly the point that's presented here, and I would like to make one more point when I say, about the Fourteenth Amendment.\nThe individual who is killed in this case represents almost an innocent bystander, because he's on the back of a motor cycle, but at the time that he was actually killed he was standing in the middle of the street, because he had stepped off the motor cycle.\nIt had stopped, and it was stopped in response to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1796.803, 1805.589, 1821.4], "stop_times": [1805.589, 1821.4, 1826.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1796.803}, "reply_to": "20883__1_015", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_017", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Well, if you... if, as you say, you can persuade a jury that the police officer just did this intentionally, as Justice Scalia says, you will win under any standard.\nBut the Ninth Circuit didn't analyze it as if that were the case.\nIt analyzed it as if it were gross negligence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1826.153, 1836.54, 1839.971], "stop_times": [1836.54, 1839.971, 1843.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1826.153}, "reply_to": "20883__1_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20883__1_018", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--No, I disagree.\nIn fact, the Ninth Circuit asked me specifically what I thought the standard would be, and suggested whether I thought the standard should be gross negligence, and I said, I think if you do that the Supreme Court will reverse you right away.\nI don't think that gross negligence today--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1843.052, 1846.194, 1860.686], "stop_times": [1846.194, 1860.686, 1863.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1843.052}, "reply_to": "20883__1_017", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_019", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "So what did the Ninth Circuit decide was the standard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1863.048], "stop_times": [1867.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1863.048}, "reply_to": "20883__1_018", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20883__1_020", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Reckless disregard.\nConscience indifference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1867.449, 1868.781], "stop_times": [1868.781, 1869.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1867.449}, "reply_to": "20883__1_019", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_021", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Yes, but that still is not your case, where the police officer simply guns the motor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1869.58], "stop_times": [1876.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1869.58}, "reply_to": "20883__1_020", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20883__1_022", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1876.094], "stop_times": [1876.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1876.094}, "reply_to": "20883__1_021", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_023", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--sees this guy standing there, says, I'm going to kill him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1876.675], "stop_times": [1878.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1876.675}, "reply_to": "20883__1_022", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20883__1_024", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--No, the person didn't gun the motor.\nHe laid down 166 feet--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1878.946, 1881.457], "stop_times": [1881.457, 1883.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1878.946}, "reply_to": "20883__1_023", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_025", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Just coasted in and intentionally--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1883.991], "stop_times": [1885.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1883.991}, "reply_to": "20883__1_024", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20883__1_026", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--No, no, you don't coast with 166 feet of four-wheel-lock skid.\nWe concede that.\nHe wished he got out of the way, yes.\nI concede that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1885.431, 1890.443, 1892.226, 1895.977], "stop_times": [1890.443, 1892.226, 1895.977, 1897.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1885.431}, "reply_to": "20883__1_025", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_027", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Well, he wished that, and he wasn't exactly an innocent bystander.\nI mean, he was riding on a motor cycle in violation of his parole, the motor cycle being driven by someone whom he had been told, as a condition of his parole, to stay away from.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1897.71, 1902.442], "stop_times": [1902.442, 1912.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1897.71}, "reply_to": "20883__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__1_028", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1912.419], "stop_times": [1913.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1912.419}, "reply_to": "20883__1_027", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_029", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "So there was some reason to believe that the reason they were both fleeing was that they were... if found together were in violation of their parole for grand theft auto on some other occasion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1913.958], "stop_times": [1923.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1913.958}, "reply_to": "20883__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__1_030", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "It was joy-riding--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1923.415], "stop_times": [1924.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1923.415}, "reply_to": "20883__1_029", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_031", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Joy-riding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1924.396], "stop_times": [1925.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1924.396}, "reply_to": "20883__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__1_032", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--for Philip Lewis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1925.566], "stop_times": [1926.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1925.566}, "reply_to": "20883__1_031", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_033", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Well, whatever.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1926.147], "stop_times": [1926.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1926.147}, "reply_to": "20883__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__1_034", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "But from the position of the officer, that... there was... they didn't know these kids at all, and when they were perceived originally they were walking the motor cycle between the two police cars.\nThe officer that instituted the chase didn't even know if the lights that were put on on Mr. Stapp's automobile were intended for Mr. Lewis, or for Mr. Brian Willard, more specifically, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1926.728, 1942.619], "stop_times": [1942.619, 1959.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1926.728}, "reply_to": "20883__1_033", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_035", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "They didn't realize that the police, when they turned the lights on, were trying to stop them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1959.058], "stop_times": [1962.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1959.058}, "reply_to": "20883__1_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__1_036", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--There is no indication that Officer Smith, who did this incredibly reckless act, even knew that Philip Lewis or Brian Willard saw the lights.\nThe only evidence is that Officer Stapp saw lights go on, and he was below the car, and at an angle.\nHe was faced in this direction.\nHe looked over his shoulder.\nThe boy... the boys at one time, he says, or another, looked at him and then proceeded off.\nHe immediately turned his car in a three point turn and proceeded out at a high rate of speed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [1962.462, 1979.722, 1992.652, 1995.674, 1997.063, 2006.6], "stop_times": [1979.722, 1992.652, 1995.674, 1997.063, 2006.6, 2012.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1962.462}, "reply_to": "20883__1_035", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_037", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "And how... which was necessary to catch up to the motor cycle.\nHow fast was the motor cycle going?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2012.464, 2016.137], "stop_times": [2016.137, 2018.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2012.464}, "reply_to": "20883__1_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__1_038", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "At that point... I asked him specifically, because, he said, they accelerated away quickly, and I said, what does that mean, you... oh, at a high rate of speed, he said.\nAt a high rate of speed, they went.\nThis is a 1976 Honda motor cycle that had just been worked on and finally fixed so it could even run, and he says, well, that means they accelerated quickly to the speed limit and then beyond.\nThe truth... when you see, as I have, the testimony of Officer Smith, everything in his testimony smacks of this incredible callous indifference, and this incredible hostility for an incident that was really created beforehand which, he came out of... he and the other officer came out of a house dispute which was... turned nasty, and he got back in his car... Stapp himself, all he heard was the revving of a motor cycle.\nHe assumed that the revving of the motor cycle meant something, perhaps that the motor cycle was going fast.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2018.148, 2029.657, 2031.408, 2049.038, 2091.097], "stop_times": [2029.657, 2031.408, 2049.038, 2091.097, 2101.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2018.148}, "reply_to": "20883__1_037", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_039", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Well, we're here to talk about what standard should be applied in determining these cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2101.192], "stop_times": [2105.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2101.192}, "reply_to": "20883__1_038", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20883__1_040", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Well, that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2105.125], "stop_times": [2105.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2105.125}, "reply_to": "20883__1_039", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_041", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--and whether or not the Ninth Circuit was correct.\nIf Collins v. Harker Heights controls the case, what should be the outcome?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2105.576, 2108.067], "stop_times": [2108.067, 2112.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2105.576}, "reply_to": "20883__1_040", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20883__1_042", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Well, I actually like the opinion in Collins, because it seems to me to indicate that Collins is a situation in which the Court is willing, if the conduct, no matter what it is... no matter what it is... is so egregious that it shocks the conscience, that means to say that I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2112.74], "stop_times": [2142.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2112.74}, "reply_to": "20883__1_041", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_043", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Well, that's not what the court of appeals held, was it?\nThe court of appeals held reckless indifference, which is really mistaking the analysis given in Collins.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2142.809, 2143.58], "stop_times": [2143.58, 2155.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2142.809}, "reply_to": "20883__1_042", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20883__1_044", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Well, Collins--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2155.109], "stop_times": [2155.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2155.109}, "reply_to": "20883__1_043", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_045", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "In Collins we used, of course, reckless indifference, but that was just to get over the Monell liability problem, not the substantive problem.\nSo you are, then, not defending the Ninth Circuit analysis, I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2155.66, 2161.657], "stop_times": [2161.657, 2167.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2155.66}, "reply_to": "20883__1_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20883__1_046", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--I am defending the Ninth Circuit analysis.\nI thought it was a good analysis, and an appropriate analysis.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2167.648, 2168.9, 2171.672], "stop_times": [2168.9, 2171.672, 2172.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2167.648}, "reply_to": "20883__1_045", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_047", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Did you think it was correct under Collins, despite the fact that they used the second prong test, municipal liability, to determine the first question, whether or not there was a substantive violation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2172.433], "stop_times": [2182.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2172.433}, "reply_to": "20883__1_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20883__1_048", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Well, I think they just determined that the same test should apply for municipal liability as applies for the underlying violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2182.597], "stop_times": [2189.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2182.597}, "reply_to": "20883__1_047", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_049", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "But that's quite... exactly contrary to what the Court held in Collins.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2189.263], "stop_times": [2193.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2189.263}, "reply_to": "20883__1_048", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20883__1_050", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "But Collins is a particular case that doesn't present the issues that this case presents at all.\nCollins is a way of getting around Worker's Comp statutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2193.696, 2200.53], "stop_times": [2200.53, 2204.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2193.696}, "reply_to": "20883__1_049", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_051", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "But Collins is an interpretation of the substantive Due Process Clause, and it uses the shocks-the-conscience test.\nIt tried to give it an objective component, not a subjective component, and the Ninth Circuit is the only one that seems to have misunderstood it, and it has done so in your case, and so it doesn't seem to me that you can, on the one hand say that you like being with Collins and on the other hand defend the judgment of the Ninth Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2204.524, 2210.137], "stop_times": [2210.137, 2229.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2204.524}, "reply_to": "20883__1_050", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20883__1_052", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Well, I... what I was saying is that Collins to me, reading Collins indicated that when you're dealing with noncore fundamental issues such as life, and here it's a failure to train, and you're dealing with nonspecifically governmental entities, like a sanitation department, which could be anything, there is a desire not to expand at all the Fourteenth Amendment into areas--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2229.12], "stop_times": [2263.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2229.12}, "reply_to": "20883__1_051", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_053", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "But there was no question in Collins whether or not a governmental official was involved, and I'm not sure--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2263.301], "stop_times": [2269.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2263.301}, "reply_to": "20883__1_052", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20883__1_054", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--No, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2269.005], "stop_times": [2269.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2269.005}, "reply_to": "20883__1_053", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_055", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--I know of any authority for the proposition that depending on whether or not you're a police officer or some other municipal employee the standard of... under the Due Process Clause differs.\nDo you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2269.336, 2284.195], "stop_times": [2284.195, 2285.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2269.336}, "reply_to": "20883__1_054", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20883__1_056", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Oh, I think it does, and it should.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2285.655], "stop_times": [2287.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2285.655}, "reply_to": "20883__1_055", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_057", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--What is the... what case do you have for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2287.457], "stop_times": [2288.258], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2287.457}, "reply_to": "20883__1_056", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20883__1_058", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "I don't... to me the Collins case specifically is... says that this is not the kind of governmental function that the Fourteenth Amendment was normally designed by the Framers to protect against, but in our--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2288.258], "stop_times": [2304.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2288.258}, "reply_to": "20883__1_057", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_059", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Because the standard of shock-the-conscience was not met.\nWe're talking about standards.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2304.708, 2307.12], "stop_times": [2307.12, 2308.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2304.708}, "reply_to": "20883__1_058", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20883__1_060", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2308.502], "stop_times": [2310.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2308.502}, "reply_to": "20883__1_059", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_061", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "We don't have different standards of liability under the Fourteenth Amendment depending on a whole range of different governmental officers.\nIf the injury is the same we base it on what the injury is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2310.282, 2318.156], "stop_times": [2318.156, 2321.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2310.282}, "reply_to": "20883__1_060", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20883__1_062", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--So is it the... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2321.969], "stop_times": [2325.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2321.969}, "reply_to": "20883__1_061", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_063", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "It seems to me that you're going to either defend the Ninth Circuit analysis or you're not, and if you're going to defend the Ninth Circuit analysis, then you have to ask us to alter the analysis that we used in Collins.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2325.812], "stop_times": [2335.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2325.812}, "reply_to": "20883__1_062", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20883__1_064", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--I don't believe that the analysis in Collins applies.\nI think shocks-the-conscience test that was enunciated in Collins is a good test for situations which are outside the normal purview of the Fourteenth Amendment, and which this Court does not want to be overridden by every administrative decision that occurs, and in those cases I think it's perfectly appropriate, and I applaud the Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2335.798, 2341.052], "stop_times": [2341.052, 2364.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2335.798}, "reply_to": "20883__1_063", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_065", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Well, do you think that high speed auto chases are the sort of thing that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to address?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2364.799], "stop_times": [2372.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2364.799}, "reply_to": "20883__1_064", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20883__1_066", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Absolutely.\nThat is the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2372.423, 2373.305], "stop_times": [2373.305, 2374.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2372.423}, "reply_to": "20883__1_065", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_067", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "In 1868?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2374.123], "stop_times": [2375.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2374.123}, "reply_to": "20883__1_066", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20883__1_068", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Well, high speed automobile chases--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2375.205], "stop_times": [2380.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2375.205}, "reply_to": "20883__1_067", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_069", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Carriage chases, perhaps.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2380.427], "stop_times": [2381.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2380.427}, "reply_to": "20883__1_068", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20883__1_070", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Well--\n[Laughter]\nAnd carriage chases didn't wreak the havoc that a 4,000-pound automobile doing 100 miles an hour behind some kids, when the police officer himself says... talk about shocks the conscience... that he was concerned for the safety of the passenger because the passenger's on the back of that errant motor cycle and not wearing a helmet.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2381.839, 2382.2, 2383.108], "stop_times": [2382.2, 2383.108, 2408.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2381.839}, "reply_to": "20883__1_069", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_071", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Can I ask you, follow... you may not agree with what... my analysis, but assume it for a second.\nAssume that you could recover under the Fourth Amendment were it not for the problem of seizure--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2408.957, 2415.89], "stop_times": [2415.89, 2421.195], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2408.957}, "reply_to": "20883__1_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20883__1_072", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2421.195], "stop_times": [2421.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2421.195}, "reply_to": "20883__1_071", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_073", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--so we're not talking about the Fourth Amendment.\nI'll assume for the sake of argument that you could prove a shock-the-conscience.\nMaybe you can, maybe you can't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2421.964, 2423.376, 2427.658], "stop_times": [2423.376, 2427.658, 2430.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2421.964}, "reply_to": "20883__1_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20883__1_074", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2430.091], "stop_times": [2430.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2430.091}, "reply_to": "20883__1_073", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_075", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "I'd say there is a category of shock-the-conscience behavior.\nIf you win on that one, fine, but I don't think that's what's in front of us.\nI think what's in front of us is the concern with a middle category of case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2430.971, 2433.852, 2436.624], "stop_times": [2433.852, 2436.624, 2441.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2430.971}, "reply_to": "20883__1_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20883__1_076", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2441.118], "stop_times": [2441.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2441.118}, "reply_to": "20883__1_075", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_077", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--where a Government official, deprives a person of his life and the Constitution says you can't.\nNow, with property, I think this Court said in Parratt that you're going to look to State law because they provide the procedure that's due.\nAll right.\nWith life, maybe it makes a difference whether it's intentional, reckless, or negligent, and whether the State provides procedure that's due.\nThat's what I want to know.\nWhat's the procedure that you get here under State law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2441.939, 2445.941, 2455.037, 2457.058, 2464.874, 2467.305], "stop_times": [2445.941, 2455.037, 2457.058, 2464.874, 2467.305, 2470.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2441.939}, "reply_to": "20883__1_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20883__1_078", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2470.196], "stop_times": [2471.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2470.196}, "reply_to": "20883__1_077", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_079", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "That is to say, can you recover from the municipality here under State law so that your client, if there was negligent or reckless or wrongful behavior, would be compensated?\nDoes State law permits that or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2471.438, 2483.374], "stop_times": [2483.374, 2485.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2471.438}, "reply_to": "20883__1_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20883__1_080", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--I don't think it's as easy as yes or no.\nI think yes.\nThe defendants say no.\nThey still say no.\nThey say, and I've been down this line enough times, that every single possible immunity... there's one that says fleeing people trying to evade don't have... you know, that an officer and the municipality are both immune from that liability, and then they try to say that the person on the back of the motor cycle was a coconspirator or something like that, had some agreement that he was going to continue.\nActually, in fact, the agreement here was that Mr. Lewis asked Brian Willard to stop and pull over on Orangevale, which is where the accident happened.\nNow, of course, what will happen eventually is either they will show that he's either participating or, when we get to the negligence claim, if we ever get to there, they will say, well, then he was partially negligent for asking him to stop right in the middle of the road.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2485.447, 2490.369, 2491.761, 2493.843, 2495.813, 2528.364, 2541.824], "stop_times": [2490.369, 2491.761, 2493.843, 2495.813, 2528.364, 2541.824, 2559.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2485.447}, "reply_to": "20883__1_079", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_081", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Well, Mr. Hedlund, you still have, I guess, unresolved at this stage State law claims--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2559.436], "stop_times": [2566.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2559.436}, "reply_to": "20883__1_080", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20883__1_082", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2566.159], "stop_times": [2566.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2566.159}, "reply_to": "20883__1_081", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_083", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--against the police officer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2566.569], "stop_times": [2568.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2566.569}, "reply_to": "20883__1_082", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20883__1_084", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2568.312], "stop_times": [2569.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2568.312}, "reply_to": "20883__1_083", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_085", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--and the county?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2569.06], "stop_times": [2569.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2569.06}, "reply_to": "20883__1_084", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20883__1_086", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "I have unresolved all claims.\nI have never had a trial.\nI have never--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2569.721, 2571.464, 2572.302], "stop_times": [2571.464, 2572.302, 2573.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2569.721}, "reply_to": "20883__1_085", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_087", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Well, there was a summary judgment at issue here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2573.664], "stop_times": [2577.038], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2573.664}, "reply_to": "20883__1_086", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20883__1_088", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2577.038], "stop_times": [2577.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2577.038}, "reply_to": "20883__1_087", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_089", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "That's what we're dealing with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2577.388], "stop_times": [2578.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2577.388}, "reply_to": "20883__1_088", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20883__1_090", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2578.357], "stop_times": [2578.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2578.357}, "reply_to": "20883__1_089", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_091", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "But with regard to the section 1983 claims only, isn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2578.707], "stop_times": [2585.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2578.707}, "reply_to": "20883__1_090", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20883__1_092", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "No.\nThe summary judgment went to the State claims, too, and the Federal judge there proceeded to knock me out on the State claims to the extent that he could and then reserved the one--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2585.051, 2585.512], "stop_times": [2585.512, 2598.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2585.051}, "reply_to": "20883__1_091", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_093", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2598.231], "stop_times": [2598.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2598.231}, "reply_to": "20883__1_092", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20883__1_094", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--One left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2598.82], "stop_times": [2599.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2598.82}, "reply_to": "20883__1_093", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_095", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--in any event, as I understand the situation, you have remaining for disposition in the lower courts claims of negligence or gross negligence against the officer and the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2599.641], "stop_times": [2612.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2599.641}, "reply_to": "20883__1_094", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20883__1_096", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Not the officer any more.\nImmunity applied to him completely.\nBut to the county--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2612.129, 2614.161, 2617.403], "stop_times": [2614.161, 2617.403, 2619.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2612.129}, "reply_to": "20883__1_095", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_097", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--To the county.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2619.165], "stop_times": [2619.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2619.165}, "reply_to": "20883__1_096", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20883__1_098", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Yes.\nOtherwise the county is out on this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2619.584, 2620.005], "stop_times": [2620.005, 2623.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2619.584}, "reply_to": "20883__1_097", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_099", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Is it something like the Federal Tort Claims Act where the governmental body is substituted for the individual who may have been negligent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2623.296], "stop_times": [2632.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2623.296}, "reply_to": "20883__1_098", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20883__1_100", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Well, is it respondeat superior that exempts the officer, yes.\nIn practicality the officer is exempted anyway, because the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2632.252, 2640.43], "stop_times": [2640.43, 2645.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2632.252}, "reply_to": "20883__1_099", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_101", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Judgment-proof, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2645.812], "stop_times": [2647.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2645.812}, "reply_to": "20883__1_100", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20883__1_102", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Well, the... no, not because of judgment-proof, but because of agreements that are reached between the entities and their employees.\nThey originally request insurance, but they have a back-up plan and they indemnify the employee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2647.423, 2659.731], "stop_times": [2659.731, 2669.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2647.423}, "reply_to": "20883__1_101", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_103", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--May I ask you, if this case were analyzed under the Fourth Amendment rather than substantive due process, what do you think a proper disposition would be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2669.057], "stop_times": [2682.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2669.057}, "reply_to": "20883__1_102", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20883__1_104", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Well, I think I would... in terms of disposition, you mean, what would be found?\nI think I would win hands-down, objective test of reasonable force.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2682.705, 2692.923], "stop_times": [2692.923, 2697.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2682.705}, "reply_to": "20883__1_103", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_105", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "How would you get over the possible hurdle that there was actually no seizure here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2697.375], "stop_times": [2701.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2697.375}, "reply_to": "20883__1_104", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20883__1_106", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Well, that's the problem.\nThat's why it's analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment.\nIt's unfortunate, but the truth is that one-third of all these deaths... which, by the way, are occurring one a day in high speed chases.\nThis is a phenomenal problem.\nIt kills exactly, almost to the individual... in 1995, 383 people each, as much as handguns used by police, so it is the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2701.829, 2703.121, 2706.28, 2714.996, 2717.34], "stop_times": [2703.121, 2706.28, 2714.996, 2717.34, 2731.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2701.829}, "reply_to": "20883__1_105", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_107", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Do you have any idea how many dangerous felons have been captured in high speed chases who would have killed more than 383 people?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2731.629], "stop_times": [2740.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2731.629}, "reply_to": "20883__1_106", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__1_108", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Well, there's no statistics.\nIt's... you know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2740.925, 2742.646], "stop_times": [2742.646, 2743.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2740.925}, "reply_to": "20883__1_107", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_109", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "I mean, it's all a cost-benefits analysis, isn't it, and I guess if the... you know... you can't really--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2743.297], "stop_times": [2748.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2743.297}, "reply_to": "20883__1_108", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__1_110", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--I... you know, I think, though... I think that the notion of the Fourteenth Amendment is that there are certain arbitrary procedures.\nWhen you pursue someone for no cause... there is... without sufficient justification, and you endanger so many people's lives, going over a blind hill at night--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2748.468, 2756.713], "stop_times": [2756.713, 2770.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2748.468}, "reply_to": "20883__1_109", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_111", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Well, you have this big wind-up, but what's the answer to Justice Stevens' question?\nWhat is the standard under the Fourth Amendment.\nWe're talking about standards here.\nWe can apply those standards to the facts in the judicial system, but we want to know what the standard is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2770.134, 2774.816, 2776.949, 2778.099], "stop_times": [2774.816, 2776.949, 2778.099, 2784.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2770.134}, "reply_to": "20883__1_110", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20883__1_112", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2784.533], "stop_times": [2785.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2784.533}, "reply_to": "20883__1_111", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_113", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--so we can instruct the Ninth Circuit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2785.054], "stop_times": [2786.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2785.054}, "reply_to": "20883__1_112", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20883__1_114", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2786.212], "stop_times": [2786.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2786.212}, "reply_to": "20883__1_113", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_115", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--whether it was correct or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2786.793], "stop_times": [2787.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2786.793}, "reply_to": "20883__1_114", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20883__1_116", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--I think that Farmer v. Brennan is a good standard, that... disregarding a known risk.\nI think that that is enough to give intent.\nIf it weren't for Brower I think that we would agree with the notion of an analysis under the Fourth Amendment.\nI think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2787.324, 2797.652, 2804.876, 2819.456], "stop_times": [2797.652, 2804.876, 2819.456, 2820.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2787.324}, "reply_to": "20883__1_115", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_117", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "So there can never be a lawful... or, there can never be a high speed chase consistent either with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2820.277], "stop_times": [2828.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2820.277}, "reply_to": "20883__1_116", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20883__1_118", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--No.\nI think that one has to balance--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2828.131, 2828.551], "stop_times": [2828.551, 2830.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2828.131}, "reply_to": "20883__1_117", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_119", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Well, there's always a known risk.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2830.171], "stop_times": [2831.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2830.171}, "reply_to": "20883__1_118", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20883__1_120", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2831.323], "stop_times": [2832.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2831.323}, "reply_to": "20883__1_119", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_121", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "If you're going to drive that fast there's a known risk, and presumably you disregard it when you make the chase, so how do you distinguish between the cases in which there would be recovery and those in which there would not be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2832.264], "stop_times": [2843.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2832.264}, "reply_to": "20883__1_120", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20883__1_122", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Is it justified?\nIs there some compelling reason?\nYou know, there are so many policy questions that should be answered here.\nWhat is this officer going to do when he catches up?\nWhat can you do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2843.532, 2844.433, 2846.343, 2850.907, 2854.078], "stop_times": [2844.433, 2846.343, 2850.907, 2854.078, 2855.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2843.532}, "reply_to": "20883__1_121", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_123", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "What should the line be, felony misdemeanor?\nLack of probable cause?\nProbable cause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2855.75, 2860.272, 2862.705], "stop_times": [2860.272, 2862.705, 2863.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2855.75}, "reply_to": "20883__1_122", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20883__1_124", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Serious felonies you can engage in a... the same as firing your weapon.\nI don't think there's really any difference.\nI think this... these high speed chases represent exactly, to the man, the same problem that the discharge of the officer's weapon, except to use the military phraseology they have an incredible kill radius.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2863.104, 2870.378, 2871.939], "stop_times": [2870.378, 2871.939, 2888.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2863.104}, "reply_to": "20883__1_123", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_125", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "You know, I'd be sympathetic if your client were a bystander, but it takes two to make a chase, and your--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2888.431], "stop_times": [2896.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2888.431}, "reply_to": "20883__1_124", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__1_126", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Not when one's driving a motor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2896.055], "stop_times": [2897.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2896.055}, "reply_to": "20883__1_125", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_127", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Well, he was not driving.\nHe was sitting right behind the fellow that was driving.\nThere's no reason to believe that he wasn't happy to get away as much as the person who was driving.\nAnd he owned the motor cycle, didn't he?\nAnd he owned the motor cycle.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2897.267, 2898.507, 2900.45, 2905.712, 2907.782], "stop_times": [2898.507, 2900.45, 2905.712, 2907.782, 2908.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2897.267}, "reply_to": "20883__1_126", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__1_128", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--He owned the motor cycle, yes.\nThat was his crime.\nHe owned the motor cycle.\nHe'd owned it for 5 days.\nHe fixed it up, took it down to a gas station.\nAt the gas station was Mr. Brian Willard.\nHe argued with Mr. Brian Willard not to go on the bike, but he said, my father bought it for me.\nIf you're going to take it, I have to go along with you.\nMy father will kill me otherwise.\nYes, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2908.433, 2909.434, 2910.144, 2911.686, 2912.785, 2915.977, 2919.721, 2926.616, 2930.517, 2932.77], "stop_times": [2909.434, 2910.144, 2911.686, 2912.785, 2915.977, 2919.721, 2926.616, 2930.517, 2932.77, 2934.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2908.433}, "reply_to": "20883__1_127", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_129", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Did you put Mr. Brian Willard on the stand, who said... who said, the decedent kept yelling in my ear, please, slow down.\nStop.\nDid that happen?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2934.821, 2941.086, 2941.496], "stop_times": [2941.086, 2941.496, 2943.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2934.821}, "reply_to": "20883__1_128", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__1_130", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2943.136], "stop_times": [2943.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2943.136}, "reply_to": "20883__1_129", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_131", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "You put him on the stand and that's what he said?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2943.797], "stop_times": [2945.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2943.797}, "reply_to": "20883__1_130", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__1_132", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "That's what he has said.\nHe did not say that in his deposition.\nHe said he didn't remember that.\nHe didn't remember being asked to pull over.\nHe told the police when he turned himself in.\nYou know, Mr. Brian Willard left the scene.\nHe was okay.\nHe was a little further from the center of the road on the... in the oncoming lane the other side.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2945.898, 2947.731, 2950.481, 2952.872, 2955.644, 2960.069, 2963.289, 2964.19], "stop_times": [2947.731, 2950.481, 2952.872, 2955.644, 2960.069, 2963.289, 2964.19, 2972.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2945.898}, "reply_to": "20883__1_131", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_133", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "All this is... as you've said, it's all violating your standard, and so forth.\nIs there any reason... assuming your facts are right, is there any reason to think you could not recover against the State... against the municipality under State law, assuming your facts are what they say, are what you just said?\nAll the facts are just as you said them.\nIs there any reason to think that State law would not give you a tort remedy against the municipality, or against--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [2972.916, 2977.831, 2993.379, 2996.05], "stop_times": [2977.831, 2993.379, 2996.05, 3005.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2972.916}, "reply_to": "20883__1_132", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20883__1_134", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "I believe it will.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3005.697], "stop_times": [3007.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3005.697}, "reply_to": "20883__1_133", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_135", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--You believe it will.\nAll right.\nAnd is the... fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3007.149, 3008.059, 3008.639], "stop_times": [3008.059, 3008.639, 3010.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3007.149}, "reply_to": "20883__1_134", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20883__1_136", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "I've always believed it would.\nYou know, one of the things, 40 percent... 40 percent of these high speed police chases--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3010.85, 3013.432], "stop_times": [3013.432, 3026.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3010.85}, "reply_to": "20883__1_135", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_137", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "The chases, if you're going into the statistics, they're very much contested in these briefs, and I'm not certain--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3026.541], "stop_times": [3030.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3026.541}, "reply_to": "20883__1_136", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20883__1_138", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3030.912], "stop_times": [3031.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3030.912}, "reply_to": "20883__1_137", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_139", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--I mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3031.223], "stop_times": [3031.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3031.223}, "reply_to": "20883__1_138", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20883__1_140", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3031.633], "stop_times": [3032.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3031.633}, "reply_to": "20883__1_139", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_141", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--One of the briefs of the municipalities says 300 a year out of the 2.2 million people--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3032.024], "stop_times": [3036.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3032.024}, "reply_to": "20883__1_140", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20883__1_142", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "It's now 400.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3036.836], "stop_times": [3037.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3036.836}, "reply_to": "20883__1_141", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_143", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--All right.\nBut there are 2.2 or 2.3 million people who die.\nIt's very bad that there are 3 or 400.\nThat's terrible, but that's not enormous in terms of the number of people who die in accidents.\nThat's what one side says, and I guess the other side focuses on this, and I'm not sure that it's directly related, is it, or not, in your opinion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3037.337, 3037.877, 3040.539, 3042.612, 3048.816], "stop_times": [3037.877, 3040.539, 3042.612, 3048.816, 3057.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3037.337}, "reply_to": "20883__1_142", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20883__1_144", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Well, I believe that it's related from the standpoint, is this a problem that rises to constitutional dimensions, and I think the Court should consider not only... if this were an isolated event, it wouldn't come to the Court's attention.\nIt wouldn't be fought for all these years by the police departments.\nThe reason they're fighting like this is because they want to continue this.\nThey want to continue to take the lives of innocent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3057.552, 3075.794, 3081.487, 3085.819], "stop_times": [3075.794, 3081.487, 3085.819, 3091.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3057.552}, "reply_to": "20883__1_143", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_145", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Maybe they're fighting it because they think the Ninth Circuit was wrong and didn't follow our cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3091.323], "stop_times": [3096.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3091.323}, "reply_to": "20883__1_144", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20883__1_146", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--To be sure, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3096.877], "stop_times": [3101.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3096.877}, "reply_to": "20883__1_145", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_147", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "It's happened before.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3101.631, 3102.262], "stop_times": [3102.262, 3103.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3101.631}, "reply_to": "20883__1_146", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20883__1_148", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--I hope that doesn't color the Court's... or give a jaundiced eye towards the Ninth Circuit.\nI think the Ninth Circuit correctly determined this.\nI think it's the only methodology that we have, and this Court has available to it in a single sweep to announce policy that will make... that will be incorporated into policy immediately, that will make these--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3103.08, 3111.996, 3114.827], "stop_times": [3111.996, 3114.827, 3135.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3103.08}, "reply_to": "20883__1_147", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_149", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "But we don't announce policy Mr.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3135.173], "stop_times": [3137.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3135.173}, "reply_to": "20883__1_148", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20883__1_150", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3137.124], "stop_times": [3137.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3137.124}, "reply_to": "20883__1_149", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_151", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--You know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3137.555], "stop_times": [3138.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3137.555}, "reply_to": "20883__1_150", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20883__1_152", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "All you have to do is say, we're not talking about an expansion of the Fourteenth Amendment.\nWe're talking an application of it.\nThis is exactly what the Fourteenth Amendment... although the Framers didn't know about cars then they certainly knew about arbitrary, abusive, oppressive Government power, and there can be no more core Government function that affects the individuals in this society every single day than the interface that occurs exactly out on the streets with the police car fully lit and right behind you showing every bit of color of law that's available, and that color of law is depriving innocent people of their lives every day with no justification whatsoever, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3138.224, 3143.258, 3145.429], "stop_times": [3143.258, 3145.429, 3189.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3138.224}, "reply_to": "20883__1_151", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_153", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--And yet one of the leading cases that you rely on didn't show color of law.\nIn fact, wasn't that one of the problems in Checki, that it was an unmarked vehicle, that this police vehicle was chasing for something like 20 miles without any indication that it was a police car?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3189.286, 3195.601], "stop_times": [3195.601, 3208.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3189.286}, "reply_to": "20883__1_152", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20883__1_154", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Well now, again, that brought it out of, you know, normal perhaps Fourth Amendment type situations, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3208.891], "stop_times": [3219.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3208.891}, "reply_to": "20883__1_153", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_155", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "You think a car with lights on is worse?\nYou think a marked police car is worse?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3219.348, 3221.358], "stop_times": [3221.358, 3222.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3219.348}, "reply_to": "20883__1_154", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20883__1_156", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Well, I think it removes any question of whether it's under color of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3222.901], "stop_times": [3227.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3222.901}, "reply_to": "20883__1_155", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_157", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "It also removes any question of whether the person fleeing didn't know he was fleeing from an officer trying to make an arrest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3227.691], "stop_times": [3235.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3227.691}, "reply_to": "20883__1_156", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__1_158", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Yes.\nThe person fleeing was Brian Willard, the driver of the motor cycle, and the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3235.596, 3236.067], "stop_times": [3236.067, 3242.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3235.596}, "reply_to": "20883__1_157", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_159", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "It still bears upon the guilt of the police officer whether the police officer reasonably continued the chase.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3242.332], "stop_times": [3248.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3242.332}, "reply_to": "20883__1_158", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__1_160", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--When he... when he saw--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3248.827], "stop_times": [3253.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3248.827}, "reply_to": "20883__1_159", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_161", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "It may not make your client any more guilty, but it certainly makes the police officer more reasonable in continuing the pursuit, knowing that the person sees the police lights, hears the siren, and is fleeing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3253.559], "stop_times": [3263.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3253.559}, "reply_to": "20883__1_160", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__1_162", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Well, the problem that we have in all of these, and one of the things that we see constantly in the petitioner's briefs and the amicus briefs on his behalf is that there is a justification because you might catch other people.\nOr one of the amicus briefs, he even goes so far as to say that a person who has such contempt or disregard for law and order and law enforcement officials, that the removal of that person from society serves a valuable function.\nI... you know, I can't imagine the kind of transgression on fundamental constitutional rights that is envisioned by that statement, and nor can I envision what practical result is going to occur when the things discovered after the chase actually give reason for the chase to begin with.\nThat's like saying if we went into everyone's homes we find a lot of people have done crimes.\nThat's not what this country is about.\nThat's not what the Constitution is about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3263.776, 3281.418, 3301.641, 3329.309, 3337.214, 3338.815], "stop_times": [3281.418, 3301.641, 3329.309, 3337.214, 3338.815, 3340.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3263.776}, "reply_to": "20883__1_161", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_163", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Oh, but presumably most citizens know that if they violate the traffic laws and a police car attempts to stop them they should stop and yield to the authority.\nI mean, most of us understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3340.727, 3354.254], "stop_times": [3354.254, 3356.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3340.727}, "reply_to": "20883__1_162", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20883__1_164", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "That's exactly true.\nMost of us understand that you shouldn't murder someone, but the problem is that there are certain situations, most of the time murders, and most of the time fleeing occurs because for some reason or another... it's a kid, it's somebody who just makes a decision that's irrational.\nMost people stop.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3356.685, 3357.877, 3378.141], "stop_times": [3357.877, 3378.141, 3379.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3356.685}, "reply_to": "20883__1_163", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_165", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Well, there was at least testimony here by the young man who survived that the decedent kept urging him to flee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3379.453], "stop_times": [3388.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3379.453}, "reply_to": "20883__1_164", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20883__1_166", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "There was a statement, not kept, but that the decedent said at one point, let's get out of here, in the beginning, contested.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3388.488], "stop_times": [3404.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3388.488}, "reply_to": "20883__1_165", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_167", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Hedlund.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3404.717], "stop_times": [3405.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3404.717}, "reply_to": "20883__1_166", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20883__1_168", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3405.228], "stop_times": [3406.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3405.228}, "reply_to": "20883__1_167", "speaker": "paul_j_hedlund"}
{"id": "20883__1_169", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Mr. Cassidy, you have 4 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3406.099], "stop_times": [3410.011], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3406.099}, "reply_to": "20883__1_168", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20883__2_000", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nI think there is a simple remedy in that case... in this case, and that is, to pull over and stop and yield to lawful authority.\nIt's the criminal that initiates the reckless conduct and endangers the public.\nThe law enforcement officer is simply trying to apprehend the suspect and uphold his duties of office.\nIn this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3410.011, 3410.722, 3420.219, 3424.37, 3429.614], "stop_times": [3410.722, 3420.219, 3424.37, 3429.614, 3430.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3410.011}, "reply_to": "20883__1_169", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__2_001", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Mr. Cassidy, I did want to call to your attention one thing.\nYou, on page... is it 20 of your brief +/?\nyou refer to the decisions of Evans and Temkin, and you say that this Court... well, you tell me what... you said the Court had implicitly approved of the court of appeals' decisions in those cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3430.975, 3433.486, 3436.698], "stop_times": [3433.486, 3436.698, 3455.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3430.975}, "reply_to": "20883__2_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20883__2_002", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--Only to the extent the issues presented on the petitions for the writ before this Court were exactly the same question presented in the reverse, and this Court declined hearing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3455.962], "stop_times": [3469.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3455.962}, "reply_to": "20883__2_001", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__2_003", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Is a denial of certiorari an implicit approval of anything?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3469.359], "stop_times": [3473.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3469.359}, "reply_to": "20883__2_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20883__2_004", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "--No, certainly not authority, Your Honor, but some indication that this Court has approved of that analysis as opposed to this Court's... the Ninth Circuit's analysis in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3473.994], "stop_times": [3483.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3473.994}, "reply_to": "20883__2_003", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__2_005", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Gee, I hope not.\nI have voted to deny certiorari in a lot of cases whose analysis I don't approve of.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3483.929, 3484.67], "stop_times": [3484.67, 3491.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3483.929}, "reply_to": "20883__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20883__2_006", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Accepted, Your Honor.\nQuickly, petitioners would prevail because there was no Fourth Amendment claim in this case, so even if this Court were to determine that the Fourth Amendment applied, not only was there no seizure in this case, but no Fourth Amendment claim was asserted.\nIn terms of the factual circumstances, petitioners respectfully submit Deputy Smith was acting appropriately, and that in fact Mr. Lewis did initiate and cause Mr. Willard to proceed and flee from Deputy Smith.\nMr. Willard admitted in deposition that he knew Deputy Smith was trying to stop him initially and during the course of the pursuit and if, in fact, this pursuit was coming to a conclusion because these two individuals decided to stop, you don't yield to lawful authority in the middle of the road.\nThe simple fact of the matter is, they crashed the motor cycle in the middle of the road, because had they made good their left-hand turn about a 150 feet down the road or so there's a barrier that would not let police vehicles through but the motor cycle would make good its escape.\nI think there is a valid justification in the fact that pursuits are conducted and oftentimes result in finding suspects who have committed more serious crimes, and I think that's an important policy consideration that this Court should look to.\nIn addition, with all the discussion we've had here today, petitioners would respectfully submit that it seems clear that Deputy Smith is entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law was clearly not established sufficiently in May of 1990 to hold Deputy Smith liable.\nMoreover, if this Court determines that there is potentially a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, then we would submit the appropriate legal standard is conduct that shocks the conscience, and Collins is controlling.\nThe cases which fall in between the cracks, so to speak, are those to be left for the States to decide.\nThat's specifically the type of policy choices that should be made by the people of the various States through their local representatives, but should not be thrust upon them by the judicial expansion of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.\nThank you.\nWith that, submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3491.015, 3492.525, 3507.205, 3522.744, 3541.858, 3555.636, 3570.566, 3586.666, 3600.506, 3610.812, 3624.533, 3625.852], "stop_times": [3492.525, 3507.205, 3522.744, 3541.858, 3555.636, 3570.566, 3586.666, 3600.506, 3610.812, 3624.533, 3625.852, 3626.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3491.015}, "reply_to": "20883__2_005", "speaker": "terence_j_cassidy"}
{"id": "20883__2_007", "conversation_id": "20883", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Cassidy.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1337", "start_times": [3626.763, 3627.814], "stop_times": [3627.814, 3628.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3626.763}, "reply_to": "20883__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20577__0_000", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-827, Leonard Rollon Crawford-El v. Patricia Britton.\nMr. Schember.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [0.0, 8.856], "stop_times": [8.856, 10.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20577__0_001", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nIn Harlow v. Fitzgerald, a First Amendment retaliation case, the Court held that district courts should protect defendants' qualified immunity through firm application of the civil rules protecting defendants against the burden of broad-ranging discovery and enabling them promptly to seek and in substantial cases promptly to obtain summary judgment.\nThe Federal rules are fully sufficient to accomplish these purposes.\nAt the outset of litigation district courts can hold the plaintiff's discovery in abeyance and allow defendants to inquire of the plaintiffs, obtaining from the plaintiffs all evidence that they have to support their contentions that they exercised First Amendment rights, that the defendants knew about it, that the defendants injured the plaintiffs, and that the motive for the injury was retaliation for exercise--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [10.538, 14.001, 39.968, 44.081], "stop_times": [14.001, 39.968, 44.081, 69.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.538}, "reply_to": "20577__0_000", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_002", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well, I suppose you're right that the rules and the procedures are fully sufficient if we wish to devote a huge amount of resources to complaints of this type and to subject officials who have a claim of immunity to prolonged discovery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [69.138], "stop_times": [86.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 69.138}, "reply_to": "20577__0_001", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20577__0_003", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--That's what I'm saying, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [86.92], "stop_times": [88.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 86.92}, "reply_to": "20577__0_002", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_004", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "If those two factors are eliminated, then I suppose you're quite right, the rules are quite adequate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [88.65], "stop_times": [93.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 88.65}, "reply_to": "20577__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20577__0_005", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [93.314], "stop_times": [94.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 93.314}, "reply_to": "20577__0_004", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_006", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "But the question is whether or not the cost of these proceedings to the Government official who wishes to assert the immunity are so high that the purpose of the immunity is substantially lost.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [94.426], "stop_times": [105.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 94.426}, "reply_to": "20577__0_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20577__0_007", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [105.963], "stop_times": [106.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 105.963}, "reply_to": "20577__0_006", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_008", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Or am I wrong that that's the question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [106.481], "stop_times": [108.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 106.481}, "reply_to": "20577__0_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20577__0_009", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "No, that's the question, but the two burdens identified in Harlow are, first, the burdens of trial and the burdens of broad-ranging discovery, and what I'm suggesting is that at the outset of the case the district court through firm application of the rules, as the Court said should be done in Harlow, can protect defendants against broad-ranging discovery and, indeed, impose the burden on the plaintiff to come forward immediately with all evidence to support the claim, all elements of the claim, and if the plaintiff is unable to do so immediately, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment unless, of course, the plaintiff can show specific facts giving rise to a reasonable likelihood that discovery will uncover necessary evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [108.103], "stop_times": [143.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 108.103}, "reply_to": "20577__0_008", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_010", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Mr. Schember, speaking more generally there's talk of discovery abuses not just in this case but throughout the country, and the answer often is, well, the district judges have it within their power to prevent that, and I think a lot of people agree that's true, but you have 700 district judges in the country and they just react differently to this sort of problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [143.527], "stop_times": [164.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 143.527}, "reply_to": "20577__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20577__0_011", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Yes, and I think guidance from this Court could tell them how to firmly apply the civil rules, and the purpose of my argument is to suggest precisely what should be said in that regard, and that by holding the plaintiff's discovery in abeyance at the outset of the case until the defendant has been entitled to discover all the plaintiff's evidence, thereby placing the defendant in the position of promptly seeking summary judgment unless the plaintiff has sufficient evidence or has a basis for seeking discovery, that is firm control that prohibits excessive burden on the defendant at the outset.\nAnd even if the plaintiffs make a showing that there's a reasonable likelihood that discovery will uncover evidence supporting their claims the district court still could hold their discovery in abeyance if the defendant wished to assert a defense under Mount Healthy Board of Education v. Doyle, saying even if I... we were substantially motivated by hostility to the plaintiff's exercise of constitutional rights, nonetheless we would have taken the same action in any event, and if defendants come forward with sufficient evidence to establish that defense, they are entitled immediately to summary judgment on that ground unless, of course, plaintiff immediately can present admissible evidence rebutting that, or, again, make a showing that there are facts giving rise to a reasonable likelihood that discovery--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [164.862, 199.336], "stop_times": [199.336, 248.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 164.862}, "reply_to": "20577__0_010", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_012", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "When you're talking about intent, though, that's a very difficult issue to get summary judgment on, because it's the subjective state of someone's mind, and it's just something that ordinarily it goes to a trier of fact, I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [248.758], "stop_times": [263.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 248.758}, "reply_to": "20577__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20577__0_013", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--Well, certainly the Harlow court commented on that with respect to the subject of general bad faith and malice.\nHowever, inquiry as to the specific intent of unconstitutional animus I would suggest is narrower.\nFor example, the plaintiff certainly has to show I exercised First Amendment rights and the defendant knew about it, and discovery as to that inquiry certainly is narrower than whether the defendant's a bad person, a malicious person, someone who customarily is mean to people, that type of thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [263.838, 271.644, 277.227], "stop_times": [271.644, 277.227, 291.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 263.838}, "reply_to": "20577__0_012", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_014", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "It still gets you into subjective investigations, which is really what we tried to put behind us in Harlow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [291.767], "stop_times": [298.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 291.767}, "reply_to": "20577__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20577__0_015", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [298.853], "stop_times": [300.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 298.853}, "reply_to": "20577__0_014", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_016", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "I mean, we really tried to make this an objective inquiry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [300.333], "stop_times": [303.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 300.333}, "reply_to": "20577__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20577__0_017", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--Well, the Court certainly said that qualified immunity is to be based upon a showing... on the fact that a... no violation of clearly established law exists, but, of course, retaliation for exercise of First Amendment rights, or discrimination on the basis of race or sex was clearly... is clearly established constitutional law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [303.325], "stop_times": [322.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 303.325}, "reply_to": "20577__0_016", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_018", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "That clearly established law principle was simply the device which would enable an objective determination to be made in Harlow.\nWhat this case requires, if we're to follow the philosophy of Harlow, is some other device that would likewise produce an objective test rather than a subjective one.\nNow, I'm not sure that what the D.C. Circuit majority did here does that.\nIt's still a subjective test by clear and convincing evidence, but Judge Silberman's test would certainly do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [322.667, 331.432, 341.831, 347.302], "stop_times": [331.432, 341.831, 347.302, 354.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 322.667}, "reply_to": "20577__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20577__0_019", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well, but Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [354.238], "stop_times": [355.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 354.238}, "reply_to": "20577__0_018", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_020", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Given these facts, could a reasonable person have taken this action.\nIf so, end of the matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [355.728, 359.05], "stop_times": [359.05, 360.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 355.728}, "reply_to": "20577__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20577__0_021", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--Yes, that certainly would do that, but that would be effectively the end of claims that are based upon the subjective intent and, if we are to eliminate entirely claims that are based upon proving the unconstitutional animus--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [360.602], "stop_times": [375.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 360.602}, "reply_to": "20577__0_020", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_022", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Just as in Harlow we eliminated claims that were based upon subjective intent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [375.372], "stop_times": [378.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 375.372}, "reply_to": "20577__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20577__0_023", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--General malice, but Harlow cannot be read for the proposition that First Amendment retaliation cases cannot go forward, period.\nHarlow was a First Amendment retaliation case, and what the Court said in that case is, firmly apply the civil rules in order to make sure that there's no broad-ranging discovery and to make sure that there's early determination by summary judgment, rather than a long-delayed trial in an insubstantial case.\nIt cannot... I do not believe Harlow can be read to foreclose First Amendment retaliation cases, and it has not been understood, I don't believe, since then, to stand for that proposition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [378.396, 384.508, 399.267], "stop_times": [384.508, 399.267, 407.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 378.396}, "reply_to": "20577__0_022", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_024", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "It can surely be read as an attempt by this Court to make the section 1983 inquiry an objective inquiry rather than a subjective one.\nSurely that was the whole driving force behind Harlow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [407.903, 416.4], "stop_times": [416.4, 419.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 407.903}, "reply_to": "20577__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20577__0_025", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well, that was a Bivens inquiry.\nThat was a Bivens case rather than a section 1983 case, but yes, the... it is true that what the Court did was strip away the particular subjective aspect of the Woodby-Strickland test.\nThat part of the test didn't make any sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [419.444, 420.304, 431.561], "stop_times": [420.304, 431.561, 435.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 419.444}, "reply_to": "20577__0_024", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_026", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Why... you can always make this claim that what was done was done with a... with an intent to deprive me of a constitutional right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [435.273], "stop_times": [445.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 435.273}, "reply_to": "20577__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20577__0_027", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well, it can't always be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [445.32], "stop_times": [446.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 445.32}, "reply_to": "20577__0_026", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_028", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "It can't always be proven.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [446.039], "stop_times": [447.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 446.039}, "reply_to": "20577__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20577__0_029", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--Well, I suppose it can always be asserted, but the firm application of the rules will ferret out baseless assertions if the assertion is baseless.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [447.451], "stop_times": [454.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 447.451}, "reply_to": "20577__0_028", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_030", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "May I ask, in this case, what would happen if the trial judge let the plaintiff take the deposition of the defendant and she testified that she merely gave the materials to the brother-in-law, or whatever he was, as a matter of convenience, she knew all about his First Amendment activities, but she didn't hold a grudge against him, and that's all she said.\nWhat should the district judge do with the case, and then there's a motion for summary judgment.\nThere's nothing substantiating it except his belief that she acted improperly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [454.447, 473.388, 478.771], "stop_times": [473.388, 478.771, 482.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 454.447}, "reply_to": "20577__0_029", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20577__0_031", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well, but there would be... the motion should be denied for the following reason.\nImplicit in... certainly we wouldn't ignore what she said already on the subject, and that is that she doesn't think prisoners have any rights, and that prisoners bound for a Federal penitentiary don't have any right to any property at all, and that is not a reasonable assertion, the idea that there are no circumstances in which any Federal prisoner has any right to possess any legal papers, no matter what their need might be for pending litigation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [482.724, 486.477], "stop_times": [486.477, 512.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 482.724}, "reply_to": "20577__0_030", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_032", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Yes, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [512.124], "stop_times": [513.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 512.124}, "reply_to": "20577__0_031", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20577__0_033", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--is not a reasonable--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [513.174], "stop_times": [513.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 513.174}, "reply_to": "20577__0_032", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_034", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--That may be her belief, but she may say with respect to the transactions at issue in this case, I did it as... purely as a matter of convenience, and even though that's my belief, I wasn't trying to discipline him.\nI just was going about my work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [513.796, 522.811], "stop_times": [522.811, 524.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 513.796}, "reply_to": "20577__0_033", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20577__0_035", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--If that were a reasonable belief, then in theory it would be a defense.\nHowever, it is not a reasonable basis for her to have so acted.\nIn Waters v. Churchill the Court talked about the problem of inadvertent or mistaken violation of First Amendment rights and said that there should be inquiry as to whether the so-called mistake in the case... or the genuine mistake... was a reasonable mistake.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [524.393, 529.977, 534.071], "stop_times": [529.977, 534.071, 550.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 524.393}, "reply_to": "20577__0_034", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_036", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "This was no mistake.\nWhat she did with his papers or whatever they were, nobody fights about that.\nThat's clear, isn't it, the facts?\nActually what she did is not in dispute, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [550.434, 550.774, 554.397, 556.357], "stop_times": [550.774, 554.397, 556.357, 558.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 550.434}, "reply_to": "20577__0_035", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20577__0_037", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "No, it's not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [558.489], "stop_times": [559.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 558.489}, "reply_to": "20577__0_036", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_038", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "The only dispute is what her reason for doing it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [559.139], "stop_times": [561.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 559.139}, "reply_to": "20577__0_037", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20577__0_039", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Yes, and implicit in her reason, certainly the facts indicate that she intended to deprive him totally of these papers and all of his property.\nThere's no doubt about that.\nHer belief was that, supposedly that he wasn't entitled to have them at all, but that was not a reasonable belief.\nThat is not a proper basis for a Mount Healthy defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [561.7, 570.035, 571.297, 577.531], "stop_times": [570.035, 571.297, 577.531, 580.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 561.7}, "reply_to": "20577__0_038", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_040", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "You say the facts are that she intended totally to deprive him of his papers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [580.623], "stop_times": [583.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 580.623}, "reply_to": "20577__0_039", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20577__0_041", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [583.986], "stop_times": [584.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 583.986}, "reply_to": "20577__0_040", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_042", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "I though she merely adopted a more convenient way of getting them delivered to their destination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [584.344], "stop_times": [589.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 584.344}, "reply_to": "20577__0_041", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20577__0_043", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "No, not at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [589.089], "stop_times": [590.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 589.089}, "reply_to": "20577__0_042", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_044", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Namely, sending them through the brother-in-law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [590.111], "stop_times": [590.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 590.111}, "reply_to": "20577__0_043", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20577__0_045", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "It was her belief... no.\nIt was her belief that the prisoners were not... in the Federal penitentiary were not entitled to any property at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [590.798, 591.95], "stop_times": [591.95, 597.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 590.798}, "reply_to": "20577__0_044", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_046", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [597.114], "stop_times": [598.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 597.114}, "reply_to": "20577__0_045", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20577__0_047", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "That was unreasonable belief.\nShe diverted it outside the system so that he wouldn't get it.\nShe said to Mr. Carter, I don't know why Crawford-El's so upset about his property.\nI should just... I should have just have thrown it in the trash.\nThat's what she said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [598.155, 599.034, 602.596, 607.869, 610.202], "stop_times": [599.034, 602.596, 607.869, 610.202, 611.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 598.155}, "reply_to": "20577__0_046", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_048", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--Then credibility determinations basically are going to swallow up the immunity rule, I suppose, if the summary judgment stays.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [611.173], "stop_times": [621.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 611.173}, "reply_to": "20577__0_047", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20577__0_049", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well, the plaintiff has to have admissible evidence that proves the elements of the case and yes, if it does come down to a question of whether or not the plaintiff is credible in assertings, for example, a defendant's admission that's involved here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [621.802], "stop_times": [638.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 621.802}, "reply_to": "20577__0_048", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_050", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "But I mean, if you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [638.902], "stop_times": [639.393], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 638.902}, "reply_to": "20577__0_049", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20577__0_051", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--then yes, it does come down to that, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [639.393], "stop_times": [640.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 639.393}, "reply_to": "20577__0_050", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_052", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--Do you think this case is unusual or remarkable in that respect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [640.332], "stop_times": [645.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 640.332}, "reply_to": "20577__0_051", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20577__0_053", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Quite unusual, yes, because what we have here is a fairly high-ranking prison official dealing directly one-on-one with a prisoner.\nShe wasn't a prison guard, for example, and yes, it is rather unusual in this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [645.246, 655.783], "stop_times": [655.783, 660.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 645.246}, "reply_to": "20577__0_052", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_054", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well, how--\n--Well, wouldn't you... I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [660.758, 661.229], "stop_times": [661.229, 661.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 660.758}, "reply_to": "20577__0_053", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20577__0_055", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--regard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [661.897], "stop_times": [662.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 661.897}, "reply_to": "20577__0_054", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_056", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "How would you compare it to other cases?\nYou said, don't worry because this discovery is going to be limited and there's going to be summary judgment, but you say in this case, if I understand you right, this one's got to go to trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [662.528, 664.659], "stop_times": [664.659, 674.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 662.528}, "reply_to": "20577__0_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20577__0_057", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Yes, because here there is admissible evidence proving the elements of the claim, including defendant's admissions from this official to the plaintiff.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [674.907], "stop_times": [684.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 674.907}, "reply_to": "20577__0_056", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_058", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "And I suppose you would say the same thing about that Martin case and about Martin v. Malhoyt, another D.C. Circuit case, so I'm trying to see where there is a match.\nI think there is none.\nFor the Harlow, when you're talking about the legal standard, then we have clearly established law.\nHere, on the surface everything looks lawful.\nWhat makes it unlawful is a clearly unconstitutional design, either race discrimination, First Amendment violation, but on the surface everything looks okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [684.814, 697.711, 698.863, 705.137, 707.599], "stop_times": [697.711, 698.863, 705.137, 707.599, 721.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 684.814}, "reply_to": "20577__0_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20577__0_059", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well, it's undisputed that the facts of the case state a violation of District of Columbia common law, not that I'm suggesting that that necessarily bears directly on the question of the availability of the constitutional cause of action, but it certainly bears upon the reasonableness of the... of her action.\nThis is an instance where there was injury inflicted.\nOut-of-pocket loss was imposed, and it happens to have been in violation of the District of Columbia common law and also there is sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that unconstitutional animus motivated it, and it is in the public interest, even if there could be a recovery under a common law conversion claim that the First Amendment claim go forward and that the plaintiff be allowed to prove that if hostility to exercise First Amendment rights was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [721.997, 738.828, 742.74], "stop_times": [738.828, 742.74, 769.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 721.997}, "reply_to": "20577__0_058", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_060", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well then, I gather what you're saying is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [769.027], "stop_times": [770.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 769.027}, "reply_to": "20577__0_059", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20577__0_061", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--he can prove it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [770.149], "stop_times": [771.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 770.149}, "reply_to": "20577__0_060", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_062", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--that there shouldn't be any match on the subjective intent side to what this Court has installed on the... purely on the what-the-law-is side in Harlow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [771.088], "stop_times": [781.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 771.088}, "reply_to": "20577__0_061", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20577__0_063", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well, the question of match, I don't think I'm following--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [781.647], "stop_times": [785.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 781.647}, "reply_to": "20577__0_062", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_064", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "In other words, Harlow inserted a test, and it is that it's not only that there was a violation of law, and it's not only that the law was established, but it must be clearly established.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [785.009], "stop_times": [798.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 785.009}, "reply_to": "20577__0_063", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20577__0_065", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [798.366], "stop_times": [798.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 798.366}, "reply_to": "20577__0_064", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_066", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Now you're saying, but where the law would not be in doubt if the motive is unconstitutional, then there is no... nothing special for these official... officials.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [798.998], "stop_times": [816.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 798.998}, "reply_to": "20577__0_065", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20577__0_067", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "There should not be, I am arguing to the Court, for the reasons that a clear and convincing evidence rule would not properly balance defendant's needs for immunity against the countervailing interests, which are the need to deter officials from violating constitutional rights, and the need to redress the victims.\nIf we had a situation where Government employees could have their careers ruined by supervisors who retaliate against them for their exercise of speech offduty on matters of public concern, the... and if those employees were not able to obtain any redress unless they could prove their claims by clear and convincing evidence, the chilling effect on Government employees' speech would be contrary to the public interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [816.671, 833.832], "stop_times": [833.832, 860.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 816.671}, "reply_to": "20577__0_066", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_068", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Why is this any different from Harlow in this respect: why couldn't we have said the same thing in Harlow that you're saying to us now, namely, this can be handled by pretrial discovery if... so long as you assert that, number 1, the Constitution was violated, and number 2, the officer knew he was violating the Constitution?\nNever mind that it wasn't clearly established, he knew he was violating the Constitution, and that was his intent.\nWhat's the problem?\nJust have pretrial discovery, and if you can't show that was his intent, we just simply dismiss the case.\nBut we didn't take that course in Harlow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [860.73, 881.804, 886.086, 887.675, 893.8], "stop_times": [881.804, 886.086, 887.675, 893.8, 895.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 860.73}, "reply_to": "20577__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20577__0_069", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "No.\nWell--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [895.352, 895.953], "stop_times": [895.953, 896.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 895.352}, "reply_to": "20577__0_068", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_070", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "I don't see why this is any different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [896.551], "stop_times": [897.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 896.551}, "reply_to": "20577__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20577__0_071", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--What's very different from whether you should hold in a Bivens action the more knowledgeable official liable for the same action where, because that official is... can foresee the developments in constitutional law, whereas an official who takes the same action is not held liable because he or she cannot foresee developments in constitutional law.\nThat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [897.883, 922.45], "stop_times": [922.45, 922.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 897.883}, "reply_to": "20577__0_070", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_072", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Mr. Schember, suppose--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [922.5], "stop_times": [923.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 922.5}, "reply_to": "20577__0_071", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20577__0_073", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--That makes sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [923.141], "stop_times": [923.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 923.141}, "reply_to": "20577__0_072", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_074", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--Mr. Schember, supposing you take this in a context, just, say, within the prison, and the prisoner comes up to the respondent here and says, look, I've told you before, I think your system is wrong, you're wrong in denying me those privileges I asked for, and she says to him, look, I just don't want to hear any more from you, I've decided that, and he says, okay, I'm filing a complaint in the district court saying that for a bad motive you disciplined... you're doing something to me because I petitioned you.\nNow, is that a cognizable claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [923.622, 959.486], "stop_times": [959.486, 961.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 923.622}, "reply_to": "20577__0_073", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20577__0_075", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well, he has been disciplined is the hypothetical there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [961.436], "stop_times": [964.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 961.436}, "reply_to": "20577__0_074", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_076", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [964.918], "stop_times": [965.469], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 964.918}, "reply_to": "20577__0_075", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20577__0_077", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "That seems to be the Government's hypothetical at page 19 of their brief, and it seems to be... the United States amicus brief.\nThat example, that hypothetical is a classic example of circumstances in the... in which the defendant would promptly obtain summary judgment under Mount Healthy Board of Education v. Doyle, could certainly prove it.\nEven if I had that motive that you attribute to me you committed a disciplinary violation, and we punish prisoners who commit disciplinary violations.\nI would have taken the same action in any event under the existing rules.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [965.469, 971.113, 982.791, 990.594], "stop_times": [971.113, 982.791, 990.594, 993.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 965.469}, "reply_to": "20577__0_076", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_078", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "But that would have to go to trial, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [993.487], "stop_times": [995.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 993.487}, "reply_to": "20577__0_077", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20577__0_079", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Oh, no, not at all, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [995.369], "stop_times": [996.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 995.369}, "reply_to": "20577__0_078", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_080", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "He's saying, look, you say you would have done the same thing, but I say you wouldn't have done the same thing, and that's a question of fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [996.549], "stop_times": [1003.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 996.549}, "reply_to": "20577__0_079", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20577__0_081", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well, the... well, but the plaintiff has to come... if the defendant asserts a Mount Healthy defense in a summary judgment motion.\nThe plaintiff can't just simply say, well, I think you had a different intent.\nThe plaintiff would have to come forward with admissible evidence showing that the official would not have done the same thing absent the intent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1003.634, 1010.629, 1014.691], "stop_times": [1010.629, 1014.691, 1022.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1003.634}, "reply_to": "20577__0_080", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_082", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well, but is the trier of fact permitted to infer from the fact that the official did in your view impair this person's First Amendment rights here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1022.977], "stop_times": [1031.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1022.977}, "reply_to": "20577__0_081", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20577__0_083", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1031.301], "stop_times": [1032.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1031.301}, "reply_to": "20577__0_082", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_084", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--with a bad motive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1032.182], "stop_times": [1032.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1032.182}, "reply_to": "20577__0_083", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20577__0_085", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well, yes, but the plaintiff cannot get past summary judgment merely by arguing to the judge, judge, the jury may disbelieve the defendant.\nOh, no.\nUnder the summary judgment rules the plaintiff has to come forward with tangible, admissible evidence creating a genuine issue for trial on that, and mere assertion by the plaintiff of, I don't think the defendant would have taken the action but for hostility to me.\nThat's not enough.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1032.813, 1041.318, 1042.369, 1056.639], "stop_times": [1041.318, 1042.369, 1056.639, 1057.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1032.813}, "reply_to": "20577__0_084", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_086", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well, what about the case in which the prisoner has in fact taken some action, as in this case in going to the press, which has resulted in embarrassment to the prison.\nTake Justice Stevens' hypothetical otherwise.\nThe warden says, I know all of that.\nYes, he spoke to the press, it was embarrassing, but that's not the reason I did this.\nI did this because this seemed to be the most expeditious way of getting the property back to the person.\nWould the fact that in... on your theory, would the fact that the prison had been embarrassed be a sufficient basis for raising a claim of improper motivation that would survive the summary judgment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1057.33, 1072.079, 1077.231, 1079.633, 1084.217, 1089.571], "stop_times": [1072.079, 1077.231, 1079.633, 1084.217, 1089.571, 1104.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1057.33}, "reply_to": "20577__0_085", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20577__0_087", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "I think not.\nNo, I think the official would win summary judgment under that hypothetical, because it's very... if the motive was to get the property back to the prisoner by the most expeditious means, and that was a means to do that, and that's what the official was trying to do, then I would think she would be entitled to summary judgment on it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1104.25, 1104.901], "stop_times": [1104.901, 1120.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1104.25}, "reply_to": "20577__0_086", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_088", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--So that your... your argument--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1120.359], "stop_times": [1121.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1120.359}, "reply_to": "20577__0_087", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20577__0_089", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "And those aren't the facts here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1121.11], "stop_times": [1121.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1121.11}, "reply_to": "20577__0_088", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_090", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--I'm sorry.\nYour argument here is not merely based on the number of extraneous remarks that the prison official made, but on the assumption that this was not the expeditious way to get the property back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1121.721, 1122.192], "stop_times": [1122.192, 1134.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1121.721}, "reply_to": "20577__0_089", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20577__0_091", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Indeed it was not, and that was not her intent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1134.22], "stop_times": [1136.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1134.22}, "reply_to": "20577__0_090", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_092", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "In other words, you find something facially incredible about the explanation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1136.481], "stop_times": [1138.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1136.481}, "reply_to": "20577__0_091", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20577__0_093", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "And... well, the undisputed facts are that she did not divert the property outside the prison system for the purpose of getting it back to Mr. Crawford-El.\nIt was to divert it outside the prison system because she thought he didn't have any entitlement at all to it, and that she could have thrown it in the trash, and as an alternative to throwing it in the trash, she allowed a relative to pick it up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1138.852, 1148.538], "stop_times": [1148.538, 1157.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1138.852}, "reply_to": "20577__0_092", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_094", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "In my example--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1157.825], "stop_times": [1159.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1157.825}, "reply_to": "20577__0_093", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20577__0_095", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "That's what the record shows.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1159.245], "stop_times": [1159.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1159.245}, "reply_to": "20577__0_094", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_096", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--In my example, how would you state the rule?\nWould you say that for... should we come down with a rule saying that for summary judgment purposes reasonable... evidence suggesting an improper motivation, even on the part of a reasonable person, is insufficient to survive the summary judgment motion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1159.866, 1163.179], "stop_times": [1163.179, 1185.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1159.866}, "reply_to": "20577__0_095", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20577__0_097", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "If the defendant raises the Mount Healthy defense and assumes the burden of presenting evidence from which the jury can conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that the official would have taken the same action in any event, even if she or he were motivated in part by unconstitutional--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1185.521], "stop_times": [1200.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1185.521}, "reply_to": "20577__0_096", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_098", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "But that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1200.782], "stop_times": [1201.053], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1200.782}, "reply_to": "20577__0_097", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20577__0_099", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--that's the test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1201.053], "stop_times": [1201.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1201.053}, "reply_to": "20577__0_098", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_100", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--That's quite contrary to ordinary... the ordinary rule we apply.\nYes.\nThat, you know, you say the jury could have found, but if you say the jury could have found, ordinarily that's a question of fact.\nIf you... you have to say the jury must have found for want of any other evidence before you get summary judgment, I thought.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1201.764, 1205.056, 1205.517, 1212.52], "stop_times": [1205.056, 1205.517, 1212.52, 1218.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1201.764}, "reply_to": "20577__0_099", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20577__0_101", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Oh, no.\nIf the defendant provides, in a Mount Healthy motion, evidence from which the jury can conclude that she would have acted in the same way in any event, if the plaintiff doesn't come forward with evidence rebutting that... and it's got to be evidence, not surmise and guess.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1218.234, 1219.626], "stop_times": [1219.626, 1235.306], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1218.234}, "reply_to": "20577__0_100", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_102", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "No, but it's more than surmise and guess in this hypothetical.\nMost people, in fact, get mad when they are embarrassed in the public print, and they get mad at the people who are causing them embarrassment.\nThat's more than mere speculation.\nWhy, therefore, isn't it enough to survive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1235.306, 1238.078, 1247.783, 1249.496], "stop_times": [1238.078, 1247.783, 1249.496, 1251.295], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1235.306}, "reply_to": "20577__0_101", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20577__0_103", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well, what... here you're suggesting that there was a dual motive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1251.295], "stop_times": [1255.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1251.295}, "reply_to": "20577__0_102", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_104", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "In my hypothetical the opposing evidence is this.\nThe prison official says, I did this only because I thought this was the most expeditious way to get things back.\nI know I was embarrassed, but that had nothing to do with it.\nOn the other side, the evidence is that the prisoner went to the press, made statements that were published, and which were embarrassing to the prison administration.\nNow, that's more than mere speculation.\nThey... one may reasonably infer that people who get embarrassed that way get mad at the people who cause the embarrassment.\nYou say, nonetheless... I thought you said nonetheless that, in fact, the prisoner's claim would not survive summary judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1255.579, 1257.831, 1264.974, 1267.188, 1275.452, 1277.091, 1285.958], "stop_times": [1257.831, 1264.974, 1267.188, 1275.452, 1277.091, 1285.958, 1292.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1255.579}, "reply_to": "20577__0_103", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20577__0_105", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "What I said was, if the defendant files a Mount Healthy motion and assumes the burden of saying, I would have acted in the same way, even though I was, or maybe assumed to be... to have acted with unconstitutional animus, if, in that context, the defendant raises the defense and presents evidence that would... that from... on which a jury could reach a conclusion that the defense is established, then the plaintiff must come forward.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1292.623], "stop_times": [1322.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1292.623}, "reply_to": "20577__0_104", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_106", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well, the evidence is just what I said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1322.082], "stop_times": [1323.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1322.082}, "reply_to": "20577__0_105", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20577__0_107", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "In your hypothetical, Your Honor, the claim would go forward, because all that's been shown is that there were two substantial motivations for the action, and the defendant has not gone the extra step of saying, even though there was this motive, or irrespective of the motive, I definitely would have, in any event, taken the same action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1323.103], "stop_times": [1345.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1323.103}, "reply_to": "20577__0_106", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_108", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "So the distinction seems to be a mere pleading distinction.\nIn my hypothetical, the prison official said, I wasn't influenced by this embarrassment, and it comes out one way.\nIf, on the other hand, the prison official says, well, of course I felt some motivation, but my principal concern, and the predominant purpose, was simply to get the property to the prisoner in the most expeditious way, then the result would be different?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1345.297, 1346.929, 1356.854], "stop_times": [1346.929, 1356.854, 1371.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1345.297}, "reply_to": "20577__0_107", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20577__0_109", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well, the Mount Healthy standard is, would the official have taken the same action anyway?\nThat's the... under Mount Healthy, that's what the official has to show.\nIf we have two substantial motivations, it's... and one is unconstitutional animus, and there's no proof by the defendant that the same action would, in fact, have been taken absent the unconstitutional animus, then the plaintiff is entitled to prevail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1371.714, 1378.189, 1381.211], "stop_times": [1378.189, 1381.211, 1397.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1371.714}, "reply_to": "20577__0_108", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_110", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Mr. Schember, you're talking about what I guess is an affirmative defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1397.632], "stop_times": [1401.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1397.632}, "reply_to": "20577__0_109", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20577__0_111", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1401.904], "stop_times": [1402.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1401.904}, "reply_to": "20577__0_110", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_112", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Now, the ordinary rule of summary judgment is that the... all factual issues are resolved against the moving party on a motion for summary judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1402.214], "stop_times": [1411.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1402.214}, "reply_to": "20577__0_111", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20577__0_113", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1411.521], "stop_times": [1411.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1411.521}, "reply_to": "20577__0_112", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_114", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "And on a question of intent like this, that Justice Souter is posing, or... it seems to be very difficult under ordinary rules of summary judgment to get summary judgment for the defendant, where the defendant says, I acted on a proper motive.\nI did not act on an improper motive.\nBut there are some things which would permit an inference.\nA finder of fact could infer that there was an improper motive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1411.801, 1428.832, 1430.735, 1433.127], "stop_times": [1428.832, 1430.735, 1433.127, 1437.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1411.801}, "reply_to": "20577__0_113", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20577__0_115", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Yes, but the Mount Healthy defense, the defendant would say, is, I would have taken the same action in any event, as in the discipline hypothetical.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1437.52], "stop_times": [1445.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1437.52}, "reply_to": "20577__0_114", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_116", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Yes, but the... neither the jury nor the judge on summary judgment are bound by that statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1445.735], "stop_times": [1450.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1445.735}, "reply_to": "20577__0_115", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20577__0_117", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Oh, unless the plaintiff comes forward and says, now, wait a minute, other people committed that disciplinary offense, and you didn't punish them.\nUnless the plaintiff comes forward with something tangible that says, judge, here is a basis in fact for not allowing summary judgment to a defendant who says, I would have taken the same action for the following reason--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1450.689, 1456.894], "stop_times": [1456.894, 1470.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1450.689}, "reply_to": "20577__0_116", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_118", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "I don't think that's right--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1470.442], "stop_times": [1471.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1470.442}, "reply_to": "20577__0_117", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20577__0_119", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--the defendant wins.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1471.363], "stop_times": [1472.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1471.363}, "reply_to": "20577__0_118", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_120", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--because I think on a question of intent like that a jury is entitled to disbelieve any witness, or any party.\nYou know, the... a jury can disbelieve the defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1472.061, 1479.798], "stop_times": [1479.798, 1482.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1472.061}, "reply_to": "20577__0_119", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20577__0_121", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well, yes, but that... at trial, that's true, but it is also clear--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1482.68], "stop_times": [1487.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1482.68}, "reply_to": "20577__0_120", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_122", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "But it's also true on summary judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1487.442], "stop_times": [1488.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1487.442}, "reply_to": "20577__0_121", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20577__0_123", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--Well, but on summary judgment, no, a plaintiff... a party cannot resist summary judgment simply by saying in the face of an affidavit from the other side, judge, maybe the jury won't believe this affidavit.\nOh, no, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1488.333, 1501.262], "stop_times": [1501.262, 1501.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1488.333}, "reply_to": "20577__0_122", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_124", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Of course, your whole argument here has been built around Mount Healthy and around the premise that there is really no substantial problem with suits brought by prisoners and other persons against governmental officials that are not common to the entire litigation system so there should be no special rules.\nIsn't that the gravamen of your submission?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1501.741, 1521.876], "stop_times": [1521.876, 1524.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1501.741}, "reply_to": "20577__0_123", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20577__0_125", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--The gravamen, yes, with this qualification.\nYes, I recognize that there is, in intent cases, some degree of concern similar to what was involved in Harlow, although the question of unconstitutional intent is a far more narrow inquiry than general subjective ill-will.\nMy argument is that the differences, the potential burdens that are presented in unconstitutional intent cases are not so great that the balance of interests overall tips in favor of changing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1524.597, 1527.579, 1544.703], "stop_times": [1527.579, 1544.703, 1563.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1524.597}, "reply_to": "20577__0_124", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_126", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1563.293], "stop_times": [1563.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1563.293}, "reply_to": "20577__0_125", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20577__0_127", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--the rule, because the Federal rules can be applied in a firm way to substantially reduce the burdens that might otherwise be there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1563.653], "stop_times": [1571.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1563.653}, "reply_to": "20577__0_126", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_128", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--May I ask in this case, one of the concerns is the burden on the defendants of going through discovery.\nHow extensive is the discovery that you think you need in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1571.948, 1577.744], "stop_times": [1577.744, 1581.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1571.948}, "reply_to": "20577__0_127", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20577__0_129", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "I would not think very extensive.\nThere are certainly... in the verified complaint there are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1581.085, 1583.689], "stop_times": [1583.689, 1586.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1581.085}, "reply_to": "20577__0_128", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_130", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Do you need anything beyond the deposition of the defendant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1586.58], "stop_times": [1589.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1586.58}, "reply_to": "20577__0_129", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20577__0_131", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--Yes.\nThere's a captain in Seattle I think we need to depose.\nThere is... if he will not simply cooperate with an investigation.\nThere are some prisoners who we would like to depose, if they're not available simply through investigation, but in terms of the other side, in terms of this specific claim, no.\nI think the deposition of the defendant should be sufficient.\nHowever, one of the issues we'd want to get into with her is the extent of her role in deciding which prisoners get transferred to Federal penitentiaries, because it... that relates to her belief that, well, if I send them to a Federal penitentiary they won't be entitled to any property, and I think that's an underlying factor that we may want to look into.\nAnd if that deposition develops specific lines of inquiry as to Government policy on that subject, then I think maybe a couple of other depositions would be warranted, but no, I do not believe extensive discovery would be required in this case for this claim.\nNow, we do have a claim against D.C. which requires a custom, policy, and practice proof as well, and that's not before the Court now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1589.202, 1589.911, 1592.695, 1596.435, 1605.06, 1607.752, 1625.895, 1640.853], "stop_times": [1589.911, 1592.695, 1596.435, 1605.06, 1607.752, 1625.895, 1640.853, 1646.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1589.202}, "reply_to": "20577__0_130", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_132", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "All right, then how exactly, in your view, do you deal with the problem?\nYou may say there is no problem, but I take it, the problem, to be that many prisoners will file pieces of paper in Federal court that they call a complaint.\nThey won't be sent to the judge, actually.\nThey'll be sent to a magistrate, and the magistrate's normal inclination under notice pleading is, discovery is fine.\nBut here, they say that in these cases where motives are alleged, it's a great burden upon the prison official to have to sit at a deposition, and there's no real reason for it, so the first thing you'd want to do is require the prisoner to say what he's talking about in detail, but I guess we can't do that under the Federal rules.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1646.057, 1652.811, 1664.59, 1666.843, 1673.547], "stop_times": [1652.811, 1664.59, 1666.843, 1673.547, 1694.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1646.057}, "reply_to": "20577__0_131", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20577__0_133", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1694.921], "stop_times": [1695.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1694.921}, "reply_to": "20577__0_132", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_134", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Or maybe there are some other things we could do.\nI want your view on what we should do about that problem, including, if you like, denying that it's a problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1695.351, 1697.853], "stop_times": [1697.853, 1704.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1695.351}, "reply_to": "20577__0_133", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20577__0_135", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--Hold the plaintiff's discovery in abeyance and allow the defendant to do discovery.\nNow, certainly under the rules you can also require a reply from the defendant.\nIf the answer to the complaint raises qualified immunity, there could be a reply required.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1704.688, 1709.471, 1713.213], "stop_times": [1709.471, 1713.213, 1717.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1704.688}, "reply_to": "20577__0_134", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_136", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "You say in the reply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1717.886], "stop_times": [1718.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1717.886}, "reply_to": "20577__0_135", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20577__0_137", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "But it would be far more efficient, rather than just getting more assertions from the plaintiff, to put the plaintiff to the burden of producing evidence, and that's what discovery is for.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1718.757], "stop_times": [1728.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1718.757}, "reply_to": "20577__0_136", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_138", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Yes, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1728.103], "stop_times": [1728.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1728.103}, "reply_to": "20577__0_137", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20577__0_139", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Let the defendant ask the questions of the plaintiff, or send interrogatories.\nMake the defendant... make the plaintiff produce the actual evidence, as opposed to assertions, so that way we can--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1728.524, 1732.076], "stop_times": [1732.076, 1737.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1728.524}, "reply_to": "20577__0_138", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_140", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--What are the... well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1737.22], "stop_times": [1738.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1737.22}, "reply_to": "20577__0_139", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20577__0_141", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--I'm sorry, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1738.592], "stop_times": [1739.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1738.592}, "reply_to": "20577__0_140", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_142", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "I want to know what particular rules you will work with to produce this result.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1739.78], "stop_times": [1746.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1739.78}, "reply_to": "20577__0_141", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20577__0_143", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "26.\nRule 26 enables the court to limit discovery to the needs of the case and to prevent undue burden, and that includes controlling the timing, the methods, and the means of discovery, and allowing the defendant to go first and holding the plaintiff's discovery in abeyance goes a long way to solving this problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1746.616, 1747.725], "stop_times": [1747.725, 1766.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1746.616}, "reply_to": "20577__0_142", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20577__0_144", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Schember.\nMr. Smith, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1766.167, 1767.519], "stop_times": [1767.519, 1770.231], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1766.167}, "reply_to": "20577__0_143", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20577__1_000", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nPetitioner's counsel has just said that in his view the gravament of his position is that there needn't be any special rules at all.\nI think the Court has already decided in Harlow that there have to be, so I'd like to argue two points to you.\nFirst, that in wrongful intent cases such as this there needs to be some kind of heightened standard applied to protect public officials with regard to determining whether they had a wrongful intent or not, because if you don't have some kind of special heightened standard the result is going to be, in nearly all of these cases, we're going to put public officials through discovery, past summary judgment, and into trial, and that will cause all of the harm to effective government and all of the harm to the public interest that this Court in Harlow designed a rule to prohibit, and I think he's quite wrong to say that we can simply rely on the normal rules to take care of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1770.231, 1775.194, 1783.139, 1789.233], "stop_times": [1775.194, 1783.139, 1789.233, 1833.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1770.231}, "reply_to": "20577__0_144", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_001", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "But isn't it true that Harlow dealt with the special problem of qualified immunity, and your position in this case, even if there's no qualified immunity defense interposed, you'd still make the same arguments.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1833.772], "stop_times": [1844.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1833.772}, "reply_to": "20577__1_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20577__1_002", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well, on the merits we would, but since we did interpose qualified immunity, Your Honor, there are two parts to the qualified immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1844.019], "stop_times": [1851.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1844.019}, "reply_to": "20577__1_001", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_003", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "But it seems to me the case really is about the merits, because if the defendant here did what was alleged, there really isn't a basis for qualified immunity.\nOn the other hand, if the defendant is correct, there's no cause of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1851.703, 1859.28], "stop_times": [1859.28, 1863.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1851.703}, "reply_to": "20577__1_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20577__1_004", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "I guess I disagree with that, Your Honor.\nI would say this case is about whether or not Ms. Britton's assertion of good faith in the actions that she took is going to be upheld under the qualified immunity doctrine.\nThe Court said there are two--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1863.791, 1866.203, 1876.742], "stop_times": [1866.203, 1876.742, 1877.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1863.791}, "reply_to": "20577__1_003", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_005", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "But if she's in good faith there's no cause of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1877.981], "stop_times": [1879.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1877.981}, "reply_to": "20577__1_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20577__1_006", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--Well, but the Court said there are two parts to the good faith immunity.\nOne is what the Court called objective.\nThe other is what the Court called subjective, and in Harlow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1879.553, 1883.524, 1884.906], "stop_times": [1883.524, 1884.906, 1888.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1879.553}, "reply_to": "20577__1_005", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_007", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "I understand that, but do you not agree that if she acted in good faith and did not have the motive that the plaintiff describes, there's no cause of action at all.\nShe doesn't need an affirmative defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1888.198, 1896.774], "stop_times": [1896.774, 1898.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1888.198}, "reply_to": "20577__1_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20577__1_008", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--That is true.\nThat is true, but good faith immunity is called, I think, Your Honor, good faith immunity precisely because it's designed to assure public officials that if they act in good faith, as Harlow said, cases against them will be promptly dismissed, according to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1898.223, 1898.734], "stop_times": [1898.734, 1914.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1898.223}, "reply_to": "20577__1_007", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_009", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "No, I don't think that's right.\nIn Harlow it's even if they acted in bad faith and for malice and all these other bad motives, if the right wasn't clearly established at the time, the plaintiff still loses.\nIt's not a question of subjective good faith.\nIt's a question of the state of the law at the time of the conduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1914.636, 1915.097, 1924.442, 1926.312], "stop_times": [1915.097, 1924.442, 1926.312, 1928.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1914.636}, "reply_to": "20577__1_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20577__1_010", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--I think that's right, Your Honor, but there was a second part to the good faith immunity, and that is the intent.\nThe first part is the one you just mentioned, knowledge of the law, and the Court said that we weren't going to allow inquiries into the knowledge.\nNow we're trying to figure out what to do when the claim is with regard to improper intent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1928.374, 1935.219, 1942.703], "stop_times": [1935.219, 1942.703, 1947.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1928.374}, "reply_to": "20577__1_009", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_011", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Mr.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1947.667], "stop_times": [1948.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1947.667}, "reply_to": "20577__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20577__1_012", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Once again--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1948.707], "stop_times": [1949.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1948.707}, "reply_to": "20577__1_011", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_013", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--Mr. Smith, the court of appeals certainly regarded this as a qualified immunity case, didn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1949.258], "stop_times": [1954.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1949.258}, "reply_to": "20577__1_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20577__1_014", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--Absolutely, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1954.28], "stop_times": [1954.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1954.28}, "reply_to": "20577__1_013", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_015", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Justice... Judge Williams' opening sentence says, we're here to decide this issue about qualified immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1954.891], "stop_times": [1960.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1954.891}, "reply_to": "20577__1_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20577__1_016", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "That's correct, and there's no doubt that, in fact, the qualified immunity defense was raised in the trial court.\nThat's why the court of appeals ended up addressing it.\nI'd like to respond to something Justice Scalia said, though.\nHe said that in Harlow we had found a mechanism for making sure we didn't have to have an inquiry into the knowledge part.\nWhat we now need to find is a mechanism to make sure that we don't have subjective inquiries into the intent part, because that can do just as much damage to the purposes of the Harlow decision as inquiries into the knowledge of the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1960.835, 1966.448, 1969.13, 1972.792, 1980.687], "stop_times": [1966.448, 1969.13, 1972.792, 1980.687, 1996.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1960.835}, "reply_to": "20577__1_015", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_017", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "But it isn't an intent part and a knowledge part.\nThere are two discrete kinds of wrongful acts.\nIn the Harlow thing it was a question of whether the law had been violated and the Court's answer was, there's qualified immunity unless that law was clearly established.\nNow, here, there isn't any question that if the motive that's alleged exists, what was done was terribly unlawful, so the two... you can't just mix them together and say they're all part of the same kind of tortious conduct.\nOne is, did I act in violation of the law, and the other is, what was in my head, because if one thing was in my head, then I acted in violation of the law, if another thing was, I didn't, so they're two different kinds of torts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [1996.689, 1999.33, 2002.092, 2014.871, 2034.013], "stop_times": [1999.33, 2002.092, 2014.871, 2034.013, 2053.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1996.689}, "reply_to": "20577__1_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20577__1_018", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "They are two different things, Your Honor, but I would try to argue to you they're both part of the good faith immunity, and before Harlow the Court said there were two parts to the inquiry, one that the Court called subjective, and one that the Court called objective, but they both had to do with the state of the mind of the official.\nOne is the knowledge of the law in the mind of the official, the other is whether or not there's improper intent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2053.466, 2072.831], "stop_times": [2072.831, 2078.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2053.466}, "reply_to": "20577__1_017", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_019", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well, let's just say... let's just say, when it's a question of what the law is, that we want to make intent irrelevant.\nWe just want to know, was this clearly established law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2078.404, 2082.177], "stop_times": [2082.177, 2085.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2078.404}, "reply_to": "20577__1_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20577__1_020", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2085.029], "stop_times": [2085.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2085.029}, "reply_to": "20577__1_019", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_021", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "But in the kind of tort we're talking about here, the intent is everything.\nYou can't make it irrelevant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2085.469, 2089.51], "stop_times": [2089.51, 2090.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2085.469}, "reply_to": "20577__1_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20577__1_022", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Oh, I wasn't trying to make it irrelevant, Your Honor.\nI'm trying to make it part of the qualified immunity inquiry and find a way to assure that the qualified immunity will be given to the official without having to go through discovery and trial, and my point is that if you don't have some kind of what Justice Scalia was calling a special mechanism, nearly every one of these cases where improper intent is alleged is going to have to go through discovery and trial, bringing about all of the harm that Harlow was designed to prohibit.\nThat's the point that I'm trying to make, and we need to find, again to use Justice Scalia's words, I think a mechanism for assuring that what the Court said in Harlow should not occur... a subjective inquiry... will not occur here either.\nWe must find a way to assure public officials that when they act in good faith in their positions, insubstantial claims against them will be promptly dismissed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2090.851, 2092.681, 2119.851, 2134.73], "stop_times": [2092.681, 2119.851, 2134.73, 2145.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2090.851}, "reply_to": "20577__1_021", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_023", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Why?\nWhy do we have to do that?\nIs that our job?\nI mean, I hate to contradict myself, but--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2145.327, 2145.707, 2146.509, 2147.24, 2150.021], "stop_times": [2145.707, 2146.509, 2147.24, 2150.021, 2150.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2145.327}, "reply_to": "20577__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20577__1_024", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Me, too.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2150.472, 2152.555], "stop_times": [2152.555, 2153.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2150.472}, "reply_to": "20577__1_023", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_025", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "It seems to me that we're interpreting a statute here.\nIt's either there or it's not there.\nYou're talking as though, you know, we're writing the law.\nWe're not writing this law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2153.454, 2157.087, 2159.529, 2162.741], "stop_times": [2157.087, 2159.529, 2162.741, 2163.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2153.454}, "reply_to": "20577__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20577__1_026", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "No, I'm not suggesting you're writing it.\nI am suggesting, as the Court has often said... you're interpreting section 1983, and the Court has often said that there are two parts to that.\nWhat was the state of common law immunity at the time when the statute was adopted, and are there other special policy considerations?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2163.503, 2165.165, 2172.738], "stop_times": [2165.165, 2172.738, 2180.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2163.503}, "reply_to": "20577__1_025", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_027", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Could we... I mean, I just don't know where we plucked this notion of clear and convincing evidence from.\nAre we free to pick and choose the propositions that we're going to allow to be established by a preponderance and other propositions only by clear and convincing evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2180.565, 2185.608], "stop_times": [2185.608, 2196.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2180.565}, "reply_to": "20577__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20577__1_028", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well, I think you are authorized to make that determination, Your Honor, for the same reason you're authorized to determine the burden of proof in a statute where Congress hasn't provided what the burden of proof will be, and for the same reason you're authorized to define and refine the contours of the qualified immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2196.334], "stop_times": [2214.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2196.334}, "reply_to": "20577__1_027", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_029", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Is Harlow your best authority for that proposition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2214.386], "stop_times": [2217.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2214.386}, "reply_to": "20577__1_028", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20577__1_030", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "About defining and refining?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2217.438], "stop_times": [2219.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2217.438}, "reply_to": "20577__1_029", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_031", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Yes, about our general authority to formulate rules that will give meaning and substance and force to the sovereign immunity defense from a procedural standpoint.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2219.338], "stop_times": [2230.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2219.338}, "reply_to": "20577__1_030", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20577__1_032", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well, Harlow, Wyatt, I would cite Woodby v. INS, where the Court adopted a clear and convincing standard, and said it was doing so in part because Congress had not established the standard, and it was a particularly, peculiarly judiciary function to determine what the burden of proof--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2230.326], "stop_times": [2248.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2230.326}, "reply_to": "20577__1_031", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_033", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "We make it up based on our assessment of the needs of the judicial system quite apart from common law analogues, et cetera?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2248.409], "stop_times": [2254.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2248.409}, "reply_to": "20577__1_032", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20577__1_034", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--No, not quite apart, Your Honor.\nI think when you do it you are interpreting the statute, and you interpret the statute on the basis of, the Court has said, two things, both policy considerations and what the state of common law immunity was at the time the statute was adopted.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2254.471, 2255.753, 2269.841], "stop_times": [2255.753, 2269.841, 2271.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2254.471}, "reply_to": "20577__1_033", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_035", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Mr. Smith, you have said a couple of times, I think, that in the case of these intent causes of action like this one, if we don't have some such mechanism as clear and convincing, as a threshold standard, that for practical purposes summary judgment will not be granted and qualified immunity will be a dead letter.\nDo you have any factual evidence in the record to that effect?\nDo we have an empirical basis to say that what you're saying is true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2271.203, 2294.769, 2302.093], "stop_times": [2294.769, 2302.093, 2305.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2271.203}, "reply_to": "20577__1_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20577__1_036", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--I think the best support we have in the record, the statistics that are before the Court, the best ones are cited in Judge Silberman's opinion at page 38a and 56a, and in the amicus brief for the States at page 12, and in the amicus brief for the United States at pages 1 and 2, and I think if you read all of those data together, they do say one important thing.\nWe have an explosion of cases in this area.\nAlmost half of them are prisoner cases, and nearly all of them are ultimately determined to be nonmeritorious, but you can always allege improper intent in such cases and, under the rules that we now have, you can almost always get through in discovery and trial in such cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2305.937, 2333.164, 2335.736], "stop_times": [2333.164, 2335.736, 2358.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2305.937}, "reply_to": "20577__1_035", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_037", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "But how many... do we have any basis for saying how many of those cases are cases in which improper intent is alleged with a substantial basis in the evidence, even though ultimately it turns out that the jury finds otherwise?\nThose are the ones that we're trying to winnow out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2358.489, 2372.639], "stop_times": [2372.639, 2374.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2358.489}, "reply_to": "20577__1_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20577__1_038", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2374.581], "stop_times": [2375.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2374.581}, "reply_to": "20577__1_037", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_039", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Do we have any basis for apportioning those cases as against the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2375.052], "stop_times": [2381.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2375.052}, "reply_to": "20577__1_038", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20577__1_040", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "I don't think the data will tell you which are improper intent cases and which are not, but this much we know.\nImproper intent is very easy to allege, particularly in the prisoner context, particularly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2381.216, 2387.898], "stop_times": [2387.898, 2393.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2381.216}, "reply_to": "20577__1_039", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_041", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--May I ask, is the rule you're advocating limited to prison cases, or would it apply to employee discharge cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2393.882], "stop_times": [2399.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2393.882}, "reply_to": "20577__1_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20577__1_042", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--It would apply, I think, Your Honor, across the board, as the Court said in Harlow.\nNow, you may find at some later date you need to refine it for some reason, but I think the core reason we're asking for some kind of special standard be applied here, would apply across the board, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2399.266, 2404.12], "stop_times": [2404.12, 2415.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2399.266}, "reply_to": "20577__1_041", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_043", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "If it... so, please, finish.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2415.829], "stop_times": [2417.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2415.829}, "reply_to": "20577__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20577__1_044", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--Go ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2417.398], "stop_times": [2417.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2417.398}, "reply_to": "20577__1_043", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_045", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "If you're--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2417.989], "stop_times": [2418.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2417.989}, "reply_to": "20577__1_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20577__1_046", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "No, I'd rather hear your question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2418.48], "stop_times": [2420.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2418.48}, "reply_to": "20577__1_045", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_047", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--If it would apply across the board--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2420.4], "stop_times": [2421.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2420.4}, "reply_to": "20577__1_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20577__1_048", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Across the board to all cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2421.492], "stop_times": [2422.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2421.492}, "reply_to": "20577__1_047", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_049", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--Then you have to be careful, because, you know, a lot of these claims might be very, very good.\nThere might be prisoner ones that are good, so how do you winnow them out, and my question is, what is wrong with just following the present rules?\nSuppose you said that, first, when the prisoner files a claim which you can't really understand, which very often happens, that the official who's being sued can ask for a reply, and that reply at the judge's or magistrate's discretion can describe in detail what he knows and what he's talking about.\nThen the second thing is, having obtained that, the official can move for summary judgment under 56, at which point discovery will not take place unless the judge decides under 56(f) that justice so requires, et cetera, using the standard of 56(f), and we could say, you have to be very careful where motive is alleged.\nAnyone can allege it.\nThere are, you know, all these considerations that you're concerned about.\nSo the magistrate would have full power to deal with the case, understanding that it's likely to be special, and understanding all the things you argue.\nWhat's wrong with that as a special standard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2422.724, 2426.415, 2433.78, 2453.983, 2477.618, 2478.559, 2482.341, 2489.507], "stop_times": [2426.415, 2433.78, 2453.983, 2477.618, 2478.559, 2482.341, 2489.507, 2491.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2422.724}, "reply_to": "20577__1_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20577__1_050", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Because you're still--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2491.948], "stop_times": [2492.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2491.948}, "reply_to": "20577__1_049", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_051", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--the rules.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2492.639], "stop_times": [2493.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2492.639}, "reply_to": "20577__1_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20577__1_052", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--I think, Your Honor, in the mind run of the cases, you're still going to go to trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2493.039], "stop_times": [2497.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2493.039}, "reply_to": "20577__1_051", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_053", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2497.201], "stop_times": [2497.722], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2497.201}, "reply_to": "20577__1_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20577__1_054", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Because we're going to have credibility determinations, or we're going to have, as the Chief Justice said, a situation where all of the evidence has to be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2497.722], "stop_times": [2505.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2497.722}, "reply_to": "20577__1_053", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_055", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Is that in fact what's happening now?\nI mean, somebody asked if there was any empirical information.\nHow many cases like this actually go to trial without any heightened pleading rules or heightened proof burden rules?\nHow many?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2505.708, 2507.048, 2510.069, 2518.184], "stop_times": [2507.048, 2510.069, 2518.184, 2519.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2505.708}, "reply_to": "20577__1_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20577__1_056", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--I don't think we have the data that have actually counted--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2519.316], "stop_times": [2523.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2519.316}, "reply_to": "20577__1_055", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_057", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well... because you said there were a lot.\nI thought I heard you say that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2523.199, 2524.98], "stop_times": [2524.98, 2526.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2523.199}, "reply_to": "20577__1_056", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20577__1_058", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--What I said there were a lot of, Your Honor, are claims of this kind, and what I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2526.071], "stop_times": [2531.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2526.071}, "reply_to": "20577__1_057", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_059", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--Yes, but do they get... the question is, do they get weeded out efficiently without any heightened pleading rules, any additional proof burden rules?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2531.094], "stop_times": [2538.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2531.094}, "reply_to": "20577__1_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20577__1_060", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--And my answer is... the answer has to be no, because under the governing standards you have to let credibility determinations or any case in which any permissible inference can be drawn in favor of the plaintiff, you have to let them go forward.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2538.498], "stop_times": [2553.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2538.498}, "reply_to": "20577__1_059", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_061", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "But the numbers I saw--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2553.788], "stop_times": [2554.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2553.788}, "reply_to": "20577__1_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20577__1_062", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "That's the nub of the problem the Court discussed in Harlow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2554.469], "stop_times": [2556.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2554.469}, "reply_to": "20577__1_061", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_063", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--The number I saw on this very point in the record was something like 500-some-odd cases.\nDoes that ring a bell, that number?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2556.071, 2560.433], "stop_times": [2560.433, 2562.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2556.071}, "reply_to": "20577__1_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20577__1_064", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well, the 500 number is in the U.S.'s brief, but that's only for Bivens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2562.794], "stop_times": [2566.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2562.794}, "reply_to": "20577__1_063", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_065", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "That's true, but that's 500-and-some-odd cases out of, let's say, 80,000 prisoners, and if... that doesn't seem like an enormous... I mean, on its face, that didn't seem overwhelming as a problem.\nI don't know how many prisoners there are, 80 or 90,000, probably.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2566.517, 2578.024], "stop_times": [2578.024, 2581.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2566.517}, "reply_to": "20577__1_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20577__1_066", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2581.137], "stop_times": [2581.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2581.137}, "reply_to": "20577__1_065", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_067", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "The Federal system probably has 80,000, does it, something--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2581.948], "stop_times": [2585.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2581.948}, "reply_to": "20577__1_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20577__1_068", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--Yes.\nThe numbers of the prisoner cases, though, are in the States' brief, and in the data that Judge Silberman relied on.\nThey are in the thousands.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2585.551, 2586.032, 2591.204], "stop_times": [2586.032, 2591.204, 2592.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2585.551}, "reply_to": "20577__1_067", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_069", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--But there are close to a million prisoners in the State systems, and so... perhaps more than a million, and so is the... it seemed like a... I mean, I don't know what to make of this.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2592.573, 2605.923], "stop_times": [2605.923, 2606.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2592.573}, "reply_to": "20577__1_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20577__1_070", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "My view... my view, Your Honor, would be two things.\nFirst of all, thousands of cases puts quite a burden on the district courts, but the more important point, I think, is that the policy consideration that drove Harlow was that if you permit cases like this to proceed, you will dampen the ardor of public officials.\nUnless public officials are certain that these insubstantial suits are going to be promptly dismissed before discovery and trial, the risk is great, the Harlow court said, that these public officials are not going to be unflinching in their duties, and at a given prison, it would only take one such claim to do that kind of harm.\nJust let one of these cases linger and occupy the time of a public official, challenging what I still want to call their good faith, just one of them can dampen their ardor with regard to other situations.\nThey will be afraid to take action that might engender another lawsuit, and we would submit that is the core of Harlow, and it is why some kind of special rule needs to be applied.\nI haven't talked yet about clear and convincing.\nObviously, you have to first be persuaded that some kind of heightened standard is needed in order to address the problem.\nI would like just to take the last few moments, with the Court's permission, to tick off what I think are four reasons why clear and convincing is the right kind of heightened standard to use in these cases.\nFirst of all, and this will be abbreviated, as Judge Williams said in his opinion, this is a situation where we had asymmetry in the risk of error.\nThat is to say, the Court has already determined in Harlow itself that some meritorious cases must be turned away in order to serve the greater good of ensuring that insubstantial cases will be promptly dismissed, and it's in an asymmetry of error situation the Court has often adopted clear and convincing.\nHis second reason was that this is a case where, just to use his words, motive is easy to allege and hard to disprove.\nThat, too, suggests that we need a benefit of the doubt for public officials, and that's a point the Court made in Harlow itself, where it said at page 814, note 23, dishonest or vindictive motives are readily attributed and as readily believed, actually raising the specter that we may have public officials who are completely innocent of the charge but would be found guilty because of the tenuousness of the kind of evidence we're dealing with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2606.635, 2608.915, 2625.797, 2645.35, 2658.087, 2670.346, 2672.426, 2679.271, 2691.029, 2700.556, 2719.059, 2727.965], "stop_times": [2608.915, 2625.797, 2645.35, 2658.087, 2670.346, 2672.426, 2679.271, 2691.029, 2700.556, 2719.059, 2727.965, 2756.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2606.635}, "reply_to": "20577__1_069", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_071", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--Are you proposing this rule just for criminal... for prisoner cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2756.134], "stop_times": [2759.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2756.134}, "reply_to": "20577__1_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20577__1_072", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nI would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2759.126, 2760.154], "stop_times": [2760.154, 2761.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2759.126}, "reply_to": "20577__1_071", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_073", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Then this asymmetry that you're talking about may not necessarily apply.\nI don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2761.286, 2766.009], "stop_times": [2766.009, 2766.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2761.286}, "reply_to": "20577__1_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20577__1_074", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--Oh, I... I would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2766.5], "stop_times": [2767.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2766.5}, "reply_to": "20577__1_073", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_075", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "A fairly high percentage of frivolous in the prison context, but I'm not sure outside of the prison context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2767.561], "stop_times": [2773.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2767.561}, "reply_to": "20577__1_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20577__1_076", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--Well, again, we don't have the exact numbers, but I would suggest that in other contexts you still have the problem--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2773.505], "stop_times": [2780.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2773.505}, "reply_to": "20577__1_075", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_077", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Can we adopt the clear and convincing rule for the prison context and not elsewhere?\nI mean, since we can adopt these burden of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2780.839, 2784.282], "stop_times": [2784.282, 2787.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2780.839}, "reply_to": "20577__1_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20577__1_078", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2787.474], "stop_times": [2788.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2787.474}, "reply_to": "20577__1_077", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_079", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--proof rules willy nilly, can we just do it for the prison context?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2788.085], "stop_times": [2790.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2788.085}, "reply_to": "20577__1_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20577__1_080", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--I would suggest an across-the-board approach is the best approach but, Your Honor, as I'm sure you would put it, I'll take what I can get here--\n[Laughter]\n--if, in fact, you want to hold this only for prisoners.\nCould I mention the other two reasons, though?\nOne is that I think you've done this in analogous situations, not only in the civil fraud context, but I think New York Times may be the best analogy.\nThere, in order to protect the public's great interest in uninhibited public debate, you adopt a clear and convincing standard.\nSo, too, I would suggest, to serve the public interest in having uninhibited public official decisionmaking, it's important to adopt the clear and convincing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2790.996, 2798.089, 2798.81, 2801.052, 2802.504, 2811.75, 2819.854], "stop_times": [2798.089, 2798.81, 2801.052, 2802.504, 2811.75, 2819.854, 2829.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2790.996}, "reply_to": "20577__1_079", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_081", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "In the civil fraud context we did it in the context of the Federal rules, is that not correct, or is that incorrect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2829.602], "stop_times": [2835.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2829.602}, "reply_to": "20577__1_080", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20577__1_082", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--Well, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2835.075], "stop_times": [2836.137], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2835.075}, "reply_to": "20577__1_081", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_083", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "You said we've done this in the civil fraud context.\nI thought this was a heightened pleading requirement in Rule 9.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2836.137, 2838.057], "stop_times": [2838.057, 2842.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2836.137}, "reply_to": "20577__1_082", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20577__1_084", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--No, the Court in Woodby, Your Honor, referred to various different situations where courts have, in a civil fraud context, adopted a clear and convincing test.\nAnd the fourth one I'd like to mention is the presumption of regularity, which the Court noted as long ago as the United States v. Chemical case and reaffirmed in Armstrong, which is, there should be a presumption of regularity to validate decisions of public officials in the absence... and this was the key phrase, I think... in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary.\nIt seems to me that, too, supports the view that clear and convincing is the right kind of heightened standard to use here, although I'll say in response to something Justice Breyer said our primary point is that something has to be done to assure public officials that these insubstantial claims will not put them through discovery and trial.\nWe think clear and convincing is the best choice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2842.348, 2851.945, 2874.332, 2894.854], "stop_times": [2851.945, 2874.332, 2894.854, 2897.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2842.348}, "reply_to": "20577__1_083", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_085", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Better than the heightened pleading rule which this Court hasn't held is out the window with respect to individuals, as distinguished from municipalities?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2897.366], "stop_times": [2905.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2897.366}, "reply_to": "20577__1_084", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20577__1_086", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "I do think it's better than the heightened pleading rule, for the reasons I've been saying, but it's not as rigid, say, as the direct evidence rule, which I think frankly made it too tough on some plaintiffs, because most of these cases are circumstantial evidence cases.\nI mean, I think it's important to say that what the court of appeals has done here with a difficult problem is find a middle-of-the-road course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2905.191, 2918.52], "stop_times": [2918.52, 2926.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2905.191}, "reply_to": "20577__1_085", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_087", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "So you're not supporting Judge Silberman's approach, then.\nYou're just supporting the combination of Williams and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2926.064, 2929.346], "stop_times": [2929.346, 2933.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2926.064}, "reply_to": "20577__1_086", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20577__1_088", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2933.39], "stop_times": [2935.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2933.39}, "reply_to": "20577__1_087", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_089", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2935.561], "stop_times": [2936.021], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2935.561}, "reply_to": "20577__1_088", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20577__1_090", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2936.021, 2936.77], "stop_times": [2936.77, 2937.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2936.021}, "reply_to": "20577__1_089", "speaker": "walter_a_smith_jr"}
{"id": "20577__1_091", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Smith.\nMr. Minear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2937.16, 2938.032], "stop_times": [2938.032, 2941.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2937.16}, "reply_to": "20577__1_090", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20577__2_000", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe issue before you is how to apply Harlow's qualified immunity standard when a Government officer takes action that is lawful on its face, but would be unlawful if taken with an improper motive.\nThe issue here resurrects the very same problems that this Court confronted in Harlow.\nHere, as in Harlow, if qualified immunity... qualified immunity would become an empty gesture if an officer who takes reasonable action is nevertheless subject to suit whenever his motivations might be questioned.\nWe submit that when an officer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2941.665, 2950.991, 2961.066, 2965.32, 2976.857], "stop_times": [2950.991, 2961.066, 2965.32, 2976.857, 2978.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2941.665}, "reply_to": "20577__1_091", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20577__2_001", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well, we know he's subject to suit, but I mean, how do we... do you have an empirical basis for telling us how much deserves to be weeded out but is not being weeded out under the law as it now stands?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2978.748], "stop_times": [2990.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2978.748}, "reply_to": "20577__2_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20577__2_002", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--I think the statistics provide a partial answer here, and the statistics I'll cite from are the Bureau of Justice statistics that are prepared in a monograph that they have made publicly available called Prisoner Petitions in the Federal Courts.\nThat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [2990.917, 3002.764], "stop_times": [3002.764, 3003.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2990.917}, "reply_to": "20577__2_001", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20577__2_003", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Are those in your brief or an appendix--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3003.515], "stop_times": [3006.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3003.515}, "reply_to": "20577__2_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20577__2_004", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--No, it's not.\nUnfortunately it is not, but generally the statistics are also available from the administrative office of the courts, and they indicate that for prisoner petitions approximately 40,000 prisoner petitions are filed each year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3006.426, 3006.857], "stop_times": [3006.857, 3017.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3006.426}, "reply_to": "20577__2_003", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20577__2_005", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--State and Federal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3017.324], "stop_times": [3018.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3017.324}, "reply_to": "20577__2_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20577__2_006", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Federal and State cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3018.345], "stop_times": [3020.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3018.345}, "reply_to": "20577__2_005", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20577__2_007", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3020.095], "stop_times": [3020.726], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3020.095}, "reply_to": "20577__2_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20577__2_008", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--involving civil rights claims.\nOf those cases, about 60 percent are weeded out at the pleadings stage, but that still leaves 16,000 cases which require some additional treatment of one kind or another.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3020.726, 3021.707], "stop_times": [3021.707, 3031.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3020.726}, "reply_to": "20577__2_007", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20577__2_009", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "But do you know how many of those are based on unconstitutional motive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3031.873], "stop_times": [3035.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3031.873}, "reply_to": "20577__2_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20577__2_010", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "No.\nThat is one bit of evidence that we do not know.\nWhat we do know from the evidence that's provided by the Bureau of Justice statistics is that about 40 percent of these cases arise from either disciplinary actions or claims of inadequate medical treatment, or claims of protection of personal security, all types of cases that could, in fact, involve a claim of impermissible motive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3035.757, 3036.278, 3038.318], "stop_times": [3036.278, 3038.318, 3056.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3035.757}, "reply_to": "20577__2_009", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20577__2_011", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "But even among them I take it your statistics don't give us a way to estimate the number of cases that should not be weeded out at the summary judgment stage even though they are not unsuccessful.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3056.089], "stop_times": [3069.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3056.089}, "reply_to": "20577__2_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20577__2_012", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "That is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3069.857], "stop_times": [3070.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3069.857}, "reply_to": "20577__2_011", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20577__2_013", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "As distinct from those that should be and are also ultimately unsuccessful.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3070.598], "stop_times": [3074.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3070.598}, "reply_to": "20577__2_012", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20577__2_014", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--We simply do not have information on that, but we do have, as an example, this case here, and this is a case that I think that many people would say is... presents an insubstantial claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3074.041], "stop_times": [3083.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3074.041}, "reply_to": "20577__2_013", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20577__2_015", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "This rule might--\n--this case... I have no idea about this case, but why shouldn't we say, look, the Department of Justice has whole groups of people whose job it is to collect statistics.\nYou're asking us to create a special rule that would undoubtedly inevitably cut off some good claims, and therefore if you want us to create a special rule to deal with a special situation of harassment to public officials for claims that are not good, why doesn't the Department have the burden of coming in with the statistics that show it's a real problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3083.828, 3084.406, 3092.183], "stop_times": [3084.406, 3092.183, 3111.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3083.828}, "reply_to": "20577__2_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20577__2_016", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well, I think the statistics that we have presented do suggest that there's a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3111.665], "stop_times": [3115.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3111.665}, "reply_to": "20577__2_015", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20577__2_017", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well, all I know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3115.348], "stop_times": [3115.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3115.348}, "reply_to": "20577__2_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20577__2_018", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--problem here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3115.799], "stop_times": [3116.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3115.799}, "reply_to": "20577__2_017", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20577__2_019", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--from the statistics is that there are a lot of cases and 60 percent get weeded out, and it doesn't seem like that much compared to the number of prisoners, then somebody else might say the same, and we don't know how many deal with the motive, and we don't know whether the best way is to have a higher proof on the substance, or whether it's better to get simply more elaborate pleadings, or whether it's better to have special ways of enforcing discovery requirements... I mean, there are many, many ways of dealing with it, if it's a problem.\nMr. Minear, did the Court require some special research and statistics before it decided Harlow?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3116.199, 3139.765], "stop_times": [3139.765, 3146.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3116.199}, "reply_to": "20577__2_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20577__2_020", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "No, the Court did not, and in fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3146.119], "stop_times": [3148.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3146.119}, "reply_to": "20577__2_019", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20577__2_021", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Or in Miranda?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3148.63, 3149.59], "stop_times": [3149.59, 3150.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3148.63}, "reply_to": "20577__2_020", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20577__2_022", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--No, it did not, and again, I think the statistics we have here are helpful, but ultimately the decision rests with you, and I think the decision has to be drawn from the principles that you developed in Harlow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3150.791], "stop_times": [3160.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3150.791}, "reply_to": "20577__2_021", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20577__2_023", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "But Mr. Minear, like respondent's counsel you are not proposing a rule that is limited to prison petitions, are you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3160.829], "stop_times": [3167.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3160.829}, "reply_to": "20577__2_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20577__2_024", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "No, we are not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3167.821], "stop_times": [3168.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3167.821}, "reply_to": "20577__2_023", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20577__2_025", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "So even if we had all those statistics, they wouldn't show us the bottom line that we have to know, would they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3168.843], "stop_times": [3176.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3168.843}, "reply_to": "20577__2_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20577__2_026", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "No, they don't, and I think ultimately this requires the exercise of judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3176.287], "stop_times": [3179.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3176.287}, "reply_to": "20577__2_025", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20577__2_027", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "You're also not proposing a rule that's limited to the qualified immunity defense.\nYou're proposing a rule that covers all unconstitutional motive affirmative claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3179.188, 3183.532], "stop_times": [3183.532, 3187.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3179.188}, "reply_to": "20577__2_026", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20577__2_028", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "No, I do disagree with you there, Justice Stevens.\nWhat we're proposing here is a limitation on, or an application of qualified immunity to the motivation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3187.466, 3189.868], "stop_times": [3189.868, 3196.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3187.466}, "reply_to": "20577__2_027", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20577__2_029", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "What if the trial judge in this case said, the law was perfectly clear at the time of action, so no matter what happens there's no qualified immunity, but nevertheless I'm concerned about the very problem you're all discussing here?\nWould they have just said, well, since the qualified immunity defense isn't available, well, just too bad?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3196.74, 3206.216], "stop_times": [3206.216, 3210.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3196.74}, "reply_to": "20577__2_028", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20577__2_030", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--Well, we do think that this rule ought to be applied as part of the qualified immunity defense, and let me explain how that would work, and I think the easiest way to focus on this is to imagine a case that's... in which the jury is being instructed... let's suppose we've gotten past summary judgment.\nThe jury will be instructed that the plaintiff has to come forward and prove his constitutional claim and then the jury will be instructed, if you find that that claim is proved by a preponderance of the evidence, then you must consider the defendant's qualified immunity defense and, accepting your hypothetical, Justice Stevens, that the... there's a clearly established rule, what we're asking, that there be an additional instruction that the jury be told that you must find that there was a firm basis for believing that the officer had an improper intent.\nNow, we're suggesting, of course, that this same standard should apply at the summary judgment stage as well, and we think the reason why it's justified--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3210.73, 3223.678, 3251.377], "stop_times": [3223.678, 3251.377, 3258.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3210.73}, "reply_to": "20577__2_029", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20577__2_031", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Wouldn't there have had to have been a firm basis for believing they had the intent if the... in order for the plaintiff to make out the affirmative case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3258.53], "stop_times": [3263.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3258.53}, "reply_to": "20577__2_030", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20577__2_032", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--No.\nThat is the difference with the clear and convincing standard.\nClear and convincing evidence is evidence sufficient to give the jury a firm belief of an improper motive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3263.825, 3264.604, 3266.777], "stop_times": [3264.604, 3266.777, 3273.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3263.825}, "reply_to": "20577__2_031", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20577__2_033", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "That's very good as well as a charge to the jury, Mr. Minear, but how does a judge on a summary judgment stage... is there some way he can distinguish between a claim that is supported by a preponderance of the evidence but not by clear and convincing evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3273.072], "stop_times": [3287.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3273.072}, "reply_to": "20577__2_032", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20577__2_034", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Yes, we think that he can, and he has to ask the same question.\nHe applies that standard of proof that... the clear and convincing standard in determining the summary judgment motion, much as took place in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, where he looks at the factual question through the prism of the appropriate standard, and that is what we're suggesting is appropriate here.\nAnd that standard is necessary, we submit, because otherwise there will always be these types of claims in which improper motive can be alleged based merely on inference and, because the judge must credit the inferences in favor of a nonmoving party, these cases will go on and be subjected to a jury trial even though it's very unlikely that they will proceed, or that they will produce a verdict, and that is something that we do have statistics on.\nWe do know that only 1 percent of the criminal... of the prisoner petition cases ultimately result in court-ordered relief for the prisoner out of the 40,000 cases that the district courts are charged with handling, and that seems to me that is significant.\nIt does indicate to us that there is a need for additional winnowing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3287.894, 3291.053, 3307.816, 3330.961, 3344.929], "stop_times": [3291.053, 3307.816, 3330.961, 3344.929, 3347.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3287.894}, "reply_to": "20577__2_033", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20577__2_035", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "But do those statistics tell us how many of those cases actually went to trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3347.981], "stop_times": [3351.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3347.981}, "reply_to": "20577__2_034", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20577__2_036", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--Yes, they do tell us how many of those cases went to trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3351.244], "stop_times": [3354.056], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3351.244}, "reply_to": "20577__2_035", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20577__2_037", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "And how many?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3354.056], "stop_times": [3354.627], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3354.056}, "reply_to": "20577__2_036", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20577__2_038", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Roughly about 3 percent of the cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3354.627], "stop_times": [3357.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3354.627}, "reply_to": "20577__2_037", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20577__2_039", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "About 3 percent, so that's really the universe we're most concerned about, the 3 percent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3357.047], "stop_times": [3360.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3357.047}, "reply_to": "20577__2_038", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20577__2_040", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--Yes, and what we're concerned about also... not just the 3 percent.\nI take that back.\nWe're also concerned about those cases in which there's extensive discovery where a motion for summary judgment is ultimately granted after the plaintiff has conducted deposition after deposition and the court concludes that in fact there is not sufficient factual evidence to support the claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3360.771, 3363.623, 3364.602], "stop_times": [3363.623, 3364.602, 3378.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3360.771}, "reply_to": "20577__2_039", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20577__2_041", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Why just... just don't allow those depositions, as opposing counsel suggests?\nOnly allow the Government to... Government defendant to depose.\nDon't allow the plaintiff.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3378.442, 3382.613, 3389.97], "stop_times": [3382.613, 3389.97, 3391.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3378.442}, "reply_to": "20577__2_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20577__2_042", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Well, we think that in fact Justice Ginsburg in the court of appeals has suggested an appropriate approach with regard to discovery, and as a separate matter he has suggested that discovery should not go forward unless it's likely to produce sufficient evidence to achieve the desired result at trial.\nIn other words, the plaintiff has to produce some evidence of an improper motive and, in addition, must show that there's a reasonable likelihood that he can produce evidence through discovery that will--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3391.269, 3408.633], "stop_times": [3408.633, 3421.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3391.269}, "reply_to": "20577__2_041", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20577__2_043", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "How does he know what he can produce through discovery until he has it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3421.299], "stop_times": [3424.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3421.299}, "reply_to": "20577__2_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20577__2_044", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "--Well, this is the same type of balancing determination that a court always has to make under Rule 26(b)(2)(3).\nThere's always a question of the burdens and benefits of discovery, and the benefits of discovery is the likelihood of the evidence being produced.\nThe plaintiff is obligated when he submits his Rule 56(f) affidavit to indicate what his basis for believing is that this discovery will be fruitful, so in fact the district judge will have a basis to make that determination.\nHe will be able to look at what the plaintiff is suggesting he will obtain on discovery, and he can make a reasoned judgment of whether or not he's likely to obtain the evidence he thinks he will receive.\nIn a case such as this, I think it's quite clear that the intended deposition of Ms. Britton is unlikely to produce anything more than what her deposition states, namely that she did this for a proper purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3424.083, 3431.707, 3438.312, 3451.148, 3459.326], "stop_times": [3431.707, 3438.312, 3451.148, 3459.326, 3468.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3424.083}, "reply_to": "20577__2_043", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20577__2_045", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "You mean her affidavit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3468.7], "stop_times": [3469.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3468.7}, "reply_to": "20577__2_044", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20577__2_046", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Her affidavit that she had prepared in an earlier stage of this proceeding.\nAnd with regard to that, I'd also like to note that in this case the... it's very easy to make factual allegations along the way.\nIf you look to what the fourth amended complaint actually states in this case on page 185 of the petition, it indicates that the plaintiff himself indicates that Ms. Britton was acting in order to protect the prisoner's property.\nHe made that allegation in his complaint.\nWhat we find is that the facts, the factual allegations change as the case moves forward.\nUltimately, that takes me back to my point with regard to restrictions on discovery.\nWe do think that it's appropriate not only to have a clear and convincing standard here, but also to require that there be limitations on discovery to ensure that that discovery is limited and narrowed to that... to those areas that are in fact of vital importance in proving the plaintiff's case.\nNow, there's also been some suggestion in the questions from the Court about your authority... I see my time has expired.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3469.822, 3472.764, 3480.498, 3495.998, 3497.861, 3503.345, 3507.275, 3522.576], "stop_times": [3472.764, 3480.498, 3495.998, 3497.861, 3503.345, 3507.275, 3522.576, 3529.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3469.822}, "reply_to": "20577__2_045", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20577__2_047", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Minear.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3529.762, 3530.56], "stop_times": [3530.56, 3531.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3529.762}, "reply_to": "20577__2_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20577__2_048", "conversation_id": "20577", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-827", "start_times": [3531.972], "stop_times": [3538.068], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3531.972}, "reply_to": "20577__2_047", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20237__0_000", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 97-704, Philomena Dooley v. Korean Airlines.\nMs.... is it Madole?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [0.0, 9.166], "stop_times": [9.166, 11.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20237__0_001", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Madole.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [11.419], "stop_times": [12.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 11.419}, "reply_to": "20237__0_000", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_002", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Madole.\nMs. Madole.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [12.199, 12.709], "stop_times": [12.709, 13.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 12.199}, "reply_to": "20237__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20237__0_003", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe issue presented here today is whether there is a general maritime law survival cause of action for the pre-death injuries to a nonseafarer when the conduct that causes the injuries occurs on the high seas and whether, if there is such a survival cause of action under general maritime law, it may be brought independent of but coexisting alongside the death action under the Death on the High Seas Act.\nIn order to understand the argument, it is important to point out the distinctions between the survival cause of action and the wrongful death cause of action.\nAs this Court has stated several times, the survival cause of action traditionally encompassed... encompasses the injuries that the individual he or herself sustained prior to death from the time of the injury.\nThose traditionally encompassed pre-death pain and suffering, loss of earnings from the time of injury to the time of death, and any medical or associated expenses relating to the injuries until the time of death.\nIn the case that is before the Court today, the petitioners only have a right to claim for pre-death injuries, for pre-death pain and suffering, for the 12 minutes that their decedent suffered from the time the aircraft upon which they were passengers were fired upon until a 12-minute controlled descent into the Sea of Japan and their ultimate deaths.\nBy comparison with survival actions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [13.219, 16.123, 41.251, 50.328, 63.016, 74.254, 95.237], "stop_times": [16.123, 41.251, 50.328, 63.016, 74.254, 95.237, 98.761], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 13.219}, "reply_to": "20237__0_002", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_004", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "The case, of course, since it does survive... involve the survivor's action, could mean much more than that.\nThere would be other cases in which people would linger for years with substantial injuries, et cetera.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [98.761, 106.327], "stop_times": [106.327, 111.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 98.761}, "reply_to": "20237__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20237__0_005", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--That's correct, and respondent in their response to the petition for certiorari also agreed that the rule of the Court... that this Court will lay down will be applied whenever the conduct causes the injuries and ultimately causes the death occurring on the high seas.\nIn a more typical accident, they probably will be more boat-based fact patterns, but the context in which the case is before the Court is... does arise out of an airplane accident and does address only pre-death pain and suffering and injuries.\nBy comparison with survival action injuries, wrongful death remedies... excuse me, survival action remedies, by contrast wrongful death remedies, are losses that the family members of the decedent themselves have sustained, those losses that are individual to the family members, are as a result of the death of the decedent and are normally economically based.\nNormally they are for loss of support, for loss of economic support that the decedent would have provided had the decedent continued to live, loss of services, household services and, in the case of a parent leaving small children, loss of parental services to the small children.\nThe beneficiaries are different.\nIn a survival cause of action the estate is the beneficiary, as the holder of the individual injured person's claim after his death.\nIn a wrongful death--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [111.65, 126.759, 142.721, 166.065, 180.175, 183.698, 193.355], "stop_times": [126.759, 142.721, 166.065, 180.175, 183.698, 193.355, 194.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 111.65}, "reply_to": "20237__0_004", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_006", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Ms. Madole, I think that the Court is generally familiar with the difference between a wrongful death act and a survival act, and getting down to the nub of your problem, as I understand it the FELA originally did not have any survival aspect to it, and this Court declined to create such a claim.\nIt left it to Congress and Congress took care of it.\nWhy shouldn't we follow the same pattern here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [194.667, 222.275, 225.416], "stop_times": [222.275, 225.416, 229.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 194.667}, "reply_to": "20237__0_005", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20237__0_007", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--What occurred is, I believe, Justice Ginsburg, is that the original FELA was patterned after Lord Campbell's Act.\nLord Campbell's Act required that the cause of action exist in the person at the time of the death for there to be a right to recover for survival and for death.\nThe FELA was amended in 1910 to provide for both causes of action.\nThe Death on the High Seas Act, which is the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [229.389, 236.833, 245.888, 251.713], "stop_times": [236.833, 245.888, 251.713, 253.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 229.389}, "reply_to": "20237__0_006", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_008", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "But am I wrong in thinking that there was an attempt, before that amendment, to get the courts to recognize a survival claim for railroad workers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [253.816], "stop_times": [263.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 253.816}, "reply_to": "20237__0_007", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20237__0_009", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--Yes, Justice Ginsburg.\nIn Michigan Central Railway v. Vreeland the Court said you could not have both a survival action and a wrongful death action under the FELA, and that was then amended by Congress in 1910.\nBut the basis for that was because the wrongful death action under FELA was based upon a Lord Campbell's Act type of statute which required the existence of a cause of action in the decedent at the time of the death, and if there had been recovery for survival there could not also be a death recovery.\nIn this circumstance, the statute that we are dealing with is the Death on the High Seas Act, and the argument by respondent and the amicus is that the Death on the High Seas Act precludes the court's traditional development of a survival cause of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [263.803, 265.666, 276.832, 293.723], "stop_times": [265.666, 276.832, 293.723, 307.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 263.803}, "reply_to": "20237__0_008", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_010", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "And wasn't the Death on the High Seas Act... that wasn't modeled on Lord Campbell's Act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [307.353], "stop_times": [310.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 307.353}, "reply_to": "20237__0_009", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20237__0_011", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "It does not in that it did not require the existence of the cause of action in the decedent prior to death, so that there is no foreclosure of a survival cause of action alongside a wrongful death cause of action.\nThe only issue that the respondent and the Government bring up with regard to the Death on the High Seas Act is whether, by enacting the wrongful death remedy, that the Congress intended to foreclose this Court's traditional role in maritime actions to develop law as policies change, so there's nothing in the Wrongful Death Act under the Death on the High Seas Act itself that would foreclose--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [310.756, 323.566], "stop_times": [323.566, 344.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 310.756}, "reply_to": "20237__0_010", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_012", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Well, do you consider it significant that Congress was aware of survival provisions under the Federal Employers Liability Act and it did not incorporate them here?\nI mean, that's a significant fact in the case, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [344.609, 353.695], "stop_times": [353.695, 356.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 344.609}, "reply_to": "20237__0_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20237__0_013", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--Well, it is to a limited degree, Justice Kennedy, and that is that Congress decided it wanted to provide a remedy from what it felt was the harsh rule of The Harrisburg, that there was no common law right to recover for wrongful death.\nThey wanted to provide the remedy in a limited area.\nThe debates in the Congressional Record are a) that the Congress wanted to have a remedy and b) how far should that remedy go?\nShould the remedy go only from the 3-miles limit from the shores of the United States, or should Congress legislate into the territorial waters?\nCongress decided just to legislate for death action and just to legislate from the 3-mile limit outwards, and just as this Court in Moragne said as long as Congress did not speak to an area that was not within its ambit, the Admiralty Court is free to develop in accordance with its traditional capacity to effectuate the policies of the common law as circumscribed for the circumstances on the sea.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [356.717, 370.378, 376.26, 386.258, 396.835], "stop_times": [370.378, 376.26, 386.258, 396.835, 420.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 356.717}, "reply_to": "20237__0_012", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_014", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Well, of course, Congress did, in 42 U.S. Code section 765, deal with death of a plaintiff and what's recoverable, so to that extent Congress certainly addressed the subject.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [420.961], "stop_times": [439.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 420.961}, "reply_to": "20237__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20237__0_015", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "To that extent, but that... thank you.\n765 should be put in the context of the statute as a whole.\nThe Death on the High Seas Act was enacted so that the statute of limitations began to run from the date of the wrongful conduct, other than most typical wrongful death statutes, where the statute of limitations begin... begins to run from the date of the death.\nWhat Congress was attempting to do in section 765 was to say that if an injured person lived past the 2-year statute, then the wrongful death right would be abated to his or her beneficiaries because the 2 years had run, because of the peculiarity of it beginning from the date of the wrongful conduct instead of the wrongful death.\nThe courts below in... not in the case directly in the court below, but other courts below that have addressed these issues, and the commentators both at the time and subsequently, have said that section 765 should best be deemed a non-abatement section and not a survival section, because what happened under section 9... or 765 was, the remedy was then turned into a wrongful death remedy so that the heirs and the beneficiaries of the decedent could recover wrongful death damages but nothing was said in the statute about what happened to the injured person's pre-death injuries, and that was not addressed.\nAnd again Congress was silent as to the pre-death injuries which is why, if the Court elects to, it has the capacity to develop general maritime law to address pre-death injuries and the survival cause of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [439.484, 442.436, 446.31, 459.5, 480.613, 517.708], "stop_times": [442.436, 446.31, 459.5, 480.613, 517.708, 530.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 439.484}, "reply_to": "20237__0_014", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_016", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "I guess it's hard for me to see that Congress was entirely silent on what would happen to the claims of pre-death injuries because in 765, if I'm reading it rightly, it converts the pre-existing action for pre-death injuries solely into the kind of death claim that is allowed under the statute, and that sounds to me as though it's saying, everything except the claim allowed under this statute goes away.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [530.348], "stop_times": [558.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 530.348}, "reply_to": "20237__0_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20237__0_017", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "And again, it has to be read in the context of what it was attempting to achieve, and what Congress was attempting to achieve was a rights-granting statute.\nIt wanted to ensure that wrongful conduct that occurred on the high seas would not be such that the conduct... there would be no compensation for the wrongfulness of the conduct to the one that was injured.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [558.886, 568.982], "stop_times": [568.982, 583.303], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 558.886}, "reply_to": "20237__0_016", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_018", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "But if that's all it wanted to do, I would have thought that in 765 it would have said a wrongful death action may be added to the pre-existing personal injury action of... that the decedent had begun, and it didn't do that.\nIt in effect said, it gets metamorphosed into a wrongful death case, period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [583.303, 597.872], "stop_times": [597.872, 604.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 583.303}, "reply_to": "20237__0_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20237__0_019", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Well, it could be read that way, Justice Souter, but I do not believe that if you look into the historical background of what Congress is trying to achieve, that that effectuates the remedial effects--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [604.245], "stop_times": [616.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 604.245}, "reply_to": "20237__0_018", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_020", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "But we deal with what Congress wrote, not with what someone thinks Congress was trying to effectuate.\nI mean, I think you have to deal with the language of 765 and you deduce what Congress intended from the language of 765.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [616.733, 622.557], "stop_times": [622.557, 630.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 616.733}, "reply_to": "20237__0_019", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20237__0_021", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--And again, from the legislative history, it's very hard to decide that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [630.771], "stop_times": [635.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 630.771}, "reply_to": "20237__0_020", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_022", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Well, why do we get into legislative history?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [635.276], "stop_times": [636.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 635.276}, "reply_to": "20237__0_021", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20237__0_023", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [636.748], "stop_times": [637.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 636.748}, "reply_to": "20237__0_022", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_024", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "I say, why do we get into legis--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [637.246], "stop_times": [638.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 637.246}, "reply_to": "20237__0_023", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20237__0_025", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Just from the language itself.\nThen I suggest that we look to the language that is at Section 763a, which is the new statute of limitations that was enacted in 1980.\nAs I mentioned earlier, the original section 763 provided for a 2-year statute of limitations to begin as of the date of the wrongful conduct.\nIn 1980, Congress repealed section 763 and inserted section... excuse me, and enacted section 763a, which is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [638.978, 639.927, 650.215, 660.661], "stop_times": [639.927, 650.215, 660.661, 671.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 638.978}, "reply_to": "20237__0_024", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_026", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--Does that apply to causes of action under than those... other than those under the Death on the High Seas Act?\nDoesn't it cover Jones Act or other causes of action, which might well explain that language?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [671.089, 677.203], "stop_times": [677.203, 682.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 671.089}, "reply_to": "20237__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20237__0_027", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--It does cover causes of action under general maritime law, under the Death on the High Seas Act, and under the Jones Act, and it changed the statute from one in which the statute began to, begin to run from the date of the wrongful conduct until it begins to run from the cause... the date the cause of action accrues, and it extended the statute to 3 years for all three of those issues.\nBut if anything can be said from the language in that, is that if Congress ever may have indicated in 1920 that it didn't recognize that both survival actions and death actions or both can be brought together, at least by 1980 they were saying that they knew that there were two kinds of actions and that one and the other could both be brought concurrently with each other.\nAnd it is not clear from the legislative history of 7... section 763a the prompting mechanism for that, but it's certainly clear that by that time the courts had begun to develop along the lines of... along the ken of... the rationale of this Court in Moragne that there were general maritime law of survival causes of action, based upon the same rationale that The Harrisburg, whether or not it was rightly decided when it had been decided originally, the underpinnings of it had changed because the policy had changed and the jurisprudence had changed, and that there was a wholesale acceptance of wrongful death causes of action in the United States.\nUnder the same analysis, many of the Federal appellate courts had found that there was a general maritime law of survival cause of action that, it was as a result of the policy change and the jurisprudence in the United States, because of the widespread adoption of survival statutes amongst the States as well as on the Federal level.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [682.728, 706.752, 731.28, 774.008], "stop_times": [706.752, 731.28, 774.008, 794.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 682.728}, "reply_to": "20237__0_026", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_028", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Under the Jones Act, which picks up on the FELA, there is both wrongful death relief and survival that's rather circumscribed.\nGiven that Congress has done it all, both the FELA and, borrowing from the FELA, the Jones Act, why should the Court say, well, it's our job to fill in the Survival Act in this DOHSA, Death on the High Seas Act legislation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [794.821, 808.85], "stop_times": [808.85, 827.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 794.821}, "reply_to": "20237__0_027", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20237__0_029", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "The lower courts and many commentators have said that the legislative history of the Jones Act is not clear, and that the provision of a survival cause of action in the Jones Act is solely because of its wholesale incorporation of the FELA into it.\nWe have to look at the statute that is arguably by the respondent the one that precludes the court from doing a general maritime law analysis to determine if the policy is such that there should be a survival cause of action and, under the Death on the High Seas Act, our argument is there is no survival cause of action.\nThere is no survival language in the statute, the statute itself addresses only wrongful death remedies, and therefore there is a void left that the court may fill with a survival cause of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [827.751, 849.867, 868.29], "stop_times": [849.867, 868.29, 882.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 827.751}, "reply_to": "20237__0_028", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_030", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "But one can argue equally well, and I think perhaps better, that Congress has addressed itself to this question.\nIt has decided what sort of damages will be recoverable for death on the high seas, and there isn't any void because what Congress has not granted, it withheld.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [882.598, 887.393], "stop_times": [887.393, 896.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 882.598}, "reply_to": "20237__0_029", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20237__0_031", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, what Congress granted certainly was remedies for deaths on the high seas.\nWhat it did not discuss was remedies for survival on the high seas, and if you look to this Court's traditional preemption and preclusion procedures, then unless the congressional statute specifically preempts or precludes the court from developing common law remedies, then the court, particularly in its traditional role in maritime matters, has the right to develop what it feels is the proper policy, the better law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [896.442, 902.293], "stop_times": [902.293, 929.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 896.442}, "reply_to": "20237__0_030", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_032", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "What's your authority for that proposition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [929.061], "stop_times": [930.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 929.061}, "reply_to": "20237__0_031", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20237__0_033", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--For the proposition that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [930.833], "stop_times": [932.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 930.833}, "reply_to": "20237__0_032", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_034", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "That you just stated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [932.263], "stop_times": [933.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 932.263}, "reply_to": "20237__0_033", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20237__0_035", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--I'm sorry, it was in a couple of parts.\nI'm not sure--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [933.074, 937.706], "stop_times": [937.706, 938.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 933.074}, "reply_to": "20237__0_034", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_036", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Well, that preemption principles as you describe them, where Congress has addressed one particular subject, it doesn't prevent the courts from developing common law policies that may be contrary to that in a related area.\nAt least that's how I took your proposition to be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [938.167, 955.559], "stop_times": [955.559, 957.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 938.167}, "reply_to": "20237__0_035", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20237__0_037", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--The cases that are in the reply brief, Your Honor, that deal with preemption, in the context of statutes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [957.26], "stop_times": [962.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 957.26}, "reply_to": "20237__0_036", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_038", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Are you talking about preemption of State laws, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [962.413], "stop_times": [965.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 962.413}, "reply_to": "20237__0_037", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20237__0_039", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--The most common fact circumstance that comes up and appears in the preemption context is of State laws, or of common law remedies under State laws, and what you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [965.204], "stop_times": [978.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 965.204}, "reply_to": "20237__0_038", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_040", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--What is the closest case you have to support the proposition we're talking about now?\nI realize you say they're in the reply brief, but tell me what case you would choose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [978.284, 982.425], "stop_times": [982.425, 988.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 978.284}, "reply_to": "20237__0_039", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20237__0_041", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--Medtronics.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [988.088], "stop_times": [989.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 988.088}, "reply_to": "20237__0_040", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_042", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Medtronics?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [989.34], "stop_times": [990.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 989.34}, "reply_to": "20237__0_041", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20237__0_043", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Which is at--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [990.912], "stop_times": [991.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 990.912}, "reply_to": "20237__0_042", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_044", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Well, that's preemption of State law.\nI don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [991.511, 995.074], "stop_times": [995.074, 996.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 991.511}, "reply_to": "20237__0_043", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20237__0_045", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--Common law.\nExcuse me, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [996.116, 996.747], "stop_times": [996.747, 997.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 996.116}, "reply_to": "20237__0_044", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_046", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--Well, you know, Congress passes... common law doesn't exist by itself.\nIt exists under the aegis of either State or the Federal Government, and as I recall Medtronics, the Court is talking there about what sort of State law claims are not preempted by a Federal statute, but that isn't the inquiry here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [997.855, 1002.879], "stop_times": [1002.879, 1020.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 997.855}, "reply_to": "20237__0_045", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20237__0_047", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "General maritime law is a species of common law, judge-made law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1020.87], "stop_times": [1027.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1020.87}, "reply_to": "20237__0_046", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_048", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Well, but it's not a species of common law under the aegis of a State.\nIn other words, we may have definite reservations about how inclusive to read a Federal statute as preempting State law, but I don't think any case you've cited so far says those same reservations based essentially on the traditional Federal system of Government we have, with respect for States, would carry over into a statute enacted by Congress as opposed to Federal remedies devised by courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1027.095, 1032.319], "stop_times": [1032.319, 1061.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1027.095}, "reply_to": "20237__0_047", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20237__0_049", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Then the closest case that is in the context of the issue that we're here before is the Moragne case, where the Court said that Congress had only legislated as far outward as the 3-mile limit, and that because it had not gone into the territorial water jurisdiction with the Death on the High Seas Act, the court was free to develop the common law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1061.837], "stop_times": [1085.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1061.837}, "reply_to": "20237__0_048", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_050", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Yes, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1085.582], "stop_times": [1086.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1085.582}, "reply_to": "20237__0_049", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20237__0_051", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--in a Federal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1086.223], "stop_times": [1086.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1086.223}, "reply_to": "20237__0_050", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_052", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--Go ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1086.724], "stop_times": [1087.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1086.724}, "reply_to": "20237__0_051", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20237__0_053", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--Under Federal common law aegis, and to then identify a general maritime law right to recover for wrongful death.\nThat is the same context in which we are arguing that the Congress did not address the survival cause of action in the Death on the High Seas Act, and since the remedies are so different, and they don't overlap with each other, then the Court has the capacity to develop the common law survival cause of action for pre-death remedies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1087.485, 1096.521], "stop_times": [1096.521, 1116.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1087.485}, "reply_to": "20237__0_052", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_054", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Ms. Madole, let's assume we grant that.\nAll it establishes is that we may.\nBut why should we?\nI mean, there has been no such cause of action.\nWe've not recognized it in the past, and in the past, where we have created new... you say common law maritime causes of action, we've done it in areas where Congress has not displayed any interest in bringing its intelligence to bear upon the matter.\nHere, Congress has been active.\nI mean, if times have changed... you said in light of changed circumstances.\nIt seems to me, if there are any changed circumstances it is that Congress has displayed a much more lively interest in these matters than it did in previous times, so gee, if we didn't take the initiative ourselves in earlier times, there's even less reason to do so today, it seems to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1116.773, 1119.556, 1122.227, 1124.388, 1127.51, 1145.222, 1147.035, 1151.585], "stop_times": [1119.556, 1122.227, 1124.388, 1127.51, 1145.222, 1147.035, 1151.585, 1170.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1116.773}, "reply_to": "20237__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20237__0_055", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Well, when Congress enacted the Death on the High Seas Act in 1920, it was true that there was no common law right of survivorship of personal injury actions.\nSince then, using the same rationale that the Court has used in Moragne, the Court has the capacity to develop a survival cause of action for pre-death injuries because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1170.719, 1180.886], "stop_times": [1180.886, 1191.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1170.719}, "reply_to": "20237__0_054", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_056", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "I'm giving you that.\nLet's... we have the capacity.\nWhy should we use that capacity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1191.845, 1192.733, 1193.234], "stop_times": [1192.733, 1193.234, 1195.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1191.845}, "reply_to": "20237__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20237__0_057", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--Because unless the Court finds there's a general maritime law survival cause of action, there is no recovery for all the pre-death injuries that occur from the date of the injury to the date of death for someone injured on the high seas regardless of the extent of the injury, regardless of the length of time between the injury and the death, and those serious, can be serious and significant and very large--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1195.695], "stop_times": [1221.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1195.695}, "reply_to": "20237__0_056", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_058", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "That person's... he's gone.\nHe's dead and gone.\nI mean, so long as the survivors are... they have a cause of action under the Death on the High Seas Act if he has begun a suit and dies before the suit is completed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1221.133, 1222.964, 1223.725], "stop_times": [1222.964, 1223.725, 1235.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1221.133}, "reply_to": "20237__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20237__0_059", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--There are two responses, Justice Scalia, to that inquiry.\nThe first is that if the person survives for a lengthy amount of time and incurs significant expenses in the medical care, loss of earnings, and has not had a chance to be compensated for those injuries before his death, which he wouldn't be because it's a survival action, all the debts are still part of his estate that have to be paid from his heirs, if he has any, with no compensation from the wrongdoer.\nAnd the second part of that is that I respectfully disagree with the respondent that there will be few times when there will be no wrongful death beneficiaries under the Death on the High Seas Act.\nAny time a young person is killed, a teenager or a college student who does not have an earning history and has no... has parents but no... they have no potential for economic support from them, any time elderly people who are on Social Security are killed and leave adult surviving children, any time a couple is killed together in an airplane accident, and do not leave minor children, there are no wrongful death beneficiaries under the Death on the High Seas Act.\nThe factual circumstances today are that there will be many, many instances where there will be no wrongful death beneficiaries on the Death on the High Seas Act--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1235.233, 1239.607, 1263.542, 1275.842, 1304.852], "stop_times": [1239.607, 1263.542, 1275.842, 1304.852, 1313.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1235.233}, "reply_to": "20237__0_058", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_060", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "But Ms.... may I just ask you a question about that?\nThat's a very appealing argument, because it seems most unjust that a person suffers extensive harm, hospital expense and the rest, in the period between the... when the injury occurs and when the person ultimately dies before a verdict comes in.\nBut the thing that puzzles me is, that must have happened many, many times.\nWe're talking a huge area, all the deaths... all the injuries on the high seas that caused deaths that occurred while a case was still pending, and yet we don't have any such cases.\nI mean, this is kind of late in the day, and I'm just puzzled as to why that issue hasn't arisen before.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1313.067, 1314.588, 1329.096, 1333.33, 1342.407], "stop_times": [1314.588, 1329.096, 1333.33, 1342.407, 1348.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1313.067}, "reply_to": "20237__0_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20237__0_061", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--In the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1348.211], "stop_times": [1350.304], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1348.211}, "reply_to": "20237__0_060", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_062", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "I don't know of any case that points out that fact pattern.\nAre there some?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1350.304, 1353.596], "stop_times": [1353.596, 1354.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1350.304}, "reply_to": "20237__0_061", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20237__0_063", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--There are the cases that arise out of the Korean Air Lines accident that do that for the issue of the pain and suffering, but those are not petitioners' cases before this Court.\nI think that there are many circumstances that could be shown.\nThe Bodden case, for example, out of the Fifth Circuit, is a case in which Mr. Bodden was seriously injured in an engine explosion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1354.204, 1365.424, 1370.596], "stop_times": [1365.424, 1370.596, 1378.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1354.204}, "reply_to": "20237__0_062", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_064", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "In a what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1378.861], "stop_times": [1380.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1378.861}, "reply_to": "20237__0_063", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20237__0_065", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Engine... fire... engine explosion on a ship.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1380.023], "stop_times": [1382.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1380.023}, "reply_to": "20237__0_064", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_066", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Oh, okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1382.003], "stop_times": [1382.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1382.003}, "reply_to": "20237__0_065", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20237__0_067", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "And he died 3 years afterwards.\nI'm sorry, the fact pattern is not following along in response to your inquiry.\nI'm sorry.\nBut there are certainly statistics that can be referred to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1382.744, 1385.255, 1391.69, 1392.241], "stop_times": [1385.255, 1391.69, 1392.241, 1397.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1382.744}, "reply_to": "20237__0_066", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_068", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Oh, I'm sure it happens a lot, but the thing that puzzles me is, why is it 1998... this statute's been on the books since 1920.\nWhy are we suddenly confronted with this problem at this stage of the proceedings?\nI mean, this stage of our history, is what I meant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1397.827, 1404.349, 1407.632], "stop_times": [1404.349, 1407.632, 1409.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1397.827}, "reply_to": "20237__0_067", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20237__0_069", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--Well, the issue of the evolution of the pre-death pain and suffering under the survival action claim has been around a long time.\nIt was raised before this Court in Miles v. Apex, and in that context, as a Jones... in the Jones Act seaman, but the Court referred to in the opinion the development of the common law survival cause of action by the lower courts and did not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1409.655, 1417.619], "stop_times": [1417.619, 1434.792], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1409.655}, "reply_to": "20237__0_068", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_070", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Well, of course, most survival actions are justified by statutes that authorize survival of common law claims, I believe just as Lord Campbell's Act took care of the death action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1434.792], "stop_times": [1444.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1434.792}, "reply_to": "20237__0_069", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20237__0_071", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--That's true, and twice this Court has refused to approve or disapprove use of State survival actions when the deaths occur on the high seas.\nThat's back in Kernan and Offshore Logistics v. Tallentire.\nSo the courts below have not been prohibited by this Court, because of this refusal to disapprove the conduct, of applying State survival causes of action for deaths that occur on the high seas, so it may be that those actions are compensated by those State survivals when the courts do apply them.\nIn this case, however, we have an action that clearly is far beyond any argument that a State survival statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1444.267, 1454.283, 1458.768, 1476.6], "stop_times": [1454.283, 1458.768, 1476.6, 1484.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1444.267}, "reply_to": "20237__0_070", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_072", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Ms. Madole, do I understand that Congress is now considering a bill that would take aviation tragedies out of the Death on the High Seas Act and have another regime for them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1484.604], "stop_times": [1500.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1484.604}, "reply_to": "20237__0_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20237__0_073", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--That is correct.\nThere's been a bill pending about 2 years.\nIt is a bill that was effectuated or was drafted as a result of the TWA 800 accident that crashed off of New York.\nBecause there were a large number of passengers on board that flight who, if there was no survival cause of action, or if the Death on the High Seas Act only applied, the parents of these young kids, a group of schoolchildren from Pennsylvania, would have no compensation at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1500.044, 1501.116, 1502.578, 1510.996], "stop_times": [1501.116, 1502.578, 1510.996, 1527.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1500.044}, "reply_to": "20237__0_072", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_074", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Well, what are we supposed to about Higginbotham?\nThat is, Higginbotham seems to support you in that it says admiralty courts have often been called upon to supplement maritime statutes, but then the next sentence is, the Death on the High Seas Act, however, announces Congress' considered judgment on such issues as beneficiaries, et cetera, survival damages, and then it says the act... the courts are not free to supplement where Congress acts, where Congress addresses those questions, so hasn't this issue... why doesn't it decide the issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1527.265, 1529.235], "stop_times": [1529.235, 1555.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1527.265}, "reply_to": "20237__0_073", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20237__0_075", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Higginbotham does not decide the issue, because the issue there was whether the general maritime law... was whether the general maritime law death action could be superimposed on the Death on the High Seas Act death action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1555.364], "stop_times": [1565.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1555.364}, "reply_to": "20237__0_074", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_076", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Why isn't what you're doing... the bite of what you do is, it provides a somewhat different class of beneficiaries when a person dies, and it provides the whole of the beneficiaries with more money, so it seems to speak to both who the beneficiaries are and what the damages are in respect to the harm caused when a person dies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1565.251], "stop_times": [1586.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1565.251}, "reply_to": "20237__0_075", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20237__0_077", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "But that's because that is only the wrongful death action idea behind both the Death on the High Seas Act and the general maritime law remedy.\nThe survival action is parallel to.\nIt's like the two columns.\nThey are different remedies.\nThey are different--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1586.396, 1597.222, 1599.656, 1600.657, 1602.45], "stop_times": [1597.222, 1599.656, 1600.657, 1602.45, 1603.161], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1586.396}, "reply_to": "20237__0_076", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_078", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "No, I understand that they're different remedies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1603.161], "stop_times": [1604.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1603.161}, "reply_to": "20237__0_077", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20237__0_079", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--And they don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1604.714], "stop_times": [1605.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1604.714}, "reply_to": "20237__0_078", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_080", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Why isn't Higginbotham relevant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1605.462], "stop_times": [1606.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1605.462}, "reply_to": "20237__0_079", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20237__0_081", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--They don't overlap, and the only language that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1606.744], "stop_times": [1609.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1606.744}, "reply_to": "20237__0_080", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_082", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "You're assuming more knowledge of Higginbotham than I have.\nThe reason that the sentence I just read you is not determinative in your case is because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1609.318, 1612.179], "stop_times": [1612.179, 1618.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1609.318}, "reply_to": "20237__0_081", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20237__0_083", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--Because all of the verbs and nouns that you used have to do with wrongful death remedies except for the survival, which I suggest to the court is that argument under 765, which is really a nonabatement provision and not a survival action prohibition, because it doesn't change the cause of action into pre-death injury remedies.\nIt keeps them in wrongful death remedies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1618.635, 1642.708], "stop_times": [1642.708, 1645.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1618.635}, "reply_to": "20237__0_082", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_084", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--Ms. Madole, may I ask if you would complete what you were explaining to me about what Congress is doing about it now?\nAs I understand it, Congress knows about the existence of this problem and the proposed legislation would do what?\nWhat is the proposed legislation, and if it passed, how would this case be handled?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1645.41, 1651.945, 1658.93], "stop_times": [1651.945, 1658.93, 1664.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1645.41}, "reply_to": "20237__0_083", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20237__0_085", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "It currently is in its... I'm not sure how many reiterations... it's been changing quite a lot.\nIt's nowhere near, as far as I know, being passed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1664.836, 1670.8], "stop_times": [1670.8, 1673.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1664.836}, "reply_to": "20237__0_084", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_086", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "But what is the solution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1673.322], "stop_times": [1675.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1673.322}, "reply_to": "20237__0_085", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20237__0_087", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "The primary focus of it is that it would remove airplane accident cases from the Death on the High Seas Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1675.833], "stop_times": [1681.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1675.833}, "reply_to": "20237__0_086", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_088", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "And put them under what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1681.756], "stop_times": [1682.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1681.756}, "reply_to": "20237__0_087", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20237__0_089", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Some... that's one of the reasons why it is not quite fixed.\nIt's not sure if it's a traditional choice of law analysis.\nIt's not sure if it would be the law of the place where the airplane took off from.\nThere are all sorts of proposals that are pending--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1682.895, 1687.159, 1690.151, 1694.155], "stop_times": [1687.159, 1690.151, 1694.155, 1696.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1682.895}, "reply_to": "20237__0_088", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_090", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Picking up on State law, is that what it would do?\nI mean, what body of law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1696.185, 1698.558], "stop_times": [1698.558, 1699.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1696.185}, "reply_to": "20237__0_089", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20237__0_091", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--It would be some State law.\nHowever you would get there is not... has not been decided.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1699.979, 1701.561], "stop_times": [1701.561, 1704.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1699.979}, "reply_to": "20237__0_090", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_092", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "So it would not be the... creating a new counterpart to the Death on the High Seas Act, only more general.\nIt would be picking up some law that is, and it would be a State law, is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1704.134, 1709.919], "stop_times": [1709.919, 1713.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1704.134}, "reply_to": "20237__0_091", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20237__0_093", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "As best I know, as it's currently pending.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1713.521], "stop_times": [1715.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1713.521}, "reply_to": "20237__0_092", "speaker": "juanita_madole"}
{"id": "20237__0_094", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Madole.\nMr. Harakas, we'll hear from you.\nIs it Harakas, or Harakas?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1715.554, 1716.635, 1719.786], "stop_times": [1716.635, 1719.786, 1722.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1715.554}, "reply_to": "20237__0_093", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20237__1_000", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Harakas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1722.169], "stop_times": [1722.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1722.169}, "reply_to": "20237__0_094", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_001", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Mr. Harakas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1722.808], "stop_times": [1723.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1722.808}, "reply_to": "20237__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20237__1_002", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nJust to pick up Justice Ginsburg's questions regarding the pending legislation, back in 1996, in the summer of '96 they did pass... Congress passed a bill in the House of Representatives which would have just removed aviation cases from the Death on the High Seas Act.\nHowever, there also was similar legislation pending in the House of Representatives which would have taken aviation cases but set forth the types of recoverable damages.\nUnder the proposed bill, Senate bill 943, it would say you could recover damages under State law, any damages available under Federal common law, and/or any damages available under the Death on the High Seas Act.\nAs you can see, it could create a choice-of-law nightmare as to what types of damages you could recover.\nHowever, there was a hearing last October and just as recently as last week there was a Senate hearing on the proposed legislation.\nIt's been through markup, and one of the current versions being proposed right now is that it may be extended not just to apply... to exclude aviation cases, but they may just amend the Death on the High Seas Act to make it more generally applicable.\nHowever, even in one of the current versions there's no survival provision written into the act.\nRather, what they would do is just allow nonpecuniary damages under the wrongful death provisions of the act with these type of statutory cap on them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1723.799, 1730.454, 1746.987, 1757.185, 1767.653, 1772.605, 1780.893, 1792.76, 1796.722], "stop_times": [1730.454, 1746.987, 1757.185, 1767.653, 1772.605, 1780.893, 1792.76, 1796.722, 1803.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1723.799}, "reply_to": "20237__1_001", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_003", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Under the present law, if a victim lingers, say, for a year and has medical expenses and lost wages, are those pecuniary losses recoverable when it converts into a Death on the High Seas Act action, or into a wrongful death action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1803.697], "stop_times": [1820.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1803.697}, "reply_to": "20237__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20237__1_004", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "If it converts into the Death on the High Seas Act, generally lost wages would not be recoverable.\nWhat you would recover are... is loss of support and loss of inheritance, and then when you combine those two elements of damages, you in effect get lost wages and lost future earnings.\nWith respect to medical expenses it's kind of an interesting issue, because... Justice Stevens said, why hasn't this arisen before.\nWell, one of the reasons it hasn't arisen before is that when you're dealing with these DOHSA-type actions, mostly in a maritime context, there are usually... there is usually an element of that in a settlement or even in a recovery, because medical expenses can be viewed as a asset of the estate, so if a decedent had $100,000 and $20,000 had to go to pay medical expenses, well, you're depleting the loss of inheritance award, so that way they're recoverable as part of the loss of inheritance award.\nI think if you look at Higginbotham, in note 20 of Higginbotham they talked about burial expenses and whether they're recoverable, and it makes a similar type of analogy as to burial and funeral expenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1820.459, 1824.981, 1834.899, 1841.734, 1870.783], "stop_times": [1824.981, 1834.899, 1841.734, 1870.783, 1881.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1820.459}, "reply_to": "20237__1_003", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_005", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "But for pain and suffering for the decedent, who might have lingered several years, you say there is no recovery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1881.11], "stop_times": [1891.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1881.11}, "reply_to": "20237__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20237__1_006", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "There is no recovery, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1891.336], "stop_times": [1893.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1891.336}, "reply_to": "20237__1_005", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_007", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Now, what's the situation in territorial waters, where Death on the High Seas Act presumably doesn't govern?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1893.005], "stop_times": [1900.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1893.005}, "reply_to": "20237__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20237__1_008", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "With respect to the territorial waters the courts have taken two... well, the courts have basically taken two approaches.\nBefore the Calhoun decision some courts would recognize a general maritime survival action applicable to the territorial waters and allow recovery that way, but in view of the Calhoun decision State statutes have always been applicable and they would allow recovery under the applicable State statute if it provided a survival statute with respect to the territorial waters.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1900.782, 1906.545], "stop_times": [1906.545, 1925.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1900.782}, "reply_to": "20237__1_007", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_009", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "So the recovery would be substantially different, depending on whether it's... the death occurs from the accident on the high seas or in territorial waters.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1925.997], "stop_times": [1936.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1925.997}, "reply_to": "20237__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20237__1_010", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Yes.\nYou would be able to recover additional damages in territorial waters, but that's a legislative scheme that exists even in the wrongful death case.\nHigginbotham dealt with that exact situation with respect to loss of society damages, where the Supreme Court, the Court in Gaudet had found that those type of damages are recoverable under general maritime law, but when it came to Higginbotham the Court said, you can't get those under general maritime law in a DOHSA case, because Congress has set forth what type of damages you can recover and they've limited those damages to pecuniary losses only.\nAnd that's where we get to... in this case here, there isn't... the real situation here is the issue of pecuniary versus nonpecuniary, and pre-death pain and suffering damages are not pecuniary.\nIt would require the Court to recognize a type of damages not allowed by DOHSA, to add the estate as a beneficiary, which is not included in DOHSA.\nIn 1920, Congress did know the difference between a wrongful death and a survival action, and it opted to adopt basically a modified type of wrongful death statute, because DOHSA is not just like Lord Campbell's Act.\nIt has section 765, which is a little different from Lord Campbell's Act, which didn't contain such a provision, and I think when you look back to 1920, what was Congress thinking when they enacted DOHSA, well, I think the language of the Death on the High Seas Act was very clear.\nWith... at that time, they thought it was exclusive because there was no other action out there.\nThis was the only action that was available for a death on the high seas.\nThat's where, with respect to this preemption issue that was addressed earlier, in this context you have Federal common law, and there is a different preemption analysis than you do apply with State law.\nWhen you're looking at State law, because of their inherent police powers you have to see an affirmative intent to preempt that State statute, but with respect... when Congress enacts a statute and the preemption is of Federal common law, the analysis really is, did Congress speak to that issue?\nAnd in our case here, did Congress speak to the issue of damages, and the Death on the High Seas Act specifically deals with that issue and the issue of whether there is an affirmative prescription of Federal common law doesn't arise in this situation, because the Death on the High Seas Act deals with this issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [1936.745, 1936.945, 1943.68, 1966.786, 1977.801, 1986.917, 1999.437, 2013.956, 2020.039, 2023.252, 2033.98, 2048.659], "stop_times": [1936.945, 1943.68, 1966.786, 1977.801, 1986.917, 1999.437, 2013.956, 2020.039, 2023.252, 2033.98, 2048.659, 2065.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1936.745}, "reply_to": "20237__1_009", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_011", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "But one can argue that the analysis in Moragne was partly based on when there's a hole in the law on the high seas, and when the universal judgment of State legislatures all over the country have changed from what it used to be on the death act, that with regard to survival, the same thing happened.\nThere used to be no survival at common law and all of the State legislatures have now said there'll be survival, and therefore if we wanted to be just as creative as the Court was in Moragne, we would have authority to do the same thing with regard to a survival action, which is not squarely covered.\nArguably it's covered by that one section, by DOHSA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2065.119, 2084.193, 2097.971], "stop_times": [2084.193, 2097.971, 2103.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2065.119}, "reply_to": "20237__1_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20237__1_012", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Well, that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2103.274], "stop_times": [2103.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2103.274}, "reply_to": "20237__1_011", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_013", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "So at least we'd have the power to do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2103.965], "stop_times": [2105.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2103.965}, "reply_to": "20237__1_012", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20237__1_014", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--Well, with respect, with the Death on the High Seas Act, I don't think the Court would have the power, because it's a different situation than the situation presented in Moragne.\nThere were a number of critical factors in Moragne that drove that decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2105.497, 2114.024], "stop_times": [2114.024, 2117.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2105.497}, "reply_to": "20237__1_013", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_015", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Well, Moragne, of course, was geographically outside the scope of the statute, but the counterargument we hear in a legal category sense, survival actions, are... or preexisting common law actions by the injured party himself or herself are outside the scope of the statute, too.\nThey just weren't addressed, except in the one section that you talked about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2117.495, 2132.286], "stop_times": [2132.286, 2134.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2117.495}, "reply_to": "20237__1_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20237__1_016", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "They were not addressed, but when you go back to the Moragne case, what was the driving force in Moragne?\nThe driving force in Moragne was not a recognition of damages.\nIt was a recognition of a cause of action for unseaworthiness--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2134.77, 2138.984, 2142.577], "stop_times": [2138.984, 2142.577, 2145.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2134.77}, "reply_to": "20237__1_015", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_017", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2145.148], "stop_times": [2145.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2145.148}, "reply_to": "20237__1_016", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20237__1_018", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--to make unseaworthiness a base of liability uniform within the class.\nIn addition, again, as Your Honor recognized, Moragne dealt with an issue in the territorial waters, so the Court looked to, what has Congress enacted for territorial waters, and they withheld the remedy of DOHSA from extending into territorial waters, so there was a gap that the Court could come in and fill.\nBut when you look to the decisions subsequent to Moragne, Higginbotham, Miles, and Zicherman, we look... we see there is that the Court has made crystal clear that when Congress has spoken we have to abide by what Congress has said, and Congress has spoken in the Death on the High Seas Act with respect to pecuniary damages.\nAnd to take the argument here that because Congress then specifically say we're not going to allow loss of survival damages, then any time Congress enacts, they don't enact... they don't legislate for the entire scheme, so there's always some type of a hole, but at that point then any court can come in and create any remedy they want.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2145.569, 2149.372, 2164.832, 2183.763], "stop_times": [2149.372, 2164.832, 2183.763, 2203.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2145.569}, "reply_to": "20237__1_017", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_019", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Well, of course, the prohibition against pecuniary... I mean, the limitation on pecuniary damages doesn't entirely solve the problem, because you can have a decedent whose beneficiaries are not among the people who are entitled to sue under DOHSA.\nThey can be second cousins, or friends, or something like that, and they lose whatever benefit the estate would have from the recovery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2203.708, 2214.566], "stop_times": [2214.566, 2220.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2203.708}, "reply_to": "20237__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20237__1_020", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Well... under a survival act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2220.66], "stop_times": [2222.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2220.66}, "reply_to": "20237__1_019", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_021", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2222.062], "stop_times": [2222.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2222.062}, "reply_to": "20237__1_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20237__1_022", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Well, they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2222.693], "stop_times": [2223.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2222.693}, "reply_to": "20237__1_021", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_023", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "See, there's no... if there's no survival statute, those... the defendant just gets off scot-free on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2223.802], "stop_times": [2229.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2223.802}, "reply_to": "20237__1_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20237__1_024", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--Well, they don't get off scotfree, because there is still the wrongful death action, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2229.147], "stop_times": [2232.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2229.147}, "reply_to": "20237__1_023", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_025", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "No, but the wrongful death action under DOHSA, as I say, is limited to a specific category of plaintiffs, and I'm assuming an estate where none of the beneficiaries of the estate are within that category.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2232.27], "stop_times": [2241.086], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2232.27}, "reply_to": "20237__1_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20237__1_026", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--Well, then the beneficiaries set forth in DOHSA are the ones closest to the decedent, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2241.086], "stop_times": [2246.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2241.086}, "reply_to": "20237__1_025", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_027", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Oh, I understand, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2246.532], "stop_times": [2247.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2246.532}, "reply_to": "20237__1_026", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20237__1_028", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--You have the parents, spouse... parents, spouse, and children, and dependent relatives, so anyone who's very close to the decedent, even a niece who thinks she was a dependent relative, would be entitled to recover under DOHSA and, of course, if you have a survival action--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2247.029], "stop_times": [2261.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2247.029}, "reply_to": "20237__1_027", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_029", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "No, I agree it covers most of the cases, but there are cases where the beneficiary under the will might be not a dependent but just a friend, or an associate of some kind.\nThat person would get nothing, whereas if there were a survival statute he would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2261.819, 2271.145], "stop_times": [2271.145, 2274.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2261.819}, "reply_to": "20237__1_028", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20237__1_030", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor, but even the State law statutes draw lines as to who can recover and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2274.097], "stop_times": [2279.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2274.097}, "reply_to": "20237__1_029", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_031", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Oh, but not the survival statute.\nThe estate gets the money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2279.643, 2282.184], "stop_times": [2282.184, 2282.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2279.643}, "reply_to": "20237__1_030", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20237__1_032", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2282.955], "stop_times": [2283.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2282.955}, "reply_to": "20237__1_031", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_033", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "And whoever will participate in the estate would share in the recovery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2283.496], "stop_times": [2286.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2283.496}, "reply_to": "20237__1_032", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20237__1_034", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--Under typical State statutes, but if you look to the provisions under the Jones Act and FELA incorporated by reference, it's a very similar scheme to DOHSA--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2286.498], "stop_times": [2286.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2286.498}, "reply_to": "20237__1_033", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_035", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2286.498], "stop_times": [2295.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2286.498}, "reply_to": "20237__1_034", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20237__1_036", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--with respect to the estate doesn't recover, the personal representative recovers on behalf of certain named--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2295.073], "stop_times": [2299.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2295.073}, "reply_to": "20237__1_035", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_037", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2299.777], "stop_times": [2300.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2299.777}, "reply_to": "20237__1_036", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20237__1_038", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--people, and it's an exclusory class.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2300.058], "stop_times": [2302.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2300.058}, "reply_to": "20237__1_037", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_039", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "The obvious group is grandchildren.\nI mean, imagine grandchildren.\nThere's an accident, older people die, they all had some estate, they left it all to their grandchildren.\nMaybe even there was lingering and so forth.\nIn that case, nobody could recover.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2302.57, 2304.583, 2306.924, 2312.47, 2314.791], "stop_times": [2304.583, 2306.924, 2312.47, 2314.791, 2316.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2302.57}, "reply_to": "20237__1_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20237__1_040", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "No.\nIf the descent and distribution laws are... if they were--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2316.543, 2316.933], "stop_times": [2316.933, 2319.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2316.543}, "reply_to": "20237__1_039", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_041", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2319.886], "stop_times": [2320.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2319.886}, "reply_to": "20237__1_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20237__1_042", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--someone in the will they would not be... if they weren't named in the will they would not be able to recover the recovery for pain and suffering, that's correct, but again--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2320.277], "stop_times": [2327.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2320.277}, "reply_to": "20237__1_041", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_043", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "They wouldn't recover anything, I mean, because there's nobody who has anything in a case where the... I mean, what could they recover for?\nThere's no dependency, they're older people, the beneficiaries of the estate are grandchildren, there's no lawsuit.\nNobody brings a lawsuit.\nWho could bring one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2327.562, 2333.416, 2340.001, 2341.643], "stop_times": [2333.416, 2340.001, 2341.643, 2342.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2327.562}, "reply_to": "20237__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20237__1_044", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--With respect to... for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2342.114], "stop_times": [2343.666], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2342.114}, "reply_to": "20237__1_043", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_045", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "To the death of the person... I mean, imagine any kind of awful case you want, but I mean, you know, the terrible suffering or whatever, or people linger for a long time, the medical bills eat up the whole estate... I mean, I could go on if you want, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2343.666], "stop_times": [2355.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2343.666}, "reply_to": "20237__1_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20237__1_046", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--No--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2355.183], "stop_times": [2355.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2355.183}, "reply_to": "20237__1_045", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_047", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--the point is that then there's no money left and the grandchild who was going to get the money has no lawsuit and no money, and nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2355.364], "stop_times": [2364.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2355.364}, "reply_to": "20237__1_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20237__1_048", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--Well, that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2364.639], "stop_times": [2365.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2364.639}, "reply_to": "20237__1_047", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_049", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "So they're saying you should fill in that hole.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2365.728], "stop_times": [2367.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2365.728}, "reply_to": "20237__1_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20237__1_050", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--Well, you can fill in that hole, but you have to work within what Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2367.491], "stop_times": [2371.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2367.491}, "reply_to": "20237__1_049", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_051", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "No, but am I right about the facts?\nIs it... am I right about the assumption?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2371.292, 2372.524], "stop_times": [2372.524, 2373.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2371.292}, "reply_to": "20237__1_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20237__1_052", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2373.776], "stop_times": [2374.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2373.776}, "reply_to": "20237__1_051", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_053", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Am I right about the assumption that in such a circumstance nobody... it's... nobody would get any--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2374.077], "stop_times": [2379.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2374.077}, "reply_to": "20237__1_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20237__1_054", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Well, if there were no proper DOHSA beneficiaries, then there--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2379.329], "stop_times": [2382.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2379.329}, "reply_to": "20237__1_053", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_055", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--There are, but they didn't suffer any harm, because you see, they weren't left any of the money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2382.341], "stop_times": [2385.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2382.341}, "reply_to": "20237__1_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20237__1_056", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--Well, there are other types of... you can recover loss of support.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2385.844], "stop_times": [2389.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2385.844}, "reply_to": "20237__1_055", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_057", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "No... they... all right.\nNo, No, you're right, if there was the harm, so I... assume that out.\nThis Court has the power to supplement, presumably, because of Moragne.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2389.067, 2391.4, 2395.04], "stop_times": [2391.4, 2395.04, 2400.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2389.067}, "reply_to": "20237__1_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20237__1_058", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Well, I respectfully disagree with that, Your Honor, because I think Moragne was a very limited--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2400.565], "stop_times": [2405.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2400.565}, "reply_to": "20237__1_057", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_059", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Well, even Higginbotham said that the Court has the power.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2405.738], "stop_times": [2407.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2405.738}, "reply_to": "20237__1_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20237__1_060", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--If the Court has the power, but Moragne dealt with a different situation than when you're on the high seas, where Congress has legislated, and I think Higginbotham recognized that.\nEven Moragne recognized the supremacy of the maritime statutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2407.819, 2416.245], "stop_times": [2416.245, 2420.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2407.819}, "reply_to": "20237__1_059", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_061", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "So in order to distinguish it you'd have to draw a negative assumption from the enactment of the Death on the High Seas Act.\nYou'd have to assume Congress... which you argue, that Congress didn't want it supplemented.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2420.668, 2426.572], "stop_times": [2426.572, 2430.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2420.668}, "reply_to": "20237__1_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20237__1_062", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2430.436], "stop_times": [2431.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2430.436}, "reply_to": "20237__1_061", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_063", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "And the reason that Congress wouldn't have wanted it supplemented is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2431.227], "stop_times": [2433.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2431.227}, "reply_to": "20237__1_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20237__1_064", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Because they affirmatively set forth what they decided was recoverable, because when Congress was enacting DOHSA they said there was no other possible action for a Death on the High Seas Act.\nThere was no general maritime law action at that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2433.828, 2444.386], "stop_times": [2444.386, 2446.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2433.828}, "reply_to": "20237__1_063", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_065", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Exactly, so they're operating against an environment where nobody gets a penny.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2446.599], "stop_times": [2450.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2446.599}, "reply_to": "20237__1_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20237__1_066", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2450.042], "stop_times": [2450.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2450.042}, "reply_to": "20237__1_065", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_067", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "So they say, hey, nobody gets a penny, now we're going to give a few pennies to a few people, so what is it that suggests that they wouldn't have wanted more pennies to go to some other people?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2450.731], "stop_times": [2458.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2450.731}, "reply_to": "20237__1_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20237__1_068", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Well, I think when you look to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2458.828], "stop_times": [2459.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2458.828}, "reply_to": "20237__1_067", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_069", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "If everything changed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2459.747], "stop_times": [2460.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2459.747}, "reply_to": "20237__1_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20237__1_070", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--Well, when you look to the structure of... I'm just sticking with the language right now of 765, what's the reason for 765.\nThere, they said if there's a personal injury action that action shall be so... in its essence cease and be subsumed in the DOHSA action.\nNow, if they wanted a... if they want to allow a survival type of action, they wouldn't have put language in there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2460.538, 2466.522, 2475.298], "stop_times": [2466.522, 2475.298, 2480.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2460.538}, "reply_to": "20237__1_069", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_071", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Well, maybe Congress wasn't all that crazy about awarding noneconomic damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2480.831], "stop_times": [2484.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2480.831}, "reply_to": "20237__1_070", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20237__1_072", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Well, I... well, that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2484.443], "stop_times": [2485.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2484.443}, "reply_to": "20237__1_071", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_073", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "It seems pretty clear that's the way they felt in 1920.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2485.575], "stop_times": [2488.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2485.575}, "reply_to": "20237__1_072", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20237__1_074", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--It is pretty clear when you go back.\nI don't want to get into the history right now, but if you look through the records, because DOHSA was a compromise.\nIt wasn't just... it was to grant a remedy where none existed before, but there were also interests of the shipowners.\nIn fact, the first version of DOHSA had a $5,000 limit on recoverable damages, so... and that was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2488.647, 2490.37, 2494.763, 2500.209], "stop_times": [2490.37, 2494.763, 2500.209, 2506.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2488.647}, "reply_to": "20237__1_073", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_075", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "What is in the Jones Act... picking up on the FELA, what is the survival feature of that act, and how does it compare with State legislation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2506.822], "stop_times": [2516.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2506.822}, "reply_to": "20237__1_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20237__1_076", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--The difference between the survival provision in the Jones Act and most State statutes is, the Jones Act, section 59, sets forth that there is a survival... this is the 1910 amendments, when they added the survival provision.\nIt sets forth that the personal representative can continue any personal injury action the decedent had but for the benefit of certain named beneficiaries, whereas State survival... many State survival statutes says... say that you... the personal injury action of the decedent shall continue and will be... and the estate recovers.\nSo whereas under State statutes the estate itself, being a fiction where the decedent recovers, under the Jones Act, specific beneficiaries recover.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2516.006, 2528.655, 2546.638], "stop_times": [2528.655, 2546.638, 2555.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2516.006}, "reply_to": "20237__1_075", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_077", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "That's who recovers.\nNow, what can be recovered?\nIs there any difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2555.644, 2556.495, 2557.917], "stop_times": [2556.495, 2557.917, 2558.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2555.644}, "reply_to": "20237__1_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20237__1_078", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Well, various... State statutes vary.\nIt depends on the State, but here, under section 59 of FELA, which is at the... in the back of our brief at page 7, it... the act says that any right of action given by this chapter to a person suffering injuries shall survive to his or her personal representative for the benefit of the surviving widow or husband and children of such employee, and if then none... if none, then such employee's parents, and if none, then the next of kin dependent upon the employee, so it sets forth exactly who recovers.\nWhereas State statutes, the recovery goes to the estate and it's distributed under the will.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2558.616, 2563.351, 2595.224], "stop_times": [2563.351, 2595.224, 2599.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2558.616}, "reply_to": "20237__1_077", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_079", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "But you haven't told me anything about what is recoverable.\nThat doesn't sound like it's limiting the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2599.725, 2602.357], "stop_times": [2602.357, 2604.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2599.725}, "reply_to": "20237__1_078", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20237__1_080", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Oh, with respect to the damages recoverable, whatever damages would be recoverable under a personal injury action, so pain and suffering damages are recoverable under this, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2604.881], "stop_times": [2612.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2604.881}, "reply_to": "20237__1_079", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_081", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--Without any ceiling?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2612.676], "stop_times": [2613.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2612.676}, "reply_to": "20237__1_080", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20237__1_082", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Correct.\nThere is no ceiling on that.\nNone of the Federal statutes currently have any type of ceilings on the types of recoverable damages as to monetary caps.\nWhen you look to DOHSA overall, and what it intended to do from 1920 to the present day, DOHSA did draw certain lines, as all States do, and these lines are based on policy decisions made by the legislature, just as Congress today is considering what is the policy they should have for a death on the high seas and they're considering various amendments of the Death on the High Seas Act, and if someone can't recover under the applicable statutes, a person should not be allowed to recover under judge-made maritime law.\nWe have to stick strictly within the boundaries set forth by this statute and by Congress, because the role--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2613.427, 2614.108, 2615.777, 2621.532, 2658.555], "stop_times": [2614.108, 2615.777, 2621.532, 2658.555, 2665.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2613.427}, "reply_to": "20237__1_081", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_083", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "May I ask a question that will kind of reveal my ignorance, but supposing you have a slip-and-fall case on an ocean liner out in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and they come back and sue, what law governs the measure of damages?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2665.549], "stop_times": [2677.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2665.549}, "reply_to": "20237__1_082", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20237__1_084", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--The measure of damages is general maritime law, actually.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2677.207], "stop_times": [2679.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2677.207}, "reply_to": "20237__1_083", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_085", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Generally maritime law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2679.808], "stop_times": [2680.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2679.808}, "reply_to": "20237__1_084", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20237__1_086", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "It's traditionally recognized, personal injury actions for injuries on the high seas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2680.059], "stop_times": [2683.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2680.059}, "reply_to": "20237__1_085", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_087", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "And that's all judge-made, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2683.832], "stop_times": [2687.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2683.832}, "reply_to": "20237__1_086", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20237__1_088", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "And that is all judge-made, and the Jones Act does deal... the Jones Act does deal with personal injuries, but the Death on the High Seas Act does not deal with personal injuries.\nOne version that was proposed with respect to the Death on the High Seas Act would have made DOHSA akin to FELA, and would have allowed further recovery of personal injuries, but that was soundly defeated in 1916, and what we have today is the version that currently was enacted basically, except for the repeal of 763 in 1980.\nIt's the same version.\nAnd I just want to make one point with respect to 763.\nThat really isn't part of the... 763a.\nThat isn't part of the Death on the High Seas Act.\nThat is a statute of general application which Congress enacted in 1980 to make a uniform limitation period whether in actions brought under the Death on the High Seas Act, maritime law, whether it's a Death Act or a personal injury action, and it was just codified at 763a, but there's a codification note that says this was not enacted as part of the Death on the High Seas Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2687.665, 2697.213, 2718.656, 2720.156, 2723.168, 2726.571, 2729.042], "stop_times": [2697.213, 2718.656, 2720.156, 2723.168, 2726.571, 2729.042, 2749.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2687.665}, "reply_to": "20237__1_087", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_089", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Well, what is the general description of the causes of action that 763a pertains to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2749.237], "stop_times": [2754.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2749.237}, "reply_to": "20237__1_088", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20237__1_090", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "It pertains to personal injury, or death.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2754.21], "stop_times": [2757.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2754.21}, "reply_to": "20237__1_089", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_091", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "But it has to be on the ocean?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2757.432], "stop_times": [2760.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2757.432}, "reply_to": "20237__1_090", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20237__1_092", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "It... any time there's maritime jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2760.974], "stop_times": [2763.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2760.974}, "reply_to": "20237__1_091", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_093", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Any time there's maritime--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2763.316], "stop_times": [2764.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2763.316}, "reply_to": "20237__1_092", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20237__1_094", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nIf you have no further questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2764.067, 2765.316], "stop_times": [2765.316, 2767.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2764.067}, "reply_to": "20237__1_093", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_095", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--Thank you, Mr. Harakas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2767.57], "stop_times": [2769.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2767.57}, "reply_to": "20237__1_094", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20237__1_096", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2769.63], "stop_times": [2770.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2769.63}, "reply_to": "20237__1_095", "speaker": "andrew_j_harakas"}
{"id": "20237__1_097", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Mr. Minear, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2770.339], "stop_times": [2771.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2770.339}, "reply_to": "20237__1_096", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20237__2_000", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe United States submits that the Death on the High Seas Act provides the exclusive remedy in this case, and I'd like to explain why.\nCongress enacted the statute in response to this Court's decision in The Harrisburg, which held that general maritime law does not provide a remedy for persons who die from injuries at sea.\nCongress legislated with the understanding, in the wake of The Harrisburg, that the Federal statutory regime that was created would be the only remedies that would be available for death on the high seas.\nCongress considered the policy question of appropriate remedies in that light, and it struck what it felt was the proper balance.\nHere, as in Mobil Oil v. Higginbotham, and as in Offshore Logistics v. Tallentire, this Court should not supplement the statutory wrongful death remedy with other remedies that Congress did not provide.\nWe think that course would be inappropriate here, because it is clear from the text and the legislative history that Congress considered the possibility of a survival action and decided not to provide one.\nThe most instructive provision of the act for the purposes here is section 5.\nThat section recognizes that the plaintiff might die after commencing a personal injury suit for activities on the high seas.\nThe plight of an injured person who begins a suit, but dies before a final judgment is reached, provides an especially sympathetic case for allowing a survival remedy, but even in that case, Congress decided that only a wrongful death remedy would be available.\nCongress could easily have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2771.63, 2781.379, 2787.571, 2796.548, 2806.222, 2813.879, 2824.504, 2834.121, 2839.285, 2846.71, 2862.319], "stop_times": [2781.379, 2787.571, 2796.548, 2806.222, 2813.879, 2824.504, 2834.121, 2839.285, 2846.71, 2862.319, 2863.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2771.63}, "reply_to": "20237__1_097", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20237__2_001", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "So the personal representative sues, but the beneficiaries are those named in DOHSA?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2863.962], "stop_times": [2867.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2863.962}, "reply_to": "20237__2_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20237__2_002", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--That is correct, yes.\nNow, Congress could have easily written section 5 to provide a survival type remedy, but it made a legislative choice not to provide that type of remedy, and we think that is important here, that Congress was making what is essentially a legislative choice.\nThe legislative history confirms--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2867.654, 2870.206, 2883.464], "stop_times": [2870.206, 2883.464, 2885.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2867.654}, "reply_to": "20237__2_001", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20237__2_003", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "What do you say to your opponent's argument that at least you can explain that provision as a way of saving an action that otherwise would not exist.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2885.865], "stop_times": [2894.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2885.865}, "reply_to": "20237__2_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20237__2_004", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--Yes, that is... well, what I think that Congress was attempting to do here is, it recognized that in the absence of section 5 the personal representatives would have to commence a new suit, and what they're allowing here is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2894.081], "stop_times": [2907.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2894.081}, "reply_to": "20237__2_003", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20237__2_005", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "And it might be barred by limitations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2907.018], "stop_times": [2907.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2907.018}, "reply_to": "20237__2_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20237__2_006", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--Yes, and they will just... can step right into the shoes of the decedent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2907.789], "stop_times": [2910.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2907.789}, "reply_to": "20237__2_005", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20237__2_007", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2910.902], "stop_times": [2911.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2910.902}, "reply_to": "20237__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20237__2_008", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--and continue on, but the action would be transformed into a wrongful death remedy for the particular class of survivors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2911.343], "stop_times": [2917.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2911.343}, "reply_to": "20237__2_007", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20237__2_009", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "May I ask you how you'd decide this case if Congress had omitted section 5 from DOHSA?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2917.076], "stop_times": [2921.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2917.076}, "reply_to": "20237__2_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20237__2_010", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "If Congress had omitted that section, then we would be faced with the question of, well, what did Congress intend to prevent this type of cause of action, and I think the argument would still be quite clear that Congress did, and I think it's the legislative history that we would then turn to under that circumstance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2921.718], "stop_times": [2936.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2921.718}, "reply_to": "20237__2_009", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20237__2_011", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "You'd have to rely on legislative history, then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2936.758], "stop_times": [2937.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2936.758}, "reply_to": "20237__2_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20237__2_012", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "I think that would be one of our primary sources.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2937.359], "stop_times": [2939.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2937.359}, "reply_to": "20237__2_011", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20237__2_013", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2939.871], "stop_times": [2940.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2939.871}, "reply_to": "20237__2_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20237__2_014", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "It would certainly figure more prominently, but I think even then the text would be quite helpful, because the text was written to indicate that these would only be pecuniary damages that would be provided, and here we are seeking a different type of remedy that would not have been available in 1920.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2940.112], "stop_times": [2954.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2940.112}, "reply_to": "20237__2_013", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20237__2_015", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "No, but where... your opponent's seeking the kind of remedy the Court created, in effect, in Moragne, and everybody seems to agree we have the power to create such a remedy here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2954.54], "stop_times": [2962.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2954.54}, "reply_to": "20237__2_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20237__2_016", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Yes.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2962.935, 2963.556], "stop_times": [2963.556, 2963.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2962.935}, "reply_to": "20237__2_015", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20237__2_017", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--if we think it is not inconsistent with any congressional direction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2963.826], "stop_times": [2966.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2963.826}, "reply_to": "20237__2_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20237__2_018", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--Yes.\nI think this Court does have the power to create it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2966.958, 2967.259], "stop_times": [2967.259, 2969.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2966.958}, "reply_to": "20237__2_017", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20237__2_019", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2969.17], "stop_times": [2969.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2969.17}, "reply_to": "20237__2_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20237__2_020", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "But the principal thrust of our position here is that this is a legislative choice, that the question... that deciding that there's a survival remedy doesn't put an end to the number of questions that will come up.\nThere will still be questions with regard to who should that survival remedy inure to, what should be the measure of damage, how would it be reconciled or coordinated with the wrongful death--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2969.47, 2977.858], "stop_times": [2977.858, 2986.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2969.47}, "reply_to": "20237__2_019", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20237__2_021", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "But those are all the same kind of questions we get if the plaintiff doesn't die, if it's a slip-and-fall case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2986.022], "stop_times": [2990.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2986.022}, "reply_to": "20237__2_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20237__2_022", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--Not necessarily.\nAt least with regard to the coordination of the wrongful death remedy with the survival remedy, there would still be a requirement.\nHere, if you're allowing both of those remedies, this Court is going to have to make decisions in terms of what remedies are compensable under each of those two different causes of action, and where there might be an overlap between the type of remedy that's provided--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [2990.463, 2991.995, 2997.289], "stop_times": [2991.995, 2997.289, 3008.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2990.463}, "reply_to": "20237__2_021", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20237__2_023", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [3008.956], "stop_times": [3009.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3008.956}, "reply_to": "20237__2_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20237__2_024", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--so there will be some, I think... some additional questions that would come up, and some additional complications.\nNow, as I said, I think the legislative history here makes it clear that Congress was making a conscious choice.\nThe legislative history, both the reports and the hearings, indicate that Congress was aware of the difference between a wrongful death action and a survival action.\nFurthermore, Congress understood that the statutory remedy here would be exclusive, and Congress was also apparently aware of this Court's decision in Michigan v. Vreeland, the case that Justice Ginsburg alluded to earlier, in which the Court indicated that only Congress, only a legislature could create a survival remedy and, indeed, as has already been discussed, Congress has created those types of survival remedies in the Jones Act and also under the Federal Employers Liability Act.\nBut Congress nevertheless made a conscious policy decision not to provide a survival remedy here, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [3009.157, 3012.77, 3018.463, 3026.066, 3052.324], "stop_times": [3012.77, 3018.463, 3026.066, 3052.324, 3058.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3009.157}, "reply_to": "20237__2_023", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20237__2_025", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Was Congress aware... at that time, had Federal courts created new tort remedies in admiralty law, or tort-like remedies on their own at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [3058.19], "stop_times": [3067.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3058.19}, "reply_to": "20237__2_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20237__2_026", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--I think that this Court had followed what was traditionally English practice, which meant that there was an action for maintenance and cure for seamen, and there was also an action for negligence, general negligence for passengers--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [3067.304], "stop_times": [3078.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3067.304}, "reply_to": "20237__2_025", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20237__2_027", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "What I'm driving at is, would Congress at that time also have been aware of the possibility that Federal admiralty courts could create remedies?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [3078.083], "stop_times": [3086.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3078.083}, "reply_to": "20237__2_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20237__2_028", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--No.\nI think it probably--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [3086.037, 3086.528], "stop_times": [3086.528, 3087.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3086.037}, "reply_to": "20237__2_027", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20237__2_029", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [3087.539], "stop_times": [3087.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3087.539}, "reply_to": "20237__2_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20237__2_030", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--that would have caught it by surprise, but that has changed now with Moragne.\nCertainly this Court indicated a different view on that matter.\nBut again, that was... Moragne was in response to the actions of State legislatures, and here I think it's appropriate for this Court to defer to the actions of Congress on this question.\nAs I said before, this is a legislative policy issue here, and Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [3087.73, 3090.913, 3094.816, 3103.502], "stop_times": [3090.913, 3094.816, 3103.502, 3107.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3087.73}, "reply_to": "20237__2_029", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20237__2_031", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "And can you enlighten... give us any more enlightenment than we've already had from counsel on legislative policy?\nWhat is the current thinking about what to do with air crashes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [3107.544, 3112.517], "stop_times": [3112.517, 3116.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3107.544}, "reply_to": "20237__2_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20237__2_032", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "--It's my understanding that the House bill 2005 did pass the House, and that would have simply removed aviation claims from the Death on the High Seas Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [3116.29], "stop_times": [3124.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3116.29}, "reply_to": "20237__2_031", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20237__2_033", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Left it all to State law, then, and Moragne-type--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [3124.896], "stop_times": [3127.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3124.896}, "reply_to": "20237__2_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20237__2_034", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Yes.\nWe'd then be faced with a choice-of-law question that was relatively easy after Zicherman, where this Court simply looked to the question of Death on the High Seas Act, that we'd then be faced, in Warsaw cases, of determining what is the appropriate body of law.\nMost likely it would be a State, or perhaps a foreign cause of action.\nThere is action pending in the Senate, but I don't believe that anything has passed the Senate at this point, and I believe the provisions are different from the House bill.\nNow, as I've said, I think that the Court cannot take action in this case in providing a survival remedy without overruling, or at least overriding the judgment that Congress made in 1920.\nPerhaps that judgment should be changed, but perhaps not, but that's a decision, we believe, that is for Congress.\nIf there are no further questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [3127.428, 3127.678, 3139.706, 3143.038, 3149.873, 3160.271, 3165.124], "stop_times": [3127.678, 3139.706, 3143.038, 3149.873, 3160.271, 3165.124, 3166.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3127.428}, "reply_to": "20237__2_033", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "20237__2_035", "conversation_id": "20237", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Minear.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-704", "start_times": [3166.543, 3167.935], "stop_times": [3167.935, 3169.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3166.543}, "reply_to": "20237__2_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20784__0_000", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "We'll hear argument now in number 97-42, Eastern Enterprises vs. Kenneth S. Apfel.\nMr. Montgomery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [0.0, 8.287], "stop_times": [8.287, 10.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20784__0_001", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.\nThis case presents the question left open in prior cases concerning the extent to which the Fifth Amendment places any restriction on the power of Congress to impose retroactive liability on private parties to fund social programs.\nThe Coal Act of 1992 is an unprecedented statute as applied to Eastern Enterprises and it is contrary to the constitutional traditions embodied in the Fifth Amendment for two distinct reasons.\nFirst, the Coal Act violates the Due Process Clause because it changes the legal consequences of past employment relationships that concluded long ago at a time when Eastern could not have anticipated any future obligation to former employees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [10.008, 12.84, 29.261, 42.348], "stop_times": [12.84, 29.261, 42.348, 58.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.008}, "reply_to": "20784__0_000", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_002", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Are you arguing substantive due process or procedural due process?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [58.59], "stop_times": [61.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 58.59}, "reply_to": "20784__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20784__0_003", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Your Honor, we have attempted to the best we can not to put a label, but if a label is necessary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [61.783], "stop_times": [69.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 61.783}, "reply_to": "20784__0_002", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_004", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "I suggest you are going to have to if you are going to persuade us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [69.516], "stop_times": [72.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 69.516}, "reply_to": "20784__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20784__0_005", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Your Honor, if a label must be placed it would have to be substantive due process but as we have pointed out in our briefs, the values that we seek to protect here are largely procedural values.\nThe interest in notice, in understanding the consequences of one's actions.\nIt is procedural in that sense, I suppose in the way that the void for vagueness doctrine is procedural.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [72.438, 87.709, 94.365], "stop_times": [87.709, 94.365, 100.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 72.438}, "reply_to": "20784__0_004", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_006", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "You went... it went through the legislative process.\nThat's probably all a procedural due process you are entitled to.\nYou fall back on a substantive claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [100.919, 104.822, 109.033], "stop_times": [104.822, 109.033, 112.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 100.919}, "reply_to": "20784__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20784__0_007", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Certainly the Court has restricted procedural due process to the legislative process in the past and we don't mean to suggest that in order to prevail in this case the Court needs to create a new doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [112.356], "stop_times": [125.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 112.356}, "reply_to": "20784__0_006", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_008", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "And substantive due process as you know is not in good odor with regard to economic rights for some reason, although we still apply it with respect to noneconomic rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [125.415], "stop_times": [137.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 125.415}, "reply_to": "20784__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20784__0_009", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "It certainly has not been in good favor for some decades, Justice Scalia.\nThe Court, however, has been very careful in its decisions not to suggest that there were not limits to the power of Congress to enact retroactive legislation, and we are here to say that this is the case which crosses that border.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [137.403, 142.256], "stop_times": [142.256, 163.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 137.403}, "reply_to": "20784__0_008", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_010", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Well, if your client is not, maybe as sympathetic a client as some of the ones talked about in some of the amicus briefs filed in this case.\nI guess Eastern sold the coal mining operation to a wholly owned subsidiary in effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [163.5, 177.108], "stop_times": [177.108, 187.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 163.5}, "reply_to": "20784__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20784__0_011", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "We transferred--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [187.114], "stop_times": [188.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 187.114}, "reply_to": "20784__0_010", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_012", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "And then there was cross management.\nI mean, some of the same managers of Eastern were also managers of the subsidiary corporation, so Eastern doesn't come here in the same shoes as some of the amici.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [188.655, 191.276], "stop_times": [191.276, 204.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 188.655}, "reply_to": "20784__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20784__0_013", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--We are certainly not in the same shoes of those amici who have been driven into bankruptcy, but in terms of the analytical application of the statute to Eastern, liability has been imposed on Eastern solely because it was an employer of miner's before 1946.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [204.957], "stop_times": [225.161], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 204.957}, "reply_to": "20784__0_012", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_014", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Let me ask you one more question and then I'll subside here.\nYou have a right of reimbursement.\nIs that right?\nFrom Eastern for any liability incurred here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [225.161, 228.802, 232.564, 233.966], "stop_times": [228.802, 232.564, 233.966, 238.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 225.161}, "reply_to": "20784__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20784__0_015", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Section 9706(f), Justice O'Connor, preserves to Eastern any right that it may have had to seek recovery from its subsidiary or the party to whom it sold the subsidiary, Peabody Coal.\nThe statute does not create any new right of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [238.561, 259.125], "stop_times": [259.125, 261.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 238.561}, "reply_to": "20784__0_014", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_016", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Did Eastern preserve a right of recovery against its subsidiary?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [261.836], "stop_times": [269.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 261.836}, "reply_to": "20784__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20784__0_017", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "In the action, in the third party action that we filed below, we alleged that we do have a right.\nI will tell the Court that if to the extent that we have a right is a right in implied indemnity.\nThere were no documents that passed between Eastern and its subsidiary or between Eastern and Peabody Holding Company which specifically spoke to the possibility of future statutory liability, and in the event that we are unsuccessful here, we will be left with that third party action in the District of Massachusetts in which we will attempt to advance our right to obtain recovery on an indemnification or contribution ground.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [269.301, 276.585, 282.078], "stop_times": [276.585, 282.078, 314.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 269.301}, "reply_to": "20784__0_016", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_018", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Does the record tell us the amount and the extent of the liability and the number of the employees?\nIs that... is that known at this time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [314.65, 320.283], "stop_times": [320.283, 324.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 314.65}, "reply_to": "20784__0_017", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20784__0_019", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Justice Kennedy, the record tells us that as of the time that we filed this lawsuit that 1,400 employees, former employees or their spouses had been assigned to Eastern.\nSince the lawsuit was filed, we have had additional assignments, but those are not part of the record.\nWith respect to the amount of the liability, it is an annual premium that's established by the combined fund.\nThe record is undisputed that at the time that the lawsuit was filed, and Mr. Harper's affidavit is in the record to this effect, that the actuarial calculation of the liability was in the vicinity of $100 million.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [324.948, 340.587, 345.762, 352.264], "stop_times": [340.587, 345.762, 352.264, 365.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 324.948}, "reply_to": "20784__0_018", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_020", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "But that's disputed to the extent, at least, that you would have a deduction for that expense, so that would bring that down a considerable amount without any other factor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [365.163], "stop_times": [376.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 365.163}, "reply_to": "20784__0_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20784__0_021", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Certainly, Justice Ginsburg, and we are not attaching any special significance to the amount of money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [376.95], "stop_times": [381.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 376.95}, "reply_to": "20784__0_020", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_022", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "May I ask you, your position is that Eastern, which severed its relationship with these employees many decades ago, should not be responsible.\nOn your theory, if any private party in this picture, Eastern's successors, can anybody compatibly with substantive due process or the Takings Clause be responsible or is this the kind of obligation that can be thrust only on the public as a whole through the revenue system?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [381.606, 394.131], "stop_times": [394.131, 417.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 381.606}, "reply_to": "20784__0_021", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20784__0_023", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "The test that we have suggested here, and that we think is reflected in the Court's precedence such as Concrete Pipe and Turner Elkhorn is whether a party upon whom Congress seeks to impose a retroactive liability has some reasonable basis to anticipate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [417.166], "stop_times": [435.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 417.166}, "reply_to": "20784__0_022", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_024", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Is there anybody... let's take this case specifically.\nAre either of the successors... suppose the tax... scratch that.\nSuppose this liability had been imposed on Peabody.\nUnder your theory, would that be compatible with due process?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [435.648, 437.07, 442.404, 446.417], "stop_times": [437.07, 442.404, 446.417, 452.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 435.648}, "reply_to": "20784__0_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20784__0_025", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "There is a class of companies that are included within the Coal Act that we believe properly bear that responsibility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [452.341], "stop_times": [462.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 452.341}, "reply_to": "20784__0_024", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_026", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Would be Peabody who... currently in the business.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [462.977], "stop_times": [465.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 462.977}, "reply_to": "20784__0_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20784__0_027", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "We are not seeking at this point to shift our liability to any particular company.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [465.178], "stop_times": [471.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 465.178}, "reply_to": "20784__0_026", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_028", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "But which... these are... these are miners who stopped working in the mines in the 1960s.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [471.111], "stop_times": [477.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 471.111}, "reply_to": "20784__0_027", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20784__0_029", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [477.857], "stop_times": [478.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 477.857}, "reply_to": "20784__0_028", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_030", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Who in this picture would be responsible for them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [478.478], "stop_times": [481.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 478.478}, "reply_to": "20784__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20784__0_031", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "If we are successful here the miners and their spouses assigned to Eastern will then be reassigned under the priority scheme set forth in the statute to other companies for whom those miners worked or in the absence of such a company will be assigned to what's called the orphan pool.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [481.009], "stop_times": [499.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 481.009}, "reply_to": "20784__0_030", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_032", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Would that be compatible with due process, just concentrating on the people who never worked for any existing company?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [499.922], "stop_times": [507.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 499.922}, "reply_to": "20784__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20784__0_033", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Certainly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [507.236], "stop_times": [507.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 507.236}, "reply_to": "20784__0_032", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_034", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "These employees, these very employees, would it be compatible with due process to distribute them among employers who never had any employment relationship with them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [507.967], "stop_times": [518.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 507.967}, "reply_to": "20784__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20784__0_035", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Absolutely, Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [518.962], "stop_times": [520.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 518.962}, "reply_to": "20784__0_034", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_036", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "What was the notice?\nWhat was the expectation that these present companies had that this would occur?\nI'm not sure... how you can be so categorical as to say that Justice Ginsburg's hypothetical presents no due process problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [520.563, 522.486, 527.258], "stop_times": [522.486, 527.258, 537.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 520.563}, "reply_to": "20784__0_035", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20784__0_037", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "I don't wish to be categorical as to every single company.\nThere are certainly other companies that may have as applied complaints to present with respect to the application to them.\nBut as to whether obligations can be opposed retroactively on those who participated in a multiemployer plan, at least beginning in 1978, which undertook to provide defined benefits--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [537.596, 541.267, 549.214], "stop_times": [541.267, 549.214, 563.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 537.596}, "reply_to": "20784__0_036", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_038", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "But for employees who were never beneficiaries of that plan.\nI mean, it seems to me that they are as remote from responsibility as you are.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [563.082, 567.115], "stop_times": [567.115, 571.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 563.082}, "reply_to": "20784__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20784__0_039", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--Some of them may be, Your Honor, but those--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [571.858], "stop_times": [575.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 571.858}, "reply_to": "20784__0_038", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_040", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Which ones wouldn't be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [575.41], "stop_times": [576.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 575.41}, "reply_to": "20784__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20784__0_041", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--Well, certainly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [576.7], "stop_times": [577.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 576.7}, "reply_to": "20784__0_040", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_042", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Which ones who never employed these people or their decedents would be any closer to responsibility.\nJustice Scalia, it's critical to understand that those who signed collective bargaining agreements from period to period, when they executed those agreements, they undertook an obligation to the very employees who have been assigned to Eastern, the very individuals who were beneficiaries of each of those plans.\nBut they didn't undertake this obligation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [577.391, 584.437, 601.327], "stop_times": [584.437, 601.327, 603.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 577.391}, "reply_to": "20784__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20784__0_043", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--They undertook... they undertook an obligation that was at least as extensive as this obligation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [603.31], "stop_times": [609.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 603.31}, "reply_to": "20784__0_042", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_044", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "No, but the fact that I agree to do something for a certain amount... I don't quite understand your distinction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [609.725], "stop_times": [615.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 609.725}, "reply_to": "20784__0_043", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20784__0_045", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "I agree with that.\nThere are various classes that are included in the statute.\nAnd I don't want to confuse the Court.\nCertainly with respect to the class of so called 1988 signatories, those who signed the last collective bargaining agreement at a time when deficits began to develop in this plan because they lowered the rate of contribution to fund the benefits, including the benefits to these employees, and when that plan started to develop those deficits, we do submit that it would have been perfectly within Congress' authority to say that all of those companies should have understood that when they made changes in the plans that took the plans into a deficit position, they should have understood once the initial legislative interest was expressed in this subject in 1989 by Senator Rockefeller shortly after the execution of that agreement, that there was some reasonable possibility that Congress may step in and rescue the plans.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [615.869, 616.658, 619.98, 621.392], "stop_times": [616.658, 619.98, 621.392, 675.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 615.869}, "reply_to": "20784__0_044", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_046", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Well, shouldn't, shouldn't you by a similar line of reasoning or shouldn't Eastern have understood that whatever its obligations may be, and I realize those are in question, but whatever its obligations may be, may be affected by the actions of the independent trustees so that it at any time in the future this kind of shortfall, let's say, from imprudent trustee action.\nImprudent action in determining the amount of assessments what makes them might very well result in an added liability to you or to Eastern many, many years hence.\nSo I don't see a distinction in kind between what you have just described as the, as the latter imprudent consequences, consequence of imprudence in the anticipation that you should have made or Eastern should have made in imprudent consequences?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [675.676, 700.855, 713.674], "stop_times": [700.855, 713.674, 727.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 675.676}, "reply_to": "20784__0_045", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20784__0_047", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "I would suggest that there is a difference of more than a degree, Justice Souter, in anticipating congressional action within a year or two after a particular development in the history of the plan, another over a generation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [727.802], "stop_times": [745.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 727.802}, "reply_to": "20784__0_046", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_048", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "With respect, perhaps congressional action might be difficult to anticipate, but the need for some action even if it be a lawsuit, judicial action, possibly, to enforce a liability thought to have been incurred, that certainly is not difficult to anticipate.\nWell, I suppose it's your position that the liability only extended for the life of the contract?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [745.423, 769.149], "stop_times": [769.149, 777.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 745.423}, "reply_to": "20784__0_047", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20784__0_049", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "That's certainly the case, and our liability--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [777.795], "stop_times": [780.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 777.795}, "reply_to": "20784__0_048", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_050", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "I mean, that much was clear.\nIt wasn't like one of these long term continuously extended benefit plans.\nThey had a limited term.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [780.476, 782.156, 787.662, 789.593], "stop_times": [782.156, 787.662, 789.593, 790.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 780.476}, "reply_to": "20784__0_049", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20784__0_051", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--That's exactly right and prior to 1965 as to the contracts that we signed, those were defined benefit... excuse me, defined contribution contracts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [790.444], "stop_times": [800.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 790.444}, "reply_to": "20784__0_050", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_052", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Limited to the contribution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [800.972], "stop_times": [801.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 800.972}, "reply_to": "20784__0_051", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20784__0_053", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Limited to the contribution without any agreement as to defined benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [801.393], "stop_times": [806.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 801.393}, "reply_to": "20784__0_052", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_054", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "But the other side says that, that Congress found that you had created an expectation of lifetime benefits, even though you are only making defined contributions, you had created an expectation.\nWhat is your response to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [806.796, 823.067], "stop_times": [823.067, 825.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 806.796}, "reply_to": "20784__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20784__0_055", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Justice Scalia, the Congress only made one finding, and that finding is in the preamble to the statute, and that finding simply says that those, that the Congress seeks to attach liabilities to those most responsible for planned liabilities, period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [825.238], "stop_times": [843.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 825.238}, "reply_to": "20784__0_054", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_056", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "And the rest is from the commission report which the Congress did not itself adopt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [843.081], "stop_times": [846.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 843.081}, "reply_to": "20784__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20784__0_057", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Did not itself adopt.\nThat's exactly correct.\nThe expectations, argument certainly is prominent in the judicial decisions that have upheld the Coal Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [846.583, 847.685, 850.156], "stop_times": [847.685, 850.156, 857.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 846.583}, "reply_to": "20784__0_056", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_058", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "If in fact in respect to expectations you had never formed a separate subsidiary, imagine you had never formed it and you stayed in business until 1987, then would you think it was constitutional for Congress to impose upon you the obligation that you are talking about today?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [857.779], "stop_times": [874.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 857.779}, "reply_to": "20784__0_057", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20784__0_059", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Not at all because it would not have been reasonable on the expectations argument, Justice Breyer, for miners or their spouses to develop any expectation at all as a result of Eastern's conduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [874.442], "stop_times": [886.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 874.442}, "reply_to": "20784__0_058", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_060", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "So in your view if you had been in business until 1987 and all the companies that were in business up until 1992 or '93 or before this very act was passed, it's constitutional in your view for Congress to sell these companies in the mining industry that you have to take care of the miners who were there previous to 1992?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [886.528], "stop_times": [907.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 886.528}, "reply_to": "20784__0_059", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20784__0_061", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Perhaps I misunderstood your question.\nIf your question is, is it unconstitutional to the extent that Congress noted that we were in the business until 1987--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [907.512, 909.525], "stop_times": [909.525, 916.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 907.512}, "reply_to": "20784__0_060", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_062", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "No.\nI'm trying to pretend that you never formed a separate subsidiary and therefore you continued to do business, everything else is the same, but you just did business without your separate subsidiary.\nYou were the subsidiary so you left in '87 instead of leaving in '65.\nI'm saying then in your opinion is it unconstitutional for Congress to impose this very obligation upon you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [916.579, 917.1, 927.348, 931.769], "stop_times": [917.1, 927.348, 931.769, 938.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 916.579}, "reply_to": "20784__0_061", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20784__0_063", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--Our position here would be far weaker if we had never--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [938.594], "stop_times": [942.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 938.594}, "reply_to": "20784__0_062", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_064", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Yes, but I want to know if you think it is or isn't unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [942.206], "stop_times": [945.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 942.206}, "reply_to": "20784__0_063", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20784__0_065", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--I think it is not unless this Court is willing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [945.238], "stop_times": [949.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 945.238}, "reply_to": "20784__0_064", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_066", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Then your position is that in fact they can't impose these obligations on anybody, however long they stayed in as long as they left prior to this very law being passed; is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [949.64], "stop_times": [956.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 949.64}, "reply_to": "20784__0_065", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20784__0_067", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Justice Breyer I want... meaning to be clear, I think this Court would have to extend Concrete Pipe in order for liability to attach to companies that were in business up until 1987 or 1988--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [956.996], "stop_times": [969.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 956.996}, "reply_to": "20784__0_066", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_068", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "But is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [969.723], "stop_times": [970.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 969.723}, "reply_to": "20784__0_067", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20784__0_069", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--this Court could do that, and I think it is only a modest extension, but I do not believe that it is constitutional absent that, that determination by this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [970.204], "stop_times": [979.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 970.204}, "reply_to": "20784__0_068", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_070", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--All right.\nSo you think you have a stronger case because you left in '65?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [979.85, 980.391], "stop_times": [980.391, 982.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 979.85}, "reply_to": "20784__0_069", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20784__0_071", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [982.512], "stop_times": [983.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 982.512}, "reply_to": "20784__0_070", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_072", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "All right.\nNow is your case stronger in any respect at all but for you have some expectation that Congress won't pierce corporate veils?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [983.514, 984.352], "stop_times": [984.352, 993.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 983.514}, "reply_to": "20784__0_071", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20784__0_073", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Congress considered the extent to which it ought to pierce the corporate veil, and it did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [993.118], "stop_times": [1003.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 993.118}, "reply_to": "20784__0_072", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_074", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Yes.\nAll right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1003.977, 1004.528], "stop_times": [1004.528, 1005.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1003.977}, "reply_to": "20784__0_073", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20784__0_075", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Our expectation clearly was reasonable, we believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1005.417], "stop_times": [1008.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1005.417}, "reply_to": "20784__0_074", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_076", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1008.538], "stop_times": [1009.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1008.538}, "reply_to": "20784__0_075", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20784__0_077", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--because we had a well capitalized subsidiary that made all of the contributions that were asked of it and remained in business.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1009.119], "stop_times": [1018.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1009.119}, "reply_to": "20784__0_076", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_078", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--That's very helpful because what I get from your answer is that's right.\nI think you are saying the only additional expectation you have is that Congress won't engage in veil piercing and then you went on to answer just what was the next thing in my mind, is is that a reasonable expectation given that Congress has passed quite a few statutes that pierce veils, CERCLA, states pierce veils, veil piercing is not an unknown thing and therefore how reasonable is that expectation.\nNow, you began to answer that and I'd like you to continue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1018.726, 1022.807, 1048.787], "stop_times": [1022.807, 1048.787, 1051.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1018.726}, "reply_to": "20784__0_077", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20784__0_079", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "In this particular statute, Congress also pierced the veil and set up a category of responsible parties called related persons.\nEastern, under that veil piercing mechanism, is not a related person, and we think in that regard, Congress got it right as to Eastern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1051.058, 1064.655], "stop_times": [1064.655, 1075.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1051.058}, "reply_to": "20784__0_078", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_080", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Mr. Montgomery, I think you are saying that it doesn't matter what your expectation was, that even if your expectation was that there would be no veil piercing, that expectation has not been frustrated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1075.974], "stop_times": [1087.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1075.974}, "reply_to": "20784__0_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20784__0_081", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "It has not been frustrated, that's absolutely correct, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1087.653], "stop_times": [1090.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1087.653}, "reply_to": "20784__0_080", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_082", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "That the basis for your liability here is not veil piercing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1090.652], "stop_times": [1092.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1090.652}, "reply_to": "20784__0_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20784__0_083", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "It is not.\nLiability is exclusively based on the fact that we were directly an employer between 1946 and 1965.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1092.995, 1093.706], "stop_times": [1093.706, 1100.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1092.995}, "reply_to": "20784__0_082", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_084", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Are you putting all your eggs in the due process basket, I take it, today?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1100.749], "stop_times": [1104.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1100.749}, "reply_to": "20784__0_083", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20784__0_085", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Not at all, Your Honor.\nWe have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1104.833, 1106.593], "stop_times": [1106.593, 1107.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1104.833}, "reply_to": "20784__0_084", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_086", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Well, I thought he had a takings claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1107.604], "stop_times": [1108.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1107.604}, "reply_to": "20784__0_085", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20784__0_087", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--I do indeed.\nWe do have a takings claim, and I would like to address it.\nOur takings claim rests on two premises, that the takings clause is designed to avoid the injustice of forcing someone to bear public burdens that ought to be borne by the public themselves or by someone else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1108.854, 1110.526, 1117.202], "stop_times": [1110.526, 1117.202, 1133.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1108.854}, "reply_to": "20784__0_086", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_088", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "What are the cases in which there is a taking but the government has not been enriched?\nHere the government doesn't take property and use it for a firehouse or a park or a school.\nAs the government projects the argument to us, this is simply an adjustment of liability between two private parties.\nWhat, what case do you have where that occurred and we found there was a taking?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1133.211, 1141.556, 1147.169, 1156.125], "stop_times": [1141.556, 1147.169, 1156.125, 1161.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1133.211}, "reply_to": "20784__0_087", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20784__0_089", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Hodel v. Irving with respect to the escheat of title rights on Indian lands.\nUnited States v. Security Industrial Bank and going back further, though it's not cited in our brief, a case and an opinion by Justice Brandeis, Thompson v. Consolidated Gas.\nIn each of those cases, the government effected a transfer of property from one private person to another private person.\nThat's exactly what the government has done here.\nBut in doing so, the statute undermines values which are held dear in the course of this Court's takings jurisprudence, and that is value that says that we ought not to have individuals singled out to bear public burdens, to bear more than their fair share.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1161.568, 1171.416, 1188.576, 1198.243, 1202.166], "stop_times": [1171.416, 1188.576, 1198.243, 1202.166, 1229.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1161.568}, "reply_to": "20784__0_088", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_090", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Well, the argument is made, I think in respect to this singling out and it's made with respect to the rationality under the due process argument that you are not being improperly singled out because as I think you mentioned earlier, because of the finding in the committee report that you in effect had created the expectation that the benefits were going to be lifetime benefits.\nIf we, if we find that report something that we ought to consider significant, and if we also bear in mind what is in one of the red briefs, and that was a statement by an industry representative, I think it may have been, maybe it was the first independent trustee, Mr. Owen, I think, exactly that effect, the fact about 1950, what argument do you have that we should in effect overlook that finding which does establish a connection?\nCan we make fact finding of our own?\nDoes the record indicate that that conclusion is so far unsupported as to be irrational?\nI think that's your burden.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1229.024, 1256.421, 1290.234, 1294.585, 1300.559], "stop_times": [1256.421, 1290.234, 1294.585, 1300.559, 1302.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1229.024}, "reply_to": "20784__0_089", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20784__0_091", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "It is our burden, and I'm going to have to slide back over to the due process side to some extent to answer that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1302.121], "stop_times": [1309.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1302.121}, "reply_to": "20784__0_090", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_092", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "But doesn't it also affect your takings argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1309.104], "stop_times": [1310.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1309.104}, "reply_to": "20784__0_091", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20784__0_093", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "It does.\nThe expectations finding, if it was made by the commission, first of all, is not one that was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1310.606, 1311.287], "stop_times": [1311.287, 1321.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1310.606}, "reply_to": "20784__0_092", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_094", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "It was not a committee report that made the finding, was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1321.122], "stop_times": [1323.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1321.122}, "reply_to": "20784__0_093", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20784__0_095", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--No.\nIt was the coal commission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1323.275, 1324.115], "stop_times": [1324.115, 1325.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1323.275}, "reply_to": "20784__0_094", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_096", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Appointed by the Department of Labor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1325.246], "stop_times": [1326.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1325.246}, "reply_to": "20784__0_095", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20784__0_097", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Appointed by the Department of Labor though as a technical matter its report was never adopted so far as where we are... by the Secretary of Labor after it was submitted, but that report does not speak specifically to the class of companies of which we are a part, the so called super reach back companies who were in the business directly only up until 1978.\nBut even to the extent that there is a finding that was made with, that we created expectations, the expectations argument is if I might be charitable and a little loose with my language, is a fig leaf.\nIt's a fig leaf for essentially unlimited liability that might be opposed retroactively on companies that have been in business.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1326.508, 1346.54, 1361.37], "stop_times": [1346.54, 1361.37, 1369.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1326.508}, "reply_to": "20784__0_096", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_098", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "If we accept the finding as significant in the decision in this case in judging the nexus, the rationality, however you want to put it under the different headings of your argument, then in fact it is not a fig leaf simply for a finding of unlimited liability.\nIt is in fact a basis for identifying a class with respect to whom liability is at least arguably quite reasonable, and so I think it has greater significance than you are willing to accord it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1369.976, 1388.798], "stop_times": [1388.798, 1402.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1369.976}, "reply_to": "20784__0_097", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20784__0_099", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "I would suggest, Justice Souter, that the Court is entitled to and ought to look at the facts that underlies that so called expectation finding.\nAnd those facts are simply that a party entered into a limited contract.\nA contract which at the time in an exchange with the union was sought, thought to be a social advance, and then by virtue of that participation to the limits of that agreement, it is now suggested that an expectation was created--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1402.019, 1413.696, 1417.568], "stop_times": [1413.696, 1417.568, 1434.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1402.019}, "reply_to": "20784__0_098", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_100", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "That's the government's argument in its footnote at page 30 of the brief.\nAnd it focuses on the 1974 agreement and it says the fact that at that time the companies by the contract agreed to pay these benefits for previous workers showed that there existed then an expectation.\nCould you address that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1434.897, 1440.812, 1456.944], "stop_times": [1440.812, 1456.944, 1459.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1434.897}, "reply_to": "20784__0_099", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20784__0_101", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--The government says so but there certainly is no finding to that effect and that doesn't make it so, and I would suggest that the Court ought to consider how private contracting, i.e., the employment area or any other area, is going to work, if on the one hand we are entitled as a matter of freedom of contract to participate in bargains and to participate to a limited extent, but at the same time, the government may come along a year later or a generation later or more and say by virtue of your mere participation, you have set up an expectation, and that expectation provides us with a basis, an unlimited basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1459.205], "stop_times": [1503.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1459.205}, "reply_to": "20784__0_100", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_102", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Well, the government would have us say that this was a consensus in the industry, that this is the duty of the employer because of the fact that wages have been low and benefits have been high.\nThat's what I understand their argument to be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1503.504, 1514.88], "stop_times": [1514.88, 1517.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1503.504}, "reply_to": "20784__0_101", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20784__0_103", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Well, there is no finding with respect to such a consensus.\nIf there was a consensus, it was a consensus to participate under the terms of the Taft Hartley Act in a multi employer plan.\nOne of the premises--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1517.193, 1520.634, 1527.96], "stop_times": [1520.634, 1527.96, 1529.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1517.193}, "reply_to": "20784__0_102", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_104", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Why did the trustee, I'm sorry, why did the trustee make as I understand it essentially the same statement in what was it 1950?\nWay, way back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1529.23, 1537.607], "stop_times": [1537.607, 1539.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1529.23}, "reply_to": "20784__0_103", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20784__0_105", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--That statement needs to be looked at in context.\nWhat the trustee was doing is complaining about the management by the trustees of the assets that had been tendered to them under the terms of the agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1539.557, 1542.79], "stop_times": [1542.79, 1553.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1539.557}, "reply_to": "20784__0_104", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_106", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Yes, but, but the terms of his complaint were that basically there had been a promise of lifetime benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1553.125], "stop_times": [1558.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1553.125}, "reply_to": "20784__0_105", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20784__0_107", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "A promise of lifetime benefits which he suggests in his statement that the industry couldn't possibly fulfill.\nThat was his point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1558.49, 1566.985], "stop_times": [1566.985, 1568.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1558.49}, "reply_to": "20784__0_106", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_108", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Was the trustee authorized to speak for the companies on that point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1568.566], "stop_times": [1571.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1568.566}, "reply_to": "20784__0_107", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20784__0_109", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Absolutely not.\nIn this Court's decision, in Amex Coal, I think you made it clear that under the Taft Hartley Act independent trustees are not representatives of the company and are not entitled.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1571.748, 1572.699], "stop_times": [1572.699, 1582.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1571.748}, "reply_to": "20784__0_108", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_110", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Well, I would agree with you there but the whole line of questioning I think starts with the assumption that we are going to consider the commission report and your burden, I think if we are going to consider it, your burden is to say that simply is not... that is not a reasonable statement of findings that can be taken into consideration, and I suppose one item of evidence on that would be the fact that somebody, a trustee, who was theoretically neither for you nor for them was saying something very similar to that in 1950.\nAnd I think that affects your burden is my only point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1582.124, 1616.799], "stop_times": [1616.799, 1618.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1582.124}, "reply_to": "20784__0_109", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20784__0_111", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "And my response is largely the same, and that is if the statement is looked at in context, I think you will see that it was not made on behalf of the companies and it does not support the weight that the government has attempted to put on it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1618.809], "stop_times": [1632.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1618.809}, "reply_to": "20784__0_110", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_112", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "If the government can come back years later and, say, hold you responsible for having had a small participation in putting out some kind of tailings or toxic waste that people didn't even at the time know was toxic and so forth, why can't they come back years later and say we are going to hold you partly responsible for putting out their millions of miners who spent their working lives in the industry and feel in their old age that somebody has given them an expectation they will be taken care of medically.\nWhat's the difference between those two situations?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1632.497, 1660.277], "stop_times": [1660.277, 1664.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1632.497}, "reply_to": "20784__0_111", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20784__0_113", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "The difference is causation.\nThe difference is that the premise of the environmental statute that you have mentioned is that the liable party caused that injury to the environment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1664.181, 1665.322], "stop_times": [1665.322, 1677.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1664.181}, "reply_to": "20784__0_112", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_114", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Had a very small part in it.\nCouldn't you have had a very small part in a very large--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1677.42, 1678.92], "stop_times": [1678.92, 1681.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1677.42}, "reply_to": "20784__0_113", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20784__0_115", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Could have had a very small part of it but causation as a principled matter is fundamental to the operation of that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1681.241], "stop_times": [1687.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1681.241}, "reply_to": "20784__0_114", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_116", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--So if you caused in part this expectation on behalf of the miners, then would you say it was the same thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1687.765], "stop_times": [1694.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1687.765}, "reply_to": "20784__0_115", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20784__0_117", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--No.\nBecause I would say that an expectation is not a sufficiently, sufficient basis to justify retroactive legislation.\nBecause expect--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1694.35, 1694.831, 1705.189], "stop_times": [1694.831, 1705.189, 1706.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1694.35}, "reply_to": "20784__0_116", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_118", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "You are causing in part their being out there old without medical care.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1706.571], "stop_times": [1712.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1706.571}, "reply_to": "20784__0_117", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20784__0_119", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--Well, the Court in Turner Elkhorn distinguished between specific medical needs and generalized medical needs.\nWe did not cause the needs of these miners or their spouses for medical care.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1712.485, 1719.218], "stop_times": [1719.218, 1723.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1712.485}, "reply_to": "20784__0_118", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_120", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Would you explain to me once more why a company that's a recent entrant like let's take in this case Ohio Valley Coal, why it's compatible with due process, and I think you said it was, to stick such a company that's a current player, it's a signatory to the most recent contract with liability for people who worked for Eastern from the '40s to the '60s?\nYou seem to say this is not something that has to be loaded on the public at large, you can put it on the industry, but only certain players, so I'm trying to understand why it's fair to do it for some and not the others.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1723.422, 1748.079], "stop_times": [1748.079, 1760.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1723.422}, "reply_to": "20784__0_119", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20784__0_121", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Congress has broad latitude to impose obligations on existing members of an industry to bear liability for workers who are currently in the business or formerly in the business.\nIt's in the nature of the an excise.\nCongress I think has virtually unlimited power to do so, Justice Ginsburg.\nIf there are no further questions, I'd like to reserve the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1760.475, 1773.533, 1774.824, 1778.486], "stop_times": [1773.533, 1774.824, 1778.486, 1782.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1760.475}, "reply_to": "20784__0_120", "speaker": "john_t_montgomery"}
{"id": "20784__0_122", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Your time just expired, Mr. Montgomery.\nMr. Kneedler.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1782.67, 1785.933], "stop_times": [1785.933, 1787.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1782.67}, "reply_to": "20784__0_121", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20784__1_000", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court, the Coal Industry Retirement, Retiree Benefits Act of 1992 rests on two basic determinations made by Congress in that year.\nExcuse me.\nFirst, Congress determined that the cost of furnishing health benefits to retirees and their families which benefits were at risk in 1992 should be borne by participants in the industry rather than by the public at large.\nAnd the second critical determination was that within that industry, the costs should be borne to the extent possible by those companies that had actually employed the miners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1787.833, 1805.785, 1807.218, 1819.395], "stop_times": [1805.785, 1807.218, 1819.395, 1828.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1787.833}, "reply_to": "20784__0_122", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_001", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Did Congress say why it decided that these people shouldn't simply shift for themselves the way most other people do if they don't have a contractual right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1828.622], "stop_times": [1838.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1828.622}, "reply_to": "20784__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20784__1_002", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Well, the determination by Congress at the time, there were two reasons.\nOne is the Congress... the Act rests on a determination or judgment that the miners had legitimate expectations that these funds would pay lifetime benefits and they had paid lifetime benefits to retirees since 1950.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1838.049, 1842.763], "stop_times": [1842.763, 1855.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1838.049}, "reply_to": "20784__1_001", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_003", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "But they were not something that could be enforced in a court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1855.429], "stop_times": [1859.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1855.429}, "reply_to": "20784__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20784__1_004", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "No, but the Due Process Clause is not limited... Congress' ability under the Due Process Clause is not limited to enforcing existing contractual relationships and as this court's decisions in Concrete Pipe and Connolly have shown.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1859.763], "stop_times": [1872.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1859.763}, "reply_to": "20784__1_003", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_005", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Mr. Kneedler, what was the first time at which miners were actually guaranteed lifetime benefits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1872.941], "stop_times": [1881.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1872.941}, "reply_to": "20784__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20784__1_006", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "There is no legal guarantee, but the expectation... there was, there were guarantees during the period of the respective contracts but each of the, each of the contracts was a contract for term, for a term, and it's important to recognize--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1881.647], "stop_times": [1895.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1881.647}, "reply_to": "20784__1_005", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_007", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Any, in which of those contracts were specific guarantees of lifetime health benefits given?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1895.427], "stop_times": [1903.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1895.427}, "reply_to": "20784__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20784__1_008", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--1974 was the first time that the agreement itself contained those... contained those limitations but with respect... excuse me, that guarantee but with respect to the retirees--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1903.381], "stop_times": [1913.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1903.381}, "reply_to": "20784__1_007", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_009", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "For the duration of the contract?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1913.66], "stop_times": [1915.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1913.66}, "reply_to": "20784__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20784__1_010", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--That's all it could be.\nThey said lifetime, lifetime benefits, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1915.74, 1917.531], "stop_times": [1917.531, 1920.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1915.74}, "reply_to": "20784__1_009", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_011", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Just for the duration of the contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1920.322], "stop_times": [1922.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1920.322}, "reply_to": "20784__1_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20784__1_012", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--The contract had a term.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1922.413], "stop_times": [1923.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1922.413}, "reply_to": "20784__1_011", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_013", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "And what about for the spouses and dependents?\nWhen was the first time that was provided?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1923.484, 1928.668], "stop_times": [1928.668, 1932.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1923.484}, "reply_to": "20784__1_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20784__1_014", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Spouses and dependents of retirees, those benefits were afforded from the beginning.\nFor widows' benefits, there were widows benefits from 1950 to '54 for life and then that dropped down to a year, two years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1932.39, 1937.893], "stop_times": [1937.893, 1945.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1932.39}, "reply_to": "20784__1_013", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_015", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Was it ever part of the contract?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1945.34], "stop_times": [1946.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1945.34}, "reply_to": "20784__1_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20784__1_016", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "In 1974 the widows' benefits were again made part of the contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1946.86], "stop_times": [1949.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1946.86}, "reply_to": "20784__1_015", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_017", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "That's what I'm trying to find out.\nWhen was there specific provision for it in a contract?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1949.991, 1950.552], "stop_times": [1950.552, 1954.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1949.991}, "reply_to": "20784__1_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20784__1_018", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "In 1974 again was the first time but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1954.936], "stop_times": [1957.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1954.936}, "reply_to": "20784__1_017", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_019", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "You said earlier that despite the date you just gave that lifetime benefits had been paid since the 1950s, would you expand on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1957.936], "stop_times": [1968.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1957.936}, "reply_to": "20784__1_018", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20784__1_020", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--That's correct.\nAnd this is something that a number of the courts have pointed to.\nSince 1950 lifetime benefits were paid, health benefits were paid to retirees and their families and under, under a series of collective bargaining--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1968.515, 1969.316, 1973.086], "stop_times": [1969.316, 1973.086, 1983.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1968.515}, "reply_to": "20784__1_019", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_021", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Beyond the terms of the original contract?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1983.094], "stop_times": [1985.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1983.094}, "reply_to": "20784__1_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20784__1_022", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--Well, the contracts, the contracts were renewed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1985.555], "stop_times": [1987.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1985.555}, "reply_to": "20784__1_021", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_023", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Basically got rolled over?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1987.385], "stop_times": [1988.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1987.385}, "reply_to": "20784__1_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20784__1_024", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "They got renewed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1988.737], "stop_times": [1989.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1988.737}, "reply_to": "20784__1_023", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_025", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "You are talking about lifetime benefits to people who were lucky enough to die before the company went out of business, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1989.428], "stop_times": [1995.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1989.428}, "reply_to": "20784__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20784__1_026", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Not at all.\nThese were benefits under, under an industry wide multiemployer plan and that's one of the things that Petitioner overlooks.\nThe benefits under this plan, the miners all along continued to keep those benefits even if the company they worked for went out of business because this was a collective undertaking by all employers in the industry to furnish benefits for all employees when they retired and their spouses and their widows.\nThis furnished, this furnished--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [1995.842, 1996.523, 2004.258, 2020.369], "stop_times": [1996.523, 2004.258, 2020.369, 2022.259], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1995.842}, "reply_to": "20784__1_025", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_027", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Widows?\nWidows not while this company was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2022.259, 2022.98], "stop_times": [2022.98, 2026.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2022.259}, "reply_to": "20784__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20784__1_028", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--No.\nThere were widows' benefits the duration of the benefits.\nThere were lifetime widows' benefits from 1950 to 1954 and that dropped back then to one year in 1954 but there were provisions even then for widows' benefits of some provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2026.904, 2027.465, 2030.827], "stop_times": [2027.465, 2030.827, 2042.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2026.904}, "reply_to": "20784__1_027", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_029", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--For what year?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2042.255], "stop_times": [2043.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2042.255}, "reply_to": "20784__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20784__1_030", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "For some duration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2043.123], "stop_times": [2043.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2043.123}, "reply_to": "20784__1_029", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_031", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "So the one thing that the term of the contract limited was the term in which contributions are to be made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2043.934], "stop_times": [2050.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2043.934}, "reply_to": "20784__1_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20784__1_032", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2050.51], "stop_times": [2051.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2050.51}, "reply_to": "20784__1_031", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_033", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "On expiration, no more contributions unless the contract is renewed but under the plan so long as the plan was funded to the extent it was funded they would continue to draw benefits--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2051.599], "stop_times": [2061.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2051.599}, "reply_to": "20784__1_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20784__1_034", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "That is correct.\nAnd in fact the plans were funded and a collective bargaining agreement, especially a multiemployer collective bargaining agreement that is industrywide is more than just a contract.\nIt is, it is the document that establishes the relationship long term.\nThere is a collective bargaining relationship that extends from contract period to contract period.\nAnd employees come to expect and particularly in this industry came to expect as evidenced by the strikes that occurred every time there was some threat to the continuation of those benefits, they came to expect that those benefits would continue over time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2061.887, 2062.678, 2072.402, 2077.107, 2081.359], "stop_times": [2062.678, 2072.402, 2077.107, 2081.359, 2094.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2061.887}, "reply_to": "20784__1_033", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_035", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--But were notices regularly sent saying that these aren't guaranteed and they can be terminated?\nIt depends on whether we have the money?\nWeren't those regularly provided?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2094.498, 2100.702, 2102.763], "stop_times": [2100.702, 2102.763, 2105.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2094.498}, "reply_to": "20784__1_034", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20784__1_036", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "They were, they were, they were in the forms but again Justice O'Connor, the question, this is not a contract enforcement question.\nThe question is whether it is rational for Congress to look to the relationship that grew up under a series of collective bargaining agreements.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2105.394, 2111.749], "stop_times": [2111.749, 2119.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2105.394}, "reply_to": "20784__1_035", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_037", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Let's talk about the collective bargaining agreements.\nThose agreements were negotiated with one of the most powerful unions in the country and I'm sure the negotiations could have taken into account whether the funding of this thing was to be a guaranteed funding of whatever amount is necessary to provide lifetime benefits.\nThat was not in the contract.\nThey just agreed to put in a certain amount every year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2119.235, 2120.865, 2139.989, 2141.588], "stop_times": [2120.865, 2139.989, 2141.588, 2144.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2119.235}, "reply_to": "20784__1_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20784__1_038", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "But, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2144.76], "stop_times": [2145.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2144.76}, "reply_to": "20784__1_037", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_039", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "I mean, this was a sophisticated labor union who adopted that agreement on behalf of their employees.\nIt's hard for me to understand how that could have created any reasonable expectation that the companies would kick in whatever it takes to provide lifetime benefits.\nIt's very clearly said we will kick in so much each year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2145.582, 2151.746, 2160.102], "stop_times": [2151.746, 2160.102, 2163.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2145.582}, "reply_to": "20784__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20784__1_040", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--Quite the contrary, Justice Scalia.\nI think the course of conduct in this industry from, from the seizure of the coal mines in 1946 to the current time was that the coal companies would take care of these miners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2163.053, 2164.964], "stop_times": [2164.964, 2174.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2163.053}, "reply_to": "20784__1_039", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_041", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Well, why did the collective bargaining agreements say that?\nIf you say that the course of conduct made, where would you expect to find the employers' intentions more better placed or better examined than in the agreements they signed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2174.52, 2176.861], "stop_times": [2176.861, 2189.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2174.52}, "reply_to": "20784__1_040", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20784__1_042", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Well, but the expectations involved are not just what comes from the employers' intentions but what expectations were reasonably accrued by virtue of the collective bargaining relationship that the employers entered into.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2189.58], "stop_times": [2201.488], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2189.58}, "reply_to": "20784__1_041", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_043", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "I thought--\n--You had to renew the contract every three years--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2201.488, 2202.087], "stop_times": [2202.087, 2205.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2201.488}, "reply_to": "20784__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20784__1_044", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "And over the course of the relationship in fact they were renewed.\nUnder the plan, for example, another very tangible symbol of the permanence of these benefits was the plan constructed hospitals in critical communities in Appalachia to furnish health benefits.\nThese were financed by 20-year loans from the fund in the '50s to establish a permanent system of health--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2205.23, 2208.371, 2219.9], "stop_times": [2208.371, 2219.9, 2226.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2205.23}, "reply_to": "20784__1_043", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_045", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--Mr. Kneedler, with reference to investment backed expectations, I usually thought it was the expectation of the person who is paying the liability.\nYou are saying it was... this was an expectation on the part of the miners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2226.263, 2234.608], "stop_times": [2234.608, 2240.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2226.263}, "reply_to": "20784__1_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20784__1_046", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--Two answers to that, if I may.\nThe first is if we are looking, if we are looking at expectations, I think it's proper to look both at the expectations, look at the expectations of both parties to the contractual relationship and an important part of that expectation here is that this was... this... the employer didn't just hire somebody during the term of the contract.\nThe employee during that term of the contract accrued service credits that enabled the person upon retirement to get the very benefits we are talking about here.\nFor example, and this is highly instructive, Sam East, who is the miner whose assignment to Eastern triggered this lawsuit worked for Eastern from 1934 to 1960.\n26 years of his working life were with Eastern.\nThe only reason that he and then now his widow is eligible for benefits under this plan is because he worked for Eastern.\nHe accrued the 20 years of eligibility of service credits during his time with Eastern.\nEastern was present at the creation of this collective bargaining relationship as a member of BCOA in 1950 and the problems that we see today are the product of the way in which that collective bargaining relationship was structured in 1950.\nWith respect to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2240.723, 2244.556, 2262.677, 2271.403, 2282.109, 2285.902, 2293.129, 2298.792, 2313.271], "stop_times": [2244.556, 2262.677, 2271.403, 2282.109, 2285.902, 2293.129, 2298.792, 2313.271, 2314.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2240.723}, "reply_to": "20784__1_045", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_047", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "May I interrupt you with one question just to be sure I get it in my mind.\nIf the facts are that these were all defined contribution plans, were they not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2314.231, 2318.174], "stop_times": [2318.174, 2323.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2314.231}, "reply_to": "20784__1_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20784__1_048", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2323.246], "stop_times": [2324.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2323.246}, "reply_to": "20784__1_047", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_049", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "That the employee... employers consistently said this is going to be the limit of our liability and our exposure and so forth, but the union representatives consistently told the employees we are going to take care of you, we are going to use enough muscle to be sure that they contribute enough money.\nThe employer said well, we don't... we don't accept that.\nWould that still be a sufficient expectation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2324.287, 2340.248, 2343.831], "stop_times": [2340.248, 2343.831, 2346.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2324.287}, "reply_to": "20784__1_048", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20784__1_050", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "I think it would be a sufficient basis on which Congress may act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2346.462], "stop_times": [2349.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2346.462}, "reply_to": "20784__1_049", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_051", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "In other words, the unions taking the position they could do it would be enough the employees can rely on that despite the fact, assuming that to be the case, the employers regularly and consistently said this is as much as we are going to do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2349.625], "stop_times": [2361.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2349.625}, "reply_to": "20784__1_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20784__1_052", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Well, they entered into contracts for a term but what Congress did--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2361.573], "stop_times": [2365.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2361.573}, "reply_to": "20784__1_051", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_053", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "And for defined contributions as opposed to benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2365.206], "stop_times": [2367.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2365.206}, "reply_to": "20784__1_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20784__1_054", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--What Congress could look at legitimately was the course of conduct over the history of this industry in which health benefits and retiree health benefits were a critical factor.\nAnd Congress could also look at the fact that every time there was an effort to take these back, most recently in 1989 in the Pittston strike, there were severe disruptions to the national economy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2367.908, 2376.463], "stop_times": [2376.463, 2386.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2367.908}, "reply_to": "20784__1_053", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_055", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "So what you are saying is the reasonable expectations that others have of what claims they have on your property that's controlling?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2386.92], "stop_times": [2394.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2386.92}, "reply_to": "20784__1_054", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20784__1_056", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "No.\nI'm not saying it's controlling but there is a combination of expectations and if I may--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2394.845, 2395.496], "stop_times": [2395.496, 2399.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2394.845}, "reply_to": "20784__1_055", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_057", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "You are saying, aren't you, that the acts, the unilateral, in answer to Justice Stevens' question, that the unilateral acts of one party to the agreement can create a reasonable expectation when the other party says no.\nHow can that be a reasonable expect... source of reasonable expectation when on Justice Stevens' hypothesis it is disputed from the beginning?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2399.93, 2413.889], "stop_times": [2413.889, 2423.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2399.93}, "reply_to": "20784__1_056", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20784__1_058", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--Well, if I may, the other party did not say no.\nThe other party... the employers never said five years and then we are not funding a benefits plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2423.224, 2426.738], "stop_times": [2426.738, 2431.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2423.224}, "reply_to": "20784__1_057", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_059", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Okay.\nWell, that's not this case.\nDid they say anything?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2431.85, 2432.381, 2433.052], "stop_times": [2432.381, 2433.052, 2434.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2431.85}, "reply_to": "20784__1_058", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20784__1_060", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "What they did is, what's significant is that every time there was a contract renewal, the contract was renewed, the contributions paying into the... as you pointed out, the plan is ongoing.\nThe contributions were paid into the plan at every contract renewal.\nThat course of conduct, and Congress can legitimately look at the course of conduct in this unique industry over a course of time to see what sort of expectations had legitimately grown up.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2434.053, 2445.441, 2448.724, 2459.74], "stop_times": [2445.441, 2448.724, 2459.74, 2460.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2434.053}, "reply_to": "20784__1_059", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_061", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Mr. Kneedler, may I ask you if you can differentiate the following case from what's going on here.\nCongress passed the Equal Pay Act in 1963, but since World War II, when there was an executive order that says industry, you should pay minimum in the same for the same work, there had been an expectancy built up that people would be paid equally without regard to sex.\nSuppose Congress had said in '63 and not only prospectively must the pay be equal but we are going to reach back to the date of that executive order and every employer that was in violation of the equal pay principle in that period will have to cough up the difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2460.551, 2465.934, 2485.496], "stop_times": [2465.934, 2485.496, 2502.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2460.551}, "reply_to": "20784__1_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20784__1_062", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--I think this is very different because this Act only addresses health benefits prospectively from the date of the Act.\nThis Act does not reach back and require people like Petitioner to pay for health benefits in the preceding years.\nThe $300 million deficit that was projected in these funds by 1993 was made up entirely by the companies that were parties to the 1988 collective bargaining agreement.\nThis was another agreement that was due to expire in 1993.\nWhen Congress looked at this arrangement if there had been no new collective bargaining agreement, all of the retirees in this fund would have been out of luck.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2502.697, 2509.582, 2515.526, 2526.212, 2529.835], "stop_times": [2509.582, 2515.526, 2526.212, 2529.835, 2537.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2502.697}, "reply_to": "20784__1_061", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_063", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Change Justice Ginsburg's hypothetical a little bit then... so you don't have to pay off all people against whom you..., you were in violation of equal pay but only those people who are now impecunious as a result of your failure to have done that in the past so it has the same future application as this statute.\nWould that be okay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2537.67, 2564.066], "stop_times": [2564.066, 2564.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2537.67}, "reply_to": "20784__1_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20784__1_064", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Um--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2564.867], "stop_times": [2566.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2564.867}, "reply_to": "20784__1_063", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_065", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Those people who would otherwise be on welfare today whom you did not give equal pay 30 years ago.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2566.139], "stop_times": [2572.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2566.139}, "reply_to": "20784__1_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20784__1_066", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--I think under the hypothetical there was no... maybe I misunderstood.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2572.186], "stop_times": [2577.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2572.186}, "reply_to": "20784__1_065", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_067", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "I'm changing it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2577.308], "stop_times": [2577.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2577.308}, "reply_to": "20784__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20784__1_068", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Yes.\nBut there was no legal requirement to pay it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2577.969, 2578.528], "stop_times": [2578.528, 2579.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2577.969}, "reply_to": "20784__1_067", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_069", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Yes.\n30 years ago.\nBut we are adopting the legal requirement today and if anyone is on welfare today because of your failure to pay, give equal pay 30 years ago, you have to take care of their welfare needs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2579.469, 2580.1, 2580.761], "stop_times": [2580.1, 2580.761, 2592.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2579.469}, "reply_to": "20784__1_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20784__1_070", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Again, it would depend on the rationality of it.\nBut that seems to me to be vastly different from this situation.\nThere was an existing collective bargaining relationship that provided accumulated service credits.\nThe employers obtained the benefits of mobility and portability of miners under this during time they were there.\nThey obtained the benefits of mechanization.\nThey obtained the benefits of tradeoffs with, of wages against mechanization and pension benefits.\nThere was an ongoing collective bargaining relationship under which there were lifetime benefits guaranteed, so during the course of the relationship that was present.\nBut if I could go back to the address, Justice Souter has mentioned trustee Owen's statements but another significant point in the record to note is the address by, by Mr. Moody who was the president of the Southern Coal Operator's Association, a member of BCOA in 1953 and this is discussed at page 48 of the fund's brief.\nMr. Moody was making an address in which he identified the problems in the fund that were present at the creation, the promise of benefits and yet pay as you go funding which created an internal problem with the fund from the beginning.\nAnd he said at that time it may well be, it was foreseeable that Congress at some point might have to intervene to assure either regulation of the benefits or to assure the payment of the funds and that's at page 2,000 of the appendix in the Court of Appeals.\nThe people in this industry, the employers, knew from experience that the government, that this was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2592.538, 2596.359, 2599.691, 2604.777, 2610.481, 2612.461, 2619.026, 2627.492, 2648.425, 2660.243, 2675.492], "stop_times": [2596.359, 2599.691, 2604.777, 2610.481, 2612.461, 2619.026, 2627.492, 2648.425, 2660.243, 2675.492, 2680.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2592.538}, "reply_to": "20784__1_069", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_071", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Well, I think, I think clearly it's an area where one might expect Congress to step in as it did with ERISA and provide some multiemployer plans that are specific and provide for funding.\nBut what we are talking about is whether it's reasonable to think they are going to look back 30-some years to impose the liability.\nI mean, that's the shocker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2680.675, 2695.486, 2704.162], "stop_times": [2695.486, 2704.162, 2705.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2680.675}, "reply_to": "20784__1_070", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20784__1_072", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--Well, but, but two things about that.\nIn Turner Elkhorn, an employer's liability for paying black lung benefits to employees could have applied to employment relationships that ended decades earlier.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2705.754, 2708.833], "stop_times": [2708.833, 2719.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2705.754}, "reply_to": "20784__1_071", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_073", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "You have a different situation probably if the employer and the employment was itself the cause of the miner's disease, than when you were talking about general benefits, for instance, spouses and dependents and general health care needs of people unrelated to their service in the mining industry, isn't that a difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2719.18], "stop_times": [2742.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2719.18}, "reply_to": "20784__1_072", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20784__1_074", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "No.\nBut there is a causation element here as well.\nAgain, what we are seeing today, what Congress saw in the early 1990s was the, the consequences of a, of a pattern of conduct and collective bargaining that began in the 1950s with a guarantee of benefits and insufficient funding and the industry made up for that each time, each time it was asked to contribute to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2742.128, 2742.668, 2744.999], "stop_times": [2742.668, 2744.999, 2765.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2742.128}, "reply_to": "20784__1_073", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_075", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "It wasn't a guarantee of benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2765.004], "stop_times": [2766.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2765.004}, "reply_to": "20784__1_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20784__1_076", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "In the terms that they were--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2766.934], "stop_times": [2769.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2766.934}, "reply_to": "20784__1_075", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_077", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "It was a guarantee of a certain amount of funding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2769.445], "stop_times": [2771.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2769.445}, "reply_to": "20784__1_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20784__1_078", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--That's true.\nAgain, the question is not, this is not a contract enforcement action.\nThe question is whether Congress can look to the collective bargaining relationship to define the category of people--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2771.238, 2773.769, 2776.822], "stop_times": [2773.769, 2776.822, 2782.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2771.238}, "reply_to": "20784__1_077", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_079", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "What findings do we have by Congress here that there was a guarantee of benefits?\nDo we have any finding by Congress?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2782.254, 2788.7], "stop_times": [2788.7, 2789.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2782.254}, "reply_to": "20784__1_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20784__1_080", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--Beginning in 1974 it was expressed in the contract.\nThere is no indication that that was a departure and in fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2789.819, 2793.722], "stop_times": [2793.722, 2796.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2789.819}, "reply_to": "20784__1_079", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_081", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "I think Justice Scalia asked did Congress make that finding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2796.514], "stop_times": [2800.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2796.514}, "reply_to": "20784__1_080", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20784__1_082", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--The Act itself doesn't contain the findings but in a due process challenge, the question is whether the facts on which Congress apparently based its action could reasonably be believed to be true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2800.658], "stop_times": [2814.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2800.658}, "reply_to": "20784__1_081", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_083", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "About a Takings challenge and even if there had been in a Takings case a congressional finding that this property belongs to the United States anyway and we are taking it for that reason.\nWould we be bound by that fund?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2814.035, 2824.083], "stop_times": [2824.083, 2826.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2814.035}, "reply_to": "20784__1_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20784__1_084", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Under this Court's Takings jurisprudence there is a vast difference between adjusting the benefits and burdens of economic conduct and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2826.273], "stop_times": [2834.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2826.273}, "reply_to": "20784__1_083", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_085", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "That's a different issue.\nI'm not asking about that issue.\nI'm asking in our takings jurisprudence do we accept findings made by the Congress as to whether the taking is justified or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2834.45, 2835.559, 2837.172], "stop_times": [2835.559, 2837.172, 2846.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2834.45}, "reply_to": "20784__1_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20784__1_086", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--There is some degree of review, but, but, but I think it seems to me hardly irrational for Congress to conclude that over a 50-year course of conduct in an industry of lifetime benefits have in fact been paid that the retirees who worked their entire lives in the mines under such a system in which their fathers and brothers--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2846.138], "stop_times": [2867.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2846.138}, "reply_to": "20784__1_085", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_087", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Congress may have concluded that and it would not be unreasonable for Congress to have concluded that if Congress concluded that.\nWe don't know for sure that Congress concluded that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2867.071, 2872.585], "stop_times": [2872.585, 2874.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2867.071}, "reply_to": "20784__1_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20784__1_088", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--The debates leading up to the passage of this Act show careful attention by Congress as to who within the coal industry should bear the burden and Congress concluded that the burden should not be borne by current coal companies--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2874.756], "stop_times": [2888.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2874.756}, "reply_to": "20784__1_087", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_089", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Why should it just be the coal company?\nLet's suppose, and I think this could be the case, I'm not sure, that the real problem here is the decline in the price in the market for coal, and what happened was the natural gas companies were taking all the business.\nWhy shouldn't the natural gas companies pay this?\nCould, could the Congress say to the national gas companies, because they are, let's assume that they are the ones that are taking all of the profits, they are the ones that should pay the cost for keeping everybody warm until the natural gas industry could develop.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2888.396, 2890.947, 2902.755, 2904.948], "stop_times": [2890.947, 2902.755, 2904.948, 2922.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2888.396}, "reply_to": "20784__1_088", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20784__1_090", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--In terms of a current assessment, Congress could certainly do that.\nA portion of the cost of this is paid--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2922.41, 2925.011], "stop_times": [2925.011, 2927.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2922.41}, "reply_to": "20784__1_089", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_091", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "So you think, you think this case would come out just the same way if the natural gas companies had to pay the liability that we are talking about here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2927.693], "stop_times": [2934.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2927.693}, "reply_to": "20784__1_090", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20784__1_092", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--I was responding to the, to current natural gas companies.\nCongress can impose a tax on a current industry and in fact a major portion of the liability here is paid, was paid for by transfers from the 1950 pension fund and from the abandoned mine fund which were paid for by fees on current mining companies.\nThey pay for the miners who can't be assigned to an employer.\nBut where an employee can be identified with an employer who actually got the fruits of that person's labor who gave him service credits during the employment relationship, who because of that employment relationship was part of a collective bargaining relationship, Congress can look to that relationship to define the category of people among whom the costs should be spread and it's carefully tailored here for pre-1978--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2934.617, 2938.04, 2951.899, 2955.081], "stop_times": [2938.04, 2951.899, 2955.081, 2979.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2934.617}, "reply_to": "20784__1_091", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_093", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "I'm carefully tailoring.\nIs there any exception for companies like the Mary Helen Coal Corporation, one of the briefs spoke about the plight of that company.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2979.127, 2980.489], "stop_times": [2980.489, 2988.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2979.127}, "reply_to": "20784__1_092", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20784__1_094", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--There is not, but it is not uncommon to have for generally applicable statute to take the company as it finds it with respect to its economic viability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2988.894], "stop_times": [2998.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2988.894}, "reply_to": "20784__1_093", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20784__1_095", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Kneedler.\nMr. Buscemi.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [2998.381, 2999.931], "stop_times": [2999.931, 3001.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2998.381}, "reply_to": "20784__1_094", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20784__2_000", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nMay it please the Court.\nI'm here on behalf of the trustees of the Combined Benefit Fund and the beneficiaries for whom they are fiduciaries.\nI think it's easy in the midst of the argument here to lose sight of the human dimension of this problem.\nThat's the dimension that Congress focused on when it acted in 1992.\nCongress faced an imminent crisis.\nThe collective bargaining agreement that was in force at the time Congress acted had less than four months to run and at the end of that collective bargaining agreement the employers who had signed that collective bargaining agreement like Eastern, like the other employers that have submitted briefs to the Court could have made the very same argument.\nThey could have said that our obligation to contribute was for the term of this agreement.\nNow, let me make sure that we are clear on what the historical record was.\nThe historical record was that in 1946 President Truman seized the mines.\nThe secretary of the interior and the union negotiated collective bargaining agreement.\nFrom that time forward, there were health care benefits provided for miners, spouses, dependents in the coal industry funded by contributions by the employers.\nThat continued year after year after year for almost 50 years by the time Congress acted.\nIn 1974, for the first time, the collective bargaining agreement made a specific reference to beneficiaries retaining a health services card until death or for life.\nIn 1978, there were further changes in the collective bargaining agreement and now, although the collective bargaining agreement prescribed specific contribution amounts per time or per hour, the employers were given the right to increase those contribution amounts as needed to guarantee the benefits that were specified in the contract.\nSo by the time Congress acted in 1992, we had been under a regime for the last 14 years in which there had been a specific set of guaranteed benefits.\nNow, Mr. Montgomery's client, Eastern, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Eastern Associated, signed not one, not two, but three collective bargaining agreements that guaranteed these benefits--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [3001.434, 3010.359, 3011.249, 3017.822, 3023.546, 3027.63, 3031.711, 3052.495, 3057.77, 3063.514, 3068.596, 3073.439, 3083.847, 3091.541, 3105.178, 3128.474, 3138.711], "stop_times": [3010.359, 3011.249, 3017.822, 3023.546, 3027.63, 3031.711, 3052.495, 3057.77, 3063.514, 3068.596, 3073.439, 3083.847, 3091.541, 3105.178, 3128.474, 3138.711, 3153.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3001.434}, "reply_to": "20784__1_095", "speaker": "peter_buscemi"}
{"id": "20784__2_001", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "But excuse me.\nThe liability here was not imposed on the basis of the fact that this was the parent company of a company that had signed the later agreement.\nThat's not the basis for the imposition of a liability at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [3153.691, 3154.492, 3165.319], "stop_times": [3154.492, 3165.319, 3168.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3153.691}, "reply_to": "20784__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20784__2_002", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--Your Honor, all I'm saying is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [3168.752], "stop_times": [3171.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3168.752}, "reply_to": "20784__2_001", "speaker": "peter_buscemi"}
{"id": "20784__2_003", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "That's an irrelevant fact as far as this statute is concerned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [3171.173], "stop_times": [3173.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3171.173}, "reply_to": "20784__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20784__2_004", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--Well, I would not agree with that, Your Honor, with all respect.\nI would think that when the Court looks at the reasonableness of what Congress has done under this deferential standard of review that looking at the situation with respect to the particular Petitioner before the Court is what the Court has traditionally done and it is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [3173.915, 3175.905], "stop_times": [3175.905, 3191.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3173.915}, "reply_to": "20784__2_003", "speaker": "peter_buscemi"}
{"id": "20784__2_005", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "We look at those aspects of the situation that Congress took into account and made the basis of liability.\nThe fact that this was the parent of a subsidiary that is liable for some other things was not the basis of liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [3191.485, 3197.47], "stop_times": [3197.47, 3204.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3191.485}, "reply_to": "20784__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20784__2_006", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--Well, with respect, Your Honor, I think that this Court has said repeatedly, this Court in reviewing the Constitutionality of legislation may take into account not only what the legislative record may reveal about what Congress actually thought or what some members of Congress actually thought but also what they reasonably could have thought.\nIn fact, the Court has said repeatedly that there is no obligation for Congress to build a legislative record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [3204.586, 3222.106], "stop_times": [3222.106, 3227.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3204.586}, "reply_to": "20784__2_005", "speaker": "peter_buscemi"}
{"id": "20784__2_007", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "What holding, what holding, what holding do you want us to make if the case comes before us where there is no subsidiary relationship?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [3227.94], "stop_times": [3235.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3227.94}, "reply_to": "20784__2_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20784__2_008", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Well, Your Honor, we think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [3235.023], "stop_times": [3236.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3235.023}, "reply_to": "20784__2_007", "speaker": "peter_buscemi"}
{"id": "20784__2_009", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "The Mary Hill mine, I think, was mentioned.\nMaybe I have the name wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [3236.966, 3239.417], "stop_times": [3239.417, 3240.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3236.966}, "reply_to": "20784__2_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20784__2_010", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--Yes, Mary Helen is a case that's pending right now in the Fourth Circuit and the statute has been sustained with respect to Mary Helen by the district court in that case and we think it should be sustained with respect to Mary Helen but that's not the case before this Court.\nMary Helen is a company that was in business for some 45 years.\nThey have a small number of retirees who are still in this plan and they are the ones who employed those retirees for long, for the longest and none of those retirees ever worked for any company that signed the '78 or later agreement.\nOne of the things that has been missed here, I think, is that Congress has set forth a very detailed scheme in which they have placed the lion's share of the burden on those companies that were the signatories to the '88 agreement, the collective bargaining agreement that was in force at the time that the statute was passed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [3240.978, 3254.247, 3260.131, 3274.991], "stop_times": [3254.247, 3260.131, 3274.991, 3293.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3240.978}, "reply_to": "20784__2_009", "speaker": "peter_buscemi"}
{"id": "20784__2_011", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "What is the factual circumstance?\nThat is, I take in your argument that basically in respect to this company, even though it isn't a veil piercing statute, the only extent to which it's unfair to them involves the subsidiary.\nIt's a question of fairness.\nNow, suppose you take that out of it?\nHow many... are there a lot of companies?\nIs there a lot of liability going on here as a practical matter involving companies just like them that where there is no subsidiary relation so that we would have to face this case, the same question later?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [3293.374, 3297.845, 3310.594, 3312.224, 3313.926, 3316.578], "stop_times": [3297.845, 3310.594, 3312.224, 3313.926, 3316.578, 3327.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3293.374}, "reply_to": "20784__2_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20784__2_012", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Your Honor, the most recent statistics as of the beginning of the current fiscal year are as follows.\nThere are currently 76,933 beneficiaries in the Combined Benefit Fund.\nOf those 76,933, 20 percent, 15,469 are unassigned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [3327.365, 3333.078, 3339.863], "stop_times": [3333.078, 3339.863, 3348.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3327.365}, "reply_to": "20784__2_011", "speaker": "peter_buscemi"}
{"id": "20784__2_013", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "How many?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [3348.138], "stop_times": [3349.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3348.138}, "reply_to": "20784__2_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20784__2_014", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "15,469, 20.1 percent.\n6,628 or 8.6 percent are assigned to companies that did not sign the 1978 or later NBCWA.\nAnd I might say that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [3349.9, 3353.922, 3368.351], "stop_times": [3353.922, 3368.351, 3370.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3349.9}, "reply_to": "20784__2_013", "speaker": "peter_buscemi"}
{"id": "20784__2_015", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Congress could probably afford to take care of them out of general funds, wouldn't you think?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [3370.753], "stop_times": [3376.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3370.753}, "reply_to": "20784__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20784__2_016", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, the possibility of alternative funding is not,... I mean, sure, the health care costs for 6,628 people could be paid for, I suspect, out of the Treasury.\nBut there are competing demands, as Your Honor is aware, for that money.\nAnd Congress... one of the things that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [3376.328, 3387.484, 3391.175], "stop_times": [3387.484, 3391.175, 3396.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3376.328}, "reply_to": "20784__2_015", "speaker": "peter_buscemi"}
{"id": "20784__2_017", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "6,628 are assigned to companies like Eastern but that have no subsidiary that was in the business after '78?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [3396.23], "stop_times": [3404.866], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3396.23}, "reply_to": "20784__2_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20784__2_018", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--That's right.\nAnd that includes, I should say that includes the 1,332 because that includes the 1,332 that Eastern has because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [3404.866, 3405.377], "stop_times": [3405.377, 3413.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3404.866}, "reply_to": "20784__2_017", "speaker": "peter_buscemi"}
{"id": "20784__2_019", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "But Eastern had a subsidiary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [3413.243], "stop_times": [3415.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3413.243}, "reply_to": "20784__2_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20784__2_020", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "--Eastern had a subsidiary but when the funds list Eastern because of the point that Justice Scalia made, we list Eastern in the pre-'78 group.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [3415.535], "stop_times": [3424.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3415.535}, "reply_to": "20784__2_019", "speaker": "peter_buscemi"}
{"id": "20784__2_021", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "What I'm trying to think of is the practical effect because if you were to win the case on the alternate ground involving the subsidiary whether in fact that would leave a lot of the miners, let's say, out in the cold.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [3424.13], "stop_times": [3435.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3424.13}, "reply_to": "20784__2_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20784__2_022", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "It would be about 5,000 beneficiaries out of the 76,000 that would still be left that have been assigned to pre-'78 signatories.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [3435.367], "stop_times": [3442.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3435.367}, "reply_to": "20784__2_021", "speaker": "peter_buscemi"}
{"id": "20784__2_023", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Who are not subsidiaries, or who don't have subsidiaries?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [3442.963], "stop_times": [3448.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3442.963}, "reply_to": "20784__2_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20784__2_024", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nOne of the things that we sort of have overlooked here is what situation Congress considered.\nCongress didn't just think about this alternative.\nCongress thought about leaving it to collective bargaining.\nThat they recognized wasn't going to work because the people weren't around.\nWe have less than half of the beneficiaries who are assigned to people who were signatories to the current agreement.\nCongress thought about just imposing the liability on the '78 or later signatories.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [3448.427, 3448.997, 3457.112, 3459.243, 3462.986, 3467.199, 3472.373], "stop_times": [3448.997, 3457.112, 3459.243, 3462.986, 3467.199, 3472.373, 3478.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3448.427}, "reply_to": "20784__2_023", "speaker": "peter_buscemi"}
{"id": "20784__2_025", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Well, Congress actually passed a bill that didn't have this reach back provision in it but it was vetoed, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [3478.386], "stop_times": [3485.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3478.386}, "reply_to": "20784__2_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20784__2_026", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [3485.673], "stop_times": [3486.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3485.673}, "reply_to": "20784__2_025", "speaker": "peter_buscemi"}
{"id": "20784__2_027", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "So then they put in the reach back thing that we are talking about now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [3486.622], "stop_times": [3491.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3486.622}, "reply_to": "20784__2_026", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20784__2_028", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "The bill was a little different, Justice O'Connor, the bill had two features.\nWith respect to those beneficiaries who could be assigned to former employers that had signed the '78 or later agreement, those former employers had to pay.\nWith respect to the beneficiaries who could not be assigned either because they had no former employer in business or because it was all pre-1978, there was a fee imposed across the board on the industry as a whole whether or not there was any relationship to the collective bargain multiemployer system, and that bill was part of a larger bill, an omnibus tax bill, that was vetoed, and of course we don't know precisely why it was vetoed.\nWe do know that there was nothing in the veto message that specified any objection to that particular bill.\nCongress made the decision to impose this liability on all NBCWA signatories and as I understand the argument here, Petitioner says that any of these decisions that Congress might have made would have been fine except for the one that they did make.\nThey could have imposed it on the taxpayers, they could have imposed it on the coal industry.\nThey could have imposed it only on the '78 or later signatories.\nThey could have imposed it on the '88 signatories.\nAll of that would have been fine.\nJust this particular choice is not fine, and with all respect, I think that ignores the nature of this multiemployer system.\nAs the Second Circuit said in upholding the statute in the LTV case, this system contained this latent problem or what the Court of Appeals called the latent loophole from the beginning because as employers like Eastern accorded their beneficiaries service credits and built up that 20 years that you needed to get the health care, those, and beneficiaries were accumulating and they were staying around but some of the employers were leaving and that was the problem that was inherent in the system.\nThank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [3491.046, 3493.617, 3504.076, 3534.684, 3540.118, 3557.919, 3562.403, 3565.244, 3567.686, 3569.108, 3576.302, 3606.632], "stop_times": [3493.617, 3504.076, 3534.684, 3540.118, 3557.919, 3562.403, 3565.244, 3567.686, 3569.108, 3576.302, 3606.632, 3607.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3491.046}, "reply_to": "20784__2_027", "speaker": "peter_buscemi"}
{"id": "20784__2_029", "conversation_id": "20784", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Buscemi.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-42", "start_times": [3607.753, 3608.795], "stop_times": [3608.795, 3610.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3607.753}, "reply_to": "20784__2_028", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20649__0_000", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "We'll hear argument this afternoon in Number 96-8732, Vincent Edwards, et al., v. United States.\nMr. Shobat.\nAm I pronouncing your name correctly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [0.0, 9.316, 10.568], "stop_times": [9.316, 10.568, 11.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20649__0_001", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [11.968], "stop_times": [13.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 11.968}, "reply_to": "20649__0_000", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_002", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [13.04], "stop_times": [14.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 13.04}, "reply_to": "20649__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20649__0_003", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nThe ambiguous general verdicts returned in this case cannot support the sentencing court's finding that the conspiracy embraced both objectives charged in this dual object conspiracy, the two objectives being the distribution of powder cocaine and the distribution of crack cocaine, and they cannot be for four reasons.\nFirst, Congress required the jury to determine the type of drug involved in the drug conspiracy before sentence could be imposed upon that object.\nSecond, the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to a jury determination of all the essential elements of a conspiracy requires the jury to determine what the object of the offense was, and particular to the type of drug.\nThird, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not permit punishment to be imposed in excess of the statutory maximum provided by Congress and, finally, nothing in the Sentencing Guidelines, to the extent that they ever could, undermines these principles.\nWith respect to what Congress intended, it's clear that in enacting section 846 Congress wanted to fix the maximum punishment available to a person convicted of that section to the offense, the object of which the conspiracy was intending to accomplish.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [14.332, 19.575, 41.049, 50.193, 63.943, 82.145], "stop_times": [19.575, 41.049, 50.193, 63.943, 82.145, 100.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 14.332}, "reply_to": "20649__0_002", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_004", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Mr. Shobat, does your argument depend on finding that both the type and the quantity of drugs are elements of the section 846 conspiracy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [100.288], "stop_times": [112.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 100.288}, "reply_to": "20649__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20649__0_005", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "No, Your Honor, it does not.\nIt's clear that Congress, in listing the various different factors in section 841(b), intended that some of them be elements of the offense and some of them not be.\nCongress made it explicitly clear in enacting section 851 that the existence of a prior conviction was one of the factors listed in 841(b) that should not be considered by the jury, and it did so by removing it from the jury's consideration, placing it in a separate statutory provision, and saying that the judge should make that determination.\nIt is also clear that, in considering whether or not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [112.664, 114.847, 126.045, 146.316], "stop_times": [114.847, 126.045, 146.316, 150.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 112.664}, "reply_to": "20649__0_004", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_006", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Where is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [150.72], "stop_times": [151.449], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 150.72}, "reply_to": "20649__0_005", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20649__0_007", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--Section 851, Your Honor?\nSection 851--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [151.449, 154.361], "stop_times": [154.361, 155.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 151.449}, "reply_to": "20649__0_006", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_008", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "You say by placing it in 851 rather than as one of the subsections of 841, you say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [155.934], "stop_times": [161.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 155.934}, "reply_to": "20649__0_007", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20649__0_009", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--Yes.\nBy removing it from the subsection of 841(b) and placing it in a separate statutory provision, and then having the judge, not the jury, determine... and interestingly, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [161.599, 161.8], "stop_times": [161.8, 172.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 161.599}, "reply_to": "20649__0_008", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_010", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Do you have 851 in your appendix?\nI don't think you do, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [172.596, 174.707], "stop_times": [174.707, 175.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 172.596}, "reply_to": "20649__0_009", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20649__0_011", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--I'm... I don't... I'm not sure that it is in the appendix, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [175.999], "stop_times": [179.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 175.999}, "reply_to": "20649__0_010", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_012", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [179.599], "stop_times": [180.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 179.599}, "reply_to": "20649__0_011", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20649__0_013", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "But it did remove that consideration from the jury.\nWhat it did not remove were the type of drugs and the quantity, but it is not necessary that those be treated identically for purposes of an 846 conspiracy, and there are several reasons for that.\nFirst, Congress could well have intended that a conspiracy to commit a specific objective, which is an inchoate offense which does not require the completion of the object of the conspiracy and has separate elements from an 841(a) conspiracy to embrace a more specific object than would, say, an ordinary 841(a)(1) violation of possession, or a distribution.\nIn addition--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [180.1, 183.973, 199.895, 226.432], "stop_times": [183.973, 199.895, 226.432, 228.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 180.1}, "reply_to": "20649__0_012", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_014", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "I don't understand what you just said.\nDo you want to say it again?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [228.823, 230.413], "stop_times": [230.413, 231.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 228.823}, "reply_to": "20649__0_013", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20649__0_015", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nA conspiracy offense under 846 is an inchoate offense and therefore the only two elements that the Government need satisfy beyond a reasonable doubt for an 846 offense is that a conspiracy with a particular objective exists and that a particular defendant that was being considered by the jury be a member of that conspiracy.\nIn many conspiracies there are no actual drugs involved, very typically, in the case in which the agents pose as the sellers of drugs and they engage in negotiations and discussions with respective buyers and then a seizure or a bust takes place, an arrest at a planned exchange of drugs for money, and there is, in fact no actual controlled substance.\nIn that case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [231.715, 232.907, 254.92, 276.655], "stop_times": [232.907, 254.92, 276.655, 278.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 231.715}, "reply_to": "20649__0_014", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_016", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Well, surely there's an attempt to buy a particular... I mean, are these drug dealers that stupid that they don't contract to buy a particular substance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [278.165], "stop_times": [286.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 278.165}, "reply_to": "20649__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__0_017", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--Not at all.\nNot at all, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [286.48, 287.922], "stop_times": [287.922, 288.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 286.48}, "reply_to": "20649__0_016", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_018", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Well, that would be the conspiracy then, wouldn't it, in substance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [288.753], "stop_times": [290.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 288.753}, "reply_to": "20649__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__0_019", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Absolutely, it would be a conspiracy conviction, but now the question becomes, what maximum penalty did Congress provide for that conspiracy, and the answer to that question is, what was their conspiratorial objective.\nThat's what Congress expressly says in section 846, punish persons who agree to commit a very specific object as if they had committed that object, and in the case of the type of drug, that specific... excuse me.\nIn the case of a distribution offense, that specific offense is only knowable by reference to the specific type of drug.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [290.364, 301.159, 315.801], "stop_times": [301.159, 315.801, 324.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 290.364}, "reply_to": "20649__0_018", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_020", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "But why not an amount as well, since there's such a--\n--Right.\nSo much turns on amount.\nWhy does it turn on the type of drug more or less than the amount of the drug?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [324.424, 328.127, 328.377, 330.118], "stop_times": [328.127, 328.377, 330.118, 335.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 324.424}, "reply_to": "20649__0_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20649__0_021", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Your Honor, it can be and, in fact, it's not squarely raised in this case, but we would submit that quantity could be considered an element by Congress.\nCongress could have intended it to be an element, but it isn't necessarily the case.\nThat question isn't squarely presented, we believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [335.613, 348.49, 352.964], "stop_times": [348.49, 352.964, 355.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 335.613}, "reply_to": "20649__0_020", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_022", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "You're saying, type of drug is an element of the offense, but amount of drug is not an element of the offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [355.636], "stop_times": [362.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 355.636}, "reply_to": "20649__0_021", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20649__0_023", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--Justice Breyer, we're not saying definitively that it is not an element of the offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [362.649], "stop_times": [367.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 362.649}, "reply_to": "20649__0_022", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_024", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Are you... well, what is the argument?\nIs the argument--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [367.684, 368.804], "stop_times": [368.804, 369.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 367.684}, "reply_to": "20649__0_023", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20649__0_025", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "The argument is that it might be an element of the offence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [369.394], "stop_times": [371.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 369.394}, "reply_to": "20649__0_024", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_026", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [371.537], "stop_times": [371.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 371.537}, "reply_to": "20649__0_025", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20649__0_027", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "We believe that it is.\nHowever--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [371.646, 373.278], "stop_times": [373.278, 374.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 371.646}, "reply_to": "20649__0_026", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_028", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--You believe that amount is as well?\nSo in other words, we have a big list in 841(b) of penalties, and the penalties vary, sometimes dramatically, depending upon the amount of the drug and depending upon what kind of drug and, as you said recidivism, which is treated specially.\nAll right.\nNow, your point is that jury has to find type and probably amount.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [374.029, 376.28, 389.817, 390.278], "stop_times": [376.28, 389.817, 390.278, 399.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 374.029}, "reply_to": "20649__0_027", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20649__0_029", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--Yes.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [399.064, 400.526], "stop_times": [400.526, 401.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 399.064}, "reply_to": "20649__0_028", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_030", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "The difficulty with doing that is, why does it have to find it, because Congress intended it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [401.027], "stop_times": [405.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 401.027}, "reply_to": "20649__0_029", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20649__0_031", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Because Congress intended it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [405.268], "stop_times": [407.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 405.268}, "reply_to": "20649__0_030", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_032", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Why would Congress have intended the following: a person is accused, for example, of possessing with intent to distribute more than one... more than... between 5 and 10 kilograms of heroin, let's say, and the person's defense is, I wasn't there.\nI was in Chicago.\nIs he supposed to make the alternative defense, oh, by the way, if I was there, it was only 1/2 a kilo?\nI mean, why would we ask a jury to decide that kind of thing?\nWhy would we want to put a defendant in that kind of position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [407.048, 423.59, 424.699, 431.274, 437.769], "stop_times": [423.59, 424.699, 431.274, 437.769, 440.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 407.048}, "reply_to": "20649__0_031", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20649__0_033", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Your Honor, I suppose there are two answers to that question.\nThe first is, the question becomes, what is the appropriate punishment for an individual like that who had that agreement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [440.273, 445.536], "stop_times": [445.536, 452.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 440.273}, "reply_to": "20649__0_032", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_034", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "And that's why I would think that 841(b) includes punishment factors, and if it is supposed to be punishment factors there's no problem for the defendant, and if it's supposed to be punishment factors in respect to amounts, I don't see how you could distinguish why it shouldn't be punishment factors in respect to type.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [452.021], "stop_times": [470.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 452.021}, "reply_to": "20649__0_033", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20649__0_035", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "One of the ways that we attempt to distinguish it, Justice Breyer, is to note that as part of the 841(a)(1) elements the jury is asked to conclude that the substance being agreed to be distributed or manufactured under an 841(a)(1) and 846 offense, the jury is going down the road of determining and must determine that the agreement impacted a controlled substance.\nNow, not every substance is a controlled substance, so the jury must make a decision, a finding, that the particular substance contemplated in 846 was one of the substances listed in section (a)(12).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [470.74, 493.886], "stop_times": [493.886, 504.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 470.74}, "reply_to": "20649__0_034", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_036", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "When you say finding you're not talking about a special verdict, you're just talking about a finding in its deliberative process that results in a verdict of guilty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [504.444], "stop_times": [512.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 504.444}, "reply_to": "20649__0_035", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20649__0_037", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "That's correct, Mr. Chief Justice.\nThey are asking themselves, was there an agreement to distribute a controlled substance?\nTo know that, that this is not salt or sugar, they must come to the view that it's one of those substances under (a)(12), at least that that was contemplated in this conspiracy.\nThat means that the jury is already going down that road in determining what the substance is.\nWe think that's distinguishable--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [512.839, 515.681, 519.124, 529.68, 535.284], "stop_times": [515.681, 519.124, 529.68, 535.284, 537.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 512.839}, "reply_to": "20649__0_036", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_038", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "All the jury perhaps has to determine is that it was a controlled substance, but not a specific type or amount.\nI mean, that's possible under the structure of the statutes, it seems to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [537.016, 544.989], "stop_times": [544.989, 548.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 537.016}, "reply_to": "20649__0_037", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20649__0_039", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--That's possible Justice O'Connor, but in concluding that it is a controlled substance, they are concluding that it is one of the substances identified in section (a)(12), which lists all the controlled substances there can be, and so they're making that finding.\nThey may not come out and say, we find it was cocaine, or we find it was heroin, but they are saying we find it was a controlled substance, and therefore--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [548.211, 563.402], "stop_times": [563.402, 572.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 548.211}, "reply_to": "20649__0_038", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_040", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "It means that there's been a violation of the statute, and then perhaps the punishment is up to the sentencing authority, the judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [572.699], "stop_times": [579.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 572.699}, "reply_to": "20649__0_039", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20649__0_041", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--We submit, Your Honor, that the jury going down that road to make that finding, Congress made clear that that's the kind of finding that the jury should make, and that the jury must make, and not leave it solely to the sentencing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [579.621], "stop_times": [594.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 579.621}, "reply_to": "20649__0_040", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_042", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "But ordinarily a finding in terms of the statute is perfectly sufficient, isn't it?\nHere 841 says, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to manufacture, dispute or... distribute or possess a controlled substance.\nSo isn't it... one would think that a verdict that says, guilty of 841, or guilty of possessing or conspiring to distribute a controlled substance, would be sufficient for the guilt element.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [594.762, 600.776, 611.993], "stop_times": [600.776, 611.993, 624.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 594.762}, "reply_to": "20649__0_041", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20649__0_043", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--Mr. Chief Justice, we don't believe that that is sufficient, that particularly in a case such as this, where the Government charges not just any controlled substance but a very specific controlled substance, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [624.532], "stop_times": [637.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 624.532}, "reply_to": "20649__0_042", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_044", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "You think it would have been okay if the Government just charged a controlled substance generally and left itself free to prove any number of other things?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [637.3], "stop_times": [644.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 637.3}, "reply_to": "20649__0_043", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20649__0_045", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--I think that it would be permissible for the Government to have charged simply a controlled substance, but I think it would have additional problems of its own.\nThat is to say, I think there might be a case in which it's not exactly clear whether which of the controlled substances a particular defendant conspired to, and in that case the Government might not want to commit that it was particularly heroin, or a jury might be able to conclude, well, I think it was heroin, or I believe beyond a reasonable doubt it was heroin, I believe beyond a reasonable doubt it was cocaine, I'm not sure whether it was marijuana.\nUnder the instructions that the judge gives me, I must find this individual guilty.\nSo that in this case, the jurors could have decided that these individuals conspired to distribute crack cocaine, or they might have decided that they distributed powder cocaine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [644.474, 654.291, 678.998, 684.101], "stop_times": [654.291, 678.998, 684.101, 695.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 644.474}, "reply_to": "20649__0_044", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_046", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Well, regardless, wouldn't evidence, if there was such, showing there was some involvement with cocaine base, be factored in as relevant conduct under the guidelines?\nI don't see how the sentences would change in any event.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [695.439, 707.166], "stop_times": [707.166, 710.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 695.439}, "reply_to": "20649__0_045", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20649__0_047", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Justice O'Connor, they would change in the... for a number of significant reasons.\nFirst of all, the statutory penalty is not based on a consideration of the guidelines or relevant conduct, but it's based on what was the agreement, what was the offense of conviction, so that if the offense of conviction were--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [710.398, 714.642], "stop_times": [714.642, 727.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 710.398}, "reply_to": "20649__0_046", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_048", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Well, the offense was a conspiracy to possess and/or distribute a controlled substance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [727.158], "stop_times": [733.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 727.158}, "reply_to": "20649__0_047", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20649__0_049", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--That's not the offense that was charged in this case, and we would submit that to know what the statutory maximum penalty is, that there needs to be a determination as to the type of drug.\nAfter all, the differential in the punishment between the two objects was 100 to 1.\n100 grams of powder cocaine is treated equivalently under the guidelines... excuse me, under the statutory penalty as the same as 1 gram of crack cocaine, and that was why the particular problem that arises in this case is especially important, depending on which objective--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [733.873, 747.721, 753.076], "stop_times": [747.721, 753.076, 771.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 733.873}, "reply_to": "20649__0_048", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_050", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "What was the difference in the maximum sentence that could be imposed under the one or under the other?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [771.159], "stop_times": [775.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 771.159}, "reply_to": "20649__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__0_051", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--That's a very difficult question to answer, Justice Scalia, because the indictment in this case charged no specific threshold quantity in terms of giving us notice as to the particular drug.\nUnder the indictment... the Government suggests in its brief that we should just simply look at the indictment and look at the statute, and that's how we know our maximum penalty.\nIf that's in fact the standard, looking at this indictment, in which there's no specific quantity or threshold quantity even alleged, no reference to any subsection under 841(b), the maximum penalty is 20 years for that type of offense and when there's a schedule 1 or schedule 2 narcotic involved, so the maximum penalty would be 20 years.\nBut what happened in this case is that at sentencing the judge made some findings with regard to a different sort of conspiracy, that is, one which embraced both the crack cocaine and the powder cocaine, made specific findings about exact amounts, of type of drug, and quantity, and determined that with respect to some of the petitioners the maximum was life imprisonment, but with respect to other petitioners the maximum was 40 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [775.581, 787.128, 795.453, 815.616], "stop_times": [787.128, 795.453, 815.616, 840.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 775.581}, "reply_to": "20649__0_050", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_052", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "So what you're saying is, if it was powder cocaine it was... the maximum was 20, and if it was crack, the maximum was 100?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [840.673], "stop_times": [847.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 840.673}, "reply_to": "20649__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__0_053", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Well, if it was crack the maximum would also be 20 if the sole basis for determining the maximum punishment is to look at the indictment and to read the statute.\nThat's what the Government says you should do, but in reality, what the district court did was not simply look at the indictment.\nWhat the district court said is, quantity determinations are mine to make, and so once I make these quantity determinations, that alters the maximum penalties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [847.789, 857.885, 864.43], "stop_times": [857.885, 864.43, 873.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 847.789}, "reply_to": "20649__0_052", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_054", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Well, of course, I guess conspiracy is a completed offense even before the drugs are actually purchased.\nSuppose the conspiracy is... the conspirators are apprehended before they effected the buy.\nHow does the judge determine the sentence in that case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [873.966, 880.619, 888.054], "stop_times": [880.619, 888.054, 893.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 873.966}, "reply_to": "20649__0_053", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20649__0_055", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "What the judge must do in that case is first determine what the statutory penalty is.\nIt first must say to itself, what was the offense of conviction, and once it determines that... let's say there were negotiations, recorded conversations, and it appeared that the person was trying to acquire 5 kilograms of crack.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [893.267, 898.75], "stop_times": [898.75, 911.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 893.267}, "reply_to": "20649__0_054", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_056", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "My hypothetical is, they're not sure.\nThey want to just acquire some... how much do you have +/?\nand then they're apprehended.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [911.889, 913.469, 916.011], "stop_times": [913.469, 916.011, 917.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 911.889}, "reply_to": "20649__0_055", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20649__0_057", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "In that case, the only way that a sentencing judge could determine what the maximum penalty would be, first under the statute is to make a finding as to what the amount was, or at least what the threshold amount was.\nThat is, was it more than 50--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [917.072, 931.372], "stop_times": [931.372, 933.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 917.072}, "reply_to": "20649__0_056", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_058", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "He can't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [933.285], "stop_times": [933.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 933.285}, "reply_to": "20649__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__0_059", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--was it more than 5 kilos--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [933.825], "stop_times": [934.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 933.825}, "reply_to": "20649__0_058", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_060", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "He can't.\nThey haven't gone far enough in the negotiations.\nI assume then he would have to use whatever the minimum is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [934.445, 934.635, 936.768], "stop_times": [934.635, 936.768, 939.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 934.445}, "reply_to": "20649__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__0_061", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--In the event the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [939.79], "stop_times": [941.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 939.79}, "reply_to": "20649__0_060", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_062", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "The most he can say is that there was some transaction, but I can't say that there's enough to kick it over into any punishment higher than the minimum.\nIsn't that your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [941.142, 947.026], "stop_times": [947.026, 947.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 941.142}, "reply_to": "20649__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__0_063", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--In--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [947.997], "stop_times": [948.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 947.997}, "reply_to": "20649__0_062", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_064", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "If you don't know, the minimum is what governs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [948.796], "stop_times": [950.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 948.796}, "reply_to": "20649__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__0_065", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--Exactly, and it also depends, then, on the type of drug, and if he doesn't know the type of drug, then there is absolutely--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [950.729], "stop_times": [957.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 950.729}, "reply_to": "20649__0_064", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_066", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "The same thing.\nIf you don't know, you assume it's the one that's punished the least severely.\nIs your argument... it can't be about... the indictment says these particular people conspired to distribute, to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, and they also conspired with intent... possessed with intent to distribute cocaine base... crack.\nThere's 26 very specific paragraphs, and it says that violated 846 and 841.\nSo the person, to get the penalty, would look up 846 and look up 841, and he'll see the big list, and there's a big list of maximums.\nThere's nothing wrong with that, is there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [957.731, 958.062, 961.044, 980.048, 985.982, 993.206], "stop_times": [958.062, 961.044, 980.048, 985.982, 993.206, 995.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 957.731}, "reply_to": "20649__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__0_067", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--Well, there's nothing wrong with that if he knows what the threshold quantity is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [995.219], "stop_times": [999.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 995.219}, "reply_to": "20649__0_066", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_068", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "No.\nThat's true of every instance of guideline sentencing, and it's true of every instance in which Congress has passed a statute that increases maximum penalties for what is called a sentencing factor.\nAm I right that you must be complaining about one or about the other?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [999.87, 1000.16, 1012.79], "stop_times": [1000.16, 1012.79, 1016.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 999.87}, "reply_to": "20649__0_067", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20649__0_069", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "I don't believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1016.783], "stop_times": [1018.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1016.783}, "reply_to": "20649__0_068", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_070", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "All right.\nThen I'm not sure what your argument--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1018.546, 1018.984], "stop_times": [1018.984, 1019.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1018.546}, "reply_to": "20649__0_069", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20649__0_071", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--that you're exactly correct, because in this statute, under this specific statute the statutory maximum changes based on not only the type of drug but the threshold quantity of drugs involved in the offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1019.956], "stop_times": [1032.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1019.956}, "reply_to": "20649__0_070", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_072", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--That's true of every instance in which Congress increases a penalty for what they call a sentencing factor.\nAm I right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1032.434, 1038.428], "stop_times": [1038.428, 1039.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1032.434}, "reply_to": "20649__0_071", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20649__0_073", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "That the possible... generally most of them fall within a statutory maximum.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1039.988], "stop_times": [1045.271], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1039.988}, "reply_to": "20649__0_072", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_074", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "But sometimes Congress passes a statute... drugs, immigration... you know, where they say, if you've done X in committing the crime, the maximum goes from 2 years to 20 years, or from... so you're complaining about all those, is that right, or is there something special here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1045.271], "stop_times": [1060.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1045.271}, "reply_to": "20649__0_073", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20649__0_075", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "We're complaining about that, but we're also complaining about the particular charge in this case and the way the jury was instructed, because what we don't know is what the offense of conviction was.\nWe don't know whether this jury determined... because the jury was instructed that it could find either powder cocaine or crack cocaine as an objective and, given that instruction, we don't know whether the jury found that this was a powder cocaine conspiracy, a crack cocaine conspiracy, or perhaps both.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1060.021, 1071.09], "stop_times": [1071.09, 1087.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1060.021}, "reply_to": "20649__0_074", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_076", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "And of course, it made no finding whatsoever on quantity, so you don't know that, either--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1087.75], "stop_times": [1091.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1087.75}, "reply_to": "20649__0_075", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20649__0_077", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "We don't know that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1091.063], "stop_times": [1091.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1091.063}, "reply_to": "20649__0_076", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_078", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--as far as the jury is concerned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1091.894], "stop_times": [1093.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1091.894}, "reply_to": "20649__0_077", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20649__0_079", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "We don't know that.\nAll the findings that happened that fixed the sentencing occurred right on the eve of sentencing, during the sentencing process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1093.313, 1093.623], "stop_times": [1093.623, 1100.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1093.313}, "reply_to": "20649__0_078", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_080", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "I didn't do the math, but I... is it correct that if you draw this distinction between type of drug and quantity of drug, and you win your argument, and the Court says yes, the jury must make the determination on type of drug, is it necessarily the case that all of these sentences would, in fact, have to be... have to be vacated, given the fact that you let the judge make the quantity determination?\nI guess my question is, did the judge make a quantity determination even with respect to the lesser of the two drugs that would support the sentences, or the ranges within which he's sentenced?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1100.939, 1136.052], "stop_times": [1136.052, 1147.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1100.939}, "reply_to": "20649__0_079", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20649__0_081", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "I think that the answer to that question is yes, that it would necessarily affect some of the petitioners.\nEach of the five petitioners--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1147.58, 1156.265], "stop_times": [1156.265, 1157.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1147.58}, "reply_to": "20649__0_080", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_082", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Some but not all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1157.705], "stop_times": [1158.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1157.705}, "reply_to": "20649__0_081", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20649__0_083", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--Some but not all, and it would necessarily affect all of them in determining first what the statutory maximum penalty is.\nRemember that the sentencing judge utilized the Sentencing Guidelines and said, here's what I conclude everybody is held accountable for.\nConsidering that the offensive conviction embraced both objectives, his findings as to what was relevant conduct or what amounts should be attributable would be vastly different if he were to analyze this from the question of what... if the conviction was merely a powder cocaine conspiracy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1158.466, 1164.991, 1173.366], "stop_times": [1164.991, 1173.366, 1189.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1158.466}, "reply_to": "20649__0_082", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_084", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Did you request an instruction that the jury be required to specify amounts or choose as between cocaine and cocaine base?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1189.718], "stop_times": [1199.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1189.718}, "reply_to": "20649__0_083", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20649__0_085", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThe jury was instructed that it could find the defendants guilty if they found either cocaine or powdered--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1199.772, 1201.194], "stop_times": [1201.194, 1209.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1199.772}, "reply_to": "20649__0_084", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_086", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "And you didn't object to that instruction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1209.159], "stop_times": [1210.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1209.159}, "reply_to": "20649__0_085", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20649__0_087", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--There was no objection to that.\nIt's our position, however, Your Honor, that since the Government brought the dual object conspiracy, and since the Government wanted to seek punishment on the higher objective... that is, the objective carrying the higher penalty... that it was incumbent upon them to seek such... either a special--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1210.889, 1212.001], "stop_times": [1212.001, 1226.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1210.889}, "reply_to": "20649__0_086", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_088", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "You're not complaining about the jury's finding your clients guilty.\nYou're saying you're willing to accept that verdict, but you're saying the way it went to the jury, all you can punish them for is the least of what was charged.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1226.891, 1231.874], "stop_times": [1231.874, 1241.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1226.891}, "reply_to": "20649__0_087", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__0_089", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--That's correct, and the only way we would complain about what the jury determine... excuse me, about what happened at trial is if the Government tried to take what resulted and say, but we... the judge concludes that what you were convicted of was a crack conspiracy conviction.\nThat, we say, is completely impermissible, particularly when the statutory penalties for powder cocaine are significantly less than those for crack cocaine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1241.41, 1258.612], "stop_times": [1258.612, 1268.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1241.41}, "reply_to": "20649__0_088", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_090", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "But you agree, don't you, Mr. Shobat, that if there had not been this ambiguity in the jury verdict, nonetheless a sentencing judge could have taken into consideration a wide number of things in deciding what to sentence your clients to, a prior offense, prior indictment, prior conduct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1268.239], "stop_times": [1285.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1268.239}, "reply_to": "20649__0_089", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20649__0_091", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Under the Sentencing Guidelines that's absolutely correct.\nThat is... that... it would not be true, however, in fixing the statutory penalty, but we acknowledge that under this Court's decision in Witte and Watts, that the juge is free to consider a wide range and not just simply say, well, I thought about it, but actually to make the findings required under the Sentencing Guidelines... but that is, again, a guideline determination.\nIn this case, there were no statutory maximum penalty determinations made.\nWhat the judge did is just do the guideline analysis and then say, based on these guideline results, I'm now determining what the statutory maximum was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1285.809, 1288.1, 1308.934, 1313.719], "stop_times": [1288.1, 1308.934, 1313.719, 1322.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1285.809}, "reply_to": "20649__0_090", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_092", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "If that changes... in another case we've been involved in this, but the... if that changes, because it's not just guideline but also statutory addons... let's call them sentencing factors.\nIf you think that changes the fact that it's a statutory sentencing factor that increases a penalty, if you think that makes a difference in your favor here, what do you do with the earlier Supreme Court cases, McMillian and so forth, that we've been looking into, which say that where you have a sentencing factor such as possession of a gun, which increases the maximum penalty, that can be a determination to be made by a judge.\nIt needn't be charged in the indictment, and it needn't... in fact, in McMillian I think we found beyond a reasonable doubt.\nSo how do you deal with those cases and also win your case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1322.334, 1333.811, 1361.377, 1367.541], "stop_times": [1333.811, 1361.377, 1367.541, 1372.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1322.334}, "reply_to": "20649__0_091", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20649__0_093", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "McMillan supports our position, Your Honor because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1372.256], "stop_times": [1375.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1372.256}, "reply_to": "20649__0_092", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_094", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Because?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1375.849], "stop_times": [1375.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1375.849}, "reply_to": "20649__0_093", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20649__0_095", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--in McMillan there was no increase in the statutory maximum penalty.\nThe only increase was in a mandatory minimum so that the visible possession of a firearm in McMillan caused there to be a minimum of 5 years imposed but did not in any way increase the statutory maximum.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1375.937, 1379.86], "stop_times": [1379.86, 1390.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1375.937}, "reply_to": "20649__0_094", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_096", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Why isn't that worse?\nWhy aren't mandatory minimum penalties from a defendant's point of view actually a lot worse than an increase in the maximum?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1390.459, 1391.318], "stop_times": [1391.318, 1398.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1390.459}, "reply_to": "20649__0_095", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20649__0_097", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "We think that they're bad, but the reason they're not worse in part, I think, lies in the power of a sentencing judge to grant an upward departure.\nThe statutory maximum provides protection to a defendant to prevent a sentencing court from going beyond the statutory maximum.\nIn this case, had there been a reason to grant an upward departure, for example, with respect to petitioners Joiner or Edwards, who received a 10-year sentence, they might have gotten a 20-year sentence if that were the statutory maximum for them.\nIf they had been considered to have the same statutory maximum as petitioner Fort, who had a life maximum, then it would be very significant to know that, even if there was an upward departure granted in this case, it would not exceed 20 years and risk, you know, possibly a life sentence.\nAnd so under McMillan, the reason... one of the reasons we say that this is an essential element of the offense is because it not only alters the range, but it alters the statutory maximum penalty.\nMr. Chief Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1398.073, 1407.589, 1417.304, 1429.914, 1448.475, 1460.003], "stop_times": [1407.589, 1417.304, 1429.914, 1448.475, 1460.003, 1462.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1398.073}, "reply_to": "20649__0_096", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_098", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Are you saying that a special verdict would have been compatible with your view of this case?\nThat is, the judge says, jury, the Government has charged both powdered cocaine and crack cocaine, and so I want you to find specially as to each.\nThat would be all right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1462.144, 1467.81, 1476.393], "stop_times": [1467.81, 1476.393, 1478.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1462.144}, "reply_to": "20649__0_097", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20649__0_099", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nThe jury--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1478.206, 1479.825], "stop_times": [1479.825, 1480.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1478.206}, "reply_to": "20649__0_098", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_100", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Even though defendants don't ordinarily like special verdicts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1480.176], "stop_times": [1482.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1480.176}, "reply_to": "20649__0_099", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20649__0_101", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--The jury could have been instructed as it was that you could find either or, but then, in addition, the jury should have been asked which do you find, either powder, crack, or perhaps both.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1482.58], "stop_times": [1491.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1482.58}, "reply_to": "20649__0_100", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_102", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "And ask that in a special verdict?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1491.393], "stop_times": [1493.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1491.393}, "reply_to": "20649__0_101", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20649__0_103", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Yes, and then there would be a jury determination as to what the object of the conspiracy was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1493.576], "stop_times": [1497.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1493.576}, "reply_to": "20649__0_102", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_104", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Yes.\nDoes it follow from what you've been telling us that it would be perfectly proper under your theory for the Government to charge two separate conspiracies, one for powdered cocaine, the other for crack, and then for the punishments to be consecutive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1497.817, 1498.078], "stop_times": [1498.078, 1516.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1497.817}, "reply_to": "20649__0_103", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20649__0_105", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "It... yes, Your Honor.\nIt is the logic of our position that the Government is free to do that and, in fact, they are doing that every day with respect to distributions.\nIn fact, the Government in response to defense arguments that you can't do that, that violates double jeopardy, crack and cocaine are the same thing, the Government has said no, crack cocaine and powered cocaine are different substances.\nThey can't be punished consecutively, or cumulatively, and now in this case the Government is saying, oh, no, it's really just a controlled substance.\nAnd so we think that's a significantly inconsistent position that the Government is taking, We acknowledge that that is possible to be done.\nMr. Chief Justice, I would like to reserve whatever time I have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1516.951, 1519.205, 1526.07, 1537.328, 1545.873, 1555.119], "stop_times": [1519.205, 1526.07, 1537.328, 1545.873, 1555.119, 1557.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1516.951}, "reply_to": "20649__0_104", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__0_106", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Yes, Mr. Shobat.\nMr. DuMont, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1557.973, 1558.421], "stop_times": [1558.421, 1560.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1557.973}, "reply_to": "20649__0_105", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20649__1_000", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThere is one issue that's rather straightforward that is genuinely presented on the facts of this case and, if I may, I'd like to address that just for a moment first.\nSome of the courts of appeals have held that when a drug conspiracy verdict does not reveal exactly what drug the jury may have concluded was involved, or more than one drug, that under the guidelines the court is limited to sentencing only on the basis of the drug that will produce the lower penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1560.024, 1572.58, 1582.487], "stop_times": [1572.58, 1582.487, 1599.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1560.024}, "reply_to": "20649__0_106", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_001", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Under the guidelines, or under the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1599.398], "stop_times": [1600.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1599.398}, "reply_to": "20649__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__1_002", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Under the guidelines.\nThere are at least three--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1600.99, 1602.009], "stop_times": [1602.009, 1602.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1600.99}, "reply_to": "20649__1_001", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_003", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "How can the guidelines control what statutory maximum is available?\nI don't understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1602.86, 1607.963], "stop_times": [1607.963, 1608.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1602.86}, "reply_to": "20649__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__1_004", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--In our view they don't control that at all, but three of the courts of appeals have held that even if you're talking about a case where the statutory maximum and minimum are clear, that in terms of applying the guidelines the district court at sentencing must apply... must take into account only the drug that will produce the lower guidelines sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1608.895], "stop_times": [1627.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1608.895}, "reply_to": "20649__1_003", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_005", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "But the statutory maximum and minimum cannot be clear if you don't know what the substance is, can they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1627.377], "stop_times": [1633.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1627.377}, "reply_to": "20649__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__1_006", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "I'm not sure that's true now, because you could have a couple of possibilities, both of which would put you into, say, the minimum category, the zero to 20 category, but one of which would put you at 19 years under the guidelines, and one of which would put you at 5 years, so it can make quite a difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1633.121], "stop_times": [1649.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1633.121}, "reply_to": "20649__1_005", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_007", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "But they wouldn't be similarly inconsequential as far as the guidelines are concerned, they're only inconsequential as to the statutory grades?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1649.881], "stop_times": [1658.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1649.881}, "reply_to": "20649__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__1_008", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Well, my only point is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1658.056], "stop_times": [1661.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1658.056}, "reply_to": "20649__1_007", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_009", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "I mean, would the guidelines treat differently two substances that are treated the same in the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1661.739], "stop_times": [1665.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1661.739}, "reply_to": "20649__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__1_010", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--The guidelines are much more specific about what... how you do the quantity calculations and how you take things into account, but my point is only that even in cases where there is no controversy about what the statutory range is, the guidelines range can differ quite a bit, depending on whether you take into account some crack or don't take into account some crack.\nAnd some of the courts of appeals have, in fact, held that in a case like this, if you accepted the verdict was ambiguous, the judge would be limited to taking into account only the powdered cocaine that was involved.\nNow, we think that those cases are... that issue is presented here on the facts of this case, because it would make a big difference to these petitioners whether they are sentenced for powder or for crack, but we think that those cases that would limit the court to powder under the guidelines are flatly inconsistent with this Court's sentencing jurisprudence, most recently, obviously, the decision last term in Watts and the Court's decision in Witte.\nWe know from Watts that even if they had been charged, as petitioners say they could have been, with two separate conspiracies and the jury had acquitted on the crack conduct, that the crack cocaine could have been taken into account at sentencing by the judge, and it cannot be true that that is permissible but then it's not permissible to do so here, where--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1665.822, 1684.836, 1693.111, 1715.955], "stop_times": [1684.836, 1693.111, 1715.955, 1735.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1665.822}, "reply_to": "20649__1_009", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_011", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "The commission could deal with that as it wishes, couldn't it?\nI mean, if the commission said, look, what we think you have to do is sentence the person to 10 years if he has 5 grams of crack, and you have to sentence him to 2 years if it's 5 grams of cocaine, and you, the sentencing judge, are to take as a... an assumption of what the amounts are that which is found by the jury and if there is no jury finding you will assume, blah, blah, blah.\nThey could write a guideline like that, couldn't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1735.326, 1738.529, 1761.984], "stop_times": [1738.529, 1761.984, 1763.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1735.326}, "reply_to": "20649__1_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20649__1_012", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1763.927], "stop_times": [1765.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1763.927}, "reply_to": "20649__1_011", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_013", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "And if they don't like the way the judges are doing it, they can write the opposite guideline.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1765.397], "stop_times": [1767.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1765.397}, "reply_to": "20649__1_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20649__1_014", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--I think there may be some question about whether the commission would have power to do anything that would seem to trench on what this Court said in Watts and required by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1767.958], "stop_times": [1777.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1767.958}, "reply_to": "20649__1_013", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_015", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "But if the courts that find the way you think is wrong are finding that way because they think the guidelines require them to do so, then the answer would be that the commission could make clear that that isn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1777.535], "stop_times": [1789.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1777.535}, "reply_to": "20649__1_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20649__1_016", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--Oh--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1789.513], "stop_times": [1789.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1789.513}, "reply_to": "20649__1_015", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_017", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--what the guidelines require.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1789.823], "stop_times": [1790.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1789.823}, "reply_to": "20649__1_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20649__1_018", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--Yes, absolutely.\nThat's true.\nIf--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1790.802, 1791.493, 1792.334], "stop_times": [1791.493, 1792.334, 1792.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1790.802}, "reply_to": "20649__1_017", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_019", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "So there's nothing for us to decide--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1792.695], "stop_times": [1793.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1792.695}, "reply_to": "20649__1_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20649__1_020", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--If the courts feel they are being bound by the guidelines.\nBut as we pointed out in our acquiescence in this case, there is no indication... the cases in the courts of appeals that have held that the district judge is limited in sentencing to the lesser drug not only don't address that issue, they don't even mention the guidelines.\nI mean, it's one of our quarrels with them.\nThey seem to be innocent of the developments in the sentencing law under the guidelines.\nSo we would submit that those cases are flatly wrong, and that's what this case is really about.\nIt's what's presented on the facts here, and the decision on that issue ought to be clear.\nNow, it is true, as petitioners argue, that statutory maxima and minima trump whatever is in the guidelines, and it is therefore relevant to ask what the verdict ambiguity does or should or might have to do with setting the statutory minimum and maximum.\nNow, the short answer, as we pointed out in our brief, in this case is no effect, because if you calculate... and we did do the math, and it's been... petitioners have not demonstrated that there's anything wrong with our math... that if you calculate the statutory ranges in this case based purely on the district judge's powder cocaine findings, you will find that the sentences actually imposed in every case fall within permissible statutory range, so our submission would be there's no issue on the facts of this case under the statute.\nBut should the Court wish to proceed and consider that issue, we think it's plain from the structure and language of the relevant statutes here, sections 846 and 841, that the answer to that is that these are sentencing factors for the trial judge.\nNow, section 846, which is on pages 1 and 2 of the appendix in the blue brief, says any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense defined in this sub chapter shall be subject to the same penalties, and so on.\nThe offenses are defined by the other sections in that portion of the United States Code.\nIf you then look at 841, which is the object defense here, 841(a) defines the offense, and the offense is either possession or... with the intent to distribute, or distribution--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1793.955, 1795.707, 1810.137, 1811.879, 1815.41, 1822.184, 1826.705, 1844.658, 1875.289, 1894.033, 1909.52, 1916.335], "stop_times": [1795.707, 1810.137, 1811.879, 1815.41, 1822.184, 1826.705, 1844.658, 1875.289, 1894.033, 1909.52, 1916.335, 1927.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1793.955}, "reply_to": "20649__1_019", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_021", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--Well, it can't define the offense if, indeed, as you just read, you are to be punished with the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense.\nThere are no penalties prescribed for 841(a).\nWhen you read 841(a) you have no idea what the penalties are, so that cannot be the offense--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1927.602, 1939.16, 1944.025], "stop_times": [1939.16, 1944.025, 1949.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1927.602}, "reply_to": "20649__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__1_022", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1949.657], "stop_times": [1949.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1949.657}, "reply_to": "20649__1_021", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_023", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--referred to in 846.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1949.908], "stop_times": [1951.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1949.908}, "reply_to": "20649__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__1_024", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--Well, with respect, we would obviously disagree with that.\nWhat you know from 846 is that you're looking for an object offense.\nThe object offense is defined in 841(a), which says, unlawful acts, except as authorized and so on you may not distribute, or possess--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1951.338, 1954.921, 1958.874], "stop_times": [1954.921, 1958.874, 1965.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1951.338}, "reply_to": "20649__1_023", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_025", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1965.878], "stop_times": [1966.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1965.878}, "reply_to": "20649__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__1_026", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--with intent to distribute controlled substances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1966.128], "stop_times": [1968.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1966.128}, "reply_to": "20649__1_025", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_027", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Right, and if all I had before me was 841, I would agree.\nBut you have before you 846, which you just read, which says any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense defined in this chapter shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense.\nThere are no penalties prescribed for the offense of violating 841(a).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1968.119, 1970.85, 1982.729], "stop_times": [1970.85, 1982.729, 1988.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1968.119}, "reply_to": "20649__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__1_028", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1988.343], "stop_times": [1988.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1988.343}, "reply_to": "20649__1_027", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_029", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "I can read you 841(a) and you can't tell me what penalty is prescribed for that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1988.842], "stop_times": [1991.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1988.842}, "reply_to": "20649__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__1_030", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--Well, with respect--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1991.633], "stop_times": [1992.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1991.633}, "reply_to": "20649__1_029", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_031", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "You have to go down to (b) to figure it out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1992.874], "stop_times": [1993.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1992.874}, "reply_to": "20649__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__1_032", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--With respect, I can, because what I'll say is, you look down to (b), which prescribes the penalties for the offense defined in (a).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1993.966], "stop_times": [1999.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1993.966}, "reply_to": "20649__1_031", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_033", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Fine.\nI'm willing to accept (b).\nThen (b) becomes part of the offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [1999.199, 1999.53, 2000.719], "stop_times": [1999.53, 2000.719, 2002.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1999.199}, "reply_to": "20649__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__1_034", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "We disagree about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2002.832], "stop_times": [2004.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2002.832}, "reply_to": "20649__1_033", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_035", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "That's fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2004.643], "stop_times": [2004.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2004.643}, "reply_to": "20649__1_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__1_036", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "We disagree about that, obviously, and our analysis is that 841(a) defines an offense which is complete once the jury finds that you have distributed or manufactured or possessed with the intent a controlled substance, and it's true they... in a substantive count, then in the nature of things they will have to find a controlled substance involved.\nI would point out, as came out from some of the questions, in a conspiracy offense that's not at all clear.\nThere are certainly conspiracies for which you could be charged and which you could be found guilty where you would have no idea what the type of substance involved was.\nNow, I grant you, that will give rise, in those cases, if they actually happen, to strange sentencing issues under both 841(b) and under the guidelines, because it's not clear what you do with something where you really don't know even what type of drug was involved, but the fact is the conviction would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2004.843, 2025.096, 2029.53, 2037.334], "stop_times": [2025.096, 2029.53, 2037.334, 2052.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2004.843}, "reply_to": "20649__1_035", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_037", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "You apply the minimum.\nI think that's an easy answer, isn't it?\nIt's up to the Government to prove whatever is necessary to prove in order to impose a penalty and if you can't figure out what it was, the most you can impose is the minimum, I would assume.\nWhat's hard about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2052.625, 2052.916, 2054.264, 2063.172], "stop_times": [2052.916, 2054.264, 2063.172, 2064.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2052.625}, "reply_to": "20649__1_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__1_038", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--That's a potential answer to that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2064.574], "stop_times": [2067.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2064.574}, "reply_to": "20649__1_037", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_039", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "It seems to me it's the only answer.\nThe burden's on the Government to establish what needs to be established to impose the penalty, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2067.585, 2068.434], "stop_times": [2068.434, 2073.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2067.585}, "reply_to": "20649__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__1_040", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Well, for present purposes my point would be, we would establish that at sentencing to the judge, and the conviction would be valid.\nEven if it were true that we could not impose a term of imprisonment, the conviction, the special assessment and the record and so on would reflect a conviction for a felony, and that felony would be defined by 841(a).\nIt would have nothing to do with 841(b).\n841(b) has to do with prescribing the penalties that are appropriate under particular circumstances for violations of 841(a).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2073.248, 2078.981, 2090.379, 2091.991], "stop_times": [2078.981, 2090.379, 2091.991, 2098.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2073.248}, "reply_to": "20649__1_039", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_041", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "And if you commit the offense of conspiracy you perhaps under one view would simply be subject to the risk of being sentenced based on what the conspiracy turned up and the judge says, it's 5 grams, or 10 grams, or whatever.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2098.193], "stop_times": [2110.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2098.193}, "reply_to": "20649__1_040", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20649__1_042", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "That's absolutely right, and our point here is, when you move into the realm of conspiracy... now, 846 obviously covers a wide range of different target statutes and so on, and in this particular case we're dealing with 846, referring to 841 as the object statute.\nWe think it's fairly clear that what Congress would have intended here is when you are convicted of conspiracy to violate 841 what happens is the judge at sentencing looks at the complex of offense conduct involved in that conspiracy under very traditional Pinkerton type conspiracy vicarious--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2110.161, 2126.283], "stop_times": [2126.283, 2145.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2110.161}, "reply_to": "20649__1_041", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_043", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "May I interrupt with just one question to be sure... what if, in this case, instead of a general verdict you have a special verdict and the jury... a whole stream of different alternatives, and the jury found not guilty as to 9 out of the 10, but on one they said he was guilty of conspiring to distribute 5 grams of powder, and that's all.\nUnder your view, could the judge nevertheless sentence... the judge has a different view of the evidence.\nHe thinks he really committed 100 kilograms of crack.\nThat's the judge's view.\nThe judge could nevertheless sentence on the basis of his view of the evidence even in the conspiracy context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2145.785, 2162.037, 2167.9, 2171.831, 2172.812], "stop_times": [2162.037, 2167.9, 2171.831, 2172.812, 2178.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2145.785}, "reply_to": "20649__1_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20649__1_044", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2178.426], "stop_times": [2179.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2178.426}, "reply_to": "20649__1_043", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_045", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "With specific findings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2179.197], "stop_times": [2180.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2179.197}, "reply_to": "20649__1_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20649__1_046", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--I would say particularly in the conspiracy context... in the conspiracy context, the answer is clearly yes, because as long as the conviction is valid, everything else is a sentencing factor and, as the court pointed out in Watts, the difference in standard of proof makes a huge difference there, because all the jury has said by declining to convict on the other counts is they weren't convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, but there's a big range there between that and preponderance of the evidence where the court can operate.\nNow, what I will say is, it's a harder case if you have a substantive... a set of substantive distribution counts and the jury acquits on several but convicts on only one, because in that case there's a... I think a substantial statutory interpretation question that arises about what 841(b) means when it says, in the case of a violation of subsection (a), involving.\nNow, the circuits are split on that issue and it's certainly not presented here, but it would not be unreasonable for a court to hold, and several courts of appeals have taken this route, that in a substantive distribution case you are limited in terms of your statutory maximum by the offense conduct that would be dealt with in that one substantive distribution count.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2180.737, 2203.994, 2225.497], "stop_times": [2203.994, 2225.497, 2244.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2180.737}, "reply_to": "20649__1_045", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_047", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "That's not the Government's view, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2244.47], "stop_times": [2245.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2244.47}, "reply_to": "20649__1_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20649__1_048", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "We haven't taken a position in this Court on that question, and I hesitate to concede it in this case because it's not presented, but it would certainly be a plausible... a plausible statutory outcome.\nThe Tenth Circuit has gone the other way on that question and has said that no, all of these things are sentencing factors to be dealt with by the judge, even under the statute.\nI think... so we think that... just to refer back to that language that I was just quoting, again, if we're talking about what is an element here and what is a sentencing factor, we think that the language of 841 is pretty clear on that.\nIt's about as clear as you get.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2245.662, 2255.576, 2263.954, 2282.406], "stop_times": [2255.576, 2263.954, 2282.406, 2283.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2245.662}, "reply_to": "20649__1_047", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_049", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "It's your position that as with the guidelines those sentencing factors only require judgment by a preponderance of the evidence--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2283.385], "stop_times": [2291.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2283.385}, "reply_to": "20649__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__1_050", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2291.039], "stop_times": [2292.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2291.039}, "reply_to": "20649__1_049", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_051", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--by the judge, so the judge makes the decision that it's more likely than not, by a hair, that this was crack rather than powdered, and therefore you get 40 more years, or 20 more years, by a preponderance.\nGee, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2292.111, 2309.231], "stop_times": [2309.231, 2310.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2292.111}, "reply_to": "20649__1_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__1_052", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Well, subject to statutory minimum and maximum that might supervene, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2310.623], "stop_times": [2315.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2310.623}, "reply_to": "20649__1_051", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_053", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--No, I'm talking about the maximum, that the statutory maximum I could have given you if it was one, you know, if it was powdered, is, say, 20, and the statutory maximum I can give you if it was crack is 40, or 60.\nThere's a big difference depending on the quantity, I guess.\nAnd all the judge has to say is, well, it's a close question, but by a hair I think it's more likely that it was crack than powder and therefore I'm going to give you 60 years instead of 20.\nThat doesn't seem to you, something wrong with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2315.045, 2329.734, 2332.436, 2342.924], "stop_times": [2329.734, 2332.436, 2342.924, 2345.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2315.045}, "reply_to": "20649__1_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__1_054", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--Well, if we're talking about the simple distribution offense, and we're... if the question is, under 841(b), are all of those always just at the decision of the judge, I think that is a difficult question, and we will certainly address it in the cases it arises in--\nIt doesn't arise in this case, partly because this is a conspiracy case.\nIn a conspiracy case we think what happens is what happened here, which is the judge goes through all the evidence very carefully... I commend to you the very, very detailed sentencing findings that the judge made in this case, and he goes through all the evidence, sifts it and decides in this case, not very favorably to the Government, I would add, what the quantities of drugs are, what types of drugs are involved, and what quantities can be properly attributed to any given defendant.\nAnd in this case it makes no difference under the statute because whatever... all of his findings that he made for purposes of the guidelines put these defendants in the right statutory minimum and maximum range, or the same range, depending on how you calculate it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2345.576, 2359.905, 2362.756, 2384.412], "stop_times": [2359.905, 2362.756, 2384.412, 2401.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2345.576}, "reply_to": "20649__1_053", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_055", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Well, what if it did make a difference, that's the point.\nThe Government--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2401.682, 2404.804], "stop_times": [2404.804, 2407.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2401.682}, "reply_to": "20649__1_054", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20649__1_056", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "It did make a difference.\nI think in a conspiracy case the result would be the same, because even the courts that have held... even the courts of appeals that have held that you need to be limited by the offense of conviction have said well, of course, in a conspiracy case, when you're talking about defining what was involved in the offense of conviction for 841(b) purposes you pick up Pinkerton principles, and principles of vicarious liability.\nSo that ends up being either indistinguishable from or very, very close to the relevant conduct inquiry under the guidelines, so in a conspiracy case we really think there is no substantial issue about that, that your statutory maximum and minimum are going to set by the same process as your guidelines sentence, and there's really nothing wrong with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2407.676, 2408.427, 2430.481], "stop_times": [2408.427, 2430.481, 2451.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2407.676}, "reply_to": "20649__1_055", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_057", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--And if it's not a conspiracy case and it makes a huge difference, you want to say you're not going to say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2451.865], "stop_times": [2458.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2451.865}, "reply_to": "20649__1_056", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20649__1_058", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Our position for purposes of argument in this case is that the judge has the authority to decide that, but I acknowledge that it's a very difficult--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2458.721], "stop_times": [2468.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2458.721}, "reply_to": "20649__1_057", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_059", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "There are several... I mean, are you talking... which question?\nI mean, there's a question reserved in Watts, I take it.\nThe question reserved in Watts is whether a sentencing factor can be decided by a judge by a preponderance of the evidence or whether the judge might decide it beyond a reasonable doubt.\nThat's one question which we haven't decided, I guess.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2468.155, 2470.559, 2473.701, 2484.246, 2486.727], "stop_times": [2470.559, 2473.701, 2484.246, 2486.727, 2487.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2468.155}, "reply_to": "20649__1_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20649__1_060", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2487.238], "stop_times": [2488.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2487.238}, "reply_to": "20649__1_059", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_061", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "A separate question is who has to decide.\nAnother question might be whether you had to get notice in an indictment, and whether it's called an element or something.\nI mean, there are a bunch of questions there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2488.039, 2489.649, 2495.072], "stop_times": [2489.649, 2495.072, 2496.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2488.039}, "reply_to": "20649__1_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20649__1_062", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "There are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2496.354], "stop_times": [2497.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2496.354}, "reply_to": "20649__1_061", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_063", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "What do we have to decide here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2497.105], "stop_times": [2498.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2497.105}, "reply_to": "20649__1_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20649__1_064", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--There are any number of questions that you don't have to decide here, and we would urge the Court to stick generally to the facts of this case, because I think that's useful and I think the facts of this case are typical.\nBut in response to Justice O'Connor's question, I understood that to be about the limited question of, in a simple distribution case where there is a certain amount of... there's one distribution, for instance, at issue, and the question is then does the judge get to decide what is involved in that distribution.\nAnd I would submit the following intermediate position, which is, there may be circumstances where all that is proved to the jury might be a small amount of one drug, for instance, but that on particular facts the judge might be able to conclude that because of a suppression motion or for some other reason the jury didn't see all of the conduct that was involved in that particular distribution, and we would say certainly in that case that it is a sentencing decision for the judge to make about what was involved with that particular offense.\nBut it's a substantially difficult question.\nI can't honestly tell you what the Government's position would be in this Court on the question of, when it was perfectly clear what was involved in that distribution, perfectly clear that was the only conviction, and then there was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2498.636, 2506.883, 2523.803, 2549.73, 2552.282], "stop_times": [2506.883, 2523.803, 2549.73, 2552.282, 2563.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2498.636}, "reply_to": "20649__1_063", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_065", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Would you refresh my recollection on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2563.588], "stop_times": [2564.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2563.588}, "reply_to": "20649__1_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20649__1_066", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--other conduct that was sought to be taken into account.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2564.76], "stop_times": [2566.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2564.76}, "reply_to": "20649__1_065", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_067", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--on one minor point.\nHad we decided that the judge in the sentencing proceeding can rely on illegally seized evidence in making this determination?\nYou just suggested he might know about it through a suppression motion, for example.\nHave we said that's permissible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2566.359, 2566.91, 2573.224, 2577.416], "stop_times": [2566.91, 2573.224, 2577.416, 2578.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2566.359}, "reply_to": "20649__1_066", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20649__1_068", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "I don't think this Court has said--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2578.988], "stop_times": [2580.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2578.988}, "reply_to": "20649__1_067", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_069", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "But your position is, it's permissible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2580.458], "stop_times": [2581.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2580.458}, "reply_to": "20649__1_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20649__1_070", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--I think that under the statutes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2581.94], "stop_times": [2584.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2581.94}, "reply_to": "20649__1_069", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_071", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Because that's your example you happened to pick to explain what the judge could see that the jury might not see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2584.051], "stop_times": [2588.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2584.051}, "reply_to": "20649__1_070", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20649__1_072", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--It's another question that's not presented, but yes, I think under the statutes that say that anything can come under sentencing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2588.505], "stop_times": [2593.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2588.505}, "reply_to": "20649__1_071", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_073", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "So he can... he only has to do it by a preponderance.\nHe can do it even if the jury finds him not guilty, and even if he relies on illegally seized evidence.\nIt's a pretty extreme position.\nWell, we decided the issue if it's a not guilty finding, haven't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2593.268, 2595.058, 2599.943, 2601.522], "stop_times": [2595.058, 2599.943, 2601.522, 2605.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2593.268}, "reply_to": "20649__1_072", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20649__1_074", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--In Watts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2605.515], "stop_times": [2607.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2605.515}, "reply_to": "20649__1_073", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_075", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "In Watts.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2607.095, 2607.596], "stop_times": [2607.596, 2607.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2607.095}, "reply_to": "20649__1_074", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20649__1_076", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Yes, absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2607.957], "stop_times": [2609.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2607.957}, "reply_to": "20649__1_075", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_077", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Mr. DuMont, would you explain again, because I don't understand it, how it's possible that you can come out with one response to Justice O'Connor's question, where it's a conspiracy charge but a different response where you're being prosecuted for simple distribution?\nI mean, it seems to me, if your answer is in simple distribution we're not going to let the judge do it, I don't see why it... why you can let the judge do it in the conspiracy thing, since the conspiracy statute refers to the distribution statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2609.188, 2626.27], "stop_times": [2626.27, 2639.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2609.188}, "reply_to": "20649__1_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__1_078", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Well, it's not a constitutional question.\nIt's a statutory question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2639.958, 2642.041], "stop_times": [2642.041, 2643.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2639.958}, "reply_to": "20649__1_077", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_079", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2643.18], "stop_times": [2643.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2643.18}, "reply_to": "20649__1_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__1_080", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "The point is, the statutory analysis proceeds as follows.\n18... 841(a) defines an offense, unlawful acts, then (b) says as to penalties any person who violates subsection (a) shall be sentenced as follows.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2643.39, 2645.411], "stop_times": [2645.411, 2657.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2643.39}, "reply_to": "20649__1_079", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_081", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2657.688], "stop_times": [2658.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2657.688}, "reply_to": "20649__1_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__1_082", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Then the form of the following phrase is, in the case of a violation of subsection (a) involving.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2658.169], "stop_times": [2663.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2658.169}, "reply_to": "20649__1_081", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_083", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2663.532], "stop_times": [2663.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2663.532}, "reply_to": "20649__1_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__1_084", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Now, it's always been the Government's position, as my colleague points out, that for distribution, simple distribution, each possession or distribution of each drug is a separate offense, and it is consistent with that to say that if you're convicted of only one substantive count, then when you get to (b) what you have to look at is, what is involved in that substantive count.\nWhat's different about conspiracy is that when you come to apply 846 in the 841 context you're told by 846, okay, if they've conspired to commit an 841 offense you need to... they'll be subject to the same penalties as those for 841.\nThe same... we interpret that language, as have the courts of appeals that have looked at this, to say, well, what you are liable for in the conspiracy context under Pinkerton and all the vicarious liability cases is your conduct and the conduct of your coconspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy, and so that is the universe of what you're liable for.\nYou take all of that, making those findings, and then you come up with a number of drugs and a quantity of drugs, and then you apply the statutory guidelines in effect that Congress has provided in 841(b).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2663.933, 2686.269, 2702.108, 2720.381], "stop_times": [2686.269, 2702.108, 2720.381, 2732.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2663.933}, "reply_to": "20649__1_083", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_085", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Well, I guess what I'm saying, I don't see how that's rational.\nI mean, if it refers to the offense in 841, and if you're treating 841 as consisting not of one offense in (a) but of each one being a separate offense for purposes of double jeopardy and everything else, I don't see how you can treat it any differently for purposes of 846, which refers to the offense in 841.\nBut I understand your position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2732.078, 2735.641, 2756.404], "stop_times": [2735.641, 2756.404, 2757.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2732.078}, "reply_to": "20649__1_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__1_086", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "You understand our position, and I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2757.734], "stop_times": [2758.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2757.734}, "reply_to": "20649__1_085", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_087", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Let's... yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2758.966], "stop_times": [2759.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2758.966}, "reply_to": "20649__1_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__1_088", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--And I would point out that the Court reviewed in Chapman the history of the drug statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2759.266], "stop_times": [2763.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2759.266}, "reply_to": "20649__1_087", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_089", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2763.909], "stop_times": [2764.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2763.909}, "reply_to": "20649__1_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__1_090", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "And one thing I would point out about that is, when Congress enacted the current form of 841(b) in 1986, what it had in mind was setting three broad categories, which were king pin distributors, serious street level distributors, and then regular distributors.\nAnd we think it would be odd if what Congress accomplished through all of this was to say that in a conspiracy case, where every normal principle of construction tells us that when you're found guilty of the conspiracy you are then liable for all the conduct involving the conspiracy, it would be a passing odd result to find that when you apply that under the statutory structure you end up with something different.\nSo that if you have somebody who has participated in a long term, broad scale wide distribution conspiracy, that suddenly you are limited at sentencing to taking into account something other than that conduct.\nI think... I'd just like to clear up two persistent sources of misconception, I think, in this case.\nOne--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2764.199, 2778.117, 2800.734, 2811.59, 2823.789], "stop_times": [2778.117, 2800.734, 2811.59, 2823.789, 2824.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2764.199}, "reply_to": "20649__1_089", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_091", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "May I ask first if you agree with Judge Easterbrook that it would be sufficient if the indictment simply alleged controlled substance, without any identification?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2824.459], "stop_times": [2834.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2824.459}, "reply_to": "20649__1_090", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20649__1_092", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--For the purposes we are centrally controlled with here, yes, it would be sufficient.\nNow, it raises another set of questions, and I think the courts have consistently said that.\nThey've said, well, an indictment is sufficient if it charges in terms of the statute, and the statute says--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2834.304, 2839.429, 2843.793], "stop_times": [2839.429, 2843.793, 2848.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2834.304}, "reply_to": "20649__1_091", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_093", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "But the defendant has to know enough about the case to defend--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2848.786], "stop_times": [2850.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2848.786}, "reply_to": "20649__1_092", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20649__1_094", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--But... of course.\nThere are notice principles that come in both under the rules, under practice, and under the Constitution that require the defendant have adequate notice of what he's being charged with both for purposes of defense at trial and for purposes of pleading and bar, and I would point out that there is a whole body of cases in the courts of appeals about how you distinguish one conspiracy from another for purposes of double jeopardy, and I think that would be, for instance, relevant in that context.\nIf I might just point out that there's a lot of talk about dual object conspiracies here, and it's a source of a lot of confusion in the briefs and I think, with respect, in my colleague's argument.\nThe indictment here charged a dual object conspiracy in the sense that it charged both possession with intent and distribution, each of which is a separate offense under 841.\nNow, they happen to be in this case offenses that violate the same substantive statute.\nIt did not charge a dual object conspiracy by charging that there was both cocaine and crack cocaine involved in this conspiracy.\nThose are means of satisfying the same element of either the distribution offense or the possession offense.\nThey are not objects of the conspiracy, and I think it's quite important, actually, conceptually to keep that in mind.\nThe offense of conviction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2850.508, 2851.247, 2873.863, 2886.66, 2897.138, 2902.771, 2910.778, 2917.571, 2923.154], "stop_times": [2851.247, 2873.863, 2886.66, 2897.138, 2902.771, 2910.778, 2917.571, 2923.154, 2925.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2850.508}, "reply_to": "20649__1_093", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_095", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--The object of the conspiracy was either to distribute or to possess with intent to distribute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2925.656], "stop_times": [2930.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2925.656}, "reply_to": "20649__1_094", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20649__1_096", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--That's correct, and we know from Griffin that if there was sufficient evidence to convict on either one of those, and there clearly was, they conceded there was, the convictions are perfectly valid.\nBut it is false and misleading to say, oh, well, this is dual objects because one object was crack and one object was powder.\nThat's just not the way it works.\nThe other thing is, the offense of conviction, which we talk about both in terms of 841 as a statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2930.36, 2938.976, 2945.2, 2946.98], "stop_times": [2938.976, 2945.2, 2946.98, 2953.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2930.36}, "reply_to": "20649__1_095", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_097", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Excuse me.\nJust before you go on, that's quite correct unless you accept your colleague's view of what 846 requires.\nI mean, if you acknowledge that 846 does require you to charge something other than an intent to distribute some controlled substance, and if you acknowledged his view that it requires you to specify a controlled substance, then it would be a dual object, under his view of the world.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2953.555, 2953.966, 2963.681], "stop_times": [2953.966, 2963.681, 2980.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2953.555}, "reply_to": "20649__1_096", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20649__1_098", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--Under his view of the world I think that's right, and there would be... there would be more serious problems than figuring out the sentence, frankly, because I think there would be problems with convictions, although they've never stood up to the plate on that one.\nAgain, in view of the offense of conviction, which is important, is a conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, and I think if we look, as my colleague was suggesting, at the indictment and at the statute, he said, well, if you didn't specify quantity, the maximum statutory sentence would be 20 years, and we would quite strongly disagree with that.\nIf you get an indictment that charges you with participating in a drug conspiracy and no quantity is specified, when you look at the statute you ought to be on notice... you are on notice that the maximum penalty is life in prison.\nIt depends on the quantity, which is something that hasn't been specified.\nNow, you may want to seek clarification of that in one way or another, but it is not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [2980.653, 2991.399, 3011.432, 3023.47, 3025.781], "stop_times": [2991.399, 3011.432, 3023.47, 3025.781, 3029.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2980.653}, "reply_to": "20649__1_097", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_099", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Do they still have bills of particulars?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [3029.574], "stop_times": [3030.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3029.574}, "reply_to": "20649__1_098", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20649__1_100", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--They absolutely do, Your Honor.\nIt is not true that you somehow know from that indictment that your exposure is limited to 20 years.\nSo I might just return to the fact that there is one real and straightforward issue in this case, and the other... and that is the guidelines issue that I was dealing with earlier, and the circuits are in conflict on that issue, and the Court ought to resolve it in the way that we think is plainly correct under Watts and Witte.\nThe other questions we've been considering are very interesting, and they may, in fact, be difficult in some future case that presents them, but this case, when we return to our sheet, is really a very simple one, and the judgment below ought to be affirmed.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [3030.966, 3032.786, 3038.52, 3056.232, 3068.93], "stop_times": [3032.786, 3038.52, 3056.232, 3068.93, 3070.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3030.966}, "reply_to": "20649__1_099", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20649__1_101", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Thank you, Mr. DuMont.\nMr. Shobat, you have 2 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [3070.29, 3071.452], "stop_times": [3071.452, 3073.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3070.29}, "reply_to": "20649__1_100", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20649__2_000", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, the issue that is not before the Court is the guideline issue.\nQuite frankly, this case doesn't raise the concerns of the guidelines.\nIt raises the question of the statutory maximum and the offense of conviction, and that's the starting point.\nEven before the district court could proceed to the question of the Sentencing Guidelines, it had to know what the offense of conviction was, and it had to know what the statutory maximums--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [3073.572, 3082.078, 3086.051, 3092.626], "stop_times": [3082.078, 3086.051, 3092.626, 3102.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3073.572}, "reply_to": "20649__1_101", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__2_001", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Well, were all these sentences within the range of the powered cocaine range?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [3102.641], "stop_times": [3108.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3102.641}, "reply_to": "20649__2_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20649__2_002", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "--The answer to that question is no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [3108.547], "stop_times": [3110.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3108.547}, "reply_to": "20649__2_001", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__2_003", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "No?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [3110.117], "stop_times": [3110.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3110.117}, "reply_to": "20649__2_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20649__2_004", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "It's really, we don't know, but it's very likely that it is no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [3110.638], "stop_times": [3114.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3110.638}, "reply_to": "20649__2_003", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__2_005", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "The Government says it's calculated them all and the answer is yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [3114.549], "stop_times": [3118.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3114.549}, "reply_to": "20649__2_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20649__2_006", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Well, what the Government has relied upon, Your Honor, is the findings of the Court after having considered the defendants of being... of having been convicted of a conspiracy that we don't know that they were convicted of, and so now, after the fact, we have a determination by the sentencing court.\nIf the judge were to look at this anew and say the conspiracy of which they were convicted was powdered cocaine distribution, then the Court might say, well, I think the amount of powdered cocaine is less than I previously attributed to this conspiracy because then I thought the conspiracy embraced both crack cocaine and powder cocaine.\nAfter all, in this conspiracy there were quantities of powder cocaine that were converted into crack cocaine and, for example, with respect to petitioner Wintersmith, he was held accountable for 540 grams of powder cocaine.\nIf just 40 grams of that substance were attributable to the crack conspiracy... that is, that part of the conspiracy that had to do with converting the powder to crack and selling it out of a drug house... just diminution of that 40 grams would mean that his maximum penalty was 20 years.\nNow, he received a sentence of 21 years, less than the 40-year maximum that would have been applied at a 500-gram level, and so we think that the similar analysis applies to each of the petitioners in varying degrees.\nCertainly with regard to some of the petitioners there was more evidence, there was a greater involvement in the conspiracy, and that is the central problem with these dual object conspiracies.\nThe Government could potentially bring a case which has very strong evidence--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [3118.523, 3134.595, 3153.524, 3167.874, 3185.715, 3198.976, 3207.842], "stop_times": [3134.595, 3153.524, 3167.874, 3185.715, 3198.976, 3207.842, 3212.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3118.523}, "reply_to": "20649__2_005", "speaker": "steven_shobat"}
{"id": "20649__2_007", "conversation_id": "20649", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Shobat.\nYour time has expired.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8732", "start_times": [3212.374, 3212.794, 3213.835], "stop_times": [3212.794, 3213.835, 3215.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3212.374}, "reply_to": "20649__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20106__0_000", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "We'll hear argument first this morning in Number 97-282, Beth Ann Faragher v. the City of Boca Raton.\nNow, Mr. Amlong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [0.0, 8.327], "stop_times": [8.327, 9.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20106__0_001", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--\nThis is an employment discrimination case in which there are two issues facing the Court.\nThe first is whether the Court of Appeals applied too narrow a standard in the application of agency principles to supervisory liability under Title VII for sexual harassment.\nThe second is whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the findings of the District Court, who had found constructive and actual knowledge by an agent of the City, Robert Gordon, and had also imputed constructive knowledge to the City through the pervasiveness of the sexual harassment in this case.\nThe relief that we ask--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [9.927, 13.861, 20.106, 34.884, 58.52], "stop_times": [13.861, 20.106, 34.884, 58.52, 61.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.927}, "reply_to": "20106__0_000", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_002", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "That isn't precisely the two questions in your petition, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [61.302], "stop_times": [64.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 61.302}, "reply_to": "20106__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20106__0_003", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nIt's phrased somewhat differently.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [64.884, 66.254], "stop_times": [66.254, 67.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 64.884}, "reply_to": "20106__0_002", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_004", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "So the second question in your petition you see as basically Should the Court of Appeals have affirmed the District Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [67.676], "stop_times": [73.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 67.676}, "reply_to": "20106__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20106__0_005", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Based on the factors I set forth in the petition, Mr. Chief Justice, that there was the pervasiveness that could give rise to constructive knowledge, and it should be re... clearly erroneous standard, that there was notice to an intermediate agent, Mr. Gordon, and that there was no dissemination of the sexual harassment policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [73.798], "stop_times": [97.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 73.798}, "reply_to": "20106__0_004", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_006", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, what... what do you mean by permit pervasiveness?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [97.684], "stop_times": [100.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 97.684}, "reply_to": "20106__0_005", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20106__0_007", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "I mean, by pervasiveness, Mr. Chief Justice, that there were eight women who were sexually harassed by Mr. Terry and/or Mr. Silverman over a period of 4 years.\nThat's what the record evidence showed.\nAnd that's what the District Court found.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [100.208, 111.114, 113.485], "stop_times": [111.114, 113.485, 115.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 100.208}, "reply_to": "20106__0_006", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_008", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "So pervasiveness means multiple victims, then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [115.916], "stop_times": [119.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 115.916}, "reply_to": "20106__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20106__0_009", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Pervasiveness can have more than one meaning.\nBut in this case, yes, it does, Your Honor.\nPervasiveness in the sense of Harris v. Forklift Systems, could mean one person with... kind of be secret pervasiveness without--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [119.549, 123.743, 125.754], "stop_times": [123.743, 125.754, 137.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 119.549}, "reply_to": "20106__0_008", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_010", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Secret pervasiveness.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [137.041, 138.203], "stop_times": [138.203, 139.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 137.041}, "reply_to": "20106__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20106__0_011", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--A pervasiveness... a pervasiveness, Mr. Chief Justice, that would apply only to that person.\nIn this case, the pervasiveness is not only as to Beth Ann Faragher, the Petitioner, who was repeatedly and consistently sexually harassed, but was also to seven other women.\nNow, it is that pervasiveness, Your Honor, that I argue gives rise to constructive notice.\nIt is that pervasiveness, Your Honor, that differs from the pervasiveness in Harris.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [139.172, 143.916, 157.493, 164.7], "stop_times": [143.916, 157.493, 164.7, 175.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 139.172}, "reply_to": "20106__0_010", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_012", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--I don't know how... I mean, constructive notice, I can't imagine how secret pervasiveness could ever... could ever give rise to constructive notice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [175.006], "stop_times": [185.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 175.006}, "reply_to": "20106__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__0_013", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Nor can I.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [185.092], "stop_times": [186.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 185.092}, "reply_to": "20106__0_012", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_014", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Okay.\nSo you're saying that it was so obvious that the employer must have known about it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [186.192, 186.903], "stop_times": [186.903, 193.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 186.192}, "reply_to": "20106__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__0_015", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Either must have known about it or was engaged in willful ignorance about it.\nDid not wish to know about it.\nYou can't sexually harass eight women over a 4-year period and not expect the employer to know about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [193.006, 198.15, 199.522], "stop_times": [198.15, 199.522, 206.915], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 193.006}, "reply_to": "20106__0_014", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_016", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "The employer is downtown, in... in city hall.\nAnd all of this is going on across the highway, on the beach.\nNow, is... is it implausible that he would know about it... that... that the employer would not know about it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [206.915, 209.958, 213.5], "stop_times": [209.958, 213.5, 221.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 206.915}, "reply_to": "20106__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__0_017", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Not at all, Your Honor.\nBecause, Justice Scalia, number one, the beach is 1.5 miles from city hall, roughly the distance from this Court to the Washington Monument.\nNumber two, corporations throughout this Nation have offices... IBM, for example, has offices throughout the Nation, headquartered in New York.\nYou can't say that if there was sexual harassment going on in the IBM plant in Boca Raton, that IBM should not be responsible for it.\nHere, they were not... here, they did not know about it because of two things.\nNumber one, Robert Gordon, who was a captain, an intermediate supervisor and someone who should be expected to have carried the message forward to city hall, declined to do so when he was told by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [221.787, 223.108, 232.643, 242.28, 249.313, 256.428], "stop_times": [223.108, 232.643, 242.28, 249.313, 256.428, 270.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 221.787}, "reply_to": "20106__0_016", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_018", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "He wasn't asked to do so.\nI thought he was asked as a friend.\nHe was told as a friend, and asked what he though, as a friend.\nIsn't that what it seemed from the testimony?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [270.578, 272.568, 274.872, 278.452], "stop_times": [272.568, 274.872, 278.452, 283.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 270.578}, "reply_to": "20106__0_017", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20106__0_019", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--No, Justice Ginsburg.\nWhat is in the testimony is that they did... and what the trial judge found... is that they did find... that they did hold Mr. Gordon in very high repute.\nAnd that's why they came to him.\nMr. Gordon testified, however, that Nancy Ewanchew, a coplaintiff below, had asked him repeatedly, What can you do about this?\nCan you make this stop?\nOther women had complained to him.\nDid they complain to him as a friend?\nYes.\nDid that take away his status as an agent of the City?\nNo, Your Honor, it did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [283.167, 284.328, 295.265, 296.674, 305.791, 306.973, 308.422, 310.034, 310.635, 314.185], "stop_times": [284.328, 295.265, 296.674, 305.791, 306.973, 308.422, 310.034, 310.635, 314.185, 315.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 283.167}, "reply_to": "20106__0_018", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_020", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, let me ask you about the third... what you list under \"C\".\nSuppose the City had had just a fine policy against this kind of conduct.\nAnd it was included in the manual that every employee got.\nAnd it had the telephone number in city hall to call when incidents like this came up.\nAnd everything else is the same.\nWould there be Title VII liability for... what was it... Silverman and Terry's conduct on the part of the City?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [315.747, 318.43, 326.654, 330.187, 338.573, 340.773], "stop_times": [318.43, 326.654, 330.187, 338.573, 340.773, 353.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 315.747}, "reply_to": "20106__0_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20106__0_021", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Yes, Justice Ginsburg, there would be.\nAnd that goes to the second ground on which we seek to hold the City liable.\nWhich is the invocation of the kind of agency principles that are embodied in the second clause--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [353.391, 355.384, 360.527], "stop_times": [355.384, 360.527, 367.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 353.391}, "reply_to": "20106__0_020", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_022", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, then, what you make... you seem to make quite a thing out of this... there was no procedure that was... that was well known.\nBut now you say it doesn't make any difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [367.491, 376.647], "stop_times": [376.647, 379.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 367.491}, "reply_to": "20106__0_021", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20106__0_023", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nIt does make a difference.\nBecause what we are asking in the 219(2)(d) argument that we're making is... and the Court of Appeals held that to impose liability on the City in those circumstances, that... under 219(2)(d)... that Mr. Gordon... I'm sorry... Mr. Silverman and Mr. Terry would have had to explicitly threatened Ms. Faragher or to actually used their power to harm.\nWhat we are arguing, Justice Ginsburg, is that the dynamic of a supervisor/subordinate relationship gives rise to a reasonable fear of retaliation, so that these women will put up with this stuff.\nNow, the City--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [379.729, 380.741, 381.991, 411.65, 426.179], "stop_times": [380.741, 381.991, 411.65, 426.179, 427.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 379.729}, "reply_to": "20106__0_022", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_024", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Is... is that... that sounds like strict liability to me.\nThat sounds like strict liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [427.291, 429.0], "stop_times": [429.0, 429.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 427.291}, "reply_to": "20106__0_023", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20106__0_025", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--No, it does not, Your Honor, with all due respect.\nI believe it would be strict liability, Mr. Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy, if we argued, perhaps, under 219(1), that they were doing this in the course of their employment.\nWhat we're saying is that there is liability when they are aided in the commission of the tortious behavior.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [429.731, 432.323, 443.813], "stop_times": [432.323, 443.813, 451.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 429.731}, "reply_to": "20106__0_024", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_026", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, but I... I inferred from your remarks... maybe improperly so... that the... they were aided, under the 219(d) formulation because of the subordinate/superior relation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [451.567], "stop_times": [464.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 451.567}, "reply_to": "20106__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20106__0_027", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [464.146], "stop_times": [465.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 464.146}, "reply_to": "20106__0_026", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_028", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, that's strict liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [465.145], "stop_times": [466.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 465.145}, "reply_to": "20106__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20106__0_029", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "No, it's not, Your Honor, respectfully.\nStrict liability is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [466.487, 468.338], "stop_times": [468.338, 469.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 466.487}, "reply_to": "20106__0_028", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_030", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "That's strict liability whenever there is a... a superior that harasses a subordinate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [469.97], "stop_times": [473.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 469.97}, "reply_to": "20106__0_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20106__0_031", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Strict liability, Justice Kennedy, is in such instances as somebody convicted of shooting birds over a baited field, somebody who is shown to have made a profit on insider trading, in... in short swing investments under 16(b) of the Securities Act of 1934.\nHere--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [473.91, 490.981], "stop_times": [490.981, 491.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 473.91}, "reply_to": "20106__0_030", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_032", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, could you give us some examples of situations in which the employer would not be liable under your hypothesis?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [491.642], "stop_times": [500.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 491.642}, "reply_to": "20106__0_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20106__0_033", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Yes, I can, Justice O'Connor.\nYes, I can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [500.678, 501.139], "stop_times": [501.139, 501.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 500.678}, "reply_to": "20106__0_032", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_034", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, would you?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [501.8, 502.461], "stop_times": [502.461, 502.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 501.8}, "reply_to": "20106__0_033", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20106__0_035", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Yes.\nOne example, for example, was in the Bouton v. BMW of North America case, out of the Third Circuit, where the... where the company had a strong policy against sexual harassment, communicated it broadly, that the plaintiff had herself used before.\nWhat we're asking--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [502.901, 503.841, 526.757], "stop_times": [503.841, 526.757, 528.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 502.901}, "reply_to": "20106__0_034", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_036", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, you have just informed Justice Ginsburg that if the employer had had a strong policy, fully communicated, that it wouldn't make any difference.\nNow, what position are you taking?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [528.227, 539.494], "stop_times": [539.494, 540.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 528.227}, "reply_to": "20106__0_035", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20106__0_037", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--I am taking the position, Your Honor, that, number one, in this case, there was no policy.\nNumber two, that the existence of a policy is a strong mitigating factor against imposing liability.\nBut that, number three--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [540.956, 546.57, 554.985], "stop_times": [546.57, 554.985, 557.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 540.956}, "reply_to": "20106__0_036", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_038", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, then your answer to Justice Ginsburg was incorrect... it would make a difference if the employer had a policy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [557.055], "stop_times": [562.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 557.055}, "reply_to": "20106__0_037", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20106__0_039", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Oh, it would certainly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [562.671], "stop_times": [563.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 562.671}, "reply_to": "20106__0_038", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_040", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--and that would be an excuse, so there would not be strict liability?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [563.61], "stop_times": [566.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 563.61}, "reply_to": "20106__0_039", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20106__0_041", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--It would certainly make a difference.\nAnd it would be one of those things to be weighed.\nBecause the plaintiff would have the burden of proof, to prove that the fear that she was expressing was a reasonable fear.\nWhat we seek is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [566.204, 567.343, 568.986, 577.261], "stop_times": [567.343, 568.986, 577.261, 581.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 566.204}, "reply_to": "20106__0_040", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_042", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Is there any other example of when an employer would not be liable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [581.573], "stop_times": [584.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 581.573}, "reply_to": "20106__0_041", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20106__0_043", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Yes, Justice O'Connor, there is.\nFor example, if a female police officer, on the midnight shift, complained about harassment by a sergeant on the afternoon shift, he would not be responsible then.\nIf a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [584.874, 586.746, 597.823], "stop_times": [586.746, 597.823, 599.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 584.874}, "reply_to": "20106__0_042", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_044", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, that's because he's not a direct supervisor, presumably.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [599.123], "stop_times": [602.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 599.123}, "reply_to": "20106__0_043", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20106__0_045", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [602.596], "stop_times": [603.547], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 602.596}, "reply_to": "20106__0_044", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_046", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "I thought Justice O'Connor was asking for an example where there was a direct supervisor who would not be liable.\nExactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [603.547, 607.801], "stop_times": [607.801, 608.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 603.547}, "reply_to": "20106__0_045", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20106__0_047", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, the... we can't envision every case.\nThe Bouton case was one in which there was a policy that was disseminated and had been used.\nYou're going to have... the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [608.289, 614.213, 620.889], "stop_times": [614.213, 620.889, 625.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 608.289}, "reply_to": "20106__0_046", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_048", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "You would at least say that all of these cases have to go to trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [625.273], "stop_times": [627.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 625.273}, "reply_to": "20106__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__0_049", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [627.713], "stop_times": [628.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 627.713}, "reply_to": "20106__0_048", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_050", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "You would never be able to get... to get these cases disposed of before a full fledged trial--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [628.324], "stop_times": [632.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 628.324}, "reply_to": "20106__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__0_051", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [632.736], "stop_times": [633.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 632.736}, "reply_to": "20106__0_050", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_052", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--as to whether... whether the woman had a, quote, reasonable fear?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [633.397], "stop_times": [636.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 633.397}, "reply_to": "20106__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__0_053", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Justice Scalia, I don't want to say \"never\".\nI would say that it is unlikely that summary judgment would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [636.779, 640.47], "stop_times": [640.47, 644.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 636.779}, "reply_to": "20106__0_052", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_054", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, when... when would it be, if all the woman has to do is say, I had a reasonable fear?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [644.393], "stop_times": [647.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 644.393}, "reply_to": "20106__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__0_055", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--If it could be shown that her fear was unreasonable.\nBut, like negligence, the reasonability of her fear is something that likely is going to have to be weighed by the trier of fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [647.767, 651.78], "stop_times": [651.78, 661.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 647.767}, "reply_to": "20106__0_054", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_056", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, the company could have the clearest policy, and... and many other employees could have... could have used that policy to stop this kind of intimidation.\nBut if a particular woman has not used it, she could still have a trial on... on whether she was fearful enough... that... that's an excuse?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [661.845, 671.311], "stop_times": [671.311, 682.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 661.845}, "reply_to": "20106__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__0_057", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "If she had not used it, and if she could explain why she did not use it.\nWe ask only that an objectively reasonable fear be taken into account.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [682.027, 686.071], "stop_times": [686.071, 692.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 682.027}, "reply_to": "20106__0_056", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_058", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, incidentally, reasonable fear of what ridicule, retaliation, embarrassment?\nBecause I... I assume some of those will always be present.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [692.295, 697.278], "stop_times": [697.278, 699.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 692.295}, "reply_to": "20106__0_057", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20106__0_059", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, in the cases in the studies cited at, I believe, note 32 of our brief, there is widespread fear amongst women of retaliation if they complain about sexual harassment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [699.729], "stop_times": [714.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 699.729}, "reply_to": "20106__0_058", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_060", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Okay, retaliation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [714.11], "stop_times": [714.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 714.11}, "reply_to": "20106__0_059", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20106__0_061", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Retaliation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [714.869], "stop_times": [715.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 714.869}, "reply_to": "20106__0_060", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_062", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "That... that is to say, demotion and further bad treatment, et cetera?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [715.41], "stop_times": [718.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 715.41}, "reply_to": "20106__0_061", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20106__0_063", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [718.993], "stop_times": [719.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 718.993}, "reply_to": "20106__0_062", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_064", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "It's just women?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [719.573], "stop_times": [720.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 719.573}, "reply_to": "20106__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__0_065", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "No... no, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [720.393], "stop_times": [721.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 720.393}, "reply_to": "20106__0_064", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_066", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "And is it just sexual harassment?\nI mean, do you know anybody who isn't... who isn't afraid of... of, you know, criticizing his supervisor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [721.815, 722.536], "stop_times": [722.536, 729.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 721.815}, "reply_to": "20106__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__0_067", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Precisely not, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [729.088], "stop_times": [730.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 729.088}, "reply_to": "20106__0_066", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_068", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Jumping over the chain of command, and crit... nobody is not afraid of that, is he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [730.079], "stop_times": [732.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 730.079}, "reply_to": "20106__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__0_069", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "I do... I do not, Your Honor.\nAnd there... and that's why there is a reasonable fear in the work place for complaining about this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [732.772, 733.473], "stop_times": [733.473, 738.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 732.772}, "reply_to": "20106__0_068", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_070", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "And that's... that's why there's an absolute liability.\nYes.\nThere's always going to be reasonable fear.\nAnd, therefore, there's always going to be absolute liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [738.194, 739.767, 740.317, 742.238], "stop_times": [739.767, 740.317, 742.238, 744.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 738.194}, "reply_to": "20106__0_069", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20106__0_071", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "No, Justice Souter, there is not always going to be reasonable fear.\nBecause... there is going to be reasonable fear at the summary judgment stage.\nI am not suggesting that these cases are going to be disposed of on summary judgment.\nI think there's plenty of time, however, that the juries will say, This is nonsense.\nThis woman--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [744.139, 747.21, 752.663, 757.378, 763.743], "stop_times": [747.21, 752.663, 757.378, 763.743, 764.474], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 744.139}, "reply_to": "20106__0_070", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_072", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "But let's go back to what you conceded, at least I thought.\nThere's a very clear policy.\nIt has been used successfully... the Third Circuit case.\nSo that could go to summary judgment, or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [764.474, 766.995, 769.045, 771.958], "stop_times": [766.995, 769.045, 771.958, 775.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 764.474}, "reply_to": "20106__0_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20106__0_073", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--That case did not go to summary judgment.\nI think that comes closer to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [775.17, 780.656], "stop_times": [780.656, 787.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 775.17}, "reply_to": "20106__0_072", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_074", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Yes, but you said--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [787.709], "stop_times": [788.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 787.709}, "reply_to": "20106__0_073", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20106__0_075", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "I think... I think it's a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [788.681], "stop_times": [789.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 788.681}, "reply_to": "20106__0_074", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_076", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--you said it could be mitigating, and it... I'm sort of fuzzy about... you give... on the one hand, you give have a clear policy, great prominence; but then it kind of drifts off into the wind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [789.822], "stop_times": [802.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 789.822}, "reply_to": "20106__0_075", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20106__0_077", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Well, Justice Ginsburg, it's going to depend on the... the factors of the work place.\nIs the policy enforced?\nHow much power does--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [802.388, 808.332, 810.505], "stop_times": [808.332, 810.505, 812.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 802.388}, "reply_to": "20106__0_076", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_078", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "I really gave you an example of a policy that's included in the manual.\nLet's have it posted on the guardhouse door.\nEveryone knows about it, and there's a number, in big letters, to call.\nAnd I asked you... and everything else is the... the same.\nThese supervisors are just as gross.\nWould there be a Title VII claim against the employer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [812.035, 816.81, 819.321, 823.643, 827.145, 830.046], "stop_times": [816.81, 819.321, 823.643, 827.145, 830.046, 835.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 812.035}, "reply_to": "20106__0_077", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20106__0_079", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--If the employee could demonstrate that, notwithstanding the policy, that she had a reasonable fear of retaliation if she came forward.\nThis would depend on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [835.482, 848.109], "stop_times": [848.109, 849.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 835.482}, "reply_to": "20106__0_078", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_080", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "This is an objective fear or subjective?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [849.962], "stop_times": [852.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 849.962}, "reply_to": "20106__0_079", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20106__0_081", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--No.\nAn objectively reasonable fear.\nI would want to point out to the trier of fact the degree of control that the employer... that the supervisor exercised over the work place.\nI would want to point out the other kind of rules they have there.\nIs he allowed to hire and fire at whim?\nI would want to point out his history in dealing with employees.\nI would want to deal with whether he... whether he has the reputation as a bully.\nWhat we're saying is that if the supervisor is allowed to get away with this behavior, that that gives rise to a reasonable fear, Justice Ginsburg.\nIf I may reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [852.023, 852.493, 853.755, 862.551, 868.755, 870.335, 874.488, 879.411, 888.067], "stop_times": [852.493, 853.755, 862.551, 868.755, 870.335, 874.488, 879.411, 888.067, 891.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 852.023}, "reply_to": "20106__0_080", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_082", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Very well, Mr. Amlong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [891.021], "stop_times": [892.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 891.021}, "reply_to": "20106__0_081", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20106__0_083", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Thank you, Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [892.27], "stop_times": [893.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 892.27}, "reply_to": "20106__0_082", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__0_084", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Mr. Gornstein, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [893.121], "stop_times": [894.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 893.121}, "reply_to": "20106__0_083", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20106__1_000", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--\nOur position is that Respondent is potentially liable for the hostile work environment experienced by Petitioner on three different grounds.\nFirst, that Respondent's delegation of authority to Terry to run the beach, coupled with the failure to disseminate an anti harassment policy, made the creation of a hostile work environment possible.\nSecond, that knowledge of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [894.781, 906.089, 913.635, 925.322], "stop_times": [906.089, 913.635, 925.322, 928.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 894.781}, "reply_to": "20106__0_084", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20106__1_001", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Now, you... you would say that, and that alone, is... is sufficient to impose liability?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [928.314], "stop_times": [932.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 928.314}, "reply_to": "20106__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20106__1_002", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--That's correct.\nAlthough, I... I would have to elaborate on the standard for deciding when it is that the delegation of power has made the creation of the hostile work environment possible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [932.565, 933.927], "stop_times": [933.927, 947.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 932.565}, "reply_to": "20106__1_001", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20106__1_003", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "You don't... this is not a negligence argument?\nYou're not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [947.175, 949.188], "stop_times": [949.188, 949.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 947.175}, "reply_to": "20106__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__1_004", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "This is not an negligence argument.\nThe second ground is that the Respondent... knowledge of it should be imputed to Respondent, because one of Respondent's supervisors knew about it.\nAnd third a possible ground of liability is that the Respondent should have known about it, but did not, because it failed to disseminate an anti harassment policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [949.749, 951.559, 962.766], "stop_times": [951.559, 962.766, 972.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 949.749}, "reply_to": "20106__1_003", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20106__1_005", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--And that is negligence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [972.853], "stop_times": [973.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 972.853}, "reply_to": "20106__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__1_006", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "That is a \"should have known\" standard.\nAnd the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [973.873, 976.106], "stop_times": [976.106, 978.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 973.873}, "reply_to": "20106__1_005", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20106__1_007", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Is it a negligence standard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [978.206], "stop_times": [979.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 978.206}, "reply_to": "20106__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__1_008", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Correct.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [979.448, 979.686], "stop_times": [979.686, 981.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 979.448}, "reply_to": "20106__1_007", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20106__1_009", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "But it's a... it's a negligence... it's a negligence standard that will always be satisfied if there is no policy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [981.238], "stop_times": [987.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 981.238}, "reply_to": "20106__1_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20106__1_010", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [987.233], "stop_times": [988.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 987.233}, "reply_to": "20106__1_009", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20106__1_011", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "So, in effect, it's kind of an... an absolute policy standard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [988.084], "stop_times": [990.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 988.084}, "reply_to": "20106__1_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20106__1_012", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--No.\nI... I... I... I... there is a causation issue that goes along with the third theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [990.845, 991.406], "stop_times": [991.406, 996.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 990.845}, "reply_to": "20106__1_011", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20106__1_013", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, is there a causation issue... well, a causation issue on the first theory, too, then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [996.021], "stop_times": [1000.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 996.021}, "reply_to": "20106__1_012", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20106__1_014", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "There... that... that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1000.324], "stop_times": [1001.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1000.324}, "reply_to": "20106__1_013", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20106__1_015", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "You say they made it possible because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1001.715], "stop_times": [1004.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1001.715}, "reply_to": "20106__1_014", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20106__1_016", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "That's correct.\nAnd on the third theory, it would have been, had the policy... would they have known about it had they had distributed... had they distributed a policy... an effective policy.\nSo there is a causation issue on the third question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1004.096, 1004.857, 1013.131], "stop_times": [1004.857, 1013.131, 1016.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1004.096}, "reply_to": "20106__1_015", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20106__1_017", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--How will... how will we ever know that if they haven't distributed a policy?\nBecause we'll never know how the... the... the policy, contrary to fact, would have worked.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1016.253, 1020.807], "stop_times": [1020.807, 1025.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1016.253}, "reply_to": "20106__1_016", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20106__1_018", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1025.869], "stop_times": [1026.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1025.869}, "reply_to": "20106__1_017", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20106__1_019", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "So won't... won't the effect of your third prong always be liability when there's no policy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1026.381], "stop_times": [1031.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1026.381}, "reply_to": "20106__1_018", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20106__1_020", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Justice Souter, there is... there will be uncertainty in... in many cases.\nAnd then the question will be who bears the risk of uncertainty in that situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1031.153, 1034.516], "stop_times": [1034.516, 1038.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1031.153}, "reply_to": "20106__1_019", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20106__1_021", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "And who is it going to be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1038.817], "stop_times": [1039.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1038.817}, "reply_to": "20106__1_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20106__1_022", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, I think a fair argument could be made that the employer of that situation... in that situation... should bear the risk--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1039.828], "stop_times": [1047.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1039.828}, "reply_to": "20106__1_021", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20106__1_023", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, if that's... if that's the case, and... and what we're uncertain about is how a policy that was never promulgated would have worked in fact, then the practical effect of the third prong is always to make the employer liable if there's no policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1047.285], "stop_times": [1060.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1047.285}, "reply_to": "20106__1_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20106__1_024", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Well, if... if the... unless the employer can make that showing.\nOr you reject--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1060.732, 1063.083], "stop_times": [1063.083, 1064.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1060.732}, "reply_to": "20106__1_023", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20106__1_025", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Yes, but how can you ever do it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1064.355], "stop_times": [1065.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1064.355}, "reply_to": "20106__1_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20106__1_026", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Or if you reject the view that he should have the burden, and place the burden on the plaintiff.\nA plaintiff could satisfy that burden in a number of ways.\nFor example, in this case, the plaintiff herself could have testified that had there been an effective policy, I would have complained.\nAnd then if that testimony is believed, causation is demonstrated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1065.544, 1069.368, 1072.52, 1079.115], "stop_times": [1069.368, 1072.52, 1079.115, 1082.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1065.544}, "reply_to": "20106__1_025", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20106__1_027", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "That sounds like running around Robin Hood's barn.\nI mean, we're looking for something that's fairly simple and easy to administer.\nAnd that isn't it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1082.087, 1083.697, 1089.291], "stop_times": [1083.697, 1089.291, 1090.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1082.087}, "reply_to": "20106__1_026", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20106__1_028", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Yes, Mr.... yes, Mr. Chief Justice.\nBut that... that is a... that is the classic negligence theory.\nWhich is, should the employer know... known about it.\nI would like to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1090.883, 1092.352, 1095.283, 1098.537], "stop_times": [1092.352, 1095.283, 1098.537, 1099.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1090.883}, "reply_to": "20106__1_027", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20106__1_029", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Why do you need... why do you need a special policy?\nI mean, isn't it... do you really have to tell somebody that if your supervisor is doing something that you think is wrong or improper, you should talk to your supervisor's supervisor?\nWhy do you need a policy for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1099.398, 1101.328, 1113.616], "stop_times": [1101.328, 1113.616, 1115.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1099.398}, "reply_to": "20106__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__1_030", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--I... I think that the... the... the problem is difficult enough, that in most cases, if an employer does not adopt a policy, they would not be exercising reasonable care.\nBut I would leave room for cases in which an employer could show that it has exercised reasonable care in relationship to this problem if they have adopt... adopted policies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1115.868, 1125.705], "stop_times": [1125.705, 1134.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1115.868}, "reply_to": "20106__1_029", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20106__1_031", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Yes, but don't you think every employee in the country knows that if they're mistreated, they can complain to somebody higher up the ladder?\nI mean, it's not like everybody is totally ignorant of these situations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1134.9, 1141.475], "stop_times": [1141.475, 1146.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1134.9}, "reply_to": "20106__1_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20106__1_032", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, there are two... two problems.\nNot everybody knows about it, first of all, Justice O'Connor.\nBut even if they know about it, they may not be... they may not know that the employer is willing to do something about it.\nAnd that's why the... the... a policy... a clear policy against discrimination that is disseminated to everyone, and where the... the employer... it's made clear--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1146.759, 1148.241, 1151.112, 1156.516], "stop_times": [1148.241, 1151.112, 1156.516, 1165.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1146.759}, "reply_to": "20106__1_031", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20106__1_033", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, it's obviously helpful to have.\nBut I think we have a case here that requires us to grapple with a situation where there wasn't an articulated policy.\nAnd we're trying to look at what reasonable people know and understand.\nAnd I would have thought most people would know and understand that if you're being mistreated, you can complain to a higher up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1165.753, 1167.803, 1175.93, 1181.553], "stop_times": [1167.803, 1175.93, 1181.553, 1189.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1165.753}, "reply_to": "20106__1_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20106__1_034", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--But I think that returns me to the first potential line... liability here.\nAnd that is that there should be liability when the supervisor is aided by the agency relationship, in the sense that he is able to impose a hostile work environment because the employee reasonably fears adverse employment consequences if she resists or if she complains.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1189.387, 1194.15], "stop_times": [1194.15, 1215.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1189.387}, "reply_to": "20106__1_033", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20106__1_035", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "But that... that's a form of strict liability, it seems to me.\nBecause I think any employee is going to fear adverse consequences from... from a supervisor, even though the supervisor... the harassing supervisor has not made any threat at all, just by virtue of the position.\nThat's why you laugh at his jokes.\nI mean, everybody knows that.\nThat... that's a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1215.013, 1217.176, 1231.556, 1233.426, 1235.149], "stop_times": [1217.176, 1231.556, 1233.426, 1235.149, 1235.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1215.013}, "reply_to": "20106__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20106__1_036", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, I think that when there is an effective policy in place, it has the capacity to remove reasonable fear.\nAnd when an employer can show that it... its policy has all the elements of a good policy, and they're listed in the EEOC guidance, and that that policy has been effectively disseminated to everyone, and that it's clearly understood that the... the employer takes this seriously, there's a complaint mechanism, then the plaintiff would have to show, through case specific evidence, that notwithstanding such an effective policy, she nonetheless reasonably feared adverse employment consequences if she resisted or complained.\nI think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1235.787, 1243.154, 1273.635], "stop_times": [1243.154, 1273.635, 1274.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1235.787}, "reply_to": "20106__1_035", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20106__1_037", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--What would you do if you have the model employer, who does everything that they can, but he... there is one bad apple, a supervisor, and he offers a quid pro quo... promotion in exchange for sexual favors, et cetera... is that a completely different case, or is it governed by this same rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1274.436], "stop_times": [1291.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1274.436}, "reply_to": "20106__1_036", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20106__1_038", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--That... that is a different case, Mr. Justice... Justice Kennedy.\nAnd in... in that case, we would say that the employer is liable.\nAnd the employer is liable because there the role of supervisory power is clear.\nAnd the employer is liable in that situation.\nNow, the reason the employer is liable there is the same reason that an employer is liable when a supervisor fires a black employee because he has a personal aversion to blacks in the work place, notwithstanding anything that the employer might have done to prevent that from happening.\nAnd that's... that is because, in that case, it's still the case that the discrimination was made possible by the delegation of power from the employer to the supervisor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1291.196, 1295.03, 1299.162, 1302.793, 1305.975, 1322.538], "stop_times": [1295.03, 1299.162, 1302.793, 1305.975, 1322.538, 1331.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1291.196}, "reply_to": "20106__1_037", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20106__1_039", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "What if the woman is not... is not fired, because... because she... she yields to the... to the harassment, and provides the sexual favor requested?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1331.697], "stop_times": [1342.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1331.697}, "reply_to": "20106__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__1_040", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "We... if it's... if it's... if it's an explicit request--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1342.142], "stop_times": [1343.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1342.142}, "reply_to": "20106__1_039", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20106__1_041", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1343.254], "stop_times": [1343.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1343.254}, "reply_to": "20106__1_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__1_042", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--if it's an explicit threat of adverse employment consequences--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1343.761], "stop_times": [1346.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1343.761}, "reply_to": "20106__1_041", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20106__1_043", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1346.385], "stop_times": [1346.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1346.385}, "reply_to": "20106__1_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__1_044", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--again, we would say that the employer is liable in that situation, where there's an invocation of power.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1346.644], "stop_times": [1351.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1346.644}, "reply_to": "20106__1_043", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20106__1_045", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Now, I... I find that... why is that?\nThat seems to me very strange.\nI mean, so it would make all the difference in this case... let's assume... let's assume that... that... that there would otherwise be liability on the basis of employer negligence only.\nLet's assume we were to adopt that rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1351.238, 1352.17, 1353.318, 1361.825], "stop_times": [1352.17, 1353.318, 1361.825, 1364.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1351.238}, "reply_to": "20106__1_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__1_046", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1364.046], "stop_times": [1364.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1364.046}, "reply_to": "20106__1_045", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20106__1_047", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "You say, however, that if in this case one of the lifeguards had said, You know, unless you let me continue to abuse you in this fashion, I'm going to assign you to that tower, that life tower... lifesaving tower that doesn't have a screen on it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1364.717], "stop_times": [1380.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1364.717}, "reply_to": "20106__1_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__1_048", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Yes, we are... we are... now we are getting to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1380.657], "stop_times": [1383.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1380.657}, "reply_to": "20106__1_047", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20106__1_049", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--That would be quid pro quo, I guess, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1383.047], "stop_times": [1384.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1383.047}, "reply_to": "20106__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__1_050", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--That... that's correct.\nAnd that's the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1384.96, 1385.839], "stop_times": [1385.839, 1386.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1384.96}, "reply_to": "20106__1_049", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20106__1_051", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "And suddenly everything would transform, even though the employer knows nothing about it.\nAll you have to allege is that he said he was going to send me to this other tower.\nAnd suddenly it becomes a totally different case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1386.44, 1388.883, 1392.334], "stop_times": [1388.883, 1392.334, 1394.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1386.44}, "reply_to": "20106__1_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__1_052", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--It does.\nAnd that's because, in that case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1394.707, 1395.196], "stop_times": [1395.196, 1396.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1394.707}, "reply_to": "20106__1_051", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20106__1_053", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "I don't understand why.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1396.738], "stop_times": [1397.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1396.738}, "reply_to": "20106__1_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__1_054", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--the invocation of power is clear.\nAnd I... I might add that this is the case the Court is essentially is going to have next sitting.\nSo I'm not sure I want to spend that much time on it.\nThat is what is at issue in Eller for... for the Court next sitting.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1397.668, 1398.829, 1402.562, 1405.163, 1408.376], "stop_times": [1398.829, 1402.562, 1405.163, 1408.376, 1408.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1397.668}, "reply_to": "20106__1_053", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20106__1_055", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, maybe because it's a little difficult to see where the line is between that kind of case and this kind of case.\nI mean, it's one thing to go off to the tower without any windows; it's... is it so different to be subjected to this kind of leering and groping and foul mouth every day?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1408.947, 1413.368], "stop_times": [1413.368, 1423.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1408.947}, "reply_to": "20106__1_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20106__1_056", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--But the question is Has the... that harassment been made possible by the delegation of power from the employer to the supervisor?\nAnd the line we draw is between those cases in which supervisory power makes it possible and those cases in which the supervisor is simply taking advantage of proximity in the same way that a co worker would.\nAnd the reason that we... we hold employer liable in those situations is... is twofold.\nIt serves two important Title VII purposes.\nFirst, it provides a greater incentive for employers to root out discrimination from their work places.\nAnd, second, it provides compensation to an innocent employee--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1423.676, 1432.051, 1443.568, 1449.042, 1451.924, 1457.077], "stop_times": [1432.051, 1443.568, 1449.042, 1451.924, 1457.077, 1461.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1423.676}, "reply_to": "20106__1_055", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20106__1_057", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, but in... in situations where the harassment is carried out by the supervisor, but there is no retaliation suggested or in fact imposed by the supervisor, he just does these gross things, but otherwise the... the employment relationship stays the same, why do you say the employer has aided the supervisor in doing it?\nWhy isn't it closer to the co employee harassment situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1461.47, 1485.756], "stop_times": [1485.756, 1489.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1461.47}, "reply_to": "20106__1_056", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20106__1_058", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Because, by the delegation of power itself, and by the absence of an effective policy providing the person a way around, there will... there can be a reasonable fear that adverse employment consequences will be imposed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1489.279], "stop_times": [1502.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1489.279}, "reply_to": "20106__1_057", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20106__1_059", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Gornstein.\nMr. Rissetto, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1502.398, 1503.398], "stop_times": [1503.398, 1506.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1502.398}, "reply_to": "20106__1_058", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20106__2_000", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court--\nHostile environment sexual harassment is seldom within the scope of employment.\nIt is seldom within the authority that is given to a supervisor.\nWe believe that the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit properly applied a test, that is essentially a test of negligence, to deal with this situation.\nWas--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1506.229, 1517.636, 1522.641, 1526.782, 1537.12], "stop_times": [1517.636, 1522.641, 1526.782, 1537.12, 1538.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1506.229}, "reply_to": "20106__1_059", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_001", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Is... is firing someone just because of the color of his skin, when the employer has a... a policy against race discrimination, is that within the scope of employment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1538.81], "stop_times": [1550.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1538.81}, "reply_to": "20106__2_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20106__2_002", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Excuse me, Ms. Justice, I didn't hear the first part of your question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1550.708], "stop_times": [1555.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1550.708}, "reply_to": "20106__2_001", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_003", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "You... you had said that this kind of thing can't be within the scope of employment because no rational employer would sanction... would allow such a thing.\nAnd I said, well, suppose you have a bigot running the personnel office and the employer doesn't know about it.\nAnd that that person is making decisions strictly on the basis of race.\nSurely, not within the scope of employment anymore.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1555.242, 1568.22, 1576.615, 1583.029], "stop_times": [1568.22, 1576.615, 1583.029, 1586.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1555.242}, "reply_to": "20106__2_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20106__2_004", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "No, that is... that is no longer a case of hostile environment sexual harassment, it is a case of disparate treatment.\nI mean, I grew up in a world where most discrimination that occurred was disparate treatment, that people were treated differently because of their gender or their race.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1586.693, 1592.736], "stop_times": [1592.736, 1600.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1586.693}, "reply_to": "20106__2_003", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_005", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Yes.\nBut as far as attributing it to the employer, the employer in both cases says that's certainly not any policy that I authorized.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1600.3, 1600.801], "stop_times": [1600.801, 1609.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1600.3}, "reply_to": "20106__2_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20106__2_006", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "When... when... when a supervisor takes what Justice Posner, in the Jansen case, called is a company act, the hiring somebody or not hiring somebody, that is an act that's separate from the motivation of the act.\nIt is... it is an act that's an official act of the company.\nAnd if that act is tainted by a discriminatory motive or a discriminatory intent, it's a violation of Title VII.\nIt's always been.\nAnd... and that is the... that is the... at least the fundamental distinction between a quid pro quo situation or a disparate treatment situation on one side, and hostile environment situation on the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1609.096, 1624.247, 1626.867, 1633.412, 1633.883], "stop_times": [1624.247, 1626.867, 1633.412, 1633.883, 1646.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1609.096}, "reply_to": "20106__2_005", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_007", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "I don't understand--\n--But it isn't because... because, I think, as... as your... your... your friend on the other side indicated, it's still a quid pro quo.\nEven if the person is not fired, but... but yields and... and... and gives the sexual favor demanded, isn't that still quid pro quo?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1646.362, 1646.963, 1652.977], "stop_times": [1646.963, 1652.977, 1661.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1646.362}, "reply_to": "20106__2_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__2_008", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "That is an unsettled question, since I believe the lower courts are wrestling at the present time as to what a quid pro quo violation is.\nAt least--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1661.845, 1669.43], "stop_times": [1669.43, 1670.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1661.845}, "reply_to": "20106__2_007", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_009", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "So you think that... that should make the difference, the... the... the woman who is so intimidated that she yields is... does not get the advantage of the quid pro quo rule, whereas the one who... who is tougher and is fired does?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1670.131], "stop_times": [1684.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1670.131}, "reply_to": "20106__2_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__2_010", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Well, there is a... there is a... there are three categories of quid pro quo, one where the person is fired.\nThat's a company act.\nThat is, if I fire somebody because of their gender, that's a violation of Title VII.\nI don't believe that that principle is in dispute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1684.589, 1692.984, 1693.845, 1698.378], "stop_times": [1692.984, 1693.845, 1698.378, 1700.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1684.589}, "reply_to": "20106__2_009", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_011", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "And you're not arguing that there should be a negligence test for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1700.889], "stop_times": [1703.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1700.889}, "reply_to": "20106__2_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__2_012", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "No.\nWhen there is disparate treatment discrimination, it's not a matter of employer negligence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1703.342, 1703.681], "stop_times": [1703.681, 1707.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1703.342}, "reply_to": "20106__2_011", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_013", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "But, Mr. Rissetto, may I just ask this question?\nYou draw the distinction because the personnel supervisor, in the course of his or her regular responsibilities, hires and fires people.\nThat's... but why isn't it true that the supervisor in this case, in the course of his regular responsibilities, is responsible for the conduct that occurs at the beach?\nWhat's the difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1707.594, 1709.134, 1716.85, 1724.865], "stop_times": [1709.134, 1716.85, 1724.865, 1726.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1707.594}, "reply_to": "20106__2_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20106__2_014", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "He is responsible for the conduct of... that occurs at the beach.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1726.825], "stop_times": [1728.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1726.825}, "reply_to": "20106__2_013", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_015", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Including how the employees deal with one another.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1728.768], "stop_times": [1730.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1728.768}, "reply_to": "20106__2_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20106__2_016", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "But when that supervisor departs from the scope of the employment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1730.338], "stop_times": [1734.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1730.338}, "reply_to": "20106__2_015", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_017", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, but didn't the personnel officer depart from the scope when he based it on race rather than merit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1734.171], "stop_times": [1740.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1734.171}, "reply_to": "20106__2_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20106__2_018", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--No.\nIn that case, he made a hiring decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1740.095, 1740.636], "stop_times": [1740.636, 1741.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1740.095}, "reply_to": "20106__2_017", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_019", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, here, this supervisor made a... a... employment decision in the sense it related to how people had to interact with one another under his supervision.\nWhy isn't that an employment decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1741.716, 1750.901], "stop_times": [1750.901, 1752.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1741.716}, "reply_to": "20106__2_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20106__2_020", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "But the... in... in... in the case of hostile environment, the... the effect of... on the terms and conditions of employment are as a result of an action that's outside the scope of the employment by the supervisor.\nIn a normal disparate treatment case, the effect on the terms and conditions of... of employment, at least in one respect, is as a result of not being hired or being fired or not being promoted.\nAnd that is a fundamental distinction.\nAnd it makes... and it makes the hostile environment cases difficult to fit into the normal disparate treatment mold.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1752.294, 1766.074, 1776.079, 1778.042], "stop_times": [1766.074, 1776.079, 1778.042, 1784.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1752.294}, "reply_to": "20106__2_019", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_021", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "My question is, why is it a fundamental distinction?\nThat's what I don't quite follow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1784.066, 1784.845], "stop_times": [1784.845, 1785.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1784.066}, "reply_to": "20106__2_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20106__2_022", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "I'm sorry?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1785.916], "stop_times": [1786.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1785.916}, "reply_to": "20106__2_021", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_023", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "My question is, why is it a fundamental distinction?\nThat's what I don't quite follow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1786.517, 1788.358], "stop_times": [1788.358, 1789.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1786.517}, "reply_to": "20106__2_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20106__2_024", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Because in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1789.51], "stop_times": [1790.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1789.51}, "reply_to": "20106__2_023", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_025", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Because in both cases, the... the supervisor is performing his... his or her general official responsibilities, but deviates from company policy.\nAnd you say, in one deviation, is outside the scope of the employment, but the other is not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1790.211, 1799.027], "stop_times": [1799.027, 1802.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1790.211}, "reply_to": "20106__2_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20106__2_026", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Because in one case there is an employment action that is... that is within the... the supervisor's authority.\nThe right to hire and fire is within the supervisor's authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1802.87, 1809.285], "stop_times": [1809.285, 1812.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1802.87}, "reply_to": "20106__2_025", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_027", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "But so is the right to tell how people behave on the beach.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1812.005], "stop_times": [1814.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1812.005}, "reply_to": "20106__2_026", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20106__2_028", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "And this is a case where the supervisor his self... himself or herself... is departing from the scope of that authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1814.668], "stop_times": [1820.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1814.668}, "reply_to": "20106__2_027", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_029", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, but think of the situation where the employer tells the supervisor to run an errand, drive the car downtown to buy supplies for the beach.\nAnd on the way, the employ... the supervisor drives negligently and hits somebody.\nEmployer liable?\nSure.\nNot a frolic of his own.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1820.531, 1833.24, 1837.772, 1840.114, 1841.556], "stop_times": [1833.24, 1837.772, 1840.114, 1841.556, 1842.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1820.531}, "reply_to": "20106__2_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20106__2_030", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "But if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1842.906], "stop_times": [1843.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1842.906}, "reply_to": "20106__2_029", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_031", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "So... so how do you relate what happened here to that concept?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1843.767], "stop_times": [1847.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1843.767}, "reply_to": "20106__2_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20106__2_032", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Because in this particular case, the activities of the supervisor in question were in pursuit of his own personal agenda.\nThey weren't... they weren't carrying out the responsibilities that he had in operating the beach.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1847.68, 1854.645], "stop_times": [1854.645, 1860.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1847.68}, "reply_to": "20106__2_031", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_033", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, his responsibilities included supervising the employees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1860.477], "stop_times": [1863.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1860.477}, "reply_to": "20106__2_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20106__2_034", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "It included supervising the employees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1863.301], "stop_times": [1865.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1863.301}, "reply_to": "20106__2_033", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_035", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1865.461], "stop_times": [1866.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1865.461}, "reply_to": "20106__2_034", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20106__2_036", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "And... and there is no question that Mr. Terry and Mr. Silverman--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1866.28], "stop_times": [1868.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1866.28}, "reply_to": "20106__2_035", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_037", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "And he carried it out in a grossly improper fashion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1868.433], "stop_times": [1872.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1868.433}, "reply_to": "20106__2_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20106__2_038", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Well, I would suggest that there's a distinction between his supervisory actions and the frolics, or improprieties and misconduct, that he committed outside his supervisory responsibilities.\nWe would suggest that the record in this case suggests that most of the things that went on that were offensive to the lifeguards at Boca Raton were done outside the normal responsibilities... the regular responsibilities of either Mr. Terry or Mr. Silverman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1872.284, 1887.124], "stop_times": [1887.124, 1902.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1872.284}, "reply_to": "20106__2_037", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_039", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "No, but I think you're--\n--Would it make a difference if... if one of the other... or both of them... said, I'm going to have my way with you once a week, and everything else is the same, would the employer be reachable more readily than you contend, where there was just groping and leering and foul language?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1902.394, 1903.415], "stop_times": [1903.415, 1922.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1902.394}, "reply_to": "20106__2_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20106__2_040", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, if... if he says, I'm going to have my way with you once a week, there is legitimately a negative implication in that statement that if I don't, you're going to be fired or something bad is going to happen to you.\nIn that case, you're on the way over to a... a quid pro quo kind of situation that's before the Court in Burlington--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1922.687, 1937.516], "stop_times": [1937.516, 1945.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1922.687}, "reply_to": "20106__2_039", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_041", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, why don't we just concentrate on the act rather than... he doesn't say, I'm going to fire you.\nHe's going to say, you're here, I'm stronger, once a week.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1945.132, 1950.376], "stop_times": [1950.376, 1955.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1945.132}, "reply_to": "20106__2_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20106__2_042", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Your Honor, I don't think it would make a difference in the outcome.\nIt would still be a hostile environment sexual discrimination for the employ... for the supervisor to say that to the employee.\nThat would... that... that there is... we believe that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1955.639, 1959.192, 1966.308], "stop_times": [1959.192, 1966.308, 1970.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1955.639}, "reply_to": "20106__2_041", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_043", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "In other words, if that... if that were a term and condition of her employment imposed by the supervisor, there would still be no liability on the part of the employer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1970.469], "stop_times": [1979.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1970.469}, "reply_to": "20106__2_042", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20106__2_044", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Your Honor, at... at the point we're on in the hypothetical, we're only a threat that the employer... that the supervisor says to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1979.734], "stop_times": [1987.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1979.734}, "reply_to": "20106__2_043", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_045", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "I'm not talking about words, because there were deeds here, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1987.849], "stop_times": [1991.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1987.849}, "reply_to": "20106__2_044", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20106__2_046", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1991.091], "stop_times": [1991.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1991.091}, "reply_to": "20106__2_045", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_047", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "They didn't go that far.\nSo let's take this case, where there's no words, just deeds.\nThat happens once a week.\nAnd it's a... she describes it as a term or condition... a condition of her employment.\nWould it not be, if that in fact is what her boss... her supervisor did?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [1991.642, 1992.884, 1997.086, 1998.177, 2007.544], "stop_times": [1992.884, 1997.086, 1998.177, 2007.544, 2012.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1991.642}, "reply_to": "20106__2_046", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20106__2_048", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "If there was... if... if there were no nexus to an employment action, if it was not a condition of her employment, it would... it would fit into the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2012.577], "stop_times": [2022.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2012.577}, "reply_to": "20106__2_047", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_049", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, that's the problem.\nIs it or is it not?\nHow do I know?\nOr I know the fact that once a week this goes on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2022.593, 2023.293, 2024.975, 2026.034], "stop_times": [2023.293, 2024.975, 2026.034, 2029.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2022.593}, "reply_to": "20106__2_048", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20106__2_050", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Well, we know in this case that... that... that there was no evidence in the record that the activities that these... that Silverman and Terry engaged in was anything more than gratuitous.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2029.096], "stop_times": [2040.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2029.096}, "reply_to": "20106__2_049", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_051", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, I'm just trying to find out, as far as the employer's liability is concerned, which is the issue before us, whether these are differences in degrees or difference in kind, whether it makes any difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2040.325], "stop_times": [2050.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2040.325}, "reply_to": "20106__2_050", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20106__2_052", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, the degree of grossness or the degree of coarseness, or whether it's verbal or... or physical, ought not to make an operative difference in the outcome.\nIn either event, the... the Title VII works best when a regime of communication is... is created, where employees that are the subject of either criminal activity or improper activity or misconduct--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2050.661, 2058.956], "stop_times": [2058.956, 2073.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2050.661}, "reply_to": "20106__2_051", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_053", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well... well, I'm not so sure.\nIn the case of very gross misconduct of the kind in the hypothetical, in one sense, the employee is... almost has less fear because she knows the employer will stop that.\nIt's these... it's these less offensive, but still gross and vulgar, situations, where she is really concerned that the employer might brush her off or not... not care, not act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2073.594, 2074.757, 2086.295], "stop_times": [2074.757, 2086.295, 2099.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2073.594}, "reply_to": "20106__2_052", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20106__2_054", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Well, in this particular case... and it's difficult to extrapolate from an anecdote... as soon as Miss Ewanchew wrote... wrote the letter, something happened.\nAn investigation took place, and disciplinary action was taken.\nBut as... I am not offering that as... as the paradigm example.\nWhat I am offering is... is an argument from policy that suggests that from an employer's perspective, trying to find out the sexual harassment of the subtle variety that you hypothesized is going on in the work place is nearly impossible.\nA lot... if... reading the record in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2099.862, 2107.99, 2111.532, 2115.444, 2127.632], "stop_times": [2107.99, 2111.532, 2115.444, 2127.632, 2130.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2099.862}, "reply_to": "20106__2_053", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_055", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "What is subtle about the behavior that's described here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2130.854], "stop_times": [2133.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2130.854}, "reply_to": "20106__2_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20106__2_056", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Well, to the extent that you're in a room and... and someone grabs a part of your anatomy and... and... and does so secretly, it is difficult for an outsider--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2133.146], "stop_times": [2141.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2133.146}, "reply_to": "20106__2_055", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_057", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "But there was nothing here, as far as I can tell, that was secret.\nIt was on the beach, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2141.98, 2144.812], "stop_times": [2144.812, 2146.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2141.98}, "reply_to": "20106__2_056", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20106__2_058", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--There was... there's a... there's a variety of... of anecdotes, some of which... for example, a number of the lifeguards... female lifeguards testified that they weren't aware that conduct vis a vis other lifeguards was even going on.\nWhich goes to the obviousness of the... of... of a lot of the activities.\nSome of the verbal activity was relatively public among the lifeguards.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2146.344, 2159.191, 2164.925], "stop_times": [2159.191, 2164.925, 2168.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2146.344}, "reply_to": "20106__2_057", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_059", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Is that the nub of your argument, that it is... that it is more difficult for the employer to... to become aware of this kind of harassment than it is for the employer to become aware of racially discriminatory hiring?\nIs that the nub of it?\nIs that why you... you would... you would call for different treatment of employer liability in those two cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2168.258, 2183.007, 2184.088], "stop_times": [2183.007, 2184.088, 2190.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2168.258}, "reply_to": "20106__2_058", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20106__2_060", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "That's part of it, Justice Souter.\nI think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2190.683, 2191.352], "stop_times": [2191.352, 2192.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2190.683}, "reply_to": "20106__2_059", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_061", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "What's the other... what's the other part?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2192.053], "stop_times": [2193.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2192.053}, "reply_to": "20106__2_060", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20106__2_062", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--The other part of it is that when the employee takes an employment action, hiring somebody or not hiring somebody in a discriminatory fashion, the person taking that ultimate action is acting within the scope of his or her work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2193.055], "stop_times": [2204.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2193.055}, "reply_to": "20106__2_061", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_063", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "No.\nBut that's just a matter of definition.\nI mean, what you're saying is the person in your example, who... who fires or hires for a racially discriminatory purpose, is exercising a power that the employer has... has given him.\nBut you could just as well define it by saying no, the employer has simply given an authority to hire and fire for legitimate reasons.\nSo it seems to me that that distinction, which you've stated several times, is simply a distinction that's based on an arbitrary definition that... that you are assuming here.\nAnd the real reason, if I understand your argument, is that it's more difficult for the employer to become aware of the harassment than to become aware of the racial discrimination.\nAnd you... you said a second ago that that is one of your reasons.\nMy question is Why is it more difficult?\nAll sorts of hiring decisions are made.\nAnd they may... they may be made very legitimately, even though the... the two parties, the... the supervisor and the person hired or fired are of different races.\nHow is it easier for the employer in the racial situation to know that something wrong is going on, but not in the harassment situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2204.943, 2205.443, 2206.323, 2218.801, 2226.477, 2234.902, 2244.869, 2248.512, 2251.434, 2253.827, 2263.841], "stop_times": [2205.443, 2206.323, 2218.801, 2226.477, 2234.902, 2244.869, 2248.512, 2251.434, 2253.827, 2263.841, 2270.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2204.943}, "reply_to": "20106__2_062", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20106__2_064", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "I don't believe there is a... a distinction in knowledge, particularly with respect to far flung employers, with operations that are run, where hiring decisions are made by supervisors.\nI think, as a practical matter, there is a... there is a... a great degree of difficulty in ensuring that personnel decisions are made in a manner that are consistent with Title VII.\nHowever, in... in the case of... of an employer making that decision with somebody acting within the scope of... of its employment, I don't believe that an employer can define away its Title VII responsibilities by saying, Joe, you can hire these people, but I don't want you to discriminate against Title VII; and remember, your job only entails hiring within the confines of Title VII.\nIn that situation, the law of agency is clear, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2270.857, 2281.303, 2292.172, 2318.218], "stop_times": [2281.303, 2292.172, 2318.218, 2320.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2270.857}, "reply_to": "20106__2_063", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_065", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Why is the situation any different when we get to sex harassment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2320.921], "stop_times": [2323.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2320.921}, "reply_to": "20106__2_064", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20106__2_066", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Because in this particular case, the activity that was engaged in by the individual supervisors had nothing to do with the exercise of their supervisory authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2323.512], "stop_times": [2333.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2323.512}, "reply_to": "20106__2_065", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_067", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "No.\nBut you're saying... your response to my definitional objection was, in effect, it's... it's easier to define with reference to the prohibited act in the one case than in the other.\nAnd... and that's what I don't understand.\nI don't... I don't understand why the definitional responsibility and the practical consequences of it are different in the race situation from the sex situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2333.48, 2333.957, 2346.334, 2349.227], "stop_times": [2333.957, 2346.334, 2349.227, 2356.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2333.48}, "reply_to": "20106__2_066", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20106__2_068", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, I think if you... under the... the historic law of agency, there is a... a premise.\nAnd the premise is that supervisors can act outside the scope of their employment.\nAnd when they do, they're on their own.\nJustice Hand had a bosun's case, where a drunken bosun beat up a... a sailor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2356.823, 2361.898, 2365.929, 2368.022], "stop_times": [2361.898, 2365.929, 2368.022, 2372.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2356.823}, "reply_to": "20106__2_067", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_069", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Okay.\nAnd that's true with respect to improper racial considerations.\nIt's true with respect to improper sex considerations.\nWhat's the difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2372.444, 2373.085, 2376.418, 2378.709], "stop_times": [2373.085, 2376.418, 2378.709, 2379.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2372.444}, "reply_to": "20106__2_068", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20106__2_070", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Well, the difference is that, in... in the case when the supervisor departs from the scope of employment, he's acting on his own.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2379.58, 2388.305], "stop_times": [2388.305, 2388.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2379.58}, "reply_to": "20106__2_069", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_071", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, if... if... if IBM refuses to hire a woman, and thereby violates the prohibition against discrimination based on sex, you don't need vicarious liability on the part of a supervisor or on the part of the hiring manager.\nShe tried to get on IBM's payroll and did not succeed.\nSo it seems to me you're not talking about vicarious liability there at all.\nYou're talking about liability on the part of the employer directly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2388.966, 2403.756, 2407.106, 2410.839], "stop_times": [2403.756, 2407.106, 2410.839, 2413.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2388.966}, "reply_to": "20106__2_070", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20106__2_072", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Yes, because the... but in... in every case of a corporation, the employer is acting through individuals, and the act of the individual is the act of the corporation, unless the... the supervisor departs from the scope of his employment.\nIf Mr. Terry decided that he was going to begin to steal from the... from the... from the women lifeguards, on... on the... because they were women, and... so disparate treat... disparate action with respect to... on the basis of sex with respect to the women lifeguards.\nAnd he does this stealing.\nThe question is Is he within the scope of his employment?\nShould the employer be automatically liable to the women lifeguards for the theft?\nNow, you get back to the question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2413.48, 2426.921, 2441.99, 2443.61, 2446.443, 2452.36], "stop_times": [2426.921, 2441.99, 2443.61, 2446.443, 2452.36, 2453.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2413.48}, "reply_to": "20106__2_071", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_073", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Suppose... suppose I... I'm a hiring officer for a company, and I hire somebody because he's my son in law.\nAm I acting--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2453.859, 2458.792], "stop_times": [2458.792, 2461.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2453.859}, "reply_to": "20106__2_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__2_074", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--cases Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2461.923], "stop_times": [2462.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2461.923}, "reply_to": "20106__2_073", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_075", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Am I... am I acting in the scope of my employment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2462.584], "stop_times": [2465.195], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2462.584}, "reply_to": "20106__2_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__2_076", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--It depends whether or not the... a... the court will find that that's part of a pattern of not engaging equally... equal employment hiring decisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2465.195], "stop_times": [2474.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2465.195}, "reply_to": "20106__2_075", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_077", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "No, no, no.\nApart from whether... there's no discrimination.\nThere's no Title VII involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2474.023, 2474.722, 2476.024], "stop_times": [2474.722, 2476.024, 2477.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2474.023}, "reply_to": "20106__2_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__2_078", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Okay, no discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2477.043], "stop_times": [2477.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2477.043}, "reply_to": "20106__2_077", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_079", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "I'm clearly not acting in the scope of my employment if the only reason I hired a person is because he's my son in law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2477.884], "stop_times": [2480.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2477.884}, "reply_to": "20106__2_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__2_080", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, if... if you assume he's not qual--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2480.676], "stop_times": [2482.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2480.676}, "reply_to": "20106__2_079", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_081", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "He's incompetent.\nYes.\nBut he's making hiring decisions.\nI don't care if he's qualified.\n[Laughter]\nI don't care whether he's qualified; he's my son in law.\nI mean--\nWhat's family for?\nRight.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2482.799, 2483.24, 2483.68, 2484.169, 2491.544, 2485.231, 2487.531, 2488.974, 2490.964], "stop_times": [2483.24, 2483.68, 2484.169, 2491.544, 2485.231, 2487.531, 2488.974, 2490.964, 2491.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2482.799}, "reply_to": "20106__2_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__2_082", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--The act... precisely... the act of hiring is within the scope of his employment.\nWhy he hires--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2491.925, 2494.817], "stop_times": [2494.817, 2496.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2491.925}, "reply_to": "20106__2_081", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_083", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "I, m--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2496.508], "stop_times": [2497.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2496.508}, "reply_to": "20106__2_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__2_084", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--That's the reason we don't let them off the hook when they don't hire somebody because they're a woman or because they're black.\nBecause the act of hiring is within the scope of employment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2497.079, 2501.34], "stop_times": [2501.34, 2504.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2497.079}, "reply_to": "20106__2_083", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_085", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--May I ask another--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2504.343], "stop_times": [2505.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2504.343}, "reply_to": "20106__2_084", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20106__2_086", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2505.793], "stop_times": [2506.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2505.793}, "reply_to": "20106__2_085", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_087", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--if you could get away from the hiring for a second.\nSupposing a... a company... the supervisor has a... the work place has got asbestos in it or it's dirty or unhealthy or something like that.\nAnd it makes it an undesirable place in which to work, which causes harm to the employee.\nShould there be a different standard of liability on the... on the principle there than in... in this particular work environment situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2506.334, 2507.674, 2516.402, 2521.635], "stop_times": [2507.674, 2516.402, 2521.635, 2529.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2506.334}, "reply_to": "20106__2_086", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20106__2_088", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, in that particular case, there are... are... vicarious liability can flow to the employer by virtue of the conditions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2529.53], "stop_times": [2535.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2529.53}, "reply_to": "20106__2_087", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_089", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "But why is it different in that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2535.544], "stop_times": [2536.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2535.544}, "reply_to": "20106__2_088", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20106__2_090", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Because it's a dangerous condition is one of the historic exceptions to... that creates vicarious liability.\nThe Court had a case 20 years ago involving feces in a... in a food warehouse.\nAnd found--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2536.265, 2543.04, 2548.002], "stop_times": [2543.04, 2548.002, 2548.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2536.265}, "reply_to": "20106__2_089", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_091", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2548.583], "stop_times": [2549.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2548.583}, "reply_to": "20106__2_090", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20106__2_092", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--vicarious derivative liability to the... to the president of the company, who knew nothing about it.\nThe Court, in its decision, concluded that it was a... that there was a public health... an overriding public health justification for the regulation that created--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2549.174, 2553.315], "stop_times": [2553.315, 2562.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2549.174}, "reply_to": "20106__2_091", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_093", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "But if there was... it wasn't... it was not within the public health exception, but just a general dirty place, and squalid... I suppose most of these do come down to health, don't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2562.812], "stop_times": [2572.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2562.812}, "reply_to": "20106__2_092", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20106__2_094", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2572.817], "stop_times": [2573.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2572.817}, "reply_to": "20106__2_093", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_095", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "But if it's some... if it's just simply unpleasant, you'd say you would not... you would not attribute it to the employer in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2573.348], "stop_times": [2578.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2573.348}, "reply_to": "20106__2_094", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20106__2_096", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, if it's noisy, Your Honor... I mean, I... I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2578.852], "stop_times": [2581.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2578.852}, "reply_to": "20106__2_095", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_097", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Unless which actually caused harm.\nBut, again, you're... you're in the health area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2581.562, 2583.284], "stop_times": [2583.284, 2584.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2581.562}, "reply_to": "20106__2_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20106__2_098", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Yes.\nI'm reluctant to try to an... analogize a hostile environment sexual discrimination--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2584.825, 2585.406], "stop_times": [2585.406, 2590.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2584.825}, "reply_to": "20106__2_097", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_099", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "What you're saying is the public interest in avoiding this kind of environment is not as strong as the public interest in protecting the health of the worker?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2590.378], "stop_times": [2597.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2590.378}, "reply_to": "20106__2_098", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20106__2_100", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Well, from the perspective of the City of Boca Raton, they do have a strong interest in... in... in avoiding this.\nI mean, this is a terrible situation.\nThe... the conduct of these supervisors--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2597.354, 2603.729, 2605.201], "stop_times": [2603.729, 2605.201, 2608.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2597.354}, "reply_to": "20106__2_099", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_101", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Sure.\nBut what is the interest different here from the interest in the race situation or the interest in the health situation?\nWhy is it lesser?\nThat's... because I think that's what you're... at the moment, I think that's what you're telling us we should find.\nAnd what are the reasons for finding it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2608.591, 2609.011, 2613.186, 2614.565, 2619.019], "stop_times": [2609.011, 2613.186, 2614.565, 2619.019, 2620.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2608.591}, "reply_to": "20106__2_100", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20106__2_102", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Well, hostile environment because of race is a... is... is... is... I would analogize it to this situation.\nAnd... and I think the same--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2620.699, 2626.813], "stop_times": [2626.813, 2628.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2620.699}, "reply_to": "20106__2_101", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_103", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "So the standards are to be the same?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2628.024], "stop_times": [2629.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2628.024}, "reply_to": "20106__2_102", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20106__2_104", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--It... yes, in a parallel situation.\nIf... if these... if the things that happened to these lifeguards happened because they were black or because they were, you know,--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2629.133, 2631.126], "stop_times": [2631.126, 2636.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2629.133}, "reply_to": "20106__2_103", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_105", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Then why don't you lose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2636.96], "stop_times": [2638.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2636.96}, "reply_to": "20106__2_104", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20106__2_106", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--We don't... I'm... Your Honor, I'm suggesting that... that... that there is... at least the lower court decisions do not draw a distinction between a hostile environment situation involving race and one involving sex.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2638.52], "stop_times": [2652.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2638.52}, "reply_to": "20106__2_105", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_107", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "All right.\nWhy is the... why is the necessity different between a hostile environment situation in sex and a hiring/firing decision on race?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2652.349, 2652.83], "stop_times": [2652.83, 2661.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2652.349}, "reply_to": "20106__2_106", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20106__2_108", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Because in a hiring/firing decision because of race, there's a company action made for which the company is responsible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2661.606], "stop_times": [2667.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2661.606}, "reply_to": "20106__2_107", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_109", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Yes.\nBut why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2667.728, 2668.359], "stop_times": [2668.359, 2669.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2667.728}, "reply_to": "20106__2_108", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20106__2_110", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Why?\nI'm sorry--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2669.301, 2670.142], "stop_times": [2670.142, 2670.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2669.301}, "reply_to": "20106__2_109", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_111", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Why do you say it's not vicarious liability in the one case but it is vicarious liability in the other case?\nThe President of IBM does not know when the personnel manager in Pasadena, California discriminates on the basis of race any more than he knows that a supervisor is creating or tolerating a hostile environment based on sex... doesn't know in either case.\nWhy is the treatment different?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2670.871, 2676.145, 2692.396], "stop_times": [2676.145, 2692.396, 2693.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2670.871}, "reply_to": "20106__2_110", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20106__2_112", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--I'm embarrassed to give you the same answer that I... I gave you before, Your Honor.\nI apologize for this.\nBut in... in... in one case there is a corporate action being taken within the scope of the employment... not hiring or promoting... and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2693.826, 2697.059, 2697.95], "stop_times": [2697.059, 2697.95, 2705.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2693.826}, "reply_to": "20106__2_111", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_113", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "May... may I be sure I understood your answer to the comparative, two different kinds of hostile environment, one caused by the kind of situation we have here, and the other caused by a supervisor who doesn't like African Americans and he puts them all in the corner.\nYou say the same standard of... of agency liability would apply to both of those cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2705.603, 2718.042], "stop_times": [2718.042, 2723.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2705.603}, "reply_to": "20106__2_112", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20106__2_114", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Yes, that would be the position--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2723.157], "stop_times": [2724.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2723.157}, "reply_to": "20106__2_113", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_115", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2724.487], "stop_times": [2724.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2724.487}, "reply_to": "20106__2_114", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20106__2_116", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--that negligence... the... the employer... in... in a case where the supervisor is not exercising--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2724.968], "stop_times": [2731.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2724.968}, "reply_to": "20106__2_115", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_117", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Have we ever--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2731.291], "stop_times": [2732.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2731.291}, "reply_to": "20106__2_116", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20106__2_118", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--and your hypothetical is slightly off--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2732.27], "stop_times": [2733.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2732.27}, "reply_to": "20106__2_117", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_119", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2733.722], "stop_times": [2734.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2733.722}, "reply_to": "20106__2_118", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20106__2_120", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--but assuming that it... it was not within the scope of employment and he was not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2734.213], "stop_times": [2738.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2734.213}, "reply_to": "20106__2_119", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_121", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, the company has a policy in both cases against sexual harassment on the one kind, and against treating blacks differently than whites.\nBut the supervisor happens to be a member of the Ku Klux Klan in one case, and he happens to be the lifeguard in this case.\nAre they parallel, in terms of agency principles?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2738.405, 2744.779, 2750.142], "stop_times": [2744.779, 2750.142, 2753.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2738.405}, "reply_to": "20106__2_120", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20106__2_122", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--They should be.\nBut if, in both cases the employer assigns... makes adverse assignments or... or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2753.935, 2754.546], "stop_times": [2754.546, 2760.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2753.935}, "reply_to": "20106__2_121", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_123", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, the supervisor does it.\nThe people in city hall don't know about it in either case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2760.401, 2761.722], "stop_times": [2761.722, 2763.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2760.401}, "reply_to": "20106__2_122", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20106__2_124", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--But... but the act of making assignments down in the beach was in the scope of Terry's employment.\nAnd if Terry's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2763.963, 2767.713], "stop_times": [2767.713, 2768.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2763.963}, "reply_to": "20106__2_123", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_125", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, but the same is true of my... the same is true of my... my black/white case, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2768.484], "stop_times": [2770.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2768.484}, "reply_to": "20106__2_124", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20106__2_126", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--They would be parallel.\nThey would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2770.965, 2771.596], "stop_times": [2771.596, 2772.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2770.965}, "reply_to": "20106__2_125", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_127", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Yes, they would be parallel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2772.257], "stop_times": [2772.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2772.257}, "reply_to": "20106__2_126", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20106__2_128", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--they would be parallel.\nAnd there'd be... and there would not be liability in the... in the racial discrimination context unless there's actual knowledge?\nFor a gratuitous comment made by a supervisor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2772.878, 2773.667, 2778.823], "stop_times": [2773.667, 2778.823, 2781.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2772.878}, "reply_to": "20106__2_127", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_129", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "No, no, no, not a gratuitous comment.\nA steady, every day policy of making the black secretary sit off in a dark corner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2781.664, 2782.395], "stop_times": [2782.395, 2786.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2781.664}, "reply_to": "20106__2_128", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20106__2_130", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Well, but now... that... that's... I think in the case of the lifeguard and in the case of the... of the secretary--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2786.297], "stop_times": [2792.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2786.297}, "reply_to": "20106__2_129", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_131", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2792.14], "stop_times": [2792.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2792.14}, "reply_to": "20106__2_130", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20106__2_132", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--race and sex, you would have the same outcome.\nThe employer would be liable in both cases.\nBecause there--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2792.621, 2794.221, 2796.084], "stop_times": [2794.221, 2796.084, 2796.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2792.621}, "reply_to": "20106__2_131", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_133", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Oh, but if you say liable in both cases... but you're saying in this case your client is not liable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2796.905], "stop_times": [2800.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2796.905}, "reply_to": "20106__2_132", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20106__2_134", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Because the distinction is when I make assignments on a discriminatory basis, I'm liable.\nWhen I make gratuitous comments and... and do gross things and make coarse comments to an employee, I am not acting within the scope of... of my employment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2800.365, 2804.079], "stop_times": [2804.079, 2813.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2800.365}, "reply_to": "20106__2_133", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_135", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "But... but you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2813.904], "stop_times": [2815.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2813.904}, "reply_to": "20106__2_134", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20106__2_136", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "And that is the fundamental distinction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2815.417], "stop_times": [2815.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2815.417}, "reply_to": "20106__2_135", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_137", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Well, suppose... so you'd say, in my case, if the hostile environment for the black secretary was partly the assignment, but consisted mostly of racial epithets and the like, then it would be the same case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2815.897], "stop_times": [2825.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2815.897}, "reply_to": "20106__2_136", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20106__2_138", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Then it would be the same case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2825.804], "stop_times": [2827.995], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2825.804}, "reply_to": "20106__2_137", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_139", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Okay.\nCan... can you say what... what harm do you do to the fabric of the law... and I'm not saying you don't... but what harm do you do if you say the... the policing of the environment, the policing of the work environment for a high level supervisor, is precisely analogous to hiring and firing in respect to a hirer?\nAnd if you do the hiring wrong, even for personal motives, the company is liable because the hiring/firing decision is the company.\nAnd if you do the policing of the environment wrong, your company is liable, because the policing of the environment is a company responsibility.\nI think that's what Justice Stevens and everybody has been trying to get at... I think.\nAnd... and you're saying, Well, that would be somewhat novel.\nBut there is an analogy, I take it, in the asbestos area.\nAnd is there other harm that would be occurring if... if... I mean, is... would the law be hurt?\nIs that very novel?\nIs it contrary to other?\nYou see what I'm... I'm trying to get a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2827.995, 2828.754, 2846.955, 2855.801, 2865.128, 2868.19, 2871.343, 2876.084, 2883.27, 2884.922, 2888.333], "stop_times": [2828.754, 2846.955, 2855.801, 2865.128, 2868.19, 2871.343, 2876.084, 2883.27, 2884.922, 2888.333, 2890.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2827.995}, "reply_to": "20106__2_138", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20106__2_140", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "We believe the objectives of Title VII would be hurt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2890.536], "stop_times": [2892.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2890.536}, "reply_to": "20106__2_139", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_141", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--And that's because of your policy argument.\nAnd I've been think... in my... my... the reaction that I wanted to ask you about that is, is that... in other words, the difficulty of the employer finding out... is that a problem with the liability assessment?\nOr is it a problem with the substantive standard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2892.357, 2894.627, 2907.648], "stop_times": [2894.627, 2907.648, 2909.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2892.357}, "reply_to": "20106__2_140", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20106__2_142", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2909.948], "stop_times": [2910.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2909.948}, "reply_to": "20106__2_141", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_143", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "That is, if you have a tough substantive standard, you risk, let's say, creating too much tension in the work place.\nIf you have too relaxed a standard, you risk injuring women or minorities in the work place.\nIt's very hard to get the right standard.\nBut is the policy problem that you're worried about related to the standard or is it related to this problem of liability?\nThat's my whole question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2910.629, 2916.923, 2923.326, 2925.449, 2932.732], "stop_times": [2916.923, 2923.326, 2925.449, 2932.732, 2933.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2910.629}, "reply_to": "20106__2_142", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20106__2_144", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--I... I think it's related to the problem of liability, as a practical matter.\nAnd... and... and to speak somewhat cynically for a moment, if... if the law was such that if whatever the... the standard is, the... an employer/supervisor violated the standard, there was automatic liability... if I'm an employee in the work place and a gross comment is made to me, but I'm... you know, I can live with it... but all of a sudden, one day it dawns on me, hey, there may be some money here.\nSo I let this conduct continue.\nI don't object to it.\nI don't, you know, say, Stop it, to the supervisor doing it to me.\nI just go on and on.\nAnd at some point in time, I reach the magic moment.\nEither it permeated or pervasive, whatever the standard you want to use.\nAnd I say... and I drop my charge in with the EEOC.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2933.794, 2936.976, 2960.811, 2963.663, 2964.612, 2968.185, 2969.036, 2972.188, 2975.782], "stop_times": [2936.976, 2960.811, 2963.663, 2964.612, 2968.185, 2969.036, 2972.188, 2975.782, 2978.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2933.794}, "reply_to": "20106__2_143", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_145", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Then you sue and you recover $1.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2978.714, 2980.554], "stop_times": [2980.554, 2981.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2978.714}, "reply_to": "20106__2_144", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20106__2_146", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2981.104], "stop_times": [2982.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2981.104}, "reply_to": "20106__2_145", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_147", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "That's what happened here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2982.484], "stop_times": [2983.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2982.484}, "reply_to": "20106__2_146", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20106__2_148", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--this... unfortunate... or fortunately for the City of Boca Raton, this was prior to the amendments in 1991.\nNow, we have compensatory damages and... and at least with respect to private employers, you have punitive damages that are available.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2983.055, 2989.081], "stop_times": [2989.081, 2994.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2983.055}, "reply_to": "20106__2_147", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_149", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "We are going to have to address at... I think, at some point in this case, the constructive notice by reason of... of Gordon's involvement, and by his failure to report.\nCould you just comment on your friend's argument in that respect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [2994.996, 3004.389], "stop_times": [3004.389, 3008.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2994.996}, "reply_to": "20106__2_148", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20106__2_150", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Yes.\nWith respect to Gordon, it's... we believe that... that the conversations that occurred with Gordon, one, were not complaints, were not made with an expectation that Mr. Gordon would take the matter up.\nHe communicated back to the people, saying, I'm... it's not... I'm not going to take it up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [3008.362, 3008.773, 3021.102], "stop_times": [3008.773, 3021.102, 3025.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3008.362}, "reply_to": "20106__2_149", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_151", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Is... is one standard whether or not he would have been disciplined for failure to make the report?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [3025.733], "stop_times": [3030.057], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3025.733}, "reply_to": "20106__2_150", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20106__2_152", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, I think that the standard is whether he had a duty.\nAnd at least in agency law, one standard would be whether he had a duty to make the report, or was he higher management and can deal with it?\nGordon was no... in no position to deal with Terry.\nTerry was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [3030.057, 3032.278, 3038.112, 3040.553], "stop_times": [3032.278, 3038.112, 3040.553, 3041.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3030.057}, "reply_to": "20106__2_151", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_153", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "It seem... it seemed to me that the... the counsel, in the Petitioner's brief, made the point, if he had... if Gordon had known that... I think Terry... was stealing money, I assume he probably would have been disciplined by the City for failure to report that.\nMaybe I'm wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [3041.254, 3055.173], "stop_times": [3055.173, 3056.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3041.254}, "reply_to": "20106__2_152", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20106__2_154", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Well, Mr. Bender, when he testified, thought that the lifeguards themselves should have reported it to him that this was going on.\nHe thought that Mr. Gordon should have reported it.\nBut it... it isn't... there is nothing in Mr. Gordon... in... in Mr. Gordon's duties, as the training captain of this... on this beach, that... that requires--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [3056.475, 3062.289, 3063.809], "stop_times": [3062.289, 3063.809, 3073.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3056.475}, "reply_to": "20106__2_153", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_155", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, suppose I... suppose I knew that Gordon would be disciplined for failure to report theft by Terry, even though Gordon is not Terry's supervisor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [3073.415], "stop_times": [3082.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3073.415}, "reply_to": "20106__2_154", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20106__2_156", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [3082.141], "stop_times": [3082.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3082.141}, "reply_to": "20106__2_155", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_157", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Would that mean that he should also report this?\nOr is there... does he have a different obligation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [3082.601, 3085.883], "stop_times": [3085.883, 3088.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3082.601}, "reply_to": "20106__2_156", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20106__2_158", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "No.\nI think the obligations would be in tandem.\nI don't believe that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [3088.364, 3089.146, 3090.796], "stop_times": [3089.146, 3090.796, 3092.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3088.364}, "reply_to": "20106__2_157", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_159", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "So if he has the obligation to report theft, he'd also have the obligation to report sexual harassment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [3092.419], "stop_times": [3096.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3092.419}, "reply_to": "20106__2_158", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20106__2_160", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--I would assume that there would be a presumption that that was correct.\nAnd, you know, without looking at more facts with respect to the duties and responsibilities set out in the regulations and handbooks and training--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [3096.139, 3100.033], "stop_times": [3100.033, 3107.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3096.139}, "reply_to": "20106__2_159", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_161", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "What... what are the duties of supervisors?\nI... I would have thought that every employee has the duty to... to... if he's a loyal employee... to tell his employer about... about violations of law that are occurring.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [3107.859, 3108.457], "stop_times": [3108.457, 3116.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3107.859}, "reply_to": "20106__2_160", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20106__2_162", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Well, there's an expectation and a hope.\nAnd I think that was evident in Mr. Bender's testimony.\nBut I don't know that there is a duty, a legal duty, that is... that is punishable in some way for failing to make that kind of report.\nI mean, particularly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [3116.612, 3118.775, 3121.156, 3128.002], "stop_times": [3118.775, 3121.156, 3128.002, 3129.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3116.612}, "reply_to": "20106__2_161", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_163", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, didn't Mr. Bender... wasn't he the witness who admitted that Gordon had an obligation to report this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [3129.692], "stop_times": [3134.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3129.692}, "reply_to": "20106__2_162", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20106__2_164", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Yes, he said, in the same sentence, he said he also though the lifeguards had an obligation to report it, too.\nAnd I... so I think Mr. Bender was speaking optimistically, as a manager speaks about what you would hope that your employees would do in a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [3134.765, 3138.608], "stop_times": [3138.608, 3147.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3134.765}, "reply_to": "20106__2_163", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_165", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Mr. Rissetto, what difference does it make in your view, legally, whether the employer has a clear policy about sexual harassment and where to complain and so on, or the lack thereof?\nHow does that fit in with it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [3147.463, 3160.342], "stop_times": [3160.342, 3161.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3147.463}, "reply_to": "20106__2_164", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20106__2_166", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--I... I think it is relevant to the question of negligence.\nI think it's important to note that we're back in 1985 with these cases.\nAnd the country's sensitivity about these matters were--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [3161.872, 3164.134, 3167.706], "stop_times": [3164.134, 3167.706, 3170.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3161.872}, "reply_to": "20106__2_165", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_167", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, today, if an employer has such a policy, then... then is the employer protected or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [3170.618], "stop_times": [3176.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3170.618}, "reply_to": "20106__2_166", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20106__2_168", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--I... no, I don't believe the employer is protected.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [3176.082], "stop_times": [3178.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3176.082}, "reply_to": "20106__2_167", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_169", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "How does it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [3178.635], "stop_times": [3179.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3178.635}, "reply_to": "20106__2_168", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20106__2_170", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "I think the... the question in all cases is whether he knew or should have known.\nAnd if... if he didn't know, was the employer playing an ostrich, like... that's a question of proof that would be presented under a negligence standard.\nIn this particular case, Ms. Faragher, in 1990, after she had decided to go to law school, had the policy.\nThank you, Your Honor.\nIf there are no further questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [3179.124, 3181.846, 3189.451, 3195.025, 3195.846], "stop_times": [3181.846, 3189.451, 3195.025, 3195.846, 3196.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3179.124}, "reply_to": "20106__2_169", "speaker": "harry_a_rissetto"}
{"id": "20106__2_171", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "--Thank you, Mr. Rissetto.\nMr. Amlong, you have 4 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [3196.484, 3197.065], "stop_times": [3197.065, 3199.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3196.484}, "reply_to": "20106__2_170", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20106__3_000", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nJustice O'Connor, the... the need for a policy, even back in 1985, is... is exemplified by the knowledge by that time of sexual harassment in the work place.\nThe EEOC's policy requiring employers to do something had been on the books since 1980.\nThere was widespread knowledge about it.\nThe movie, 9 to 5> [\"], people knew sexual harassment was going on.\nAnd the... and the... the problem with the Court of Appeals' approach is that it discourages persons to come forward and... I'm sorry... it discourages employers from having the kind of policy that will bring these reports to their attention.\nAs Judge Tjoflat noted in dissent, this rewards ostrich like behavior.\nIt's hear no evil, see no evil, pay no lawsuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [3199.296, 3199.967, 3217.03, 3223.443, 3225.116, 3229.586, 3253.653, 3258.615], "stop_times": [3199.967, 3217.03, 3223.443, 3225.116, 3229.586, 3253.653, 3258.615, 3261.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3199.296}, "reply_to": "20106__2_171", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__3_001", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "But your position was, even if there was a policy, it would make no difference; there would still be a trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [3261.868], "stop_times": [3266.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3261.868}, "reply_to": "20106__3_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20106__3_002", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, my position is that if there was a policy, it would not make an automatic difference, that... but it would be a factor to be considered.\nNow, they had a policy.\nThey just didn't tell anybody about it.\nAnd, in fact, the policy said, on the issue of whether or not Mr. Gordon had an obligation to... to report, the policy, which is found at page 267 of the joint appendix, says, in pertinent part, a... speaking about the EEOC guidelines Under the guidelines, an employer is responsible for the actions of its supervisory employees or agents and, in some cases, for the acts of others when the employer or a supervisory employee knows of, or should have known, the behavior.\nNow, Mr. Gordon knew of the behavior.\nHe had actual... actual knowledge.\nHe did not report it.\nThe behavior of which he knew, Justice Souter, was of... just like discrimination against African Americans.\nIt is that... this is not somebody asking for a date.\nThis is two supervisors, for whatever purpose, engaging in the crudest treatment possible of these two women.\nIt is not merely a frolic.\nIt is the same kind of behavior that, were it to have been directed to an African American, were he to have been called these epithets, and were he to have been badgered repeatedly, there would be no question that this was discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [3266.633, 3278.73, 3280.41, 3282.581, 3311.882, 3315.483, 3317.065, 3318.125, 3325.831, 3330.063, 3340.471, 3343.473], "stop_times": [3278.73, 3280.41, 3282.581, 3311.882, 3315.483, 3317.065, 3318.125, 3325.831, 3330.063, 3340.471, 3343.473, 3357.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3266.633}, "reply_to": "20106__3_001", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__3_003", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, your brother... your brother says there would be no liability there.\nHe... I mean, he's drawing the distinction, if I understand it, between the hiring/firing distinction, because supervisors, at least, are authorized to hire and fire, and the discrimination, or the harassment situation, in which they are not authorized to harass.\nAnd he says a... a definition of what is or is not within the scope of employment is... is... is subject to legitimate distinctions between those two cases.\nWhat... what do you think of that distinction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [3357.935, 3361.077, 3376.425, 3384.79], "stop_times": [3361.077, 3376.425, 3384.79, 3386.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3357.935}, "reply_to": "20106__3_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20106__3_004", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Justice Souter, there is no principal distinction between that kind of discrimination and this kind of discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [3386.232], "stop_times": [3392.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3386.232}, "reply_to": "20106__3_003", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__3_005", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Well, what about the claim that it's harder to find out... it's harder for the upper level employees, the management, to find out about hostile environments than it is for them to find out about discriminatory hiring and firing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [3392.927], "stop_times": [3407.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3392.927}, "reply_to": "20106__3_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20106__3_006", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "It's especially hard to find out if there is no policy, and if Robert Gordon does not report it up, number one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [3407.816], "stop_times": [3412.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3407.816}, "reply_to": "20106__3_005", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__3_007", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "All right.\nThat's a different... that's a different argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [3412.889, 3413.37], "stop_times": [3413.37, 3414.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3412.889}, "reply_to": "20106__3_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20106__3_008", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "The... it is... I do not expect that a Klansman personnel manager is going to announce Mr. Smith, I'm not hiring you because you're black.\nSo it is... it is not that much harder for them to find out.\nWhat we have here is we have Terry and Silverman, through their acts, altering the terms and conditions of the employment.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [3414.051, 3423.535, 3430.181, 3438.837], "stop_times": [3423.535, 3430.181, 3438.837, 3439.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3414.051}, "reply_to": "20106__3_007", "speaker": "william_r_amlong"}
{"id": "20106__3_009", "conversation_id": "20106", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Amlong.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-282", "start_times": [3439.878, 3441.128], "stop_times": [3441.128, 3442.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3439.878}, "reply_to": "20106__3_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20166__0_000", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 96-1590, the Federal Election Commission v. James E. Akins.\nGeneral Waxman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [0.0, 9.169], "stop_times": [9.169, 40.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20166__0_001", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--\nIn holding that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, was a political committee within the meaning of the Federal Election Campaign Act, the court of appeals misinterpreted this Court's decisions, and it did so in a case it should not have reviewed on the merits, for the respondents do not have standing.\nAIPAC is an association engaged in issue advocacy and lobbying.\nThe FEC investigated a complaint filed by individuals who disagree with AIPAC's policies, and the FEC concluded that AIPAC had, quote, likely made inkind contributions aggregating over 1,000 in a calendar year.\nThe commission then considered whether AIPAC was thereby a political committee under the act, in which case it would be required to disclose all receipts and disbursements over 200 dollars, whether or not they were related in any way to a campaign, and it would be limited in how much money it could receive, and from whom.\nThe commission, interpreting the statute in light of this Court's decisions in Buckley and Massachusetts Citizens for Life, concluded that, because campaignrelated activity was not a major purpose of AIPAC, its incidental campaign spending did not require it to comply with the act's restrictions on political committees.\nIn concluding that the FEC acted, quote, contrary to law, the court of appeals erred in two ways.\nLet me just say a few words about the merits and then address the standing issues.\nIn Massachusetts Citizens for Life, this Court deemed it, quote, undisputed that an organization making nearly 10,000 in campaignrelated spending was not a political committee because its major purpose was issue advocacy, not election activity.\nIn so holding, this Court relied on its earlier conclusion in Buckley that, quote, to fulfill the purposes of the FECA, the term political committee need only encompass organizations that under... that are under the control of a candidate, or the major purpose of which is the nomination or election of a candidate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [40.578, 42.514, 63.694, 68.472, 84.498, 104.363, 126.622, 133.759, 137.398, 154.422], "stop_times": [42.514, 63.694, 68.472, 84.498, 104.363, 126.622, 133.759, 137.398, 154.422, 174.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 40.578}, "reply_to": "20166__0_000", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_002", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "General Waxman, I... you're addressing the merits, and do you mind if I raise a preliminary question before we really wade into the merits of the major purpose test?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [174.931], "stop_times": [186.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 174.931}, "reply_to": "20166__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20166__0_003", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "I'd be grateful, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [186.426], "stop_times": [187.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 186.426}, "reply_to": "20166__0_002", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_004", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Has the FEC changed its notion of who are members within the meaning of the statute so that the expenditures that were made here might be ones that were for publications that went to members, in which case the statute wouldn't be involved at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [187.207], "stop_times": [205.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 187.207}, "reply_to": "20166__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20166__0_005", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Justice O'Connor, a great deal has happened with respect to the membership issue and the law relating to who consti... what... who is or is not a member since the FEC made its decision in this case, and let me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [205.652], "stop_times": [218.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 205.652}, "reply_to": "20166__0_004", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_006", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Under the FEC's current interpretation and application of who's a member, would the mailings here have gone to members?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [218.367], "stop_times": [228.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 218.367}, "reply_to": "20166__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20166__0_007", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--The FEC has recently within the last 3 weeks issued a proposed... a notice of proposed regulation in which it has set out for public notice and comment an alternative set of definitions of membership, and what constitutes a member, and under one of the alternative definitions that the FEC is proposing, the AIPAC members, insofar as the record existed in this case at the time, would not qualify as members, but as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [228.05], "stop_times": [258.209], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 228.05}, "reply_to": "20166__0_006", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_008", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "In that case the statute wouldn't be invoked at all, if that were--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [258.209], "stop_times": [261.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 258.209}, "reply_to": "20166__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20166__0_009", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--Well, no, what... I guess what I... what I meant to say is, the FEC has not yet settled on a firm definition of membership.\nIt did after the decision in this case, but that regulation was struck down by the court of appeals in a case that it decided a few years after the FEC made a decision in this case.\nIn response, the FEC--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [261.38, 268.971, 281.341], "stop_times": [268.971, 281.341, 283.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 261.38}, "reply_to": "20166__0_008", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_010", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--Well, in that case I thought that the... I thought that the Chamber of Commerce case intervened between the threejudge panel in this case and the en banc in this case, is that not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [283.417], "stop_times": [294.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 283.417}, "reply_to": "20166__0_009", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20166__0_011", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--That is correct, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [294.585], "stop_times": [295.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 294.585}, "reply_to": "20166__0_010", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_012", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--So at the time you were arguing political committee at the en banc, the D.C. Circuit had already decided the membership question in the Chamber of Commerce case, and to me it was just a total mystery how come these two never met from the same court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [295.788], "stop_times": [314.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 295.788}, "reply_to": "20166__0_011", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20166__0_013", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--Well, I... I agree that it is, like many other things in this case, somewhat mysterious, but I think what the en banc court of appeals concluded, and I think correctly, is that for purposes of deciding this case, the FEC's determination was that the people that AIPAC considered members were not, in fact, members, and that the FEC is now in the process of determining... of fixing on a definition of membership which it has not yet done, but still takes the position that membership can be defined in a way to exclude all people who pay 50 dollars a year in dues to AIPAC.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [314.765], "stop_times": [352.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 314.765}, "reply_to": "20166__0_012", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_014", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "But wasn't AIPAC itself always taking the position that it was a membership organization communicating with its members?\nI mean, it was not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [352.344, 357.232], "stop_times": [357.232, 357.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 352.344}, "reply_to": "20166__0_013", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20166__0_015", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Oh--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [357.857], "stop_times": [358.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 357.857}, "reply_to": "20166__0_014", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_016", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--It was not in this litigation.\nIt was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [358.263, 359.513], "stop_times": [359.513, 360.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 358.263}, "reply_to": "20166__0_015", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20166__0_017", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--Absolutely AIPAC took that position, and in fact the joint... the general counsel's brief and report that are reprinted in the joint appendix devote a very substantial portion of time addressing AIPAC's contention that these papers... these people were just its members, and therefore these weren't expenditures or contributions in any regard.\nThe commission concluded otherwise, and the commission is now propounding a rule which, if adopted--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [360.013, 379.864], "stop_times": [379.864, 386.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 360.013}, "reply_to": "20166__0_016", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_018", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--General Waxman, isn't it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [386.096], "stop_times": [386.424], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 386.096}, "reply_to": "20166__0_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20166__0_019", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--would permit them to adhere to that insofar as AIPAC still has the same rules with respect to membership as it did at the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [386.424], "stop_times": [394.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 386.424}, "reply_to": "20166__0_018", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_020", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--But isn't it true that, if they follow the definition of membership that the D.C. Circuit has followed in the case Justice Ginsburg referred to, then these people would be members?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [394.373], "stop_times": [402.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 394.373}, "reply_to": "20166__0_019", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20166__0_021", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Well, I don't... I don't think that the... my problem with answering the question, Justice Stevens, is that the D.C. Circuit did not apply, as we understand it, a rule with respect to who was a member.\nThe D.C. Circuit simply struck down the commission's prior rule, which required, as a bright line test, that no matter how many dues anybody paid, and no matter how affirmatively they tried to be a member--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [402.09, 413.226], "stop_times": [413.226, 425.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 402.09}, "reply_to": "20166__0_020", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_022", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "They had to vote.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [425.986], "stop_times": [426.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 425.986}, "reply_to": "20166__0_021", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20166__0_023", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--there was a bright line requirement that you had to be able to vote for at least one member of the governing body.\nThat was, in many ways, the ratio decidendi of the commission in this particular case, and that was struck down.\nBut in Chamber of Commerce, the D.C. Circuit left open the possibility that an organization like AIPAC, which requires only 50 dollars to establish oneself as a member, might properly be deemed to be not a member by the FEC, and in fact in the petition for... in its... in its opinion denying rehearing in Chamber of Commerce the court of appeals emphasized that it is open, still open to the commission to define membership in a way... I mean, it wasn't addressing this particular case, but to define membership in a way that would or wouldn't include AIPAC members.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [426.736, 432.483, 440.979], "stop_times": [432.483, 440.979, 476.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 426.736}, "reply_to": "20166__0_022", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_024", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "So--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [476.373], "stop_times": [476.606], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 476.373}, "reply_to": "20166__0_023", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20166__0_025", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Particularly tricky here is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [476.606], "stop_times": [477.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 476.606}, "reply_to": "20166__0_024", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_026", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--Well, so jurisprudentially, what do we do, faced with this question, or uncertainty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [477.934], "stop_times": [484.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 477.934}, "reply_to": "20166__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20166__0_027", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--Well, we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [484.556], "stop_times": [485.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 484.556}, "reply_to": "20166__0_026", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_028", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Is there some way we can safely reach the merits, and if so, how?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [485.041], "stop_times": [488.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 485.041}, "reply_to": "20166__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20166__0_029", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--I think you can and should reach the merits.\nNo one in this case, even AIPAC in response to the disposition at the administrative level, has challenged the membership issue.\nIt's not been briefed anywhere.\nIt's a factsensitive question, and it may very well be true, Justice O'Connor, that if the court of appeals opinion is sustained, or you otherwise dispose of this case in a way in which the commission will have to reevaluate it, that antecedent question will have to be litigated again.\nBut right now, it seems to me the law of the case, as it comes up, and it's not a question presented--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [488.664, 491.055, 500.02, 501.769, 516.621], "stop_times": [491.055, 500.02, 501.769, 516.621, 522.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 488.664}, "reply_to": "20166__0_028", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_030", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Well, but the organization--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [522.025], "stop_times": [522.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 522.025}, "reply_to": "20166__0_029", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20166__0_031", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--is that AIPAC... these people were members.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [522.541], "stop_times": [524.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 522.541}, "reply_to": "20166__0_030", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_032", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--But the organization is not a party, but they did file an amicus brief in which they do challenge the point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [524.462], "stop_times": [529.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 524.462}, "reply_to": "20166__0_031", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20166__0_033", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "They... well, they file an amicus brief in which they say they're not members--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [529.164], "stop_times": [533.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 529.164}, "reply_to": "20166__0_032", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_034", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [533.397], "stop_times": [533.943], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 533.397}, "reply_to": "20166__0_033", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20166__0_035", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--in any sense in which the Federal Election Campaign Act could constitutionally be interpreted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [533.943], "stop_times": [537.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 533.943}, "reply_to": "20166__0_034", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_036", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "I thought you--\n--Also, they--\n--wanted us to reach the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [537.051, 537.629, 538.004], "stop_times": [537.629, 538.004, 538.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 537.051}, "reply_to": "20166__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20166__0_037", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [538.77], "stop_times": [539.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 538.77}, "reply_to": "20166__0_036", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_038", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "You just said that we should reach the merits.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [539.675, 542.455], "stop_times": [542.455, 542.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 539.675}, "reply_to": "20166__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20166__0_039", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--We think that this... we think that this, that the lower courts should not have reached the merits of this case because these respondents don't have either Article III or statutory standing, but if you do reach the merits, we think that the commission's interpretation of this Court's opinions in Buckley and Massachusetts Citizens for Life is, quote, sufficiently reasonable to... to uphold it.\nThe one thing that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [542.721, 566.148], "stop_times": [566.148, 566.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 542.721}, "reply_to": "20166__0_038", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_040", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--General Waxman, just... I don't understand.\nFirst you're saying, don't reach the merits because there's a standing hurdle, but if you should find there's no standing hurdle, skip over another possible hurdles... this is my concern.\nThis question, political question, is not easy, and it could be a really important thing to a lot of organizations that just have mailing lists, that don't have duespaying members.\nWhy should we decide that question in a case where it may well be that this particular organization qualifies as a membership organization, so the question is really academic for AIPAC?\nWhy shouldn't we hold off on such a question until we're sure we have the kind of entity that would be affected by it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [566.914, 568.632, 580.299, 590.404, 608.069], "stop_times": [568.632, 580.299, 590.404, 608.069, 615.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 566.914}, "reply_to": "20166__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20166__0_041", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--Well, it is, of course, open to this Court either, a) to address the membership issue, and announce a determination as to who... whether these people were or weren't members based on the administrative record, or to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [615.597], "stop_times": [628.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 615.597}, "reply_to": "20166__0_040", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_042", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Send it back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [628.905], "stop_times": [630.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 628.905}, "reply_to": "20166__0_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20166__0_043", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--hold that there was not... vacate the court of appeals decision and send it back.\nWhat is intolerable--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [630.388, 634.199], "stop_times": [634.199, 635.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 630.388}, "reply_to": "20166__0_042", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_044", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "I don't see why we have that choice, because the membership issue as such is not what has come to us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [635.402], "stop_times": [640.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 635.402}, "reply_to": "20166__0_043", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20166__0_045", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--The membership issue certainly is not one that has come to you.\nWhat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [640.181, 643.883], "stop_times": [643.883, 644.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 640.181}, "reply_to": "20166__0_044", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_046", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "It seems to me the only thing we could do, if we are going to advert to that issue at all, is to say, it is in a state of ferment, and the one thing that seems clear is that there is going to be a redetermination, whatever the result may be, of what membership means at the commission level, and we ought to send this case back so that... so that if it ultimately comes to us it will come to us on a concept of membership, which is... which for the foreseeable future will be the permanent one and will give us a good reason to go the length of the adjudication that you want.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [644.508], "stop_times": [679.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 644.508}, "reply_to": "20166__0_045", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20166__0_047", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--Well, I do acknowledge that there is some appeal to that approach, but I would just ask the Court to look at this from the perspective of the commission.\nThe commission is now in the position of having been told by the en banc court of appeals that virtually any voter in the country can haul it into court whenever it makes a determination that a group, whether it's a civic or religious, or my family, or any other group has made more than 1,000 dollars in political spending, and therefore is required to file with the courts as a political committee, and... so in other words, that... virtually any voter can bring the FEC into court, because that's the standing rule they've applied, and that this... that the commission's efforts to apply the major purpose test that this Court enunciated is wrong, and in fact any group, incorporated or otherwise, that makes more than 1,000 dollars of what the commission would deem to be inkind, coordinated or independent expenditures is a political--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [679.665, 687.006], "stop_times": [687.006, 735.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 679.665}, "reply_to": "20166__0_046", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_048", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "So you say in just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [735.721], "stop_times": [736.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 735.721}, "reply_to": "20166__0_047", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20166__0_049", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--We're in an impossible position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [736.283], "stop_times": [737.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 736.283}, "reply_to": "20166__0_048", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_050", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--And you say in deciding those questions we wouldn't have to express any definitive view on the membership question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [737.72], "stop_times": [744.14], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 737.72}, "reply_to": "20166__0_049", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20166__0_051", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Absolutely right.\nIt is a question... for purposes of the law of the case, there has been a determination by the commission in this case that AIPAC's, the people that AIPAC was communicating with were not members.\nIf we are wrong and, in fact, the major purpose test doesn't apply, on remand the FEC will have to consider and take AIPAC's views whether or not, in light of the court of appeals decision in Chamber of Commerce AIPAC's members are, in fact members under the act.\nIt is a very tricky--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [744.14, 745.015, 756.635, 776.517], "stop_times": [745.015, 756.635, 776.517, 777.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 744.14}, "reply_to": "20166__0_050", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_052", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "General Waxman, I understand your anxiety about standing, and that sounds perfectly sensible, but I... what I don't understand is why you don't have a second step and say, if you should decide standing, then send it back to the commission.\nThe commission doesn't know yet what its membership thing is, but when it gets its act together this case may well be moot as far as a political committee is concerned, so I certainly understand why you want to urge standing first.\nWhat I don't understand is why you're not telling us, but if we're wrong about standing, this case should not be... the ultimate question in this case should not be reached because it might fold at the commission level on what Justice O'Connor said at the very first is a threshold question, a preliminary question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [777.673, 793.308, 807.676], "stop_times": [793.308, 807.676, 828.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 777.673}, "reply_to": "20166__0_051", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20166__0_053", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--I guess the reason is that if you hold... if you conclude that there's no standing in this case, the decision in the court below is vacated and, in fact, the commission is back on its own.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [828.246], "stop_times": [837.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 828.246}, "reply_to": "20166__0_052", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_054", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "That I understand, but what I don't understand--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [837.039], "stop_times": [838.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 837.039}, "reply_to": "20166__0_053", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20166__0_055", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "But if you don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [838.914], "stop_times": [839.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 838.914}, "reply_to": "20166__0_054", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_056", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--is the political committee--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [839.196], "stop_times": [839.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 839.196}, "reply_to": "20166__0_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20166__0_057", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--If you don't, we are left with a decision on the merits of a critically important issue of law, which is, are groups that are organized for any number of hundreds of different reasons political committees?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [839.631], "stop_times": [853.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 839.631}, "reply_to": "20166__0_056", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_058", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--But the thing would be vacated, because the... just as we would not reach political committee, neither should the D.C. Circuit, so I'm still puzzled why you don't say, standing is our first argument, but if we lose on that, vacate the district court's... the D.C. Circuit's decision, send it... have them send it back to the commission so the membership issue can be determined.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [853.252], "stop_times": [876.258], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 853.252}, "reply_to": "20166__0_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20166__0_059", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "The FEC is in an extremely unusual posture in this case visavis the substantive law of the Federal Election Commission Act, mainly because in this dance with Congress and the Supreme Court the FEC is very much following... we're... the commission is trying very hard to determine--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [876.258], "stop_times": [896.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 876.258}, "reply_to": "20166__0_058", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_060", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "But isn't it true that no matter what happens we're going to have to decide standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [896.218], "stop_times": [899.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 896.218}, "reply_to": "20166__0_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20166__0_061", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--the extent to which groups are political... excuse me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [899.905], "stop_times": [900.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 899.905}, "reply_to": "20166__0_060", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_062", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Isn't it true... no matter what... with all these alternatives, we're going to have to decide standing anyway, aren't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [900.186], "stop_times": [904.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 900.186}, "reply_to": "20166__0_061", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20166__0_063", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "I... you certainly are going to have to decide standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [904.466], "stop_times": [907.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 904.466}, "reply_to": "20166__0_062", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_064", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Why don't you argue standing?\nYes.\nYou--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [907.355, 908.276, 908.667], "stop_times": [908.276, 908.667, 909.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 907.355}, "reply_to": "20166__0_063", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20166__0_065", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Why don't I argue standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [909.105], "stop_times": [910.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 909.105}, "reply_to": "20166__0_064", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_066", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--Yes.\nIt's not your fault, but you've used up 15 minutes discussing an issue that isn't even considered in the briefs.\nWhy don't you go to the issues that are considered in the briefs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [910.011, 910.433, 915.43], "stop_times": [910.433, 915.43, 917.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 910.011}, "reply_to": "20166__0_065", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20166__0_067", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "We think... we believe that the Court erred in holding that respondents held standing in this case, either under the statute or the Constitution, to challenge the commission's decision.\nIn cases like Heckler v. Chaney and Linda R. S. v. Richard D., this Court has reiterated a fundamental background principle that ordinarily complaints that an agency has failed to take enforcement action are not subject to judicial review, but under the court of appeals' interpretation, as I said, it's now open to almost any voter to bring the FEC into court whenever it decides not to file an enforcement action against a religious, civic, issue advocacy, or any other group that may have made incidental election expenditures.\nWe believe that Congress did not intend that result, but even if it did, for Article III purposes we believe that respondents have not carried their heavy burden to establish either that they have suffered particularized concrete injury in fact, or that they will likely obtain the single remedy that they allege will redress them.\nThat is, a retrospective order of disclosure, and nothing else.\nThe FEC... and this is... I think the court of appeals erred in assuming to the contrary.\nUnlike most other agencies the FEC has no authority, no matter what the court of appeals or this Courts decide, to order AIPAC to produce anything.\nIn fact, Congress' preferred remedy for a violation of the act, a conciliation agreement, certainly need not require this disclosure and is exempt from judicial review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [917.554, 926.487, 958.459, 980.778, 984.542, 990.103, 999.162], "stop_times": [926.487, 958.459, 980.778, 984.542, 990.103, 999.162, 1010.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 917.554}, "reply_to": "20166__0_066", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_068", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "But isn't there this difference, General Waxman... and maybe I'm wrong on this and I just don't remember it that well... but if the FEC decides not to do anything, can't the litigants then proceed independently?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1010.61], "stop_times": [1020.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1010.61}, "reply_to": "20166__0_067", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20166__0_069", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "In other words, if the FEC decides not to do anything, could the respondents sue AIPAC?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1020.308], "stop_times": [1026.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1020.308}, "reply_to": "20166__0_068", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_070", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1026.025], "stop_times": [1026.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1026.025}, "reply_to": "20166__0_069", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20166__0_071", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Absolutely not.\nUnder 437g(a)(8), which is the judicial review provision that's at issue in this case, a third party... there is no third party right of action.\nThere is no private Attorneys General provision here similar to what there is in so many other cases.\nHere, what happens is, the act provides that any person can make a complaint with the commission alleging that the FECA has been violated.\nIf the commission dismisses the complaint, and now I'm referring to the judicial review provision here, a party aggrieved by an order of the commission dismissing a complaint may file a petition against the commission in the District of Columbia, and under subsection (C) of that provision, in the event that such a complaint is filed, the authority of the Federal District Court and the court of appeals is simply to declare whether or not the FEC has, quote, conformed, acted in conformity with the law, or contrary to the law.\nIf the Court concludes that the FEC has acted contrary to the law, the case goes back to the FEC to allow the commission to conform itself to the law.\nOnly if it fails to do that may an individual bring a cause of action against the party that he or it alleges was violating the act.\nThis is a very, very unusual and limited review provision that reflects, we think, Congress' recognition of the fact that while it's important to regulate, for the benefit of the public, campaign expenditures, campaign spending, and disclosures, there are very, very First... important First Amendment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1026.446, 1027.634, 1041.05, 1045.471, 1054.514, 1089.656, 1101.448, 1111.21], "stop_times": [1027.634, 1041.05, 1045.471, 1054.514, 1089.656, 1101.448, 1111.21, 1131.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1026.446}, "reply_to": "20166__0_070", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_072", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Did these plaintiffs comply with all of those steps?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1131.311], "stop_times": [1133.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1131.311}, "reply_to": "20166__0_071", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20166__0_073", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--These plaintiffs filed an administrative complaint with the commission under 437g(a)(1), and when the commission voted, 6 to nothing, not to proceed further on their complaint that the... that AIPAC should be required to file these reports and register as a political committee, they brought a suit in the district court against the Federal Election Commission under these provisions.\nAnd I think... one of the things that demonstrates why there is so little standing in this case is reflected by the fact that in their original complaint, filed in the district court, these respondents alleged, among other things, that they were voters, and that they had been injured in the fact that they had been deprived of certain information they might have wanted to have as voters.\nTheir amended complaint deleted that allegation, and alleges standing on the grounds that they are political competitors in the court of public opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1133.466, 1159.003, 1181.51], "stop_times": [1159.003, 1181.51, 1190.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1133.466}, "reply_to": "20166__0_072", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_074", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "If Congress, instead of using the word aggrieved, had said, any person who suffers the following injury, and then just listed the things that you'd said, can do whatever it says there, would that have violated the Federal Constitution?\nThat is, would we have lacked standing under the Constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1190.616, 1204.313], "stop_times": [1204.313, 1206.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1190.616}, "reply_to": "20166__0_073", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20166__0_075", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Yes.\nI mean, I think a point here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1206.248, 1207.014], "stop_times": [1207.014, 1209.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1206.248}, "reply_to": "20166__0_074", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_076", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Yes because... so it's constitutional, do... because I thought person aggrieved in a statute, the word aggrieved traditionally traces back... though that isn't clear, it traces back to Sanders Brothers, and cases that did use that to refer to a private Attorney General, at least arguably so, and then that's why I wonder if it's constitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1209.201], "stop_times": [1226.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1209.201}, "reply_to": "20166__0_075", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20166__0_077", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--Well, I think there are... I think there are cases that... there are cases going both ways.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1226.226], "stop_times": [1228.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1226.226}, "reply_to": "20166__0_076", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_078", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "There are.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1228.927], "stop_times": [1229.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1228.927}, "reply_to": "20166__0_077", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20166__0_079", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "But the question here is, we think that even if the Court were to construe this review provision as extending prudential standing to the limits of Article III, as in Trafficante and Hardin and cases like that, there still would be no constitutional standing here because they haven't demonstrated injury in fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1229.177], "stop_times": [1247.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1229.177}, "reply_to": "20166__0_078", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_080", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Well, they say that what they would like is, they want information, and they think that if the FEC enforces the law, in their view of what it is, that they will get information that Congress by statute has given them an entitlement to.\nNow, why isn't that a real injury--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1247.342, 1259.212], "stop_times": [1259.212, 1261.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1247.342}, "reply_to": "20166__0_079", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20166__0_081", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "It's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1261.711], "stop_times": [1262.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1261.711}, "reply_to": "20166__0_080", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_082", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--assuming they really want it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1262.055], "stop_times": [1263.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1262.055}, "reply_to": "20166__0_081", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20166__0_083", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1263.039], "stop_times": [1263.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1263.039}, "reply_to": "20166__0_082", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_084", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "I assume they do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1263.648], "stop_times": [1264.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1263.648}, "reply_to": "20166__0_083", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20166__0_085", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--It's not injury in fact if we're talking about them in their capacity as voters who, after all, are... the electorate is certainly within the zone of interest of the disclosure provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act.\nThey have not made any allegations that they are any different than any other voters who allegedly want this information--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1264.445, 1276.345], "stop_times": [1276.345, 1283.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1264.445}, "reply_to": "20166__0_084", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_086", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "If we took the voter away... if we took the vote, if we closed every voting booth in the United States, every voter in the United States would be affected.\nI assume they'd have standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1283.249, 1288.153], "stop_times": [1288.153, 1289.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1283.249}, "reply_to": "20166__0_085", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20166__0_087", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--Of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1289.418], "stop_times": [1290.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1289.418}, "reply_to": "20166__0_086", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_088", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "All right.\nSo the simple fact that everybody is affected doesn't always show they don't have standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1290.746, 1291.059], "stop_times": [1291.059, 1295.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1290.746}, "reply_to": "20166__0_087", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20166__0_089", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "I... it... it certainly does not always show they don't have standing, but I think it's instructive to compare this statute or their claim of standing here with a claim of standing under the FOIA, for example.\nFOIA provides a personal right in an individual to ask the Government, to have that individual ask the Government for information, and if the Government doesn't provide that person information, that person is injured within the meaning of the statute and can bring a lawsuit, and there's no issue of redressability, because if the Court agrees with the individual he gets the document that exists.\nThe Federal Election Campaign Act doesn't create rights in particular individuals to get particular information.\nIt creates an obligation on certain persons and parties that are regulated by the act to provide kinds of information to the Government which the Government then makes available to the public generally, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1295.339, 1305.631, 1327.372, 1333.354], "stop_times": [1305.631, 1327.372, 1333.354, 1345.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1295.339}, "reply_to": "20166__0_088", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_090", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "But the public, each member of the public may not have a right in the sense of having a means by which necessarily it can compel the disclosure of the information, but each member of the public has an interest in getting that information.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1345.848], "stop_times": [1357.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1345.848}, "reply_to": "20166__0_089", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20166__0_091", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1357.25], "stop_times": [1357.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1357.25}, "reply_to": "20166__0_090", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_092", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "And I understand your redressability point as a separate point, but simply with respect to the particularized injury, why isn't the interest, the statutorily provided interest in getting information sufficient on that first point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1357.797], "stop_times": [1376.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1357.797}, "reply_to": "20166__0_091", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20166__0_093", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--Because I don't think... and we do think that the stronger argument, the clearer argument against Article III standing is redressability both because of the discretionary nature of the decision, the particular aft powers and lack thereof of the commission, and particular facts in this case, but with respect to Article III injury in fact, these... even the court below acknowledged that there would not be sufficient particularized injury in all voters.\nThe court of appeals concluded that these were, quote, affected voters, but its definition of the term affected was, because they are alleging that... assuming that they are, in fact, suing as voters, that AIPAC may have participated in an election that they may have voted in they might have been deprived of information that they could have used, therefore, they... these individuals--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1376.103, 1405.184], "stop_times": [1405.184, 1428.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1376.103}, "reply_to": "20166__0_092", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_094", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "No, but isn't the argument stronger than that?\nThey are being deprived of information by virtue of the fact that they don't know whether there was, in fact, a contribution made.\nThe deprivation of the information is not contingent.\nThat's actual.\nThey don't know something, and that something that they don't know, it seems to me, is what the statute has given them an interest in finding out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1428.377, 1430.049, 1440.748, 1444.606, 1445.683], "stop_times": [1430.049, 1440.748, 1444.606, 1445.683, 1452.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1428.377}, "reply_to": "20166__0_093", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20166__0_095", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--Well, they... I think another way to put it, Justice Souter, is that these individuals are not asking the commission to do something because they were harmed.\nThey're asking the commission to do something so that they can determine if they have been harmed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1452.431, 1462.316], "stop_times": [1462.316, 1466.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1452.431}, "reply_to": "20166__0_094", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_096", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "No.\nThey're saying, I have been harmed because I have an interest in knowing this.\nThat interest has been... has been infringed because they haven't filed, et cetera, so they are claiming a present injury, not a contingent one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1466.674, 1466.924, 1471.313], "stop_times": [1466.924, 1471.313, 1480.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1466.674}, "reply_to": "20166__0_095", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20166__0_097", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1480.981], "stop_times": [1481.887], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1480.981}, "reply_to": "20166__0_096", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_098", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "They're saying the harm is the ignorance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1481.887], "stop_times": [1484.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1481.887}, "reply_to": "20166__0_097", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20166__0_099", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--Justice Souter, there are many, many decisions of this Court under Article III that have indicated that just because an individual plaintiff has an interest in having the Government do something and can demonstrate why they have that interest, nonetheless that has been held not to satisfy the particular--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1484.684], "stop_times": [1503.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1484.684}, "reply_to": "20166__0_098", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_100", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Right, but what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1503.097], "stop_times": [1503.566], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1503.097}, "reply_to": "20166__0_099", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20166__0_101", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--And I think if the statute had been written--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1503.566], "stop_times": [1506.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1503.566}, "reply_to": "20166__0_100", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_102", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--Yes, but what--\n--Or even information in particular.\nWhy don't--\n--Yes, but what's different here is that there's the statute that says you are, subject to certain discretion in the commission, entitled to have it.\nThat's what differentiates them just from the mass of individuals who might walk into a court and say, I think it would be nice if I were to know the following, or to have the following relief, or to have Government officials do what they ought to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1506.487, 1507.08, 1508.361, 1509.283, 1516.654], "stop_times": [1507.08, 1508.361, 1509.283, 1516.654, 1530.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1506.487}, "reply_to": "20166__0_101", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20166__0_103", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1530.103], "stop_times": [1530.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1530.103}, "reply_to": "20166__0_102", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_104", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "The statute goes the step further.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1530.632], "stop_times": [1531.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1530.632}, "reply_to": "20166__0_103", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20166__0_105", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--I don't... we may just disagree about the statute.\nThis statute, unlike FOIA, does not, we understand, give individuals any particular right to obtain any particular information, particularly information that the commission doesn't have, in light of, as I said, the... a general background principle that's reflected in Linda R. S. and lots of other cases.\nThis... we're talking about who has standing to haul an agency into court and demand that the agency go and get information from particular individuals, even if the agency otherwise might conclude that they should... they are a political committee and they probably ought to report, but it just chooses not to exercise its prosecutorial discretion that way, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1531.992, 1535.491, 1554.701], "stop_times": [1535.491, 1554.701, 1576.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1531.992}, "reply_to": "20166__0_104", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_106", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "And do I understand the reason the agency didn't... it says, this membership question really was in doubt.\nThe agency rejected it in this case and said that's why we're not going to go forward with any enforcement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1576.319, 1581.003], "stop_times": [1581.003, 1585.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1576.319}, "reply_to": "20166__0_105", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20166__0_107", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--That's right.\nThat's what makes this case particularly nonredressable.\nThat is, there were two related questions before the commission, both having to do with the allegation, and the commission's conclusion that there were, in fact, expenditures, inkind, coordinated expenditures over 1,000 dollars.\nThere were two possible legal conclusions that the commission could reach.\nOne is, AIPAC is a corporation, and corporations can't make expenditures, and therefore AIPAC has violated 441b.\nThe commission voted 4 to 2 to conclude that they had, but decided not to proceed with any sanction at all, even a civil fine, because a) the law was so unclear, and b) it was a very close question on the facts, and those two--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1585.61, 1586.734, 1589.64, 1602.416, 1606.243, 1614.896], "stop_times": [1586.734, 1589.64, 1602.416, 1606.243, 1614.896, 1630.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1585.61}, "reply_to": "20166__0_106", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_108", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "If you... if we decided the redressability on the basis of the membership question, you're no better off if we related that to standing than if we decided it first.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1630.843], "stop_times": [1638.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1630.843}, "reply_to": "20166__0_107", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20166__0_109", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--If I understand--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1638.871], "stop_times": [1640.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1638.871}, "reply_to": "20166__0_108", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_110", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "If we decided no standing because of the special problem related to membership affecting redressability, you haven't gotten anywhere, I guess.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1640.949], "stop_times": [1646.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1640.949}, "reply_to": "20166__0_109", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20166__0_111", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--We haven't gotten anywhere near as far as we'd like to be at the end of this argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1646.929], "stop_times": [1650.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1646.929}, "reply_to": "20166__0_110", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_112", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1650.053], "stop_times": [1650.319], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1650.053}, "reply_to": "20166__0_111", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20166__0_113", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "If I may just reserve the balance of my time, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1650.319], "stop_times": [1653.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1650.319}, "reply_to": "20166__0_112", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__0_114", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Very well, General Waxman.\nMr. Schember, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1653.052, 1654.318], "stop_times": [1654.318, 1656.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1653.052}, "reply_to": "20166__0_113", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20166__1_000", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--\nFirst of all, our amended complaint certainly pleaded information standing and information injury.\nJoint appendix 11, paragraph 6, the FEC's improper action has deprived plaintiffs of their legal right to learn the amounts and beneficiaries of AIPAC's unreported campaign expenditures in their capacity as voters and members of the public.\nThe only difference between standing in this case and standing in a FOIA case concerns the issue of redressability.\nWe certainly have a... within the zone of interests of this statute an interest as voters and members of the public in obtaining information concerning campaign contributions.\nThe Government admits in is reply brief that voters and, we would add, members of the public, are primary intended beneficiaries of this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1656.145, 1665.547, 1671.076, 1685.085, 1691.927, 1703.0], "stop_times": [1665.547, 1671.076, 1685.085, 1691.927, 1703.0, 1710.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1656.145}, "reply_to": "20166__0_114", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_001", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "What about cases such as Heckler v. Chaney and Linda R. S., where we've said that citizens don't have... or perhaps someone more than... you don't ordinarily have standing to require that a person, an agency or a prosecutor commence a prosecution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1710.81], "stop_times": [1728.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1710.81}, "reply_to": "20166__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20166__1_002", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--Well, Linda R. S. certainly is a standing case.\nNow, Heckler v. Chaney, that's an APA reviewability case, but Linda R. S. concerns--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1728.428, 1729.911], "stop_times": [1729.911, 1735.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1728.428}, "reply_to": "20166__1_001", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_003", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Linda R. S.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1735.114], "stop_times": [1735.893], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1735.114}, "reply_to": "20166__1_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20166__1_004", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--What happened there, of course, the interest at stake was one spouse's or exspouse's interest in child support, and what the spouse wanted to have happen, or the exspouse, is have the Government take some sort of criminal action against the father, I guess, that was obliged to make child support payments, and hopefully the coercive power of the prosecution would somehow result in the payment of child support.\nThe Court said, that's speculative.\nThat's not the case here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1735.893, 1760.18, 1761.68], "stop_times": [1760.18, 1761.68, 1762.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1735.893}, "reply_to": "20166__1_003", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_005", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--But the Court's reasoning was considerably broader than that, just that traditionally private individuals do not have any claim to have a prosecutor commence something that is discretionary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1762.977], "stop_times": [1774.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1762.977}, "reply_to": "20166__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20166__1_006", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Well, that issue was involved with that case, too, but here, under the statutory scheme, we have a right to go to court.\nWhen our complaint is dismissed the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1774.738, 1779.985], "stop_times": [1779.985, 1781.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1774.738}, "reply_to": "20166__1_005", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_007", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "You have a statutory right that is shared by everybody in the country, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1781.813], "stop_times": [1784.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1781.813}, "reply_to": "20166__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20166__1_008", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--Well, we have a stat... no, no.\nYou have to file an administrative claim.\nNot everyone in the country can simply go to court.\nYou have to go through the administrative process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1784.75, 1786.826, 1788.06, 1789.918], "stop_times": [1786.826, 1788.06, 1789.918, 1792.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1784.75}, "reply_to": "20166__1_007", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_009", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "But everybody can follow that administrative process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1792.433], "stop_times": [1794.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1792.433}, "reply_to": "20166__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20166__1_010", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Yes, but only if they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1794.431], "stop_times": [1795.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1794.431}, "reply_to": "20166__1_009", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_011", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "To vindicate the right to the information.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1795.181], "stop_times": [1797.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1795.181}, "reply_to": "20166__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20166__1_012", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1797.383], "stop_times": [1797.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1797.383}, "reply_to": "20166__1_011", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_013", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Which everyone has.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1797.727], "stop_times": [1798.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1797.727}, "reply_to": "20166__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20166__1_014", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1798.696], "stop_times": [1798.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1798.696}, "reply_to": "20166__1_013", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_015", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "But we've decided a case where there was not only a statutory right to information on the part of the public at large, but a constitutional right to information in a case involving the Statements and Accounts Clause, where plaintiffs came in here and said, the CIA is not publishing its precise expenditures.\nIt's all buried under the Defense Department or other agencies.\nWe want a statement.\nAnd we said, no standing.\nWhy is that any different from your case?\nThese people say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1798.946, 1815.096, 1818.267, 1819.188, 1820.954, 1822.484], "stop_times": [1815.096, 1818.267, 1819.188, 1820.954, 1822.484, 1823.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1798.946}, "reply_to": "20166__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20166__1_016", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Well, because we have a statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1823.218], "stop_times": [1823.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1823.218}, "reply_to": "20166__1_015", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_017", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--we have a right to this... a statute is more important than the Constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1823.983], "stop_times": [1827.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1823.983}, "reply_to": "20166__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20166__1_018", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Well, if the Court... I'm not familiar with that case, but if that case held that a constitutional right to information is a generalized grievance, then--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1827.387], "stop_times": [1835.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1827.387}, "reply_to": "20166__1_017", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_019", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Then it was wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1835.79], "stop_times": [1836.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1835.79}, "reply_to": "20166__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20166__1_020", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1836.29], "stop_times": [1837.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1836.29}, "reply_to": "20166__1_019", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_021", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "No?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1837.134], "stop_times": [1837.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1837.134}, "reply_to": "20166__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20166__1_022", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Then that is to... then how... then to reconcile that holding with cases saying that Freedom of Information Act requestors have standing to seek information under the act is accomplished by saying we have a statute that grants a right of review for that injury in fact, and we have a statute here that grants a right to judicial review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1837.634], "stop_times": [1859.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1837.634}, "reply_to": "20166__1_021", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_023", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "The FOIA grants it to particular individuals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1859.515], "stop_times": [1861.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1859.515}, "reply_to": "20166__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20166__1_024", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Yes, those who--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1861.609], "stop_times": [1862.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1861.609}, "reply_to": "20166__1_023", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_025", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "You may request... you may request information.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1862.297], "stop_times": [1864.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1862.297}, "reply_to": "20166__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20166__1_026", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1864.233], "stop_times": [1864.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1864.233}, "reply_to": "20166__1_025", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_027", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "This statute does not say particular individuals may come to private organizations and request the information, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1864.655], "stop_times": [1872.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1864.655}, "reply_to": "20166__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20166__1_028", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "No.\nIt says something different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1872.666, 1872.962], "stop_times": [1872.962, 1873.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1872.666}, "reply_to": "20166__1_027", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_029", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "It doesn't purport to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1873.446], "stop_times": [1873.696], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1873.446}, "reply_to": "20166__1_028", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20166__1_030", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "The only difference, though, goes to the question of redressability.\nWhat the statute says is that the plaintiffs may file an administrative complaint seeking disclosure, and if that complaint is dismissed, they may go to court and say that's contrary to law, just what the respondents did, and then the question is, well, if there is a favorable ruling on the merits for the respondents, is it likely... Bennett v. Spear... that the ruling on the merits will, in fact, result in the disclosure that they seek.\nThat is the case here, for five reasons that are very different from the circumstances in Linda R. S. Number 1, a favorable ruling on the merits for the respondents would result in... would essentially mean that AIPAC is under a statutory duty to disclose the information that the respondents seek.\nSecond, the commission has power to order that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1873.696, 1876.242, 1898.874, 1917.866], "stop_times": [1876.242, 1898.874, 1917.866, 1920.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1873.696}, "reply_to": "20166__1_029", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_031", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--Are you saying that in that situation the FEC would have no discretion to decline prosecution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1920.288], "stop_times": [1925.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1920.288}, "reply_to": "20166__1_030", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20166__1_032", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--I'm not saying no discretion.\nThat's not our burden.\nAll we need show to establish redressability is that it is likely that enforcement action would be taken that is likely to result in the producing of that information, and for four additional reasons that is the case here.\nThe second reason is that under the statute, 437d(a), the commission does have power to order AIPAC to disclose this information.\n437d(a) states the commission has the power to require any person to submit such written reports and answers to questions as the commission may prescribe.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1925.629, 1926.956, 1927.878, 1939.826, 1949.214, 1959.724], "stop_times": [1926.956, 1927.878, 1939.826, 1949.214, 1959.724, 1960.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1925.629}, "reply_to": "20166__1_031", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_033", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Mr. Schember, can we just go back a step, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1960.24], "stop_times": [1962.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1960.24}, "reply_to": "20166__1_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20166__1_034", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--Mmhmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1962.379], "stop_times": [1962.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1962.379}, "reply_to": "20166__1_033", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_035", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--there are many cases, are there not, where anyone can come to an agency and say, agency, I want you to consider this, like, I want you to make a rule on that, and the agency statute is broad enough to say yes, we have to take petitions from anybody.\nBut when the agency says no, then there's an effort to get to an Article III court that does have constitutional limitations on what it can hear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1962.989, 1983.543], "stop_times": [1983.543, 1996.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1962.989}, "reply_to": "20166__1_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20166__1_036", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Mmhmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1996.413], "stop_times": [1996.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1996.413}, "reply_to": "20166__1_035", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_037", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "So I think there's a whole category of cases, are there not, where you have a right to go to the agency, but you don't have a right to go further.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [1996.974], "stop_times": [2004.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1996.974}, "reply_to": "20166__1_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20166__1_038", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Absolutely correct, but we do have the right here, because we have injury in fact.\nWe have... that falls within the zone of interests of the statute.\nVoters and members of the public are primary intended beneficiaries of the disclosure provisions of this act.\nThat is undisputed.\nThey have a right to make an administrative request seeking disclosure, and if their complaint is dismissed, go to court, as they did, and it is likely to result in disclosure in this case for the two reasons that I've said so far, and for a third reason, that when--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2004.972, 2008.408, 2011.781, 2016.92, 2018.246], "stop_times": [2008.408, 2011.781, 2016.92, 2018.246, 2033.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2004.972}, "reply_to": "20166__1_037", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_039", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Would there be a likelihood of disclosure if the FEC takes the position that the mailings here went to members?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2033.256], "stop_times": [2040.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2033.256}, "reply_to": "20166__1_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20166__1_040", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--The answer is no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2040.457], "stop_times": [2042.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2040.457}, "reply_to": "20166__1_039", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_041", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2042.159], "stop_times": [2042.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2042.159}, "reply_to": "20166__1_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20166__1_042", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Because then... yes, if you... if the membership--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2042.55], "stop_times": [2045.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2042.55}, "reply_to": "20166__1_041", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_043", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "So I'm not sure it is so likely that there would be redressability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2045.408], "stop_times": [2048.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2045.408}, "reply_to": "20166__1_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20166__1_044", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--Well, but we have standing to contest the issue of whether or not the AIPAC contributors are members, and we most vigorously maintain that they are not.\nThe ruling below on that question was correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2048.001, 2057.027], "stop_times": [2057.027, 2058.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2048.001}, "reply_to": "20166__1_043", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_045", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Yes, but on standing we have to see if it's redressable, and I guess the FEC has some leeway in determining who are members and who aren't under that statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2058.871], "stop_times": [2068.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2058.871}, "reply_to": "20166__1_044", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20166__1_046", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Well, but under the... yes, but under the law of this case the ruling that's been made, the AIPAC contributors were found not to be members, and we would maintain that Chamber of Commerce does not require a change in that conclusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2068.946], "stop_times": [2081.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2068.946}, "reply_to": "20166__1_045", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_047", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "But General Waxman said that if we go all the way in this case they would still request at the end of the line a remand on that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2081.504], "stop_times": [2089.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2081.504}, "reply_to": "20166__1_046", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20166__1_048", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Yes, well, of course shifting off of standing to the question of whether or not what's appropriate to do--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2089.953], "stop_times": [2094.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2089.953}, "reply_to": "20166__1_047", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_049", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Well, it impacts standing, I think.\nI mean, it's linked somehow with redressability, I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2094.498, 2096.295], "stop_times": [2096.295, 2101.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2094.498}, "reply_to": "20166__1_048", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20166__1_050", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--Well, it's another legal issue in the case.\nWe maintain as a matter of law on the facts present in this case that, under Chamber of Commerce or the prior authority, that the AIPAC contributors are not members.\nWe also maintain, on the record of this case, that there is additional indication of contributions by AIPAC going beyond merely communication to the persons that these... that AIPAC calls its members.\nWe maintain that what happens after AIPAC makes these communications to its contributors, that these contributors then not only go out in their individual capacities to make campaign contributions involving themselves in campaigns, but that they then report back to AIPAC that they have done so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2101.541, 2105.353, 2115.833, 2128.046], "stop_times": [2105.353, 2115.833, 2128.046, 2146.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2101.541}, "reply_to": "20166__1_049", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_051", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "But there's nothing like that... there's nothing like that in this record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2146.743], "stop_times": [2148.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2146.743}, "reply_to": "20166__1_050", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20166__1_052", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Oh, yes, there is, Your Honor.\nThere was evidence submitted to that.\nNo findings by the FEC on that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2148.351, 2149.273, 2151.193], "stop_times": [2149.273, 2151.193, 2153.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2148.351}, "reply_to": "20166__1_051", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_053", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2153.629], "stop_times": [2153.879], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2153.629}, "reply_to": "20166__1_052", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20166__1_054", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "But that's another issue to be addressed on remand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2153.879], "stop_times": [2155.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2153.879}, "reply_to": "20166__1_053", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_055", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--on membership, there's one little thing that's bothering me.\nIs there a rule in their proposed rulemaking that would make members nonmembers of those who both contribute 50 dollars and have the right to affect agency policy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2155.833, 2157.488], "stop_times": [2157.488, 2168.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2155.833}, "reply_to": "20166__1_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20166__1_056", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "I haven't seen the proposed rules.\nI'm relying on General Waxman's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2168.718, 2169.874], "stop_times": [2169.874, 2171.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2168.718}, "reply_to": "20166__1_055", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_057", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Are they published?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2171.749], "stop_times": [2173.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2171.749}, "reply_to": "20166__1_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20166__1_058", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--I haven't seem them if they are, but I'm not saying they're not.\nI'm just saying I'm ignorant.\nI'm relying on General Waxman's representation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2173.216, 2175.669, 2176.559], "stop_times": [2175.669, 2176.559, 2179.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2173.216}, "reply_to": "20166__1_057", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_059", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Do we know, though, that AIPAC has conceded or not conceded that they both get the 50 dollars and the member has a right to affect policy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2179.183], "stop_times": [2186.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2179.183}, "reply_to": "20166__1_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20166__1_060", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Well, that's far from established on the record.\nNo.\nThey contribute 50 dollars.\nThe precise... AIPAC, from the record that we have, which is not complete on this question, is a topdown organization.\nPower vests... is at the top, and the 50 dollar contributor does not have much right to determine a policy of that... of the organization.\nThat's what the record shows so far, and based upon that, and if we have to litigate it further, yes, we have to litigate it further, but we staunchly maintain that these contributors are not members, but even if they were, there would be another basis for finding, upon further investigation, that AIPAC is engaged in political campaign contributions of a different sort, which I just mentioned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2186.306, 2188.899, 2189.117, 2190.571, 2199.191, 2205.859], "stop_times": [2188.899, 2189.117, 2190.571, 2199.191, 2205.859, 2228.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2186.306}, "reply_to": "20166__1_059", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_061", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Mr. Schember, may I go to a different point on this redressability issue?\nIsn't it also... maybe this is not the case.\nIsn't it also your position that redressability should be judged on the assumption that there is a body of law of certain content, and the question of redressability should not turn on whether there might be a change in the law?\nIs that your position, ultimately?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2228.852, 2232.178, 2235.208, 2249.25], "stop_times": [2232.178, 2235.208, 2249.25, 2253.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2228.852}, "reply_to": "20166__1_060", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20166__1_062", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Yes.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2253.795, 2254.139], "stop_times": [2254.139, 2254.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2253.795}, "reply_to": "20166__1_061", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_063", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "You're saying even if that's not so there are other grounds--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2254.373], "stop_times": [2256.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2254.373}, "reply_to": "20166__1_062", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20166__1_064", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--It--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2256.482], "stop_times": [2256.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2256.482}, "reply_to": "20166__1_063", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_065", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--to say that it would be redressable, but at the base, isn't it your position that you don't... you shouldn't consider a change of law in determining the redressability point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2256.904], "stop_times": [2266.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2256.904}, "reply_to": "20166__1_064", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20166__1_066", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--Well, I certainly would say that a plaintiff cannot be denied standing on... to sue under a law on the assumption, well, there might be a change of the law in the future.\nOne has... that kind of speculation doesn't defeat redressability.\nAll the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2266.354, 2277.427, 2282.221], "stop_times": [2277.427, 2282.221, 2282.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2266.354}, "reply_to": "20166__1_065", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_067", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "What about the... oh, I'm sorry.\nWe're not talking about a change in the law.\nThe question is whether the agency interpreted the law correctly, and the D.C. Circuit said it didn't, that it... that its rule that was applied in this very case, whatever the right rule is, that was the wrong rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2282.549, 2283.705, 2285.205], "stop_times": [2283.705, 2285.205, 2297.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2282.549}, "reply_to": "20166__1_066", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20166__1_068", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--Well, whether the membership question was decided correctly by the FEC or not is not pertinent to standing.\nIt would only be pertinent to standing if Chamber of Commerce decided the issue, and we had no... we had no ability to contend that AIPAC's contributors are not members.\nCertainly then, if we had no hope of being able to maintain our claim that those contributors aren't members, then perhaps that would be linked to standing.\nWe would have no possibility of redress, that would be true.\nBut that's not the case here.\nWe maintain, notwithstanding Chamber of Commerce, that AIPAC's contributors are not members, and they are not... and that these communications are campaign contributions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2297.34, 2303.135, 2313.162, 2321.142, 2323.142, 2324.564], "stop_times": [2303.135, 2313.162, 2321.142, 2323.142, 2324.564, 2334.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2297.34}, "reply_to": "20166__1_067", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_069", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Do you plan to give us your other three reasons?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2334.029], "stop_times": [2336.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2334.029}, "reply_to": "20166__1_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20166__1_070", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\n[Laughter]\nWell, the... to review, we've had the first... the first one is, determine a favorable--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2336.278, 2337.012, 2337.856], "stop_times": [2337.012, 2337.856, 2343.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2336.278}, "reply_to": "20166__1_069", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_071", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "We've learned the first two.\nI'm afraid you won't get to the others if you--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2343.745, 2343.915, 2345.196], "stop_times": [2343.915, 2345.196, 2346.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2343.745}, "reply_to": "20166__1_070", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20166__1_072", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--The commission has... when the commission finds a violation it is under a mandatory legal duty under section 437g(4)(A) to attempt to correct such violation.\nNow, the likely way to correct a disclosure violation, by which I mean a failure to disclose information that should be disclosed, particularly where the information to be disclosed is readily available, is to demand that the information be disclosed.\nCertainly, to maintain that it is not even likely that a good faith attempt to in... to correct a disclosure violation will not in any way involve a demand for disclosure of readily available information is absurd.\nIt is likely that a good faith enforcement of this statute under this provision to correct a disclosure violation will result in disclosure where the information is readily available.\nPoint 4, the record here shows that the information sought by the respondents includes types of information that is readily available.\nWhat we're seeking essentially is, to which candidates did AIPAC contribute, and since the manner of contribution was inkind, essentially having the paid staff of AIPAC drum up support in the field for those candidates, how much time did the AIPAC staffers devote to those particular campaigns.\nHow much effort did they put into it?\nThis kind of information doesn't require elaborate reconstruction of records and broad disclosure this is simple information that is the core information that we're entitled to get and that we want to know.\nWe want to know this simple type of information.\nAIPAC cannot plausibly claim that it doesn't know who its paid staffers were who engaged in these activities.\nThe paid staffers can't plausibly claim that they can't remember what candidates they supported, or what they did.\nThis is readily available information that can be disclosed.\nThe last point is that, on the record before the Court, when the FEC, during the investigation of this case, asked AIPAC for information, there wasn't recalcitrance and nondisclosure by AIPAC.\nAIPAC complied with the FEC's requests for information.\nWhat we have in the totality of circumstances, the record here and this legal framework, which gives the commission power to order disclosure, a likelihood that disclosure will result if AIPAC is found to be a political committee because the major purpose test is invalid.\nNow, when we get to the merits, we face a fundamental question which Justice Ginsburg has been pressing what question should be decided first, the membership question, or the major... or whether... or the validity of the major purpose test.\nI suppose... we put a lot of energy into briefing the major purpose test, and we're convinced that it's wrong, and then the Court... and we would like the Court to decide that question, but if the Court is troubled by the question and thinks the D.C. Circuit should not have reached it, it would be a permissible disposition of this case to say that the membership question ought to be addressed first.\nI can't raise an argument against that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2346.399, 2362.767, 2379.76, 2393.177, 2405.952, 2414.215, 2432.941, 2434.941, 2446.78, 2449.154, 2455.932, 2461.914, 2465.585, 2480.157, 2484.827, 2504.116, 2517.159, 2536.916], "stop_times": [2362.767, 2379.76, 2393.177, 2405.952, 2414.215, 2432.941, 2434.941, 2446.78, 2449.154, 2455.932, 2461.914, 2465.585, 2480.157, 2484.827, 2504.116, 2517.159, 2536.916, 2539.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2346.399}, "reply_to": "20166__1_071", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_073", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "What about the major purpose question?\nThe Attorney... if the Attorney General had more than a minute, which he doesn't, why would he say the major purpose test is incorrect... or is correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2539.258, 2539.664], "stop_times": [2539.664, 2548.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2539.258}, "reply_to": "20166__1_072", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20166__1_074", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Is correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2548.364], "stop_times": [2549.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2548.364}, "reply_to": "20166__1_073", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_075", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2549.098], "stop_times": [2549.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2549.098}, "reply_to": "20166__1_074", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20166__1_076", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "I don't... the bottom line argument they say that I find in their reply brief as well, that's what the dicta in Buckley said.\nThe court of appeals properly held that this dicta in Buckley literally construed and applied in the way that the FEC has applied it here... for the first time, I might add.\nThis is the first time that the FEC has applied the major purpose test in this way... is contrary to law because it would eviscerate the statute.\nIt simply makes no sense to exempt from political committee status an organization that makes a million dollars in campaign contributions simply because they're rich and have got 9 million dollars to spend on something else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2549.52, 2556.111, 2567.107, 2574.635], "stop_times": [2556.111, 2567.107, 2574.635, 2585.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2549.52}, "reply_to": "20166__1_075", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_077", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Mr. Schember, could your clients have brought this action as an APA review procedure against the FEC?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2585.536], "stop_times": [2591.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2585.536}, "reply_to": "20166__1_076", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20166__1_078", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "That's a very difficult question.\nI think General Waxman would say no under 437d(e), which says that this section shall be the exclusive civil remedy for enforcement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2591.879, 2593.472], "stop_times": [2593.472, 2603.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2591.879}, "reply_to": "20166__1_077", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_079", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "It's ironic in a way, if you had an APA remedy and you would have been barred by Heckler v. Chaney, to say that by taking this other remedy you solve that problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2603.78], "stop_times": [2613.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2603.78}, "reply_to": "20166__1_078", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20166__1_080", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Well, but we would say under Heckler that we would... if Heckler applied, if the APA applied, that there would not be total denial of judicial review here.\nThere is law to apply.\nUnder 437g(4)(A) a conciliation agreement by the FEC must be one that corrects the violation.\nThat's law to apply, and if they... the court of appeals correctly determined, if the FEC's gave mere lip service to AIPAC's disclosure obligation and dismissed our complaint saying, well, we agree with AIPAC that they don't have to do it, we have a right of judicial review, and there is law to apply.\nThis statutory framework contemplates active judicial involvement in the determination of appropriate remedies for violations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2613.229, 2620.335, 2622.069, 2632.345, 2647.855], "stop_times": [2620.335, 2622.069, 2632.345, 2647.855, 2656.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2613.229}, "reply_to": "20166__1_079", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_081", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "If you foresee the Court going through the standing question and then deciding in your favor, which is what you want, and then you'd say, well, then the membership issue perhaps comes up first, in which case I guess we'd have to remand it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2656.851], "stop_times": [2667.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2656.851}, "reply_to": "20166__1_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20166__1_082", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "This--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2667.894], "stop_times": [2669.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2667.894}, "reply_to": "20166__1_081", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_083", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--why not remand it first?\nI mean, why go through this standing question?\nDo we have to?\nWhy do we have to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2669.003, 2670.783, 2673.689, 2674.455], "stop_times": [2670.783, 2673.689, 2674.455, 2675.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2669.003}, "reply_to": "20166__1_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20166__1_084", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--No.\nI think the standing question could be pretermitted as well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2675.142, 2675.423], "stop_times": [2675.423, 2678.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2675.142}, "reply_to": "20166__1_083", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_085", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--since the standing question may well turn on the special point here, on... the standing question could well turn on the special membership point, you see, making it more difficult for the... for us to predict that you could obtain the relief you want because of that issue being in the case, so why not do that first, and send it back?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2678.062], "stop_times": [2693.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2678.062}, "reply_to": "20166__1_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20166__1_086", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--I suppose that would be permissible.\nWhat I'm saying is that we certainly have standing to contend that the AIPAC contributors aren't members, and that... in that sense I don't think it... that issue pertains to standing.\nWhat I did concede is that if Chamber of Commerce destroyed our contention that the AIPAC contributors are members, that certainly might say that we don't have standing, but it remains an open question.\nIt's just another legal issue in... to be decided in the case, and so I guess I'm moving a bit in your favor on... in the direction that you're going on that, Your Honor, because we have a collection of legal issues that need to be decided, the membership question, the major purpose test question, and in the way that's been discussed possibly that's linked to standing.\nPresum... yes, remand for consideration of the issues in a different order I would think would be a permissible disposition.\nWe have raised the arguments as to why we have standing to bring this case and why it's likely that a ruling on the merits will result in the disclosure that we seek, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2693.354, 2695.979, 2706.365, 2716.907, 2739.493, 2749.613], "stop_times": [2695.979, 2706.365, 2716.907, 2739.493, 2749.613, 2760.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2693.354}, "reply_to": "20166__1_085", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_087", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Isn't the major purpose test necessary to prevent this statute from being applied to many, many entities and transactions that were far from the contemplation of the Congress?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2760.609], "stop_times": [2770.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2760.609}, "reply_to": "20166__1_086", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20166__1_088", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nWhat we're dealing with is a dual purpose organization.\nThe test is not necessary to protect dual purpose organizations from having their noncampaignrelated activities disclosed.\nDual purpose organizations can avoid that kind of disclosure through the simple expedient of setting up a separate organization or a special segregated fund.\nSection 441b(b) expressly provides for that contingency, and then section 431 says that, well, when a corporation has set up a special segregated fund for purposes of campaign activity, only the activities of the special segregated fund constitute a political committee, and only those activities are subject to disclosure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2770.433, 2771.151, 2774.618, 2782.474, 2791.33], "stop_times": [2771.151, 2774.618, 2782.474, 2791.33, 2813.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2770.433}, "reply_to": "20166__1_087", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_089", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Well, is that so easy?\nThat is, what worries me about your position on the merits is that vast numbers of organizations who suddenly send a letter to their members once, who they think are members, the... you know, Congressman Jones helped save the Brazilian cardinal, and the... the bird--\n[Laughter]\n--and we think that he's a wonderful thing, and really nice, and that's it, and all of a sudden they have to disclose everybody under the sun, and... you know, for all kinds of other things that really had nothing to do with that particular letter that somebody thought was a nice idea to send.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2813.588, 2814.525, 2833.986, 2834.314], "stop_times": [2814.525, 2833.986, 2834.314, 2849.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2813.588}, "reply_to": "20166__1_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20166__1_090", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Well, two points about that.\nFirst of all, it sounds to me like the organization that you're describing would be... may likely be constitutionally exempt under the Massachusetts Citizens for Life exemption.\nNow, if you've got a small issue advocacy organization that only makes an occasional independent expenditure and that would be burdened by the administrative requirements of setting up a special segregated fund, then clearly under MCFL they're entitled to a constitutional exemption.\nThey have that safeguard.\nAIPAC's not that kind of an organization, a large, sophisticated organization, able to meet many administrative requirements.\nThey haven't claimed that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2849.308, 2850.243, 2861.677, 2879.544, 2880.435, 2887.151], "stop_times": [2850.243, 2861.677, 2879.544, 2880.435, 2887.151, 2887.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2849.308}, "reply_to": "20166__1_089", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_091", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "By the way, the person, before he wrote the letter, talked to Congressman Jones and said, what do you think of that?\nOh, a great idea, he said.\nI like--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2887.979, 2892.836, 2894.148], "stop_times": [2892.836, 2894.148, 2894.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2887.979}, "reply_to": "20166__1_090", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20166__1_092", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--So you're saying it's a contribution, and... well, I think I have to say two things about that.\nNumber 1, you know, every person is presumed to know the law, and if you run afoul of the law inadvertently, but in the manner that you've described, certainly there is enforcement discretion that the FEC has, can exercise and say, now, this one time thing you did, you made a mistake, it wasn't a wilful violation, you didn't know what you were doing, you can't do that kind of thing, don't do it again, and that would be an appropriate disposition of that case.\nWhat we have here with respect to AIPAC is years and years and campaign after campaign of extensive contributions to candidates, and the public needs to know which current officeholders were the recipients of AIPAC campaign contributions so they can know in the next election cycle who they should vote for, considering that factor.\nBut your hypothetical might be one that could both... that might fall either within the constitutional exemption, or that might be appropriately subject to disposition by the FEC's enforcement discretion, in that manner.\nBut on the facts of this case, based upon the voluminous investigation that we have here, there are very substantial campaign contributions over an extended period of time here, and I think that distinguishes this case from that hypothetical.\nAll we need show to establish redressability is a likelihood that a ruling on the merits will result in disclosure.\nWe've shown the likelihood.\nThe Court... not only is the major purpose test not necessary to protect against what... the danger that the FEC hypothesizes, it's not sufficient to do so, either.\nUnder the test that the FEC has clarified it to be, a dual purpose organization that has as a major purpose campaign contributions will be a political committee even if another major purpose of the organization is pure issue advocacy, yet under their own test, as they apply it, that organization as a whole would be a political committee and be subject to all... full disclosure.\nFor this reason, of all its activities, including the noncampaign activity, the test is neither necessary nor sufficient to accomplish the goal that's put forward for it, and it eviscerates the statute, because the problem is, it exempts from disclosure campaign contributions, not just noncampaign activities.\nIf there are no further questions, I have presented the argument that I intended to present.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [2894.398, 2900.552, 2925.572, 2947.345, 2957.403, 2970.85, 2980.612, 2982.362, 2993.718, 3019.878, 3039.041], "stop_times": [2900.552, 2925.572, 2947.345, 2957.403, 2970.85, 2980.612, 2982.362, 2993.718, 3019.878, 3039.041, 3042.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2894.398}, "reply_to": "20166__1_091", "speaker": "daniel_m_schember"}
{"id": "20166__1_093", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--That's all we can ask of you, Mr. Schembler.\n[Laughter]\nThank you.\nYou're luckier than most.\nGeneral Waxman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [3042.868, 3048.196, 3045.743, 3046.04, 3051.789], "stop_times": [3048.196, 3045.743, 3046.04, 3051.789, 3053.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3042.868}, "reply_to": "20166__1_092", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20166__2_000", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "I'm hoping against hope I have more than 1 minute, but let me just say that the consequences of allowing... on the merits of allowing the court of appeals opinion to stand is that every group in this country, including my family, and any association, whether it's incorporated or not, is now... has to live under the very real chill of knowing that if they... in the course of a year, a group like the Catholic Conference of the United States, in the course of a year, makes more than a thousand dollars in either contributions, independent expenditures, coordinated expenditures, or inkind contributions, all of its other disbursements and receipts have to be disclosed and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [3053.21], "stop_times": [3097.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3053.21}, "reply_to": "20166__1_093", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__2_001", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Well, can they set up a special segregated fund to do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [3097.411], "stop_times": [3100.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3097.411}, "reply_to": "20166__2_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20166__2_002", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "--Only corporations can set up segregated funds, so it... but for the fact that AIPAC happens to be incorporated it could not, but even if it could, that really doesn't get at the chilling effect that I think this Court was addressing in Buckley and Massachusetts Citizens for Life.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [3100.003], "stop_times": [3118.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3100.003}, "reply_to": "20166__2_001", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__2_003", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Thank you, General Waxman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [3118.121], "stop_times": [3118.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3118.121}, "reply_to": "20166__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20166__2_004", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [3118.871], "stop_times": [3119.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3118.871}, "reply_to": "20166__2_003", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "20166__2_005", "conversation_id": "20166", "text": "The case is submitted.\nThe honorable court is now adjourned until Tuesday, January twentieth at ten o' clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1590", "start_times": [3119.354, 3120.037], "stop_times": [3120.037, 3127.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3119.354}, "reply_to": "20166__2_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20184__0_000", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-1768, C. Elvin Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television.\nMr. Roberts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [0.0, 9.809], "stop_times": [9.809, 10.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20184__0_001", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--\nIn this case, a district judge determined that Mr. Feltner should pay Columbia Pictures 8.8 million in statutory damages for a copyright infringement.\nBefore arriving at that figure, the judge held a bench trial, after which he made the factual finding that Mr. Feltner's conduct was willful, which increased the amount of damages which could be awarded under the statute.\nIn light of clear historical practice on both sides of the Atlantic prior to 1971, Feltner had a right under the Seventh Amendment to have a jury make that finding and others on which the award was based and determine the amount of damages to be imposed within the statutory limits.\nBefore reaching that constitutional question, however, we need to consider whether the statute may be construed to afford a jury trial right.\nIt may be.\nFirst, the first Federal statute providing statutory damages in an amount\n\"as to the court shall appear to be just. \"\nthe 1856 act, also provided that those damages should be recovered in an action on the case, a prototypical legal action for which a jury would be available.\nStatutory damages as to the court shall appear to be just, the samel terminology as employed in the 1856 act, were carried forward in successive acts up to the 1909 act, when the statutory damages provision took its modern form, with no indication that Congress wanted to delete the jury trial right that was so clearly present in 1856.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [10.903, 13.121, 23.006, 34.799, 50.214, 58.587, 59.712, 65.944, 68.381, 78.83], "stop_times": [13.121, 23.006, 34.799, 50.214, 58.587, 59.712, 65.944, 68.381, 78.83, 100.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 10.903}, "reply_to": "20184__0_000", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_002", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "The concept of statutory damages has changed some, has it not, from 1856 to 1909?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [100.508], "stop_times": [108.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 100.508}, "reply_to": "20184__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20184__0_003", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Certainly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [108.021], "stop_times": [109.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 108.021}, "reply_to": "20184__0_002", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_004", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "The guidelines, or whatever you want to call it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [109.27], "stop_times": [111.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 109.27}, "reply_to": "20184__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20184__0_005", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--Yes.\nIt has been... it was expanded significantly in 1909.\nThe range was expanded and the 1856 act applied to dramatic compositions.\nThe 1909 act applied more generally.\nBut that same language, as to the court shall appear to be just, carried through all the different statutory provisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [111.909, 112.425, 115.612, 119.782, 122.358], "stop_times": [112.425, 115.612, 119.782, 122.358, 128.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 111.909}, "reply_to": "20184__0_004", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_006", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "I take it in the '56 act there was no opportunity to elect a different damage scheme after verdict but before a judgment as there is in the current act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [128.356], "stop_times": [137.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 128.356}, "reply_to": "20184__0_005", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20184__0_007", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "That's right.\nThat's one of the distinctions added in 1909 from the 1856 act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [137.571, 138.274], "stop_times": [138.274, 144.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 137.571}, "reply_to": "20184__0_006", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_008", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "So if we followed your reasoning in this case, as I think your opponents have pointed out, we would have to accept as a consequence that a jury could render its verdict on actual damages, be discharged, go home, and at that point the election could be made to go for statutory damages, and I don't know what happens then.\nI guess the jury would have to be called back on your theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [144.256, 164.733], "stop_times": [164.733, 167.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 144.256}, "reply_to": "20184__0_007", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20184__0_009", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "That's a false problem.\nIt's never been a problem in the courts that have recognized the jury trial right so far.\nAll the judge needs to do--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [167.31, 169.106, 172.901], "stop_times": [169.106, 172.901, 173.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 167.31}, "reply_to": "20184__0_008", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_010", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "But it could happen, couldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [173.979], "stop_times": [174.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 173.979}, "reply_to": "20184__0_009", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20184__0_011", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--I don't think so.\nAll the judge needs--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [174.464, 175.698], "stop_times": [175.698, 176.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 174.464}, "reply_to": "20184__0_010", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_012", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [176.931], "stop_times": [177.196], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 176.931}, "reply_to": "20184__0_011", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20184__0_013", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--to do is to say to the plaintiff, when the jury comes back, I'm going to enter judgment promptly upon their verdict and therefore they'll be there.\nIf the plaintiff says I want to elect statutory damages--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [177.196, 183.507], "stop_times": [183.507, 186.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 177.196}, "reply_to": "20184__0_012", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_014", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Well, if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [186.209], "stop_times": [186.584], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 186.209}, "reply_to": "20184__0_013", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20184__0_015", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--the jury would not have been sent home by that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [186.584], "stop_times": [187.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 186.584}, "reply_to": "20184__0_014", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_016", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--And at that point do you tell the jury... and this is a problem that I have that runs through the whole case as to what the judge tells the jury.\nWould it suffice if the jury is told, render such damages as you consider to be just?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [187.896, 194.892], "stop_times": [194.892, 200.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 187.896}, "reply_to": "20184__0_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20184__0_017", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Well, I think the jury would be instructed according to the factors it's supposed to consider, as juries are, for example, in awarding punitive damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [200.124], "stop_times": [207.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 200.124}, "reply_to": "20184__0_016", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_018", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "I looked in Devitt and Blackmere to see if there were any instructions on statutory damages.\nThere are not.\nThe common law measure is there.\nI'm just not sure what the judge tells the jury.\nI'm not sure also which way that cuts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [207.591, 212.995, 213.386, 217.399, 219.211], "stop_times": [212.995, 213.386, 217.399, 219.211, 221.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 207.591}, "reply_to": "20184__0_017", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20184__0_019", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Well, the courts have developed guidelines of what is appropriate to consider, whether it's a jury or a judge, in awarding statutory damages, the amount of loss, the value of the copyright, profits--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [221.305], "stop_times": [232.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 221.305}, "reply_to": "20184__0_018", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_020", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Those are all set forth in Nimmer and in the brief, amicus brief filed by the Composer's Association and again, I'm not sure which way that works.\nIt... on the one hand it seems to me that this is an area where we should develop uniformity and consistency and judges would be helpful.\nI suppose your answer to that is that a set of jury instructions developed over the years could do the same thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [232.972, 240.609, 247.403], "stop_times": [240.609, 247.403, 256.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 232.972}, "reply_to": "20184__0_019", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20184__0_021", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--Well, just as with the case of punitive damages, which is an amount of damages left largely to the discretion of the jury, there have developed instructions as to the factors they should consider, and likewise--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [256.821], "stop_times": [265.458], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 256.821}, "reply_to": "20184__0_020", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_022", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "None of which have been effective.\nIt's been a serious problem.\nBut this copyright law is so odd, because under your version, then, a jury would go out and could determine actual damages and come back with a verdict and a figure and then the plaintiff can say, well, I've looked at that, I think I'd do better under statutory damages and can reject that and ask for statutory damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [265.458, 267.239, 269.302], "stop_times": [267.239, 269.302, 291.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 265.458}, "reply_to": "20184__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20184__0_023", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--That's true whether a jury or a judge is making that initial determination, so that concern I think doesn't really cut one way or the other on the question of whether--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [291.119], "stop_times": [299.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 291.119}, "reply_to": "20184__0_022", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_024", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Mmhmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [299.445], "stop_times": [300.07], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 299.445}, "reply_to": "20184__0_023", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20184__0_025", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--the jury or the judge reaches that conclusion.\nThey are unusual in that respect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [300.07, 301.601], "stop_times": [301.601, 302.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 300.07}, "reply_to": "20184__0_024", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_026", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Now, in the Tull case from this Court we upheld a scheme under similar Seventh Amendment type concerns and said the judge could nonetheless determine statutory damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [302.865], "stop_times": [319.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 302.865}, "reply_to": "20184__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20184__0_027", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Well, the holding in Tull is first of all that that is a legal action, the civil penalty action.\nThe court analogized to civil penalty actions in the Eighteenth Century, said they were legal, noted that the nature of the remedy, punishment was legal, and then at the very end said, but the actual amount is for the judge.\nNow, here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [319.344, 324.575, 338.788], "stop_times": [324.575, 338.788, 339.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 319.344}, "reply_to": "20184__0_026", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_028", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Well, maybe that would be true here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [339.428], "stop_times": [340.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 339.428}, "reply_to": "20184__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20184__0_029", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--If it is true here, then the judgment needs to be reversed because, of course, this judge didn't just determine the amount of damages.\nHe made a factual finding of willfulness under the statute.\nThat's something that if this is a legal action--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [340.725, 347.473, 351.236], "stop_times": [347.473, 351.236, 353.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 340.725}, "reply_to": "20184__0_028", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_030", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Well, I assume the willfulness aspect could certainly go to a jury if that were the Court's decision, but what would your position be on the balance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [353.767], "stop_times": [362.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 353.767}, "reply_to": "20184__0_029", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20184__0_031", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [362.654], "stop_times": [362.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 362.654}, "reply_to": "20184__0_030", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_032", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Because there still is a discretionary element there, a range of sentences.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [362.779], "stop_times": [368.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 362.779}, "reply_to": "20184__0_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20184__0_033", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--There is a discretionary element and Tull, I think, should be limited to the civil penalty context in which it arose for a number of reasons, first of all because that aspect of the holding was dicta in Tull as a technical matter.\nThe question of who should determine damages wasn't before the Court, because the Court had reversed on liability.\nIt may not have been necessary to reach that question at all.\nThat's a technical point.\nBut the more substantive one is that if you go back and look at the briefing in Tull, it was devoted almost exclusively to the question of liability, very little discussion of the question of damages at all and, whatever may be the case with respect to civil penalties prior to 1791, when damages were not fixed, juries decided damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [368.074, 380.086, 385.567, 387.801, 389.019], "stop_times": [380.086, 385.567, 387.801, 389.019, 407.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 368.074}, "reply_to": "20184__0_032", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_034", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "And the distinction is that in Tull the Government received the money and that makes it a governmental type of penalty and here the private individual--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [407.386], "stop_times": [419.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 407.386}, "reply_to": "20184__0_033", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20184__0_035", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Well, the distinction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [419.944], "stop_times": [420.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 419.944}, "reply_to": "20184__0_034", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_036", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--The owner of the copyright receives the money and therefore it's not a penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [420.819], "stop_times": [423.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 420.819}, "reply_to": "20184__0_035", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20184__0_037", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--The distinction goes back to the 18th Century practice in England.\nWhen damages were not fixed, juries set the amount of damages, so if Congress has not fixed the amount of damages in a copyright action, they should be set by juries under this Court's precedent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [423.646, 428.44], "stop_times": [428.44, 439.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 423.646}, "reply_to": "20184__0_036", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_038", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Well, but they didn't fix them in this Clean Water Act, either, under Tull.\nI'm asking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [439.747, 441.622], "stop_times": [441.622, 442.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 439.747}, "reply_to": "20184__0_037", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20184__0_039", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "I don't think there was any evidence of juries--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [442.435], "stop_times": [444.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 442.435}, "reply_to": "20184__0_038", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_040", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "I know we have a problem with Tull for your case and you want to limit it and you indicated it's a penalty, but can't you look at the statutory damages also as a penalty, and so I ask, does the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [444.481], "stop_times": [455.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 444.481}, "reply_to": "20184__0_039", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20184__0_041", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--Well, they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [455.008], "stop_times": [455.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 455.008}, "reply_to": "20184__0_040", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_042", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--identity of the recipient determine... is that what your distinction's based on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [455.492], "stop_times": [459.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 455.492}, "reply_to": "20184__0_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20184__0_043", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--Well, that's part of it, and also in the civil penalty action you have an analogy to criminal sentencing where a judge determines the sentencing.\nThat analogy doesn't apply in this case because this is a private right... it's not a public right... a private action between two parties and the core of the analysis, though, although I think Tull can be limited in that way and its statement is dicta, the core of the analysis shouldn't be extended because it can't be defended.\nThe idea that although Congress fixed the... when Congress fixes the amount of the penalty it can therefore delegate that task to judges ignores the whole purpose of the Seventh Amendment.\nThe Seventh Amendment is to protect against judicial bias and corruption and overreaching and, while that's not implicated when Congress fixes the amount because Congress is doing that, the judge is just applying it, when you give that task to the judge the whole reason for having the Seventh Amendment comes into play, so that logic in Tull, I think, should at the very least not be extended any further.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [459.632, 467.674, 485.136, 494.758], "stop_times": [467.674, 485.136, 494.758, 514.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 459.632}, "reply_to": "20184__0_042", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_044", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Is there any evidence who set the... in... under the Statute of Anne in the 18th Century it was a penny a sheet or something, I think, in damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [514.124], "stop_times": [522.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 514.124}, "reply_to": "20184__0_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20184__0_045", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [522.933], "stop_times": [523.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 522.933}, "reply_to": "20184__0_044", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_046", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "If there was an argument about how many sheets there were, did the jury decide it or the judge, do we know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [523.308], "stop_times": [528.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 523.308}, "reply_to": "20184__0_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20184__0_047", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "The jury, cert jury.\nWe've cited cases to that effect I believe on page 43 of our brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [528.493, 529.556], "stop_times": [529.556, 533.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 528.493}, "reply_to": "20184__0_046", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_048", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "But Mr. Roberts, in this case on that very point that was the one piece of it that I noticed... and you said willful or not goes to the jury and how much goes to the jury, but in this case, it may not be the case generally, it seems to me that how many infringements was ruled on as a matter of law.\nDidn't the judge rule on it even before his bench trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [533.492, 554.202], "stop_times": [554.202, 557.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 533.492}, "reply_to": "20184__0_047", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20184__0_049", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "It's very confusing.\nHe did not.\nAt the start of the bench trial he said that the issues remaining for trial were how many infringements were involved and were they willful, and what should the damages be, so at the very outset at least, he thought that was an issue for trial.\nLater on, he also said he wanted to hear about how many infringements were involved.\nLater on, he said he was ruling on it as a matter of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [557.684, 559.825, 560.278, 572.335, 576.646], "stop_times": [559.825, 560.278, 572.335, 576.646, 579.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 557.684}, "reply_to": "20184__0_048", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_050", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "But aren't those questions... whether each series is a... each one episode in a series is a separate work, it sounds to me like that's a legal question.\nIs it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [579.551, 588.781], "stop_times": [588.781, 589.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 579.551}, "reply_to": "20184__0_049", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20184__0_051", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Oh, it's a mixed question of law and fact.\nIt depends... and the legal standard was correctly stated.\nIt depends upon whether each episode has what's called an independent copyright life, an independent economic value, and that's a question of fact.\nYou take evidence on that.\nHow was it copyrighted?\nHow was it produced?\nHow was it marketed?\nWould the television station show just one episode of a series or not?\nThere are factual issues involved in that and then a legal standard to be applied, and we think what should have happened is that the jury should have been able to determine those facts based on proper instructions of the... what the legal test was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [589.999, 592.546, 594.888, 603.244, 604.15, 605.243, 606.212, 606.978, 610.975], "stop_times": [592.546, 594.888, 603.244, 604.15, 605.243, 606.212, 606.978, 610.975, 622.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 589.999}, "reply_to": "20184__0_050", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_052", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--Do you say the same thing about the two stations, whether they were--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [622.784], "stop_times": [625.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 622.784}, "reply_to": "20184__0_051", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20184__0_053", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [625.625], "stop_times": [626.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 625.625}, "reply_to": "20184__0_052", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_054", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--separate entities?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [626.344], "stop_times": [627.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 626.344}, "reply_to": "20184__0_053", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20184__0_055", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "It's not just a question of whether they were separate entities, but whether they were jointly and severally responsible for the infringement, because the statute allows only one award of statutory damage for all individual or joint and several infringements of each work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [627.25], "stop_times": [642.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 627.25}, "reply_to": "20184__0_054", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_056", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "So you say if this judge ruled on those two questions as a matter of law that he was wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [642.494], "stop_times": [647.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 642.494}, "reply_to": "20184__0_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20184__0_057", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Yes.\nThat... those should have been submitted to the jury and, as I say, there's some confusion as to what he did.\nIt's hard to tell.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [647.929, 648.57, 653.506], "stop_times": [648.57, 653.506, 654.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 647.929}, "reply_to": "20184__0_056", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_058", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "You're not saying that in principle they could never be ruled on as a matter of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [654.131], "stop_times": [657.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 654.131}, "reply_to": "20184__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20184__0_059", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Oh, no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [657.972], "stop_times": [658.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 657.972}, "reply_to": "20184__0_058", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_060", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "I mean, the facts could be so clear that no reasonable jury could find the factual element except one way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [658.332], "stop_times": [663.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 658.332}, "reply_to": "20184__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20184__0_061", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "The normal rules--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [663.549], "stop_times": [664.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 663.549}, "reply_to": "20184__0_060", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_062", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "You assert that's not the case here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [664.501], "stop_times": [665.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 664.501}, "reply_to": "20184__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20184__0_063", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--The normal rules about directing verdicts and taking issues away from juries I think apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [665.188], "stop_times": [670.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 665.188}, "reply_to": "20184__0_062", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_064", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "That happened on the infringement question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [670.357], "stop_times": [672.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 670.357}, "reply_to": "20184__0_063", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20184__0_065", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Yes.\nInfringement was settled on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [672.591, 673.028], "stop_times": [673.028, 674.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 672.591}, "reply_to": "20184__0_064", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_066", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "That was summary judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [674.496], "stop_times": [675.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 674.496}, "reply_to": "20184__0_065", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20184__0_067", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--On summary judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [675.199], "stop_times": [675.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 675.199}, "reply_to": "20184__0_066", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_068", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "But you don't think that this question, how many, could be summary judgment, too, but you say it wasn't in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [675.933], "stop_times": [682.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 675.933}, "reply_to": "20184__0_067", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20184__0_069", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "I think it was not in this case.\nI do think it's difficult to tell when you have the judge acting both as factfinder and as ruler of law when he's saying based on these facts I'm making this decision, or I'm making this decision as a matter of law and it's also difficult, when that same judge has made a ruling on summary judgment, to tell, is he saying based on the evidence at trial, or I saw this evidence before on summary judgment.\nSo there is some ambiguity in the record, but I think the jury should have been instructed on the number of infringements, as the judge indicated was an issue available for trial at the outset.\nAnd the court of appeals seemed to think that that was decided at least as a mixed question.\nIt referred to the judge's findings and whether or not they were erroneous, rather than treating it as a legal ruling.\nNow, the first step in this Court's constitutional approach is to find an analogue to this action in 18th Century practice and ask whether that's legal or equitable.\nThe analogue to modern actions for statutory damages for copyright infringement is the 18th Century action for statutory damages for copyright infringement under the Statute of Anne, under the first Federal copyright statute passed 1 year before the Seventh Amendment by the same Congress that passed the Seventh Amendment, and those statutes provided for recovery of amounts and specified that they should be recovered in an action at law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [682.931, 684.197, 703.768, 712.623, 717.668, 722.791, 732.553], "stop_times": [684.197, 703.768, 712.623, 717.668, 722.791, 732.553, 758.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 682.931}, "reply_to": "20184__0_068", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_070", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "As I understand it, after the Statute of Anne, the... if a copyright owner thought the damages were a little too small, so he preferred often to go into equity to get an injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [758.215], "stop_times": [767.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 758.215}, "reply_to": "20184__0_069", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20184__0_071", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [767.946], "stop_times": [768.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 767.946}, "reply_to": "20184__0_070", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_072", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "When he did that, could he also get damages?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [768.774], "stop_times": [770.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 768.774}, "reply_to": "20184__0_071", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20184__0_073", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "He had to go in a separate proceeding at law to get damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [770.774], "stop_times": [775.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 770.774}, "reply_to": "20184__0_072", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_074", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Could not get damages on the equity side.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [775.209], "stop_times": [776.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 775.209}, "reply_to": "20184__0_073", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20184__0_075", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Not in equity, no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [776.849], "stop_times": [778.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 776.849}, "reply_to": "20184__0_074", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_076", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Do you... is there a citation for that in your... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [778.365], "stop_times": [782.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 778.365}, "reply_to": "20184__0_075", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20184__0_077", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [782.129], "stop_times": [782.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 782.129}, "reply_to": "20184__0_076", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_078", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--It sounds to me right, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [782.739], "stop_times": [783.519], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 782.739}, "reply_to": "20184__0_077", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20184__0_079", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--Millar v. Taylor I think is the best that I can come up with, which is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [783.519], "stop_times": [787.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 783.519}, "reply_to": "20184__0_078", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_080", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--The Millar case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [787.064], "stop_times": [787.518], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 787.064}, "reply_to": "20184__0_079", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20184__0_081", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--After the Seventh Amendment was adopted.\nIt discusses the history.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [787.518, 789.813], "stop_times": [789.813, 791.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 787.518}, "reply_to": "20184__0_080", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_082", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "But that was overruled, basically, by the statute... well, all right, thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [791.078], "stop_times": [793.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 791.078}, "reply_to": "20184__0_081", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20184__0_083", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Overruled by the House of Lords in Donaldson but not on that question.\nIt was the question of whether common law copyright survived the Statute of Anne.\nAnother thing that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [793.53, 796.935, 801.276], "stop_times": [796.935, 801.276, 802.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 793.53}, "reply_to": "20184__0_082", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_084", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "But in the fullness of time didn't equity clean up?\nI mean, the cleanup doctrine that if there were damages... the main thing was injunctive relief, but you could incidentally collect damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [802.917, 805.369], "stop_times": [805.369, 813.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 802.917}, "reply_to": "20184__0_083", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20184__0_085", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--Up until Beacon Theatres and Dairy Queen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [813.647], "stop_times": [816.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 813.647}, "reply_to": "20184__0_084", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_086", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Yes, but there was... you didn't have to bring a separate action at law under the cleanup doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [816.364], "stop_times": [821.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 816.364}, "reply_to": "20184__0_085", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20184__0_087", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Under the cleanup doctrine, but in Beacon Theatres the Court noted that that could not be used to deprive a party of the right to a jury trial.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [821.159, 827.251], "stop_times": [827.251, 828.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 821.159}, "reply_to": "20184__0_086", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_088", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "But the judge could no longer set the order of trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [828.782], "stop_times": [830.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 828.782}, "reply_to": "20184__0_087", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20184__0_089", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--That's right, that ruling on the injunctive aspects couldn't deprive a litigant of his right to a jury trial on the legal aspects, and the legal aspects plainly included the right to statutory damages.\nNow, the statutory damages have changed since then, as was pointed out.\nThe main difference is the modern version gives you a range, and these 18th Century precedents we've been talking about are primarily fixed amounts.\nThat is not a distinction that makes a difference.\nThe Government made that same argument in the Tull case in footnote 7.\nIt said those 18th Century civil penalty actions were for fixed amounts and this, the Clean Water Act is for a discretionary range.\nThe exact words of this Court are, we do not find that distinction to be significant.\nIn addition, there were statutory damages--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [830.733, 842.041, 847.071, 855.068, 857.504, 861.659, 868.874, 873.45], "stop_times": [842.041, 847.071, 855.068, 857.504, 861.659, 868.874, 873.45, 876.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 830.733}, "reply_to": "20184__0_088", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_090", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Isn't that inconsistent with the argument you made earlier that Congress sets the amounts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [876.606], "stop_times": [880.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 876.606}, "reply_to": "20184__0_089", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20184__0_091", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--Sets the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [880.229], "stop_times": [882.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 880.229}, "reply_to": "20184__0_090", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_092", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "I thought you... we were talking earlier about how to distinguish or confine Tull and you said, well, the Congress sets the amounts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [882.416], "stop_times": [889.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 882.416}, "reply_to": "20184__0_091", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20184__0_093", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--In--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [889.475], "stop_times": [890.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 889.475}, "reply_to": "20184__0_092", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_094", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "But the Congress there set a vast range, and it's... which is very much like the statute we're involved with here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [890.178], "stop_times": [895.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 890.178}, "reply_to": "20184__0_093", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20184__0_095", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--But the argument in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [895.145], "stop_times": [897.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 895.145}, "reply_to": "20184__0_094", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_096", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "And--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [897.488], "stop_times": [898.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 897.488}, "reply_to": "20184__0_095", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20184__0_097", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--In Tull was, because Congress had fixed the amounts earlier they could delegate that to a judge.\nHere you had in the 18th Century fixed amounts under the Statute of Anne, under the first Federal copyright statute, but also a situation where you could get damages for copyright infringement that weren't fixed by Congress and whenever they were not fixed by Congress, those were for a jury.\nI don't know that that situation was replicated with respect to the civil penalty actions of the sort at issue in Tull.\nAnd it's also the case here we had 18th Century preSeventh Amendment statutes providing for a range of statutory damages.\nStatutes in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island provided for the recovery of statutory damages within a broad range, so therefore that basic distinction, the difference between fixed and range, doesn't make a difference with respect to characterizing the action.\nThe second step in this Court's constitutional analysis is to look to the nature of the remedy.\nHere, the remedy is money damages, the hallmark of legal relief, and this Court has said that monetary damages are legal and require a jury except in two very specific, defined circumstances, when they constitute restitution or disgorgement, and when they're incidental to or intertwined with equitable relief.\nThe first certainly doesn't apply here.\nRestitution is one of the factors that the jury can consider in setting the amount of damages, but it's not the only one.\nThey also can look at punishment and compensation, traditional legal remedies, and those legal remedies give the right to a jury.\nAgain, this is another argument that was made in Tull.\nThe Government argued there the purpose of the Clean Water Act penalties is restitution.\nTherefore, this is equitable.\nThe Court said no, the purpose is also punishment.\nPunishment was one of the purposes.\nThat's a legal remedy and therefore this is a legal action.\nThe modern statutory damages serve the legal purposes of punishment and compensation.\nYou can see the punishment aspect in the fact that you get a broader... a higher range for willful, a lower range for innocent.\nYou can see the compensatory aspect in the fact that these damages are instead of actual damages.\nYou don't get both because they serve the same purpose, provide some recompense for the copyright holder.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [898.253, 903.845, 918.12, 924.15, 931.788, 946.125, 951.466, 970.85, 973.083, 980.144, 986.516, 989.264, 993.327, 994.793, 997.432, 998.823, 1002.681, 1008.74, 1014.988, 1020.689], "stop_times": [903.845, 918.12, 924.15, 931.788, 946.125, 951.466, 970.85, 973.083, 980.144, 986.516, 989.264, 993.327, 994.793, 997.432, 998.823, 1002.681, 1008.74, 1014.988, 1020.689, 1026.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 898.253}, "reply_to": "20184__0_096", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_098", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--What about the argument that actual damages may be hard to prove and so because the legal remedy is inadequate, actual damages, so you have this alternate of the statutory damages, so doesn't equity come in when the legal remedy is inadequate.\nIsn't that the basic reason for equitable--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1026.968, 1047.538], "stop_times": [1047.538, 1050.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1026.968}, "reply_to": "20184__0_097", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20184__0_099", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "That is the basic prerequisite for equitable relief and it's not specified here.\nHere, statutory damages are available at the election of the plaintiff for whatever reason or no reason.\nHe does not have to show that legal... actual damages or legal remedies are inadequate.\nSecond of all, the fact that that's one of the reasons you have this relief doesn't make it equitable.\nParties frequently provide liquidated damages in contracts because they think it will be difficult to prove actual damages.\nIf you sue for liquidated damages in a contract it's still a legal action for which a jury is required.\nThat's the reason you had the fixed penalties in the Statute of Anne, because actual damages were difficult to calculate and yet the respondent agrees that that was a legal action to recover those damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1050.223, 1054.644, 1059.642, 1064.235, 1069.124, 1075.511, 1080.977], "stop_times": [1054.644, 1059.642, 1064.235, 1069.124, 1075.511, 1080.977, 1090.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1050.223}, "reply_to": "20184__0_098", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_100", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--Perhaps you've said this, but it would be helpful if you could just summarize in a sentence, possibly.\nIf you take Tull, you know, and look at part 3... you know what I'm thinking of.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1090.38, 1094.722], "stop_times": [1094.722, 1100.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1090.38}, "reply_to": "20184__0_099", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20184__0_101", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1100.687], "stop_times": [1101.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1100.687}, "reply_to": "20184__0_100", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_102", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "All right, and then suppose someone were to say, well, that seems to describe this case, you would say, no it doesn't, and the main distinction that you would make between part 3 of Tull and this case is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1101.0], "stop_times": [1112.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1101.0}, "reply_to": "20184__0_101", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20184__0_103", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Well, the main distinction is that Tull--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1112.574], "stop_times": [1115.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1112.574}, "reply_to": "20184__0_102", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_104", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Or two if you'd like, or three, but I mean, I'm just trying to get the heart of what you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1115.228], "stop_times": [1118.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1115.228}, "reply_to": "20184__0_103", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20184__0_105", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--Tull is a... Tull first of all is an action by the Government for civil penalties.\nThis is an action between private parties for damages.\nAt common law, when damages were not fixed, as they're not here, juries determined the amount of damages, whatever may have been the case with respect to civil penalties.\nIn Tull, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1118.274, 1121.086, 1124.584, 1133.362], "stop_times": [1121.086, 1124.584, 1133.362, 1135.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1118.274}, "reply_to": "20184__0_104", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_106", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--I don't want to interrupt Justice Breyer's colloquy with you, but you're talking about two things.\nYou're talking about the identity of the recipient and the... whether or not the amount is fixed and it seems to me that the latter doesn't help you here, because Justice Breyer I think implied that the range of penalties that Congress sets under the Clean Water Act in Tull look very much like the range that it is setting here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1135.081, 1139.187], "stop_times": [1139.187, 1161.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1135.081}, "reply_to": "20184__0_105", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20184__0_107", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--The difference is that under Tull and the Clean Water Act the Court couldn't... wasn't provided with and didn't find any analogies in the 18th Century where there was a similar range and you got a jury.\nHere we have that.\nThe three State statutes I mentioned provided a range prior to the adoption of the Seventh Amendment and they said, you recover this range in an action of debt, an action at law.\nSo whatever may be the case, and under the Seventh Amendment you need to look at the particular actions and the historical analogues, whatever may be the case with respect to civil penalties, the analogue here is there prior to the adoption of the Seventh Amendment and it was an action at law.\nBut with those distinctions of Tull in mind, again, the basic core of the reasoning should not be extended.\nWhen damages were uncertain, that was when the juries were needed most.\nThis Court said so in Barry v. Edmunds.\nWhere no precise rule of law fixes the reasonable damages, it is the peculiar function of the jury to determine the amount.\nThat was the rule at common law, Lord Townshend's Case, the jury are judges of the damages, and that is what this Court held with respect to the Seventh Amendment consistently, at least prior to Tull.\nThat's why we don't have additur or unconditional remittitur, because it's for the jury to determine the amount of damages.\nThat's the rationale in Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in Bank of Hamilton.\nThe statute there said you could be evicted, but you were entitled to compensation for improvements, improvements will be set by commissioners, unconstitutional under the Seventh Amendment.\nJuries set the amount of damages.\nNow, that body of precedent with respect to damages is wellestablished.\nThe body of precedent with respect to civil penalties may well be different, but the Court noted in Tull, for example, that it had been presented with no evidence that the Framers were concerned that the jury trial right extend to the question of remedy, and that's right.\nIf you go back and read the briefs, the evidence isn't there, but the evidence is there in the real world.\nThe amount of damages was a critical component of the jury trial right.\nThe episode in New York in 1764 that figured in the ratification debates involved solely a redetermination of the amount of damages set by the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1161.945, 1173.518, 1174.423, 1182.749, 1196.352, 1204.349, 1208.55, 1211.471, 1218.842, 1228.605, 1234.492, 1238.211, 1247.191, 1249.112, 1254.094, 1268.822, 1274.165, 1278.288], "stop_times": [1173.518, 1174.423, 1182.749, 1196.352, 1204.349, 1208.55, 1211.471, 1218.842, 1228.605, 1234.492, 1238.211, 1247.191, 1249.112, 1254.094, 1268.822, 1274.165, 1278.288, 1287.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1161.945}, "reply_to": "20184__0_106", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_108", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Is the history of it that in England the amount of damages wouldn't have been an issue in terms of amount in respect to the... because the Statute of Anne says a penny a page, but in the United States your point is that some States did make it a jury issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1287.471], "stop_times": [1302.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1287.471}, "reply_to": "20184__0_107", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20184__0_109", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Well, that point--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1302.012], "stop_times": [1303.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1302.012}, "reply_to": "20184__0_108", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_110", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "A lot of States, perhaps.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1303.121], "stop_times": [1303.684], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1303.121}, "reply_to": "20184__0_109", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20184__0_111", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--That point, but also another one, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1303.684], "stop_times": [1305.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1303.684}, "reply_to": "20184__0_110", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_112", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "What?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1305.432], "stop_times": [1306.135], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1305.432}, "reply_to": "20184__0_111", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20184__0_113", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "And that is that there are other situations where damages for copyright infringement were not set.\nFor example, if you're seeking damages with respect to an unpublished work, then a jury would determine those amounts.\nUnder--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1306.135, 1310.29, 1318.631], "stop_times": [1310.29, 1318.631, 1319.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1306.135}, "reply_to": "20184__0_112", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_114", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "But that's a different--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1319.194], "stop_times": [1319.474], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1319.194}, "reply_to": "20184__0_113", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20184__0_115", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--Under section 504(b) if you're seeking actual damages a jury would determine that amount.\nThere are situations where the damages are not fixed and in those cases there's no question that it would be for a jury to determine, so whatever the force of Tull with respect to civil penalties, they don't apply to the copyright infringement area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1319.474, 1323.535], "stop_times": [1323.535, 1335.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1319.474}, "reply_to": "20184__0_114", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_116", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--What about if... suppose a person brought in the 18th Century an action for an injunction and coupled it with a request for damages?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1335.25], "stop_times": [1344.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1335.25}, "reply_to": "20184__0_115", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20184__0_117", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "I believe that the action for damages had to be filed separately in a court of law.\nIt couldn't be joined with the equitable action for an injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1344.62, 1350.696], "stop_times": [1350.696, 1354.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1344.62}, "reply_to": "20184__0_116", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_118", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "But we've already agreed that, as equity emerged, you could combine the two.\nYou could clean up, you could get damages if you... the main thing that you want is... in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1354.054, 1359.724], "stop_times": [1359.724, 1366.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1354.054}, "reply_to": "20184__0_117", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20184__0_119", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1366.44], "stop_times": [1367.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1366.44}, "reply_to": "20184__0_118", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_120", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--Until Beacon and Dairy Queen--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1367.142], "stop_times": [1369.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1367.142}, "reply_to": "20184__0_119", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20184__0_121", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1369.532], "stop_times": [1369.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1369.532}, "reply_to": "20184__0_120", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_122", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--that was routine.\nYou could go into equity and say, by the way, equity cleans up, clears up, so incidentally, award me damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1369.923, 1371.641], "stop_times": [1371.641, 1378.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1369.923}, "reply_to": "20184__0_121", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20184__0_123", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Yes, and Beacon Theatres and Dairy Queen pointed out the flaw with that line of reasoning, which is it was depriving the parties of their right to a jury trial through the conduct of the litigation and you could not go and get both in a single action in equity in England.\nNow, with... the State precedent here I don't think should be dismissed as simply the American practice as opposed to the English practice.\nThe Court is concerned about looking to practice here because they don't want to rely on idiosyncratic practice, but there's no evidence here that the statutes in New Hampshire and Massachusetts were in any way inconsistent with English common law.\nThere were three of them, which suggests that they were not aberrational at all and the language was perfectly consistent with all the other statutes that were provided at that time, all of which providing relief at law, with the difference that they provided it within a range.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1378.982, 1394.178, 1403.971, 1416.981], "stop_times": [1394.178, 1403.971, 1416.981, 1428.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1378.982}, "reply_to": "20184__0_122", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_124", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Mr. Roberts, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the cleanup doctrine originated in England and we... our law developed in the same way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1428.898], "stop_times": [1439.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1428.898}, "reply_to": "20184__0_123", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20184__0_125", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "I think it did originate in England.\nI don't know when.\nBut again, my reading of Millar v. Taylor is that you couldn't get damages for copyright infringement in an action brought at equity.\nYou could get your injunction, then if you wanted damages you went in a separate action at law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1439.254, 1442.3, 1443.205, 1451.171], "stop_times": [1442.3, 1443.205, 1451.171, 1455.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1439.254}, "reply_to": "20184__0_124", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_126", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Well, at any rate the test is what was the practice at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1455.263], "stop_times": [1460.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1455.263}, "reply_to": "20184__0_125", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20184__0_127", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1460.277], "stop_times": [1460.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1460.277}, "reply_to": "20184__0_126", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_128", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Not what became the practice later.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1460.73], "stop_times": [1462.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1460.73}, "reply_to": "20184__0_127", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20184__0_129", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Yes.\nIf I could reserve the remainder--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1462.385, 1462.948], "stop_times": [1462.948, 1464.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1462.385}, "reply_to": "20184__0_128", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__0_130", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Very well.\nWe'll hear from you, Mr. Tashman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1464.946, 1465.711], "stop_times": [1465.711, 1467.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1464.946}, "reply_to": "20184__0_129", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20184__1_000", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court--\nCongress enacted statutory damages in 1909 as an alternative to actual damages to provide some recompense to copyright holders.\nCongress did this because it recognized that actual, legal damages were frequently difficult, if not impossible to prove and therefore did not provide an adequate remedy.\nStatutory damages were later amended and expanded in 1975 and in 1988.\nThe formulation of an alternate form of relief where legal damages are inadequate is quintessentially an equitable remedy.\nMoreover, statutory damages require and involve the exercise of nearly unbridled discretion by the court and an appeal to the court's sense of justice based upon the particular facts in an individual case to fashion a remedy that is both just and consistent with the goals of the Copyright Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1467.054, 1479.768, 1492.342, 1506.085, 1515.878, 1531.702], "stop_times": [1479.768, 1492.342, 1506.085, 1515.878, 1531.702, 1556.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1467.054}, "reply_to": "20184__0_130", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_001", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Did the Tull footnote 7 in effect say that's not a consideration that should influence--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1556.924], "stop_times": [1563.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1556.924}, "reply_to": "20184__1_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20184__1_002", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "No, it didn't.\nI think the Tull footnote 7 said that the Government's argument regarding discretion was in a sense trumped by the fact that what we were dealing with in Tull were punitive damages, or a punitive statute and that was the more important consideration in Tull and the Court correctly stated in Tull that punitive damages and penalties were the exclusive province of the courts of law and not the courts of equity.\nHowever, statutory damages, and by that I mean the damages in the 1909 and 1976 act, are not punitive damages and this Court has so ruled in the L. A. Westermann case.\nThe primary purpose of statutory damages is to find some method of recompense to the copyright holder, given the inadequacy of the legal remedy of actual damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1563.438, 1564.39, 1597.127, 1610.888], "stop_times": [1564.39, 1597.127, 1610.888, 1628.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1563.438}, "reply_to": "20184__1_001", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_003", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--Mr. Tashman, if I follow your argument correctly, then if a copyright holder comes in at the outset and says, I want the court to find that there has been an infringement and I want statutory damages, I don't want any other kind of damages, could such a plaintiff then avoid having a jury trial on the question of infringement?\nOn your theory, I take it yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1628.396, 1659.727], "stop_times": [1659.727, 1661.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1628.396}, "reply_to": "20184__1_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20184__1_004", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Absolutely.\nI would characterize statutory damages as an equitable action and an equitable proceeding, just like an action for an injunction and, as in an action in an injunction, all the issues, including the issue of infringement, would be for the court and in a similar fashion, if only statutory damages were sought, which is quite possible under the current act, in the 1976 act, then all of the issues, including infringement, would go to the court.\nNow, in this case statutory damages were not elected until after the court granted summary judgment both on copyright liability and also the number of infringements which were involved.\nThe court held--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1661.601, 1662.242, 1692.823, 1707.052], "stop_times": [1662.242, 1692.823, 1707.052, 1707.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1661.601}, "reply_to": "20184__1_003", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_005", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "There seems to be a debate about what... the number of infringements, whether that was, in fact, a summary judgment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1707.692], "stop_times": [1714.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1707.692}, "reply_to": "20184__1_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20184__1_006", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--Oh, there's no question about it.\nThe only question that I think is subject to some debate, and even that is really not subject to serious debate, is not the number of broadcasts, because that was either found by the court or stipulated to, but the number of... or the number of series that were broad... the number of episodes which were broadcast because, again, that was stipulated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1714.892, 1716.282], "stop_times": [1716.282, 1735.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1714.892}, "reply_to": "20184__1_005", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_007", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--But whether each episode counts as a work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1735.963], "stop_times": [1739.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1735.963}, "reply_to": "20184__1_006", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20184__1_008", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1739.57], "stop_times": [1740.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1739.57}, "reply_to": "20184__1_007", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_009", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Mr. Roberts said that is a mixed question of law and fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1740.225], "stop_times": [1743.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1740.225}, "reply_to": "20184__1_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20184__1_010", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "It is, except in this case there was no dispute as to the facts, and we don't dispute the facts.\nThere was no dispute at trial that the series are sold in a single contract.\nThere was no dispute at the trial that the stations are free to broadcast any number of the... of these episodes, but in this case it was stipulated to that each and every one of the episodes was broadcast between two and three times on a separate date.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1743.818, 1749.175, 1753.705], "stop_times": [1749.175, 1753.705, 1773.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1743.818}, "reply_to": "20184__1_009", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_011", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Well, I don't want to distract you with a question that would be peculiar just to this case, but I think you have made an important clarification that in your argument statutory damages are just like injunctive relief, so if you come into the court and say, all I want is an injunction, then the infringement will be determined by the court as well.\nSimilarly here, if the copyright holder says, I want to have those statutory damages and so, please, no jury to say whether the defendant infringed or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1773.621, 1792.565], "stop_times": [1792.565, 1804.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1773.621}, "reply_to": "20184__1_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20184__1_012", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Yes, I think that would flow once the court, or if the court characterized the statutory damages as an equitable remedy and an equitable--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1804.028], "stop_times": [1811.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1804.028}, "reply_to": "20184__1_011", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_013", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Why didn't the--\n--That's difficult to do, isn't it?\nI mean, in an injunction the question for the court is whether certain conduct should be prohibited or not and here, in the statutory damages, there is a range of options for the imposition of the damages and there's a certain amount of discretion involved in fixing the amount within the possible range, is there not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1811.824, 1812.402, 1814.744], "stop_times": [1812.402, 1814.744, 1838.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1811.824}, "reply_to": "20184__1_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20184__1_014", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--Well, there's a huge amount of discretion involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1838.656], "stop_times": [1841.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1838.656}, "reply_to": "20184__1_013", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_015", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1841.046], "stop_times": [1841.311], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1841.046}, "reply_to": "20184__1_014", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20184__1_016", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "And that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1841.311], "stop_times": [1842.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1841.311}, "reply_to": "20184__1_015", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_017", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "And that is a typical question that a jury would address and certainly, if you look to the common law antecedents, that's the kind of thing that in the copyright area would have been determined by a jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1842.046], "stop_times": [1855.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1842.046}, "reply_to": "20184__1_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20184__1_018", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--Well, I have to agree with... I have to disagree with Your Honor on two counts.\nFirst, as to the practice at common law, under the colonial statutes and under the 1790 act as well, the... well, let me focus on the 1790 act first.\nThe jury played no role whatsoever in determining the amount of damages.\nThe only thing the jury determined was whether or not there was an infringement and the number of copies in the possession of the infringer and, once those two facts had been determined, damages were calculated arithmetically by multiplying the number of works in possession by the 10 cents a page, or whatever.\nSo if we look at the state of the world just prior to the passage of the Seventh Amendment, the jury really had no role in calculating the amount of damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1855.9, 1859.428, 1874.735, 1882.591, 1902.223], "stop_times": [1859.428, 1874.735, 1882.591, 1902.223, 1915.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1855.9}, "reply_to": "20184__1_017", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_019", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Well, it surely would have had a role in determining what later emerged to be an element of willfulness and the extent of the violation and how many pages, or how many events occurred.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1915.219], "stop_times": [1928.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1915.219}, "reply_to": "20184__1_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20184__1_020", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Well, I'm afraid I have to disagree with Your Honor again.\nWillfulness is a concept that is completely alien to copyright infringement at common law and, indeed, it's completely alien to copyright infringement until 1978.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1928.9, 1932.025], "stop_times": [1932.025, 1944.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1928.9}, "reply_to": "20184__1_019", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_021", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Oh, but it's a concept that is very familiar at common law in all kinds of criminal and tort law situations.\nThat's a typical determination by a jury, is something intentionally done, or willfully done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1944.753, 1953.172], "stop_times": [1953.172, 1959.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1944.753}, "reply_to": "20184__1_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20184__1_022", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "That is certainly true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1959.341], "stop_times": [1960.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1959.341}, "reply_to": "20184__1_021", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_023", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "That lends itself to jury determination very readily.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1960.575], "stop_times": [1963.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1960.575}, "reply_to": "20184__1_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20184__1_024", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Unlike the assessment of statutory damages within a range, which involves a huge amount of discretion and this discretion is really entirely different from the discretion that a jury uses in trying to ascertain the appropriate amount of actual damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1963.604], "stop_times": [1980.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1963.604}, "reply_to": "20184__1_023", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_025", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "How about punitive damages?\nA jury has extraordinary discretion there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1980.004, 1981.269], "stop_times": [1981.269, 1984.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1980.004}, "reply_to": "20184__1_024", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20184__1_026", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Well, it certainly has more discretion than it does in determining actual damages, but for example, the jury cannot, and it would be error for the jury to take into account the conduct of the attorneys and the conduct of the litigants in bringing the litigation and how they conducted the litigation and yet these are factors that courts have taken into account in determining the amount of statutory damages.\nAlso, I think juries--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [1984.268, 2009.79], "stop_times": [2009.79, 2012.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1984.268}, "reply_to": "20184__1_025", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_027", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "You think that that would be impossible under punitive damages, if the jury thought that the defendant in the case knew that it was guilty and had conducted a rear guard action of obstructionist litigation and so forth?\nI'm not sure a jury--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2012.46, 2029.312], "stop_times": [2029.312, 2030.14], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2012.46}, "reply_to": "20184__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20184__1_028", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2030.14], "stop_times": [2030.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2030.14}, "reply_to": "20184__1_027", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_029", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--couldn't consider that for punitive damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2030.64], "stop_times": [2032.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2030.64}, "reply_to": "20184__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20184__1_030", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--I believe there are cases which have held that it would be reversible error for the jury to consider the conduct of counsel at trial and that that conduct has been considered--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2032.217], "stop_times": [2044.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2032.217}, "reply_to": "20184__1_029", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_031", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Oh, I'm sure just an isolated, you know, piece of rudeness or something like that, I'm sure that would be the case.\nYou think that could be taken into account here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2044.197, 2050.179], "stop_times": [2050.179, 2052.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2044.197}, "reply_to": "20184__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20184__1_032", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--If statutory damages... absolutely.\nThe courts--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2052.491, 2054.632], "stop_times": [2054.632, 2055.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2052.491}, "reply_to": "20184__1_031", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_033", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Really?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2055.148], "stop_times": [2055.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2055.148}, "reply_to": "20184__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20184__1_034", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--The courts--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2055.755], "stop_times": [2056.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2055.755}, "reply_to": "20184__1_033", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_035", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "The jury thinks counsel were rude to the judge--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2056.427], "stop_times": [2058.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2056.427}, "reply_to": "20184__1_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20184__1_036", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--No, no, in statutory damages courts have used the cooperation or lack of cooperation and the manner in which counsel have conducted themselves at trial as a factor in determining the appropriate amount of statutory damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2058.505], "stop_times": [2074.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2058.505}, "reply_to": "20184__1_035", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_037", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--Is... I just wonder, can I go back for a second to your answer to Justice Ginsburg.\nCould you explain to me very briefly, as... perhaps I haven't a clear view of Tull, but Tull was a case that I thought gave you support and, as I understood the case, it would have said that the action for damages, a penalty in that case, is, in fact, legal and therefore the plaintiff or a defendant, there would be a right to a jury trial, but then it talked about the assessment of the amount of the penalty and, as far as the assessment of the amount of the penalty was concerned there was no Seventh Amendment right.\nNow, if that's... if I'm reading it correctly, then in this case it would suggest that even if... I take it you'd have to say and even if.\nEven if the claim is legal and therefore there is a right to a jury trial to determine whether or not statutory damages is due, there is under Tull nonetheless no jury trial right as to the amount of the damages.\nNow, is that a correct reading of Tull?\nIs Tull applicable in that way?\nAre you going to disown Tull, or what is it you want to do about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2074.889, 2079.214, 2111.719, 2120.027, 2137.88, 2140.675, 2143.549], "stop_times": [2079.214, 2111.719, 2120.027, 2137.88, 2140.675, 2143.549, 2147.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2074.889}, "reply_to": "20184__1_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20184__1_038", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Well, I'm very happy about Tull and I certainly don't want to disown that case.\nTull I think is controlling.\nIn the event that the Court finds that statutory damages are a legal remedy, our initial threshold argument is that statutory damages are not legal but are equitable.\nTull is not consistent with that.\nTull found that the civil penalties in that case were legal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2147.095, 2150.64, 2152.999, 2164.494, 2168.569], "stop_times": [2150.64, 2152.999, 2164.494, 2168.569, 2174.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2147.095}, "reply_to": "20184__1_037", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_039", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "That's right.\nNow, I want to know what happens if I think, hypothetically, that this is a legal remedy, statutory damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2174.458, 2175.067], "stop_times": [2175.067, 2183.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2174.458}, "reply_to": "20184__1_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20184__1_040", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2183.425], "stop_times": [2183.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2183.425}, "reply_to": "20184__1_039", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_041", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "At that point, is that the end of the matter, or are you saying that indeed, even if that's so, given part 3 of Tull, the judge may or Congress may give the judge the power to assess the amount of the penalty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2183.611], "stop_times": [2197.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2183.611}, "reply_to": "20184__1_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20184__1_042", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Well, we are arguing that this is equitable, but in the event that the court rejects that and finds that it is legal, we are clearly arguing that, based upon Tull and based upon the second prong of the test in the Court's recent decision in Markman, that it would be entirely appropriate for the Court to assess the amount of statutory damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2197.919], "stop_times": [2221.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2197.919}, "reply_to": "20184__1_041", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_043", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "But then you would lose under--\n--But if it were legal, then you'd have the right to a jury trial on infringement, I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2221.689, 2222.642], "stop_times": [2222.642, 2227.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2221.689}, "reply_to": "20184__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20184__1_044", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Correct.\nSo... I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2227.812, 2228.171], "stop_times": [2228.171, 2229.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2227.812}, "reply_to": "20184__1_043", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_045", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "And also on... if all you have in your corner is Tull, then you lose on infringement, you lose on willful, or innocent.\nThat would also be for the jury under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2229.077, 2237.995], "stop_times": [2237.995, 2240.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2229.077}, "reply_to": "20184__1_044", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20184__1_046", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Well, certainly we don't lose on infringement because in this particular case infringement--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2240.463], "stop_times": [2244.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2240.463}, "reply_to": "20184__1_045", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_047", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--Yes, but I mean as a question of whether you would be entitled to a jury trial if there is a fact to be tried.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2244.243], "stop_times": [2250.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2244.243}, "reply_to": "20184__1_046", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20184__1_048", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--I know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2250.975], "stop_times": [2251.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2250.975}, "reply_to": "20184__1_047", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_049", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "If Tull is all you have, then if there is a fact to be tried, the only thing you would get from a judge is the amount of damages, not the willfulness determination, not the number of infringing acts, and not the basic infringement question.\nWhat more could you get from Tull except the very last piece of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2251.927, 2267.093], "stop_times": [2267.093, 2270.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2251.927}, "reply_to": "20184__1_048", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20184__1_050", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--I would think that Tull would give us more than the last piece, and that would be any issues that relate solely to the question of liability, such as willfulness, would be the province of the court, and I think that's especially significant in this case.\nThere is no requirement under the Copyright Act... and the petitioners make this argument and I think it's clearly incorrect, that there is no mandatory requirement for a finding of willfulness or a finding of innocence.\nThe statute gives the court the absolute discretion to award damages between 500 dollars and 20,000 dollars without any finding whatsoever as to willfulness or innocence and in this case the court found that 20,000 dollars was the appropriate award, and that is an award which does not require any finding of willfulness or innocence.\nOnly if the court wants to go above the 20,000 dollars is there a requirement that the court find willfulness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2270.764, 2287.021, 2300.361, 2325.177], "stop_times": [2287.021, 2300.361, 2325.177, 2335.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2270.764}, "reply_to": "20184__1_049", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_051", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "But didn't the court find willfulness here as kind of a part of his explanation of why he picked 20 rather than 500 dollars?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2335.752], "stop_times": [2345.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2335.752}, "reply_to": "20184__1_050", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20184__1_052", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Well, we certainly know that the court did find willfulness.\nAs to why the court decided to award 20,000 dollars, which would be the maximum amount without a finding of willfulness, we really don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2345.405, 2348.045], "stop_times": [2348.045, 2359.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2345.405}, "reply_to": "20184__1_051", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_053", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "You really want to slice this statute very, very fine, so that not only does the amount of damages somehow get lopped off from the rest of it, but even within the damage provision, up to 20,000 dollars can be decided by the judge alone and when you get above that, if there's willfulness, it... the jury has to be called in.\nHow does that work?\nWhat... I mean, how does the judge know there's no willfulness, so that he should only give up to 20,000 dollars?\nI assume he has to send it to the jury first for the jury to find whether there's willfulness and, if the jury finds no, then he can do between 5 and 20, but that didn't happen here, did it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2359.149, 2382.312, 2382.968, 2388.154], "stop_times": [2382.312, 2382.968, 2388.154, 2398.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2359.149}, "reply_to": "20184__1_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20184__1_054", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Well, I think we could avoid that problem by... in a case where the plaintiff requests damages no greater than 20,000 dollars.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2398.353], "stop_times": [2410.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2398.353}, "reply_to": "20184__1_053", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_055", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Well, let me ask even... even in that case, I'm... I want to ask a question that goes to the point of whether Tull helps you even on damages alone.\nOne reason Mr. Roberts suggested that Tull might not help you on that is that in Tull there was no... there was no 18th Century analogue and here he says there is and, going to that point, my question is this.\nGranted that in the early actions which were, I guess, brought in this country either for debt or in an action on the case for damages which were, as you point out, just mathematically calculated... you find the number of sheets, you multiply it times a penny or whatnot, and that's your verdict... nonetheless, despite the rather mechanistic way that damages would be calculated in those cases, is there authority that indicates that in those early cases the juries were returning verdicts simply of so many sheets plus infringement, as distinct from a verdict for money damages?\nIn other words, were the juries coming back with general verdicts, or were they simply coming back with the basis for calculating a verdict which the judge then did?\nDo we know?\nIn other words, I want to know what the 18th Century analogue is here in practice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2410.613, 2421.53, 2435.994, 2479.428, 2488.253, 2489.081], "stop_times": [2421.53, 2435.994, 2479.428, 2488.253, 2489.081, 2493.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2410.613}, "reply_to": "20184__1_054", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20184__1_056", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "I... that's not a question that I have an answer to, although I would argue that, regardless of whether or not the juries specified an amount in the award or whether they just specified the number of copies in the possession of the defendant, that this statute and the colonial statute are entirely inadequate analogues to statutory damages, because the key and the essence of statutory damages is finding an alternate way to recompense the plaintiff outside of the standard rules of proof and outside of the standard measure of damages and outside of the standard rules of evidence.\nAnd what we have in the 18th Century are classic, rigid, legal causes of action either in debt, which is a sum certain, which is the antithesis of statutory damages--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2493.594, 2535.858], "stop_times": [2535.858, 2550.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2493.594}, "reply_to": "20184__1_055", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_057", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Or case, which is not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2550.446], "stop_times": [2551.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2550.446}, "reply_to": "20184__1_056", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20184__1_058", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--Or case, but again, while there's more flexibility in case, what we're talking about is actual damages.\nWhat we're talking... there's no question that case is the analogue of actual damages under 504(b) and there's no question that, under 504(b) for actual damages, there's a constitutional right to a jury trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2551.212, 2558.365], "stop_times": [2558.365, 2572.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2551.212}, "reply_to": "20184__1_057", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_059", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "All right.\nLet's assume that.\nLet's assume that the analogue is not point for point.\nHow do you answer this objection one of the questions that we have to ask, if we get to the point in the argument, is whether the jury... according the jury trial under the present circumstances is necessary to preserve the substance of whatever the 18th Century right was.\nIf we start with the conclusion that the 18th Century juries were at least awarding something in the nature of actual damages, as distinct from statutory damages today, you nonetheless I think have to face this, that if, today, a plaintiff asks for actual damages, the plaintiff would, on the reasoning of the 18th Century analogue, get the jury trial right and the defendant would get the benefit of the jury trial right.\nWhereas if today's plaintiff says, I want to go for big money, I want to go for the kind of statutory damages which in this case could have resulted, I think... what was it, 44 million dollars, the upper limit +/?\na great deal of money, anyway, the jury right disappears and, given your answer to Justice Ginsburg, it disappears even on the question of liability.\nDon't you face the problem of how we preserve the substance of the 18th Century right if we accept your argument and, in particular, if we accept your answer to Justice Ginsburg?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2572.438, 2572.782, 2572.968, 2577.858, 2600.521, 2633.007, 2646.064, 2655.966], "stop_times": [2572.782, 2572.968, 2577.858, 2600.521, 2633.007, 2646.064, 2655.966, 2666.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2572.438}, "reply_to": "20184__1_058", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20184__1_060", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "No, I don't think so.\nI don't think the substance of the 18th Century right goes to the amount or the size of the award.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2666.181, 2668.273], "stop_times": [2668.273, 2674.303], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2666.181}, "reply_to": "20184__1_059", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_061", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Well, let's assume that it at least goes to liability and the... on your answer to Justice Ginsburg, the right to a jury determination on liability is likewise gone if the election is made to accept the statutory damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2674.303], "stop_times": [2689.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2674.303}, "reply_to": "20184__1_060", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20184__1_062", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "And that is no different from the fact today, or during the 18th Century, that if a copyright holder brought an action for an injunction plus an equitable accounting, that all issues in that case, including the question of infringement, would be for the court.\nNow, the size and the impact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2689.858, 2709.07], "stop_times": [2709.07, 2711.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2689.858}, "reply_to": "20184__1_061", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_063", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Well, they would be, but at least the accounting is... is at least for money that should not have been in the pocket in the first place.\nWe're talking about a statutory damage remedy here with an outer limit in a willfulness case that exceeds anything that was known to 18th Century equity, I would suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2711.195, 2719.206], "stop_times": [2719.206, 2728.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2711.195}, "reply_to": "20184__1_062", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20184__1_064", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--Well, I'm not sure that's true if you factor in inflation, but regardless of that, if you're talking about an injunction to enjoin another copyrighted work... for example, today one motion picture believes another motion picture is infringing and if you want to talk about leverage, the leverage and the risk is not so much the damages as enjoining the infringing work, which may have cost hundreds of millions of dollars, before that work is distributed based upon copyright infringement.\nSo it's quite possible that when you're dealing with injunctions the potential for injury to the defendant is just as great, if not greater, than when you're dealing with actual damages or statutory damages.\nIndeed, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2728.702, 2764.799, 2779.37], "stop_times": [2764.799, 2779.37, 2780.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2728.702}, "reply_to": "20184__1_063", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_065", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Do we... is that the... I mean, I think that's a very good argument.\nIt raises a question in my mind as to whether we should accept that analogy, because isn't the analogy that we look at in asking about the preservation of the substance of the jury trial right the analogy between the action at law then, or an action at law then and an action at law now?\nIn other words, should I accept your analogy to what equity could do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2780.165, 2783.274, 2801.001], "stop_times": [2783.274, 2801.001, 2805.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2780.165}, "reply_to": "20184__1_064", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20184__1_066", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--Well, certainly equity did not do that in the 18th Century, but if there were statutory damages it would be an equitable... it would be an equitable... you would get them in equity, because they involve extraordinary discretion--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2805.422], "stop_times": [2819.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2805.422}, "reply_to": "20184__1_065", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_067", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "If you were doing what you just described today it would still be... if all you want is the injunction, no money relief at all, you want to stop the other picture from being shown, you don't have... the other side and you don't have a jury trial right if all you're seeking is an injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2819.556], "stop_times": [2836.315], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2819.556}, "reply_to": "20184__1_066", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20184__1_068", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--I think that's not subject to dispute and that could result in damages of hundreds of millions of dollars, injury of hundreds of millions of dollars--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2836.315], "stop_times": [2843.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2836.315}, "reply_to": "20184__1_067", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_069", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "But you wouldn't get the damages, because your claim would be precluded.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2843.953], "stop_times": [2846.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2843.953}, "reply_to": "20184__1_068", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20184__1_070", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--No, when I say... I'm sorry, when I say damages, the consequence of an injunction, given those facts, would result in a huge amount of injury to the party being enjoined.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2846.155], "stop_times": [2857.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2846.155}, "reply_to": "20184__1_069", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_071", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "There's a practical question related to this that I have that you may not have a judgment on, but as... in your experience, copyright holders who by and large are plaintiffs in these suits, if I compare them to other plaintiffs, say in tort suits, we don't... I haven't normally heard complaints from plaintiffs in tort suits about the jury.\nTo the contrary.\nThey feel that punitive damages, et cetera, normally... I'd say not everybody, but the jury's more than adequate, or adequate in awarding... taking care of the interests of the tort plaintiffs through punitive damages, et cetera.\nWhy is it, in your experience, that in this case the copyright holders who tend to be plaintiffs in these cases fear... at least, I read that into what they're saying, that the jury won't be able properly to compensate them or to work with a statutory punitivetype situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2857.806, 2877.533, 2879.001, 2891.153], "stop_times": [2877.533, 2879.001, 2891.153, 2908.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2857.806}, "reply_to": "20184__1_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20184__1_072", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Well, I know the amici have raised those issues and I can only speak to my experience in this case and in this case we do not believe that a jury would be incapable of awarding statutory damages.\nI suspect a jury would have awarded more statutory damages, because once they found willfulness, they would have felt compelled to go into the willfulness range, which is something the district court did not do.\nI can see... so we don't think that this gets into the third prong articulated in Ross, at least not given the facts here.\nI can see hypothetically two situations where it would.\nFirst, where statutory damages were elected after a jury came down with a verdict for actual damages and then you'd have to send back that jury and the jury, having deliberated and figured out that X dollars was the appropriate award of damages, kind of send them back and tell them, no, no, no, unring the bell, come up with another award, and I think that's conceptually a difficult thing to ask a jury to do, kind of to unring the bell, especially when you don't give them any guidelines to tell the jury... other than the possibility of willfulness or innocence, which is not a mandatory factor but a discretionary factor.\nSo I would think under those facts it would be something that would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2908.958, 2926.467, 2936.994, 2947.693, 2951.473, 2989.815], "stop_times": [2926.467, 2936.994, 2947.693, 2951.473, 2989.815, 2993.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2908.958}, "reply_to": "20184__1_071", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_073", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Would you comment on Mr. Roberts' response to that, that the same problem applies when the judge tries the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2993.704], "stop_times": [2998.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2993.704}, "reply_to": "20184__1_072", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20184__1_074", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [2998.641], "stop_times": [3001.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2998.641}, "reply_to": "20184__1_073", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_075", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "The... Mr. Roberts suggested in response to this argument that you can unring the bell even if you don't have a jury.\nI mean, you can ask the judge to take a second look, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3001.234, 3005.809], "stop_times": [3005.809, 3008.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3001.234}, "reply_to": "20184__1_074", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20184__1_076", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Well, the judge hasn't taken a first look, because the judge has not, while the case was going to the jury, spent days trying to figure out the appropriate amount of actual damages and lost profits, so the judge is really coming to that issue completely afresh, while the jury is already committed to this concept that X dollars were lost profits and X dollars were actual damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3008.09], "stop_times": [3031.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3008.09}, "reply_to": "20184__1_075", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_077", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "You're saying that if the judge has already determined actual damages it would be too late to unring the bell.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3031.236], "stop_times": [3035.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3031.236}, "reply_to": "20184__1_076", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20184__1_078", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Well, the judge doesn't determine actual damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3035.704], "stop_times": [3037.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3035.704}, "reply_to": "20184__1_077", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_079", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Oh, but if there's no jury trial at all, if there's no jury right at all, he's going to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3037.968], "stop_times": [3041.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3037.968}, "reply_to": "20184__1_078", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20184__1_080", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Well, if there's no jury right, then the judge won't determine actual damages because the only question is statutory damages, so in that case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3041.28], "stop_times": [3050.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3041.28}, "reply_to": "20184__1_079", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_081", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "No, I thought--\n--No--\n--Justice Stevens--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3050.433, 3050.746, 3051.043], "stop_times": [3050.746, 3051.043, 3051.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3050.433}, "reply_to": "20184__1_080", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20184__1_082", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3051.434], "stop_times": [3051.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3051.434}, "reply_to": "20184__1_081", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_083", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--was asking the question, suppose neither side wants the jury, you have a judge trial, plaintiff gets an amount calculated by the judge--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3051.809], "stop_times": [3059.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3051.809}, "reply_to": "20184__1_082", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20184__1_084", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Ah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3059.01], "stop_times": [3059.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3059.01}, "reply_to": "20184__1_083", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_085", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--and says, judge, I don't like that calculation.\nDo it under statutory damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3059.26, 3061.306], "stop_times": [3061.306, 3063.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3059.26}, "reply_to": "20184__1_084", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20184__1_086", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Thank you.\nIs that your hypothetical?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3063.148, 3064.898], "stop_times": [3064.898, 3065.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3063.148}, "reply_to": "20184__1_085", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_087", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3065.726], "stop_times": [3066.459], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3065.726}, "reply_to": "20184__1_086", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20184__1_088", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Thank you for the clarification.\nI would think it would be difficult for a judge, but I think a judge would be in a better position to go back and to recalculate or rethink than a jury would be, although--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3066.459, 3067.959], "stop_times": [3067.959, 3082.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3066.459}, "reply_to": "20184__1_087", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_089", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Although I suppose a judge could protect himself and say, if you're going to submit the matter to me, are you asking for actual damages or statutory damages and you can say we... make a prayer in the alternative.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3082.093], "stop_times": [3091.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3082.093}, "reply_to": "20184__1_088", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20184__1_090", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3091.684], "stop_times": [3092.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3091.684}, "reply_to": "20184__1_089", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_091", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "I suppose a judge could protect himself by demanding to know from the client in advance what he wants.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3092.636], "stop_times": [3098.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3092.636}, "reply_to": "20184__1_090", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20184__1_092", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "I think that's quite true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3098.197], "stop_times": [3099.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3098.197}, "reply_to": "20184__1_091", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_093", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Can you require the determination to be made in advance like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3099.899], "stop_times": [3102.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3099.899}, "reply_to": "20184__1_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20184__1_094", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3102.82], "stop_times": [3103.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3102.82}, "reply_to": "20184__1_093", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_095", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "I thought it... so the answer's no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3103.242], "stop_times": [3104.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3103.242}, "reply_to": "20184__1_094", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20184__1_096", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3104.647], "stop_times": [3105.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3104.647}, "reply_to": "20184__1_095", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_097", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Would you... I had the same problem Justice Breyer asked you about.\nI understand you just represent one client in this case and the irony of it is, maybe... you may be better off if you lose, because a jury may come in with a bigger award.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3105.084, 3111.019], "stop_times": [3111.019, 3118.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3105.084}, "reply_to": "20184__1_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20184__1_098", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Well, I hope you wouldn't rule based upon that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3118.954], "stop_times": [3121.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3118.954}, "reply_to": "20184__1_097", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_099", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Well, I certainly won't.\n[Laughter]\nI certainly won't, but it's ironic... or the other way around.\nThey... there may be a crossverdict.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3121.281, 3122.248, 3123.139, 3125.904], "stop_times": [3122.248, 3123.139, 3125.904, 3127.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3121.281}, "reply_to": "20184__1_098", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20184__1_100", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "I think my client would not feel better off if he lost.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3127.482], "stop_times": [3130.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3127.482}, "reply_to": "20184__1_099", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_101", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "If they have to try the case over.\nNo, I understand that.\nBut it is puzzling to me as to why, because of the position filed by the amici, why this class of plaintiffs is afraid of... seems to disapprove of juries whereas the plaintiff generally would seem to prefer juries.\nIs there anything about copyright law that suggests why that should develop?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3130.418, 3131.229, 3131.698, 3143.475], "stop_times": [3131.229, 3131.698, 3143.475, 3146.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3130.418}, "reply_to": "20184__1_100", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20184__1_102", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Well, I think we're dealing with intangible rights.\nWe're dealing with rights that are inherently difficult to value.\nWe're dealing with rights which are not consumed.\nWe're dealing with cases where you have large companies suing local establishments, where--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3146.786, 3151.394, 3154.517, 3157.329], "stop_times": [3151.394, 3154.517, 3157.329, 3167.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3146.786}, "reply_to": "20184__1_101", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_103", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Not much human interest in it at all, is there?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3167.324, 3169.137], "stop_times": [3169.137, 3169.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3167.324}, "reply_to": "20184__1_102", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20184__1_104", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--Where it's... you know, it's very difficult to try to figure out how a huge music company has been injured by Joe's Bar and Grill performing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3169.527], "stop_times": [3179.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3169.527}, "reply_to": "20184__1_103", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_105", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Tashman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3179.898], "stop_times": [3180.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3179.898}, "reply_to": "20184__1_104", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20184__1_106", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Thank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3180.351], "stop_times": [3181.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3180.351}, "reply_to": "20184__1_105", "speaker": "henry_j_tashman"}
{"id": "20184__1_107", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Mr. Roberts, you have 4 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3181.444], "stop_times": [3183.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3181.444}, "reply_to": "20184__1_106", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20184__2_000", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nJustice Souter, the answer to your question is juries at common law returned general verdicts for an amount.\nThey didn't say 50 sheets, go do the math.\nThe citations are collected at page 43 of our brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3183.865, 3186.349, 3191.519, 3193.985], "stop_times": [3186.349, 3191.519, 3193.985, 3197.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3183.865}, "reply_to": "20184__1_107", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__2_001", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "They returned general verdicts where there was a statutory specified amount for each sheet?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3197.453], "stop_times": [3205.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3197.453}, "reply_to": "20184__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20184__2_002", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Sure.\nNow, it's a calculation, but they did the calculation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3205.496, 3205.981], "stop_times": [3205.981, 3209.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3205.496}, "reply_to": "20184__2_001", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__2_003", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "But I mean, it wasn't a great mystery what the calculation ought to be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3209.605], "stop_times": [3212.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3209.605}, "reply_to": "20184__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20184__2_004", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "No.\nNo, at least not under those where the amount was fixed.\nIt was under the statutes in New Hampshire and Massachusetts and Rhode Island.\nJustice Kennedy, a better citation than the one I gave you is on page 35 of our brief, the Colburn case, saying the court in equity doesn't award anything beyond the accounting, so damages beyond restitution would not be allowed.\nIt's important to recognize that the willfulness determination here was critical to the judgment.\nThe district court noted the range for willful infringements before imposing his award.\nColumbia argued that the court should award a higher award.\nThey said, just 40,000 per infringement and that's less than half the amount you can award, what they said and, of course, the court of appeals in upholding the amount emphasized that the infringements were willful and the 20,000 figure was well within the statutory range.\nNow, to focus for a moment on the third point in Tull, the damages question.\nIf this is a legal action, issues of infringement, number of works, willfulness have to be tried to the jury and Tull is the only impediment to the conclusion that damages also are for the jury.\nTull proceeds along the assumption that, although the Framers were willing to take up arms over the issue of whether a judge or a jury decides liability, they didn't care one way or another whether the judge or the jury said 200 dollars or 100,000 dollars.\nThe proposition simply makes no sense.\nThe amount of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3212.666, 3213.056, 3216.415, 3220.475, 3235.36, 3239.608, 3244.934, 3248.495, 3262.162, 3266.831, 3277.452, 3292.806, 3294.806], "stop_times": [3213.056, 3216.415, 3220.475, 3235.36, 3239.608, 3244.934, 3248.495, 3262.162, 3266.831, 3277.452, 3292.806, 3294.806, 3295.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3212.666}, "reply_to": "20184__2_003", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__2_005", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "So we'd have to overrule Tull, in your view.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3295.352], "stop_times": [3296.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3295.352}, "reply_to": "20184__2_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20184__2_006", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "--No.\nI think Tull can be confined to the civil penalty context in which it arose and the particular history in which it arose.\nIn other words, the historical fact about civil penalties as opposed to damages.\nBut we know that damages were set by the jury when they were not fixed, regardless of the case with respect to civil penalties.\nThank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3296.586, 3297.305, 3303.317, 3307.268, 3314.109], "stop_times": [3297.305, 3303.317, 3307.268, 3314.109, 3315.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3296.586}, "reply_to": "20184__2_005", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20184__2_007", "conversation_id": "20184", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Roberts.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1768", "start_times": [3315.936, 3317.577], "stop_times": [3317.577, 3319.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3315.936}, "reply_to": "20184__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20746__0_000", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-11370, Fidelity Financial Services, Inc. v. Fink.\nMr. Gaughan.\nIs that the correct pronunciation of your name?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [0.0, 10.147, 11.74], "stop_times": [10.147, 11.74, 13.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20746__0_001", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Yes, Mr. Chief Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [13.901], "stop_times": [14.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 13.901}, "reply_to": "20746__0_000", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_002", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Please proceed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [14.492], "stop_times": [15.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 14.492}, "reply_to": "20746__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20746__0_003", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--and may it please the Court:\nThis case involves an interpretation of the preference provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, found at 11 U.S.C. section 547.\nThat is on pages 1 through 5 of petitioner's brief.\nThe issue in a nutshell is whether or not the petitioner, Fidelity Financial Services, timely perfected its lien so as to qualify for the enabling loan exception provided in 547(c)(3).\nIt is undisputed that Fidelity satisfied all the requirements of 11 U.S.C. section 547 (c)(3), subsection (A).\nThe only other requirement is set forth in subsection (B).\nThat states that the security interest must be perfected on or before 20 days after the debtor receives possession of such property, meaning the financed property.\nWhen a transfer is perfected is defined by the Bankruptcy Code at section 547(e)(1)(B).\nThat states that a transfer of an interest in property other than real property is perfected when a creditor on a simple contract cannot obtain a judicial lien which is superior to the interest of the transferee.\nThat determination must in turn be made by reference to State law, in this case Missouri State law.\nMissouri has a statute... it's been on the books since 1965.\nIt's found at 301.600 Revised Statutes of Missouri.\nIt states that a lien on a motor vehicle or a trailer is perfected as of the time of its creation if certain steps are taken within 30 days.\nIt is undisputed that Fidelity satisfied all of the requirements of this State statute within 21 days at the earliest, 26 days at the latest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [15.972, 17.093, 25.037, 28.82, 44.68, 54.737, 59.002, 70.138, 78.853, 92.201, 101.017, 106.469, 110.743, 118.517], "stop_times": [17.093, 25.037, 28.82, 44.68, 54.737, 59.002, 70.138, 78.853, 92.201, 101.017, 106.469, 110.743, 118.517, 127.614], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 15.972}, "reply_to": "20746__0_002", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_004", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "So it satisfied the requirement of Missouri law, as you said, but it did not do it within 20 days.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [127.614], "stop_times": [135.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 127.614}, "reply_to": "20746__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20746__0_005", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "The physical act of perfecting the lien occurred outside of the 20-day grace period established in 547(c)(3).\nHowever, under Missouri State law... that is correct.\nUnder Missouri State law, if the lien is perfected within 30 days it is deemed perfected as of the time of its creation.\nTherefore, under those circumstances there would be no transfer for or on account of an antecedent debt under section 547(b)(2), or, alternatively, the creditor could raise the enabling loan shield under 547(c)(3).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [135.3, 142.783, 145.507, 152.951], "stop_times": [142.783, 145.507, 152.951, 166.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 135.3}, "reply_to": "20746__0_004", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_006", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Well, it certainly is possible that Congress intended that its provision, the 20-day provision after receiving possession of the property is what governs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [166.549], "stop_times": [177.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 166.549}, "reply_to": "20746__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20746__0_007", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Of course, Congress also included the 547(e)(1)(B) section, which incorporates State law, in defining when a transfer is perfected, and for preference purposes, of course, when a transfer occurs is when it is perfected, when it's made, and that incorporates State law, so State law is implicit in that consideration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [177.407], "stop_times": [199.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 177.407}, "reply_to": "20746__0_006", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_008", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Then we have to accept the possibility that in place of the 30 days here it could be the 60 days in West Virginia, I think it is, it could be a year in some State, if some State wanted to take that position... in effect, there would be no guaranteed end point on your position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [199.421], "stop_times": [216.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 199.421}, "reply_to": "20746__0_007", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20746__0_009", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "I agree that in effect there would not necessarily be an end point.\nHowever, up to this point, to my knowledge only 60 days is the longest limit that has been established, in West Virginia and I think in New Mexico for recreational vehicles.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [216.651, 219.605], "stop_times": [219.605, 227.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 216.651}, "reply_to": "20746__0_008", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_010", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "What happens in a State like Massachusetts, as I understand it, that has a shorter limit?\nThe period becomes whatever is the longer period?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [227.58, 232.032], "stop_times": [232.032, 238.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 227.58}, "reply_to": "20746__0_009", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20746__0_011", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [238.226], "stop_times": [240.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 238.226}, "reply_to": "20746__0_010", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_012", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "The State, or the Federal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [240.339], "stop_times": [241.249], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 240.339}, "reply_to": "20746__0_011", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20746__0_013", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, I'm sorry, but I'm not aware of that provision in the Massachusetts law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [241.249], "stop_times": [245.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 241.249}, "reply_to": "20746__0_012", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_014", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Well, let's just imagine a State... your State has a 30-day provision.\nLet's say another one says you've got to do it within 10 days or it doesn't relate back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [245.422, 249.174], "stop_times": [249.174, 254.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 245.422}, "reply_to": "20746__0_013", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20746__0_015", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [254.448], "stop_times": [255.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 254.448}, "reply_to": "20746__0_014", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_016", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "So what happens under such a statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [255.226], "stop_times": [258.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 255.226}, "reply_to": "20746__0_015", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20746__0_017", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Well, under the current interpretations of the code, if the lien is perfected within 20 days the Federal law controls.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [258.447], "stop_times": [265.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 258.447}, "reply_to": "20746__0_016", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_018", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "So it's the longer... it's whichever gives you more time, the State or the Feds.\nThat's your position, essentially.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [265.174, 269.797], "stop_times": [269.797, 271.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 265.174}, "reply_to": "20746__0_017", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20746__0_019", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "That is the position that we take.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [271.639], "stop_times": [272.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 271.639}, "reply_to": "20746__0_018", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_020", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Then I don't--\n--But you can't perfect it within 20 days.\nYou can't perfect it under State law between 11 and 20 days, so the shorter period would de facto govern, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [272.631, 273.268, 274.58], "stop_times": [273.268, 274.58, 281.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 272.631}, "reply_to": "20746__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20746__0_021", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [281.537], "stop_times": [282.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 281.537}, "reply_to": "20746__0_020", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_022", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "It has to be perfected within 20 days, but in Massachusetts on the hypothesis it cannot be perfected after the tenth day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [282.245], "stop_times": [289.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 282.245}, "reply_to": "20746__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20746__0_023", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--Of course, we're referring to the Missouri statute, which includes a provision that deems the perfection to relate back to day 1.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [289.791], "stop_times": [297.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 289.791}, "reply_to": "20746__0_022", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_024", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "No, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [297.635], "stop_times": [297.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 297.635}, "reply_to": "20746__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20746__0_025", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "It back-dates the perfection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [297.946], "stop_times": [298.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 297.946}, "reply_to": "20746__0_024", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_026", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--I understand that, but this is an important point, and it's a point that helps you, by the way, because if it is correct that the Massachusetts 10-day provision would supersede the 20-day, you have available the argument that this statute cannot possibly provide a uniform period anyway because it's conceded that State law can shorten it, and we're only arguing about whether State law can lengthen it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [298.807], "stop_times": [322.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 298.807}, "reply_to": "20746__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20746__0_027", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "True.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [322.893], "stop_times": [324.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 322.893}, "reply_to": "20746__0_026", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_028", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Then that's right, isn't it?\nI mean, isn't just what Justice Scalia said right?\nI mean, if it isn't right, I'm not understanding this whole--\n--I think it's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [324.594, 327.665, 330.366, 332.687], "stop_times": [327.665, 330.366, 332.687, 333.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 324.594}, "reply_to": "20746__0_027", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__0_029", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Well, if Justice Scalia says it's right, it must be right.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [333.408, 336.711], "stop_times": [336.711, 337.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 333.408}, "reply_to": "20746__0_028", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_030", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "No--\n[Laughter]\nI don't necessarily accept that argument, but the... I mean, do we understand this correctly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [337.67, 338.441, 338.832], "stop_times": [338.441, 338.832, 344.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 337.67}, "reply_to": "20746__0_029", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__0_031", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Well, my understanding of the current court interpretations are that if the State's provision is less than 10 days, they still allow the 20-day grace period.\nWe will take the position that State law controls.\nWhatever State law says--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [344.795, 356.263, 358.374], "stop_times": [356.263, 358.374, 359.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 344.795}, "reply_to": "20746__0_030", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_032", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "And is that because of the definition of perfected?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [359.786], "stop_times": [362.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 359.786}, "reply_to": "20746__0_031", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20746__0_033", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [362.228], "stop_times": [362.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 362.228}, "reply_to": "20746__0_032", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_034", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "In other words, assuming Justice Ginsburg's State with 10 days, if it's 15 days, it simply can't be perfected under State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [362.999], "stop_times": [371.293], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 362.999}, "reply_to": "20746__0_033", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20746__0_035", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "What the State statutes at issue--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [371.293], "stop_times": [373.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 371.293}, "reply_to": "20746__0_034", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_036", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "I mean, is that the argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [373.494], "stop_times": [375.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 373.494}, "reply_to": "20746__0_035", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20746__0_037", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--Well, the argument, Justice Kennedy, I believe is that under State law there is a period of time within which a creditor can perfect its lien, and if it performs the required, stated requirements, then the lien is deemed perfected as of day 1, the date that the loan was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [375.186], "stop_times": [391.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 375.186}, "reply_to": "20746__0_036", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_038", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "And if it doesn't do that, then it's not perfected within the meaning of the Federal statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [391.969], "stop_times": [395.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 391.969}, "reply_to": "20746__0_037", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20746__0_039", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [395.412], "stop_times": [396.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 395.412}, "reply_to": "20746__0_038", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_040", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "But it could still be--\n--No, but it is perfected.\nIt just doesn't relate back.\nYou can perfect between 11 and 20, but the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [396.401, 397.963, 398.413, 399.273], "stop_times": [397.963, 398.413, 399.273, 402.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 396.401}, "reply_to": "20746__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20746__0_041", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Certainly, Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [402.104], "stop_times": [402.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 402.104}, "reply_to": "20746__0_040", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_042", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--Under State law we're talking now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [402.775], "stop_times": [403.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 402.775}, "reply_to": "20746__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20746__0_043", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--Certainly, Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [403.777], "stop_times": [404.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 403.777}, "reply_to": "20746__0_042", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_044", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [404.766], "stop_times": [405.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 404.766}, "reply_to": "20746__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20746__0_045", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--if we go beyond... if it could be perfected 3 months down the road--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [405.036], "stop_times": [407.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 405.036}, "reply_to": "20746__0_044", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_046", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "You're right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [407.659], "stop_times": [408.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 407.659}, "reply_to": "20746__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20746__0_047", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--it's perfected 3 months down the road.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [408.229], "stop_times": [409.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 408.229}, "reply_to": "20746__0_046", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_048", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Okay.\nSo you don't have that argument.\nYou're right.\nMay I ask, Mr. Gaughan, is the provision... see, this is Missouri, isn't it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [409.561, 409.701, 410.372, 410.742], "stop_times": [409.701, 410.372, 410.742, 414.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 409.561}, "reply_to": "20746__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20746__0_049", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [414.372], "stop_times": [414.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 414.372}, "reply_to": "20746__0_048", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_050", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "In Missouri, that deems the lien perfected as of the date of the initial transaction, is that typical of State laws?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [414.793], "stop_times": [421.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 414.793}, "reply_to": "20746__0_049", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20746__0_051", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Justice Stevens, to my knowledge, there are at least 20 States that have that provision in their State statutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [421.398], "stop_times": [430.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 421.398}, "reply_to": "20746__0_050", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_052", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "In all of those States, the 20-day Federal period has no meaning?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [430.263], "stop_times": [433.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 430.263}, "reply_to": "20746__0_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20746__0_053", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Well, in seven of those States the perfection-back period is more than 20 days.\nIt's either 21 days, 30 days, 60 days.\nThere are seven States that have those provisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [433.886, 438.609, 441.47], "stop_times": [438.609, 441.47, 442.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 433.886}, "reply_to": "20746__0_052", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_054", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Why would Congress need the 20-day provision at all under your reading?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [442.852], "stop_times": [446.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 442.852}, "reply_to": "20746__0_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20746__0_055", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Well, of course, a vehicle loan is a different animal than a regular secured transaction.\nIn a regular, secured transaction the security agreement, the note, the financing statement is all executed at the same time.\nTherefore, there is no delay.\nIt's signed upon consummation of the loan transaction.\nOn a vehicle loan, particularly with this type of transaction that involves dealer paper, where the buyer goes to the dealership, they don't ask who's going to make the loan.\nThey just ask to buy the car, and the dealer arranges the financing, and the package is sent on to a lender, so there is inherent delay built into that system from the outset.\nSo the 20-day might make sense, I suppose, in a commercial transaction or a regular consumer goods-type transaction, where you have a financing statement that might need to be filed, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [446.403, 452.328, 458.812, 460.264, 464.215, 472.952, 483.399], "stop_times": [452.328, 458.812, 460.264, 464.215, 472.952, 483.399, 493.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 446.403}, "reply_to": "20746__0_054", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_056", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Oh, I don't understand your answer, because you're saying there's one category of transactions which typically are performed immediately.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [493.196], "stop_times": [497.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 493.196}, "reply_to": "20746__0_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20746__0_057", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [497.798], "stop_times": [498.298], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 497.798}, "reply_to": "20746__0_056", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_058", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "So there's really no delay.\nThere's a second category of transactions, because of the delay you need a relation-back period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [498.298, 498.799], "stop_times": [498.799, 503.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 498.298}, "reply_to": "20746__0_057", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20746__0_059", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [503.021], "stop_times": [503.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 503.021}, "reply_to": "20746__0_058", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_060", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "It seems to me in that category, if the State law always controls, the 20-day Federal period doesn't serve any function at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [503.742], "stop_times": [510.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 503.742}, "reply_to": "20746__0_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20746__0_061", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Well, the 20-day period, of course, establishes when the security interest must be perfected.\nThen in the same section the statute says it's perfected when State law says it's perfected, so if it's perfected within State law, within that 20-day period, it's perfected under the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [510.586, 518.881], "stop_times": [518.881, 529.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 510.586}, "reply_to": "20746__0_060", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_062", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "So you say the 20-day requirement has no independent significance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [529.489], "stop_times": [532.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 529.489}, "reply_to": "20746__0_061", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20746__0_063", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "I would say that the 20-day requirement established by Congress simply requires that the security interest be perfected within 20 days.\nIf State law in turn says that the transaction is deemed perfected as of day 1, it's still perfected within that 20-day period.\nIt's just on day 1 of the period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [532.121, 541.668, 549.224], "stop_times": [541.668, 549.224, 550.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 532.121}, "reply_to": "20746__0_062", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_064", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "No, but nothing is gained that would not be gained by having the general 10-day period.\nAs long as State law says it relates back to day 1, or sometime within the first 10 days, then nothing was accomplished.\nNo change in the law of any practicallity that I can see was accomplished by providing the second 20-day period for these kinds of loans.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [550.416, 556.532, 563.004], "stop_times": [556.532, 563.004, 570.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 550.416}, "reply_to": "20746__0_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20746__0_065", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "And I would concede that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [570.851], "stop_times": [571.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 570.851}, "reply_to": "20746__0_064", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_066", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Why did Congress do it?\nWell... then I don't understand this.\nI read an amicus brief... it's quite possible I don't, by the way.\nIn an amicus brief it said there are 23 States that have no relation-back, so I thought that those States, those 23 States, I don't know what their perfection laws provide, but some of those 23 States could say that a secured interest is perfected at the time of filing, and that filing takes place up to 20 days later, and under the earlier law, that would not have worked, because you had to do it within 10 days.\nSo I thought the point of this 20-day period was in respect to those 23 States, to make certain that their perfection laws applied and that a secured interest that corresponded to and was consistent within those 23 States would trump the trustee's effort to get the property back.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [571.57, 572.471, 574.241, 577.093, 607.283, 626.276], "stop_times": [572.471, 574.241, 577.093, 607.283, 626.276, 628.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 571.57}, "reply_to": "20746__0_065", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20746__0_067", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Well, of course, the congressional statement I think was that it was amended to bring the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [628.648], "stop_times": [633.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 628.648}, "reply_to": "20746__0_066", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_068", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Do you have an additional argument in your... is what I said right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [633.052], "stop_times": [637.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 633.052}, "reply_to": "20746__0_067", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__0_069", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [637.697], "stop_times": [638.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 637.697}, "reply_to": "20746__0_068", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_070", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "It is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [638.188], "stop_times": [639.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 638.188}, "reply_to": "20746__0_069", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__0_071", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [639.177], "stop_times": [639.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 639.177}, "reply_to": "20746__0_070", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_072", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "All right.\nThen that gives meaning to this.\nNow, your point is that whether you win or you lose it has meaning, as I take it.\nNow, you're making an additional point that if a State which has a statute that says it is perfected beyond the 20-day period, of which there are only seven--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [639.647, 640.018, 641.139, 646.182], "stop_times": [640.018, 641.139, 646.182, 656.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 639.647}, "reply_to": "20746__0_071", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__0_073", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [656.878], "stop_times": [658.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 656.878}, "reply_to": "20746__0_072", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_074", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--that that State also says, by the way, you are to consider it as having been perfected much earlier, on day 1, then it is for purposes of the Federal statute perfected earlier, within the 20-day period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [658.049], "stop_times": [670.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 658.049}, "reply_to": "20746__0_073", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__0_075", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [670.568], "stop_times": [670.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 670.568}, "reply_to": "20746__0_074", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_076", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "That's your argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [670.909], "stop_times": [672.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 670.909}, "reply_to": "20746__0_075", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__0_077", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [672.378], "stop_times": [673.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 672.378}, "reply_to": "20746__0_076", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_078", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "All right, then... go ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [673.039], "stop_times": [675.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 673.039}, "reply_to": "20746__0_077", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__0_079", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "And, of course, under the Missouri scheme, then, if the lien is perfected within the 30-day period, the lien relates back to day 1.\nIf that is the case, there is no transfer on account of an antecedent debt, or the enabling loan provision would certainly apply.\nTwo circuit courts of appeal have followed this line of reasoning, In re Hesser out of the Tenth Circuit, In re Busenlehner out of the Eleventh Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [675.0, 683.876, 690.431], "stop_times": [683.876, 690.431, 698.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 675.0}, "reply_to": "20746__0_078", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_080", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "May I ask you to amplify on your answer to Justice Breyer, because it was my understanding that Congress was responding to what the majority of the States were doing.\nThat is, they had a period longer than 10 days.\nThey had a 20-day period, and it related back.\nNow, Justice Breyer recited something from a friend of the court brief that apparently said that most States don't have a relation-back, or over 20 States don't have any relation-back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [698.427, 709.624, 711.514, 716.24], "stop_times": [709.624, 711.514, 716.24, 727.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 698.427}, "reply_to": "20746__0_079", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20746__0_081", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Well, I think it all began under the old act.\nOf course, back then the trustee had to prove that the creditor had reasonable cause to believe that the debtor was insolvent, and we didn't have the 90-day presumption period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [727.456, 731.117], "stop_times": [731.117, 740.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 727.456}, "reply_to": "20746__0_080", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_082", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Well, let's just... is it true or not that some 20-odd States have no relation-back period?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [740.073], "stop_times": [745.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 740.073}, "reply_to": "20746__0_081", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20746__0_083", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "The 20-odd States, it's true that they don't have a specific relation-back period that says it's back-dated to day 1.\nHowever, there's a grace period under the Uniform Commercial Code in that State that would apply, under for purchase money security--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [745.118, 751.253], "stop_times": [751.253, 756.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 745.118}, "reply_to": "20746__0_082", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_084", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Which means that the creditor would prevail over any intervening creditor who tried to levy on the property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [756.765], "stop_times": [764.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 756.765}, "reply_to": "20746__0_083", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20746__0_085", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--That is correct, Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [764.829], "stop_times": [766.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 764.829}, "reply_to": "20746__0_084", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_086", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Well--\n--So that is in effect a relation-back.\nIs there a difference in your view, Mr. Gaughan, between what you describe as the grace period in the Uniform Commercial Code and a provision specifically saying there's a relation-back?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [766.031, 766.63, 768.552], "stop_times": [766.63, 768.552, 779.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 766.031}, "reply_to": "20746__0_085", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20746__0_087", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "It's a very minute difference, of course, because one simply says that there is a grace period within which if certain steps are taken the lien is perfected.\nThe other one says that if certain steps are taken the perfection is back-dated to day 1.\nThey certainly accomplish the same objective.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [779.57, 787.675, 792.599], "stop_times": [787.675, 792.599, 795.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 779.57}, "reply_to": "20746__0_086", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_088", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "There are no... in function, they're identical.\nThat is, they stop any other creditor from getting in front.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [795.13, 798.643], "stop_times": [798.643, 801.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 795.13}, "reply_to": "20746__0_087", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20746__0_089", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "That is correct.\nThey would stop any intervening lead creditor from taking priority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [801.484, 803.526], "stop_times": [803.526, 806.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 801.484}, "reply_to": "20746__0_088", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_090", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "So--\n--My understanding of the old Bankruptcy Act was that the shorter time... it was that the State law could shorten the Federal period but never extend it, and now you're arguing that it works just in reverse, that the State law can extend it but not shorten it, if that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [806.147, 806.477], "stop_times": [806.477, 827.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 806.147}, "reply_to": "20746__0_089", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20746__0_091", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "And I would agree, under section 60, I believe it was, of the old act a creditor had 21 days within which to perfect its lien unless the short... or the State period was shorter.\nHowever, in 1978, when the Bankruptcy Code was overhauled, I believe it was recommended by the National Bankruptcy Commission that that 21-day period be left intact without regard to whether or not it was purchase money or not, without regard to whether or not States had longer or shorter periods, and Congress without comment simply changed it to 10 days.\nOf course, they also put in the 90-day presumption of solvency, et cetera, so there was an overhaul of the preference provisions, but without comment Congress said, at least in 1978, that the security interest had to be perfected within 10 days of attachment, and then in the '84 amendments they stated that it had to be perfected within 10 days of the debtor receiving possession of the property.\nThen, finally, in the 1994 amendments Congress stated that the lien had to be perfected within 20 days of the debtor receiving possession of the property, so it's hard to tell by looking at the old act what significance that had on the current statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [827.131, 837.439, 857.131, 877.643], "stop_times": [837.439, 857.131, 877.643, 891.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 827.131}, "reply_to": "20746__0_090", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_092", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--How long is the U.C.C. period, grace period?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [891.693], "stop_times": [895.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 891.693}, "reply_to": "20746__0_091", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__0_093", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Well, I believe that the Uniform Commercial Code model is still 10 days, although I understand that's being revised.\nMost States have adopted, I believe, a 20-day period of time, but I think the model... it was the 1972 model was what was used when Congress revamped the Bankruptcy Code in '78.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [895.546, 902.409], "stop_times": [902.409, 911.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 895.546}, "reply_to": "20746__0_092", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_094", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "And if I think that what the U.C.C. does is indistinguishable from a relation-back provision, then the number of States that have such a relation-back provision is not just seven, but 49, I assume, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [911.278], "stop_times": [926.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 911.278}, "reply_to": "20746__0_093", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20746__0_095", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Correct, but the seven was the number of States that had a period of time beyond 20 days, greater than the 20-day period, so we have one with 21 days, I think there's four with 30--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [926.004], "stop_times": [936.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 926.004}, "reply_to": "20746__0_094", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_096", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Oh, beyond... I see.\nI see.\nSo even if I consider all the U.C.C. States to be relation-back States, you're saying all of those except seven have a 20-day grace period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [936.883, 938.114, 938.535], "stop_times": [938.114, 938.535, 948.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 936.883}, "reply_to": "20746__0_095", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20746__0_097", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--That--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [948.972], "stop_times": [949.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 948.972}, "reply_to": "20746__0_096", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_098", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "20 days or less.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [949.262], "stop_times": [950.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 949.262}, "reply_to": "20746__0_097", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20746__0_099", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--I would assume that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [950.194], "stop_times": [951.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 950.194}, "reply_to": "20746__0_098", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_100", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "No, no, no, they have... a lot of them, under the U.C.C. they have 10 days, all right, so there are a number of States apparently that give you 20 days, is that right, and a large number of States that give you 10 days.\nSome give you 10 days with the U.C.C., some give you 20 days.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [951.205, 962.141, 965.473], "stop_times": [962.141, 965.473, 967.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 951.205}, "reply_to": "20746__0_099", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__0_101", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "I think certainly when the statute was reenacted in '78--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [967.113], "stop_times": [969.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 967.113}, "reply_to": "20746__0_100", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_102", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [969.615], "stop_times": [969.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 969.615}, "reply_to": "20746__0_101", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__0_103", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--it was 10 days.\nI think most have gone to 20 days now, but I would not... I don't know the number of States that have done so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [969.985, 970.716], "stop_times": [970.716, 974.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 969.985}, "reply_to": "20746__0_102", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_104", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Well, in States, when a State comes to adopt a Uniform Commercial Code, at least this was the experience in Arizona, it isn't adopted just verbatim from the U.C.C. draft.\nThere are changes, so that there might be change... different grace periods among States, all of which have adopted the Uniform Commercial Code.\nIsn't that true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [974.589, 985.095, 993.771], "stop_times": [985.095, 993.771, 994.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 974.589}, "reply_to": "20746__0_103", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20746__0_105", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "That is true, but of course, back when the code was reenacted in '78, States all utilized the '72 model, which was 10 days, so it's certainly arguable that Congress intended to make the 10-day period harmonious with State law.\nIt was at that time, at least.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [994.642, 1006.779], "stop_times": [1006.779, 1007.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 994.642}, "reply_to": "20746__0_104", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_106", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "May I ask you one other, just informative question... before we granted cert, you pointed out there was a conflict, with two courts that joined your view of the reading.\nThey had decided when the 10-day provision was in effect, as I remember.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1007.939, 1017.737], "stop_times": [1017.737, 1021.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1007.939}, "reply_to": "20746__0_105", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20746__0_107", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1021.59], "stop_times": [1021.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1021.59}, "reply_to": "20746__0_106", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_108", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Hesser and the other case.\nHave there been any cases since the amendment that have adopted your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1021.97, 1022.579], "stop_times": [1022.579, 1026.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1021.97}, "reply_to": "20746__0_107", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20746__0_109", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "The amendment, of course... the '94 amendment, is that what you're referring to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1026.673], "stop_times": [1031.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1026.673}, "reply_to": "20746__0_108", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_110", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1031.415], "stop_times": [1031.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1031.415}, "reply_to": "20746__0_109", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20746__0_111", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "There have been none that I'm aware of, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1031.775], "stop_times": [1034.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1031.775}, "reply_to": "20746__0_110", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_112", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1034.337], "stop_times": [1035.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1034.337}, "reply_to": "20746__0_111", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20746__0_113", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "In--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1035.749], "stop_times": [1037.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1035.749}, "reply_to": "20746__0_112", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_114", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "So if the language is somewhat ambiguous, allows it, and everything seems fairly mixed up State after State, why shouldn't we just say, well, a uniform rule is probably what they intended in order to avoid the kind of confusion that our questions suggest might arise?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1037.81], "stop_times": [1052.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1037.81}, "reply_to": "20746__0_113", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__0_115", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--Well, the two courts of appeals that we relied on and are cited in our briefs, the Eleventh and Tenth Circuit opinions, note that in '78 the code was overhauled and the intention with respect to the preference provisions was to bring them more into conformity with commercial law and commercial practices.\nPresumably, then, State law practices were to be adopted, at least under that general statement.\nThe fact that Congress then changed it to 10 days from possession in '84 without comment doesn't tell us anything.\nThe only snippet, of course, is in the '94 amendments, where they state that they wanted to bring it more into conformity with most States' practices by increasing it to 20 days.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1052.248, 1067.99, 1074.455, 1081.567], "stop_times": [1067.99, 1074.455, 1081.567, 1091.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1052.248}, "reply_to": "20746__0_114", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_116", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Well then, why... why would Congress have made that expansion from 10 to 20 if Congress didn't think that they needed to do that in order to have the States that had the 20-day period, to have that effected?\nCongress must have thought that otherwise it was going to be, for Bankruptcy Code purposes, only 10 days.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1091.335, 1106.665], "stop_times": [1106.665, 1112.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1091.335}, "reply_to": "20746__0_115", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20746__0_117", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, I would concede that.\nOf course, vehicle perfection loans are not routine loans They would be outside the normal considerations for this kind of transaction, because in a normal loan... and in fact I think Collier on Bankruptcy noted that after the 1994 amendments, that's the end of the issue.\nIf you file your financing statement within 20 days, you're perfected.\nIf not, you're not.\nBut we're not talking about filing financing statements.\nUnder the Uniform Commercial Code, perfection of liens on motor vehicles is handled under separate State vehicle perfection statutes.\nEach State has its own requirements.\nIn the Eleventh Circuit decision of Busenlehner, it had a statute much like the Missouri statute, the one we refer to as a relation-back statute, and that was a Georgia State law that allowed the lien to be deemed perfected as of the day of creation if certain steps were taken within 20 days.\nIn that case, the loan was obtained on March 31 of 1988, the physical act of perfecting the lien occurred on March... or April 13 of 1988, and a bankruptcy was filed on April 26.\nThe court found, of course, that although it was beyond the 10-day period established in 547(c)(3) subsection (B), the... (e)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code incorporates State law, and under Georgia State law the lien was perfected as of the day of its creation.\nTherefore, there was no... actually, they ruled that therefore they were entitled to the enabling loan exception, 547(c)(3).\nThe other case, the Hesser case, came out of Oklahoma.\nThey had a 15-day period of time within which to perfect, and in that case I believe the loan originated on April 16 of 1990 and the physical act of perfection occurred on Ap... or May 1, 1990, and then 18 days later the debtor filed bankruptcy.\nThat was beyond the 10-day grace period, but nonetheless, by interpreting Oklahoma law, the court noted that under State law it was perfected as of day 1.\nTherefore, that court held there was no transfer for or on account of an antecedent debt under 547(b)(2), and that they could claim the enabling loan exception under 547(c)(3).\nIf we were to adopt further reasoning in this case, we could also say the transfer occurred outside the preference period under 547(b)(4), because it would have been 93 days before the case was filed.\nBoth of those circuit court opinions, as I previously indicated, quoted the legislative history, and the intention was to bring the preference provisions more into conformity with commercial practices in the Uniform Commercial Code, and therefore creditors were encouraged to look to State law in order to perfect their liens.\nThere wasn't a lot of discussion in either of those cases.\nThe language was accepted on its face.\nYou perfect under (e)(1)(B) by utilizing State law.\nIn both cases, the lien was perfected within State law ramifications.\nTherefore it related back to day 1.\nIt was perfected under the Bankruptcy Code then under 547(c)(3) subsection (B).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1112.028, 1115.751, 1130.421, 1133.182, 1134.143, 1137.096, 1143.3, 1145.661, 1164.343, 1175.73, 1191.76, 1200.436, 1203.027, 1217.596, 1226.853, 1237.602, 1247.566, 1264.509, 1267.529, 1270.493, 1274.004, 1280.339, 1282.201], "stop_times": [1115.751, 1130.421, 1133.182, 1134.143, 1137.096, 1143.3, 1145.661, 1164.343, 1175.73, 1191.76, 1200.436, 1203.027, 1217.596, 1226.853, 1237.602, 1247.566, 1264.509, 1267.529, 1270.493, 1274.004, 1280.339, 1282.201, 1288.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1112.028}, "reply_to": "20746__0_116", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_118", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "May I ask you one other question I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1288.383], "stop_times": [1290.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1288.383}, "reply_to": "20746__0_117", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__0_119", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Yes, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1290.786], "stop_times": [1291.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1290.786}, "reply_to": "20746__0_118", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_120", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--Let me do it with an example.\nImagine a State... this is something I don't understand.\nImagine a State has a statute.\nState 1 says, you have to perfect by sending the paper in to the Secretary of State within 30 days, or sending the paper wherever you're supposed to send it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1291.885, 1295.167, 1299.041, 1302.113], "stop_times": [1295.167, 1299.041, 1302.113, 1312.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1291.885}, "reply_to": "20746__0_119", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__0_121", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1312.441], "stop_times": [1312.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1312.441}, "reply_to": "20746__0_120", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_122", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "State 2 says the same thing, but adds the words, and perfection relates back to day 1.\nWhat I'm trying to figure out, what's the difference?\nImagine that on day 20 in either State a simple judgment creditor files a piece of paper and says, I'm entitled to the car.\nIsn't it true that in both States, if the right piece of paper is filed before day 30, between day 20 and day 30, that the secured creditor will prevail over the simple contract creditor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1312.832, 1319.867, 1322.857, 1334.085], "stop_times": [1319.867, 1322.857, 1334.085, 1348.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1312.832}, "reply_to": "20746__0_121", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__0_123", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1348.275], "stop_times": [1349.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1348.275}, "reply_to": "20746__0_122", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_124", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "All right.\nSo if in both States they would prevail, then adding the words, and it relates back to day 1, does nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1349.414, 1350.125], "stop_times": [1350.125, 1358.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1349.414}, "reply_to": "20746__0_123", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__0_125", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "It accomplishes the same objective.\nThat is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1358.981, 1361.562], "stop_times": [1361.562, 1362.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1358.981}, "reply_to": "20746__0_124", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_126", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Well, if it does nothing, well then our question becomes one of whether Congress intended, by using the words 20 days, suddenly to permit any State, irrespective of whether it says relates back or not, that has 30 days or 60 days to perfect, to fall within the meaning of the 20 days.\nThat's pretty hard to see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1362.083, 1388.74], "stop_times": [1388.74, 1391.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1362.083}, "reply_to": "20746__0_125", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__0_127", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "I would agree with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1391.962], "stop_times": [1393.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1391.962}, "reply_to": "20746__0_126", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_128", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "But that's your... that's what we have to... for you to win we have to agree with that.\nIsn't that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1393.743, 1396.916], "stop_times": [1396.916, 1397.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1393.743}, "reply_to": "20746__0_127", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__0_129", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Well, absolutely, but under State law, of course, whether it's 20 days or 30 days--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1397.316], "stop_times": [1403.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1397.316}, "reply_to": "20746__0_128", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_130", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--And even if it doesn't say, since we have a definition of what perfection means, even if a State says 60 days and says nothing about relating back, on your argument that State rule would still prevail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1403.621], "stop_times": [1415.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1403.621}, "reply_to": "20746__0_129", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__0_131", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--Vis-a-vis an inter-liening--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1415.728], "stop_times": [1418.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1415.728}, "reply_to": "20746__0_130", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_132", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1418.159], "stop_times": [1418.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1418.159}, "reply_to": "20746__0_131", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__0_133", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--A lien creditor on a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1418.53], "stop_times": [1419.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1418.53}, "reply_to": "20746__0_132", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_134", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Yes, or the trustee in bankruptcy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1419.391], "stop_times": [1420.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1419.391}, "reply_to": "20746__0_133", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__0_135", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--Correct.\nThat is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1420.581, 1421.202], "stop_times": [1421.202, 1422.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1420.581}, "reply_to": "20746__0_134", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_136", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Well then, I don't want to hammer the point too hard, but I take it you are conceding that nothing of any practical significance was accomplished when Congress amended the law to add the 20-day period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1422.574], "stop_times": [1437.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1422.574}, "reply_to": "20746__0_135", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20746__0_137", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Well, that's true.\nOf course, the old act was amended five or six times, section 60, and there was amendment upon amendment that didn't accomplish any objective either.\nWhen the code was amended in 1984 to make it 10 days from date of possession, there was simply no comment on why Congress did it.\nThe only... the 20-day legislative history comment simply states that it was done in order to bring the preference provisions more into conformity with most States' practices.\nIf there are no further questions, I would like to reserve some time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1437.624, 1442.87, 1450.763, 1458.768, 1469.727], "stop_times": [1442.87, 1450.763, 1458.768, 1469.727, 1475.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1437.624}, "reply_to": "20746__0_136", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__0_138", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Very well, Mr. Gaughan.\nMr. Fink, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1475.131, 1476.57], "stop_times": [1476.57, 1478.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1475.131}, "reply_to": "20746__0_137", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20746__1_000", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nSection 547(c)(3) establishes a defense for enabling loans.\nHowever, such loans are only perfected, or only protected if perfected on or before 20 days after the debtor receives possession of the property.\nthe meaning of section 547(c) is clear: 20 days is 20 days is 20 days.\nThe 1994 amendment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1478.183, 1488.652, 1493.573, 1502.799, 1509.655], "stop_times": [1488.652, 1493.573, 1502.799, 1509.655, 1511.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1478.183}, "reply_to": "20746__0_138", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_001", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "What's your authority for that, Gertrude Stein?\n[Laughter]\nAnyway, I think the issue in the case is whether perfected is perfected is perfected, not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1511.896, 1513.616, 1515.649], "stop_times": [1513.616, 1515.649, 1521.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1511.896}, "reply_to": "20746__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20746__1_002", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--Well, I would agree that the definition is what... what the court or the Congress was looking at in section 547 was the act of perfection, not the status of being perfected, and in order to have the... to be perfected under the statute, you must take that last step within 20 days of the transaction.\nThe Congress back in 1994 recognized that several States had adopted enabling loan grace periods longer than the 10-day period allowed under the 1978 Bankruptcy Code.\nRather than incorporate the varying State law periods, the Congress instead expanded the 20-day period to a nationally uniform 20 days.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1521.633, 1543.676, 1558.285], "stop_times": [1543.676, 1558.285, 1566.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1521.633}, "reply_to": "20746__1_001", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_003", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--Before you leave the language, what you do with the language of the definition of when it's perfected?\nIt says it is perfected when a creditor on a simple contract cannot acquire a judicial lien that is superior to the interest of the transferee.\nSo if we have a State that says it's perfected, you have 60 days in which to file, once you file on those 60 days, a simple contract debtor that filed on day 15, or on day 20, or on day 30, or on day 40 cannot prevail and, therefore, under the language, they say it was the case, given their statute, that from day 1, provided that later filing took place, a simple contract creditor could not prevail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1566.313, 1572.417, 1581.871], "stop_times": [1572.417, 1581.871, 1621.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1566.313}, "reply_to": "20746__1_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__1_004", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Justice Breyer, that's an excellent point, but the statute doesn't say could not prevail, it says cannot prevail.\nThat requires looking forward prospectively, not looking backwards retroactively to what actually happened.\nIf Congress had intended that you look back, the actual happenstance, they would have said, could not have perfected, but Congress didn't say that.\nCongress specifically said cannot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1621.679, 1627.842, 1634.655, 1644.131], "stop_times": [1627.842, 1634.655, 1644.131, 1645.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1621.679}, "reply_to": "20746__1_003", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_005", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Could not have prevailed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1645.684], "stop_times": [1647.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1645.684}, "reply_to": "20746__1_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__1_006", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Could not have prevailed, yes, sir.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1647.154, 1648.296], "stop_times": [1648.296, 1648.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1647.154}, "reply_to": "20746__1_005", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_007", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "As I understand it, you... your position is that that section, 547(e)(1)(B), means simply, has... have all the steps been taken to perfect the lien, so it tells us, yes, the lien has been perfected, but is uninformative on relation-back.\nThat's the uniform 20-day period.\nIs that, in essence, your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1648.646, 1668.09, 1671.001], "stop_times": [1668.09, 1671.001, 1673.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1648.646}, "reply_to": "20746__1_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__1_008", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "My position is that that defines the steps necessary, and you can look at State law to see what those steps would be to perfect, but as to whether you were actually perfected within the time frame that Congress envisioned, which was a uniform 20 days, you would look to Federal law, not the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1673.002], "stop_times": [1690.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1673.002}, "reply_to": "20746__1_007", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_009", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "And so in a State like Massachusetts, that has a shorter period, as long as all the necessary steps to perfect were taken within 20 days under your reading of the code, the security interest would be permissible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1690.193], "stop_times": [1715.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1690.193}, "reply_to": "20746__1_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20746__1_010", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, it's my interpretation of the code and it's the congressional intent that there be a uniform 20-day period.\nUnder the Bankruptcy Act, section 60(a)(7) said you have 21 days, but if a State provides for a shorter period, you're stuck with the State law.\nIf the State provides for a longer period, you're... you get to use the Federal statute.\nThe Congress looked at that, the Gilmore commission, which was trying to conform the U.C.C. and the Bankruptcy Act, told Congress in its report, lose the State law period.\nIt recommended 21 days not because there was any logic to it, but because that's what people were used to.\nThe Congress chose to adopt the Gilmore committee recommendation with the exception of the 21-day period.\nIt chose the 10-day period, which was then the prevailing U.C.C. period.\nThe plain meaning--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1715.631, 1721.264, 1730.671, 1736.626, 1749.042, 1753.676, 1761.06, 1764.763], "stop_times": [1721.264, 1730.671, 1736.626, 1749.042, 1753.676, 1761.06, 1764.763, 1768.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1715.631}, "reply_to": "20746__1_009", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_011", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "So under your theory the Massachusetts hypothesis, where the period is shorter than 20 days, that person would have the... be able to take advantage of the Federal 20-day period, so you have... you'd have a uniform period throughout.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1768.456], "stop_times": [1783.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1768.456}, "reply_to": "20746__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20746__1_012", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--Yes, sir.\nThe... if the creditor had the misfortune of having their client file a bankruptcy, they would be better off as far as perfection is concerned than they would have been absent that bankruptcy, the intervening bankruptcy.\nPrior to 1994, there was a problem.\nThe problem was cases such as In re Burnette, that recognized the congressional intent of a uniform national time period, but instead chose a perceived public policy of favoring that one creditor who had done everything right under State law but had failed to perfect within the time frame allowed by the Bankruptcy Code.\nOne purpose of preference law is to avoid the pitfalls of secret liens.\nAny creditor who fails to disclose their lien in a timely and proper manner loses their ability to enforce that lien against the world.\nIf they take the proper steps to attach their security interest as between the debtor and themselves, they have some protection, but if they fail to take the steps in the time frame prescribed by the statute, whether it be State law if you're in the State realm or bankruptcy law, if you happen to be in a bankruptcy setting, because it's a uniform Federal policy, then they lose their ability to enforce that lien against the bankruptcy estate in the Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 or Chapter 11 if there's a preference proceeding filed.\nThe petitioner argues that its interpretation follows the plain language of the post 1994 amendment to the statute.\nI don't understand, if it's so plain, why every recorded case, all the commentators, all the scholars reject their position.\nThere's no support for their position that the 1994 amendment to section 547 makes State law relation-back periods apply in a bankruptcy setting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1783.225, 1783.726, 1796.675, 1802.958, 1821.431, 1826.054, 1832.967, 1866.881, 1872.934, 1881.75], "stop_times": [1783.726, 1796.675, 1802.958, 1821.431, 1826.054, 1832.967, 1866.881, 1872.934, 1881.75, 1890.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1783.225}, "reply_to": "20746__1_011", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_013", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "May I ask, Mr. Fink, has this issue arisen in any case in the Ninth or Tenth Circuit since the amendment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1890.015], "stop_times": [1896.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1890.015}, "reply_to": "20746__1_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20746__1_014", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "At the circuit level?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1896.52], "stop_times": [1899.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1896.52}, "reply_to": "20746__1_013", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_015", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Well, just in the circuit.\nDo those circuits continue to follow the same rule, contrary to your position, that they followed before the 1994--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1899.122, 1900.474], "stop_times": [1900.474, 1907.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1899.122}, "reply_to": "20746__1_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20746__1_016", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "I don't know, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1907.769], "stop_times": [1908.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1907.769}, "reply_to": "20746__1_015", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_017", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--You don't know... no cases you know of?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1908.73], "stop_times": [1910.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1908.73}, "reply_to": "20746__1_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20746__1_018", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "I don't know if there are any.\nI'm just not familiar with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1910.18, 1910.991], "stop_times": [1910.991, 1912.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1910.18}, "reply_to": "20746__1_017", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_019", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "But the circuit hasn't had a chance to reconsider since the enlargement of the period from 10 days to 20 days.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1912.802], "stop_times": [1919.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1912.802}, "reply_to": "20746__1_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20746__1_020", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "I'm not familiar with any circuit court opinions in the Ninth and Tenth that have reconsidered that issue, Justice Ginsburg.\nThe circuits that have recon... that have ruled on that issue since the '94 would be the Fifth, the Eighth, and the... now it's escaped me.\nThe Eleventh, I believe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1919.146, 1925.561, 1937.85], "stop_times": [1925.561, 1937.85, 1939.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1919.146}, "reply_to": "20746__1_019", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_021", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "What about the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1939.13], "stop_times": [1940.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1939.13}, "reply_to": "20746__1_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__1_022", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "I might have those twisted around.\nI'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1940.672, 1942.022], "stop_times": [1942.022, 1943.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1940.672}, "reply_to": "20746__1_021", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_023", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--What about the colloquy in the legislative history?\nI... in the Bankruptcy Act, unlike a lot of other acts, these colloquys were pretty carefully worked out by all the different parties who were involved in the legislation, so I might be tempted to pay more attention to Senators Sasser and Heflin in this kind of context than in a lot of others.\nHow did that come about?\nNormally what happens with these colloquys is the bankruptcy bar and all the different people interested go and write what they're supposed to say in order to clarify for the courts what they meant.\nThere's quite a definite colloquy there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1943.884, 1946.595, 1963.005, 1965.488, 1976.104], "stop_times": [1946.595, 1963.005, 1965.488, 1976.104, 1980.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1943.884}, "reply_to": "20746__1_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__1_024", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "I may... Justice Breyer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1980.206], "stop_times": [1982.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1980.206}, "reply_to": "20746__1_023", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_025", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "How did that come about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1982.8], "stop_times": [1983.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1982.8}, "reply_to": "20746__1_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__1_026", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--That was an act that wasn't even... that didn't even get passed, although the language is similar to the act that eventually--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1983.138], "stop_times": [1990.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1983.138}, "reply_to": "20746__1_025", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_027", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Yeah... right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1990.573], "stop_times": [1991.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1990.573}, "reply_to": "20746__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__1_028", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--It was amended in '94.\nI think it shows that there is... at best, it shows that they didn't understand each other's position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1991.004, 1991.675], "stop_times": [1991.675, 1997.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1991.004}, "reply_to": "20746__1_027", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_029", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "No, no, there would be somebody who would have written that.\nThey didn't sit and write it themselves.\nYou don't really think that they... that either one of them was that familiar with the particular little tiny--\n--Yeah.\n--piece of this statute that was at issue.\nRight.\nBut that's how the legislative process works.\nPeople who are interested go and write colloquys.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [1997.508, 1998.879, 2000.949, 2005.603, 2005.914, 2007.524, 2007.995, 2009.995], "stop_times": [1998.879, 2000.949, 2005.603, 2005.914, 2007.524, 2007.995, 2009.995, 2011.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1997.508}, "reply_to": "20746__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__1_030", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2011.988], "stop_times": [2012.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2011.988}, "reply_to": "20746__1_029", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_031", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "It's done intentionally.\nSo I want to know what the history of that was.\nDo you know it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2012.239, 2013.058, 2014.67], "stop_times": [2013.058, 2014.67, 2015.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2012.239}, "reply_to": "20746__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__1_032", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--The history of that I can't speak to, but I know that the committee report would have more bearing than their colloquy, and the hist... and the committee report on the 1994 amendment states that they were going for a uniform 20 days.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2015.281], "stop_times": [2031.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2015.281}, "reply_to": "20746__1_031", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_033", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Well, the colloquy may be a weak read to go on, but it didn't seem to me to be ambiguous.\nYou suggested it was ambiguous.\nI thought those two Senators said flat out that they meant to adopt the Tenth and Eleventh Circuit position.\nNow, nobody voted on that colloquy, but in what way is it ambiguous?\nMaybe we could ask the law firm that drafted it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2031.629, 2042.196, 2043.558, 2048.92, 2057.226], "stop_times": [2042.196, 2043.558, 2048.92, 2057.226, 2061.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2031.629}, "reply_to": "20746__1_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20746__1_034", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Can't speak to that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2061.27], "stop_times": [2065.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2061.27}, "reply_to": "20746__1_033", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_035", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Why don't you answer Justice Ginsburg's question?\nYeah.\nYou said in your brief that the colloquy was ambiguous, and I understood the argument that it shouldn't count for much, but I didn't understand in what way it was ambiguous.\nHow could they have been clearer than to say, we think this confirms the Tenth and Eleventh Circuit position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2065.583, 2067.705, 2068.056, 2077.161], "stop_times": [2067.705, 2068.056, 2077.161, 2085.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2065.583}, "reply_to": "20746__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20746__1_036", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Oh, I don't think that that's what Mr. Heflin said, Senator Heflin.\nI think... if I can find it here.\n0....\nI think Senator Heflin, on page 27 of the brief it is quoted that he clarifies Senator Sasser's point and asserts that State law relation-back statutes do not affect the time of transfer pursuant to section 547, to which Senator Sasser replied, and I quote, Federal uniformity is key to the date on which the debtor receives possession of such property, which then activates the running of the 20-day period under section 547.\nI don't see that he was disagreeing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2085.074, 2090.679, 2093.65, 2098.414, 2139.392], "stop_times": [2090.679, 2093.65, 2098.414, 2139.392, 2142.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2085.074}, "reply_to": "20746__1_035", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_037", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Wasn't there a statement... maybe I'm wrong about this, but I remembered a statement in which--\n--Sasser says... Sasser cites the two cases, and say I would note for the chairman that In re Busenlehner, In re Hesser, and In re Howard came to these conclusions, and my purpose in this discussion is to establish that these court decisions are consistent with the Federal bankruptcy laws, and the chairman, Mr. Heflin, says, I would say to my colleague that it is appropriate at this time for the Senate to state its intent to confirm the interpretations of these circuits.\nUnless you think he was inviting the Senate to adopt such a... an intent, which it did not do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2142.164, 2148.787, 2175.003], "stop_times": [2148.787, 2175.003, 2182.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2142.164}, "reply_to": "20746__1_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20746__1_038", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Well, that's the only explanation I can ascribe to that, Justice Scalia.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2182.158, 2185.381], "stop_times": [2185.381, 2187.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2182.158}, "reply_to": "20746__1_037", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_039", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2187.014], "stop_times": [2188.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2187.014}, "reply_to": "20746__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20746__1_040", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Congress certainly knows how to incorporate State law when it wants to do so.\nSection 546(b) provides that certain trustees' avoiding powers are subject to any general applicable law which would include State law.\nNoticeably absent from that section is section 547.\nThey exclude... they make general applicable law applicable to the strong arm powers under section 544, the statutory lien powers under section 545, and the post-petition liens under section 549, but they exclude section 547.\nI think that supports the intent, that they intended that there be a uniform 20 days, and that 20 days meant 20 days.\nIf Congress had wanted to make State law applicable, as Fidelity asserts, then it should have simply inserted in section 546(b) section 547.\nThey didn't do that.\nIt's my--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2188.573, 2193.165, 2203.153, 2207.644, 2223.947, 2229.821, 2243.688, 2244.419], "stop_times": [2193.165, 2203.153, 2207.644, 2223.947, 2229.821, 2243.688, 2244.419, 2246.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2188.573}, "reply_to": "20746__1_039", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_041", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Would you go through that again?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2246.409], "stop_times": [2252.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2246.409}, "reply_to": "20746__1_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20746__1_042", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2252.154], "stop_times": [2252.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2252.154}, "reply_to": "20746__1_041", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_043", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "How could they have adopted it?\nHow could they have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2252.644, 2253.205], "stop_times": [2253.205, 2254.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2252.644}, "reply_to": "20746__1_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20746__1_044", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "The simplest way to adopt applicable State law, in section 546(b)(1) there's a statement that says, general applicable law applies in these statutes, 544, 545, and 549.\nIt doesn't say anything about section 547, and it's my understanding that the exclusion of one means that the other... it means that they intended to exclude it.\nI had a fancy Latin phrase for that, and now it's escaping my memory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2254.166, 2267.745, 2282.333], "stop_times": [2267.745, 2282.333, 2286.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2254.166}, "reply_to": "20746__1_043", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_045", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--Res ipsa loquitur.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2286.947, 2288.107], "stop_times": [2288.107, 2288.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2286.947}, "reply_to": "20746__1_044", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20746__1_046", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "That wasn't it.\nFidelity has argued that automobile lenders need additional time, that they're special.\nThere's nothing in section 547 that says anything about motor vehicle lenders being special.\nThe only differentiation is between the general rule for 10 days to perfect and have the grace period apply, or for enabling loans, the 20-day period, so it's the type of the loan, not the type of collateral that's critical.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2288.427, 2289.629, 2298.506, 2303.449], "stop_times": [2289.629, 2298.506, 2303.449, 2319.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2288.427}, "reply_to": "20746__1_045", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_047", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "A quick question about perfection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2319.149], "stop_times": [2323.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2319.149}, "reply_to": "20746__1_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__1_048", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2323.911], "stop_times": [2324.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2323.911}, "reply_to": "20746__1_047", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_049", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Imagine in a State that has a 60-day period, or a 30-day period--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2324.272], "stop_times": [2328.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2324.272}, "reply_to": "20746__1_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__1_050", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2328.005], "stop_times": [2328.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2328.005}, "reply_to": "20746__1_049", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_051", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--you take out a loan, but you don't perfect for a year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2328.305], "stop_times": [2331.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2328.305}, "reply_to": "20746__1_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__1_052", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2331.117], "stop_times": [2331.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2331.117}, "reply_to": "20746__1_051", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_053", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Am I correct in thinking the person who didn't perfect for a year, the secured creditor, still has perfected his interest, but only in respect to the future, not in respect to the past?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2331.636], "stop_times": [2342.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2331.636}, "reply_to": "20746__1_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__1_054", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "That's correct, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2342.414], "stop_times": [2343.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2342.414}, "reply_to": "20746__1_053", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_055", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2343.704], "stop_times": [2344.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2343.704}, "reply_to": "20746__1_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__1_056", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Which brings up--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2344.124], "stop_times": [2345.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2344.124}, "reply_to": "20746__1_055", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_057", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "If we adopt your position, are there going to be problems in some States where the motor vehicles registration period is just slow because of the way the State officials work?\nI mean, are there some States where you just can't do this within 20 days?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2345.597, 2354.983], "stop_times": [2354.983, 2358.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2345.597}, "reply_to": "20746__1_056", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20746__1_058", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--I don't know.\nIn Missouri, it's a simple form you fill out.\nYou mail it in with the certificate of title attached.\nIf you don't have the certificate of title, it's my reading of the State statute that it would be an illegal transaction to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2358.112, 2358.542, 2362.446, 2366.878], "stop_times": [2358.542, 2362.446, 2366.878, 2372.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2358.112}, "reply_to": "20746__1_057", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_059", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "No, but if you do everything right, are there not some States where they take longer than 20 days to validate the lien?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2372.862], "stop_times": [2379.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2372.862}, "reply_to": "20746__1_058", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20746__1_060", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--Yes, sir, and under State law that certainly could happen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2379.888], "stop_times": [2384.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2379.888}, "reply_to": "20746__1_059", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_061", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "And the creditor, generally the seller in these cases, what remedy does he have, simply not to transfer possession of the property until the paperwork is completed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2384.172], "stop_times": [2398.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2384.172}, "reply_to": "20746__1_060", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20746__1_062", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "I don't believe that that would be the appropriate manner of transferring title to a vehicle.\nI believe you have to transfer possession at the same time that you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2398.299, 2404.214], "stop_times": [2404.214, 2408.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2398.299}, "reply_to": "20746__1_061", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_063", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "So they don't have any protection, then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2408.205], "stop_times": [2411.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2408.205}, "reply_to": "20746__1_062", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20746__1_064", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--I think they're just going to be out of luck, and I think Congress looked at that and was trying to balance the State interests versus the Federal interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2411.317], "stop_times": [2418.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2411.317}, "reply_to": "20746__1_063", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_065", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "If they're out of luck, it's because of State law and not Federal law, isn't it... because if you send in the papers the day after you transfer possession, you've complied with the Federal law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2418.003], "stop_times": [2428.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2418.003}, "reply_to": "20746__1_064", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20746__1_066", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2428.802], "stop_times": [2429.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2428.802}, "reply_to": "20746__1_065", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_067", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--have you not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2429.179], "stop_times": [2429.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2429.179}, "reply_to": "20746__1_066", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20746__1_068", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2429.74], "stop_times": [2430.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2429.74}, "reply_to": "20746__1_067", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_069", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "And so if the State can't process it within 30 days, the problem is with the State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2430.12], "stop_times": [2437.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2430.12}, "reply_to": "20746__1_068", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20746__1_070", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "I misunderstood the... I wasn't thinking clearly on the question.\nIt's not an issue of when the State processes the paperwork.\nThe issue is when the paperwork gets to the State, so that should have no impact on the hypothetical that you described, Justice Kennedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2437.824, 2440.718, 2443.94], "stop_times": [2440.718, 2443.94, 2454.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2437.824}, "reply_to": "20746__1_069", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_071", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "So as long as the date stamp at the office that you send it to, that's what's going to prevail, whether it gets indexed properly or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2454.467], "stop_times": [2460.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2454.467}, "reply_to": "20746__1_070", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20746__1_072", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "I'm not familiar with all the motor vehicle statutes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2460.29], "stop_times": [2462.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2460.29}, "reply_to": "20746__1_071", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_073", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "But isn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2462.781], "stop_times": [2463.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2462.781}, "reply_to": "20746__1_072", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20746__1_074", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--in the 50 States, but in Missouri--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2463.131], "stop_times": [2464.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2463.131}, "reply_to": "20746__1_073", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_075", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--That... that's what you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2464.581], "stop_times": [2465.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2464.581}, "reply_to": "20746__1_074", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20746__1_076", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--that would be the critical date.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2465.622], "stop_times": [2465.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2465.622}, "reply_to": "20746__1_075", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_077", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--Well, it depends on State law.\nI mean, I'm not sure the stamping date is the date of perfection.\nIs the stamping date when it's received the date of perfection?\nI don't know.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2465.953, 2467.674, 2470.518, 2473.577, 2474.468], "stop_times": [2467.674, 2470.518, 2473.577, 2474.468, 2474.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2465.953}, "reply_to": "20746__1_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20746__1_078", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "I believe in this case the bankruptcy judge ruled that the date that it was received was the effective date of transfer, and at worst... that was 21 days out.\nAt worst it was 26 days out.\nBut the problem in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2474.829, 2488.237, 2489.749], "stop_times": [2488.237, 2489.749, 2492.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2474.829}, "reply_to": "20746__1_077", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_079", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--I thought most State laws would make the date of perfection at least the date when there's some public ability to know of the existence of the lien.\nI... at least it works that way under the U.C.C., and just because the relevant agency... well, I don't know.\nIt seems strange to me.\nMay I go back for a minute, Mr. Fink, to the legislative history that's quoted at pages 24 and 25 of the blue brief.\nWas Senator Heflin the chairman of the committee that... and also was he the floor manager of the bill, just out of curio... do you know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2492.931, 2503.107, 2508.84, 2510.763, 2520.929], "stop_times": [2503.107, 2508.84, 2510.763, 2520.929, 2531.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2492.931}, "reply_to": "20746__1_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20746__1_080", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--I don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2531.247], "stop_times": [2531.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2531.247}, "reply_to": "20746__1_079", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_081", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "I think, isn't it... that's what I've looked up on this, that these were amendments attached to a crime bill, and Senator Heflin was the floor manager of the crime bill, and then therefore he had to answer whatever question came up.\nBut it is significant to me what that situation was, because if these two were primary movers of the whole thing, then of course it doesn't reflect their views as much as it reflects an entire community of people trying to enact a comprehensive code.\nIf, on the other hand, it's a particular Senator who happens to have a constituent, et cetera, that's quite different.\nBut you don't know the answer to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2531.648, 2545.785, 2560.185, 2565.628], "stop_times": [2545.785, 2560.185, 2565.628, 2567.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2531.648}, "reply_to": "20746__1_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20746__1_082", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "No, sir.\nFidelity has argued that there's a serious conflict between our interpretation of section 547 and State commercial law, especially as it relates to motor vehicles.\nThat simply isn't true.\nOur interpretation affects only a handful of States.\nThere are seven with grace periods longer than 20 days, and even in those States, the longer grace periods typically apply only to motor vehicles, so how do we read the plain language of section 547?\nCongress expanded the section 547(c)(3)(B) period from 10 days to 20 days.\nIt also added an express cross-reference to the general timing rule of section 547(e)(2)(A) to the new 20-day rule.\nThus, all secured creditors have a 10-day grace period to perfect their security interest and have the date of the transfer be deemed the date of perfection.\nCongress realized there was a problem, that sometimes there could be a delay with enabling loan creditors, so it gave them an extra 10 days, for a total of 20, and said, you know, in every circumstance this may not be enough, but this is the balance we're going to strike between the State interest and the Federal uniform interest in a uniform bankruptcy law and said, 20 days.\nAnd it may be true that a 1-day delay in this case doesn't seriously threaten the antisecret lien policy.\nEven if you use the 30-day relation-back period in Missouri, maybe that doesn't seriously cause any serious harm.\nHowever, it's the interpretation that you must adopt in order to reach that result, which is dangerous.\nThere's nothing in Fidelity's argument to limit its theory.\nYou could have a State that says you could have a year.\nYou could have a State that says you don't even have to do it for an enabling loan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2567.99, 2568.3, 2579.099, 2581.048, 2583.539, 2595.067, 2600.24, 2607.907, 2616.142, 2636.575, 2643.049, 2649.744, 2654.797, 2658.23, 2661.041], "stop_times": [2568.3, 2579.099, 2581.048, 2583.539, 2595.067, 2600.24, 2607.907, 2616.142, 2636.575, 2643.049, 2649.744, 2654.797, 2658.23, 2661.041, 2663.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2567.99}, "reply_to": "20746__1_081", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_083", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "But practically isn't that unlikely?\nI mean, most States have come to the 20-day period.\nWe just have how many with 30 days, and one with 60, so most of them... Congress tried to do what most States did, right--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2663.973, 2665.202, 2667.345], "stop_times": [2665.202, 2667.345, 2675.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2663.973}, "reply_to": "20746__1_082", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20746__1_084", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Yes, ma'am.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2675.981], "stop_times": [2676.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2675.981}, "reply_to": "20746__1_083", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_085", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--in setting the 20-day period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2676.722], "stop_times": [2677.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2676.722}, "reply_to": "20746__1_084", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20746__1_086", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Yes, ma'am.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2677.681], "stop_times": [2678.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2677.681}, "reply_to": "20746__1_085", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_087", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "So why couldn't one look at that as Congress trying to stay in line with the States and say, in case of a State that doesn't say anything, we'll pick the State that most States... the time that most States allow, 20 days, but we're not ruling out States that have a longer period.\nWhat... why isn't that a proper interpretation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2678.222, 2699.938], "stop_times": [2699.938, 2703.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2678.222}, "reply_to": "20746__1_086", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20746__1_088", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Oh, I don't think that's what they said, and they don't need to harmonize with the State law, because it's Federal bankruptcy law that's at issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2703.727], "stop_times": [2711.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2703.727}, "reply_to": "20746__1_087", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_089", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "They don't need to, but why can't one read these... the statute putting the relation-back provision together with the provision about the lienholder's interest being perfected and come up with, well, Congress meant at least 20 days but more if a State allowed it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2711.574], "stop_times": [2736.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2711.574}, "reply_to": "20746__1_088", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20746__1_090", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Well, Congress certainly could have done that.\nIt's within their power to do that.\nBut they didn't do that.\nThey said, 20 days.\nThey didn't make an exception in 546(b) to apply general applicable law to section 547.\nSo we're not here today to determine what Congress could have done.\nWe're here to determine or interpret what Congress did do, and Congress established a uniform 20-day period to take that last step necessary to perfect your security interest.\nIf you don't do it, you're just out of luck.\nThat happens every day in preference actions in bankruptcy.\nPeople... preferences aren't about evil intent, or whether something bad or good happened.\nIt's... the transactions take place in the normal course of commercial practice, and if you're outside that time limit that Congress drew, and somebody's filed a bankruptcy, you're just going to be out of luck, whether it's 20 days, or 21... I'm sorry, if it's 21 days or a year.\nAnd the position they're arguing doesn't accommodate Federal law to the State law.\nThey're asking Congress, or this Court to interpret that statute to advocate to State law, because there would be nothing to prevent a State... even though none of them have done it yet, there's nothing to prevent them from coming in and saying, you've got a year to perfect.\nIdaho changed their statute precisely to try and defeat a bankruptcy trustee to say it impacted on not just enabling loans on motor vehicles, but nonenabling loans as well, so once you start down that slope, there's no stopping it.\nIt's just a snowball that just keeps getting bigger and bigger.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2736.131, 2737.902, 2739.422, 2748.728, 2741.886, 2750.861, 2754.962, 2764.378, 2766.209, 2770.313, 2775.205, 2792.108, 2799.341, 2812.09, 2828.771], "stop_times": [2737.902, 2739.422, 2748.728, 2741.886, 2750.861, 2754.962, 2764.378, 2766.209, 2770.313, 2775.205, 2792.108, 2799.341, 2812.09, 2828.771, 2831.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2736.131}, "reply_to": "20746__1_089", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_091", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "What's... is an enabling loan... is... that can mean the same thing as a purchase money mortgage?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2831.292], "stop_times": [2835.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2831.292}, "reply_to": "20746__1_090", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20746__1_092", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "That's similar, and in a motor vehicles... in a non-U.\nC.C. setting that would be what you would call a purchase money security interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2835.325, 2838.948], "stop_times": [2838.948, 2845.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2835.325}, "reply_to": "20746__1_091", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_093", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Mr. Fink--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2845.101], "stop_times": [2862.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2845.101}, "reply_to": "20746__1_092", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20746__1_094", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2862.363], "stop_times": [2862.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2862.363}, "reply_to": "20746__1_093", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_095", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--may I just ask one question?\nI'm just kind of curious.\nThe vehicle here is worth about 14,000 dollars, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2862.734, 2863.875, 2864.514], "stop_times": [2863.875, 2864.514, 2868.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2862.734}, "reply_to": "20746__1_094", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20746__1_096", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2868.127], "stop_times": [2868.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2868.127}, "reply_to": "20746__1_095", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_097", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "And the lien was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2868.558], "stop_times": [2869.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2868.558}, "reply_to": "20746__1_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20746__1_098", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2869.687], "stop_times": [2870.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2869.687}, "reply_to": "20746__1_097", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_099", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--about [dollars] 3,000?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2870.017], "stop_times": [2871.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2870.017}, "reply_to": "20746__1_098", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20746__1_100", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--Well, actually the vehicle I think was worth around 10,000, the debt was around 14.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2871.279], "stop_times": [2876.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2871.279}, "reply_to": "20746__1_099", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_101", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "I see, and that's what's at issue.\nThe question is whether the creditors get that money or the secured credit... the general creditors or the secured creditors?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2876.693, 2879.087], "stop_times": [2879.087, 2884.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2876.693}, "reply_to": "20746__1_100", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20746__1_102", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Yes, sir, because the lien didn't go away.\nThey don't have the lien.\nI now have the lien on behalf of the bankruptcy estate under section 551, and Ms. Beasley is paying that value out to all the creditors, including Fidelity, who are general unsecured--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2884.41, 2886.24, 2887.342], "stop_times": [2886.24, 2887.342, 2896.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2884.41}, "reply_to": "20746__1_101", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_103", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "May I ask... it's really not relevant.\nI'm just curious.\nHow big is the estate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2896.858, 2899.028, 2899.719], "stop_times": [2899.028, 2899.719, 2900.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2896.858}, "reply_to": "20746__1_102", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20746__1_104", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--It's a... since it's a Chapter 13, you basically have two tests that have to be met for the general unsecured creditors.\nDisposable income, which is section 1325(b), that means that during the life of her plan all her disposable income, which is the income that's not necessary for support, has to be paid into the plan, and also that the liquidation test is met, which is 1325(a)(4).\nSo she's basically... she doesn't make a lot of money, so she's basically paying out the value of that vehicle to the general unsecured creditors, and that's going to take her more than 3 years with all her disposable income, and I don't recall off the top of my head what the total percentage to the general unsecured will be, but Fidelity is the largest unsecured creditor, so you're probably looking at less than a 50-percent distribution, but I don't know that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2900.649, 2908.745, 2923.195], "stop_times": [2908.745, 2923.195, 2949.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2900.649}, "reply_to": "20746__1_103", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_105", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "I see, and that's the estate that's financing this litigation, of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2949.152], "stop_times": [2953.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2949.152}, "reply_to": "20746__1_104", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20746__1_106", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Well, actually, all the Chapter 13 debtors in the Western District of Missouri are financing this--\n[Laughter]\n--side of it, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2953.496, 2958.608, 2959.068], "stop_times": [2958.608, 2959.068, 2959.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2953.496}, "reply_to": "20746__1_105", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_107", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "I'm a little worried about your posture here, frankly.\nI see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2959.839, 2962.16], "stop_times": [2962.16, 2963.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2959.839}, "reply_to": "20746__1_106", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20746__1_108", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--But a chapter--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2963.272], "stop_times": [2964.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2963.272}, "reply_to": "20746__1_107", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_109", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Kind of a test case, in other words.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2964.554], "stop_times": [2965.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2964.554}, "reply_to": "20746__1_108", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20746__1_110", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--A... yes, sir.\nA Chapter... this actually started as a Chapter 7, where the trustee said, give me the car, they're not perfected, and Ms. Beasley decided to convert to Chapter 13.\nAre there any further questions from the Court?\nIf not, I'll just summarize, and I would ask that the... respectfully request that you affirm the opinion of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, because it's the only interpretation that gets force through the plain language of the statute.\nIt's the only interpretation which advances the antisecret lien policy of the Congress.\nIt's the only interpretation that's in accord with the legislative history of both the '78 code, the '94 amendment, and with the pre-code bankruptcy law, and thank you for your time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [2965.663, 2966.414, 2975.68, 2981.373, 2998.214, 3002.047], "stop_times": [2966.414, 2975.68, 2981.373, 2998.214, 3002.047, 3011.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2965.663}, "reply_to": "20746__1_109", "speaker": "richard_v_fink"}
{"id": "20746__1_111", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Fink.\nMr. Gaughan, you have 4 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [3011.054, 3012.413], "stop_times": [3012.413, 3014.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3011.054}, "reply_to": "20746__1_110", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20746__2_000", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nI just wanted to clarify a few points.\nThe facts in this particular case, the loan was obtained on August 17, 1994, and the loan was in the amount of 14,300 dollars, I believe.\nThe debtor took possession of the car in this case the same day, but it is not unusual for a debtor to take a test drive, for instance, at a dealership, to take a car home, so the possession could start before the loan is even consummated.\nIn this case, it occurred on the same day.\nThe paperwork was mailed to the Missouri Department of Revenue on September 7.\nHowever, the Department of Revenue's record showed that it wasn't validated until September 23, which was more than 30 days after the transaction.\nWe undertook discovery, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [3014.666, 3016.267, 3018.568, 3027.055, 3042.092, 3044.105, 3049.21, 3058.297], "stop_times": [3016.267, 3018.568, 3027.055, 3042.092, 3044.105, 3049.21, 3058.297, 3061.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3014.666}, "reply_to": "20746__1_111", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__2_001", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "We don't ordinarily sit to review facts, Mr. Gaughan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [3061.058], "stop_times": [3064.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3061.058}, "reply_to": "20746__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20746__2_002", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "--I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [3064.38], "stop_times": [3064.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3064.38}, "reply_to": "20746__2_001", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__2_003", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "We've been presented with a set of facts that said that it was either 21 days or 26 days afterwards.\nI think we accept those.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [3064.75, 3071.072], "stop_times": [3071.072, 3072.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3064.75}, "reply_to": "20746__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20746__2_004", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "I was just trying to point out that there is an inherent delay built into vehicle perfections.\nIt's not like signing a financing statement.\nWith the financing statement there is no notice to the world until it's recorded.\nYou could file a financing statement three different times on the same collateral, but with a car there is a title that actually follows that particular item of collateral, so it's very difficult to pledge that three or four times over.\nThe notice, there's no problem with notice to the world because you can't falsify that information.\nThat's all I have.\nIf there's any other questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [3072.364, 3076.976, 3078.999, 3082.56, 3093.95, 3098.764, 3101.537], "stop_times": [3076.976, 3078.999, 3082.56, 3093.95, 3098.764, 3101.537, 3102.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3072.364}, "reply_to": "20746__2_003", "speaker": "michael_p_gaughan"}
{"id": "20746__2_005", "conversation_id": "20746", "text": "Thank you, Mr Gaughan.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1370", "start_times": [3102.238, 3103.577], "stop_times": [3103.577, 3104.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3102.238}, "reply_to": "20746__2_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20282__0_000", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 97-5737, Sandra Forney v. Kenneth Apfel.\nMr. Wilborn.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [0.0, 9.336], "stop_times": [9.336, 50.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20282__0_001", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis case raises the issue of whether or not a Social Security benefits claimant may appeal a final judgment entered under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S. Code 405(g) when that final judgment is accompanied by an order of remand.\nNow, in Finkelstein, which is cited in the briefs, this Court held that such a judgment is a final judgment which terminates the civil action, and that the agency, not the claimant, may appeal therefrom.\nIn fact, in a footnote in Finkelstein this Court expressly reserved addressing whether or not the claimant had the right to appeal from such a judgment.\nThis case squarely presents that issue.\nApart from Finkelstein, in Schaefer, also cited in the briefs, this Court construed, in the context of an Equal Access to Justice Act claim, the same statute without qualifying it in terms of whether the petitioner... the judgment was final for the Social Security Administration only.\nWe believe that the plain language of the statute and the text and structure of the statute established that either party may appeal.\nIn fact, if you look at amicus' brief which was invited by the Court their entire argument, or all of their arguments ultimately loop back to the point or the misconception that petitioner can later appeal any aspect of the instant district court case following the remand proceedings.\nIn other words, they're trying to tie that into the idea that the petitioner is not aggrieved currently.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [50.175, 54.097, 71.537, 85.946, 93.132, 97.045, 117.719, 125.543, 147.748], "stop_times": [54.097, 71.537, 85.946, 93.132, 97.045, 117.719, 125.543, 147.748, 153.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 50.175}, "reply_to": "20282__0_000", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__0_002", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Well, is it your position that they could not appeal after the result of the remand?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [153.912], "stop_times": [159.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 153.912}, "reply_to": "20282__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20282__0_003", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, yes, that is exactly my position.\nI do not believe that, under the way the statute is worded that we would have, the petitioner would have the right to appeal the current civil... or the current administrative finding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [159.215, 161.938], "stop_times": [161.938, 172.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 159.215}, "reply_to": "20282__0_002", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__0_004", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Suppose we think you're wrong about that.\nDo you lose?\nSuppose we think this would work in... just in the way... you have a new trial, and so you're not able to bring up... let's say you're the verdict winner.\nYou're not able to bring up the errors in your favor.\nAll the interlocutory rulings of the district court are preserved when you can't appeal them immediately.\nEither... if you can't appeal them, isn't that the ordinary rule in civil procedure?\nIt's a question of not never, but later.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [172.133, 172.654, 173.405, 184.662, 188.626, 195.05, 200.382], "stop_times": [172.654, 173.405, 184.662, 188.626, 195.05, 200.382, 204.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 172.133}, "reply_to": "20282__0_003", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20282__0_005", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, yes, that is absolutely correct as far as ordinary civil procedure as it applies to interlocutory orders of remand.\nIn this case, however, the statute gives us a final judgment, and it then... sentence 8 of the statute... by the way, the statute is set out in full--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [204.366, 213.311], "stop_times": [213.311, 221.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 204.366}, "reply_to": "20282__0_004", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__0_006", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Well, it actually doesn't quite do that.\nIt says, shall be final except that it shall be appealable as normal judgments are, so you might say, well... if it hadn't been for Finkelstein, at least, you might say, well, it's final for purposes of attorney's fees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [221.198, 222.939], "stop_times": [222.939, 235.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 221.198}, "reply_to": "20282__0_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20282__0_007", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [235.919], "stop_times": [236.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 235.919}, "reply_to": "20282__0_006", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__0_008", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "But with reference to appeal it's subject to the same rule as any other judgment.\nThat's a possible interpretation of the statute.\nFinkelstein runs against that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [236.516, 241.41, 244.183], "stop_times": [241.41, 244.183, 248.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 236.516}, "reply_to": "20282__0_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20282__0_009", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Yes, that's absolutely right, Justice Kennedy.\nFinkelstein does run against that, and it's interesting and I think significant that in Finkelstein this Court chose not to adopt the collateral doctrine rule set out in the Cohen case.\nInstead, it directly interpreted the language of the statute as giving it final--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [248.814, 251.937, 262.764], "stop_times": [251.937, 262.764, 267.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 248.814}, "reply_to": "20282__0_008", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__0_010", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "But Mr. Wilborn, Finkelstein could have been a now or never, as the Court pointed out.\nThat is, if the Commissioner the next time around, in this proceeding where he's hemmed in, makes a determination in the claimant's favor, then he can't appeal from his own order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [267.538, 272.21], "stop_times": [272.21, 287.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 267.538}, "reply_to": "20282__0_009", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20282__0_011", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--That is correct, Justice Ginsburg, and we believe we are in a similarly situated profile here.\nJust as it was possible that the Secretary in Finkelstein might never have the opportunity to appeal that, or would lack standing if they paid benefits on remand, it is possible.\nNow, it was also possible that the Secretary could have actually denied benefits on remand and then come up to Federal court to relitigate that issue, so it was possible that the Secretary--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [287.882, 296.345, 307.853], "stop_times": [296.345, 307.853, 319.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 287.882}, "reply_to": "20282__0_010", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__0_012", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "That I don't understand, because if the court says, Secretary, remodify and remand, that's a marching order for the Secretary.\nThe Secretary has no choice.\nYou're suggesting that the Secretary should not do what the court said the first time around?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [319.501, 329.148, 330.56], "stop_times": [329.148, 330.56, 335.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 319.501}, "reply_to": "20282__0_011", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20282__0_013", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--No, Justice Ginsburg.\nWhat I'm suggesting is that even had the Secretary complied with the district court's order in Finkelstein, it is possible that the facts could have still allowed the Secretary, even construing the regulations against their wishes, to have denied the case, and if they had denied the claim in Finkelstein, that would have preserved the issue to come back--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [335.903, 337.035], "stop_times": [337.035, 355.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 335.903}, "reply_to": "20282__0_012", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__0_014", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Yes, but if, being faithful to what the court says, it comes out that the claimant wins, then the Secretary is stuck and can't appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [355.318], "stop_times": [361.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 355.318}, "reply_to": "20282__0_013", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20282__0_015", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--That's the possibility, and I believe that's why we have a similar situation here.\nIt is possible--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [361.721, 366.106], "stop_times": [366.106, 367.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 361.721}, "reply_to": "20282__0_014", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__0_016", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Why is it that you think you cannot appeal from an adverse decision after the remand?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [367.726], "stop_times": [373.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 367.726}, "reply_to": "20282__0_015", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20282__0_017", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--Mr. Chief Justice, the reason we believe we cannot appeal from an adverse decision following remand is because this section, 405(g), sentence 1, which grants jurisdiction to the district court to review the final judgment of the Secretary, or the Commissioner now, expressly limits the subsequent review in light of Finkelstein saying, this civil action, the judgment, the sentence 4 judgment terminates the civil action.\nIt goes back on remand, and we must then file a new civil action.\nThe findings change on remand, the law applicable to that finding, to those findings changes on remand, so when we come back up with a second final agency decision under sentence 1 of 405(g) we are not permitted to appeal anything except the new Secretary's, or Commissioner's final decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [373.94, 397.256, 401.859], "stop_times": [397.256, 401.859, 419.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 373.94}, "reply_to": "20282__0_016", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__0_018", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "That's by no means self-evident, at least to me from the statute.\nWhy... let me ask you the question this way.\nWhy might it not be that your appeal from the district court action in the first appeal might simply in effect be held in abeyance till you go through your second civil action and appeal and if you're not satisfied there, at that point you can take everything up.\nIf you win on your first claim, then we forget what happens in the second civil action.\nIf you lose on your first claim, then we go to see whether there's any error, the court of appeals goes to see whether there's any error in effect based on what happened on remand.\nWould that be possible, or does Finkelstein stand in the way of that?\nPerhaps it does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [419.881, 423.554, 428.559, 450.022, 455.528, 465.935, 470.658], "stop_times": [423.554, 428.559, 450.022, 455.528, 465.935, 470.658, 471.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 419.881}, "reply_to": "20282__0_017", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20282__0_019", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Justice Souter, I think if I answer your question, I will also answer Mr. Chief Justice's question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [471.97], "stop_times": [477.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 471.97}, "reply_to": "20282__0_018", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__0_020", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "That's what I think, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [477.042], "stop_times": [477.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 477.042}, "reply_to": "20282__0_019", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20282__0_021", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "So if we take... take as an example the case we have before us, Forney.\nWe believe that she stood in the posture under the facts of her case, that the facts justified the district court taking the grant of jurisdiction under section 405(g) to reverse without a remand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [477.703, 483.637], "stop_times": [483.637, 494.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 477.703}, "reply_to": "20282__0_020", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__0_022", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [494.954], "stop_times": [495.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 494.954}, "reply_to": "20282__0_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20282__0_023", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "From a legal... based upon the law of the circuit.\nIf that is true, but she goes back on remand to do whatever the administrative agency does on remand, which was not specifically defined by the district court's remand--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [495.485, 497.988], "stop_times": [497.988, 509.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 495.485}, "reply_to": "20282__0_022", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__0_024", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "It's a new action--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [509.616], "stop_times": [510.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 509.616}, "reply_to": "20282__0_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20282__0_025", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--It is a new action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [510.376], "stop_times": [511.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 510.376}, "reply_to": "20282__0_024", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__0_026", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [511.267], "stop_times": [511.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 511.267}, "reply_to": "20282__0_025", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20282__0_027", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "So the current civil action terminates.\nWe then go back, we perhaps introduce... we and the Commissioner both, or one or either of us, introduce new medical evidence, new vocational evidence.\nThat changes the entire factual posture of the case.\nSuppose we lose on remand.\nThen we come back up through the appellate... the administrative agency to district court under sentence 1 of 405(g), which is set out at page 2 of our opening brief.\nSentence 1 grants jurisdiction to the district court to review such decision, the new decision.\nWe have to file a brand new civil action.\nUnlike--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [511.457, 513.467, 522.054, 525.975, 528.417, 536.982, 543.547, 545.339], "stop_times": [513.467, 522.054, 525.975, 528.417, 536.982, 543.547, 545.339, 545.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 511.457}, "reply_to": "20282__0_026", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__0_028", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Okay, but is the reason that the old decision is not then also still subject to review a timing question, that the time for taking the appeal on the first one has simply run so that we can't think of it as just sort of sitting out there in abeyance?\nIs that the reason?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [545.6, 561.258], "stop_times": [561.258, 562.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 545.6}, "reply_to": "20282__0_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20282__0_029", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--I don't believe that is the reason, Justice Souter.\nI think the reason is that because we have a final judgment which terminates the civil action, if we don't appeal that and we go back to... for additional proceedings on remand, what we end up with is a brand-new case that comes up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [562.68, 564.301], "stop_times": [564.301, 578.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 562.68}, "reply_to": "20282__0_028", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__0_030", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Okay, but it's Finkelstein that says definitively this is a final action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [578.332], "stop_times": [582.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 578.332}, "reply_to": "20282__0_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20282__0_031", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [582.914], "stop_times": [583.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 582.914}, "reply_to": "20282__0_030", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__0_032", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "So basically your argument comes down... I think comes down to the fact, look, you, Supreme Court, decided Finkelstein.\nThat's all I'm asking you to do, is to follow through consistently on it and, if you do, I win.\nThat's basically... is that right?\nHe couldn't have put it better.\nRight?\nThat's your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [583.125, 588.977, 593.121, 594.503, 595.722, 596.383], "stop_times": [588.977, 593.121, 594.503, 595.722, 596.383, 596.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 583.125}, "reply_to": "20282__0_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20282__0_033", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "That's absolutely correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [596.834], "stop_times": [597.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 596.834}, "reply_to": "20282__0_032", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__0_034", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Yes, okay.\n[Laughter]\nCould I ask you this: if I recollect correctly the Government takes the position in this case that although you're entitled to appeal, you need not appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [597.645, 597.825, 597.985], "stop_times": [597.825, 597.985, 608.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 597.645}, "reply_to": "20282__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20282__0_035", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "That is how I understand the Government's position as well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [608.934], "stop_times": [612.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 608.934}, "reply_to": "20282__0_034", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__0_036", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "That is not your position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [612.296], "stop_times": [612.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 612.296}, "reply_to": "20282__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20282__0_037", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [612.765], "stop_times": [613.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 612.765}, "reply_to": "20282__0_036", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__0_038", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "From what you've just said, I gather it's now or never.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [613.586], "stop_times": [618.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 613.586}, "reply_to": "20282__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20282__0_039", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "That is under the current state of the law, because under sentence 8 it says that our judgment is appealable, as in any other civil action, and in any other civil action if we don't appeal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [618.04], "stop_times": [629.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 618.04}, "reply_to": "20282__0_038", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__0_040", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "You lose it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [629.067], "stop_times": [629.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 629.067}, "reply_to": "20282__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20282__0_041", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--collateral estoppel does come into play.\nHowever, we certainly wouldn't object to the Government fashioning a rule where... which favors claimants that they would apply--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [629.909, 630.69], "stop_times": [630.69, 636.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 629.909}, "reply_to": "20282__0_040", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__0_042", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Which lets you appeal now, if you want, or later, if you prefer that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [636.503], "stop_times": [639.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 636.503}, "reply_to": "20282__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20282__0_043", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [639.084], "stop_times": [639.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 639.084}, "reply_to": "20282__0_042", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__0_044", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "But you don't think it's very logical, if I understood your colloquy with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [639.494], "stop_times": [642.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 639.494}, "reply_to": "20282__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20282__0_045", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Not if we stay with the strict language of the statute.\nIt's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [642.787, 645.318], "stop_times": [645.318, 645.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 642.787}, "reply_to": "20282__0_044", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__0_046", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--Well, if there are in fact two reasonably plausible ways of interpreting this statute, it seems to me that, as the amicus points out, the result of your approach is going to produce a lot of appeals to courts of appeals that are very fact-specific and might result in no better for your client than going back to the agency and perhaps getting the relief there on the basis of the remand order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [645.939], "stop_times": [675.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 645.939}, "reply_to": "20282__0_045", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20282__0_047", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--Mr. Chief Justice, I don't believe that that likelihood is very probable, for the reasons set out in the brief.\nBut in addition, if the Government does as they have extended the offer they simply don't hold against the claimant who chooses not to appeal.\nIf they don't hold collateral estoppel in an offensive fashion against the claimant, then the claimant has a freer mind to make the rational choice, do I appeal or do I not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [675.227, 682.703, 693.841], "stop_times": [682.703, 693.841, 704.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 675.227}, "reply_to": "20282__0_046", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__0_048", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Well then, that... I understand your point now.\nI didn't get it earlier.\nI must say that preclusion doctrine is not something the court ever interjects on its own.\nIt's something that you can plead or not plead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [704.199, 705.07, 706.983, 712.445], "stop_times": [705.07, 706.983, 712.445, 715.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 704.199}, "reply_to": "20282__0_047", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20282__0_049", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [715.076], "stop_times": [716.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 715.076}, "reply_to": "20282__0_048", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__0_050", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "So that the Government is kind of saying, we're not going to plead it because we don't want all these appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [716.138], "stop_times": [720.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 716.138}, "reply_to": "20282__0_049", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20282__0_051", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "That is correct, Justice Ginsburg.\nIt is an affirmative defense that if the Government chooses to waive, as apparently they have done, that only benefits claimants, and it would... if there is any danger of this opening the floodgates after Finkelstein nearly 8 years ago said this was a possibility, and then after Schaefer pretty much affirmed that, and then in the Tenth Circuit in the Nguyen case cited in the briefs, no one in the Tenth Circuit has done this again.\nApparently I'm a sole practitioner who does this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [720.159, 721.121, 743.847], "stop_times": [721.121, 743.847, 746.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 720.159}, "reply_to": "20282__0_050", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__0_052", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Why have you?\nWhy... you said in your brief... I took it from the brief... I want to be sure I understand your answer to the Chief Justice's question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [746.769, 747.049], "stop_times": [747.049, 752.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 746.769}, "reply_to": "20282__0_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20282__0_053", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [752.243], "stop_times": [752.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 752.243}, "reply_to": "20282__0_052", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__0_054", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "I take it that a person who gets a remand out of the court is probably going to get his benefits.\nI mean, you know, they have a lot to do over there, so probably... it would be an unusual case that you go up to the circuit not just to get... you know, to get the remand but actually force the circuit to tell them to award you benefits.\nThat's an unusual case.\nNow, if you do that you might lose the whole thing, because I take it if you go up they're going to say, it wasn't even right to remand it.\nThis is well within the discretion.\nNow, I take it this is well within the agency's discretion.\nMost of these things involve bad backs or pain and that kind of stuff, and most of them are within the agency's discretion.\nSo if you win your case here, I take it your client may end up with nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [752.683, 757.625, 769.083, 770.205, 777.03, 779.301, 781.724, 787.628], "stop_times": [757.625, 769.083, 770.205, 777.03, 779.301, 781.724, 787.628, 792.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 752.683}, "reply_to": "20282__0_053", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20282__0_055", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Justice Breyer, that's exactly correct.\nThat's exactly what happened in the Tenth Circuit Nguyen case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [792.202, 794.784], "stop_times": [794.784, 797.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 792.202}, "reply_to": "20282__0_054", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__0_056", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "So why are you bringing it then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [797.057], "stop_times": [798.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 797.057}, "reply_to": "20282__0_055", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20282__0_057", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "It's a major risk.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [798.557], "stop_times": [799.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 798.557}, "reply_to": "20282__0_056", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__0_058", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Why do you think you'll get the money from the agency?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [799.228], "stop_times": [801.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 799.228}, "reply_to": "20282__0_057", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20282__0_059", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Because I am concerned that if we don't appeal now... the facts are so favorable for us, and she is a younger individual with an unpopular illness, that if she doesn't take it up now, the facts on remand will be even worse for her.\nIf I have any time left, Mr. Chief Justice, I'd like to reserve for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [801.401, 814.328], "stop_times": [814.328, 818.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 801.401}, "reply_to": "20282__0_058", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__0_060", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Very well, Mr. Wilborn.\nMs. Blatt, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [818.212, 819.514], "stop_times": [819.514, 821.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 818.212}, "reply_to": "20282__0_059", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20282__1_000", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThere are two requirements that must be met for a party to appeal a district court's judgment under section 1291.\nFirst, the judgment must be final and, second, the party must be aggrieved by the judgment.\nAs to finality, this Court concluded in both Schaefer and Finkelstein that under the fourth and eighth sentences of section 405(g) a district court's order of remand is a final judgment.\nAs to aggrievement, the district court's decision is partially favorable to petitioner to the extent that it sets aside the Commissioner's decision and it remands for further proceedings, but that judgment is unfavorable to petitioner to the extent that it denies her the outright reversal that she seeks, and that's a greater form of relief.\nTherefore, because petitioner is not a fully prevailing party she's aggrieved by the district court's judgment and has a statutory right of appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [821.915, 836.634, 842.638, 847.641, 858.387, 877.961], "stop_times": [836.634, 842.638, 847.641, 858.387, 877.961, 885.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 821.915}, "reply_to": "20282__0_060", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_001", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Is there on that question... just remind me of what is basic civil procedure.\nImagine there were no agency involved in this case.\nI go into court as a plaintiff and I say, judge, I would like an injunction and damages, but by the way, if you don't give me the injunction, at least give me the damages.\nI'd like an injunction that tells him not to have that nuisance all day and all night, but if you don't say all day and all night, at least make it all night.\nSo what the judge says is, only damages, and in the day, so I got some but not all.\nIs there any doubt that I could appeal this on the ground I didn't get everything I wanted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [885.054, 889.749, 892.721, 903.427, 911.471, 917.355], "stop_times": [889.749, 892.721, 903.427, 911.471, 917.355, 921.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 885.054}, "reply_to": "20282__1_000", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20282__1_002", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [921.679], "stop_times": [922.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 921.679}, "reply_to": "20282__1_001", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_003", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "No.\nNo doubt nobody contests that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [922.15, 922.691], "stop_times": [922.691, 924.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 922.15}, "reply_to": "20282__1_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20282__1_004", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "No.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [924.183, 924.483], "stop_times": [924.483, 924.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 924.183}, "reply_to": "20282__1_003", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_005", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "So the only question in this case is whether the relationship of court to agency makes it special and is like the relationship, court to bankruptcy court, i.e., so you didn't have a final order.\nI mean, the only issue in this case is whether the order is final, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [924.804, 939.764], "stop_times": [939.764, 945.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 924.804}, "reply_to": "20282__1_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20282__1_006", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--In our view the... it had to have been--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [945.477], "stop_times": [949.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 945.477}, "reply_to": "20282__1_005", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_007", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "In other words, if there were no agency in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [949.2], "stop_times": [950.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 949.2}, "reply_to": "20282__1_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20282__1_008", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--Right--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [950.77], "stop_times": [951.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 950.77}, "reply_to": "20282__1_007", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_009", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--And we had a virtually... a judgment that gave one thing out of two, it certainly was appealable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [951.0], "stop_times": [956.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 951.0}, "reply_to": "20282__1_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20282__1_010", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [956.045], "stop_times": [956.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 956.045}, "reply_to": "20282__1_009", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_011", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Here we do have a judgment, one thing out of two.\nHowever, one of the things happened to be a word called remand instead of damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [956.255, 958.476], "stop_times": [958.476, 963.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 956.255}, "reply_to": "20282__1_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20282__1_012", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "That's correct.\nIn our view, the general understanding is, when you talk about the word aggrievement you compare the judgment entered with the judgment that was sought, and in this case petitioner pled in the alternative as a greater form of relief.\nShe wanted a outright reversal and a remand for the immediate payment of benefits.\nIn the alternative, as a lesser relief, she wanted a remand for further rehearing for the proceedings before the Commissioner on her claim for benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [963.872, 965.622, 977.319, 981.904], "stop_times": [965.622, 977.319, 981.904, 990.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 963.872}, "reply_to": "20282__1_011", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_013", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "You see, what I'd thought is... well, I was thinking bankruptcy judges, I think, and here I might be wrong, but if a district judge has an appeal from the bankruptcy judge and it has five parts to it and one part involves a remand back to the bankruptcy judge, I'm guessing but I think that that's not appealable on the ground that it isn't final in respect to all of the aspects of the judgment.\nMaybe I'm not right about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [990.178, 1014.194], "stop_times": [1014.194, 1016.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 990.178}, "reply_to": "20282__1_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20282__1_014", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "I don't know enough about bankruptcy law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1016.164], "stop_times": [1017.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1016.164}, "reply_to": "20282__1_013", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_015", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Okay.\nWell--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1017.707, 1017.937], "stop_times": [1017.937, 1018.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1017.707}, "reply_to": "20282__1_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20282__1_016", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "But I do know that under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1018.287], "stop_times": [1019.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1018.287}, "reply_to": "20282__1_015", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_017", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--I might be wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1019.628], "stop_times": [1020.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1019.628}, "reply_to": "20282__1_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20282__1_018", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--At least if you certify an issue for appeal under 1292(b)... in other words, you take the finality consideration out of the picture.\nAll you have at question is whether the defendant was denied summary judgment and there's no question that the defendant would be aggrieved even though that there's a further proceeding in which he may not be found liable or, if it's the plaintiff, on which the plaintiff may win on the merits.\nAnd in this case we have a final judgment that the Court has... this Court has held clearly in Schaefer that the Court was prohibited from retaining jurisdiction, so there was nothing left in the district court.\nIt was final.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1020.399, 1027.815, 1042.134, 1052.692], "stop_times": [1027.815, 1042.134, 1052.692, 1053.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1020.399}, "reply_to": "20282__1_017", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_019", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Ms. Blatt, you think, though, that an appeal could also be taken if the claimant waits until the end of remand?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1053.373], "stop_times": [1061.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1053.373}, "reply_to": "20282__1_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20282__1_020", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "The claimant would appeal the second decision if she lost.\nIf she was again denied benefits, you would have a final decision of the Commissioner, the claimant would have a right to judicial review under the first and fourth sentences of section 405(g)--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1061.508, 1065.341], "stop_times": [1065.341, 1073.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1061.508}, "reply_to": "20282__1_019", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_021", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "And you think that... suppose she chooses not to appeal now, let's it go back on remand, litigates it, and then is not fully satisfied that she can appeal without having lost anything, as the claimant says she might do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1073.409], "stop_times": [1088.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1073.409}, "reply_to": "20282__1_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20282__1_022", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1088.277], "stop_times": [1088.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1088.277}, "reply_to": "20282__1_021", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_023", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "That's... that couldn't possibly be right.\nThat's the... when she goes back... if I understand this.\nI may not, but I thought the answer to Justice O'Connor might have... what was said so far is, it's now remanded.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1088.696, 1090.448, 1093.57], "stop_times": [1090.448, 1093.57, 1099.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1088.696}, "reply_to": "20282__1_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20282__1_024", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1099.725], "stop_times": [1100.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1099.725}, "reply_to": "20282__1_023", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_025", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "She now has a new proceeding.\nAt the end of the new proceeding she gets nothing.\nShe now appeals on two grounds.\nThe first ground is, of course, in the second when I should have gotten something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1100.626, 1102.379, 1104.97, 1108.142], "stop_times": [1102.379, 1104.97, 1108.142, 1112.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1100.626}, "reply_to": "20282__1_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20282__1_026", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1112.022], "stop_times": [1112.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1112.022}, "reply_to": "20282__1_025", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_027", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "The first ground is, even if they're right about the second proceeding, I deserved to win the first time.\nI deserved to win the first time, and that claim I think is the claim that's lost, just as you cannot appeal a denial of a summary judgment when you have had a final judgment against you on the merits.\nYou can't appeal on the ground I should have won the summary judgment even if I lost the trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1112.523, 1119.388, 1130.888], "stop_times": [1119.388, 1130.888, 1134.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1112.523}, "reply_to": "20282__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20282__1_028", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "As a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1134.681], "stop_times": [1135.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1134.681}, "reply_to": "20282__1_027", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_029", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "I think that's his complaint.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1135.122], "stop_times": [1135.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1135.122}, "reply_to": "20282__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20282__1_030", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--Well, as a practical matter I don't know that it would seem logical to work like that.\nIf this petitioner is denied benefits on remand it will be because the Commissioner thought that there were other jobs, and the claimant will have every opportunity to raise the rejection of her pain testimony and the rejection of her treating physicians--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1135.953, 1139.025], "stop_times": [1139.025, 1153.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1135.953}, "reply_to": "20282__1_029", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_031", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "No, but he will... he wants to say one thing.\nJudge, even if the fall of 1998 there are adequate jobs, there were not adequate jobs, and that was clear in 1996, or 1995, whenever that first proceeding took place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1153.433, 1154.014], "stop_times": [1154.014, 1165.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1153.433}, "reply_to": "20282__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20282__1_032", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1165.824], "stop_times": [1165.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1165.824}, "reply_to": "20282__1_031", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_033", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "And that's the claim he's worried about losing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1165.982], "stop_times": [1167.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1165.982}, "reply_to": "20282__1_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20282__1_034", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Right.\nWell, in our... and it is our position, although it's the second decision that's being reviewed, collateral estoppel would not be applied and the claimant will have not lost the opportunity to challenge previous errors in the district court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1167.524, 1168.085], "stop_times": [1168.085, 1179.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1167.524}, "reply_to": "20282__1_033", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_035", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Well, if Finkelstein is going to be followed, and it is final, then why wouldn't collateral estoppel attach, and why would anyone be able to say, look, I should have won the first time around, if, following the entry of a final judgment in that proceeding, one then goes in... through a new series of litigation, what is a new case by definition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1179.515], "stop_times": [1197.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1179.515}, "reply_to": "20282__1_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20282__1_036", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--Right.\nAlthough collateral estoppel normally applies when review is available and not sought, it simply would not make any sense.\nIt would defeat the whole point of collateral estoppel to apply it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1197.964, 1198.645, 1204.151], "stop_times": [1198.645, 1204.151, 1207.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1197.964}, "reply_to": "20282__1_035", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_037", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Ms. Blatt, wouldn't there be some doctrine other than collateral estoppel?\nI brought up before, and I think that Mr. Wilborn agreed with me, collateral estoppel, res judicata, claim preclusion, issue preclusion, these are not things that a court brings up on its own.\nThese are affirmative defenses that you can raise or not, so if we're simply talking about preclusion doctrine, it's in the Government's control.\nThe question I think Justice Breyer meant to raise was not issue preclusion or claim preclusion, but is there something in the finality doctrine, once you give it this final label, that gets the court into the act, something that the court would raise on its own, where a court would not raise preclusion doctrine on its own?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1207.123, 1210.604, 1222.53, 1231.256], "stop_times": [1210.604, 1222.53, 1231.256, 1249.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1207.123}, "reply_to": "20282__1_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20282__1_038", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Well, courts have raised preclusion doctrines on their own, and it may be they're concerned about finality.\nBut what I'm trying to communicate as a practical matter, if the claimant simply goes back on remand and loses, the four issues that are right now on appeal in the Ninth Circuit could be raised again in the district court and the district court might reject them saying, well, I already considered that and I'm not going to change my mind, and that's probably what's going to happen, but petitioner would have every opportunity on appeal to the Ninth Circuit after remand to reargue the merits of this that were rejected by the district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1249.759, 1254.913], "stop_times": [1254.913, 1280.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1249.759}, "reply_to": "20282__1_037", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_039", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "But what wouldn't... I think the way the court would get into it, willy nilly, the Government, is that I certainly would be disposed to say the issue that you're raising pertains to a prior decision of the Secretary.\nWhat you're seeking to review this time is a totally different decision.\nThe prior decision was set aside.\nThere's been a new proceeding below.\nIt is this new proceeding that I'm reviewing now, and the point you're trying to raise pertained to an old decision that's gone.\nI'm not sure that's a--\n--That's the point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1280.21, 1295.751, 1299.512, 1301.534, 1303.424, 1312.019, 1314.061], "stop_times": [1295.751, 1299.512, 1301.534, 1303.424, 1312.019, 1314.061, 1314.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1280.21}, "reply_to": "20282__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20282__1_040", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1314.862], "stop_times": [1315.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1314.862}, "reply_to": "20282__1_039", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_041", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "And it's not claim preclusion or issue preclusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1315.132], "stop_times": [1317.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1315.132}, "reply_to": "20282__1_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20282__1_042", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Right, but the second decision, the claimant in the second hearing is going to argue, I'm credible, I have too much pain, I can't work, my treating... that's all the evidence she has, is that I'm in pain and my treating physician thinks I'm in pain and I can't work.\nThat's her evidence, and the Commissioner is going to reject it again, most likely.\nHe's free to change his mind in her favor, but he's also free not to because the district court found that there was substantial evidence.\nSo the issue about whether she has any evidence, whether there's any evidence of her disability and whether the Commissioner met his burden is going to be on... at issue in the review of the second decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1317.523, 1330.323, 1334.937, 1341.301], "stop_times": [1330.323, 1334.937, 1341.301, 1352.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1317.523}, "reply_to": "20282__1_041", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_043", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "No, but there's... she wants to raise a different issue.\nShe wants to say, regardless of what happened in the second proceeding, at the end of the first proceeding I was entitled as a matter of law to prevail because there was this one issue, as litigated in the first proceeding, upon which I was entitled to win.\nThe court I suppose at that point is going to say, no, you can't do that, because Finkelstein says the first proceeding was final and you did not appeal it.\nNow, that can be raised by the court, and why wouldn't the court say that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1352.067, 1354.118, 1370.701, 1380.467], "stop_times": [1354.118, 1370.701, 1380.467, 1384.098], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1352.067}, "reply_to": "20282__1_042", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20282__1_044", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Well, I guess my... our position is, as to whether... in terms of whether she waits, she's not going to get interest on this money.\nThe ultimate question at the end of the day is whether the Commissioner met his burden of finding that she was not disabled, and she's either going to get her benefits on appeal or she's going to get them back on remand, but in terms of what she recovers--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1384.098, 1393.896], "stop_times": [1393.896, 1405.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1384.098}, "reply_to": "20282__1_043", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_045", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Yes, but let me ask the question another way.\nIf, in fact, following the second proceeding, she may then litigate what she believes... if she chooses to go through the second proceeding without appealing, if she may then litigate what she believes is the error in the first proceeding, what's left of Finkelstein?\nIt doesn't look very final to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1405.596, 1408.29, 1426.369], "stop_times": [1408.29, 1426.369, 1428.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1405.596}, "reply_to": "20282__1_044", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20282__1_046", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--No, it's a final judgment in the sense that it's immediately appealable.\nThe district court lost jurisdiction over the case.\nI mean, that's what FInkelstein held, that the court didn't have the power to retain jurisdiction and later in Schaefer it repeated that it terminated the action and it became immediately appealable, and that's why this is a final judgment that petitioner... this is why the Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction and she was otherwise aggrieved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1428.202, 1431.504, 1433.517], "stop_times": [1431.504, 1433.517, 1448.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1428.202}, "reply_to": "20282__1_045", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_047", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1448.677], "stop_times": [1449.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1448.677}, "reply_to": "20282__1_046", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20282__1_048", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "The issue as to what happens on... not this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1449.388], "stop_times": [1454.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1449.388}, "reply_to": "20282__1_047", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_049", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Well, if it's final, she can appeal, she doesn't appeal, why doesn't she waive her appeal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1454.563], "stop_times": [1459.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1454.563}, "reply_to": "20282__1_048", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20282__1_050", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--She waived her right to appeal the first action, but for purposes of whether she's entitled to disability benefits and whether the Commissioner had substantial evidence in denying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1459.746], "stop_times": [1468.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1459.746}, "reply_to": "20282__1_049", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_051", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Oh, well then, maybe I misunderstood you.\nI thought you were saying that at the end of the second proceeding she could still appeal what she thought was the error in the first proceeding, and the point upon which she didn't prevail.\nIs that your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1468.832, 1470.171, 1478.088], "stop_times": [1470.171, 1478.088, 1479.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1468.832}, "reply_to": "20282__1_050", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20282__1_052", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--Yes, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1479.087], "stop_times": [1480.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1479.087}, "reply_to": "20282__1_051", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_053", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1480.199], "stop_times": [1480.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1480.199}, "reply_to": "20282__1_052", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20282__1_054", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--the legal position in petitioner's brief is going to be the same whether she appeals now or appeals later.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1480.399], "stop_times": [1489.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1480.399}, "reply_to": "20282__1_053", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_055", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Well, it may not be, because there may... Justice Breyer's example.\nThere may be evidence in the second proceeding of job opportunities that were not there, the evidence that was not there in the first proceeding.\nShe still wants to say, regardless of what happened in the second proceeding, on the record in the first proceeding I was entitled to prevail and you're saying, yes, she can do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1489.045, 1491.596, 1499.453], "stop_times": [1491.596, 1499.453, 1507.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1489.045}, "reply_to": "20282__1_054", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20282__1_056", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Well, maybe this is a question of when... at what point she became disabled, but she claims her onset date was back in November of 1991 and so for purposes of whether there were jobs, I think that's what you'd be looking at.\nThe only thing that changes with time is basically her age.\nI mean, she gets older, and therefore it's more likely she becomes disabled as she gets older.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1507.849, 1519.886, 1523.588], "stop_times": [1519.886, 1523.588, 1527.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1507.849}, "reply_to": "20282__1_055", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_057", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Well, what you're saying is that necessarily in the second appeal everything that was subsumed in the first appeal is going to be presented.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1527.461], "stop_times": [1535.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1527.461}, "reply_to": "20282__1_056", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20282__1_058", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "As a practical matter--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1535.877], "stop_times": [1537.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1535.877}, "reply_to": "20282__1_057", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_059", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "No harm, no foul.\nLet's assume that that's not right.\nLet's assume that there was a theory presented in case number 1, and the district court said, you cannot proceed on this theory, and she then proceeds on a second theory.\nIf she does not appeal the first judgment, may she still in the second proceeding complain about the error of the district court on the first go-around?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1537.559, 1537.949, 1539.4, 1553.089], "stop_times": [1537.949, 1539.4, 1553.089, 1564.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1537.559}, "reply_to": "20282__1_058", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20282__1_060", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--I'm not sure how that would work out in practicality, but what you may be describing is a situation where a claimant has an interest in taking an immediate appeal and doesn't want to wait.\nIf the claimant feels as a practical matter--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1564.517, 1572.201], "stop_times": [1572.201, 1573.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1564.517}, "reply_to": "20282__1_059", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_061", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "I'm asking, suppose she does wait.\nCan she still... does she still preserve the issue that was resolved against her in the district court on round 1?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1573.991, 1575.513], "stop_times": [1575.513, 1583.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1573.991}, "reply_to": "20282__1_060", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20282__1_062", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--I think it is preserved, but it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1583.478], "stop_times": [1586.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1583.478}, "reply_to": "20282__1_061", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_063", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "But why, if it's final, other than just the Government is not going to raise it?\nI was going to say it's the law of the case, but then you'd say, well, it's a different case, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1586.199, 1590.813], "stop_times": [1590.813, 1594.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1586.199}, "reply_to": "20282__1_062", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20282__1_064", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--It's final, and the first decision is no longer... maybe it's a question of semantics.\nThe Commissioner's first decision is no longer subject to appeal, and so what is on appeal is the second decision, but in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1594.126, 1599.619], "stop_times": [1599.619, 1605.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1594.126}, "reply_to": "20282__1_063", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_065", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--So that she can lose the right to raise the specific theory, to advance this theory, because she's not appealed it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1605.983], "stop_times": [1615.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1605.983}, "reply_to": "20282__1_064", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20282__1_066", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--The reason why it's difficult for me to answer that question is, I'm not sure there is such an example as a factual matter, where the evidence wouldn't be present in the second hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1615.339], "stop_times": [1625.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1615.339}, "reply_to": "20282__1_065", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_067", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Well, let's take this case.\nShe... there was an expert that the... was not credited, and there was some of her testimony that wasn't credited, and she wants at the end of the line to say, I didn't get as much as I should have, or I didn't get anything, but if they had only believed me, if they had only accepted my first expert.\nThat's a case that you can... it's a concrete case, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1625.917, 1627.055, 1643.908], "stop_times": [1627.055, 1643.908, 1647.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1625.917}, "reply_to": "20282__1_066", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20282__1_068", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "That is what she's arguing now, and it's what she could argue later, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1647.679], "stop_times": [1652.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1647.679}, "reply_to": "20282__1_067", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_069", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--The question is, if she did not take this first appeal, she goes back, she does what they allow her to do, still her expert doesn't come in and they still disbelieve her.\nThen can she raise those alleged errors the second time around, although she didn't take a first appeal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1652.785, 1665.073], "stop_times": [1665.073, 1673.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1652.785}, "reply_to": "20282__1_068", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20282__1_070", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--Yes.\nOh, I see my time's expired.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1673.007, 1673.468], "stop_times": [1673.468, 1674.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1673.007}, "reply_to": "20282__1_069", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20282__1_071", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Yes.\nYou've answered the question, I think.\nMr. Snyder.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1674.89, 1675.431, 1676.82], "stop_times": [1675.431, 1676.82, 1678.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1674.89}, "reply_to": "20282__1_070", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20282__2_000", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe petitioner here won a judgment in the district court that remanded the case back to the agency, where she has the opportunity to obtain all of the relief that she originally sought.\nWe believe that under those circumstances, where the district court granted her, in fact, the relief that was one of the alternative prayers for relief in her complaint, that under those circumstances she is not aggrieved by the district court judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1678.212, 1683.516, 1697.284], "stop_times": [1683.516, 1697.284, 1713.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1678.212}, "reply_to": "20282__1_071", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_001", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "How is it any different than the run-of-the-mill case where a person goes into court and he says, I want damages and an injunction?\nYou know, my example that I gave.\nI want a big injunction.\nIf you don't give me that, give me a little injunction.\nIf you don't give me the little injunction, give me damages.\nI want all three.\nGive me one, two, or three.\nI'd like the most possible.\nHe gets one, he doesn't get two or three, he can appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1713.245, 1718.417, 1720.539, 1721.961, 1723.591, 1725.624, 1726.445, 1727.597, 1728.729], "stop_times": [1718.417, 1720.539, 1721.961, 1723.591, 1725.624, 1726.445, 1727.597, 1728.729, 1731.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1713.245}, "reply_to": "20282__2_000", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20282__2_002", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "The key difference, Justice Breyer, we believe is that in the normal case that you posit there has been a final decision from which there is no further proceedings, other than in the court of appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1731.383], "stop_times": [1741.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1731.383}, "reply_to": "20282__2_001", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_003", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Right.\nThat's what I thought, too, but now we have a holding that this remand business, when you remand to an agency, unlike maybe some other remands, it does count as a final decision of the district court for purposes of an appeal, and once you have that holding which, I take it, is a holding of this Court, isn't that... though your brief is very good, and you're an amicus, and I appreciate your work, but isn't that the end of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1741.571, 1741.751], "stop_times": [1741.751, 1764.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1741.571}, "reply_to": "20282__2_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20282__2_004", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "We do not believe it is the end, Justice Breyer, because while the judgment is arguably final, and we can talk about the meaning of Finkelstein further, that accepting Finkelstein as requiring that this be viewed as a final judgment, that does not, we believe, resolve the question of whether under this statute, which opposes an additional limit on appealability... the statute says that the judgments under 405(g) are final, except that they shall be subject to review in the same manner as other judgments in other civil actions, and those standards that are applicable to other civil actions include, we submit, the appellate standing doctrine for which we've cited--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1764.805], "stop_times": [1805.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1764.805}, "reply_to": "20282__2_003", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_005", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "But Mr. Snyder, why couldn't in the same manner mean in the same mode, like, I have 30 days to file a notice of appeal, or 60 days, or whatever it is?\nWhy doesn't manner just refer to the procedural thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1805.181, 1812.257], "stop_times": [1812.257, 1816.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1805.181}, "reply_to": "20282__2_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20282__2_006", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--Well, we certainly agree that it includes the examples that you gave, Justice Ginsburg, but it doesn't seem by its language to limit it to particular procedural requirements.\nIt says it's subject to review in the same manner as other judgments, and we think that the Roper case that was cited from this Court and numerous other cases have made clear that the appellate standing doctrine is one of the doctrines that is looked at in all cases to be sure that an appellant in fact is aggrieved, and that someone should not be appealing a decision, whether it's a final decision or a nonfinal decision, unless they are aggrieved.\nAnd here, what is perhaps unique about this case is that under this statutory scheme you have a judgment that is labeled final, but in this situation, which is a very common situation under this statute... we understand from the Government that there are literally thousands of remands like this per year.\nIn this situation, while it is labeled a final judgment, it is nevertheless a matter that will proceed on a remand where, unlike Justice Breyer's hypothetical, where the claimant has the opportunity to obtain every bit of the relief they seek.\nThey can't obtain it today.\nThey can only obtain it after the remand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1816.22, 1826.116, 1852.543, 1871.416, 1887.156, 1889.527], "stop_times": [1826.116, 1852.543, 1871.416, 1887.156, 1889.527, 1891.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1816.22}, "reply_to": "20282__2_005", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_007", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Mr. Snyder, suppose we had a Finkelstein-type appeal, so the Government, after the remand order the Government wants to appeal, we know it can.\nThe Government's position is, we were right.\nThis person's not entitled to any benefits, period.\nNo remand.\nThe Government could appeal, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1891.799, 1900.725, 1902.806, 1905.229, 1905.69], "stop_times": [1900.725, 1902.806, 1905.229, 1905.69, 1907.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1891.799}, "reply_to": "20282__2_006", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20282__2_008", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Yes, ma'am.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1907.159], "stop_times": [1907.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1907.159}, "reply_to": "20282__2_007", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_009", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Could she cross-appeal, then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1907.74], "stop_times": [1911.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1907.74}, "reply_to": "20282__2_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20282__2_010", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Not under the circumstances of this case, where we think she lacks standing, and we think that that's not such an anomalous result as suggested by the Solicitor General's brief, because, for example, in cases dealing with remands to agencies in a typical APA-type case, that is normally not a final, reviewable decision.\nBut there is a line of cases such as Occidental Petroleum v. SEC, and some other cases we've cited, that provide an exception where the Government can appeal the remand if the matter is otherwise not susceptible to review by the Government, and that is actually the Finkelstein holding in an analogous situation.\nSo a so-called one-way right of appeal, where only the Government can appeal today, but the claimant has to wait and appeal after the remand, is a rule that is in place today with regard to administrative agency cases generally.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1911.383, 1933.326, 1951.408], "stop_times": [1933.326, 1951.408, 1966.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1911.383}, "reply_to": "20282__2_009", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_011", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Not a very efficient way to run a show, is it?\nI mean, if it's up there for one purpose, you might as well hear everything.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1966.948, 1968.35], "stop_times": [1968.35, 1972.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1966.948}, "reply_to": "20282__2_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20282__2_012", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Well, I think that the alternative, which is suggested by both the petitioner and the respondent, is extremely inefficient in the sense that there are 4,000-and-some remand decisions every year from this agency.\nWe know that as a statistical matter, 60 to 65 percent of those cases results ultimately in a decision after the remand in favor of the claimant.\nTo allow the claimants to appeal and clog the Federal courts with potentially thousands of additional appeals when the claimants can get the same relief faster, we submit, by simply going through the remand process--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [1972.912, 1987.794, 1997.61], "stop_times": [1987.794, 1997.61, 2011.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1972.912}, "reply_to": "20282__2_011", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_013", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Well, this isn't just limited to Social Security cases.\nI was surprised that your brief, or for that matter the Government's brief didn't cite a lot of cases involving other agencies.\nI mean, we've had judicial review of administrative action for a long time with respect to hundreds of agencies and, in fact, those proceedings often result in a remand to the agency which does not give the claimant as much of a correction of the agency's action as the claimant would like.\nDo you have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2011.567, 2013.74, 2021.254, 2042.277], "stop_times": [2013.74, 2021.254, 2042.277, 2043.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2011.567}, "reply_to": "20282__2_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20282__2_014", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--The main difference--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2043.379], "stop_times": [2045.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2043.379}, "reply_to": "20282__2_013", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_015", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--would you expect a whole bunch of cases involving this issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2045.621], "stop_times": [2047.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2045.621}, "reply_to": "20282__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20282__2_016", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--Well, I don't believe that a decision here is likely to affect the broad array of such cases, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2047.881], "stop_times": [2054.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2047.881}, "reply_to": "20282__2_015", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_017", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2054.476], "stop_times": [2054.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2054.476}, "reply_to": "20282__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20282__2_018", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Because in the Administrative Procedure Act in the normal situation of a review of an agency decision I don't believe that you have the finality ruling that you have in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2054.637], "stop_times": [2066.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2054.637}, "reply_to": "20282__2_017", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_019", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Oh, you think that--\n--And anyway, most of them go to the court of appeals.\nDo you think that in an ordinary case involving... well, whether it's district court or court of appeals, when they finally get done with that, do you think that's not a final judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2066.424, 2067.596, 2070.358], "stop_times": [2067.596, 2070.358, 2078.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2066.424}, "reply_to": "20282__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20282__2_020", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Absent... in most cases I think it's not if they remand, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2078.893], "stop_times": [2083.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2078.893}, "reply_to": "20282__2_019", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_021", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Do you have cases to that effect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2083.397], "stop_times": [2084.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2083.397}, "reply_to": "20282__2_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20282__2_022", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Well, the Occidental Petroleum case I mentioned cites scores of cases that say that in a typical review of an agency action the claimant, or the person challenging the agency action cannot appeal when there's been a remand, but there's an exception sometimes for the Government.\nIn other words--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2084.96, 2105.86], "stop_times": [2105.86, 2106.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2084.96}, "reply_to": "20282__2_021", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_023", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "But you're saying that they're not aggrieved, and I'm puzzled, like Justice Scalia is.\nIt seems to me that we hear cases from, say, the D.C. Circuit all the time where they've remanded but the legal theory is contested.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2106.34, 2111.185], "stop_times": [2111.185, 2118.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2106.34}, "reply_to": "20282__2_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20282__2_024", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--I didn't mean to suggest that they're not aggrieved.\nWe didn't cite those cases for that proposition at all.\nI'm simply saying that with regard to the applicability of this decision to typical agency review cases I think it is not likely to be broadly applicable to those because, for separate reasons, those cases are not necessarily viewed as final decisions if they're--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2118.789, 2121.102, 2123.705], "stop_times": [2121.102, 2123.705, 2139.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2118.789}, "reply_to": "20282__2_023", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_025", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Well, maybe I misunderstood you.\nI thought in your argument here today you were saying that they were not aggrieved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2139.535, 2140.566], "stop_times": [2140.566, 2144.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2139.535}, "reply_to": "20282__2_024", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20282__2_026", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--I am... our principal argument in today's case, with regard to this claimant, is that she's not aggrieved.\nWe are not arguing today that there's not a final decision, because under 405(g) and under Finkelstein, at least arguably, and the Ninth Circuit held, that this is a final decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2144.767, 2151.403], "stop_times": [2151.403, 2162.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2144.767}, "reply_to": "20282__2_025", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_027", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "But sticking with the aggrieved, isn't she aggrieved because the wrong legal theory was adopted, just as in the routine case where we take cert, say, from the D.C. Circuit after it remands to an agency and it comes up here first?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2162.65], "stop_times": [2175.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2162.65}, "reply_to": "20282__2_026", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20282__2_028", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Well, typically the Court... this Court does not, I believe, typically take review from a circuit court if there's been a remand decision except where the Government seeks review because it otherwise would not be able to obtain review of the issue.\nIn other words, if a claimant wins in a court of appeals and wins a remand for a new agency action, I do not believe this Court has... I'm not aware this Court has ever accepted a cert petition from a winning petitioner, someone who challenged an agency action and won.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2175.769, 2191.29], "stop_times": [2191.29, 2209.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2175.769}, "reply_to": "20282__2_027", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_029", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "How about if the person just wins partially and it's remanded?\nThat would be more equivalent to this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2209.011, 2212.922], "stop_times": [2212.922, 2214.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2209.011}, "reply_to": "20282__2_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20282__2_030", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Well, if the remand offered them the opportunity, on remand, to win all of the relief that they were seeking, then I would argue that review would be inappropriate.\nBut to come back to the issue in this case, we know that here, the Ninth Circuit has held this is a final decision, so you do not have the typical issue that you have on most APA cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2214.374, 2225.211], "stop_times": [2225.211, 2235.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2214.374}, "reply_to": "20282__2_029", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_031", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Why do you say she can still get what she sought?\nShe can still get what she sought from the Social Security Administration.\nShe cannot get what she sought from the district court.\nWhat she sought from the district court was a reversal of the agency... assume the district court was not about... she can come to the district court and say, give me money.\nThat's not what she sought.\nShe sought from the district court a reversal of certain action taken by the Social Security Administration, various actions.\nThey gave her a reversal of some of the actions.\nThey did not give her a reversal of the other actions.\nShe can never get that reversal again, unless she gets it now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2235.598, 2238.19, 2242.861, 2246.375, 2255.852, 2258.096, 2266.941, 2269.224, 2272.217], "stop_times": [2238.19, 2242.861, 2246.375, 2255.852, 2258.096, 2266.941, 2269.224, 2272.217, 2276.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2235.598}, "reply_to": "20282__2_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20282__2_032", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Well, I don't agree with the latter part of that, Justice Scalia, for this reason.\nWhat I think the claimant really wants is her Social Security disability benefits, whether they're ordered by the agency or ordered by the district court, or ordered by the court of appeals, and we disagree respectfully with the petitioner's suggestion that she is unable later to appeal a subsequent decision on remand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2276.638, 2280.912], "stop_times": [2280.912, 2298.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2276.638}, "reply_to": "20282__2_031", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_033", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "You agree with the Government on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2298.714], "stop_times": [2299.866], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2298.714}, "reply_to": "20282__2_032", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20282__2_034", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Well, we agree partly with the Government.\nWe definitely agree she's able to file an appeal, and any issues that she lost in the first goaround which become pertinent in the second proceeding, preclusion principles the Ninth Circuit held, we think correctly, preclusion principles would not prevent her from raising those on the second appeal, given our position that she doesn't have the right to appeal now.\nHowever, the Government takes the view that she does have the right to appeal now and typical preclusion principles we think require that if someone forgoes an available appeal, then they are precluded.\nSo our position is that applying straightforward preclusion principles and applying the appellate standing doctrine to this case, as the Ninth Circuit did, results in a very simple conclusion and that is, she is not able to appeal now because she's not aggrieved, but she has a remand opportunity at which, number 1, she can win everything she wants on remand or, if she doesn't, number 2, she can appeal then the agency decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2299.866, 2302.28, 2324.262, 2336.931], "stop_times": [2302.28, 2324.262, 2336.931, 2365.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2299.866}, "reply_to": "20282__2_033", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_035", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "She would lose in the district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2365.091], "stop_times": [2365.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2365.091}, "reply_to": "20282__2_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20282__2_036", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2365.739], "stop_times": [2366.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2365.739}, "reply_to": "20282__2_035", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_037", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "But that doesn't mean she couldn't raise it in the Ninth Circuit, I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2366.139], "stop_times": [2370.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2366.139}, "reply_to": "20282__2_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20282__2_038", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "That's our position that she... correct.\nShe could raise it in the Ninth Circuit.\nIf the district court said we're going to maintain our same position after the second case as we did on the first, there is nothing in preclusion principles that would prevent the Ninth Circuit in the second remand case from then reviewing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2370.034, 2371.853, 2373.535], "stop_times": [2371.853, 2373.535, 2388.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2370.034}, "reply_to": "20282__2_037", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_039", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Oh, but I mean, my goodness, if you're talking about mucking... I mean, I wouldn't think there would be a deluge of litigation if we, you know, adopted the Government's theory, because most people will be satisfied with the remand and won't want to risk losing it.\nBut if we adopted the theory you've just espoused that says, when there have been several agency proceedings and now finally we reach a final determination, and then it comes up to the court of appeals eventually, the litigant can not only complain of all the errors in the most recent one, but can go back to the errors that normally wash out... the summary judgment ones, the earlier proceeding ones, the... et cetera, that I think might be problematic.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2388.546, 2400.104], "stop_times": [2400.104, 2425.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2388.546}, "reply_to": "20282__2_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20282__2_040", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--No, I actually meant to say, Justice Breyer, and perhaps I misspoke, that after the second decision from the agency, that any issues from the first case that still affect the decision would be subject to review, because they would then be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2425.731], "stop_times": [2440.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2425.731}, "reply_to": "20282__2_039", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_041", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "You mean the decision... that still affect the decision in the second case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2440.24], "stop_times": [2442.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2440.24}, "reply_to": "20282__2_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20282__2_042", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2442.43], "stop_times": [2442.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2442.43}, "reply_to": "20282__2_041", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_043", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2442.681], "stop_times": [2443.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2442.681}, "reply_to": "20282__2_042", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20282__2_044", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "That's... Justice Souter, that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2443.001], "stop_times": [2444.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2443.001}, "reply_to": "20282__2_043", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_045", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "But not issues that independent... that are independent of the second case.\nThose are gone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2444.721, 2447.684], "stop_times": [2447.684, 2448.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2444.721}, "reply_to": "20282__2_044", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20282__2_046", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--If the decision... yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2448.455], "stop_times": [2451.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2448.455}, "reply_to": "20282__2_045", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_047", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2451.407], "stop_times": [2451.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2451.407}, "reply_to": "20282__2_046", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20282__2_048", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "If the decision on the remand didn't deal at all with some issue that was dealt with earlier, then in reviewing the second case there would be no issue to review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2451.807], "stop_times": [2461.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2451.807}, "reply_to": "20282__2_047", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_049", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Right.\nDo you know how this works out?\nI thought... I was trying to think of an analogy that I'm not positive of the answer to.\nSuppose a company A sues company B for a breach of contract, and company A's claim in the district court is, I want $100,000 for the breach, but in the alternative this is the kind of breach that falls within an arbitration clause, so in the alternative, if I don't get the $100,000, send me to arbitration.\nSo what the district court does is, he sends the person to arbitration.\nCan company A appeal it on the ground that he wants... the money?\nHe'll take the arbitration as his second chance, and it's no answer to him to say the arbitration may work out in your favor, because he's thinking it may not work out in my favor.\nI mean, maybe it will, maybe it won't.\nSo how... I don't know if you... I purposely picked an example I'm not positive of the answer to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2461.144, 2461.354, 2462.035, 2466.589, 2486.291, 2489.864, 2494.488, 2502.523, 2504.513], "stop_times": [2461.354, 2462.035, 2466.589, 2486.291, 2489.864, 2494.488, 2502.523, 2504.513, 2508.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2461.144}, "reply_to": "20282__2_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20282__2_050", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Our position is that if a party asks a judge for a form of relief as an alternative, and indicating by asking it that this is something that the party is seeking, that it would be inviting the trial judge to make a supposed error if you allowed the party to turn around and appeal when the district judge did exactly what the party asked him to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2508.888], "stop_times": [2533.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2508.888}, "reply_to": "20282__2_049", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_051", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "So in my case, if I go look up authority, which I haven't looked up, and then I find that in my arbitration case the person can appeal... he says, A, I want $100,000, but if not, send me to arbitration.\nThey send him to arbitration.\nIf I find out he can appeal that, the $100,000... you guess he can't.\nI guess he can't.\nIf it turns out he can, then that really is a good analogy, and then you'd lose this one, I guess.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2533.314, 2543.68, 2545.142, 2548.943, 2551.343], "stop_times": [2543.68, 2545.142, 2548.943, 2551.343, 2556.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2533.314}, "reply_to": "20282__2_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20282__2_052", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Well, our... we've actually made a couple of alternative arguments.\nOne of our alternative arguments--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2556.378, 2560.001], "stop_times": [2560.001, 2561.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2556.378}, "reply_to": "20282__2_051", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_053", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "But is my analogy good or not?\nI wonder.\nI mean, I'm not... I'm... get a reaction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2561.531, 2561.731, 2562.242], "stop_times": [2561.731, 2562.242, 2564.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2561.531}, "reply_to": "20282__2_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20282__2_054", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--Well, I think it's a good analogy on the issue of whether the fact that you asked for a certain type of relief precludes you from then appealing when the court grants you the relief you asked for.\nI think it's a good analogy on that.\nI don't believe it's applicable to our alternative argument, and really our first argument, which is that she's not aggrieved for the primary reason that she still can obtain all the relief she's ever sought.\nThe Social Security benefits--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2564.563, 2573.561, 2574.912, 2585.837], "stop_times": [2573.561, 2574.912, 2585.837, 2588.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2564.563}, "reply_to": "20282__2_053", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_055", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Mr. Snyder, is it your position that she could not appeal... even if the Government appealed, she could not file a cross-appeal?\nThat was his answer.\nThat's the logic of your position, and it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2588.218, 2594.293, 2595.114], "stop_times": [2594.293, 2595.114, 2598.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2588.218}, "reply_to": "20282__2_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20282__2_056", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--I think it is the logic of the position.\nI agree it's not an ideal solution once a case is before the court.\nOn the other hand, unless the court adopts some notion of pendant appellate jurisdiction, there either is... there either is an opportunity for the claimant to appeal or there isn't.\nThen we believe it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2598.166, 2600.149, 2605.324, 2615.47], "stop_times": [2600.149, 2605.324, 2615.47, 2616.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2598.166}, "reply_to": "20282__2_055", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_057", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Mr. Snyder, one of the questions that Justice Scalia asked, mustn't this come up over and over again with review of agency decisions, but we are dealing with a statute, and I'm not aware that the... it seems to me that 405(g)(4) and (8) are unusual.\nUsually, when there's a remand you don't get a district court disassociating itself from the case.\nIt keeps the case, so if it comes back again, it comes back again.\nBut this peculiarity of 405(g), what, (4) and (8), says, district court, you're done.\nYou remand, you're done.\nIf it ever comes back again, it's a new judge, a... that's what makes this final and that's why, I guess, Congress used the word final.\nAre there other statutes, judicial review statutes like 405(g)(4) and (8)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2616.341, 2633.882, 2640.327, 2642.571, 2649.236, 2650.428, 2658.092], "stop_times": [2633.882, 2640.327, 2642.571, 2649.236, 2650.428, 2658.092, 2662.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2616.341}, "reply_to": "20282__2_056", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20282__2_058", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, we agree it's an unusual statute and that's what I was trying to get at when I referred to the differences between it and the typical agency decision.\nWe have tried to find comparable statutes, and found some that are somewhat analogous, but I can't say that we found any that are precisely the same.\n25 U.S.C. section 1276 governs review of decisions of the Surface Mining... under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act and it allows review by parties aggrieved by such a decision.\nIt allows for modification of the decision.\nIt doesn't specifically say that the remand is a final judgment, although it could be argued that that's the meaning of the statute.\nThere are many statutes that allow review by a court of appeals of particular agency decisions and that have provision--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2662.847, 2671.892, 2682.398, 2698.14, 2699.852, 2707.086], "stop_times": [2671.892, 2682.398, 2698.14, 2699.852, 2707.086, 2714.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2662.847}, "reply_to": "20282__2_057", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_059", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Well, how could it be appealed by the Government?\nI mean, if it's not final, I assume it can't be appealed by either the winning party or the losing party.\nIt's certain that if it's going to be remanded to the agency and the agency thinks it shouldn't have been remanded at all, the agency can appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2714.341, 2715.653, 2720.886], "stop_times": [2715.653, 2720.886, 2729.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2714.341}, "reply_to": "20282__2_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20282__2_060", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2729.023], "stop_times": [2730.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2729.023}, "reply_to": "20282__2_059", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_061", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2730.813], "stop_times": [2731.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2730.813}, "reply_to": "20282__2_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20282__2_062", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "The Government or the agency appeals--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2731.094], "stop_times": [2732.564], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2731.094}, "reply_to": "20282__2_061", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_063", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Well, how can the agency appeal if it's not a final judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2732.564], "stop_times": [2734.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2732.564}, "reply_to": "20282__2_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20282__2_064", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--Well, there have been some cases, as I referred to earlier, where the Government appeals from what is admittedly not a final judgment but because there may not be an opportunity for the Government ever to appeal the particular ruling that the lower court has made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2734.216], "stop_times": [2747.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2734.216}, "reply_to": "20282__2_063", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_065", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "This isn't a weird little exception.\nThe Government appeals all the time--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2747.945, 2750.496], "stop_times": [2750.496, 2752.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2747.945}, "reply_to": "20282__2_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20282__2_066", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Well, this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2752.528], "stop_times": [2755.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2752.528}, "reply_to": "20282__2_065", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_067", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--when it's remanded, and you're telling me it's appealing all of these nonfinal judgments in the ordinary cases?\nI doubt it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2755.039, 2760.112], "stop_times": [2760.112, 2760.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2755.039}, "reply_to": "20282__2_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20282__2_068", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--Well, we certainly are not suggesting that the Government routinely appeals these cases.\nI simply was trying to indicate there is an exception to the finality principle under which in some cases the Government has been allowed... as in Finkelstein, in the Occidental Petroleum-type example, in a typical APA review, sometimes the Government does appeal a nonfinal decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2760.833, 2764.847], "stop_times": [2764.847, 2781.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2760.833}, "reply_to": "20282__2_067", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_069", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Well, certainly in cases like California v. Stewart, where the evidence is thrown out in a criminal case, we have allowed not only the Federal Government but the State governments to appeal, because if... they might never have the opportunity to challenge that ruling again.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2781.53], "stop_times": [2797.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2781.53}, "reply_to": "20282__2_068", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20282__2_070", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "And the... Mr. Chief Justice, the key distinction, we think, between that case and all these other cases and the kind of situation we have here is that in this case we believe, under the appellate standing doctrine... not finality issues, but appellate standing, the claimant is not aggrieved because at this point she has received not only the alternative relief she asked for in her complaint as a matter of pleading, but she also has received an opportunity to get every dollar of benefits she wants.\nUnlike hypotheticals where someone gets damages and not an injunction, or vice versa, and there's no further opportunity for them to get the remainder of the relief, she may well... the odds are she will get every penny she's asked for.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2797.328, 2827.578], "stop_times": [2827.578, 2839.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2797.328}, "reply_to": "20282__2_069", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_071", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Is that what it depends upon, the odds?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2839.747], "stop_times": [2840.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2839.747}, "reply_to": "20282__2_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20282__2_072", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "No, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2840.959], "stop_times": [2841.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2840.959}, "reply_to": "20282__2_071", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_073", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "I'll give you an opportunity to win a million dollars.\nBuy a mass lottery ticket.\nI mean, that's not a great opportunity.\nSo now do we look... you know, she didn't get the money, which is what she wants.\nHow do we use this word... how would we use--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2841.788, 2843.71, 2844.939, 2846.751, 2850.164], "stop_times": [2843.71, 2844.939, 2846.751, 2850.164, 2852.295], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2841.788}, "reply_to": "20282__2_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20282__2_074", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--She hasn't gotten it yet, Justice Breyer, and I agree--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2852.295], "stop_times": [2854.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2852.295}, "reply_to": "20282__2_073", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_075", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--Well, will she get it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2854.756], "stop_times": [2855.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2854.756}, "reply_to": "20282__2_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20282__2_076", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2855.167], "stop_times": [2855.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2855.167}, "reply_to": "20282__2_075", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_077", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "She'd love to have that assurance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2855.538], "stop_times": [2856.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2855.538}, "reply_to": "20282__2_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20282__2_078", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--The courts will know whether she gets it, we'll all know whether she gets it after the remand, and if she gets it, there never will need to be an appeal.\nThere... to take an appeal today is a waste of time of the already overburdened Federal appellate courts to have an appellate process on a hypothetical issue where she may--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2856.469, 2864.043], "stop_times": [2864.043, 2876.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2856.469}, "reply_to": "20282__2_077", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_079", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "But that's not quite--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2876.451], "stop_times": [2876.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2876.451}, "reply_to": "20282__2_078", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20282__2_080", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--I can't quantify it.\nShe may get her full relief without the appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2876.892, 2877.162], "stop_times": [2877.162, 2878.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2876.892}, "reply_to": "20282__2_079", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_081", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--But that's not completely true, is it?\nIs it not possible that on the present record she might prevail on appeal, but that on remand, additional evidence which comes into the record would make it less clear that she would prevail?\nI mean, it seems to me the evidence would go against her as well as for her after a remand, when there's more evidence in the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2878.954, 2881.115, 2891.211], "stop_times": [2881.115, 2891.211, 2896.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2878.954}, "reply_to": "20282__2_080", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20282__2_082", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Well, if the subsequent decision were based on legal rulings from this earlier case we think they could be reviewed later, but if... I understand, Justice Stevens, your question to be, if there's simply a new record--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2896.426], "stop_times": [2908.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2896.426}, "reply_to": "20282__2_081", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_083", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2908.174], "stop_times": [2908.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2908.174}, "reply_to": "20282__2_082", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20282__2_084", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--and the facts are different in the new case, then I agree that the courts would review the new record based on the record as it then stands, and that's not uncommon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2908.595], "stop_times": [2916.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2908.595}, "reply_to": "20282__2_083", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_085", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "No, but it could be more... less favorable to her, that's all I'm saying.\nIt could be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2916.628, 2920.061], "stop_times": [2920.061, 2920.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2916.628}, "reply_to": "20282__2_084", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20282__2_086", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2920.562], "stop_times": [2920.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2920.562}, "reply_to": "20282__2_085", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_087", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "She might have just exactly what she wants in the record now, and she thinks as a matter of law she's entitled to prevail now, but when more evidence goes in it might not be quite as clear.\nWhich is what is going on here, if I understood counsel's presentation correctly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2920.932, 2929.207], "stop_times": [2929.207, 2935.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2920.932}, "reply_to": "20282__2_086", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20282__2_088", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--I don't really think it is what's going on here, Justice Scalia.\nIf you review the appellate briefs of petitioner in the court below, as well as looking carefully at what she alleges are the errors as she's filed her papers here, she is arguing basically legal errors by the district court.\nShe's saying that as a matter of law there were mistakes in the phrasing of hypothetical questions, in the credibility determinations... she's not simply saying, lack of substantial evidence.\nShe's raised legal issues.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2935.042, 2937.745, 2954.134, 2964.44], "stop_times": [2937.745, 2954.134, 2964.44, 2965.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2935.042}, "reply_to": "20282__2_087", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_089", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "That's a good point, so why wouldn't we make that same point to the Government?\nI mean, your basic argument.\nWhy wouldn't we have said to the Government, Government, look... you know, in a case when they opposed the remand... Government, what are you complaining about?\nAfter all, the case was remanded.\nYou have an opportunity to win.\nAnd if, in fact, you lose, well, you can make all your arguments later.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2965.922, 2969.705, 2971.356, 2978.281, 2980.712, 2982.324], "stop_times": [2969.705, 2971.356, 2978.281, 2980.712, 2982.324, 2986.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2965.922}, "reply_to": "20282__2_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20282__2_090", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Well, in a case... this Court's decision in United States v. Jose that we cited, the Court allowed the Government to appeal that nonfinal decision because there were particular provisions in the Court's decree that were binding on the Government in the meantime.\nIt wasn't simply a question of, the matter can be resolved later.\nSo I think there are some situations where the Government never could get review of the issue that it seeks to raise because the remand proceedings will wash out the legal issue.\nThat is not this case, we submit, and I also would point out on the issue of cross-appeals that typically a... an appellant can defend the judgment on any grounds that would allow for support of the judgment, so even if technically on the appeal of the second decision, even if the claimant can't file a cross-appeal, they in most cases could defend the judgment on other grounds and therefore have their opportunity to raise their issues.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [2986.496, 3000.945, 3005.269, 3014.496], "stop_times": [3000.945, 3005.269, 3014.496, 3041.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2986.496}, "reply_to": "20282__2_089", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_091", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Now, do I... what you said just before this, do I understand it to be your position that in these cases... you know, I mean, she's only gotten half of what she wanted, but the Government has only gotten half of what it wanted, and the Government may win when it goes back, just as she may win when it goes back.\nDo you assert that the only reason the Government can appeal in these cases is if and when the Government would have no other opportunity to raise the question?\nWe have to look into that in every case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3041.914, 3059.606, 3068.391], "stop_times": [3059.606, 3068.391, 3070.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3041.914}, "reply_to": "20282__2_090", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20282__2_092", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "No, Justice Scalia, because this Court's decision in Finkelstein held to the contrary.\nThis Court held that the Government can appeal these cases and it didn't require a showing of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3070.063, 3075.217], "stop_times": [3075.217, 3081.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3070.063}, "reply_to": "20282__2_091", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_093", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3081.25], "stop_times": [3081.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3081.25}, "reply_to": "20282__2_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20282__2_094", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--particularized need.\nIt simply held--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3081.49, 3082.302], "stop_times": [3082.302, 3082.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3081.49}, "reply_to": "20282__2_093", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_095", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "I thought so, which is... makes it sort of inconsistent with your theory.\nI mean, given Finkelstein it seems to me clear that even though the Government might get what it wanted when it went back down, it could appeal, period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3082.712, 3085.724], "stop_times": [3085.724, 3094.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3082.712}, "reply_to": "20282__2_094", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20282__2_096", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--Finkelstein--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3094.31], "stop_times": [3095.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3094.31}, "reply_to": "20282__2_095", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_097", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Why should the rule be any different for the other side?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3095.071], "stop_times": [3097.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3095.071}, "reply_to": "20282__2_096", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20282__2_098", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--Finkelstein only decided the issue of finality, Justice Scalia, with reference to this statute.\nIt did not address appellate standing.\nSo we are prepared to assume, for purposes of this argument, as did the Ninth Circuit, that this is a final decision.\nOne could debate the meaning of Finkelstein.\nIt actually could be interpreted differently, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3097.512, 3102.908, 3104.859, 3111.043, 3112.605], "stop_times": [3102.908, 3104.859, 3111.043, 3112.605, 3114.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3097.512}, "reply_to": "20282__2_097", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_099", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Well, you can't have it both ways.\nEither Finkelstein decided the question I asked you, or it didn't decide the question I asked you.\nYou told me that Finkelstein decided that the Government can always appeal, despite the fact that it may get what it... that it may not be aggrieved, that it may get what it wants on remand.\nYou said Finkelstein decided that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3114.736, 3115.467, 3120.071, 3130.149], "stop_times": [3115.467, 3120.071, 3130.149, 3132.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3114.736}, "reply_to": "20282__2_098", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20282__2_100", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3132.16], "stop_times": [3132.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3132.16}, "reply_to": "20282__2_099", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_101", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "But then you go on to say, Finkelstein only decided finality.\nWhat is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3132.94, 3135.822], "stop_times": [3135.822, 3136.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3132.94}, "reply_to": "20282__2_100", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20282__2_102", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "I... let me try to be clearer, Justice Scalia.\nFinkelstein decided, based on finality principles, that the Government can appeal because it's a final decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3136.23, 3138.683], "stop_times": [3138.683, 3145.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3136.23}, "reply_to": "20282__2_101", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_103", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3145.168], "stop_times": [3145.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3145.168}, "reply_to": "20282__2_102", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20282__2_104", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Finkelstein simply did not address appellate standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3145.668], "stop_times": [3148.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3145.668}, "reply_to": "20282__2_103", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_105", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--Oh, it didn't address appellate standing.\nSo you then take the position that in some cases the Government won't be able to appeal either, unless you can show that the Government cannot otherwise raise the point it wants to raise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3148.38, 3149.652], "stop_times": [3149.652, 3161.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3148.38}, "reply_to": "20282__2_104", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20282__2_106", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Well, we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3161.53], "stop_times": [3162.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3161.53}, "reply_to": "20282__2_105", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_107", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "That would have to be your position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3162.471], "stop_times": [3163.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3162.471}, "reply_to": "20282__2_106", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20282__2_108", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--It's not a position we've taken up to this moment, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3163.411], "stop_times": [3167.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3163.411}, "reply_to": "20282__2_107", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_109", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "No, I know it isn't, because it's not a very attractive one.\n[Laughter]\nBut it follows from your argument, I think.\nWell, the Secretary never appeals to the district court, does he?\nI mean, he doesn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3167.214, 3169.517, 3169.718, 3173.349, 3178.193], "stop_times": [3169.517, 3169.718, 3173.349, 3178.193, 3179.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3167.214}, "reply_to": "20282__2_108", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20282__2_110", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3179.014], "stop_times": [3179.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3179.014}, "reply_to": "20282__2_109", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_111", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--So the only people who appeal to the district court are the claimants.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3179.244], "stop_times": [3183.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3179.244}, "reply_to": "20282__2_110", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20282__2_112", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "That's correct.\nThe Secretary apparently does not have the right to appeal his or her own decision to the district court, but I take Justice Scalia's position to be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3183.338, 3184.089], "stop_times": [3184.089, 3191.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3183.338}, "reply_to": "20282__2_111", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_113", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "No, but when the Government loses, the Government can still go... I assume that when the Government loses in the district court, it can always go up, and I don't think you have to look to see, could the point be raised elsewhere.\nWe just say it can go up, even though the Government, if it were remanded, may come up on top... come out on top anyway.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3191.375, 3199.15], "stop_times": [3199.15, 3205.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3191.375}, "reply_to": "20282__2_112", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20282__2_114", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--I agree that the issue of appellate standing has never, to my knowledge, been raised with regard to a Government appeal to a circuit court in this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3205.104], "stop_times": [3216.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3205.104}, "reply_to": "20282__2_113", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_115", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "But once the decision has been held final for purposes of the Government's dissatisfaction, what other issues might come into a question of whether the Government has appellate standing that have not already been subsumed in whether the decision is final for purposes of the Government's ultimate right to appeal it?\nI mean, you're saying there was a decision about finality, so that at some point the Government could appeal it, but I mean, we're... I assume, for example, we're not talking about attorney's fees here, so what else might the Government have to show to provide appellate standing that it had not also shown in order to get the determination that it was final as to the Government?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3216.113, 3237.527], "stop_times": [3237.527, 3260.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3216.113}, "reply_to": "20282__2_114", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20282__2_116", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--If someone were arguing that the Government was not aggrieved by the decision, then obviously, if the Government could show that there was an issue of law that couldn't otherwise be reviewed, they would most clearly be aggrieved.\nBut I take your point, Justice Souter, that one could argue that in any case the Government ultimately might win on the remand, and I think that's an issue that the courts simply haven't addressed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3260.292, 3276.862], "stop_times": [3276.862, 3286.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3260.292}, "reply_to": "20282__2_115", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_117", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "I guess I come back to the point that Finkelstein is terribly, terribly subtle if it was reserving the point of aggrievement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3286.118], "stop_times": [3298.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3286.118}, "reply_to": "20282__2_116", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20282__2_118", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "I don't believe it was reserving--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3298.967], "stop_times": [3300.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3298.967}, "reply_to": "20282__2_117", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_119", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "It's a rather misleading case, I guess.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3300.247], "stop_times": [3301.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3300.247}, "reply_to": "20282__2_118", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20282__2_120", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--Justice Souter, I don't... I'm not asserting that it reserved that issue.\nIt simply hadn't been raised, wasn't addressed, wasn't considered, I would submit, and obviously one could read Finkelstein as opening up the doors and saying that both sides can appeal every one of these cases.\nWe simply submit that would result in hundreds and perhaps thousands of needless appeals where, at least as to the claimant... I'm not sure as to the Government, but at least as to the claimant we know that she has the opportunity to get complete relief on remand.\nIt is actually less expensive--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3301.789, 3304.412, 3315.801, 3330.093], "stop_times": [3304.412, 3315.801, 3330.093, 3332.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3301.789}, "reply_to": "20282__2_119", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_121", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "But wouldn't claimants' attorneys appreciate that, too?\nWhat was the figure in the brief, something like 60 percent of them... if there's a remand, 60 percent of them end up getting benefits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3332.314, 3334.064], "stop_times": [3334.064, 3340.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3332.314}, "reply_to": "20282__2_120", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20282__2_122", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--Yes, ma'am, between 60 and 65 percent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3340.759], "stop_times": [3342.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3340.759}, "reply_to": "20282__2_121", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_123", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "So wouldn't... whether there is that second opportunity or not, wouldn't many attorneys say, look, save the money?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3342.88], "stop_times": [3352.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3342.88}, "reply_to": "20282__2_122", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20282__2_124", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "I'm sure many would.\nOn the other hand, many would like two bites at an apple and take the view that, let's try the appeal and we'll get the remand later.\nIt's hard to predict.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3352.025, 3353.287, 3358.242], "stop_times": [3353.287, 3358.242, 3359.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3352.025}, "reply_to": "20282__2_123", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_125", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Snyder.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3359.163], "stop_times": [3360.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3359.163}, "reply_to": "20282__2_124", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20282__2_126", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3360.433], "stop_times": [3360.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3360.433}, "reply_to": "20282__2_125", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_127", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "You appeared here as an amicus by appointment to the Court, and the Court wishes to express its appreciation to you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3360.653], "stop_times": [3365.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3360.653}, "reply_to": "20282__2_126", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20282__2_128", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3365.335], "stop_times": [3365.915], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3365.335}, "reply_to": "20282__2_127", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "20282__2_129", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Mr. Wilborn, you have 1 minute remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3365.915], "stop_times": [3368.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3365.915}, "reply_to": "20282__2_128", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20282__3_000", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nI just wanted to clarify that Justice Scalia's characterization of what's going on here a minute ago is exactly what's going on here.\nWe are concerned that on remand the facts will change and we'll have a different case.\nIt is also our position that we do waive the right to appeal the instant case if we do... if we choose to accept the remand proceedings.\nThe nature of the case coming up on remand will be totally different.\nRes judicata will bar us from subsequently raising... if we had, for example, three or four remands to the agency, and all of those were preserved so that we could argue one, two, three, four seriatim upon appeal to the circuit courts, that would just swamp the courts.\nThat would not be sensible, and that's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3368.678, 3370.12, 3377.365, 3381.518, 3390.845, 3393.749, 3408.539], "stop_times": [3370.12, 3377.365, 3381.518, 3390.845, 3393.749, 3408.539, 3410.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3368.678}, "reply_to": "20282__2_129", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__3_001", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Mr. Wilborn, you're an expert in this area, and I'm just... in listening to this hour's argument I'm wondering, why wasn't the Social Security benefit arrangement ever changed to conform to the railroad retirement by simply cutting out the district courts?\nThen you have only one level of appeal, and you don't have this question.\nWas that ever proposed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3410.702, 3422.358, 3426.892], "stop_times": [3422.358, 3426.892, 3428.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3410.702}, "reply_to": "20282__3_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20282__3_002", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--I'm not aware that it ever was, Justice Ginsburg, although it may be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3428.403], "stop_times": [3431.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3428.403}, "reply_to": "20282__3_001", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__3_003", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Because it's what, five levels now, three inside the agency and two in the courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3431.484], "stop_times": [3434.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3431.484}, "reply_to": "20282__3_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20282__3_004", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3434.556], "stop_times": [3434.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3434.556}, "reply_to": "20282__3_003", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__3_005", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Possibly six.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3434.816], "stop_times": [3435.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3434.816}, "reply_to": "20282__3_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20282__3_006", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Justice Ginsburg is no longer a court of appeals judge, or she wouldn't--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3435.517, 3440.381], "stop_times": [3440.381, 3440.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3435.517}, "reply_to": "20282__3_005", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__3_007", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Wilborn.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3440.602], "stop_times": [3443.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3440.602}, "reply_to": "20282__3_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20282__3_008", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3443.474], "stop_times": [3443.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3443.474}, "reply_to": "20282__3_007", "speaker": "ralph_wilborn"}
{"id": "20282__3_009", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3443.712], "stop_times": [3444.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3443.712}, "reply_to": "20282__3_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20282__3_010", "conversation_id": "20282", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until Monday next at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-5737", "start_times": [3444.628], "stop_times": [3449.514], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3444.628}, "reply_to": "20282__3_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20899__0_000", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-670, Murphy Foster v. Scott Love.\nSpectators are admonished not to talk until you get out of the courtroom.\nThe Court remains in session.\nGeneral Ieyoub.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [0.0, 9.717, 16.062, 17.635], "stop_times": [9.717, 16.062, 17.635, 50.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20899__0_001", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nThis is the Federal Election Day case up from Louisiana.\nAs Your Honors know, the 42nd Reconstruction Congress put the Federal Election Day statute on the books in 1872.\nThe question presented is whether the Federal Election Day statute nullifies Louisiana's open primary system under which all registered voters, regardless of party affiliation, vote for their candidates for Senate and United States Representative.\nUnder Louisiana law as we know it since 1976, if a candidate receives a majority of the votes in the October primary the candidate is declared elected, and there's no contested election on Federal Election Day, shall we say saving the poor working man a trip to the polls in nonpresidential election years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [50.674, 54.698, 59.62, 68.785, 87.128], "stop_times": [54.698, 59.62, 68.785, 87.128, 111.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 50.674}, "reply_to": "20899__0_000", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_002", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "General Ieyoub, does any other State, to your knowledge, have this system?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [111.595], "stop_times": [117.258], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 111.595}, "reply_to": "20899__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20899__0_003", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nOklahoma has a similar system, as does Hawaii, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [117.258, 118.199], "stop_times": [118.199, 122.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 117.258}, "reply_to": "20899__0_002", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_004", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "And they each provide, as Louisiana does, for an open primary and no general election if a candidate gets a majority?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [122.814], "stop_times": [133.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 122.814}, "reply_to": "20899__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20899__0_005", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [133.26], "stop_times": [134.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 133.26}, "reply_to": "20899__0_004", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_006", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Now, California has a system, I believe, of allowing crossover voting in primary elections, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [134.322], "stop_times": [145.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 134.322}, "reply_to": "20899__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20899__0_007", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "I'm not sure, Your Honor.\nI believe that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [145.848, 147.698], "stop_times": [147.698, 148.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 145.848}, "reply_to": "20899__0_006", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_008", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "And some States allow crossover voting.\nIn other words, there's a primary election to pick the party's candidate, but parties... people who belong to another political party may cross over and vote--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [148.86, 152.443], "stop_times": [152.443, 163.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 148.86}, "reply_to": "20899__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20899__0_009", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [163.923], "stop_times": [164.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 163.923}, "reply_to": "20899__0_008", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_010", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--in the party primary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [164.251], "stop_times": [164.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 164.251}, "reply_to": "20899__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20899__0_011", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [164.862], "stop_times": [165.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 164.862}, "reply_to": "20899__0_010", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_012", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "But in effect Louisiana and you say several other States don't treat the primary election as a party primary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [165.523], "stop_times": [174.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 165.523}, "reply_to": "20899__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20899__0_013", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "No, Your Honor, it does not.\nEveryone has a right to vote in the open primary in October, regardless of party affiliation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [174.808, 176.739], "stop_times": [176.739, 182.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 174.808}, "reply_to": "20899__0_012", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_014", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Mm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [182.843], "stop_times": [183.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 182.843}, "reply_to": "20899__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20899__0_015", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "And all candidates run in the primary regardless of the party affiliation, so that if there is not a majority vote, then the two top vote-getters go into--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [183.995], "stop_times": [193.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 183.995}, "reply_to": "20899__0_014", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_016", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "And why is it that Louisiana made that change?\nI guess it was not always that way.\nIt wasn't until the late seventies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [193.232, 197.143, 199.416], "stop_times": [197.143, 199.416, 201.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 193.232}, "reply_to": "20899__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20899__0_017", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.\nI do not know why they made that change, Your Honor, but the change was made in 1976, and it actually went into effect in 1978, and since 1978, Your Honor, we have proceeded under the open primary law manner of election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [201.656, 202.836], "stop_times": [202.836, 220.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 201.656}, "reply_to": "20899__0_016", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_018", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Well, you... do you concede that Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact laws affecting the timing of election of Members of the Congress?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [220.37], "stop_times": [236.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 220.37}, "reply_to": "20899__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20899__0_019", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nCongress may at any time alter regulations as it see fits, but I would point out that in 20 years, almost 20 years of the open primary, Congress has never moved to try to alter Louisiana's manner of electing its representatives to Congress so as to force a determinative election on Federal Election Day, and Your Honors, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [236.311, 236.902], "stop_times": [236.902, 262.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 236.311}, "reply_to": "20899__0_018", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_020", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Well, I guess the question, really, is whether the statutes that Congress did pass are contrary to Louisiana's scheme, as was held in the court below.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [262.147], "stop_times": [276.098], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 262.147}, "reply_to": "20899__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20899__0_021", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--No, Your Honor, I would argue that it is not.\nAt the time the statute was passed by Congressman Butler and Senator Thurman in 1872, primaries were unknown.\nThey did not foresee primaries.\nPrimaries were a creature of the 20th Century, as fully stated in this Court's decision in United States v. Classic, but they did have the foresight to make exceptions for death or failure to elect, in which case they allowed elections other than on Federal Election Day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [276.098, 279.8, 288.554, 290.788], "stop_times": [279.8, 288.554, 290.788, 309.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 276.098}, "reply_to": "20899__0_020", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_022", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Well, do you say that Louisiana's system creates a vacancy, so the vacancy statute applies?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [309.409], "stop_times": [319.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 309.409}, "reply_to": "20899__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20899__0_023", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Louisiana's system certainly allows for the election of a candidate in October, as opposed to actually electing on Federal Election Day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [319.376], "stop_times": [329.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 319.376}, "reply_to": "20899__0_022", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_024", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Well, except the Federal statute fixes the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November as the day for election for the Members of Congress.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [329.591], "stop_times": [340.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 329.591}, "reply_to": "20899__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20899__0_025", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, and Louisiana's statutory scheme does, in fact, set a date on the first Tuesday after the first Monday.\nIt does do that.\nWe simply--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [340.97, 350.916, 352.037], "stop_times": [350.916, 352.037, 352.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 340.97}, "reply_to": "20899__0_024", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_026", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "But the election, if there's a majority vote in the primary, does not occur on that date.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [352.989], "stop_times": [359.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 352.989}, "reply_to": "20899__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20899__0_027", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Well, that's correct, Your Honor, and I submit that what we have here is an old statute and new circumstances, in which case I think that we have to look to the legislative purpose and the legislative history, as Chief Justice Taney said, looking, if necessary, to the public history of the times in which the statute was passed, and Justice Holmes saying you can look to the respective minds of Congress.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [359.241], "stop_times": [385.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 359.241}, "reply_to": "20899__0_026", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_028", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "So you accept the proposition that Louisiana law de jure authorizes elections before the Federal election date?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [385.159], "stop_times": [394.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 385.159}, "reply_to": "20899__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20899__0_029", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor, a person can be elected de jure under Louisiana's scheme, but what we're saying here is that Thurman and Butler wanted to protect the right to choose, and that is protected by Louisiana's statutory scheme.\nWhat was important, what is important is, as Hamilton said, the right of the people to choose those whom they... who will govern them, and we allow that.\nLouisiana's statutory scheme allows that.\nThat was what was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [394.794, 410.295, 420.453, 422.743], "stop_times": [410.295, 420.453, 422.743, 424.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 394.794}, "reply_to": "20899__0_028", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_030", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "But the question is when it's allowed, and I know that it's called an open primary, but would you explain to me why that isn't a misnomer?\nAs you've said, everyone can vote.\nThat's the time everyone votes.\nIt's not like a party primary, and in order to be in the running you must participate.\nNow, why aren't those two features, when they're combined... everyone votes.\nEveryone who wants to run must be in on this inning.\nWhy doesn't that add up to an election?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [424.333, 433.069, 436.552, 438.345, 445.937, 452.943, 457.255], "stop_times": [433.069, 436.552, 438.345, 445.937, 452.943, 457.255, 460.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 424.333}, "reply_to": "20899__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20899__0_031", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, there is an election on October... in October.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [460.438], "stop_times": [466.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 460.438}, "reply_to": "20899__0_030", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_032", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "So then that is the Election Day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [466.003], "stop_times": [468.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 466.003}, "reply_to": "20899__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20899__0_033", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "That is the election primary date, Your Honor, and if a person receives a majority of the vote, and only in that instance, they are declared elected, and there would be no determinative election on Federal Election Day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [468.925], "stop_times": [483.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 468.925}, "reply_to": "20899__0_032", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_034", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Yes, but my question to you is, why don't we just call it what it is, that is, an election, since everybody votes, and everybody who wants to be in the running is there?\nWhy isn't... why is it labeled primary?\nIt is an election, and it seems to me, being an election it conflicts with the Federal single Election Day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [483.604, 492.15, 495.342], "stop_times": [492.15, 495.342, 502.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 483.604}, "reply_to": "20899__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20899__0_035", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Well, Your Honor, it is an election.\nIt is also a system of voting that winnows down the candidates in many cases, where you have two individuals with the highest vote totals going into a general election on Federal Election Day, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [502.776, 505.317], "stop_times": [505.317, 520.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 502.776}, "reply_to": "20899__0_034", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_036", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "But you could do that consistent with the Federal day by having, if there are two people, then you have a run-off, as can happen in some States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [520.246], "stop_times": [528.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 520.246}, "reply_to": "20899__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20899__0_037", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [528.923], "stop_times": [530.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 528.923}, "reply_to": "20899__0_036", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_038", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Later on, before January.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [530.194], "stop_times": [531.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 530.194}, "reply_to": "20899__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20899__0_039", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "That's correct, and that is possible, but the State legislature of Louisiana, which we contend has the primary authority to set the manner of elections, has acted in such a way as to hold this scheme, the open primary scheme, as the law of our State.\nIf we look at the hist--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [531.173, 548.336], "stop_times": [548.336, 550.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 531.173}, "reply_to": "20899__0_038", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_040", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "But what interest of Louisiana would be affected if Louisiana said, we're going to do our same thing, except we're going to do it on Federal Election Day and, if need be, in the 20 percent of the cases, we'll have a run-off.\nThen you would be acting consistently with all of the State goals, and with the Federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [550.409, 564.257], "stop_times": [564.257, 569.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 550.409}, "reply_to": "20899__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20899__0_041", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Louisiana could do that, Your Honor, but what we're saying here is that Louisiana's open primary scheme in no way really clashes or conflicts with the Federal Election Day statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [569.79], "stop_times": [581.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 569.79}, "reply_to": "20899__0_040", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_042", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Well, it does conflict, because it has an election on a day other than the day specified by the Federal statute.\nThat's why we're here.\nIsn't that a clear conflict?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [581.939, 588.864, 589.743], "stop_times": [588.864, 589.743, 591.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 581.939}, "reply_to": "20899__0_041", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20899__0_043", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "No, Your Honor, because I believe that you can't necessarily give a literal interpretation in this particular--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [591.285], "stop_times": [600.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 591.285}, "reply_to": "20899__0_042", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_044", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [600.061], "stop_times": [600.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 600.061}, "reply_to": "20899__0_043", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20899__0_045", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [600.772], "stop_times": [601.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 600.772}, "reply_to": "20899__0_044", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_046", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "The statute's clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [601.223], "stop_times": [601.952], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 601.223}, "reply_to": "20899__0_045", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20899__0_047", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--simply because I think that it might... it would lead to unreasonable--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [601.952], "stop_times": [604.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 601.952}, "reply_to": "20899__0_046", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_048", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "What's unreasonable about it?\nCongress has decided that it wants the election to occur uniformly on a given day in November throughout the United States.\nWhat's unreasonable about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [604.423, 605.875, 613.629], "stop_times": [605.875, 613.629, 615.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 604.423}, "reply_to": "20899__0_047", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20899__0_049", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--We have that, Your Honor.\nWe have that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [615.452, 616.23], "stop_times": [616.23, 617.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 615.452}, "reply_to": "20899__0_048", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_050", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--No, you don't have that.\nYour election, if there is a majority, occurs in October, not in November.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [617.031, 617.702], "stop_times": [617.702, 622.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 617.031}, "reply_to": "20899__0_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20899__0_051", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, we submit that under the sovereignty of the State we have a right at least to set the manner in which our representatives to Congress will be elected, and it does not conflict in the sense that it's closely--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [622.575], "stop_times": [636.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 622.575}, "reply_to": "20899__0_050", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_052", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "There is no constitutional authority on the part of Congress to determine the time, uniformly throughout the country?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [636.325], "stop_times": [642.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 636.325}, "reply_to": "20899__0_051", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20899__0_053", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--There is, Your Honor, but as was pointed out by Mr. Madison in his answer to Mr. Monroe's question about the Times, Places, and Manner Clause, the States should have the primary responsibility.\nThe reason why the Federal Government might have some control is that they were afraid that if the Federal... I mean, if the State legislatures did not act appropriately, it could bring about the dissolution of the Union, and that's what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [642.791, 657.828], "stop_times": [657.828, 671.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 642.791}, "reply_to": "20899__0_052", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_054", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Is it us... is it up to this Court to decide whether Louisiana has acted appropriately in determining whether a pretty clear Federal statute is going to be applied or not?\nIs that what you're asking us to do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [671.438, 681.293], "stop_times": [681.293, 682.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 671.438}, "reply_to": "20899__0_053", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20899__0_055", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nI am... I think that Congress has a right to decide whether or not there is a determinative election on Federal Election Day.\nUnder Article I, section 5, also--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [682.966, 683.777, 692.181], "stop_times": [683.777, 692.181, 695.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 682.966}, "reply_to": "20899__0_054", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_056", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Do you think that this is a justiciable controversy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [695.714], "stop_times": [698.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 695.714}, "reply_to": "20899__0_055", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20899__0_057", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--No, Your Honor, I do not think it's a justiciable controversy, because I fail to see the injury that the respondents have really suffered.\nThey had a right to vote.\nThey had the right to vote in October.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [698.425, 707.151, 708.682, 710.742], "stop_times": [707.151, 708.682, 710.742, 711.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 698.425}, "reply_to": "20899__0_056", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_058", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "So that--\n--But I want to make sure I understand your position.\nYour position, then, is not really an argument about whether the statute applies, and if so, how, and whether there is an inconsistency between it and the Louisiana statute.\nYour position is that this issue really does not belong in the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [711.413, 712.044, 714.074, 724.843], "stop_times": [712.044, 714.074, 724.843, 728.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 711.413}, "reply_to": "20899__0_057", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20899__0_059", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, that is my position.\nIt does not belong in the court.\nThe right of an individual to vote in any manner is not absolute, and this Court so stated in Burdick v. DeCoushy, that the manner of voting is not necessarily an absolute right.\nNow, if Your Honors would look at the appendix, joint appendix on page 43, one of the respondents says, I did not vote in the October open primary in which Billy Tauzin received a majority of the vote and was thereby elected outright under Louisiana law.\nI was, therefore, prevented by the Louisiana law from exercising my right under the Constitution and Federal law to vote in an election.\nShe did not vote in the primary, and now she's saying that since I did not vote in the manner in which Louisiana prescribed, I have been deprived, and I have been injured, and Your Honor, we say that will not do.\nThat is just not correct, and the matter should not be in this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [728.875, 731.416, 733.127, 748.038, 767.851, 776.756, 790.306], "stop_times": [731.416, 733.127, 748.038, 767.851, 776.756, 790.306, 795.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 728.875}, "reply_to": "20899__0_058", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_060", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Then your view is that no voter, as long as they could vote in something they called a primary, would have standing to object to Louisiana's deviating from most of the country in having what is the election a month before everyone else does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [795.97], "stop_times": [814.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 795.97}, "reply_to": "20899__0_059", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20899__0_061", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I would say that certainly there would... in our situation, where there is an open primary and an October election, when one fails to vote they have not really suffered an injury to the extent that this Court, or to the extent it would create a justiciable controversy in which this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [814.3], "stop_times": [833.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 814.3}, "reply_to": "20899__0_060", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_062", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "If you... General Ieyoub, that's how you... if you fail to vote you have no standing, and if you vote you haven't been injured, I suppose, so the result would be that no individual voter could ever challenge the violation, or claim violation of the congressional statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [833.143], "stop_times": [849.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 833.143}, "reply_to": "20899__0_061", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20899__0_063", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Your Honor, when it comes to the manner of voting, I think that's correct, when it comes to a State being able to set forth the manner of voting, as Louisiana has done in the open primary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [849.415], "stop_times": [860.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 849.415}, "reply_to": "20899__0_062", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_064", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Yes, but of course, you can have someone who became 21, or whatever your voting age is, on November 1, couldn't have voted in October, but had the Federal statutory right to vote in November but you say, well, that's tough luck.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [860.24], "stop_times": [873.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 860.24}, "reply_to": "20899__0_063", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20899__0_065", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Your Honor, they do have a statutory right to vote in November.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [873.048], "stop_times": [877.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 873.048}, "reply_to": "20899__0_064", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_066", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "But there's no election in November under your system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [877.832], "stop_times": [880.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 877.832}, "reply_to": "20899__0_065", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20899__0_067", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "At times there are, Your Honor.\nAt times there are... there is the opportunity to vote in November.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [880.033, 882.114], "stop_times": [882.114, 887.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 880.033}, "reply_to": "20899__0_066", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_068", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Indeed, most of the time it's resolved in the primary, as I understand it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [887.119], "stop_times": [891.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 887.119}, "reply_to": "20899__0_067", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20899__0_069", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "The history has been, Your Honor, that in the past most of the time they have been elected during the primary, and I will point out that under Article I, section 5, the Congress has the authority to challenge the seating of any individual elected to Congress and after 20 years Congress has never moved to remove the credentials of any Louisiana Senator or Congressman because they were elected in October as opposed to November.\nI think the results would be unreasonable and impractical to say that if a Congressman got over 50 percent of the vote in a primary, they're not qualified to serve in Congress.\nThe fact that they would get 50 percent of the vote is an indication of the favor that the people hold him in, and to say that just because it was in October as opposed to an election day in November, that they do not have a right to serve after the people have chosen, I think would lead to unreasonable--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [891.932, 921.872, 932.838], "stop_times": [921.872, 932.838, 952.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 891.932}, "reply_to": "20899__0_068", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_070", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Under that argument you could maybe have your primary in September and then if you need a run-off have that in October.\nIt would still be all right under your analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [952.783, 957.434], "stop_times": [957.434, 959.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 952.783}, "reply_to": "20899__0_069", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20899__0_071", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [959.285], "stop_times": [960.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 959.285}, "reply_to": "20899__0_070", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_072", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "You don't... they could... you could just ignore the November date.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [960.527], "stop_times": [963.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 960.527}, "reply_to": "20899__0_071", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20899__0_073", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Well, we could, but we did not, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [963.018], "stop_times": [965.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 963.018}, "reply_to": "20899__0_072", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_074", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "You didn't.\nI understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [965.702, 966.231], "stop_times": [966.231, 966.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 965.702}, "reply_to": "20899__0_073", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20899__0_075", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "We did not, and in fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [966.661], "stop_times": [967.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 966.661}, "reply_to": "20899__0_074", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_076", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "But as a matter of law, if we're trying to figure out what the law requires, you could.\nThe law really is a nullity as far as it requiring any particular date for the congressional election in Louisiana.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [967.472, 970.854], "stop_times": [970.854, 978.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 967.472}, "reply_to": "20899__0_075", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20899__0_077", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I submit that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [978.891], "stop_times": [980.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 978.891}, "reply_to": "20899__0_076", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_078", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Maybe it isn't necessary, and maybe it doesn't make any sense, but under your view it seems to me it really just isn't even on the statute books.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [980.323], "stop_times": [986.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 980.323}, "reply_to": "20899__0_077", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20899__0_079", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Well, I think that Louisiana's scheme really does not in any way offer an abuse to its constitutional authority to set the manner, the primary authority to set the manner of elections.\nWe have a primary, or an election, in October closely tethered or closely associated with the Federal Election Day in November.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [986.077, 997.614], "stop_times": [997.614, 1005.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 986.077}, "reply_to": "20899__0_078", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_080", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Yes, but you don't have to, if the statute means what you says it does.\nMaybe you do out of your... you know, the goodness of your heart to try and cooperate with what Congress would like you to do, but you don't have to under your reading of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1005.24, 1007.441], "stop_times": [1007.441, 1014.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1005.24}, "reply_to": "20899__0_079", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20899__0_081", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Under our reading of the statute, Your Honor, you're correct.\nIf we have a majority vote-getter in October, then we feel that it's a useless exercise and a useless expense of money and time to have another election and, by the way, that was one of the objectives of passing the Federal Election Day.\nButler and Thurman didn't want multiple Federal elections so that the poor working man would have to take multiple trips to the polls, and that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1014.885, 1017.266, 1032.928], "stop_times": [1017.266, 1032.928, 1041.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1014.885}, "reply_to": "20899__0_080", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_082", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "General Ieyoub, you are making an argument here today, at least in part, that the voters don't have standing and this is not a justiciable controversy.\nThat was not included in the question, was it, that you brought forward on certiorari?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1041.005, 1054.232], "stop_times": [1054.232, 1062.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1041.005}, "reply_to": "20899__0_081", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20899__0_083", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Your Honor, we have in our brief--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1062.577], "stop_times": [1065.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1062.577}, "reply_to": "20899__0_082", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_084", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "As I read the question presented, you said the specific question presented is whether the election system employed by the State of Louisiana to elect its Members to Congress conflicts with Federal laws governing the time for holding congressional elections.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1065.211], "stop_times": [1084.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1065.211}, "reply_to": "20899__0_083", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20899__0_085", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--That's right, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1084.082], "stop_times": [1085.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1084.082}, "reply_to": "20899__0_084", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_086", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "And I thought that was the question we were going to decide.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1085.164], "stop_times": [1088.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1085.164}, "reply_to": "20899__0_085", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20899__0_087", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "That... that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1088.216], "stop_times": [1088.887], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1088.216}, "reply_to": "20899__0_086", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_088", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Although you seem to be arguing something different today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1088.887], "stop_times": [1092.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1088.887}, "reply_to": "20899__0_087", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20899__0_089", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Your Honor, we raised subject matter jurisdiction in our brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1092.77], "stop_times": [1098.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1092.77}, "reply_to": "20899__0_088", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_090", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Not in the question presented, however.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1098.566], "stop_times": [1100.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1098.566}, "reply_to": "20899__0_089", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20899__0_091", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nNo, we did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1100.707, 1101.097], "stop_times": [1101.097, 1102.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1100.707}, "reply_to": "20899__0_090", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_092", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1102.136], "stop_times": [1102.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1102.136}, "reply_to": "20899__0_091", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20899__0_093", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Your Honor, we have a very--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1102.767], "stop_times": [1106.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1102.767}, "reply_to": "20899__0_092", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_094", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Did you raise it in your brief?\nI confess not even to have seen it in... I mean, I'm perfectly willing to consider it, even if you didn't raise it.\nGee, I think... I think I ought to consider it, but I didn't even see it in your--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1106.621, 1108.351, 1113.416], "stop_times": [1108.351, 1113.416, 1117.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1106.621}, "reply_to": "20899__0_093", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__0_095", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Your Honor, it's either in the appendix, the joint appendix, or in the brief.\nI think it's... it may be in the joint appendix where we raise subject matter jurisdiction, and in any event I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1117.738, 1122.342], "stop_times": [1122.342, 1127.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1117.738}, "reply_to": "20899__0_094", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_096", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--The joint appendix?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1127.908], "stop_times": [1128.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1127.908}, "reply_to": "20899__0_095", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__0_097", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Why would it be in the appendix?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1128.776], "stop_times": [1130.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1128.776}, "reply_to": "20899__0_096", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20899__0_098", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--It's certain particular motions that we had filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1130.188], "stop_times": [1135.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1130.188}, "reply_to": "20899__0_097", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_099", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Not in this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1135.002], "stop_times": [1137.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1135.002}, "reply_to": "20899__0_098", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20899__0_100", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1137.763], "stop_times": [1138.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1137.763}, "reply_to": "20899__0_099", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_101", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "This is all new stuff to me.\nI mean, I... you know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1138.344, 1139.135], "stop_times": [1139.135, 1140.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1138.344}, "reply_to": "20899__0_100", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__0_102", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "But Your Honor, I would submit that this Court alone can raise the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1140.054], "stop_times": [1144.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1140.054}, "reply_to": "20899__0_101", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_103", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Well now, just a minute.\nYou said you had raised it in your brief.\nWhere in your brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1144.047, 1145.018, 1147.179], "stop_times": [1145.018, 1147.179, 1148.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1144.047}, "reply_to": "20899__0_102", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20899__0_104", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--I apologize, Mr. Chief Justice.\nWe did not raise it in our brief.\nI was thinking of page 24 of the joint appendix, where, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana we raised that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in our answer, in that, so I apologize, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1148.24, 1150.241, 1151.913], "stop_times": [1150.241, 1151.913, 1167.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1148.24}, "reply_to": "20899__0_103", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_105", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "It would have been nice to say something in your brief if you were going to make a big deal about it in your oral argument--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1167.562], "stop_times": [1171.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1167.562}, "reply_to": "20899__0_104", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__0_106", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I made a big deal about it in response to a question by Justice Souter, and I think it's a big deal when you really come down to it.\nI think that... in Ex parte Siebold this Court construed Article 1, section 4 not as any Federal juggernaut just totally wiping out regulation, or the manner of regulations that were passed by the State, but what they asked for, what this Court said was that we need cooperation between the Federal sovereignty and the State sovereignty, a harmonizing combination into one system of regulations made by the two sovereignties.\nThat's what we have here in Louisiana.\nThe open primary system, it doesn't really clash or conflict.\nWhat it does is, it harmonizes two sovereignties, putting together election regulations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1171.415, 1181.381, 1211.741, 1213.955, 1217.925], "stop_times": [1181.381, 1211.741, 1213.955, 1217.925, 1224.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1171.415}, "reply_to": "20899__0_105", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_107", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--But you conceded that you could harmonize also if you just shifted the day that you have this election from October till November.\nThen you would be totally on track with the Federal Statute.\nYou would serve the State purpose.\nI don't understand why the harmonizing doesn't work against you, because it seems so easy for Louisiana to comply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1224.751, 1233.125, 1236.237, 1239.159], "stop_times": [1233.125, 1236.237, 1239.159, 1246.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1224.751}, "reply_to": "20899__0_106", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20899__0_108", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Your Honor, that is within the purview of the State legislature to do exactly what you say.\nThey chose not to do it in the last legislative session, although they were faced with that issue.\nWe argue, however, that the history of the adoption of Article I, section 4, title 2, section 7 and its adoption, indicates that at the time it was passed, at the time the... first of all, it indicates that the State has the primary authority to regulate the manner of elections.\nSecond, it indicates that they didn't foresee primaries, and that primaries have been seen by this Court as an integral part of the electoral process, and that what the statute fathers of... in 1872 were trying to do was to ensure the right to choose, and the people of Louisiana have a right to choose their representatives that go to Congress.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1246.485, 1252.838, 1259.053, 1279.745], "stop_times": [1252.838, 1259.053, 1279.745, 1305.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1246.485}, "reply_to": "20899__0_107", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_109", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Is it not a fact that at least in presidential election years the percentage of voter turnout at the primary is only around 30 percent or so, whereas the percentage of turnout at the November election is in the fifties and sixties percent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1305.404], "stop_times": [1320.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1305.404}, "reply_to": "20899__0_108", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20899__0_110", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1320.201], "stop_times": [1322.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1320.201}, "reply_to": "20899__0_109", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_111", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "So it does make a... perhaps make a difference to the outcome of the election if you have a very low turnout in one time and a very high turnout in the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1322.194], "stop_times": [1328.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1322.194}, "reply_to": "20899__0_110", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20899__0_112", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Well, that's correct, Your Honor, but I submit that Louisiana has had very high voter turnout in the October primary and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1328.977], "stop_times": [1337.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1328.977}, "reply_to": "20899__0_111", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_113", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Well, in 1980 it was 28 percent, I think, in 1984, 31 percent, and at the General Election was over 50 percent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1337.913], "stop_times": [1346.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1337.913}, "reply_to": "20899__0_112", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20899__0_114", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Well, that's correct, Your Honor, but we still say that we have a very close relationship with the Federal Election Day, not such that it's an abuse of our constitutional authority simply to have a system whereby the person that gets the majority of the vote is elected, and there's no need for another useless election on October, on November 2, or whenever.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1346.959], "stop_times": [1370.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1346.959}, "reply_to": "20899__0_113", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_115", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "General Ieyoub--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1370.394], "stop_times": [1372.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1370.394}, "reply_to": "20899__0_114", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20899__0_116", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1372.076], "stop_times": [1372.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1372.076}, "reply_to": "20899__0_115", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_117", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--what is the State's position, if it has one, on the suggestion of Justice Dennis, or Judge Dennis, who I believe dissented in the court below, that if this is such a problem the Federal court could simply enjoin a declaration that the candidate was elected?\nYou can't do that any more, but you could still conduct a primary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1372.637, 1391.527], "stop_times": [1391.527, 1396.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1372.637}, "reply_to": "20899__0_116", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20899__0_118", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nThe State's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1396.523, 1397.823], "stop_times": [1397.823, 1398.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1396.523}, "reply_to": "20899__0_117", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_119", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "That's correct, I know, what Judge Dennis said.\nWhat's the State's reaction to it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1398.664, 1401.275], "stop_times": [1401.275, 1403.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1398.664}, "reply_to": "20899__0_118", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20899__0_120", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--The State's reaction is that that can be done, and the State's reaction would be that that... we could absolutely do that.\nWe could have the October primary and just simply not say, well, they're not declared elected, but that they would be declared elected as of the Federal Election Day.\nThe State would do that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1403.588, 1409.793, 1419.848], "stop_times": [1409.793, 1419.848, 1421.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1403.588}, "reply_to": "20899__0_119", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_121", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "But would they do that with or without putting their names on the ballot in the November election?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1421.671], "stop_times": [1426.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1421.671}, "reply_to": "20899__0_120", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20899__0_122", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "They--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1426.983], "stop_times": [1429.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1426.983}, "reply_to": "20899__0_121", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_123", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "It doesn't seem to me it's much of a change if you simply make your declaration later but don't let anybody vote after the October date.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1429.745], "stop_times": [1437.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1429.745}, "reply_to": "20899__0_122", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20899__0_124", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--We could certainly put the names of the candidates on the ballot, though.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1437.439], "stop_times": [1440.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1437.439}, "reply_to": "20899__0_123", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_125", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "And give them--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1440.451], "stop_times": [1441.122], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1440.451}, "reply_to": "20899__0_124", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20899__0_126", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--And what happens if the other one wins?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1441.122], "stop_times": [1442.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1441.122}, "reply_to": "20899__0_125", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20899__0_127", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "I'm sorry, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1442.003], "stop_times": [1443.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1442.003}, "reply_to": "20899__0_126", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_128", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Suppose A gets a majority of the votes in the primary, and then we put their names on the ballot again in November, but more people turn out, and this time B wins.\nWho's elected?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1443.934, 1452.28], "stop_times": [1452.28, 1453.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1443.934}, "reply_to": "20899__0_127", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20899__0_129", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Or there's a big scandal in between, and who came in second now comes in first.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1453.111], "stop_times": [1457.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1453.111}, "reply_to": "20899__0_128", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__0_130", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1457.842], "stop_times": [1458.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1457.842}, "reply_to": "20899__0_129", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20899__0_131", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Well, Your Honor I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1458.644], "stop_times": [1460.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1458.644}, "reply_to": "20899__0_130", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_132", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "You've got... you're--\n--You'd only put one name on the November ballot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1460.146, 1460.975], "stop_times": [1460.975, 1462.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1460.146}, "reply_to": "20899__0_131", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__0_133", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--That's exactly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1462.177], "stop_times": [1462.887], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1462.177}, "reply_to": "20899__0_132", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_134", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Isn't that the answer?\nYou'd only put one name on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1462.887, 1463.435], "stop_times": [1463.435, 1464.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1462.887}, "reply_to": "20899__0_133", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__0_135", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--That's exactly right, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1464.006], "stop_times": [1465.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1464.006}, "reply_to": "20899__0_134", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_136", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "So it would be an election with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1465.018], "stop_times": [1465.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1465.018}, "reply_to": "20899__0_135", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__0_137", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "That's right, and that's basically what happened in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1465.939], "stop_times": [1468.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1465.939}, "reply_to": "20899__0_136", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_138", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Yes or no, I guess.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1468.42], "stop_times": [1468.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1468.42}, "reply_to": "20899__0_137", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__0_139", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--That's exactly right, Your Honor.\nWe would put one name on the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1468.861, 1470.42], "stop_times": [1470.42, 1471.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1468.861}, "reply_to": "20899__0_138", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_140", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Is there a write-in procedure in your State?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1471.652], "stop_times": [1473.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1471.652}, "reply_to": "20899__0_139", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20899__0_141", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--No, Your Honor, there is not.\nThere's not a write-in procedure.\nBut my time is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1473.213, 1474.264, 1476.705], "stop_times": [1474.264, 1476.705, 1480.869], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1473.213}, "reply_to": "20899__0_140", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_142", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Well, what about conforming by putting the two top names, so you have your open primary, as you call it, in October, and then in November, number 1 and number 2 get on the ballot.\nYou could do that, too.\nYou just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1480.869, 1493.266, 1494.818], "stop_times": [1493.266, 1494.818, 1495.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1480.869}, "reply_to": "20899__0_141", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20899__0_143", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--That--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1495.947], "stop_times": [1496.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1495.947}, "reply_to": "20899__0_142", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_144", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--You put the second... the one who took second place on even--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1496.608], "stop_times": [1499.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1496.608}, "reply_to": "20899__0_143", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20899__0_145", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Even if they don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1499.43], "stop_times": [1500.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1499.43}, "reply_to": "20899__0_144", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_146", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1500.622], "stop_times": [1501.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1500.622}, "reply_to": "20899__0_145", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20899__0_147", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Even if there's a majority?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1501.303], "stop_times": [1502.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1501.303}, "reply_to": "20899__0_146", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_148", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Right.\nThat would be compliance, too, I guess.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1502.652, 1503.052], "stop_times": [1503.052, 1507.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1502.652}, "reply_to": "20899__0_147", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20899__0_149", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, that would be compliance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1507.346], "stop_times": [1509.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1507.346}, "reply_to": "20899__0_148", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_150", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Do you want a Federal court to pick which one of these things will be compliance and enjoin--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1509.527], "stop_times": [1512.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1509.527}, "reply_to": "20899__0_149", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__0_151", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "No.\nNo, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1512.88, 1513.25], "stop_times": [1513.25, 1513.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1512.88}, "reply_to": "20899__0_150", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_152", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Well then, you don't agree with the dissenting judge below.\nWhy should we figure out how you should come into compliance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1513.839, 1517.011], "stop_times": [1517.011, 1520.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1513.839}, "reply_to": "20899__0_151", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__0_153", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I'd--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1520.764], "stop_times": [1522.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1520.764}, "reply_to": "20899__0_152", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_154", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "You know, what your State legislature considers severable from the rest of the scheme.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1522.336], "stop_times": [1528.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1522.336}, "reply_to": "20899__0_153", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__0_155", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--I suggest that you shouldn't, that it's really Congress.\nIf Congress wishes to do that, it may do that at any time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1528.05, 1532.953], "stop_times": [1532.953, 1535.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1528.05}, "reply_to": "20899__0_154", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_156", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "I don't think Judge Dennis' position was that he would leave it to the State to decide.\nHe... I understood him to say that you could accept all of your opponent's arguments and still solve the constitutional problem by simply declaring unconstitutional that part of the Louisiana statute which declared the person at the October primary who won to be elected, and just say that wasn't so, that there would be only one name on the ballot in November, but the person wouldn't be actually elected until then because you would strike out the declaration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1535.464, 1540.497], "stop_times": [1540.497, 1572.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1535.464}, "reply_to": "20899__0_155", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20899__0_157", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, that's exactly right.\nThat's what Justice Dennis said, but prior to the time he said that, he disagreed with the holding of the other two judges that it was in any way a conflict, or that our system was in any way in conflict with the Federal Election Day statute, and we certainly hold to that particular position, that the State has the primary authority from the Court's earliest reading of Article I, section 4, that the State has the primary authority to set the manner of elections.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1572.259, 1574.55], "stop_times": [1574.55, 1601.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1572.259}, "reply_to": "20899__0_156", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_158", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "May I ask if it also means you would take the position that they could say whoever has the most votes in the primary shall be the only candidate whose name appears on the November ballot?\nCould you do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1601.768, 1612.014], "stop_times": [1612.014, 1613.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1601.768}, "reply_to": "20899__0_157", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20899__0_159", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Under our present--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1613.216], "stop_times": [1615.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1613.216}, "reply_to": "20899__0_158", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_160", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "No, it's not under... but as a matter of... consistent with your legal position as a matter of constitutional Federal law and all the rest of it.\nCould Louisiana enact a statute that said the person who has the highest votes in the primary is the only person whose name may appear on the November ballot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1615.947, 1622.67], "stop_times": [1622.67, 1631.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1615.947}, "reply_to": "20899__0_159", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20899__0_161", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--I think that it could do that, Your Honor.\nAnd now my time is short, so I'll try to conclude.\nWe say that the unfounded fears of the Fifth Circuit majority are contrary to this Court's earliest reading of Article I, section 4, and to this Court's harmonizing manner of interpreting Federal statutes and companion State election regulations.\nI mean, of course, as in Ex parte Siebold.\nOf course regulations made by Congress are paramount and supersede those of the State, but only... and here I quote one of this Court's great judges, Justice Bradley... but only insofar as the two are inconsistent and no farther.\nWe say there is no conflict, no clash between the Federal Election Day and Louisiana's primary law.\nAs Justice Bradley said so well in Siebold, let a spirit of national as well as local patriotism prevail.\nLet unfounded jealousies cease, and we shall hear no more of the impossibility of harmonious action between the national and State governments on a matter on which they have a mutual and vital interest.\nIf the Court please Your Honors, the judgment below must be reversed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1631.796, 1634.58, 1638.7, 1656.583, 1660.837, 1679.187, 1685.631, 1695.699, 1714.62], "stop_times": [1634.58, 1638.7, 1656.583, 1660.837, 1679.187, 1685.631, 1695.699, 1714.62, 1719.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1631.796}, "reply_to": "20899__0_160", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__0_162", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Thank you, General Ieyoub.\nMr. Baker, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1719.735, 1722.096], "stop_times": [1722.096, 1724.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1719.735}, "reply_to": "20899__0_161", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20899__1_000", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Rehnquist, and may it please the Court:\nThe key issue in this case, Your Honors, is that this is not an attack on Louisiana's prerogative to maintain this type of election system.\nJustice Ginsburg got it exactly right.\nLouisiana can maintain what it has, but it has to conform it to the requirements of Federal law, and that would mean this primary, which is really an election, on Federal Election Day, with a run-off thereafter as required by section 8.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1724.49, 1730.694, 1740.229, 1743.17], "stop_times": [1730.694, 1740.229, 1743.17, 1759.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1724.49}, "reply_to": "20899__0_162", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_001", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "There's about 20 percent of the cases where a runoff is held now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1759.242], "stop_times": [1764.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1759.242}, "reply_to": "20899__1_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20899__1_002", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "That's correct, Justice Kennedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1764.985], "stop_times": [1765.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1764.985}, "reply_to": "20899__1_001", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_003", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "So under your proposal on... and I take it those are the closest elections, so under your proposal the closest elections are the one where there's the lowest turnout.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1765.716], "stop_times": [1776.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1765.716}, "reply_to": "20899__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20899__1_004", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "I'm not sure I understand the question, Justice Kennedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1776.082], "stop_times": [1780.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1776.082}, "reply_to": "20899__1_003", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_005", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Well, if the close elections are this, this 20-percent category, under the corrective remedy that you've just proposed the closest elections are going to be decided by the ones with the lowest turnout.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1780.476], "stop_times": [1793.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1780.476}, "reply_to": "20899__1_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20899__1_006", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1793.322], "stop_times": [1794.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1793.322}, "reply_to": "20899__1_005", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_007", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Is that the only corrective, or could... would it suffice in your view if Louisiana simply certified the successful candidate on the Federal Election date?\nHe had to be alive, and then he's to get certified?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1794.334, 1809.966], "stop_times": [1809.966, 1811.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1794.334}, "reply_to": "20899__1_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20899__1_008", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Well, it... Justice Kennedy, with respect to the former, the hypothetical you gave me, the Federal statute requires that any runoff election be held at some point after the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1811.746], "stop_times": [1825.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1811.746}, "reply_to": "20899__1_007", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_009", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "I understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1825.894], "stop_times": [1826.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1825.894}, "reply_to": "20899__1_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20899__1_010", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--And the fact that turnout may be lower is inconsequential to the Federal statutory scheme.\nThat's just a fact of life, and that... we saw that in Georgia in 1992, where Georgia had an election for the United States Senate in which no candidate obtained a majority of the vote in November and there was a run-off thereafter, at which point the turnout was actually lower.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1826.715, 1834.289], "stop_times": [1834.289, 1849.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1826.715}, "reply_to": "20899__1_009", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_011", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Mr. Baker--\n--What about the next point?\nCan... would it be satisfactory if this election scheme basically stayed in place but the winner was just certified as of the General Election date?\nHe had to be alive, his name on the ballot?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1849.029, 1851.643, 1852.872, 1862.299], "stop_times": [1851.643, 1852.872, 1862.299, 1864.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1849.029}, "reply_to": "20899__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20899__1_012", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Not at all, Justice Kennedy, and... not at all, because the real election, the de jure election, is in fact still on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1864.05], "stop_times": [1873.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1864.05}, "reply_to": "20899__1_011", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_013", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Well, suppose it's not de jure any more.\nHe's certified under... Louisiana changes the law simply to certify the winner on the Federal Election Date.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1873.526, 1875.806], "stop_times": [1875.806, 1882.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1873.526}, "reply_to": "20899__1_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20899__1_014", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--If there's no opportunity to cast... if there's no possibility for a choice on Federal Election Day, Louisiana has foreclosed an election on Federal Election Day, and it's legally impossible--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1882.962], "stop_times": [1895.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1882.962}, "reply_to": "20899__1_013", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_015", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Is that with every single election?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1895.852], "stop_times": [1896.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1895.852}, "reply_to": "20899__1_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20899__1_016", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Well, if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1896.781], "stop_times": [1897.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1896.781}, "reply_to": "20899__1_015", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_017", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "With every single candidate?\nIn every one of the States there has to be an opponent on the final election date, on the Federal election date?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1897.912, 1901.565], "stop_times": [1901.565, 1909.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1897.912}, "reply_to": "20899__1_016", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20899__1_018", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--State law has to provide for the possibility of an election.\nThat is, there has to be the possibility of an election on Federal Election Day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1909.289, 1913.132], "stop_times": [1913.132, 1917.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1909.289}, "reply_to": "20899__1_017", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_019", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Well, there is on Louisiana.\nIf the... if one person doesn't get a majority, there will an election on Election Day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1917.604, 1918.906], "stop_times": [1918.906, 1923.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1917.604}, "reply_to": "20899__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__1_020", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1923.248], "stop_times": [1923.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1923.248}, "reply_to": "20899__1_019", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_021", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "20 percent of the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1923.999], "stop_times": [1924.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1923.999}, "reply_to": "20899__1_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20899__1_022", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1924.7], "stop_times": [1925.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1924.7}, "reply_to": "20899__1_021", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_023", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "So you have no problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1925.361], "stop_times": [1926.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1925.361}, "reply_to": "20899__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__1_024", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "I have... well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1926.67], "stop_times": [1929.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1926.67}, "reply_to": "20899__1_023", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_025", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "You can go home.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1929.473, 1929.983], "stop_times": [1929.983, 1931.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1929.473}, "reply_to": "20899__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__1_026", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Your Honor, the statute doesn't say you can have an election for Federal office only 20 percent of the time.\nIt says in every Federal election the election must occur on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1931.683, 1937.329], "stop_times": [1937.329, 1939.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1931.683}, "reply_to": "20899__1_025", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_027", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "So you demand more than a possibility of an election on Election Day.\nWhat do you demand?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1939.81, 1942.662], "stop_times": [1942.662, 1943.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1939.81}, "reply_to": "20899__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__1_028", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--An election, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1943.534], "stop_times": [1944.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1943.534}, "reply_to": "20899__1_027", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_029", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "An election on Election Day.\nThen what do you do about the States that have a filing requirement and only one person files?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1944.482, 1945.424], "stop_times": [1945.424, 1951.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1944.482}, "reply_to": "20899__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__1_030", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--The State has provided for the possibility--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1951.878], "stop_times": [1954.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1951.878}, "reply_to": "20899__1_029", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_031", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Ah, you're back to possibility, now.\nWhich is it?\nIs a possibility enough, or does it have to be a certainty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1954.489, 1957.451, 1958.25], "stop_times": [1957.451, 1958.25, 1960.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1954.489}, "reply_to": "20899__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__1_032", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--A possibility is sufficient as long as State law hasn't foreclosed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1960.553], "stop_times": [1970.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1960.553}, "reply_to": "20899__1_031", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_033", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Do you have a possibility here?\nHow do you distinguish the... I mean, I wonder, you know, where this case leads us to.\nWhat do you do with those... what do you do with the State where only one... both parties nominate the same person?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1970.879, 1972.442, 1978.596], "stop_times": [1972.442, 1978.596, 1985.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1970.879}, "reply_to": "20899__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__1_034", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Where both parties have nominated the same--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1985.159], "stop_times": [1989.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1985.159}, "reply_to": "20899__1_033", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_035", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "You have party primaries, closed party primaries--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1989.954], "stop_times": [1992.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1989.954}, "reply_to": "20899__1_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__1_036", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1992.655], "stop_times": [1993.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1992.655}, "reply_to": "20899__1_035", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_037", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--And both of them nominate the same person, Dwight David Eisenhower, or whoever, you know, some great American--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1993.186], "stop_times": [1999.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1993.186}, "reply_to": "20899__1_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__1_038", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Or Earl Warren in California.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [1999.132], "stop_times": [2000.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1999.132}, "reply_to": "20899__1_037", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20899__1_039", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Or Earl Warren in California, and comes Election Day there's no election on Election Day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2000.021], "stop_times": [2004.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2000.021}, "reply_to": "20899__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__1_040", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "If... well, there's an election to the extent that State law provided for the possibility of more than one person being on the ballot.\nAn election was provided for.\nThrough the State's ballot access rules, only one person appeared to qualify for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2004.615, 2011.028, 2012.82], "stop_times": [2011.028, 2012.82, 2018.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2004.615}, "reply_to": "20899__1_039", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_041", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Through Louisiana's primary rules only one person qualified.\nI mean, it's the same thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2018.954, 2023.857], "stop_times": [2023.857, 2025.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2018.954}, "reply_to": "20899__1_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__1_042", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--That's not correct, Justice Scalia.\nThrough Louisiana's... Louisiana's primary is not a qualifying primary.\nIt elects Members of Congress in October.\nOnly to the extent that there is a failure to elect in the Louisiana primary is, in fact, there an election in October.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2025.079, 2027.219, 2032.573, 2035.845], "stop_times": [2027.219, 2032.573, 2035.845, 2042.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2025.079}, "reply_to": "20899__1_041", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_043", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "So you--\n--But in answer to my question you said that if the certification laws were changed, and you just... and Louisiana just delayed certification until the General Election, that would not be sufficient.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2042.941, 2043.472], "stop_times": [2043.472, 2053.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2042.941}, "reply_to": "20899__1_042", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20899__1_044", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "That's... it's not a question of timing or certification, Justice Kennedy.\nIt's a question of the timing of the election that selects the Member for office.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2053.967, 2058.138], "stop_times": [2058.138, 2061.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2053.967}, "reply_to": "20899__1_043", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_045", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "It's a question of what is a de jure election, I suppose, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2061.581], "stop_times": [2064.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2061.581}, "reply_to": "20899__1_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20899__1_046", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "On--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2064.342], "stop_times": [2065.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2064.342}, "reply_to": "20899__1_045", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_047", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--it's very clear that there is a possibility that the de jure election will be in... on the Federal election date, and you've indicated that's all that's necessary, and that's what Louisiana has.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2065.344], "stop_times": [2075.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2065.344}, "reply_to": "20899__1_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20899__1_048", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--No, Justice Kennedy.\nJustice Kennedy, Louisiana has a conclusive election in its October primary.\nThe voters--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2075.552, 2076.951, 2083.547], "stop_times": [2076.951, 2083.547, 2085.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2075.552}, "reply_to": "20899__1_047", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_049", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Well, only if some candidate gets a majority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2085.427], "stop_times": [2089.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2085.427}, "reply_to": "20899__1_048", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20899__1_050", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--But--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2089.471], "stop_times": [2090.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2089.471}, "reply_to": "20899__1_049", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_051", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "I mean, you're all tangled up in your possibility language.\nIt doesn't wash.\n[Laughter]\nIt doesn't fly.\nYou're... I don't know what you're up here arguing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2090.081, 2093.054, 2094.213, 2095.404, 2095.875], "stop_times": [2093.054, 2094.213, 2095.404, 2095.875, 2098.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2090.081}, "reply_to": "20899__1_050", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20899__1_052", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Because the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2098.937], "stop_times": [2100.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2098.937}, "reply_to": "20899__1_051", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_053", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "There are statutes, as my colleagues have indicated, where you could end up with a two-party primary, and the same candidate on the ballot in November, so that it's only one name, or you could have a situation where one party doesn't make a nomination, and again there's only one name.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2100.396], "stop_times": [2126.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2100.396}, "reply_to": "20899__1_052", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20899__1_054", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Your--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2126.784], "stop_times": [2129.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2126.784}, "reply_to": "20899__1_053", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_055", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Is that a problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2129.225], "stop_times": [2130.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2129.225}, "reply_to": "20899__1_054", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20899__1_056", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--No, it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2130.808], "stop_times": [2132.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2130.808}, "reply_to": "20899__1_055", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_057", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "And Louisiana presumably could go to a system whereby they still have their primary election but they provide that the... if there is a majority winner at the primary election date, that name has to go on the General Election ballot before it's official that there's an election.\nNow, will that do it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2132.26, 2155.134], "stop_times": [2155.134, 2156.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2132.26}, "reply_to": "20899__1_056", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20899__1_058", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--No, Justice O'Connor.\nIn response to your hypotheticals, those are all situations in which the party primaries are not conclusive as a matter of law.\nThe party primaries have merely nominated a person who may appear on the November ballot.\nThe Louisiana October primary is conclusive as a matter of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2156.316, 2157.605, 2167.002, 2173.007], "stop_times": [2157.605, 2167.002, 2173.007, 2177.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2156.316}, "reply_to": "20899__1_057", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_059", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Well then, all then... if that's your argument, then all Louisiana would have to do to meet your contention is to say the October primary isn't conclusive.\nThe person still has to be alive in November and be on the ballot, and it's that time that he's officially elected.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2177.401, 2187.145], "stop_times": [2187.145, 2195.011], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2177.401}, "reply_to": "20899__1_058", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20899__1_060", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "If it's not possible, if it's not legally possible for the winner of the primary in October to lose in November, if it's not... if a State doesn't allow for some other candidate to appear on that ballot, if by winning that October primary you have won the election, that... you're selected for office, that's the violation of the Federal statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2195.011], "stop_times": [2219.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2195.011}, "reply_to": "20899__1_059", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_061", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Well, but then you're... then you have trouble dealing with the question whether... where both parties nominate the same candidate, and there is only one candidate on the November ballot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2219.997], "stop_times": [2230.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2219.997}, "reply_to": "20899__1_060", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20899__1_062", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "But that satisfies Federal law because those primaries, Chief Justice Rehnquist, were not conclusive.\nThey did not select, as a matter of law, the person for Congress.\nA primary, as traditionally understood, merely selects a person to appear on a ballot, either a partisan nominee, or otherwise serves the function of... it's a ballot access funnel, and it winnows down the number of candidates who will ultimately appear on a General Election ballot, but it doesn't select Members of Congress.\nAn election does, and that's the crucial--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2230.775, 2237.089, 2239.851, 2261.154], "stop_times": [2237.089, 2239.851, 2261.154, 2263.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2230.775}, "reply_to": "20899__1_061", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_063", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Then you're back to the Chief Justice's earlier question.\nAll you have to change in this law is the determination that he's elected, and just say, you know, he'll... this is just a primary, and he'll be the only candidate on the ballot in November.\nI don't see how you can get around that, unless you want to repudiate those State laws that allow partisan primaries, both of which can name the same candidate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2263.748, 2266.319, 2277.165], "stop_times": [2266.319, 2277.165, 2288.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2263.748}, "reply_to": "20899__1_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__1_064", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Justice Scalia, we don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2288.362], "stop_times": [2290.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2288.362}, "reply_to": "20899__1_063", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_065", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "That candidate's the only name on the ballot, and the same would be the case in Louisiana.\nWhoever gets a majority in the primary, his will be the only name on the ballot.\nWhat's the difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2290.334, 2295.037, 2298.7], "stop_times": [2295.037, 2298.7, 2299.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2290.334}, "reply_to": "20899__1_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__1_066", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--The difference is, Justice Scalia, is that the hypotheticals you gave me, the two... there are two partisan primaries.\nThe part... that each provide a place on the ballot.\nNeither primary is conclusive as a matter of law.\nThis Louisiana October primary is conclusive, and merely delaying the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2299.939, 2305.433, 2308.876, 2312.9], "stop_times": [2305.433, 2308.876, 2312.9, 2316.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2299.939}, "reply_to": "20899__1_065", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_067", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "I understand that.\nBut I'm asking the Chief Justice's question.\nIf all that you changed about Louisiana law was the statement that the primary is conclusive if someone wins a majority, if you just change that and say he's not elected then, he will be the only name on the ballot in November, would that make you happy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2316.502, 2317.461, 2320.085], "stop_times": [2317.461, 2320.085, 2335.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2316.502}, "reply_to": "20899__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__1_068", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--No, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2335.793], "stop_times": [2337.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2335.793}, "reply_to": "20899__1_067", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_069", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Then you've got to tell me why that's any different from the two-party primary that puts one name on the ballot in November.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2337.285], "stop_times": [2343.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2337.285}, "reply_to": "20899__1_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__1_070", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "It's not... Justice Scalia, that's not an election, because there's not the possibility... State law has not allowed for... assuming there's no write-in possibility, what section 7 requires is an election on Federal Election Day, which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2343.998], "stop_times": [2358.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2343.998}, "reply_to": "20899__1_069", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_071", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "But you're saying one thing more.\nYou're saying there's got to be a... how shall I put it +/?\na legally unconditional opportunity for voting on the November date.\nThat's what you're saying, isn't it?\nNot merely a possibility.\nYou're saying that the possibility has got to be legally unconditional.\nNow, if the voters make a choice, as in the Earl Warren case, that would not be a problem under your criteria, because the law was not precluding the possibility of the voting that you're talking about.\nYou're saying that the law cannot preclude that opportunity, and this law does in the 80 percent of the cases.\nIsn't that what you're arguing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2358.069, 2359.51, 2362.32, 2369.376, 2370.866, 2373.249, 2378.051, 2392.361, 2400.626], "stop_times": [2359.51, 2362.32, 2369.376, 2370.866, 2373.249, 2378.051, 2392.361, 2400.626, 2401.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2358.069}, "reply_to": "20899__1_070", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20899__1_072", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Absolutely, Justice Souter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2401.888], "stop_times": [2403.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2401.888}, "reply_to": "20899__1_071", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_073", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "All right, and do we have to get into this other issue?\nI mean, I don't know, maybe in California my recollection is they all provided for writeins.\nI don't know whether they do or don't.\nMaybe all these other... I don't know what Louisiana will do.\nI mean, here the statute says now a candidate who receives a majority of the vote that's cast for office in a primary election is elected.\nNow, do we have to go into the question of what happens if that is illegal under the statute and they decide to fix it up by declaring him elected or not?\nIs it necessary or not necessary for us to go into that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2403.146, 2405.44, 2410.012, 2412.313, 2414.346, 2422.28, 2431.898], "stop_times": [2405.44, 2410.012, 2412.313, 2414.346, 2422.28, 2431.898, 2434.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2403.146}, "reply_to": "20899__1_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20899__1_074", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "It's not necessary, Justice Breyer.\nA declaratory... affirming the court of appeals, and the declaratory judgment of the court of appeals as satisfactory, then it will be the prerogative of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2434.539, 2436.31], "stop_times": [2436.31, 2444.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2434.539}, "reply_to": "20899__1_073", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_075", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "In other words, the court of appeals just dealt with this language, so if they decide to fix it up through this... saying, okay, they changed the words, so a candidate who receives the majority of the votes cast for office in a primary election will have his name placed on the ballot in November and no one else will, and there are no write-ins.\nIf that's how they fix it up, then we have to deal with this question we're now discussing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2444.284, 2463.357], "stop_times": [2463.357, 2467.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2444.284}, "reply_to": "20899__1_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20899__1_076", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Absolutely, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2467.03], "stop_times": [2467.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2467.03}, "reply_to": "20899__1_075", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_077", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "We'll also have to deal with the writing of an opinion in this case.\nYes.\nI mean, we can't simply say in one word, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.\nWe customarily give reasons why we're affirming.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2467.879, 2472.804, 2473.344, 2477.957, 2481.139], "stop_times": [2472.804, 2473.344, 2477.957, 2481.139, 2482.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2467.879}, "reply_to": "20899__1_076", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20899__1_078", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Sometimes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2482.549], "stop_times": [2483.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2482.549}, "reply_to": "20899__1_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__1_079", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "I wouldn't object to that, Chief Justice Rehnquist.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2483.631], "stop_times": [2485.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2483.631}, "reply_to": "20899__1_078", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_080", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Well, what reasons would you suggest we give for affirming?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2485.142, 2487.954], "stop_times": [2487.954, 2490.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2485.142}, "reply_to": "20899__1_079", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20899__1_081", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "The reasons that I would provide is that the State statute is in hopeless conflict with Federal law.\nFederal law requires a uniform national date for congressional elections, Louisiana law provides for conclusive congressional elections in October that cannot be reconciled--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2490.004, 2500.42], "stop_times": [2500.42, 2511.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2490.004}, "reply_to": "20899__1_080", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_082", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Mr. Baker, did I understand you to agree with me... I think General Ieyoub did... that when you have the two things, one is everybody votes in this, call it what you will, in this thing, and to be in the running you must run in this thing, that whatever label you put on it, that is an election, unlike a primary, where only Democrats can vote in one, Republicans can vote in the... they're not specific.\nThis is everybody who wants to vote votes in this.\nEverybody who wants to run runs in this.\nWhat is that, and if the answer is, an election, then you have a conflict with the Federal statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2511.269, 2541.778, 2546.121, 2549.003], "stop_times": [2541.778, 2546.121, 2549.003, 2555.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2511.269}, "reply_to": "20899__1_081", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20899__1_083", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Absolutely, Justice Ginsburg, which leads me to respond to a point made by my colleague, the Attorney General.\nThe Attorney General suggested that partisan primaries were unknown in 1872, and he's absolutely right, so this is not a situation of applying old law to new facts.\nWe're applying old law to, in fact, an election system that Congress exactly understood at the time it enacted this statute.\nCongress... in 1872 there were elections.\nThere were no pre-election primaries.\nBut Congress also anticipated that States in these elections might have majority vote requirements.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2555.198, 2562.443, 2575.48, 2582.556, 2586.008, 2588.299], "stop_times": [2562.443, 2575.48, 2582.556, 2586.008, 2588.299, 2594.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2555.198}, "reply_to": "20899__1_082", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_084", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "But let me just... are you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2594.163], "stop_times": [2597.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2594.163}, "reply_to": "20899__1_083", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20899__1_085", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2597.416], "stop_times": [2598.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2597.416}, "reply_to": "20899__1_084", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_086", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--If you are, let me go back to the Chief Justice's question, because I was asking seriously whether we have to reach it, and to force you to focus on it, I'll say, now we are writing the opinion in your favor, hypothetically, and we come to the section where... remember the alternative I gave you you said we didn't have to reach, they change it, all right, to say only this name appears on the ballot and no write-ins?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2598.555], "stop_times": [2622.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2598.555}, "reply_to": "20899__1_085", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20899__1_087", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2622.16], "stop_times": [2622.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2622.16}, "reply_to": "20899__1_086", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_088", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "All right.\nIt is argued that it would be fine to have a statute that says, no write-ins, and the only name on the ballot, and that this statute is the same, but that argument is unconvincing, because... and now I want you to fill in the blank.\n[Laughter]\nThat's why I'm uncertain whether we have to reach it.\nHow would you fill in the blank?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2622.791, 2623.172, 2640.754, 2644.086, 2647.459], "stop_times": [2623.172, 2640.754, 2644.086, 2647.459, 2649.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2622.791}, "reply_to": "20899__1_087", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20899__1_089", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "The argument is unconvincing because the election that selected the Member for office was held in October, and there was no election in November, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2649.529], "stop_times": [2664.869], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2649.529}, "reply_to": "20899__1_088", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_090", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Mr. Baker, maybe I misunderstood you, but I think the premise of Justice Breyer's question is that it would be okay to comply just by saying that the one who gets the most votes in October is on the ballot, and nobody else, and nobody else qualifies.\nI thought your answer to that was that that would not be compliance with the Federal elections statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2664.869, 2683.32], "stop_times": [2683.32, 2689.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2664.869}, "reply_to": "20899__1_089", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20899__1_091", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "That's... maybe I misunderstood Justice Breyer's question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2689.183], "stop_times": [2692.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2689.183}, "reply_to": "20899__1_090", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_092", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "So--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2692.176], "stop_times": [2692.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2692.176}, "reply_to": "20899__1_091", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20899__1_093", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "That would not comply with the Federal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2692.847], "stop_times": [2695.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2692.847}, "reply_to": "20899__1_092", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_094", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--But it would if you said the two top runners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2695.398], "stop_times": [2698.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2695.398}, "reply_to": "20899__1_093", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20899__1_095", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--That's... there are numerous correct, Justice Ginsburg... there are numerous possibilities for fixing this system so that it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2698.81], "stop_times": [2706.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2698.81}, "reply_to": "20899__1_094", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_096", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "I see two.\nOne is, you move the... what they call the open primary to Election Day.\nAnother one is, you put the top two.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2706.236, 2707.446, 2712.15], "stop_times": [2707.446, 2712.15, 2714.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2706.236}, "reply_to": "20899__1_095", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20899__1_097", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Or maybe the first and the last.\n[Laughter]\nI mean, that would give you an election on Election Day, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2714.642, 2717.123, 2720.095], "stop_times": [2717.123, 2720.095, 2723.258], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2714.642}, "reply_to": "20899__1_096", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__1_098", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "What if you had a scheme in which the Louisiana statute said, whoever gets a majority in October will be on the November ballot and will be the only name on the November ballot, and there will be no write-ins, but unless in November that person gets at least one vote, that person will not or cannot be elected, would that satisfy the Federal law?\nThe reason I ask the question is, I think what you're saying is, there's got to be voting on the November date which is operative to elect, and in my silly hypothetical there would in fact be voting in November that would be operative to elect, and so that's why I'm asking.\nIs that sort of the nub of what you're arguing here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2723.258, 2750.886, 2780.394], "stop_times": [2750.886, 2780.394, 2785.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2723.258}, "reply_to": "20899__1_097", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20899__1_099", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--It would be... well, under your hypothetical it would be legally possible to be elected or not be elected if a candidate did receive a vote, as I understand your hypothetical.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2785.868], "stop_times": [2802.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2785.868}, "reply_to": "20899__1_098", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_100", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "That's right.\nNobody votes for the October winner, and therefore no one is elected for that office.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2802.391, 2802.762], "stop_times": [2802.762, 2810.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2802.391}, "reply_to": "20899__1_099", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20899__1_101", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Which is distinguished from most... all right, under that... if State law were as you posited it, Justice Souter, and it would only take one vote to elect this person, this person was on the ballot, there would be an election on Federal Election Day, but it would not... there would be serious, profound questions raised whether or not this election satisfied this Court's First and Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2810.015], "stop_times": [2842.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2810.015}, "reply_to": "20899__1_100", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_102", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "What is the reason for that?\nAre you saying the reason is there's got to be a choice as between at least two candidates on that date?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2842.165, 2843.297], "stop_times": [2843.297, 2849.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2842.165}, "reply_to": "20899__1_101", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20899__1_103", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--An election, by definition, presupposes a choice.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2849.452, 2853.042], "stop_times": [2853.042, 2853.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2849.452}, "reply_to": "20899__1_102", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_104", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Or at least an opportunity so far as State law is concerned for a choice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2853.512], "stop_times": [2857.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2853.512}, "reply_to": "20899__1_103", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20899__1_105", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Correct, Justice Souter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2857.436], "stop_times": [2859.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2857.436}, "reply_to": "20899__1_104", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_106", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Now, wait a minute, there is a choice.\nYou... I mean, you don't say there has to be a choice, because you say it's okay if you have two separate primaries and you have no choice on Election Day.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2859.096, 2861.44], "stop_times": [2861.44, 2871.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2859.096}, "reply_to": "20899__1_105", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__1_107", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "But what has happened... two separate primaries that have elected the same nominee--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2871.233], "stop_times": [2879.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2871.233}, "reply_to": "20899__1_106", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_108", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Yes.\nThere's no choice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2879.061, 2879.829], "stop_times": [2879.829, 2880.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2879.061}, "reply_to": "20899__1_107", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__1_109", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--The State law has not prevented that choice, Justice Scalia.\nIt's the choice of the voters in a preceding... State law has allowed for the possibility of an election in November.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2880.55, 2885.423], "stop_times": [2885.423, 2891.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2880.55}, "reply_to": "20899__1_108", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_110", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Why should it make any difference that in one hypothesis the reason you have only one name is on the ballot is there were two separate primaries and in both of those the same person, and in the Louisiana case there were a number of people on the ballot and only one person survived.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2891.768], "stop_times": [2909.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2891.768}, "reply_to": "20899__1_109", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20899__1_111", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "The difference, Justice... Chief Justice Rehnquist is that the... that those primaries, neither primary elected as a matter of right the person to office.\nEach primary merely selected a person who happened to be the same person to appear on that ballot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2909.308, 2921.397], "stop_times": [2921.397, 2928.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2909.308}, "reply_to": "20899__1_110", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_112", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "And why does that make a difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2928.803], "stop_times": [2932.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2928.803}, "reply_to": "20899__1_111", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20899__1_113", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Because the State law has provided for its conclusive election in November.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2932.166], "stop_times": [2940.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2932.166}, "reply_to": "20899__1_112", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_114", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "May I ask a question... we're talking about a lot of hypotheticals here.\nSince the decision of the court of appeals in this case, do you know whether or not the Louisiana legislature has given any attention to what remedy it might provide for this, or are they just sitting waiting for us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2940.841, 2945.953], "stop_times": [2945.953, 2960.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2940.841}, "reply_to": "20899__1_113", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20899__1_115", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Yes, Justice Stevens, they looked at this in the most recent legislative session.\nThere were some efforts to address the problem, and then they decided apparently to wait until this Court's disposition of this case, so the legislation went nowhere.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2960.613, 2965.265], "stop_times": [2965.265, 2976.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2960.613}, "reply_to": "20899__1_114", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_116", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Do you know... have you looked up, or do you know how many States other than Louisiana do not allow write-ins on the November election?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2976.585], "stop_times": [2985.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2976.585}, "reply_to": "20899__1_115", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20899__1_117", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "I don't know the answer to that, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2985.888], "stop_times": [2989.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2985.888}, "reply_to": "20899__1_116", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_118", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Do we know if there are any others?\nIs it common?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2989.882, 2990.783], "stop_times": [2990.783, 2992.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2989.882}, "reply_to": "20899__1_117", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20899__1_119", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "I know that Hawaii doesn't allow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2992.093], "stop_times": [2994.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2992.093}, "reply_to": "20899__1_118", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_120", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Does not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2994.366], "stop_times": [2995.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2994.366}, "reply_to": "20899__1_119", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20899__1_121", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Does not allow write-in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2995.125], "stop_times": [2996.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2995.125}, "reply_to": "20899__1_120", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_122", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "So there are other States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2996.307], "stop_times": [2997.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2996.307}, "reply_to": "20899__1_121", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20899__1_123", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2997.218], "stop_times": [2997.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2997.218}, "reply_to": "20899__1_122", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_124", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "There are other States that don't allow write-ins in the primaries?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [2997.706], "stop_times": [3001.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2997.706}, "reply_to": "20899__1_123", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20899__1_125", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Correct, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [3001.97], "stop_times": [3002.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3001.97}, "reply_to": "20899__1_124", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_126", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Well then, we may have to reach the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [3002.821], "stop_times": [3004.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3002.821}, "reply_to": "20899__1_125", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20899__1_127", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Section 8--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [3004.151], "stop_times": [3012.666], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3004.151}, "reply_to": "20899__1_126", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_128", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Would you be happy if there were a write-in provision?\nI mean, if there were just a write-in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [3012.666, 3014.699], "stop_times": [3014.699, 3016.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3012.666}, "reply_to": "20899__1_127", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__1_129", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Absolutely, Justice Scalia.\nThat would satisfy... there would be an election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [3016.26, 3017.451], "stop_times": [3017.451, 3019.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3016.26}, "reply_to": "20899__1_128", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_130", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "There would be a real election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [3019.362], "stop_times": [3020.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3019.362}, "reply_to": "20899__1_129", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__1_131", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "There'd be an election.\nNow, whether or not that election--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [3020.073, 3020.563], "stop_times": [3020.563, 3022.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3020.073}, "reply_to": "20899__1_130", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_132", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "So I guess you'd be satisfied if we allowed the... you know, the first and the last in the primary to be put on the ballot.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [3022.815, 3028.737], "stop_times": [3028.737, 3030.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3022.815}, "reply_to": "20899__1_131", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__1_133", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--If--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [3030.079], "stop_times": [3030.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3030.079}, "reply_to": "20899__1_132", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_134", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Anything.\nJust pick a name.\nYou know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [3030.848, 3031.579, 3032.41], "stop_times": [3031.579, 3032.41, 3033.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3030.848}, "reply_to": "20899__1_133", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__1_135", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--There... well, not anything, Justice Scalia.\nThere has to be the... as long as there is the possibility for a choice in November--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [3033.56, 3037.433], "stop_times": [3037.433, 3041.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3033.56}, "reply_to": "20899__1_134", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_136", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Right--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [3041.977], "stop_times": [3042.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3041.977}, "reply_to": "20899__1_135", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__1_137", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--That's the problem.\nI can understand why you'd want to limit it, because if you can limit it any way at all, even with one vote, or even with the first and last, you've distinguished your case.\nI understand that.\nNow we don't have to reach the others.\nBut what's worrying me now is that if we say here there is no election, it's not an election, then there may be X other States that suddenly will discover they don't have an election in November for the reason that it is more than theoretically possible that both parties have selected the same nominee, and that's what is driving this concern, and at the moment I don't know the answer to that.\nIt seems to me a genuine concern, and that's... I mean, everybody's asking you to focus on it.\nI don't want to give up before getting the most out of your thought on this that I can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [3042.366, 3044.129, 3052.144, 3053.723, 3054.955, 3083.453, 3089.206], "stop_times": [3044.129, 3052.144, 3053.723, 3054.955, 3083.453, 3089.206, 3095.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3042.366}, "reply_to": "20899__1_136", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20899__1_138", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Well, Justice Breyer, if a State's ballot access selection device is not conclusive as a matter of law, that ballot access selection device in the form of a primary would pass muster under the Federal statutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [3095.3], "stop_times": [3113.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3095.3}, "reply_to": "20899__1_137", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_139", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "In other words, you're saying that if Hawaii or other States that don't have write-ins in November do end up with the Democratic and Republican parties selecting the same candidate, that their election will be invalid.\nThat's your position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [3113.533, 3124.659], "stop_times": [3124.659, 3126.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3113.533}, "reply_to": "20899__1_138", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20899__1_140", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "That's not my position, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [3126.732], "stop_times": [3127.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3126.732}, "reply_to": "20899__1_139", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_141", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "All right.\nWell, I... then... it sounds as if it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [3127.441, 3127.751], "stop_times": [3127.751, 3129.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3127.441}, "reply_to": "20899__1_140", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20899__1_142", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--Well, Justice Breyer, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [3129.974], "stop_times": [3131.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3129.974}, "reply_to": "20899__1_141", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_143", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "It ought to be, if I understand the rest of your argument, or if it isn't, then the rest of your argument has to be different.\nI... You keep--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [3131.604, 3136.617], "stop_times": [3136.617, 3138.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3131.604}, "reply_to": "20899__1_142", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20899__1_144", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--I think if people had focused on this we'd have a few briefs here from other States that would be concerned about it, and so I'm a little uncertain what to do.\nIt seems to me it's coming up for the first time now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [3138.09, 3146.824], "stop_times": [3146.824, 3148.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3138.09}, "reply_to": "20899__1_143", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20899__1_145", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Mr. Baker, I thought that you had answered my question that this is an election when everybody votes.\nI thought that was your distinction between party primaries that happen to come up with the same candidate but not everybody votes together, and this, which you agreed, I thought, that it is an election because everybody votes and everybody who's running must run, that those two things in combination equal an election, and if that's so, then you would distinguish your case from the party primaries that may happen to come up with the same candidate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [3148.815, 3157.631], "stop_times": [3157.631, 3189.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3148.815}, "reply_to": "20899__1_144", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20899__1_146", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "--That's correct, Justice Ginsburg, and for the added reason that those party primaries don't as a matter of law select the congressional officer.\nThey simply have selected a nominee who will appear on a ballot, and if by happenstance the same person has been chosen by the respective Democratic and Republican primaries, the election is still held in... the conclusive election is held in November, and the primaries were not legally... were not the legal selection of the congressional officer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [3189.571, 3201.239], "stop_times": [3201.239, 3223.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3189.571}, "reply_to": "20899__1_145", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_147", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "And Louisiana has been candid in describing its system, because it says, if you have somebody who comes out of this race, whatever it is, with a majority vote, that person is elected.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [3223.826], "stop_times": [3235.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3223.826}, "reply_to": "20899__1_146", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20899__1_148", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Correct.\nThat's correct, Justice Ginsburg, and section 8, the companion statute to section 7, 2 U.S.C. section 8, is a statute that answers this... that gives us the answer in this case.\nElections in 1872 were like the elections that Louisiana has today.\nEverybody appeared at the polls.\nEverybody voted.\nIn most States, a plurality election was sufficient to elect a person to Congress, but a number of States have majority vote requirements as does Louisiana today, so therefore Congress inserted section 8 into title 2 to provide for the contingency of a failure to elect on Federal Election Day, and that's the statute that Louisiana could follow and have its post Federal Election Day run-off if it so chose to do that.\nIf there are no further questions, that concludes my argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [3235.823, 3236.444, 3251.435, 3258.889, 3260.659, 3261.61, 3291.429], "stop_times": [3236.444, 3251.435, 3258.889, 3260.659, 3261.61, 3291.429, 3298.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3235.823}, "reply_to": "20899__1_147", "speaker": "m_miller_baker"}
{"id": "20899__1_149", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Baker.\nGeneral Ieyoub, you have 2 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [3298.075, 3299.053], "stop_times": [3299.053, 3301.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3298.075}, "reply_to": "20899__1_148", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20899__2_000", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, I have no rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [3301.725], "stop_times": [3310.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3301.725}, "reply_to": "20899__1_149", "speaker": "richard_i_ieyoub"}
{"id": "20899__2_001", "conversation_id": "20899", "text": "Thank you.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-670", "start_times": [3310.062, 3311.905], "stop_times": [3311.905, 3329.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3310.062}, "reply_to": "20899__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20992__0_000", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 96-1866, Alida Star Gebser and Alida Jean McCullough v. the Lago Vista Independent School District.\nMr. Weldon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [0.0, 12.249], "stop_times": [12.249, 58.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20992__0_001", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court:\nThe issue in this case is the standard under which a school district can be held liable for violation of Title IX of the education amendments when one of its teachers intentionally discriminates against one of his students by engaging in sexual harassment of her.\nPetitioner was clearly subjected to intentional discrimination under, using the terminology of this statute, under the educational programs and activities provided by the respondent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [58.5, 61.723, 75.711], "stop_times": [61.723, 75.711, 87.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 58.5}, "reply_to": "20992__0_000", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_002", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Was there some showing that it was discriminatory?\nBecause I read many of the statements in the various briefs in the proceeding and there's virtually no mention of discrimination.\nThere's a lot of mention of sexual harassment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [87.028, 89.95, 98.566], "stop_times": [89.95, 98.566, 101.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 87.028}, "reply_to": "20992__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20992__0_003", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "We're using in the briefs and in the documents in the case that are in the joint appendix, we're using the term, sexual harassment, as synonymous with discrimination, and I believe the Franklin court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [101.348], "stop_times": [111.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 101.348}, "reply_to": "20992__0_002", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_004", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Well, I think in Oncale we said it wasn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [111.604], "stop_times": [113.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 111.604}, "reply_to": "20992__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20992__0_005", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [113.444], "stop_times": [114.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 113.444}, "reply_to": "20992__0_004", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_006", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "That you have to show that the treatment... not only that the treatment was harassing, but that it was... you were treating one sex on a basis that you would not have treated the other sex.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [114.386], "stop_times": [125.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 114.386}, "reply_to": "20992__0_005", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20992__0_007", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--And I think that's amply shown by the record in this case and I think that the Franklin case simply stands for the proposition that when a teacher intentionally harasses a student, that is discrimination based on sex.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [125.172], "stop_times": [139.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 125.172}, "reply_to": "20992__0_006", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_008", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Well, the Franklin case said there's a private cause of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [139.432], "stop_times": [142.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 139.432}, "reply_to": "20992__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20992__0_009", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [142.884], "stop_times": [143.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 142.884}, "reply_to": "20992__0_008", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_010", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "But are you saying that it would be enough if you showed there was just harassment of a student by a teacher of a different sex?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [143.395], "stop_times": [154.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 143.395}, "reply_to": "20992__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20992__0_011", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "If the harassment was based on sex, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [154.682], "stop_times": [156.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 154.682}, "reply_to": "20992__0_010", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_012", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Well, I think the statute says you have to discriminate on the basis of sex.\nYou have to... the teacher has to treat students of one sex differently from another.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [156.883, 164.289], "stop_times": [164.289, 169.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 156.883}, "reply_to": "20992__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20992__0_013", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "And in this case that's exactly what happened.\nThe teacher singled out this young girl.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [169.372, 171.373], "stop_times": [171.373, 174.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 169.372}, "reply_to": "20992__0_012", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_014", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Because of her sex?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [174.645], "stop_times": [176.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 174.645}, "reply_to": "20992__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20992__0_015", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Because of her sex.\nThe Fifth Circuit standard from which we appeal would require proof of actual knowledge not only in the school district generally but in the superior of the teacher who was guilty of the discrimination, or at least in some person who had immediate power over that teacher with respect to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [176.127, 177.247], "stop_times": [177.247, 198.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 176.127}, "reply_to": "20992__0_014", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_016", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Well, you know, I think the tough question we need to answer here is whether a suit under Title IX, which this is, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [198.369], "stop_times": [210.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 198.369}, "reply_to": "20992__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20992__0_017", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [210.889], "stop_times": [211.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 210.889}, "reply_to": "20992__0_016", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_018", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--should be governed by the principles of Title VII suits, or whether there is some different standard here under Title IX because essentially it's a Federal financial grant program under Title IX, and it's quite possible that agency principles don't apply to Title IX at all.\nAre you going to address that question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [211.439, 237.255], "stop_times": [237.255, 239.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 211.439}, "reply_to": "20992__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20992__0_019", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "I'll do it right now.\nThe... there are obvious similarities between Title VII and Title IX in that they have as their object the prevention or redress of sexual discrimination, but there are important differences as well.\nAs we are argue in some detail in the brief, those differences lead, I think, to the conclusion that Title IX provides wider protection even though it does not use the word agent in a definitional way as Title VII does with respect to employers.\nThe reason for that is that the focus of the two statutes is quite different.\nThe focus in Title VII says... is on the employer, and it tells what the employer and his agents are prohibited from doing.\nAs the Court pointed out early on in the Cannon case, the focus of Title IX is completely different.\nThe focus there is on the beneficiary, and the focus is on discrimination without respect to who might be guilty of the discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [239.847, 240.708, 254.077, 268.048, 272.21, 279.625, 286.618], "stop_times": [240.708, 254.077, 268.048, 272.21, 279.625, 286.618, 294.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 239.847}, "reply_to": "20992__0_018", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_020", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "But, what about the supposed constitutional distinction between them?\nI mean, the argument is being made on the other side that under what is in effect a spending power, piece of spending power legislation, an obligation cannot be imposed upon the Government that takes the money, which is not very clearly spelled out.\nAnd if the standard of liability for the employer is not clearly spelled out, then the only standard that can be applied is that which necessarily would be applied if there's going to be liability at all, i.e. in this case actual knowledge.\nWhat's your response to that argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [294.865, 297.928, 315.659, 329.597], "stop_times": [297.928, 315.659, 329.597, 331.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 294.865}, "reply_to": "20992__0_019", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20992__0_021", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "The respondent, with all respect, I think overreads the Spending Clause and overreads the cases that construe the Spending Clause.\nMy belief is, and I'm referring specifically to Pennhurst, my belief is that the Spending Clause statute must fairly inform the recipient of the funds what the conditions of the funding are.\nAt the time in question in this case the school district obviously knew the contents of Title IX.\nThe school district obviously knew the contents of regulations which have the force of statute because the statute authorizes the Department of Education and predecessor agencies to enact these regulations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [331.418, 341.566, 353.684, 361.487], "stop_times": [341.566, 353.684, 361.487, 372.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 331.418}, "reply_to": "20992__0_020", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_022", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Well, are you saying that there were regulations at the time in question here that indicated that the standard of employer liability for employee conduct would be something different from actual knowledge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [372.344], "stop_times": [385.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 372.344}, "reply_to": "20992__0_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20992__0_023", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "That would be my--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [385.514], "stop_times": [386.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 385.514}, "reply_to": "20992__0_022", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_024", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "What did they say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [386.415], "stop_times": [386.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 386.415}, "reply_to": "20992__0_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20992__0_025", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--my disagreement with the implication of your question, Justice Souter, and that is that I do not believe that the Pennhurst case or any of the Spending Clause cases require any extensive catalogue of what facts or what fact patterns might trigger liability, any more than the Spending Clause requires an exhaustive listing of the potential remedies that might follow if there is a violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [386.914], "stop_times": [409.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 386.914}, "reply_to": "20992__0_024", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_026", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Do you draw any distinction between the significance of the Spending Clause for primary liability... i.e., the liability of the employee, or the conduct--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [409.199], "stop_times": [419.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 409.199}, "reply_to": "20992__0_025", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20992__0_027", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [419.906], "stop_times": [420.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 419.906}, "reply_to": "20992__0_026", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_028", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--which could give rise to liability and, on the other hand, the significance of the Spending Clause argument for determinations of imputed or vicarious liability?\nAre the implications different in those... for those two different questions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [420.216, 432.355], "stop_times": [432.355, 436.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 420.216}, "reply_to": "20992__0_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20992__0_029", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "I think... to the extent that there are differences, I think they get resolved the same way.\nI think that the Spending Clause simply... and I don't mean to oversimplify, but simply requires that the recipient of Federal funds have some idea, some clear idea what the conditions of accepting the fund are, and here I find no ambiguity in anything that the school district--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [436.175, 442.009], "stop_times": [442.009, 461.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 436.175}, "reply_to": "20992__0_028", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_030", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "So... and do you--\n--Of course, it's sort of swallowing the camel and straining out the gnat if... inasmuch as the statute doesn't even show on its face that there's a private cause of action at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [461.053, 461.794], "stop_times": [461.794, 473.952], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 461.053}, "reply_to": "20992__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__0_031", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [473.952], "stop_times": [474.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 473.952}, "reply_to": "20992__0_030", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_032", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "If we really believe strongly in the principle that Spending Clause impositions upon the States must be clearly expressed, there wouldn't be a cause of action here at all, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [474.453], "stop_times": [486.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 474.453}, "reply_to": "20992__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__0_033", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "If I may, Justice Scalia, I'll invoke your concurring opinion in the Franklin case and simply observe that a couple of bridges have been crossed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [486.08], "stop_times": [495.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 486.08}, "reply_to": "20992__0_032", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_034", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "No, but I'm saying, it's... we're sort of switching the music if, having created the cause of action in the face of its nonexpression, despite the fact that this is a spending thing, we suddenly... we get very picky, I suppose, about what the content of that cause of action is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [495.427], "stop_times": [515.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 495.427}, "reply_to": "20992__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__0_035", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [515.169], "stop_times": [516.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 515.169}, "reply_to": "20992__0_034", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_036", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Of course, Cannon was decided long before we adopted this rule about Spending Clause certainties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [516.53], "stop_times": [522.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 516.53}, "reply_to": "20992__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__0_037", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--I understand that, but I'd like to point out, as you pointed out in that same concurring opinion, that Congress then took subsequent action--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [522.876], "stop_times": [531.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 522.876}, "reply_to": "20992__0_036", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_038", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [531.341], "stop_times": [531.661], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 531.341}, "reply_to": "20992__0_037", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20992__0_039", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--with the enactment of the civil rights bill that extended Title IX to the States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [531.661], "stop_times": [535.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 531.661}, "reply_to": "20992__0_038", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_040", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Quite so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [535.753], "stop_times": [536.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 535.753}, "reply_to": "20992__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__0_041", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "And I believe that it has to be taken in the context of the Cannon case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [536.273], "stop_times": [540.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 536.273}, "reply_to": "20992__0_040", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_042", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Oh, I'm not suggesting going back on it, but I'm suggesting that in our... I'm trying to help you.\nNever mind.\n[Laughter]\nIt seems to me an argument in your favor that we've already taken the step, and Congress has accepted it, of creating this cause of action in the teeth of its nonappearance in the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [540.277, 544.679, 545.099, 546.541], "stop_times": [544.679, 545.099, 546.541, 557.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 540.277}, "reply_to": "20992__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__0_043", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "And then, of course, the second step was to recognize in Franklin that despite the silence of the statute, which obviously, being implied, would be silent, that the presumption is that all reasonable remedies or usual remedies apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [557.698], "stop_times": [572.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 557.698}, "reply_to": "20992__0_042", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_044", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "May I ask, to the extent to which Title VII would be the model, do you accept that the statutory caps that are in Title VII would apply under Title IX?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [572.076], "stop_times": [584.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 572.076}, "reply_to": "20992__0_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20992__0_045", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Your Honor, I haven't read the statute closely, but I think the statute is specific with respect to Title VII.\nI think it would be entirely appropriate for Congress to consider whether enacting a statute imposing caps on Title IX precisely the way they have done for Title VII, but I do think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [584.936, 592.07], "stop_times": [592.07, 604.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 584.936}, "reply_to": "20992__0_044", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_046", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Yes, but it's not there now, and yet this Title IX tells us very little, so we look... we fill in the gaps, I think you suggest, by looking to the law built up under Title VII, so one question was, but you wouldn't take the caps from the statute?\nI guess that's... your answer is no, not unless Congress imposed them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [604.958, 623.652], "stop_times": [623.652, 627.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 604.958}, "reply_to": "20992__0_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20992__0_047", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--It's obviously a policy consideration, but with all deference I think it's probably... my view is that it's a legislative policy consideration and not a judicial one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [627.753], "stop_times": [637.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 627.753}, "reply_to": "20992__0_046", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_048", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "But the judicial... we... we have crafted this claim, and so we have to give it some content, too, because where else are we going to look?\nCongress hasn't done it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [637.09, 647.765], "stop_times": [647.765, 649.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 637.09}, "reply_to": "20992__0_047", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20992__0_049", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "And again, your question is specifically with regard to caps--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [649.307], "stop_times": [654.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 649.307}, "reply_to": "20992__0_048", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_050", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "So I... so I... well, one thing to do is to say, we'll do this the same way as Title VII, so we'll incorporate the Title VII case law and the Title VII statutory revisions, but you say no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [654.079], "stop_times": [666.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 654.079}, "reply_to": "20992__0_049", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20992__0_051", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--I think the Title VII cases are an appropriate analogue.\nI think the Court reflected at least that instinct, I wouldn't call it a holding, by it's reference to the Meritor in the midst of the Franklin case, but I think Title VII is just an analogue and not a direct road map, and I think the reason for that is principally because, first of all... two things.\nThe context of Title IX is significantly different than the context of Title VII.\nTitle IX obviously applies to education from kindergarten or preschool all the way up to post graduate, and the other reason is the text of the statutes are so completely different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [666.338, 670.962, 687.732, 693.296], "stop_times": [670.962, 687.732, 693.296, 705.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 666.338}, "reply_to": "20992__0_050", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_052", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Do we... do you think we could adopt one standard of liability for the private right of action and permit HHS to use a different standard for the cutting off of funds under Title IX, or do we have to go in lockstep with... I mean, assuming we're making it up, as Justice Ginsburg suggests, do we have to make it up in lockstep with HHS, or could... you know... do you understand what I'm asking?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [705.224], "stop_times": [740.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 705.224}, "reply_to": "20992__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__0_053", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "If you're--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [740.116], "stop_times": [741.488], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 740.116}, "reply_to": "20992__0_052", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_054", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Suppose... if you do X--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [741.488], "stop_times": [742.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 741.488}, "reply_to": "20992__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__0_055", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [742.958], "stop_times": [743.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 742.958}, "reply_to": "20992__0_054", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_056", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--you are liable for the cutting off of Federal funds under the regulations issued by the Secretary, which the Secretary has authority to issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [743.408], "stop_times": [751.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 743.408}, "reply_to": "20992__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__0_057", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [751.594], "stop_times": [752.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 751.594}, "reply_to": "20992__0_056", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_058", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "And the authority has... the Secretary has no authority to issue regulations about private causes of action, which we've created.\nDoes our private cause of action have to make the basis of liability the same thing that the Secretary says is the basis of cutting off Federal funds?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [752.054, 757.157], "stop_times": [757.157, 767.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 752.054}, "reply_to": "20992__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__0_059", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "I do not think so.\nFrankly, that's not a question that's concerned me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [767.044, 767.915], "stop_times": [767.915, 771.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 767.044}, "reply_to": "20992__0_058", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_060", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "All right--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [771.428], "stop_times": [771.746], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 771.428}, "reply_to": "20992__0_059", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20992__0_061", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "It occurred to me in my preparation, but I do not think so.\nI don't think so because I think what would govern the case... the Court in these decisions is the text of Title IX and the text of the actual regulations, the Code of Federal Regulations that were adopted implementing Title IX as the Department was authorized to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [771.746, 773.459], "stop_times": [773.459, 789.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 771.746}, "reply_to": "20992__0_060", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_062", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--So we have to follow those regulations, you say.\nIf it's a violation of the regs it's the basis for liability in the private cause of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [789.598, 791.281], "stop_times": [791.281, 795.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 789.598}, "reply_to": "20992__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__0_063", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "I just want to point out... yes, but I want to point out that at least in my mind there's a considerable distinction between the regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations, which are fairly minimal, as compared to the guidelines which are merely intended, I believe, and do not have the same statutory force as the regulations do.\nThe guidelines are a means of educating school districts and helping them implement Title IX, but they do not have the force of law with... in the same way as these regulations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [795.973, 814.004], "stop_times": [814.004, 822.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 795.973}, "reply_to": "20992__0_062", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_064", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Are the school districts bound by the guidelines to the extent that if they don't follow them they can have their funds cut off?\nI thought they could.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [822.9, 827.504], "stop_times": [827.504, 828.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 822.9}, "reply_to": "20992__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__0_065", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "The Government is going to argue that extensively, and I don't want to anticipate the Government's argument too much, and I certainly wouldn't want to disagree with them, but my own personal answer to that would be not necessarily.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [828.133], "stop_times": [838.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 828.133}, "reply_to": "20992__0_064", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_066", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Well, you indicated that because of this... the Spending Clause nature of this act that the municipality or the governmental entity must be aware of the conditions under which its funds might be cut off.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [838.752], "stop_times": [852.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 838.752}, "reply_to": "20992__0_065", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20992__0_067", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [852.9], "stop_times": [853.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 852.9}, "reply_to": "20992__0_066", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_068", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "It seems to me, if that's so, that it is very difficult to say that they accepted the funds knowing that they would be cut off when there was some act occurring of which they had no knowledge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [853.321], "stop_times": [868.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 853.321}, "reply_to": "20992__0_067", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20992__0_069", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "And the principal reason in this case that they did not have any knowledge is that they failed to follow the regulations, which have the force of law, and the regulations required not only the adoption of an antidiscrimination policy, which they have summary judgment establishing that they did, but a complaint procedure and publicizing that complaint procedure to the student body, and that is our principal and primary argument, that by failing to follow that regulation they created for themselves what the Fifth Circuit has now recognized as an absolute defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [868.031], "stop_times": [899.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 868.031}, "reply_to": "20992__0_068", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_070", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Well, somewhat as in the last case, that this egregious criminal, outrageous conduct, everyone, including the student, would know that the board wouldn't tolerate for a second.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [899.641], "stop_times": [913.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 899.641}, "reply_to": "20992__0_069", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20992__0_071", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "That's true, but the testimony in the case was... from the student, she did not know... when the approaches by the teacher were merely verbal, in the form of insinuations and suggestions... he was beginning his concentrated campaign to seduce her.\nShe did not know... she did not... I'm sorry.\nShe did not know to whom she could turn.\nShe did not know that there were procedures that... she did not know that there was a complaint procedure, and she would have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [913.559, 933.533, 936.495, 939.618], "stop_times": [933.533, 936.495, 939.618, 944.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 913.559}, "reply_to": "20992__0_070", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_072", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "But she's not... that's not... the gravamen of her complaint were not the initial overtures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [944.59], "stop_times": [950.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 944.59}, "reply_to": "20992__0_071", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20992__0_073", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--But if she had known that there was a complaint procedure... I mean, that was at that point, I would suggest to you, a mild form of sexual discrimination in the form of harassment because of the suggestive nature of the remarks.\nIf she had known about it she would have complained, she said, and if she had complained and effective action had been taken at that point, then her damages would be much different and basically we would not be in court at all, much less here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [950.427, 965.777], "stop_times": [965.777, 981.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 950.427}, "reply_to": "20992__0_072", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_074", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "She's... how old was she at this time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [981.785], "stop_times": [983.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 981.785}, "reply_to": "20992__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__0_075", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "She was 13 when she met the teacher.\nHe was... she was approximately 14 when he began making these... not approximately.\nShe was 14 when he began making these suggestive remarks, and the relationship became physical before she became 15 and ended when she was 15.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [983.496, 985.739, 991.693], "stop_times": [985.739, 991.693, 999.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 983.496}, "reply_to": "20992__0_074", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_076", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "And she didn't know that there were people in positions of authority over the teacher to whom she could complain, like a school principal?\nDid she know that the school principal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [999.147, 1006.703], "stop_times": [1006.703, 1008.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 999.147}, "reply_to": "20992__0_075", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__0_077", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Of course she knew that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1008.132], "stop_times": [1008.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1008.132}, "reply_to": "20992__0_076", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_078", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--had authority over the teacher?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1008.973], "stop_times": [1009.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1008.973}, "reply_to": "20992__0_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__0_079", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Of course she knew that, but she didn't know those people personally.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1009.823], "stop_times": [1012.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1009.823}, "reply_to": "20992__0_078", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_080", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "There were other girls who were also approached by this man and who did, indeed, take that course, didn't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1012.975], "stop_times": [1018.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1012.975}, "reply_to": "20992__0_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__0_081", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "And that is often going to be the case.\nThere are often going to be parents who had the initiative to go and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1018.831, 1022.252], "stop_times": [1022.252, 1026.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1018.831}, "reply_to": "20992__0_080", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_082", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Well, she didn't tell her parents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1026.165], "stop_times": [1027.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1026.165}, "reply_to": "20992__0_081", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20992__0_083", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--I beg your pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1027.324], "stop_times": [1028.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1027.324}, "reply_to": "20992__0_082", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_084", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "That's... in the one case the children told their parents what had been said by the teacher.\nThe... I take it that this girl's parents did not go what was going on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1028.015, 1033.361], "stop_times": [1033.361, 1037.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1028.015}, "reply_to": "20992__0_083", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20992__0_085", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1037.31], "stop_times": [1037.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1037.31}, "reply_to": "20992__0_084", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_086", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--until they were caught in the act, so... it's not so clear to me that the best policy in the world would have been used by this young woman, but suppose there... one of the things you complain about is that there was kind of this nebulous policy.\nYou didn't know who was the right person to complain to.\nSuppose there was just the right kind of policy, the kind that NEA describes in its brief, and yet the same thing went on, would the school district be liable if it made its best efforts to have as clear a policy and as clear an identification of the person in charge of implementation?\nWould that have made any difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1037.862, 1054.922, 1057.404, 1082.302], "stop_times": [1054.922, 1057.404, 1082.302, 1084.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1037.862}, "reply_to": "20992__0_085", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20992__0_087", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Yes.\nIt makes a big difference.\nBut I suggest to you... and here's one of the reasons that it... that the text, or rather the context of Title IX, the schools dealing with students of all ages, is important... an important consideration.\nIt would make a big difference the older and more sophisticated the student was toward imposing on her a duty to utilize the complaint procedures, but if you're talking about a 7 or 8-year-old, as, for example, was considered by the Fifth Circuit in the case called Canutillo, then you have obviously completely different considerations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1084.162, 1084.763, 1086.683, 1097.502], "stop_times": [1084.763, 1086.683, 1097.502, 1119.137], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1084.162}, "reply_to": "20992__0_086", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_088", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Well, let's take this case, and she's 14 and 15, and they do have... they've done the best job that they can with putting a policy in place, telling the students about it, telling the teachers about it, identifying the right official to call.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1119.137], "stop_times": [1131.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1119.137}, "reply_to": "20992__0_087", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20992__0_089", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "And may I also assume in my answer to you that there's no thing so flagrant about the behavior of the teacher and student that a reasonable person would become suspicious.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1131.973], "stop_times": [1143.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1131.973}, "reply_to": "20992__0_088", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_090", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "No, I'm taking this case, and the only thing that I'm changing... see--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1143.931], "stop_times": [1145.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1143.931}, "reply_to": "20992__0_089", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20992__0_091", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1145.321], "stop_times": [1145.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1145.321}, "reply_to": "20992__0_090", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_092", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--one of the things you said, that the policy was very fuzzy, nobody knew who to call, or suppose we make it the best policy.\nI wanted to know, as I asked in the last case, does it make any difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1145.661, 1158.561], "stop_times": [1158.561, 1162.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1145.661}, "reply_to": "20992__0_091", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20992__0_093", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "It does make a difference, but because we are talking about 14's and 15-year-olds, I think it makes less of a difference than it might for an adult in the workplace under Title VII.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1162.074], "stop_times": [1171.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1162.074}, "reply_to": "20992__0_092", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_094", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Well, what's the theory of the difference?\nThe theory of the difference is, the employer has done all that the employer could do, and therefore it would be unfair to impose liability on any theory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1171.888, 1173.51], "stop_times": [1173.51, 1181.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1171.888}, "reply_to": "20992__0_093", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20992__0_095", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Well, that's why it's a harder case, but I would like to come back to say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1181.585], "stop_times": [1184.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1181.585}, "reply_to": "20992__0_094", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_096", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "No, but you said it would make a difference, and I want to know what the theory of the difference is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1184.858], "stop_times": [1187.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1184.858}, "reply_to": "20992__0_095", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20992__0_097", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--The theory of the difference is that you cannot expect even 14, 15-year-old girls to have the same presence of mind, the same degree of initiative, the same--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1187.69], "stop_times": [1197.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1187.69}, "reply_to": "20992__0_096", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_098", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "No, I understand that, but from the employer's standpoint, once the employer has promulgated the perfect policy in the world--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1197.697], "stop_times": [1203.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1197.697}, "reply_to": "20992__0_097", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20992__0_099", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1203.531], "stop_times": [1203.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1203.531}, "reply_to": "20992__0_098", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_100", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--you say it makes a difference, and is it because the employer has done all the employer can do, or is there some other theory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1203.922], "stop_times": [1212.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1203.922}, "reply_to": "20992__0_099", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20992__0_101", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "The other theory, and this would depend on, again, the factual context.\nThe other theory would depend on whether the sexual discrimination is at the hands of a teacher who is exploiting his educational control and authority over the student.\nIt would not lead to liability in a situation involving pure harassment, it would not lead to liability--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1212.236, 1217.008, 1227.276], "stop_times": [1217.008, 1227.276, 1232.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1212.236}, "reply_to": "20992__0_100", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_102", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "I think you've answered the question, Mr. Weldon.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1232.178, 1233.661], "stop_times": [1233.661, 1234.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1232.178}, "reply_to": "20992__0_101", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20992__0_103", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1234.369], "stop_times": [1234.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1234.369}, "reply_to": "20992__0_102", "speaker": "terry_l_weldon"}
{"id": "20992__0_104", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "We'll hear now from you, Ms. Brinkmann.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1234.97], "stop_times": [1236.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1234.97}, "reply_to": "20992__0_103", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20992__1_000", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI think it's important to focus on the court of appeals' erroneous restriction in this case of the Court's customary remedial powers that this Court recognized in Franklin to award all appropriate remedies in a case of sexual harassment discrimination under Title IX.\nThe court of appeals here held that damage awards would be appropriate only if a higher ranking employee knew of the harassment and failed to stop it.\nThe absence of explicit notice by a high ranking official should not automatically insulate the recipient from liability.\nThis is particularly true where, as here, the district did not have a policy to prohibit discrimination or a procedure for effective reporting of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1236.891, 1247.229, 1263.19, 1273.206, 1281.351], "stop_times": [1247.229, 1263.19, 1273.206, 1281.351, 1291.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1236.891}, "reply_to": "20992__0_104", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20992__1_001", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Why shouldn't we require that the district, in order to be liable, have a policy that permits discrimination, that affirmatively permits it?\nThe way the statute reads, it says no one shall be excluded from participation and be denied the benefits of or be subject to discrimination under any educational program or activity, not in connection with it, under, and I thought it was mainly directed at educational programs that allow sports for boys, no sports for girls, things of that sort.\nThat is discrimination under the program.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1291.147, 1298.874, 1323.248], "stop_times": [1298.874, 1323.248, 1325.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1291.147}, "reply_to": "20992__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__1_002", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Well, Your Honor, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1325.779], "stop_times": [1327.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1325.779}, "reply_to": "20992__1_001", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20992__1_003", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "In other words, why shouldn't we apply the same kind of a test we apply in 1983 cases, that there has to be a policy of the school as far as private liability is concerned, a policy of discriminating?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1327.221], "stop_times": [1338.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1327.221}, "reply_to": "20992__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__1_004", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--Your Honor, the differences between Title IX and section 1983 demonstrate that that would not be an appropriate application.\nFirst and foremost, the reasons underlying the 1983 standard, according to this Court's opinions, are rooted in the text of section 1983 and its history, and the text of 1983 says any person who causes another to be... have their rights violated shall be subject to suit.\nThis text of Title IX is very different.\nIt is a condition on receipt of Federal funds.\nA recipient receives those funds and knows that under that program and activity, under its programs and activities there cannot be a denial of admission, exclusion from the benefits of vacation, or discrimination under that program based on sex.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1338.398, 1344.983, 1361.012, 1362.975, 1366.138], "stop_times": [1344.983, 1361.012, 1362.975, 1366.138, 1379.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1338.398}, "reply_to": "20992__1_003", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20992__1_005", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Right, and I think it's reasonable to read that to mean, you know, in accordance with the policies of that program.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1379.885], "stop_times": [1384.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1379.885}, "reply_to": "20992__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__1_006", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1384.499], "stop_times": [1385.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1384.499}, "reply_to": "20992__1_005", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20992__1_007", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "You're being discriminated against under the program if the program, by policy, does not treat you equally.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1385.03], "stop_times": [1391.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1385.03}, "reply_to": "20992__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__1_008", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--But Your Honor, a recipient... this school district, just like any other entity that... can only act through human agents, and any discrimination under its program activities is going to be carried out by its human agents, and there is no reason to deviate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1391.563], "stop_times": [1405.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1391.563}, "reply_to": "20992__1_007", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20992__1_009", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "The same argument was made in 1983 and somehow we've stumbled through.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1405.471], "stop_times": [1408.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1405.471}, "reply_to": "20992__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__1_010", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "But Your Honor, in addition to the text of section 1983, which is remarkably different from Title IX, there is also the history, and what led this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1408.053], "stop_times": [1414.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1408.053}, "reply_to": "20992__1_009", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20992__1_011", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "I'm unsympathetic to your arguments based on the text of Title IX inasmuch as Title IX doesn't even create a cause of action at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1414.126], "stop_times": [1420.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1414.126}, "reply_to": "20992__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__1_012", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, as my colleague mentioned we've crossed that bridge and, in fact, acts by Congress since then have reinforced the breadth of Title IX and, as you... your concurrence in Franklin pointed out, Congress enacted a statute to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity, and there specifically refers to legal remedies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1420.08], "stop_times": [1438.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1420.08}, "reply_to": "20992__1_011", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20992__1_013", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "And I accept all that, but we're not in an area where we're bound very tightly to the text.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1438.413], "stop_times": [1443.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1438.413}, "reply_to": "20992__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__1_014", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Your Honor, I think the other--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1443.018], "stop_times": [1444.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1443.018}, "reply_to": "20992__1_013", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20992__1_015", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "May I just ask you this question, and of course, in Cannon we held that Congress implicitly did intend a remedy.\nWe didn't say a word about creating any elements of causes of action or substantive liability.\nThat isn't made up.\nThat's all what we thought Congress meant, and is there any difference between the standard that would be applied for revocation of funds under the congressional standard as implemented by regulations and the standard that should be applied here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1444.587, 1449.981, 1453.503, 1454.484], "stop_times": [1449.981, 1453.503, 1454.484, 1466.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1444.587}, "reply_to": "20992__1_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20992__1_016", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--No, Your Honor, we don't believe so.\nWhat the Department of Education--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1466.974, 1468.643], "stop_times": [1468.643, 1470.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1466.974}, "reply_to": "20992__1_015", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20992__1_017", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "So you're arguing that on these facts the funds could be revoked for this school district?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1470.435], "stop_times": [1473.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1470.435}, "reply_to": "20992__1_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20992__1_018", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--Yes, but I have to qualify that there is a statutory requirement placed on the Department of Education to make preliminary steps of voluntary conciliation because of the extreme nature of cutting off funds, and what the Court has recognized is that a private damage remedy stops short of that and also serves another function of Title IX, and that's its remedial purpose.\nWe believe that when there's a violation of Title IX, as this Court said in Franklin, the presumption is that all appropriate remedies apply and there's no basis for restricting courts' authority to do that.\nAnd I just want to address the concern about the amount of damages that Justice Ginsburg brought up with that cap under Title VII.\nFirst of all, I think it's important to realize that there are other damages remedies that can be obtained against school districts... for example, Title VII... and there is now that cap, and there could certainly be a guidance for courts to look to, but along with the inherent power of courts to order remedies is often the inherent authority to remit damages.\nWe also would point out--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1473.997, 1496.091, 1507.018, 1513.413, 1533.516], "stop_times": [1496.091, 1507.018, 1513.413, 1533.516, 1534.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1473.997}, "reply_to": "20992__1_017", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20992__1_019", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Well, Ms. Brinkmann, I'm not sure we get to that question at all.\nThis is a spending, funding program of the Federal Government, and we have indicated that we think when States or local agencies accept money under a spending program it has to be clear what the conditions are, and what the liabilities would be in accepting that money, and we're struggling in the preceding case with trying to figure out what the liabilities are under Title VII.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1534.778, 1537.859], "stop_times": [1537.859, 1564.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1534.778}, "reply_to": "20992__1_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20992__1_020", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1564.705], "stop_times": [1565.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1564.705}, "reply_to": "20992__1_019", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20992__1_021", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "It certainly isn't clear under Title VII.\nHow could it be possibly clear under Title IX to a school district what the liability might be?\nI think you have a first step to take.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1565.236, 1567.128, 1574.021], "stop_times": [1567.128, 1574.021, 1577.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1565.236}, "reply_to": "20992__1_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20992__1_022", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--Your Honor, the concern underlying the Court's opinions about Spending Clause statutes is notice to a recipient.\nThe language of Title IX is quite clear that discrimination that's based on sex is prohibited, and in Franklin--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1577.523, 1583.988], "stop_times": [1583.988, 1590.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1577.523}, "reply_to": "20992__1_021", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20992__1_023", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Well, in programs and activities of the school.\nI think it speaks in terms of very broad concerns about schools that might not admit both sexes, or might not enable them to have physical education programs, or that discriminate in never hiring a teacher--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1590.033, 1596.357], "stop_times": [1596.357, 1617.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1590.033}, "reply_to": "20992__1_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20992__1_024", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--Your Honor, we would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1617.371], "stop_times": [1618.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1617.371}, "reply_to": "20992__1_023", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20992__1_025", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--who's a female, or something like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1618.32], "stop_times": [1619.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1618.32}, "reply_to": "20992__1_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20992__1_026", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--We urge, though, that actually the focus on the text of Title IX is broader than Title VII's antidiscrimination prohibition.\nThose concerns about admission policies and denying educational benefits, those are referenced in other clauses of Title IX in addition to prohibiting a person from being excluded from participation in, which would be an admission policy that the district level at the policy level would clearly be carrying out, or denying someone the benefits of an educational program.\nThere's also the prohibition about... against being subjected to discrimination under a program or activity, and again, this is an entity that only can carry out its programs and activities through its agents, and there's no justification to deviate from the normal background--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1619.802, 1626.207, 1644.928], "stop_times": [1626.207, 1644.928, 1659.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1619.802}, "reply_to": "20992__1_025", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20992__1_027", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Yes, well, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1659.326], "stop_times": [1659.717], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1659.326}, "reply_to": "20992__1_026", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20992__1_028", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--principles for finding--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1659.717], "stop_times": [1660.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1659.717}, "reply_to": "20992__1_027", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20992__1_029", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--That's true, as you've indicated with any corporate or fictional entity, but in this case the whole thrust of Title IX is that there must be a policy or program, and now you're saying that the school can be held liable for something that it knew nothing about.\nIt seems to me that this is almost an a fortiori case, as suggested by Justice Scalia's line of questioning, for a Monell type of requirement that the city or the school district has to have a policy that contradicts this program, and in this case it didn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1660.568, 1676.69], "stop_times": [1676.69, 1693.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1660.568}, "reply_to": "20992__1_028", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20992__1_030", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, the other reason, the only reason that the courts have given, other than the text of section 219(2)(d) for imposing that policy, was the history of the rejection of the Sherman amendment to the 1871 act, and that was... you're looking at congressional intent and what Congress intended.\nAt the time that Title IX was enacted it could not possibly have been relying on the Monell standard because Monell was not decided.\nIn 1972, when Title IX was enacted, Monroe v. Pape was on the books, so there was no intent of Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1693.16, 1708.241, 1714.014], "stop_times": [1708.241, 1714.014, 1720.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1693.16}, "reply_to": "20992__1_029", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20992__1_031", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "But the point is, how do we make the implied right of action that we've invented parallel, consistent with the terms of the statute that's being enforced--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1720.028], "stop_times": [1729.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1720.028}, "reply_to": "20992__1_030", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20992__1_032", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--I think it's what the Court said in Franklin--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1729.415], "stop_times": [1731.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1729.415}, "reply_to": "20992__1_031", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20992__1_033", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--and it seems to me this is an easier case for excusing... for having a Monell type liability than 1983.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1731.148], "stop_times": [1735.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1731.148}, "reply_to": "20992__1_032", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20992__1_034", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--I think the task of this Court is to define congressional intent to the best it can, and in Franklin, recognizing the implied cause of action, it looked to the background principles against which Congress enacted Title IX, and that was the presumption of all appropriate remedies.\nCongress could certainly take it upon themselves, as they did in other antidiscrimination statutes, to set a cap.\nThat would be a policy matter.\nWould it depend, for example, on the number of employees, as the cap under Title VII does, or the amount of funds that the school receives, or the amount of... the size of the student population?\nThose are matters for Congress, and here, relying on Cannon and Franklin, the Court has recognized that that presumption of all appropriate relief including damages, should apply under Title IX.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1735.879, 1750.579, 1755.892, 1757.494, 1767.462], "stop_times": [1750.579, 1755.892, 1757.494, 1767.462, 1778.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1735.879}, "reply_to": "20992__1_033", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20992__1_035", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "But what about the issue of what kind of conduct on the part of the supervisory employer here, the teacher, holds the school district, and there I think you have a big difference between on the beach, open, everybody could see it, and here, where nobody knew.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1778.608], "stop_times": [1795.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1778.608}, "reply_to": "20992__1_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20992__1_036", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Well, Your Honor, it's certainly not the actual knowledge standard that the court of appeals imposed.\nAt least it would be a knew or should have known standard, and that's what the policy is about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1795.789, 1801.483], "stop_times": [1801.483, 1807.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1795.789}, "reply_to": "20992__1_035", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20992__1_037", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "But how could a school district ever know about something like this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1807.367], "stop_times": [1810.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1807.367}, "reply_to": "20992__1_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20992__1_038", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "In many ways, Your Honor.\nThey are educators.\nPart of the problem is, to let students know about... other teachers knew about this that could have reported it if there had been a procedure in place, other students had heard about comments, there was the inadequate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1810.269, 1811.17, 1813.421], "stop_times": [1811.17, 1813.421, 1823.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1810.269}, "reply_to": "20992__1_037", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20992__1_039", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "So if they had a great policy, then there would be no liability.\nIs that what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1823.178, 1825.549], "stop_times": [1825.549, 1826.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1823.178}, "reply_to": "20992__1_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20992__1_040", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--That could be a very significant factor, and it may undermine theories of knew or should have known.\nCertainly liability also may be a defense to an aided by theory, depending if the plaintiff had any other evidence that she brought forth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1826.2, 1830.671], "stop_times": [1830.671, 1837.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1826.2}, "reply_to": "20992__1_039", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20992__1_041", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--Thank you, Ms. Brinkmann.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1837.747], "stop_times": [1838.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1837.747}, "reply_to": "20992__1_040", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20992__1_042", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1838.758], "stop_times": [1838.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1838.758}, "reply_to": "20992__1_041", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20992__1_043", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Mr. Jefferson, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1838.907], "stop_times": [1841.14], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1838.907}, "reply_to": "20992__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20992__2_000", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nFrank Waldrop's acts were criminal in the State of Texas, forbidden by standards issued by the Texas Education Agency, repugnant to policies actually adopted by the Lago Vista Independent School District, and morally repulsive to everyone in this courtroom.\nHis conduct very properly landed him in jail.\nPrior to his apprehension, Waldrop had managed to keep his sins concealed.\nNo one at the district was aware of these acts.\nNo one in the school administration knew about it.\nNo teachers knew about it.\nThere were no rumors among the teachers, or the faculty, or the staff.\nThere was no gossip.\nAll of the conduct we're talking about here occurred off campus.\nHe did not physically touch her in the school, not once.\nHe did not use school facilities to accomplish his mission.\nHe did not engage in sexually explicit conversation on the campus.\nNo one but he and his victim knew of the child abuse until he was caught in the act, in public, by a police officer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1841.14, 1848.463, 1861.823, 1864.835, 1869.116, 1872.179, 1874.36, 1875.581, 1878.463, 1879.865, 1883.076, 1886.919, 1889.771, 1893.344], "stop_times": [1848.463, 1861.823, 1864.835, 1869.116, 1872.179, 1874.36, 1875.581, 1878.463, 1879.865, 1883.076, 1886.919, 1889.771, 1893.344, 1899.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1841.14}, "reply_to": "20992__1_043", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_001", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Now, he used his position as a teacher, and it was a course in which she was one of the only or very few students, and some of this... the initial encounters, of course, occurred on the campus.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1899.0], "stop_times": [1912.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1899.0}, "reply_to": "20992__2_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20992__2_002", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Well, certainly their first introduction was in the context of the school setting, but that's all you have.\nThat's all you have.\nI mean, the teaching role... it's sort of like the first case, and I agree with the city in the first case.\nWhat the teacher did here was criminal.\nThere is no way in the world that anyone could assume that he was acting within, any way within the scope of his authority, or that the district said, this is acceptable.\nNow, Lago Vista's reaction when it was first notified of this relationship was swift and severe.\nThe superintendent personally marched into the jail and delivered papers to the inmate, suspending him from any contact with the school.\nAs soon as the lawyers told him due process was satisfied, the superintendent then marched into the psychiatric hospital and gave him his termination papers.\nWaldrop would not set foot in the Lago Vista school again, and well before it became an issue in this case, back in April of 1989, the district had adopted a policy forbidding sexual harassment by employees.\nThat's at 420 of the record.\nAnd within months of this Court's watershed opinion in Franklin, the school district adopted a policy stating expressly that district employees shall not engage in sexual harassment of students.\nThat's at 417, and that was in 1992.\nNow, the district's policy of nondiscrimination, general policy of nondiscrimination like the statute provides was disseminated to the students and to the parents in the student teacher handbook.\nThat's in the record at page 389.\nNow, we understand why, in the briefing, and here this morning in oral argument, the petitioner would like to demonize the school district, but we are confident that when you look at the record it will not support that attempt.\nThe real question is whether Title IX requires the district to answer, in damages, for criminal conduct of an employee when the district lacks notice, actual or constructive, of the crime, and whether the district had any hint that its acceptance of a relatively nominal amount of Federal funds would potentially expose it to limitless actual and punitive damages, potentially, and we say no for several reasons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [1912.047, 1918.241, 1919.232, 1924.776, 1926.967, 1937.385, 1943.069, 1951.174, 1958.866, 1972.177, 1973.979, 1985.437, 1989.06, 1999.094, 2001.696, 2011.984], "stop_times": [1918.241, 1919.232, 1924.776, 1926.967, 1937.385, 1943.069, 1951.174, 1958.866, 1972.177, 1973.979, 1985.437, 1989.06, 1999.094, 2001.696, 2011.984, 2036.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1912.047}, "reply_to": "20992__2_001", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_003", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Do you think the Government could have withheld funds in the future for the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2036.08], "stop_times": [2039.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2036.08}, "reply_to": "20992__2_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20992__2_004", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2039.192], "stop_times": [2039.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2039.192}, "reply_to": "20992__2_003", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_005", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--You think they could have?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2039.533], "stop_times": [2041.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2039.533}, "reply_to": "20992__2_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20992__2_006", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2041.162], "stop_times": [2041.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2041.162}, "reply_to": "20992__2_005", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_007", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Therefore you are acknowledging the school district violated the statute and the regulation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2041.643], "stop_times": [2046.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2041.643}, "reply_to": "20992__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20992__2_008", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "I don't think they could legitimately, but under their argument... under their argument this is a violation of Title IX.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2046.386], "stop_times": [2051.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2046.386}, "reply_to": "20992__2_007", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_009", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Oh, no, I mean under your view of the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2051.21], "stop_times": [2052.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2051.21}, "reply_to": "20992__2_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20992__2_010", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Oh, no.\nNo.\nNo, because it's not a violation of Title IX to begin with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2052.222, 2052.28, 2052.659], "stop_times": [2052.28, 2052.659, 2055.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2052.222}, "reply_to": "20992__2_009", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_011", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Do you think there's a difference in standards between an attempt by the Government to withhold... revoke your funding on the one hand and a private damage action on the other?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2055.851], "stop_times": [2063.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2055.851}, "reply_to": "20992__2_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20992__2_012", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "No.\nI think the same standard's going to have to apply to both.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2063.786, 2065.71, 2068.241], "stop_times": [2065.71, 2068.241, 2069.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2063.786}, "reply_to": "20992__2_011", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_013", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Do you know practically how often the cut off of funding has been used as distinguished from lesser remedies?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2069.393], "stop_times": [2078.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2069.393}, "reply_to": "20992__2_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20992__2_014", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, there is no evidence of that in the record, and I do not know personally what those statistics would hold.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2078.297], "stop_times": [2085.271], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2078.297}, "reply_to": "20992__2_013", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_015", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Because that's a rather severe sanction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2085.271], "stop_times": [2090.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2085.271}, "reply_to": "20992__2_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20992__2_016", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Yes, it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2090.434], "stop_times": [2091.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2090.434}, "reply_to": "20992__2_015", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_017", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "And defeats the whole purpose of the funds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2091.235], "stop_times": [2094.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2091.235}, "reply_to": "20992__2_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20992__2_018", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Indeed it does, and that leads to another point of the Spending Clause legislation.\nNow, if... if, because some criminal, unbeknownst to anyone in the district... I mean, no rumors, no circulation of gossip or anything like that, is going to be cut off from Federal funds and subject to potentially unlimited damages... I mean, the verdicts in cases like these are... and it's... there's no reason... I mean, we know why they are.\nThey're huge.\nThey're in the millions of dollars.\nNow, you take a school district like Lago Vista that had in the year that these activities were occurring about 646 students in the whole district, that's accepting, what, less than... around $100,000 in Federal funds, whose whole budget is only about $1.6 million--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2094.888, 2099.25, 2120.014, 2120.955, 2122.487], "stop_times": [2099.25, 2120.014, 2120.955, 2122.487, 2137.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2094.888}, "reply_to": "20992__2_017", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_019", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Lago Vista is in Travis County, near Austin?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2137.876], "stop_times": [2140.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2137.876}, "reply_to": "20992__2_018", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20992__2_020", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--Yes, that's correct, Your Honor.\nWhy would a district even accept the money, and that's... the purpose of our bringing up the Spending Clause is, we need to know.\nThe districts around the country need to know that in exchange for receiving a nominal amount of Federal funds... a judgment could wipe out the whole district.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2140.647, 2141.819, 2149.994], "stop_times": [2141.819, 2149.994, 2159.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2140.647}, "reply_to": "20992__2_019", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_021", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "How much in Federal funds did you receive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2159.169], "stop_times": [2161.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2159.169}, "reply_to": "20992__2_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20992__2_022", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "It was about, approximately 120,000, $120,000 back in the 1992-'93 school year, and that's in that... the... you can find it in the Texas Education Agency's snap book, snapshot that's in the National Association's brief, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2161.162], "stop_times": [2176.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2161.162}, "reply_to": "20992__2_021", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_023", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "One--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2176.163], "stop_times": [2176.32], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2176.163}, "reply_to": "20992__2_022", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20992__2_024", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--in the public record in that year, in 1992-'93, the entire budget was only about $1.6 million.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2176.32], "stop_times": [2183.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2176.32}, "reply_to": "20992__2_023", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_025", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--One answer possibly to the Spending Clause argument is that until there was some kind of an adjudication you didn't know that there would necessarily be a private cause of action.\nI think everybody accepts that.\nUntil there was some kind of an adjudication the district wouldn't necessarily know what kind of primary liability would necessarily give rise to liability, what kind of primary action would give rise to liability.\nBut any school district is certainly deemed to know that because it acts through its employees, its liability, if there's going to be liability, is going to be dependent on some sort of theories of imputed responsibility, and you did know that, and you didn't know a court adjudication to tell you that you at least ran the risk of liability imputed on the usual principles of agency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2183.066, 2197.234, 2198.997, 2213.757], "stop_times": [2197.234, 2198.997, 2213.757, 2244.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2183.066}, "reply_to": "20992__2_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20992__2_026", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "I can agree with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2244.865], "stop_times": [2245.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2244.865}, "reply_to": "20992__2_025", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_027", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "So what's the answer to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2245.636], "stop_times": [2246.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2245.636}, "reply_to": "20992__2_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20992__2_028", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--Well, I can agree with that.\nI mean, everyone knows that in districts, as with employment, you know, the corporation acts through its employees, the district acts through its employees, and there's no question about that, so that yes, we did know that if there was going to be liability it would have to be routed somehow through the action of its employees.\nFranklin is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2246.468, 2246.936, 2261.816], "stop_times": [2246.936, 2261.816, 2262.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2246.468}, "reply_to": "20992__2_027", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_029", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Well, is that an adequate answer, then, to your Spending Clause argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2262.447], "stop_times": [2266.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2262.447}, "reply_to": "20992__2_028", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20992__2_030", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2266.281], "stop_times": [2266.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2266.281}, "reply_to": "20992__2_029", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_031", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "In other words, you... we're not at the point of asking whether there's going to be a cause of action.\nWe're not at the point of asking what kind of primary conduct on the part of an employee would give rise to liability.\nWe're simply at the point of saying, how do you get from the employee's action to the employer, and you say yes, we all understand that the agency relationship and the rules that define it will govern that liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2266.591, 2270.863, 2276.018], "stop_times": [2270.863, 2276.018, 2289.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2266.591}, "reply_to": "20992__2_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20992__2_032", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Well, if the rules that define it govern that liability, there is no liability here in an agency relationship context, because what was done here was a criminal act that was completely away--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2289.165], "stop_times": [2299.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2289.165}, "reply_to": "20992__2_031", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_033", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Okay, but that's not a Spending Clause argument.\nThat's a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2299.911, 2301.644], "stop_times": [2301.644, 2301.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2299.911}, "reply_to": "20992__2_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20992__2_034", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--Oh, it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2301.914], "stop_times": [2302.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2301.914}, "reply_to": "20992__2_033", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_035", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--That's an agency law argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2302.435], "stop_times": [2303.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2302.435}, "reply_to": "20992__2_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20992__2_036", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "I believe it is a Spending Clause argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2303.885], "stop_times": [2305.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2303.885}, "reply_to": "20992__2_035", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_037", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "I don't understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2305.227], "stop_times": [2306.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2305.227}, "reply_to": "20992__2_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20992__2_038", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Okay.\nI believe it's a Spending Clause for this reason, and let's compare this case to Franklin.\nYou know, Franklin is a case where the district... where the teachers and the staff and the administration knew that this conduct was going on, knew that sexual harassment was taking place.\nThis Court, I believe, held in Franklin that that is intentional conduct of the district itself.\nYes, they're acting through employees.\nI mean, they've got to act through employees, but when it became known to the district itself, no action was taken.\nIn fact, not only was no action taken to prevent it, action was taken to silence the victim in that case.\nWell, that's a case of intentional conduct, and in Guardians you said intentional conduct can make the district liable, even if it's Spending Clause legislation, and so that's the difference.\nHere, there is no intentional conduct whatsoever.\nThere is no notice whatsoever to the district, and what the employee was doing, what this teacher was doing was a crime, was a... it should have landed him in jail, and it did land him in jail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2306.016, 2306.246, 2309.619, 2319.645, 2326.079, 2328.051, 2334.485, 2339.257, 2350.234, 2353.046], "stop_times": [2306.246, 2309.619, 2319.645, 2326.079, 2328.051, 2334.485, 2339.257, 2350.234, 2353.046, 2363.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2306.016}, "reply_to": "20992__2_037", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_039", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "This saves your case very well, but what you're saying with that test is that in the next case, when one coteacher knew about it, that's enough.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2363.073], "stop_times": [2370.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2363.073}, "reply_to": "20992__2_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__2_040", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "No, because I think that the... the... a coteacher wouldn't satisfy the test of actual knowledge to the district.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2370.199], "stop_times": [2377.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2370.199}, "reply_to": "20992__2_039", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_041", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Why?\nThe district has to act through its agents, you said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2377.763, 2378.213], "stop_times": [2378.213, 2380.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2377.763}, "reply_to": "20992__2_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__2_042", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2380.655], "stop_times": [2381.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2380.655}, "reply_to": "20992__2_041", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_043", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "And the coteacher's an agent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2381.045], "stop_times": [2382.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2381.045}, "reply_to": "20992__2_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__2_044", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--It does, but in order to hold the district liable you've got to show that the district... in Franklin, the principal knew.\nIt wasn't just the teachers, although they did, and they were trying to get this information to the principal.\nThe principal was taking it in and then conducting a fraudulent investigation, didn't even look into it, so there you have someone at the level that the Fifth Circuit said would be responsible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2382.147, 2387.821, 2391.584], "stop_times": [2387.821, 2391.584, 2400.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2382.147}, "reply_to": "20992__2_043", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_045", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Do you concede that we use agency principles, as we did in the last case, to determine when the district is liable under Title IX?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2400.397], "stop_times": [2408.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2400.397}, "reply_to": "20992__2_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20992__2_046", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "I don't have problems with the Court using some form of agency principles.\nMy problem is that the principles that they're relying on, 219(2)(d) and this agency... and this aided in accomplishing, they just don't apply here.\nThey have no application here whatsoever.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2408.743, 2415.156, 2422.562], "stop_times": [2415.156, 2422.562, 2424.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2408.743}, "reply_to": "20992__2_045", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_047", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "When you say here, you mean to your case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2424.953], "stop_times": [2427.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2424.953}, "reply_to": "20992__2_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20992__2_048", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "To our case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2427.475], "stop_times": [2427.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2427.475}, "reply_to": "20992__2_047", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_049", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--not to Title IX funding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2427.775], "stop_times": [2428.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2427.775}, "reply_to": "20992__2_048", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20992__2_050", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "To our case is what I'm saying, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2428.767], "stop_times": [2431.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2428.767}, "reply_to": "20992__2_049", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_051", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "But you would have no... you would have no problem in our applying the agency Restatement principles--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2431.428], "stop_times": [2435.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2431.428}, "reply_to": "20992__2_050", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20992__2_052", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "When I say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2435.322], "stop_times": [2436.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2435.322}, "reply_to": "20992__2_051", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_053", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--to determine the district's liability and to determine when they knew, including constructive knowledge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2436.25], "stop_times": [2439.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2436.25}, "reply_to": "20992__2_052", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20992__2_054", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--Well, there is no such thing as constructive knowledge under Title IX to hold the district liable.\nThat's our position, and so agency wouldn't work--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2439.573, 2444.956], "stop_times": [2444.956, 2447.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2439.573}, "reply_to": "20992__2_053", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_055", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Suppose I thought they were under agency law?\nThey I wouldn't be applying agency principles to Title IX.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2447.459, 2449.11], "stop_times": [2449.11, 2451.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2447.459}, "reply_to": "20992__2_054", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20992__2_056", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--Then you'd be applying simply strict liability, and we say for sure, we say that this Court should declare that that's not the test.\nStrict liability is not the test and could not be the test, and the reason is, if you apply strict liability in a case like this, or in cases like these, not just ours, you're going to run contrary to the whole purpose of Title IX.\nWe've all agreed this morning, at least in the briefs on their side and our side, that this is Spending Clause legislation, which means we're talking about voluntary acceptance of Federal funds.\nThe district can either accept it or not.\nIf the district knows that as a result of accepting a few dollars in Federal funds its whole budget could go to one victim, and not to students at large in the district, well then the district's not going to accept those funds--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2451.03, 2459.127, 2471.584, 2481.081, 2483.441], "stop_times": [2459.127, 2471.584, 2481.081, 2483.441, 2496.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2451.03}, "reply_to": "20992__2_055", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_057", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "But suppose--\n--But you do know that now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2496.54, 2497.291], "stop_times": [2497.291, 2499.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2496.54}, "reply_to": "20992__2_056", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20992__2_058", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--and then Title IX's role in the educational process will be gutted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2499.803], "stop_times": [2501.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2499.803}, "reply_to": "20992__2_057", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_059", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Don't you have to say that you do know that now, after Franklin, if your principal acted the way that the principal in Franklin did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2501.223], "stop_times": [2506.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2501.223}, "reply_to": "20992__2_058", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20992__2_060", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "If there's intentional conduct by the district, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2506.298], "stop_times": [2509.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2506.298}, "reply_to": "20992__2_059", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_061", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "So there is a risk that you might have liability greater than the amount of money you receive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2509.219], "stop_times": [2512.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2509.219}, "reply_to": "20992__2_060", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20992__2_062", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Yes, but the district can say to itself, you know, we're not going to intentionally sexually abuse a minor student, and we know that.\nThat's not going to happen.\nAnd so yes, they can take the funds with Franklin in mind.\nBut what they can't do, and what they have no notice of, is if they take their funds, some janitor who does this is going to make the whole district liable, or some employee that the district has no notice of.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2512.92, 2519.746, 2520.667, 2523.85], "stop_times": [2519.746, 2520.667, 2523.85, 2534.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2512.92}, "reply_to": "20992__2_061", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_063", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Yes, but the only difference... the difference basically is the difference in the amount of risk.\nThe chances of having a Franklin type principal are low.\nThe chances of having a janitor doing something wrong are much higher.\nI mean, that's the distinction, isn't there?\nWe're will... you're in effect saying, look, we're willing to run the risk of a Franklin situation and still take the money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2534.004, 2538.278, 2542.64, 2546.023, 2548.785], "stop_times": [2538.278, 2542.64, 2546.023, 2548.785, 2554.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2534.004}, "reply_to": "20992__2_062", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20992__2_064", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "It's not willing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2554.328], "stop_times": [2555.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2554.328}, "reply_to": "20992__2_063", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_065", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "We're not going to be willing to run the risk of the janitor situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2555.099], "stop_times": [2557.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2555.099}, "reply_to": "20992__2_064", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20992__2_066", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--I... we... the district's, and this district in particular is not willing to take the risk at all and is going to do everything it can to prevent that sort of thing from happening, including background checks and making sure that people it hires are great educators, so it's not a matter of, well, we're going to accept this risk because we know this thing's going to happen.\nIt's a matter of human nature.\nThis thing does happen.\nIt's a terrible and it's a repugnant and repulsive thing, but it happens in this country--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2557.791, 2575.873, 2577.552, 2579.314], "stop_times": [2575.873, 2577.552, 2579.314, 2584.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2557.791}, "reply_to": "20992__2_065", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_067", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "What about Title VII?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2584.688], "stop_times": [2585.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2584.688}, "reply_to": "20992__2_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__2_068", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--and the question is, do you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2585.959], "stop_times": [2586.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2585.959}, "reply_to": "20992__2_067", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_069", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Are you not liable for activity of this sort anyway under different provisions, 1983, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2586.718], "stop_times": [2595.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2586.718}, "reply_to": "20992__2_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__2_070", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--You could be.\nUnder 1983 you could be, if you meet the standards in Monell.\nA school district like Lago Vista could certainly be, if it adopted some custom or policy that allows this to happen, or if there's a pattern that it turns a blind eye to and lets it happen over a course of the year, a number of different times, there's some sort of pattern to it, certainly there could be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2595.104, 2596.526, 2600.429], "stop_times": [2596.526, 2600.429, 2615.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2595.104}, "reply_to": "20992__2_069", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_071", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--Suppose that a teacher... suppose the school district receives a grant for a French program, and there are two or three students interested, and the teacher says, you know, I just don't want to teach a woman.\nI'll teach the men, but I don't want to teach a woman.\nIs the school district liable?\nI mean, they'd be horrified when they find out about it, but that's just this teacher's quirk, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2615.238, 2628.206, 2630.607, 2632.34], "stop_times": [2628.206, 2630.607, 2632.34, 2637.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2615.238}, "reply_to": "20992__2_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20992__2_072", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--Well, when they find out about it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2637.833], "stop_times": [2638.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2637.833}, "reply_to": "20992__2_071", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_073", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2638.945], "stop_times": [2639.523], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2638.945}, "reply_to": "20992__2_072", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20992__2_074", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--is the test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2639.523], "stop_times": [2640.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2639.523}, "reply_to": "20992__2_073", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_075", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Why... well, there's one person who knows about it who is a school department official, who absolutely knows about it.\nThat's the teacher.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2640.344, 2645.52], "stop_times": [2645.52, 2646.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2640.344}, "reply_to": "20992__2_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20992__2_076", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "That's not enough.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2646.067], "stop_times": [2646.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2646.067}, "reply_to": "20992__2_075", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_077", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2646.938], "stop_times": [2647.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2646.938}, "reply_to": "20992__2_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20992__2_078", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Because the teacher doesn't have the authority to bind the district to any policy like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2647.449], "stop_times": [2651.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2647.449}, "reply_to": "20992__2_077", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_079", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Well, the teacher decides who comes into, say, her class, if it's a... I mean, doesn't she?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2651.951], "stop_times": [2656.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2651.951}, "reply_to": "20992__2_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20992__2_080", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Yes, but once that decision is made, when the district hears about it... and certainly a complaint will be made in that situation.\nWhen the district hears about it, if they do nothing, or if they try to cover it up like the district did in Franklin, then there's liability.\nBut if it's just one teacher in one class making that statement, no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2656.816, 2663.298, 2670.394], "stop_times": [2663.298, 2670.394, 2673.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2656.816}, "reply_to": "20992__2_079", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_081", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Suppose it happens to be the superintendent who on his own is teaching that class.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2673.256], "stop_times": [2677.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2673.256}, "reply_to": "20992__2_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20992__2_082", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "If it's the superintendent I think there's liability.\nI think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2677.029, 2679.61], "stop_times": [2679.61, 2680.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2677.029}, "reply_to": "20992__2_081", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_083", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "So you're dividing it according to the rank of the person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2680.101], "stop_times": [2682.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2680.101}, "reply_to": "20992__2_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20992__2_084", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--I am.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2682.743], "stop_times": [2683.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2682.743}, "reply_to": "20992__2_083", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_085", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "And is there... is there anything in the law that says the teacher is down there with the janitor, but the superintendent is up there with the Governor, I mean, or whatever, I mean--\n[Laughter]\nWhat is it in the law that creates that division?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2683.842, 2692.957, 2693.228], "stop_times": [2692.957, 2693.228, 2696.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2683.842}, "reply_to": "20992__2_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20992__2_086", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "It's going to be this Court.\nIt's--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2696.741, 2698.653, 2699.402], "stop_times": [2698.653, 2699.402, 2699.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2696.741}, "reply_to": "20992__2_085", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_087", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "How... if it's a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2699.762], "stop_times": [2700.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2699.762}, "reply_to": "20992__2_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20992__2_088", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "No--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2700.654], "stop_times": [2700.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2700.654}, "reply_to": "20992__2_087", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_089", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--How are we supposed to decide that?\nI mean, what's the ground, then, for figuring that out?\nI mean, how would we... I mean, what's the key to that?\nI had thought your answer, your answer to me was the law of agency, which surprised me a little bit.\nI would think that you'd want something like a Monell policy rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2700.984, 2703.036, 2706.789, 2712.192, 2716.444], "stop_times": [2703.036, 2706.789, 2712.192, 2716.444, 2719.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2700.984}, "reply_to": "20992__2_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20992__2_090", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--What my answer is, and I think it... I think what the Fifth Circuit did was, a clear rule, a clear guide to the court and to the circuits, that are divided right now, is that the district will be liable if someone who has actual knowledge of the abuse was invested by the school board with the authority to supervise the employee and the power to take action to end the abuse and didn't take that action, and failed to take remedial action.\nI think that standard is the standard that could be applied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2719.776, 2744.353], "stop_times": [2744.353, 2747.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2719.776}, "reply_to": "20992__2_089", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_091", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "It's Monell like.\nIt's a little less than Monell, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2747.285, 2747.515], "stop_times": [2747.515, 2749.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2747.285}, "reply_to": "20992__2_090", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__2_092", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "It's... it is Monell like, because it is sort of a deliberate indifference standard.\nYou've got someone at a level, a high up enough level that knows and has the discretion to make decisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2749.378, 2753.499], "stop_times": [2753.499, 2760.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2749.378}, "reply_to": "20992__2_091", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_093", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "The only Monell case in which we talked about deliberate indifference was somewhat different than this.\nThe standard you propose now would be more favorable to a plaintiff than a straight Monell standard, would it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2760.325, 2764.797], "stop_times": [2764.797, 2771.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2760.325}, "reply_to": "20992__2_092", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20992__2_094", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "It would, indeed.\nIndeed it would, but it's one that, you know, the Court is asking counsel here, what is the clear rule--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2771.442, 2773.212], "stop_times": [2773.212, 2780.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2771.442}, "reply_to": "20992__2_093", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_095", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Well, you're on the safe side of it, so it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2780.026], "stop_times": [2781.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2780.026}, "reply_to": "20992__2_094", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__2_096", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2781.947], "stop_times": [2783.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2781.947}, "reply_to": "20992__2_095", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_097", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--why ask for more than you need?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2783.549], "stop_times": [2784.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2783.549}, "reply_to": "20992__2_096", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__2_098", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "That's exactly right, Your Honor.\n[Laughter]\nI want to mention one additional point here, and the Solicitor General talks about, well, you know, let's have this constructive knowledge standard, and I want to make a rather procedural point here.\nThat theory, constructive knowledge based on comments made to this teacher, by the teacher to other students in the past, that has been abandoned by the petitioner in this case.\nI don't even think it's part of the case.\nThe district court found no evidence whatsoever of constructive knowledge.\nThe Fifth Circuit said they're not complaining about constructive knowledge and there's no evidence of it here anyway, and so we don't have to address it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2784.999, 2786.551, 2787.012, 2798.52, 2809.866, 2811.717, 2815.55], "stop_times": [2786.551, 2787.012, 2798.52, 2809.866, 2811.717, 2815.55, 2823.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2784.999}, "reply_to": "20992__2_097", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_099", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Mr. Jefferson, will you help me out on one point?\nI'm frankly a little mixed up on it.\nIt seems to me your opponent argued, or the briefs argued that the school district violated the regulations because it didn't have an adequate policy in place, and if that were true, and if it conceivably would give rise to cut off of funds, why wouldn't the failure to promulgate adequate regulations also justify a remedy in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2823.016, 2824.067, 2825.289], "stop_times": [2824.067, 2825.289, 2844.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2823.016}, "reply_to": "20992__2_098", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20992__2_100", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "If I can answer in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2844.85], "stop_times": [2846.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2844.85}, "reply_to": "20992__2_099", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_101", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2846.703], "stop_times": [2846.963], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2846.703}, "reply_to": "20992__2_100", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20992__2_102", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--If we're talking about this case, the student here knew precisely what to do to stop this activity, and she testified... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2846.963], "stop_times": [2855.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2846.963}, "reply_to": "20992__2_101", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_103", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Well, but now, stick with me on the... do you agree or disagree that there was a violation of agency... Federal regulations?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2855.329], "stop_times": [2862.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2855.329}, "reply_to": "20992__2_102", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20992__2_104", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--Well, I disagree in this sense.\nFranklin was decided in 1992, and within months of that opinion, that's when the district adopted a policy of saying, sexual harassment of students means this, and who... and here's who you go to report to.\nWhat I'm saying is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2862.482, 2864.395, 2876.714], "stop_times": [2864.395, 2876.714, 2877.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2862.482}, "reply_to": "20992__2_103", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_105", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Well, were those regulations in... was that policy in place at the time of the conduct here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2877.843], "stop_times": [2880.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2877.843}, "reply_to": "20992__2_104", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20992__2_106", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--In part.\nYou know, in... the conduct began in the fall of 1992.\nThis Court's opinion I believe was sometime during that fall of 1992, and then the policies were in place by October of 1992.\nThis conduct continued until January of 1993, so what I'm saying is, before--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2880.745, 2881.687, 2885.48, 2892.551], "stop_times": [2881.687, 2885.48, 2892.551, 2896.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2880.745}, "reply_to": "20992__2_105", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_107", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Well, but is it true that some of the conduct preceded the regulation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2896.545], "stop_times": [2898.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2896.545}, "reply_to": "20992__2_106", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20992__2_108", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2898.886], "stop_times": [2899.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2898.886}, "reply_to": "20992__2_107", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_109", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Some did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2899.247], "stop_times": [2900.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2899.247}, "reply_to": "20992__2_108", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20992__2_110", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2900.128], "stop_times": [2900.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2900.128}, "reply_to": "20992__2_109", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_111", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Now, what's your response to... say you have a defense after the regulations went into effect.\nWhat is your defense under the argument that I repeated to the pre regulation conduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2900.639, 2905.161], "stop_times": [2905.161, 2910.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2900.639}, "reply_to": "20992__2_110", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20992__2_112", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Before the regulations went into effect we had a policy of nondiscrimination, which is what Title IX requires, which was disseminated to the students.\nAfter 1992, after this Court's decision in Franklin, the world changed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2910.136, 2919.703], "stop_times": [2919.703, 2923.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2910.136}, "reply_to": "20992__2_111", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_113", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "But did that pre Franklin policy comply with the Federal regulations?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2923.775], "stop_times": [2928.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2923.775}, "reply_to": "20992__2_112", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20992__2_114", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "I... you know, I think there was... technically the answer is probably not, because it doesn't say within 5 days you must report it, you know, a reported violation has to be, you know, submitted to a committee, and within 10 days a decision, so that sort of policy was not in place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2928.158], "stop_times": [2945.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2928.158}, "reply_to": "20992__2_113", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_115", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Then how relevant, if it is the fact that during a portion of the period there was a failure to comply with Federal regulations, how relevant, if at all, is that to the problem before us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2945.378], "stop_times": [2954.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2945.378}, "reply_to": "20992__2_114", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20992__2_116", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "I don't think it's... I don't think it's relevant and again, I must... the reason that I mentioned what the petitioner's knowledge was was because a policy in this case would have made absolutely no difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2954.214], "stop_times": [2965.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2954.214}, "reply_to": "20992__2_115", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_117", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Oh, I see.\nIt's the causality element.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2965.632, 2966.844], "stop_times": [2966.844, 2969.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2965.632}, "reply_to": "20992__2_116", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__2_118", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "There is a causality element, that's right, in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2969.093], "stop_times": [2971.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2969.093}, "reply_to": "20992__2_117", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_119", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Had that policy made a difference, though, you agree that not having that policy in place would automatically make you liable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2971.585], "stop_times": [2979.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2971.585}, "reply_to": "20992__2_118", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__2_120", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "No.\nI do not agree with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2979.269, 2979.64], "stop_times": [2979.64, 2980.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2979.269}, "reply_to": "20992__2_119", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_121", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Well, you said before that you thought we had to apply the same standards for a violation of the funding regulations as we must apply for liability under the personal actions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2980.842], "stop_times": [2996.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2980.842}, "reply_to": "20992__2_120", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__2_122", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Well, because the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2996.453], "stop_times": [2998.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2996.453}, "reply_to": "20992__2_121", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_123", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Do you believe that or not?\nIf so, when you violate the regulation you are automatically subject to suit and the only question is one of causality, which will usually have to go to the jury, I assume.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [2998.374, 2999.385], "stop_times": [2999.385, 3007.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2998.374}, "reply_to": "20992__2_122", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__2_124", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--But then the question there would be funding, but it wouldn't be the... it wouldn't be bound up with the private cause of action for the petitioner in this case.\nYes, there could be a cessation of funding.\nI don't think it would happen.\nI think in the real world they're going to give... the agency's going to give the district a chance of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [3007.61, 3015.083, 3017.095, 3018.505], "stop_times": [3015.083, 3017.095, 3018.505, 3023.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3007.61}, "reply_to": "20992__2_123", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_125", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "But it would be a jury question, wouldn't it, whether... whether the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [3023.879], "stop_times": [3027.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3023.879}, "reply_to": "20992__2_124", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__2_126", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--The jury--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [3027.381], "stop_times": [3027.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3027.381}, "reply_to": "20992__2_125", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_127", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--failure to have the 5, 10-day, whatever it is, was a cause of the injury here, and if it was you'd be liable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [3027.772], "stop_times": [3033.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3027.772}, "reply_to": "20992__2_126", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__2_128", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--Number 1, I don't think the jury would get this question to begin with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [3033.646], "stop_times": [3036.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3033.646}, "reply_to": "20992__2_127", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_129", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Oh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [3036.758], "stop_times": [3037.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3036.758}, "reply_to": "20992__2_128", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__2_130", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--and number 2, I don't think that the absence of a policy would make the district here liable for the criminal conduct of a teacher that the district knew nothing about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [3037.119], "stop_times": [3046.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3037.119}, "reply_to": "20992__2_129", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_131", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Well, then you're saying you don't really think that we should apply the same standard for the cut off of funding that we apply for personal liability, or for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [3046.205], "stop_times": [3052.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3046.205}, "reply_to": "20992__2_130", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__2_132", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [3052.767], "stop_times": [3053.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3052.767}, "reply_to": "20992__2_131", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_133", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--you know, monetary liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [3053.168], "stop_times": [3054.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3053.168}, "reply_to": "20992__2_132", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__2_134", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--Well, except your... the question to me doesn't... doesn't get into what happened here in this case.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [3054.49, 3065.056], "stop_times": [3065.056, 3065.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3054.49}, "reply_to": "20992__2_133", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_135", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "The funding cut off isn't automatic anyway.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [3065.957, 3068.629], "stop_times": [3068.629, 3069.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3065.957}, "reply_to": "20992__2_134", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20992__2_136", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [3069.51], "stop_times": [3069.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3069.51}, "reply_to": "20992__2_135", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_137", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--there would certainly... there'd be a notice.\nThere'd be an opportunity to come into compliance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [3069.881, 3071.561], "stop_times": [3071.561, 3074.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3069.881}, "reply_to": "20992__2_136", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20992__2_138", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [3074.403], "stop_times": [3074.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3074.403}, "reply_to": "20992__2_137", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_139", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "There'd be negotiation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [3074.703], "stop_times": [3075.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3074.703}, "reply_to": "20992__2_138", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20992__2_140", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [3075.444], "stop_times": [3076.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3075.444}, "reply_to": "20992__2_139", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_141", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "All of which are reasons why you wouldn't want the same standard for the two, it seems to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [3076.205], "stop_times": [3079.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3076.205}, "reply_to": "20992__2_140", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__2_142", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [3079.996], "stop_times": [3080.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3079.996}, "reply_to": "20992__2_141", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_143", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "The one is optional.\nThe other, you're socked with a lawsuit, with no choice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [3080.447, 3081.028], "stop_times": [3081.028, 3084.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3080.447}, "reply_to": "20992__2_142", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20992__2_144", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "--I take your point.\nI mean, and it's true, the... there is the possibility of compliance under Title IX.\nIf there's... you know, it would be as if, as in Franklin, the complaint is made and the district does nothing about it.\nIf, under Title IX, the district is apprised of its noncompliance and does nothing about it, well then the severe sanction, you know, withdrawal of funding, would be appropriate.\nBut of course, you know, what would happen in that situation is the district would come into compliance or would just decide, no longer do we need Federal funds.\nI mean, it would be their option.\nAnd so again, I think under the facts of this case the... here, the absence of a policy makes no difference whatsoever.\nNow, the other thing we need to talk about is, was this actually sexual discrimination under a policy, or under a program or an activity, and again, we say, and I'm mirroring some of the comments made in the argument before, no.\nWhat happened here was a teacher who, to all intents and purposes was a good teacher, but who did a criminal act, who engaged himself in an act that was private, that was prurient, that was criminal, that could land him in jail and did land him in jail.\nThat is not in any way associated with any education program or activity.\nNow, what counsel say on this side is, well, you've got this sort of... you've got this sort of program and it's got to be implemented by agents, and the agent here was a teacher, and so therefore there's liability.\nBut if we do go back to Title IX and the congressional intent, when you look at Title IX, what they're talking about, Mr. Chief Justice, as you mentioned, is things like discrimination in funding of sports, or employment discrimination, you know, after a decision in this Court.\nThat sort of thing, which is always carried out by agents who have the discretion to hire and fire or to fund or not to fund, it's always someone who has the sort of authority that we're talking about who needs to be there before you can hold the district liable.\nWhat happened, and what makes this case odd, is Franklin, and Cannon before it, you know, adopting a whole private cause of action and then this Court becoming in effect a legislature.\nWe keep coming back to the Court for new rules and new regulations... well, what about this, Your Honor, and what about that, Your Honor... because now the Court is sitting as Congress should have sat before, if it wanted to find this cause of action, this private cause of action.\nThe sort of agent that they contend is making the district liable is not proper, because the agent here is engaging in purely criminal activity.\nIf there are no further questions, we would ask that the Court affirm the judgment of the Fifth Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [3084.07, 3086.101, 3092.564, 3099.77, 3111.417, 3119.693, 3120.945, 3129.837, 3146.941, 3166.153, 3171.608, 3184.236, 3202.197, 3216.068, 3227.034, 3240.241, 3253.301], "stop_times": [3086.101, 3092.564, 3099.77, 3111.417, 3119.693, 3120.945, 3129.837, 3146.941, 3166.153, 3171.608, 3184.236, 3202.197, 3216.068, 3227.034, 3240.241, 3253.301, 3258.887], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3084.07}, "reply_to": "20992__2_143", "speaker": "wallace_b_jefferson"}
{"id": "20992__2_145", "conversation_id": "20992", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Jefferson.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1866", "start_times": [3258.887, 3260.159], "stop_times": [3260.159, 3262.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3258.887}, "reply_to": "20992__2_144", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20846__0_000", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 97-689, Bonnie Geissal v. the Moore Medical Corporation.\nVery well, Mr. Weinhaus.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [0.0, 12.519], "stop_times": [12.519, 20.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20846__0_001", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIn this case, Mr. Geissal, who is now dead, was terminated from his employment by Moore Medical Corporation at a time when he had cancer and was dying of cancer.\nHe was offered immediately COBRA continuation and at the same time his wife had always carried health insurance coverage with her own employer which covered dependents, including Mr. Geissal.\nHe was allowed to continue to make COBRA payments for 6 months, when all of a sudden Moore Medical announced that it was not responsible for his health insurance coverage, they wrongly accepted COBRA payments, they would pay him back, and they would not pay any of his bills.\nThis case was brought, using the wording of the statute, and the wording is simple, and that's where we start with, that coverage must be offered to the individual of the same quality as given to employees, and that would be true... if employees got dual coverage, he would be entitled to dual coverage, required to offer the same policy, and it must extend for at least the period beginning on the date of the qualifying event and ending not earlier than the earliest of the following, and one of them is, when... the date on which he becomes... first becomes qualified after the date of election for further insurance.\nNow, in this instance, Moore Medical Corporation took the position that he first became, after the date of election, covered by the wife's policy and therefore was not entitled to the coverage.\nAt that point, litigation ensued.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [20.136, 22.756, 32.683, 44.751, 61.003, 100.047, 117.929], "stop_times": [22.756, 32.683, 44.751, 61.003, 100.047, 117.929, 121.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 20.136}, "reply_to": "20846__0_000", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_002", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Mr. Weinhaus, would you explain to me what your client stands to recover now?\nWere Mr. Geissal's medical expenses actually paid by the other policy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [121.432, 130.848], "stop_times": [130.848, 137.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 121.432}, "reply_to": "20846__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20846__0_003", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "We know some of them were paid.\nWe do not know whether all of them were paid.\nMy understanding, some were not paid, but unfortunately in this case what the magistrate judge did is, after denying our motion for summary judgment, turned around and, sua sponte, without development of anything in the record, declared summary judgment for Moore Medical Corporation, so there is no record and, while Moore Medical does continuously argue, in the absence of a record, that we lost nothing, we don't think that's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [137.724, 139.415, 141.608], "stop_times": [139.415, 141.608, 169.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 137.724}, "reply_to": "20846__0_002", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_004", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Well, presumably your client ought to know whether something was lost or not.\nIs there no claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [169.727, 174.399], "stop_times": [174.399, 176.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 169.727}, "reply_to": "20846__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20846__0_005", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [176.512], "stop_times": [178.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 176.512}, "reply_to": "20846__0_004", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_006", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "What is the claimed injury now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [178.262], "stop_times": [180.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 178.262}, "reply_to": "20846__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20846__0_007", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--Well, the claimed injury are, amongst other things, we have at least the deductible that we have to pay for, and we have to face health care providers who may hereafter bill us.\nIn these cases, in the health insurance field, the health providers do not send the bill to the patient, usually, they send them to the health institution which is paying the bills.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [180.155, 191.943], "stop_times": [191.943, 203.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 180.155}, "reply_to": "20846__0_006", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_008", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "How long ago did this death occur?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [203.778], "stop_times": [206.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 203.778}, "reply_to": "20846__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20846__0_009", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Well, it now occurred a couple of years ago, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [206.362], "stop_times": [208.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 206.362}, "reply_to": "20846__0_008", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_010", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "But you don't have any bills and we don't know if there's any injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [208.864], "stop_times": [213.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 208.864}, "reply_to": "20846__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20846__0_011", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--We have not been told of any bills.\nThe only bills I know of in which there's likely injury is what I call the Greek trip in which he received medication in the Greek Islands, for which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [213.595, 215.877], "stop_times": [215.877, 227.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 213.595}, "reply_to": "20846__0_010", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_012", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "It's just hard to picture what remains of the claim, if anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [227.798], "stop_times": [234.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 227.798}, "reply_to": "20846__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20846__0_013", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--Well, what also remains of the claim is this.\nThere may be, in fact, double coverage.\nI don't know here.\nWe have not gotten that far.\nMoore says there's no double coverage, and at the same time it says there is double coverage.\nWe are entitled, under ERISA--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [234.561, 235.893, 238.487, 239.389, 241.678, 245.972], "stop_times": [235.893, 238.487, 239.389, 241.678, 245.972, 249.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 234.561}, "reply_to": "20846__0_012", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_014", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "I thought the argument was you would not be entitled to double coverage and one aspect of this that I hope you will clarify, you're talking about maybe bills coming in later, but there are insurance policies.\nYou have both insurance policies and were told that the only difference is in the deductible, and is there another difference?\nWhat about the cap on total benefits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [249.535, 263.546, 274.342], "stop_times": [263.546, 274.342, 278.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 249.535}, "reply_to": "20846__0_013", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20846__0_015", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--Well, there's certainly a difference in the cap on total... well, there's no difference... there is and there isn't.\nEach one has a million dollars coverage, so that in essence, had he survived, or had he lived, or had he been willing to assume financial responsibility for more than a million dollars of debt, he could have proceeded.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [278.566, 283.541], "stop_times": [283.541, 299.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 278.566}, "reply_to": "20846__0_014", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_016", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Well, that's very interesting, but he didn't live.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [299.68], "stop_times": [301.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 299.68}, "reply_to": "20846__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20846__0_017", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "He did not live.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [301.433], "stop_times": [302.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 301.433}, "reply_to": "20846__0_016", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_018", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "He's dead now, and that's all irrelevant, isn't it, unless, indeed, the bills presented are over a million dollars, or over whatever the limit was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [302.522], "stop_times": [310.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 302.522}, "reply_to": "20846__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20846__0_019", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Yes, but the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [310.299], "stop_times": [310.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 310.299}, "reply_to": "20846__0_018", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_020", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "And are they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [310.839], "stop_times": [311.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 310.839}, "reply_to": "20846__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20846__0_021", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--Well, we don't... we have not... we did not get that far in discovery because of the way that the magistrate handled that, but presuming that they are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [311.49], "stop_times": [320.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 311.49}, "reply_to": "20846__0_020", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_022", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Is there a realistic possibility that they are?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [320.596], "stop_times": [322.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 320.596}, "reply_to": "20846__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20846__0_023", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--There's a realistic possibility, for the Greek trip, that there are.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [322.247], "stop_times": [325.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 322.247}, "reply_to": "20846__0_022", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_024", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "But wouldn't... if he took a trip to the Greek Islands, wouldn't he know how much that cost?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [325.068], "stop_times": [330.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 325.068}, "reply_to": "20846__0_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20846__0_025", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Yes, but... and we know that Aetna did not pay that.\nNow, whether Moore--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [330.804, 332.977], "stop_times": [332.977, 335.959], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 330.804}, "reply_to": "20846__0_024", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_026", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "There's another question I had about how this works is, let's assume he's still... he's just sick, he's not dead, and he's still working, and he's got this dual coverage.\nWho pays first in these dual coverage situations, his employer or the other, or is it... how is that worked out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [335.959, 347.908], "stop_times": [347.908, 357.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 335.959}, "reply_to": "20846__0_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20846__0_027", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--Ordinarily, the rule is, his employer and, as pleaded in the case, and as uncontested in the case, Moore was the primary carrier.\nMoore would pay first and, in fact, even in this case, as... notwithstanding their argument, if Moore was required to pay us the benefit, which is all ERISA allows us in any event, if Moore is required to pay the benefit they have promised to us, and if Aetna's entitled to get from us, then, what Moore has paid us in reimbursement, in subrogation, Aetna would have to pay us our additional deductible.\nAetna would have to pay us whatever our premiums cost to make sure that we would not have that.\nWe do have a claim.\nEven if it's a small claim, it still exists, and Aetna would be... would have to submit to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [357.013, 365.388, 390.282, 397.318, 399.629], "stop_times": [365.388, 390.282, 397.318, 399.629, 405.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 357.013}, "reply_to": "20846__0_026", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_028", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "All right.\nYour claim, as I understand it, is, at a minimum, the claim for the Greek Island trip, which Aetna has not yet paid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [405.704, 406.225], "stop_times": [406.225, 413.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 405.704}, "reply_to": "20846__0_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20846__0_029", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [413.27], "stop_times": [413.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 413.27}, "reply_to": "20846__0_028", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_030", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "And number 2, I think your answer is, assuming, though it didn't get raised explicitly by anybody, that there's nothing in the COBRA act which provides that... your answer may be assuming that there's nothing in the COBRA act that provides that COBRA coverage will be secondary coverage, necessarily.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [413.711], "stop_times": [434.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 413.711}, "reply_to": "20846__0_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20846__0_031", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "There is nothing that provides COBRA coverage will be secondary.\nIn fact, COBRA says it must be of the same quality as offered to regular employees, and the same quality offered to regular employees is that Moore will be primary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [434.374, 437.355], "stop_times": [437.355, 447.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 434.374}, "reply_to": "20846__0_030", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_032", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Okay.\nThen I take it it's fair to say that the situation we're in on standing is this.\nIt may ultimately turn out that you have no recoverable claim, but at this point that is an evidentiary matter and nobody can determine that at this point.\nIs that a fair statement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [447.854, 448.174, 453.63, 464.868], "stop_times": [448.174, 453.63, 464.868, 465.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 447.854}, "reply_to": "20846__0_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20846__0_033", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "That's a fair statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [465.389], "stop_times": [466.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 465.389}, "reply_to": "20846__0_032", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_034", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [466.751], "stop_times": [466.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 466.751}, "reply_to": "20846__0_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20846__0_035", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "It has not been developed because of the decision of the magistrate to grant summary judgment sua sponte.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [466.961], "stop_times": [472.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 466.961}, "reply_to": "20846__0_034", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_036", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Mr. Weinhaus--\n--Well, but you claim you have a claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [472.483, 472.743], "stop_times": [472.743, 473.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 472.483}, "reply_to": "20846__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20846__0_037", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "We certainly claim we have a claim, and we know it's at least of the deductible amount, plus whatever premiums they say we would have had to pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [473.514], "stop_times": [482.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 473.514}, "reply_to": "20846__0_036", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_038", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "May I be blunt about one aspect of this.\nGoing in, he's still alive, and he's suing, and he could linger for a long time, and maybe he could exceed even the maximum under the policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [482.18, 484.483], "stop_times": [484.483, 493.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 482.18}, "reply_to": "20846__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20846__0_039", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "That was his major concern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [493.279], "stop_times": [494.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 493.279}, "reply_to": "20846__0_038", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_040", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "But he's now dead, as Justice Scalia has pointed out.\nThe statute provides for attorney's fees, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [494.248, 497.872], "stop_times": [497.872, 503.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 494.248}, "reply_to": "20846__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20846__0_041", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Yes, it does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [503.615], "stop_times": [504.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 503.615}, "reply_to": "20846__0_040", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_042", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Is that an element that stays on, that... you have the argument that the deductible, you'd have to... you're out of pocket the extra $350, but then you'd have to pay back the premiums to Moore, which amount to in excess of $2,500, so you net... you'd be a net loser, unless what you're saying is, if we prevail, then we get our attorney's fees from the beginning of this representation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [504.687], "stop_times": [532.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 504.687}, "reply_to": "20846__0_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20846__0_043", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Well, not only that, but I don't think... I think we're entitled to the entire benefit.\nIf it comes out to $120,000--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [532.395, 537.027], "stop_times": [537.027, 538.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 532.395}, "reply_to": "20846__0_042", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_044", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "But suppose it was nothing else, could you say, yeah, we still have a claim.\nIt's her claim.\nIt's her claim to get her counsel fees paid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [538.759, 542.062, 542.753], "stop_times": [542.062, 542.753, 547.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 538.759}, "reply_to": "20846__0_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20846__0_045", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--And in addition to that, though, Your... that's correct, but in addition to that, she has the right to say, I want the whole benefit, $120,000.\nIt's true, Aetna may say to me, give us back 80, give us back 110, or give us back everything, except we're going to pay you what you had to pay in addition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [547.267, 555.773], "stop_times": [555.773, 565.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 547.267}, "reply_to": "20846__0_044", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_046", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "This was a death benefit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [565.81], "stop_times": [567.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 565.81}, "reply_to": "20846__0_045", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20846__0_047", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "No.\nThis is health insurance benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [567.92, 568.531], "stop_times": [568.531, 570.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 567.92}, "reply_to": "20846__0_046", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_048", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Well, why would you be paid $120,000 in a lump sum?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [570.582], "stop_times": [574.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 570.582}, "reply_to": "20846__0_047", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20846__0_049", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Well, it's my understanding... again, these are from off-the-record statements of counsel, is that they paid... that Aetna paid $120,000.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [574.606], "stop_times": [584.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 574.606}, "reply_to": "20846__0_048", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_050", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "To whom?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [584.123], "stop_times": [585.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 584.123}, "reply_to": "20846__0_049", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20846__0_051", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "To health care providers, to hospitals, to doctors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [585.462], "stop_times": [588.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 585.462}, "reply_to": "20846__0_050", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_052", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "And you think you have a right to obtain that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [588.744], "stop_times": [592.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 588.744}, "reply_to": "20846__0_051", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20846__0_053", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "What ERISA says is that you're not entitled to any damages.\nYou are only entitled to... besides fees, and there are penalties too here, that you are entitled to the benefit, and if we're entitled to 120 from Moore, we're entitled to 120 from Moore.\nNow, Aetna may be in a position, again, depending upon what the law is, to say, uh-uh, we paid 120.\nNow you owe that to us, less your costs and expenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [592.048, 595.72, 606.075, 612.4], "stop_times": [595.72, 606.075, 612.4, 616.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 592.048}, "reply_to": "20846__0_052", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_054", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "But you say that doesn't defeat your claim against Moore.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [616.183], "stop_times": [618.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 616.183}, "reply_to": "20846__0_053", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20846__0_055", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "That doesn't defeat our $120,000 claim in any way, and every other employee of Moore would have the same right to make that same claim if Moore did not pay the bills and some secondary carrier that they also had paid the bill.\nWe're the same as them, and that's real--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [618.544, 630.432], "stop_times": [630.432, 637.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 618.544}, "reply_to": "20846__0_054", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_056", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "I guess the issue on that would be whether there's standing when somebody brings a claim which is confronted with a counterclaim of a greater amount than the claim, is there still standing to be the claim.\nI suppose there is.\nYou mentioned penalties, and are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [637.017, 648.454, 649.465], "stop_times": [648.454, 649.465, 652.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 637.017}, "reply_to": "20846__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20846__0_057", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--Well, there are also penalties, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [652.848], "stop_times": [653.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 652.848}, "reply_to": "20846__0_056", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_058", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--Are those penalties that go into the pocket of the plaintiff?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [653.897], "stop_times": [656.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 653.897}, "reply_to": "20846__0_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20846__0_059", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--Oh, yes, those are penalties that go into the pocket of... because our theory is, on that, is that if you do not give a proper notice under the statute you're... this employer is subject to a penalty of up to $100 a day for not giving a proper notice, and while--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [656.339], "stop_times": [672.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 656.339}, "reply_to": "20846__0_058", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_060", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "But I thought that was a claim that hasn't yet been adjudicated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [672.861], "stop_times": [675.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 672.861}, "reply_to": "20846__0_059", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20846__0_061", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--Because this claim has not been adjudicated, but on the adjudication of the claim, if we are correct that they should have continued the policy, at that point in time we are entitled to a penalty of up to $100 a day being assessed, and that goes to the plaintiff, and at the time they announced this, Mr. Geissal was very much alive and very much concerned about having the wherewithal to survive, if he could.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [675.022], "stop_times": [701.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 675.022}, "reply_to": "20846__0_060", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_062", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Are you going to get to the merits, do you think?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [701.54, 704.391], "stop_times": [704.391, 706.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 701.54}, "reply_to": "20846__0_061", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20846__0_063", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Well, the merits of it are, of course, in the plain meaning of the statute itself, Your Honor, because he was covered already under the wife's policy, the TWA health insurance plan at the time.\nNow, we are told by the Eighth Circuit that that plan did not become effective until after his election.\nNow, that is not correct at all, because under ERISA a plan becomes effective when you're covered.\nUnder ERISA, as he would be a beneficiary in the wife's plan, he would be entitled to sue immediately for any plan violation.\nHe would have a right under ERISA, section 502(a)(1), to sue to clarify his rights to future benefits.\nHe would have a right immediately to ask for a copy of the summary plan description and ask for plan information.\nThat right does not start with his termination by Moore, or, worse yet, with the date of his election.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [706.514, 724.815, 732.13, 738.435, 748.48, 755.746, 762.671], "stop_times": [724.815, 732.13, 738.435, 748.48, 755.746, 762.671, 770.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 706.514}, "reply_to": "20846__0_062", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_064", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Why don't you focus on the exact statutory language that you're relying on, Mr. Weinhaus.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [770.946], "stop_times": [775.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 770.946}, "reply_to": "20846__0_063", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20846__0_065", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Yes.\nThe exact statutory language is... appears on page 23 of our brief.\nIt's... basically says the coverage must extend for at least the period beginning on the date of the qualifying event... now, that is the date of termination... and ending not earlier than the earliest of the following, the date on which the qualified beneficiary first becomes after the date of election.\nNow, he... therefore, under this statute he is immediately covered... as long as he chooses to elect, he is immediately covered from the date of his termination.\nUnder COBRA, the employer must give you a notice of election, right to elect, within 45 days of the qualifying event.\nThe employer must give the individual 60 days to make the election, and then the individual has yet another 90 days to pay the premium.\nAnd, incidentally, COBRA's not a free gift.\nUnder the statute it's 102 percent of the employer's cost and as a result, upon his death he immediately becomes covered if he ultimately elects, and none of these cases go into the fact that in fact this coverage continues until at least the date of the election, because it says, it does not end... end is Congress' words... not earlier than the date of the following, the date he first becomes, after the date of election, covered.\nSo their... under their--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [775.678, 775.859, 779.782, 803.427, 814.554, 822.721, 832.289, 834.322, 871.365], "stop_times": [775.859, 779.782, 803.427, 814.554, 822.721, 832.289, 834.322, 871.365, 873.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 775.678}, "reply_to": "20846__0_064", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_066", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "And you say he never first became covered after the date of election here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [873.048], "stop_times": [876.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 873.048}, "reply_to": "20846__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20846__0_067", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--He never became covered, first became covered after the date of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [876.069], "stop_times": [878.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 876.069}, "reply_to": "20846__0_066", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_068", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Or he never--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [878.673], "stop_times": [879.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 878.673}, "reply_to": "20846__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20846__0_069", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--He was already covered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [879.392], "stop_times": [879.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 879.392}, "reply_to": "20846__0_068", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_070", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--He never became covered.\nHe was covered, period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [879.853, 880.734], "stop_times": [880.734, 882.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 879.853}, "reply_to": "20846__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20846__0_071", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "He was already... there was nothing new.\nFirst becomes means there must be some change in status, some change in position, and that did not occur here.\nI'd like to reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal if I may, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [882.665, 883.436, 889.72], "stop_times": [883.436, 889.72, 893.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 882.665}, "reply_to": "20846__0_070", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__0_072", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Very well, Mr. Weinhaus.\nMr. Feldman.\nMr. Feldman, the Government asserts as the rationality of the position that you're supporting here that it retains the status quo, but it really doesn't always retain the status quo, because it could be that the additional coverage was acquired after the termination event, but during the period before the election, and then the first becomes would still not apply, isn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [893.273, 894.234, 895.964], "stop_times": [894.234, 895.964, 941.866], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 893.273}, "reply_to": "20846__0_071", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20846__1_000", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Yes, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [941.866], "stop_times": [943.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 941.866}, "reply_to": "20846__0_072", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20846__1_001", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "So you're not really preserving the status quo that existed at the time of the person's employment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [943.015], "stop_times": [947.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 943.015}, "reply_to": "20846__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20846__1_002", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "I think the general idea is to preserve the status quo, and especially in a case like this it would affect the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [947.6], "stop_times": [952.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 947.6}, "reply_to": "20846__1_001", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20846__1_003", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "And you explain this as a glitch.\nThey just didn't do it quite right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [952.16, 952.891], "stop_times": [952.891, 954.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 952.16}, "reply_to": "20846__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20846__1_004", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--I wouldn't say it's a glitch.\nI would say that that was a consequence, a necessary consequence, and one that Congress would have wanted, of their decision to hinge everything from the date of election and not from the date of the termination.\nThe date of termination only sets the notice requirements going in.\nIt's the date of election that determines... that you're supposed to look at to determine when coverage... when you can terminate coverage.\nHaving done that, they can't... there's no way to be sure that somebody in the position of the decedent here at the date that... let's say... let's take someone who loses their job on day 1.\nOn day 2, they go get another job.\nThe employer says, do you want health insurance, I don't have much of a policy but we have something to offer you, and the employee says, sure.\nOn... 30 days later the employee gets a notice that you're entitled to COBRA coverage, and you have 60 days to elect, blah, blah, blah.\nWell, in that case, under respondent's view, because the employee has already accepted coverage under the new job, before he knew the consequences of doing that, he can't get COBRA coverage or at least it would have to terminate right at the day of election.\nNow, I think that that's a consequence that Congress didn't want.\nIn other words, the only way Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [954.082, 955.434, 966.961, 969.404, 976.968, 987.506, 989.707, 995.664, 1002.897, 1016.384, 1019.507], "stop_times": [955.434, 966.961, 969.404, 976.968, 987.506, 989.707, 995.664, 1002.897, 1016.384, 1019.507, 1021.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 954.082}, "reply_to": "20846__1_003", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20846__1_005", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "But Mr. Feldman, don't they have the gap exception to take care of that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1021.68], "stop_times": [1025.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1021.68}, "reply_to": "20846__1_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20846__1_006", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1025.481], "stop_times": [1026.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1025.481}, "reply_to": "20846__1_005", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20846__1_007", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "You posed the case where there was significantly less insurance under the new policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1026.542], "stop_times": [1031.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1026.542}, "reply_to": "20846__1_006", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20846__1_008", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--Let me... that is a view... the significant gap explanation is one that's been adopted by the courts of appeals that have agreed with respondent in the courts below.\nAnd they've done that because they realize that Congress generally didn't intend the harsh consequences of someone who was, let's say relying on their own insurance and let's say a family may have been relying very heavily on the employee's insurance and had a supplemental policy also that the spouse had, and those courts have felt, well, Congress couldn't have intended that they lose their primary health coverage just because... when they terminate their job just because they have some very inadequate coverage under the spouse's policy, so they look at whether there's a significant gap.\nUnder our view, that significant gap inquiry, which isn't triggered by any text in the statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1031.416, 1040.741, 1067.298], "stop_times": [1040.741, 1067.298, 1072.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1031.416}, "reply_to": "20846__1_007", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20846__1_009", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "I'm just saying that it's ameliorated.\nIt's not quite as stark as you say, because they do concede that if there's a significant gap then you retain the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1072.013, 1073.475], "stop_times": [1073.475, 1079.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1072.013}, "reply_to": "20846__1_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20846__1_010", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--That would only be the case if you adopt... if it were true that there is a significant gap inquiry that's required under the statute.\nUnder our view, that doesn't fit into the statutory language, and the way--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1079.97, 1086.595], "stop_times": [1086.595, 1089.887], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1079.97}, "reply_to": "20846__1_009", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20846__1_011", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--Because it continues anyway.\nBecause it continues anyway--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1089.887, 1091.757], "stop_times": [1091.757, 1093.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1089.887}, "reply_to": "20846__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20846__1_012", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--Yes.\nThe way that the problem is resolved--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1093.29, 1093.47], "stop_times": [1093.47, 1094.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1093.29}, "reply_to": "20846__1_011", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20846__1_013", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--if it was not first... right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1094.238], "stop_times": [1095.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1094.238}, "reply_to": "20846__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20846__1_014", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--That's right.\nThe way that the problem is resolved is by giving the employee the opportunity to elect.\nIf the employee believes that the other policy is inadequate, the employee will probably elect COBRA coverage and the employee is entitled to get it.\nIf the employee believes that the other coverage is fully adequate, then the employee certainly will not elect COBRA coverage because it's expensive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1095.109, 1095.62, 1099.773, 1106.769], "stop_times": [1095.62, 1099.773, 1106.769, 1113.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1095.109}, "reply_to": "20846__1_013", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20846__1_015", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "But the point is, he is in a position to assess whether there's a gap or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1113.334], "stop_times": [1117.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1113.334}, "reply_to": "20846__1_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20846__1_016", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Right, and he's also in... I might add that if you look at the significant gap inquiry, it's very hard to work, because the plan administrator has to make the determination sometime after the date of election of comparing the provisions of the two policies.\nThe plan administrator has to know the provisions of the other policy, which the plan administrator may well not have, has to know the medical condition of the decedent to determine whether, in light of that... not of the decedent, of the employee in most cases, to determine whether, in light of that, the gap is significant.\nThat's an inquiry that's very difficult to make.\nUnder our view, Congress left... the statute works quite well where those decisions are left up to the employee.\nIn our view also the plain language of the statute is sufficient to resolve the case.\nThe statute says that the employer may terminate coverage on the date on which the qualified beneficiary first becomes, after the date of election, covered under any other plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1117.337, 1130.536, 1143.794, 1145.216, 1151.691, 1158.985], "stop_times": [1130.536, 1143.794, 1145.216, 1151.691, 1158.985, 1169.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1117.337}, "reply_to": "20846__1_015", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20846__1_017", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Would your argument be the same... it wouldn't be as good, but would you take the same position if it said, first is covered?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1169.522], "stop_times": [1174.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1169.522}, "reply_to": "20846__1_016", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20846__1_018", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "I think argument would be the same, but I do think that becomes is the word that really makes it unambiguous.\nOr, put it the other way, I think becomes is probably stronger than first, but I think when operating together they plainly convey the meaning that Congress intended here.\nIf you... if a plan administrator asks, on the date after the date of election says, has this employee today first become covered under any other plan, I think the only possible answer is no.\nHe hasn't first become covered because he was covered all along.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1174.175, 1179.819, 1186.974, 1198.621], "stop_times": [1179.819, 1186.974, 1198.621, 1201.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1174.175}, "reply_to": "20846__1_017", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20846__1_019", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "First is really a redundant or emphatic word.\nYou can't second become.\nYou either become or you don't become, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1201.043, 1204.406, 1205.547], "stop_times": [1204.406, 1205.547, 1207.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1201.043}, "reply_to": "20846__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20846__1_020", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Right.\nI... generally, yes.\nI mean, there are cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1207.628, 1208.339, 1209.821], "stop_times": [1208.339, 1209.821, 1211.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1207.628}, "reply_to": "20846__1_019", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20846__1_021", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "You either become or you already were, one or the other.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1211.093, 1212.836], "stop_times": [1212.836, 1212.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1211.093}, "reply_to": "20846__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20846__1_022", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--That's correct.\nThat's correct.\nBut the... that's correct.\nIt's the becomes is... carries the major part of the weight, and I do think first adds to it.\nBut in any event, because on the date after the date of election it cannot be said that the employee has first become covered under the other plan, and that won't be true at any other future date if there's continuous coverage, the employer cannot terminate COBRA coverage on... just right after the date of election on the basis that the employee has first become covered by a plan that he had, in fact, all along.\nIn our view, that fits well within the purposes of the statute because, as I said, it provides... it enables employees who are relying on that coverage and who may have had wholly inadequate second coverage to make the decision of what kind of coverage is adequate for them, and to have that for this temporary period of time for up to 18 months in a case like this, while they make whatever other plans they wanted.\nIn response... I just want to add, because I do think that the hardest case for us is the case where the employee... the case that Justice Scalia raised, which is where the employee gets the coverage during the election period, that really it's necessary to allow that to happen, because that is the only... the only way that Congress could ensure itself that an employee, when it made an election with respect to the new policy, when it decided it wanted the coverage... when he decided he wanted coverage under the new policy, it was the only way that Congress could be sure that that was an informed choice.\nAnd it's also clear from the general structure of the statute that Congress wanted those... the employee to have that choice.\nFor example, when a... let's take on the 65th day, or the 70th day, long after the date of election, and an employee who is covered under COBRA gets a new job, well, at that point, when the new employer says, do you want health insurance under this job, or health coverage, the employee is not... just because he's offered the health insurance, COBRA coverage doesn't terminate.\nThe statute says it's when he becomes covered under the new plan, not when he becomes eligible under the new plan, and that shows that Congress wanted people to have the opportunity to make the choice as to whether they wanted the COBRA coverage or whether they wanted the new coverage.\nIf you adopt the view of respondent and the court of appeals, the employees wouldn't have that choice very frequently.\nI think our view is also supported by related provisions of COBRA which provide, for example, that the coverage that's provided under COBRA has to be identical to the coverage that the employee had while working for the former employer, and it's consistent with that purpose to permit employees who had dual coverage, who felt it was necessary because of extraordinary medical needs, because of the inadequacy of a spouse's plan, or perhaps just because of their own very strong desire to have security with respect to their medical costs, to permit employees who are in that situation who had dual coverage before for sometime, to be able to also continue the dual coverage during the temporary COBRA period so long as they're willing to pay for it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1212.946, 1213.707, 1214.628, 1216.599, 1219.901, 1240.167, 1262.14, 1293.622, 1299.505, 1320.018, 1331.896, 1337.419], "stop_times": [1213.707, 1214.628, 1216.599, 1219.901, 1240.167, 1262.14, 1293.622, 1299.505, 1320.018, 1331.896, 1337.419, 1380.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1212.946}, "reply_to": "20846__1_021", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20846__1_023", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "The temporary period in this case would be 18 months?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1380.086], "stop_times": [1382.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1380.086}, "reply_to": "20846__1_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20846__1_024", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "It would be 18 months unless some other qualifying event occurs... unless some other terminating event occurs, of which there are several others, in addition to the one that's at issue in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1382.648], "stop_times": [1393.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1382.648}, "reply_to": "20846__1_023", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20846__1_025", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Mr. Feldman, because it is jurisdictional, can you explain why the Eighth Circuit thought the 54(b) issue... they said it was... they considered it a close question, and then didn't expand on it, whether there was an immediately appealable judgment, final judgment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1393.417], "stop_times": [1410.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1393.417}, "reply_to": "20846__1_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20846__1_026", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "I don't understand why they said that, because in looking at it myself I didn't see why it was a close question, so in my view it was a valid 54(b) certification and therefore it was validly before the court of appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1410.407], "stop_times": [1421.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1410.407}, "reply_to": "20846__1_025", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20846__1_027", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--I note that Count IV is discrete.\nThat was for the information reporting.\nBut Court III, maybe that had something to do with why this wasn't finished.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1421.314, 1423.407, 1424.999], "stop_times": [1423.407, 1424.999, 1429.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1421.314}, "reply_to": "20846__1_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20846__1_028", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Perhaps it did, but I didn't... it seemed to me that the issues that were before the court, which were I and II, I was the basic COBRA coverage count, and II... wait a minute, I'm forgetting here exactly what II was.\nIn any event, I thought that those counts were plainly separate counts that could be resolved on a strictly legal basis that this was, and that they were therefore suitable for a resolution under... for partial summary judgment under section 50... Rule 54(b).\nIf there's no other further questions, that concludes my argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1429.623, 1443.933, 1457.293], "stop_times": [1443.933, 1457.293, 1461.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1429.623}, "reply_to": "20846__1_027", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20846__1_029", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Feldman.\nMr. Washburn.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1461.784, 1463.066], "stop_times": [1463.066, 1464.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1461.784}, "reply_to": "20846__1_028", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20846__2_000", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI believe that the petitioner's argument in this case is very disingenuous in a couple of respects.\nOne, of course, has already been addressed by the Court's questions, concerning the blatant attempt at double recovery of insurance benefits.\nThis was never an evil that COBRA was trying to remedy when it was passed to protect people without insurance--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1464.806, 1470.502, 1477.636, 1485.853], "stop_times": [1470.502, 1477.636, 1485.853, 1493.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1464.806}, "reply_to": "20846__1_029", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_001", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Well, why is that relevant?\nI mean, if he gets $120,000 from you, and if Aetna wants their money back, they'll get their money back.\nWhat's the problem?\nI mean, what's the problem insofar as it concerns us in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1493.718, 1495.019, 1500.625, 1501.186], "stop_times": [1495.019, 1500.625, 1501.186, 1504.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1493.718}, "reply_to": "20846__2_000", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20846__2_002", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--Well, it concerns us, of course is, is that we don't want to pay Aetna.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1504.609], "stop_times": [1507.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1504.609}, "reply_to": "20846__2_001", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_003", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "I know it concerns you, but our basic problem is to decide this particular case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1507.23], "stop_times": [1510.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1507.23}, "reply_to": "20846__2_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20846__2_004", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1510.563], "stop_times": [1510.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1510.563}, "reply_to": "20846__2_003", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_005", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "And how is it relevant to our problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1510.773], "stop_times": [1512.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1510.773}, "reply_to": "20846__2_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20846__2_006", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Well, I think that you have to look at the statute, and the statute as a whole, and we have to... based upon a holistic look at the statute, have to determine the intent of Congress, and I don't believe that Congress was trying to protect people and allow them to, in essence, win a medical lottery.\nIf they're entitled to a double recovery, everybody who is sick, or even people who aren't sick really would... should elect COBRA--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1512.355, 1528.197], "stop_times": [1528.197, 1536.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1512.355}, "reply_to": "20846__2_005", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_007", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "I don't quite see that, because I thought most insurance policies have in them clauses so that you can't get a double recovery, and one way is, they may have to pay the money back.\nAnother way is, insurance company 2 sues insurance company 1.\nI thought the insurance industry is filled with devices in contracts that prevent that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1536.561, 1544.848, 1548.381], "stop_times": [1544.848, 1548.381, 1554.258], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1536.561}, "reply_to": "20846__2_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20846__2_008", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--That is correct, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1554.258], "stop_times": [1555.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1554.258}, "reply_to": "20846__2_007", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_009", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "All right.\nSo is that really a prob... a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1555.506, 1555.677], "stop_times": [1555.677, 1556.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1555.506}, "reply_to": "20846__2_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20846__2_010", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "We don't intend to pay twice.\nThat's certainly... but it is certainly a problem with this.\nThe other matter that's so disingenuous to my way of thinking is, is complaints about the status of the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1556.878, 1559.452, 1561.055], "stop_times": [1559.452, 1561.055, 1567.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1556.878}, "reply_to": "20846__2_009", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_011", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--Well, I mean, if you start out saying, this is disingenuous, they don't want double recovery, and then you tell us there's not going to be double recovery, it seems to me that your opening salvo is rather ineffective.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1567.038], "stop_times": [1576.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1567.038}, "reply_to": "20846__2_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20846__2_012", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "I'm sorry, Justice.\nI think that it is important that they don't be... that they're not entitled to double recovery, and I'm wanting to make sure that they're not entitled to double recovery, because we certainly don't want to have to end up paying twice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1576.695, 1578.996], "stop_times": [1578.996, 1589.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1576.695}, "reply_to": "20846__2_011", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_013", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "But what do they call the insurance clauses that prevent... accommodation clauses, is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1589.272], "stop_times": [1592.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1589.272}, "reply_to": "20846__2_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20846__2_014", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Coordination--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1592.524], "stop_times": [1592.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1592.524}, "reply_to": "20846__2_013", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_015", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--Coordination--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1592.905], "stop_times": [1593.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1592.905}, "reply_to": "20846__2_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20846__2_016", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--clauses, Justice.\nThe other issue is, is the complaints about the status of the record.\nThe petitioner made the record.\nThey're the ones that took the interlocutory appeal.\nThey were the ones that prepared the affidavit.\nThe affidavit was prepared some, almost 2 years after the date of the qualifying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1593.395, 1594.217, 1601.101, 1603.084, 1605.517, 1608.12], "stop_times": [1594.217, 1601.101, 1603.084, 1605.517, 1608.12, 1614.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1593.395}, "reply_to": "20846__2_015", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_017", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--Well, they took an interlocutory appeal because they were thrown out as a matter of law on the meaning of this statute, isn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1614.074], "stop_times": [1620.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1614.074}, "reply_to": "20846__2_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20846__2_018", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--That is correct, Justice, but what... it's my position--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1620.789], "stop_times": [1624.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1620.789}, "reply_to": "20846__2_017", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_019", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "And nothing to do... if the statute means what you say it means, then I don't see how any of the rest of this is relevant, because you're not entitled to more than one policy, as you read it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1624.292], "stop_times": [1636.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1624.292}, "reply_to": "20846__2_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20846__2_020", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--That's correct, Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1636.539], "stop_times": [1637.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1636.539}, "reply_to": "20846__2_019", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_021", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "You say this statute just protects the person against the loss of any insurance, and that... so you present a stark question of statutory interpretation on which you divide... you prevailed on your reading, and the rest of it seems to me, as Justice Breyer suggested, not relevant to the question before us, which is what does this provision mean.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1637.86], "stop_times": [1659.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1637.86}, "reply_to": "20846__2_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20846__2_022", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Okay.\nI'll address that, Justice.\nThe... what the provision means, and to look at it and also... I'd like to point to the Court on pages 1 and 2 of the reply brief of the respondent, they sat there and said that my analysis of the COBRA statute as a whole was seriously flawed, and therefore my analysis of what the plain meaning of 1162(d)(2) is was therefore wrong.\nCOBRA works this way, and if you look at section... and it's at 10a of the appendix of the Government's brief.\nCOBRA, your insurance from your group health plan ceases at the qualifying event, and some companies may obviously have a situation where they let you keep it to the end of the month, or whatever, and that is set forth clearly at 1165 (1)(A).\nCoverage stops at that point in time.\nWhat happens is, is then there's this election period where there's a period of time after the qualifying event that the employer has to give notice, and then within 60 days after the notice, the beneficiary, or beneficiaries, as the case may be, have to elect to have coverage, and then within 45 days later they have to pay the premium.\nAssuming there's notice, assuming there's election, and assuming there's payment of premiums, what happens is, then the policy, and only then, does the policy become effective as of the qualifying date.\nIt's like any other claims-made insurance policy that has a retroactive date.\nEven though it's paid, purchased on one date, paid for on another date, it can still relate back to a much farther date, and that's what happens here.\nThere is no COBRA coverage until there is an election, and I believe that both the petitioner and the Government seem... the Government to a lesser extent, they both seem to be making this fallacious understanding of the statute, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1659.334, 1659.694, 1661.807, 1685.343, 1694.947, 1712.61, 1716.121, 1733.884, 1746.251, 1751.346, 1758.67], "stop_times": [1659.694, 1661.807, 1685.343, 1694.947, 1712.61, 1716.121, 1733.884, 1746.251, 1751.346, 1758.67, 1777.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1659.334}, "reply_to": "20846__2_021", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_023", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Why did Congress use the word, continuation coverage?\nIt didn't say, renewal, or... it says continuation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1777.494, 1781.584], "stop_times": [1781.584, 1786.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1777.494}, "reply_to": "20846__2_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20846__2_024", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--I'm sorry, Justice Ginsburg, where--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1786.188], "stop_times": [1790.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1786.188}, "reply_to": "20846__2_023", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_025", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "I thought that the statute uses the words, continuation coverage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1790.642], "stop_times": [1794.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1790.642}, "reply_to": "20846__2_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20846__2_026", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--It does at times, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1794.974], "stop_times": [1796.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1794.974}, "reply_to": "20846__2_025", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_027", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--section 1162.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1796.494], "stop_times": [1798.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1796.494}, "reply_to": "20846__2_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20846__2_028", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Right, and 1161, also.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1798.357], "stop_times": [1800.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1798.357}, "reply_to": "20846__2_027", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_029", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "That... at least that caption seems to run counter to what you're describing, which is a termination and then a revival.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1800.657], "stop_times": [1810.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1800.657}, "reply_to": "20846__2_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20846__2_030", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Well, it's new coverage, but it's coverage that relates back to the qualifying event.\nSomebody, just because they quit working for a company, or are terminated from their company on January 1, doesn't have free right and free mandatory insurance from January 1 through, say, 60 days, through February 28, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1810.125, 1818.08], "stop_times": [1818.08, 1836.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1810.125}, "reply_to": "20846__2_029", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_031", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "You get it retroactively when you pay the premium.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1836.421], "stop_times": [1837.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1836.421}, "reply_to": "20846__2_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20846__2_032", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--You get it ret--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1837.833], "stop_times": [1838.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1837.833}, "reply_to": "20846__2_031", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_033", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "I don't see how that affects the issue that's before us here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1838.214], "stop_times": [1842.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1838.214}, "reply_to": "20846__2_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20846__2_034", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--How it affects the issue before us, Justice Scalia is, is what we have to do is, is to interpret the plain meaning of the statute is, is I believe we have to focus on that clause, after the date of election, set forth in 1162, and that extremely dangling prepositional clause is set off, and it's an independent prepositional clause, and what it... the whole statute is talking about is, is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1842.377], "stop_times": [1868.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1842.377}, "reply_to": "20846__2_033", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_035", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Where do we find this independent clause in the brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1868.455], "stop_times": [1871.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1868.455}, "reply_to": "20846__2_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20846__2_036", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--In the... I'm using the Government's brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1871.528], "stop_times": [1874.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1871.528}, "reply_to": "20846__2_035", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_037", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1874.54], "stop_times": [1874.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1874.54}, "reply_to": "20846__2_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20846__2_038", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "It's at... at page 5a.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1874.821], "stop_times": [1878.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1874.821}, "reply_to": "20846__2_037", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_039", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "And whereabouts on the page?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1878.784], "stop_times": [1880.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1878.784}, "reply_to": "20846__2_038", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20846__2_040", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "On the very first paragraph.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1880.774], "stop_times": [1883.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1880.774}, "reply_to": "20846__2_039", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_041", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Thank you.\nWill you deal with, before you get to the after, first become?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1883.356, 1883.876], "stop_times": [1883.876, 1892.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1883.356}, "reply_to": "20846__2_040", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20846__2_042", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "The Government's position is, is that becomes is an extremely strong word.\nI take extreme exception with that position, that becomes is a strong word.\nIt's an extremely passive word, in fact, and it's a very amorphous term.\nWe're not really sure what becomes is.\nIf they use a strong active verb like, it only originates at that point in time, I can understand that, but if you look at the dictionary definitions set forth by the petitioner at paragraph 24, and the Government's position wasn't anything much different than that, it defines become to pass from one state to another, to enter into some... assuming or receiving new properties or qualities, additional matter, or a new character.\nWell, it's our contention that the... in this case the Aetna plan, the preexisting spousal insurance plan, took on an extremely new character.\nIt became the primary insurance, and so there was coverage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1892.972, 1902.008, 1908.463, 1912.116, 1914.517, 1943.007, 1950.714], "stop_times": [1902.008, 1908.463, 1912.116, 1914.517, 1943.007, 1950.714, 1954.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1892.972}, "reply_to": "20846__2_041", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_043", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "This first becomes coverage--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1954.727], "stop_times": [1956.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1954.727}, "reply_to": "20846__2_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20846__2_044", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1956.297], "stop_times": [1957.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1956.297}, "reply_to": "20846__2_043", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_045", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--I mean, I'd like to get your answer to Justice Scalia's question.\nI mean, you had a point, which was quite right, that if on... he's fired on, say, January 1, or leaves the job.\nHe gets his notice, let's say on February 1.\nHe has until April 1 to elect.\nNow, if he elects on, let's say, March 15, he's covered back to January 1.\nWhat's the relevance of that point?\nThat was what I think Justice Scalia asked, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1957.847, 1961.69, 1968.345, 1971.338, 1974.372, 1980.006, 1982.227], "stop_times": [1961.69, 1968.345, 1971.338, 1974.372, 1980.006, 1982.227, 1985.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1957.847}, "reply_to": "20846__2_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20846__2_046", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Well, first of all the relevance is, is that the petitioner--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1985.119], "stop_times": [1987.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1985.119}, "reply_to": "20846__2_045", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_047", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--Throughout this whole period, of course, he's covered by the Aetna policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1987.691], "stop_times": [1991.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1987.691}, "reply_to": "20846__2_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20846__2_048", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1991.123], "stop_times": [1991.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1991.123}, "reply_to": "20846__2_047", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_049", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "So... it has to do with what happened to the Aetna policy.\nHe didn't first become covered by the Aetna policy after the election period.\nHe was covered by the election policy forever.\nI mean, long before... by the Aetna policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [1991.574, 1994.867, 2003.835, 2007.116], "stop_times": [1994.867, 2003.835, 2007.116, 2009.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1991.574}, "reply_to": "20846__2_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20846__2_050", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "I appreciate that position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2009.589], "stop_times": [2011.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2009.589}, "reply_to": "20846__2_049", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_051", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "But what's your answer?\nI mean, that... go back to Justice Scalia's question.\nWhat is the... what is the point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2011.32, 2012.799, 2014.581], "stop_times": [2012.799, 2014.581, 2016.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2011.32}, "reply_to": "20846__2_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20846__2_052", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "My answer to it is this... as the Eleventh and the Eighth Circuit in this case found out is, is that the... this statute talks about the suspension of coverage, when coverage may end, and its... is... coverage may end only after the date of election.\nThat is the first time that the employer has the right to suspend the coverage.\nWe... it's axiomatic, as an employer, we don't have the right to suspend something that's never been elected.\nWe can't suspend it.\nIt's simple.\nI mean, it's that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2016.131, 2031.932, 2038.608, 2044.271, 2045.821, 2046.362], "stop_times": [2031.932, 2038.608, 2044.271, 2045.821, 2046.362, 2046.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2016.131}, "reply_to": "20846__2_051", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_053", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "So--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2046.903], "stop_times": [2048.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2046.903}, "reply_to": "20846__2_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20846__2_054", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--So what the point becomes is, is that the exact date of the obtention of this preexisting policy really doesn't have a whole lot to do with it, and let me give you a hypothetical that may somewhat clear it up.\nLet's change the facts of this situation only slightly.\nMr. Geissal was working for Moore Medical.\nHis wife, instead of being a long-term employee of TWA, became an employee of TWA only 6 months before Mr. Geissal was terminated, and the TWA plan has a 1-year preexisting condition clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2048.793, 2063.934, 2067.235, 2069.659], "stop_times": [2063.934, 2067.235, 2069.659, 2083.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2048.793}, "reply_to": "20846__2_053", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_055", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--Your point basically is, don't pay that much attention to the words become after the date of election and first, for the reason that, until the election, there was nothing in effect, so it's natural for Congress to have used those words, since the election created a nothing into a something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2083.129], "stop_times": [2097.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2083.129}, "reply_to": "20846__2_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20846__2_056", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2097.85], "stop_times": [2098.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2097.85}, "reply_to": "20846__2_055", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_057", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "It really has nothing to do with the issue before us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2098.881], "stop_times": [2100.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2098.881}, "reply_to": "20846__2_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20846__2_058", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "That's absolutely correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2100.17], "stop_times": [2101.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2100.17}, "reply_to": "20846__2_057", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_059", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "That's your argument.\nOkay, good.\nIf I understand that, then, let's go to the question of why Congress might have wanted it, and I take it that the reason they might have wanted this interpretation that the petitioners have is because they figure all of us... you know, many people in this room, hundreds of people have coverage through their employer, their spouse works, he or she has coverage as well, so everybody has two policies, basically, the potential for two.\nNot everybody in the world, but huge numbers.\nAnd what Congress is interested in, after all, is that when you lose... when one spouse loses one job, they want a conscious choice, or otherwise you're covered for 18 months.\nSo during the 18 months period, if you don't make a conscious choice to go choose something else, you're still covered by your employer.\nIf you make a conscious choice, the employer should be off the hook.\nNow, I mean, that's an obvious reading, I guess, of the purpose.\nThat seems to be what I got out of the other side's briefs.\nWhat's your response?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2101.041, 2101.372, 2102.404, 2125.591, 2127.734, 2138.12, 2145.386, 2148.778, 2151.412, 2154.183], "stop_times": [2101.372, 2102.404, 2125.591, 2127.734, 2138.12, 2145.386, 2148.778, 2151.412, 2154.183, 2155.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2101.041}, "reply_to": "20846__2_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20846__2_060", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "That basically gets back to the preservation of the status quo argument.\nFirst of all, if Congress were so concerned about the preservation of the status quo, their... the provisions also in the same sub-sub-subsection of this act, also (ii), deals with medicare, and medicare is a mandatory event that causes termination.\nIt talks about eligibility for medicare being a terminating event, and medicare has... is substantially different in the character of the policies between the normal group health plan and this group health plan.\nFor one thing is, is almost all group health plans have prescription medication health.\nWhether it's... there's a co-pay, or whether they pay all of it, or whatever, there's something in there.\nMedicare certainly doesn't have that type of provision.\nSo there's two points is, is one is there's no issue here, and there's nothing that can be gleaned from the face of the act that shows that Congress was concerned about the preservation of... an identical preservation of the status quo, and there's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2155.644, 2159.918, 2183.275, 2198.984, 2205.268, 2209.492, 2212.234], "stop_times": [2159.918, 2183.275, 2198.984, 2205.268, 2209.492, 2212.234, 2228.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2155.644}, "reply_to": "20846__2_059", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_061", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "So that's your point on this one, I take it, is look, all Congress wanted is to give you the 18 months if there's no other coverage in the family.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2228.214], "stop_times": [2234.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2228.214}, "reply_to": "20846__2_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20846__2_062", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--Right, without the free--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2234.929], "stop_times": [2237.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2234.929}, "reply_to": "20846__2_061", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_063", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "That's... all right.\nAnd if there is... now, that... if we bought that argument, I mean, I think that would work a major change in COBRA, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2237.91, 2238.08], "stop_times": [2238.08, 2243.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2237.91}, "reply_to": "20846__2_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20846__2_064", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--No, I don't believe that it would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2243.205], "stop_times": [2244.474], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2243.205}, "reply_to": "20846__2_063", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_065", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Now, aren't lots of people covered with two policies because the spouses both work, or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2244.474], "stop_times": [2247.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2244.474}, "reply_to": "20846__2_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20846__2_066", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "I have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2247.777], "stop_times": [2249.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2247.777}, "reply_to": "20846__2_065", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_067", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "What do you... you're in this... I mean, just speaking out of your experience, this is your... basically I gather you're represented a lot of these cases.\nAre most... I just... on the basis of acquaintanceship, it seems to me a lot of people have both spouses working and they each have a policy at their place of employment, so on the basis of that, wouldn't you say this would suddenly make this 18-month business pretty meaningless, if we accept your interpretation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2249.399, 2255.122], "stop_times": [2255.122, 2273.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2249.399}, "reply_to": "20846__2_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20846__2_068", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--Justice Breyer, I do assume that there's probably a lot of people who do have this situation, that there are a lot of people with preexisting spousal insurance.\nTo the extent that it does cause those people to not be able to have double coverage, yes, it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2273.752, 2282.789], "stop_times": [2282.789, 2289.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2273.752}, "reply_to": "20846__2_067", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_069", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "All right.\nIf Congress really intended so to limit the 18-months--you know, this looks like... I would think that this extra 18-month safety valve that they build in would in vast numbers of cases become meaningless, and wouldn't we expect to find something in the legislative history, or some place, that would suggest that this limitation, so major a limitation was intended?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2289.674, 2289.995], "stop_times": [2289.995, 2313.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2289.674}, "reply_to": "20846__2_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20846__2_070", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--I don't know the... I certainly don't know the answer to that.\nThis... as cited by the petitioner, there is a law review article that said this was a midnight passage and that there really isn't a lot of legislative history on this.\nThe act was passed primarily... it was a budget act.\nIt was a comprehensive budget act, and it was passed in response to staggering budget deficits, and one of the concerns was, was that the Government not have to be the health insurance of last... health insurer of last resort, and to save the Government money.\nThat was really probably what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2313.219, 2318.102, 2329.111, 2333.015, 2347.874], "stop_times": [2318.102, 2329.111, 2333.015, 2347.874, 2348.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2313.219}, "reply_to": "20846__2_069", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_071", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Well, Mr. Washburn, under the COBRA scheme, I take it that your client, the insurance company, is paid a premium for the COBRA coverage.\nIt isn't as though it's free.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2348.956, 2357.32], "stop_times": [2357.32, 2359.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2348.956}, "reply_to": "20846__2_070", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20846__2_072", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--That's correct, we are paid a premium, but the practical matter is, is the cost of providing benefits to COBRA are always substantially... or not always, but they as a rule are substantially greater than the premiums that are received, because people--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2359.782], "stop_times": [2374.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2359.782}, "reply_to": "20846__2_071", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_073", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "How is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2374.992], "stop_times": [2375.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2374.992}, "reply_to": "20846__2_072", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20846__2_074", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--Well, because people--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2375.613], "stop_times": [2377.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2375.613}, "reply_to": "20846__2_073", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_075", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "I assume you make that back from the employer when you sell the employer the whole package.\nI mean, you've got to get it from somewhere.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2377.244, 2381.467], "stop_times": [2381.467, 2382.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2377.244}, "reply_to": "20846__2_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20846__2_076", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--Justice Scalia... I'm sorry.\nWe're self-insured.\nThis is not an insurance plan.\nWe're a self-funded group health plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2382.746, 2386.78, 2388.012, 2389.745], "stop_times": [2386.78, 2388.012, 2389.745, 2393.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2382.746}, "reply_to": "20846__2_075", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_077", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "No, but I mean, if you're losing money on the premiums that you get from the retired employees, or the terminated employees--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2393.267], "stop_times": [2402.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2393.267}, "reply_to": "20846__2_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20846__2_078", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Mm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2402.962], "stop_times": [2403.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2402.962}, "reply_to": "20846__2_077", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_079", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--of this employer, you would not sell insurance to this employer unless, when you sell insurance to the employer, you get enough premiums from his current employees, contributed to by the employer or not, to make up for that loss.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2403.132], "stop_times": [2417.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2403.132}, "reply_to": "20846__2_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20846__2_080", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2417.474], "stop_times": [2417.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2417.474}, "reply_to": "20846__2_079", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_081", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "So, you know, you're happy.\nIt works out okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2417.945, 2419.684], "stop_times": [2419.684, 2421.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2417.945}, "reply_to": "20846__2_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20846__2_082", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Well, the insurance company may be happy, but the employer and the existing employees may not be happy, because of... particularly with small groups, COBRA--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2421.455], "stop_times": [2430.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2421.455}, "reply_to": "20846__2_081", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_083", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "It comes out of their pockets.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2430.019], "stop_times": [2430.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2430.019}, "reply_to": "20846__2_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20846__2_084", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--It comes out of their pockets and, in fact, what it may have the long-term effect of doing is, is causing a lot of particularly smaller plans to just cancel the group health insurance leaving everybody bare, the COBRA people plus all of the employees.\nIf I may, I'd like to finish my... the hypothetical I was creating on the situation where we just changed the facts, where... that Mrs. Geissal only went to work for TWA 6 months before the date of the election and it had a 12-month exclusion, so if you take even the petitioner's position is, he was terminated and 6 months later he first became covered by another plan without a preexisting condition clause, because 6 months after the qualifying event there is now no longer a preexisting limitation in the Aetna or TWA plan.\nSo now, even using his analogy, he obviously first becomes covered by another group health plan that does not contain a preexisting condition, exclusion, or limitation, so obviously, if you even take that, you can see that there is nothing about having preexisting spousal insurance coverage that caused... that was bothering Congress, that there's an obvious situation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2430.921, 2444.81, 2486.176], "stop_times": [2444.81, 2486.176, 2514.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2430.921}, "reply_to": "20846__2_083", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_085", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Well, it may have been bothering Congress, but if I understand what you're saying, it... you're saying it shouldn't bother us because that's not the case here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2514.225], "stop_times": [2521.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2514.225}, "reply_to": "20846__2_084", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20846__2_086", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--It's not the case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2521.88], "stop_times": [2524.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2521.88}, "reply_to": "20846__2_085", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_087", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "I think you're saying there's another ground upon which you ought to win this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2524.671], "stop_times": [2528.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2524.671}, "reply_to": "20846__2_086", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20846__2_088", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2528.455], "stop_times": [2529.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2528.455}, "reply_to": "20846__2_087", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_089", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "And it's not a ground that was passed upon, as I understand it, in the summary judgment that was entered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2529.626], "stop_times": [2534.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2529.626}, "reply_to": "20846__2_088", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20846__2_090", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Justice Souter, I believe that the plain language of the statute dictates--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2534.408], "stop_times": [2542.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2534.408}, "reply_to": "20846__2_089", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_091", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "No, the plain language of the statute may dictate it, but the... as I understand it, the summary judgment was not entered on the assumption that the policy coverage to which the statute applies is as you have just described it.\nIf you are correct, perhaps there is another basis upon which you should win this case, but I didn't understand that to be the basis upon which summary judgment was granted here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2542.954, 2557.035], "stop_times": [2557.035, 2567.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2542.954}, "reply_to": "20846__2_090", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20846__2_092", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--Summary judgment was granted here is, is because the trial judge determined that... he went along with what the Eleventh Circuit and national companies and now the Eighth Circuit ruled.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2567.35], "stop_times": [2580.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2567.35}, "reply_to": "20846__2_091", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_093", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Okay, and that's a different issue.\nThat's an issue of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2580.89, 2581.469], "stop_times": [2581.469, 2582.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2580.89}, "reply_to": "20846__2_092", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20846__2_094", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2582.751], "stop_times": [2583.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2582.751}, "reply_to": "20846__2_093", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_095", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "And now, if I understand what you're saying, you're raising an issue of fact under the policy to be applied to that law, but that was a stage to which the lower courts never progressed, isn't that the case, or am I misunderstanding you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2583.001], "stop_times": [2597.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2583.001}, "reply_to": "20846__2_094", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20846__2_096", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Maybe I'm not making myself perfectly clear, Justice.\nI was trying to make a hypothetical to show--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2597.062, 2599.954], "stop_times": [2599.954, 2603.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2597.062}, "reply_to": "20846__2_095", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_097", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "You're not suggesting those hypothetical facts are the facts of this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2603.247], "stop_times": [2605.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2603.247}, "reply_to": "20846__2_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20846__2_098", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--No, they're not the facts of this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2605.857], "stop_times": [2606.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2605.857}, "reply_to": "20846__2_097", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_099", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2606.988], "stop_times": [2607.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2606.988}, "reply_to": "20846__2_098", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20846__2_100", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "There was... as I understand it, Mrs. Geissal had been covered for years by the TWA plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2607.179], "stop_times": [2612.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2607.179}, "reply_to": "20846__2_099", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_101", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "You're just basically saying there are situations in which there could be a preexisting policy but yet it still... that policy wouldn't amount... would not first become applicable, and so forth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2612.863], "stop_times": [2621.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2612.863}, "reply_to": "20846__2_100", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20846__2_102", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Right, and all I'm just showing is, is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2621.439], "stop_times": [2622.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2621.439}, "reply_to": "20846__2_101", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_103", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2622.43], "stop_times": [2622.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2622.43}, "reply_to": "20846__2_102", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20846__2_104", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--a supercilious approach to looking at just the date of obtention of the spousal policy really isn't in keeping with the act, and I'm just showing that the pure position of, say, all pre-existing spousal coverage is exempt from COBRA makes no sense because of this hypothetical situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2622.62], "stop_times": [2643.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2622.62}, "reply_to": "20846__2_103", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_105", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Yes, with the hypothetical... I mean, that's clever.\nI mean, it's a very... it's... I take it your hypothetical argument is that there will be a bunch of COBRA policies that will coexist with a spouse's pre... you know, preexisting policy, and now when COBRA ends the spousal's policy kicks in only because the COBRA has ended, because under the rules, COBRA would have been the first payor.\nAnd so you're saying at least in that situation the spouse's policy became... what's the word, became--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2643.715, 2644.653, 2665.466], "stop_times": [2644.653, 2665.466, 2673.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2643.715}, "reply_to": "20846__2_104", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20846__2_106", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Became primary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2673.823], "stop_times": [2674.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2673.823}, "reply_to": "20846__2_105", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_107", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--Became primary, and you say therefore it became... first became coverage.\nThat's your argument.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2674.824, 2678.718, 2679.399], "stop_times": [2678.718, 2679.399, 2680.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2674.824}, "reply_to": "20846__2_106", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20846__2_108", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "It's one of my arguments, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2680.62], "stop_times": [2681.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2680.62}, "reply_to": "20846__2_107", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_109", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "All right.\nBut I mean, that's the hypothetical argument.\nAll right... which I thought was a very interesting argument, and my concern with that argument is simply that that would turn the statute on a real patchwork, since sometimes the COBRA policy is the first payor, sometimes, I would guess, the COBRA policy is the second payor, and you couldn't make it, and sometimes there would be policies in respect to portions of which the COBRA would be the first and portions of which the COBRA would be the second.\nSo if we accepted that argument, what we had read... read into this statute would be a hodge-podge, and nobody would probably know who was covered under what.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2681.522, 2681.722, 2683.372, 2708.53], "stop_times": [2681.722, 2683.372, 2708.53, 2717.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2681.522}, "reply_to": "20846__2_108", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20846__2_110", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Justice, if I may, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2717.035], "stop_times": [2718.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2717.035}, "reply_to": "20846__2_109", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_111", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Yes.\nIs that... yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2718.845, 2719.036], "stop_times": [2719.036, 2719.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2718.845}, "reply_to": "20846__2_110", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20846__2_112", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--get into that.\nThis is basically a coordination of benefit rules.\nThe National Association of Insurance Commissioners has model 120, that talks about the coordination of benefits if there's COBRA, and 38 States, including Missouri and Connecticut, which are the only two States that have any nexus whatsoever to this case, have adopted the model code from the NAIC.\nWhat it does--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2719.226, 2719.376, 2721.399, 2740.029], "stop_times": [2719.376, 2721.399, 2740.029, 2740.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2719.226}, "reply_to": "20846__2_111", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_113", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "This is not a coordination of benefits provision, and this is probably your... your hypothetical is probably why Congress did not key this to primary coverage.\nIt just said coverage, and the question of primary coverage, secondary coverage, is something to be thrashed out later on.\nIsn't... in this and in every case.\nIsn't that true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2740.62, 2750.448, 2758.222, 2760.826], "stop_times": [2750.448, 2758.222, 2760.826, 2761.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2740.62}, "reply_to": "20846__2_112", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20846__2_114", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--Well, I don't know that primary and secondary coverage should be thrashed out in every single case.\nThere aren't a lot of cases out there holding what primary and secondary coverage is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2761.434, 2767.451], "stop_times": [2767.451, 2771.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2761.434}, "reply_to": "20846__2_113", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_115", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "But could you explain to me, in the context of this case, he gets sick.\nHe's covered under your company's insurance and his wife's policy.\nWho pays?\nThere must be something in your policy and their policy about coordination of benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2771.302, 2777.315, 2783.239, 2785.152], "stop_times": [2777.315, 2783.239, 2785.152, 2791.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2771.302}, "reply_to": "20846__2_114", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20846__2_116", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Our policy, our plans... our plan, ERISA plan, sits there and says that Aetna would pay, that they're primary, and that is also in accordance with the NAIC model code that COBRA--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2791.216], "stop_times": [2805.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2791.216}, "reply_to": "20846__2_115", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_117", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "That any other insurance... you have the, I would think that you insure your own and the spouses would be secondary, but you say no, that... if you employ someone, any other insurance that that person has would be primary and not yours?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2805.294], "stop_times": [2821.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2805.294}, "reply_to": "20846__2_116", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20846__2_118", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--No.\nWhile Mr. Geissal was working for us, under the coordination of benefit rules we were his primary insurer.\nUnder our plan, and also under the model rules of the NAIC as adopted by 38 States, we became secondary immediately upon... assuming that we were... assuming we gave him COBRA, or this Court were to order us to give him COBRA continuation insurance, under the model code we would be secondarily liable to anything that just wasn't... an allowable expense that wasn't paid by Aetna.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2821.646, 2821.865, 2830.721], "stop_times": [2821.865, 2830.721, 2857.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2821.646}, "reply_to": "20846__2_117", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_119", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "What body of law determines whether you shift from being primarily liable as the employer to secondarily liable?\nYou said something about a model code, but a model code is not law unless somebody enacts it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2857.939, 2866.264], "stop_times": [2866.264, 2870.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2857.939}, "reply_to": "20846__2_118", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20846__2_120", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Well, in my brief I did cite that Missouri and Connecticut have adopted the model code, Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2870.648], "stop_times": [2879.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2870.648}, "reply_to": "20846__2_119", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_121", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "And is that a matter determined by State law rather than ERISA law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2879.124], "stop_times": [2883.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2879.124}, "reply_to": "20846__2_120", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20846__2_122", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Yes, it is, and it's definitely within the exception for matters of insurance.\nIt's not a matter of Federal preemption, something that... certainly far afield from what we're arguing about here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2883.468, 2888.67], "stop_times": [2888.67, 2893.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2883.468}, "reply_to": "20846__2_121", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_123", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Because there, there is a difference between the two of you on what the law is, I thought.\nMaybe I misunderstood Mr. Weinhaus, but I thought he said that the employer, even with COBRA coverage, would remain the primary insurer and Aetna would remain the secondary, just as it was before.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2893.973, 2896.555], "stop_times": [2896.555, 2909.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2893.973}, "reply_to": "20846__2_122", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20846__2_124", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "That is what they pled in the lower... in the trial court.\nI think it was paragraph 15 of Count I. They said that Moore Medical plan would be primary.\nWe disputed that.\nWe've denied it all along, and we believe the law is substantially in our favor on who would be primary and who would be secondary, assuming that there even were COBRA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2909.895, 2913.237, 2919.491, 2921.221], "stop_times": [2913.237, 2919.491, 2921.221, 2929.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2909.895}, "reply_to": "20846__2_123", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_125", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Mr. Washburn, can I ask you just to comment on one thing that the other side raised, the significant gap argument, that they say under your view you have a significant gap problem.\nUnder their view the injured... the ill person makes the decision right away and there isn't a significant gap problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2929.076, 2937.854], "stop_times": [2937.854, 2943.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2929.076}, "reply_to": "20846__2_124", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20846__2_126", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Okay.\nI could talk... I don't have a whole lot of time to talk on that, and I could talk for a long time on that, but assuming it's the individual, the ill person who has the right to make that election, essentially that just reads away the sub-subsection that we've been talking about.\nIt makes it a nullity.\nIt takes away the employer's expansive rights and liberal rights to terminate COBRA coverage.\nIt's now totally in the hands of the ill person, and it's not... they can make the election, and it's not that situation.\nThe gap has to do with whether there's a gap between the policies.\nObviously, you know, there's always going to be a gap when you have to drop one policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2943.958, 2944.379, 2959.38, 2960.51, 2966.334, 2972.949, 2976.559], "stop_times": [2944.379, 2959.38, 2960.51, 2966.334, 2972.949, 2976.559, 2980.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2943.958}, "reply_to": "20846__2_125", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_127", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "But if there is a significant gap, in your view, what happens?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2980.743], "stop_times": [2984.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2980.743}, "reply_to": "20846__2_126", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20846__2_128", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Well, under the status of the law basically in the Eighth Circuit if there is a substantial... if there were a substantial gap, then COBRA continuation insurance coverage would have to be offered, and obviously the... two courts have now held in this case that there was no significant gap, and there is no significant gap in this case.\nIf there are no more questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [2984.016, 3003.467], "stop_times": [3003.467, 3005.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2984.016}, "reply_to": "20846__2_127", "speaker": "bradley_j_washburn"}
{"id": "20846__2_129", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Washburn.\nMr. Weinhaus, you have 4 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [3005.859, 3008.382], "stop_times": [3008.382, 3012.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3005.859}, "reply_to": "20846__2_128", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20846__3_000", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "I only have one answer, Justice Ginsburg, to your question as to what law prevails here in terms of how that... how the coverage should be read, and that's a decision of this Court some years ago, FMC v. Halliday Corporation, in which you held self-insured funds are not subject to State insurance regulations at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [3012.072], "stop_times": [3036.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3012.072}, "reply_to": "20846__2_129", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__3_001", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Mr. Weinhaus, could you... I meant to ask this of Mr. Feldman, too, but maybe you can satisfy me.\nI... you and he have given some reasons why this... it makes sense to read first becomes as you do with regard to (i), but the first becomes clause also applies to (ii), first becomes after the date of the election in the case of a qualified beneficiary other than a qualified beneficiary described in section 11... of this title, entitled to benefits under medicare.\nWhy does it make any sense to say, well, we're... the... we're going to allow medicare benefits to eliminate your... the employer's continuing obligation to give you this coverage, but only if those medicare benefits first become available after the election?\nWhat's the reason for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [3036.44, 3042.543, 3071.883, 3092.777], "stop_times": [3042.543, 3071.883, 3092.777, 3094.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3036.44}, "reply_to": "20846__3_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20846__3_002", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "I do know... of course, I can't speak to what Congress intended as to medicare, but I do know in the early history, when COBRA was being discussed, that in fact Congress really carved out... they said first becomes for other insurance, and they left out the first becomes for medicare, so I tend to believe that Congress always believed there was some slight difference between the two and the way it was going to treat it, but I can't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [3094.88], "stop_times": [3123.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3094.88}, "reply_to": "20846__3_001", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__3_003", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "But they end up treating the two of them the same, and I must say, it doesn't make any sense to me with respect to medicare, since that's mandatory.\nI mean, it's not something you have the option of taking on or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [3123.687, 3130.193], "stop_times": [3130.193, 3133.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3123.687}, "reply_to": "20846__3_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20846__3_004", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "--If there are no other questions, Justice, we would rest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [3133.755], "stop_times": [3139.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3133.755}, "reply_to": "20846__3_003", "speaker": "s_sheldon_weinhaus"}
{"id": "20846__3_005", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Weinhaus.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [3139.279, 3140.818], "stop_times": [3140.818, 3141.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3139.279}, "reply_to": "20846__3_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20846__3_006", "conversation_id": "20846", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until Monday next at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-689", "start_times": [3141.834], "stop_times": [3146.251], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3141.834}, "reply_to": "20846__3_005", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20380__0_000", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "We'll hear argument now in No. 96-188, the General Electric Company v. Robert K. Joiner.\nMr. Kuney.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [0.0, 8.587], "stop_times": [8.587, 10.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20380__0_001", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis case arises out of a holding by the court of appeals that a particularly stringent standard of review, and not abuse of discretion or manifest error, should govern appellate review of district court decisions, excluding expert testimony under Rule 702 and this Court's Daubert opinion.\nThe factors that this Court has considered in its recent standard of review decisions all point to abuse of discretion as the appropriate standard here: the broad discretion given to trial courts under Federal Rules of Evidence 104(a) and 702, the consistent practice before the adoption of the Federal Rules of deferential appellate review of decisions admitting expert testimony, and the clear functional advantages of the trial courts in making these intensely fact-bound determinations.\nIndeed, the conclusion that abuse of discretion is the appropriate standard for review of 702 decisions has been reached by no less than 10 courts of appeals.\nNotwithstanding all these considerations, the court below embraced what it called particularly stringent review for decisions excluding, but not admitting, expert testimony, citing as authority its reading of this Court's Daubert opinion and the Third Circuit's opinion in Paoli, which had called for a, quote, hard look at exclusions of expert testimony that rejul... result in summary judgment.\nIn so doing, the court below articulated an expressly one-sided standard of review, whose precise scope and meaning are not clear and whose likely and perhaps intended effect seems to be to discourage the exercise of the discretion inherent in the gatekeeping function this Court outlined in Daubert.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [10.039, 14.324, 32.219, 62.073, 71.596, 96.728], "stop_times": [14.324, 32.219, 62.073, 71.596, 96.728, 117.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.039}, "reply_to": "20380__0_000", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__0_002", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Mr. Kuney, even if you're correct, that the abuse of discretion is the standard of review, the Respondents tell us that we still would have to affirm under an abuse of discretion standard, and it doesn't make any difference in this case.\nAre you going to address that argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [117.475, 136.372], "stop_times": [136.372, 138.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 117.475}, "reply_to": "20380__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20380__0_003", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Yes, Justice O'Connor, I will.\nI think it makes a difference for a variety of reasons.\nI think that part of Respondents' argument, as I understand it, is that the court was merely ruling on a matter of law, and never had occasion to apply its novel standard of review.\nI think if one looks at the text of the opinion of the court below, particularly at 10a and 11a of the... of the appendix to our cert petition, and takes a look at the section that deals with the reliability of expert testimony, what one sees is the court really--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [138.907, 140.707, 142.876, 153.314], "stop_times": [140.707, 142.876, 153.314, 169.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 138.907}, "reply_to": "20380__0_002", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__0_004", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "10a and 11a----", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [169.343], "stop_times": [171.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 169.343}, "reply_to": "20380__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20380__0_005", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Yes, of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [171.212], "stop_times": [171.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 171.212}, "reply_to": "20380__0_004", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__0_006", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--of the petition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [171.728], "stop_times": [172.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 171.728}, "reply_to": "20380__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20380__0_007", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--petition to the... the... the appendix to the cert petition.\nThat's where we attach the opinion of the court below.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [172.712, 175.164], "stop_times": [175.164, 177.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 172.712}, "reply_to": "20380__0_006", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__0_008", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Mmm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [177.949], "stop_times": [178.616], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 177.949}, "reply_to": "20380__0_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20380__0_009", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "And the section really begins at the bottom of 10.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [178.616], "stop_times": [181.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 178.616}, "reply_to": "20380__0_008", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__0_010", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Mmm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [181.334], "stop_times": [181.968], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 181.334}, "reply_to": "20380__0_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20380__0_011", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "What one sees in the court of appeals opinion is nothing that looks like abuse of discretion review.\nRather, the court simply proceeds on its own to undertake its analysis; indeed, to declare in the first paragraph that the methods and procedures used by these experts were in fact reliable.\nThe court then proceeds to basically disagree with what the district court had done with respect to animal studies and epidemiolog... epidemiological data, but never to declare or find that the court abused its discretion in making the decisions that it had made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [181.968, 188.571, 200.629], "stop_times": [188.571, 200.629, 216.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 181.968}, "reply_to": "20380__0_010", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__0_012", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "When... when you say abuse of discretion, as opposed to perhaps de novo review, Mr. Kuney, I take it that means that a... a properly acting district court might have reached different... different conclusions on the same evidence, and both would be affirmed on appeal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [216.324], "stop_times": [235.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 216.324}, "reply_to": "20380__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20380__0_013", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Mr. chief Justice, I believe that could happen, although I don't believe that could have happened in this case.\nI think, on the record here, there... there would have... there should have been only one possible ruling by the district court.\nBut, as a general matter, it is absolutely correct that abuse of discretion suggests a range of decisions that district courts could reach.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [235.718, 240.772, 246.86], "stop_times": [240.772, 246.86, 253.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 235.718}, "reply_to": "20380__0_012", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__0_014", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "And I suppose if you say it's de novo review on an evidentiary point, there would be a lot more reversals in courts of appeals, not just in any one kind of case, but across the board.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [253.866], "stop_times": [265.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 253.866}, "reply_to": "20380__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20380__0_015", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "I... I believe that's the intention of those who articulated this standard... in fact, was to invite greater appellate reversal of district court decisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [265.155], "stop_times": [273.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 265.155}, "reply_to": "20380__0_014", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__0_016", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "On evidentiary points.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [273.392], "stop_times": [274.177], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 273.392}, "reply_to": "20380__0_015", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20380__0_017", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "On these evidentiary points.\nI think, in particular, if you look at Judge Becker's explanation in the Paoli case, of why he embraced this hard look, he expresses the concern that district judges are going to get it wrong, and really calls for the necessity of greater appellate intervention for this... with respect to this gatekeeping function.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [274.177, 275.044], "stop_times": [275.044, 292.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 274.177}, "reply_to": "20380__0_016", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__0_018", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Mr. Kuney, the... the court of appeals... the nub of... of one of the court of appeals' points was that the district court had focused on the soundness of the results reached by the various studies in question rather than the methodology and the general acceptance of that methodology.\nIf... and you may want to comment on whether this is so or not... but if the district court did not make it clear from its own exposition whether it was focusing on results rather than methodology... if there is an ambiguity there... would you agree that the court of appeals may resolve that ambiguity in, in effect, any reasonable way, and that the resolution of that ambiguity, in deciding whether the... the lower court opinion should be read as focusing on result or on method, is... is something that we should accept, so long as either resolution was... was reasonable?\nThat itself would not be subject to an abuse of discretion standard, would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [292.57, 311.633, 354.477], "stop_times": [311.633, 354.477, 360.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 292.57}, "reply_to": "20380__0_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20380__0_019", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Justice Souter, I don't believe this Court is obliged to accept the court of appeals' interpretation of what the district court was doing.\nIn response to the first part of your question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [360.048, 367.137], "stop_times": [367.137, 369.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 360.048}, "reply_to": "20380__0_018", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__0_020", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Though, of course, we wouldn't have taken the case just to review that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [369.153], "stop_times": [372.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 369.153}, "reply_to": "20380__0_019", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20380__0_021", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--what... what courts of appeals often do in... in situations where there is abuse of discretion review, and they find that the record does not provide what the court of appeals believes is an adequate explanation of how the district judge exercised his or her discretion, then a remand for a better explanation from the trial court is often done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [372.105], "stop_times": [389.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 372.105}, "reply_to": "20380__0_020", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__0_022", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Because there are... there are... there are two inadequacies that might be in question.\nOne inadequacy might be the court of... the district court didn't make it clear which prong, as it were, it was focusing on.\nThe second inadequacy might be that, assuming it focused on the correct prong, the methodological one, it... it simply did not do an adequate job of justifying its... its position.\nAnd... and you're saying, I guess, that there should be an abuse of discretion standard when the court of appeals reviews each of those two different kinds of questions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [389.983, 393.602, 400.541, 413.266], "stop_times": [393.602, 400.541, 413.266, 424.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 389.983}, "reply_to": "20380__0_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20380__0_023", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Yes, that's correct.\nThat's correct.\nI think, in... in a number of cases, what this Court has said is that abuse of discretion as the standard of review really allows the appellate court full rein to do whatever is necessary.\nIt can always correct errors of law under an abuse of discretion, and it provides the appropriate deference--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [424.157, 425.224, 425.857, 436.297], "stop_times": [425.224, 425.857, 436.297, 442.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 424.157}, "reply_to": "20380__0_022", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__0_024", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Mr. Kuney, the... the 11th Circuit said that the standard of review it was applying was abuse of discretion.\nAnd then it went on... this is on page 4a of your appendix... a district court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion.\nAnd then it gave two reasons for a heightened abuse of discretion.\nAnd one of them was the showstopper argument; that this is summary judgment, that you're out of court.\nThis is not just that you... you missed this piece of evidence, but you're out of court.\nNow, isn't that just across the board, so that courts will look more closely at a ruling that puts a plaintiff out of court than one that... that leads to summary judgment... than one that is maybe a question of does a particular piece of evidence come in or out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [442.035, 451.307, 461.599, 467.503, 474.407, 479.125], "stop_times": [451.307, 461.599, 467.503, 474.407, 479.125, 499.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 442.035}, "reply_to": "20380__0_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20380__0_025", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--I think courts of appeals inevitably make judgments about how much of their time and attention to give to any particular question.\nI think the problem here, though, is that by suggesting... by using language that suggests, in fact, some new standard, the 11th Circuit is suggesting, really, a different task for appellate courts.\nIt, on the one hand, does embrace, as you pointed out, abuse of discretion, but then proceeds to say, we really need to do more than that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [499.188, 504.859, 515.984], "stop_times": [504.859, 515.984, 522.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 499.188}, "reply_to": "20380__0_024", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__0_026", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "But isn't it true, leaving... leaving the field of expert testimony, as a general rule, that a court will look more closely... a court of appeals... at a district court ruling that ends a case than one that merely means that a particular piece of evidence won't come in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [522.404], "stop_times": [541.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 522.404}, "reply_to": "20380__0_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20380__0_027", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "I... I think the courts of appeals have not allowed that to lead to an altered standard of review.\nI think there are a variety of evidentiary decisions that can--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [541.467, 546.185], "stop_times": [546.185, 549.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 541.467}, "reply_to": "20380__0_026", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__0_028", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "I thought that, in general, when you're faced with a summary judgment motion, the court... both the district court and the court of appeals, look at it from the vantage point most favorable to the opponent of the motion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [549.554], "stop_times": [561.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 549.554}, "reply_to": "20380__0_027", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20380__0_029", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--The summary judgment motion is reviewed de novo.\nThere's no question about that.\nBut when there are subsidiary evidentiary rulings that precede summary judgment, those, without regard to what rule of evidence may be implicated, are reviewed for abuse of discretion.\nThen, once the summary judgment record is established, then there's de novo review by the court of appeals of whether summary judgment was a... was appropriate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [561.612, 564.063, 565.415, 576.121], "stop_times": [564.063, 565.415, 576.121, 584.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 561.612}, "reply_to": "20380__0_028", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__0_030", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "And all disputed issues of fact are taken in favor of... of... of the moving party?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [584.227], "stop_times": [590.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 584.227}, "reply_to": "20380__0_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20380__0_031", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Once you're beyond... yes, Justice Kennedy.\nOnce you're beyond the evidentiary issue and to the summary judgment point, then there's de novo review if the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [590.631, 592.231], "stop_times": [592.231, 597.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 590.631}, "reply_to": "20380__0_030", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__0_032", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Against the moving party in the court of appeals, yes.\nBut while you have the... the appendix handy, could you look at Judge Birch's decision?\nIt's at page 16a.\nAnd he has the first three or four sentences.\nHe says: The role of the trial court, following Daubert, is to ensure that the conclusions reached by the scientific experts have some minimal level of reliability and probative value.\nI take it you have no argument with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [597.801, 599.987, 604.439, 607.073, 610.592, 618.281], "stop_times": [599.987, 604.439, 607.073, 610.592, 618.281, 620.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 597.801}, "reply_to": "20380__0_031", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20380__0_033", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [620.233], "stop_times": [621.666], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 620.233}, "reply_to": "20380__0_032", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__0_034", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Then... then... then he says: This determination is accomplished by establishing that the predicate principles and methodology relied upon by the experts are valid and that they can be applied to the facts at issue.\nAnd it seems to me that that is also in accord with your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [621.666, 631.356], "stop_times": [631.356, 634.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 621.666}, "reply_to": "20380__0_033", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20380__0_035", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [634.091], "stop_times": [634.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 634.091}, "reply_to": "20380__0_034", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__0_036", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "And then he says: The sufficiency of the evidence and the weight of the evidence, however, are beyond the scope of the Daubert analysis.\nIs... is he mixing apples and oranges there, or... or... or is he correct in that statement, as... as well?\nAnd it was his concern, I... I think, that this was a sufficiency problem... I assume, because that... that's why he concurred.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [634.576, 640.128, 647.984], "stop_times": [640.128, 647.984, 654.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 634.576}, "reply_to": "20380__0_035", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20380__0_037", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "That's how I would read that, Your Honor... that... that he thought that perhaps what the district court had done was to slide from admissibility into sufficiency without clearly articulating that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [654.388], "stop_times": [664.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 654.388}, "reply_to": "20380__0_036", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__0_038", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "But... but there's an element of sufficiency in the calculus that you want the district judge to apply, is there not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [664.528], "stop_times": [672.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 664.528}, "reply_to": "20380__0_037", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20380__0_039", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Well, you could use the word \"sufficiency\" if you want to.\nBut I believe what this Court said is that there are minimum thresholds of reliability and relevance that have to be met before the testimony is admissible.\nAnd... and I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [672.682, 675.384, 684.407], "stop_times": [675.384, 684.407, 685.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 672.682}, "reply_to": "20380__0_038", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__0_040", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "But... so we would say that \"weight\" and \"sufficiency\", as used here, are just terms of art, and in the sense that we usually use them, they do not apply to the district judge's determination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [685.509], "stop_times": [696.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 685.509}, "reply_to": "20380__0_039", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20380__0_041", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--That's how I read Judge Birch... Birch's concurrence; that he was recognizing two separate issues, and perhaps suggesting that there had been some confusion between the two.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [696.999], "stop_times": [706.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 696.999}, "reply_to": "20380__0_040", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__0_042", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Well, certainly, after... after Daubert, the trial judge, the district court, is given authority to exclude evidence on the basis that it doesn't comply with the standards laid down in Daubert, I guess?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [706.005], "stop_times": [722.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 706.005}, "reply_to": "20380__0_041", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20380__0_043", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Correct.\nAnd the court still has the ability, even if it determines that the evidence is admissible, to find it insufficient to avoid summary judgment.\nAnd that, I believe, is part of what this Court... Court pointed out in Daubert... was that the admissibility determination was not necessarily the end of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [722.665, 723.065, 729.954], "stop_times": [723.065, 729.954, 738.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 722.665}, "reply_to": "20380__0_042", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__0_044", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Let... let... let's assume that... that perfectly reliable scientific methodology was used, but that the issue is whether, given that methodology, what has been proven is sufficiently relevant to this case.\nThat is, whether it comes close enough to establishing evidence of what the plaintiff wants to prove.\nThe district court could simply exclude that evidence, I suppose, if he thinks it isn't relevant enough.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [738.826, 755.003, 763.259], "stop_times": [755.003, 763.259, 770.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 738.826}, "reply_to": "20380__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20380__0_045", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "I believe that's correct, under the... under the \"fit\" prong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [770.531], "stop_times": [773.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 770.531}, "reply_to": "20380__0_044", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__0_046", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "In which case you say... in which case you say he'd be reviewed on an abuse of discretion standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [773.317], "stop_times": [776.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 773.317}, "reply_to": "20380__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20380__0_047", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [776.869], "stop_times": [777.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 776.869}, "reply_to": "20380__0_046", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__0_048", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "He could, on the other hand, let it in, and... and simply grant summary judgment to the defendant on the ground that not sufficiently relevant evidence has been produced to overcome the initial burden that the plaintiff has.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [777.752], "stop_times": [792.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 777.752}, "reply_to": "20380__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20380__0_049", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [792.361], "stop_times": [793.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 792.361}, "reply_to": "20380__0_048", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__0_050", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "And that decision would not be reviewed on an abuse of discretion standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [793.528], "stop_times": [797.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 793.528}, "reply_to": "20380__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20380__0_051", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [797.682], "stop_times": [798.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 797.682}, "reply_to": "20380__0_050", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__0_052", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "But it's the same... it's the same question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [798.715], "stop_times": [800.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 798.715}, "reply_to": "20380__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20380__0_053", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "I... I believe it's not the same question.\nI believe the standards that you have set... this Court has set forth under Rule 702, for determining admissibility, are not identical to the standards that govern a sufficiency determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [800.984, 803.084], "stop_times": [803.084, 813.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 800.984}, "reply_to": "20380__0_052", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__0_054", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Well, relevance has... has... has... I don't see how that can be.\nWhether... whether what has been medically proven is relevant enough goes to both the... the... the Daubert determination and to the summary judgment determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [813.625, 818.26], "stop_times": [818.26, 831.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 813.625}, "reply_to": "20380__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20380__0_055", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "I would... I would agree that it's pertinent to both.\nBut I don't think it's clearly the case that the standard that a district court ought to use in making those decisions... either decision... is the same.\nI believe that the \"fit\" prong under Daubert does come very close conceptually to what sufficiency of the evidence seems to be about.\nI certainly would concede that.\nAnd I... I believe that's, in effect, what you're pointing out--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [831.936, 833.788, 841.109, 852.267, 853.733], "stop_times": [833.788, 841.109, 852.267, 853.733, 856.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 831.936}, "reply_to": "20380__0_054", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__0_056", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Yeah, but that... that's what troubles me about... about this case.\nIt seems to me things are getting unduly complicated, when... when we have what is virtually the same determinations of two different standards of review, depending upon which rubric the district court chooses to use.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [856.719, 858.587], "stop_times": [858.587, 873.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 856.719}, "reply_to": "20380__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20380__0_057", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--I think that's really no different here than in any other area that... where an evidentiary ruling leads to summary judgment.\nIn... inevitably, you're left with, if the district court decides the evidentiary ruling adverse to the Plaintiff, and then the summary judgment decision really is nothing other than the... the cupboard is bare, because there is no admissible evidence, then there is de novo review of summary judgment.\nAnd that, admittedly, is not a very intensive exercise.\nBut I think that's not a problem unique to the admissibility of expert testimony.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [873.08, 879.067, 895.696, 898.564], "stop_times": [879.067, 895.696, 898.564, 902.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 873.08}, "reply_to": "20380__0_056", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__0_058", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Is... is it fairly common in... in cases now to have these evidentiary questions of admissibility of expert testimony thrashed out in limine or be... before the case goes to trial, and then have a motion for summary judgment based on the court's decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [902.616], "stop_times": [922.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 902.616}, "reply_to": "20380__0_057", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20380__0_059", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Absolutely.\nThe courts have... have really developed a variety of procedural vehicles.\nIn some circuits, they virtually require an evidentiary hearing.\nIn other cases, it's simply done by motion.\nBut, increasingly, judges are resolving these issues in advance of trial, both to decide whether summary judgment is appropriate and so that before the trial unfolds, the parties will know what evidence is going to be before the factfinder and what evidence is not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [922.596, 923.346, 927.048, 930.6, 933.052], "stop_times": [923.346, 927.048, 930.6, 933.052, 946.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 922.596}, "reply_to": "20380__0_058", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__0_060", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "And in that process... in that process, do they consider conflicting expert testimony, so the defense experts advise the judge of why they think the methodology is flawed, et cetera?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [946.894], "stop_times": [956.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 946.894}, "reply_to": "20380__0_059", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20380__0_061", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "The procedure typically involves a motion in limine to exclude and a motion for summary judgment.\nAnd in the course of that motion in limine to exclude, the party seeking the exclusion will put on whatever contrary evidence it has that it believes identifies the methodological flaws.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [956.167, 960.804], "stop_times": [960.804, 970.994], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 956.167}, "reply_to": "20380__0_060", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__0_062", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "The Respondents said that the methodology that their experts used and that was rejected was the same methodology that your experts used.\nIs... is the answer to that, that that may be true, but the methodology lead your experts to conclude that there was no cau... causal link or... I mean, I'm not quite... quite sure how to respond to that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [970.994, 978.933], "stop_times": [978.933, 990.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 970.994}, "reply_to": "20380__0_061", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20380__0_063", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Justice Kennedy, I think the answer to that is no, the methodology used was not the same.\nThere was testimony in the record before the district court from the defense experts about appropriate methodology with respect to interpretation of animal studies, about a recognized set of criteria that can be applied to a variety of epidemiological data to assess causation, and there is no overlap with respect to that methodology between the methodology that Defendants put forward and the methodology of Plaintiffs' experts.\nMr. Chief Justice, I'd like to reserve any remaining time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [990.99, 995.542, 1020.177], "stop_times": [995.542, 1020.177, 1023.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 990.99}, "reply_to": "20380__0_062", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__0_064", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Very well, Mr. Kuney.\nMr. Wallace.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1023.812, 1025.329], "stop_times": [1025.329, 1027.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1023.812}, "reply_to": "20380__0_063", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20380__1_000", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe gatekeeper role that this Court prescribed in Daubert, as we understand it and as the terms of Rule 702 suggest, applies to the testimony of the expert and whether that testimony should be allowed, not just to the question of what studies the expert can advert to... and usually these are studies done by others, not by himself... but what he can say about those studies.\nPart of the scientific methodology is scientific reasoning, what conclusions are scien... scientifically, can be said to follow, or at least arguably to follow, from the premises one has.\nMany scientists could be found who could describe published studies conducted by others, but the experts are selected by the parties on the basis of what's important in the case, what inferences they're willing to draw from the published studies, and how they're willing to relate those inferences to the case.\nAnd what... what counts in these cases, in the gatekeeping function, is to separate what is scientific reasoning and worthy of consideration under Rule 702 from what is not supported by scientific reasoning and relating published studies to the issues in the case, and therefore should not be submitted to the jury.\nThat is a question based on what is proper scientific reasoning rather than quite the same legal question that Justice Scalia was adverting to in what is sufficient evidence to support a judgement.\nAnd this, as Respondents concede, is a very contextual, fact-intensive question.\nWe point out in foot... footnote 8, on page 18 of our brief, that there are legal situations in which the question before the court is whether there is a risk to public health or a danger to the environment, including a danger to animal habitats, which would make certain studies relevant in inferences that can be drawn through scientific reasoning to the ultimate issue in the case; quite a different ultimate issue from what's involved here, which is not preventing conduct that may be harmful in a general sense, but trying to determine whether it is more probable than not that a particular person's injury was caused by the defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1027.445, 1036.019, 1068.49, 1089.671, 1110.936, 1141.639, 1162.535, 1173.26], "stop_times": [1036.019, 1068.49, 1089.671, 1110.936, 1141.639, 1162.535, 1173.26, 1227.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1027.445}, "reply_to": "20380__0_064", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20380__1_001", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Mr. Wallace, when you say more probable than not... and we... we have... we do have a Seventh Amendment, we do have questions of fact that go to a jury... so this gatekeeping function has to be on the law side, otherwise it trenches on the Seventh Amendment.\nSo, now, when you talk more probable than not, that sounds like fact territory to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1227.328, 1242.837], "stop_times": [1242.837, 1248.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1227.328}, "reply_to": "20380__1_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20380__1_002", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Well, I... I... I'm not saying that... that that is the question for the judge to decide in... in determining admissibility.\nThat is... but that is the... the question that is before the jury, if the case goes to the jury.\nAnd, therefore, in deciding whether there is a sufficient link between the foundation... the premises on which the expert is to draw and the inferences that he is willing to draw from them and... and put before the jury, one has to keep in mind what it is that scientific reasoning has to relate to.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1248.991, 1258.164, 1266.703, 1294.206], "stop_times": [1258.164, 1266.703, 1294.206, 1294.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1248.991}, "reply_to": "20380__1_001", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20380__1_003", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Yes, but that goes to the summary judgment determination and not to the determination of whether it's properly admissible.\nI assume it is properly admissible if it... if it goes even that far, even a little bit, to render... to render the conclusion more probable than not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1294.856, 1300.526], "stop_times": [1300.526, 1309.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1294.856}, "reply_to": "20380__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20380__1_004", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Well, the... the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1309.481], "stop_times": [1310.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1309.481}, "reply_to": "20380__1_003", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20380__1_005", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "And if it does that, it's admitted.\nBut I... I really don't understand your position that... that somehow environmental cases are a favored class of cases and junk science is okay for environmental cases, but not for... not for an ordinary tort suit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1310.416, 1312.0], "stop_times": [1312.0, 1325.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1310.416}, "reply_to": "20380__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20380__1_006", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1325.908], "stop_times": [1326.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1325.908}, "reply_to": "20380__1_005", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20380__1_007", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "I mean, if it's good for one, it's good for both, it seems to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1326.593], "stop_times": [1329.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1326.593}, "reply_to": "20380__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20380__1_008", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Well, we're not... I... I wouldn't consider what I was referring to as junk science.\nIt... it... it is whether there is a sufficient indication that a... a danger to the public health should not be risked.\nThat is quite a different question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1329.16, 1334.931, 1344.037], "stop_times": [1334.931, 1344.037, 1346.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1329.16}, "reply_to": "20380__1_007", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20380__1_009", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "It's a summary judgment question, not the admissibility or inadmissibility question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1346.105], "stop_times": [1350.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1346.105}, "reply_to": "20380__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20380__1_010", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Well, the... but the logical extension of that is that so long as a study can be said to have been published and conducted so far as appears, according to scientific methodology, any study can be admitted in any case, as long as you can find a qualified expert who is willing to say that I would draw a conclusion from this study that relates to this... to the issue before this case.\nThere's... there would be no gatekeeping at all to exclude studies.\nAnd... and Daubert would be, essentially, overruled.\nThe... the process of scientific reasoning in drawing inferences from studies and whether there is too great an analytical gap between the premises and the conclusions that that expert is going to testify to has to be part of the gatekeeping if it's to be meaningful.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1350.792, 1380.912, 1386.232, 1390.518], "stop_times": [1380.912, 1386.232, 1390.518, 1415.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1350.792}, "reply_to": "20380__1_009", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20380__1_011", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Any other categories of cases besides public health cases and environmental cases... they're one category... and... and private tort cases are another.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1415.985], "stop_times": [1425.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1415.985}, "reply_to": "20380__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20380__1_012", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "No, not at all.\nBut it... it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1425.357, 1426.224], "stop_times": [1426.224, 1427.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1425.357}, "reply_to": "20380__1_011", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20380__1_013", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Are there a third, fourth and fifth categories?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1427.043], "stop_times": [1428.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1427.043}, "reply_to": "20380__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20380__1_014", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--That's only part of the context.\nOne could pose a... a hypothetical in a tort case where there had been an epidemiological study that provided a basis for linking, in a... in a... the cause here to a human injury, and then these very same animal studies could be adverted to in the testimony.\nOne could... the counsel could ask the expert, well, do you know of any other studies relating to this substance?\nAnd he can... could... re... refer to the animal studies, and then explain why he thinks the results are consistent with the conclusion that he draws from the epidemiological studies.\nIt might not be very important evidence, but it would be... but he couldn't draw the inference that the district court found not to be supported--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1428.259, 1430.161, 1453.776, 1460.097, 1469.619], "stop_times": [1430.161, 1453.776, 1460.097, 1469.619, 1479.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1428.259}, "reply_to": "20380__1_013", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20380__1_015", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "I... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1479.742], "stop_times": [1480.409], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1479.742}, "reply_to": "20380__1_014", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20380__1_016", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--that these particular animal studies showed something about cause of a... of a disease in humans.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1480.409], "stop_times": [1484.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1480.409}, "reply_to": "20380__1_015", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20380__1_017", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--May I ask--\n--I--\n--Well, go... go--\n--I'll just take... your last point was that a particular study might show, out of 2.2 million people who die every year, a thousand die of chem... cancer caused by chemical X.\nThat's the EPA study.\nThat would be perhaps ground for limiting it.\nIt wouldn't be ground for saying that this person, 1 of 500,000 to die of cancer, died of chemical X.\nIs that the point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1484.962, 1485.595, 1485.928, 1487.08, 1497.103, 1498.988, 1501.424, 1507.494], "stop_times": [1485.595, 1485.928, 1487.08, 1497.103, 1498.988, 1501.424, 1507.494, 1508.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1484.962}, "reply_to": "20380__1_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20380__1_018", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "That... that... that... that very well could be the point.\nYou have to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1508.478, 1511.613], "stop_times": [1511.613, 1511.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1508.478}, "reply_to": "20380__1_017", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20380__1_019", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Well, it could not be the point.\nHe is... he is putting the summary judgment question.\nYou are saying this is not the summary judgment question; it is the admissibility question.\nYou would admit that... that evidence in one case and you would not admit it in the other.\nIsn't... isn't that what you're saying?\nAnd it seems to me, the... the evidence is just as solid scientific evidence in both cases.\nBut it isn't helpful to the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1511.98, 1513.03, 1515.665, 1520.136, 1524.52, 1526.289, 1531.109], "stop_times": [1513.03, 1515.665, 1520.136, 1524.52, 1526.289, 1531.109, 1532.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1511.98}, "reply_to": "20380__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20380__1_020", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Yes, it has to be evidence that would assist the jury, under the terms of Rule 702--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1532.076], "stop_times": [1537.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1532.076}, "reply_to": "20380__1_019", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20380__1_021", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Well, but let me... let me... let me ask another question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1537.863], "stop_times": [1538.947], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1537.863}, "reply_to": "20380__1_020", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20380__1_022", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--with the question that is before them.\nIt's not just a question of whether it's scientific.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1538.947, 1541.149], "stop_times": [1541.149, 1543.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1538.947}, "reply_to": "20380__1_021", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20380__1_023", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Supposing the... the scientist test... is willing to testify that exposure to PCP's for an hour is... that 1 out of a thousand people will get cancer from that.\nIs... that would be admissible under your view in the environmental case; would it be admissible in the causation case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1543.351, 1555.075], "stop_times": [1555.075, 1563.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1543.351}, "reply_to": "20380__1_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20380__1_024", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Well, I... I... I think that's a hard question to answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1563.914], "stop_times": [1568.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1563.914}, "reply_to": "20380__1_023", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20380__1_025", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Well, I do, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1568.382], "stop_times": [1569.132], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1568.382}, "reply_to": "20380__1_024", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20380__1_026", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "That... that... and... and certainly a much closer question than what was before the district court here, which was testifying about possible effects on humans from animal studies involving higher doses than... than would have been involved in this case.\nThere has to be some threshold--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1569.132, 1588.194], "stop_times": [1588.194, 1590.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1569.132}, "reply_to": "20380__1_025", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20380__1_027", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "But... but if... if... if it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1590.461], "stop_times": [1590.761], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1590.461}, "reply_to": "20380__1_026", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20380__1_028", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--where--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1590.761], "stop_times": [1591.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1590.761}, "reply_to": "20380__1_027", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20380__1_029", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--well, is the threshold that there is... there is no... no probability that there is some causal connection or that the probability is... is so re... so remote, 1 out of 100,000 cases, then it doesn't come in, but for 1 out of a thousand it does; is that what you're saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1591.278], "stop_times": [1605.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1591.278}, "reply_to": "20380__1_028", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20380__1_030", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--I would say that that, too, is a contextual question that has to be answered in light of the evidence.\nWe happen to be dealing with a case here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1605.471, 1611.809], "stop_times": [1611.809, 1614.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1605.471}, "reply_to": "20380__1_029", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20380__1_031", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Well, I'm giving you the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1614.261], "stop_times": [1615.044], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1614.261}, "reply_to": "20380__1_030", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20380__1_032", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--in which there was strong evidence of other causative factors.\nAnd if you try to add in testimony about a particular chemical, where it's only 1 in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1615.044, 1619.129], "stop_times": [1619.129, 1625.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1615.044}, "reply_to": "20380__1_031", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20380__1_033", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--You're suggesting, if there had been no evidence in this record that the man smoked or had any family history of cancer, then it might have been admissible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1625.885], "stop_times": [1631.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1625.885}, "reply_to": "20380__1_032", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20380__1_034", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Well, certainly, a lower threshold would be appropriate there than where you've got a slim chance that the chemical caused it, and... and a lot of evidence of other things.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1631.538], "stop_times": [1644.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1631.538}, "reply_to": "20380__1_033", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20380__1_035", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Wallace.\nMr. Gottesman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1644.196, 1645.563], "stop_times": [1645.563, 1648.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1644.196}, "reply_to": "20380__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20380__2_000", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court:\nThere are certainly some serious disagreements between the parties here, but there are a number of areas of agreement.\nAnd I'd like to begin with those, because I think they may narrow the focus of the very questions the Court has been asking.\nFirst of all, I... I do want to make it clear, it's only a piece of the court of appeals reversal that is here.\nThat is, the Plaintiffs contended that the Plaintiff was exposed to three chemicals.\nThe court of appeals held as a triable issue a fact on that.\nThat was not an iss... a ruling that turned on the admissibility of scientific evidence.\nAnd, indeed, as Respondents acknowledge at page 20... I'm sorry... as Petitioners acknowledge at page 20 of their reply brief, the district court has not ruled the expert testimony inadmissible with respect to all three chemicals.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1648.834, 1652.969, 1659.956, 1666.796, 1673.782, 1680.686, 1684.257, 1689.809, 1703.902], "stop_times": [1652.969, 1659.956, 1666.796, 1673.782, 1680.686, 1684.257, 1689.809, 1703.902, 1704.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1648.834}, "reply_to": "20380__1_035", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_001", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "I wondered about that.\nWhat I read the district court saying was... he said, at a point in his opinion, assuming that Plaintiffs' experts have not made unfounded assumptions about furans and dioxins... that, I take it, is on the assumption that he thought there were furans, that they thought there were... you know, that there were furans and dioxins... Defendants still persuade the court that Plaintiffs' expert testimony would not be admissible.\nNow, he doesn't say some of it.\nHe... he says the expert testimony... the experts who are going to testify about particular things.\nHe says, assuming I'm wrong, says the judge, about furans and dioxins, still it would not be admissible.\nI take him to mean what he said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1704.519, 1705.754, 1731.838, 1733.338, 1739.225, 1746.581], "stop_times": [1705.754, 1731.838, 1733.338, 1739.225, 1746.581, 1748.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1704.519}, "reply_to": "20380__2_000", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20380__2_002", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--No, I don't think, Your Honor, respectfully, that that is what he meant.\nWhat he said was the experts assumed that all three chemicals were present and that Plaintiff was exposed to them.\nBut assuming that I accepted their testimony as testimony about PCB alone, it would not be acceptable.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1748.414, 1751.55, 1759.155, 1768.744], "stop_times": [1751.55, 1759.155, 1768.744, 1769.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1748.414}, "reply_to": "20380__2_001", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_003", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "But I didn't see any... any words.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1769.194], "stop_times": [1770.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1769.194}, "reply_to": "20380__2_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20380__2_004", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1770.463], "stop_times": [1770.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1770.463}, "reply_to": "20380__2_003", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_005", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "I just... oh, the only words that I found relevant were the words that I read to you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1770.863], "stop_times": [1773.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1770.863}, "reply_to": "20380__2_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20380__2_006", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1773.831], "stop_times": [1774.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1773.831}, "reply_to": "20380__2_005", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_007", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Now, are there some other words there that are relevant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1774.281], "stop_times": [1776.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1774.281}, "reply_to": "20380__2_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20380__2_008", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Well, let me make clear, the... the Defendants did not move to deny the expert's testimony on all three substances.\nIndeed, their very reason for arguing that you can't claim cau... that... that there is a promotion of cancer by PCB alone is that the studies the experts were relying on included people who were exposed to furans and dioxins.\nAnd said they... therefore, if we're right, that this Plaintiff was not exposed to furans and dioxins, then that testimony is not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1776.533, 1784.021, 1798.946], "stop_times": [1784.021, 1798.946, 1807.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1776.533}, "reply_to": "20380__2_007", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_009", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "I'll go back and look again.\nI looked through the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1807.886, 1808.738], "stop_times": [1808.738, 1809.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1807.886}, "reply_to": "20380__2_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20380__2_010", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Yes.\nBut I... I ask Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1809.771, 1810.038], "stop_times": [1810.038, 1811.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1809.771}, "reply_to": "20380__2_009", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_011", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "And I just found a motion for summary judgment, a motion to exclude testimony, some answers to it, and I didn't see all these fine distinctions being made in those papers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1811.004], "stop_times": [1818.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1811.004}, "reply_to": "20380__2_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20380__2_012", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Well, I think, if you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1818.427], "stop_times": [1819.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1818.427}, "reply_to": "20380__2_011", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_013", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "But I'll go back and read them again.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1819.36], "stop_times": [1820.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1819.36}, "reply_to": "20380__2_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20380__2_014", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--if Your Honor will just look at page 20 of Respond... of Petitioner's reply brief, they expressly say the district court did not rule on the admissibility of the testimony with respect to three chemicals.\nAnd I tell you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1820.212, 1831.252], "stop_times": [1831.252, 1832.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1820.212}, "reply_to": "20380__2_013", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_015", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Well... well, is there something to be... to go the jury still?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1832.27], "stop_times": [1834.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1832.27}, "reply_to": "20380__2_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20380__2_016", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Pardon... well, absolutely.\nBecause now the court of appeals has found there's a triable--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1834.654, 1836.005], "stop_times": [1836.005, 1838.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1834.654}, "reply_to": "20380__2_015", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_017", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "No, no, no.\nIf... if the court of appeals is reversed, and if the district judge's order is upheld, are there now issues to go to the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1838.757, 1839.29], "stop_times": [1839.29, 1846.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1838.757}, "reply_to": "20380__2_016", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20380__2_018", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Yes, indeed.\nWell, that's the point that I started out wanting to make.\nThe portion of the court of appeals opinion that said that there is a triable issue, that the... that Mr. Joiner was exposed to dioxins and furans, is not here.\nRespondent acknowledges that at page 20 of his brief.\nThat's not here because that had nothing to do with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1846.094, 1847.029, 1849.898, 1859.521, 1862.039], "stop_times": [1847.029, 1849.898, 1859.521, 1862.039, 1864.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1846.094}, "reply_to": "20380__2_017", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_019", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Well, but if... if you can't show causation, why... why go to the jury?\nI mean, you have to exposure, plus causation.\nAnd if he rules--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1864.123, 1866.425, 1868.61], "stop_times": [1866.425, 1868.61, 1869.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1864.123}, "reply_to": "20380__2_018", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20380__2_020", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Well, of course--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1869.46], "stop_times": [1870.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1869.46}, "reply_to": "20380__2_019", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_021", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--that you cannot show causation based on this testimony, isn't that the end of the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1870.027], "stop_times": [1872.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1870.027}, "reply_to": "20380__2_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20380__2_022", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--But the district court has not ruled that the scientist's testimony is inadmissible if it is assumed that Mr. Joiner was exposed to all three chemicals.\nThe district court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1872.995, 1882.802], "stop_times": [1882.802, 1883.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1872.995}, "reply_to": "20380__2_021", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_023", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "The district... the district court did grant summary judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1883.919], "stop_times": [1885.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1883.919}, "reply_to": "20380__2_022", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20380__2_024", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1885.821], "stop_times": [1886.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1885.821}, "reply_to": "20380__2_023", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_025", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "And so there would have to be some sort of reversal by the court of appeals that would leave something left for the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1886.388], "stop_times": [1891.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1886.388}, "reply_to": "20380__2_024", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20380__2_026", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Of course.\nYes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1891.725, 1892.125], "stop_times": [1892.125, 1892.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1891.725}, "reply_to": "20380__2_025", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_027", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "And what is it on page 20 that... of the Petitioner's brief that you say is... where they agree with your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1892.642], "stop_times": [1898.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1892.642}, "reply_to": "20380__2_026", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20380__2_028", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "On their reply brief.\nThey say... this is in the first full paragraph... the court of appeals added that it... in its view, there was a genuine factual dispute over whether furans and dioxins could have been present in the fluid to which Mr. Joiner was exposed.\nIt never reached the question of whether opinions of causation by furans or dioxins would be admissible, because the district court had not done so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1898.896, 1899.748, 1913.656], "stop_times": [1899.748, 1913.656, 1924.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1898.896}, "reply_to": "20380__2_027", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_029", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "That doesn't strike me as crystal clear, but per... perhaps, in context, it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1924.113], "stop_times": [1928.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1924.113}, "reply_to": "20380__2_028", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20380__2_030", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Well, let... let me back up for a minute, because this is just terribly important to us, obviously.\nThey moved for summary judgment and they made two points.\nContrary to the claims of the Plaintiffs, Mr. Joiner was not exposed to furans and dioxins.\nTherefore, they said, he was only exposed to PCB's.\nAnd the testimony of Plaintiffs' experts wou... is not admissible on the basis of PCB exposure alone.\nThey never said that if Mr. Joiner was exposed to all three chemicals that the testimony would not be admissible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1928.831, 1932.552, 1936.837, 1942.841, 1948.745, 1956.917], "stop_times": [1932.552, 1936.837, 1942.841, 1948.745, 1956.917, 1965.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1928.831}, "reply_to": "20380__2_029", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_031", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--But, I mean, normally, as a... as a reviewing judge in a court of appeals, I'd look at the summary judgment, I'd look at what the motions were below, I'd look at what they actually argued.\nSo if you want me, I'll go back and do that.\nI'm just saying, when I did it briefly, I didn't notice these fine distinctions being made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1965.356, 1972.86, 1974.712], "stop_times": [1972.86, 1974.712, 1979.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1965.356}, "reply_to": "20380__2_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20380__2_032", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1979.497], "stop_times": [1980.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1979.497}, "reply_to": "20380__2_031", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_033", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "And... where, in other words, they're saying... you... you believe, if I look at those papers again, I'll find that they say, oh, no matter even if we win this in the court of appeals, we concede that we still have to go back and have a trial on the furans and dioxins; that they said that in those papers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1980.383], "stop_times": [1993.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1980.383}, "reply_to": "20380__2_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20380__2_034", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--That the court of appeals expressly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1993.757], "stop_times": [1995.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1993.757}, "reply_to": "20380__2_033", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_035", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "I don't know the court of appeals.\nI'm not talking about that.\nBut I'm saying whether or not... you're saying now that somehow this case, given the summary judgment, et cetera, they're conceding that they have to go back and have a trial on furans and dioxins, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [1995.708, 1996.492, 1997.744], "stop_times": [1996.492, 1997.744, 2009.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1995.708}, "reply_to": "20380__2_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20380__2_036", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2009.718], "stop_times": [2009.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2009.718}, "reply_to": "20380__2_035", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_037", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "All right.\nAnd I'll find that in their papers before the court of appeals?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2009.884, 2010.351], "stop_times": [2010.351, 2012.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2009.884}, "reply_to": "20380__2_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20380__2_038", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Yes.\nWell, you'll find it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2012.753, 2013.22], "stop_times": [2013.22, 2014.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2012.753}, "reply_to": "20380__2_037", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_039", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "I haven't so far.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2014.236], "stop_times": [2014.82], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2014.236}, "reply_to": "20380__2_038", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20380__2_040", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--in their papers here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2014.82], "stop_times": [2015.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2014.82}, "reply_to": "20380__2_039", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_041", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "And I... I still find that hard to square with the language that I believe Justice Breyer quote... quoted to you.\nAnd it's at the top of 58a of the appendix.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2015.788, 2020.09], "stop_times": [2020.09, 2022.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2015.788}, "reply_to": "20380__2_040", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20380__2_042", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2022.542], "stop_times": [2022.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2022.542}, "reply_to": "20380__2_041", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_043", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "It said, Defendants still persuade the court that Plaintiffs' expert testimony would not be admissible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2022.942], "stop_times": [2029.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2022.942}, "reply_to": "20380__2_042", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20380__2_044", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2029.93], "stop_times": [2030.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2029.93}, "reply_to": "20380__2_043", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_045", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Can you proceed to the trial without this expert testimony?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2030.381], "stop_times": [2033.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2030.381}, "reply_to": "20380__2_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20380__2_046", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2033.333], "stop_times": [2035.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2033.333}, "reply_to": "20380__2_045", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_047", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "But you're saying they... they're conceding that it would be admissible in respect to furans and dioxins if there's an issue there, but not... I mean, this is a fine distinction; that's why I looked at the papers... and you're going to tell me now... perhaps you have the citation... where this was all argued before the court of appeals on this kind of hypothesis.\nIsn't it even narrower than that... that the district judge has not yet ruled on whether the testimony would be admissible if the record showed all three chem... chemicals?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2035.183, 2051.378], "stop_times": [2051.378, 2059.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2035.183}, "reply_to": "20380__2_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20380__2_048", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2059.699], "stop_times": [2060.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2059.699}, "reply_to": "20380__2_047", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_049", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "So we don't know what ruling he might make.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2060.65], "stop_times": [2062.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2060.65}, "reply_to": "20380__2_048", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20380__2_050", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Exactly.\nThere is nothing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2062.434, 2062.751], "stop_times": [2062.751, 2063.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2062.434}, "reply_to": "20380__2_049", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_051", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "So they haven't conceded you go to trial; they concede there need to be further proceedings in the district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2063.735], "stop_times": [2068.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2063.735}, "reply_to": "20380__2_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20380__2_052", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Yes.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2068.237, 2068.84], "stop_times": [2068.84, 2069.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2068.237}, "reply_to": "20380__2_051", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_053", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Well, when I used to be on the court of appeals, if there was this complicated thing, the parties had to point it out.\nThat's why, normally, I would just take the issue of unadmissibility to be it's inadmissible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2069.473, 2074.058], "stop_times": [2074.058, 2079.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2069.473}, "reply_to": "20380__2_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20380__2_054", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2079.628], "stop_times": [2079.995], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2079.628}, "reply_to": "20380__2_053", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_055", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Now, if there is this distinction made, I want to be sure I focus on it in the court of appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2079.995], "stop_times": [2084.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2079.995}, "reply_to": "20380__2_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20380__2_056", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, as they acknowledged, the district court never ruled on the admissibility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2084.449], "stop_times": [2088.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2084.449}, "reply_to": "20380__2_055", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_057", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Did someone ask--\n--Do you object to summary judgment, then?\nI mean, if... if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2088.984, 2090.02, 2090.67], "stop_times": [2090.02, 2090.67, 2091.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2088.984}, "reply_to": "20380__2_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20380__2_058", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Of course.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2091.42, 2091.985], "stop_times": [2091.985, 2092.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2091.42}, "reply_to": "20380__2_057", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_059", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--On that ground?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2092.27], "stop_times": [2092.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2092.27}, "reply_to": "20380__2_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20380__2_060", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2092.953], "stop_times": [2093.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2092.953}, "reply_to": "20380__2_059", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_061", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "That... that even assuming that the district court was right about the exclusion, that summary judgment still should not have been granted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2093.603], "stop_times": [2102.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2093.603}, "reply_to": "20380__2_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20380__2_062", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2102.292], "stop_times": [2103.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2102.292}, "reply_to": "20380__2_061", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_063", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "In other words, you asked the judge this, the district judge--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2103.142], "stop_times": [2105.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2103.142}, "reply_to": "20380__2_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20380__2_064", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "I'm sorry--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2105.594], "stop_times": [2105.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2105.594}, "reply_to": "20380__2_063", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_065", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--and he didn't make a ruling on it, even though he was asked to make a ruling on it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2105.944], "stop_times": [2109.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2105.944}, "reply_to": "20380__2_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20380__2_066", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--He was not asked to make a ruling, because they did not contend it was not admissible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2109.446], "stop_times": [2113.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2109.446}, "reply_to": "20380__2_065", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_067", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "If he... if he... he granted summary judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2113.699], "stop_times": [2116.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2113.699}, "reply_to": "20380__2_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20380__2_068", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2116.801], "stop_times": [2117.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2116.801}, "reply_to": "20380__2_067", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_069", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "He made a ruling of inadmissibility.\nThat, I would think, would be the end of it normally.\nI don't hypothesize what... what he would have done on something that nobody asked him to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2117.201, 2119.187, 2121.872], "stop_times": [2119.187, 2121.872, 2126.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2117.201}, "reply_to": "20380__2_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20380__2_070", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "That's... well, he was... he did not... it's a she... the district judge did not answer the question of whether the testimony with respect to all three chemicals was admissible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2126.757], "stop_times": [2138.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2126.757}, "reply_to": "20380__2_069", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_071", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Mr. Gottesman, I think... tell me if my understanding is correct.\nShe said this man wasn't exposed to furans and dioxins.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2138.149, 2142.453], "stop_times": [2142.453, 2147.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2138.149}, "reply_to": "20380__2_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20380__2_072", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2147.838], "stop_times": [2148.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2147.838}, "reply_to": "20380__2_071", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_073", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Was exposed to PCB, but not furans and dioxins.\nAnd that was her ruling and that's why she looked at the admission only with respect to PCB.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2148.357, 2152.141], "stop_times": [2152.141, 2157.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2148.357}, "reply_to": "20380__2_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20380__2_074", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2157.795], "stop_times": [2158.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2157.795}, "reply_to": "20380__2_073", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_075", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Then, on appeal, you got her reversed twice.\nYou got her reversed for saying there wasn't enough evidence of the furans and dioxins.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2158.612, 2161.93], "stop_times": [2161.93, 2166.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2158.612}, "reply_to": "20380__2_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20380__2_076", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2166.834], "stop_times": [2167.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2166.834}, "reply_to": "20380__2_075", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_077", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "And then you got her reversed on the admissibility... the threshold admissibility question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2167.484], "stop_times": [2174.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2167.484}, "reply_to": "20380__2_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20380__2_078", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2174.924], "stop_times": [2175.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2174.924}, "reply_to": "20380__2_077", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_079", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "So you lost before her on the dioxins and furans.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2175.44], "stop_times": [2179.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2175.44}, "reply_to": "20380__2_078", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20380__2_080", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2179.209], "stop_times": [2179.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2179.209}, "reply_to": "20380__2_079", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_081", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "You appealed that and you prevailed on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2179.609], "stop_times": [2182.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2179.609}, "reply_to": "20380__2_080", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20380__2_082", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2182.761], "stop_times": [2183.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2182.761}, "reply_to": "20380__2_081", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_083", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "And that's the piece of this case that isn't before us, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2183.461], "stop_times": [2187.315], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2183.461}, "reply_to": "20380__2_082", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20380__2_084", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nAs is the testimony of the experts that exposure to those chemicals promoted the cancer that Mr. Joiner experienced... a point that the district court had never itself ruled on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2187.315, 2188.215], "stop_times": [2188.215, 2200.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2187.315}, "reply_to": "20380__2_083", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_085", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "But the district court, on remand, might say, all right, I was wrong about the Plaintiff not having been exposed to furans and dioxins; nonetheless, considering all three chemicals together, I still conclude that the expert testimony should not be admitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2200.805], "stop_times": [2217.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2200.805}, "reply_to": "20380__2_084", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20380__2_086", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Well, that is a possibility.\nOf course, the Defendants have never argued to the district court that it would be inadmissible, assuming all three were there.\nBut if they made such an argument and if the district court were willing to entertain a second motion, that would be possible there.\nBut the ruling that is up here is the portion of the court of appeals ruling that says, even if the Plaintiff was only exposed to PCB's; that is, even if the jury ultimately determined--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2217.251, 2218.967, 2225.94, 2232.694], "stop_times": [2218.967, 2225.94, 2232.694, 2244.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2217.251}, "reply_to": "20380__2_085", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_087", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Yeah, but isn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2244.734], "stop_times": [2245.601], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2244.734}, "reply_to": "20380__2_086", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20380__2_088", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--that the Plaintiff was... was exposed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2245.601], "stop_times": [2246.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2245.601}, "reply_to": "20380__2_087", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_089", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Mr. Gottesman, getting back to what is really the main of... of the petition and your response, I guess, if you... if you look again at 4a of the petition, where the district... which has been referred to by my... some of my colleagues, the... the court of appeals says, towards the bottom, because the Federal Rules of Evidence governing expert testimony display a preference for admissibility, we apply a particularly stringent standard of review to the trial judge's exclusion of expert testimony.\nDo you agree with that statement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2246.753, 2274.338], "stop_times": [2274.338, 2276.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2246.753}, "reply_to": "20380__2_088", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20380__2_090", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Not as it is precisely stated.\nAnd I want... that's part of where I said there is some agreement between the parties that will narrow the issues.\nWe do not contend that there are two different tiers of abuse of discretion review.\nThere is one standard of review; it is abuse of discretion.\nWe also do not believe that it is a one-way factor whether a court takes a close look at a case.\nJust as Judge Becker and this Court have said, that when evidence in a Daubert-type proceeding is excluded, we ought to take a close look, Judges Higginbotham, in the Fifth Circuit, Judge Buckley in the D.C. Circuit, and a third court, as well, have said, because these are such important rulings, these rulings inevitably decide the fate of a case when it's a toxic tort case; because expert testimony is crucial to the existence or nonexistence of the case.\nThese are not just ordinary rulings.\nThese are really important rulings.\nThey deserve more careful attention.\nAnd what we argue for is the formulation not of the sentence as stated by the majority, but actually the sentence as it is stated by the dissenting judge in this case, who, on this point, I'm not sure was disagreeing with the majority.\nWhat Judge Smith was saying... and it's on page 18 of the appendix to the cert petition... and I'll quote it, because this is all that we contend for as to the appropriate role of appellate courts: In applying a particularly stringent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2276.705, 2279.241, 2284.561, 2289.53, 2294.001, 2302.19, 2331.709, 2333.609, 2335.994, 2338.78, 2354.723], "stop_times": [2279.241, 2284.561, 2289.53, 2294.001, 2302.19, 2331.709, 2333.609, 2335.994, 2338.78, 2354.723, 2371.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2276.705}, "reply_to": "20380__2_089", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_091", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Whereabouts on the page are you, Mr. Gottesman?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2371.667], "stop_times": [2373.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2371.667}, "reply_to": "20380__2_090", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20380__2_092", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2373.453], "stop_times": [2373.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2373.453}, "reply_to": "20380__2_091", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_093", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Whereabouts on the page are you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2373.886], "stop_times": [2375.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2373.886}, "reply_to": "20380__2_092", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20380__2_094", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "I'm sorry.\nThis is the last paragraph on page 18a.\nIt begins the paragraph.\nAnd on this point, we think Judge Smith is really just explaining.\nHe says he's explaining what the standard is that the majority has asserted.\nIn applying a particularly stringent review, we do not change the threshold of review, but conduct a searching review of the record... that is, take a hard look... while maintaining the proper standard of review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2375.203, 2375.519, 2378.138, 2379.607, 2382.892, 2387.011], "stop_times": [2375.519, 2378.138, 2379.607, 2382.892, 2387.011, 2400.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2375.203}, "reply_to": "20380__2_093", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_095", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Well, now, isn't that a certain amount of gobbledy-goop?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2400.77, 2403.388], "stop_times": [2403.388, 2404.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2400.77}, "reply_to": "20380__2_094", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20380__2_096", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "I don't think so, Your Honor.\nI think what it is, is saying is there are some cases where we are going to devote more resources to analyzing the claim that a party has brought to us; that there has been an abuse of discretion--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2404.072, 2405.674], "stop_times": [2405.674, 2417.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2404.072}, "reply_to": "20380__2_095", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_097", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "But... but you think, nonetheless, Judge Smith's view and the majority's view is that perhaps the... the district court could have ruled either way and still be affirmed?\nThat's, to me, what abuse of discretion means.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2417.998, 2428.338], "stop_times": [2428.338, 2430.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2417.998}, "reply_to": "20380__2_096", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20380__2_098", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Well, in appropriate cases, that may be true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2430.806], "stop_times": [2433.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2430.806}, "reply_to": "20380__2_097", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_099", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Yes.\nNot always certainly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2433.575, 2433.975], "stop_times": [2433.975, 2434.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2433.575}, "reply_to": "20380__2_098", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20380__2_100", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "But... and, indeed, the court said this is not such a case.\nAnd I want to get to that for a moment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2434.392, 2437.294], "stop_times": [2437.294, 2439.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2434.392}, "reply_to": "20380__2_099", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_101", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "But Judge Smith, of course, although you say you agree with the standard of review he espoused, said he would have affirmed the decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2439.061], "stop_times": [2447.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2439.061}, "reply_to": "20380__2_100", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20380__2_102", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "That's correct.\nAnd, obviously, we don't agree with that portion of the decision.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2447.417, 2447.817, 2450.203], "stop_times": [2447.817, 2450.203, 2450.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2447.417}, "reply_to": "20380__2_101", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_103", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "The phrase D.C. Circuit cases involving review of administrative determinations which are supposed to be made on an arbitrary or capricious basis, equivalent to abuse of discretion probably.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2450.703], "stop_times": [2468.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2450.703}, "reply_to": "20380__2_102", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20380__2_104", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2468.348], "stop_times": [2468.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2468.348}, "reply_to": "20380__2_103", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_105", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "And it was generally agreed among administrative law pra... practitioners that \"hard luck\" meant not arbitrary and capricious, but... but, indeed, a different standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2468.948], "stop_times": [2476.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2468.948}, "reply_to": "20380__2_104", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20380__2_106", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Well, we are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2476.937], "stop_times": [2479.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2476.937}, "reply_to": "20380__2_105", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_107", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "You almost never won the hard luck cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2479.055], "stop_times": [2481.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2479.055}, "reply_to": "20380__2_106", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20380__2_108", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Okay.\nWe... we think that that is... that... that... we think this and only this: that this Court ought not to tell the appellate courts at this stage of the development of Daubert and its application that you should not look carefully at cases where these things come to you.\nWe think it's important that they do look carefully.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2481.055, 2481.638, 2500.219], "stop_times": [2481.638, 2500.219, 2502.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2481.055}, "reply_to": "20380__2_107", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_109", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Well, is this... you're arguing... arguing for a standard that is somewhat different than the ordinary review of a trial court's evidentiary rulings, aren't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2502.369], "stop_times": [2513.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2502.369}, "reply_to": "20380__2_108", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20380__2_110", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Well, as the Chief Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2513.277], "stop_times": [2516.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2513.277}, "reply_to": "20380__2_109", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_111", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "I mean, a trial judge has to sit on the bench and make numerous rulings on the admissibility of evidence--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2516.746], "stop_times": [2524.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2516.746}, "reply_to": "20380__2_110", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20380__2_112", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2524.667], "stop_times": [2525.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2524.667}, "reply_to": "20380__2_111", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_113", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--as a trial proceeds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2525.367], "stop_times": [2526.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2525.367}, "reply_to": "20380__2_112", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20380__2_114", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Indeed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2526.453], "stop_times": [2527.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2526.453}, "reply_to": "20380__2_113", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_115", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "And in the normal case, we apply an abuse of discretion standard to reviewing those judgments and decisions, which have to be made very quickly and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2527.103], "stop_times": [2539.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2527.103}, "reply_to": "20380__2_114", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20380__2_116", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Indeed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2539.594], "stop_times": [2539.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2539.594}, "reply_to": "20380__2_115", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_117", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--it's a tough deal for the trial judge.\nAnd I think, in general, appellate courts have recognized that difficulty and have tended not to upset those rulings unless it's... it's clearly an abuse of discretion.\nBut you want some more searching review applied to the exclusion of expert testimony.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2539.861, 2542.046, 2554.371], "stop_times": [2542.046, 2554.371, 2563.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2539.861}, "reply_to": "20380__2_116", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20380__2_118", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "The exclusion or the admission when the admission also means that a trial will go forward that otherwise would not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2563.059], "stop_times": [2570.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2563.059}, "reply_to": "20380__2_117", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_119", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2570.096], "stop_times": [2570.482], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2570.096}, "reply_to": "20380__2_118", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20380__2_120", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "That is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2570.482], "stop_times": [2571.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2570.482}, "reply_to": "20380__2_119", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_121", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Well, when you say \"more searching review\"... when you say \"devote more resources\", would it comply with that if the judges on the appellate panel simply say, well, I'm really going to go over this record, you know, and I'm going to read it twice, perhaps--\n[Laughter]\n--and then simply apply the abuse of discretion standard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2571.048, 2583.64, 2584.09], "stop_times": [2583.64, 2584.09, 2587.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2571.048}, "reply_to": "20380__2_120", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20380__2_122", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--That's all we're contending for, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2587.592], "stop_times": [2589.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2587.592}, "reply_to": "20380__2_121", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_123", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Abuse of discretion, with teeth.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2589.36, 2591.479], "stop_times": [2591.479, 2591.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2589.36}, "reply_to": "20380__2_122", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20380__2_124", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Well, I would say, with eyes, but yes.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2591.946, 2594.931], "stop_times": [2594.931, 2595.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2591.946}, "reply_to": "20380__2_123", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_125", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "And so we... we could have hard luck cases and lick and a promise cases, right?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2595.331, 2600.834], "stop_times": [2600.834, 2601.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2595.331}, "reply_to": "20380__2_124", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20380__2_126", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Well, I think, realistically, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2601.184], "stop_times": [2602.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2601.184}, "reply_to": "20380__2_125", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_127", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "I mean, this... this... this assumes that in other cases judges just sort of flip through the record, you know, fan the pages.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2602.953, 2607.338], "stop_times": [2607.338, 2607.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2602.953}, "reply_to": "20380__2_126", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20380__2_128", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Well, Your... Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2607.538], "stop_times": [2608.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2607.538}, "reply_to": "20380__2_127", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_129", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Shouldn't... shouldn't we take a hard look in all cases?\nWhy... why limit a hard luck to... to just these cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2608.238, 2609.957], "stop_times": [2609.957, 2612.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2608.238}, "reply_to": "20380__2_128", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20380__2_130", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2612.725], "stop_times": [2613.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2612.725}, "reply_to": "20380__2_129", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_131", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "It seems to me one should be very careful in every case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2613.042], "stop_times": [2615.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2613.042}, "reply_to": "20380__2_130", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20380__2_132", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Well, and... and we wrote that in our brief, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2615.611], "stop_times": [2617.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2615.611}, "reply_to": "20380__2_131", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_133", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Good.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2617.227], "stop_times": [2617.561], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2617.227}, "reply_to": "20380__2_132", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20380__2_134", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "And we said, in an ideal world, that's what appellate courts would do.\nBut as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2617.561, 2619.979], "stop_times": [2619.979, 2620.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2617.561}, "reply_to": "20380__2_133", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_135", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "We live in an ideal world here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2620.313], "stop_times": [2622.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2620.313}, "reply_to": "20380__2_134", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20380__2_136", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--But as--\n[Laughter]\nAn ideal world, with limited resources, Your Honor.\nAs Justice O'Connor said, judges make a myriad of decisions every day, and they have to make them on the spot.\nAnd, understandably, courts of appeals are going to be quite deferential to those rulings.\nBut this kind of a ruling is not made that way.\nThis kind of a ruling is made on an elaborate record.\nNow, the judge, to be sure, did not hold a hearing here or even receive an argument from the lawyers, but the judge had very extended papers and wrote a full opinion.\nAnd this was something which was not just one of those snap decisions that judges have to make.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2622.081, 2622.648, 2623.131, 2627.752, 2632.639, 2637.341, 2639.977, 2642.511, 2650.6], "stop_times": [2622.648, 2623.131, 2627.752, 2632.639, 2637.341, 2639.977, 2642.511, 2650.6, 2656.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2622.081}, "reply_to": "20380__2_135", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_137", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Mr. Gottesman, as you understand the hard look, it works for the defendants and the plaintiffs equally, whether it's admission or exclusion.\nBut that's not the way I read Judge Marquette's opinion.\nShe... she relies on the... the presumption in favor of admissibility in the... in her opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2656.338, 2663.325, 2666.044], "stop_times": [2663.325, 2666.044, 2672.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2656.338}, "reply_to": "20380__2_136", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20380__2_138", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Yes, I agree with that, Your Honor.\nAnd so we are not defending the notion that it should be limited to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2672.364, 2673.731], "stop_times": [2673.731, 2677.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2672.364}, "reply_to": "20380__2_137", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_139", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "I see.\nSo you don't defend her reason for the hard look?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2677.835, 2678.218], "stop_times": [2678.218, 2680.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2677.835}, "reply_to": "20380__2_138", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20380__2_140", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--No.\nWe would put together the... the views of Judge Becker on the Third Circuit and Judge Marquette, which is that when you exclude it in a case like this, it deserves the hard look--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2680.454, 2680.804], "stop_times": [2680.804, 2690.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2680.454}, "reply_to": "20380__2_139", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_141", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "And--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2690.725], "stop_times": [2691.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2690.725}, "reply_to": "20380__2_140", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20380__2_142", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--with the views of Judge Higginbotham and Judge Buckley and others that when you admit it in a case where it makes the whole difference between a trial or not, we should look at it more closely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2691.092], "stop_times": [2700.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2691.092}, "reply_to": "20380__2_141", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_143", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Oh, well, wait just a minute.\nWell--\n--You do--\n--a... a hard look... it... it's... your hard look, then, is limited to summary judgment proceedings?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2700.533, 2700.967, 2701.433, 2702.067], "stop_times": [2700.967, 2701.433, 2702.067, 2708.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2700.533}, "reply_to": "20380__2_142", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20380__2_144", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "It's limited to evidentiary rulings which have a profound impact on the case.\nThe most--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2708.471, 2713.023], "stop_times": [2713.023, 2713.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2708.471}, "reply_to": "20380__2_143", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_145", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Well, what if... what if it... it... it could have profound impact, I take it, even though... supposing that the trial judge excludes important evidentiary testimony.\nNow, that doesn't result in his granting a judgment for the defendant at the end of the trial, but it has a significant effect on what you can argue to the jury.\nDoes that kind of a ruling deserve a hard look?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2713.689, 2722.029, 2730.984], "stop_times": [2722.029, 2730.984, 2733.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2713.689}, "reply_to": "20380__2_144", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20380__2_146", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--I would think not.\nCertainly, it is not as strong a case for one as one where the judge says this case is over and it's over now; I'm granting summary judgment because of the ruling that I make.\nAnd I also think the fact that Daubert is a new and difficult enterprise for courts suggests some more room for appellate observation of what's happening and... and elaboration.\nAnd let me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2733.186, 2734.788, 2743.644, 2755.368], "stop_times": [2734.788, 2743.644, 2755.368, 2755.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2733.186}, "reply_to": "20380__2_145", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_147", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "That's... that's... that's... I'd just like to follow up on the Chief Justice's question, because that's what I wasn't certain about.\nAre you saying that a decision to exclude evidence or to admit evidence or a certain sort, an appellate court does the same job with it all the time, whether it's plaintiff's or defendant's, whether it's admitted or excluded prior to trial or after trial, whether summary judgment is at stake or de novo is at stake, are all those to be the same in your mind, or are you saying that it's different, depending upon whether the trial would take place or the trial was over?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2755.985, 2761.439], "stop_times": [2761.439, 2796.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2755.985}, "reply_to": "20380__2_146", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20380__2_148", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--I think that I am saying something that's in between those.\nThat is, that appellate courts should be free, when they feel a really... a ruling was really important to the outcome of the case, to look closely at the claims of the parties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2796.343, 2803.516], "stop_times": [2803.516, 2814.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2796.343}, "reply_to": "20380__2_147", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_149", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "All right.\nSo that... but there is not... that's... that you're saying is true whether there was a trial or wasn't a trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2814.573, 2814.873], "stop_times": [2814.873, 2819.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2814.573}, "reply_to": "20380__2_148", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20380__2_150", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2819.125], "stop_times": [2819.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2819.125}, "reply_to": "20380__2_149", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_151", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "It has nothing to do with summary judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2819.525], "stop_times": [2820.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2819.525}, "reply_to": "20380__2_150", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20380__2_152", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2820.894], "stop_times": [2821.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2820.894}, "reply_to": "20380__2_151", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_153", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "It's just a fact of judicial mentality--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2821.41], "stop_times": [2823.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2821.41}, "reply_to": "20380__2_152", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20380__2_154", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2823.512], "stop_times": [2823.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2823.512}, "reply_to": "20380__2_153", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_155", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--and not a rule of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2823.962], "stop_times": [2824.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2823.962}, "reply_to": "20380__2_154", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20380__2_156", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "What we are articulating is not a legal principle; it is a... an observation about the allocation of appellate resources, which judges now, on five circuits, have felt it important to articulate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2824.996], "stop_times": [2836.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2824.996}, "reply_to": "20380__2_155", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_157", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Oh, well, that's the part I don't know about.\nBecause once you articulate it in a rule of evidence or an opinion, it becomes a rule of law.\nAnd I don't know how you'd write such a thing into a rule of law.\nHow... do you have an idea for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2836.82, 2837.939, 2843.408, 2846.877], "stop_times": [2837.939, 2843.408, 2846.877, 2849.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2836.82}, "reply_to": "20380__2_156", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20380__2_158", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "I'm not sure that it should be written as a rule of law.\nThat is, I think that these courts of appeal should be allowed to say this, and that you should not be offended that they say it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2849.746, 2851.829], "stop_times": [2851.829, 2858.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2849.746}, "reply_to": "20380__2_157", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_159", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Kind of harmless error?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2858.769], "stop_times": [2860.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2858.769}, "reply_to": "20380__2_158", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20380__2_160", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Harmless error.\n[Laughter]\nNot error.\nHarmless non-error, Your Honor.\nNow, what I'd like to do--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2860.035, 2861.085, 2861.871, 2862.571, 2864.423], "stop_times": [2861.085, 2861.871, 2862.571, 2864.423, 2865.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2860.035}, "reply_to": "20380__2_159", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_161", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "It sounds like you want an abuse of discretion standard for our review of court of appeals decisions reviewing abuse of discretion at the trial level.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2865.873, 2876.045], "stop_times": [2876.045, 2876.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2865.873}, "reply_to": "20380__2_160", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20380__2_162", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Well, let me address, Your Honor, the application in this case... what it is that the court of appeals actually complained about that the district court did, which we believe is a ruling of legal error and, thus, not affected by that sentence.\nAnd the Solicitor General, in... in his brief, also said that the court of appeals believed that it had found a legal error.\nTo understand it, I have to spend 1 minute setting out what the methodology is that the experts were employing in this case, and then how the district court decided the case.\nThe experts were applying a methodology which is well established in the scientific method.\nIt is known as the weight of evidence methodology.\nThat is, in areas where science has not arrived at absolute certainty, how do we make probablistic estimates of whether something is causing or contributing to an injury or not?\nAnd there are well-established protocols for this.\nThey were developed initially by scientists at the EPA, and were then peer reviewed by university and industry scientists and, ultimately, published as the EPA's guidelines.\nThere are similar guidelines for the World Health Organization, also developed by scientists.\nAnd there is a prescribed protocol that one uses in going about a weight of the evidence methodology.\nIf you look at the district court's opinion... and this is what the court of appeals said about it... nowhere does the district court acknowledge that the methodology being used here is weight of the evidence methodology.\nNowhere does the district court said, it's wrong to use that methodology here.\nNowhere does the district court said, well, it was right to use that methodology, but you didn't apply it properly here.\nInstead, all that the district court did was say, bring on your individual pieces of evidence one at a time.\nI will look at each one under the microscope.\nI will decide whether you can go to a jury on a claim that this piece of evidence causes or promotes lung cancer in smokers.\nAnd if you look, for example, she started with the evidence of animal studies.\nAnd she discussed that at pages 58 to 62 in the appendix.\nAnd then she says, no, you can't find it from the animal studies, and she sweeps them off the table.\nWe never hear about them again.\nThen she starts with the epidemiological studies, the human epidemiological studies, at least two of which found statistically significant evidence of an increase of lung cancer from exposure to PCB's, and others of which found accelerated incidence of lung cancer, even though the sample sizes weren't large enough to find statistical significance.\nShe critiques each of those, pushes it aside.\nShe ignores entirely other aspects of what the weight of evidence methodology requires.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [2876.647, 2889.971, 2896.108, 2906.547, 2911.618, 2914.153, 2926.377, 2929.829, 2939.868, 2945.005, 2952.611, 2964.252, 2969.204, 2976.743, 2985.166, 2987.868, 2997.306, 3001.775, 3006.162, 3010.697, 3012.399, 3033.897, 3037.265], "stop_times": [2889.971, 2896.108, 2906.547, 2911.618, 2914.153, 2926.377, 2929.829, 2939.868, 2945.005, 2952.611, 2964.252, 2969.204, 2976.743, 2985.166, 2987.868, 2997.306, 3001.775, 3006.162, 3010.697, 3012.399, 3033.897, 3037.265, 3044.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2876.647}, "reply_to": "20380__2_161", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_163", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "But... excuse me, before you go... are you saying that if you have five studies that do not show a statistically significant difference, you can admit all five, although each one would not be admitted?\nIs that what the weight of evid--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3044.72, 3059.897], "stop_times": [3059.897, 3061.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3044.72}, "reply_to": "20380__2_162", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20380__2_164", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Yes.\nAnd the weight of evidence methodology contemplates that.\nStatistical significance requires confidence at an extraordinarily high level.\nIt does not correlate with the likelier than not burden of proof, which is what the law requires.\nAnd so, scientists have written extensively... we have a footnote in our brief, where we cite--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3061.08, 3061.416, 3063.549, 3068.403, 3075.157], "stop_times": [3061.416, 3063.549, 3068.403, 3075.157, 3079.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3061.08}, "reply_to": "20380__2_163", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_165", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Well, and I take it the... you presented all this argument to the district court, the... the weight of the evidence and that sort of thing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3079.71], "stop_times": [3087.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3079.71}, "reply_to": "20380__2_164", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20380__2_166", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3087.214], "stop_times": [3087.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3087.214}, "reply_to": "20380__2_165", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_167", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--that the... the whole equals more than the sum of its parts, I take it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3087.681], "stop_times": [3091.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3087.681}, "reply_to": "20380__2_166", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20380__2_168", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Exactly.\nBut the district court never acknowledges that that's even what's going on here.\nThe district judge just goes through, one after another, the individual items of evidence.\nAnd then, at the end, says, the studies simply do not support the expert's position that PCB's, more probably than not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3091.351, 3091.968, 3096.922, 3101.707], "stop_times": [3091.968, 3096.922, 3101.707, 3109.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3091.351}, "reply_to": "20380__2_167", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_169", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "All right.\nIt sounds as if he's saying the studies... I mean, I've written things like that myself a lot.\nYou go through seven pieces of evidence and you say the evidence doesn't support it.\nIt means individually or... individually or taken together.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3109.563, 3109.997, 3113.449, 3117.067], "stop_times": [3109.997, 3113.449, 3117.067, 3121.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3109.563}, "reply_to": "20380__2_168", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20380__2_170", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Well, but that's a ruling on the sufficiency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3121.537], "stop_times": [3124.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3121.537}, "reply_to": "20380__2_169", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_171", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "So the question would be, has he abused his discretion in saying, taken together, I don't think these studies will help the jury?\nThat's what he said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3124.156, 3130.81], "stop_times": [3130.81, 3131.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3124.156}, "reply_to": "20380__2_170", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20380__2_172", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3131.76], "stop_times": [3132.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3131.76}, "reply_to": "20380__2_171", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_173", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "I don't think they'll help the jury enough to award... to admit them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3132.093], "stop_times": [3135.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3132.093}, "reply_to": "20380__2_172", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20380__2_174", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Okay.\nHere's... the court of appeals said two things about that.\nThese were its rulings about how the district court proceeded.\nAnd, incidentally, the district court ignored much of the evidence that went into the weight of evidence thing, including, for example, that PCB's are ingested and the place in the body where they locate themselves is the lungs.\nThat is where... the lung tissue is where PCB's de... deposit themselves.\nAnd that other chemicals that are similar to PCB's have been found to have high incidence of lung cancer.\nThe dis... the district court ends with this statement that I just read.\nThe court of appeals said two things about that.\nNumber one, said the court of appeals, you've just made a statement about the sufficiency of the evidence.\nYou have not said that science... the... the scientific methodology is improper.\nYou have not cited anything that suggests that scientists are not allowed to take this body of evidence and get to this conclusion.\nYou've just said that you don't think you can get from this body of evidence to this conclusion.\nAnd, indeed, that is exactly what did happen.\nBecause the Defendants introduced no scientist who said that the Plaintiffs have taken steps, that it is impermissible, applying the proper scientific method, to take.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3135.214, 3135.647, 3137.68, 3140.749, 3153.259, 3157.394, 3162.947, 3166.583, 3168.935, 3174.005, 3179.141, 3187.413, 3192.734, 3195.086], "stop_times": [3135.647, 3137.68, 3140.749, 3153.259, 3157.394, 3162.947, 3166.583, 3168.935, 3174.005, 3179.141, 3187.413, 3192.734, 3195.086, 3205.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3135.214}, "reply_to": "20380__2_173", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_175", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Well, was the... was this a methodological conclusion or a relevance conclusion?\nMaybe the district court was saying the methodology is fine for what it purports to do.\nBut it does not provide a sufficient predicate for use in reasoning to a conclusion about cause in humans.\nMaybe that's what the district court was doing.\nAnd if it was doing that, it seems to me, number one, that was not committing any legal error.\nAnd, number two, it was making a judgment, ultimately, about what the jury could find helpful that should be subject to abuse of discretion review.\nWould you agree?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3205.874, 3210.345, 3215.849, 3223.855, 3225.872, 3233.144, 3242.816], "stop_times": [3210.345, 3215.849, 3223.855, 3225.872, 3233.144, 3242.816, 3243.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3205.874}, "reply_to": "20380__2_174", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20380__2_176", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "I think not, Your Honor.\nAnd let me suggest why.\nI think there are two problems with that.\nIf the district court says there is scientific disapproval of this step.\nThat is, the scientific methodology does not permit this step from these premises to that conclusion.\nThat might be a... a consideration of methodology.\nBut the district court did not say that and could not say that, because there was no record made that suggested that this was not permissible scientific methodology.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3243.849, 3245.518, 3246.601, 3248.053, 3254.624, 3261.795, 3265.099], "stop_times": [3245.518, 3246.601, 3248.053, 3254.624, 3261.795, 3265.099, 3275.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3243.849}, "reply_to": "20380__2_175", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_177", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "That's fine.\nThat... that... that shows that the district court was relying on relevance rather than methodology.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3275.371, 3275.738], "stop_times": [3275.738, 3280.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3275.371}, "reply_to": "20380__2_176", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20380__2_178", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "The district court was relying on sufficiency.\nThe district court was saying, you can put your evidence on, but I don't believe it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3280.275, 3282.542], "stop_times": [3282.542, 3286.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3280.275}, "reply_to": "20380__2_177", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_179", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Well, do you--\n--Well--\n--do you agree that the... do you agree that the district court must inquire both as to the adequacy, the soundness of the methodology, its predictability, and the relation of that methodology to the issues before the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3286.345, 3289.047, 3289.347], "stop_times": [3289.047, 3289.347, 3301.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3286.345}, "reply_to": "20380__2_178", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20380__2_180", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3301.438], "stop_times": [3302.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3301.438}, "reply_to": "20380__2_179", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_181", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "All right.\nAnd the experts have to show that link by their studies, do they not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3302.522, 3303.557], "stop_times": [3303.557, 3307.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3302.522}, "reply_to": "20380__2_180", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20380__2_182", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3307.926], "stop_times": [3308.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3307.926}, "reply_to": "20380__2_181", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_183", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "And isn't all the district judge did here was to find that there was no link?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3308.359], "stop_times": [3314.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3308.359}, "reply_to": "20380__2_182", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20380__2_184", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Well, the district court said there is no link; yes.\nBut the district court did not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3314.263, 3317.698], "stop_times": [3317.698, 3319.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3314.263}, "reply_to": "20380__2_183", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_185", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "And... and that's within the purview of the district... of the district court, if the district court is... is... is correct.\nIf he... he abuses his discretion, or her discretion, then we reverse.\nBut that's within the discretion of the trial court, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3319.984, 3324.637, 3328.839], "stop_times": [3324.637, 3328.839, 3331.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3319.984}, "reply_to": "20380__2_184", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20380__2_186", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--That is where we would disagree, Your Honor.\nAnd that is where the court of appeals disagreed.\nThe court of appeals said, as Daubert makes clear, the district court may not decide whether the experts' opinions are correct, but merely whether the bases supporting the conclusion are reliable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3331.457, 3333.409, 3335.776], "stop_times": [3333.409, 3335.776, 3345.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3331.457}, "reply_to": "20380__2_185", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_187", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "But, Mr. Gottesman, it seems to me that... that maybe the methodology prong is just a red herring.\nBut if the weight of the evidence is an accepted methodology, it would always be passed that threshold if the expert just said, I considered everything and came to this conclusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3345.634, 3350.871], "stop_times": [3350.871, 3359.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3345.634}, "reply_to": "20380__2_186", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20380__2_188", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Well, I... we believe, Your Honor, that it can be encompassed within the methodology inquiry for the defendant to come forward with scientific evidence that says you can't get from A to B... not just that I, the competing scientist, disagree... because scientists disagree all the time... but that the range of permissible scientific methodology, that which is regarded as good science, does not allow you to go from A to B.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3359.644], "stop_times": [3387.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3359.644}, "reply_to": "20380__2_187", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_189", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "But is there really much difference between the first and second position that you just described?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3387.144], "stop_times": [3391.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3387.144}, "reply_to": "20380__2_188", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20380__2_190", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Yes.\nAnd let me give you one very good example of that.\nThey point, in their reply brief, to the... the testimony of some of their witnesses... none of whom addressed the Plaintiffs' witnesses' testimony... and say, see, this shows your methodology is bad.\nAnd they... several of the examples, on page 12 of their reply brief, are the testimony of Dr. Waddell at deposition.\nDr. Waddell was asked at that definition with respect to the very testimony they're citing: Is the view that you're stating here widely accepted in the scientific community?\nThis is on page 269 of the joint appendix.\nAnd his response was: There are a number of senior scientists who see it the same way I do.\nThey probably, number-wise, are in the minority.\nNow, that's their testimony: The view I'm expressing here is probably in the minority.\nThat's what they're citing to show that our scientists were not following the scientific method.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3391.18, 3391.546, 3394.198, 3405.34, 3412.093, 3422.217, 3425.086, 3431.157, 3434.609, 3441.779], "stop_times": [3391.546, 3394.198, 3405.34, 3412.093, 3422.217, 3425.086, 3431.157, 3434.609, 3441.779, 3446.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3391.18}, "reply_to": "20380__2_189", "speaker": "michael_h_gottesman"}
{"id": "20380__2_191", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Gottesman.\nMr. Kuney, you have 3 minutes remaining.\nWould you mind telling us if there's something left here to be tried when it goes back and whether the district court has to then make a determination whether to admit expert testimony if it is found that furans and dioxides were part of the expos... exposure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3446.932, 3448.534, 3451.236], "stop_times": [3448.534, 3451.236, 3475.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3446.932}, "reply_to": "20380__2_190", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20380__3_000", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Yes, Justice O'Connor, I believe it is technically correct that in the motion for summary judgment, the only argument Defendants put forward about furans and dioxins was that there had been no exposure.\nSo the district judge was not asked to rule upon whether opinions that accepted that exposure could meet the scientific requirements of Rule 702.\nSo that issue is left before the district court.\nAnd then, if there is a trial, if the district court decides that there are admissible opinions that go to that point, it will be a very different trial than would otherwise take place.\nBecause the Plaintiffs would essentially have to win in front of the factfinder the furans and dioxins exposure point or the case would be over.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3475.702, 3486.392, 3496.349, 3498.801, 3507.407], "stop_times": [3486.392, 3496.349, 3498.801, 3507.407, 3514.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3475.702}, "reply_to": "20380__2_191", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__3_001", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Then are we... we're supposed to assume for argument's sakes that there is inadmissible... because one of the points you raised is that the court of appeals is wrong on its furans point... there isn't any evidence here that... that there were furans and dioxins.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3514.811], "stop_times": [3528.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3514.811}, "reply_to": "20380__3_000", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20380__3_002", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "And... and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3528.486], "stop_times": [3529.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3528.486}, "reply_to": "20380__3_001", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__3_003", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "We're supposed to assume, for purposes of this case, that the court of appeals is right on that point.\nSo the bottom line, in... in your opinion, is we assume they're right, we remand to the court of appeals, and we ask the court of appeals to remand to the district court for consideration of furans and dioxins; is that the bottom line?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3529.07, 3533.355], "stop_times": [3533.355, 3546.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3529.07}, "reply_to": "20380__3_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20380__3_004", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--That's correct.\nYou... you could in... instruct the court of appeals that under of an abuse of discretion standard, which it should have applied, the district court's exclusion of the PCB opinions was clearly within the district court's discretion.\nAnd so there's a reversal, and that... that opinion of the district court ought to be reinstated.\nSince we did not technically challenge the furans and dioxins exposure point, that would still be a matter appropriate for further proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3546.282, 3547.165, 3558.606, 3563.494], "stop_times": [3547.165, 3558.606, 3563.494, 3570.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3546.282}, "reply_to": "20380__3_003", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__3_005", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "I didn't see any evidence here on furans and dioxins on either side--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3570.98], "stop_times": [3574.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3570.98}, "reply_to": "20380__3_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20380__3_006", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Well, the... the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3574.032], "stop_times": [3574.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3574.032}, "reply_to": "20380__3_005", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__3_007", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--except whether they were there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3574.649], "stop_times": [3575.467], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3574.649}, "reply_to": "20380__3_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20380__3_008", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--the... the... the complication, Justice Breyer, is that the opinions of the experts, in fact, were necessary to the conclusions about whether there was exposure to furans and dioxins.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3575.467], "stop_times": [3585.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3575.467}, "reply_to": "20380__3_007", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__3_009", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Mmm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3585.74], "stop_times": [3586.273], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3585.74}, "reply_to": "20380__3_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20380__3_010", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "That's part of what really was left up for grabs when and if the parties return to the district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3586.273], "stop_times": [3590.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3586.273}, "reply_to": "20380__3_009", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__3_011", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3590.977], "stop_times": [3591.577], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3590.977}, "reply_to": "20380__3_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20380__3_012", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Let me just address a couple of points very briefly.\nFirst, the notion that we need a modified standard of review to tell courts of appeals when to pay attention.\nIt... I believe it does con... convey the suggestion that somehow, under normal abuse of discretion, courts of appeals are not doing their job.\nWe already have Federal Rule of Evidence 103, which, in effect, says that there are certain evidentiary rulings that don't have a... an impact on a substantial right of the parties.\nAnd those ought not be the grounds for error.\nIt seems that that's sufficient, and that what this Court does not want to do is endorse the notion of the court of appeals that some kind of extra language or extra message needs to be given to courts of appeals in this area.\nYou con... this Court considered, really, a very similar suggestion--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3591.577, 3595.179, 3601.702, 3610.205, 3620.93, 3623.632, 3636.34], "stop_times": [3595.179, 3601.702, 3610.205, 3620.93, 3623.632, 3636.34, 3639.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3591.577}, "reply_to": "20380__3_011", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__3_013", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Kuney.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3639.375], "stop_times": [3640.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3639.375}, "reply_to": "20380__3_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20380__3_014", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "--Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3640.475], "stop_times": [3641.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3640.475}, "reply_to": "20380__3_013", "speaker": "steven_r_kuney"}
{"id": "20380__3_015", "conversation_id": "20380", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-188", "start_times": [3641.558], "stop_times": [3642.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3641.558}, "reply_to": "20380__3_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20935__0_000", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 96-8653, Kevin D. Gray v. Maryland.\nWe'll wait just a minute.\nMr. Delano.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [0.0, 9.389, 44.549], "stop_times": [9.389, 44.549, 54.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20935__0_001", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIn this case the prosecution was entitled to use codefendant Bell's confession to prove Bell's guilt and nothing more.\nBell's confession contained two admissions that completely and fairly accomplished this purpose.\nIn his confession, Bell admitted both hitting and beating Stacey Willams.\nThe remaining portion of Bell's confession, which focused exclusively on establishing the role of and the identity of Bell's alleged accomplices, served no legitimate purpose.\nThe remaining portions of Bell's confession were nothing more than unreliable hearsay.\nThe remaining portions of Bell's confession should not have been admitted, because they created for petitioner a totally unnecessary risk of prejudice for petitioner.\nThe use of the terms, deleted and deletion in this case did not, in the words of the trial judge, sanitize Bell's confession.\nThe words, if anything, drew the jury's attention to the fact that a name had been omitted.\nThey in a sense acted as a red flag to the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [54.797, 57.008, 64.794, 70.488, 76.201, 88.578, 94.975, 105.35, 112.854, 121.139], "stop_times": [57.008, 64.794, 70.488, 76.201, 88.578, 94.975, 105.35, 112.854, 121.139, 124.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 54.797}, "reply_to": "20935__0_000", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_002", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Mr. Delano, do you take the view that if this had been redacted a little differently, so that it didn't show deletion and so that it said, for example, who was in the group that beat Stacey... if it just said, me and a few other guys, for example, that would be okay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [124.471], "stop_times": [149.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 124.471}, "reply_to": "20935__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__0_003", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "I do not take that position, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [149.879], "stop_times": [152.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 149.879}, "reply_to": "20935__0_002", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_004", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "You don't think there's any way this could have been redacted that would satisfy you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [152.651], "stop_times": [158.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 152.651}, "reply_to": "20935__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__0_005", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Oh, I disagree.\nIt could have been redacted--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [158.415, 160.085], "stop_times": [160.085, 161.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 158.415}, "reply_to": "20935__0_004", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_006", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "What do you disagree with?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [161.687], "stop_times": [162.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 161.687}, "reply_to": "20935__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__0_007", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--I disagree that it could have been redacted to allow in the simple statement that I hit and I struck the victim.\nThat is the only part--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [162.539, 170.603], "stop_times": [170.603, 172.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 162.539}, "reply_to": "20935__0_006", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_008", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "But you don't think it could be redacted to say, me and a few other guys.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [172.444], "stop_times": [176.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 172.444}, "reply_to": "20935__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__0_009", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--I don't believe that is necessary, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [176.297], "stop_times": [177.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 176.297}, "reply_to": "20935__0_008", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_010", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Well, I'm not asking whether it's necessary.\nI'm asking whether it can be permitted constitutionally--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [177.587, 180.559], "stop_times": [180.559, 184.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 177.587}, "reply_to": "20935__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__0_011", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "It should not be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [184.141], "stop_times": [185.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 184.141}, "reply_to": "20935__0_010", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_012", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--and it looks to me like that doesn't point to anybody, if you say, me and a few other guys.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [185.202], "stop_times": [191.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 185.202}, "reply_to": "20935__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__0_013", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--It does not point to a specific person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [191.267], "stop_times": [193.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 191.267}, "reply_to": "20935__0_012", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_014", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [193.568], "stop_times": [193.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 193.568}, "reply_to": "20935__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__0_015", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "What it does--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [193.788], "stop_times": [195.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 193.788}, "reply_to": "20935__0_014", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_016", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "And the evidence in this case showed there was quite a gang of men who were involved, somehow, or who at least confronted Stacey at one point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [195.088], "stop_times": [206.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 195.088}, "reply_to": "20935__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__0_017", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--In this case it would not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [206.685], "stop_times": [208.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 206.685}, "reply_to": "20935__0_016", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_018", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Only two were charged.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [208.487], "stop_times": [210.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 208.487}, "reply_to": "20935__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__0_019", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--In this case, Justice O'Connor, it would not have been extremely prejudicial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [210.248], "stop_times": [214.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 210.248}, "reply_to": "20935__0_018", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_020", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [214.552], "stop_times": [214.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 214.552}, "reply_to": "20935__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__0_021", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "But the point I'm trying to make is, that evidence served no legitimate purpose.\nSince it served no legitimate purpose, it should not have been admitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [214.852, 220.746], "stop_times": [220.746, 224.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 214.852}, "reply_to": "20935__0_020", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_022", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "What evidence served no legitimate purpose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [224.987], "stop_times": [226.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 224.987}, "reply_to": "20935__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__0_023", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "That several other witnesses were... several other persons were involved.\nIn other words, there's no reason that Bell's confession needed to include that information.\nThat information was not in dispute at the trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [226.98, 231.572, 235.265], "stop_times": [231.572, 235.265, 238.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 226.98}, "reply_to": "20935__0_022", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_024", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Well, don't you think it would unduly favor your client if all they introduce is a statement that, you know, I beat him up, so it looks as though there wasn't a crowd of people, and the jury looks at your client, or at the other defendant and says, gee, I guess he did it, and looks at your client and says, according to this fellow there was nobody else there.\nDoes the court have to let it in on that basis?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [238.097, 255.809], "stop_times": [255.809, 258.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 238.097}, "reply_to": "20935__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20935__0_025", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Justice Scalia, my position would have to be that it is unnecessary.\nIf it were admitted for... solely for the purpose of putting the statement in context--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [258.209, 263.764], "stop_times": [263.764, 270.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 258.209}, "reply_to": "20935__0_024", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_026", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Mr. Delano, why must it... must your position--\n--Yes.\n--why do you put this in terms of has to be?\nI thought you were emphasizing that when the transcript... that when what the jury sees says, delete, blank space, that that juts out.\nIsn't there a difference whether you're wrong about the other of a... something that shows delete, blank, and something that says, and a couple of other guys?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [270.748, 273.831, 274.101, 275.651, 289.782], "stop_times": [273.831, 274.101, 275.651, 289.782, 299.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 270.748}, "reply_to": "20935__0_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20935__0_027", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--Under the facts of this case, Justice Ginsburg, it doesn't make a difference.\nIf the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [299.687, 303.6], "stop_times": [303.6, 304.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 299.687}, "reply_to": "20935__0_026", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_028", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "It doesn't, you say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [304.371], "stop_times": [304.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 304.371}, "reply_to": "20935__0_027", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20935__0_029", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--It's not a significant difference, no.\nUnder the facts of this case I believe that the thrust of my argument is the use of the term, deleted and deletion, which drew the attention--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [304.65, 306.662], "stop_times": [306.662, 314.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 304.65}, "reply_to": "20935__0_028", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_030", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "But you said a moment ago that if some... the... it wasn't necessary for the statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [314.166], "stop_times": [318.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 314.166}, "reply_to": "20935__0_029", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20935__0_031", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--It is not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [318.871], "stop_times": [319.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 318.871}, "reply_to": "20935__0_030", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_032", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "And where does that figure into the Bruton Marsh calculus?\nI don't recall those cases first analyzing whether the evidence was \"necessary\" for the prosecution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [319.101, 323.433], "stop_times": [323.433, 331.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 319.101}, "reply_to": "20935__0_031", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20935__0_033", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Under Bruton and Marsh the attention seems to be focused towards the end of the process in terms of using a limiting instruction to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [331.6], "stop_times": [340.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 331.6}, "reply_to": "20935__0_032", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_034", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "There was no analysis at all of necessity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [340.355], "stop_times": [344.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 340.355}, "reply_to": "20935__0_033", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20935__0_035", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--There is... in those particular cases there is no analysis of necessity, that is correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [344.286], "stop_times": [349.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 344.286}, "reply_to": "20935__0_034", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_036", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "So why do you bring it up here?\nAre you asking us to extend Bruton?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [349.191, 350.28], "stop_times": [350.28, 352.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 349.191}, "reply_to": "20935__0_035", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20935__0_037", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "No, I'm not asking... I'm trying to put it in a context that's... that would show that although in this case it may not be necessary for the resolution of this case, because the thrust of my argument is the use of the term deleted and deletion, that the use of what this... the respondent refers to as neutral pronouns is very misleading.\nThere are... for example, in this case had there been no other witnesses and we were simply looking at Bell's statement, and Bell said that I hit the victim, but he beat the victim, he dropped the victim on his head, on its face that statement is neutral, but in that context the prosecution is unnecessarily benefiting from a statement that they should not receive any benefit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [352.904, 375.167], "stop_times": [375.167, 405.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 352.904}, "reply_to": "20935__0_036", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_038", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Well, why do you say, unnecessarily?\nI mean, ordinarily evidence is admissible, and you know, you have to show some reason why it isn't.\nThis certainly sounds like relevant evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [405.719, 406.818, 411.443], "stop_times": [406.818, 411.443, 414.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 405.719}, "reply_to": "20935__0_037", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20935__0_039", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "It's unnecessary because it serves really no legitimate purpose.\nIt--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [414.593, 417.955], "stop_times": [417.955, 418.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 414.593}, "reply_to": "20935__0_038", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_040", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Well, but where do you get that analysis from?\nIt doesn't come out of Bruton, it doesn't come out of Marsh, and yet that is the basis on which the Maryland Court of Appeals decided this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [418.414, 420.347], "stop_times": [420.347, 428.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 418.414}, "reply_to": "20935__0_039", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20935__0_041", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--As I understand... the reason for my position is that the parts that are properly admitted are admitted because they incriminate the maker of the statement.\nThe other parts of the statement that are... serve no purpose other than to perhaps put the statement in some sort of a context.\nSince context is not in dispute in this case, they seem to me to be superfluous.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [428.492, 443.482, 451.717], "stop_times": [443.482, 451.717, 455.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 428.492}, "reply_to": "20935__0_040", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_042", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Well, but you can't make it--\n--Let me ask you something else.\nBell's statement strikes me as maybe a declaration against Bell's penal interest.\nIs that possible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [455.94, 456.932, 458.202, 465.297], "stop_times": [456.932, 458.202, 465.297, 466.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 455.94}, "reply_to": "20935__0_041", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__0_043", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Only a limited--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [466.91], "stop_times": [467.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 466.91}, "reply_to": "20935__0_042", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_044", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "And admissible as a result on that basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [467.989], "stop_times": [471.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 467.989}, "reply_to": "20935__0_043", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__0_045", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--Your Honor's opinion in Williamson with a declaration of penal interest was very careful to limit it strictly to declarations against the interest of the party making the statement.\nTo the extent that he admitted, I hit the victim, I beat the victim, it is a declaration against interest.\nBeyond that, it is not a declaration against interest.\nAs in Williamson, I believe Justice Ginsburg in her concurring opinion was... pointed out the confusion that exists where a declaration of interest is really not a declaration against interest, and I think that's what we have in this situation.\nWe only have a very small portion of Bell's confession that actually deals with his involvement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [471.542, 486.421, 494.306, 496.036, 510.829], "stop_times": [486.421, 494.306, 496.036, 510.829, 515.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 471.542}, "reply_to": "20935__0_044", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_046", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Well, certainly some of it does, and I would assume, at least to that extent, it's admissible on that basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [515.669], "stop_times": [522.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 515.669}, "reply_to": "20935__0_045", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__0_047", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "That is correct.\nI have no quarrel with the parts that are incriminating only to Bell.\nThe bulk of the statement, however, is focused on establishing the role of the other participants.\nThere is no need for that evidence.\nIt allowed that evidence to be used for one purpose and one purpose only, to incriminate petitioner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [522.844, 523.414, 527.468, 534.073, 537.015], "stop_times": [523.414, 527.468, 534.073, 537.015, 542.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 522.844}, "reply_to": "20935__0_046", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_048", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "I would like to go back to the very first question that Justice O'Connor had, because I want to be clear about your answer, and I'm not sure I understood it.\nThe statement is altered so that it says, who was in the group that beat Stacey, and the redacted statement does not use the word delete, deleted, it does not have wite out, it just says, me and a few other guys.\nShould that be admitted by the trial judge, and if not, why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [542.167, 549.752, 564.631], "stop_times": [549.752, 564.631, 568.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 542.167}, "reply_to": "20935__0_047", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20935__0_049", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "In... my position is, it should not be admitted by the trial judge.\nIf it is, as in this case, admitted by the trial judge, it would perhaps be harmless error in light of the other evidence presented at trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [568.705, 572.848], "stop_times": [572.848, 579.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 568.705}, "reply_to": "20935__0_048", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_050", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "But does the admission of the statement, as I have described it, violate the Confrontation Clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [579.942], "stop_times": [587.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 579.942}, "reply_to": "20935__0_049", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20935__0_051", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "The admission does, in my opinion, violate the Confrontation Clause because it incriminates other persons.\nIt does not strictly incriminate the person who made the statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [587.788, 595.482], "stop_times": [595.482, 601.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 587.788}, "reply_to": "20935__0_050", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_052", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "But the test is not whether it incriminates other persons.\nIt's whether there's an inevitable inference that inculpates the nonconfessing codefendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [601.116, 604.759], "stop_times": [604.759, 612.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 601.116}, "reply_to": "20935__0_051", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__0_053", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "In--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [612.713], "stop_times": [613.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 612.713}, "reply_to": "20935__0_052", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_054", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Not other persons.\nThere are no other persons here before us who are making that argument.\nWe're not concerned about them.\nWe're concerned about the codefendant, aren't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [613.123, 614.586, 618.697, 620.239], "stop_times": [614.586, 618.697, 620.239, 622.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 613.123}, "reply_to": "20935__0_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__0_055", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [622.49], "stop_times": [623.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 622.49}, "reply_to": "20935__0_054", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_056", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "That's the only one.\nSo I don't understand your answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [623.031, 624.672], "stop_times": [624.672, 626.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 623.031}, "reply_to": "20935__0_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20935__0_057", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "My answer is that the substantial risk of prejudice arose from the use of the terms, deleted and deletion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [626.631], "stop_times": [637.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 626.631}, "reply_to": "20935__0_056", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_058", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Prejudice to whom?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [637.89], "stop_times": [638.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 637.89}, "reply_to": "20935__0_057", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__0_059", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Prejudice to the petitioner.\nThe use of the terms deleted and deletion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [638.769, 639.771], "stop_times": [639.771, 641.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 638.769}, "reply_to": "20935__0_058", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_060", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Okay, and you agree that the risk of prejudice is a world apart, a world of difference, depending upon whether you use the word deleted or whether you use a generic term like, me and some other guys.\nThere's a big difference, isn't there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [641.842, 655.422], "stop_times": [655.422, 657.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 641.842}, "reply_to": "20935__0_059", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20935__0_061", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Absolutely, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [657.183], "stop_times": [658.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 657.183}, "reply_to": "20935__0_060", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_062", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [658.254], "stop_times": [658.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 658.254}, "reply_to": "20935__0_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20935__0_063", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "In this case, I think common experience, there's no other reason for the use of the term, deleted, other than to point to the other defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [658.645], "stop_times": [667.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 658.645}, "reply_to": "20935__0_062", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_064", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Why is that?\nI must say, I don't understand why there's a world of difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [667.24, 668.159], "stop_times": [668.159, 672.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 667.24}, "reply_to": "20935__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20935__0_065", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [672.242], "stop_times": [673.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 672.242}, "reply_to": "20935__0_064", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_066", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Don't these other guys have names?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [673.214], "stop_times": [674.293], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 673.214}, "reply_to": "20935__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20935__0_067", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--The common experience, I think, of most people today is that whenever there's... as on television, there's the blip that censors a word.\nImmediately you focus in on the blip.\nYou immediately think, what was omitted.\nIn this case... in that case there may be five or six possible words that were omitted, but in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [674.293, 685.891, 688.612, 692.064], "stop_times": [685.891, 688.612, 692.064, 699.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 674.293}, "reply_to": "20935__0_066", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_068", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "But don't you... if you're talking about redacting it to, instead of putting in the blip you're putting in a brackets, and some other guys, or is this the actual statement we're talking about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [699.24], "stop_times": [708.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 699.24}, "reply_to": "20935__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20935__0_069", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--This... in the statement, there were wited out spaces--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [708.416], "stop_times": [712.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 708.416}, "reply_to": "20935__0_068", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_070", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [712.607], "stop_times": [712.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 712.607}, "reply_to": "20935__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20935__0_071", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--and then comma, wited out spaces and then the other information.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [712.918], "stop_times": [715.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 712.918}, "reply_to": "20935__0_070", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_072", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Well, no one suggests that instead of witing them out you could put in, bracket, and some other guys, close bracket.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [715.549], "stop_times": [721.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 715.549}, "reply_to": "20935__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20935__0_073", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [721.473], "stop_times": [722.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 721.473}, "reply_to": "20935__0_072", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_074", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "You don't know of any redactions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [722.235], "stop_times": [723.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 722.235}, "reply_to": "20935__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20935__0_075", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "No, I do not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [723.807], "stop_times": [724.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 723.807}, "reply_to": "20935__0_074", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_076", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--I mean, redactions... that's not an option, so you either use the statement blanking out stuff, or you don't use the statement.\nYou can't recreate the statement with brackets.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [724.408, 731.602], "stop_times": [731.602, 734.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 724.408}, "reply_to": "20935__0_075", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20935__0_077", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [734.554], "stop_times": [736.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 734.554}, "reply_to": "20935__0_076", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_078", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Or there's a--\n--In this case--\n--No, there's a third option that Justice O'Connor questioned.\nThe statement as we have it is me, deleted, deleted, and a few other guys.\nThe question put to you was, suppose it just said, me and a few other guys, without showing any deletion, so that's a third option.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [736.417, 736.937, 737.416, 740.077, 745.422], "stop_times": [736.937, 737.416, 740.077, 745.422, 752.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 736.417}, "reply_to": "20935__0_077", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20935__0_079", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.\nI do not want to have the Court left with the impression that my case rises or falls on the several other guys.\nThe extreme prejudice in this case comes from the use, deleted and deletion.\nIn context, several other guys is consistent with other testimony at trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [752.766, 753.947, 765.005, 769.686], "stop_times": [753.947, 765.005, 769.686, 774.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 752.766}, "reply_to": "20935__0_078", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_080", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Was Marsh different in that respect?\nDid Marsh have the delete, wite out--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [774.931, 777.263], "stop_times": [777.263, 780.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 774.931}, "reply_to": "20935__0_079", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20935__0_081", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Marsh... in Marsh the... from the reading of the statement itself you would have no idea of the... even the existence of another person, so it is quite different from this.\nThis case is not that much different from Bruton in that it... the word deleted is not that much different from the use of a person's actual name, and again focusing on the use of deleted and several other witnesses, I think the juxtaposition of those terms aggravates the situation, because had it been redacted to just say, several other witnesses, the jury's attention would not have been drawn to the fact that names were omitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [780.805, 791.431], "stop_times": [791.431, 815.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 780.805}, "reply_to": "20935__0_080", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_082", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--Well, what do you say the jury would likely infer from the word deleted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [815.217], "stop_times": [820.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 815.217}, "reply_to": "20935__0_081", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20935__0_083", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "I think the jury would be left with no other conclusion than that it was petitioner's name and Tank's name.\nNow, which deleted referred to petitioner and which deleted referred to Tank is some... a matter that they could speculate on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [820.991, 829.325], "stop_times": [829.325, 835.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 820.991}, "reply_to": "20935__0_082", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_084", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "And why is that?\nWhy do you say the jury would most likely have reached that conclusion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [835.69, 837.4], "stop_times": [837.4, 841.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 835.69}, "reply_to": "20935__0_083", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20935__0_085", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "If... it calls to the jury's attention that a name has been removed.\nIn the context of this trial, there's no need to remove any other name, other than the defendant's name.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [841.154, 849.381], "stop_times": [849.381, 855.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 841.154}, "reply_to": "20935__0_084", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_086", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Well, but certainly there was evidence that other people, other than those who were indicted, had participated, was there not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [855.993], "stop_times": [862.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 855.993}, "reply_to": "20935__0_085", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20935__0_087", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Correct, but there was no reason to delete the names of those other persons.\nThe only name--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [862.868, 866.949], "stop_times": [866.949, 867.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 862.868}, "reply_to": "20935__0_086", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_088", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Well, but the jury doesn't know that.\nThe jury isn't apprised of the Bruton rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [867.449, 869.232], "stop_times": [869.232, 873.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 867.449}, "reply_to": "20935__0_087", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20935__0_089", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--The jury I think, Mr. Justice Rehnquist, is aware of common usage of the word deleted, common usage of blipping on television... it's the same as when you receive... or, at least, when I receive a letter and something is blacked out on a letter.\nYour attention is drawn immediately to the blacked out portion of the letter, and you try to figure out what is there.\nThat is the problem we have here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [873.073, 893.74, 898.752], "stop_times": [893.74, 898.752, 901.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 873.073}, "reply_to": "20935__0_088", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_090", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "But here, if the jurors do sit and try to figure out what is there, they could have come to not just one but it seems to me several conclusions.\nIt could have referred to any one of the people whom testimony indicated had participated in this thing, some of whom were not the codefendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [901.183, 908.168], "stop_times": [908.168, 915.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 901.183}, "reply_to": "20935__0_089", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20935__0_091", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "The only testimony that referred to specific... there were two witnesses in this case, and both only identified... there were only two names ever used at trial, other than the... Bell, the name of petitioner, and the name of Tank.\nNo other names were mentioned by any other witnesses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [915.272, 930.272], "stop_times": [930.272, 932.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 915.272}, "reply_to": "20935__0_090", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_092", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "But wasn't there testimony that other people, although perhaps not by name, had participated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [932.523], "stop_times": [935.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 932.523}, "reply_to": "20935__0_091", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20935__0_093", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "There was other testimony that several other witnesses were involved, that is correct.\nBut the jury, I believe, with the term deleted would be left to draw no other conclusion than, why put this term in here if we're not trying to keep something from us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [935.906, 941.58], "stop_times": [941.58, 954.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 935.906}, "reply_to": "20935__0_092", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_094", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Mr. Delano, would you tell us what you think the test is for determining a Bruton violation in these circumstances?\nAs I understand it, the court below applied a test to the effect that a Bruton violation occurs when a codefendant's confession, either facially or by compelling and inevitable inference, inculpates a nonconfessing defendant.\nAre you satisfied with that test?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [954.017, 965.985, 986.548], "stop_times": [965.985, 986.548, 988.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 954.017}, "reply_to": "20935__0_093", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__0_095", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "I'm not satisfied with that test.\nI believe that test is too stringent.\nI don't believe that the defense should have the burden, or that there should be an inevitable to that conclusion.\nI think if a juror could reasonably draw the conclusion, that is sufficient, because then, if the jury can reasonably draw that conclusion, that creates a substantial risk.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [988.99, 989.711, 990.87, 1000.207], "stop_times": [989.711, 990.87, 1000.207, 1008.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 988.99}, "reply_to": "20935__0_094", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_096", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Have we adopted a test here?\nI mean, what do you rely on as pointing us to the proper test to be used?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1008.722, 1011.066], "stop_times": [1011.066, 1016.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1008.722}, "reply_to": "20935__0_095", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__0_097", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "The test that the court has thus far used is the language whether it creates a substantial risk of prejudice to the other defendant.\nI believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1016.79, 1025.345], "stop_times": [1025.345, 1026.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1016.79}, "reply_to": "20935__0_096", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_098", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "And you think that's not as strict as compelling and inevitable inference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1026.874], "stop_times": [1031.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1026.874}, "reply_to": "20935__0_097", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__0_099", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--Clearly not.\nThe Court of Special Appeals adopted what I would consider the proper test, which is the, paraphrasing the test that the Court used in Bruton, and referred to that there existed in this case a substantial risk that the jury would be forced to the conclusion that deleted and deletion referred to petitioner, and I think that is the test that should be used.\nThe introduction of the peti... codefendant's redacted confession clearly had a devastating effect on petitioner's case.\nAs I earlier observed, there were only two witnesses in this case.\nThere was only one eye witness to the actual beating.\nThe other witness saw the parties running towards the scene, and that witness' testimony was consistent with petitioner's defense.\nThe statement as admitted provided corroboration for that witness' testimony as to the parties involved.\nI think prejudice from that was clear.\nIn addition, in the State in prosecution, whether it was a deliberate or... deliberate or unintentional sort of drew together the statement that was used and the arrest of petitioner to sort of make it very clear to the jury that this statement actually led to petitioner's arrest, so in that sense it was also prejudicial.\nIf the Court has no further questions, I would reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1031.559, 1031.919, 1054.653, 1064.819, 1068.872, 1072.435, 1080.67, 1089.206, 1091.637, 1115.803], "stop_times": [1031.919, 1054.653, 1064.819, 1068.872, 1072.435, 1080.67, 1089.206, 1091.637, 1115.803, 1119.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1031.559}, "reply_to": "20935__0_098", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__0_100", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Very well, Mr. Delano.\nMs. Shepard, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1119.825, 1121.426], "stop_times": [1121.426, 1124.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1119.825}, "reply_to": "20935__0_099", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20935__1_000", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe statement, who was in the group that beat Stacey, me, deleted, deleted, and other guys, communicates only that Mr. Bell and others committed a crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1124.007, 1130.752], "stop_times": [1130.752, 1142.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1124.007}, "reply_to": "20935__0_100", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_001", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Then why are they bothering to delete it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1142.22], "stop_times": [1144.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1142.22}, "reply_to": "20935__1_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20935__1_002", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "I'm not entirely clear why they bothered to delete it.\nIt was one of the many options.\nCertainly, no one asked for the option, me, and then delete everything until you get to other guys.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1144.433, 1148.495, 1151.105], "stop_times": [1148.495, 1151.105, 1157.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1144.433}, "reply_to": "20935__1_001", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_003", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "No, but isn't the juror's reasonable reaction, on hearing that, to ask the question, why are they placing this word deletion in place of whatever it was he spoke, and isn't the likely answer to that question, because it refers to this other guy in the other chair here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1157.65], "stop_times": [1175.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1157.65}, "reply_to": "20935__1_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20935__1_004", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "I disagree, Your Honor.\nI believe that the natural conclusion is, something is missing here.\nBeyond that, it is possible a juror might say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1175.981, 1178.094, 1181.956], "stop_times": [1178.094, 1181.956, 1185.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1175.981}, "reply_to": "20935__1_003", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_005", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "But the juror would never say, gee, I wonder what it is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1185.158], "stop_times": [1188.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1185.158}, "reply_to": "20935__1_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20935__1_006", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--A juror very well might even say, I wonder what it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1188.38], "stop_times": [1191.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1188.38}, "reply_to": "20935__1_005", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_007", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "And if he did, what would he be likely to conclude?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1191.372], "stop_times": [1193.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1191.372}, "reply_to": "20935__1_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20935__1_008", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "We think that what the juror would be likely to conclude is what the Court noted in Richardson, which is, maybe it is the name of a person, but I can't even use that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1193.473], "stop_times": [1204.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1193.473}, "reply_to": "20935__1_007", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_009", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Well, they take it that it's the name of a person, don't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1204.33], "stop_times": [1205.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1204.33}, "reply_to": "20935__1_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20935__1_010", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--Well, it could be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1205.842], "stop_times": [1207.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1205.842}, "reply_to": "20935__1_009", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_011", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "I mean, doesn't the context make that clear beyond doubt?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1207.222], "stop_times": [1210.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1207.222}, "reply_to": "20935__1_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20935__1_012", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--Perhaps in this case, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1210.374], "stop_times": [1212.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1210.374}, "reply_to": "20935__1_011", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_013", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "This is a really slow jury if they can't figure out these are names of people.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1212.217, 1215.268], "stop_times": [1215.268, 1215.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1212.217}, "reply_to": "20935__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20935__1_014", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--But let me give you an example.\nTowards the end of the statement, who has Park Heights jackets, it simply says... as read by the detective it just said, deleted.\nIn that instance, for example, there's not even a mention of whether it's one, two, three, four names--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1215.559, 1217.389, 1222.942], "stop_times": [1217.389, 1222.942, 1228.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1215.559}, "reply_to": "20935__1_013", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_015", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Well, isn't that... I mean, what's a jury supposed to think, that they deleted it because of John Smith, who's not in the courtroom, his name is in there?\nI mean, what is a jury supposed to think?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1228.336, 1236.513], "stop_times": [1236.513, 1238.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1228.336}, "reply_to": "20935__1_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20935__1_016", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--I think... I think, Your Honor, that the jury thinks much like it thinks when there's an objection that's sustained that evidence doesn't come in.\nThere is something here that we're not allowed to consider as evidence.\nIt is possible that a juror might go on to conclude, and that could be a specific name.\nIt could be a specific person.\nBut there's nothing necessarily in simply the fact of a redaction or the fact of a deletion that would necessarily lead a juror to conclude, (a) that it's the identity of someone and, even further, that it has to be the identity of this one other person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1238.183, 1245.279, 1248.8, 1255.063, 1256.746], "stop_times": [1245.279, 1248.8, 1255.063, 1256.746, 1271.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1238.183}, "reply_to": "20935__1_015", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_017", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Well, let me ask you something else.\nI mean, I think your inference isn't as generous as it has to be, but what if the deletion in the one statement that we're going back to made it read in answer, me and a few other guys, without deletion and deletion in there.\nIs that less likely that the jury would draw the inference that the petitioner was one of the people?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1271.575, 1273.355, 1289.946], "stop_times": [1273.355, 1289.946, 1301.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1271.575}, "reply_to": "20935__1_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__1_018", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "I don't think so, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1301.986], "stop_times": [1303.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1301.986}, "reply_to": "20935__1_017", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_019", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "No?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1303.245], "stop_times": [1303.525], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1303.245}, "reply_to": "20935__1_018", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20935__1_020", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "I think that would exalt form over substance.\nThat is, the statement, me and a few other guys, me, and then followed maybe by six blanks, five blanks, both communicate the same thing, or a mixture thereof, two blanks and then some other guys, or even three blanks and some other guys.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1303.525, 1306.177], "stop_times": [1306.177, 1321.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1303.525}, "reply_to": "20935__1_019", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_021", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Well, the one communicates simply there were some other guys.\nThe other communicates not just that there were some other guys, but that there's some reason why you can't name one of those guys.\nIt surely communicates that to the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1321.288, 1325.51, 1331.774], "stop_times": [1325.51, 1331.774, 1333.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1321.288}, "reply_to": "20935__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20935__1_022", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "It--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1333.937], "stop_times": [1334.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1333.937}, "reply_to": "20935__1_021", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_023", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "And what do you think the reason probably is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1334.785], "stop_times": [1337.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1334.785}, "reply_to": "20935__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20935__1_024", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1337.537], "stop_times": [1338.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1337.537}, "reply_to": "20935__1_023", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_025", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "That it was the other defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1338.589], "stop_times": [1339.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1338.589}, "reply_to": "20935__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20935__1_026", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--Not necessarily.\nIt could be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1339.42, 1340.89], "stop_times": [1340.89, 1341.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1339.42}, "reply_to": "20935__1_025", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_027", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "No, not necessarily--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1341.37], "stop_times": [1342.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1341.37}, "reply_to": "20935__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20935__1_028", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--a confidential informant.\nIt could be someone who's awaiting trial.\nThere are many--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1342.422, 1343.551, 1345.544], "stop_times": [1343.551, 1345.544, 1346.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1342.422}, "reply_to": "20935__1_027", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_029", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--Ms. Shepard, there was a very fine jurist who once said on this subject, the temptation to fill in the blanks is nigh irresistible.\nI don't think you have to have a legal mind to see that.\nThe natural... when one is faced with a blank one thinks, well, which one was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1346.225, 1356.25, 1359.662], "stop_times": [1356.25, 1359.662, 1367.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1346.225}, "reply_to": "20935__1_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20935__1_030", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--I wouldn't disagree with you, Your Honor.\nThat is, we don't need to resolve this case by concluding that a juror would not speculate as to what could be there.\nThat is, we would concede that a juror might speculate, that a juror might even speculate there's a name, and that a juror might even wonder--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1367.267, 1369.149, 1375.114], "stop_times": [1369.149, 1375.114, 1382.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1367.267}, "reply_to": "20935__1_029", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_031", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "And that that speculation would be nigh irresistible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1382.947], "stop_times": [1386.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1382.947}, "reply_to": "20935__1_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20935__1_032", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--Perhaps.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1386.21], "stop_times": [1386.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1386.21}, "reply_to": "20935__1_031", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_033", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "And if the Government could get across the same information without having, name deleted, or wite out, why isn't that the appropriate way to proceed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1386.961], "stop_times": [1398.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1386.961}, "reply_to": "20935__1_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20935__1_034", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "I think, Your Honor, because ultimately the question of how a statement needs to be redacted is one that requires a balancing of a great many factors.\nWhether in one case it's better in some way to use a Richardson redaction, or to use a deletion, might change from statement to statement to statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1398.589, 1408.915], "stop_times": [1408.915, 1418.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1398.589}, "reply_to": "20935__1_033", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_035", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "May I interrupt with just one question, if I may?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1418.581], "stop_times": [1419.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1418.581}, "reply_to": "20935__1_034", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20935__1_036", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1419.951], "stop_times": [1420.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1419.951}, "reply_to": "20935__1_035", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_037", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "The... on one side of the scale is, you want to get all of the statement in that tends to incriminate the maker of the statement, Bell, and you have no right to put anything in that doesn't incriminate him, isn't that correct?\nAnd you have a statement here, who else has these jackets, answer, deletion.\nWhat possible purpose could that question serve in terms of the proper purpose for the confession, namely, incriminating Bell?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1420.652, 1432.81, 1438.042], "stop_times": [1432.81, 1438.042, 1445.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1420.652}, "reply_to": "20935__1_036", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20935__1_038", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Your Honor, I wouldn't argue that that statement is necessary.\nIt simply wasn't redacted.\nNo one requested that it be redacted.\nThe identities were redacted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1445.569, 1449.64, 1451.092, 1453.213], "stop_times": [1449.64, 1451.092, 1453.213, 1455.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1445.569}, "reply_to": "20935__1_037", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_039", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "There was no objection to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1455.154], "stop_times": [1456.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1455.154}, "reply_to": "20935__1_038", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20935__1_040", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "There was no objection to the form of the redaction in this particular instance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1456.004], "stop_times": [1459.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1456.004}, "reply_to": "20935__1_039", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_041", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Really?\nThey accepted this without objection?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1459.377, 1460.328], "stop_times": [1460.328, 1462.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1459.377}, "reply_to": "20935__1_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20935__1_042", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Correct, Your Honor.\nThey did not suggest... I'm not meaning to suggest that they did not object to the confession coming in, but they did not object to this form of redaction, that is, that the use of blanks or deleted versus a retyping, versus the use of pseudonyms, for example, there was no suggestion as to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1462.919, 1464.189], "stop_times": [1464.189, 1481.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1462.919}, "reply_to": "20935__1_041", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_043", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Ms. Shepard, did the trial court charge the jury in this case at the time Bell's... that it was to be used only against him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1481.473], "stop_times": [1488.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1481.473}, "reply_to": "20935__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20935__1_044", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "And did so, Your Honor, in very clear and unmistakable terms.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1488.747], "stop_times": [1493.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1488.747}, "reply_to": "20935__1_043", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_045", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "So if the jury followed that instruction it would not have used it against Mr. Gray.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1493.579], "stop_times": [1499.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1493.579}, "reply_to": "20935__1_044", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20935__1_046", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, and that is precisely our argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1499.004], "stop_times": [1501.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1499.004}, "reply_to": "20935__1_045", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_047", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Well, I guess the instruction was given in the Bruton case, too, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1501.896], "stop_times": [1505.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1501.896}, "reply_to": "20935__1_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__1_048", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "True, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1505.877], "stop_times": [1508.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1505.877}, "reply_to": "20935__1_047", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_049", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Yes, but the Court nonetheless held in that case there was a violation of the Confrontation Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1508.459], "stop_times": [1514.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1508.459}, "reply_to": "20935__1_048", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__1_050", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Because, Your Honor, that confession on its face expressly inculpated the defendant.\nThat is, there is a significance--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1514.865, 1519.848], "stop_times": [1519.848, 1522.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1514.865}, "reply_to": "20935__1_049", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_051", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Yes.\nWell, then I guess this Court left open in Marsh whether a redacted confession would be okay, didn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1522.24, 1522.5], "stop_times": [1522.5, 1529.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1522.24}, "reply_to": "20935__1_050", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__1_052", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--Correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1529.045], "stop_times": [1529.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1529.045}, "reply_to": "20935__1_051", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_053", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "So that's what we're trying to decide here.\nWould you help us with what test you think we ought to use?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1529.953, 1531.796], "stop_times": [1531.796, 1535.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1529.953}, "reply_to": "20935__1_052", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__1_054", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nI believe the issue of redaction, what to redact, how to redact, should be left in the first instance to the trial court based on the feasibility of redaction.\nIn some instance that will be the practical visibility.\nIs it a video, for example?\nIt may make it very difficult to redact without indicating there has been a deletion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1535.486, 1536.648, 1545.755, 1548.697, 1550.227], "stop_times": [1536.648, 1545.755, 1548.697, 1550.227, 1554.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1535.486}, "reply_to": "20935__1_053", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_055", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Well, so if it's too difficult to redact, the whole thing comes in?\nIs that what you're arguing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1554.46, 1557.823], "stop_times": [1557.823, 1558.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1554.46}, "reply_to": "20935__1_054", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__1_056", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "I would be arguing against that.\nFor example, I'm using a video as a way to suggest that redactions that indicate there's a deletion are perhaps inevitable... for example, through the use of video... unless, of course, the cost were not to allow video confessions, which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1558.642, 1560.885], "stop_times": [1560.885, 1575.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1558.642}, "reply_to": "20935__1_055", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_057", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Excuse me.\nI thought you were going to help us with an articulation of what the test is.\nThe Maryland court below applied this either facially or by compelling an inevitable inference inculpates the nonconfessing defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1575.424, 1575.925, 1581.448], "stop_times": [1575.925, 1581.448, 1592.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1575.424}, "reply_to": "20935__1_056", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__1_058", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1592.455], "stop_times": [1593.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1592.455}, "reply_to": "20935__1_057", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_059", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Is that the right test?\nThe petitioner says no, that it should be whether there's a substantial risk that it would inculpate the codefendant, which is drawn from language of our earlier opinions.\nWhat is the test?\nWhat should it be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1593.186, 1594.446, 1608.885, 1609.746], "stop_times": [1594.446, 1608.885, 1609.746, 1610.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1593.186}, "reply_to": "20935__1_058", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__1_060", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Your Honor, we share the view of the Maryland Court of Appeals and the view that you previously expressed as to the test.\nIt should focus on whether the confession expressly implicates, identifies the defendant, or does the equivalent of identifying the defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1610.617, 1617.833], "stop_times": [1617.833, 1627.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1610.617}, "reply_to": "20935__1_059", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_061", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Why should we adopt anything other than the most rigorous of tests?\nI mean, what's the big deal?\nIf you're worried about the redaction you could try the other individuals separately.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1627.13, 1631.45, 1632.482], "stop_times": [1631.45, 1632.482, 1637.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1627.13}, "reply_to": "20935__1_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20935__1_062", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Well, Your Honor, there is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1637.385], "stop_times": [1639.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1637.385}, "reply_to": "20935__1_061", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_063", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Then you can get the whole thing in in its full term.\nIt seems to me that... I'm not very sympathetic to your insistence that we have to allow the redaction unless there's a certainty that the jury's going to fill it in with the name of the other defendant.\nTry the two separately, then you get the whole thing in, word for word.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1639.357, 1642.85, 1655.149], "stop_times": [1642.85, 1655.149, 1657.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1639.357}, "reply_to": "20935__1_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20935__1_064", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--The reason for that, Your Honor, is the judgment, we believe correct in our case, that this Court has recognized before, that joint trials are of vital importance to our system, that there is a cost of foregoing a joint trial, a cost to society, a cost to the administration of the criminal justice system, sometimes a cost to one of the codefendants, whose best shot at a defense is to stand side by side with someone who's more culpable.\nThose are very real costs that this Court has previously recognized.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1657.87, 1686.22], "stop_times": [1686.22, 1690.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1657.87}, "reply_to": "20935__1_063", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_065", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "And those arguments would have even greater weight if Bruton itself were somehow questionable, if we were using this rule because Bruton was too harsh.\nI have seen nothing in the commentary or in the briefs to suggest that latter proposition, though.\nIt is a given, is it not, or maybe I'm incorrect, that Bruton is absolutely correct.\nThere was a cardinal violation of confrontation when you cannot examine a witness who implicates you by a previous statement, or am I incorrect about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1690.284, 1701.671, 1708.385, 1715.421], "stop_times": [1701.671, 1708.385, 1715.421, 1725.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1690.284}, "reply_to": "20935__1_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20935__1_066", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Let me answer it this way, Justice Kennedy.\nI believe in some ways that is incorrect.\nThat is, Bruton does rest on a value judgment: What do we think jurors will do?\nIt is an issue of fact that is unprovable and unknowable in all likelihood.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1725.028, 1728.271, 1730.491, 1736.013], "stop_times": [1728.271, 1730.491, 1736.013, 1742.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1725.028}, "reply_to": "20935__1_065", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_067", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Well, does it rest on what you call a value judgment after everyone adopts the premise that there would be a confrontation problem, that there is a confrontation violation if the statement comes in and there can be no cross examination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1742.458], "stop_times": [1757.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1742.458}, "reply_to": "20935__1_066", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20935__1_068", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "If one assumes that the jury cannot follow the instruction not to use this evidence against a particular defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1757.779], "stop_times": [1765.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1757.779}, "reply_to": "20935__1_067", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_069", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Was there statistical evidence in Bruton indicating juries don't follow instructions like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1765.073], "stop_times": [1771.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1765.073}, "reply_to": "20935__1_068", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20935__1_070", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "There was not, and there still is not.\nThat is, the statistics, or the studies, to the extent they're even capable of divining jury behavior, indicate that jurors try to follow instructions, that where the instructions are clear, that's what they will endeavor to do.\nAnd we do know this much from our practical experience, that day after day in trial courts jurors are told, not even by a codefendant but by the prosecutor, we believe, we the State believe this person is guilty of a crime in opening statements and closing statements.\nThose jurors are told that is not evidence, and juries are capable of making decisions based on the evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1771.477, 1773.838, 1787.619, 1802.539], "stop_times": [1773.838, 1787.619, 1802.539, 1809.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1771.477}, "reply_to": "20935__1_069", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_071", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Well, you didn't--\n--I guess Bruton is wrong, then.\nIs that... I mean, if all that is true, Bruton was wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1809.321, 1809.733, 1810.503], "stop_times": [1809.733, 1810.503, 1814.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1809.321}, "reply_to": "20935__1_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20935__1_072", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "We don't need to decide--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1814.715], "stop_times": [1816.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1814.715}, "reply_to": "20935__1_071", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_073", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "And we've assumed the opposite of what you're saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1816.497], "stop_times": [1817.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1816.497}, "reply_to": "20935__1_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20935__1_074", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--We don't need to decide that issue, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1817.929], "stop_times": [1819.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1817.929}, "reply_to": "20935__1_073", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_075", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Well, and Maryland didn't cross petition and bring that here, did it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1819.669], "stop_times": [1822.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1819.669}, "reply_to": "20935__1_074", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__1_076", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "We did not, and that issue is not before the Court.\nWe're not urging the Court to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1822.55, 1825.292], "stop_times": [1825.292, 1826.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1822.55}, "reply_to": "20935__1_075", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_077", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "But you certainly could have.\nGiven your view, it's rather surprising that you didn't, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1826.812, 1827.954], "stop_times": [1827.954, 1831.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1826.812}, "reply_to": "20935__1_076", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__1_078", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1831.106], "stop_times": [1832.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1831.106}, "reply_to": "20935__1_077", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_079", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "How do you explain that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1832.628], "stop_times": [1833.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1832.628}, "reply_to": "20935__1_078", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__1_080", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--I explain that, Your Honor, to this extent.\nThat is, we understand Bruton.\nBruton lays down a rule that can be followed.\nWhat we are here today for is to make... is to argue that that area, that area where the Court has said juries cannot be trusted, is not expanded beyond the statement, this codefendant committed the crime, to an area where the statement is simply, and all it communicates is, someone else committed the crime.\nThat is, a group of people committed the crime.\nThat is not the kind of statement that Bruton--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1833.818, 1836.359, 1838.52, 1840.613, 1858.993, 1861.895], "stop_times": [1836.359, 1838.52, 1840.613, 1858.993, 1861.895, 1864.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1833.818}, "reply_to": "20935__1_079", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_081", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "It isn't just someone else, it's someone else whose name I am not allowed to tell you in this trial committed the crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1864.669], "stop_times": [1870.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1864.669}, "reply_to": "20935__1_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20935__1_082", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--Even if you go that far, Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1870.881], "stop_times": [1871.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1870.881}, "reply_to": "20935__1_081", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_083", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Yes, okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1871.542], "stop_times": [1872.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1871.542}, "reply_to": "20935__1_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20935__1_084", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--Someone else--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1872.023], "stop_times": [1872.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1872.023}, "reply_to": "20935__1_083", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_085", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "But even beyond that, the next question by the prosecutor after reading the statement, all right, now officer, after he gave you that information you subsequently were able to arrest Mr. Kevin Gray, is that correct, didn't that pretty much create an inference that they'd been talking about Gray?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1872.514], "stop_times": [1888.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1872.514}, "reply_to": "20935__1_084", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20935__1_086", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--I think not, Your Honor, and let me answer that question in two ways.\nOne is, there was no objection to that at that point in the defense, so that had to have been preserved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1888.496, 1891.507], "stop_times": [1891.507, 1897.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1888.496}, "reply_to": "20935__1_085", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_087", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Perhaps it might not have been very wise tactics to get up and start screaming right at that point, I don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1897.499], "stop_times": [1902.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1897.499}, "reply_to": "20935__1_086", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20935__1_088", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "We think the reason for the lack of objection--\n[Laughter]\nThe reason for the lack of objection was another.\nThat is, as we pointed out in our brief, in the context of the questioning, what actually happened was, they asked the detective, what information did you develop?\nI went, interviewed witnesses.\nBased on that, what did you do?\nI got an arrest warrant.\nWhat did you do then?\nI went to look for Mr. Bell and Mr. Gray.\nI found Mr. Bell.\nI could not find Mr. Gray.\nSo what did you do next?\nI brought Mr. Bell in, I got his statement.\nWere you subsequently able to arrest Mr. Gray?\nThere is no tying in at all of Mr. Gray to the statement of Mr. Bell.\nIt was simply understood in its context.\nIt's a chronology, and in fact the decision on the arrest warrant had been made before Mr. Bell's confession was obtained.\nYour Honor, we believe that the trial courts need the discretion to determine what redaction best can balance the concerns of the Sixth Amendment and the needs of the trial.\nIn any given case, a court might conclude that a Richardson redaction is appropriate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1902.003, 1903.615, 1903.866, 1906.985, 1915.232, 1916.803, 1918.192, 1919.594, 1921.084, 1924.386, 1925.688, 1927.379, 1928.56, 1929.91, 1932.504, 1939.306, 1941.399, 1947.851, 1960.851], "stop_times": [1903.615, 1903.866, 1906.985, 1915.232, 1916.803, 1918.192, 1919.594, 1921.084, 1924.386, 1925.688, 1927.379, 1928.56, 1929.91, 1932.504, 1939.306, 1941.399, 1947.851, 1960.851, 1966.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1902.003}, "reply_to": "20935__1_087", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_089", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "There is something disturbing about giving to the jury a statement which is, in a sense, fictional, and in some courts counsel and the judge even agree that there is a completely fictional statement.\nThey have it made at a different place, when the defendant was alone in the police car when he really wasn't.\nThis is at some level somewhat offensive to the system, it seems to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1966.236, 1979.604, 1983.597], "stop_times": [1979.604, 1983.597, 1988.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1966.236}, "reply_to": "20935__1_088", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20935__1_090", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "I agree, Your Honor, and that is one of the factors that ought to be considered in determining whether a deletion in a particular case should be used, as opposed to a rewrite of the confession.\nThat is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [1988.419, 2000.578], "stop_times": [2000.578, 2001.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1988.419}, "reply_to": "20935__1_089", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_091", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Or whether the confession ought to come in at all in the joint trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2001.269], "stop_times": [2004.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2001.269}, "reply_to": "20935__1_090", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20935__1_092", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--Well, that is ultimately, Your Honor, also a possibility, certainly, whether the confession comes in at all, but certainly we should respect the desire to include confessions in trials, and we should respect the importance of joint trials.\nBeyond that, what a trial court may use in determining how best to redact is both matters of the practicality of the redaction, matters of the substantive communication, does it so distort the meaning.\nA court may also take into account the interests of the defendant, the interests of the codefendant, the interest of the State, and in any given confession and in any given statement, that balance may result in one form of redaction or another.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2004.431, 2018.601, 2031.219], "stop_times": [2018.601, 2031.219, 2045.137], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2004.431}, "reply_to": "20935__1_091", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_093", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Ms. Shepard, one problem with leaving it all up to the discretion of the trial judge is, I've given you the response of one judge, nigh irresistible inference.\nAnother one should say, no, there's not any necessary inference.\nIt could be anybody, Mr. X, could be Mr. White, Mr. Gray.\nSo it just... there's a tremendous amount of disparity if you just say, well, it's up to the trial judge, and given that range, that one would say, perfectly okay to have blanks, and the other one says the jury is going to make that inference, I know they are, so I'm going to keep it from them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2045.137, 2055.733, 2060.056, 2066.091], "stop_times": [2055.733, 2060.056, 2066.091, 2085.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2045.137}, "reply_to": "20935__1_092", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20935__1_094", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "I think I understand your question.\nI'm not sure, beyond giving the trial courts, that is, the ultimate rule and the ultimate goal.\nThat is, the responsibility here is to make sure that a statement or a confession that comes in does not directly or by compelling or inevitable inference identify the defendant.\nIt is possible the trial courts might have a different judgment in a particular statement, but that is almost impossible to anticipate or correct, and the judgment may change, depending on the nature of the statement, too.\nI believe it might... it would not be possible to give more firm guidance than simply making sure that at the end when a confession is admitted it does not, in fact, expressly incriminate or inculpate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2085.322, 2088.215, 2093.35, 2104.216, 2118.245], "stop_times": [2088.215, 2093.35, 2104.216, 2118.245, 2132.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2085.322}, "reply_to": "20935__1_093", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_095", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Well, you certainly could adopt a rule saying, in redacting we're not going to use the fill in the blank form of redaction.\nThat would be simple enough, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2132.353, 2138.888], "stop_times": [2138.888, 2141.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2132.353}, "reply_to": "20935__1_094", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__1_096", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--It would, Your Honor, but it would not accomplish the purposes of the Sixth Amendment, necessarily, that is, and again--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2141.219], "stop_times": [2146.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2141.219}, "reply_to": "20935__1_095", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_097", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Well, it would go a step in that direction, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2146.992], "stop_times": [2149.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2146.992}, "reply_to": "20935__1_096", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__1_098", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--Not necessarily, Your Honor, because it will come perhaps... for example, in this case, it might change the evidence as to Mr. Bell.\nMr. Bell's best defense may have been here, well, I had a part in it, but it was really a small part, all I did was this, and so a codefendant might have an interest in making sure that the fullness of the story be told, and that the redaction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2149.716, 2156.259], "stop_times": [2156.259, 2169.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2149.716}, "reply_to": "20935__1_097", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_099", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "But not a sufficient interest to get on the witness stand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2169.439], "stop_times": [2171.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2169.439}, "reply_to": "20935__1_098", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20935__1_100", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--Absolutely, Your Honor, and we can't require him to sacrifice that, but he nevertheless has an interest in making sure that as much of his confession--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2171.61], "stop_times": [2180.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2171.61}, "reply_to": "20935__1_099", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_101", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Well then, you're really saying this statement was not a statement against the interest of the declarant.\nYou're sort of describing it as a self serving statement that ought to get in to prove that he's not as guilty as the other guy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2180.506, 2184.359], "stop_times": [2184.359, 2190.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2180.506}, "reply_to": "20935__1_100", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20935__1_102", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--I believe the defendant, whether the statement is truthful or not, certainly has an interest in deciding and determining that as much as possible of the statement in the form that he gave it comes in in that fashion, so to avoid, for example, the prejudice that might occur from a statement that communicates I and Mr. Bell and only Mr. Bell cause this harm to the victim.\nThat's a legitimate interest, and that's one that could be balanced out and perhaps might better be balanced out by use of a deletion or some form of redaction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2190.322, 2209.644], "stop_times": [2209.644, 2217.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2190.322}, "reply_to": "20935__1_101", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_103", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Well, would you agree that this is... would... If the case turned on the admissibility of this statement as to whether or not it was against the declarant's penal interest, would you agree that it probably does not meet that test, because there are substantial exculpatory or mitigating reasons why he might want to make that statement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2217.929], "stop_times": [2244.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2217.929}, "reply_to": "20935__1_102", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20935__1_104", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "That's a little difficult for me to answer, Justice Kennedy.\nI suspect because we are the State we would be in a position to argue that much of that statement would come in as a declaration--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2244.957, 2247.348], "stop_times": [2247.348, 2254.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2244.957}, "reply_to": "20935__1_103", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_105", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Well, was any objection ever made on the ground, not the Bruton ground but on the ground that it was not a permissible exception to the Confrontation Clause otherwise?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2254.905], "stop_times": [2264.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2254.905}, "reply_to": "20935__1_104", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20935__1_106", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--Not otherwise, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2264.622], "stop_times": [2267.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2264.622}, "reply_to": "20935__1_105", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_107", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "So the Bruton ground was the only one asserted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2267.102], "stop_times": [2269.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2267.102}, "reply_to": "20935__1_106", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20935__1_108", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThe benefits... I'm sorry, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2269.704, 2270.803], "stop_times": [2270.803, 2277.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2269.704}, "reply_to": "20935__1_107", "speaker": "carmen_m_shepard"}
{"id": "20935__1_109", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "I think your time has expired, Ms. Shepard.\nMr. McLeese, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2277.939, 2279.241], "stop_times": [2279.241, 2281.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2277.939}, "reply_to": "20935__1_108", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20935__2_000", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIn Richardson, the Court rejected a Confrontation Clause challenge to one category of redacted confession, those which make no mention at all of the existence of the complaining defendant.\nOur submission in the present case is that the Court should reach the same conclusion as to a second category of redacted confession, those which do not name or describe the complaining defendant.\nSuch confessions do not vividly and facially incriminate the complaining defendant, and thus are quite different from the confession at issue in Bruton.\nIn addition, the costs of expanding Bruton--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2281.942, 2288.896, 2299.664, 2308.799, 2316.203], "stop_times": [2288.896, 2299.664, 2308.799, 2316.203, 2318.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2281.942}, "reply_to": "20935__1_109", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "20935__2_001", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Oh, I think we're really talking about the fill in the blank sort of approach here for redaction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2318.244], "stop_times": [2323.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2318.244}, "reply_to": "20935__2_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__2_002", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--To answer that question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2323.56], "stop_times": [2326.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2323.56}, "reply_to": "20935__2_001", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "20935__2_003", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Why don't we just eliminate that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2326.001], "stop_times": [2327.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2326.001}, "reply_to": "20935__2_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__2_004", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--Well, there would be costs to that if what you mean is a manner of redaction that would not be apparent to the jury at all, so the jury would not know that there had been any redaction at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2327.521], "stop_times": [2336.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2327.521}, "reply_to": "20935__2_003", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "20935__2_005", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "To the extent that it's possible you avoid fill in the blanks.\nIt was sure possible here.\nYou easily could have redacted this one so that you didn't leave it deletion, deletion, with an obvious fill in the blank sort of effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2336.397, 2340.32, 2341.9], "stop_times": [2340.32, 2341.9, 2353.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2336.397}, "reply_to": "20935__2_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__2_006", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "One could have deleted... one could have redacted this confession so that you didn't have the obvious blanks.\nI think it would have been impossible, while still using the signed confession, to redact it in a way so that it would not have been apparent to the jury that there had been some kind of redaction that took place.\nBut to use this case as an example, I don't think that the fact that the redaction was achieved here by using deletion, something that was not the subject of an objection, sufficiently or significantly increased the risks that the jury would infer that Bell named petitioner.\nThere were a number of deletions.\nThere were a number of names that were deleted, so the jury would not have, had it been inclined to speculate, had it been inclined to disregard its instructions not to do that, it would not have reached the natural conclusion that these deletions must be driven by the fact that petitioner must have... that declarant must have named petitioner, because a number of names were deleted.\nThe jury, had it speculated, could have concluded only--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2353.467, 2358.622, 2367.278, 2382.689, 2384.502, 2401.752], "stop_times": [2358.622, 2367.278, 2382.689, 2384.502, 2401.752, 2403.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2353.467}, "reply_to": "20935__2_005", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "20935__2_007", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Well, it was the... Bell and Tank I think is all that we're talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2403.825], "stop_times": [2408.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2403.825}, "reply_to": "20935__2_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__2_008", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--I don't think the jury here, had it been inclined to speculate, would have had any reason to speculate that the names in Bell's confession happened to map on to Bell and Tank as opposed to other names in this group.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2408.657], "stop_times": [2419.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2408.657}, "reply_to": "20935__2_007", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "20935__2_009", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Except there would have been no reason to delete the names of third parties who were not involved in the courtroom, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2419.213], "stop_times": [2424.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2419.213}, "reply_to": "20935__2_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20935__2_010", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Tank was not involved in this courtroom, either, and the jury, again had it been inclined to speculate and disregard instructions, would have had no reason to surmise that... had no reason to think that Tank's name would need to be deleted.\nI think if the jury had been speculating it would have been speculating only that whoever Bell named, there must be some rule that says that all those names don't come in, and the jury would have had no reason to guess that among the people Bell named was petitioner.\nThere would have been... on the facts of this case, that deletion would not have been a red flag that would have taken the jury anywhere even if the jury had been inclined to try to follow that up.\nThey had--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2424.326, 2436.064, 2450.653, 2458.67], "stop_times": [2436.064, 2450.653, 2458.67, 2459.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2424.326}, "reply_to": "20935__2_009", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "20935__2_011", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "If we find that there's a powerful, compelling inference that defendant is a person named in the confession, disagreeing with your analysis, and if we were writing on a clean slate, no Bruton, would there be any way to admit this statement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2459.702], "stop_times": [2474.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2459.702}, "reply_to": "20935__2_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20935__2_012", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--I think that... I don't think that even with a slate that includes Bruton the conclusion you describe would dictate an unfavorable answer for the State here, and what I mean by that is the following.\nI think that Richardson, for example, makes clear that this area does not turn on the mere, even certainty that the jury will end up through a chain of inference reaching a conclusion that evidence is incriminating but must be set aside.\nWhat Richardson says is, even where, through a chain of inference, the jury may get to that point, we can trust juries, as we trust them to set aside other things, many other things, to set that aside, that Bruton is a very narrow exception to that rule that arises in circumstances where as a self contained unit the confession comes in in a form that says this person committed the offense with me, so it's not... I don't think that even if one were to conclude that the inference is one that the jury would have drawn in a particular case eventually, had it sat down and done everything, I don't think that supports the conclusion there was a Bruton violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2474.362, 2493.902, 2507.391], "stop_times": [2493.902, 2507.391, 2543.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2474.362}, "reply_to": "20935__2_011", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "20935__2_013", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Mr. McLeese, what's the worst kind of a different situation in which we trust the jury to obey an instruction from the judge not to consider what it has just heard.\nWhat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2543.495, 2558.165], "stop_times": [2558.165, 2558.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2543.495}, "reply_to": "20935__2_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20935__2_014", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Two cases come--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2558.546], "stop_times": [2560.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2558.546}, "reply_to": "20935__2_013", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "20935__2_015", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--Give me another example that's as bad as this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2560.286], "stop_times": [2562.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2560.286}, "reply_to": "20935__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20935__2_016", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--Well, two come to mind.\nSpencer v. Texas is a case in which, at the defendant's murder trial, the jury is informed that the defendant has a prior murder conviction and is told, do not consider that in determining guilt or innocence.\nSet that aside when you determine guilt or innocence.\nConsider it solely for purposes of the appropriate sentence that you will later impose in a single guilt and sentencing proceeding.\nAnother comparable example is Harris v.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2562.109, 2563.428, 2574.914, 2576.967, 2585.072], "stop_times": [2563.428, 2574.914, 2576.967, 2585.072, 2588.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2562.109}, "reply_to": "20935__2_015", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "20935__2_017", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "That may not be as persuasive as it might have been, because most States after that have taken a different view on separating sentencing from guilt just because of the obvious risk of prejudice in that very situation, so you sort of have a general consensus that that case, maybe there was no constitutional violation, but there was obvious unfairness there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2588.154], "stop_times": [2606.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2588.154}, "reply_to": "20935__2_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20935__2_018", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--But the relevant inquiry here is whether the risk of jury inability to set aside incriminating evidence is a constitutional violation, and what Spencer v. Texas said, whatever jurisdiction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2606.167], "stop_times": [2617.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2606.167}, "reply_to": "20935__2_017", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "20935__2_019", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Well, if they do... no doubt about the fact, if they did treat this as admissible against the codefendant it would be a blatant constitutional violation.\nYou would agree with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2617.343, 2626.229], "stop_times": [2626.229, 2627.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2617.343}, "reply_to": "20935__2_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20935__2_020", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--I do agree with that.\nThe other answer to your question, Justice Scalia, is Harris v. New York, where statements that are taken illegally, in violation of Miranda, are admitted to the jury and the jury is told, you may consider this confession, this statement solely for purposes of assessing the credibility, the testimonial credibility of the defendant.\nYou must set it aside as it might be considered substantive evidence of the defendant's guilt, and I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2627.0, 2627.812, 2646.653], "stop_times": [2627.812, 2646.653, 2652.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2627.0}, "reply_to": "20935__2_019", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "20935__2_021", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "So what is the... you can't substitute for the defendant's name a concrete description.\nYou couldn't say, the man with the red hair and the limp.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2652.356, 2657.398], "stop_times": [2657.398, 2661.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2652.356}, "reply_to": "20935__2_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20935__2_022", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--No.\nThe rule that we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2661.351, 2662.403], "stop_times": [2662.403, 2663.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2661.351}, "reply_to": "20935__2_021", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "20935__2_023", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "All right.\nSo what is the rule, in your opinion, about when a blank separated by commas or some other pictorial depiction in a written confession is equivalent to the red eyed man, or red haired man with the limp?\nWhat's the... how would you decide that one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2663.422, 2663.672, 2679.625], "stop_times": [2663.672, 2679.625, 2682.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2663.422}, "reply_to": "20935__2_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20935__2_024", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--The rule we propose is limited to confessions which do not contain additional descriptive information of the kind that you suggest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2682.606], "stop_times": [2689.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2682.606}, "reply_to": "20935__2_023", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "20935__2_025", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Why, in fact... I think one argument is that a blank separated by commas in the circumstance is quite close to a particular description because it sets the jury to thinking, and they see blank, blank, and some other guys, and they know who that is just as if it said, the red haired man with the limp.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2689.14], "stop_times": [2710.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2689.14}, "reply_to": "20935__2_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20935__2_026", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "In this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2710.894], "stop_times": [2712.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2710.894}, "reply_to": "20935__2_025", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "20935__2_027", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "So what's the test to decide whether they're right or not?\nHow would you formulate the test that would distinguish the blanks, or however you want to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2712.086, 2714.487], "stop_times": [2714.487, 2721.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2712.086}, "reply_to": "20935__2_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20935__2_028", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--With respect to confessions, confessions that are... even as redacted contain additional descriptive information.\nWhen that descriptive information is so vividly and obviously linked to the defendant... the example that comes to mind is this Court's decision in Harrington--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2721.102, 2727.186], "stop_times": [2727.186, 2735.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2721.102}, "reply_to": "20935__2_027", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "20935__2_029", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--Vivid and obvious, and if not that, if we accepted their view, are there many, many retrials that would be necessary throughout the country?\nThat is to say, if this interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is... in other words, has it been a habit of prosecutors simply to redact through the use of a blank with a comma?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2735.621, 2744.586], "stop_times": [2744.586, 2756.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2735.621}, "reply_to": "20935__2_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20935__2_030", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--I think that that is a widely... redaction that would be apparent to the jury, perhaps, but that deletes the names, is a relatively common practice in the State and Federal system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2756.775], "stop_times": [2769.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2756.775}, "reply_to": "20935__2_029", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "20935__2_031", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Well, where you say, physically, deletion, deletion, as opposed to simply leaving it out--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2769.284], "stop_times": [2776.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2769.284}, "reply_to": "20935__2_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__2_032", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "That is less clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2776.096], "stop_times": [2778.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2776.096}, "reply_to": "20935__2_031", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "20935__2_033", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--so that it says me and other guys, instead of me, deletion, deletion, and a bunch of other guys?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2778.347], "stop_times": [2786.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2778.347}, "reply_to": "20935__2_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__2_034", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "That is less clear.\nI think it's very hard--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2786.565, 2787.433], "stop_times": [2787.433, 2788.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2786.565}, "reply_to": "20935__2_033", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "20935__2_035", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "We don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2788.455], "stop_times": [2788.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2788.455}, "reply_to": "20935__2_034", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20935__2_036", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--It's very hard to tell how common a practice that is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2788.725], "stop_times": [2791.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2788.725}, "reply_to": "20935__2_035", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "20935__2_037", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "I would assume... is it fair to assume that if you thought this practice were common you would have told us that?\nYou would have gotten complaints--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2791.176, 2798.773], "stop_times": [2798.773, 2800.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2791.176}, "reply_to": "20935__2_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20935__2_038", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "If I were aware that it were common, I certainly would have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2800.313], "stop_times": [2801.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2800.313}, "reply_to": "20935__2_037", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "20935__2_039", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--So people haven't been complaining to you about it.\nI mean, the case is well publicized, and people know about it, prosecutors know about it.\nIs it a fair assumption from the fact that you don't know about it that this is not a common practice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2801.963, 2804.547, 2808.879], "stop_times": [2804.547, 2808.879, 2814.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2801.963}, "reply_to": "20935__2_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20935__2_040", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "That is... when you say this is not a common practice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2814.601], "stop_times": [2816.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2814.601}, "reply_to": "20935__2_039", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "20935__2_041", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "The use of the word deletion, deletion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2816.083], "stop_times": [2817.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2816.083}, "reply_to": "20935__2_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20935__2_042", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--In the Federal system there certainly is not a lot of lower court case law addressing that particular method of redaction.\nThere--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2817.904, 2824.7], "stop_times": [2824.7, 2825.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2817.904}, "reply_to": "20935__2_041", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "20935__2_043", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Could that be because of the warning that this Court gave in Marsh, the footnote that says, we express no opinion on the admissibility of a confession in which the defendant's name has been replaced with a symbol?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2825.481], "stop_times": [2837.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2825.481}, "reply_to": "20935__2_042", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20935__2_044", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--I should be clear that, on the other hand, redactions that continue to describe the role of the unnamed other participants by use of terms other than deletion, like the other guy, or him, that is an extremely common practice in the Federal courts areas and has met widespread acceptance in the lower Federal courts.\nIn fact, the overwhelming weight of authority in the Federal courts is to approve that practice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2837.198, 2855.918], "stop_times": [2855.918, 2859.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2837.198}, "reply_to": "20935__2_043", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "20935__2_045", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "But I think when Justice O'Connor started reading how this might have been presented and she said, me and a few other guys, that is a distinction from me and delete, delete.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2859.882], "stop_times": [2872.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2859.882}, "reply_to": "20935__2_044", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20935__2_046", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "That's true.\nWe don't think the constitutional answer turns on that distinction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2872.12, 2873.45], "stop_times": [2873.45, 2875.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2872.12}, "reply_to": "20935__2_045", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "20935__2_047", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Thank you, Mr. McLeese.\nMr. Delano, you have 11 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2875.701, 2880.696], "stop_times": [2880.696, 2884.677], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2875.701}, "reply_to": "20935__2_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20935__3_000", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Your Honor, in answer to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2884.677], "stop_times": [2888.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2884.677}, "reply_to": "20935__2_047", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__3_001", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Is the proper pronunciation of your name Delano, or Delano?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2888.58], "stop_times": [2892.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2888.58}, "reply_to": "20935__3_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20935__3_002", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--That's a source of confusion even within my own family, but--\n[Laughter]\n--we use the pronunciation Delano.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2892.032, 2895.245, 2895.496], "stop_times": [2895.245, 2895.496, 2898.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2892.032}, "reply_to": "20935__3_001", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__3_003", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Delano.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2898.597], "stop_times": [2899.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2898.597}, "reply_to": "20935__3_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20935__3_004", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "In answer to the Court's question about whether this was preserved or not, counsel at the end of the hearing on the admissibility of the statement clearly indicated that they objected to this statement as admitted, and clearly pointed out to the court that the statement as redacted strengthened the case of... against petitioner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2899.088], "stop_times": [2926.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2899.088}, "reply_to": "20935__3_003", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__3_005", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "But was objection made on the non Bruton ground that it just was a violation of, perhaps the Confrontation Clause on some other basis?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2926.806], "stop_times": [2936.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2926.806}, "reply_to": "20935__3_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20935__3_006", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThe only objection was on the Bruton ground, and at trial petitioner was granted a continuing objection to any testimony concerning the statement and it was clear that this point was preserved, and I would also point out that the preservation argument had never been presented in any Maryland court and was not presented to this Court in the brief in opposition, so I really don't believe that issue is properly before the Court.\nIn answer to Justice Breyer's question concerning the use of deletions, in my brief I cited five State courts that have condemned the practice and three circuit courts, including Judge Friendly's opinion where they condemned the practice of deletion.\nEven in those States that have adopted the so called facial implication doctrine I could find no cases in which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2936.213, 2936.904, 2961.57, 2980.254], "stop_times": [2936.904, 2961.57, 2980.254, 2987.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2936.213}, "reply_to": "20935__3_005", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__3_007", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "How are they supposed to do it?\nPresumably there's a physical document with some writing on it, and the physical document then has some names on it, and so how in your opinion is the... is this piece of paper supposed to be presented into evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [2987.817, 2988.889], "stop_times": [2988.889, 3001.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2987.817}, "reply_to": "20935__3_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20935__3_008", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--I would suppose that the piece of paper would have to be retyped or rewritten.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [3001.575], "stop_times": [3006.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3001.575}, "reply_to": "20935__3_007", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__3_009", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "But then you can't submit the original.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [3006.36], "stop_times": [3008.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3006.36}, "reply_to": "20935__3_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20935__3_010", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Perhaps you might not be able to submit the original.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [3008.411], "stop_times": [3010.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3008.411}, "reply_to": "20935__3_009", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__3_011", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Well, what do you... when you say perhaps, I mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [3010.751], "stop_times": [3011.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3010.751}, "reply_to": "20935__3_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20935__3_012", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [3011.613], "stop_times": [3011.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3011.613}, "reply_to": "20935__3_011", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__3_013", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--what precisely do you think is supposed to happen?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [3011.903], "stop_times": [3014.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3011.903}, "reply_to": "20935__3_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20935__3_014", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--If it showed a blank space, you would not be able to present the original.\nThe prosecution has the option of substituting a typewritten, but more importantly the prosecution has the option at trial of testifying as to what the actual statement said, so that it's not that they're not going to get what the statement has in evidence.\nThey might not get the actual statement in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [3014.095, 3018.447, 3034.597], "stop_times": [3018.447, 3034.597, 3036.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3014.095}, "reply_to": "20935__3_013", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__3_015", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Who would testify?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [3036.798], "stop_times": [3038.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3036.798}, "reply_to": "20935__3_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20935__3_016", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "The officer... as in this case, the officer who took the statement.\nHe's the one who testified as to what was in the statement, and he's the one who offered the statement into evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [3038.2, 3041.052], "stop_times": [3041.052, 3046.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3038.2}, "reply_to": "20935__3_015", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__3_017", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "And he would testify and slightly modify what he actually heard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [3046.074], "stop_times": [3051.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3046.074}, "reply_to": "20935__3_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20935__3_018", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Yes.\nAs in this case, he modified what he heard by saying, deleted and deletion.\nHe could have modified and omitted the deleted and deletion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [3051.638, 3052.039, 3055.442], "stop_times": [3052.039, 3055.442, 3058.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3051.638}, "reply_to": "20935__3_017", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__3_019", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Is it the case, going to be the case when we get into this record and so forth we'll find that you didn't... there's no one suggesting that the way to do this is to simply read the confession and leave the names out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [3058.503], "stop_times": [3071.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3058.503}, "reply_to": "20935__3_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20935__3_020", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [3071.192], "stop_times": [3072.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3071.192}, "reply_to": "20935__3_019", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__3_021", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "How are we supposed to deal with that, that this alternative wasn't presented to the judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [3072.742], "stop_times": [3077.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3072.742}, "reply_to": "20935__3_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20935__3_022", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Under Maryland evidentiary law the Court of Special Appeals and the Court of Appeals were of the mind that this issue had been preserved and again, the issue had not been presented by respondent in any form of a cross petition, so I don't believe that that's necessary for the Court to reach that issue.\nI think it's been reached by the Maryland courts and decided that this was preserved as far as Maryland evidentiary law was concerned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [3077.584, 3099.861], "stop_times": [3099.861, 3106.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3077.584}, "reply_to": "20935__3_021", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__3_023", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "You're telling us that when we go to the objection what we will find is something that says in so many words the confession ought to be kept out because this is not good enough under Bruton, something like that, is that what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [3106.256], "stop_times": [3117.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3106.256}, "reply_to": "20935__3_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20935__3_024", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "The objection was entirely under Bruton.\nRichardson was not mentioned, and at the end... I may be paraphrasing slightly, but the language was that this clearly strengthens the case that the redactions are not sufficient, but it still, under Bruton, incriminates the petitioner, and it strengthens the case against petitioner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [3117.091, 3118.573], "stop_times": [3118.573, 3136.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3117.091}, "reply_to": "20935__3_023", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__3_025", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "--So that the only thing you didn't do was get up and say, I'll tell you how to do it right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [3136.065], "stop_times": [3140.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3136.065}, "reply_to": "20935__3_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20935__3_026", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "That is correct.\nThe counsel, defense counsel did not suggest an alternative, but I don't believe the defense counsel had that absolute responsibility under Maryland law.\nAnd without trying to lessen the significance of the deletions, because I agree entirely with the Court that that is the most damaging part in this case, I would point out that the way that the deletions were done in this case, they used the term deletion and, in juxtaposition to the term, several other witnesses.\nThat language basically paralleled the testimony at trial.\nIt was always, name, name, and several other guys, so we're not here strictly with a case of deletion.\nWe're here with a case of deletion plus several other guys, and I think that only aggravates the... or increases the potential for prejudice.\nUnless the Court has any other questions, I would submit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [3140.978, 3141.509, 3151.006, 3171.178, 3175.732, 3182.307, 3192.383], "stop_times": [3141.509, 3151.006, 3171.178, 3175.732, 3182.307, 3192.383, 3195.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3140.978}, "reply_to": "20935__3_025", "speaker": "arthur_a_delano_jr"}
{"id": "20935__3_027", "conversation_id": "20935", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Delano.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8653", "start_times": [3195.225, 3197.769], "stop_times": [3197.769, 3198.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3195.225}, "reply_to": "20935__3_026", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21214__0_000", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 96-8986, Arnold Hohn v. the United States.\nMs. Penner, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [0.0, 8.758], "stop_times": [8.758, 16.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21214__0_001", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nFor the last half century this Court has been granting writs of certiorari to review erroneous refusals by the appellate courts to allow statutorily authorized and meritorious appeals.\nThat historical practice is fully consonant with the broad jurisdictional power conferred on this Court under the statutory certiorari provision, section 1254, and residually under the All Writs Act.\nThe statutory certiorari provision vests this Court with the power to review all cases in the courts of appeals over which those courts have jurisdiction regardless of the condition of those cases and irrespective of any decision that the court of appeals may have made.\nThis Court confirmed in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [16.091, 21.605, 32.47, 44.279, 59.781], "stop_times": [21.605, 32.47, 44.279, 59.781, 61.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 16.091}, "reply_to": "21214__0_000", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_002", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Well, I think in light of House v. Mayo, I think it's very hard to argue that there is statutory certiorari jurisdiction unless we want to overrule that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [61.523], "stop_times": [76.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 61.523}, "reply_to": "21214__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21214__0_003", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--I submit that Nixon v. Fitzgerald has already called into very serious question the underpinnings of the statutory certiorari decision in House.\nHouse suggested that no case could be in the court of appeals if the certificate had been denied merely because the statute prohibited an appeal from entering the court of appeals absent a certificate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [76.642, 86.397], "stop_times": [86.397, 97.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 76.642}, "reply_to": "21214__0_002", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_004", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Did the Nixon case discuss the jurisdictional point at length?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [97.444], "stop_times": [101.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 97.444}, "reply_to": "21214__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21214__0_005", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "It did not, but it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [101.477], "stop_times": [102.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 101.477}, "reply_to": "21214__0_004", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_006", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Well then, our rule is that jurisdiction that has been assumed without any elaborate discussion is not really to be regarded as contradicting a prior case that did discuss jurisdiction.\nIsn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [102.669, 114.997], "stop_times": [114.997, 115.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 102.669}, "reply_to": "21214__0_005", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21214__0_007", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--Mr. Chief Justice, we do not claim that Nixon v. Fitzgerald has even sub silentio overruled House v. Mayo.\nInstead, we claim that it implicitly has rejected the underpinnings of House v. Mayo.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [115.946, 123.803], "stop_times": [123.803, 129.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 115.946}, "reply_to": "21214__0_006", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_008", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "But our precedents say that if jurisdiction is assumed sub silentio, without a discussion of the jurisdiction, that simply doesn't count.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [129.145], "stop_times": [138.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 129.145}, "reply_to": "21214__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21214__0_009", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nIn Nixon v. Fitzgerald the Court made a decision about what section 1254 means, and that decision, its interpretation, is irreconcilable with the holding in House.\nWere the Court to reaffirm the statutory certiorari decision in House, it would have very serious implications for the scope of the section 1254 power which the Court had recognized in Nixon.\nIf a case is, in fact, not in the court of appeals when a court of appeals dismisses for lack of jurisdiction, what is left of Nixon?\nNixon decided that a case is in the court of appeals when there is a jurisdictional--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [138.861, 140.534, 150.848, 160.746, 168.481], "stop_times": [140.534, 150.848, 160.746, 168.481, 173.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 138.861}, "reply_to": "21214__0_008", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_010", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Might have made a mistake.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [173.605], "stop_times": [175.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 173.605}, "reply_to": "21214__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21214__0_011", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--We should be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [175.686], "stop_times": [176.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 175.686}, "reply_to": "21214__0_010", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_012", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Especially in a case entitled United States v. Nixon, or Nixon v. Fitzgerald, and that's why we have that rule, that where we haven't thought and spoken about jurisdiction you shouldn't draw any conclusions from our entertaining of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [176.507], "stop_times": [190.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 176.507}, "reply_to": "21214__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21214__0_013", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [190.896], "stop_times": [191.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 190.896}, "reply_to": "21214__0_012", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_014", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "I thought that's the rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [191.176], "stop_times": [191.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 191.176}, "reply_to": "21214__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21214__0_015", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--The Court thought very carefully about its jurisdiction in both Nixon v. Fitzgerald and the United States v. Nixon.\nI... the cases that we refer to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [191.727, 197.43], "stop_times": [197.43, 199.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 191.727}, "reply_to": "21214__0_014", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_016", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "In fact, there's much more discussion of jurisdiction in those opinions than in House v. Mayo.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [199.501], "stop_times": [202.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 199.501}, "reply_to": "21214__0_015", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21214__0_017", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [202.714], "stop_times": [203.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 202.714}, "reply_to": "21214__0_016", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_018", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "House v. Mayo, they didn't even get a response from the State, as I remember it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [203.145], "stop_times": [206.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 203.145}, "reply_to": "21214__0_017", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21214__0_019", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--Indeed, that's so, and the petition for certiorari was written by House's mother.\n[Laughter]\nI... we submit that even if Nixon v. Fitzgerald and United States v. Nixon are not the best authority for this Court, if the Court is concerned that there was inadequate discussion in those cases, turning to the plain language of the statute alone should be sufficient.\nThe language in section 1254 is as broad as it could possibly be, and we submit that Congress' choice of the language in section 1254 was intentional.\nIt conferred jurisdiction on the court in all cases, not just all appeals, but all cases, all matters, all judicial proceedings that could occur in the court of appeals and that, by its plain terms, would include proceedings of an original matter in the courts of appeals such as an application for a certificate of appealability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [206.317, 209.837, 210.418, 227.649, 237.386], "stop_times": [209.837, 210.418, 227.649, 237.386, 256.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 206.317}, "reply_to": "21214__0_018", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_020", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Well, what about a motion before the court of appeals to expedite a particular case for hearing before the court of appeals?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [256.529], "stop_times": [262.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 256.529}, "reply_to": "21214__0_019", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21214__0_021", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "In our view that also would fall within the plain language.\nThe case in the court of appeals here is the jurisdictional question of whether the court of appeals had the power under section 2253 to decide the merits, to allow the appeal into the court of appeals.\nThat is exactly analogous to the decision that this Court made in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, that the predicate jurisdictional decision to dismiss an appeal for lack of jurisdiction was itself a case in the court of appeals over which this Court has certiorari power under section 1254.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [262.503, 265.615, 278.893], "stop_times": [265.615, 278.893, 296.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 262.503}, "reply_to": "21214__0_020", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_022", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "But don't you run in there, Ms. Penner, to our cases that say that piecemeal appeals are frowned upon?\nYou know, the final judgment rule and that sort of... and here you're saying, we can carve out what one... many people might think was simply one case into two cases.\nOne is the certificate of probable cause application and the other is the merits.\nBut doesn't that just bifurcate things that we have said in other contexts should not be bifurcated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [296.247, 303.189, 312.326, 316.209], "stop_times": [303.189, 312.326, 316.209, 321.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 296.247}, "reply_to": "21214__0_021", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21214__0_023", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "I think there are two answers, Mr. Chief Justice.\nThe first is that, to the extent that there is any bifurcation it's created by Congress itself, which mandated the creation of a gate keeping provision at the same time that it foreclosed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [321.953, 324.555], "stop_times": [324.555, 335.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 321.953}, "reply_to": "21214__0_022", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_024", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [335.131], "stop_times": [335.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 335.131}, "reply_to": "21214__0_023", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21214__0_025", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--review of an appeal unless a certain thing happened in that gate keeping decision, which is a decision to allow the appeal to proceed, but the second--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [335.401], "stop_times": [343.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 335.401}, "reply_to": "21214__0_024", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_026", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--Do you really think that Congress in... having thought about this thing intended that we have jurisdiction to review a decision of the court of appeals not to grant a certificate of probable cause or a certificate of appealability?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [343.775], "stop_times": [356.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 343.775}, "reply_to": "21214__0_025", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21214__0_027", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--In my view, the plain language of section 2253, particularly when compared with the plain language of 2244(b)(3)(E), leaves no doubt that Congress expressly intended this Court to retain the certiorari power it has been exercising for the past half century.\nIn 2253, Congress prohibited only one thing from entering the court of appeals absent a certificate, and that is an appeal to the court of appeals from the final order in a proceeding under sections 2255 or section 2254.\nIt does not say anything about this Court's certiorari power and that silence is very significant when you consider that that provision was amended at the same time that Congress adopted section 2244(b)(3)(E), in which it expressly proscribed this Court from exercising its certiorari jurisdiction over an analogous gate keeping provision in the successive petition context, and I suggest that Congress had a very good reason for doing that.\nIt would have been much more concerned about the accuracy of the gate keeping decision in the first habeas petition context than it would have been in the successive petition context.\nIn the successive petition context, it is guaranteed that a prisoner has gotten a full right of review through the Federal courts.\nIn this context, with Mr. Hohn, for example, no court has yet actually reviewed the merits of his claim.\nHe was kicked out on an invalid waiver doctrine in the district court, and he was kicked out on an invalid ruling on the meaning of section 2253, as the Government has conceded in the court of appeals.\nHe is a Federal prisoner who has never had any hearing on his collateral claim.\nIf the Court concludes that it lacks statutory certiorari power it has residual authority in the All Writs Act to issue a common law writ of certiorari, as the Court held in House v. Mayo.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [356.875, 371.815, 388.765, 414.833, 424.619, 430.993, 438.157, 449.396, 453.157], "stop_times": [371.815, 388.765, 414.833, 424.619, 430.993, 438.157, 449.396, 453.157, 465.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 356.875}, "reply_to": "21214__0_026", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_028", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "That has to... those have to be an aid of jurisdiction, do they not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [465.886], "stop_times": [468.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 465.886}, "reply_to": "21214__0_027", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21214__0_029", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "They do, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [468.788], "stop_times": [469.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 468.788}, "reply_to": "21214__0_028", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_030", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "And by hypothesis here we would not have jurisdiction under the statutory certiorari?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [469.809], "stop_times": [475.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 469.809}, "reply_to": "21214__0_029", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21214__0_031", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "By hypothesis here, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [475.984], "stop_times": [478.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 475.984}, "reply_to": "21214__0_030", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_032", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "So wouldn't it be rather hard to say that that was an aid of our jurisdiction if it was... if our jurisdiction depended on issuing that writ?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [478.255], "stop_times": [484.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 478.255}, "reply_to": "21214__0_031", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21214__0_033", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "It is an aid of the appellate jurisdiction that this Court could exercise over the appeal that the court of appeals has pretermitted by denying the certificate of appealability.\nThis Court has often held that it has the power, even when there is yet no case in the court of appeals, to order a lower court to allow a case to proceed, for example, by ordering a lower court to issue a bench warrant or to decide the merits, or even to allow the record to be transferred to the circuit court of appeals.\nEach of those things, if they were not corrected by this Court, would end the case, which would otherwise develop into one over which this Court would have statutory certiorari power.\nIn this case, for example, if the Court were to reverse through its use of common law certiorari power the holding of the court of appeals that no certificate should be issued, the case would proceed, a decision would be made in the court of appeals, and that case would be reviewable by this Court on statutory certiorari.\nWere the Court not to have that power, it would basically be giving the lower courts the power to eliminate its own jurisdiction, which cannot be the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [484.81, 494.314, 513.318, 523.674, 540.776], "stop_times": [494.314, 513.318, 523.674, 540.776, 549.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 484.81}, "reply_to": "21214__0_032", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_034", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Well, but maybe that's what Congress wanted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [549.671], "stop_times": [550.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 549.671}, "reply_to": "21214__0_033", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21214__0_035", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "When the Court was interpreting the All Writs Act in... I'm sorry, Mr. Chief Justice, are you speaking of section 2253?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [550.62], "stop_times": [558.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 550.62}, "reply_to": "21214__0_034", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_036", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Well, I'm speaking about... of that and whatever else is applicable.\nI mean, to say that this particular result would obtain is not necessarily an argument against that result, it seems to me, if that's what Congress wanted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [558.027, 562.979], "stop_times": [562.979, 570.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 558.027}, "reply_to": "21214__0_035", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21214__0_037", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "In my view, it's a question of comparing the statutory intent in 1254, 1651, and 2253.\n1254 and 1651 are extremely broad jurisdictional grounds of power which I believe cannot easily be read to restrict this Court's power in a way that it could not reach a particular judicial proceeding in the courts of appeals like this one.\nThe second question is whether 2253 indicates any intent to take that power away, and I don't see, in 2253, any suggestion in the plain language, or even in the purpose, to take it away.\nThe purpose of 2253 is to ensure that meritorious appeals proceed and that frivolous ones do not.\nThat purpose of Congress cannot be accomplished if the courts of appeals are applying that standard erroneously.\nThe power of this Court on certiorari merely will permit the Court to ensure that Congress' intent about what appeals should be permitted through the gate are... that those decisions that the courts of appeals made are correct, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [570.974, 579.822, 594.712, 605.898, 612.411, 618.906], "stop_times": [579.822, 594.712, 605.898, 612.411, 618.906, 632.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 570.974}, "reply_to": "21214__0_036", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_038", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "But the issuance of a certificate of appealability by a justice of this Court could accomplish much the same purpose as you say that accomplishes, couldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [632.355], "stop_times": [641.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 632.355}, "reply_to": "21214__0_037", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21214__0_039", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--In many cases, it will accomplish the same purpose for the question of individual justice for a single petitioner.\nFor example, Mr. Hohn would, indeed, be satisfied with issuance of a certificate by this Court, but the question under the All Writs Act is whether the issuance of a common law writ is necessary or appropriate in aid of the Court's appellate jurisdiction, and I submit that that is not just the appellate jurisdiction that the Court exercises in a single case, but a broader institutional interest in its ability to perform its appellate functions.\nHere--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [641.091, 648.155, 672.892], "stop_times": [648.155, 672.892, 673.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 641.091}, "reply_to": "21214__0_038", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_040", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Well, you just lost me.\nI have always assumed that it meant in aid of the Court's jurisdiction in the particular case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [673.502, 674.882], "stop_times": [674.882, 679.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 673.502}, "reply_to": "21214__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21214__0_041", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--Here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [679.627], "stop_times": [680.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 679.627}, "reply_to": "21214__0_040", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_042", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "You're saying it means in aid of somehow the court's role in the society, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [680.736], "stop_times": [684.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 680.736}, "reply_to": "21214__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21214__0_043", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--I believe that its purpose is to permit both.\nHere, it is in aid of the court's appellate jurisdiction in that it preserves a case that ultimately will come before the Court on statutory certiorari, as I mentioned earlier.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [684.99, 687.361], "stop_times": [687.361, 695.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 684.99}, "reply_to": "21214__0_042", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_044", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [695.545], "stop_times": [696.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 695.545}, "reply_to": "21214__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21214__0_045", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "In addition, it is appropriate and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [696.397], "stop_times": [699.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 696.397}, "reply_to": "21214__0_044", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_046", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--But that one could be handled by... by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [699.078], "stop_times": [701.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 699.078}, "reply_to": "21214__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21214__0_047", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--By a... that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [701.309], "stop_times": [703.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 701.309}, "reply_to": "21214__0_046", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_048", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--By the application to a justice, who could refer it to the whole Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [703.062], "stop_times": [706.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 703.062}, "reply_to": "21214__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21214__0_049", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, but the application is an ineffectual and cumbersome tool for the Court to accomplish its appellate functions of ensuring uniformity among the circuit courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [706.815], "stop_times": [719.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 706.815}, "reply_to": "21214__0_048", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_050", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "But its appellate functions are defined by Congress, are they not?\nThere isn't some big appellate function up there in the sky that we can assume that... it's just what Congress says it should be, subject to the exceptions that Congress may provide.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [719.081, 721.963], "stop_times": [721.963, 733.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 719.081}, "reply_to": "21214__0_049", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21214__0_051", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Had Congress indicated an intention to prevent this Court from exercising its common law certiorari power, a slightly different question might be presented, but here there simply is no indication of that in section 2253.\nIt was completely silent on the subject and in comparison with section 2244, in which it barred certiorari review, it's fairly clear that Congress intended for this Court to continue to police the decisions of the lower court about what appeals could be taken in a habeas case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [733.142, 748.199], "stop_times": [748.199, 765.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 733.142}, "reply_to": "21214__0_050", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_052", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Ms. Penner, why wouldn't referral by the circuit justice to the full Court suffice to protect the appellate jurisdiction in the sky aspect of the whole thing?\nWhy wouldn't that be sufficient?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [765.163, 774.787], "stop_times": [774.787, 776.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 765.163}, "reply_to": "21214__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21214__0_053", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "I guess one question is, if I... if Congress intended to eliminate the Court's certiorari power it seems unclear why it would have intended the Court to perform what is essentially the same function as that which it performs on certiorari through use of the application process.\nI... the Court would be rendering binding decisions on the meaning of constitutional rights that were resolving circuit conflicts in highly developed opinions before the full Court through the application process, which is highly unusual.\nI think the Court's practice strongly suggests that that is not its preferred method of practice in the application--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [776.98, 794.301, 806.649], "stop_times": [794.301, 806.649, 813.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 776.98}, "reply_to": "21214__0_052", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_054", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Well, maybe not, but it seems to me that the burden is on you if you want to have an... you know, an original writ issued to show that it is necessary and that there's no other way to get this thing done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [813.665], "stop_times": [823.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 813.665}, "reply_to": "21214__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21214__0_055", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--The All Writs Act speaks of the... a power being... existing when it is either necessary or appropriate.\nIn this Court's decision in Alkali, it confirmed that that power is available not merely to curb excesses of jurisdiction by the lower courts, but also to force lower courts to exercise their jurisdiction when it is appropriate to do so.\nThis is a case in which it would be appropriate for the Court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction through use of the All Writs Act.\nIt is certainly true that the Court could conceivably stretch the application process broad enough to make it so like the certiorari process that it can perform certiorari functions through the application process, but it is unclear why Congress would have intended that.\nIt also is extremely awkward, because it relegates to a single justice... typically when an applicant submits their application for a certificate to a single justice, it relegates to that justice the responsibility for determining whether the issue raises matters of national importance or a circuit conflict that warrant the full Court's attention.\nAnd in contrast, in the certiorari process, all members of the Court have the opportunity to consider that question of whether it is worthy of the full Court's attention.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [823.743, 830.695, 843.364, 850.369, 867.691, 888.484], "stop_times": [830.695, 843.364, 850.369, 867.691, 888.484, 897.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 823.743}, "reply_to": "21214__0_054", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_056", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "So you think if we agree with you that you can get a... you know, a certiorari writ when you do get an application to a single justice, and I probably get more of them than anybody else, I don't have to worry about all of these cosmic questions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [897.701], "stop_times": [912.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 897.701}, "reply_to": "21214__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21214__0_057", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "I'm sorry, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [912.57], "stop_times": [913.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 912.57}, "reply_to": "21214__0_056", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_058", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Well, you say that one of the disadvantages of not agreeing with you on the certiorari point is that each justice to whom an application is submitted would have to worry about such questions as establishing what the law ought to be in circuit conflicts and all of that.\nWhereas I assume the consequence is, the unuttered consequence, if I agree with you, then I don't have to worry about that any more.\nWhen I get these individual applications, all I have to think about... and I should never refer, never have to think about referring it to the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [913.469, 932.313, 941.058], "stop_times": [932.313, 941.058, 948.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 913.469}, "reply_to": "21214__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21214__0_059", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Surely the burden on a single justice to consider those issues of whether a question of national importance is raised or whether there is a circuit conflict will be significantly less if the Court clearly establishes that the petition for certiorari remains an available route.\nAnd, in fact, this Court has exercised its power to use certiorari repeatedly over the last 50 years, sometimes to resolve circuit conflicts, often to define the scope of constitutional rights, and to make very important statements about the availability of habeas relief, as an individual circuit justice acting in chambers would not have the responsibility for ferreting out those questions if the petition for certiorari remained available and instead could focus on the questions of individual justice that an application raised.\nWhich actually goes to another issue, which is that typically an applicant for a certificate will be presenting to the Court only issues of their own individual entitlement and will not be highlighting for the Court circuit conflicts and the importance of the issues they're presenting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [948.421, 962.202, 991.3], "stop_times": [962.202, 991.3, 1006.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 948.421}, "reply_to": "21214__0_058", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_060", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Well, what do you see as the test of a certificate of appealability, Ms. Penner?\nIf I'm a circuit justice for the Fourth Circuit, ought I to decide to grant a certificate of appealability only if there's some... only if this Court would review it?\nOr perhaps more broadly, if I think the thing is arguably one... you know, you could make up your mind one of two ways, before the court of appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1006.862, 1012.005, 1024.343], "stop_times": [1012.005, 1024.343, 1036.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1006.862}, "reply_to": "21214__0_059", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21214__0_061", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "I understand Your Honor to be... are you questioning about the standard that the courts of appeals should be applying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1036.641], "stop_times": [1044.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1036.641}, "reply_to": "21214__0_060", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_062", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Yes, and I mean, would a justice of this Court apply the same standard that a judge of the court of appeals applies?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1044.945], "stop_times": [1051.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1044.945}, "reply_to": "21214__0_061", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21214__0_063", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "The Government has argued that a higher standard should apply, that this Court should only issue certificates in the most extraordinary circumstances.\nThey made that argument on the assumption that certiorari review would be available.\nI... that argument, that the Court should apply a different standard in deciding whether to grant applications for certificates, contravenes the plain language of section 2253 and this Court's own decisions.\nSection 2253 expressly sets out a standard.\nIt is a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and that standard applies equally both to circuit justices and to circuit judges.\nHad Congress intended for the court to apply a different standard, I expect that it would have said so.\nIn addition, the Court in Barefoot v. Estelle set out the standard which Congress subsequently codified, and it never indicated that, were a certificate application to be submitted to it, it would apply a different standard and, indeed, circuit justices in chambers appear to have been applying precisely that standard.\nWe do not argue that it would not be appropriate for the Court to require a petitioner to seek relief elsewhere before submitting an application for a certificate to this Court.\nIt is a rule that the Court has used in other circumstances, and it furthers the Court's appellate function by permitting it to review the decisions of lower courts rather than to be deciding questions in the first instance.\nBut that is different... requiring applicants for a certificate to exhaust other remedies first is a different matter than raising the bar and saying that they must prove not merely a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right, but also a clear and indisputable substantial showing.\nOne other point is that... Justice Scalia raised the question of the burden on justices in chambers.\nThe availability of petition for certiorari will ease the burden on justices in chambers of deciding applications for certificates, because the Court will have the power to slice through to the single error, the legal error that a lower court got wrong, in this case the question whether Mr. Hohn's claim was the denial of a constitutional or a statutory right.\nA justice in chambers or, in fact, even the full Court, were the justice to refer the matter to the full Court, would not have that power and, instead, would have to consider all of the secondary issues, for example, those that were raised in our separate application in this case, and question whether a petitioner has made a showing of cause and prejudice for their procedural default, actual in the sense this is a burden that the justices in chambers will not have to bear if it holds to its 50-year practice of finding that... of issuing writs of certiorari to review the decisions of lower courts on certificates.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1051.979, 1061.376, 1065.74, 1078.827, 1081.378, 1090.154, 1093.838, 1110.26, 1122.317, 1134.543, 1151.797, 1157.938, 1178.715], "stop_times": [1061.376, 1065.74, 1078.827, 1081.378, 1090.154, 1093.838, 1110.26, 1122.317, 1134.543, 1151.797, 1157.938, 1178.715, 1212.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1051.979}, "reply_to": "21214__0_062", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_064", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Well, excuse me, could... but how does that work?\nThe Court would grant certiorari limited to that one issue, and the other issues could not be presented to the justice in chambers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1212.134, 1215.387], "stop_times": [1215.387, 1222.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1212.134}, "reply_to": "21214__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21214__0_065", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "It's true that the Court could combine those two issues, but only if it affirms that is retains the certiorari power.\nWere the Court to hold that it lacks the certiorari power, the full Court could decide one legal issue and then refer the rest of the case back to a single justice to decide the rest of the issues, predicate to determining whether a certificate should be granted.\nIf the Court will permit, and no further questions are pending, I'd like to save time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1222.153, 1230.267, 1244.686], "stop_times": [1230.267, 1244.686, 1249.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1222.153}, "reply_to": "21214__0_064", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__0_066", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Very well, Ms. Penner.\nMr. Roberts, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1249.628, 1250.69], "stop_times": [1250.69, 1253.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1249.628}, "reply_to": "21214__0_065", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21214__1_000", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe United States believes there are two reasons that this Court should adhere to House v. Mayo and hold that it may issue a common law writ of certiorari to review the action of the court of appeals in this case.\nThe first reason is stare decisis.\nThe second reason is that a common law writ of certiorari is the most practical available way to correct important legal questions such as the proper standard for issuing certificates.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1253.462, 1261.739, 1271.094, 1273.327], "stop_times": [1261.739, 1271.094, 1273.327, 1283.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1253.462}, "reply_to": "21214__0_066", "speaker": "matthew_d_roberts"}
{"id": "21214__1_001", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "What if Congress had said that, you know, this Court is going to review cases by certiorari and define the terms and the time limits and so forth?\nDo you think that we could issue a common law writ of certiorari for a case where someone didn't comply with the requirements to seek statutory certiorari?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1283.974, 1296.231], "stop_times": [1296.231, 1306.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1283.974}, "reply_to": "21214__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21214__1_002", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "No.\nThis Court in its discretion would decline to issue a writ of certiorari when there was a plain intent to preclude review, but in this case there isn't a plain intent to preclude review.\nSection 2253 only discusses... only precludes appeals as of right to the courts of appeals on the merits of a section 2255 motion.\nIt doesn't discuss certiorari jurisdiction, it doesn't discuss this Court's jurisdiction, and it doesn't discuss review of the question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1306.87, 1308.019, 1321.978, 1333.494], "stop_times": [1308.019, 1321.978, 1333.494, 1340.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1306.87}, "reply_to": "21214__1_001", "speaker": "matthew_d_roberts"}
{"id": "21214__1_003", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "But couldn't one infer from... perhaps not even infer, but the... part of the holding of House v. Mayo is that we don't have statutory certiorari jurisdiction here.\nWhy shouldn't that be the end of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1340.76, 1353.199], "stop_times": [1353.199, 1355.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1340.76}, "reply_to": "21214__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21214__1_004", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--It is the Government's position that House was correct and the Court doesn't have statutory certiorari, but the codification of statutory certiorari did not repeal this Court's ability under the All Writs Act to exercise common law certiorari.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1355.471], "stop_times": [1370.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1355.471}, "reply_to": "21214__1_003", "speaker": "matthew_d_roberts"}
{"id": "21214__1_005", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "In aid of its jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1370.931], "stop_times": [1373.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1370.931}, "reply_to": "21214__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21214__1_006", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "In aid of its jurisdiction, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1373.101], "stop_times": [1374.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1373.101}, "reply_to": "21214__1_005", "speaker": "matthew_d_roberts"}
{"id": "21214__1_007", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "If we don't have statutory certiorari jurisdiction, why should we be able to use another writ to simply substitute for that to give us jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1374.872], "stop_times": [1383.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1374.872}, "reply_to": "21214__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21214__1_008", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--Well, it's not to substitute for that to give the Court jurisdiction.\nIt's in aid of the jurisdiction that may have wrongfully precluded by an incorrect decision by the court of appeals, keeping the case out of the court of appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1383.437, 1387.912], "stop_times": [1387.912, 1397.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1383.437}, "reply_to": "21214__1_007", "speaker": "matthew_d_roberts"}
{"id": "21214__1_009", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Why isn't the case in the court of appeals for the purpose of deciding whether a certificate of appealability will be ordered?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1397.008], "stop_times": [1404.182], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1397.008}, "reply_to": "21214__1_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21214__1_010", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Well, House v. Mayo held that the case was not in the court of appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1404.182], "stop_times": [1407.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1404.182}, "reply_to": "21214__1_009", "speaker": "matthew_d_roberts"}
{"id": "21214__1_011", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Then there's a lot of practice after that that seems to go the other way, so if... is that the only basis?\nBut I mean, in logic, if the case isn't in the court of appeals for that purpose, then why is a case in which the court of appeals denies qualified immunity appeal?\nWhy would that be in the court of appeals?\nWhy would a case in which the court of appeals says, we think that you've tried to appeal under a collateral order exception from Cohen, but we think you're wrong, why would that case be in the court of appeals?\nWhy would a case in which the court of appeals ever says we don't think you have jurisdiction to appeal, why would that be in the court of appeals?\nIn other words, if House v. Mayo is right, how can we take any of those cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1407.276, 1411.969, 1421.283, 1424.156, 1435.793, 1444.539], "stop_times": [1411.969, 1421.283, 1424.156, 1435.793, 1444.539, 1448.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1407.276}, "reply_to": "21214__1_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21214__1_012", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Well, it's certainly a close question, Justice Breyer, as to whether an application for a certificate is a case in the court of appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1448.653], "stop_times": [1457.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1448.653}, "reply_to": "21214__1_011", "speaker": "matthew_d_roberts"}
{"id": "21214__1_013", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "I mean, the Solicitor General... my point is, the Solicitor General I would think believes that we're right in taking those cases that I've mentioned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1457.676], "stop_times": [1464.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1457.676}, "reply_to": "21214__1_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21214__1_014", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Yes.\nThere's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1464.932, 1466.081], "stop_times": [1466.081, 1466.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1464.932}, "reply_to": "21214__1_013", "speaker": "matthew_d_roberts"}
{"id": "21214__1_015", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "All right.\nNow, if you think we're right in taking those cases that I've mentioned, then you must either think there's a distinction from House v. Mayo, or you must think House v. Mayo is wrong, so which is it?\nIs it a distinction?\nIf so, what is it, or is House v. Mayo wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1466.372, 1466.802, 1476.88, 1477.809], "stop_times": [1466.802, 1476.88, 1477.809, 1480.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1466.372}, "reply_to": "21214__1_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21214__1_016", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--It's a distinction, and the distinction is that here Congress has set up a two stage process with a screening mechanism to decide whether petitioner's case is in the court of appeals.\nIt would be odd to consider the application to that screening mechanism to be itself a case that brings the petitioner's case in the court of appeals, so that would be the reasoning in House and in the other cases that consider a leave to appeal not to be in the court of appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1480.721, 1490.01], "stop_times": [1490.01, 1506.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1480.721}, "reply_to": "21214__1_015", "speaker": "matthew_d_roberts"}
{"id": "21214__1_017", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Well, in your view, do we have common law certiorari jurisdiction to review the denial of a court of appeal... a certificate of appealability and also jurisdiction to review the merits of the appeal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1506.559], "stop_times": [1522.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1506.559}, "reply_to": "21214__1_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21214__1_018", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "House holds that the Court has jurisdiction to review the denial of the certificate and, if it determines that the certificate was improperly denied, to review the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1522.909], "stop_times": [1531.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1522.909}, "reply_to": "21214__1_017", "speaker": "matthew_d_roberts"}
{"id": "21214__1_019", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "And that's your position here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1531.385], "stop_times": [1532.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1531.385}, "reply_to": "21214__1_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21214__1_020", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "And that is our position here.\nThe Government's position is that this issue was decided in House and that the Court should adhere to House, because stare decisis is particularly strong in cases like this one, which turn on statutory interpretation.\nAnd Congress has revisited all these statutes.\nIt's revisited the All Writs Act, the certiorari statute, and section 2253 several times since House, yet Congress has made no changes to any of the statutes that indicate any disagreement with House.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1532.887, 1534.145, 1546.314, 1548.685], "stop_times": [1534.145, 1546.314, 1548.685, 1559.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1532.887}, "reply_to": "21214__1_019", "speaker": "matthew_d_roberts"}
{"id": "21214__1_021", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Of course, all we have to do, I suppose, if we accept your view of House, is review the certificate of appealability determination and stop there.\nWe don't have to go the further step, do we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1559.855, 1567.96], "stop_times": [1567.96, 1570.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1559.855}, "reply_to": "21214__1_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21214__1_022", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "No.\nIn fact, that's why we believe that a common law certiorari is the most efficient means to decide these questions, because in the context of acting on an original certificate, an original application for a certificate, the Court wouldn't be able to stop there.\nThe Court would have to review the entire case, the Court would have to decide all the legal issues that are necessary to determine whether there's a substantial constitutional issue, and the Court would have to apply those legal standards to the facts of the case and determine whether the petitioner is entitled to a certificate on the facts of the case, and that would be a very cumbersome method to achieve clarification of the standard for issuing certificates.\nThere's no reason to believe that Congress intended that.\nCongress didn't say that in 2253 that that was the method of review that should be used and, in fact, in another provision of the AEDPA, Congress expressly revoked the Court's certiorari power to review orders by the court of appeals that authorize or deny the filing of successive habeas petitions.\nSo Congress was aware of how to limit this Court's certiorari power if it intended to do so, but it chose not to do so here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1570.191, 1571.252, 1586.602, 1609.226, 1612.709, 1631.441], "stop_times": [1571.252, 1586.602, 1609.226, 1612.709, 1631.441, 1637.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1570.191}, "reply_to": "21214__1_021", "speaker": "matthew_d_roberts"}
{"id": "21214__1_023", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Now, in this Court the petitioner applied to this Court for a certificate of appealability, or at least to a justice, did it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1637.253], "stop_times": [1644.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1637.253}, "reply_to": "21214__1_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21214__1_024", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1644.9], "stop_times": [1645.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1644.9}, "reply_to": "21214__1_023", "speaker": "matthew_d_roberts"}
{"id": "21214__1_025", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "And I think that the Government opposed that on the grounds that the petitioner didn't demonstrate exceptional circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1645.38], "stop_times": [1657.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1645.38}, "reply_to": "21214__1_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21214__1_026", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Yes.\nThe Government opposed that on two grounds.\nFirst, that adequate relief is available from another source and, second, the petitioner hasn't presented exceptional circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1657.169, 1657.769, 1660.11], "stop_times": [1657.769, 1660.11, 1667.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1657.169}, "reply_to": "21214__1_025", "speaker": "matthew_d_roberts"}
{"id": "21214__1_027", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "And yet to exercise common law certiorari jurisdiction we have to determine there are exceptional circumstances.\nIsn't that a little inconsistent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1667.964, 1674.589], "stop_times": [1674.589, 1676.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1667.964}, "reply_to": "21214__1_026", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21214__1_028", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "The exceptional circumstances are not met in the case of a certificate because the petitioner hasn't demonstrated an entitlement to a certificate.\nI think that that just proves the point that I was making before, that the certificate context requires the Court to do more than the certiorari context.\nIn the certiorari context there are exceptional circumstances because there's no other way to clarify the standard in 2253(c)(2) for when a certificate should issue.\nBut in the case of a certificate, what would be required to show exceptional... exceptional circumstances, excuse me, is that the petitioner clearly merits the certificate and that it's been denied by the lower courts, and petitioner can't show that in this instance because petitioner hasn't proffered any evidence to show actual innocence and petitioner can't show cause to excuse petitioner's procedural default.\nThat's the Government's position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1676.57, 1684.794, 1694.572, 1705.828, 1734.707], "stop_times": [1684.794, 1694.572, 1705.828, 1734.707, 1736.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1676.57}, "reply_to": "21214__1_027", "speaker": "matthew_d_roberts"}
{"id": "21214__1_029", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Mr. Roberts, may I ask you about an earlier piece of this somewhat confusing puzzle?\nAt the circuit court level, Judge McMillian said, I would grant the certificate of appealability.\nCould he have done so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1736.139, 1742.042, 1748.978], "stop_times": [1742.042, 1748.978, 1750.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1736.139}, "reply_to": "21214__1_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21214__1_030", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "It is an oddity of the way the applications for a certificate work.\nAn individual circuit judge could grant a certificate, but the practice in the Eighth Circuit is to refer the applications for a certificate to a panel of the court, and in this case it was referred to a panel of the court and two of the judges on the panel determined that a certificate should not issue, and so that was controlling.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1750.698, 1757.383], "stop_times": [1757.383, 1777.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1750.698}, "reply_to": "21214__1_029", "speaker": "matthew_d_roberts"}
{"id": "21214__1_031", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "So it's the circuit's practice, but the circuit's practice could be otherwise compatibly with the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1777.506], "stop_times": [1785.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1777.506}, "reply_to": "21214__1_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21214__1_032", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Yes.\nThe circuit's practice could be otherwise... this Court in In re Burwell held that it was up to the individual courts of appeals to determine whether a request for a certificate should be decided by an individual circuit judge, by a panel, or conceivably by the whole court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1785.032, 1785.423], "stop_times": [1785.423, 1801.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1785.032}, "reply_to": "21214__1_031", "speaker": "matthew_d_roberts"}
{"id": "21214__1_033", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Thank you.\nWhat... to go back for a second, what is it that makes this a screening mechanism?\nIs it that it goes to one judge?\nIs that the reason that it's... you call it a screening mechanism?\nI take it it's not the simple fact that the jurisdictional issue has to be decided first, or that the certificate of appealability issue has to be decided first.\nIt must be that it's directed to one judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1801.241, 1803.332, 1808.555, 1811.219, 1814.492, 1822.586], "stop_times": [1803.332, 1808.555, 1811.219, 1814.492, 1822.586, 1825.057], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1801.241}, "reply_to": "21214__1_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21214__1_034", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "It's that Congress has set up a separate process to determine whether the case can go forward, and has explicitly mandated that unless the petitioner survives that hurdle, the case can't go forward.\nIn the Nixon case the jurisdiction question and the merits were one case, and so the jurisdiction question was in the court of appeals when the notice of appeal was filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1825.057, 1837.125], "stop_times": [1837.125, 1847.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1825.057}, "reply_to": "21214__1_033", "speaker": "matthew_d_roberts"}
{"id": "21214__1_035", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Roberts.\nMr. Sutton, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1847.802, 1849.244], "stop_times": [1849.244, 1851.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1847.802}, "reply_to": "21214__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21214__2_000", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court:\nAt the same time Congress in 1996 was most conspicuously streamlining habeas review, the Federal Government and petitioner having proposed an interpretation of that legislation that multiplies by a factor of two or three the avenues of appellate relief available to individual Federal prisoners or State prisoners.\nThe twin vehicles for this development are 1) a theory of statutory certiorari that has never received the vote of a single justice of this Court and has been positively rejected by several decisions of this Court and, second, a theory of common law certiorari that has not been used meaningfully in an opinion by this Court since the end of World War II.\nIt would seem quite anomalous to resurrect the one theory and create the other in the one area of the Court's jurisdiction that is now most expressly regulated by Congress.\nI submit that that's not what happened.\nI'd like, Justice Breyer, to address your question about... and the Nixon cases.\nThe key difference between the Nixon cases and this one is the gate keeping decision is really not a jurisdiction decision.\nYes, it ultimately may have jurisdictional consequences, but keep in mind, when a court of appeals judge denies the certificate, that does not mean no jurisdiction.\nThe inmate can go to this Court, obtain a certificate... at that point there might be jurisdictional consequences, but of course at that point the review that is being sought is not just of what the circuit judge did, but also of what that circuit justice did.\nThat's extremely odd.\nI'm not aware of another jurisdictional statute where individuals, whether inmates or not, can argue that a court of appeals made a mistake in a court of appeals panel or a court of appeals judge where this Court has already had an opportunity to look at the matter.\nThat's quite unusual.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1851.127, 1858.501, 1880.004, 1900.939, 1912.135, 1914.236, 1920.671, 1927.346, 1936.212, 1949.072, 1950.421, 1963.5], "stop_times": [1858.501, 1880.004, 1900.939, 1912.135, 1914.236, 1920.671, 1927.346, 1936.212, 1949.072, 1950.421, 1963.5, 1964.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1851.127}, "reply_to": "21214__1_035", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_001", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "If you focus right on that decision, there is a decision that Congress is asking a circuit judge to make.\nJudge, decide if a certificate of appealability should issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1964.701, 1971.084], "stop_times": [1971.084, 1974.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1964.701}, "reply_to": "21214__2_000", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21214__2_002", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1974.797], "stop_times": [1975.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1974.797}, "reply_to": "21214__2_001", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_003", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "That's the decision.\nWhere is that decision made?\nWhen I was a circuit judge I used to sit in my office, which I felt was in the court of appeals.\n[Laughter]\nBut where, metaphysically speaking, is the decision being made to issue or not issue the certificate of appealability?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1975.278, 1976.197, 1978.58, 1982.742, 1983.022], "stop_times": [1976.197, 1978.58, 1982.742, 1983.022, 1991.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1975.278}, "reply_to": "21214__2_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21214__2_004", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Well, of course, it is being made by a circuit judge, but I would submit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1991.367], "stop_times": [1993.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1991.367}, "reply_to": "21214__2_003", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_005", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "And where?\nWhere is that circuit judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1993.981, 1994.399], "stop_times": [1994.399, 1995.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1993.981}, "reply_to": "21214__2_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21214__2_006", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--The circuit judge is obviously in his chambers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1995.42], "stop_times": [1998.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1995.42}, "reply_to": "21214__2_005", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_007", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Yes, all right.\nSo where would you say, metaphysically, with Congress not saying to the contrary, that decision was being made?\nHis chambers may not be at the court of appeals.\nI mean, many judges have their chambers back home in their States that they--\n--I'm not... I'm speaking--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [1998.232, 1998.602, 2003.625, 2005.638, 2008.788], "stop_times": [1998.602, 2003.625, 2005.638, 2008.788, 2010.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1998.232}, "reply_to": "21214__2_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21214__2_008", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "But Your Honor, actually... but actually, Your Honor, your question gets to a fundamental point.\nThe AEDPA is not an exercise in metaphysics.\nThe AEDPA requires a straight--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2010.22, 2015.223, 2018.035], "stop_times": [2015.223, 2018.035, 2019.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2010.22}, "reply_to": "21214__2_007", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_009", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--I'm not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2019.757], "stop_times": [2020.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2019.757}, "reply_to": "21214__2_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21214__2_010", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--consistent interpretation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2020.048], "stop_times": [2021.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2020.048}, "reply_to": "21214__2_009", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_011", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--I'm trying to get... what I'm focusing on is that particular decision, and I'm trying to think if there's some reason to say, no, no, that decision isn't being made in the court of appeals.\nI grant you it's being made by one judge rather than three, but is there any reason for saying that that decision by the one judge is not a decision that is being made in the court of appeals?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2021.618, 2033.478], "stop_times": [2033.478, 2044.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2021.618}, "reply_to": "21214__2_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21214__2_012", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--I think for the same reason that this court would not review a 1292(b) decision by the court of appeals.\nFor example, let's say that a trial court decided to issue a certificate saying that an issue of law ought to go up to the court of appeals.\nThe court of appeals has discretion to decide at that point whether to take the issue of law.\nThey don't have to, and if that court of appeals does not take that issue, it's not in the court of appeals, and this Court cannot review it, and there's no decision to the contrary.\nBut another critical point here, you know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2044.535, 2051.949, 2058.223, 2062.097, 2069.409], "stop_times": [2051.949, 2058.223, 2062.097, 2069.409, 2072.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2044.535}, "reply_to": "21214__2_011", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_013", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "I thought that wasn't because of where it was located, whether in the court of appeals, except 22... in 1292(b) Congress has made it highly discretionary at two levels, and you've got to have them both.\nAnd it can't be in the court of appeals unless the district judge puts it there, and if the court of appeals says no, then it's out.\nBut... so I don't understand the analogy to 1292(b).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2072.502, 2087.69, 2096.147], "stop_times": [2087.69, 2096.147, 2100.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2072.502}, "reply_to": "21214__2_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21214__2_014", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--Well, maybe I'm... I may be misunderstanding the question, Your Honor, but it really seems quite similar.\nIt seems to be another type of gate keeping function that is pre jurisdictional in nature, and then after all the whole function of 1292 and 2253 is utterly destroyed if one can review each of these decisions.\nWhat ends up happening is, instead of narrowing and streamlining--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2100.01, 2104.174, 2115.512], "stop_times": [2104.174, 2115.512, 2118.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2100.01}, "reply_to": "21214__2_013", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_015", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "1292(b) is a question of when, not whether.\n1292(b) is a purely, should it be reviewed now.\nIt can be reviewed later, so it's only a question of interrupting an ongoing proceeding.\nThat's why I don't see these... you are raising a now or never issue.\nEither you get the certificate and you can present your question, or you don't, and you never can.\n1292(b) is simply a timing question.\nIt doesn't say in any way that you can't bring up the issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2118.624, 2122.615, 2126.147, 2131.072, 2135.556, 2140.548, 2143.921], "stop_times": [2122.615, 2126.147, 2131.072, 2135.556, 2140.548, 2143.921, 2146.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2118.624}, "reply_to": "21214__2_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21214__2_016", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, since I'm not getting very far on that analogy, let me try to make another point.\n2253 creates another implication that I think undercuts the 1254 argument that has been made, and that's the implication created by the fact that when the inmate goes to a court of appeals judge the game is not over if the certificate is denied.\n2253, after all, does say it can be brought to a circuit justice and, if necessary, referred to the whole Court.\nI think that creates a very strong implication that when you're dissatisfied with what the court of appeals panel or judge does, that's how you resolve the matter.\nYou don't... you're not left with twin and possibly three routes of review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2146.683, 2150.897, 2163.044, 2168.958, 2176.813], "stop_times": [2150.897, 2163.044, 2168.958, 2176.813, 2180.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2146.683}, "reply_to": "21214__2_015", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_017", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "One of the issues that's arisen is whether that presents any different situation from what the Court had in House.\nI'm sure you've seen the submission from the other side on that point.\nDo you have anything further to add on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2180.807, 2188.461, 2192.074], "stop_times": [2188.461, 2192.074, 2194.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2180.807}, "reply_to": "21214__2_016", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21214__2_018", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "This is the question as to what the state of the law was in 1945?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2194.004], "stop_times": [2197.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2194.004}, "reply_to": "21214__2_017", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_019", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2197.206], "stop_times": [2197.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2197.206}, "reply_to": "21214__2_018", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21214__2_020", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nI most definitely do.\nI would argue that the state of the law has changed quite significantly and, in fact, dispositively since 1945 and specifically since the changes in 1948.\nI filed a letter with Ms. Nelson, with the Clerk's office, that indicates that the 1911 act, that section 293 of the 1911 act makes clear that the very definition that the Solicitor General's Office is relying upon does not apply and did not apply to the habeas statutes.\nWhat that section says is the term title only refers to this act, and the 1911 act did not deal with the habeas statutes and most specifically did not deal with the 1908 gate keeping function that we're now dealing with and was first enacted in that year, so... but I would submit that's not all.\nOne can read House alone, and I would submit that in 1945 there was no better discerner of the state of the law than this Court in 1945, and the beginning of the House decision at page 43 makes it quite clear that their understanding of the law is that the only place to go is the district court judge and the court of appeals.\nThere's not a single mention of whether one can go to a circuit justice.\nIn fact, they quote the very statute, 28 U.S.C. 466, upon which I'm relying to make this argument, and I'd like to emphasize this point, because I think it offers--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2197.476, 2198.478, 2200.038, 2208.994, 2226.185, 2243.515, 2259.527, 2262.679], "stop_times": [2198.478, 2200.038, 2208.994, 2226.185, 2243.515, 2259.527, 2262.679, 2272.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2197.476}, "reply_to": "21214__2_019", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_021", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "But you will concede that House was a rather skimpy opinion.\nIt was per curiam and there was no opposition, and it wasn't a very well aired case, was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2272.877, 2275.177], "stop_times": [2275.177, 2281.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2272.877}, "reply_to": "21214__2_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21214__2_022", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--Well, they all get respect from me anyway, Your Honor, and I--\n[Laughter]\nI would add... I would add that there's been nothing to suggest in any decision since then that House was wrongly decided, and I think what's important about this matter is this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2281.222, 2284.742, 2285.133], "stop_times": [2284.742, 2285.133, 2295.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2281.222}, "reply_to": "21214__2_021", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_023", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Well, there has been one thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2295.872], "stop_times": [2296.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2295.872}, "reply_to": "21214__2_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21214__2_024", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--Excuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2296.521], "stop_times": [2297.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2296.521}, "reply_to": "21214__2_023", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_025", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "There has been one thing, and maybe you would comment on it.\nCongress in 22... which is it?\nI get the sections mixed up.\nBut anyway, there's a section in here that says there can be no appeal or review of a denial of a second or successive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2297.001, 2299.463, 2302.046, 2303.096], "stop_times": [2299.463, 2302.046, 2303.096, 2309.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2297.001}, "reply_to": "21214__2_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21214__2_026", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2309.83], "stop_times": [2310.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2309.83}, "reply_to": "21214__2_025", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_027", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Which if I understand your position correctly, that... Congress could have omitted that entirely and the law would have been exactly the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2310.351], "stop_times": [2316.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2310.351}, "reply_to": "21214__2_026", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21214__2_028", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Absolutely not, Your Honor, and I'm glad I have a chance to deal with that issue.\nThe clear statement provision, 2244, was needed precisely because of the main case on which the Federal Government and petitioner rely, House.\nThe statutory scheme in House was just like 2244 would have read without a clear statement.\n2244 says, if you want permission for a second habeas, go to the court of appeals and get permission.\nIt says... would have said nothing about a justice, nothing about Supreme Court review.\nThat's the House statute, and because House was on the books, Congress quite smartly said we're going to avoid all the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2316.574, 2321.146, 2330.163, 2336.317, 2342.281, 2345.844], "stop_times": [2321.146, 2330.163, 2336.317, 2342.281, 2345.844, 2353.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2316.574}, "reply_to": "21214__2_027", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_029", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Why didn't they do it as to the first habeas as well as the second, then--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2353.401], "stop_times": [2356.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2353.401}, "reply_to": "21214__2_028", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21214__2_030", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--They didn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2356.633], "stop_times": [2357.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2356.633}, "reply_to": "21214__2_029", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_031", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--and make it perfectly clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2357.024], "stop_times": [2358.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2357.024}, "reply_to": "21214__2_030", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21214__2_032", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--They didn't need to, because under statutory certiorari every single decision of this Court, every single decision of the Court that was on the books indicated that there was no statutory certiorari jurisdiction, so they didn't need a clear statement there and, precisely because, as I indicated in responding to Justice Souter's question, the law had changed since 19--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2358.103], "stop_times": [2376.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2358.103}, "reply_to": "21214__2_031", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_033", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Your view is they needed a clear statement for a second successive but they didn't need one for a first habeas because that law was already very clear with respect to first?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2376.594], "stop_times": [2384.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2376.594}, "reply_to": "21214__2_032", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21214__2_034", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--Sufficiently clear to not need a clear statement, yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2384.459], "stop_times": [2388.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2384.459}, "reply_to": "21214__2_033", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_035", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "I find that rather puzzling.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2388.913], "stop_times": [2390.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2388.913}, "reply_to": "21214__2_034", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21214__2_036", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "But, Your Honor, let's... well, I think the law was settled as to statutory certiorari.\nI don't think anyone's arguing that the law was settled on that point.\nThe harder question, I agree with you, is whether the law was settled as to common law certiorari in light of the House decision.\nThere's one body of Government that would have noted... known whether they needed a clear statement in 1996.\nIt would, after all, have been Congress, because Congress is the one that changed the law in 1948 and said quite clearly if you're unhappy with the court of appeals gate keeping decision go to a circuit justice and, if necessary, the whole Court.\nSo I... you know... you're... I'm not happy with the look you're giving me but I do think that--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2390.435, 2395.839, 2399.269, 2405.294, 2411.687, 2423.756, 2429.84], "stop_times": [2395.839, 2399.269, 2405.294, 2411.687, 2423.756, 2429.84, 2430.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2390.435}, "reply_to": "21214__2_035", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_037", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Probably you can't, because I... you still seem to think that it was absolutely necessary to spell out that there shall be no review of the denial of a second, but there's no need to do it for the denial of a first because the law was... I just find that mind boggling.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2430.03], "stop_times": [2443.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2430.03}, "reply_to": "21214__2_036", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21214__2_038", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Well, maybe I'm not making clear why--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2443.519], "stop_times": [2445.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2443.519}, "reply_to": "21214__2_037", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_039", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Maybe I'm just stupid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2445.391], "stop_times": [2446.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2445.391}, "reply_to": "21214__2_038", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21214__2_040", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--No, I'm sure that it's an opposite problem.\nThe thing I'm trying to emphasize is that, with House on the books, if you have a statute that just says go to the court of appeals and nothing else, that would have allowed common law certiorari.\nAn inmate would have come--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2446.74, 2448.774, 2459.679], "stop_times": [2448.774, 2459.679, 2461.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2446.74}, "reply_to": "21214__2_039", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_041", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Well, if that's true why can't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2461.021], "stop_times": [2461.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2461.021}, "reply_to": "21214__2_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21214__2_042", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--under settled law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2461.85], "stop_times": [2462.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2461.85}, "reply_to": "21214__2_041", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_043", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--If that's true, why can't we review this case?\nIf you're right about that, then we should review on common law certiorari.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2462.191, 2464.762], "stop_times": [2464.762, 2469.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2462.191}, "reply_to": "21214__2_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21214__2_044", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--No, Your Honor, because the statutes changed.\nThere's not a single All Writs precedent in over 210 years of this Court's jurisprudence in which they granted All Writs relief, whether common law certiorari or any other--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2469.547, 2471.617], "stop_times": [2471.617, 2481.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2469.547}, "reply_to": "21214__2_043", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_045", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Well then, if that's true you don't need a special provision for the second habeas, either.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2481.355], "stop_times": [2485.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2481.355}, "reply_to": "21214__2_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21214__2_046", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--I'm not sure I follow that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2485.516], "stop_times": [2488.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2485.516}, "reply_to": "21214__2_045", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_047", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "I don't understand, under that argument, why it was necessary for Congress to enact a grant or a denial of an authorization by the court of appeals to file a second or a successive application shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition for rehearing or for a writ of certiorari.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2488.527], "stop_times": [2502.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2488.527}, "reply_to": "21214__2_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21214__2_048", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Because House was still on the books.\nI don't have to worry in 2253 because the statute had changed and had given the inmate another available route for relief.\nThere's no All Writs Act precedent with which I'm aware, or that has been cited by petitioner or the Federal Government--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2502.296, 2503.788, 2510.784], "stop_times": [2503.788, 2510.784, 2516.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2502.296}, "reply_to": "21214__2_047", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_049", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Well, are you saying... let me just be sure I... you're saying that if they had not enacted (E), they could have... we could have accepted review in second habeas but not in first?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2516.037], "stop_times": [2525.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2516.037}, "reply_to": "21214__2_048", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21214__2_050", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--Yes, absolutely.\nAbsolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2525.544, 2526.233], "stop_times": [2526.233, 2527.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2525.544}, "reply_to": "21214__2_049", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_051", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "That is remarkable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2527.264], "stop_times": [2528.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2527.264}, "reply_to": "21214__2_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21214__2_052", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "But, Your Honor, that's House.\nI mean, unless you're going to overrule House, that's exactly what House says.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2528.296, 2529.835], "stop_times": [2529.835, 2532.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2528.296}, "reply_to": "21214__2_051", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_053", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "In House, I take it that the Court issued All Writs review, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2532.486], "stop_times": [2536.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2532.486}, "reply_to": "21214__2_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21214__2_054", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2536.41], "stop_times": [2536.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2536.41}, "reply_to": "21214__2_053", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_055", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "All right, and so then the question was, well, why can't we do that in this decision about certificate of appealability, and I take it your answer to that was, well, the reason they issued All Writs review before is because there was no other way to get it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2536.84], "stop_times": [2548.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2536.84}, "reply_to": "21214__2_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21214__2_056", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2548.037], "stop_times": [2548.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2548.037}, "reply_to": "21214__2_055", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_057", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "But here, there was a way to get it now.\nThe way to get it now is, a single justice can issue--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2548.668, 2552.839], "stop_times": [2552.839, 2554.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2548.668}, "reply_to": "21214__2_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21214__2_058", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2554.571], "stop_times": [2555.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2554.571}, "reply_to": "21214__2_057", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_059", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--All right.\nThen the Solicitor General says in respect to your answer, well, that isn't really so, because at the time of House the word judge included single justice, so there was a way of reviewing then, just as there is now.\nSo now your response to the response to the response to the response is what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2555.162, 2555.842, 2565.138], "stop_times": [2555.842, 2565.138, 2568.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2555.162}, "reply_to": "21214__2_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21214__2_060", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "I think I've kept track of that.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2568.52, 2570.183], "stop_times": [2570.183, 2570.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2568.52}, "reply_to": "21214__2_059", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_061", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "That's the letter you filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2570.771], "stop_times": [2572.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2570.771}, "reply_to": "21214__2_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21214__2_062", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--That is the letter I filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2572.964], "stop_times": [2573.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2572.964}, "reply_to": "21214__2_061", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_063", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "And the letter... the answer to that... I mean, you see, they've made it very parallel.\nI mean, they've made it absolutely parallel to House, and your response to that now is what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2573.933, 2577.716], "stop_times": [2577.716, 2581.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2573.933}, "reply_to": "21214__2_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21214__2_064", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Their argument... I want to make sure I've made their argument clear, because I don't think I did the first time through.\nTheir argument is that the phrase, judge of the court of appeals--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2581.379, 2586.111], "stop_times": [2586.111, 2589.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2581.379}, "reply_to": "21214__2_063", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_065", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2589.514], "stop_times": [2589.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2589.514}, "reply_to": "21214__2_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21214__2_066", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--in 1945 included a justice of this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2589.714], "stop_times": [2591.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2589.714}, "reply_to": "21214__2_065", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_067", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2591.685], "stop_times": [2591.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2591.685}, "reply_to": "21214__2_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21214__2_068", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "So that's their argument, and to make that argument they've looked to a definition they found in title 28 that says, judge of the court of appeals can include circuit justice, so at that point, that's a pretty good argument.\nNow, the response to it is the letter I filed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2591.885, 2602.654], "stop_times": [2602.654, 2605.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2591.885}, "reply_to": "21214__2_067", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_069", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "I thought it was very good when I read it.\nI was wondering what you were going to say in response.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2605.436, 2606.247, 2607.697], "stop_times": [2606.247, 2607.697, 2607.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2605.436}, "reply_to": "21214__2_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21214__2_070", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--The response to it is that that definition comes from the 1911 act the Congress enacted that dealt with the judicial code.\nNow, the 1911 act did not deal with habeas, did not modify the habeas statutes and, most notably, did not modify the gate keeping provision, but the critical language here, and this is the filing that I provided, is that definition says, when used in this title, all right.\nThat sounds kind of broad.\nIt sounds like all of title 28.\nWell, it turns out in section 293 of that very act it says the word title only refers to this act.\nIn other words, only the 1911 act, so that... that argument's gone.\nThat argument doesn't exist.\nBut Justice Breyer, I can confirm it by common sense.\nSince 1948 when the law was changed you've got, I think it's 17 different reported decisions by this Court concerning applications for certificate of probable cause that were denied or granted.\nBetween 1925 and 1948 there's not a single one.\nThere's not a single piece of evidence in that 23-year period that one could go to a justice.\nAnd again, if one looks at House itself, page 43 of House, this Court was construing the state of the law at that point in time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2607.927, 2619.303, 2632.961, 2633.763, 2635.104, 2644.82, 2648.142, 2649.264, 2652.326, 2663.182, 2666.114, 2671.597], "stop_times": [2619.303, 2632.961, 2633.763, 2635.104, 2644.82, 2648.142, 2649.264, 2652.326, 2663.182, 2666.114, 2671.597, 2678.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2607.927}, "reply_to": "21214__2_069", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_071", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Is there any reason, by the way, since you brought common sense into it, which I think is very helpful, is there any reason why Congress, assuming that the statute language allows it, would have singled out, out of all the things this Court can review, which is virtually all kinds of things, is there any reason that anybody would have wanted to pick out this set of cases, which would have let so... an egregious, really controversial refusal to grant a certificate of appealability that's the kind of thing we might review?\nYou know, the court's really wrong, or it's really controversial, there's a big legal issue involved.\nNow, out of all the things we review, is there any reason why Congress would have wanted to say, that alone you cannot review?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2678.923, 2709.311, 2714.376], "stop_times": [2709.311, 2714.376, 2720.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2678.923}, "reply_to": "21214__2_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21214__2_072", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "In other words, are you saying that they would have wanted to preserve the jurisdiction for the rare case, or why would they eliminate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2720.34], "stop_times": [2727.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2720.34}, "reply_to": "21214__2_071", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_073", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Yes.\nI mean, you're arguing, basically, that out of all the things... we can review all sorts of things.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2727.103, 2727.313], "stop_times": [2727.313, 2732.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2727.103}, "reply_to": "21214__2_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21214__2_074", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2732.068], "stop_times": [2732.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2732.068}, "reply_to": "21214__2_073", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_075", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "And assuming the language allows it, the All Writs Act, or whatever, is there any reason, really, Congress would have wanted to take this set of cases and say no, those are the ones you can't review--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2732.459], "stop_times": [2741.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2732.459}, "reply_to": "21214__2_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21214__2_076", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2741.892], "stop_times": [2742.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2741.892}, "reply_to": "21214__2_075", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_077", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--even for what we would likely review, a rare instance where it was an absolutely wrong grant, refusal to grant the certificate, or there's a big legal issue involved, something like--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2742.373], "stop_times": [2751.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2742.373}, "reply_to": "21214__2_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21214__2_078", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Well, as the Powell commission report indicated, direct review was not working and has not been working.\nOne of the critical problems that the AEDPA tries to address is the fact that there are frivolous habeas petitions that are occupying the Court's time and Government time when, in fact, its time would be much better spent focusing on the petitions that have merit.\nThe second reason they would have wanted to single out this class of cases is that their whole objective... that is, streamlining review... doesn't work if you leave other avenues of review open.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2751.76, 2758.225, 2773.726], "stop_times": [2758.225, 2773.726, 2783.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2751.76}, "reply_to": "21214__2_077", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_079", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--The Congress wanted cases deemed frivolous by lower court judges to cease.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2783.109], "stop_times": [2787.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2783.109}, "reply_to": "21214__2_078", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21214__2_080", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Absolutely, and to be terminated.\nThat's exactly right.\nIt's not just streamlining review and making sure it's efficient and that the courts focus on the claims with merit, but those claims with merit are done after the inmate has had one fair opportunity before the district court juge.\nI think that makes sense.\nBut I think the other problem, I mean, if one doesn't adopt this interpretation, are some of the administrative problems that arise when you've got not just applications to the circuit justice available but common law and statutory certiorari available, so you've got two and three tracks of review, not about the merits but about this gate keeping decision.\nThe whole... the only reason--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2787.693, 2789.794, 2791.366, 2802.723, 2804.584, 2824.148], "stop_times": [2789.794, 2791.366, 2802.723, 2804.584, 2824.148, 2825.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2787.693}, "reply_to": "21214__2_079", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_081", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Well, what if you just have All Writs Act common law jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2825.968], "stop_times": [2830.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2825.968}, "reply_to": "21214__2_080", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21214__2_082", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--Well, we... I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2830.252], "stop_times": [2831.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2830.252}, "reply_to": "21214__2_081", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_083", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "This Court has rarely exercised it.\nIt doesn't look like that's a big problem, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2831.923, 2833.843], "stop_times": [2833.843, 2836.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2831.923}, "reply_to": "21214__2_082", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21214__2_084", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, if... once the Court says there's power, that message will get to the inmates, and the inmates will say, if there's power, there's always a reason to file, and filings experience has shown are not always based on whether there's merit, so I think one of the fundamental goals of the act would be undermined.\nBut I'm not sure the Court could say just All Writs Act jurisdiction is available.\nThe... 2253 is on the books and 2253 does allow for applications to circuit justices and by referral to the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2836.444, 2851.775, 2857.519], "stop_times": [2851.775, 2857.519, 2866.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2836.444}, "reply_to": "21214__2_083", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_085", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Yes.\nThat clearly is there by statute, I suppose.\nYou concede that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2866.004, 2866.495, 2868.487], "stop_times": [2866.495, 2868.487, 2869.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2866.004}, "reply_to": "21214__2_084", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21214__2_086", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "No, I do, and I guess the point I'm making, and perhaps not very well, is that if you allow All Writs Act jurisdiction on top of that, you're left with two track review.\nYou're left--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2869.827, 2878.632], "stop_times": [2878.632, 2879.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2869.827}, "reply_to": "21214__2_085", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_087", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Well, but maybe we have another problem.\nI mean, we assume and we repetitiously say that we assume that Congress knows what we're deciding over here.\nThere was a... in several of the briefs there was a string cite to the cases in which we seem to have honored the limitation on House, i.e., no statutory cert, very much in the breach and why shouldn't we assume that Congress understood that and would therefore quite reasonably have assumed that we were going to exercise statutory cert jurisdiction?\nWell, I know one answer to that is, you've still got House on the books.\nWell, maybe possibly the best answer in a totally unsatisfactory situation is to say, go on applying House even if you're right on the point that you have made that, in fact, there has been one change in the law since House and that is, a circuit justice can do what a circuit justice couldn't do then.\nMaybe House is sort of the best way out of a messy situation for which there's ultimately no satisfactory answer unless we go back and reexamine House.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2879.453, 2881.344, 2890.35, 2917.098, 2921.983, 2940.733], "stop_times": [2881.344, 2890.35, 2917.098, 2921.983, 2940.733, 2949.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2879.453}, "reply_to": "21214__2_086", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21214__2_088", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--When you say leave House on the books, you're including the All Writs Act interpretation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2949.809], "stop_times": [2952.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2949.809}, "reply_to": "21214__2_087", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_089", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "That's right, and apply it here whether your distinction holds up or not, because that's the... that's in effect the only alternative that would honor what I suppose was a congressional expectation without taking a total reexamination of House itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2952.601], "stop_times": [2971.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2952.601}, "reply_to": "21214__2_088", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21214__2_090", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, a couple of things.\nI think one thing I want to make clear which I hope is responsive to this question, I'm not aware of a single issue that will escape review by the circuit justice route, so I can't imagine any reason, any customary reason for preserving All Writs Act power in this area.\nI know of no precedent where this Court allows All Writs Act power where there's already another statutory mechanism either for preserving this Court's jurisdiction or resolving some drastic problem--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2971.034, 2973.706, 2989.536], "stop_times": [2973.706, 2989.536, 2999.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2971.034}, "reply_to": "21214__2_089", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_091", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Let me suggest a way in which the circuit justice might... you know, it takes four votes to grant certiorari.\nIt's very often we grant cert on the basis of four votes, and when five justices think it... cert should be denied.\nNow, what if the application went to one of the five who just didn't think there was any merit to it, whereas the... all eight of the others might think there was?\nI don't think you are suggesting the circuit justice must routinely refer everything to the whole Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [2999.772, 3004.467, 3010.511, 3017.635], "stop_times": [3004.467, 3010.511, 3017.635, 3022.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2999.772}, "reply_to": "21214__2_090", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21214__2_092", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--No.\nI think that would be left to the practices of the Court.\nThe practice that I think the Court would adopt is the one I think it's been using at least for the last 20 years without exception, is that circuit justices do not act on their own and say, great, I don't have to worry about the other eight.\nThey act as surrogates--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3022.218, 3022.729, 3024.419, 3035.097], "stop_times": [3022.729, 3024.419, 3035.097, 3036.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3022.218}, "reply_to": "21214__2_091", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_093", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "I've acted on my own on many, many occasions where I've denied relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3036.256], "stop_times": [3038.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3036.256}, "reply_to": "21214__2_092", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21214__2_094", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--Perhaps I'm wrong in this understanding, but I had always thought circuit justices act as surrogates for the whole Court, so that they did not take... keep in mind just their own views of a particular matter but are sensitive to what other justices may... how they may view the matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3038.207], "stop_times": [3052.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3038.207}, "reply_to": "21214__2_093", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_095", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Oh, but I've voted to grant certiorari when I thought... or I... put it the other way.\nI voted to deny when I didn't think anybody would be interested in the case and I turned out to be wrong.\nIt happens very often.\nMy judgment just was incorrect.\nMy colleagues thought it was a much more important issue than I did.\nIt seems to me that could happen here just as well, unless you routinely referred it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3052.338, 3057.972, 3062.363, 3063.294, 3064.886, 3067.188], "stop_times": [3057.972, 3062.363, 3063.294, 3064.886, 3067.188, 3070.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3052.338}, "reply_to": "21214__2_094", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21214__2_096", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Well, again, I'm... I don't want to suggest what the Court's practices should be, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3070.958], "stop_times": [3075.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3070.958}, "reply_to": "21214__2_095", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_097", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "But your argument is that there is no loophole, that everything will be subject to review by the Court, and I just don't think it would be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3075.673], "stop_times": [3081.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3075.673}, "reply_to": "21214__2_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21214__2_098", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--Well, I think the view that there's no loophole is the trust in the Court both as an institution and as its body of nine individual justices.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3081.076], "stop_times": [3089.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3081.076}, "reply_to": "21214__2_097", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_099", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "You assume no one justice will make a mistake, is what you're saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3089.442], "stop_times": [3091.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3089.442}, "reply_to": "21214__2_098", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21214__2_100", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Not after a district--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3091.483], "stop_times": [3092.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3091.483}, "reply_to": "21214__2_099", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_101", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "And I've made a lot of them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3092.834], "stop_times": [3093.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3092.834}, "reply_to": "21214__2_100", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21214__2_102", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--Not after a district... keep in mind, the Court only gets involved after a district court judge in most circuits has denied it and after a court of appeals has denied it.\nThat's the only opportunity, and I... but there's always a risk of mistake.\nI suppose there's the risk of a mistake even of a precedent, but I think it's... it was entirely appropriate for Congress to make the judgment that with respect to this problem of frivolous habeas claims clogging the courts, that we ought to expedite review of those that don't have merit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3093.245, 3100.928, 3104.191], "stop_times": [3100.928, 3104.191, 3119.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3093.245}, "reply_to": "21214__2_101", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_103", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "At the court of appeals level does the court of appeals judge act as a surrogate for the court of appeals?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3119.14], "stop_times": [3123.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3119.14}, "reply_to": "21214__2_102", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21214__2_104", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "As this Court indicated in Burrell in 1956, that is up to the court of appeals.\nThey're entitled to establish their own practice that says individual judges--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3123.733, 3129.807], "stop_times": [3129.807, 3133.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3123.733}, "reply_to": "21214__2_103", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_105", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Well, what would you think under the statute if they're... if a single circuit judge acts, is he acting as a surrogate for the court of appeals?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3133.861], "stop_times": [3141.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3133.861}, "reply_to": "21214__2_104", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21214__2_106", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--It depends on that court of appeals' rules and practices.\nNot necessarily.\nI think it could quite plausibly be the case.\nI'm not aware of a circuit that has this practice, but it could be the case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3141.444, 3145.437, 3146.058, 3147.851], "stop_times": [3145.437, 3146.058, 3147.851, 3151.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3141.444}, "reply_to": "21214__2_105", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_107", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Would the practice be any different in the courts of appeals than under the old certificate of probable cause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3151.452], "stop_times": [3157.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3151.452}, "reply_to": "21214__2_106", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21214__2_108", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nI mean, it's something they've been doing for quite a while.\nIn fact, longer than this Court has been doing it, since 1925.\nThis has been something that they've had to manage.\nCongress was aware, Justice Souter, to get back to your question, of how they managed it and I think the question of decisions by this Court, where there's no discussion of jurisdiction, can't plausibly create an implication that Congress knew about those decisions that the Court itself had not decided to address in terms of jurisdiction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3157.956, 3159.196, 3161.399, 3164.371, 3167.203], "stop_times": [3159.196, 3161.399, 3164.371, 3167.203, 3184.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3157.956}, "reply_to": "21214__2_107", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_109", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Well, they... I wouldn't impute to Congress any knowledge that we had somehow formally reexamined House, but I guess I do think we should impute to Congress the knowledge that we are, in fact, reviewing these decisions, that we are, in fact, acting as if we had statutory cert jurisdiction in certain of these cases and my imputation of knowledge doesn't go beyond that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3184.874], "stop_times": [3209.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3184.874}, "reply_to": "21214__2_108", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21214__2_110", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3209.979], "stop_times": [3210.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3209.979}, "reply_to": "21214__2_109", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_111", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "But if it goes that far, then it's difficult, it seems to me, to argue, as I think you were suggesting, that there is a kind of overwhelming restrictive premise in AEDPA which goes so far as to assume, or as to include a congressional assumption that we could not review in these circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3210.33], "stop_times": [3231.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3210.33}, "reply_to": "21214__2_110", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21214__2_112", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--Well, I think there clearly is when it comes to statutory certiorari, because there's not a single case that discusses that issue and says there is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3231.364], "stop_times": [3238.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3231.364}, "reply_to": "21214__2_111", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_113", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "But there are single cases in which we apparently were doing it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3238.409], "stop_times": [3241.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3238.409}, "reply_to": "21214__2_112", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21214__2_114", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--But--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3241.82], "stop_times": [3242.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3241.82}, "reply_to": "21214__2_113", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_115", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "We didn't say so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3242.341], "stop_times": [3243.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3242.341}, "reply_to": "21214__2_114", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21214__2_116", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--But, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3243.552], "stop_times": [3244.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3243.552}, "reply_to": "21214__2_115", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_117", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "We didn't discuss it, but we did it, didn't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3244.103], "stop_times": [3245.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3244.103}, "reply_to": "21214__2_116", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21214__2_118", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--I don't mean to quibble, but as between decisions that discuss the issue and decisions that silently ignore it, I think the better rule is to assume Congress knows about the decisions that discuss the issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3245.543], "stop_times": [3256.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3245.543}, "reply_to": "21214__2_117", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_119", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Mr. Sutton, shouldn't we just stick to the language of the statute?\nWill you be willing to wager that more than 2 percent of the Members of Congress ever heard of House?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3256.941, 3259.064, 3266.198], "stop_times": [3259.064, 3266.198, 3266.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3256.941}, "reply_to": "21214__2_118", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21214__2_120", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Your Honor, I've no idea, as you will agree, what they meant or what they knew, but that's exactly why we give them the benefit of the doubt.\nThank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3266.448, 3275.775], "stop_times": [3275.775, 3276.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3266.448}, "reply_to": "21214__2_119", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_121", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Mr. Sutton, you were appointed as amicus curiae by this Court and we thank you for your performance in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3276.536], "stop_times": [3281.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3276.536}, "reply_to": "21214__2_120", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21214__2_122", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3281.888], "stop_times": [3282.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3281.888}, "reply_to": "21214__2_121", "speaker": "jeffrey_s_sutton"}
{"id": "21214__2_123", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Ms. Penner, you have 3 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3282.579], "stop_times": [3284.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3282.579}, "reply_to": "21214__2_122", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21214__3_000", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Justice Ginsburg raised an issue which is precisely the sort of issue that this Court could not reach but for its certiorari power and that is the question whether, after In Re Burwell, a single dissenting judge on a court of appeals panel, his vote in favor of a certificate is sufficient to mandate that a certificate be issued.\nThat is the sort of question, the procedural question about issuance of a certificate, that this Court would have no opportunity to review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3284.159, 3304.393], "stop_times": [3304.393, 3311.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3284.159}, "reply_to": "21214__2_123", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__3_001", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Do you think it's vitally important that that be the same Nation wide, that one court of appeals follow one practice, it would be terrible if the other followed the other practice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3311.128], "stop_times": [3319.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3311.128}, "reply_to": "21214__3_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21214__3_002", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "The question is whether Congress did.\nI cannot imagine all of the situations in which an important procedural issue might arise that this Court would need to resolve, but there may be questions that go to the heart of section 2253 that Congress would want this Court to have the authority to resolve.\nThere was a point about... I... about the state of the law at the time that House was decided, and I... we have stated our position in the letter that we submitted, but I just want to clarify that the question... the question that Mr. Sutton has raised and the question about the legislative history is whether the 1925 act retracted the power that the 1908 act had conferred on circuit justices to grant certificates of probable cause.\nThe language of section 13 strongly suggests that the only part of the 1908 act that was retracted was the part that required direct appeal to the Supreme Court and that justices retained their power to grant certificates.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3319.151, 3320.713, 3334.522, 3361.77], "stop_times": [3320.713, 3334.522, 3361.77, 3374.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3319.151}, "reply_to": "21214__3_001", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__3_003", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Do you have any explanation for the dearth of any applications in that period?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3374.239], "stop_times": [3378.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3374.239}, "reply_to": "21214__3_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21214__3_004", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "We don't... I personally cannot say that there is a dearth, because there... it's extremely difficult to search this Court's records from that period in applications that would have been decided in chambers, so I don't think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3378.581], "stop_times": [3389.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3378.581}, "reply_to": "21214__3_003", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__3_005", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Mr. Sutton said there was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3389.22], "stop_times": [3390.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3389.22}, "reply_to": "21214__3_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21214__3_006", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--I think that... I am uncertain that Mr. Sutton would be able to make a declaration that there were no applications.\nHe can only say that Westlaw does not report any.\nMany of these are simply not published and they're not available, and I think I can make a recommendation... representation that I've asked the Clerk of the Court about... or the Librarian about how to get this, and it's very difficult to find, so we don't know whether they occurred or didn't occur during that period.\nIt's certainly true that House didn't mention it, but House also did not mention another form of relief that was available, and that was an original petition for habeas corpus to this Court, which House had indeed sought.\nThe existence of that remedy did not deter the Court in holding that it had common law certiorari power.\nIn addition, the question about whether the 1911 act's definition of circuit judge applies, the fact is that the 1925 act did not even use the language, circuit judge, so the definition of circuit judge is sort of irrelevant.\nThe only question is whether the 1925 act eliminated the power of the circuit justices that the 1908 act had created.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3390.449, 3396.444, 3398.824, 3416.227, 3426.593, 3432.777, 3446.635], "stop_times": [3396.444, 3398.824, 3416.227, 3426.593, 3432.777, 3446.635, 3453.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3390.449}, "reply_to": "21214__3_005", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__3_007", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Could I ask you a quick question?\nIf we accepted the SG's idea that a request to a single judge in a circuit is not in the circuit, in the court of appeals, would that also apply to first habeas petitions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3453.841, 3455.091], "stop_times": [3455.091, 3467.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3453.841}, "reply_to": "21214__3_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21214__3_008", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "I'm sorry, could you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3467.149], "stop_times": [3469.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3467.149}, "reply_to": "21214__3_007", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__3_009", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "If we accept the position that it's not in... is it all right if I ask this, Chief--\nAll right.\nIf we accept the position of the SG that the request for a certificate of appeal, you know, to go to the circuit justice... they're saying that isn't in the court of appeals, right?\nOkay.\nDoes that mean for purposes of habeas corpus, a first habeas petition, you also have to get a certificate, don't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3469.122, 3474.846, 3475.036, 3487.211, 3488.323], "stop_times": [3474.846, 3475.036, 3487.211, 3488.323, 3495.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3469.122}, "reply_to": "21214__3_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21214__3_010", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3495.117], "stop_times": [3496.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3495.117}, "reply_to": "21214__3_009", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__3_011", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "All right.\nWould that mean that we would then be unable to hear denials of those certificates, too, in first habeas?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3496.127, 3496.547], "stop_times": [3496.547, 3502.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3496.127}, "reply_to": "21214__3_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21214__3_012", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "It may have the same implication.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3502.441], "stop_times": [3504.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3502.441}, "reply_to": "21214__3_011", "speaker": "eileen_penner"}
{"id": "21214__3_013", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Penner.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3504.254, 3506.285], "stop_times": [3506.285, 3507.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3504.254}, "reply_to": "21214__3_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21214__3_014", "conversation_id": "21214", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-8986", "start_times": [3507.785], "stop_times": [3512.67], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3507.785}, "reply_to": "21214__3_013", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19992__0_000", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "We'll hear argument next in No. 96-1693, Frank Hopkins v. Randolph Reeves.\nGeneral Stenberg, you may proceed whenever you are ready.\nCounsel, will you please take your seats.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [0.0, 8.498, 26.162], "stop_times": [8.498, 26.162, 28.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19992__0_001", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Thank you.\nThank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--\nThis case presents the question of whether a defendant in a potential capital case has a constitutional right to effectively charge himself with crimes not charged by the prosecution and which are not lesser included offenses of the crimes that were charged by the prosecution, and to have his jury instructed on those offenses.\nIn Beck v. Alabama, this Court had said... said that if a lesser included offense exists under State law and is supported by the evidence, that an instruction on that lesser included offense must be given at the request of the defendant.\nHere, Respondent Reeves was charged with two counts of felony murder.\nSpecifically, he was charged with killing two women in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a first degree sexual assault.\nThe Respondent did not ask to have his jury instructed on the lesser included offense of first degree sexual assault, which does exist as a lesser included offense under Nebraska law.\nInstead, the Respondent asked to have his jury instructed on second degree murder and manslaughter.\nFor 100 years, the Nebraska Supreme Court has clearly and consistently held that second degree murder and manslaughter are not lesser included offenses of felony murder in the State of Nebraska.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [28.614, 31.144, 34.002, 55.744, 69.785, 74.251, 81.592, 92.323, 97.508], "stop_times": [31.144, 34.002, 55.744, 69.785, 74.251, 81.592, 92.323, 97.508, 109.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 28.614}, "reply_to": "19992__0_000", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_002", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Was... was the manslaughter that he asked for the instruction on involuntary manslaughter, in other words killing in the course of committing an unlawful act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [109.394], "stop_times": [117.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 109.394}, "reply_to": "19992__0_001", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19992__0_003", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "I don't recall, Your Honor, if the requested instruction was... was specific as to which of the types that it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [117.782], "stop_times": [126.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 117.782}, "reply_to": "19992__0_002", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_004", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Well, would he have been correct if... if he had asked for that?\nIsn't that a lesser included of... of the felony murder charged here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [126.277, 129.901], "stop_times": [129.901, 134.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 126.277}, "reply_to": "19992__0_003", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19992__0_005", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "No, Your Honor, it is not, for a couple of reasons.\nOf course, for 100 years, the Nebraska Supreme Court has said that it's not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [134.696, 136.961], "stop_times": [136.961, 141.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 134.696}, "reply_to": "19992__0_004", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_006", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "I know.\nThey have said that.\nI don't understand why--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [141.6, 141.788, 142.303], "stop_times": [141.788, 142.303, 143.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 141.6}, "reply_to": "19992__0_005", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19992__0_007", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Well, the... there's two... there's really two answers.\nOne is the more general answer that has been given by the Nebraska Supreme Court over the years, which is simply to say that... that there are two different intents involved.\nUnder a felony murder, the intent involved looks at the intent to commit the underlying felony.\nIn this case, the first degree sexual assault.\nUnder first degree premeditated murder, second degree murder and manslaughter, the focus is on the intent to kill or the intent to commit the murder.\nIn answering your question, Your Honor, we have to ask what unlawful act are we referring to.\nIf we are... are referring to the unlawful act alleged by the prosecutor, namely, first degree sexual assault, then felony murder and manslaughter are identical offenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [143.553, 146.364, 154.876, 160.187, 162.233, 171.197, 177.664], "stop_times": [146.364, 154.876, 160.187, 162.233, 171.197, 177.664, 189.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 143.553}, "reply_to": "19992__0_006", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_008", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--What... what about the... what about the lesser sexual... isn't there is... what is it... I guess second degree sexual assault, which... which does not involve penetration?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [189.58], "stop_times": [197.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 189.58}, "reply_to": "19992__0_007", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19992__0_009", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nIn the case of second degree sexual assault, to answer your question, we need to think about what the purpose of our manslaughter statute is.\nAnd the purpose of the manslaughter statute in the commission... killing in the commission of an unlawful act is that if someone is committing an unlawful act and someone is killed, that... that makes things worse.\nWell, manslaughter is a class III felony under Nebraska law.\nSecond degree sexual assault is also a class III felony under Nebraska law.\nSo there would be no... there would never be a case where a prosecutor would... would need to charge manslaughter where you have a second degree sexual assault that you've already proved.\nThe killing... proving the killing adds nothing.\nAnd so I think, logically then, second degree sexual--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [197.406, 198.342, 206.293, 217.007, 221.006, 227.223, 237.139, 238.764], "stop_times": [198.342, 206.293, 217.007, 221.006, 227.223, 237.139, 238.764, 242.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 197.406}, "reply_to": "19992__0_008", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_010", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "But he could... he... I mean, if he wanted to, he could charge it, couldn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [242.465], "stop_times": [244.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 242.465}, "reply_to": "19992__0_009", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19992__0_011", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--We certainly could, Your Honor.\nBut the... but the concept of lesser--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [244.574, 245.183], "stop_times": [245.183, 246.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 244.574}, "reply_to": "19992__0_010", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_012", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "But if we assume that such a charge is possible under Nebraska law, then why isn't it a lesser included of the charge here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [246.745], "stop_times": [254.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 246.745}, "reply_to": "19992__0_011", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19992__0_013", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Well, of course, the prosecutor could have charged any number of crimes.\nThat doesn't make them lesser included offenses of some of these other crimes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [254.46, 257.584], "stop_times": [257.584, 262.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 254.46}, "reply_to": "19992__0_012", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_014", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "No, but why isn't this... if... if... if he had... and I'm not sure that he clearly asked for this... but if he had said, I want an... an instruction on the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter and the unlawful act that I have in mind is, if I've got this right second... second degree sexual assault, why would that not have been a request for a lesser included... an instruction on a lesser included offense within the meaning of that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [262.208], "stop_times": [286.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 262.208}, "reply_to": "19992__0_013", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19992__0_015", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Right.\nWell, the Nebraska Supreme Court has not spoken to that specifically.\nBut my answer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [286.51, 287.213, 289.104], "stop_times": [287.213, 289.104, 290.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 286.51}, "reply_to": "19992__0_014", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_016", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "No, but just... just as an analytical matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [290.29], "stop_times": [290.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 290.29}, "reply_to": "19992__0_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19992__0_017", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Right, exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [290.915], "stop_times": [291.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 290.915}, "reply_to": "19992__0_016", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_018", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Why... why wouldn't it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [291.603], "stop_times": [292.243], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 291.603}, "reply_to": "19992__0_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19992__0_019", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Well, as an analytical matter, I just... I don't think it fits the conceptual framework.\nIt simply makes no sense to... to have the prosecutor have to prove an additional element... in this case, a killing... in order to get the same punishment, a class III felony.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [292.243, 296.101], "stop_times": [296.101, 307.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 292.243}, "reply_to": "19992__0_018", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_020", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--No, but you're saying the prosecutor might not have brought this as an original charge.\nAnd I... I can see your point.\nI understand the point that you're making.\nBut I don't... I guess I don't understand why, within the meaning of Beck, this involuntary manslaughter, when the... when the underlying offense is second degree sexual assault, is not, just as an analytical matter, a lesser included offense within the meaning of Beck.\nThere may be other reasons why Beck doesn't apply here, but I just want to get straight that if he had asked for it, that either would or would not have been a... a welltaken point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [307.472, 310.689, 312.437, 314.405, 332.492], "stop_times": [310.689, 312.437, 314.405, 332.492, 339.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 307.472}, "reply_to": "19992__0_019", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19992__0_021", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [339.974], "stop_times": [340.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 339.974}, "reply_to": "19992__0_020", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_022", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "And it strikes me as though it would be a welltaken point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [340.38], "stop_times": [341.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 340.38}, "reply_to": "19992__0_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19992__0_023", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Well, I understood Beck, Your Honor, to rely on the State's own definition of lesser included offenses.\nI did not understand Beck to... to impose a Federal definition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [341.911, 347.144], "stop_times": [347.144, 351.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 341.911}, "reply_to": "19992__0_022", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_024", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Well, I assume that... that Beck's... well, I'm not sure.\nI mean, I... I thought Beck probably assumed that there... for purposes of Beck, that there was a Federal definition of what a lesser included offense is.\nBut assuming... assuming for the sake of argument that lesser included offense under Beck is... is a... is a... is a... a Federal term, subject to Federal definition, would this, just as an analytical matter, have been a lesser included offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [351.174, 352.751, 360.7], "stop_times": [352.751, 360.7, 377.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 351.174}, "reply_to": "19992__0_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19992__0_025", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "No, Your Honor, it would not.\nAnd, of course, first of all, I strongly disagree with the premise that... that... that the definition of lesser included offenses, under State law, is a Federal matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [377.006, 378.568], "stop_times": [378.568, 384.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 377.006}, "reply_to": "19992__0_024", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_026", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "No, you may be right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [384.94], "stop_times": [385.487], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 384.94}, "reply_to": "19992__0_025", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19992__0_027", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "But accepting that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [385.487], "stop_times": [386.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 385.487}, "reply_to": "19992__0_026", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_028", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "But I'm... I'm just saying assume it for the sake of argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [386.518], "stop_times": [387.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 386.518}, "reply_to": "19992__0_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19992__0_029", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Well, all... I guess all I can do is repeat... try and repeat, maybe in... in slightly different words, the same... the same point that I've made--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [387.518], "stop_times": [394.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 387.518}, "reply_to": "19992__0_028", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_030", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "General Stenberg, is one reason you're having difficulty on this point is that the Nebraska Supreme Court has never spoken to it?\nIsn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [394.921, 400.232], "stop_times": [400.232, 400.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 394.921}, "reply_to": "19992__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19992__0_031", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Well, the... the Nebraska Supreme Court has never analyzed it in that way.\nThey have clearly spoken to it many times.\nAnd for 100 years, it's held.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [400.607, 404.824, 406.307], "stop_times": [404.824, 406.307, 407.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 400.607}, "reply_to": "19992__0_030", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_032", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "But they talked... the \"it\" was felony murder.\nAnd they said there is no lesser included offense.\nBut did they ever confront this statute that says manslaughter, unintentionally... unintentionally killing while in the commission of an unlawful act, they... did they ever say yes, we looked at that, those words on their face, and that's not a lesser included offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [407.603, 409.383, 411.601], "stop_times": [409.383, 411.601, 430.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 407.603}, "reply_to": "19992__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19992__0_033", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "I... I don't believe there's a... a case that addresses that.\nI would add, Your Honor, here... and I think it... it's... it's relevant... is that... that even if it were a lesser included offense, that under the facts in evidence under Nebraska law, the charge would not have been given.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [430.781, 433.765], "stop_times": [433.765, 444.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 430.781}, "reply_to": "19992__0_032", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_034", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Was... was there any request, General Stenberg, for such an... for such an instruction on second degree sexual... sexual offense, sexual assault?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [444.979], "stop_times": [453.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 444.979}, "reply_to": "19992__0_033", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19992__0_035", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "I do not recall that they ever, at the time of the trial, identified second degree sexual assault.\nIf they had, Your Honor, second degree sexual assault still requires an intent to use force for sexual contact.\nThe... the only defenses in this case were insanity and diminished capacity, so that an intent could not be formed.\nSo that if... if the defendant could not have formed an intent to commit first degree sexual assault and therefore a felony murder, the same evidence proved that... that he did not have... would not have had the... the capability to form the intent to commit a sec... second degree sexual assault.\nSo either he was guilty of both felony murder and unlawful event manslaughter, or he was... he was innocent of both.\nBut under the evidence in this case, he could not have been acquitted of the greater and convicted of the lesser.\nEven if you assume that second degree sexual assault--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [453.287, 460.254, 468.251, 474.092, 491.257, 499.067, 503.688], "stop_times": [460.254, 468.251, 474.092, 491.257, 499.067, 503.688, 508.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 453.287}, "reply_to": "19992__0_034", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_036", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "May... may I ask... and maybe it's the same question again... but what are the elements under Nebraska law of involuntary manslaughter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [508.579], "stop_times": [513.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 508.579}, "reply_to": "19992__0_035", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19992__0_037", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Your Honor, there's... the... the statute has two different ways of reaching that.\nOne is... is without malice... a killing without malice, upon a sudden quarrel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [513.263, 520.839], "stop_times": [520.839, 526.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 513.263}, "reply_to": "19992__0_036", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_038", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "There must be a killing.\nAnd what is the second element of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [526.322, 527.68], "stop_times": [527.68, 528.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 526.322}, "reply_to": "19992__0_037", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19992__0_039", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "A killing without malice upon a sudden quarrel.\nThe... the other type of manslaughter defined by Nebraska law is a killing that is unintentional during the commission of an unlawful act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [528.977, 533.958], "stop_times": [533.958, 543.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 528.977}, "reply_to": "19992__0_038", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_040", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "All right. Now, is it... is it not possible that on the facts of this case, they could have found that there was a killing that was unintentional in the course of a sexual assault?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [543.939], "stop_times": [552.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 543.939}, "reply_to": "19992__0_039", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19992__0_041", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [552.28], "stop_times": [560.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 552.28}, "reply_to": "19992__0_040", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_042", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "And... and is it not also true that in order to find him guilty... what they did find him guilty of, they had to find some additional elements?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [560.043], "stop_times": [566.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 560.043}, "reply_to": "19992__0_041", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19992__0_043", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nWhat you just described would be identical to... to the felony murder.\nTo... to convict a felony murder, you need a first degree sexual assault and a killing in the perpetration of that.\nSo if... if... if the unlawful act we're talking about is first degree sexual assault, they're identical offenses.\nSo you either have to convict of both or acquit of both.\nAnd of course, before you get a... a lesser included--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [566.273, 567.585, 571.568, 581.971, 587.703, 590.514], "stop_times": [567.585, 571.568, 581.971, 587.703, 590.514, 594.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 566.273}, "reply_to": "19992__0_042", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_044", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "You say the two offenses are identical; one carries the death penalty and the other carries a very minor penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [594.981], "stop_times": [601.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 594.981}, "reply_to": "19992__0_043", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19992__0_045", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, that... I think... I think that probably gets to part of the... part of the reason, perhaps, the Nebraska Supreme Court does not regard it as a lesser included offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [601.542], "stop_times": [612.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 601.542}, "reply_to": "19992__0_044", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_046", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Well, it would seem to be almost a fortiori under Beck that if the two offenses are identical, but one carries a lesser penalty, that that should be instructive.\nIt seems to me that's an even easier case than Beck.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [612.849, 623.875], "stop_times": [623.875, 626.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 612.849}, "reply_to": "19992__0_045", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19992__0_047", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "No, I don't think so.\nI don't think so at all, Your Honor.\nBecause, in that case, the jury could simply pick one or the other, with no standards to guide its... to guide its decision.\nIt would not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [626.266, 627.89, 629.795, 637.652], "stop_times": [627.89, 629.795, 637.652, 639.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 626.266}, "reply_to": "19992__0_046", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_048", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Well, it knows that one is less serious than the other.\nThat's the whole point of Beck.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [639.088, 640.369], "stop_times": [640.369, 641.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 639.088}, "reply_to": "19992__0_047", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19992__0_049", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Well, but if they have the same identical elements, Your Honor, and the jury follows its instructions, it could not logically acquit of the greater and convict of the lesser.\nAnd before an instruction would be given in Nebraska, or in most courts, the possib... one of the... the rationale is that there must be evidence on which the jury could acquit of the greater offense and still convict of the lesser.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [641.728, 651.302], "stop_times": [651.302, 661.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 641.728}, "reply_to": "19992__0_048", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_050", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "No, but doesn't--\n--Will you... you tell us again, are you... am I right in thinking that there are two offenses in Nebraska which have exactly the same elements, and one carries a... a possible death penalty and the other carries a very small sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [661.642, 662.61], "stop_times": [662.61, 674.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 661.642}, "reply_to": "19992__0_049", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19992__0_051", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "They only have the same elements, Your Honor, if we set aside the... the 100 years of Nebraska jurisprudence and... and... and say that... try and say that... that manslaughter is the lesser included offense of felony murder.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [674.309], "stop_times": [689.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 674.309}, "reply_to": "19992__0_050", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_052", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "No, but what is the difference... what is difference in the elements?\nMaybe I misunderstood your answer to Justice Stevens.\nBut I thought part of your answer was that in fact his hypothesis really was not posing a difference offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [689.286, 691.675, 694.549], "stop_times": [691.675, 694.549, 702.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 689.286}, "reply_to": "19992__0_051", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19992__0_053", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Exact... well, let's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [702.891], "stop_times": [704.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 702.891}, "reply_to": "19992__0_052", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_054", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Okay.\nSo that the elements... I... I mean, I took that as meaning that the... that the elements of the involuntary manslaughter, where a sexual assault was involved, is the same as the elements for felony murder, where a sexual assault is involved.\nAre... is... are those identical in your view?\nIs that what you're telling us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [704.343, 704.734, 717.682, 720.369], "stop_times": [704.734, 717.682, 720.369, 721.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 704.343}, "reply_to": "19992__0_053", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19992__0_055", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--On an elements... not in the view of the Nebraska Supreme Court.\nBased on an--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [721.399, 723.868], "stop_times": [723.868, 724.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 721.399}, "reply_to": "19992__0_054", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_056", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "No, but on an elements or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [724.446], "stop_times": [724.852], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 724.446}, "reply_to": "19992__0_055", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19992__0_057", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--elements... on an elements test, if the underlying felony is first degree sexual assault, then yes, manslaughter and... and felony murder would be the same offense.\nYou would have to prove--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [724.852, 737.551], "stop_times": [737.551, 738.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 724.852}, "reply_to": "19992__0_056", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_058", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "So a prosecutor... so a prosecutor could have charged either one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [738.332], "stop_times": [740.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 738.332}, "reply_to": "19992__0_057", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19992__0_059", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Oh, sure.\nThe prosecutor could have charged--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [740.206, 741.159], "stop_times": [741.159, 742.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 740.206}, "reply_to": "19992__0_058", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_060", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "No, but you said I've got... I've got... I've got an offense consisting of the following elements here.\nAnd I can either go for the death penalty or I can go for a... a... a lowlevel criminal offense with a couple of years.\nHe could have made that decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [742.642, 747.016, 753.777], "stop_times": [747.016, 753.777, 754.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 742.642}, "reply_to": "19992__0_059", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19992__0_061", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Well, I suppose that's always true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [754.871], "stop_times": [756.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 754.871}, "reply_to": "19992__0_060", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_062", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [756.027], "stop_times": [756.917], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 756.027}, "reply_to": "19992__0_061", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19992__0_063", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "I suppose the prosecutor could have charged on trespassing or... or indecent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [756.917], "stop_times": [759.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 756.917}, "reply_to": "19992__0_062", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_064", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "No.\nBut in that case, the... the prosecutor is charging different elements.\nHere he's charging on your... as I understand you, exactly the same elements.\nSo he can say, gee, we'll either hang a person or... or give them a couple of years in... in prison.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [759.354, 759.604, 762.664, 766.039], "stop_times": [759.604, 762.664, 766.039, 771.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 759.354}, "reply_to": "19992__0_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19992__0_065", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Well, I think that's the same prosecute... prosecutorial discretion that exists in any... in any criminal case.\nThis doesn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [771.63, 776.785], "stop_times": [776.785, 777.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 771.63}, "reply_to": "19992__0_064", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_066", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "But isn't... doesn't that raise the... because of that... that enormous disparity, doesn't that raise the... an even worse problem that... that Beck was concerned with?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [777.223], "stop_times": [785.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 777.223}, "reply_to": "19992__0_065", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19992__0_067", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--I don't think so, Your Honor.\nBecause the jury would either have to convict of both of acquit of both.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [785.204, 785.936], "stop_times": [785.936, 790.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 785.204}, "reply_to": "19992__0_066", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_068", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "I suppose you would say, too, that the prosecutor could have charged simple assault, because that element was there, although the prosecutor had enough evidence to charge considerably more than that?\nWell--\n--He can also suggest that the jury can act in an inconsistent way.\nAnd there's no constitutional objection to doing that.\nThere's nothing that would have prevented the jury from returning not guilty on one and guilty on the other?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [790.279, 803.086, 803.867, 806.803, 808.709], "stop_times": [803.086, 803.867, 806.803, 808.709, 813.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 790.279}, "reply_to": "19992__0_067", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19992__0_069", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Well, it seems to me, Your Honor, that this... that this Court's jurisprudence would... would prohibit placing before the jury two identical offenses with the same elements and the same--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [813.723], "stop_times": [824.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 813.723}, "reply_to": "19992__0_068", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_070", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "But they don't have to be identical.\nCouldn't it be--\n--What... what... what is your authority for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [824.531, 825.093, 825.561], "stop_times": [825.093, 825.561, 827.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 824.531}, "reply_to": "19992__0_069", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19992__0_071", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Well, really, Your Honor, the Furman and the whole line... it would be arbit... it would allow the jury to arbitrarily and capriciously choose between felony murder and manslaughter, with no standards whatsoever to guide its judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [827.419], "stop_times": [837.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 827.419}, "reply_to": "19992__0_070", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_072", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "So... so you say there's a con... there would be a constitutional violation if the prosecution in this case indicted for both offenses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [837.604], "stop_times": [843.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 837.604}, "reply_to": "19992__0_071", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19992__0_073", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "No, Your Honor, I didn't.\nWell, potential... potentially there would... there could have been a problem if... yes, potentially there could be a constitutional problem in that event, yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [843.101, 845.756], "stop_times": [845.756, 854.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 843.101}, "reply_to": "19992__0_072", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_074", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "General, it seems to me... may I go back to Justice Stevens' question.\nBecause I think the... the question that Justice Stevens was asking probably is the same as the one that I... I've been asking.\nAnd that is, simply based on an analysis of the elements, isn't there, under a Nebraska law, a lesser included offense here of involuntary manslaughter when the elements of involuntary manslaughter consist of an unintentional killing together with a second degree sexual assault?\nJust as an analytical matter, that's... that's lesser included, isn't it?\nBecause it... it... it has... it has... it... it is distinguished from the charge in this case in the following way In this case, the charge was killing in the course of first degree sexual assault or attempted first degree sexual assault.\nAnd in order to prove first degree sexual assault you had to prove penetration.\nAnd in order to... to prove the... the attempt, you had to prove an intended penetration.\nUnder the second degree sexual assault, you don't have to prove penetration.\nSo why isn't the unintended killing in the course of committing a second degree sexual assault lesser included just based on the analysis of elements?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [854.221, 857.455, 862.828, 886.24, 889.801, 907.543, 913.651, 921.367, 926.786], "stop_times": [857.455, 862.828, 886.24, 889.801, 907.543, 913.651, 921.367, 926.786, 939.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 854.221}, "reply_to": "19992__0_073", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19992__0_075", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Well, I... I've tried to answer that question earlier, Your Honor, by... by pointing out that they're both class III felonies, and it would make no... if the prosecutor could already prove second degree sexual assault, it adds nothing to prove--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [939.046], "stop_times": [949.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 939.046}, "reply_to": "19992__0_074", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_076", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Okay.\nBut that... that simply says why a prosecutor wouldn't bring it.\nI'm saying why isn't it, as a matter of elements, a lesser included?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [949.448, 949.714, 951.292], "stop_times": [949.714, 951.292, 955.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 949.448}, "reply_to": "19992__0_075", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19992__0_077", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Well, I think it's a matter of logic, Your Honor.\nWhy would a legislature create that kind of system?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [955.602, 957.399], "stop_times": [957.399, 960.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 955.602}, "reply_to": "19992__0_076", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_078", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Well, I don't why.\nBut they seem to have done so.\nWhy isn't it lesser included?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [960.741, 961.429, 962.913], "stop_times": [961.429, 962.913, 963.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 960.741}, "reply_to": "19992__0_077", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19992__0_079", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "No, I disagree that they have.\nUnder our Supreme Court interpretations, Your Honor, that... that... that question doesn't arise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [963.99, 964.818], "stop_times": [964.818, 969.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 963.99}, "reply_to": "19992__0_078", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_080", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Well, General Stenberg, in... in this case, I guess the defendant stabbed the woman seven times.\nWhy would that come ahead of voluntary manslaughter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [969.612, 975.766], "stop_times": [975.766, 979.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 969.612}, "reply_to": "19992__0_079", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19992__0_081", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Well, I think it... I think it's pretty clear from the evidence that it was not an unintentional--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [979.593], "stop_times": [983.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 979.593}, "reply_to": "19992__0_080", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_082", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [983.435], "stop_times": [983.732], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 983.435}, "reply_to": "19992__0_081", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19992__0_083", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--killing here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [983.732], "stop_times": [984.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 983.732}, "reply_to": "19992__0_082", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_084", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Can I... can I you one question?\nI... I don't think he's finished answering my question yet.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [984.591, 985.809], "stop_times": [985.809, 988.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 984.591}, "reply_to": "19992__0_083", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19992__0_085", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Well, it's very clear that it was not, of course, an unintentional killing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [988.292], "stop_times": [992.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 988.292}, "reply_to": "19992__0_084", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_086", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "So it's all hypothetical really, whether this comes under the head of voluntary manslaughter, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [992.182], "stop_times": [996.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 992.182}, "reply_to": "19992__0_085", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19992__0_087", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Well... well, I think it's... I think it is hypothetical, Your Honor.\nAnd I think another concept of lesser included is that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [996.461, 999.226], "stop_times": [999.226, 1002.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 996.461}, "reply_to": "19992__0_086", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_088", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Except that the charge was felony murder.\nThe charge was not in... intentional killing, isn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1002.179, 1003.24], "stop_times": [1003.24, 1007.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1002.179}, "reply_to": "19992__0_087", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19992__0_089", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--That's true.\nThat's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1007.442, 1007.739], "stop_times": [1007.739, 1008.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1007.442}, "reply_to": "19992__0_088", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_090", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "And in felony murder, intent is... to kill... is irrelevant, as I understand it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1008.083], "stop_times": [1012.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1008.083}, "reply_to": "19992__0_089", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19992__0_091", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "That's exactly my point, Your Honor.\nYes.\nThat's exactly it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1012.408, 1013.393, 1014.189], "stop_times": [1013.393, 1014.189, 1015.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1012.408}, "reply_to": "19992__0_090", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_092", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Well, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1015.173], "stop_times": [1015.72], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1015.173}, "reply_to": "19992__0_091", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19992__0_093", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "That's exactly why second degree murder and manslaughter are not lesser included offenses of felony murder.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1015.72], "stop_times": [1019.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1015.72}, "reply_to": "19992__0_092", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_094", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--There is one thing I've tried to look up that I have not been able to find, which to me is important as a matter of Nebraska law.\nIt says in a case called State v. Price that the State cannot refuse a request for an instruction in a capital felony murder case where the defendant wants to insist that there be a showing of intent or reckless indifference to the value of human life.\nAre you familiar with what I'm talking about?\nIt's on page 11 of the NACDL brief.\nDo you know what I'm talking about?\nIf you don't, it's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1019.266, 1026.215, 1044.521, 1046.723, 1048.832, 1049.941], "stop_times": [1026.215, 1044.521, 1046.723, 1048.832, 1049.941, 1052.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1019.266}, "reply_to": "19992__0_093", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19992__0_095", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "I... I've read the... could you... could you repeat your question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1052.206], "stop_times": [1054.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1052.206}, "reply_to": "19992__0_094", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_096", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Well, what I'm trying to find out is this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1054.122], "stop_times": [1054.556], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1054.122}, "reply_to": "19992__0_095", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19992__0_097", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "I've read the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1054.556], "stop_times": [1055.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1054.556}, "reply_to": "19992__0_096", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_098", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Yeah, all right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1055.158], "stop_times": [1055.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1055.158}, "reply_to": "19992__0_097", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19992__0_099", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Could you repeat your question, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1055.874], "stop_times": [1055.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1055.874}, "reply_to": "19992__0_098", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_100", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Yeah.\nI'm trying to think up, in a capital case, a capital felony murder case, because of this Court's jurisprudence, Nebraska has said that the defendant is entitled to an instruction that there has to be some showing of either intent or reckless indifference to human life.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1055.957, 1056.268], "stop_times": [1056.268, 1076.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1055.957}, "reply_to": "19992__0_099", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19992__0_101", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "I think, Your Honor, that may refer to the... to the eligibility phase, if I'm not mistaken, but I'd have to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1076.152], "stop_times": [1083.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1076.152}, "reply_to": "19992__0_100", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_102", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "And that's not something that goes to the jury in... in the guilt phase?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1083.475], "stop_times": [1086.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1083.475}, "reply_to": "19992__0_101", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19992__0_103", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--That's correct.\nThat's my understanding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1086.459, 1086.803], "stop_times": [1086.803, 1087.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1086.459}, "reply_to": "19992__0_102", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_104", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Under Enmund v. Florida, you don't have to have an intent to kill?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1087.256], "stop_times": [1090.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1087.256}, "reply_to": "19992__0_103", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19992__0_105", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "You do at the... you do at the eligibility phase, not at the guilt phase.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1090.942], "stop_times": [1094.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1090.942}, "reply_to": "19992__0_104", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_106", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "And... and... thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1094.207], "stop_times": [1095.832], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1094.207}, "reply_to": "19992__0_105", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19992__0_107", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "If I could reserve--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1095.832], "stop_times": [1097.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1095.832}, "reply_to": "19992__0_106", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_108", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "One last thing I'd like to know, the State did not raise the Teaguebarred argument in the courts below?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1097.456], "stop_times": [1104.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1097.456}, "reply_to": "19992__0_107", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19992__0_109", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Well, there was really no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1104.298], "stop_times": [1105.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1104.298}, "reply_to": "19992__0_108", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_110", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Yes or no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1105.952], "stop_times": [1106.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1105.952}, "reply_to": "19992__0_109", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19992__0_111", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--No, Your Honor, we did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1106.702], "stop_times": [1107.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1106.702}, "reply_to": "19992__0_110", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_112", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "And it was raised for the first time in the petition for certiorari?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1107.718], "stop_times": [1111.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1107.718}, "reply_to": "19992__0_111", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19992__0_113", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1111.387], "stop_times": [1111.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1111.387}, "reply_to": "19992__0_112", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_114", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "And does that give us, in your view, discretion whether to address that or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1111.981], "stop_times": [1116.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1111.981}, "reply_to": "19992__0_113", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19992__0_115", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "That is my understanding of this Court's jurisprudence.\nAnd may I reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1116.823, 1118.541], "stop_times": [1118.541, 1120.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1116.823}, "reply_to": "19992__0_114", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__0_116", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Yes, you may, General.\nMr. McLeese, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1120.696, 1121.102], "stop_times": [1121.102, 1124.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1120.696}, "reply_to": "19992__0_115", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19992__1_000", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--\nThe ruling of the Eighth Circuit in this case reflects two critical errors of law.\nFirst, that a State can never rely on its own law as a basis for denying a lesser offense instruction in a capital case, and, second, that this Court's decisions in Tyson and Enmund are relevant to the question of whether such instructions are constitutionally required under Beck.\nAs to the first error, this Court's decisions in Hopper and Spaziano made clear that a State may decline to give lesser offense instructions in a capital case based on the application of State law principles, such as the requirement that there be evidence to support the giving of those lesser offense instructions or that the lesser offenses be... be available as a matter of State statute of limitations law.\nAnd it is surely reasonable for State courts to decline to give lesser offense instructions on offenses that are not necessarily included in the charged offenses... what might be called lesser unincluded offenses.\nA requirement... a constitutional requirement that State courts instruct on such offenses would be utterly unworkable.\nAs this Court's decisions in Dixon and Schmuck have made clear, there is no logical limiting principal upon the idea of instructing juries on lesser unincluded offenses.\nThere is no limiting principle, once you get into that form of analysis.\nMoreover, given criminal defendants the right to inject into criminal trials new offenses--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1124.445, 1134.207, 1138.19, 1152.34, 1173.301, 1184.296, 1190.824, 1201.602, 1204.819], "stop_times": [1134.207, 1138.19, 1152.34, 1173.301, 1184.296, 1190.824, 1201.602, 1204.819, 1210.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1124.445}, "reply_to": "19992__0_116", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "19992__1_001", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "What do you mean by lesser unincluded offenses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1210.379], "stop_times": [1212.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1210.379}, "reply_to": "19992__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19992__1_002", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--I mean, for example, to take the clearer of the two, second degree murder under Nebraska law.\nSecond degree murder under Nebraska law requires proof of intent to kill.\nFelony murder does not, under the elements tests, as... as the Federal courts would apply it or as the Nebraska courts have applied it.\nIt is quite clear that that is a lesser unincluded offense.\nIt's lesser, but it has elements which are different from--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1212.207, 1217.049, 1220.501, 1228.262, 1231.667], "stop_times": [1217.049, 1220.501, 1228.262, 1231.667, 1233.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1212.207}, "reply_to": "19992__1_001", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "19992__1_003", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Well, what about the... the manslaughter charge that... the questions being asked... addressed here this morning?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1233.791], "stop_times": [1241.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1233.791}, "reply_to": "19992__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19992__1_004", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Involuntary manslaughter, under Nebraska law... the Nebraska courts have said for 100 years that it... it and manslaughter generally are not lesser included offenses.\nThey have never, so far as I'm aware, been confronted with a specific claim, focusing on unlawful act manslaughter.\nSo they've never addressed that question.\nAnd I think that raises real issues of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1241.945, 1250.754, 1257.329, 1259.032], "stop_times": [1250.754, 1257.329, 1259.032, 1261.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1241.945}, "reply_to": "19992__1_003", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "19992__1_005", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "But could I interrupt with just onequestion.\nSupposing you have two offenses that... one of which has three elements and the other has two of those three, and that's all you know about.\nAnd Nebraska, as a matter of State law, says, well, we're not going to call that a lesser included offense.\nWould Beck apply in that kind of situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1261.14, 1262.608, 1269.169, 1273.464], "stop_times": [1262.608, 1269.169, 1273.464, 1275.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1261.14}, "reply_to": "19992__1_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19992__1_006", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--I... I think that that poses the question of whether Beck brings with it the federally constitutionally required imposition of an elements test as the Federal courts apply it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1275.792], "stop_times": [1285.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1275.792}, "reply_to": "19992__1_005", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "19992__1_007", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "My question is, in your view, could the State court say, well, we agree that... that the capital offense has three elements in it and we also agree that the... some other offense has only two of those elements in it, and otherwise they're exactly the same.\nBut as a matter of State law, we will not treat that as a lesser included offense.\nCould they do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1285.958, 1297.438, 1301.39], "stop_times": [1297.438, 1301.39, 1301.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1285.958}, "reply_to": "19992__1_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19992__1_008", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "I think it would be an extension of Beck and, therefore, a new rule for this Court to constitutionalize the elements test.\nAnd, therefore, I think Beck itself does not establish the proposition that a State would be obliged to submit el... a lesser offense--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1301.906, 1308.371], "stop_times": [1308.371, 1315.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1301.906}, "reply_to": "19992__1_007", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "19992__1_009", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "But that still isn't my question.\nMy question is what is your view as to whether the State could do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1315.15, 1315.931], "stop_times": [1315.931, 1318.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1315.15}, "reply_to": "19992__1_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19992__1_010", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Such a rule would not have a... a substantial impact on Federal prosecutions.\nWe adhere to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1318.961, 1323.802], "stop_times": [1323.802, 1325.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1318.961}, "reply_to": "19992__1_009", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "19992__1_011", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "You'd rather not answer the question is what you're saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1325.239], "stop_times": [1326.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1325.239}, "reply_to": "19992__1_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19992__1_012", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--No.\nI think I am... I think it's different--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1326.395, 1327.035], "stop_times": [1327.035, 1329.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1326.395}, "reply_to": "19992__1_011", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "19992__1_013", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "It's different from Beck, I agree.\nIt's different from Beck, clearly.\nBut I'm just asking you whether the rationale of Beck would apply squarely to that situation or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1329.815, 1330.69, 1332.189], "stop_times": [1330.69, 1332.189, 1336.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1329.815}, "reply_to": "19992__1_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19992__1_014", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--I think it would be unwise for the Court to take the step of reading Beck as imposing an elements test as a matter of Federal constitutional law.\nSo the answer, in essence, is no, I don't think that Beck requires the conclusion that State courts are obliged to submit any lesser that would be a lesser offense under the elements test under Federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1336.86, 1345.028], "stop_times": [1345.028, 1355.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1336.86}, "reply_to": "19992__1_013", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "19992__1_015", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Mr. McLeese, you say that the Supreme Court of Nebraska has never had to confront the question raised here.\nOne would have thought they would have had to confront it in the direct appeal in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1355.789, 1361.554], "stop_times": [1361.554, 1365.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1355.789}, "reply_to": "19992__1_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19992__1_016", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Had... had... had Respondent framed this issue for the Nebraska courts, they ought to have.\nBut Respondent did not.\nI think the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1365.567, 1371.643, 1372.471], "stop_times": [1371.643, 1372.471, 1373.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1365.567}, "reply_to": "19992__1_015", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "19992__1_017", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "So Respondent never raised this issue in the Supreme Court of Nebraska?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1373.08], "stop_times": [1376.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1373.08}, "reply_to": "19992__1_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19992__1_018", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Respondent, so far as I'm aware, has never suggested, until this Court... in fact, it's never been suggested by anyone until this Court... that if you apply an elements test, involuntary manslaughter, unlawful act manslaughter, is not a lesser... is a lesser included offense.\nThey never mentioned that theory at all.\nAll they did is... and in the joint appendix, at 30, is where there's the instruction which they proposed.\nIt did refer to unlawful act manslaughter as one of the alternative lessers that... that they sought to get.\nBut when they were explaining to the trial court why they were entitled to defense instructions on second degree murder and manslaughter, at no point did they focus on involuntary act manslaughter, did they suggest that under an elements test it would be a lesser, did they suggest that there was any particular unlawful act that would be appropriate in this particular case.\nThose issues were never confronted, so far as I'm aware, until... in Respondent's brief in this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1376.296, 1392.275, 1394.774, 1400.975, 1406.081, 1424.183], "stop_times": [1392.275, 1394.774, 1400.975, 1406.081, 1424.183, 1428.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1376.296}, "reply_to": "19992__1_017", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "19992__1_019", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Not even in the Eighth Circuit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1428.245], "stop_times": [1430.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1428.245}, "reply_to": "19992__1_018", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19992__1_020", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "No.\nAnd the Eighth Circuit's analysis, again, is completely different.\nThe analysis of the Eighth Circuit is that it is irrelevant to the Beck question whether these would be lesser included offenses or not.\nAnd that's the ruling that we sought to participate, because we object to it and because it would have a substantial impact on Federal prosecution.\nThat ruling, which would constitutionalize a lesser unincluded offense doctrine that this Court... this Court has repudiated in Schmuck and in Dixon, is entirely untenable.\nI... I should try to mention one thing about Nebraska law, although I don't profess to expertise in it.\nI think that there is at least one possible respect... again, I'm speculating, because Nebraska has never confronted this question... in which involuntary act manslaughter might not be a lesser included offense even on an elements test.\nIf you look at the statute which defines unlawful act manslaughter, it requires... it appears to require that the murder in fact be unintentional rather than... rather than intentional.\nIf, as there is some suggestion in Nebraska law, that that's an element of the offense, that you can't have an intentional killing that would be an involuntary manslaughter, then they are not greater and lesser.\nBecause I could commit a felony murder through an intentional killing in the course of a felony that would not be eligible for treatment as an involuntary manslaughter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1430.072, 1430.478, 1432.742, 1439.349, 1445.409, 1455.452, 1459.966, 1471.945, 1483.004, 1494.75], "stop_times": [1430.478, 1432.742, 1439.349, 1445.409, 1455.452, 1459.966, 1471.945, 1483.004, 1494.75, 1502.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1430.072}, "reply_to": "19992__1_019", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "19992__1_021", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "But... but the intent here is... is a little difficult.\nAs I understand it, second degree murder was not charged because there was no intent.\nAnd yet when they get to the death eligibility phase, they have to say there's intent to comply with Edmunds.\nIt seems to me... I don't understand the consistency of that position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1502.026, 1503.603, 1508.399, 1514.272], "stop_times": [1503.603, 1508.399, 1514.272, 1518.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1502.026}, "reply_to": "19992__1_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19992__1_022", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Second degree murder was not a lesser included offense because it requires an intent to kill.\nNow, Tyson and Enmund do not require at any phase of the proceedings a determination that the defendant intended to kill.\nWhat they require... what they clearly require is that with respect to someone who is not the actual killer... not this situation, by the way... that there be some culpable state shown with respect to the killing, and at least... well, some culpable state--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1518.41, 1523.378, 1528.86], "stop_times": [1523.378, 1528.86, 1543.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1518.41}, "reply_to": "19992__1_021", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "19992__1_023", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "So that if you're the actual killer under Edmund, the intent to kill need not be shown?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1543.901], "stop_times": [1548.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1543.901}, "reply_to": "19992__1_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19992__1_024", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--The lower courts have taken that view of Enmund.\nBut the other problem with the reliance upon Enmund as affecting the Beck analysis is that this Court, in Cabana, made very clear that that's not a determination that is relevant to the State's power to define the elements of capital offenses.\nIt is a determination that is relevant solely at the time of sentencing to determine whether or not a capital sentence can in fact be imposed.\nAnd so it... I don't... I think it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1548.273, 1551.928, 1565.533, 1571.889], "stop_times": [1551.928, 1565.533, 1571.889, 1575.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1548.273}, "reply_to": "19992__1_023", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "19992__1_025", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Well, it still seems to me, then, the State is having it both ways.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1575.527], "stop_times": [1577.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1575.527}, "reply_to": "19992__1_024", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19992__1_026", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Again, I don't believe so.\nThere are many aspects of capital sentencing that may or may not be... may arise in the sentencing proceedings that the State is not obliged to affirmatively establish at the time of the... the trial.\nAnd, again, it's important that, even on the broadest reading of Tyson and Enmund, there is no requirement of a showing of actual intent to kill as opposed to a far less demanding culpable state.\nSo I don't think it's correct to say that there is anything close to a direct tension, leaving aside the procedural differences between the Tyson/Enmund line of cases and the State's approach to the definition of felony murder or its... of lesser grades of homicide.\nBut just to complete the thought about Nebraska law and why it may well be the case under Nebraska law that involuntary manslaughter is not a lesser included offense even under an elements test.\nIn a case cited in Respondent's brief, the AlZubaidy case, which I think is reported at 559, Northwest 2d, the Nebraska Court of Appeals held that in fact there's no such thing as attempted involuntary manslaughter.\nAnd when it said that, it said because attempt carries with it the idea that you are intending to commit the offense in question.\nAnd involuntary manslaughter has a constituted feature of it that it is an unintentional killing.\nAnd that mode of analysis, if applied here, I think would strongly suggest that in fact applying an elements test, that involuntary manslaughter is not a lesser included offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1577.62, 1580.261, 1592.177, 1604.033, 1619.12, 1628.022, 1641.799, 1648.467, 1654.434], "stop_times": [1580.261, 1592.177, 1604.033, 1619.12, 1628.022, 1641.799, 1648.467, 1654.434, 1665.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1577.62}, "reply_to": "19992__1_025", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "19992__1_027", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "May I go back to Justice Kennedy's question for just a moment.\nIsn't it correct that the 100 years of jurisprudence in Nebraska about felony murder not having any lesser included offenses all turns on the fact that there's no intent element even as comparable to that in Tyson and Enmund?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1665.492, 1666.491], "stop_times": [1666.491, 1679.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1665.492}, "reply_to": "19992__1_026", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19992__1_028", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1679.455], "stop_times": [1680.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1679.455}, "reply_to": "19992__1_027", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "19992__1_029", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "That's the missing element of all this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1680.954], "stop_times": [1682.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1680.954}, "reply_to": "19992__1_028", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19992__1_030", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1682.642], "stop_times": [1682.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1682.642}, "reply_to": "19992__1_029", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "19992__1_031", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "And if constitutionally there must be such... some sort of intent in order to justify the death penalty, why is it such a stretch to say that we'll treat it as a lesser included offense in regard to what the total proof that the State must offer is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1682.954], "stop_times": [1696.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1682.954}, "reply_to": "19992__1_030", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19992__1_032", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "This Court, in Cabana, made clear that that principle, that at least with people who are not the actual killers, there may be a requirement of culpable mental state, is not one that affects the power of the State to define the elements of the offense.\nIt's purely a sentencing issue and therefore should not affect the Beck analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1696.261, 1706.679], "stop_times": [1706.679, 1709.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1696.261}, "reply_to": "19992__1_031", "speaker": "roy_w_mcleese"}
{"id": "19992__1_033", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Thank you, Mr. McLeese.\nMs. Hutchinson, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1709.302, 1711.192], "stop_times": [1711.192, 1714.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1709.302}, "reply_to": "19992__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19992__2_000", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--\nThe one undeniable thing about this case is that the enhanced risk of an unwarranted conviction was created when the prosecutor elected to charge in the information felony murder only and nothing else, putting the jury in the position of deciding whether to convict him, of its only choice, or to set him free.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1714.018, 1724.421], "stop_times": [1724.421, 1744.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1714.018}, "reply_to": "19992__1_033", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_001", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Of course, a State can do that.\nI mean, you... you... you don't deny that a State can do that by simply establishing crimes that don't... a capital crime that has no lesser included offense, however you want to define it... by elements, by facts, whatever... a State can do that, can't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1744.507, 1745.585], "stop_times": [1745.585, 1761.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1744.507}, "reply_to": "19992__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19992__2_002", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "No, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1761.671], "stop_times": [1762.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1761.671}, "reply_to": "19992__2_001", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_003", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "A State... a State cannot set up its crimes in such a way that you have one capital crime which has no lesser included offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1762.843], "stop_times": [1770.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1762.843}, "reply_to": "19992__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19992__2_004", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--We would submit that's... that's exactly the case, Your Honor.\nAnd that's what Beck, together with Hopper and Spaziano, seem to say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1770.746, 1774.73], "stop_times": [1774.73, 1778.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1770.746}, "reply_to": "19992__2_003", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_005", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "What... what if the State were to say that intentional murder, committed by way of poisoning is a capital offense, and do... do you say you would... and they would have to give some lesser included offense in... in connection with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1778.601], "stop_times": [1794.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1778.601}, "reply_to": "19992__2_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19992__2_006", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Well, only if the facts would support the giving of some lesser that's otherwise allowed under the law.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1794.393, 1800.578], "stop_times": [1800.578, 1800.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1794.393}, "reply_to": "19992__2_005", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_007", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Well, supposing there was an offense called adulterating one's drink, and... would you have to charge that if the evidence showed the person put strychnine in... in the thing and the person... the victim took it and was dead?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1800.984], "stop_times": [1813.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1800.984}, "reply_to": "19992__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19992__2_008", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--If the evidence would support the giving of something less than a capital crime--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1813.401], "stop_times": [1817.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1813.401}, "reply_to": "19992__2_007", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_009", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Well, okay, but let's... let's talk for a minute about what sort of evidence would support the ev... the giving of something.\nSupposing that the evidence showed that the... the defendant, in my case put poison in the... in the... in the cup, the victim... intended the victim drink the cup, the victim drank it and died.\nNow, would you say that a lesser included offense would... would be given then, had to be given?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1817.602, 1822.552, 1834.844], "stop_times": [1822.552, 1834.844, 1840.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1817.602}, "reply_to": "19992__2_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19992__2_010", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--If all those elements could be proven from the facts and there is no rational theory to support something lesser, then it wouldn't be necessary to give a lesser.\nIf there was some question as to any of the elements, if there were a statute that... that... that would have supported the giving of lesser, and there was at least some evidence, then Beck would say no, you may not charge him only with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1840.311, 1847.746], "stop_times": [1847.746, 1863.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1840.311}, "reply_to": "19992__2_009", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_011", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Well, in this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1863.146], "stop_times": [1864.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1863.146}, "reply_to": "19992__2_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19992__2_012", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "But if there's no evidence to support that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1864.067], "stop_times": [1865.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1864.067}, "reply_to": "19992__2_011", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_013", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--in... supposing we take the facts of this case.\nWould... would the State have been required to charge on simple assault, since they're obviously was a simple assault, even though the evidence showed that it went much further?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1865.114, 1867.769], "stop_times": [1867.769, 1877.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1865.114}, "reply_to": "19992__2_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19992__2_014", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--The State would not have been required to charge on simple assault, Your Honor.\nI think Schad makes clear that the defendant isn't entitled to have the jury select from a menu of... of lessers.\nWhat Beck teaches is that if the evidence is clear that the defendant is guilty of some violent offense that some lesser offense that's otherwise allowable under State law be given.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1877.75, 1882.437, 1890.136], "stop_times": [1882.437, 1890.136, 1900.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1877.75}, "reply_to": "19992__2_013", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_015", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Why does it have to be a violent offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1900.991], "stop_times": [1903.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1900.991}, "reply_to": "19992__2_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19992__2_016", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Because Beck says it's so, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1903.178], "stop_times": [1904.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1903.178}, "reply_to": "19992__2_015", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_017", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "And why do you think Beck said that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1904.723], "stop_times": [1906.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1904.723}, "reply_to": "19992__2_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19992__2_018", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Because if it's something less than a violent offense, then that wouldn't address the issue that's at the heart of Beck.\nAnd that's whether there's a distortion in the factfinding process that... that causes the jury to say, well, he's... he's obviously guilty of some serious crime, some serious violent crime; we can't just let him walk out of the courtroom a free man.\nWhich is what the jury was told in this case.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1906.645, 1912.487, 1926.122, 1928.605], "stop_times": [1912.487, 1926.122, 1928.605, 1929.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1906.645}, "reply_to": "19992__2_017", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_019", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "This... no, I thought you were done.\nGo ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1929.605, 1931.182], "stop_times": [1931.182, 1933.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1929.605}, "reply_to": "19992__2_018", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19992__2_020", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Oh, no, Your Honor... and if... if, as happened in the State of Nebraska, the State erects some artificial barrier to the giving of a lesser offense that would be supported by the facts, then Beck says that due process doesn't allow that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1933.385], "stop_times": [1949.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1933.385}, "reply_to": "19992__2_019", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_021", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Let me ask you a different kind of, sort of, rationality question.\nAssume for the sake of argument, as... as some of our questions at least have suggested, that involuntary manslaughter, where the underlying act is... is second degree sexual assault, would be a lesser included offense just as an analytical matter.\nAssume that to be the case.\nThe defense that... that you've raised, as I understand it, is... is an alternative defense of diminished capacity, or insanity, either... either of which, as I understand it, would... would be a complete defense under Nebraska law.\nIs there any lesser included offense... and specifically, is... if involuntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense, could a jury rationally, on your theory of defense, acquit a felony murder and convict of... of the involuntary manslaughter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [1949.846, 1954.11, 1968.339, 1970.229, 1984.628], "stop_times": [1954.11, 1968.339, 1970.229, 1984.628, 2004.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1949.846}, "reply_to": "19992__2_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19992__2_022", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Your Honor, before I answer that, I really have to correct a few of the misperceptions created by the United States about Nebraska law.\nAnd one of them is that there's such a crime as involuntary manslaughter under Nebraska law.\nState v. Jones, which we cite in our brief, says that the terms \"voluntary\" and \"involuntary manslaughter\" have not been a part of Nebraska law for many, many years.\nManslaughter is committed without regard to intent, either upon a sudden quarrel or during the commission of an unlawful act.\nThere's no distinction between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2004.184, 2013.119, 2016.913, 2026.518, 2033.125], "stop_times": [2013.119, 2016.913, 2026.518, 2033.125, 2036.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2004.184}, "reply_to": "19992__2_021", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_023", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Okay.\nWell, strike the adjective, then, \"involuntary\".\nI take it there is a Nebraska offense of unintended killing in the course of committing an unlawful act, and that an unlawful act might be second degree sexual assault; is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2036.406, 2036.827, 2038.029], "stop_times": [2036.827, 2038.029, 2051.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2036.406}, "reply_to": "19992__2_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19992__2_024", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, killing without--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2051.134], "stop_times": [2052.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2051.134}, "reply_to": "19992__2_023", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_025", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "All right.\nWell, let's... let's... I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2052.82, 2053.101], "stop_times": [2053.101, 2053.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2052.82}, "reply_to": "19992__2_024", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19992__2_026", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--killing without regard to intent in the course of committing an unlawful act, which Nebraska statutes say don't need to be specified... second degree sexual assault would be one.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2053.742, 2062.737], "stop_times": [2062.737, 2063.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2053.742}, "reply_to": "19992__2_025", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_027", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Well, now--\n--Okay--\n--the defendant did not ask for an instruction on sexual assault as a lesser included offense, did he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2063.362, 2063.768, 2064.143], "stop_times": [2063.768, 2064.143, 2073.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2063.362}, "reply_to": "19992__2_026", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19992__2_028", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--He didn't ask for an instruction on sexual assault as a lesser included offense.\nHe asked for an instruction on manslaughter under either theory of manslaughter.\nAnd the unlawful act is not required to be specified under Nebraska law.\nThe information can charge killing and slaying in the course of an unlawful act.\nAnd the information does not need to specify the unlawful act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2073.108, 2078.527, 2082.447, 2085.775, 2091.929], "stop_times": [2078.527, 2082.447, 2085.775, 2091.929, 2095.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2073.108}, "reply_to": "19992__2_027", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_029", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Okay.\nGoing back to my question, could they... on... on the theory, as I understand it, the only theory of defense that was raised... could a jury rationally have acquitted of the offense charged here and... and then convicted of... of manslaughter as you have just explained it to us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2095.897, 2096.241], "stop_times": [2096.241, 2114.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2095.897}, "reply_to": "19992__2_028", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19992__2_030", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "They most certainly could have, Your Honor, and for several reasons.\nFirst of all, you mentioned the affirmative defenses that were advanced by the defendant.\nWell, since he raised the defense of insanity at the time the State was required to prove him sane beyond a reasonable doubt... but, more importantly, he argued to the jury... and you find this in counsel's closing argument... that there was insufficient evidence to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a first degree sexual assault or an attempt of that was committed.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2114.154, 2116.903, 2121.448, 2139.567], "stop_times": [2116.903, 2121.448, 2139.567, 2141.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2114.154}, "reply_to": "19992__2_029", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_031", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "So you're saying he didn't just rest on... on the capacity/insanity defense, then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2141.254], "stop_times": [2145.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2141.254}, "reply_to": "19992__2_030", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19992__2_032", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2145.783], "stop_times": [2147.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2145.783}, "reply_to": "19992__2_031", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_033", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Okay.\nNow, let me ask you, then, a different question.\nWould it have been rational for a jury to say he did not... we find that he did not commit either first degree sexual assault that involves penetration or attempted first degree sexual assault, but we find that he did commit second degree sexual assault.\nWould that have rationally been possible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2147.203, 2147.546, 2149.25, 2170.148], "stop_times": [2147.546, 2149.25, 2170.148, 2171.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2147.203}, "reply_to": "19992__2_032", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19992__2_034", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "It most certainly would have, Your Honor.\nIn fact, that's an entirely plausible--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2171.757, 2174.537], "stop_times": [2174.537, 2176.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2171.757}, "reply_to": "19992__2_033", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_035", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "I guess what I'm getting at is the... is the... is the possible inconsistency between saying there was no intent to commit the assault involving penetration, but there was an intent to commit second degree assault.\nCan... is... is second degree sexual assault capable of being committed not only without penetration, but without intent to commit penetration?\nThat's what I'm getting at.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2176.052, 2189.983, 2202.26], "stop_times": [2189.983, 2202.26, 2203.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2176.052}, "reply_to": "19992__2_034", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19992__2_036", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Certainly it can, Your Honor.\nAnd... and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2203.415, 2204.493], "stop_times": [2204.493, 2205.306], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2203.415}, "reply_to": "19992__2_035", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_037", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Don't tell me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2205.306], "stop_times": [2205.664], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2205.306}, "reply_to": "19992__2_036", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19992__2_038", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--first degree sexual assault and second degree sexual assault... and second degree murder, for that matter... all are general intent crimes.\nAnd it's entirely consistent with his defense and with the evidence in this case that, number one, there was scant physical evidence, if any... there was only some circumstantial evidence... that an actual first degree sexual assault occurred.\nThat leaves you with attempted first degree sexual assault, which is a specific intent crime.\nAnd the jury would have been required to find that he formed the intent to engage in behavior, which, under the circumstances he believed them to be, constituted a substantial step toward the committing of first degree sexual assault.\nWhich is certainly a great deal more sophisticated level of intent than that required by a general intent crime.\nSo under the evidence and under his defense, he could have been found guilty of... of manslaughter unlawful act, with a second degree sexual assault, and the jury could have found that while he didn't have the sophisticated level of intent, based on his gross intoxication, to form the intent required to attempt, and because there was such little evidence of an actual first degree sexual assault, that it certainly would have been rational for the jury to have found him guilty of unlawful act manslaughter, with the unlawful act being second degree sexual assault.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2205.664, 2213.786, 2226.17, 2231.232, 2242.696, 2247.976], "stop_times": [2213.786, 2226.17, 2231.232, 2242.696, 2247.976, 2282.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2205.664}, "reply_to": "19992__2_037", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_039", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Was this the reasoning of the Eighth Circuit in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2282.57], "stop_times": [2283.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2282.57}, "reply_to": "19992__2_038", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19992__2_040", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Your Honor, the... yes, the Eighth Circuit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2283.445], "stop_times": [2287.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2283.445}, "reply_to": "19992__2_039", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_041", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "I... I... I had thought it wasn't.\nPerhaps you could explain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2287.57, 2288.693], "stop_times": [2288.693, 2290.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2287.57}, "reply_to": "19992__2_040", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19992__2_042", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--It's on page 60 of the JA.\nThe Eighth Circuit, contrary to what the United States argued on brief, said the facts would have supported conviction either on second degree murder or on manslaughter.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2290.35, 2293.333, 2305.328], "stop_times": [2293.333, 2305.328, 2306.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2290.35}, "reply_to": "19992__2_041", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_043", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "But was there any homing in on this unlawful act manslaughter?\nSee, when I read the Eighth Circuit's decision, I thought that they were speaking of two intent crimes, like the sudden quarrel, and the second degree murder, both.\nAnd I thought that that... that they were saying if there is anything that you can charge other than the capital, then you must.\nBut I didn't see them homing in at all on the unlawful act manslaughter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2306.248, 2310.231, 2322.883, 2331.255], "stop_times": [2310.231, 2322.883, 2331.255, 2335.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2306.248}, "reply_to": "19992__2_042", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19992__2_044", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--No, they didn't discuss the specifics.\nWhat they made was a blanket statement, saying the facts would have supported conviction on either second degree murder or manslaughter.\nAnd it's true, as you said, Justice Ginsburg, that... that the Eighth Circuit said that... that if the facts would have warranted, then he should have been instructed on lessers.\nAnd that's certainly true under Nebraska law.\nNebraska has erected this artificial barrier to the giving of lesser offenses that's found nowhere else in... in homicide law in Nebraska.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2335.892, 2339.267, 2345.825, 2355.51, 2357.431], "stop_times": [2339.267, 2345.825, 2355.51, 2357.431, 2364.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2335.892}, "reply_to": "19992__2_043", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_045", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "But my... my question still is I didn't see it in the Eighth Circuit opinion.\nAnd I think Mr. McLeese told us it was never presented squarely to the Nebraska courts.\nThis... the difference between an intent to kill, which second degree murder would involve, and a crime, manslaughter, unintentional manslaughter, that doesn't involve any intent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2364.397, 2369.536, 2376.409], "stop_times": [2369.536, 2376.409, 2393.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2364.397}, "reply_to": "19992__2_044", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19992__2_046", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Your Honor, I briefed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals a scenario whereby, under the... the cognate evidence test, which was in effect at the time Mr. Reeves was tried, or under the statutory elements test that... that Mr. Reeves could have been convicted of the very least, under the statutory elements test, of manslaughter, unlawful act, with the unlawful act being a sexual assault.\nAnd those briefs, I assume, are part of the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2393.51, 2419.813], "stop_times": [2419.813, 2422.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2393.51}, "reply_to": "19992__2_045", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_047", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Did you brief the same thing to the Supreme Court of Nebraska?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2422.749], "stop_times": [2425.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2422.749}, "reply_to": "19992__2_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19992__2_048", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "That was briefed to the Supreme Court of Nebraska, yes.\nIt was... the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2425.482, 2430.885], "stop_times": [2430.885, 2432.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2425.482}, "reply_to": "19992__2_047", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_049", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "The distinction between the unlawful act and the intent crimes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2432.072], "stop_times": [2435.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2432.072}, "reply_to": "19992__2_048", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19992__2_050", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--I don't recall, frankly, Mr. Chief Justice, whether the specifics of the... the... the manslaughter, unlawful act were addressed.\nWhat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2435.773, 2447.458], "stop_times": [2447.458, 2447.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2435.773}, "reply_to": "19992__2_049", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_051", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "I... I wasn't so much asking... you mean addressed in the briefs?\nOr do you mean addressed by the court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2447.94, 2451.268], "stop_times": [2451.268, 2453.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2447.94}, "reply_to": "19992__2_050", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19992__2_052", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--No, addressed in the briefs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2453.362], "stop_times": [2454.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2453.362}, "reply_to": "19992__2_051", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_053", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Addressed in the briefs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2454.798], "stop_times": [2455.408], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2454.798}, "reply_to": "19992__2_052", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19992__2_054", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "I don't recall whether they were specifically addressed in the briefs.\nBut one thing I do know for certain... that every stage of this case, from pretrial onward, the court was pressed that the jury should have been instructed, under Nebraska law and under Beck v. Alabama, on the lesser included offenses, the second degree murder and either theory of manslaughter.\nThe term \"lesser included offense\", Beck doesn't seem to turn on the... the semantics of... of what constitutes a lesser included offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2455.408, 2456.734, 2474.165], "stop_times": [2456.734, 2474.165, 2482.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2455.408}, "reply_to": "19992__2_053", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_055", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "It's conceded that you could have asked for sexual assault as a lesser included offense, but you didn't ask for that one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2482.224], "stop_times": [2489.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2482.224}, "reply_to": "19992__2_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19992__2_056", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "We could have, but it wasn't necessary.\nWhen... when defense counsel asked for an instruction on manslaughter, again, statute says... it's 29-1512, under Nebraska law... that the unlawful act not be specified in the information.\nAnd so it was sufficient to argue that... to request that a manslaughter instruction be given on either theory.\nAnd the State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2489.19, 2491.236, 2504.527, 2511.775], "stop_times": [2491.236, 2504.527, 2511.775, 2512.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2489.19}, "reply_to": "19992__2_055", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_057", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Well, it may not have to be specified in the information, but I presume you have to explain to the trial judge what the predicate is for your request for the instruction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2512.446], "stop_times": [2520.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2512.446}, "reply_to": "19992__2_056", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19992__2_058", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Well, Justice Souter, the State has never suggested that there's an inadequate basis, based on the requests that were made by counsel, in order to have been given an instruction like that.\nI think the court pressed with... with... with all deliberate zeal to get instructions on lesser offenses as were allowed under State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2520.802, 2531.471], "stop_times": [2531.471, 2542.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2520.802}, "reply_to": "19992__2_057", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_059", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "But there's nothing in the record, is there, that suggests the lawyer ever said to the judge,\n\"Judge, the reason I want a manslaughter instruction is because first degree murder makes it first degree if it's a first degree sexual offense. \"\n\"But maybe here there was a second degree sexual offense. \"\n\"And that's why, since if it's only in the second degree, it doesn't fall within the first degree murder statute. \"\n\"That's why I want the lesser included instruction. \"\nI haven't found a word that suggests anything like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2542.435, 2545.354, 2555.305, 2558.257, 2563.488, 2566.081], "stop_times": [2545.354, 2555.305, 2558.257, 2563.488, 2566.081, 2569.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2542.435}, "reply_to": "19992__2_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19992__2_060", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Defense counsel argued--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2569.095], "stop_times": [2571.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2569.095}, "reply_to": "19992__2_059", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_061", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "I thought he was making a different argument.\nI thought his argument was, look at the language of first degree, what the legislature has done is it has taken six crimes and say, if you commit any of those six crimes and somebody dies, that's first degree murder.\nNow, look at the language of the manslaughter statute.\nYou might think that manslaughter is if somebody dies in any other crime... any other than the six... it's manslaughter.\nYou might think that's the law in Nebraska.\nBut the language of manslaughter covers those six crimes, too.\nAnd that's why I want the offense.\nI mean, I do not know any other argument he could have been making.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2571.079, 2573.376, 2585.106, 2588.025, 2596.553, 2598.193, 2602.207, 2603.894], "stop_times": [2573.376, 2585.106, 2588.025, 2596.553, 2598.193, 2602.207, 2603.894, 2606.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2571.079}, "reply_to": "19992__2_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19992__2_062", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Justice Breyer, the argument that he was making is that, under Nebraska law since Statehood, the rule has been homicide is but one offense, the degree necessarily being for the jury.\nAnd when there's at least some evidence to warrant the giving of lesser offenses to first degree murder, that they shall be so instructed and that it's for the jury to determine which degree of homicide.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2606.752, 2618.544], "stop_times": [2618.544, 2629.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2606.752}, "reply_to": "19992__2_061", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_063", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "But you're speaking generally, and I'm trying to understand whether there is anything in the record which would say to the judge,\n\"Judge, I want a manslaughter instruction because the evidence suggests that my client didn't commit first degree sexual assault. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2629.337, 2635.272], "stop_times": [2635.272, 2644.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2629.337}, "reply_to": "19992__2_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19992__2_064", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "There's... there's nothing specific that I'm aware of.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2644.238], "stop_times": [2648.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2644.238}, "reply_to": "19992__2_063", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_065", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "All right.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2648.376, 2648.829], "stop_times": [2648.829, 2649.204], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2648.376}, "reply_to": "19992__2_064", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19992__2_066", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "What's in the record, Justice Breyer, is,\n\"I want a manslaughter instruction because he certainly could have been guilty of.... \"", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2649.204, 2649.939], "stop_times": [2649.939, 2653.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2649.204}, "reply_to": "19992__2_065", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_067", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--So what is in Beck or in logic or anything else that says if man... if Nebraska wants to say this,\n\"People of Nebraska, if you commit one of six crimes and somebody dies, that's first degree murder; if you commit any other crime other than those six and somebody dies, that's manslaughter. \"\nIs there anything in the Constitution that would stop Nebraska from saying that?\nI think the answer is no.\nAnd then my question is, well, how is this any different?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2653.936, 2660.637, 2676.177, 2680.581, 2682.565], "stop_times": [2660.637, 2676.177, 2680.581, 2682.565, 2684.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2653.936}, "reply_to": "19992__2_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19992__2_068", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Because the facts would have supported the giving of lessers.\nAnd it's clear from the evidence... defense counsel argued to the jury that a penetration didn't occur and that it was because of his intoxication it was impossible to find that there was an attempt involved.\nBut given the fact that the jury had sat through a 6-week trial, hearing the grizzly details of the crimes, after the defendant had stipulated to the fact that he caused these two homicides, it's... it's certainly plausible that the jury was going to focus on anything but, do we set him free or do we examine the forensic evidence and say, well, the acid phosphatase level in the victim's genitalia might or might not have been consistent with intercourse, and there's nothing... nothing to have said that a... a penetration was effected as far as physical evidence.\nOf course, they weren't talking like that.\nThey were saying, we can't... we can't let this man walk out of here.\nThe jury was instructed prior to argument, among the last words the jury heard before it retired to deliberate was the prosecutor telling the jury,\n\"If the State doesn't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the State doesn't win and he walks out of this courtroom a free man. \"\nThat's Beck, plain and simple.\nThat's what Beck says you can't do when there was evidence to support the giving of lessers.\nHe could have been convicted of second degree murder, as General Stenberg conceded.\nThe evidence certainly could have suggested that he effected an intentional killing.\nThere was scant evidence of... of first degree sexual assault.\nBut the jury--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2684.548, 2688.704, 2699.496, 2734.482, 2736.201, 2740.402, 2748.084, 2754.926, 2757.175, 2761.534, 2766.594, 2772.795, 2775.684], "stop_times": [2688.704, 2699.496, 2734.482, 2736.201, 2740.402, 2748.084, 2754.926, 2757.175, 2761.534, 2766.594, 2772.795, 2775.684, 2776.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2684.548}, "reply_to": "19992__2_067", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_069", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "How do you define... how do you define, and under what body of law, lesser included offense?\nI mean, we've heard an argument from the United States that it can't mean anything the prosecutor might have charged.\nDo you agree with that, as far as that much?\nThat it's... it's not anything, given this episode that the prosecutor might have charged?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2776.465, 2781.962, 2788.773, 2791.631], "stop_times": [2781.962, 2788.773, 2791.631, 2797.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2776.465}, "reply_to": "19992__2_068", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19992__2_070", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--No.\nAnd, Justice Ginsburg, Beck makes clear... and Schad certainly makes even more clear... that that's not required, that we don't throw at the jury--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2797.065, 2797.549], "stop_times": [2797.549, 2804.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2797.065}, "reply_to": "19992__2_069", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_071", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "So what is... what is a lesser included offense?\nIt's not anything the prosecutor could have charged.\nSo it's something less than that universe.\nSo what is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2804.687, 2806.515, 2808.608, 2811.513], "stop_times": [2806.515, 2808.608, 2811.513, 2812.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2804.687}, "reply_to": "19992__2_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19992__2_072", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Well, under Nebraska law, the... the common law at the time that was in effect was the evidence rule.\nIf the evidence would have supported the giving of lessers, the... the State has... as the State put it, experimented, and it takes us, I believe, a couple of pages on brief, I think on pages 31 and 32, to recount the experiment with which lesser included offense test it's going to adopt.\nBut for homicide, the rule in Nebraska always has been that we're not constrained by the semantics of lesser included offense doctrine.\nHomicide is one offense.\nAnd that has been the rule in Nebraska... it was... sense... prior to Statehood.\nIn fact, it dates back to the 1794 statute that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2812.435, 2819.588, 2838.658, 2846.108, 2847.998, 2853.653], "stop_times": [2819.588, 2838.658, 2846.108, 2847.998, 2853.653, 2856.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2812.435}, "reply_to": "19992__2_071", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_073", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "But we had a concession... we had a concession from General Stenberg that sexual assault in this very case would have been a lesser included offense, but you didn't ask for it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2856.402], "stop_times": [2867.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2856.402}, "reply_to": "19992__2_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19992__2_074", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Again, Your Honor, it... second degree sexual assault may not have been specifically requested.\nBut the law in Nebraska that... is that the unlawful act not be specified.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2867.101, 2876.596, 2881.563], "stop_times": [2876.596, 2881.563, 2882.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2867.101}, "reply_to": "19992__2_073", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_075", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "I'm not talking about unlawful act manslaughter.\nI'm talking about sexual assault pure and simple.\nThe... we have just been told that under Nebraska law, sexual assault... not unintentional killing in the course of, but just sexual assault--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2882.125, 2885.202, 2888.17], "stop_times": [2885.202, 2888.17, 2897.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2882.125}, "reply_to": "19992__2_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19992__2_076", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2897.245], "stop_times": [2897.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2897.245}, "reply_to": "19992__2_075", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_077", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--would have been a lesser included offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2897.479], "stop_times": [2900.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2897.479}, "reply_to": "19992__2_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19992__2_078", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "First--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2900.243], "stop_times": [2901.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2900.243}, "reply_to": "19992__2_077", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_079", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "So that suggests that there are lesser included offenses--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2901.134], "stop_times": [2904.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2901.134}, "reply_to": "19992__2_078", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19992__2_080", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2904.132], "stop_times": [2904.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2904.132}, "reply_to": "19992__2_079", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_081", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--when the charge is felony murder.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2904.507], "stop_times": [2905.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2904.507}, "reply_to": "19992__2_080", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19992__2_082", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Yes.\nFirst degree sexual assault would have been a lesser included offense of felony murder.\nAnd it's true that defense did not request that.\nThe reason they didn't request that was because it would have been inconsistent with their defense that a first degree sexual assault never occurred.\nIf the trial court felt strongly that this was one crime, uno actu, and that it was a felony murder, the killing being a first degree sexual assault, the rule in Nebraska is it's the judge's duty to instruct the jury on the law, whether requested to do so or not.\nAnd the Nebraska Supreme Court routinely takes up on... under the plain error doctrine, cases where the trial... where the trial court did not properly instruct the jury as to the law of the case.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2905.695, 2906.101, 2910.347, 2914.549, 2921.344, 2937.822, 2949.629], "stop_times": [2906.101, 2910.347, 2914.549, 2921.344, 2937.822, 2949.629, 2950.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2905.695}, "reply_to": "19992__2_081", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_083", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "You mean that a defendant, even who doesn't want a lesser included offense, has to get that charge, even--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2950.16], "stop_times": [2955.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2950.16}, "reply_to": "19992__2_082", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19992__2_084", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2955.408], "stop_times": [2956.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2955.408}, "reply_to": "19992__2_083", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_085", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--even if he doesn't want it and the prosecutor doesn't want it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2956.002], "stop_times": [2957.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2956.002}, "reply_to": "19992__2_084", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19992__2_086", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Absolutely, Your Honor.\nIn fact, there is a case that we cite, State v. Archibald, where precisely that happened.\nThe defendant did not want a manslaughter instruction in her affirmative defense of selfdefense.\nThe trial court felt that her own testimony adduced sufficient evidence to charge the jury with manslaughter.\nShe objected.\nThe prosecution didn't request it.\nThe court instructed the jury anyway because... because the law of Nebraska is that the jury shall get any el... or any degree of homicide upon which there's at least some evidence.\nAnd it's the trial court's duty to instruct the jury on the law of the case.\nThat was upheld by the Nebraska Supreme Court on appeal.\nSo, again, the answer to your question is yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [2957.89, 2959.125, 2963.858, 2969.106, 2976.103, 2976.994, 2978.977, 2990.457, 2994.283, 2996.922], "stop_times": [2959.125, 2963.858, 2969.106, 2976.103, 2976.994, 2978.977, 2990.457, 2994.283, 2996.922, 3000.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2957.89}, "reply_to": "19992__2_085", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_087", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "I thought the question was, well, what is a lesser included offense?\nA lesser included offense could be what Nebraska says it is, in which case you would lose, or it had some independent definition.\nIf it has an independent definition, I thought it was... and here is what I'm interested in your view on... take an offense.\nIt has, let's say, four elements, A, B, C, and D. That's the big offense.\nAnd if there is another offense, such that it is lesser and you are guilty of it, with not four but three of those four, or two of the four, or one of the four, that's a lesser included offense.\nNow, if that's what it is in principle, I'm not sure how that stacks up here.\nBecause what we have here are two elements, A and B. And A and B is first degree.\nAnd A and B is also, under the language of the manslaughter statute, manslaughter.\nThat's a very unusual situation.\nThat's why I'm not certain what to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [3000.374, 3003.701, 3010.854, 3017.508, 3022.662, 3034.016, 3039.343, 3044.372, 3049.198, 3051.12], "stop_times": [3003.701, 3010.854, 3017.508, 3022.662, 3034.016, 3039.343, 3044.372, 3049.198, 3051.12, 3053.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3000.374}, "reply_to": "19992__2_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19992__2_088", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Well, I think I heard about three questions in there, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [3053.088], "stop_times": [3059.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3053.088}, "reply_to": "19992__2_087", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_089", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "You see, there are two elements.\nThe two elements are somebody is dead and there was a first degree sexual assault.\nIn other words, one of the six big crimes.\nThat's the definition of the big offense.\nThe definition of the little offense is somebody is dead and there's a crime.\nAll right?\nThe same two.\nNow, that's what's causing the problem in my mind.\nAnd... and it's not what I think of as the normal lesser included offense.\nAnd... and that's... I'm not saying I have the answer.\nThat's why I put the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [3059.444, 3060.022, 3064.364, 3066.629, 3068.441, 3075.125, 3076.937, 3077.687, 3080.857, 3086.386, 3089.244], "stop_times": [3060.022, 3064.364, 3066.629, 3068.441, 3075.125, 3076.937, 3077.687, 3080.857, 3086.386, 3089.244, 3090.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3059.444}, "reply_to": "19992__2_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19992__2_090", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "I think I may have heard about three questions in there, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [3090.681], "stop_times": [3096.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3090.681}, "reply_to": "19992__2_089", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_091", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "No, there's only one, which is it sounds as if there is a situation, where if you looked at what Nebraska says, you lose.\nOkay.\nSo we're not doing that, hypothetically.\nWhat we have is the big crime, two elements, a dead person and one of six big crimes.\nNow we look to what you call the lesser included offense.\nAnd, once again, two elements, a dead person and sufficient to find one of the six big crimes... and a bunch of others, by the way.\nI'm saying that's what's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [3096.694, 3101.865, 3102.177, 3104.13, 3111.206, 3114.158, 3124.498], "stop_times": [3101.865, 3102.177, 3104.13, 3111.206, 3114.158, 3124.498, 3126.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3096.694}, "reply_to": "19992__2_090", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19992__2_092", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "And it's the \"and a bunch of others\"--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [3126.809], "stop_times": [3127.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3126.809}, "reply_to": "19992__2_091", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_093", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Well, the others... fine, that was our little discussion about the nonfirst degree sexual assault.\nI'm prepared to say at the moment... I'll look it up... but none of that stuff ever got into this case.\nBut I'll look it up.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [3127.606, 3134.212, 3138.007, 3138.96], "stop_times": [3134.212, 3138.007, 3138.96, 3140.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3127.606}, "reply_to": "19992__2_092", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19992__2_094", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Well, and again, it was sufficient under State law for the defense simply to request a manslaughter instruction.\nUnder either theory, the evidence would have supported the giving of a manslaughter instruction.\nBut, Justice Breyer, you began your question with the premise that if... if a lesser included offense is only what the State says it is, we lose.\nIf that were true, well, then as the Eighth Circuit panel said, Beck would have been decided differently.\nIf State law is what it is, you lose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [3140.225, 3145.568, 3151.08, 3161.748, 3165.325], "stop_times": [3145.568, 3151.08, 3161.748, 3165.325, 3167.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3140.225}, "reply_to": "19992__2_093", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_095", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Yeah, that's why I'm looking for the answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [3167.87], "stop_times": [3168.777], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3167.87}, "reply_to": "19992__2_094", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19992__2_096", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "So the question is, once a State has erected this artificial barrier by saying there's no lesser included offense, when our common sense tells us we can analyze the evidence or the elements, whichever... whichever we choose to do... and find that in fact there are, then we examine the universe of State law.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [3168.777, 3187.002], "stop_times": [3187.002, 3187.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3168.777}, "reply_to": "19992__2_095", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_097", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Had the State, in Beck, said that there was... that... had the State, in Beck, said that there was no lesser included offense, or had it said that there is a lesser included offense, but we don't care, we're not going to charge it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [3187.424], "stop_times": [3199.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3187.424}, "reply_to": "19992__2_096", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19992__2_098", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--That's what Beck said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [3199.639], "stop_times": [3201.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3199.639}, "reply_to": "19992__2_097", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_099", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [3201.997], "stop_times": [3202.403], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3201.997}, "reply_to": "19992__2_098", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19992__2_100", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "But there's certainly no meaningful distinction between--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [3202.403], "stop_times": [3204.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3202.403}, "reply_to": "19992__2_099", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_101", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "The latter.\nThere's no meaningful distinction between... between a State saying, for this crime there is no lesser included offense and a State saying there is one, but we're not going to allow it to be charged in a capital case?\nI think there's a big distinction between the two.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [3204.106, 3204.745, 3214.851], "stop_times": [3204.745, 3214.851, 3216.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3204.106}, "reply_to": "19992__2_100", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19992__2_102", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Well, if the State says there is none, when it's quite obvious there is one, and other areas of Nebraska law require the giving of lessers without reliance upon lesser included offense analysis, there's no meaningful distinction.\nIt's an artifice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [3216.428, 3228.939], "stop_times": [3228.939, 3230.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3216.428}, "reply_to": "19992__2_101", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_103", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "But when you say it's quite obvious that there is one, that depends on... on how you define lesser included offense, whether that's a Federal... a Federal concept... and there are some... some logical rules based upon the elements or upon what's proven at trial, or whether what's a lesser included offense depends on whatever the State says is a lesser included offense.\nThat's a conceivable thing, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [3230.064, 3249.12], "stop_times": [3249.12, 3250.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3230.064}, "reply_to": "19992__2_102", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19992__2_104", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Normally it is.\nBut in Nebraska we have the additional issue of this statute that says homicide is but one offense.\nAnd in one case, State v. Vosler, they say we're not constrained by the traditional lesser included offense analysis when it comes to homicide because of 29-2027.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [3250.337, 3252.992, 3258.599], "stop_times": [3252.992, 3258.599, 3271.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3250.337}, "reply_to": "19992__2_103", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_105", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Yes, but we've already gotten over that, because the... because the... General Stenberg said sexual assault is a lesser included offense, so it's not a situation, as in Beck, where you could not charge any lesser included offense.\nThe State there said, yes, it is a lesser included offense, but we have a statute that says, in murder cases, you don't... the concept is off the books in murder cases.\nSo there wasn't any quarrel about whether it was a lesser included offense.\nHere that seems to be what this is all about, whether it is a lesser included offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [3271.063, 3285.198, 3295.959, 3300.066], "stop_times": [3285.198, 3295.959, 3300.066, 3304.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3271.063}, "reply_to": "19992__2_104", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19992__2_106", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Well, the... the question in Beck, really, is the State allowed to erect some artificial barrier to the giving of lesser offenses when they otherwise would be allowable to State law?\nThere's a subset of homicide that's capital murder and a subset of that that's felony murder.\nAnd... and here we don't give lessers, but everywhere else we do.\nManslaughter, under the traditional statutory elements test, can be considered a... a lesser included offense of second degree murder, but it's routinely given in homicide cases.\nThe reason for that is 2027.\nThe Nebraska Supreme Court has never explained why 2027 doesn't apply in felony murder cases.\nAnd the statutory rules of construction are the same in Nebraska as elsewhere.\nStatutes are to be read in pari materia, and one not read so as to abrogate the other.\nAnd in fact the... 2027 has been abrogated by this little wildcard in Nebraska law that says we don't instruct on lesser degrees of homicide when the offense charged is felony murder.\nIt's... it's... it's artificial and it's arbitrary.\nAnd it creates the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [3304.753, 3316.092, 3321.496, 3325.542, 3335.224, 3337.036, 3343.518, 3346.596, 3351.546, 3362.51, 3366.259], "stop_times": [3316.092, 3321.496, 3325.542, 3335.224, 3337.036, 3343.518, 3346.596, 3351.546, 3362.51, 3366.259, 3367.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3304.753}, "reply_to": "19992__2_105", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_107", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Well, because we know... we know that the precise question before us has not been answered by the Nebraska Supreme Court, would it be appropriate to... to use their certification procedure to say this category, unintentional manslaughter, did you mean that you couldn't charge that, together with a felony, as a lesser included offense?\nWhy shouldn't the Nebraska Supreme Court be the first one to answer that precise question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [3367.821, 3388.812], "stop_times": [3388.812, 3394.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3367.821}, "reply_to": "19992__2_106", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19992__2_108", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--There's no reason, Your Honor.\nBut there's no reason not to use the State certification procedure.\nThe answer to that has to be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [3394.372, 3396.622, 3401.151], "stop_times": [3396.622, 3401.151, 3403.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3394.372}, "reply_to": "19992__2_107", "speaker": "paula_hutchinson"}
{"id": "19992__2_109", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "I think you've answered the question, Ms. Hutchinson.\nThank you.\nGeneral Stenberg, you have 1 minute remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [3403.119, 3405.181, 3405.634], "stop_times": [3405.181, 3405.634, 3408.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3403.119}, "reply_to": "19992__2_108", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19992__3_000", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nI just have a couple of brief points.\nThe question here is not whether the Nebraska Supreme Court should be overruled on a question of State law.\nThe question is where there are no lesser included homicide offenses under State law, does the Federal Constitution, nevertheless, require that the jury be instructed on lesser related offenses?\nI'd like to clear up, very briefly, this question on the difference between first and second degree sexual assault.\nThe only difference is what the person is intending to do.\nIn the case of first degree sexual assault, it's an intent for penetration.\nIn the second--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [3408.352, 3409.069, 3410.569, 3416.566, 3429.281, 3436.949, 3440.776, 3443.728], "stop_times": [3409.069, 3410.569, 3416.566, 3429.281, 3436.949, 3440.776, 3443.728, 3445.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3408.352}, "reply_to": "19992__2_109", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__3_001", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "Thank... thank you, General Stenberg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [3445.055], "stop_times": [3445.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3445.055}, "reply_to": "19992__3_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19992__3_002", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "--Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [3445.905], "stop_times": [3446.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3445.905}, "reply_to": "19992__3_001", "speaker": "donald_b_stenberg"}
{"id": "19992__3_003", "conversation_id": "19992", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1693", "start_times": [3446.088], "stop_times": [3446.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3446.088}, "reply_to": "19992__3_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20273__0_000", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 96-976, John Hudson v. United States.\nSpectators are admonished do not talk until you get out of the courtroom.\nThe Court remains in session.\nMr. Rothbaum.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20273__0_001", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nThe double jeopardy claims case before the Court today had its genesis in some bank loans in the mid-1980's in several small Oklahoma banks controlled by the petitioners.\nThese loans were challenged by Federal bank examiners as collectively violating insider lending regulations.\nAs a result, in 1989 the Comptroller of the Currency proposed to impose civil penalties on petitioner, two types petitioners... that's two types.\nFirst, a lifetime bar from the business of banking or at any federally insured institution, subject to the right to reapply at a later time in writing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_000", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_002", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "You said the business of banking or any federally insured institution.\nWould that have applied to a bank which was not federally insured?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_001", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_003", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Your Honor, it applies to... it actually... the State banking system through the FDIC insurance system, or through the national banks through the Comptroller's regulatory authority, and it would have to be with the permission of both agencies before they could return.\nIn addition to which, the Comptroller proposed civil penalties of $100,000 against Mr. Hudson and $50,000 each against the other two petitioners, Messrs. Baresel and Rackley.\nNow, these sentences were imposed pursuant to a statutory scheme that, unlike some, for these sections... for these section required timing rules that there be willful acts and the Administrator then considered whether it is repetitive, whether there is concealment, questions of bad faith and so forth.\nWith regard to that scheme those findings were met here, remain here and are in the record.\nThe statutes do not contain any authority for the administrative agencies to consider matters such as internal investigatory costs, expenses incurred in investigating the bankers, or other similar matters, nor did the Government contend at any time that it had suffered quantifiable monetary loss for which this sanctions, these bonds were some sort of recompense.\nAt no time did the OC... did OCC ever take such a position.\nIn 1992, the petitioners were indicted for the same 18 loans, the only difference being that there is one conspiracy count in the indictment.\nHowever, it is important to note that the Comptroller purported to find that these were acts done by the petitioners together, and that the statutes under which he imposed his sanctions allowed that to be considered in the penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_002", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_004", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "May I just interrupt with one thought, Mr. Rothbaum?\nYou say they were indicted for the same loans.\nNow, of course, they were actually indicted for violating certain statutes, and you were penalized for violating certain rules, and the Government argues the Blockburger test is not met in this case, and you say the Blockburger test doesn't apply, as I understand.\nIf the Blockburger test did apply, is it not clear that it's not satisfied?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_005", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Your Honor, if the Blockburger test applies, then it applies at the level of generality that the Government seeks.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_004", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_006", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Well, it's a simple test.\nOne statute requires an element, the other does not, and vice versa.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_005", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_007", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Well, but Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_006", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_008", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "You don't meet that test here, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_009", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--I suppose, stated that abstractly, we might not, but our views on that point is twofold.\nFirst, the Court has never applied that type of analysis in this case, in this type of case, whether it's a civil--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_008", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_010", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_011", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--proceeding, and the use of the language same transaction repeatedly appears to me not to be an accident, because particularly if you look at the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_010", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_012", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "So even acknowledging that we've never done it expressly in this... because we don't have very many of these cases, is there any reason why that test should not be applied, because even if you say same transaction, you have to in some way define exactly what it is the transaction gave rise to the two different punishments.\nWhy doesn't it make sense just to apply Blockburger?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_011", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_013", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--I think it makes sense to say, when we're talking about introducing punishment upon a particular individual for allegedly getting involved with an insider loan transaction, that the same insider loan transaction should not be punished twice in separate proceedings, and to that extent, the cases upon which the Court relied in LaFranca, Justice Miller's opinion on circuit in the McKee case, and the opinion of the Southern District of New York in the Gates case support that view, and I think clearly those two cases and probably Halper itself can come out differently under a strict Blockburger analysis, so I do think the Court has taken the position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_012", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_014", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "If Blockburger is adequate protection for two criminal prosecutions, then a fortiori ought to be adequate protection for a criminal and a civil prosecution.\nWhat's wrong with that formula?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_013", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_015", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Your Honor, I suppose my response to that is, Blockburger presupposes this elements analysis, and I'm not sure that always fits.\nAnd I think often times it doesn't, where you do not have... where you have the penalty problem, if you determine your punishment but there's not necessarily a criminal offense associated with it.\nFor example, last term's decision in the CFI Fabricators case the Court determined there the type of punishment, penalty for failure to pay a tax.\nThat did not mean that there had to be a criminal prosecution or that the criminal process had to be invoked, but I think it has to focus on the realities of the statutory schemes that are at issue, and the threshold question, is this punishment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_014", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_016", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "But double, double jeopardy provision is designed to protect someone from being twice prosecuted, basically.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_015", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_017", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Or twice punished.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_016", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_018", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Yes, and what you're doing is, you have had one criminal prosecution, you've had one civil prosecution, and now you're saying, well, we claim that the civil prosecution was actually punitive under Halper, but surely if the double jeopardy provision is designed to prohibit two prosecutions Blockburger should be plenty of... plenty sufficient to protect the double jeopardy interest, for one of the things is civil.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_019", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "I agree, Mr. Chief Justice, where there are two criminal prosecutions, but where, as here, the question, the first question is, is there punishment imposed by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_018", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_020", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "But you have to really squeeze to get the civil thing into double jeopardy at all, because the classic doctrine is that the law doesn't prohibit the imposition of one criminal and one civil penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_019", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_021", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--If it is a civil penalty, if it is truly civil.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_020", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_022", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "And that's what Congress said here, was that it was civil.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_021", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_023", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Congress said this was a civil penalty, that is how they cast it, but it is our view, it is our submission, that as the Seventh Circuit held in regard to an almost identical worded statute, in the Healy case, that the effect here is necessarily cumulative.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_022", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_024", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Well, strain to get it... to make it criminal, in order to get it within the double jeopardy rule, then once there, you strain to get it out through the Blockburger test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_023", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_025", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Your Honor, I'm not... I would not characterize it as a strain to say that it's criminal.\nThe Court, the Court has not said it was criminal.\nIn cases going back as far as Choteau in the 1880s.\nHelwig in the 1900's, which is cited and quoted in the CFI case, in each of those cases the Court held that the statutory scheme there imposed punishment.\nIn none of them, or at least not in most of them, was that made in the context of a criminal proceeding.\nIt was found to be the effect of what had been done to the defendant.\nAnd what has been done here in our case is punitive, and let me add--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_024", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_026", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Were those double jeopardy cases, the ones you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_025", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_027", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--No, sir.\nNo, sir... well, Chouteau was.\nHelwig was the case in which jurisdiction in the court is at the time was divided between the district and circuit courts.\nIf it was civil it went to the district court, it was criminal it went to the circuit court, and the Court held since it was criminal the district court had no jurisdiction.\nAnd let me add another point here with regard to the nature of this proceeding.\nThis proceeding is slightly different than many of the regulatory enforcement actions brought by various Government agencies, because they, many of them rest upon pure negligence, or upon a standard of conduct of less than knowing the rule for misconduct.\nThat is not... that happens not to be true here, at least under the statute as it was written prior to the 1981 amendments, and if the Court will look on page 62, I believe, of the appendix to the petition, the Comptroller's office says.\nSecond, these statutes... this is true from the legislative history that is in our brief, it's true for similar statutes.\nThese statutes have come into existence on the premise that what will happen here, what in fact happened here wouldn't have happened, that what was needed was a lesser penalty so that the criminal process did not have to be invoked.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_026", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_028", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--Well, Mr. Rothburger, I... Rothbaum, I assume that to succeed here you really have to rely on this Court's Halper decision in large part.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_027", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_029", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Well, Halper is certainly an important decision for our position, I believe because it is the first time that the Court announced categorically that the Constitution's Double Jeopardy Clause could apply in a civil proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_028", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_030", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "But it certainly said on its face that it was reserved for the rare case, and there was a far greater disparity there in the amounts selected, and the Government's expenses, than would be the case here.\nI'm not sure that even on its face your petition would meet Halper under any standard, and the second thing I want you to address is that it looks to me like Halper may have been driven in part by due process concerns about vindictive use of civil proceedings following a criminal prosecution.\nNow, here, the civil sanctions were imposed first, were they not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_029", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_031", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Yes, they were, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_030", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_032", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "So there's no danger here of a vindictiveness or a due process sort of concern that may have driven Halper.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_031", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_033", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "That is correct.\nWe do not claim vindictive prosecution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_032", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_034", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_033", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_035", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "With regard to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_034", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_036", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "So if Halper is limited in that fashion, as I think it might be, how do you prevail?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_035", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_037", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, as to the first part of your question, a rare case, this too, is an unusual case.\nIt would be an unusual case where the Government will elect to try and claim both severe administrative sanctions and criminal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_036", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_038", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "About every book on my wall is a rare case.\n[Laughter]\nWe're never very successful up here when you say this is a rare case.\nThe States are having a tremendously difficult time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_037", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_039", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--Your Honor, the only point I was making was at least within the Federal system, careful coordination between the SEC and the Justice Department, 1940's in the Justice Department, bringing civil and criminal proceedings is the norm today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_038", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_040", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Yes, but wasn't the rarity that Halper was talking about a reference to the nature of the civil penalty involved there, and if so, what is the rarity here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_039", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_041", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Well, it seems to me that the... perhaps rarity is the wrong word.\nThe distinguishing factor in Halper was that part of the sanction there admitted to be obtained as remedial.\nThe problem was determining how much more, at what point along a continuum did that $2,000 for each false claim penalty become penal, if at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_040", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_042", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Are we still talking about civil preceding criminal, which is how we got into this discussion with a question from Justice O'Connor?\nI thought your response for that is that the basic claim here is a double jeopardy claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_041", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_043", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_042", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_044", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "And the assertion is that double punishment violates the Double Jeopardy clause, as Halper held, whether it's civil or criminal, and double punishment is double punishment, no matter which one comes first.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_043", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_045", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "No matter which one come first.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_044", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_046", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "I don't see... how do you run around that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_045", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_047", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "I don't run around that.\nI don't run around it.\nI say, I believe that is a correct statement, that the order of the proceedings does not matter.\nIf, for example, in the case in which there has been a civil punishment imposed, say this is the CFI Federal case, if thereafter on the same facts there had been an attempt to indict, and say, well, the defendant would at least in my judgment have a strong argument, that once this Court had determined this was punishment, that he could not be further punished in a separate proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_046", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_048", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Well, some civil penalties aren't punishment, others are, and they're all penalties, and so accepting that it doesn't matter, that the order doesn't matter, accepting that arguendo, what penalties are okay because they're civil, and what civil penalties are not okay because they're really punishment?\nHow do we... the books are filled with civil penalties.\nHow do we which ones are okay, don't get us into double jeopardy problems, and the ones that do?\nI mean, what standards would pass muster as a genuine civil penalty, no double jeopardy problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_047", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_049", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "I think one of the most useful precedents would be the Hicks case, in view of the distinctions between civil and criminal intent, is it a determinate or indeterminate sentence.\nIf, for example, to take a hypothetical out of the reply brief, if the petitioners had been ordered to make a capital contribution to make up capital impairment and given a specific amount of time to do it, and thereafter, if you didn't, impose a certain fine there will be a strong argument, as I read Justice White's opinion in Hicks, that that is an indeterminate and therefore remedial sanction.\nAnother question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_048", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_050", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "But why should we import from the distinction between civil contempt and criminal contempt, which Hicks dealt with, I think... why should we import that into this area?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_049", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_051", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--Because I think, in answer to your question, Mr. Chief Justice, it provides a useful standard for answering the question which Justice Ginsburg asked.\nAnd that is, how do you know... how is one to determine which is which?\nAnother--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_050", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_052", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "When is a penalty not a punishment, a wonderful... the unsophisticated mind would think that a penalty is always a punishment, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_051", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_053", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--Your Honor, the unsophisticated mind might, but Congress having chosen to use the word penalty in different contexts, it is simply a fact which exists in the United States Code.\nAnd as I read this Court's cases from Chouteau forward, that cannot affect the fourth principle--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_052", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_054", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "So, but... it's got to be something more than, like, a day fine that's meant to get you to comply with the law.\nThat will never be the case here, because you've already not complied, and whatever the penalty is for, it's for past conduct.\nIt's already done.\nSo you're giving Hicks as an example, where the whole idea is, you got the keys to the kingdom, to the jailhouse in your pocket, comply, and you're home free.\nHere, you're being penalized for something you did in the past, so that's why I can't get much from Hicks.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_053", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_055", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--And we're being penalized for something we did in the past, after having been told we can no longer participate in the business of banking, it would be different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_054", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_056", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Well, I would just like to know what is a civil penalty... that is, definitely was something you'd done in the past, not to get you to comply, come into compliance with the law, but something that you've done in the past, what kind of penalty... can there be such a thing as a civil penalty that doesn't get you into double jeopardy problems?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_055", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_057", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Yes, I think there can.\nFor example, if the Government has suffered... in the example of a false claim, if the Government has suffered an economic measurable financial--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_056", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_058", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "That's like revoking a drivers license.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_057", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_059", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--Your Honor, I would not take credit for... process of law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_058", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_060", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "One of the things you haven't brought up is the... in response to Justice Ginsburg's question is the justification that the Government is basically recouping its enforcement costs.\nWhy isn't that something we ought to consider as a criterion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_059", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_061", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Your Honor, in the first place, I... two points.\nThe first one is, at the very least, Congress should enact it.\nAnd this statute, by no stretch of the imagination, directs or allows the Administrator to consider that action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_060", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_062", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Well, it leaves the question entirely open, I guess.\nI mean, you can't tell from what Congress has said what the object is, I guess, can you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_061", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_063", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "From what Congress has said, you can determine that it did not authorize consideration of Government costs, and second--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_062", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_064", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Well, I mean, how can we say that?\nI mean, I would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_063", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_065", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, it says, in considering the amount of the fine, and then lists the criteria.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_064", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_066", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--I thought the criteria were the OCC's criteria.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_065", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_067", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "They are in the statute, and then the OCC has expanded on through what is called the penalty matrix, which has a series of points, functioning like the Sentencing Guidelines, but the criteria as to what must be considered statutory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_066", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_068", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Mm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_067", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_069", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "And the second point I would make on that issue is that we are not talking about costs in the sense of obtaining expert witnesses or something like that.\nWhat the Government was attempting to do here is to say they could simply take the cost of operation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_068", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_070", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Sure, to the extent that it may be attributable to your... to any given defendant's behavior, but I guess your answer is that if we were to assume that recoupment of Government cost, even on this attribution basis, was a relevant criterion in deciding where the... whether a penalty had crossed the line into something that was significant for double jeopardy purposes, that your client in fact would have the advantage of such a criterion, because you're saying under this statute that clearly is not what Congress was intending to do, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_069", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_071", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "And that clearly is not what happened.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_070", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_072", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--So do you think it would be a relevant consideration as a general matter for us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_071", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_073", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "As a general matter, certainly if Congress speaks to it, that's one thing.\nIf Congress doesn't speak, and if it is simply a matter allocating the cost of Government to someone to defeat a double jeopardy claim, I think that's very problematic.\nIn the Walter case in the Ninth Circuit I think Judge Noonan said that this case makes a strong point, that on that theory no private individual has that much money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_072", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_074", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "How many statutes are there with standards like, has this been done in the past, good faith, the standards that are used here?\nAren't there many statutes labeled civil penalties that are just like this one?\nI'm trying to see the consequences of holding in your favor, if we say statutes like this are no good.\nAren't there dozens of them on the books?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_073", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_075", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Your Honor, I'm not... I don't think in order to resolve this case in my client's favor it is necessary to say that statutes such as this are no good.\nWe are saying that in this instance the use of the statutes resulted in punishment.\nI would point out--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_074", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_076", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "But you've said the reason is that the statute is not a Hicks-type, comply with the law, and it isn't compensating the Government for a specific financial loss, so I'm thinking how many statutes fit that standard, and my guess is, there are a great many.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_075", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_077", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--Your Honor, I don't know the exact number off-hand, but I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_076", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_078", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Well, many civil provisions are designed to prohibit unlawful conduct where the Government itself isn't harmed at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_077", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_079", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--That--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_078", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_080", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "But under your theory, I mean, that would mean they'd never fit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_079", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_081", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_080", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_082", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--the criteria, and it seems to me you also are characterizing both the civil money penalties and the nonparticipation orders here as punitive, and under your theory, I guess, they couldn't even be brought in separate proceedings without falling in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_081", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_083", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--Your Honor, with regard to your last point, we do not argue that the nonparticipation sanctions appease.\nWe argue that, given the nonparticipation, that with imposition on top of that a fixed monetary sums as a penalty for completed acts can have no remedial nonremedial purpose.\nIf my client had been allowed to continue in the industry, and it had been determined that they had caused X amount of loss, then if the question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_082", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_084", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Well, what... suppose... but they had the liberty to reapply, didn't they, so the monetary penalties in case they got in again would surely deter them from doing what they did before.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_083", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_085", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, that's possible I suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_084", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_086", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "It's very possible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_085", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_087", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "But it was not the intent with which they were imposed.\nThe intent, according to the OCC, in its published order, was... repeated at the hearing before Judge Thompson, was to deter others through publicizing this order.\nNow, making of my clients an example in order to deter third parties is a classic definition of punishment regardless of what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_086", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_088", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "But if we look at the statute, I mean, are we bound by what OCC says at the time?\nThe question is, what was Congress' intent, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_087", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_089", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--I agree with that, but there has not been any suggestion thus far that there was any divergence between the two.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_088", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_090", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Well, I'm suggesting it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_089", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_091", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "If I could--\n[Laughter]\n--I would like to reserve... I'm sorry, sir.\nI didn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_090", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_092", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Go ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_091", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__0_093", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--I was going to say, I'll reserve time, but if I missed a question, I apologize.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_092", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__0_094", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "No, you didn't miss anything.\n[Laughter]\nThank you, Mr. Rothbaum.\nMr. Dreeben.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_093", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_000", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nCivil money penalties serve a vital purpose in Federal regulatory schemes because they serve as an ongoing motivation to regulated parties to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law.\nFor four reasons, our position is that the imposition of civil money penalties in such regulatory schemes does not constitute a bar under the Double Jeopardy Clause to petitioners' subsequent criminal prosecution.\nFirst, civil money penalties in such regulatory schemes, like civil forfeiture actions, do not constitute punishment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.\nSecond, even assuming that these penalties--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__0_094", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_001", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Well, what do we do with language in Halper?\nHalper's part of the problem, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_002", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--I think, Justice O'Connor, that to a large extent this Court has clarified and limited much of the language in Halper which could be read to lead to very broad results, including results such as petitioners are arguing for today.\nOne of the most significant features of Halper was its extraordinarily broad definition of punishment as encompassing any sanction that had--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_001", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_003", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Yes, that's what I'm talking about.\nI mean, that leads to a lot of problems.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_004", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--It leads to a lot of problems because Halper thought, or said that any sanction that couldn't be solely explained without reference to deterrence or retribution must be deemed punishment for double jeopardy purposes.\nAt least twice since that case this Court has retrenched somewhat from Halper's description of punishment in that respect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_003", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_005", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "May I ask, assuming the language is much too broad in Halper, do you think there was punishment in Halper?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_006", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "I think not, Justice Stevens.\nOur position in Halper was that there was not punishment within the meaning of double jeopardy.\nThere was in a common sense--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_005", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_007", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "So it really isn't just a question of language.\nThe holding is basically wrong in your position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_008", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--Oh, our position was then--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_007", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_009", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "We can't ignore cases as though they had never been decided--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_010", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--Excepting--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_009", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_011", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--and having been decided, do you think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_012", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--Except in the holding of Halper--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_011", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_013", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_014", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--yes.\nThen the Court's conclusion in that case was that there was punishment, but the Court reached that by a process of analysis that required looking at the fact that it was a fixed penalty, that the penalty was totally disproportionate to the only legitimate aims of the statute that were not punitive, which in that case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_013", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_015", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Was there some element of vindictiveness in sort of a due process focus, do you think, in Halper?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_014", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_016", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--I have never seen that in the opinion, Justice O'Connor.\nI do think that it was significant to the Court that Halper had been first criminally prosecuted, that the Government then came in and obtained civil penalties--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_015", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_017", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "That's the vindictiveness element.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_018", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--I wouldn't be prepared to concede that that was vindictiveness, because there was no showing in that case, and I don't think that the record would bear the conclusion that the Government was motivated to punish Halper for exercise of any of his constitutional rights, which is normally the due process test that would apply in a criminal case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_017", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_019", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "No, but a dissatisfaction by the Government, we had this criminal prosecution and we didn't get much punishment out of it, now let's go do something about that.\nWe've got this civil remedy here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_018", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_020", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Well, if that were true, then it would mean that Halper should not be viewed as a double jeopardy case at all, because that analysis I would think would apply even if it were clear that the second case had nothing to do with the elements that were proved in the first case and thus wasn't the same offense under Blockburger.\nWe do think that Halper should be, to the extent that it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_019", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_021", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Halper didn't discuss Blockburger for some reason, in the sense of thinking that applied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_020", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_022", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--We didn't raise a Blockburger or same elements issue in Halper because the Civil False Claims Act and the criminal false claims provisions would appear to be satisfied under that test.\nWe brought the case on a direct appeal from a district court decision to this Court, raising only the question of whether a civil false claims sanction could ever be deemed punishment within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.\nWe argued then that only criminal punishment could satisfy the Double Jeopardy Clause.\nThis Court rejected that, and the question is whether the analysis that was used in Halper should carry over to the very different kind of penalties that are at issue in this case.\nCivil money regulatory penalties aim primarily to shape the conduct of parties who are subject to regulation by sitting as an ever-present reminder that there are consequences for violation of the law, and agencies use them for precisely that purpose, which is appropriately described as a deterrent purpose.\nNow, under a broad reading of Halper, which I think petitioners have at times embraced, any deterrent purpose would brand these sanctions as punitive for double jeopardy purposes, but this Court has made clear, both in Kurth Ranch and in United States v. Ursery, that even an obvious deterrent purpose does not mean that a civil sanction constitutes punishment and applying an analysis that respected that factor in Ursery, this Court concluded that even though civil forfeiture proceedings are imposed largely to motivate owners of property not to allow their property to be used in violation of the law, that civil forfeiture should not be deemed punishment for double jeopardy purposes even if it might be deemed punishment under a common sense view, or plain view, or under other constitutional provisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_021", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_023", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Were the penalties in Halper not regulatory under this scheme that you're putting forth, that they're distinguishable from the kind of penalties that we have here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_022", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_024", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "They were, Justice Kennedy, and they are for two reasons.\nThe first reason is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_023", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_025", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "They were distinguishable, or they were regulatory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_024", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_026", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--They are distinguishable.\nThey were not regulatory.\nThe Court deemed the penalties that were imposed under the False Claims Act to be analogous to liquidated damages that a party may collect, whether it governmental or private, when it has been damaged by fraud, and the Court reached that conclusion by looking at the character of the sanctions that were authorized by the statute: damages, actual damages, double damages, and a fixed penalty which the Court viewed as a way of getting rough compensation for the Government, to include not only its direct losses, but costs of investigation and costs of prosecution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_025", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_027", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Mr. Dreeben, apart from the fact that this definition of punishment would enable the Government to win this case, what is there to be said for it?\nI mean, in the language of the Double Jeopardy Clause, in the common understanding of punishment?\nI mean, are we just authorized to give punishment whatever definition in the world we want in order to produce results that we sort of like?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_026", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_028", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "I think, Justice Scalia, that the starting point is suggested by the fact that the word punishment is not in the Double Jeopardy Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_027", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_029", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Yes, well, that... yes, we could start with that, and 48 States have asked us to overrule Halper because of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_028", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_030", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Well, there is, I think, an irreducible need to consider the fact that the Double Jeopardy Clause speaks in language that undeniably connotes a criminal offense.\nIt speaks of putting somebody in jeopardy of life or limb, and it speaks of an offense, and those are concepts that have primary application, if not exclusive application, to criminal conduct.\nNow, we suggest in this case that the appropriate test to reconcile the Double Jeopardy Clause and... with the possibility that civil sanctions may be misused in a way that could implicate that clause, is to apply the test that this Court described in United States v. Ward.\nFirst determine whether Congress intended a civil sanction, and then determine whether there is any evidence, by the clearest proof, that Congress' intent to create a civil sanction should be overridden and that the sanction should be deemed criminal.\nThat is a test that I think is not only responsive to the language of the Double Jeopardy Clause, but reflects the fact that the consequences under double jeopardy are very significant to the Government.\nIn this case, we went in through the OCC and found violations of banking regulations, imposed civil penalties, imposed nonparticipation requirements on the petitioners through their settlement, and obtained important results from the point of view of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's regulation of the banking system.\nSubsequently--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_029", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_031", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "May I just interrupt?\nIt seems fairly clear, if you apply Blockburger, that wouldn't have barred the criminal proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_030", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_032", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--I agree, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_031", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_033", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "So that really in this statute you don't have the practical problem that concerns you generally.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_032", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_034", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "I agree with that, Justice Stevens.\nThere are many other Federal regulatory statutes where there is a civil enforcement provision that includes money penalties and that has a criminal counterpart that requires perhaps an additional element of scienter or wilfulness, but that the elements are essentially identical, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_033", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_035", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "How would you go about applying Blockburger when you compare the civil and the criminal charges in light of the different burdens of proof?\nDoes that matter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_034", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_036", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--I don't think that it does, Justice O'Connor, if one embarks on the enterprise of applying the Double Jeopardy Clause to civil proceedings.\nThe question then would be, under Blockburger, are the elements required to be proved by the Government in the civil case the same constitutionally.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_035", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_037", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Regardless of the burden.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_036", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_038", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Regardless of the burden of proof.\nThat would not be a ground on which we would suggest that these can be distinguished.\nNow, it is, of course, true, that if we brought, for example, a criminal Federal securities case, and the defendant was acquitted, and we then sought to bring a civil Federal securities case that had the same identical elements, we would not be barred because the defendant would have no multiple punishment argument and the burden of proof is lighter in a civil case, so the criminal conviction... the criminal acquittal would not constitute any kind of a collateral estoppel bar on the Government proceeding.\nBut that, of course, is not what we have here.\nWhat we have here is an agency that, in the course of enforcing its own requirements, and to keep its reins on the regulatory... regulated parties that are before it, imposes civil penalties to let all regulated parties know that there are consequences for violating the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_037", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_039", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "But Mr. Dreeben, going back to the second part of Ward, the criteria that the agency uses sound like traditional sentencing criteria to me, I mean, as set out on page 3... wilfulness, insider status, previous warnings, history of violations, loss, number of violations, duration, continuation, and so on.\nI mean, that sounds like common law punishment to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_038", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_040", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Well, the criteria, Justice Souter, may not be very different, but those criteria are aimed at determining what level of penalties is appropriate to send a deterrence signal not only to these individuals but to the world at large, and the Court has--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_039", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_041", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Yes, but that's exactly what common law courts do in sentencing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_040", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_042", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--That is true, but the Court has recognized that deterrence is a legitimate nonpunitive objective of the civil law.\nThat is exactly what the Court said in Ursery, when it looked at civil in rem forfeiture, recognized that one of the main purposes of it was to motivate parties, not to allow their property to be used in violation of the law, and then held that that form of sanction is not punishment for double jeopardy purposes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_041", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_043", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "May we're trying to have it both ways, and maybe you're accepting that difficulty of ours in answering as you do, because I don't know how to draw the line.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_042", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_044", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "The line is one that I think should be drawn with reference to the fact that the consequence under double jeopardy is entirely to foreclose the second proceeding, as petitioners have presented the question here.\nIf they are right, and we have imposed punishment in the first proceeding, and assuming that Blockburger were satisfied on their behalf, we would then lose any right whatsoever to bring a criminal prosecution.\nIn consequence, if the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_043", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_045", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "So it's the order of the proceedings that you're getting at.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_044", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_046", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--Well, the order of the proceedings, but what I wanted to focus on here is simply that there are radical consequences from deeming a sanction to be covered by the Double Jeopardy Clause.\nIf the Court were to hold, and we would not dispute that these civil fines were sufficiently punitive to implicate the concerns of the Eighth Amendment, what that would mean is that there would be constitutional review of the amount of the fines that were imposed to determine that they were not excessive.\nIf the Court were to determine that there was a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_045", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_047", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "The Eighth Amendment uses the word punishment, by the way, which is a great advantage over the Double Jeopardy Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_046", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_048", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--Well, it does in the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, but it does not in the Excessive Fines Clause, and I think that the Court has incorporated notions of punishment into both of those clauses to capture in a colloquial way what they are getting at.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_047", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_049", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "All right, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_048", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_050", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "But the Constitution itself doesn't use that word.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_049", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_051", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--But I think... what... if I understand what your telling me is, number 1 we ought to consider the consequence of applying double jeopardy here, and you're saying, when it would foreclose the criminal proceeding that is a more serious consequence, and is entitled to weight in our line-drawing than if it would impose merely a civil proceeding.\nI think that's the first thing you're saying.\nBeyond that, is there any sort of line-drawing criterion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_050", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_052", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_051", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_053", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Well, if you're--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_052", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_054", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--The line that I think that comes out of United States v. Ursery is that... is entirely permissible for the Court... for Congress to authorize civil sanctions that pursue a deterrent purpose, and that that does not brand them as punishment under the Double Jeopardy Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_053", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_055", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--So right away--\n--That's not a line.\nThat's what's not a line.\nWe're asking you what the line is.\nYou're telling us what the line isn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_054", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_056", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "The line would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_055", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_057", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "The line is not deterrence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_056", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_058", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_057", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_059", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "But what is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_058", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_060", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "The test that we're suggesting in this context is the test articulated in United States v. Ward.\nIf the sanction is framed as a civil sanction but in purpose or effect it is so punitive as to betray that characterization, then the Court will determine that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_059", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_061", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "And how does one know that when it's so punitive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_060", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_062", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--It does... how does one know that, Justice Ginsburg?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_061", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_063", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "I thought you had started out by saying you're not... you're accepting Halper, Halper's language is too broad, it has to be confined, and I had written down, fixed penalty, totally disproportionate.\nNow, what else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_062", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_064", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "As far as the scope of Halper?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_063", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_065", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "To... no.\nWhat should our standard be for saying, this is labeled civil penalty, but it gets into double jeopardy territory because it's punishment, and we know that for what identifying characteristics?\nAnd so you... what you started to say now, using Ward, is, when it becomes... the words were... are highly generalized, so I would like you to be more concrete.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_064", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_066", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "The most concrete that I can be, Justice Ginsburg, is to note that first, any civil sanction needs to be considered on its own terms, so that there will be different results for different kinds of civil sanctions, and second, the kind of civil sanction that we're talking about here, it is not the entire class of civil money penalties, it is the class of civil money penalties that are imposed for regulatory purposes, and our submission is that categorically the Court should conclude that if those sanctions are enacted under... imposed under statutes that passed the Ward test, there is not a double jeopardy problem.\nNow, the Ward test will always be a highly case-specific enterprise for this Court because, to the extent it's been particularized, it looks to the list of factors that the Court articulated in Kennedy v. Martino Mendoza, and those factors, the Court noted even in that case, may point in different directions and they have to be balanced.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_065", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_067", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Well, if--\n--Well, Mr. Dreeben, in Halper the criminal prosecution occurred first and then the civil penalties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_066", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_068", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_067", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_069", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "And at least as I look at it it seemed to me to have some element in there of a concern by the Court of vindictiveness and disproportionality, if you will, and due process-type concerns.\nHere, in this case, the civil sanctions were imposed first, so none of that could be present.\nMaybe that line is useful.\nWhat comes first?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_068", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_070", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Well, that would certainly confine Halper to its facts, and would restrict--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_069", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_071", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "It would really cut Halper loose from all reasoning, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_070", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_072", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--It would cut Halper loose from the Double Jeopardy Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_071", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_073", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Yes, which... on which it was based.\nMr. Dreeben, don't you think it would be even more vindictive if the Government, having lost an action for civil penalties, was so mad that it prosecuted the person criminally?\nThat's real vindictiveness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_072", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_074", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Well, I don't think that Halper itself involved a case in which vindictiveness was established.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_073", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_075", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "No.\nI'm saying, if you're looking for a situation that displays vindictiveness, it's not the one where the civil precedes... follows the criminal, it's the one where the civil precedes the criminal and, having lost the civil case, the Government is so enraged it prosecutes the person criminally.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_074", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_076", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "We might have a problem--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_075", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_077", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "That seems to be more vindictive, not less.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_076", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_078", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--We might have a problem under conventional collateral estoppel doctrine if we fail to persuade the fact-finder by a preponderance of the evidence that certain facts were proved, and then we sought to prove to another fact-finder that they were established beyond a reasonable doubt.\nThere are already conventional protections in the law that would cover cases like that, and I'm not aware of any case where we did that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_077", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_079", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "But you did mention issue preclusion, which would be a good, neutral reason for doing the criminal prosecution first, because if you win in the criminal prosecution, if you've established the facts beyond a reasonable doubt, then you do have issue preclusion--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_078", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_080", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "That is true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_079", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_081", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--In the civil case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_080", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_082", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "That is true, and there are often good reasons to do the criminal prosecution first, not the least of which is that grand jury investigations are surrounded by secrecy, and you want to encourage the grand jury to be able to gather information without interfering with any civil process, and oftentimes grand jury investigations will go forward, the civil case will sit back, and there are also many cases where the Government decides after a criminal conviction is obtained there's no need to proceed with any further proceedings for penalties.\nBut in a case like this, the agency made a perfectly valid judgment that there was an importance to moving promptly to impose the nonparticipation order to protect members of the public from further potential banking violations by these individuals, and to impose the civil penalties so that the rest of the regulated industry was aware that even a regulatory violation has consequences, whether or not down the road somewhere the particular individuals who committed it were so culpable that they should also be subjected to criminal prosecution.\nAnd it would therefore be a fairly dramatic consequence for the Government to have to choose an election of remedies at a point where the agency knows that there's a violation, but nobody knows whether there will be sufficient evidence of criminal activity to warrant a grand jury to indict.\nAnd in that sense, the order of proceedings not only has a great practical significance, but I think that it also has a constitutional significance.\nThe submission of the defendants here is that the multiple punishments doctrine exists in a fashion that makes a punishment a jeopardy for constitutional purposes.\nThat has never been the traditional way that this Court has analyzed multiple punishments questions even before Halper.\nThe Court has applied the multiple punishments doctrine even when there was indisputably a single jeopardy.\nThe Court has held that the multiple punishments doctrine prohibited the imposition of cumulative punishments in one proceeding when the legislature has not authorized it, and in those cases there was clearly only one jeopardy.\nThe basic premise of the multiple punishments doctrine was that once an individual has been put in a criminal jeopardy, additional punishment shall not be imposed on that individual for the same crime, and that is not satisfied in a case in which petitioners here have never been criminally indicted and have never been criminally charged.\nNow, if the Court agrees with us that the Double Jeopardy Clause is categorically not applicable to civil regulatory sanctions unless the defendant is able to make the showing that, despite the civil characterization, the civil sanctions were in fact criminal under the United States v. Ward test, it doesn't mean that there's no constitutional limit, or no statutory limit to the amount of civil penalties that the Government can impose.\nThere is judicial review that is governed by traditional APA standards of whether a particular civil penalty is within the boundaries that have been set by Congress and that are established by the criteria of the regulatory agency, and there is also review under the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause to keep the particular civil penalties in question within constitutional bounds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_081", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_083", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "But both of those standards would have been met in Halper, of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_082", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_084", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Well, it's not clear whether they would have been met in Halper, as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_083", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_085", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "But the statute authorized the penalties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_084", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_086", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--The statute clearly authorized it, and one of the problems that the Court had in Halper that is not present here is that the statute required the imposition of fixed penalties for every violation regardless of how significant the fraud was to the Government, and that created the potential for hugely disproportionate civil sanctions being imposed for the particular fines, the particular violations that were at issue.\nThis case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_085", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_087", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "But before you get to the Eighth Amendment excessive fines provision, you have to show that it is a penalty, do you not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_086", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_088", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--I don't think so, Justice Kennedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_087", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_089", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "In our punitive damages cases and jurisprudence, haven't we said that the Eighth Amendment applies only to a criminal proceeding for excessive fines?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_088", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_090", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "No.\nIn fact, the holding of Austin v. United States is that the Eighth Amendment applies to civil in rem forfeiture, which is clearly a civil proceeding.\nThe holding in the punitive damages cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_089", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_091", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "In the forfeiture area, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_090", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_092", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--Because it's an exaction by the Government of money for a violation of the law, and it is true that it has to be in some sense a penalty.\nI don't think a tax, for example, that is a true tax is subject to the Excessive Fines Clause, and I don't think that a disgorgement remedy or a damages remedy would be subject to the Excessive Fines Clause, but all that is constitutionally necessary is that there be a fine, and we would readily concede that the civil penalties that are applicable under the statutes at issue here are constitutional fines.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_091", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_093", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "We have said punitive damages are not fines, though.\nAll right, I'll look it up.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_092", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__1_094", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "In addition, the Court has said that punitive damages are not paid to the Government directly.\nThe Court reserved the question in the Browning-Ferris case of whether a qui tam case might be viewed differently because the Government collects part of the money, and I think the Court would likewise reserve punitive damage schemes where the punitive damages were paid in part to the State, but in the conventional case where a private party brings a civil case and collects punitive damages the Eighth Amendment has nothing to say about it.\nThe Eighth Amendment has a lot to say about what the Government does in these civil fines, and therefore there should be no reservation on the Court's part that there would be no constitutional constraint whatsoever were the Double Jeopardy Clause ruled inapplicable to these civil penalties.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_093", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20273__1_095", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Dreeben.\nMr. Rothbaum, you have 4 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_094", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__2_000", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nMr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court:\nWith regard to the order of proceedings, I would note the obvious.\nThat is up to the Government.\nIf it wishes to bring a criminal prosecution first, it may do so, and as a practical matter, whenever there is a belief that... on the part of the Government that that kind of dual proceeding will be forthcoming, there's traditionally very close coordination, reflected, for example, in the decisions of this Court and the courts of appeals regarding the rights of a litigant to civil discovery while the grand jury is still sitting.\nWith regard to the Eighth Amendment issue, it may be that the Eighth Amendment also would apply, but that is not an exclusive application.\nIt is our position that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment under this Court's cases apply to a statute such as this, which imposes punishment on solely punitive or traditionally punitive criteria set forth in the statute and expounded by the administrator called upon to do so in a matrix, as it is called, that is self-consciously patterned on the Federal Criminal Sentencing Guidelines.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__1_095", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__2_001", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "What happens if you have a Government agency or something says, we're going to fine you $10 if you're late for a meeting.\nWhat's the point of the fine?\nWell, we want to get people to the meeting.\nOnly deterrence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__2_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__2_002", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "If the person is allowed to go to the meeting after he pays the fine, that might very well be a remedial imposition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__2_001", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__2_003", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "So it's not remedial.\nThey said, why'd you do it?\nWell, people are late for the meeting.\nWe want them to be there on time, $3 first meeting, $5 second.\nCriminal?\nYou have to have a trial, and... I mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__2_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__2_004", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Your Honor, I know of no such statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__2_003", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__2_005", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--Maybe there's never such a thing, but perhaps some day somebody might think of it.\nPeople get late for the meetings in other organizations.\nThey fine you if you're late, a little fine.\nI think it would be a very good idea.\n[Laughter]\nRight.\nIf that's so, I'm interested in the criteria.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__2_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__2_006", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--I understand that.\nYour Honor, the difficulty I have with your question is that this statute and these criteria are so specific--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__2_005", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__2_007", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "They're solely deterrent, just like my fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__2_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__2_008", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--Well, when one measures the size of the fine according to whether it's a recidivism, and according to whether--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__2_007", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__2_009", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "All right.\nThen it's the size.\nIt's not now a question of whether it's serving a purely deterrent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__2_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20273__2_010", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "--But it must also be an intentional act, at least under the statute as it then existed, and with regard to that point, and where to draw the line on what is and isn't a penalty, I would invite, if I could, the Court's attention to one of the first cases in this area, Chouteau, which held that first a settlement agreement would be treated as being the equivalent of a criminal acquittal or conviction so that the defendant could plead double jeopardy, saying that otherwise a great principle would be sacrificed to mere form, and second, that the mode by which the penalty was imposed did not matter, whether by a civil action or a criminal prosecution.\nA unanimous Court repeated that holding in La Franca, and I think the point of La Franca, in distinguishing between the penalty and the tax issue, it must serve some other purpose.\nAnd that, I think, is the point of Ursery.\nIn addition to the historical, unique... thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__2_009", "speaker": "bernard_j_rothbaum"}
{"id": "20273__2_011", "conversation_id": "20273", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Rothbaum.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-976", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20273__2_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20036__0_000", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-957, Melvin Jefferson v. The City of Tarrant, Alabama.\nMr. Pantazis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [0.0, 8.154], "stop_times": [8.154, 9.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20036__0_001", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe supreme court of Alabama has held there is no section 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claim for a cause of action if the victim dies from the perpetration of the act.\nThe issue before this Court is, when the decedent's death results from the deprivation of a Federal right occurring in Alabama, does the Wrongful Death Act govern the recovery of the decedent's estate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [9.888, 12.776, 24.303], "stop_times": [12.776, 24.303, 36.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.888}, "reply_to": "20036__0_000", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_002", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Are you going to address the jurisdictional issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [36.61], "stop_times": [39.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 36.61}, "reply_to": "20036__0_001", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20036__0_003", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "I will, if... Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [39.062], "stop_times": [40.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 39.062}, "reply_to": "20036__0_002", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_004", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "I think you should.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [40.562], "stop_times": [41.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 40.562}, "reply_to": "20036__0_003", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20036__0_005", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "The Federal issue has been totally adjudicated by the supreme court of Alabama, and under the Cox case this Court has held an exception, or held that jurisdiction is found where there's no further Federal issue to be adjudicated and cannot be adjudicated at the lower court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [41.874], "stop_times": [59.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 41.874}, "reply_to": "20036__0_004", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_006", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "But the Federal issue could become academic if you go back and on the State claim there's a determination that there was no wrongful conduct on the part of the city.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [59.055], "stop_times": [71.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 59.055}, "reply_to": "20036__0_005", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20036__0_007", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Under... in Cox it's my understanding, Your Honor, is that the Court held this exception: where the Federal claim has been finally decided and with further proceeding on the merits in the State court to come, but that which later review of the Federal issue cannot be had, whatever the ultimate outcome of the case.\nThat was the third exception.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [71.69, 94.291], "stop_times": [94.291, 95.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 71.69}, "reply_to": "20036__0_006", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_008", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "But here you could conceivably, if you should prevail on the State claim you could then bring up that you should also have had a 1983 claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [95.681], "stop_times": [110.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 95.681}, "reply_to": "20036__0_007", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20036__0_009", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "I don't believe so.\nI think the supreme court of Alabama has already adjudicated that in this particular case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [110.268, 111.471], "stop_times": [111.471, 115.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 110.268}, "reply_to": "20036__0_008", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_010", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "And they would then say, it's law of the case, and so we deny... in dealing with the appeal you would have a final disposition, and you could come here again.\nIn that respect it's different from Cox v. Cohn.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [115.938, 128.542], "stop_times": [128.542, 132.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 115.938}, "reply_to": "20036__0_009", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20036__0_011", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "I think it is different, but I think the rational of Cox is, looking at this particular issue, this Court... the Alabama supreme court has adjudicated it to the fullest degree under the Federal issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [132.088], "stop_times": [142.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 132.088}, "reply_to": "20036__0_010", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_012", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "The issue isn't whether they have adjudicated it finally and will not come back to it.\nYou're quite right that they wouldn't come back to it.\nThe issue is whether we could pick it up later on, after they simply say, it's law of the case, there is no Federal cause of action.\nAt that point you have a final judgment, the whole thing has been dismissed, and you could come here.\nIs there some reason why you couldn't come here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [142.286, 147.488, 149.877, 157.967, 162.95], "stop_times": [147.488, 149.877, 157.967, 162.95, 165.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 142.286}, "reply_to": "20036__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20036__0_013", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "It would require duplication in trying the case twice, and I think that's part of the rationale that Cox looked at.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [165.278], "stop_times": [173.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 165.278}, "reply_to": "20036__0_012", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_014", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Sure.\nWell, that may well be, but we're bound by the Federal statute, which says that the case has to be finally decided by the highest court of the State, finally decided, and the highest court of the State is going to have this case back again, or may well have the case back again on the State law claims, no?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [173.165, 173.446], "stop_times": [173.446, 191.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 173.165}, "reply_to": "20036__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20036__0_015", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "It could, but the problem, Your Honor, is that the third element in Cox specifically, I think, addressed that rationale.\nIt said that the Federal claim was adjudicated in the Federal... in the State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [191.486, 199.06], "stop_times": [199.06, 202.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 191.486}, "reply_to": "20036__0_014", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_016", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "But it says where further Federal... it says, but in which later review of the Federal issue cannot be had, and under the law of the case, Alabama could conceivably change its mind if there were some intervening decision, perhaps by the Eleventh Circuit.\nProbably it won't, but nevertheless, you can't say, in which later review of the Federal issue cannot be had.\nthat's just not... that's... you just haven't complied with that exception.\nNow... and maybe you might ask us to have some further exception and say, well, it's duplicative, or something like that, but I don't think you can come within exception 3.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [202.903, 219.49, 227.641, 231.344], "stop_times": [219.49, 227.641, 231.344, 239.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 202.903}, "reply_to": "20036__0_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20036__0_017", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Well, I think, though, the rationale in exception 3, if it does not meet this case, it should meet this case, and maybe the Court should accept that as a further--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [239.137], "stop_times": [247.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 239.137}, "reply_to": "20036__0_016", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_018", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "I think perhaps the rationale of section 3 was your... a case called California v. Stewart that was decided on... where the State court says, this evidence is inadmissible because it was violative of Miranda.\nThe State wants to appeal that.\nIf it goes back to the trial court, the State is prevented from getting that evidence in, so it's lost forever the right to review that claim because the trial court won't accept it, and if there's a guilty verdict, or a not guilty verdict, the State never will have an opportunity to review it.\nYou, on the other hand, will, as my colleagues have pointed out, have... could have an opportunity to have this reviewed in a later proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [247.291, 261.988, 265.269, 280.87], "stop_times": [261.988, 265.269, 280.87, 288.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 247.291}, "reply_to": "20036__0_017", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20036__0_019", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--I think that, Your Honor, Mr. Chief Justice, I do not believe that we will, because I think the supreme court of Alabama has reviewed the issue and has accepted it for that particular purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [288.774], "stop_times": [300.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 288.774}, "reply_to": "20036__0_018", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_020", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Let's assume that, as I think my colleagues have assumed, that the supreme court of Alabama is going to say, as Justice Ginsburg, this is the law of the case, we've decided it, but this is simply a necessary step for you to then bring the case to us, and you will not have the final judgment argument made against you at that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [300.769], "stop_times": [318.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 300.769}, "reply_to": "20036__0_019", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20036__0_021", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "If that rationale holds, then this case would be tried once with a State remedy, which would exclude the entire 1983 cause of action.\nIt would then go up before the supreme court of Alabama, and they, as Justice Scalia points out, would probably say, we've already covered this, you know, the issue is moot, and we'd be here again 2 or 3 years on the same issue, having gone through the system without any... moving the case any further.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [318.215, 327.617], "stop_times": [327.617, 347.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 318.215}, "reply_to": "20036__0_020", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_022", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Well, that's always--\n--That's a happy ending.\nYou could lose on the State claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [347.359, 348.25, 348.78], "stop_times": [348.25, 348.78, 350.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 347.359}, "reply_to": "20036__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20036__0_023", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [350.795], "stop_times": [351.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 350.795}, "reply_to": "20036__0_022", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_024", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "And then the whole thing could be washed out, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [351.874], "stop_times": [352.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 351.874}, "reply_to": "20036__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20036__0_025", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [352.841], "stop_times": [353.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 352.841}, "reply_to": "20036__0_024", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_026", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "The problem is that's always true when you take an interlocutory appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [353.122], "stop_times": [357.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 353.122}, "reply_to": "20036__0_025", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20036__0_027", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [357.854], "stop_times": [358.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 357.854}, "reply_to": "20036__0_026", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_028", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "It's always true, so the statutes balance and allow you sometimes to take an interlocutory appeal, sometimes not, but we have a statute here that doesn't allow it.\nIt says final, and is there anyway around that?\nI mean, I don't see... the word is final.\nIt doesn't allow this interlocutory thing to come up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [358.667, 368.757, 372.319, 375.301], "stop_times": [368.757, 372.319, 375.301, 378.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 358.667}, "reply_to": "20036__0_027", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20036__0_029", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [378.27], "stop_times": [378.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 378.27}, "reply_to": "20036__0_028", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_030", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "So how do we get around that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [378.956], "stop_times": [380.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 378.956}, "reply_to": "20036__0_029", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20036__0_031", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--I personally do not believe the supreme court of Alabama will adjudicate the same Federal issue again, and the reason is the defendants in this case are going to say, this case is already decided.\nThat was already addressed.\nThe parties were before it.\nIt was a final order on the 1983 issue.\nThat's over with.\nAnd I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [380.081, 391.184, 392.481, 393.309, 396.745, 397.98], "stop_times": [391.184, 392.481, 393.309, 396.745, 397.98, 400.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 380.081}, "reply_to": "20036__0_030", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_032", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "We don't resolve finality issue by issue.\nI mean, our cases make it clear that if any of the claims in the case are still alive, the judgment is not final, and there are claims still alive here, the State claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [400.384, 403.774], "stop_times": [403.774, 417.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 400.384}, "reply_to": "20036__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20036__0_033", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--The State claims are.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [417.972], "stop_times": [418.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 417.972}, "reply_to": "20036__0_032", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_034", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "So the only way you can get out of the problem is to say, this comes within one of the exceptions, to wit, there's no other way to appeal this Federal claim unless I can appeal it now, which was the situation in the case that the Chief Justice described, but I don't see why that's the situation here.\nIt seems to me you can come back up here.\nI know it takes 2 more years, and we're duplicating effort and all of that, but that's what this statute envisions.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [418.722, 437.401, 439.088, 447.116], "stop_times": [437.401, 439.088, 447.116, 447.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 418.722}, "reply_to": "20036__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20036__0_035", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "I believe the Court could expand, if that's the term, in the Cox rationale and to allow this particular appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [447.694], "stop_times": [457.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 447.694}, "reply_to": "20036__0_034", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_036", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--Yes, but how could... I mean, it's like a trial judge.\nThe trial judge makes a ruling against you at the beginning of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [457.174, 459.408], "stop_times": [459.408, 462.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 457.174}, "reply_to": "20036__0_035", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20036__0_037", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [462.406], "stop_times": [462.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 462.406}, "reply_to": "20036__0_036", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_038", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "You run up to the court of appeals, you say, you know, judge, an awful lot of time and effort's going to go by.\nWhy don't you and the court of appeals reverse him now?\nAnd if we have a statute that says final, we can't do it.\nWe have to look to some other statute that gave us the interlocutory right, or that gave us, you know, the certificating right.\nWe couldn't do it on a word that says final.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [462.953, 467.498, 469.841, 473.37, 479.181], "stop_times": [467.498, 469.841, 473.37, 479.181, 482.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 462.953}, "reply_to": "20036__0_037", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20036__0_039", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [482.211], "stop_times": [482.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 482.211}, "reply_to": "20036__0_038", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_040", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "And that's the dilemma, it seems to me, here.\nI'm putting that because maybe you can think of something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [482.664, 484.647], "stop_times": [484.647, 487.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 482.664}, "reply_to": "20036__0_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20036__0_041", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [487.193], "stop_times": [488.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 487.193}, "reply_to": "20036__0_040", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_042", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "I don't know what it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [488.13], "stop_times": [488.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 488.13}, "reply_to": "20036__0_041", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20036__0_043", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--The difference in that is that if it is an issue, an evidentiary issue or something, it would be adjudicated and revisited at the end of the trial, as all evidentiary issues.\nThe issue of whether you have a cause of action has reached the highest level it can reach in Alabama, and it has been adjudicated at the highest level it can reach within the Alabama system, and that issue has been taken care of both from a fact standpoint and from a representation of the parties, and I don't believe the supreme court of Alabama can go back and review it.\nIt's already said, I've made that decision on that issue.\nI think that we would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [488.833, 498.111, 518.539, 521.429], "stop_times": [498.111, 518.539, 521.429, 524.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 488.833}, "reply_to": "20036__0_042", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_044", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Suppose there were some intervening decisions.\nCouldn't you tell the Alabama supreme court, you made a mistake here, there are some intervening decisions from this Court, or from a court of appeals of the Eleventh Circuit, which there might well be, please take another look at this?\nThey have the discretion to do that.\nThe rule of law of the case is discretionary, I take it, in Alabama.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [524.022, 526.208, 539.063, 541.078], "stop_times": [526.208, 539.063, 541.078, 544.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 524.022}, "reply_to": "20036__0_043", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20036__0_045", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--They possibly could do that, Your Honor, but in... because the supreme court of Alabama has ruled on a motion to dismiss pleadings... this was not a summary judgment.\nIt was a motion to dismiss pleadings... it dismissed the counts in this case that involved 1983, and they're forever gone, and the supreme court of Alabama has ruled that issue finality.\nThose issues are no longer present in the State court and in the trial court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [544.795, 556.087, 567.942], "stop_times": [556.087, 567.942, 571.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 544.795}, "reply_to": "20036__0_044", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_046", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "If you were to prevail on the State claim and then ultimately prevail here on your 1983 case, you wouldn't have to have a whole new trial.\nCouldn't you get some mileage from the State, the trial on the State claim in which you succeeded so that you wouldn't have to duplicate all that evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [571.113, 590.809], "stop_times": [590.809, 600.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 571.113}, "reply_to": "20036__0_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20036__0_047", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "I would think not, and the reason is because the State measure of damages in Alabama for wrongful death is the wrongfulness of the conduct of the defendant.\nIt is not compensatory.\nIt is purely punitive, and if... 1983 against municipalities is compensatory damages only.\nThere is no compensatory damages for wrongful death.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [600.118, 609.77, 610.551, 617.892], "stop_times": [609.77, 610.551, 617.892, 620.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 600.118}, "reply_to": "20036__0_046", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_048", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "but with respect to the liability and fault--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [620.844], "stop_times": [623.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 620.844}, "reply_to": "20036__0_047", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20036__0_049", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Well, the issues that would be tried in the case in the... for the wrongful death, the issues and the evidence and even the measure of damages, what the jury is allowed to consider, would totally be different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [623.141], "stop_times": [636.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 623.141}, "reply_to": "20036__0_048", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_050", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--Measure of damages would certainly be different, but I don't understand why the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [636.65], "stop_times": [641.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 636.65}, "reply_to": "20036__0_049", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20036__0_051", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "The conduct--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [641.96], "stop_times": [643.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 641.96}, "reply_to": "20036__0_050", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_052", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--The fault issues would necessarily be different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [643.117], "stop_times": [647.349], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 643.117}, "reply_to": "20036__0_051", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20036__0_053", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--It may not, Your Honor.\nIt may... a lot of it would parallel, but a lot of it... there's also issues that would be allowable in '83 from an evidentiary standpoint that wouldn't be allowable or relevant just for a wrongful death case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [647.349, 648.395], "stop_times": [648.395, 659.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 647.349}, "reply_to": "20036__0_052", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_054", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Mr. Pantazis, just for fun, why don't you tell us about the merits of the case.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [659.391, 663.764], "stop_times": [663.764, 664.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 659.391}, "reply_to": "20036__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20036__0_055", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Okay.\nIt is fun.\n[Laughter]\nYour Honor, this case involves a lady who was an elderly black lady in Tarrant, Alabama.\nShe died in a fire.\nShe had both legs amputated previously.\nShe died when her husband... when the house caught on fire and her husband tried to pull her to a first floor window, could not get her out.\nThe firefighters of Tarrant City arrived.\nOn two requests he asked them to pull her out.\nOn both requests, two different firefighters, they both refused.\nHis son and her son approached, and got there.\nWhen he did, he pulled her out.\nShe was laying on the ground.\nThey refused to administer any first aid.\nThey refused to even take her pulse.\nThe allegations in the complaint, and as the record reflects, this was a custom and practice of depriving black citizens in Tarrant, Alabama of fundamental equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, and we had filed a section 1983 cause of action, and as this Court knows, section 1983 does not provide a remedy, remedial damage remedy under that section.\nWe have to look for guidance to 1988.\n1988 tells us that we look first, or consider first the State common law and State statutory law, and if that is not inconsistent with the purpose and policy of the Federal Constitution, the United States laws it's intended to protect, then we apply it, but if it is, that is the balancing test, or that is the test that the courts must look at.\nThis Court in Robertson v. Wegman has held that the purpose and policy of 1983 is to compensate and to prevent prevention of abuses and power by those acting under color of State law, or in my words, deterrence, and if you apply that standard to what we have in Alabama, or we're left with in Alabama... because what's left are two State statutes.\nOne of them is the wrongful death statute, which is cited at 6-5-410, and as I've indicated is purely compensatory.\nEven the supreme court's decision in this case states that, I think, in the first or second paragraph... excuse me.\nIt's purely punitive.\nI said compensatory.\nI misstated.\nIt's purely punitive, and the jury charges, they're admonished never to consider any compensatory aspects, just punitive, it certainly frustrates the purpose of compensation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [664.093, 664.468, 666.092, 666.889, 675.355, 677.058, 679.884, 686.851, 691.114, 694.269, 697.58, 700.5, 702.984, 704.421, 706.732, 708.795, 734.845, 737.533, 760.477, 791.011, 798.117, 803.772, 804.584, 805.506, 806.192], "stop_times": [664.468, 666.092, 666.889, 675.355, 677.058, 679.884, 686.851, 691.114, 694.269, 697.58, 700.5, 702.984, 704.421, 706.732, 708.795, 734.845, 737.533, 760.477, 791.011, 798.117, 803.772, 804.584, 805.506, 806.192, 817.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 664.093}, "reply_to": "20036__0_054", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_056", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Why... you say it frustrates the purpose.\nA moment ago you said the purpose is deterrence, and it certainly doesn't frustrate the purpose of deterrence.\nIt's a classic example of a deterrent remedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [817.439, 819.843, 824.559], "stop_times": [819.843, 824.559, 826.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 817.439}, "reply_to": "20036__0_055", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20036__0_057", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "That's correct, it does satisfy the second element of deterrence, but it frustrates the first element of underlying policy of compensation.\nThere is a second statute that comes into play.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [826.715, 835.759], "stop_times": [835.759, 838.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 826.715}, "reply_to": "20036__0_056", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_058", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Well, it doesn't satisfy it.\nI don't know that it frustrates it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [838.382, 839.695], "stop_times": [839.695, 841.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 838.382}, "reply_to": "20036__0_057", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20036__0_059", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Well, it runs in conflict with it, Your Honor.\nThere's a second statute that frustrates both, is inconsistent with both policies, and that is section 11-93-2, which arbitrarily places a limit of $100,000 on any recovery against a municipality, which would apply in this case with no 1983 cause of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [841.6, 844.755], "stop_times": [844.755, 862.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 841.6}, "reply_to": "20036__0_058", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_060", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "But we don't get to that, do we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [862.481], "stop_times": [864.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 862.481}, "reply_to": "20036__0_059", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20036__0_061", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "We do--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [864.856], "stop_times": [866.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 864.856}, "reply_to": "20036__0_060", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_062", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Well, we don't get to it because of the Federal rule, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [866.058], "stop_times": [869.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 866.058}, "reply_to": "20036__0_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20036__0_063", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--Well, if we have no 83 claim, as the supreme court of Alabama has said, it's all State.\nThe supreme court did not modify its wrongful death--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [869.98, 876.337], "stop_times": [876.337, 878.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 869.98}, "reply_to": "20036__0_062", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_064", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "No, but your argument, as I understand it, is that even to the extent of the deterrence there is a frustration of purpose here because the punitive damages cannot be recovered against the municipality.\nIsn't that your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [878.945, 894.345], "stop_times": [894.345, 895.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 878.945}, "reply_to": "20036__0_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20036__0_065", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--That is... that is an argument.\nWe take the position, Your Honor, that because it's purely punitive, that it doesn't comply with the compensatory aspects, while it may comply with the deterrence.\nThe court, the supreme court of Alabama has said that in removing the 1983 action, and that's what it did, it dismissed it, said that we are now under the wrongful death.\nWhile we're under that statute, we're also under the statute that arbitrarily limits us to $100,000 damages, and that frustrates both deterrence as well as compensation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [895.218, 897.218, 906.526, 919.413], "stop_times": [897.218, 906.526, 919.413, 931.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 895.218}, "reply_to": "20036__0_064", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_066", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Yes, but you never get to that limit because of the effect of the Federal law, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [931.079], "stop_times": [936.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 931.079}, "reply_to": "20036__0_065", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20036__0_067", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [936.405], "stop_times": [937.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 936.405}, "reply_to": "20036__0_066", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_068", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Because whether there is a limit or whether there isn't a limit, you can't get any punitive damages against the municipality--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [937.093], "stop_times": [943.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 937.093}, "reply_to": "20036__0_067", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20036__0_069", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [943.543], "stop_times": [943.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 943.543}, "reply_to": "20036__0_068", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_070", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--under 1983, and that's a matter of Federal law, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [943.871], "stop_times": [947.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 943.871}, "reply_to": "20036__0_069", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20036__0_071", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--I disagree, and the reason I disagree is, the supreme court said there is no 83 claim, so we're not under any Federal law for this case, as it sits now at the trial level.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [947.088], "stop_times": [956.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 947.088}, "reply_to": "20036__0_070", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_072", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Well, but you don't claim an independent Federal basis for challenging the $100,000 limit on punitive damages for wrongful death in Alabama if it didn't involve a Federal claim, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [956.178], "stop_times": [968.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 956.178}, "reply_to": "20036__0_071", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20036__0_073", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Exactly, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [968.204], "stop_times": [968.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 968.204}, "reply_to": "20036__0_072", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_074", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "When you say exactly, do you mean yes or no?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [968.876], "stop_times": [971.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 968.876}, "reply_to": "20036__0_073", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20036__0_075", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Yes.\nI do not challenge it.\nI agree with your statement.\nI do not challenge it because what we're saying is, if we have a 1983 claim, then the limitation would not apply, and that's why it's so important that this Court consider and instruct the supreme court of Alabama that our 1983 claim is not satisfied by the Alabama wrongful death statute, because if it does apply, if we have an 83 claim, the arbitrary caps do not apply.\nIf we don't have an 83 claim, if the case is as it's left right now, without any reference to 1983, then all of the State laws would apply, and we would have a purely punitive remedy and a $100,000--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [971.0, 971.312, 972.735, 974.686, 1002.254], "stop_times": [971.312, 972.735, 974.686, 1002.254, 1018.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 971.0}, "reply_to": "20036__0_074", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_076", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Could I ask what you're seeking under the 1983 claim?\nIs it damages for Mrs. Jefferson's death and pain and suffering, not the loss of association or consortium by the remaining family members?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1018.2, 1022.901], "stop_times": [1022.901, 1039.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1018.2}, "reply_to": "20036__0_075", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20036__0_077", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--Your Honor, we're asking for the wrongful death statute to compensate the estate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1039.503], "stop_times": [1046.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1039.503}, "reply_to": "20036__0_076", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_078", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Well, under the 1983 action, as I read the complaint, it seemed to be asking for damages for Mrs. Jefferson's death and pain and suffering, as opposed to anything suffered by the children or the spouse.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1046.142], "stop_times": [1066.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1046.142}, "reply_to": "20036__0_077", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20036__0_079", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "We are asking for the damages as listed in the Weeks case, which was a district court case in Alabama, which did say that the estate's damages are the measure of the pain and suffering, the funeral expenses of the decedent's heirs, or the descendents, and that is what we think the typical compensatory damage is that is encompassed in 49 States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1066.399], "stop_times": [1088.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1066.399}, "reply_to": "20036__0_078", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_080", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "I'm sorry, you say you are not asking, then, for her pain and suffering.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1088.141], "stop_times": [1094.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1088.141}, "reply_to": "20036__0_079", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20036__0_081", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1094.717], "stop_times": [1095.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1094.717}, "reply_to": "20036__0_080", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_082", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Even though that's what... how the complaint reads.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1095.496], "stop_times": [1098.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1095.496}, "reply_to": "20036__0_081", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20036__0_083", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "If the complaint reads that way, that may be an inartful pleading, but we're asking that the Court compensate the estate, and in compensating the estate, the Court look at traditional compensation measures for wrongful death, which, like we've indicated, 48 or 49 States... the only one I'm unsure of is Massachusetts... have held that when you compensate for death, the beneficiaries or the descendents are the ones whose... are the ones who suffer the loss and suffer the pain and also pay the medical bills and pay the funeral expenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1098.104], "stop_times": [1130.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1098.104}, "reply_to": "20036__0_082", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_084", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Mr. Pantazis, there's a distinction, I'm sure you are aware, between survival statutes and wrongful death acts, and one is thought as compensating the bereaved family members, and the other is thought as going to the estate, as the claims that the decedent would have if she had survived, her pain and suffering, and that goes to the estate.\nBut you seem, in your answer to Justice O'Connor, to blend those two, and I was wondering why you cast your complaint in survival act terms, and yet in your response just now about the family members you seem to be shifting over to the wrongful death mode.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1130.778, 1159.814], "stop_times": [1159.814, 1184.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1130.778}, "reply_to": "20036__0_083", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20036__0_085", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "I believe, Your Honor, the damages go to the decedent's estate.\nThat's the only... the wrongful death damages or the 1983 damages would go to the estate, and would be passed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1184.319, 1190.161], "stop_times": [1190.161, 1197.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1184.319}, "reply_to": "20036__0_084", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_086", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "That's quite wrong.\nThe decedent's damages would go to her estate.\nThe wrongful death action is brought on behalf of the relatives and third parties.\nYou're just asking for the latter?\nYour complaint seems to cover both.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1197.673, 1198.157, 1200.578, 1204.748, 1206.013], "stop_times": [1198.157, 1200.578, 1204.748, 1206.013, 1208.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1197.673}, "reply_to": "20036__0_085", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20036__0_087", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--Well, we are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1208.434], "stop_times": [1209.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1208.434}, "reply_to": "20036__0_086", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_088", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Why would you limit yourself to one rather than both?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1209.215], "stop_times": [1211.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1209.215}, "reply_to": "20036__0_087", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20036__0_089", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--Well, we are asking for both, but the way you compensate a decedent for death in reality, and what most of the States have done, is by compensating the heirs for what they have lost, or the descendents for what they have lost.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1211.308], "stop_times": [1225.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1211.308}, "reply_to": "20036__0_088", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_090", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Well, not in the normal survival action.\nThe money goes into the estate and, of course, whoever is the beneficiary of the estate gets the money, but that's analytically quite distinct from a death action brought on behalf of the survivors.\nI don't... I... if you want to limit yourself to one, that's your privilege, of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1225.974, 1227.365, 1236.579], "stop_times": [1227.365, 1236.579, 1240.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1225.974}, "reply_to": "20036__0_089", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20036__0_091", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1240.89], "stop_times": [1241.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1240.89}, "reply_to": "20036__0_090", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_092", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "And the money in the estate may never get to the family.\nI mean, the decedent may owe a lot of money, and all the money in the estate would go to his creditors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1241.296, 1245.358], "stop_times": [1245.358, 1251.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1241.296}, "reply_to": "20036__0_091", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20036__0_093", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--Under the Alabama wrongful death statute it goes directly to the descendents and not attached by debts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1251.402], "stop_times": [1257.915], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1251.402}, "reply_to": "20036__0_092", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_094", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "That's the wrongful death recovery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1257.915], "stop_times": [1258.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1257.915}, "reply_to": "20036__0_093", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20036__0_095", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1258.929], "stop_times": [1259.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1258.929}, "reply_to": "20036__0_094", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_096", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "But not survival recovery.\nThe survival recovery, the recovery that the decedent gets for the decedent's own pain and suffering goes into the decedent's estate, and the creditors can gobble it all up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1259.461, 1260.881], "stop_times": [1260.881, 1270.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1259.461}, "reply_to": "20036__0_095", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20036__0_097", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "The only... if you're speaking of a Federal remedy, that would be correct, but the only remedy we have in Alabama is the wrongful death, which would not allow that under Alabama common law, statutory law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1270.285], "stop_times": [1280.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1270.285}, "reply_to": "20036__0_096", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_098", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "You say that under Alabama law, for a wrongful death, the proceeds have to go to the estate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1280.546], "stop_times": [1287.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1280.546}, "reply_to": "20036__0_097", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20036__0_099", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "No.\nThe proceeds are... the estate bring... is the property party to bring the cause of action, the personal representative through the estate, but the damages go directly to the descendents, and in Weeks the Court analysized that the compensatory aspect of 1983 is to compensate the decedent by the measure of damages that the descendents had suffered, and pay the... through that proceeds, through that process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1287.98, 1288.605], "stop_times": [1288.605, 1316.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1287.98}, "reply_to": "20036__0_098", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_100", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "What a strange system.\nI mean, I guess it's the civil law, but I... why would the estate sue to get money for... not for the estate, but for relatives?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1316.842, 1317.311], "stop_times": [1317.311, 1326.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1316.842}, "reply_to": "20036__0_099", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20036__0_101", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "It's the only remedy available.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1326.058], "stop_times": [1327.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1326.058}, "reply_to": "20036__0_100", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_102", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Well, I hope you have a sympathetic administrator of the estate, who likes the family, because it's no money in his pocket.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1327.464], "stop_times": [1337.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1327.464}, "reply_to": "20036__0_101", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20036__0_103", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "That happens often, Your Honor, that the administrator is in conflict with the heirs.\nWhat we're asking is that this Court instruct the supreme court of Alabama that the 19... that there cannot abolish the 1983 action, because in doing so it directly is inconsistent with the purpose of compensation and deterrence and, in doing so, we're asking this Court to instruct the supreme court of Alabama that the 1983 cause of action is supplemental to the wrongful death statute, and that the damages that are allowable under 1983 are those typical compensatory damages that are found in 48 or 49 other States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1337.991, 1343.458], "stop_times": [1343.458, 1383.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1337.991}, "reply_to": "20036__0_102", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_104", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Where would the Court be getting those rules from?\nThey don't get them from Alabama, because Alabama allows only a punitive damage recovery.\nThey don't... and 1983 itself doesn't tell us.\nThat's why we usually plug in the State remedy.\nSo we don't have a Federal remedy, we don't have the State remedy, so where does the Court get the instruction, where does this Court get the instructions to give the Alabama supreme court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1383.598, 1386.347, 1391.923, 1401.372, 1404.027], "stop_times": [1386.347, 1391.923, 1401.372, 1404.027, 1416.038], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1383.598}, "reply_to": "20036__0_103", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20036__0_105", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "We ask that the Court use the rationale that has been decided or looked at in the Weeks case, the district court case in Alabama, and if I may I'll quote that section.\nIt's page 1309 of that decision.\nIt says, the compensatory damage award shall be measured by the losses incurred by the descendent survivors, who are entitled to recover under Alabama statute of distribution as a result of the death.\nSuch losses may include but are not restricted to expenses incurred in the treatment of or burial of the descendent, loss of income from the descendent, loss of companionship and consortium, pain and suffering of the survivors.\nThis particular case, the Weeks case, was brought simply on the claim of the executor of the estate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1416.038, 1426.705, 1428.955, 1438.935, 1452.196], "stop_times": [1426.705, 1428.955, 1438.935, 1452.196, 1459.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1416.038}, "reply_to": "20036__0_104", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_106", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Where would the district court get its law from?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1459.692], "stop_times": [1462.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1459.692}, "reply_to": "20036__0_105", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20036__0_107", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "These type of damages are what most of the State statutes hold as compensatory damages in wrongful death, the typical--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1462.378], "stop_times": [1471.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1462.378}, "reply_to": "20036__0_106", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_108", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "So that you say is the source from which the district court obtained it?\nIt just polled the various States and decided what was the common denominator.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1471.187, 1474.108], "stop_times": [1474.108, 1479.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1471.187}, "reply_to": "20036__0_107", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20036__0_109", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--The briefs in the district court case did have... I mean, there are several cases that they looked at.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1479.511], "stop_times": [1484.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1479.511}, "reply_to": "20036__0_108", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_110", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Does the district court say where it got its law from?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1484.448], "stop_times": [1488.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1484.448}, "reply_to": "20036__0_109", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20036__0_111", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "The district court... I'm only familiar with this... the opinion does not.\nI'm familiar with it, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1488.009, 1491.867], "stop_times": [1491.867, 1492.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1488.009}, "reply_to": "20036__0_110", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_112", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "I'm not asking you to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1492.757], "stop_times": [1494.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1492.757}, "reply_to": "20036__0_111", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20036__0_113", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1494.209], "stop_times": [1494.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1494.209}, "reply_to": "20036__0_112", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_114", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--examine the judge's mind.\nDoes the opinion say where--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1494.459, 1495.865], "stop_times": [1495.865, 1497.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1494.459}, "reply_to": "20036__0_113", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20036__0_115", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "The opinion does not.\nI am aware that the briefs filed in this case show typical compensatory damages that are found in other States.\nAlabama happens to be an unusual animal, to say the least, on wrongful death.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1497.583, 1498.489, 1503.659], "stop_times": [1498.489, 1503.659, 1508.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1497.583}, "reply_to": "20036__0_114", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_116", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--May I ask this question as a matter of Alabama law?\nSuppose you had a single person who was 90 years old, and a millionaire, no relatives at all.\nThe person is seriously injured and runs up $500,000 in hospital expenses and then dies.\nCan the administrator of that person's estate recover a dime?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1508.72, 1511.655, 1517.98, 1526.492], "stop_times": [1511.655, 1517.98, 1526.492, 1530.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1508.72}, "reply_to": "20036__0_115", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20036__0_117", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "On the wrongful death?\nNo.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1530.007, 1532.411], "stop_times": [1532.411, 1532.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1530.007}, "reply_to": "20036__0_116", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_118", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "They have to... is there any provision under Alabama law for the estate to recover anything for that person?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1532.771], "stop_times": [1537.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1532.771}, "reply_to": "20036__0_117", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20036__0_119", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "No, and it gets even worse than that, Your Honor, if I could explain.\nThe measure of damages--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1537.536, 1543.143], "stop_times": [1543.143, 1544.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1537.536}, "reply_to": "20036__0_118", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_120", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "I knew Alabama had its idiosyncracies, but this is really surprising.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1544.876], "stop_times": [1548.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1544.876}, "reply_to": "20036__0_119", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20036__0_121", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--The--\n[Laughter]\nThe damages would go directly to the heirs.\nIt would not even pass through the estate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1548.109, 1548.437, 1549.093, 1551.858], "stop_times": [1548.437, 1549.093, 1551.858, 1553.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1548.109}, "reply_to": "20036__0_120", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_122", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "No heirs in my case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1553.123], "stop_times": [1554.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1553.123}, "reply_to": "20036__0_121", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20036__0_123", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Well, then there would be nobody getting... there would be somebody.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1554.342], "stop_times": [1558.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1554.342}, "reply_to": "20036__0_122", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_124", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "I mean, she had left a will leaving everything to Alabama University, or something like that, but Alabama University would get nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1558.012], "stop_times": [1565.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1558.012}, "reply_to": "20036__0_123", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20036__0_125", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "The will... the will wouldn't apply.\nIt would go directly to the heirs at law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1565.32, 1567.195], "stop_times": [1567.195, 1569.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1565.32}, "reply_to": "20036__0_124", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_126", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "But there are no heirs in my case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1569.476], "stop_times": [1571.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1569.476}, "reply_to": "20036__0_125", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20036__0_127", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Then there would be no recovery.\nIt--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1571.552, 1573.177], "stop_times": [1573.177, 1573.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1571.552}, "reply_to": "20036__0_126", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_128", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Mr.... oh, I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1573.63], "stop_times": [1574.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1573.63}, "reply_to": "20036__0_127", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20036__0_129", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--I was going to explain even further what problem we have in trying to implement a 1983 remedy here.\nBecause the wrongful death statute is purely punitive, it doesn't take anything in nature from compensatory damages.\nOne example of two cases I have had.\nOne was a 32-year-old Georgia Tech engineer with children, making X dollars.\nHe dies in an accident that there was a slight negligence.\nIt was enough for a cause of action.\nThat recovery was very nominal, because the wrongfulness of the defendant's conduct was minute, maybe applicable.\nAnother case in which I represented an 82-year-old Episcopal priest who was a ward of the church, was involved in an accident, but in that case the defendant's conduct violated the law.\nThey put an unreasonably dangerous load, and as a result, that case had tremendous damages.\nThe point I'm trying to make is, the recovery, as you have indicated, is unfair in one regard.\nIt's also unfair as to the compensation aspect.\nIt is the only State, and the reason I say that, Massachusetts used to have a similar rule, but I believe... I'm not sure... they have changed the rule.\nIt's the only State that has this punitive damage statute, and it totally frustrates a 1983 action that deals with compensation for the injured, the person injured, as the statute says.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1574.583, 1581.33, 1591.374, 1594.402, 1599.246, 1602.321, 1604.445, 1612.739, 1627.483, 1633.606, 1639.9, 1643.445, 1650.77], "stop_times": [1581.33, 1591.374, 1594.402, 1599.246, 1602.321, 1604.445, 1612.739, 1627.483, 1633.606, 1639.9, 1643.445, 1650.77, 1662.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1574.583}, "reply_to": "20036__0_128", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_130", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Mr. Pantazis, going back to the Chief Justice's question about where the court in Weeks got its law, if I understand your answer, it got its law from sort of looking generally to the common law recovery rules beyond the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1662.859], "stop_times": [1677.182], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1662.859}, "reply_to": "20036__0_129", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20036__0_131", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1677.182], "stop_times": [1677.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1677.182}, "reply_to": "20036__0_130", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_132", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "But it's not authorized to do that under 1988, is it, which refers to the common law of the State in which the court having jurisdiction is held, so how does... how did the Weeks court make this leap to the rest of the republic?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1677.822], "stop_times": [1692.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1677.822}, "reply_to": "20036__0_131", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20036__0_133", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "I believe it does through Robertson, Your Honor, that it's the caveat of, where it states that it cannot be inconsistent with a policy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1692.691], "stop_times": [1701.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1692.691}, "reply_to": "20036__0_132", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_134", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Well, I know that puts a block on what it can borrow from the State in which it sits, but it doesn't function as an affirmative authorization to travel to other States, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1701.548], "stop_times": [1714.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1701.548}, "reply_to": "20036__0_133", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20036__0_135", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1714.042], "stop_times": [1715.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1714.042}, "reply_to": "20036__0_134", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_136", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Is it Federal common law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1715.51], "stop_times": [1716.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1715.51}, "reply_to": "20036__0_135", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20036__0_137", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--It would be an establishment of some sort of Federal common law, similar to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1716.728], "stop_times": [1722.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1716.728}, "reply_to": "20036__0_136", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_138", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "So it's not borrowing at all.\nIt's a fashioning of Federal common law, pure and simple.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1722.18, 1722.539], "stop_times": [1722.539, 1726.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1722.18}, "reply_to": "20036__0_137", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20036__0_139", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--Well, where they are absent of those statutes, that's what 88 I think envisions.\nThat's what Robertson, and I think this Court has done so in Carlson earlier.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1726.724, 1732.801], "stop_times": [1732.801, 1736.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1726.724}, "reply_to": "20036__0_138", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_140", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Then why did we need the 1988 provision in the first place?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1736.393], "stop_times": [1740.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1736.393}, "reply_to": "20036__0_139", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20036__0_141", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Well, you need the 1988 provision for the test.\nThe 1988 provision gives you the test.\nYou go... it says you consider first the State law and the State statutes, but where they're inconsistent, and in this particular case not only inconsistent but totally devoid of the underlying purposes because of the two Alabama statutes that defeat them, you must supplement that with a Federal remedy, and that is what Weeks did, and that is what we're asking this Court to instruct the supreme court of Alabama to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1740.436, 1743.326, 1746.294], "stop_times": [1743.326, 1746.294, 1772.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1740.436}, "reply_to": "20036__0_140", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_142", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Do you wish to reserve the rest of your time, Mr. Pantazis?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1772.831], "stop_times": [1781.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1772.831}, "reply_to": "20036__0_141", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20036__0_143", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "I do.\nThank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1781.78, 1781.889], "stop_times": [1781.889, 1782.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1781.78}, "reply_to": "20036__0_142", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_144", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Thank you.\nMr. Roberts, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1782.357, 1782.795], "stop_times": [1782.795, 1784.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1782.357}, "reply_to": "20036__0_143", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20036__0_145", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe Court lacks jurisdiction to review the interlocutory decision of the Alabama supreme court.\nSection 1257 of the Judicial Code limits this Court's jurisdiction to review State court decisions to final judgments.\nThe Alabama supreme court in this case did not issue a final judgment.\nIt instead remanded the case back to the trial court for trial on the State law wrongful death claim, which remains pending.\nThis is also not a case of mere technical nonfinality, nor is it within any of the Cox exceptions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1784.872, 1790.886, 1796.384, 1804.631, 1808.753, 1817.36], "stop_times": [1790.886, 1796.384, 1804.631, 1808.753, 1817.36, 1823.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1784.872}, "reply_to": "20036__0_144", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_146", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "What about like a... is... there is no doctrine here like waiver, because this particular argument I don't think was raised in the petitioner's reply... you were not the lawyer then, but the response--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1823.794], "stop_times": [1834.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1823.794}, "reply_to": "20036__0_145", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20036__0_147", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1834.087], "stop_times": [1834.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1834.087}, "reply_to": "20036__0_146", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_148", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--The petition for cert, it didn't raise this argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1834.509], "stop_times": [1837.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1834.509}, "reply_to": "20036__0_147", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20036__0_149", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--I think that's correct.\nThe best that can be said is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1837.071, 1838.476], "stop_times": [1838.476, 1840.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1837.071}, "reply_to": "20036__0_148", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_150", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "If it had we might have caught it, but it didn't, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1840.132], "stop_times": [1842.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1840.132}, "reply_to": "20036__0_149", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20036__0_151", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--Well, the opposition--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1842.584], "stop_times": [1843.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1842.584}, "reply_to": "20036__0_150", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_152", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--Is there any waiver principle or anything in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1843.318], "stop_times": [1845.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1843.318}, "reply_to": "20036__0_151", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20036__0_153", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--No, there is not.\nThe best that can be said is that the opposition that was filed did point out that the decision was interlocutory.\nIt did state that the case was remanded.\nIt did note that the State law claim remained pending.\nBut I think it's fair to say that the finality issue was not argued.\nIt is, however, of course, a jurisdictional objection.\nAs this Court indicated in Flynt v. Ohio and also in O'Dell v. Espinoza, if there's a lack of finality it goes to the jurisdiction of the Court, and therefore under this Court's rule 15.2 cannot be waived.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1845.442, 1846.583, 1853.44, 1855.485, 1858.265, 1862.218, 1866.496], "stop_times": [1846.583, 1853.44, 1855.485, 1858.265, 1862.218, 1866.496, 1879.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1845.442}, "reply_to": "20036__0_152", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_154", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--Can he argue that he comes within your... the petitioner comes within the second exception because the Federal issue will necessarily survive on the grounds that the standard of care is different and less under the Federal cause of action that they want to apply?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1879.772], "stop_times": [1904.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1879.772}, "reply_to": "20036__0_153", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20036__0_155", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "I don't think so, Your Honor.\nThere's no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1904.654, 1905.653], "stop_times": [1905.653, 1906.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1904.654}, "reply_to": "20036__0_154", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_156", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "I mean, it seems to me that's the only way they could do it, to come within section 2.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1906.294], "stop_times": [1909.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1906.294}, "reply_to": "20036__0_155", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20036__0_157", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--Under the second exception it necessarily must be the case that the Federal cause of action would survive, and that's not the case here, because this pending State law claim involves the same parties, and the same underlying allegations.\nUnder this Court's decisions, that trial on a decision on that claim could well be preclusive of any 1983 claim, and therefore it is not necessarily the case that it would survive.\nIt may survive, again depending on the results of the State law proceedings, which is why it's not within the third exception on which my brother relied.\nThe fact that it may or may not survive depending on the outcome of the pending proceedings is why it is not within any of the Cox exceptions.\nIt's also not a rare situation.\nI would suspect that in most cases in which you have 1983 claims they're joined with State law claims, because conduct that violates section 1983 typically would also violate some State law, and most attorneys would bring both a State law claim and a Federal claim, so if the Court creates a new precedent here, a new exception to Cox, it would not be one of limited applicability, but would apply broadly to a wide range of 1983 cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1909.9, 1923.567, 1934.093, 1943.466, 1951.773, 1954.336], "stop_times": [1923.567, 1934.093, 1943.466, 1951.773, 1954.336, 1981.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1909.9}, "reply_to": "20036__0_156", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_158", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "There was a case some years ago... Justice Powell's decision in Pennsylvania v. Ritchie would seem to come pretty close to what is being sought here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1981.231], "stop_times": [1992.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1981.231}, "reply_to": "20036__0_157", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20036__0_159", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "My understanding of Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, and it's a very complicated case, but my understanding of it was that on the facts in that case the Federal claim could not survive regardless of the result on remand, which is why it was necessary to review it in the interlocutory posture.\nRegardless of whether the petitioner in that case won or lost, the Federal claim would be gone, and that's not the case here, because the 1983 claim could well survive the State law proceedings.\nIt may not, which is why it's not within the second exception, but it may, which is why it's not within the third.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [1992.446, 2009.643, 2020.325], "stop_times": [2009.643, 2020.325, 2026.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1992.446}, "reply_to": "20036__0_158", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_160", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "How do you understand the complaint with regard to the 1983 claim?\nIs it a survival cause of action--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2026.995, 2033.649], "stop_times": [2033.649, 2035.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2026.995}, "reply_to": "20036__0_159", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20036__0_161", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "That's how I read it, Your Honor, because the complaint seeks--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2035.695], "stop_times": [2039.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2035.695}, "reply_to": "20036__0_160", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_162", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--The deceased.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2039.131], "stop_times": [2040.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2039.131}, "reply_to": "20036__0_161", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20036__0_163", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--relief for the injuries that the decedent suffered.\nAlthough it's brought under what's called the Wrongful Death Act in Alabama, I believe that's properly characterized as a survival action.\nIf you're seeking relief for injuries to the decedent, it's survival.\nIf you're seeking relief on your own behalf, it's a wrongful death action.\nThis is a survival action, as I understand it.\nIt was brought by the representative of the estate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2040.006, 2041.958, 2049.844, 2053.359, 2057.53, 2060.388], "stop_times": [2041.958, 2049.844, 2053.359, 2057.53, 2060.388, 2063.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2040.006}, "reply_to": "20036__0_162", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_164", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "And how do you understand Alabama law with regard to a survival action here under 1983?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2063.121], "stop_times": [2071.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2063.121}, "reply_to": "20036__0_163", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20036__0_165", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Well, it would be under the wrongful death action, although again I think it's properly classified as a survival claim, and the... must be brought by the representative of the estate, and they're entitled to punitive damages to punish the wrongful death of the decedent.\nAlabama's view is that you cannot compensate the dead, and from the beginning... it's a very old statute, almost going back as far as Lord Campbell's Act... they've recognized that it's punitive in nature.\nIt's brought to punish.\nIt's original title was An Act to Prevent Homicide, and they've adhered to that interpretation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2071.46, 2087.908, 2099.886, 2100.855], "stop_times": [2087.908, 2099.886, 2100.855, 2107.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2071.46}, "reply_to": "20036__0_164", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_166", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "But Federal law says you can't recover that against a municipality.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2107.462], "stop_times": [2111.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2107.462}, "reply_to": "20036__0_165", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20036__0_167", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "That's right.\nThis Court's decision in Fact Concerts means that you can't recover that, and that poses... if we reach the merits that poses the issue, is that Alabama rule inconsistent with Federal law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2111.96, 2112.445], "stop_times": [2112.445, 2124.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2111.96}, "reply_to": "20036__0_166", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_168", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "A real dilemma.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2124.065], "stop_times": [2125.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2124.065}, "reply_to": "20036__0_167", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20036__0_169", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Yeah.\nIt is a dilemma, but we think the Alabama supreme court reached the correct result.\nUnder Robertson v. Wegman you look to the whether the policies under 1983, compensation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2125.002, 2125.751, 2131.109], "stop_times": [2125.751, 2131.109, 2136.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2125.002}, "reply_to": "20036__0_168", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_170", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Mr. Roberts, may I just go back to the final judgment question for a minute to be sure I have it in mind.\nIt is your view... is it your view that the only possibility for a second shot at the Federal claim will arise if the plaintiff prevails on the State law claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2136.17, 2141.557], "stop_times": [2141.557, 2154.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2136.17}, "reply_to": "20036__0_169", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20036__0_171", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Well, that's the most likely one.\nI suppose there could be some argument, even if they lose on the State law claim, that it shouldn't for some reason or another be given collateral estoppel effect.\nI don't... I can't at this point--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2154.38, 2156.692, 2165.36], "stop_times": [2156.692, 2165.36, 2166.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2154.38}, "reply_to": "20036__0_170", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_172", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Well, that would depend on what the finding is, and if it turns out that the... the defense, as I understand it, is we did nothing wrong.\nWe came as quickly as we could.\nShe was already dead.\nIf those are the findings that are made, then there couldn't be any 1983 claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2166.875, 2174.435, 2176.153, 2177.934], "stop_times": [2174.435, 2176.153, 2177.934, 2186.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2166.875}, "reply_to": "20036__0_171", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20036__0_173", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--I think that's right, yes.\nI think that's right.\nIt would be precluded because the 1983 claim is, just from a reading of the complaint is based on the same underlying allegations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2186.26, 2187.243, 2187.884], "stop_times": [2187.243, 2187.884, 2194.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2186.26}, "reply_to": "20036__0_172", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_174", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Right, but then your point... I want to be sure I have it fairly in mind.\nYour point is that even though the denial of a Federal claim is the law of the case as far as Alabama courts are concerned, and there's virtually... there's always the possibility, but there's... it's already been decided.\nThe case would still be alive, so the plaintiff could come back here and make the same argument he's making today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2194.632, 2198.286, 2212.53], "stop_times": [2198.286, 2212.53, 2218.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2194.632}, "reply_to": "20036__0_173", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20036__0_175", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Oh, yes.\nYes, and if they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2218.59, 2219.714], "stop_times": [2219.714, 2221.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2218.59}, "reply_to": "20036__0_174", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_176", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "And you think that's enough to... that's enough not to come within any of the Cox exceptions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2221.245], "stop_times": [2225.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2221.245}, "reply_to": "20036__0_175", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20036__0_177", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--Yes.\nOf course, unless... my brother pointed out they would have to go through the perhaps futile exercise of preserving the claim before the Alabama supreme court, but that's true in every case of nonfinality.\nYou can expect that the court that has already decided the Federal issue will most likely adhere to its position.\nIf that were enough to get it outside the finality rule there would be no finality rule, because that's true in every case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2225.306, 2225.822, 2238.739, 2244.329], "stop_times": [2225.822, 2238.739, 2244.329, 2250.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2225.306}, "reply_to": "20036__0_176", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_178", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Maybe Cox did cut way back on what the finality rule had been before, of course.\nBut anyway--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2250.326, 2255.434], "stop_times": [2255.434, 2256.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2250.326}, "reply_to": "20036__0_177", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20036__0_179", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "It recognized what some have said a more pragmatic approach, but my point is that this is not within any of those exceptions, largely because the underlying claim that still remains alive, although a State law claim, is based on the same underlying allegations and it involves the same parties.\nIt could well have an effect on whether the Federal claim survives.\nTurning back again to the merits in Robertson v. Wegman, the policies of 1983 are compensation and deterrence.\nThere is no adverse impact on 1983's compensation policy in this case for the reason recognized in Robertson, that when the only claim for compensation is by the representative of the estate, that compensation interest is not duplicated.\nThe reality is, you cannot compensate the dead.\nAlabama law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2256.028, 2273.567, 2277.957, 2286.812, 2303.884, 2306.804], "stop_times": [2273.567, 2277.957, 2286.812, 2303.884, 2306.804, 2307.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2256.028}, "reply_to": "20036__0_178", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_180", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--But Robertson was a peculiar case in that there were no surviving members of the family.\nIt was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2307.617, 2313.458], "stop_times": [2313.458, 2313.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2307.617}, "reply_to": "20036__0_179", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20036__0_181", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2313.911], "stop_times": [2314.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2313.911}, "reply_to": "20036__0_180", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_182", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--idiosyncratic in that respect I thought, where here, there would be no case in which there could be a recovery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2314.707], "stop_times": [2324.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2314.707}, "reply_to": "20036__0_181", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20036__0_183", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--In Robertson there were no immediate relatives.\nSurvivor was limited to parent, child, or siblings, and there were none of those, but it's... the language about the compensation policy not being implicated was not based on any finding that there were no heirs, legatees, other ancestors or descendants, though not within the narrow category.\nIt was simply based on the fact that the claim was brought by the representative of the estate and therefore, as the complaint in this case, looked to the injuries that the decedent suffered.\nIt recognized that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2324.5, 2329.544, 2347.132, 2358.253], "stop_times": [2329.544, 2347.132, 2358.253, 2359.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2324.5}, "reply_to": "20036__0_182", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_184", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Mr. Roberts, I don't have the opinion in Robertson in front of me, but I vaguely remember something in the opinion that pointed out that this was a peculiar case because there were no surviving members of the family.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2359.501], "stop_times": [2373.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2359.501}, "reply_to": "20036__0_183", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20036__0_185", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--Justice Marshall's opinion did point out that this was peculiar in the sense that the decedent, Mr. Shaw, was not survived by parent, child, or sibling.\nThat was what Louisiana limited survivorship to.\nBut it was not the case that there was any finding that he had no heirs at all, that he didn't have a will... the case was brought after all by his executor... that there was nobody who stood to inherit if, in fact, he could get damages, but the Court said the compensation interest is not implicated because the person on whose behalf you're suing as representative of the estate cannot be compensated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2373.339, 2384.742, 2388.193], "stop_times": [2384.742, 2388.193, 2410.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2373.339}, "reply_to": "20036__0_184", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_186", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Mr. Roberts, can I ask just a little more basic question?\nWould you agree that the question whether punitive damages are available in the 1983 case is a Federal question, and that's what both Smith v. Wade and Fact Concerts decide, so that if a State denied a punitive damage remedy 1983 would trump the State denial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2410.981, 2413.417], "stop_times": [2413.417, 2433.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2410.981}, "reply_to": "20036__0_185", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20036__0_187", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Well, it would depend under what guise.\nCertainly if the State had a rule there are no punitive damages--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2433.831, 2437.799], "stop_times": [2437.799, 2442.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2433.831}, "reply_to": "20036__0_186", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_188", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2442.593], "stop_times": [2442.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2442.593}, "reply_to": "20036__0_187", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20036__0_189", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--in 1983 even against individuals, I would agree that would be inconsistent with Federal law.\nBut if it was a more narrowly applicable rule, for example--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2442.812, 2446.591], "stop_times": [2446.591, 2449.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2442.812}, "reply_to": "20036__0_188", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_190", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Well, I'm just asking broadly.\nIn other words, if it were just a damage question in this case, the Federal law would trump the State, contrary State law.\nIf it was... for example, years ago there used to be, in the wrongful death field there would be a $10,000 limit on recovery.\nIf the State had such a limit on recovery, do you think that would defeat a larger recovery for... in the 1983 case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2449.356, 2451.276, 2457.602, 2463.928], "stop_times": [2451.276, 2457.602, 2463.928, 2471.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2449.356}, "reply_to": "20036__0_189", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20036__0_191", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--No, and I want to emphasize that that question, although it was adverted to earlier, is not before the Court today.\nThe Alabama supreme court did not address--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2471.065, 2476.548], "stop_times": [2476.548, 2478.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2471.065}, "reply_to": "20036__0_190", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_192", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Well, it's a question whether it's before the Court as to whether one views this as a damage issue or a question of standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2478.344], "stop_times": [2484.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2478.344}, "reply_to": "20036__0_191", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20036__0_193", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--Even if you view it as a damage issue, the validity of State caps on wrongful death recovery and whether they're overridden by 1983 is a difficult issue.\nIt's a different one than the one before the Court today, and it has to be informed by, for example, the fact that in 1871 many States had such caps.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2484.639, 2495.009], "stop_times": [2495.009, 2504.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2484.639}, "reply_to": "20036__0_192", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_194", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2504.553], "stop_times": [2505.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2504.553}, "reply_to": "20036__0_193", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20036__0_195", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Congress, when it passed the one wrongful death provision it did pass in the Civil Rights Act in 1986 imposed a cap.\nThose are different questions, whether the separate Alabama cap applies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2505.084, 2511.986], "stop_times": [2511.986, 2516.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2505.084}, "reply_to": "20036__0_194", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_196", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Okay.\nBut if you would agree that on the issue of punitive damages Federal law would trump the State law whichever way it went... here it's kind of perverse... why isn't the same rule appropriate for compensatory damages, that if a State denies compensatory damages and the Federal law generally allows it, why wouldn't the State... Federal law trump it there--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2516.876, 2517.282], "stop_times": [2517.282, 2537.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2516.876}, "reply_to": "20036__0_195", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20036__0_197", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2537.617], "stop_times": [2537.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2537.617}, "reply_to": "20036__0_196", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_198", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--just as it would in reverse, if a State granted it and... you couldn't say... anyway, go ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2537.929], "stop_times": [2542.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2537.929}, "reply_to": "20036__0_197", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20036__0_199", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--I think it is, the same rule is applicable as a general matter, but not with respect to the wrongful death or survival question, because 1983 doesn't address that more narrow category, what are the appropriate... what is the appropriate relief, if any, in a wrongful death or survival case.\nYes, if a State law purported to bar recovery of compensatory damages in a normal 1983 case we would... the Court should find that inconsistent with 1983, but it's difficult to argue that a State limitation on recovery in a wrongful death action or a survival action is inconsistent with 1983, when 1983 has no survival or wrongful death provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2542.114, 2559.342], "stop_times": [2559.342, 2582.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2542.114}, "reply_to": "20036__0_198", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_200", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "No, but Alabama has provided a remedy that's just some... but the damages it provided are unavailable, but the... if the Fact Concert had been decided the other way, the plaintiff would prevail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2582.849], "stop_times": [2595.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2582.849}, "reply_to": "20036__0_199", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20036__0_201", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "I don't think you can sever the damages from the remedy under the Alabama regime.\nAlabama has provided a wrongful death remedy for punitive damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2595.844, 2601.231], "stop_times": [2601.231, 2605.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2595.844}, "reply_to": "20036__0_200", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_202", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Well, it's provided a wrongful death remedy for administrators of estates like this, but it does not allow damages.\nThat's the one thing it doesn't do.\nIt doesn't allow the damages that would normally be recoverable in a 1983.\nIt allows the party to sue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2605.215, 2613.398, 2614.711, 2618.35], "stop_times": [2613.398, 2614.711, 2618.35, 2620.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2605.215}, "reply_to": "20036__0_201", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20036__0_203", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "I'm not sure that the Court can sort of pick and choose which aspects of the Alabama remedy it wants to incorporate, saying we're going to incorporate the fact that you allow a wrongful death action, but we're not going to take the only way you allow it, which is for punitive damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2620.396], "stop_times": [2635.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2620.396}, "reply_to": "20036__0_202", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_204", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Well, the line of reasoning Justice Stevens is exploring was the reasoning of the court in... the district court in Weeks, was it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2635.219], "stop_times": [2641.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2635.219}, "reply_to": "20036__0_203", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20036__0_205", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Yes.\nIt--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2641.685, 2643.48], "stop_times": [2643.48, 2644.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2641.685}, "reply_to": "20036__0_204", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_206", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "As I read that... read that opinion, it says, well, there's a wrongful death action, and that other problem, and so we'll... and we'll keep that.\nThat other problem is damages.\nYou can't have punitive damages, but that's a Federal rule.\nYou can't have compensatory damages, that's an Alabama rule, and we'll set that aside.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2644.308, 2651.742, 2653.195, 2657.677], "stop_times": [2651.742, 2653.195, 2657.677, 2662.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2644.308}, "reply_to": "20036__0_205", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20036__0_207", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--That is the approach of the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2662.739], "stop_times": [2664.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2662.739}, "reply_to": "20036__0_206", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_208", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "That was the reasoning, anyway.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2664.128], "stop_times": [2665.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2664.128}, "reply_to": "20036__0_207", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20036__0_209", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "It is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2665.05], "stop_times": [2665.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2665.05}, "reply_to": "20036__0_208", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_210", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "And you think that's wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2665.425], "stop_times": [2665.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2665.425}, "reply_to": "20036__0_209", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20036__0_211", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "We do think that's wrong, and we also think it's inapplicable even in this case, because the one thing the court did in Weeks is say, you get no recovery for injuries to the decedent, because we're going to give you wrongful death... we're going to measure compensation based on your loss as a survivor.\nThen you don't get any recovery for losses to the decedent.\nHere, the only claims that are sought are what are technically survival claims for injuries to the decedent, so even under the approach in Weeks there would be no recovery in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2665.972, 2682.746, 2687.119], "stop_times": [2682.746, 2687.119, 2696.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2665.972}, "reply_to": "20036__0_210", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_212", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Mr. Roberts, you said a second ago that you can't separate... shouldn't separate damages from remedy.\nDo you mean you shouldn't separate remedy from cause of action?\nSo that what in effect you're arguing is, there isn't a general cause of action here.\nWhat there is, is a cause of action for certain punitive damages, period, and that's the only cause of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2696.803, 2703.489, 2707.253, 2713.921], "stop_times": [2703.489, 2707.253, 2713.921, 2722.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2696.803}, "reply_to": "20036__0_211", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20036__0_213", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2722.449], "stop_times": [2723.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2722.449}, "reply_to": "20036__0_212", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_214", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "You can't split the two in that respect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2723.199], "stop_times": [2727.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2723.199}, "reply_to": "20036__0_213", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20036__0_215", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "I think that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2727.448], "stop_times": [2729.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2727.448}, "reply_to": "20036__0_214", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_216", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Conceptually you've got to say the only thing Alabama allows here is a punitive remedy, in effect, period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2729.01], "stop_times": [2734.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2729.01}, "reply_to": "20036__0_215", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20036__0_217", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "That's right, and, of course, it's not an approach that it's adopted in any way discriminatory to 1983 or this Court's decisions.\nIt adopted this rule long before anyone thought municipalities could be liable for anything under section 1983.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2734.336, 2743.737], "stop_times": [2743.737, 2749.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2734.336}, "reply_to": "20036__0_216", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_218", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Did you come across any historical... I'm just curious historically.\nProbably in 1880 or sometime like that, there probably were quite a few States that said what Alabama says basically.\nA person who dies loses whatever tort actions that person may have had before the person died.\nThat was probably the basic rule.\nOnce you die, they're gone.\nIf you didn't bring them, it's too late.\nAnd there probably were a lot of States that hadn't passed survivorship actions, statutes, which is what we're talking about here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2749.672, 2753.061, 2761.417, 2770.805, 2772.93, 2774.132, 2776.131], "stop_times": [2753.061, 2761.417, 2770.805, 2772.93, 2774.132, 2776.131, 2785.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2749.672}, "reply_to": "20036__0_217", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20036__0_219", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2785.236], "stop_times": [2785.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2785.236}, "reply_to": "20036__0_218", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_220", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "The names get us mixed up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2785.47], "stop_times": [2786.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2785.47}, "reply_to": "20036__0_219", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20036__0_221", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2786.158], "stop_times": [2786.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2786.158}, "reply_to": "20036__0_220", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_222", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "But it's a survival statute for any tort, or certain tort claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2786.548], "stop_times": [2790.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2786.548}, "reply_to": "20036__0_221", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20036__0_223", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2790.25], "stop_times": [2790.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2790.25}, "reply_to": "20036__0_222", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_224", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "There probably were quite a few that hadn't.\nWhat were the people thinking when they passed 1983?\nI mean, they were worried about, say, like the local sheriff in the south might murder somebody, or might beat him up, and what were they thinking?\nThey were thinking that we give a cause of action to people when they're beaten up but we don't give a cause of action to people when they're murdered.\nThat would be such an obvious question that maybe somebody thought about that and talked about it.\nWas there anything historically that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2790.625, 2792.046, 2795.295, 2804.291, 2811.382, 2818.567], "stop_times": [2792.046, 2795.295, 2804.291, 2811.382, 2818.567, 2820.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2790.625}, "reply_to": "20036__0_223", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20036__0_225", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Not in the... there are references, of course, in the legislative history of 1983 to murders, lynchings, and of course Congress did provide remedies for those in the Civil Rights Act.\nThere's a specific remedy in section 1986 which allows a cause of action for the widow or next of kin.\nThere is a criminal provision now codified at section 242 which could also be invoked in cases of murder, and there was 1988 which says, look to State law to fill gaps in this remedial program and, to the extent States allowed survival or wrongful death actions, perhaps the Congress thought that those would be invoked to recover in those situations.\nMost States had survival and wrongful death provisions when 1983 was enacted.\nI think it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2820.519, 2831.983, 2838.215, 2860.707, 2865.547], "stop_times": [2831.983, 2838.215, 2860.707, 2865.547, 2866.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2820.519}, "reply_to": "20036__0_224", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_226", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--But I wonder... it says the common law, too, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2866.031], "stop_times": [2868.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2866.031}, "reply_to": "20036__0_225", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20036__0_227", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--It says, if the laws of the United States are deficient, you look to the common law as modified.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2868.124], "stop_times": [2875.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2868.124}, "reply_to": "20036__0_226", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_228", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "So maybe it meant that there was Federal common law at that time.\nIt would have been Smith v. Tyson.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2875.622, 2878.215], "stop_times": [2878.215, 2880.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2875.622}, "reply_to": "20036__0_227", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20036__0_229", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Well, but it's the common law as modified by the statutes of the forum State, and my understanding is that if it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2880.104], "stop_times": [2885.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2880.104}, "reply_to": "20036__0_228", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_230", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "There would be no modification in a State that hadn't passed a survival action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2885.852], "stop_times": [2890.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2885.852}, "reply_to": "20036__0_229", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20036__0_231", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2890.413], "stop_times": [2890.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2890.413}, "reply_to": "20036__0_230", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_232", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "So it wouldn't be an issue of the common law as modified.\nIt would be a question of the common law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2890.709, 2894.004], "stop_times": [2894.004, 2896.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2890.709}, "reply_to": "20036__0_231", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20036__0_233", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "In the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2896.192], "stop_times": [2897.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2896.192}, "reply_to": "20036__0_232", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_234", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "At which time they might have thought Federal common law, or is that... that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2897.363], "stop_times": [2900.315], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2897.363}, "reply_to": "20036__0_233", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20036__0_235", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--Well, whether it was Federal common... whether it was Federal common law or State common law, it was unambiguous that in the absence of legislative change there was no recovery in the case of wrongful death.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2900.315], "stop_times": [2911.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2900.315}, "reply_to": "20036__0_234", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_236", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--Well, Swift v. Tyson didn't cover statutes, did it?\nI mean, if you had to have a statute for a wrongful death or a survival recovery, that wasn't something that the Federal courts just undertook to provide for themselves.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2911.607, 2914.762], "stop_times": [2914.762, 2926.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2911.607}, "reply_to": "20036__0_235", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20036__0_237", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "No, not at all, and this Court recognized in the Brame case 6 years after 1983 was passed that at the common law... and it didn't differentiate between State or Federal, but at the common law they thought it was beyond question that there was no wrongful death or survival action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2926.257], "stop_times": [2942.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2926.257}, "reply_to": "20036__0_236", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_238", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "And of course they did not assume that there could be a separate concept, did they, of Federal common law at that point?\nI mean, there was just a generalized concept of common law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2942.985, 2950.075], "stop_times": [2950.075, 2953.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2942.985}, "reply_to": "20036__0_237", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20036__0_239", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2953.652], "stop_times": [2955.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2953.652}, "reply_to": "20036__0_238", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_240", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "I asked your brother a question premised on exactly the opposite assumption, but I think I was wrong in doing that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2955.667], "stop_times": [2962.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2955.667}, "reply_to": "20036__0_239", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20036__0_241", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--I think at the time the decisions recognized... they didn't break it down as Federal common law and State common law... that there were some issues that would be governed by the common law, more local issues--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2962.149], "stop_times": [2974.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2962.149}, "reply_to": "20036__0_240", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_242", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Mr. Roberts, it was neither State nor Federal.\nThe common law was this mystical concept we inherited from England.\nIt was English common law, was what that term would normally refer to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2974.176, 2975.129, 2978.237], "stop_times": [2975.129, 2978.237, 2981.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2974.176}, "reply_to": "20036__0_241", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20036__0_243", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--And under 1988 it was applicable unless modified by the statutes... now, here, of course--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2981.689], "stop_times": [2987.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2981.689}, "reply_to": "20036__0_242", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_244", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "You would agree, wouldn't you, Mr. Roberts, that if there was no survival statute or wrongful death statute in a State, a particular State in 1871, and they pass it in 1890, that would nevertheless control in cases after 1890?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [2987.749], "stop_times": [3000.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2987.749}, "reply_to": "20036__0_243", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20036__0_245", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--Yes, because it incorporates... it doesn't stay frozen--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [3000.774], "stop_times": [3004.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3000.774}, "reply_to": "20036__0_244", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_246", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Modified from time to time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [3004.32], "stop_times": [3004.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3004.32}, "reply_to": "20036__0_245", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20036__0_247", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--At the time.\nNow, the other prong under Robertson v. Wegman they ask, what is the effect on deterrence, and here again there's no adverse effect on 1983's deterrence policy by application of the Alabama law.\nTo find an adverse effect, the Court has to hypothesize a city employee who is familiar with the intricacies of the wrongful death law and 1983 law and who, solely to avoid subjecting his employer to liability under 1983 for compensatory damages, would kill rather than injure the victim of his constitutional violation even though--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [3004.82, 3006.117, 3020.565], "stop_times": [3006.117, 3020.565, 3043.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3004.82}, "reply_to": "20036__0_246", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_248", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Mr. Roberts, isn't it... and this is a Federal claim, and it picks up on State law, auxiliary State law, that you could have a result on this... under this Federal claim for relief of no recovery at all in Alabama and a whopping recovery in the neighboring State, all under this Federal cause of action.\nIt seems to me that the State law that says no recovery would be inconsistent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [3043.259, 3068.591], "stop_times": [3068.591, 3075.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3043.259}, "reply_to": "20036__0_247", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20036__0_249", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [3075.464], "stop_times": [3076.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3075.464}, "reply_to": "20036__0_248", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_250", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--and the Federal court would have to supplement it from some other source.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [3076.183], "stop_times": [3080.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3076.183}, "reply_to": "20036__0_249", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20036__0_251", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--The fact that you get a different result from State to State, as this Court recognized in Robertson, is, of course, a necessary consequence of the terms of 1988.\nIt says that you're... if you're borrowing State law.\nYou're necessarily contemplating that there may be a different result in one State than in another State, and the Court reiterated that point in Carlson v. Green in distinguishing the remedy it was creating there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [3080.056, 3089.068, 3091.599], "stop_times": [3089.068, 3091.599, 3103.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3080.056}, "reply_to": "20036__0_250", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_252", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "You could have minor variations, who are the survivors might be different in one State or another, some might have grandmothers and some might not, but this kind of basic variation of the question is, is it incompatible with the idea of a recovery to have this setup which says, you get... you end up getting nothing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [3103.625], "stop_times": [3126.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3103.625}, "reply_to": "20036__0_251", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20036__0_253", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Well, I think it begs the question to say that 1983 assumes there's going to be recovery in cases of survival and wrongful death.\n198--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [3126.679, 3134.55], "stop_times": [3134.55, 3136.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3126.679}, "reply_to": "20036__0_252", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_254", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Is there any other State in the union that has this situation where the only recovery under State law is punitive damages?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [3136.721], "stop_times": [3144.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3136.721}, "reply_to": "20036__0_253", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20036__0_255", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--Massachusetts used to have that rule.\nIt changed it.\nAt this point Alabama is the only State that remedies wrongful death through punitive damages alone.\nThat doesn't make it an illegitimate policy, based on the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [3144.281, 3147.67, 3149.294, 3156.868], "stop_times": [3147.67, 3149.294, 3156.868, 3160.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3144.281}, "reply_to": "20036__0_254", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_256", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "For an Alabama claim Alabama could do whatever it wants, have a cap on punitives and no cap on damages if one survives, which I understand is the law in Alabama.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [3160.101], "stop_times": [3175.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3160.101}, "reply_to": "20036__0_255", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20036__0_257", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--But the only way to have a survival or wrongful death cause of action under 1983 is by incorporating the State law, because when 1983 was passed there was no survival or wrongful death at common law.\nThe Congress knew that if it wanted to create an exception to that it had to be done legislatively, as it had been in Lord Campbell's Act, as that Congress did in section 1986.\nThe opinion, Justice Ginsburg, you announced this morning indicated... and I'm going just on the basis of the announcement... that when Congress in the same statute provides a remedy in one section and not in the other, you don't assume that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [3175.393, 3188.466, 3197.915], "stop_times": [3188.466, 3197.915, 3210.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3175.393}, "reply_to": "20036__0_256", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_258", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Ah, but we've already crossed that bridge, haven't we, in this series of laws?\nHow about 1982 and <nineteen eighty-three> [= 1983] with respect to damages?\n1982, if I remember correctly, just speaks in terms of declaratory relief, and yet you can get damages for a violation of 1982, can't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [3210.206, 3213.533, 3219.624], "stop_times": [3213.533, 3219.624, 3231.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3210.206}, "reply_to": "20036__0_257", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20036__0_259", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--I believe so, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [3231.103], "stop_times": [3233.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3231.103}, "reply_to": "20036__0_258", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_260", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Right next to 1983, which says damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [3233.431], "stop_times": [3235.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3233.431}, "reply_to": "20036__0_259", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20036__0_261", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "But here you're talking about an exception to the prevailing common law rule, and when you have a narrow exception in one section, I think the only logical inference is that Congress did not intend it in the other section.\nThere was no doubt Congress knew what the prevailing law was, no recovery for survival or wrongful death.\nThe most that can be said is that they would give you that right if you had one under State law.\n1988 would provide it.\nHere, Alabama does provide such a right, and it doesn't leave them with no remedy.\nUnder the Alabama rule you still have a remedy under 1983 applying the Alabama rule against individuals, and this Court has recognized repeatedly in Robertson, in Carlson, and in Fact Concerts, that the most effective deterrent is an action against the individuals.\nIn fact, the situation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [3235.993, 3249.863, 3255.97, 3261.047, 3262.717, 3267.607, 3283.943], "stop_times": [3249.863, 3255.97, 3261.047, 3262.717, 3267.607, 3283.943, 3286.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3235.993}, "reply_to": "20036__0_260", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_262", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "And that would be if you take Alabama law wholesale.\nIf you could identify the individual firefighters, then you would be subject to the $100,000 cap.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [3286.067, 3289.113, 3297.25], "stop_times": [3289.113, 3297.25, 3297.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3286.067}, "reply_to": "20036__0_261", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20036__0_263", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--Oh yes, and again, I don't think that issue is before the Court because the only... because that's not part of the wrongful death statute.\nThose are general--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [3297.969, 3304.607], "stop_times": [3304.607, 3305.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3297.969}, "reply_to": "20036__0_262", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_264", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "But on your reasoning I take it there would be no incompatibility there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [3305.482], "stop_times": [3308.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3305.482}, "reply_to": "20036__0_263", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20036__0_265", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "--I think not, largely because at the time 1982 was passed many States... I'm not sure if there was quite a majority or not, but many had such caps.\nCongress put a cap in in the only wrongful death provision it provided in 1986.\nThe situation in Alabama under the Wrongful Death Act is quite similar to the situation this Court has formulated under Bivens.\nWe know from FDIC v. Myer that you have a Bivens action against Federal officials, the individuals, but no Bivens action against the agency.\nHere, applying the Alabama Wrongful Death Act you have a 1983 action in the case of wrongful death in Alabama against individuals for punitive damages, but you do not have one against the municipality.\nThank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [3308.95, 3318.194, 3322.178, 3330.424, 3341.28, 3353.774], "stop_times": [3318.194, 3322.178, 3330.424, 3341.28, 3353.774, 3355.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3308.95}, "reply_to": "20036__0_264", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "20036__0_266", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Roberts.\nMr. Pantazis, you have 1 minute remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [3355.477, 3357.929], "stop_times": [3357.929, 3360.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3355.477}, "reply_to": "20036__0_265", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20036__0_267", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Thank you.\nYour Honor, you had indicated that Robertson had an exception.\nRobertson does have an exception.\nOn page 1997 it says, we intimate no view, moreover, about whether abatement based on State law could be allowed in a situation in which the deprivation of the Federal right causes a death, which is exactly what we have here.\nOne final statement.\nIf 1988 did not intend for this Court to review the State court's common law and statutes to determine whether or not they were inconsistent, they would have left that sentence out, but they didn't.\nThe sentence, a statement that this Court and all Federal courts are to view the State common law and the State statutory laws for their inconsistency to the policy of the Federal 1983, and that I think answers Your Honor's question of why and how this Court has to review the State laws.\nThank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [3360.584, 3361.959, 3366.676, 3367.973, 3381.264, 3383.091, 3394.04, 3412.469], "stop_times": [3361.959, 3366.676, 3367.973, 3381.264, 3383.091, 3394.04, 3412.469, 3413.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3360.584}, "reply_to": "20036__0_266", "speaker": "dennis_g_pantazis"}
{"id": "20036__0_268", "conversation_id": "20036", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Pantazis.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-957", "start_times": [3413.672, 3415.422], "stop_times": [3415.422, 3416.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3413.672}, "reply_to": "20036__0_267", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21110__0_000", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 96-792, Kalina v. Fletcher.\nMr. Maleng, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [0.0, 8.919], "stop_times": [8.919, 60.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21110__0_001", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nThis case presents the important question of whether a prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity when she causes an arrest warrant to issue in conjunction with her filing of criminal charges against an individual.\nIn this case, Deputy Prosecutor Lynne Kalina reviewed and professionally evaluated a completed police report, determined that a burglary charge would be filed, and then prepared and filed an Information, a motion requesting the issuance of an arrest warrant, and a certification which summarized the evidence for the court.\nIn Imbler, Buckley, and Burns, this Court set forth a workable approach to determine which functions of a prosecutor are entitled to absolute immunity.\nAbsolute immunity applies when the challenged activity is undertaken in the prosecutor's role as advocate for the State, is intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process, and is connected with the initiation and conduct of a prosecution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [60.429, 64.739, 77.157, 98.852, 109.612], "stop_times": [64.739, 77.157, 98.852, 109.612, 126.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 60.429}, "reply_to": "21110__0_000", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_002", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Mr. Maleng, is the crucial thing here the Information or the application for the arrest warrant?\nWhat was the basis for the action against the officials?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [126.388, 133.087], "stop_times": [133.087, 137.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 126.388}, "reply_to": "21110__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21110__0_003", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "It was a burglary charge, Mr. Chief Justice, and as a part of the charging package is, the deputy prosecutor prepared an Information which was the initial pleading in a prosecution, also requested the issuance of an arrest warrant, and provided the certification to the court to meet the Gernstein requirement.\nEach of the factors which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [137.664, 159.701], "stop_times": [159.701, 163.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 137.664}, "reply_to": "21110__0_002", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_004", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Well, in Washington could a police officer have obtained the arrest warrant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [163.481], "stop_times": [170.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 163.481}, "reply_to": "21110__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21110__0_005", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, the police officer could not have obtained the arrest warrant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [170.432], "stop_times": [175.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 170.432}, "reply_to": "21110__0_004", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_006", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "So Washington is different from most other States in that regard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [175.414], "stop_times": [180.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 175.414}, "reply_to": "21110__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21110__0_007", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "It is different than many States and, of course, there's a diversity of procedures throughout the United States, but in the State of Washington is that an arrest warrant cannot be issued unless it's in connection with the filing of a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [180.351], "stop_times": [192.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 180.351}, "reply_to": "21110__0_006", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_008", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "In a State where a police officer could obtain the arrest warrant, even though the prosecutor filed the Information against a defendant, would the police officer have absolute immunity under our case law for a false statement in getting the arrest warrant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [192.735], "stop_times": [213.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 192.735}, "reply_to": "21110__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21110__0_009", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--No, Justice O'Connor, the police officer would not have absolute immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [213.821], "stop_times": [218.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 213.821}, "reply_to": "21110__0_008", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_010", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "No.\nWe would look at the function, this Court said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [218.912, 219.146], "stop_times": [219.146, 220.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 218.912}, "reply_to": "21110__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21110__0_011", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "We would look to the function, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [220.74], "stop_times": [223.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 220.74}, "reply_to": "21110__0_010", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_012", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "And what would be the function if the police officer were getting it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [223.16], "stop_times": [227.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 223.16}, "reply_to": "21110__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21110__0_013", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--If a police officer was obtaining the arrest warrant it would be the part of the completion of his investigation in preparation for handing the case over to the prosecutor.\nI might just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [227.08, 238.686], "stop_times": [238.686, 239.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 227.08}, "reply_to": "21110__0_012", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_014", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Now, do you say that the function is different in Washington, where the prosecutor gets the arrest warrant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [239.342], "stop_times": [246.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 239.342}, "reply_to": "21110__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21110__0_015", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--The principles that we are advocating--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [246.917], "stop_times": [249.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 246.917}, "reply_to": "21110__0_014", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_016", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Or is it the same function?\nI don't know how you analyze what the function is when the... in this case, where it is the prosecuting attorney who gets the arrest warrant.\nHow is that different from where the police officer does?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [249.118, 250.649, 261.113], "stop_times": [250.649, 261.113, 264.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 249.118}, "reply_to": "21110__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21110__0_017", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--The analysis is really the same in this sense.\nIt is part of the initiation of a prosecution by a prosecutor, and as a part of that initiation, a prosecutor, as recognized in the Buckley case, can take a whole series of preliminary acts leading up to that initiation.\nIn our State, one of those preliminary acts that goes together with the Information is the preparation of a certification.\nIn other States, and let's say a grand jury State, is that a police office may obtain an arrest warrant and that would be different than occurs in our State, but the police officer is performing a different function.\nThe principal in Imbler protects that sensitive decision for prosecutors to initiate a prosecution and to conduct a prosecution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [264.783, 269.641, 284.636, 293.71, 313.248], "stop_times": [269.641, 284.636, 293.71, 313.248, 322.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 264.783}, "reply_to": "21110__0_016", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_018", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "If you simply have an Information filed and don't seek an arrest warrant, is this certification necessary--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [322.885], "stop_times": [331.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 322.885}, "reply_to": "21110__0_017", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21110__0_019", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "No--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [331.319], "stop_times": [332.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 331.319}, "reply_to": "21110__0_018", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_020", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--under Washington law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [332.178], "stop_times": [332.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 332.178}, "reply_to": "21110__0_019", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21110__0_021", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--Under our State procedures, at least in King County's as a local rule, is that we are required to provide a summary, a brief summary of the facts for the court, and so our certification really meets two purposes.\nOne is the Gernstein requirement, but in King County we have a local rule that requires us to provide a brief summary to the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [332.928, 350.108], "stop_times": [350.108, 360.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 332.928}, "reply_to": "21110__0_020", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_022", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "But is it possible that in some cases in King County there would be an Information filed but not an effort to immediately arrest the person?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [360.027], "stop_times": [370.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 360.027}, "reply_to": "21110__0_021", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21110__0_023", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "In the State of Washington as a matter of routine, any time that we file an Information in a felony case is that we request the issuance of an arrest warrant.\nThe next step that is taken, if it's a less serious type of a felony offense, is that a series of letters is sent out to the defendant, which occurred in the case before the Court, requesting their voluntary appearance, and if that occurs, the case proceeds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [370.835, 382.346], "stop_times": [382.346, 400.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 370.835}, "reply_to": "21110__0_022", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_024", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "So here, letters were sent before the arrest warrant was issued requesting the defendant to surrender?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [400.198], "stop_times": [407.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 400.198}, "reply_to": "21110__0_023", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21110__0_025", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "After the arrest warrant was ordered by the Court but before it was actually served there was several letters that were sent to the defendant, but they went to the wrong address, and did not reach the defendant, and when that occurred the arrest warrant was served.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [407.492], "stop_times": [425.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 407.492}, "reply_to": "21110__0_024", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_026", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Is... does the prosecutor's description or summary that you just explained have to be under oath?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [425.936], "stop_times": [433.293], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 425.936}, "reply_to": "21110__0_025", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21110__0_027", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "The certification, yes, does need to be under the oath to meet the Gernstein requirement, is that we really adopted this procedure in the State of Washington following the Gernstein decision, and it not only meets the requirements of Gernstein, but we believe that it is a better practice to follow to have the prosecutor prepare this document, and the reason is, is that I think it really acts as a citizen's buffer, is that a prosecutor, by preparing the certification, I think provides for a more thorough evaluation of the police file.\nYou're not just reading through it, but you're required to prepare a summary.\nAnd it's also a benefit to the court, because it provides a more orderly flow of information to the court, rather than getting it from, let's say in King County, where there's 26 different police jurisdictions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [433.293, 470.934, 474.496], "stop_times": [470.934, 474.496, 487.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 433.293}, "reply_to": "21110__0_026", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_028", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Mr. Maleng, is it the case here that the certification could have been executed by a police officer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [487.381], "stop_times": [494.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 487.381}, "reply_to": "21110__0_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21110__0_029", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "There's no... yes.\nThere's no requirement in the State of Washington that it be prepared by a prosecutor.\nIt could have been prepared by a police officer, but it is the standard practice in the 39 counties in the State of Washington and really for the reasons that I advanced.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [494.457, 495.879, 502.735], "stop_times": [495.879, 502.735, 513.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 494.457}, "reply_to": "21110__0_028", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_030", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Right.\nI understand that.\nIf a police officer did prepare a certification, I take it on your view the police officer would also be subject to an absolute immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [513.465, 513.933, 514.76], "stop_times": [513.933, 514.76, 525.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 513.465}, "reply_to": "21110__0_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21110__0_031", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Under those circumstances the... if it was prepared by a police officer, he would not have absolute immunity unless he was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [525.288], "stop_times": [533.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 525.288}, "reply_to": "21110__0_030", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_032", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "How is that possible under what I understand to be the functional approach, and the functional approach that your argument assumed, and that was that it was the function, not the officer, with respect to which the immunity decision is made?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [533.581], "stop_times": [548.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 533.581}, "reply_to": "21110__0_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21110__0_033", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--First is that, unlike a prosecutor, is the police officer wouldn't meet the threshold question of immunity analysis, and that is that there's no common law tradition of absolute immunity for a police officer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [548.17], "stop_times": [561.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 548.17}, "reply_to": "21110__0_032", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_034", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Well, but he's performing the same function and, I mean, the theory of the way the common law practice is applied to immunity doctrine is, we look to the function and see whether that function at common law was subject to an immunity.\nNow if, on that standard, the prosecutor gets absolute immunity, then it's... I think it necessarily follows that the police officer would get absolute immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [561.633, 579.563], "stop_times": [579.563, 591.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 561.633}, "reply_to": "21110__0_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21110__0_035", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Justice Souter, they're performing different functions.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [591.246, 595.12], "stop_times": [595.12, 595.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 591.246}, "reply_to": "21110__0_034", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_036", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Well, I don't... I guess, explain that to me.\nI don't see why, because I thought we judged... we judge the function without respect to the officer, so why are they different?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [595.495, 599.148], "stop_times": [599.148, 606.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 595.495}, "reply_to": "21110__0_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21110__0_037", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--This Court has set forth the functional test and said that we look to the nature and function of the act being performed, and not just to the act itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [606.818], "stop_times": [617.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 606.818}, "reply_to": "21110__0_036", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_038", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "And the nature and function of the act here is the provision of information under oath, with whatever probability of soundness that oath carries, on the basis of which a magistrate is going to issue an arrest warrant.\nThat function, it seems to me, is exactly the same whether it's performed by a police officer or whether it's performed by a prosecutor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [617.126, 633.495], "stop_times": [633.495, 640.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 617.126}, "reply_to": "21110__0_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21110__0_039", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "It is a different function if it's performed by a police officer, as a police officer can't move from the \"investigative function\" over to the prosecutorial advocatory function, namely--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [640.334], "stop_times": [653.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 640.334}, "reply_to": "21110__0_038", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_040", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Are you saying that a police officer never has absolute immunity because he's always engaged in investigating and never crosses the divide into prosecuting, so that the same... the very same act which we all agree is involved here, the same act is characterized one way if it's done by a police officer, a different way if it's done by the prosecutor, because the prosecutor does prosecute, and police officers don't prosecute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [653.096], "stop_times": [679.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 653.096}, "reply_to": "21110__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21110__0_041", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--A police officer, Justice Ginsburg, would have absolute immunity if they were functioning as a witness.\nI believe a police officer also, if he was attached to a prosecutor's office and was acting under the direction of a prosecutor and acting as the agent, yes, they would have absolute immunity in that circumstances, but generally no, because they are performing a different function.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [679.397, 686.066], "stop_times": [686.066, 705.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 679.397}, "reply_to": "21110__0_040", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_042", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "But how does the same act, swearing out this warrant application, become prosecutorial if done by one person but merely investigatory if done by another?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [705.105], "stop_times": [720.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 705.105}, "reply_to": "21110__0_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21110__0_043", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "This Court has indicated also, I believe, is that you can have a situation in which prosecutors do a whole series of preliminary acts in conjunction with the filing of criminal charges.\nNow, some of those acts can be performed by someone other than a prosecutor, for example, a police officer questioning witnesses, visiting a crime scene, signing a certification.\nBut when those functions are performed by a prosecutor, the full force and reasons for absolute immunity apply.\nThe difference between that and the police officer is that the police officer can't be a part of the function that this Court has protected, and the function that is being protected is the sensitive decision to initiate a prosecution which can involve, as the Buckley case said and this Court reaffirmed, can have a whole series of things associated with that, so it is really a different function.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [720.177, 737.109, 750.385, 758.068], "stop_times": [737.109, 750.385, 758.068, 787.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 720.177}, "reply_to": "21110__0_042", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_044", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Mr. Maleng, I think you're doing... making the following assumption in your argument, and I'd like you to comment on it.\nThe issue, I guess... one way to put the issue here is, how do we characterize this function of providing the certification?\nDo we characterize it in a very narrow and specific sense of providing the certification, period... we carve that out... or do we characterize it as part of a broader process, the process of initiating a prosecution?\nIf we characterize it in the narrow sense, merely providing, in effect, evidence under oath, then there doesn't seem to be anything peculiar about that function to prosecutors.\nPolice officers can do it.\nIf we characterize it in the broad sense and say, oh, it's just a part of initiating a prosecution, then we're talking about a function that prosecutors do and that prosecutors, generally speaking, get absolute immunity for, and it seems to me that when we ask you the question, how do you characterize, you shift back and forth, and I don't think we... I mean, we really can't shift back and forth.\nI would have thought that the reason for characterizing it narrowly was the Malley case.\nIn the Malley case, generally speaking it's prosecutors that get search warrants, but witnesses who come forward to provide evidence for those search warrants don't get absolute immunity, and I would have thought that there was an analogy there to this situation.\nProsecutors get arrest warrants, but prosecutors don't necessarily provide evidence.\nSo it would have seemed to me that the Malley case was a reason to characterize the function narrowly as presenting evidence, as opposed to characterizing the function broadly as just a little part of going after or getting a search warrant and starting a prosecution.\nIs my argument wrong about the application of Malley in deciding whether you take the narrow view or the broad view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [787.526, 793.585, 803.253, 818.685, 831.212, 832.54, 863.573, 870.509, 886.018, 891.719, 909.868], "stop_times": [793.585, 803.253, 818.685, 831.212, 832.54, 863.573, 870.509, 886.018, 891.719, 909.868, 916.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 787.526}, "reply_to": "21110__0_043", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21110__0_045", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Justice Souter, I think you've really raised the issue before the Court, and that is whether you take the broad view or the narrow view.\nI think that what the Court was indicating in the Malley case is expressing also a concern in making incognizance comparisons between the activities of police officers and the activities of prosecutors, and shows that there's a dramatic difference between those type of activities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [916.942, 924.565], "stop_times": [924.565, 942.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 916.942}, "reply_to": "21110__0_044", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_046", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "But Malley took the narrow view on the way you and I are using the terms, didn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [942.589], "stop_times": [946.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 942.589}, "reply_to": "21110__0_045", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21110__0_047", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Malley took the view that a police officer cannot be held to be analogous to a prosecutor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [946.587], "stop_times": [953.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 946.587}, "reply_to": "21110__0_046", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_048", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Right, but the Malley case said, when you're getting a search warrant, which is essentially a prosecutorial kind of function, the witness, the police witness does not get an absolute immunity, and it seems to me there's an analogy here.\nProsecutors initiate prosecutions.\nThey get the official ball rolling, and one incident of that is getting the arrest warrant, but it's the provision of evidence on the basis of which the arrest warrant issues that seems to be analogous to the provision of evidence on the basis of which the search warrant issues, so it seems to me that Malley took the narrow view, and my question is, why shouldn't we, for consistency reasons, take the narrow view here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [953.772, 967.577, 970.998], "stop_times": [967.577, 970.998, 996.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 953.772}, "reply_to": "21110__0_047", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21110__0_049", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "What the Court indicated, Justice Souter, in the Malley case is that the police officer in that situation was one step removed, really, from the initiation of a prosecution, and was really not intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process, and that's true throughout the whole activities, because, as I indicated, what the Court was seeking to do in the Imbler case is to protect the sensitive decision to prosecute, to initiate a prosecution, and the Court in the Buckley cases reaffirmed the fact that a prosecutor may undertake a whole series of preliminary acts in conjunction with the initiation of that prosecution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [996.832], "stop_times": [1042.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 996.832}, "reply_to": "21110__0_048", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_050", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "But prosecutors are not characteristically witnesses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1042.329], "stop_times": [1045.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1042.329}, "reply_to": "21110__0_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21110__0_051", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "In the State of Washington, it is the practice that we follow, but Ms. Kalina was not a testifying or complaining witness in this case, is that her certification specifically disclaimed the role of being a testifying witness.\nShe did not purport to offer first-hand knowledge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1045.563, 1063.757], "stop_times": [1063.757, 1067.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1045.563}, "reply_to": "21110__0_050", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_052", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "How did she disclaim it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1067.491], "stop_times": [1069.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1067.491}, "reply_to": "21110__0_051", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21110__0_053", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "In the joint appendix on page... which is in the joint appendix on page--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1069.178], "stop_times": [1080.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1069.178}, "reply_to": "21110__0_052", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_054", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "19, I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1080.237], "stop_times": [1081.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1080.237}, "reply_to": "21110__0_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21110__0_055", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--19, it indicates at the beginning that Lynne Kalina is a deputy prosecutor and is familiar with the police report, and investigation conducted in the Seattle Police Department case, that this case contains the following upon which the motion for the determination of probable cause is made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1081.97], "stop_times": [1099.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1081.97}, "reply_to": "21110__0_054", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_056", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "She goes on to sign it under penalty of perjury, which I understand she's not required to do, or correct me if I'm wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1099.774], "stop_times": [1108.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1099.774}, "reply_to": "21110__0_055", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21110__0_057", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "She is required to sign it under oath for purposes of meeting the Gernstein principle, but the fact that she does or doesn't sign shouldn't be the factor that determines whether absolute immunity applies or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1108.864], "stop_times": [1124.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1108.864}, "reply_to": "21110__0_056", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_058", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Are there other situations--\n--But you know, there's a sentence in her... excuse me.\nThere's a sentence in her certification that purports to be a statement of fact.\nThe defendant, Rodney Fletcher, has never been associated with the school in any manner and did not have permission to enter the school.\nShe states that as a fact, not as... that's not a fact that would necessarily--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1124.92, 1126.216, 1127.513, 1131.496, 1138.149], "stop_times": [1126.216, 1127.513, 1131.496, 1138.149, 1142.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1124.92}, "reply_to": "21110__0_057", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21110__0_059", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "There was an affidavit, Justice Stevens, in the file from the principal that Mr. Fletcher had no association with the school, and that was the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1142.57], "stop_times": [1156.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1142.57}, "reply_to": "21110__0_058", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_060", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--But the person to who... who issued the warrant relied on that as a statement of fact by the person who signed the certificate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1156.049], "stop_times": [1163.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1156.049}, "reply_to": "21110__0_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21110__0_061", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1163.515], "stop_times": [1163.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1163.515}, "reply_to": "21110__0_060", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_062", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "And that was an inaccurate statement purporting to be given by her own... you see, she... would let the reader think she's saying she knew that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1163.797], "stop_times": [1172.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1163.797}, "reply_to": "21110__0_061", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21110__0_063", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "It would have been preferred if she'd made a reference to the affidavit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1172.308], "stop_times": [1175.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1172.308}, "reply_to": "21110__0_062", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_064", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Well, that may be what this whole case is about.\n--In other words, she can say, consistently with your procedure, I have reviewed the police report and, based on the police report, I believe the facts to be as follow... the following, and then sign it under penalty of perjury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1175.431, 1177.994], "stop_times": [1177.994, 1189.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1175.431}, "reply_to": "21110__0_063", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21110__0_065", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1189.708], "stop_times": [1191.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1189.708}, "reply_to": "21110__0_064", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_066", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "That suffices?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1191.16], "stop_times": [1191.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1191.16}, "reply_to": "21110__0_065", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21110__0_067", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1191.894], "stop_times": [1192.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1191.894}, "reply_to": "21110__0_066", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_068", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "And if that were done, would there be probable cause, a basis for probable cause within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1192.441], "stop_times": [1199.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1192.441}, "reply_to": "21110__0_067", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21110__0_069", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "We believe that there is a probable cause--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1199.125], "stop_times": [1202.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1199.125}, "reply_to": "21110__0_068", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_070", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "No, but I mean, on that theory the prosecutor comes up and says, look, I really don't know anything about this, but these people out here are telling me that it is so, and I'm not warranting to you that they're right.\nI'm just telling you what I've got in the file.\nWould that be a sufficient predicate for probable cause for Fourth Amendment purposes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1202.858, 1213.058, 1215.509], "stop_times": [1213.058, 1215.509, 1220.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1202.858}, "reply_to": "21110__0_069", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21110__0_071", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--Under our procedures is that she's stating that she's familiar with the report, and that she--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1220.757], "stop_times": [1227.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1220.757}, "reply_to": "21110__0_070", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_072", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Well, but the magistrate has got to make... whoever issues the warrant--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1227.333], "stop_times": [1230.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1227.333}, "reply_to": "21110__0_071", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21110__0_073", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1230.379], "stop_times": [1230.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1230.379}, "reply_to": "21110__0_072", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_074", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--has got to make a determination of fact.\nCan a magistrate make a determination of fact sufficient for constitutional purposes when the only thing the magistrate has before him is a statement from somebody saying, I really don't know anything about this, but there are some people out there who happen to think the following propositions are true.\nWould that be enough for the Fourth Amendment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1230.613, 1232.94, 1250.323], "stop_times": [1232.94, 1250.323, 1251.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1230.613}, "reply_to": "21110__0_073", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21110__0_075", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Yes, Justice Souter, because under... you can meet the Gernstein requirement with hearsay evidence, and that is the character of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1251.917], "stop_times": [1258.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1251.917}, "reply_to": "21110__0_074", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_076", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Yes, but when you meet it with hearsay evidence you in effect are warranting that you believe the hearsay is correct, and that there is a sufficient basis for doing it, and it seems to me the prosecutor can't have it both ways.\nThe prosecutor can't say, look, I'm not a witness here, therefore I get absolute immunity for whatever's done, and at the same time satisfy Fourth Amendment standards for providing evidence on the basis of which probable cause is found by an independent magistrate.\nI don't see how you can have it both ways.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1258.477, 1269.644, 1284.528], "stop_times": [1269.644, 1284.528, 1285.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1258.477}, "reply_to": "21110__0_075", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21110__0_077", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--Trial lawyers and prosecutors routinely make factual representations to the court, and they're under high duty to tell the truth whether they are sworn or not sworn.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1285.902], "stop_times": [1298.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1285.902}, "reply_to": "21110__0_076", "speaker": "norman_maleng"}
{"id": "21110__0_078", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Maleng.\nMs. Millett, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1298.804, 1300.069], "stop_times": [1300.069, 1302.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1298.804}, "reply_to": "21110__0_077", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21110__1_000", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nJustice O'Connor and Justice Souter both asked the critical question in this case, and that is, how we define the function that is at issue.\nWe believe it's defined as it was in Malley, and that is the function of seeking an arrest warrant, not simply the signing of a certification.\nWhat is critical in this case, and is a critical distinction from Malley, is the function of seeking an arrest warrant in conjunction with the filing of criminal charges against an individual.\nIn Malley, the police officer sought the arrest warrant without the involvement of a prosecutor long before any indictment process had started by a prosecutor.\nThere was no prosecutorial decision.\nIn that sense, the criminal judicial process had not yet been invoked by the Government, and that is the critical distinction in this case in our opinion.\nThe reason--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1302.771, 1318.217, 1327.151, 1337.507, 1349.534, 1361.39, 1363.405, 1372.493], "stop_times": [1318.217, 1327.151, 1337.507, 1349.534, 1361.39, 1363.405, 1372.493, 1374.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1302.771}, "reply_to": "21110__0_078", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21110__1_001", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Would it be the same case if she had filed a certification just as a lawyer but not sworn to anything, and then the magistrate had said to her when she appeared in court, I'd like to know whether the defendant had any access to the property before, do you have a witness who can testify to that, and she had responded, yes, and then he swore her as a witness and she said exactly what she said here.\nWould she be immune?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1374.571, 1395.376], "stop_times": [1395.376, 1396.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1374.571}, "reply_to": "21110__1_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21110__1_002", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--We believe that she would get absolute immunity for statements in court, whether it would be considered prosecutorial immunity or witness immunity under Burns v. Reed and Briscoe v. LaHue.\nIt may not satisfy the Fourth Amendment, but, of course, the Fourth Amendment violation does not strip one of immunity, else it would be no immunity at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1396.298, 1406.277], "stop_times": [1406.277, 1414.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1396.298}, "reply_to": "21110__1_001", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21110__1_003", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Do you think the witness immunity in the context of testimony at trial applies to any sworn statement in support of an affidavit for a search warrant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1414.509], "stop_times": [1422.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1414.509}, "reply_to": "21110__1_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21110__1_004", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "I think it depends... arrest warrant.\nI think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1422.364, 1425.848], "stop_times": [1425.848, 1426.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1422.364}, "reply_to": "21110__1_003", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21110__1_005", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Arrest warrant.\nEither one, right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1426.254, 1426.675], "stop_times": [1426.675, 1427.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1426.254}, "reply_to": "21110__1_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21110__1_006", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--a search warrant may be much further away from the criminal judicial process, but once the process has been initiated by the Government, as it has here, or triggered as it is in the Federal system, that as written or... whether a statement is written or said in court should not make a functional difference for purposes of absolute immunity, so we actually believe that had a police officer signed it or, for example, the suspect information report that was also filed with the Information and request for arrest warrant here would merit absolute immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1427.55], "stop_times": [1458.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1427.55}, "reply_to": "21110__1_005", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21110__1_007", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Well, your view, then... I want to be sure I understand.\nYour view is, even if this had been signed by a police officer, there would be immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1458.866, 1459.724], "stop_times": [1459.724, 1462.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1458.866}, "reply_to": "21110__1_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21110__1_008", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "It would.\nThe police officer probably wouldn't be called prosecutorial immunity, but it would be the traditional common law immunity for affidavits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1462.645, 1462.91], "stop_times": [1462.91, 1469.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1462.645}, "reply_to": "21110__1_007", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21110__1_009", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "So you're relying not on prosecutorial immunity but witness immunity as your basic position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1469.736], "stop_times": [1474.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1469.736}, "reply_to": "21110__1_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21110__1_010", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1474.265], "stop_times": [1474.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1474.265}, "reply_to": "21110__1_009", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21110__1_011", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "That that applies in this context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1474.937], "stop_times": [1476.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1474.937}, "reply_to": "21110__1_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21110__1_012", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--If it were a police officer, the label might be witness... I'm not sure if absolute immunity attaches, or whether the exact label matters, but what's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1476.093], "stop_times": [1485.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1476.093}, "reply_to": "21110__1_011", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21110__1_013", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Well, it matters a great deal, I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1485.027], "stop_times": [1485.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1485.027}, "reply_to": "21110__1_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21110__1_014", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1485.62], "stop_times": [1486.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1485.62}, "reply_to": "21110__1_013", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21110__1_015", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Because under your theory here it really doesn't matter whether she's a prosecutor at all, because you're suggesting, if I understand you correctly, that any affidavit, any person who makes an affidavit in support of an arrest warrant is entitled to absolute immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1486.183], "stop_times": [1499.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1486.183}, "reply_to": "21110__1_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21110__1_016", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Two things.\nOne, if that had been filed at the initiation or onset of the formal procedures by the Government--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1499.177, 1500.27], "stop_times": [1500.27, 1506.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1499.177}, "reply_to": "21110__1_015", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21110__1_017", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "At the time you file an Information and so on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1506.221], "stop_times": [1507.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1506.221}, "reply_to": "21110__1_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21110__1_018", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--Right, and the reason I'm equivocating somewhat about a prosecutor here is just because I think that she was performing a hybrid function here.\nIf, instead, Ms. Kalina had simply been a witness at a barroom fight--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1507.83, 1515.42], "stop_times": [1515.42, 1519.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1507.83}, "reply_to": "21110__1_017", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21110__1_019", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--I understand, but I'm asking to the extent that she's performing the half of the hybrid that was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1519.076], "stop_times": [1522.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1519.076}, "reply_to": "21110__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21110__1_020", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--Mm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1522.762], "stop_times": [1523.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1522.762}, "reply_to": "21110__1_019", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21110__1_021", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--testimonial rather than a lawyer presenting a case to a judge.\nThat half you say is equally entitled to immunity under the witness immunity doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1523.168, 1527.291], "stop_times": [1527.291, 1531.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1523.168}, "reply_to": "21110__1_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21110__1_022", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Under witness or, one wants to call it affidavit immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1531.524], "stop_times": [1533.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1531.524}, "reply_to": "21110__1_021", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21110__1_023", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "So it doesn't matter whether she's a prosecutor or a member of the mafia or a police officer, she's still entitled to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1533.85], "stop_times": [1539.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1533.85}, "reply_to": "21110__1_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21110__1_024", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "It would matter for some things, but right, certainly for purposes of whether absolute immunity attaches, but I think the reasoning here is a little more complicated, because... and one of our concerns in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1539.067], "stop_times": [1548.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1539.067}, "reply_to": "21110__1_023", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21110__1_025", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--Absolute immunity but not perjury, would there be, or just absolute immunity from a 1983 suit, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1548.282], "stop_times": [1556.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1548.282}, "reply_to": "21110__1_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21110__1_026", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--From civil liability damages.\nCertainly, no one is pretending that absolute immunity gives... even judges don't get it from criminal prosecutions or perjury charges, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1556.919, 1560.652], "stop_times": [1560.652, 1568.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1556.919}, "reply_to": "21110__1_025", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21110__1_027", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--Do I understand that you are drawing a straight time line?\nYou are saying yes, under Malley it doesn't matter who the actor is, it's the function, so you are saying... which I didn't understand from the brief... that whether it's a police officer or prosecutor, once it's the prosecution is being put before the court, anybody who signs this application gets absolute immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1568.04, 1571.241], "stop_times": [1571.241, 1595.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1568.04}, "reply_to": "21110__1_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21110__1_028", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--I believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1595.56], "stop_times": [1596.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1595.56}, "reply_to": "21110__1_027", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21110__1_029", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "But if it's removed, it's before the prosecutor has decided whether there's going to be a criminal case, then it's only qualified whoever that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1596.107], "stop_times": [1604.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1596.107}, "reply_to": "21110__1_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21110__1_030", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--I... taking the first part of your question, I believe the time line is absolutely critical for purposes of deciding whether... is a critical factor in functional analysis, and yes, it's very relevant here, because the time line... it's not so much a date time line, but it's an initiation of the judicial process, which is exactly what the purposes of immunity doctrine are supposed to cover.\nI think before actual initiation of a criminal prosecution or a criminal proceedings, say if there was a search warrant back at the investigatory stage, it's a harder question, because in one sense any time a prosec... and this is what the Court noted in Burns v. Reed.\nAny time a prosecutor is coming to a court and presenting information to the court to provide the basis for a judicial action, that that should merit absolute prosecutorial immunity.\nYou're acting in an advocatory role, and the reason we give immunity is to protect the process itself, the ability of the court to collect information and make the decisions necessary in that case.\nSo it may be a little bit harder when we're... the further we get away from the initiation of the criminal process, the harder the question is.\nWe concede that.\nBut you would still need to consider the important goal of absolute immunity to allow the judicial system to receive information, however delivered, whether one thinks it's a proper way or improper, ethical or unethical, whatever mistaken... but the important thing is that the process be protected, and that's what we think absolute immunity would protect in this situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1604.493, 1629.436, 1650.242, 1661.048, 1671.731, 1679.323, 1680.556], "stop_times": [1629.436, 1650.242, 1661.048, 1671.731, 1679.323, 1680.556, 1704.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1604.493}, "reply_to": "21110__1_029", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21110__1_031", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--Well, as you rightly say, or rightly indicate, I mean, the issuance of a search warrant is the beginning of a judicial proceeding, too, and I assume that your argument assumes that there is a historic... given the way we go about the immunity question that there is a basis in historical practice for distinguishing between the immunity that seems to be implied by the initiation of the one judicial process, search warrants, and the other judicial process, arrest warrant and filing of charges.\nIs there, and where would I find the historical basis for drawing the line where you would have us draw it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1704.093, 1740.563], "stop_times": [1740.563, 1749.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1704.093}, "reply_to": "21110__1_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21110__1_032", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "The closest, strongest case for the common law precedent for immunity in this context which we think is on fours with this situation is a case, Kitler v. Kelsh, which is cited I believe on page 19 of our brief, and was cited by this Court in Imbler.\nAnd there what you had was a prosecutor who sought an arrest warrant, swore out a complaint, and in that context, from the description in the case, the complaint was not only legal claims but also factual claims and, in fact, when you look at the dissent in that case, the dissent advocated drawing the exact line that respondents propose here, and that is that you get absolute immunity for filing the complaint and seeking the arrest warrant but not for the factual assertions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1749.825, 1766.225], "stop_times": [1766.225, 1790.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1749.825}, "reply_to": "21110__1_031", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21110__1_033", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "What about the other side of the--\n--That had nothing to do with functional distinctions.\nThe common law distinction was between giving evidence and initiating a prosecution.\nThere was civil liability for wrongful initiation of a prosecution.\nThere was no civil liability for testimony.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1790.777, 1792.526, 1795.932, 1804.178, 1809.802], "stop_times": [1792.526, 1795.932, 1804.178, 1809.802, 1813.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1790.777}, "reply_to": "21110__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21110__1_034", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Well, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1813.44], "stop_times": [1814.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1813.44}, "reply_to": "21110__1_033", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21110__1_035", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "And that's the explanation of that case, not the functional distinction that our cases have, I think, mistakenly applied, mistakenly if we think we're tracking what the common law was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1814.19], "stop_times": [1828.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1814.19}, "reply_to": "21110__1_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21110__1_036", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--Well, I think it... there's more than sort of two factors coming together.\nThere's also the question of whether it was private or a public prosecutorial decision that was being made.\nFor example, the complaining witness cases that are cited by this Court in the Malley case all involved private persons, and so there's an entirely separate argument for why absolute immunity did not attach to that, and the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1828.105, 1831.167, 1836.853], "stop_times": [1831.167, 1836.853, 1851.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1828.105}, "reply_to": "21110__1_035", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21110__1_037", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "It's the implication of what you're saying that Malley was wrongly decided.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1851.268], "stop_times": [1855.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1851.268}, "reply_to": "21110__1_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21110__1_038", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--No.\nThe implication is that Malley was different, because the police officer there was not involved with the prosecutor in a prosecutorial decision to initiate criminal proceedings.\nThe police officer was more analogous to a private complaining witness than we have here, where Ms. Kalina, or the police officer, or whomever is signing the affidavit, is affiliated with the actual onset of judicial proceedings, and it is the onset of judicial proceedings and the provision of information to the court for that ongoing process that is critical.\nAnd one of the reasons it's critical is, again, unlike the police officer in Malley v. Briggs, a prosecutor in this context is going to have ongoing responsibilities in the case and ongoing duties that will be supervised and protected by the court, and the defendant will also have those protections.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1855.656, 1856.0, 1865.668, 1889.785], "stop_times": [1856.0, 1865.668, 1889.785, 1907.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1855.656}, "reply_to": "21110__1_037", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21110__1_039", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Would your argument be different if we were dealing with a State in which the historical practice had been traditionally that the... what is called the certification here, the statement under oath about fact, was given by police officers and investigators as opposed to prosecutors?\nWould your argument be different then, or would your conclusion be different?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1907.714, 1928.878], "stop_times": [1928.878, 1932.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1907.714}, "reply_to": "21110__1_038", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21110__1_040", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "What is critical is whether it is the initiation... whether that would be combined with a prosecutorial decision to, as here, initiate a criminal prosecution.\nWho signs it?\nAs I said, we think the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1932.61, 1942.45, 1943.622], "stop_times": [1942.45, 1943.622, 1944.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1932.61}, "reply_to": "21110__1_039", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21110__1_041", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "If so, the witness would get the immunity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1944.902], "stop_times": [1946.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1944.902}, "reply_to": "21110__1_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21110__1_042", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--Yes, whether it would be called prosecutorial immunity or not.\nThank you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1946.761, 1948.542], "stop_times": [1948.542, 1949.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1946.761}, "reply_to": "21110__1_041", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21110__1_043", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Millett.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1949.058], "stop_times": [1949.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1949.058}, "reply_to": "21110__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21110__1_044", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1949.73], "stop_times": [1950.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1949.73}, "reply_to": "21110__1_043", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21110__1_045", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Mr. Ford.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1950.089], "stop_times": [1951.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1950.089}, "reply_to": "21110__1_044", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21110__2_000", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nLet me begin by answering a couple of questions that I don't think got answered.\nOne is, our claim is based exclusively on the fact that Rodney Fletcher was arrested, that his person was seized without probable cause, and that has been our position from the beginning.\nThe focus of this is on the certification that made it possible, both under the Federal Constitution and Washington Criminal Rule 2.2, for an arrest warrant rather than a summons to issue.\nAnother question I'd like to point out is Washington law does provide for summons procedures in felony cases, nonseizure-type documents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1951.493, 1956.366, 1960.208, 1972.016, 1982.824], "stop_times": [1956.366, 1960.208, 1972.016, 1982.824, 1993.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1951.493}, "reply_to": "21110__1_045", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_001", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "So you would not have made this claim if there had been no actual arrest.\nEven though the arrest warrant or the certification might have been... it's not in the nature of a defamation claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [1993.399, 1998.583], "stop_times": [1998.583, 2004.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1993.399}, "reply_to": "21110__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21110__2_002", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "It is not in the nature of a defamation claim, Mr. Chief Justice.\nIt is in the nature of a false arrest claim, just as the Malley case was, and, of course, under the Albright case there's considerable controversy at least over whether you even have a 1983 claim if you are only hailed into court by summons, and certainly Mr. Fletcher's damages would be very different if they existed at all.\nThe next question, I'd like to answer Justice O'Connor's question about whether police officers can issue these... can swear in support of arrest warrants, and they certainly can, and I think it is... actually I would differ with Mr. Maleng with regard to whether, under Washington law, a police officer could obtain an arrest warrant without the interposition of a prosecutor.\nUnder our justice court rules, or lower court rules, Washington has a procedure where the prosecutors have begun to file direct in superior court Informations, felonies without going through preliminary hearings in the lower courts.\nIn our lower courts, the district courts and municipal courts, we have a criminal rule for the courts of limited jurisdiction, 2.1(c), which provides even citizens can issue complaints, and those complaints can be followed by arrest warrants, again if a complainant swears under oath to facts that make out probable cause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2004.519, 2007.955, 2026.605, 2046.004, 2059.263], "stop_times": [2007.955, 2026.605, 2046.004, 2059.263, 2079.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2004.519}, "reply_to": "21110__2_001", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_003", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "What is the jurisdiction over... what kind of criminal actions do those lower courts have jurisdiction over?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2079.522], "stop_times": [2085.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2079.522}, "reply_to": "21110__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21110__2_004", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "That rule itself, Your Honor, would only deal with misdemeanors, but in felonies you can also have those same courts have jurisdiction issue arrest warrants, although I admit it would not be on the complaint only of a citizen or police officer for felonies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2085.801], "stop_times": [2099.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2085.801}, "reply_to": "21110__2_003", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_005", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "And this was a felony involved here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2099.747], "stop_times": [2102.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2099.747}, "reply_to": "21110__2_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21110__2_006", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "This was a felony, although I'm not... I would contend there's no constitutional difference--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2102.028], "stop_times": [2105.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2102.028}, "reply_to": "21110__2_005", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_007", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "How can that be?\nI don't... I'm just trying to understand the procedure.\nYou mean, if, in conjunction with the issuance of a case, the prosecution decides I'd like to arrest Mr. Smith under Washington law... it's a felony.\nYou need probable cause and a warrant... couldn't the policeman attest to the facts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2105.621, 2106.183, 2108.604, 2120.256], "stop_times": [2106.183, 2108.604, 2120.256, 2126.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2105.621}, "reply_to": "21110__2_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21110__2_008", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--The policeman could attest to the fact, Justice Breyer.\nAs I understood the question it was whether a policeman could do this completely by him or herself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2126.128, 2129.128], "stop_times": [2129.128, 2133.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2126.128}, "reply_to": "21110__2_007", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_009", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2133.065], "stop_times": [2133.424], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2133.065}, "reply_to": "21110__2_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21110__2_010", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Because you do... under Washington law you do have to have either a complaint or an Information filed in order to issue an arrest warrant from our court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2133.424], "stop_times": [2140.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2133.424}, "reply_to": "21110__2_009", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_011", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Ever?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2140.983], "stop_times": [2141.264], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2140.983}, "reply_to": "21110__2_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21110__2_012", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Ever.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2141.264], "stop_times": [2141.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2141.264}, "reply_to": "21110__2_011", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_013", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "I mean, if a policeman's walking down the street and he sees a crime--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2141.967], "stop_times": [2144.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2141.967}, "reply_to": "21110__2_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21110__2_014", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "He can make a warrantless arrest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2144.95], "stop_times": [2146.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2144.95}, "reply_to": "21110__2_013", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_015", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--Well, he knows there is a crime going on, and he wants to produce a warrant, and he goes to the magistrate and says, please give me a warrant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2146.98], "stop_times": [2154.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2146.98}, "reply_to": "21110__2_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21110__2_016", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Under our criminal rules--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2154.758], "stop_times": [2156.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2154.758}, "reply_to": "21110__2_015", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_017", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "He can't do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2156.336], "stop_times": [2156.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2156.336}, "reply_to": "21110__2_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21110__2_018", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--He cannot do that, and our rules I do believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2156.898], "stop_times": [2158.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2156.898}, "reply_to": "21110__2_017", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_019", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Even if there's no case going on a policeman couldn't just get a warrant for an arrest ordinarily, when he knows there's a crime going on in a building and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2158.851], "stop_times": [2167.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2158.851}, "reply_to": "21110__2_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21110__2_020", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--Under Washington procedure, only if there has been an initiation at least by complaint.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2167.831], "stop_times": [2172.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2167.831}, "reply_to": "21110__2_019", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_021", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--Of a case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2172.486], "stop_times": [2173.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2172.486}, "reply_to": "21110__2_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21110__2_022", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "In a court.\nHowever, that is... and one thing I would also point out, the certification that Justice Kennedy asked about is a King County local rule.\nIt's not a certification as a summary, and it is not sworn.\nIt is a different document, but they have the certification of probable cause.\nIt is kind of an omnibus document that kind of takes care of all of these problems at once.\nThe actual rule--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2173.704, 2174.751, 2183.278, 2186.918, 2190.855, 2195.713], "stop_times": [2174.751, 2183.278, 2186.918, 2190.855, 2195.713, 2196.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2173.704}, "reply_to": "21110__2_021", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_023", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Well, in that instance is there an underlying sworn affidavit from the police officer?\nDoes somebody swear to something?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2196.79, 2201.57], "stop_times": [2201.57, 2203.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2196.79}, "reply_to": "21110__2_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21110__2_024", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--There has to be a sworn statement by somebody under our criminal rules, Justice, there does have to be under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, so somebody has to swear.\nIt does not have to be a prosecutor, and indeed there's no rule.\nThe certification process is something that I think as Mr. Maleng acknowledged in many of his statements is going a bit informally.\nIt's not provided for by rule or statute anywhere.\nThe prosecutors have just decided they're going to do this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2203.069, 2212.486, 2216.079, 2222.186, 2224.435], "stop_times": [2212.486, 2216.079, 2222.186, 2224.435, 2226.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2203.069}, "reply_to": "21110__2_023", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_025", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "And this is the practice in most felony cases that the prosecutor makes this summary and the certification under oath?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2226.777], "stop_times": [2234.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2226.777}, "reply_to": "21110__2_024", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21110__2_026", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "That is my experience, Your Honor, yes.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2234.104, 2236.54], "stop_times": [2236.54, 2237.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2234.104}, "reply_to": "21110__2_025", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_027", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Mr. Ford, you could not have made a complaint for essentially malicious prosecution against a prosecutor, could you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2237.616], "stop_times": [2248.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2237.616}, "reply_to": "21110__2_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21110__2_028", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--That is the difference, Justice Ginsburg.\nThat is a claim for false arrest, and traditionally--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2248.223, 2250.267], "stop_times": [2250.267, 2252.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2248.223}, "reply_to": "21110__2_027", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_029", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "So you're really saying that less is more in this case.\nIn other words, by slicing it thinner and saying we're just going to go after this arrest warrant, you are able to bring a 1983 case, where your fundamental grievance of malicious prosecution, you can't bring under 1983 because that would surely trigger absolute prosecutorial immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2252.954, 2256.437], "stop_times": [2256.437, 2278.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2252.954}, "reply_to": "21110__2_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21110__2_030", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--I would submit, Your Honor, our fundamental claim is false arrest, and we would be... we would have a different defendant if we had a police officer who had issued this false affidavit that resulted in the arrest, but we would still have a cause of action, which is being arrested without probable cause.\nA public official under color of State law made up the probable cause that resulted in Rodney Fletcher's arrest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2278.07, 2295.78], "stop_times": [2295.78, 2301.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2278.07}, "reply_to": "21110__2_029", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_031", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "But the largest... if we were talking not in lawyer's terms, the largest offense to your client is that this client was not only arrested, but that there was a prosecution initiated, criminal charges filed against that person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2301.122], "stop_times": [2313.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2301.122}, "reply_to": "21110__2_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21110__2_032", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Well, I don't know.\nOur complaint has to do with his arrest and, indeed, under Albright I'm not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2313.961, 2315.648], "stop_times": [2315.648, 2319.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2313.961}, "reply_to": "21110__2_031", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_033", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Yes, because you're slicing it thinner because under the law malicious prosecution is not an avenue that's open to you.\nYou could... do you disagree with that, that that's why you're bringing this case as a false arrest case rather than the larger false prosecution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2319.397, 2326.705], "stop_times": [2326.705, 2337.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2319.397}, "reply_to": "21110__2_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21110__2_034", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--Because that's what brought it to law, because that's what happened to Rodney Fletcher.\nThat's his complaint.\nHe was hauled into jail.\nAfter that, they... the prosecution went nowhere.\nThey gave up very quickly.\nBut his problem was, he got hauled into King County Jail, had to spend the night in jail, have his wife come get him and his children, those sorts of things.\nAnd I think that again there's a question even under the Albright case as to whether he could complain at all against anybody for the broader question, but this is what happened to him, and that's why the complaint has been brought as it has, because also what happened to him is exactly the same as what happened to Mr. Briggs in the Malley v. Briggs case.\nAnd I beg to differ with my colleagues with regard to the differences there.\nIn the Malley v. Briggs case Officer Malley was not a percipient witness, did not claim to be if you... as the opinion states, but he went in and reviewed a log of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2337.654, 2355.553, 2342.168, 2343.87, 2346.526, 2347.588, 2356.819, 2375.124, 2381.574], "stop_times": [2355.553, 2342.168, 2343.87, 2346.526, 2347.588, 2356.819, 2375.124, 2381.574, 2391.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2337.654}, "reply_to": "21110__2_033", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_035", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Not what kind of a witness?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2391.445], "stop_times": [2392.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2391.445}, "reply_to": "21110__2_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21110__2_036", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--This is a word the Government's come up with.\nPercipient, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2392.633, 2393.897], "stop_times": [2393.897, 2395.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2392.633}, "reply_to": "21110__2_035", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_037", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "One... I hear someone--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2395.006], "stop_times": [2397.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2395.006}, "reply_to": "21110__2_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21110__2_038", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "That's correct, and the Government's suggested that there's a difference, and I would submit that there is not.\nI think that the Government has an interest in protecting DEA or FBI agents who often perform this function in the U.S. Attorney's Offices, because the U.S. Attorneys never do this themselves, but they are trying to bring the immunity to cover their police officers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2397.411, 2402.409], "stop_times": [2402.409, 2417.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2397.411}, "reply_to": "21110__2_037", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_039", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--Are they saying... and here I may be speaking... you have to correct me if I'm not... that in many States I would guess it's possible for a policeman to get a warrant and arrest somebody a few hours or days before a prosecutor does anything in court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2417.263], "stop_times": [2433.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2417.263}, "reply_to": "21110__2_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21110__2_040", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "I believe that was the case in Rhode Island with Mr.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2433.365], "stop_times": [2436.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2433.365}, "reply_to": "21110__2_039", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_041", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "All right, and then they're saying, but Washington, oddly enough, that isn't so.\nIn Washington, the only time you arrest a felon with a warrant, the only time, is in conjunction with a prosecutor filing an Information, and there is no other time, and therefore, unlike all other States, because of this odd quirk of Washington procedure, the arrest of a felon is part of the court function, the court filing function.\nIt's not in Rhode Island, it's not anywhere else, because it exists in other places that you could arrest a person without filing an Information, but not so in Washington, so in those other places it's a police duty, in Washington it's different.\nIn Washington, it's part of the case-initiating.\nI'm not buying that argument, but I want to focus it specifically.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2436.661, 2441.206, 2464.821, 2482.596, 2485.188], "stop_times": [2441.206, 2464.821, 2482.596, 2485.188, 2489.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2436.661}, "reply_to": "21110__2_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21110__2_042", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--Let me focus it specifically on that, then, Justice Breyer.\nIt's not correct in Washington, because you can arrest somebody in conjunction with filing a complaint.\nNow, that's just another word, but it's a word that's very important, because officer Briggs, or Officer Malley, I'm sorry, got a complaint.\nHe swore out a complaint to a judge, and the complaint ordered any police officer to bring the defendant to the court to be held to answer on the complaint.\nIt was exactly the same function.\nHe was having him arrested to answer a criminal complaint that was based on his summary of a police report that he had read and he swore under oath that that made out probable cause, and went to a judge, and the judge... and they had a file, it has a case number, and they issued court documents, a complaint and an arrest warrant.\nHere we had an Information and an arrest warrant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2489.515, 2491.623, 2497.027, 2504.977, 2516.504, 2518.643, 2539.525], "stop_times": [2491.623, 2497.027, 2504.977, 2516.504, 2518.643, 2539.525, 2542.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2489.515}, "reply_to": "21110__2_041", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_043", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "But in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2542.024], "stop_times": [2542.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2542.024}, "reply_to": "21110__2_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21110__2_044", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "The only difference is a word.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2542.384], "stop_times": [2543.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2542.384}, "reply_to": "21110__2_043", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_045", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--But in Malley the person was arrested on the basis of this complaint, but a grand jury, which in Rhode Island is apparently committed to the job of finding... refused to indict.\nHere the Information is a substitute for the indictment, not the complaint, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2543.462, 2558.362], "stop_times": [2558.362, 2563.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2543.462}, "reply_to": "21110__2_044", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21110__2_046", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "And... I agree, Mr. Chief Justice, that's true for the Sixth Amendment purpose of initiating a criminal prosecution, but for purposes of the Fourth Amendment and for purposes of the traditional common law background that we were looking at in 1871 there was no difference.\nEvery variety of this kind of behavior, of somebody coming before a judge swearing to facts, having the judge have a complaint or a writ ne exit, or whatever you'd call it, and arresting somebody based on the sworn statement of that person, who is called a complaining witness at common law, very ancient law in this regard--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2563.016, 2578.29], "stop_times": [2578.29, 2596.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2563.016}, "reply_to": "21110__2_045", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_047", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "The point I was trying to make was that if you compare the facts in Malley with the facts in this case, the facts in Malley seem to have been further removed from the determination of probable cause, because there it ultimately went to a grand jury after all the Malley facts had happened, and the grand jury refuses to indict.\nHere, the Information is filed, and that in itself is a determination of probable cause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2596.909, 2619.571], "stop_times": [2619.571, 2624.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2596.909}, "reply_to": "21110__2_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21110__2_048", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--Well, it's an initial determination of probable cause, Your Honor, but it doesn't justify an arrest, and in Washington, of course, it's not final.\nWe also do have a safeguard under a case called State v. Knapstad, where a judge can determine whether the prosecutor did, in fact, have probable cause to bring this Information.\nSo there are many systems in our country, but the common denominator we have now in our States and in the Territories and States and even back into England in the law that this is based on is that when people come into, before a judge or a magistrate or a justice of the peace, or whatever they happen to be called locally, and swear to facts, and get some kind of an order that allows somebody else's body to be seized, they were never held to be immune from liability before 1871, before 1791 when the Oath or Affirmation Clause was put into the Fourth Amendment establishing the function that we believe is relevant here, a very ancient and important function of providing that oath or affirmation.\nIt's never been subject to immunity, and the fact that the prosecutors in Washington have really voluntarily, just as a matter of their own practice and convenience, or perhaps for this reason, usurped that function, without even the Washington legislature or court rules telling them to, and said well, we'll be the witnesses here, they have taken on a function that prosecutors as far as I can tell, reading... we cited some historical materials that go back into the 13th and 14th Century.\nThe prosecutors and their predecessors have never acted as witnesses.\nIt's a fundamentally different function of swearing to facts and bringing the facts in and saying, I vouch for these facts.\nAnd in most contexts, of course, there is, as I think Justice Stevens pointed out, a defamation immunity for witnesses, but there has always been an exception in this particular context, where a person comes in, a person who might say exactly the same things at a trial and be absolutely immune, but when the context is the initiation of a matter before some kind of judicial officer, the purpose of which is to take somebody's body into custody, that that person has never been held immune from liability no matter what their rank in society.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2624.568, 2631.691, 2641.328, 2684.17, 2711.503, 2716.016, 2723.451], "stop_times": [2631.691, 2641.328, 2684.17, 2711.503, 2716.016, 2723.451, 2759.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2624.568}, "reply_to": "21110__2_047", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_049", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "But it wasn't defamation liability, as the perjured testimony would be.\nIt was liability for malicious prosecution, essentially, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2759.812, 2764.559], "stop_times": [2764.559, 2767.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2759.812}, "reply_to": "21110__2_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21110__2_050", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "I think the differences between malicious prosecution and false arrest and trespass, and trespass on the case, and the different things in the common law have... I have not grasped yet, Justice Scalia, but what I understand is that whatever you called it at that time, nobody recognized it as a circumstance in which a person should be immune from liability, even though they were doing something, swearing, very much like what they could do in court under absolute immunity.\nWhen they did it in this context, when ex parte, I would assume that the policy reasons are because there is no protection of the courtroom, it's an ex parte proceeding, it involves an initiation of a very drastic governmental action against a person, whatever those policy reasons were, the common law in 1871 was clear that in that context a swearer, a person who took an oath or affirmation, was not subject to the immunities that they would be later in the proceeding, and I think that is the difference, and there's no historical basis... this one 1927--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2767.512, 2795.062], "stop_times": [2795.062, 2826.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2767.512}, "reply_to": "21110__2_049", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_051", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "So Mr. Ford, if the prosecutor did the same thing, but once the trial is going on says, I need to arrest this material witness, and the police report tells me this, this, and this, and so I swear out an arrest warrant, but it's in court while the trial is going on to hold the material witness, that would be absolutely immune?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2826.581], "stop_times": [2848.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2826.581}, "reply_to": "21110__2_050", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21110__2_052", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--That is a fascinating question, Justice Ginsburg.\nIt had not occurred to me because of course the material witness is not a party to the lawsuit, and how the common law would have treated that I do not know.\nIt does seem to me to be a part of advocacy, but it also seems to be kind of like initiating a new proceeding against a material witness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2848.181, 2851.009, 2857.913], "stop_times": [2851.009, 2857.913, 2865.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2848.181}, "reply_to": "21110__2_051", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_053", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "But if you're talking about witness, it's the same swear... I swear, this is what the police report, I gather from the police report... and it's the same exact form as the one that leads to the prosecution, but it happens during the trial.\nIf... just your puzzlement shows it isn't that easy to draw the line between what is advocacy and what is testimony.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2865.206, 2880.699], "stop_times": [2880.699, 2892.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2865.206}, "reply_to": "21110__2_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21110__2_054", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Well, it is easy to draw the line.\nTo me... and that's the fundamental issue in this case.\nTestimony is not advocacy.\nSwearing is not making a decision.\nYou don't decide whether to tell the truth or not.\nWhen you go under oath, you tell the truth.\nNow, you may be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2892.055, 2893.319, 2896.053, 2898.163, 2900.411, 2902.925, 2904.97], "stop_times": [2893.319, 2896.053, 2898.163, 2900.411, 2902.925, 2904.97, 2905.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2892.055}, "reply_to": "21110__2_053", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_055", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Well then, why are you having such a problem with this case?\nYou say maybe there would be prosecutorial immunity if the very same thing happened while the trial was going on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2905.767, 2908.438], "stop_times": [2908.438, 2913.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2905.767}, "reply_to": "21110__2_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21110__2_056", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--I was having trouble, Justice Ginsburg, because I don't think anybody ever thought of that question before, and as I'm thinking about it, I think that that is the initiation of a new action against the material witness, and would not be subject to immunity.\nNow, the different analogy that I had thought of is what if the prosecutor swears in support of some motion during the trial itself?\nIt seems to me that is a different thing where different sorts of protections exist.\nThat is within the area that the common law would have found advocacy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2913.795, 2925.822, 2932.647, 2936.741], "stop_times": [2925.822, 2932.647, 2936.741, 2940.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2913.795}, "reply_to": "21110__2_055", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_057", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Well, what if a prosecutor avows or swears to the court, I subpoena this witness, he's not here, I ask you to issue a bench warrant?\nProtected or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2940.409, 2948.577], "stop_times": [2948.577, 2951.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2940.409}, "reply_to": "21110__2_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21110__2_058", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "If it's necessary under the Fourth Amendment for that witness to have probable cause for that bench warrant it seems to me that he may again be initiating a new proceeding against that witness if he's lying, or she is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2951.406], "stop_times": [2965.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2951.406}, "reply_to": "21110__2_057", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_059", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "But the subpoena had already been served.\nThe bench warrant just really says, you know, you come right now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2965.4, 2967.961], "stop_times": [2967.961, 2972.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2965.4}, "reply_to": "21110__2_058", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21110__2_060", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "And I don't know what the constitutional requirements would be with regard to the bench warrant under those circumstances, Mr. Chief Justice.\nI would say that with regard... my thoughts have been with regard to the defendant himself or herself.\nWith regard to that person, once you're in court in the heat of battle swearing or avowing or proffering is the more usual situation, that that is within the witness immunity if it's a witness, the prosecutorial immunity if it's a prosecutor.\nBut the initiation of a new proceeding to arrest, that's where the common law has looked, and I have not seen cases that have focused on, what if you initiate a new proceeding in the middle of another proceeding.\nI would assume the law would be the same, but I don't know what the common law was and of course that, I think, is what the Court has to look at.\nWhat would have been the understanding in 17... or in 1871 about liability here, and it wouldn't necessarily have been the opinion of the North Dakota supreme court in 1927, which was characterized in the Solicitor General's brief as having been a suit based on a false complaint.\nThat is, a false document.\nI understand the argument here would be very different if our only argument were Ms. Kalina lied when she signed the Information and said Rodney Fletcher committed a burglary in the Information.\nThat is an immune act.\nThat is the initiation of a prosecution.\nThat is a decision.\nThat is advocacy.\nBut when she takes the Fourth Amendment separate rule of making an oath or affirmation, she is doing something that has much more ancient roots and should not turn on the... the difficult lines, I think, Justice Ginsburg, would be if there was a line that was based on the name of the charging document, or the particular local procedure.\nI have looked at a number of States in regard to this, and the States are very various and the counties, I'm sure, within States vary as to how they handle criminal prosecutions, and when... where the police hand off to the prosecutors, and to draw a line straight through based on Washington's particular procedure I think would be extraordinarily difficult and create different rules in different States.\nAnd, of course, in section 1983 the Civil Rights Act was supposed to, I think, establish Federal minimums for the protection of residents of the various States regardless of what their State officials decided to do, and when the... the fact that our State officials and our prosecutors have over the years said, well, wouldn't it be easier if we just swear the witnesses, and we just provided the oath or affirmation rather than have police officers or FBI agents or the various people who do it in every other jurisdiction of the country perhaps save one, that can't change the constitutional rights and remedies of the people of Washington that were enshrined in 1871 and existed a long time before that, of saying if you lie about me and cause me to be arrested, I have a cause of action to recover for my damages from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [2972.287, 2978.894, 2985.189, 2998.994, 3009.522, 3014.02, 3032.873, 3034.839, 3047.803, 3049.255, 3051.005, 3052.177, 3053.411, 3072.123, 3095.426], "stop_times": [2978.894, 2985.189, 2998.994, 3009.522, 3014.02, 3032.873, 3034.839, 3047.803, 3049.255, 3051.005, 3052.177, 3053.411, 3072.123, 3095.426, 3139.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2972.287}, "reply_to": "21110__2_059", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_061", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Well, now in the Burns case I think we gave absolute immunity to a prosecutor who gave false evidence at a hearing to get a search warrant, didn't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3139.501], "stop_times": [3150.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3139.501}, "reply_to": "21110__2_060", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21110__2_062", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "I think not, Justice O'Connor.\nIn Burns the police officer testified, and I believe the police officer was separately sued and was not a party before this Court.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3150.81, 3152.59, 3160.836], "stop_times": [3152.59, 3160.836, 3161.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3150.81}, "reply_to": "21110__2_061", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_063", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "But the prosecutor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3161.508], "stop_times": [3162.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3161.508}, "reply_to": "21110__2_062", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21110__2_064", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--The prosecutor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3162.961], "stop_times": [3163.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3162.961}, "reply_to": "21110__2_063", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_065", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--certainly, who presented the false evidence, was given absolute immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3163.819], "stop_times": [3169.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3163.819}, "reply_to": "21110__2_064", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21110__2_066", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--I... presenting and acting, asking questions and even drafting documents, those are prosecutorial-type functions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3169.068], "stop_times": [3177.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3169.068}, "reply_to": "21110__2_065", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_067", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Mm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3177.142], "stop_times": [3177.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3177.142}, "reply_to": "21110__2_066", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21110__2_068", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "But swearing on the bottom line, that's when it changes.\nThat's where the Fourth Amendment says it changes to... from an illegal arrest to a legal arrest.\nThat's where the common law said it changed, and even magistrates could be sued at common law if there was no oath or affirmation.\nThe person who puts their name on that oath or affirmation, that's what causes an arrest, and 1983 says, a person who causes another to be deprived of their rights guaranteed by the Constitution.\nWhat causes that arrest is swearing on the line that says, I swear that this is true, and the person who has done that has always been subject to liability, I think was in the Burns case... in some ways it's very much like in the Buckley case.\nCounsel referred to Buckley as if the court granted prosecutorial immunity there, and I think it did not, and I think that's the answer to Justice Souter's questions about how broadly do you define under the... I think the petitioners here are really refighting Buckley and saying, well, everything we do is designed to, you know, convict or to prosecute or decide whether to prosecute or not, so everything we do should be prosecutorial, and Buckley certainly said that's not the case with regard to particularly one function that was, I think, very analogous to what happened here, which is the manufacturing of false evidence.\nIn a very real sense, our claim is that Lynne Kalina manufactured false evidence against Rodney Fletcher, and she did so not only with regard to the trial, but with regard to a critical moment when nobody else was there in court to correct it, that the common law and the cases of the majority of circuits, certainly, since have always said is subject to liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3177.955, 3180.423, 3185.577, 3193.995, 3205.85, 3219.625, 3257.703], "stop_times": [3180.423, 3185.577, 3193.995, 3205.85, 3219.625, 3257.703, 3282.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3177.955}, "reply_to": "21110__2_067", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_069", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Well, it all boils down to how you analyze the function, and in one sense you can say that in Malley the function being performed by the police officer in signing the affidavit was to further the investigation for a crime, and here the function being served was to further the prosecution of a criminal, an alleged crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3282.365], "stop_times": [3311.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3282.365}, "reply_to": "21110__2_068", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21110__2_070", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Except that, Justice O'Connor, in Malley what the police officer was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3311.901], "stop_times": [3317.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3311.901}, "reply_to": "21110__2_069", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_071", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "There was an initiation of a prosecution here, and there was not at this stage in Malley.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3317.601], "stop_times": [3323.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3317.601}, "reply_to": "21110__2_070", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21110__2_072", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--It depends only on what you call a prosecution.\nThere was a criminal complaint filed against Mr. Briggs, and the request of Officer Malley was that Mr. Briggs be apprehended and brought... held... and held to answer this complaint.\nIt wasn't, let him bring him in here for finger prints, or bring him in here so we can take his picture and show it to witnesses.\nIt was bring him in here and hold him to answer for the charge that I'm getting a judge to issue right now, exactly the same, except in name, to what Ms. Kalina did here, and I think the function test can't turn on the name that a specific State gives a particular document.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3323.224, 3326.05, 3339.171, 3345.122], "stop_times": [3326.05, 3339.171, 3345.122, 3363.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3323.224}, "reply_to": "21110__2_071", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_073", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Can you help me with something else I don't know, and perhaps... are there grand jury indictments as well in Washington?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3363.676], "stop_times": [3369.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3363.676}, "reply_to": "21110__2_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21110__2_074", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "There can be, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3369.502], "stop_times": [3370.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3369.502}, "reply_to": "21110__2_073", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_075", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Yes.\nAll right.\nWhen the grand jury indicts someone, then that's automatically probable cause to try the person, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3370.127, 3370.471, 3370.689], "stop_times": [3370.471, 3370.689, 3377.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3370.127}, "reply_to": "21110__2_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21110__2_076", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "That's my understanding.\nIt's very rare in Washington.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3377.717, 3378.592], "stop_times": [3378.592, 3379.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3377.717}, "reply_to": "21110__2_075", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_077", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "All right... oh.\nWell, what I really wanted to know is, is it also probable cause to arrest the person without going through any other procedure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3379.373, 3380.138], "stop_times": [3380.138, 3385.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3379.373}, "reply_to": "21110__2_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21110__2_078", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "My understanding of the case law elsewhere is that the issuance of a grand jury indictment is sufficient itself to warrant an arrest warrant.\nIt would not be under Washington law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3385.917, 3395.288], "stop_times": [3395.288, 3396.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3385.917}, "reply_to": "21110__2_077", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_079", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "And do you... are you familiar enough... in instances where a case begins through an Information, in which case the prosecutor, I take it, signs a statement and says, these are the facts, and this is sufficient, and if it's accepted I take it that makes probable cause for beginning the trial... is that what an Information does?\nYou write out on a piece of paper what the facts are, and you say that this is the... these constitute the crime, and you give it to the judge, and now the judge says yes, we can begin the trial now.\nIs that basically how it works?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3396.631, 3420.122, 3429.726], "stop_times": [3420.122, 3429.726, 3431.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3396.631}, "reply_to": "21110__2_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21110__2_080", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "It's an allegation, Your Honor, and in Washington it's usually summary.\nIt only says, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3431.632, 3435.335], "stop_times": [3435.335, 3436.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3431.632}, "reply_to": "21110__2_079", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_081", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Now, do you need some backup for that to begin the trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3436.662], "stop_times": [3439.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3436.662}, "reply_to": "21110__2_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21110__2_082", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--Only if you arrest.\nIn Washington, you can initiate a prosecution.\nMs. Kalina could have charged Mr. Fletcher simply by filing an Information, not sworn.\nHe would not have been arrested.\nThat would have been just fine.\nWashington procedure provides for that.\nThey could have sent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3439.817, 3441.503, 3443.94, 3449.22, 3450.171, 3451.64, 3453.436], "stop_times": [3441.503, 3443.94, 3449.22, 3450.171, 3451.64, 3453.436, 3454.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3439.817}, "reply_to": "21110__2_081", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_083", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Do you need probable cause to begin the procedure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3454.451], "stop_times": [3456.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3454.451}, "reply_to": "21110__2_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21110__2_084", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--You need probable cause only to arrest him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3456.091], "stop_times": [3459.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3456.091}, "reply_to": "21110__2_083", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_085", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "So you could bring... you could bring, if you don't arrest somebody, a proceeding against him in a criminal court without probable cause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3459.309], "stop_times": [3466.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3459.309}, "reply_to": "21110__2_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21110__2_086", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "I think you'd be violating your oath, and I think you'd be subject to dismissal.\nYou would not be subject, if you are a prosecutor, to a Federal civil rights suit, or a malicious prosecution action in Washington.\nThe... but that would... you can file the document and, indeed, that is the only required document, and many of the... the question here is, what is the prosecutorial function?\nIf we look historically, why have Washington prosecutors always... all of a sudden taken on the role of witnesses when they... no prosecutors have historically that we can find, and the answer is not because Washington law requires them to, because Washington law says clearly you can initiate a prosecution--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3466.947, 3471.649, 3478.241, 3489.142], "stop_times": [3471.649, 3478.241, 3489.142, 3505.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3466.947}, "reply_to": "21110__2_085", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_087", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3505.697], "stop_times": [3506.056], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3505.697}, "reply_to": "21110__2_086", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21110__2_088", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--and, in fact, the only thing that is required is the filing of an Information.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3506.056], "stop_times": [3510.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3506.056}, "reply_to": "21110__2_087", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_089", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "You see, I'm bothered by this slightly odd phrasing of the... of what she swore to.\nIt was that I am familiar with the police report, and the case contains the following, and it's as if she's vouching for it but not stating it.\nI don't know how to deal with this... it's a rather unusual animal, and I don't know how to think of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3510.337, 3517.318, 3529.125], "stop_times": [3517.318, 3529.125, 3535.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3510.337}, "reply_to": "21110__2_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21110__2_090", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Well, we haven't got into the facts yet, of course, Your Honor.\nBecause of absolute immunity it doesn't matter if she made the whole--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3535.247, 3537.997], "stop_times": [3537.997, 3540.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3535.247}, "reply_to": "21110__2_089", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_091", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "No, I know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3540.074], "stop_times": [3540.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3540.074}, "reply_to": "21110__2_090", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21110__2_092", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--or whatever.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3540.933], "stop_times": [3541.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3540.933}, "reply_to": "21110__2_091", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_093", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--and then follow a bunch of factual statements.\nWhat I'm thinking of is this odd way--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3541.214, 3542.948], "stop_times": [3542.948, 3544.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3541.214}, "reply_to": "21110__2_092", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21110__2_094", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3544.447], "stop_times": [3544.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3544.447}, "reply_to": "21110__2_093", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_095", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--I mean, she's not vouching for it.\nShe's not even vouching... I mean, she's not saying she knows it.\nShe's saying it's in the police report.\nThat's what she knows.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3544.744, 3546.93, 3549.929, 3551.789], "stop_times": [3546.93, 3549.929, 3551.789, 3553.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3544.744}, "reply_to": "21110__2_094", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21110__2_096", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Number 1, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3553.209], "stop_times": [3554.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3553.209}, "reply_to": "21110__2_095", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_097", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "I'm trying to work out if that is--\n--Is that boilerplate?\nIs this typical of what goes into a prosecutor's certificate for determination of probable cause, those words, is familiar with the police report, the case contains?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3554.225, 3555.162, 3555.521], "stop_times": [3555.162, 3555.521, 3568.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3554.225}, "reply_to": "21110__2_096", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21110__2_098", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--I don't know the last phrase, Justice Ginsburg.\nMy experience is that it is fairly typical of both our prosecutors and, of course, of Federal police or law enforcement agents in Federal courts who do the same thing, summarize reports in affidavits, and the Jones v. United States said that hearsay can be the basis of an arrest and arrest warrant, so that is what they're capitalizing upon.\nBut of course here, our submission, and what we plan to prove is that not only was she testifying falsely about what Mr. Fletcher did, but also she's testifying falsely about what's in those police reports, and that will be the question, really, if we get to the question of qualified immunity.\nIf she can say, hey, here's the police reports, how do I know, we've got a different case, but our contention is that she was false on both levels, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3568.61, 3571.639, 3591.881, 3606.095], "stop_times": [3571.639, 3591.881, 3606.095, 3613.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3568.61}, "reply_to": "21110__2_097", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_099", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "If you prevail can prosecutors maintain their absolute immunity in further cases by adopting that sort of formulation, of being just a little bit more careful?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3613.701], "stop_times": [3625.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3613.701}, "reply_to": "21110__2_098", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21110__2_100", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--I don't think it should go on the formulation, Justice Kennedy.\nI think it goes on swearing or not swearing.\nIf they decide to swear, they're stepping outside their prosecutorial role.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3625.618, 3628.538, 3630.193], "stop_times": [3628.538, 3630.193, 3633.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3625.618}, "reply_to": "21110__2_099", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_101", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Well, suppose they swear that I have read the police report and based on the police report there's probably cause for the following, and then there's a police affidavit as well?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3633.677], "stop_times": [3641.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3633.677}, "reply_to": "21110__2_100", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21110__2_102", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Well, if they supplied probable cause that did not otherwise exist and did so falsely, they would be the person who is the appropriate defendant, and I would think that that would render them liable.\nI know of nothing in the common law or any other cases that say that claiming to be a second-hand witness enables you to be absolutely immune, where claiming to be a first-hand witness does not, and oftentimes as long as you're going to allow hearsay there's going to be hearsay.\nActually, it's a third-hand witness versus a second-hand witness, but again, Officer Malley was a second-hand witness testifying to what was in the logs that he had read from other officers.\nIt's exactly the same thing.\nThat can't be the difference.\nThe difference is, if you choose to swear, if you take on that police function, you take on their qualified immunity.\nYou're not... you still have that, but you take on their qualified immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3641.267, 3654.965, 3670.068, 3680.689, 3682.032, 3683.829, 3689.452], "stop_times": [3654.965, 3670.068, 3680.689, 3682.032, 3683.829, 3689.452, 3692.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3641.267}, "reply_to": "21110__2_101", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_103", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "But I thought you said in answer to my question if a prosecutor swears to something while the trial is ongoing, that would be ranked as prosecutorial even though it involves swearing, so I thought you were conceding that you could have sworn plus prosecutorial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3692.31], "stop_times": [3713.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3692.31}, "reply_to": "21110__2_102", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21110__2_104", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "It is difficult for me to conceive an instance where the prosecutor could step out of the role and issue an affidavit that was not at least subject to... I... if the prosecutor became a trial witness he would have the immunity of trail witnesses, or she would.\nThe... if... but if... so that's the difference.\nThe difference is the common law difference between complaining witnesses and trial witnesses, and prosecutors never become trial witnesses in my experience, so that's why I'm having trouble conceiving of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3713.707, 3728.671, 3732.138], "stop_times": [3728.671, 3732.138, 3741.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3713.707}, "reply_to": "21110__2_103", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_105", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "No, but there is the Chief Justice's case.\nLet's assume the prosecutor says, now, I issued a subpoena, and the subpoena doesn't, I take it, require probable cause to believe that anything had been done wrong by the witness.\nHe simply says, you are a witness who can give evidence.\nThe witness hasn't showed up.\nTherefore, issue an arrest warrant.\nThe cause for the arrest warrant consists of the failure to respond to a lawfully issued subpoena.\nIf the prosecutor is lying in that case, then I would suppose on your theory the prosecutor could be liable, or at least... strike that... would not have any absolute immunity even though in fact the process was issued in the middle of a prosecution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3741.382, 3743.023, 3755.534, 3757.908, 3760.016, 3762.265, 3770.7], "stop_times": [3743.023, 3755.534, 3757.908, 3760.016, 3762.265, 3770.7, 3787.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3741.382}, "reply_to": "21110__2_104", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21110__2_106", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Again, my conception of that would be, it's a new proceeding against the witness, but that would be the one hard question that would be left under our--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3787.552], "stop_times": [3795.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3787.552}, "reply_to": "21110__2_105", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_107", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3795.237], "stop_times": [3795.768], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3795.237}, "reply_to": "21110__2_106", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21110__2_108", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "--conception that Malley should be maintained.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3795.768, 3797.158], "stop_times": [3797.158, 3797.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3795.768}, "reply_to": "21110__2_107", "speaker": "timothy_k_ford"}
{"id": "21110__2_109", "conversation_id": "21110", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Ford.\nthe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-792", "start_times": [3797.487, 3798.3], "stop_times": [3798.3, 3800.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3797.487}, "reply_to": "21110__2_108", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21221__0_000", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 97 115, Margaret Kawaauhau v. Paul Geiger.\nMr. Pressman, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [0.0, 10.118], "stop_times": [10.118, 20.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21221__0_001", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--\nSection 523 of the Bankruptcy Code excepts willful and malicious injuries from discharge and the bankruptcy court's finding here that Paul Geiger intentionally administered substandard care and that his action shocked even a person lacking formal medical training met this Court's standards set out in Tinker v. Colwell because his actions constituted a willful disregard of his duty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [20.115, 25.007], "stop_times": [25.007, 47.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 20.115}, "reply_to": "21221__0_000", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_002", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Well, Mr. Pressman, when you say that there was a finding that he intentionally administered substandard care, is that any different than a finding that the... that his standard, the standard of care which he recognized was negligent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [47.294], "stop_times": [61.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 47.294}, "reply_to": "21221__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21221__0_003", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "The distinction here, Your Honor, is that Dr. Geiger knew the standard of care.\nHe was asked and the record shows that he knew the proper standard of care was the administration of intravenous penicillin and he said, notwithstanding that, I gave Mrs. Kawaauhau oral tetracycline.\nThe distinction here is the intentional administration of something--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [61.441, 68.898, 82.326], "stop_times": [68.898, 82.326, 86.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 61.441}, "reply_to": "21221__0_002", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_004", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Well, I'm not sure I follow you, because you could say that about any number of things where you talk about medical malpractice.\nThe standard was to perform surgery, but a... in a hypothesis, but this particular doctor prescribed medicine instead.\nHe intentionally prescribed medicine and, therefore, his action was not merely negligent but intentional.\nI think that just blurs the entire dist... difference between negligence and intent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [86.54, 95.176, 105.11, 111.183], "stop_times": [95.176, 105.11, 111.183, 116.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 86.54}, "reply_to": "21221__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21221__0_005", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--The distinction here, Your Honor, is that this is not a case of a slip of the scalpel.\nIf Dr. Geiger had reached into his bag and pulled out the wrong medicine, or if he had botched a complicated medical procedure, we wouldn't have a case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [116.948, 121.382], "stop_times": [121.382, 130.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 116.948}, "reply_to": "21221__0_004", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_006", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Well, what if you have a driver who intentionally puts his car in reverse and doesn't look back to see what's behind him and drives over somebody.\nI mean, under your theory, then that's inten... it's willful and no bankruptcy provision applicable.\nIndeed, first degree murder.\nYeah, I suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [130.228, 140.707, 152.972, 153.442], "stop_times": [140.707, 152.972, 153.442, 155.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 130.228}, "reply_to": "21221__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21221__0_007", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "In that... I would agree with that... that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [155.485], "stop_times": [158.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 155.485}, "reply_to": "21221__0_006", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_008", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "You would agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [158.746], "stop_times": [159.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 158.746}, "reply_to": "21221__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21221__0_009", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--description, Justice O'Connor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [159.457], "stop_times": [160.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 159.457}, "reply_to": "21221__0_008", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_010", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [160.228], "stop_times": [161.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 160.228}, "reply_to": "21221__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21221__0_011", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--that if somebody intentionally says, I'm going to put my car in reverse and I'm going to drive back and I don't care who's there, I think that is intentional.\nI believe an example which shows our point is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [161.4, 166.983], "stop_times": [166.983, 170.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 161.4}, "reply_to": "21221__0_010", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_012", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "You know, I just find it hard to believe that that's what Congress had in mind in writing this provision for exclusion under the bankruptcy law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [170.127], "stop_times": [180.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 170.127}, "reply_to": "21221__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21221__0_013", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--Well, my response to that, Your Honor, would be twofold.\nFirst, I think if we go back to the Tinker case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [180.362, 184.346], "stop_times": [184.346, 187.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 180.362}, "reply_to": "21221__0_012", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_014", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Well, I find Tinker a little hard to understand myself.\nI mean, maybe we can confine it to what it is, but I think that's a weak read.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [187.468, 191.94], "stop_times": [191.94, 197.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 187.468}, "reply_to": "21221__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21221__0_015", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I would compare what happened here... and let me start by saying, I think what's hard initially to understand about this case is that people assume that a physician would always act according to his duty and would never intentionally disregard it.\nI think a better example here, an example which illustrates our point, was one used the other day which we considered, the builder who uses substandard steel.\nHe doesn't... building collapses, it violates a code provision.\nHe doesn't intend to kill anyone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [197.464, 216.497, 226.933, 231.166], "stop_times": [216.497, 226.933, 231.166, 233.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 197.464}, "reply_to": "21221__0_014", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_016", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Do you think that there's anything in this record that indicates that the doctor intended that the petitioner lose her leg--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [233.237], "stop_times": [243.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 233.237}, "reply_to": "21221__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21221__0_017", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [243.885], "stop_times": [244.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 243.885}, "reply_to": "21221__0_016", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_018", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--or suffer some serious health loss?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [244.344], "stop_times": [249.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 244.344}, "reply_to": "21221__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21221__0_019", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "No.\nWe concede that Dr. Geiger did not intend to hurt Mrs. Kawaauhau, but our position, Justice O'Connor, is that... and Dr. Geiger testified numerous times, he admitted it, that he knew that intravenous tetra... intravenous penicillin was the correct standard of care and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [249.059, 249.529], "stop_times": [249.529, 268.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 249.059}, "reply_to": "21221__0_018", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_020", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--said candidly that you are not contending that he meant to hurt... that the doctor meant to hurt this woman and yet you say that the Tinker case is helpful to you, and that I don't understand, so... I thought Tinker was a clear case of intending what in those days was a very grave offense against a man's property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [268.752], "stop_times": [296.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 268.752}, "reply_to": "21221__0_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21221__0_021", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--Your Honor, let me address that point.\nIn Tinker, when Justice Peckham wrote for the Court, he recognized and he... recognized that the willful and malicious test had two prongs, willful and malicious.\nWhen analyzing whether Mr. Colwell... Mr. Tinker's action was willful, he said the action is willful, not that the injury was willful.\nHe referred to the action and he said it was willful in the view... in the idea that it was intentional and deliberate.\nDr. Geiger's actions here were intentional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [296.072, 299.153, 310.169, 322.217, 330.323], "stop_times": [299.153, 310.169, 322.217, 330.323, 333.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 296.072}, "reply_to": "21221__0_020", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_022", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Well, but the trouble in Tinker was that the act which the defendant performed could not, as a matter of law or as a matter of definition, be performed without the necessary consequence of the kind of injury for which the law allowed recovery.\nThat is not the case here.\nThe relationship between any deficiency in the doctor's care and the ultimate loss of the leg was not a relationship as a matter of law or as a matter of definition.\nIt was a contingent factual relationship.\nIt turned out that way, but you can't say, I think, that at any given moment when he decided to use an oral antibiotic as opposed to an injection or what not, that there was any kind of legal inevitability to the consequence for which the plaintiff is seeking to recover and that, I think, is why you have a problem in relying on Tinker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [333.054, 348.654, 350.365, 359.872, 362.924], "stop_times": [348.654, 350.365, 359.872, 362.924, 383.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 333.054}, "reply_to": "21221__0_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21221__0_023", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Justice Souter, I believe that Peter Halford, the expert defin... deposition, the expert who testified both in Hawaii and in the bankruptcy court, testified to that fact.\nHe stated that the intentional administration of substandard care led to the worsening of her condition and the eventual amputation of her leg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [383.457, 394.954], "stop_times": [394.954, 402.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 383.457}, "reply_to": "21221__0_022", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_024", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "There's... I don't think there's any question in anyone's mind that it did.\nI don't believe the people on the other side will argue or have suggested that it did.\nBut in fact, the relationship is one of simple factual cause and effect.\nIt is not the kind of necessity relationship that Tinker relied upon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [402.751, 404.771, 408.425, 415.951], "stop_times": [404.771, 408.425, 415.951, 420.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 402.751}, "reply_to": "21221__0_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21221__0_025", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "And I think the point of your question and Justice Ginsburg's question is, does the term willful apply to the injury or does it apply to the act--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [420.243], "stop_times": [429.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 420.243}, "reply_to": "21221__0_024", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_026", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Well, how--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [429.91], "stop_times": [430.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 429.91}, "reply_to": "21221__0_025", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21221__0_027", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--and our point is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [430.751], "stop_times": [432.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 430.751}, "reply_to": "21221__0_026", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_028", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--How can you say that an injury was willful if you're not referring to the act by which it was caused?\nI mean, injuries don't have intentions of their own.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [432.23, 437.705], "stop_times": [437.705, 440.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 432.23}, "reply_to": "21221__0_027", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21221__0_029", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--Your Honor, the definition of injury is twofold.\nThe word injury can mean either the damage, the cut on my hand, the result of an action, or it can mean the action which causes the harm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [440.647, 443.86], "stop_times": [443.86, 455.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 440.647}, "reply_to": "21221__0_028", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_030", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "How can an injury mean the action which causes the harm?\nI've never heard of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [455.498, 459.459], "stop_times": [459.459, 460.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 455.498}, "reply_to": "21221__0_029", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21221__0_031", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "In the phrase, for instance, his injury to the painting, it is the act and I believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [460.451], "stop_times": [466.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 460.451}, "reply_to": "21221__0_030", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_032", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Well, his--\n--Whoever said that?\nWhoever said that?\nYes.\n[Laughter]\nSend them back to school.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [466.344, 466.885, 467.596, 468.355, 468.996, 469.377], "stop_times": [466.885, 467.596, 468.355, 468.996, 469.377, 471.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 466.344}, "reply_to": "21221__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21221__0_033", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--Your Honor, let me cite the definition from the Merriam Webster Dictionary.\nInjury an act or the result of inflicting something that causes loss or pain.\nWe cannot forgive his injury of the painting, or, his falsehood gave great injury to his brother's reputation.\nWe're saying that the word injury is the act, not the damage, and I believe that's the definition which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [471.887, 480.893, 486.749, 493.632], "stop_times": [480.893, 486.749, 493.632, 502.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 471.887}, "reply_to": "21221__0_032", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_034", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "What dictionary was that?\nLet me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [502.088, 502.709], "stop_times": [502.709, 503.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 502.088}, "reply_to": "21221__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21221__0_035", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--That is the Merriam Webster Dictionary and a similar dictionary... a similar definition, Your Honor, appears in the Oxford Second Edition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [503.43], "stop_times": [511.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 503.43}, "reply_to": "21221__0_034", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_036", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--If one asks, what injuries did you suffer, well, I broke my collarbone, I dislocated my hip, that's what one thinks of as the injuries.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [511.557], "stop_times": [521.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 511.557}, "reply_to": "21221__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21221__0_037", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "And I believe if I were starting with a clean slate in this case and I didn't have the definition that we had in Tinker, I think I'd have to... I do have to fight that battle.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [521.181], "stop_times": [534.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 521.181}, "reply_to": "21221__0_036", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_038", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "I mean, the problem I think that at least you have is, this is not your... the tort in your case is not an intentional tort on the Restatement's definition of intentional torts, I take it, and if that is so... if that is so, and I... it seems so, then either the word willful means to pick up intentional torts, in which case you'd lose, or somehow willful extends beyond intentional torts in the way you suggest, in which case you might win.\nBut if you're right, it seems to create an irrational distinction among negligence torts.\nSometimes what is really the same thing, negligence, would not be dischargeable.\nSometimes what is really the same thing, negligence, would be dischargeable, and that irrational distinction, though sometimes it would benefit your clients and sometimes hurt them, you see, doesn't seem one that the statute would like... be intended to make.\nNow, I put that to you because I'd like to hear your response, since I think it's important.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [534.071, 563.259, 570.115, 575.007, 589.347], "stop_times": [563.259, 570.115, 575.007, 589.347, 595.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 534.071}, "reply_to": "21221__0_037", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21221__0_039", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "I believe that in order to rule in our favor, one has to look at the term willful as meaning the same thing that this Court held, that willful means voluntary.\nDr. Geiger in this case was asked and he knew what he was doing.\nHis action was intentional.\nTherefore, we meet the standard, the standard this Court set out.\nI don't believe I've answered your question, though.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [595.861, 610.36, 615.726, 619.606, 625.292], "stop_times": [610.36, 615.726, 619.606, 625.292, 627.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 595.861}, "reply_to": "21221__0_038", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_040", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "But then it would work without the special provision for, I knew I got into that car when I imbibed much too much and I happened to kill or maim someone.\nSo I knew what was intentional was, I got drunk.\nWhat was not... but you're transferring that... that's the act.\nI put myself in that shape so that I couldn't drive carefully.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [627.263, 640.211, 645.147, 650.129], "stop_times": [640.211, 645.147, 650.129, 653.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 627.263}, "reply_to": "21221__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21221__0_041", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "And Your Honor, in 1946 the Eighth Circuit in Harrison v. Walker held that drunk driving was a willful and malicious injury.\nIt was only until after the enactment of the Bankruptcy Code in 1978 that there was some uncertainty as to whether that was still the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [653.92, 663.638], "stop_times": [663.638, 674.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 653.92}, "reply_to": "21221__0_040", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_042", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Yes, but now we have a specific provision doing that and, if malpractice should work the same way, one would expect a similarly specific provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [674.503], "stop_times": [684.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 674.503}, "reply_to": "21221__0_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21221__0_043", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Our position, Justice Ginsburg, is that the Congress reenacted the identical language in the Bankruptcy Code of 1978 and therefore the same interpretations apply.\nIf you look to the legislative history, which my colleague relies on, it doesn't say that Tinker is overruled.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [684.941, 699.654], "stop_times": [699.654, 706.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 684.941}, "reply_to": "21221__0_042", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_044", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "But you run up against that terrible problem that Tinker was a deliberate trespass on another man's property.\nThose were the facts.\nThis was criminal con... what do they call it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [706.076, 713.992, 715.141], "stop_times": [713.992, 715.141, 717.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 706.076}, "reply_to": "21221__0_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21221__0_045", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Criminal conversation, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [717.753], "stop_times": [719.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 717.753}, "reply_to": "21221__0_044", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_046", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [719.285], "stop_times": [719.715], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 719.285}, "reply_to": "21221__0_045", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21221__0_047", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "It was... nothing that I've seen in either the State court or the Supreme Court, this Court's opinion indicates that Mr. Tinker even knew who Mr. Colwell's wife was.\nIt was an act which was intentional in that he--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [719.715, 732.434], "stop_times": [732.434, 736.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 719.715}, "reply_to": "21221__0_046", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_048", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Mr. Pressman, every act, every... even a negligent act has some willful action connected with it.\nYou will to leave the snow on your sidewalk which somebody slips and falls on, but we don't call that doing willful injury to someone.\nIt seems to me we call it willful only when the intentional act is not one that leads to the injury, but the intentional act is the injuring.\nThat's what I've always thought willful injury meant, not that there's some willful act along the line.\nThere always is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [736.257, 744.973, 758.381, 768.238, 774.513], "stop_times": [744.973, 758.381, 768.238, 774.513, 775.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 736.257}, "reply_to": "21221__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21221__0_049", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--Your Honor, if willful modifies injury, I don't think we have a very good position, but in Tinker, Your Honor, Mr. Tinker wasn't intending to hurt Mr. Colwell.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [775.802], "stop_times": [788.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 775.802}, "reply_to": "21221__0_048", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_050", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "He didn't have to intend to hurt Mr. Colwell.\nHe had to intend to do the injury, and he did intend to do the injury, which was criminal conversation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [788.852, 791.493], "stop_times": [791.493, 798.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 788.852}, "reply_to": "21221__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21221__0_051", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "I would have to disagree with you, Justice Scalia.\nI don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [798.578, 802.77], "stop_times": [802.77, 803.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 798.578}, "reply_to": "21221__0_050", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_052", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "I take Tinker to mean only you don't have to hate the person.\nYou don't have to have some personal desire, maliciousness towards the individual, but that's quite separate from whether you intended to produce the harm, the very harm that you produced, and it seems to me in Tinker the person did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [803.701, 805.892], "stop_times": [805.892, 821.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 803.701}, "reply_to": "21221__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21221__0_053", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--I don't see any evidence in the Tinker opinion that Mr. Tinker intended to harm anybody.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [821.083], "stop_times": [827.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 821.083}, "reply_to": "21221__0_052", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_054", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "He knew that he was sleeping with some other man's wife.\nDid he not know that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [827.537, 833.021], "stop_times": [833.021, 834.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 827.537}, "reply_to": "21221__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21221__0_055", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "In the opinions that I have read, that fact is not apparent.\nIt appears that he slept with someone who was not his wife.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [834.313, 838.673], "stop_times": [838.673, 841.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 834.313}, "reply_to": "21221__0_054", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_056", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Well, that--\n--Well--\n--you'd have a good case if that were so.\nI... no, please.\nYou--\n--I have some language here in the House report which says that Tinker is overruled in... I mean, when they passed the statute.\nIt says they... willful means deliberate or intentional.\nTo the extent that Tinker v. Colwell held a looser standard, it's overruled.\nOf course, in enacting the statute they didn't change the language.\nA little hard to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [841.355, 844.727, 845.198, 847.339, 850.351, 852.154, 857.179, 860.171, 864.242, 868.526], "stop_times": [844.727, 845.198, 847.339, 850.351, 852.154, 857.179, 860.171, 864.242, 868.526, 871.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 841.355}, "reply_to": "21221__0_055", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21221__0_057", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "And Justice O'Connor, you're correct, they did not change the language of the statute and this Court has noted that reenacting the same language would be a strange way to change a statute.\nBut even if we get to the legislative history--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [871.198, 882.795], "stop_times": [882.795, 885.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 871.198}, "reply_to": "21221__0_056", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_058", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--That's a good answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [885.476], "stop_times": [886.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 885.476}, "reply_to": "21221__0_057", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21221__0_059", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--I've won that argument?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [886.127, 891.661], "stop_times": [891.661, 891.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 886.127}, "reply_to": "21221__0_058", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_060", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Mr. Pressman, I... I'd like you to comment on this.\nOne of the questions that I had, and I had it even after reading Tinker, was whether there was redundancy in the statute unless I read it your way, and I decided that there wasn't redundancy in the statute and this is the way I worked it out, and you tell me whether I'm wrong, or whether Tinker is inconsistent with this.\nIt's got to be willful and malicious.\nWe start, I guess, with the definition of malicious as the act whose purpose is to harm the third party.\nI don't suppose willful adds anything to that sense of malicious.\nYou can't be any worse than that.\nBut there's also a sense of malicious in which, although you do not personally have a purpose or an animus to hurt the victim, what you do inevitably will hurt the victim, and I think that's what was going on in Tinker.\nIn that sense of malicious, the word willful does add something, because if you take willful there to mean, he knows it's going to hurt the other person, he knows the inevitability of it and he does it anyway, knowing that that will be the consequence, that, then, as it were, jacks up the moral reprehensibility, the seriousness of the act.\nSo in the weaker sense of malicious, willful adds something, and I thought that was consistent with Tinker.\nAm I wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [891.661, 892.262, 916.539, 920.382, 932.31, 936.952, 938.504, 954.443, 982.052, 991.198], "stop_times": [892.262, 916.539, 920.382, 932.31, 936.952, 938.504, 954.443, 982.052, 991.198, 992.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 891.661}, "reply_to": "21221__0_059", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21221__0_061", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Your Honor, in terms of the redundancy of the words, I believe it's difficult to come up with an action which is malicious but not willful.\nI think it's easy to come up with an action that is willful and not malicious.\nAn example of the second action would be if someone came in here to harm one of the justices and Marshall Bosley shot him.\nHis action would be willful but not malicious.\nHe wasn't disregarding his duty.\nOn... an example of something which is malicious but not willful might be someone who came from a State where carrying a firearm was perfectly okay, but he knew in the City of Washington, D.C. that carrying one was illegal.\nHe carries it through the airport, makes it here, it drops out of his pocket, the bullet hits someone.\nHis action there I think is arguably not willful but it's malicious.\nHe had a duty.\nHe disregarded his duty.\nI think that's an example of something where you use both of the words willful and malicious.\nIf the words willful and malicious both modify injury, then I think they are redundant, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [992.369, 1005.026, 1012.422, 1020.539, 1023.341, 1025.112, 1047.915, 1054.16, 1059.415, 1060.274, 1062.067, 1067.67], "stop_times": [1005.026, 1012.422, 1020.539, 1023.341, 1025.112, 1047.915, 1054.16, 1059.415, 1060.274, 1062.067, 1067.67, 1074.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 992.369}, "reply_to": "21221__0_060", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_062", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Excuse me.\nWhat action of his was malicious there, the dropping of the gun, or the carrying of the gun?\nI agree with you, the carrying of the gun, intentionally violating the law is malicious.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1074.493, 1075.655, 1079.708], "stop_times": [1075.655, 1079.708, 1084.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1074.493}, "reply_to": "21221__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21221__0_063", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--It was not the dropping of the gun, because that was an accident.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1084.7], "stop_times": [1087.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1084.7}, "reply_to": "21221__0_062", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_064", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1087.724], "stop_times": [1088.042], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1087.724}, "reply_to": "21221__0_063", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21221__0_065", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "It was the carrying of the gun--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1088.042], "stop_times": [1089.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1088.042}, "reply_to": "21221__0_064", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_066", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Well, you're--\n--You'd say that was malicious.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1089.344, 1090.325], "stop_times": [1090.325, 1091.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1089.344}, "reply_to": "21221__0_065", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21221__0_067", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1091.325], "stop_times": [1091.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1091.325}, "reply_to": "21221__0_066", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_068", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "You're using malicious in the sense of doing any wrongful act without just excuse, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1091.896], "stop_times": [1096.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1091.896}, "reply_to": "21221__0_067", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21221__0_069", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Without just excuse--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1096.21], "stop_times": [1097.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1096.21}, "reply_to": "21221__0_068", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_070", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1097.061], "stop_times": [1097.502], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1097.061}, "reply_to": "21221__0_069", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21221__0_071", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--or a willful disregard, or a dis--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1097.502], "stop_times": [1098.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1097.502}, "reply_to": "21221__0_070", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_072", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Do you think that the... well, I guess you do think that that, maybe third or weakest sense of malice is the sense in which this... that this statute used it, but if that is the case, then the word willful adds the requirement that the harm that results to whatever the eventual victim is be a harm which is either intended or known by the actor to be the necessary consequence and if that's what willful does in this case, that doesn't fit your case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1098.443], "stop_times": [1132.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1098.443}, "reply_to": "21221__0_071", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21221__0_073", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--I would agree with that.\nIf the word willful modifies injury, then I don't have a very good case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1132.076, 1133.879], "stop_times": [1133.879, 1138.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1132.076}, "reply_to": "21221__0_072", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_074", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "What else would willful modify besides injury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1138.1], "stop_times": [1143.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1138.1}, "reply_to": "21221__0_073", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21221__0_075", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Your Honor, in Tinker, this Court says an act is willful in that... in the... in that the act is intentional or voluntary, not that the injury is intentional or voluntary.\nThat's what this Court I believe said in Tinker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1143.874, 1158.383], "stop_times": [1158.383, 1160.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1143.874}, "reply_to": "21221__0_074", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_076", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "So you interpret the statute as saying, for a willful act which results in malicious injury--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1160.584], "stop_times": [1171.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1160.584}, "reply_to": "21221__0_075", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21221__0_077", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Justice Kennedy, that is the way I interpreted it and that is the way I read Tinker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1171.022], "stop_times": [1175.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1171.022}, "reply_to": "21221__0_076", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_078", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--Well, maybe we'd better clarify Tinker and do it soon if that's your reading of it.\nI think the language used is somewhat careless, but it did say in Tinker the act is willful in the sense that it is intentional and voluntary and we think it is also malicious.\nI don't know what the Court meant by that, but perhaps some clarification of that language is in order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1175.373, 1182.199, 1195.328], "stop_times": [1182.199, 1195.328, 1202.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1175.373}, "reply_to": "21221__0_077", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21221__0_079", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Your Honor, I'd also point out that in this case the standard that this Court set in Tinker has been a standard which has not... which has been well used until the 1978 amendments.\nThe matter came up before the courts in the McIntyre case and it came up before the case in Aetna.\nIn McIntyre the Court found itself with a case of someone who converted some collateral, even though there was no default on the loan.\nThere was no problem with the Court finding that action was intentional and malicious.\nThe amicus in this case on my opponent's side has suggested that they're concerned about consumers being injured by my position and I think that answer is taken care of by the Aetna case, where there were some inadvertent... there was some inadvertent conversion of collateral.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1202.452, 1219.204, 1225.018, 1235.284, 1240.927], "stop_times": [1219.204, 1225.018, 1235.284, 1240.927, 1259.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1202.452}, "reply_to": "21221__0_078", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_080", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "May I ask about a few of the facts here, it is extraordinary that a doctor would have no malpractice insurance, but that was the case here, was it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1259.369], "stop_times": [1269.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1259.369}, "reply_to": "21221__0_079", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21221__0_081", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Yes, it was, Your Honor.\nThere was no malpractice insurance, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1269.737, 1271.037], "stop_times": [1271.037, 1275.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1269.737}, "reply_to": "21221__0_080", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_082", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Doesn't Hawaii State law require it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1275.041], "stop_times": [1277.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1275.041}, "reply_to": "21221__0_081", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21221__0_083", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--I don't believe it does.\nSome States do require it.\nMissouri does not require it and I don't believe that Illinois requires it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1277.512, 1279.324, 1280.654], "stop_times": [1279.324, 1280.654, 1284.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1277.512}, "reply_to": "21221__0_082", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_084", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Explain to me how consumers would not be hurt by your position.\nMost consumer debt is probably credit card debt.\nLet's assume a consumer who has a lot of credit card debt seeks a discharge in bankruptcy and the credit card company comes in and says, at a time when you knew you were insolvent you sought additional credit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1284.397, 1289.36, 1293.452], "stop_times": [1289.36, 1293.452, 1310.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1284.397}, "reply_to": "21221__0_083", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21221__0_085", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1310.693], "stop_times": [1312.474], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1310.693}, "reply_to": "21221__0_084", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_086", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "That's a willful... willful act and therefore all of your charges, once you knew you couldn't pay them, are not dischargeable in bankruptcy.\nWouldn't that be the consequence?\nI think it would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1312.474, 1323.243, 1324.214], "stop_times": [1323.243, 1324.214, 1324.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1312.474}, "reply_to": "21221__0_085", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21221__0_087", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--In that case, yes, but I think the amicus point is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1324.792], "stop_times": [1327.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1324.792}, "reply_to": "21221__0_086", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_088", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "But that's a lot of cases, and you think that all credit card charges run up after the person is insolvent are not dischargeable in bankruptcy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1327.576], "stop_times": [1337.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1327.576}, "reply_to": "21221__0_087", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21221__0_089", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--It's a matter of what the facts are before the judge.\nIn that situation, I think it would be.\nThe point I think the amicus made was that in credit card debt in this country, if I buy a refrigerator at Sears, I give a lien on my refrigerator to Sears and the concern is that people will buy a refrigerator and maybe give it to their aunt, or sell it and 2 years later file and then find themselves being charged with committing a willful and malicious conversion, as the act used to mention, and in the Davis case, someone who converted collateral in accordance with an ordinary practice, a custom that was agreed upon with the lender, was found not to have acted willfully and maliciously.\nIn the example given by the amicus, I'd say if someone bought 25 refrigerators from Sears and then filed bankruptcy 3 days later, or a month later, I think that would be willful and malicious, at least if I were the judge hearing that evidence.\nMr. Chief Justice, this Court has long held that the discharge is for the honest and unfortunate consumer debtor, and I think the evidence in the record below here shows that Dr. Geiger is none of the above.\nJustice Murphy in her dissent below said that those words could be better applied to the Kawaauhaus, people, honest consumers who had the unfortun... the misfortune to land in Dr. Geiger's office.\nI'd ask to reserve my time if there's no further questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1337.56, 1341.073, 1342.685, 1375.374, 1388.965, 1407.587, 1420.505], "stop_times": [1341.073, 1342.685, 1375.374, 1388.965, 1407.587, 1420.505, 1423.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1337.56}, "reply_to": "21221__0_088", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__0_090", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Very well, Mr. Pressman.\nMs. Grandy, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1423.907, 1425.767], "stop_times": [1425.767, 1429.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1423.907}, "reply_to": "21221__0_089", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21221__1_000", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--\nThe Eighth Circuit held that the debt owed by Dr. Geiger to the petitioner was dischargeable because he had no intent to harm the petitioner.\nThat has been admitted this morning.\nThe Eighth Circuit opinion is supported by the plain meaning of section 523(a)(6), the legislative history of section 523(a)(6), the purposes and policy of the Bankruptcy Code, and the Tinker case itself.\nThe plain meaning of section 523(a)(6) focuses on the language, willful and malicious injury.\nWillful and malicious both modify injury.\nYou need both a willful injury and you need a malicious injury to comply with section 523(a)(6).\nWillful was defined in Tinker as meaning intentional and voluntary.\nIn the legislative history the Congress said willful means intentional and deliberate.\nIt wasn't a whole lot different than the Tinker definition.\nMalice has been defined--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1429.711, 1435.855, 1443.472, 1444.721, 1456.18, 1462.025, 1465.026, 1470.86, 1474.591, 1480.766, 1483.019], "stop_times": [1435.855, 1443.472, 1444.721, 1456.18, 1462.025, 1465.026, 1470.86, 1474.591, 1480.766, 1483.019, 1485.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1429.711}, "reply_to": "21221__0_090", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_001", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Are there some instances in which reckless conduct is so reckless that you can apply the definition of willful and malicious to it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1485.212], "stop_times": [1495.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1485.212}, "reply_to": "21221__1_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21221__1_002", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nReckless conduct is not intentional conduct and the statute, the congressional history as well as Tinker looked to intentional conduct.\nTinker in particular, the examples they gave, Justice Peckham gave an example of, if I negligently drive my car into a busy thoroughfare, injuring someone, that would not be an intentional injury because I didn't intend to injure anyone, as opposed to if I intentionally went into that thoroughfare to injure someone.\nThat would be intentional--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1495.869, 1497.24, 1504.003, 1521.804], "stop_times": [1497.24, 1504.003, 1521.804, 1522.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1495.869}, "reply_to": "21221__1_001", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_003", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "And the case where the man throws the firecracker into the gasoline laden basement and the explosion injures the fellow worker, that's... is... how does that come out, in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1522.756], "stop_times": [1534.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1522.756}, "reply_to": "21221__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21221__1_004", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--Your Honor, you're referring to the Hartley case, I believe, which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1534.695], "stop_times": [1536.915], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1534.695}, "reply_to": "21221__1_003", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_005", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1536.915], "stop_times": [1537.376], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1536.915}, "reply_to": "21221__1_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21221__1_006", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--was also decided by the Eighth Circuit, and what the Eighth Circuit said there was, the intent was to cause an injury.\nThe injury was to startle and scare the employee in that case, as opposed to the injury which went further and actually injured the... caused physical harm to him and the Court in that case said, when you have an intent to injure someone, be it startling or scaring them, we're not going to say the injury was only meant this far, not this far.\nIn this case before you, we have no intent to injure at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1537.376, 1541.288, 1560.543], "stop_times": [1541.288, 1560.543, 1563.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1537.376}, "reply_to": "21221__1_005", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_007", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Well then, Ms. Grandy, did I understand you to say that Justice Peckham in 1903 was talking about driving a car into a busy intersection and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1563.494], "stop_times": [1571.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1563.494}, "reply_to": "21221__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21221__1_008", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "He said driving into a crowded thoroughfare.\nI was assuming he was driving a cart or buggy, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1571.481, 1575.034], "stop_times": [1575.034, 1577.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1571.481}, "reply_to": "21221__1_007", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_009", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1577.665], "stop_times": [1578.116], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1577.665}, "reply_to": "21221__1_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21221__1_010", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "I didn't think he was driving a car.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1578.116], "stop_times": [1578.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1578.116}, "reply_to": "21221__1_009", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_011", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Not a car, okay.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1578.835, 1579.776], "stop_times": [1579.776, 1580.177], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1578.835}, "reply_to": "21221__1_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21221__1_012", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "I had to think about that, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1580.177], "stop_times": [1581.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1580.177}, "reply_to": "21221__1_011", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_013", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "If willful means intending to injure, what's left for malicious?\nWhat does that add?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1581.128, 1591.285], "stop_times": [1591.285, 1592.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1581.128}, "reply_to": "21221__1_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21221__1_014", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "What malicious adds is almost an escape clause.\nYou can have an intentional injury that's not necessarily malicious.\nFor instance, the banks of the Mississippi River are swelling and I know if I cut a hole in the levee I may flood out Farmer A, but I'm going to save the village down the river and that's why I'm cutting a hole in the levee.\nI don't intend necessarily to injure Farmer A, although my actions will and I know they will injure Farmer A, but my just cause or excuse, which comes out of the malicious definition, is that I'm trying to save the village down below, or in the example given earlier, where the deputy or the marshal stops someone from injuring you, he intends to injure that person, but his excuse is, he's trying to save the justices.\nSo that's what malicious adds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1592.216, 1594.868, 1598.741, 1610.359, 1632.572], "stop_times": [1594.868, 1598.741, 1610.359, 1632.572, 1635.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1592.216}, "reply_to": "21221__1_013", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_015", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "May I ask just one question about this famous Tinker case for you?\nDo you agree... and I'm inclined to think he's right... with your opponent that the opinion there did not rely at all on the notion that the defendant or the bankrupt tried to injure the husband of the woman he seduced?\nIt was merely the question of whether she'd given consent and that was not enough to void--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1635.203, 1638.425, 1652.375], "stop_times": [1638.425, 1652.375, 1657.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1635.203}, "reply_to": "21221__1_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21221__1_016", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "In that case, Your Honor, the injury went to the marital right itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1657.419], "stop_times": [1660.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1657.419}, "reply_to": "21221__1_015", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_017", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--That's right, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1660.871], "stop_times": [1661.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1660.871}, "reply_to": "21221__1_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21221__1_018", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "That's what the Court determined.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1661.743], "stop_times": [1662.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1661.743}, "reply_to": "21221__1_017", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_019", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--my question is whether, is it not correct that the defendant, or the seducer, whichever party it was, it's clear from the record that there's... the Court did not rely at all on the notion that he was trying to injure the husband of the woman he seduced?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1662.404], "stop_times": [1676.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1662.404}, "reply_to": "21221__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21221__1_020", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1676.064], "stop_times": [1677.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1676.064}, "reply_to": "21221__1_019", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_021", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "So that basically are you saying Tinker is an unusual fact situation and it was un... overruled by legislative history, or we should overrule it now?\nWhat is your position about Tinker?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1677.403, 1686.242], "stop_times": [1686.242, 1687.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1677.403}, "reply_to": "21221__1_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21221__1_022", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Your Honor, I don't think the legislative history necessarily overruled Tinker.\nI... the legislative history said that to the extent that other cases have relied on Tinker to hold a reckless disregard standard, they are overruled.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1687.231, 1690.553], "stop_times": [1690.553, 1696.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1687.231}, "reply_to": "21221__1_021", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_023", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1696.708], "stop_times": [1697.189], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1696.708}, "reply_to": "21221__1_022", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21221__1_024", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Within Tinker itself, one of the real, or one of the main substances that have come out of Tinker is the implied malice standard and I think that's what the Court was referring to there.\nIn an act such as that, it's implied, whether you knew her husband or not, you were damaging his marital rights.\nYou didn't have to know him.\nIt was implied the minute that type of act was done, and there are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1697.189, 1706.186, 1711.51, 1712.078], "stop_times": [1706.186, 1711.51, 1712.078, 1715.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1697.189}, "reply_to": "21221__1_023", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_025", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Well, why couldn't we by analogy say here there's implied... an implied intent just as much as was implied there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1715.1], "stop_times": [1719.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1715.1}, "reply_to": "21221__1_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21221__1_026", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--Because in this case, Your Honor, there's no showing of any intent at all, which is admitted by the other side, to cause any injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1719.575], "stop_times": [1725.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1719.575}, "reply_to": "21221__1_025", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_027", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Well, if you could--\n--Well--\n--be malicious without being intentional, then what about the act of practicing medicine, not having malpractice insurance and then injuring your patients through negligently failing to look up the right remedies?\nI mean, if you can have... what is... I mean, practicing... for a doctor to practice medicine, doesn't have malpractice insurance, just goes bankrupt and can't pay the debt, I mean, is that the equivalent today to what criminal conversation was 100 years ago?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1725.358, 1726.369, 1727.008, 1741.379], "stop_times": [1726.369, 1727.008, 1741.379, 1755.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1725.358}, "reply_to": "21221__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21221__1_028", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "No, it isn't, Your Honor.\nThe intent not to have malpractices insurance isn't an intent to cause an injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1755.398, 1756.229], "stop_times": [1756.229, 1760.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1755.398}, "reply_to": "21221__1_027", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_029", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "No, and you'd have to say it's not intentional, but malicious.\nI mean, the argument he's making from Tinker is that it is... it is... it's not intentional, or it is intentional, exactly like here.\nIn Tinker, you could have been found to fall within the statute, though you're... say he was sleeping with a woman.\nHe may have been negligent and not known that she was married, all right.\nHe says, similarly the person here, the doctor, gave a certain remedy not knowing, though he should have known, just like Tinker should have known, what the right remedy was.\nSo he says, that's all of a muchness.\nI mean, that's the same case, he said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1760.53, 1762.852, 1774.489, 1782.036, 1787.989, 1799.587, 1801.407], "stop_times": [1762.852, 1774.489, 1782.036, 1787.989, 1799.587, 1801.407, 1804.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1760.53}, "reply_to": "21221__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21221__1_030", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "No, it isn't, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1804.138], "stop_times": [1805.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1804.138}, "reply_to": "21221__1_029", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_031", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Because?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1805.01], "stop_times": [1805.601], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1805.01}, "reply_to": "21221__1_030", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21221__1_032", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "I believe in Tinker--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1805.601], "stop_times": [1806.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1805.601}, "reply_to": "21221__1_031", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_033", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "All right, go ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1806.342], "stop_times": [1807.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1806.342}, "reply_to": "21221__1_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21221__1_034", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--If we go with your facts, Your Honor, if in Tinker the husband did not know she was married at all, I would agree, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1807.201], "stop_times": [1814.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1807.201}, "reply_to": "21221__1_033", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_035", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "The adulterer... yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1814.426], "stop_times": [1815.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1814.426}, "reply_to": "21221__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21221__1_036", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--Yes.\nYes, that Mr.... yes, that he did not believe that she was married, then I think that fact cannot be true.\nI don't think those are the facts in Tinker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1815.518, 1816.117, 1820.261], "stop_times": [1816.117, 1820.261, 1821.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1815.518}, "reply_to": "21221__1_035", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_037", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "But there's no showing that he did know in Tinker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1821.6], "stop_times": [1822.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1821.6}, "reply_to": "21221__1_036", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21221__1_038", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "There's no showing that he didn't know, but I think the conclusions that are set forth by the Court in that case imply that he did know.\nThe Court says this is one of the grossest--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1822.291, 1828.045], "stop_times": [1828.045, 1830.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1822.291}, "reply_to": "21221__1_037", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_039", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Well, it surely doesn't say so.\nIt surely doesn't say so.\nWell, could it have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1830.138, 1830.886, 1831.657], "stop_times": [1830.886, 1831.657, 1833.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1830.138}, "reply_to": "21221__1_038", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21221__1_040", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--I'm sorry--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1833.259], "stop_times": [1833.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1833.259}, "reply_to": "21221__1_039", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_041", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--Just as a matter of... the definition of the offense, could it have been criminal conversation if he didn't know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1833.898], "stop_times": [1837.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1833.898}, "reply_to": "21221__1_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21221__1_042", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--If he didn't know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1837.311], "stop_times": [1838.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1837.311}, "reply_to": "21221__1_041", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_043", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "I was assuming that it couldn't have been criminal conversation unless he, in fact, knew of the marriage.\nAm I wrong?\nI assumed so, too, unless--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1838.943, 1843.215, 1843.876], "stop_times": [1843.215, 1843.876, 1845.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1838.943}, "reply_to": "21221__1_042", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21221__1_044", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1845.706], "stop_times": [1846.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1845.706}, "reply_to": "21221__1_043", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_045", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--Unless the crime was fornication and not adultery.\nI thought it was an adultery crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1846.187, 1847.829], "stop_times": [1847.829, 1850.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1846.187}, "reply_to": "21221__1_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21221__1_046", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nIn Tinker, in order to prove criminal conversation you had to prove that there was a marriage and that the act was performed, and those two--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1850.631, 1851.61], "stop_times": [1851.61, 1857.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1850.631}, "reply_to": "21221__1_045", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_047", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Well, but do you have to know that the defendant knew that there was a marriage?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1857.426], "stop_times": [1861.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1857.426}, "reply_to": "21221__1_046", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21221__1_048", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--In--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1861.187], "stop_times": [1862.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1861.187}, "reply_to": "21221__1_047", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_049", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "That he knew that the woman he was sleeping with was married?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1862.128], "stop_times": [1864.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1862.128}, "reply_to": "21221__1_048", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21221__1_050", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--I don't know, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1864.209], "stop_times": [1865.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1864.209}, "reply_to": "21221__1_049", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_051", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "In the argument I think they argued that he didn't have to know, and that rather he ran the risk of the woman being married.\nI think we're going to get back to the 18th Century pretty soon, the Statute of Anne again.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1865.331, 1871.375, 1876.437], "stop_times": [1871.375, 1876.437, 1876.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1865.331}, "reply_to": "21221__1_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21221__1_052", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "The case doesn't tell us, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1876.837], "stop_times": [1877.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1876.837}, "reply_to": "21221__1_051", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_053", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "No, it doesn't.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1877.789, 1878.608], "stop_times": [1878.608, 1879.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1877.789}, "reply_to": "21221__1_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21221__1_054", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1879.118], "stop_times": [1879.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1879.118}, "reply_to": "21221__1_053", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_055", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--you read the opinion, he might not have known anything about the marital status of the woman that he seduced.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1879.529], "stop_times": [1884.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1879.529}, "reply_to": "21221__1_054", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21221__1_056", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, but the examples that are given throughout Tinker refer to intentional conduct.\nIf you look at the examples given by Justice Bailey--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1884.234, 1888.826], "stop_times": [1888.826, 1892.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1884.234}, "reply_to": "21221__1_055", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_057", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Right, but they implied the intent because the facts were so outrageous to the judges at the time and I don't know... you know, the same kind of reasoning might justify... I'm not saying it would, but the conclusion of, well, this doctor was sufficiently outrageous in his failure to be careful and so forth and so on, that you'd take the same reasoning the Court used in Tinker, that you imply the intent.\nThat's what they did.\nThey implied the intent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1892.248, 1910.551, 1911.211], "stop_times": [1910.551, 1911.211, 1912.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1892.248}, "reply_to": "21221__1_056", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21221__1_058", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--They--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1912.043], "stop_times": [1913.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1912.043}, "reply_to": "21221__1_057", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_059", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Or inferred it, I guess is the proper way to say it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1913.061], "stop_times": [1914.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1913.061}, "reply_to": "21221__1_058", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21221__1_060", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--My... Your Honor, I believe that the implied intent actually grew from the examples they gave of other intentional conduct in that case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1914.794], "stop_times": [1922.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1914.794}, "reply_to": "21221__1_059", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_061", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Well, the implication of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1922.358], "stop_times": [1923.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1922.358}, "reply_to": "21221__1_060", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21221__1_062", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--not necessarily from Tinker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1923.891], "stop_times": [1924.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1923.891}, "reply_to": "21221__1_061", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_063", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--The implication of malice was that there was a wrongful act done without any justification or excuse.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1924.411], "stop_times": [1929.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1924.411}, "reply_to": "21221__1_062", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21221__1_064", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Well, it was as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1929.954], "stop_times": [1930.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1929.954}, "reply_to": "21221__1_063", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_065", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "And it was intentionally done and so that implied the necessary malice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1930.704], "stop_times": [1934.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1930.704}, "reply_to": "21221__1_064", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21221__1_066", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--If he were intentionally doing a wrongful act, he would have had to have known it was wrong to sleep with Mr. Tinker... Mrs. Colwell, then--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1934.536], "stop_times": [1939.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1934.536}, "reply_to": "21221__1_065", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_067", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "No--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1939.509], "stop_times": [1939.9], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1939.509}, "reply_to": "21221__1_066", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21221__1_068", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--Your Honor, because he knew she was married.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1939.9], "stop_times": [1940.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1939.9}, "reply_to": "21221__1_067", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_069", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--No.\nIt was the kind of act which was done without excuse and therefore the Court implied malice.\nThat's the way I read the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1940.691, 1941.292, 1946.805], "stop_times": [1941.292, 1946.805, 1947.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1940.691}, "reply_to": "21221__1_068", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21221__1_070", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Right, Your Honor.\nI was just bringing up the language--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1947.886, 1949.266], "stop_times": [1949.266, 1950.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1947.886}, "reply_to": "21221__1_069", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_071", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "It was Mr. Justice Peckham's case, not mine.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1950.568, 1951.457], "stop_times": [1951.457, 1951.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1950.568}, "reply_to": "21221__1_070", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21221__1_072", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--It is a difficult case to read and I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1951.938], "stop_times": [1955.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1951.938}, "reply_to": "21221__1_071", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_073", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "No, but however you read it, isn't it fair to say that either he did not have to know of the marriage, but the injury followed as a matter of law whether he knew or not, or that he did have to know of the marriage and therefore we should assume simply by the definition of the offense that he knew in this case, and therefore the injury followed as a matter of law.\nOne... either way, the injury in that case was inevitable and the injury in this case is not, isn't that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1955.38, 1974.113], "stop_times": [1974.113, 1980.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1955.38}, "reply_to": "21221__1_072", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21221__1_074", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1980.467], "stop_times": [1981.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1980.467}, "reply_to": "21221__1_073", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_075", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--the distinction that you would rely on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1981.627], "stop_times": [1982.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1981.627}, "reply_to": "21221__1_074", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21221__1_076", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Yes.\nAt the time that Dr. Geiger made the choice to do the various procedures that he did throughout this, his intent was never to injure, nor was his choice governed by any intent to injure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1982.689, 1983.33], "stop_times": [1983.33, 1994.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1982.689}, "reply_to": "21221__1_075", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_077", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Nor was the injury, as it were, logically a necessity of whatever deficiency he may have been guilty of.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [1994.826], "stop_times": [2006.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1994.826}, "reply_to": "21221__1_076", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21221__1_078", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [2006.944], "stop_times": [2007.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2006.944}, "reply_to": "21221__1_077", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_079", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "It happened, but it didn't necessarily happen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [2007.766], "stop_times": [2010.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2007.766}, "reply_to": "21221__1_078", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21221__1_080", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [2010.929], "stop_times": [2011.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2010.929}, "reply_to": "21221__1_079", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_081", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "But as you see the case, then, malpractice actions in general as a category would not come under (a)(6).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [2011.707], "stop_times": [2021.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2011.707}, "reply_to": "21221__1_080", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21221__1_082", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "No, Your Honor, not unless there was some intent on the part of a doctor to injure and I don't believe you find that in malpractice cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [2021.214], "stop_times": [2026.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2021.214}, "reply_to": "21221__1_081", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_083", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "How do you regard defamation actions for (a)(6) purposes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [2026.359], "stop_times": [2032.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2026.359}, "reply_to": "21221__1_082", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21221__1_084", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "You would have to have an intent to defame the person.\nIf--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [2032.694, 2035.178], "stop_times": [2035.178, 2036.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2032.694}, "reply_to": "21221__1_083", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_085", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Well, isn't that an element of the crime of defama... or the action of defamation itself?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [2036.948], "stop_times": [2042.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2036.948}, "reply_to": "21221__1_084", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21221__1_086", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--I believe it is, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [2042.611], "stop_times": [2043.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2042.611}, "reply_to": "21221__1_085", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_087", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "I mean... or can you negligently defame someone?\nI don't know.\nI thought you had to say something defamatory knowing of its falsity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [2043.703, 2046.514, 2048.083], "stop_times": [2046.514, 2048.083, 2056.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2043.703}, "reply_to": "21221__1_086", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21221__1_088", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [2056.451], "stop_times": [2057.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2056.451}, "reply_to": "21221__1_087", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_089", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "I don't think it's correct, only if you're defaming a public figure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [2057.54], "stop_times": [2061.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2057.54}, "reply_to": "21221__1_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21221__1_090", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Okay.\nThere are exceptions.\n[Laughter]\nYour Honor, the Eighth Circuit looked for its definition of intent to the Restatement and, in doing that, it determined that an intentional act is one where the actor desires or believes that the results are going to occur and, looking at that definition, the Court determined that Dr. Geiger did not intend to harm the patient, therefore he had no willful desire, or therefore there was no willful injury.\nHaving reached that point, the Eighth Circuit concluded that section 523(a)(6) did not apply and therefore the debt was dischargeable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [2061.804, 2063.725, 2064.596, 2065.007, 2093.056], "stop_times": [2063.725, 2064.596, 2065.007, 2093.056, 2099.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2061.804}, "reply_to": "21221__1_089", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_091", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Do you know what the practice is in the States with respect to requiring, as a condition of retaining a medical license, malpractice insurance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [2099.892], "stop_times": [2108.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2099.892}, "reply_to": "21221__1_090", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21221__1_092", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "No, I don't, Your Honor, but as a policy reason, if the State was concerned that this Court's ruling would have some effect to cause doctors to not carry malpractice insurance, they could govern that by licensing it within their own States and requiring insurance, just as in... most States are now requiring, or several States are requiring insurance in order to have a driver's license.\nDr. Geiger, as found by the bankruptcy court, had several reasons for his treatment.\nHe in prescribing various types of medicine at all times 1) believed his patient was getting better, 2) thought he was... she had the ability to absorb medicine very well through her stomach, which is why he made the various choices he made, thought her infection had burned out, and thought she had developed a superinfection in determining to stop using antibiotics altogether.\nSo even if you were to take the definition of malice as set forth in the Tinker case, Dr. Geiger would have just cause or excuse for having done what he did.\nThe legislative history also supports this by looking at the language to the extent other cases have relied on Tinker to hold a reckless disregard standard.\nThere, the courts once again are focus... or Congress is focusing on the intent of the injury itself, because a reckless act would be one that would not require intent.\nWithin the section 500 of the Restatement is the definition of recklessness and within that subsection (f) of that definition there's a comparison of intentional misconduct to recklessness and, when you compare the two, recklessness does not require an intent.\nThat's why we feel reckless conduct, which the Eighth Circuit said at the very worst his conduct was reckless, it would be dischargeable because there's... you don't have the element of intent in a reckless type of act.\nTinker we... I do not believe is in conflict with the decision of the Eighth Circuit, because most of the examples in Tinker appear to require an intent to injure.\nThe implied malice standard is limited to certain facts in certain situations and Tinker certainly does not support a reckless disregard standard, so the legislative history is not overruling Tinker but basically saying, read Tinker correctly.\nThe purposes and policy of the Bankruptcy Code will be furthered by the decision of the Eighth Circuit.\nThis is because the purpose of the Bankruptcy Code overall is to provide a debtor with a fresh start and that is why exceptions to discharge are narrowly reviewed.\nThe... requiring an intent to cause an injury would lead to such a narrow interpretation and enhance the fresh starts.\nIntentional act, if you only require that which results in injury, would lead to virtually everything being nondischargeable, as pointed out by the Eighth Circuit.\nIf you speed up to a yellow light because you're in a hurry to pick someone up, that would be an intentional act.\nIt would be nondischargeable.\nIf you're driving too fast for conditions, even though you're driving within the speed limit, that would be an intentional act which would be nondischargeable.\nBuying something on credit because you think you can pay for it, but intentionally buying it and then ultimately losing your job and not being able to pay for it would be an intentional act and be nondischargeable under that theory.\nOnce again, Justice Peckham's example of driving into a crowded thoroughfare would be an intentional act under that definition.\nWe feel the policies and the purpose of the Bankruptcy Code are furthered by this Court deeming that the decision of the Eighth Circuit was correct and affirming that decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [2108.497, 2130.753, 2141.739, 2159.701, 2170.527, 2179.914, 2188.83, 2210.164, 2221.554, 2233.861, 2246.63, 2256.416, 2264.812, 2272.546, 2282.053, 2287.216, 2288.107, 2293.653, 2304.85, 2313.956], "stop_times": [2130.753, 2141.739, 2159.701, 2170.527, 2179.914, 2188.83, 2210.164, 2221.554, 2233.861, 2246.63, 2256.416, 2264.812, 2272.546, 2282.053, 2287.216, 2288.107, 2293.653, 2304.85, 2313.956, 2324.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2108.497}, "reply_to": "21221__1_091", "speaker": "laura_k_grandy"}
{"id": "21221__1_093", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Grandy.\nMr. Pressman, you have 5 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [2324.923, 2327.313], "stop_times": [2327.313, 2329.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2324.923}, "reply_to": "21221__1_092", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21221__2_000", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, unless there are any questions I will--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [2329.514], "stop_times": [2334.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2329.514}, "reply_to": "21221__1_093", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__2_001", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "I don't mean to be... I'm just curious.\nHow do you pronounce your client's name?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [2334.689, 2336.79], "stop_times": [2336.79, 2338.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2334.689}, "reply_to": "21221__2_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21221__2_002", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--Kawaauhau.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [2338.252], "stop_times": [2339.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2338.252}, "reply_to": "21221__2_001", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__2_003", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Thank you.\nI thought in Hawaiian every vowel was supposed to be pronounced.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [2339.212, 2340.093], "stop_times": [2340.093, 2343.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2339.212}, "reply_to": "21221__2_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21221__2_004", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Mr. Kaw... I've had trouble pronouncing it.\nThat's... my understanding is that that's how to pronounce it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [2343.715, 2346.598], "stop_times": [2346.598, 2349.209], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2343.715}, "reply_to": "21221__2_003", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__2_005", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Well, you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [2349.209], "stop_times": [2350.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2349.209}, "reply_to": "21221__2_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21221__2_006", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Kawaauhau.\nMaybe it's Kawaauhau.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [2350.218, 2350.799, 2351.64], "stop_times": [2350.799, 2351.64, 2352.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2350.218}, "reply_to": "21221__2_005", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__2_007", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--I'm sure you know better than we do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [2352.211], "stop_times": [2354.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2352.211}, "reply_to": "21221__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21221__2_008", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "--I may be using the St. Louis pronunciation.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [2354.371, 2356.224], "stop_times": [2356.224, 2356.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2354.371}, "reply_to": "21221__2_007", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "21221__2_009", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Very well.\nThank you, Mr. Pressman.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [2356.423, 2357.494, 2358.506], "stop_times": [2357.494, 2358.506, 2359.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2356.423}, "reply_to": "21221__2_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21221__2_010", "conversation_id": "21221", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-115", "start_times": [2359.539], "stop_times": [2360.289], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2359.539}, "reply_to": "21221__2_009", "speaker": "norman_w_pressman"}
{"id": "20406__0_000", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-1037, the Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc.--\nMr. Wallace.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [0.0, 10.238], "stop_times": [10.238, 11.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20406__0_001", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nOklahoma State courts have entered a money judgment against the Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma.\nThey have entered that judgment notwithstanding the fact that neither the tribe nor Congress have weighed the tribe's inherent immunity to suit, and despite the fact that in the very note sued upon, the parties agreed that nothing in that note would subject or limit the sovereign rights of the Kiowa Tribe.\nThis is one of a series of judgments that has been entered against the Kiowa Tribe that arises out of the same transaction, same series of transactions.\nThe enforcement of these judgments has resulted in a seizure of the tribal tax revenues, an enjoining of the tribe from enforcing tribal law on tribal land, a garnishment of the tribal bank accounts, even accounts containing federally appropriated funds, and generally a draining of the tribal treasury to the point of crippling the tribe's ability to maintain its governmental functions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [11.35, 14.673, 21.939, 45.313, 56.493], "stop_times": [14.673, 21.939, 45.313, 56.493, 87.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 11.35}, "reply_to": "20406__0_000", "speaker": "r_brown_wallace"}
{"id": "20406__0_002", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Well, are those issues that you mentioned just now, are they necessarily involved in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [87.341], "stop_times": [91.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 87.341}, "reply_to": "20406__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20406__0_003", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "They are involved in the case, in this case to the extent that they show the true impact of the judgment and some of the policy reasons why Congress has not elected to waive the sovereign immunity of tribes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [91.665], "stop_times": [108.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 91.665}, "reply_to": "20406__0_002", "speaker": "r_brown_wallace"}
{"id": "20406__0_004", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "It is quite possible, it seems to me, that a State court might have jurisdiction to enter a judgment but perhaps not have the jurisdiction to do some of the things which you describe as having happened in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [108.374], "stop_times": [121.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 108.374}, "reply_to": "20406__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20406__0_005", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "I think you would have to look more deeply at what kind of judgment, and whether or not there was in fact a waiver.\nNow, if we assume that there was no waiver, I would take the position that the judgment could be at best declaratory, and relating to the application of tribal... the application of State, regulatory, or taxation laws to the tribe when it's operating certainly without tribal country, and in some cases I think the State taxation laws should be respected by the tribe within Indian country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [121.204, 130.541], "stop_times": [130.541, 158.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 121.204}, "reply_to": "20406__0_004", "speaker": "r_brown_wallace"}
{"id": "20406__0_006", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Well, suppose there had been a waiver, would you think that these actions could then have been undertaken?\nI mean, when the Federal Government waives its sovereign immunity I don't think that means that whoever gets the judgment can move in and cart off money from the Federal Treasury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [158.77, 164.514], "stop_times": [164.514, 175.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 158.77}, "reply_to": "20406__0_005", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20406__0_007", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Well, that's true, Your Honor, and it depends very much on how the waiver is structured.\nTypically, when tribes engage in the activity of waiving their immunity they not only select a court that they're going to go into, designate the kind of causes of action that they will be subject to, but they also regulate the extent to which they expose their assets to court process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [175.751, 182.417], "stop_times": [182.417, 207.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 175.751}, "reply_to": "20406__0_006", "speaker": "r_brown_wallace"}
{"id": "20406__0_008", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "But suppose they didn't.\nI mean, I would be just as concerned about the effects that you're concerned about here in that situation where there was a waiver, without saying anything about what you can do to the tribe to enforce the liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [207.481, 208.412], "stop_times": [208.412, 223.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 207.481}, "reply_to": "20406__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20406__0_009", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Well, in representing a tribe in that situation I would certainly take the position that until there is a waiver with respect to what assets can be subjected to the judgment, then the waiver is incomplete, that in order to have a complete and effective waiver so that a judgment can be entered and can be enforced, the waiver has got to have the court agreeing that it... excuse me, have the tribe agreeing that it will be subject to court process, and then the enforcement must also be specifically covered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [223.793], "stop_times": [260.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 223.793}, "reply_to": "20406__0_008", "speaker": "r_brown_wallace"}
{"id": "20406__0_010", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "So that if the tribe said, the tribe hereby waives sovereign immunity for liability on this note, that would be insufficient to waive immunity if a court ordered execution or attachment of a tribal bank account.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [260.937], "stop_times": [281.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 260.937}, "reply_to": "20406__0_009", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20406__0_011", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "I think it's in... yes.\nI think it's insufficient because it fails to designate the property, the sovereign property to which the waiver attaches.\nThe... you know, the immunity of a sovereign has two basic concepts.\nNumber 1, the agreement of the sovereign to subject itself to court jurisdiction, in essence the agreement to create jurisdiction in a court, and then the second concept is the enforcement, the designation of exactly what remedial devices that the sovereign will be subject to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [281.96, 283.312, 291.387, 297.982], "stop_times": [283.312, 291.387, 297.982, 318.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 281.96}, "reply_to": "20406__0_010", "speaker": "r_brown_wallace"}
{"id": "20406__0_012", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "I just don't know if it's the tradition in our law to parse and separate sovereign immunity into those two components or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [318.006], "stop_times": [327.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 318.006}, "reply_to": "20406__0_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20406__0_013", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "State statutes that deal with State sovereign immunity very regularly say the State will agree to be sued for these causes of action, and then very regularly address the means of enforcement of those causes of action... or, excuse me, of any judgments under those causes of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [327.984], "stop_times": [349.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 327.984}, "reply_to": "20406__0_012", "speaker": "r_brown_wallace"}
{"id": "20406__0_014", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Usually by appropriation by the State legislature, or something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [349.969], "stop_times": [352.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 349.969}, "reply_to": "20406__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20406__0_015", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "That is one of the devices that's used.\nOklahoma in fact does use that device.\nI'm familiar with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [352.112, 355.624, 357.845], "stop_times": [355.624, 357.845, 359.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 352.112}, "reply_to": "20406__0_014", "speaker": "r_brown_wallace"}
{"id": "20406__0_016", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "That is certainly not the case, I am sure, with regard to foreign sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, where a foreign sovereign is liable for its commercial activities--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [359.084], "stop_times": [374.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 359.084}, "reply_to": "20406__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20406__0_017", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Foreign sovereign--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [374.856], "stop_times": [376.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 374.856}, "reply_to": "20406__0_016", "speaker": "r_brown_wallace"}
{"id": "20406__0_018", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--and I'm quite sure that even when there's been no waiver what you can do is, if the foreign sovereign has a bank account in this country, you can move against the bank account, period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [376.448], "stop_times": [386.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 376.448}, "reply_to": "20406__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20406__0_019", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--Yes, sir.\nThe Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act proceeds on a slightly different theory with respect to the handling of sovereign immunity.\nThat's a situation where you have the foreign sovereign dealing with the immunity of another sovereign.\nIn the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, the legislature has chosen to respect the assets of the foreign sovereign by desig... or by limiting some of the assets that are subject to attachment.\nIt... you know, it attempts to leave its truly governmental assets, you know, free from--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [386.734, 387.314, 394.267, 400.482, 417.923], "stop_times": [387.314, 394.267, 400.482, 417.923, 424.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 386.734}, "reply_to": "20406__0_018", "speaker": "r_brown_wallace"}
{"id": "20406__0_020", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "I must confess, I'm a little puzzled by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [424.639], "stop_times": [427.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 424.639}, "reply_to": "20406__0_019", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20406__0_021", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--Excuse me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [427.05], "stop_times": [427.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 427.05}, "reply_to": "20406__0_020", "speaker": "r_brown_wallace"}
{"id": "20406__0_022", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--the discussion.\nThere's no waiver in this case, is there?\nWhy are we talking about waiver?\nThe question is whether there's anything that needs to be waived.\nIsn't that the issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [427.44, 427.951, 429.363, 430.512, 432.913], "stop_times": [427.951, 429.363, 430.512, 432.913, 434.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 427.44}, "reply_to": "20406__0_021", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20406__0_023", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Well, that's true.\nThis case does not have a waiver or any language in it that even purports to be a waiver.\nThis is a situation where the State of Oklahoma has concluded that its courts have inherent jurisdiction over an Indian tribe, and it does not need the federally required consent to suit or waiver of immunity in order to create jurisdiction in Oklahoma courts.\nThe reason why it's concluded that is, Oklahoma has said that when the Kiowa Tribe engaged in commerce off of Kiowa country, then it did away with the Federal requirement that jurisdiction be created by consent or waiver.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [434.545, 435.777, 443.21, 467.146], "stop_times": [435.777, 443.21, 467.146, 486.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 434.545}, "reply_to": "20406__0_022", "speaker": "r_brown_wallace"}
{"id": "20406__0_024", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Now, that's the question we have here, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [486.4], "stop_times": [488.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 486.4}, "reply_to": "20406__0_023", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20406__0_025", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "That's... yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [488.53], "stop_times": [490.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 488.53}, "reply_to": "20406__0_024", "speaker": "r_brown_wallace"}
{"id": "20406__0_026", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Yes, that's the question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [490.982], "stop_times": [491.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 490.982}, "reply_to": "20406__0_025", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20406__0_027", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [491.513], "stop_times": [492.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 491.513}, "reply_to": "20406__0_026", "speaker": "r_brown_wallace"}
{"id": "20406__0_028", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--you presented in your petition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [492.374], "stop_times": [493.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 492.374}, "reply_to": "20406__0_027", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20406__0_029", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThat is the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [493.285, 494.013], "stop_times": [494.013, 495.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 493.285}, "reply_to": "20406__0_028", "speaker": "r_brown_wallace"}
{"id": "20406__0_030", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "In so holding was the Oklahoma court in effect accepting the invitation... maybe that's too strong a word, at least the suggestion in the, what was it, the Cabazon case that in fact that might be the case.\nDidn't this Court suggest that that might be possible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [495.305, 512.908], "stop_times": [512.908, 516.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 495.305}, "reply_to": "20406__0_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20406__0_031", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "I can remember a point in a concurring opinion in Citizen Band Potawatomi where there were... where there was a question raised with respect to whether the immunity of a tribe would apply to commercial activities off of Indian country, yes, sir, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [516.299], "stop_times": [536.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 516.299}, "reply_to": "20406__0_030", "speaker": "r_brown_wallace"}
{"id": "20406__0_032", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "All right.\nNow, why was the suggestion ill-taken?\nWhy was the Oklahoma court wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [536.203, 537.054, 540.944], "stop_times": [537.054, 540.944, 542.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 536.203}, "reply_to": "20406__0_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20406__0_033", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "The Congress is vested with exclusive control over tribal sovereignty and tribal immunity as a part of tribal sovereignty.\nCongress has never drawn that line in tribal immunity.\nIn fact, when Congress approaches the issue of tribal immunity, it consistently expresses its approval of the doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [542.877, 557.007, 564.83], "stop_times": [557.007, 564.83, 574.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 542.877}, "reply_to": "20406__0_032", "speaker": "r_brown_wallace"}
{"id": "20406__0_034", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Well, in our Mescalero opinion we said that activities conducted by the Mescalero Band off the reservation were subject to nondiscriminatory State taxes, didn't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [574.477], "stop_times": [586.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 574.477}, "reply_to": "20406__0_033", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20406__0_035", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Absent... yes, absent Federal law to the contrary, the Court held that the activities were subject to nondiscriminatory State taxes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [586.776], "stop_times": [601.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 586.776}, "reply_to": "20406__0_034", "speaker": "r_brown_wallace"}
{"id": "20406__0_036", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "So to say, absent Federal law to the contrary, these activities are subject to State authority suggests that the Congress would have to affirmatively prohibit the jurisdiction, rather than affirmatively authorize it, the way you're talking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [601.716], "stop_times": [615.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 601.716}, "reply_to": "20406__0_035", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20406__0_037", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "I think the problem with the line of reasoning there is a couplefold.\nNumber one, Mescalero did not involve immunity to suit.\nMescalero was talking about immunity with respect to taxation.\nThis Court has characteristically treated the tribes' immunity with respect to taxation and regulation very differently than it has the treated tribes' immunity to suit.\nAs an example, I take you to the Citizen Band case, where the issue was whether or not Oklahoma could require a tribe to collect Oklahoma's cigarette taxes for on-reservation sales to nonmembers.\nYou said, yes, it could, but when Oklahoma then asked for a judgment against the tribe, a money judgment against the tribe for taxes that hadn't been collected, the Court went directly to the issue, or directly to the point of tribal immunity to suit, and pointed out that Congress has long approved it, Congress uses it as a part of its overall policy with respect to Indian tribes, and the Court was not, under those circumstances, disposed to modify its longstanding approval of tribal immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [615.356, 623.931, 628.674, 632.948, 645.617, 662.526], "stop_times": [623.931, 628.674, 632.948, 645.617, 662.526, 699.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 615.356}, "reply_to": "20406__0_036", "speaker": "r_brown_wallace"}
{"id": "20406__0_038", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "But Mr. Wallace, it has to come from some place originally.\nIt wasn't Congress that invented the doctrine of sovereign immunity.\nIt is a doctrine that the Court has applied and interpreted, so the Court must make a determination whether the immunity you claim exists or not.\nIt can't just say, well, we'll leave it to Congress.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [699.399, 703.544, 706.996, 719.633], "stop_times": [703.544, 706.996, 719.633, 722.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 699.399}, "reply_to": "20406__0_037", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20406__0_039", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Yes, and the Court has found in the past that the immunity exists as an aspect, an inherent aspect of a sovereign that preexists the Constitution.\nThe Court has recog--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [722.735, 734.382], "stop_times": [734.382, 735.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 722.735}, "reply_to": "20406__0_038", "speaker": "r_brown_wallace"}
{"id": "20406__0_040", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "But then you're distinguishing the tribes as sovereign from a sister State as sovereign, from a foreign nation as sovereign.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [735.744], "stop_times": [744.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 735.744}, "reply_to": "20406__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20406__0_041", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, and I think the distinction is probably valid.\nTribes have a unique relationship with the Federal Government.\nThe Federal Government has adopted a trust responsibility toward tribes.\nIt makes them extremely different, very different from either sister States or foreign nations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [744.82, 750.274, 754.848, 760.842], "stop_times": [750.274, 754.848, 760.842, 766.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 744.82}, "reply_to": "20406__0_040", "speaker": "r_brown_wallace"}
{"id": "20406__0_042", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "What is... if the... suppose the tribe goes downtown Tulsa and they buy a piece of property and open an office, and the taxes are [dollars] 4,000 a year, and they don't pay, right.\nCan the city or the State sue the tribe and get the taxes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [766.996, 782.724], "stop_times": [782.724, 787.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 766.996}, "reply_to": "20406__0_041", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20406__0_043", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "For taxes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [787.557], "stop_times": [788.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 787.557}, "reply_to": "20406__0_042", "speaker": "r_brown_wallace"}
{"id": "20406__0_044", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [788.368], "stop_times": [788.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 788.368}, "reply_to": "20406__0_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20406__0_045", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Well, I... if the acquisition is done appropriately--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [788.699], "stop_times": [793.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 788.699}, "reply_to": "20406__0_044", "speaker": "r_brown_wallace"}
{"id": "20406__0_046", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Yes... they buy it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [793.662], "stop_times": [795.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 793.662}, "reply_to": "20406__0_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20406__0_047", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--The ad valorem taxes do not apply to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [795.524], "stop_times": [798.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 795.524}, "reply_to": "20406__0_046", "speaker": "r_brown_wallace"}
{"id": "20406__0_048", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "All right, fine.\nWhat is the theory under which Oklahoma can get the taxes for the property but cannot get the rent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [798.556, 799.077], "stop_times": [799.077, 806.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 798.556}, "reply_to": "20406__0_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20406__0_049", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--Well, Oklahoma has to figure out collection and remedial devices short of going to the court and filing a lawsuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [806.391], "stop_times": [817.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 806.391}, "reply_to": "20406__0_048", "speaker": "r_brown_wallace"}
{"id": "20406__0_050", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "So you think Oklahoma cannot collect the taxes, either.\nI mean, what I'm trying to do is, I want to understand the theory of sovereign immunity under which... or, what is the case?\nThere are a lot of possibilities.\nMaybe they have oil bubbling up underneath in the basement, violating environmental laws.\nCan you get an injunction?\nWhat about a fine?\nWhat about taxes, and what about the rent?\nWhat's the theory of the sovereign immunity for the Indian tribe that says which of those they can get, which they can't, and why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [817.677, 820.599, 828.496, 829.705, 836.37, 838.571, 840.314, 843.754], "stop_times": [820.599, 828.496, 829.705, 836.37, 838.571, 840.314, 843.754, 851.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 817.677}, "reply_to": "20406__0_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20406__0_051", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Well, in the regulatory and taxation cases this Court has approached the issue on an infringement and preemption analysis.\nYou cannot infringe upon tribal self-government, and states cannot... and States cannot do anything preempted by Congress.\nThat has never been applied, though, to a damage lawsuit against a tribe in State court.\nI'd like to reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [851.661, 862.627, 872.254, 878.389], "stop_times": [862.627, 872.254, 878.389, 881.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 851.661}, "reply_to": "20406__0_050", "speaker": "r_brown_wallace"}
{"id": "20406__0_052", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Very well, Mr. Wallace.\nMr. DuMont, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [881.23, 883.711], "stop_times": [883.711, 885.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 881.23}, "reply_to": "20406__0_051", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20406__1_000", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI think the problem here is a State court did... entered a judgment which did two things, it held that as a matter of State law the tribe was not immune from suit, and that's wrong for two reasons.\nFirst of all, it's not a question of State law, it's a question of Federal law, and second, Federal law, Federal substantive law preserves the tribe's immunity from suit, and let me just address those for moment.\nThe... I think it should be common ground that this is a matter of Federal law, supervening Federal law, so if we move to the substance of the Federal law, the rule derives from... as my colleague said, it originally derives from the preconstitutional sovereign status of the tribes, and this Court has made that clear repeatedly.\nNow, it is also supported in the modern context by at least three very firm foundations.\nFirst, the powerful general background principle of what sovereign immunity from suit means, second, the history of the Federal Government's relationship with the tribes, Government to Government, and this Court's precedents, and third, the critical practical importance of immunity from suit from money judgments to the tribes in modern-day America.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [885.524, 900.423, 914.995, 926.072, 944.635, 949.827], "stop_times": [900.423, 914.995, 926.072, 944.635, 949.827, 970.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 885.524}, "reply_to": "20406__0_052", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20406__1_001", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Well, let's talk about the practical importance a minute.\nWith increasing commercial activity between tribes and nontribal members off the reservation there may be, indeed, a need for some waiver of sovereign immunity to make it possible for tribes to have... enter into business dealings with people off the reservation.\nIs Congress considering legislation about this right now, do you know, Mr. DuMont?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [970.04, 972.813, 999.4], "stop_times": [972.813, 999.4, 1005.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 970.04}, "reply_to": "20406__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20406__1_002", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "They are actively considering it.\nHearings, extensive hearings were held in 1996.\nThere was a bill which passed the Senate which would have waived immunity in certain circumstances in '97.\nThat provision was removed on the premise, publicly stated, that hearings would be held by April 30th of 1998, and those hearings have been tentatively scheduled by the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1005.594, 1007.764, 1010.096, 1017.893], "stop_times": [1007.764, 1010.096, 1017.893, 1028.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1005.594}, "reply_to": "20406__1_001", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20406__1_003", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "But Congress is debating the desirability, or lack thereof, of certain waivers of sovereign immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1028.969], "stop_times": [1035.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1028.969}, "reply_to": "20406__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20406__1_004", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "That's absolutely correct, and Congress as long ago as 1934 in the Indian Reorganization Act recognized exactly this issue that you bring up about, and that the Oklahoma courts adverted to as a matter of policy, which is, will anyone deal with the tribes, and they provided in the Oklahoma Welfare... Indian Welfare Act, for one thing, for not only the incorporation of tribal governments as governments, but also separate incorporation as business entities, and those entities are or may be subject to suit in certain circumstances, limited to their business property, just like a normal corporation would be.\nSo Congress has thought about this and has addressed it in the past, and they're preparing to think about it again.\nThey really--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1035.874, 1067.804, 1072.437], "stop_times": [1067.804, 1072.437, 1072.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1035.874}, "reply_to": "20406__1_003", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20406__1_005", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Have they ever passed a statute saying the tribes have immunity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1072.877], "stop_times": [1076.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1072.877}, "reply_to": "20406__1_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20406__1_006", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--There are a number of statutes, I think the most recent one being the Indian Tribal Native American Agricultural Reform Act of 1993, which recognized that implicitly by saying that nothing that Congress is doing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1076.13], "stop_times": [1092.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1076.13}, "reply_to": "20406__1_005", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20406__1_007", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "I understand all the implicit record.\nIs there any statute in which Congress has expressly said tribes shall have immunity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1092.842, 1095.104], "stop_times": [1095.104, 1100.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1092.842}, "reply_to": "20406__1_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20406__1_008", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--I'm not aware of any statute that says that in those terms.\nI would say... I could say, though, that to pass a statute saying the tribe's immunity will be waived in the following circumstances, or under the following very special circumstances, is to say that we assume the background principle is immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1100.105, 1103.739], "stop_times": [1103.739, 1116.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1100.105}, "reply_to": "20406__1_007", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20406__1_009", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Well, of course they can assume that, because we have cases that have said that, but let me ask this.\nIf the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act had not been passed, do you think that this Court could by judicial decision have adopted as part of our domestic law of foreign sovereign immunity the commercial acts exception, which have become almost uniform in international law?\nDo you think we would have had to wait for Congress to pass the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act before we could revise our jurisprudence on sovereign immunity to comport with the new international understanding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1116.588, 1121.771, 1144.845], "stop_times": [1121.771, 1144.845, 1158.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1116.588}, "reply_to": "20406__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20406__1_010", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Yes, and I would say that because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1158.985], "stop_times": [1161.869], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1158.985}, "reply_to": "20406__1_009", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20406__1_011", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1161.869], "stop_times": [1162.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1161.869}, "reply_to": "20406__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20406__1_012", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1162.217], "stop_times": [1162.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1162.217}, "reply_to": "20406__1_011", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20406__1_013", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "We would have had to wait for Congress?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1162.797], "stop_times": [1164.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1162.797}, "reply_to": "20406__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20406__1_014", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "You would have had to wait for Congress, and I would say that because the original common law, if you will, recognition of the foreign... of the scope of a foreign sovereign's immunity came so early in this Court's history and this country's history in the Schooner Exchange case that by the time you got to the 1950's, when the State Department was recognizing the commercial exception, it was already firmly settled in this Court's jurisprudence.\nThe Berizzi Brothers case in 1926, for instance, made clear that extended to commercial property of a sovereign.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1164.92, 1189.194], "stop_times": [1189.194, 1195.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1164.92}, "reply_to": "20406__1_013", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20406__1_015", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "So it never changes?\nI mean, what if circumstances dramatically change?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1195.549, 1197.55], "stop_times": [1197.55, 1201.293], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1195.549}, "reply_to": "20406__1_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20406__1_016", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "If circumstances dramatically change, then it is always the prerogative of the sovereign to make its own decisions about what cases its courts will entertain, and that's true from the Schooner Exchange on, but the question here would be who would represent the sovereign of the United States, and this Court had made clear consistently that the default rule was going to be absolute immunity, and it was then up to Congress to vary that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1201.293], "stop_times": [1225.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1201.293}, "reply_to": "20406__1_015", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20406__1_017", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Then what was going on with the Tate letter?\nBefore the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, courts were recognizing that there were occasions where the sovereign was not immune, and Congress had passed no legislation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1225.479, 1226.18], "stop_times": [1226.18, 1237.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1225.479}, "reply_to": "20406__1_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20406__1_018", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "I think what the courts had recognized was that in cases where the State Department was willing to represent to the Court that it was important... that it was not important that immunity should not be recognized, then the courts would frequently accept that as consistent with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1237.667], "stop_times": [1250.915], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1237.667}, "reply_to": "20406__1_017", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20406__1_019", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "But the State Department is not Congress.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1250.915], "stop_times": [1252.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1250.915}, "reply_to": "20406__1_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20406__1_020", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--No, but the State Department is a political branch of the Government, and I think our submission is merely that the Court's policy... whether the Court had the power to do it or not, it may very well have had the power to see a development in common law, but the Court did not do that.\nThe Court said, look, we have always... and Berizzi Brothers is the prime case on this.\nThe Court said we have always applied a rule of absolute immunity.\nWe see no reason to make an exception for commercial property just because it's owned by a sovereign.\nThat's going to be our rule.\nNow, of course, in situations where the political branches which are responsible under the Constitution for foreign affairs tell us to do something different, then we will do something different, but the default rule is going to be immunity, and I think that's really very close to what we're saying here.\nNow, Indian tribal sovereigns are different from foreign sovereigns--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1252.227, 1264.304, 1268.475, 1271.608, 1275.311, 1276.763, 1291.393], "stop_times": [1264.304, 1268.475, 1271.608, 1275.311, 1276.763, 1291.393, 1294.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1252.227}, "reply_to": "20406__1_019", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20406__1_021", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "In particular, what is the default rule?\nIs it the case that if they rent a building in downtown Tulsa, they don't... there's no way to collect taxes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1294.723, 1296.536], "stop_times": [1296.536, 1302.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1294.723}, "reply_to": "20406__1_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20406__1_022", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--Against a foreign sovereign, or against a tribal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1302.62], "stop_times": [1306.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1302.62}, "reply_to": "20406__1_021", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20406__1_023", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "No, say the Indian tribe in your view.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1306.803], "stop_times": [1308.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1306.803}, "reply_to": "20406__1_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20406__1_024", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--Well, there are... as the Court had recognized in Potawatomi, there may be ways, some of them more effective, some of them less effective.\nThere might be a suit against a tribal officer, for instance--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1308.685, 1316.02], "stop_times": [1316.02, 1317.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1308.685}, "reply_to": "20406__1_023", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20406__1_025", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "In other words, the answer is they cannot sue to get the money from the tribe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1317.991], "stop_times": [1321.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1317.991}, "reply_to": "20406__1_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20406__1_026", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--They cannot sue the tribe, and the tribe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1321.314], "stop_times": [1322.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1321.314}, "reply_to": "20406__1_025", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20406__1_027", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Can they sue to get the... can they sue to enforce the environmental regulation?\nThat is to say, can they bring an injunction against the tribe so that the oil isn't bubbling up from the basement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1322.966, 1325.436], "stop_times": [1325.436, 1331.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1322.966}, "reply_to": "20406__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20406__1_028", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--Well, under... if there's a specific Federal statute, which in RCRA I believe there is, there's a specific waiver by Congress of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1331.551], "stop_times": [1337.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1331.551}, "reply_to": "20406__1_027", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20406__1_029", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Well, all these... there's a State law that says you can't keep owls in the basement, or you can't keep... you can't have holes for the coyotes, whatever.\nI mean, there can be a million different State laws, and they want to bring... a State environmental law is violated and they want to bring an injunction to prevent it.\nCan the State do that, enjoin the tribe to keep the building according to whatever the State law is, a reasonable State law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1337.043, 1344.998, 1353.824], "stop_times": [1344.998, 1353.824, 1361.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1337.043}, "reply_to": "20406__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20406__1_030", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--Under State... a State may not proceed under State law to get an injunction directly against the tribe.\nNow, in the situations you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1361.04, 1366.273], "stop_times": [1366.273, 1367.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1361.04}, "reply_to": "20406__1_029", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20406__1_031", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Even though it's in downtown... so in fact, an officer of the tribe is driving a tribe truck, and he speeds.\nCan they stop him?\nI mean, he's driving a... it's a tribal business in downtown--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1367.963, 1372.847, 1374.447], "stop_times": [1372.847, 1374.447, 1379.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1367.963}, "reply_to": "20406__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20406__1_032", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--Yes.\nYes, of course you can stop the officer, because then you're stopping... you're exercising jurisdiction over the individual, not over the tribe, but can you seize the truck?\nI mean, probably not, because then you are talking about the property of the tribe, and that's the distinction.\nIt's a crucial distinction between the tribe, quae tribe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1379.4, 1379.89, 1385.665, 1390.97], "stop_times": [1379.89, 1385.665, 1390.97, 1392.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1379.4}, "reply_to": "20406__1_031", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20406__1_033", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--Where does your position leave what we said in Mescalero?\nI mean, in theory the State can collect taxes, but it can't in... it has no practical way of doing it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1392.981, 1397.255], "stop_times": [1397.255, 1403.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1392.981}, "reply_to": "20406__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20406__1_034", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--I think it leaves the tribe... it leaves the States in exactly the place they were left in Potawatomi, which is they have a variety of mechanisms to enforce their valid regulations, but those mechanisms do not include a direct judgment, either injunctive or monetary, against the tribe, and that's... I think that's really precisely what the Court said in Potawatomi.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1403.367], "stop_times": [1421.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1403.367}, "reply_to": "20406__1_033", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20406__1_035", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "But in Mescalero they said the tribe was subject to taxation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1421.709], "stop_times": [1425.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1421.709}, "reply_to": "20406__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20406__1_036", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "It is crucial to distinguish between... we heard in the first argument about the many... the hydra-headed concept of jurisdiction.\nI think it's very critical to distinguish between regulatory jurisdiction, jurisdiction to impose rules which are valid and must be obeyed from enforcement, judicial enforcement jurisdiction, and tribal immunity from suit, like the United States' immunity from suit, or a State's immunity from suit, is about enforcement jurisdiction.\nIt's about amenability to suit in another sovereign's courts.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1425.522, 1433.059, 1451.762, 1454.333], "stop_times": [1433.059, 1451.762, 1454.333, 1454.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1425.522}, "reply_to": "20406__1_035", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20406__1_037", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "But that is entirely... but that... as I understand it, your argument rests entirely upon a rule of prudence, self-administered by this Court, that we will not revise or consider revising the traditional rule, and I'm not sure why we should be bound by that rule of prudence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1454.954], "stop_times": [1476.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1454.954}, "reply_to": "20406__1_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20406__1_038", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--I think it rests on something that is... the Court has always recognized that the tribes were created as sovereign, they have sovereignty.\nNow, that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1476.479, 1486.214], "stop_times": [1486.214, 1487.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1476.479}, "reply_to": "20406__1_037", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20406__1_039", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "And we developed this rule at a time when the kinds of problems that are being hypothesized in this argument really would not have been realistic hypotheses.\nNow they are realistic hypotheses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1487.777, 1497.583], "stop_times": [1497.583, 1500.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1487.777}, "reply_to": "20406__1_038", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20406__1_040", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--Well, I think that because the Court has recognized the tribes are sovereigns, and because immunity from suit is such a central part of the inherent background of the rule of sovereignty... and we see this in cases like Couer d'Alene, we see it in cases under the Eleventh Amendment before the States, we see it in cases involving the United States.\nThose principles of sovereign immunity aren't written down somewhere.\nThey are simply part, a constitutive part of our law.\nThey are not the kind of common law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1500.114, 1518.675, 1521.659, 1524.201], "stop_times": [1518.675, 1521.659, 1524.201, 1525.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1500.114}, "reply_to": "20406__1_039", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20406__1_041", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Mr. DuMont, those principles have changed, at least with respect to sister States, and with respect to foreign countries, so you are now urging a kind of sovereign immunity that doesn't... no longer exists State-to-State or foreign nation vis-a-vis the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1525.671], "stop_times": [1546.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1525.671}, "reply_to": "20406__1_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20406__1_042", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--Well, let me make two points about that in reverse order.\nAs to foreign nations, it does not exist in the commercial context because Congress has passed a statute that addresses that, and may I just revert to the prior argument of my colleague by pointing out that in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Congress was able to consider the problem holistically and to address issues like forum.\nThere's automatic removal for a foreign sovereign to Federal court, like enforcement.\nThere are provisions about what property of the sovereign you can attach for a judgment, and issues like damages.\nThere are limitations on the kind of damages that apply.\nNow, as to States, first of all there's a bit of a canard going around that State sovereignty doesn't exist any more, but that's only as the States have waived it, and in Nevada v. Hall the Court recognized that some of those waivers are very limited, and those apply to the court... the State's own courts.\nNow, as to Nevada v. Hall itself, that rests on a premise that the States were independent sovereigns when they went into the compact of the Constitution, and the Court found nothing in the Constitution that purported to give away each State's right to subject another sister State to its own jurisdiction, but what the States did give away was their ability to regulate Indian affairs and their ability to regulate Indian tribes.\nThat became a matter of exclusive Federal jurisdiction.\nI think that's pellucid under the Court's cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1546.073, 1548.367, 1564.096, 1568.898, 1574.961, 1577.144, 1593.645, 1616.351, 1618.622], "stop_times": [1548.367, 1564.096, 1568.898, 1574.961, 1577.144, 1593.645, 1616.351, 1618.622, 1620.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1546.073}, "reply_to": "20406__1_041", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20406__1_043", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Do you think that's true with regard to tribal commercial activities off the reservation?\nAre there no State regulatory powers there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1620.713, 1624.637], "stop_times": [1624.637, 1626.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1620.713}, "reply_to": "20406__1_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20406__1_044", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Again, regulatory power has to be distinguished, but I think it is true with respect to jurisdiction, and the tribal immunity from suit, and what that effectively did was to freeze into place a Federal common law rule which, Nevada v. Hall recognized that if you had looked at that rule at the time of the Constitution you would have said that every State would recognize immunity for every other State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1626.967], "stop_times": [1648.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1626.967}, "reply_to": "20406__1_043", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20406__1_045", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "But the regulatory jurisdiction is just illusory if there's no way to enforce it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1648.222], "stop_times": [1653.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1648.222}, "reply_to": "20406__1_044", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20406__1_046", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "I think that's not correct, for all the reasons that were stated in the opinion in Potawatomi, which is to say that there may be damage actions or injunctive actions against--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1653.476], "stop_times": [1660.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1653.476}, "reply_to": "20406__1_045", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20406__1_047", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "But how could there be damage actions against the tribe?\nOn your submission, there can't be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1660.89, 1663.272], "stop_times": [1663.272, 1665.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1660.89}, "reply_to": "20406__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20406__1_048", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--I'm sorry, against tribal officers.\nThere may be actions against officers, there's always the potential for agreement with the tribe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1665.212, 1666.564], "stop_times": [1666.564, 1670.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1665.212}, "reply_to": "20406__1_047", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20406__1_049", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Officers have no money.\nI mean, the tribe has collected all of this tax money and hasn't turned it over to the State, billions of dollars, and they're going to sue some--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1670.566, 1671.227], "stop_times": [1671.227, 1679.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1670.566}, "reply_to": "20406__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20406__1_050", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1679.801], "stop_times": [1680.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1679.801}, "reply_to": "20406__1_049", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20406__1_051", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--tribal officer for millions of dollars?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1680.913], "stop_times": [1682.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1680.913}, "reply_to": "20406__1_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20406__1_052", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--I simply have to suggest that if that were the controlling principle, then the result in Potawatomi would have been otherwise.\nIt would also have been--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1682.894, 1688.387], "stop_times": [1688.387, 1689.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1682.894}, "reply_to": "20406__1_051", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20406__1_053", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Is this true in anti-discrimination legislation, too?\nIf the tribe does business they don't have to live up to any of that, insofar as there could be monetary judgments or injunctions to enforce.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1689.278, 1691.269], "stop_times": [1691.269, 1698.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1689.278}, "reply_to": "20406__1_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20406__1_054", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--Well, I think it's very instructive that when Congress applied parts of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Constitution to Indian tribes in the Indian Civil Rights Act the Court has held that it clearly thought about this issue and decided that damage actions were not... against the tribe were not an appropriate means of resolution, so it specifically withheld jurisdiction to enter... even under a Federal law to enter money judgments against the tribe, and the same principle applies here, that you have to protect these small governments.\nThe same functional reasons that supported immunity for State governments when they were smaller and more vulnerable than they are now still support that immunity for Indian tribes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1698.755, 1724.954], "stop_times": [1724.954, 1736.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1698.755}, "reply_to": "20406__1_053", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20406__1_055", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Mr. Dumont, there's one justice of this Court that said, if there's jurisdiction to regulate, and specifically jurisdiction to tax, then of course there must be jurisdiction to enforce that tax.\nThat was the International Shoe case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1736.122, 1749.669], "stop_times": [1749.669, 1751.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1736.122}, "reply_to": "20406__1_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20406__1_056", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Well, I would suggest that, for instance, there are a variety of Federal laws that clearly impose mandatory Federal law obligations on the States and State officers, and yet they are not... the State is not amenable to a private suit in Federal... even in Federal court to enforce those obligations.\nIt's exactly the same distinction.\nSometimes you have a right, but you need to go to the sovereign's own forum to enforce it, or you need to go to Congress to try to get something done about it.\nThere are problems that are inherent in sovereign immunity, and that, I think, is recognized in the Three Affiliated Tribes decision.\nSometimes you will end up with a result, if you are suing a sovereign, which will perhaps seem unfair.\nThat is... it is an ineluctable aspect of the tribe's sovereign immunity, and as long as we're going to recognize that immunity, that may be true.\nNow, if there are valid policy arguments, and I think there may be, for adjusting this situation, then they are the province of Congress, and Congress has been apprised of them and is actively considering them.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1751.441, 1766.91, 1768.433, 1776.287, 1780.59, 1786.654, 1794.489, 1804.587], "stop_times": [1766.91, 1768.433, 1776.287, 1780.59, 1786.654, 1794.489, 1804.587, 1805.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1751.441}, "reply_to": "20406__1_055", "speaker": "edward_c_dumont"}
{"id": "20406__1_057", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Thank you, Mr. DuMont.\nMr. Patterson, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1805.115, 1806.106], "stop_times": [1806.106, 1809.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1805.115}, "reply_to": "20406__1_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20406__2_000", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe issue in this case is very simple.\nIt's whether the tribe has sovereign immunity for its offreservation commercial activities.\nThe tribe and the United States urge a... an immunity for the tribe which is greater than that which is afforded to a State, which is greater than that afforded to a foreign sovereign.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1809.138, 1816.955, 1820.455, 1826.639], "stop_times": [1816.955, 1820.455, 1826.639, 1839.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1809.138}, "reply_to": "20406__1_057", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_001", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Do you concede that the issue is a Federal law issue, not a State law issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1839.299], "stop_times": [1843.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1839.299}, "reply_to": "20406__2_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20406__2_002", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "It is a Federal law issue which can be determined very properly, as this was, in the District Court of Oklahoma County and in the State courts of Oklahoma under Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Graham.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1843.222], "stop_times": [1856.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1843.222}, "reply_to": "20406__2_001", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_003", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "But the State applied its own State law in resolving this.\nDon't we have to look at Federal law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1856.15, 1859.852], "stop_times": [1859.852, 1861.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1856.15}, "reply_to": "20406__2_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20406__2_004", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "The State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1861.862], "stop_times": [1862.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1861.862}, "reply_to": "20406__2_003", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_005", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "How can you defend the State court decision by applying State law to answer this question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1862.773], "stop_times": [1870.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1862.773}, "reply_to": "20406__2_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20406__2_006", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--The State court looked to Federal common law in part.\nIt looked to Padilla, a New Mexico case, which in turn looked to Nevada v. Hall for the principles of sovereign immunity as between competing sovereigns.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1870.387, 1876.682], "stop_times": [1876.682, 1891.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1870.387}, "reply_to": "20406__2_005", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_007", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Well, I would have thought that for you to argue for affirmance here you would have to at least justify it on the basis of Federal law principles.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1891.372], "stop_times": [1904.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1891.372}, "reply_to": "20406__2_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20406__2_008", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "And we do very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1904.692], "stop_times": [1907.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1904.692}, "reply_to": "20406__2_007", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_009", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "But were Federal law principles decided below?\nIn other words, if we were to accept your suggestion that we affirm based on Federal law, wouldn't we be making a judgment about or a decision about Federal law which has not been made by a lower court in this case?\nIn other words, we would not be reviewing, we would be taking up a question in the first instance, wouldn't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1907.333, 1911.206, 1926.755], "stop_times": [1911.206, 1926.755, 1932.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1907.333}, "reply_to": "20406__2_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20406__2_010", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Yes, except the... if I understand your question, Justice Souter, the lower court made its decision based on principally Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, and the language which has been referred to, the situation has been referred to which is to the effect--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1932.389], "stop_times": [1953.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1932.389}, "reply_to": "20406__2_009", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_011", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "If I understand you... you correct me if I wrong.\nIf I understand it, the Court was, as it were, informed by that case in making a State law judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1953.552, 1954.814], "stop_times": [1954.814, 1963.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1953.552}, "reply_to": "20406__2_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20406__2_012", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--The Oklahoma supreme court in Hoover, which is... was held to be controlling in this case, was based on an examination, and my understanding of Federal law as enunciated by this Court, and in light of Federal statutes.\nThe question is, what is the nature of sovereign immunity, and that's the question that is before you for your decision today.\nThe Congress has not created any immunity for the tribe when it goes off-reservation in tribal activities.\nThis has been adverted to previously.\nThe principles of immunity, if applied as the tribe and the United States are urging, then any of 320 approximately federally recognized Indian tribes can go off tribal lands into the 50 United States and engage in any kind of commercial activity with complete immunity from Federal law, with impunity, if you will--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [1963.369, 1985.054, 1994.969, 2003.737, 2005.81], "stop_times": [1985.054, 1994.969, 2003.737, 2005.81, 2037.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1963.369}, "reply_to": "20406__2_011", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_013", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "It usually takes two to engage in commercial activity, doesn't it?\nI mean, can a tribe force anybody to enter into commercial arrangements with it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2037.512, 2040.995], "stop_times": [2040.995, 2044.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2037.512}, "reply_to": "20406__2_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20406__2_014", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--The tribe can't... in the commercial contract case you have two parties of supposedly equal statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2044.868], "stop_times": [2052.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2044.868}, "reply_to": "20406__2_013", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_015", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2052.503], "stop_times": [2053.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2052.503}, "reply_to": "20406__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20406__2_016", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "If you have a tribal operation, a business office in Tulsa, Oklahoma, for instance, where there are business invitees in that tribe, they are not people who have available waiver, for instance, of sovereign immunity.\nIf they suffer an injury on the premises, then their only recourse is against the owner-landlord-manager.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2053.824, 2069.945], "stop_times": [2069.945, 2077.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2053.824}, "reply_to": "20406__2_015", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_017", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Well, this is a suit on a promissory note where on its face it said sovereign immunity wasn't waived.\nI mean, what if somebody's going to enter into a deal with an Indian tribe, and accept a promissory note, I guess you could as a matter of contract law insist that there be a tribal waiver before you'll accept that arrangement and note, and there wasn't here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2077.76, 2084.165], "stop_times": [2084.165, 2103.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2077.76}, "reply_to": "20406__2_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20406__2_018", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "If I might, Justice O'Connor, reading from the record at page 14, the language is, nothing in this note subjects or limits the sovereign rights of the Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma, and we don't have any argument with that language.\nI'm not sure what it means, but it's based on a premise--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2103.399, 2121.05], "stop_times": [2121.05, 2124.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2103.399}, "reply_to": "20406__2_017", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_019", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Well, it's a little like buyer beware.\nI mean, if in fact the law is, as this Court seems to have recognized in the past, that the tribe enjoys sovereign immunity from private suits, then someone dealing with the tribe should protect himself in the contractual arrangements that he makes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2124.132, 2126.283], "stop_times": [2126.283, 2150.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2124.132}, "reply_to": "20406__2_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20406__2_020", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--Once again, if it's activity which is protected by sovereign immunity that's exactly the case.\nIt's our position that the tribe has no sovereign immunity when it goes off tribal lands--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2150.63, 2157.963], "stop_times": [2157.963, 2164.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2150.63}, "reply_to": "20406__2_019", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_021", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "What's the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2164.348], "stop_times": [2164.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2164.348}, "reply_to": "20406__2_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20406__2_022", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--in a commercial--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2164.969], "stop_times": [2165.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2164.969}, "reply_to": "20406__2_021", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_023", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--That is to say, if there's anything to... maybe there's no sovereign immunity, but if there's any sovereign immunity, wouldn't it at least at its heart be there to protect the treasury in a contract suit from money damages, and if that's so, why does it matter?\nWhat's the principle on which it matters whether that commercial activity that led to the effort to get money from the tribal treasury, what's the difference whether it took place on or off?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2165.469, 2182.581], "stop_times": [2182.581, 2193.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2165.469}, "reply_to": "20406__2_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20406__2_024", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--The cases which amounts to the general rule that the tribe is not subject to suit absent its waiver or a congressional abrogation of immunity arose historically out of cases where the tribe was acting in proper tribal matters on a tribal reservation, on land.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2193.777], "stop_times": [2211.869], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2193.777}, "reply_to": "20406__2_023", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_025", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Yes, that's true, so that's why I ask.\nI mean, that happens to be the history, so why... in terms of the... of a sovereign immunity principle, wouldn't contractual damages be at its heart, and what could the reason be... what reason that's related to sovereign immunity could there be for saying that the place of a contract makes a difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2211.869, 2212.871], "stop_times": [2212.871, 2233.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2211.869}, "reply_to": "20406__2_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20406__2_026", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "The place of the contract in this particular case is of critical difference.\nIf the place of the contract and place of performance were to be on tribal lands, then we would have the rules which the Government and the Kiowa tribe argue.\nWhen the tribe goes outside tribal lands in a commercial venture, then you have to look to the nature of its sovereignty, and we say that in that instance the tribe has no sovereign immunity from suit.\nThe expression of the inability of money damage, a suit being brought against the tribe, was looked at in Potawatomi, Citizens Band Potawatomi, and there the State was found to have sufficient interest in the activity, the levy of an Oklahoma tax on a nonmember of the tribe in a sale on tribal lands, that the State was allowed to impose certain minimal regulation on the tribe.\nHowever, the second aspect of that, could the State exercise the most efficient means of collecting the monies that were owed to it, could it sue the tribe directly, the answer was no.\nNow then, when you read that, and look at that in light of Mescalero... and Mescalero Apache was cited in Citizen Band Potawatomi for the proposition that you don't find the same immunity when the tribe goes off of tribal lands.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2233.363, 2239.698, 2248.194, 2264.864, 2299.837, 2310.284], "stop_times": [2239.698, 2248.194, 2264.864, 2299.837, 2310.284, 2326.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2233.363}, "reply_to": "20406__2_025", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_027", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Well then, the rule you're arguing for really is not... is not a... analogous to the rule in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act at all.\nI mean, if you have a foreign sovereign that engages in commercial activities, even if the company that it sets up enters its contracts at home, there would still be liability for the commercial activities, wouldn't there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2326.663, 2338.382], "stop_times": [2338.382, 2353.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2326.663}, "reply_to": "20406__2_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20406__2_028", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "There--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2353.572], "stop_times": [2354.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2353.572}, "reply_to": "20406__2_027", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_029", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "You can't really appeal to the change in sovereign immunity internationally, or the provisions of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act as exemplifying what you would want us to do.\nYou want us to create some new kind of exemption from sovereign immunity, one that only applies when you're acting outside your own country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2354.934, 2367.79], "stop_times": [2367.79, 2376.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2354.934}, "reply_to": "20406__2_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20406__2_030", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--And we would urge that that is, in fact, the rule.\nThat is the common law rule that when a sovereign goes outside its sovereign territory, outside its jurisdiction, then it is no longer covered by sovereign immunity as a matter of right.\nThe only protection that it receives is under the principles of race and comity, will comity be accorded the visiting sovereign when... in Nevada v. Hall, one which is not an Indian exemption, Indian sovereign immunity case but it has... the principles are appropriate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2376.547, 2380.81, 2394.227], "stop_times": [2380.81, 2394.227, 2416.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2376.547}, "reply_to": "20406__2_029", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_031", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "You, do you just so... I don't mind you saying all of this, but so long as you get around to answering my question.\nDo you agree that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the international concept of commercial liability for sovereigns does not work the way the principle you're urging on us would work?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2416.463, 2422.538], "stop_times": [2422.538, 2437.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2416.463}, "reply_to": "20406__2_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20406__2_032", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "That's not my understanding, Justice Scalia.\nI believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2437.297, 2441.42], "stop_times": [2441.42, 2442.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2437.297}, "reply_to": "20406__2_031", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_033", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "You think if France sets up an aircraft company and it's a purely commercial venture, profit-making venture, but all the shares are owned by the State of France, the Nation of France, that if that company makes a contract, so long as it makes the contract in France the commercial activities exception to sovereign immunity does not apply?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2442.119], "stop_times": [2467.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2442.119}, "reply_to": "20406__2_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20406__2_034", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--No, absolutely not, it does apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2467.417], "stop_times": [2469.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2467.417}, "reply_to": "20406__2_033", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_035", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "I think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2469.889], "stop_times": [2471.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2469.889}, "reply_to": "20406__2_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20406__2_036", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "I was afraid I was not communicating with you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2471.159], "stop_times": [2473.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2471.159}, "reply_to": "20406__2_035", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_037", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Mm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2473.652], "stop_times": [2474.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2473.652}, "reply_to": "20406__2_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20406__2_038", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--I had misspoken my position.\nIt's Manufacturing Technologies' position that when the tribe goes outside of its reservation boundaries, then it's subject to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2474.281, 2476.674], "stop_times": [2476.674, 2485.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2474.281}, "reply_to": "20406__2_037", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_039", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2485.937], "stop_times": [2486.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2485.937}, "reply_to": "20406__2_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20406__2_040", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--as per Mescalero--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2486.818], "stop_times": [2488.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2486.818}, "reply_to": "20406__2_039", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_041", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "But not if conducted the commercial activities on its reservation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2488.16], "stop_times": [2492.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2488.16}, "reply_to": "20406__2_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20406__2_042", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--And that is the distinction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2492.683], "stop_times": [2494.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2492.683}, "reply_to": "20406__2_041", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_043", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "And that's different from the international rule, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2494.993], "stop_times": [2496.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2494.993}, "reply_to": "20406__2_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20406__2_044", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "In the international rule, once again, when a sovereign conducts activities on its... in its own jurisdiction, then it is sovereign.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2496.666], "stop_times": [2507.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2496.666}, "reply_to": "20406__2_043", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_045", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Does this tribe have a reservation?\nThat's wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2507.293, 2509.844], "stop_times": [2509.844, 2510.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2507.293}, "reply_to": "20406__2_044", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20406__2_046", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "This tribe has approximately 1,200 acres of land--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2510.335], "stop_times": [2515.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2510.335}, "reply_to": "20406__2_045", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_047", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Does it have a reservation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2515.217], "stop_times": [2516.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2515.217}, "reply_to": "20406__2_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20406__2_048", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--It does not have a reservation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2516.389], "stop_times": [2518.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2516.389}, "reply_to": "20406__2_047", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_049", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "No.\nSo under your position, whatever it does, wherever it does it, there's no immunity, because there is no reservation here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2518.549, 2518.919], "stop_times": [2518.919, 2526.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2518.549}, "reply_to": "20406__2_048", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20406__2_050", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "That's not our position.\nWhen... the Mescalero case speaks in terms of reservation.\nSome tribes have very large reservations... the Navajo.\nOthers have less, less acres of land under their jurisdiction and control than do the Kiowas, but Indian country, reservation, lands held in tribal trust, I believe that to some degree, each of those may be, may support activities which are protected by sovereign immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2526.054, 2527.505, 2532.119, 2536.711], "stop_times": [2527.505, 2532.119, 2536.711, 2558.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2526.054}, "reply_to": "20406__2_049", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_051", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Well, I can understand... I guess I can understand what you're saying, but I don't understand the justification for it.\nLet me ask basically the same kind of question that Justice Breyer asked, but in a different way.\nOne way of looking at sovereign immunity is to look at it as a doctrine about the relationship between sovereign A and sovereign B whose courts assert judicial jurisdiction over sovereign A. Why should the policy that says their relationship is such that B's courts should not have jurisdiction over A, why should the doctrine that embodies that relationship depend for its application on whether a contract was made on a piece of trust land, or in downtown Tulsa?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2558.686, 2564.801, 2570.494], "stop_times": [2564.801, 2570.494, 2610.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2558.686}, "reply_to": "20406__2_050", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20406__2_052", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Because the... historically the immunity which was accorded the Indian sovereign was as to the tribe's acts on tribal lands in relation to its own internal affairs, management of its internal affairs.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2610.419, 2637.018], "stop_times": [2637.018, 2638.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2610.419}, "reply_to": "20406__2_051", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_053", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Well, that... historically that is certainly true with respect... I guess it's certainly true with respect to legislative or regulatory jurisdiction, but we're now talking about judicial jurisdiction, and I'm not sure that it... anything follows with respect to judicial jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2638.069], "stop_times": [2656.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2638.069}, "reply_to": "20406__2_052", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20406__2_054", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--The... if I may answer indirectly, the rationale of Potawatomi in separating regulatory and adjudicatory authority of the State in that case, it was critical that the activities there involved took place on State land... I'm sorry, on tribal lands.\nThe first ruling of the Court was to the effect that the lands, which were lands which had been purchased and held in trust, were held in trust for the tribe, were in fact tribal lands sufficient to invoke jurisdiction... invoke immunity.\nWhen you move then, though, to Mescalero Apache, you go to an activity which is off tribal lands and now you have to look once again at the question whether or not there is tribal sovereign immunity for acts which take place off lands, off tribal lands, and this Court found in Mescalero that there was no immunity for off-reservation commercial activities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2656.36, 2680.227, 2697.998], "stop_times": [2680.227, 2697.998, 2725.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2656.36}, "reply_to": "20406__2_053", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_055", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "But that was in the context of State taxation, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2725.714], "stop_times": [2729.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2725.714}, "reply_to": "20406__2_054", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20406__2_056", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "And... that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2729.607], "stop_times": [2731.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2729.607}, "reply_to": "20406__2_055", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_057", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Might not that principle be perfectly sound in the case of State taxation but perhaps be of more limited effect where you're talking about the jurisdiction of a court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2731.719], "stop_times": [2743.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2731.719}, "reply_to": "20406__2_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20406__2_058", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "That may very well be of more limited jurisdiction.\nHowever, the principles announced in Mescalero would support our position that when the tribe goes off tribal lands it's then subject to nondiscriminatory State law, applied equally to all citizens of the State.\nThe stretch for Manufacturing Technologies is to get from a taxation case, State taxation case to a commercial activity off tribal lands, and we feel that you can make that... we feel that you can rule that the tribe does not have immunity in an off-tribal-land commercial activity because of the general principle enunciated in Mescalero Apache.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2743.336, 2747.47, 2763.659], "stop_times": [2747.47, 2763.659, 2791.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2743.336}, "reply_to": "20406__2_057", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_059", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Is it your view, too... you also have asserted what I call an all-or-nothing position that once the tribe... there are a lot of different kinds of laws.\nThere are State discrimination laws.\nThere are State environmental laws.\nThere are State property tax laws.\nThere are State tort laws.\nThere are State contract laws.\nIs it your view that once the tribe goes off the reservation, the State, or a private person, where appropriate, could bring a lawsuit in a State court against the tribe and there's no assertion of sovereign immunity possible for all those things, or for some?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2791.408, 2799.944, 2802.074, 2803.235, 2804.886, 2807.888, 2809.51], "stop_times": [2799.944, 2802.074, 2803.235, 2804.886, 2807.888, 2809.51, 2827.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2791.408}, "reply_to": "20406__2_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20406__2_060", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "That... no... that would be correct.\nTo run down the line, when the tribe goes off tribal lands, then in the language of, I think Nevada v. Hall, it implicates the jurisdiction of the State of Oklahoma, but this can be true in any one of the 50 States.\nThere's no limitation on Kiowa tribal activities in Oklahoma.\nThey may be activities conducted in Honolulu, Hawaii.\nCommercial laws of the State where the State interest in Potawatomi was limited in a nontribal land situation, the State interest is much greater in an off-reservation situation, so you have nondiscriminatory State laws regarding contract, commercial, occupational, licensing... the whole gamut of possible State regulation, and the tribe would be subject to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2827.002, 2829.553, 2843.581, 2847.314, 2850.426], "stop_times": [2829.553, 2843.581, 2847.314, 2850.426, 2881.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2827.002}, "reply_to": "20406__2_059", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_061", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "So the... you and the Solicitor General agree that either you can bring a lawsuit against the tribe acting off-reservation under all these laws or under none of them, and you say you can bring the suit irrespective, and they say none.\nYou say all, they say none.\nIs... am I right?\nIs that what you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2881.657, 2899.89, 2900.609, 2901.43], "stop_times": [2899.89, 2900.609, 2901.43, 2902.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2881.657}, "reply_to": "20406__2_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20406__2_062", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "That is right, once again, as modified by the language in Mescalero, absent Federal law to the contrary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2902.141], "stop_times": [2911.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2902.141}, "reply_to": "20406__2_061", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_063", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--And of course the debate between the majority and the dissent in Mescalero was whether there was Federal law to the contrary in that case, because the dissenters claimed that they were... the tribe was a Federal instrumentality, in effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2911.558], "stop_times": [2932.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2911.558}, "reply_to": "20406__2_062", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20406__2_064", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "The... and... I believe that I'm correct when I say that the... they... the rule of Mescalero is based on a finding that there was no tribal sovereign immunity for the off-reservation activity.\nThat was the foundation for that rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2932.481, 2950.174], "stop_times": [2950.174, 2952.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2932.481}, "reply_to": "20406__2_063", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_065", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "In Potawatomi... you're more familiar... I looked at it quickly, but... or is there some other precedent that makes clear that in the noncontract context, say the State regulatory law context, or the State tax context, that the State or a city or some private person can maintain a lawsuit and collect money from the tribe, or didn't Potawatomi leave that open?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2952.675], "stop_times": [2978.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2952.675}, "reply_to": "20406__2_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20406__2_066", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Well, once again, in respondent's view, Potawatomi announced the rule for onreservation activity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2978.483], "stop_times": [2991.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2978.483}, "reply_to": "20406__2_065", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_067", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2991.16], "stop_times": [2992.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2991.16}, "reply_to": "20406__2_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20406__2_068", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Our position is that that rule doesn't travel off the reservation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2992.793], "stop_times": [2996.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2992.793}, "reply_to": "20406__2_067", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_069", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "So that... but you... there is no authority, I take it, either way in respect to any of these laws for tribe activity, in respect to any of these laws off the reservation, any category, which makes clear that the State or a city or a private person can sue the tribe, or that makes clear it can't sue the tribe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [2996.715], "stop_times": [3019.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2996.715}, "reply_to": "20406__2_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20406__2_070", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [3019.31], "stop_times": [3021.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3019.31}, "reply_to": "20406__2_069", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_071", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "There is no clear authority either way on that, I take it.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [3021.42, 3023.741], "stop_times": [3023.741, 3024.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3021.42}, "reply_to": "20406__2_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20406__2_072", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--Justice Breyer, I find none.\nWe believe that this is a case of first impression.\nHowever, Mescalero once again stands for the proposition that the State... I'm sorry, the Federal Government does not have exclusive jurisdiction over the tribe.\nThere are a number of cases arising in tribal taxing situations, mostly, to the effect that the States do have authority over certain aspects of activities on tribal lands.\nThe Potawatomi case separated the regulatory from the adjudicatory authority, and it wasn't the first case.\nI think Colville perhaps did the same thing, and in Colville the Court said that the State of Washington could seize cigarettes before they ever got to the reservation, and thereby satisfy its claims.\nUnited States v. Strate was a case which I believe remarried the adjudicatory and regulatory authority of a State on certain activities on tribal lands, but it's really not to the point that we're talking about today.\nOur point is that we have one rule for Potawatomi, for on-reservation activity.\nOff-reservation activity is a whole different matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [3024.352, 3025.754, 3028.977, 3044.615, 3059.935, 3071.072, 3088.603, 3107.987, 3115.38], "stop_times": [3025.754, 3028.977, 3044.615, 3059.935, 3071.072, 3088.603, 3107.987, 3115.38, 3119.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3024.352}, "reply_to": "20406__2_071", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_073", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "What is... but I'm beginning to... I hadn't seen fully the implications for tax law, regulatory law, all kinds of other laws, and if there are... I'm not certain they've been fully argued out, because you've been focusing on contract.\nDoes it make sense, then, to say the State was wrong in going on State law and then permit this thing to be argued more fully where all these implications are explored?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [3119.874, 3132.974], "stop_times": [3132.974, 3143.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3119.874}, "reply_to": "20406__2_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20406__2_074", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "If I... if I understand you, you ask is this a State law question to be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [3143.142], "stop_times": [3152.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3143.142}, "reply_to": "20406__2_073", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_075", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "No, I'm thinking... I think perhaps the lower court said it was State law, and perhaps it's wrong on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [3152.967], "stop_times": [3157.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3152.967}, "reply_to": "20406__2_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20406__2_076", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [3157.732], "stop_times": [3158.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3157.732}, "reply_to": "20406__2_075", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_077", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "If it's wrong on that, I wonder if we shouldn't send it back.\nI... that's... rather than try to go into this very broad question, well beyond contract law that's at stake here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [3158.329, 3160.682], "stop_times": [3160.682, 3169.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3158.329}, "reply_to": "20406__2_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20406__2_078", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "--In my view this is not a State law question.\nWe're talking about Federal statutes, treaties, the Constitution... these are Federal questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [3169.739, 3173.9], "stop_times": [3173.9, 3183.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3169.739}, "reply_to": "20406__2_077", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_079", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Well, isn't it correct to say that it's both a Federal law question and a State law question, because if there is a Federal law that says the tribe's immune here, that would obviously control.\nIf there's no Federal law, a State still could, as a matter of comity, recognize the immunity of the tribe, just as in Nevada v. Hall it could have been decided the other way as a matter of State law.\nSo you've got... it seems to me inevitably you have both a Federal issue and a State law issue, and the State law issue has been decided.\nThey're not going to show comity here, and they've assumed the answer to the Federal question, and... which we have to really resolve.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [3183.527, 3192.093, 3204.261, 3210.214], "stop_times": [3192.093, 3204.261, 3210.214, 3217.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3183.527}, "reply_to": "20406__2_078", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20406__2_080", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "I would agree that... I think the principal issues are Federal law principles, but once you find that a State has certain rights, then you do get into the State law aspect of the question, and this Court has dealt with that in a number of cases on-reservation, arising out of State regulatory actions.\nThe... I think that Puyallup was mentioned a moment ago.\nPuyallup had to do with fishing rights onreservation.\nTo that degree, we feel that it's not controlling in our situation.\nThis situation relates to the activities of the tribe when it goes beyond its boundaries.\nNevada, in reciting some of the rule says, Number 1, a sovereign cannot be sued in its own courts without its consent.\nThat is the rule.\nWhatever rights the visiting sovereign, the sovereign that comes into the property, into the jurisdiction of the first sovereign, the host sovereign has, are there merely as a matter of comity.\nThey're not accorded any rights as a matter of their own independent sovereignty, because they're now in some other sovereign's jurisdiction.\nWhat the tribe seeks, what the United States wants to give them in this case is a sovereignty which says that when the tribe goes into another court's jurisdiction... the State of Oklahoma, the State of Hawaii, the State of whatever, that at that point the tribe's sovereignty supersedes that of the jurisdiction of the State of Oklahoma, and the State of Oklahoma has no ability to sue it or to control that activity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [3217.31, 3241.144, 3251.141, 3257.555, 3264.621, 3273.575, 3284.553, 3285.973, 3299.754, 3309.759], "stop_times": [3241.144, 3251.141, 3257.555, 3264.621, 3273.575, 3284.553, 3285.973, 3299.754, 3309.759, 3344.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3217.31}, "reply_to": "20406__2_079", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_081", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Until Congress says otherwise.\nI thought the United States was taking the position that it's the peculiar relationship of trust between the United States and the tribes that gives them this kind of unusual dependent sovereignty, not really the kind of sovereign... sovereignty that a sister State or a foreign nation would have, but a dependent, depending on the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [3344.692, 3347.015], "stop_times": [3347.015, 3372.122], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3344.692}, "reply_to": "20406__2_080", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20406__2_082", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "That is correct, Justice Ginsburg.\nThe basis for Indian law, Indian sovereignty, certainly has to do with the relationship between the tribe and the U.S. Government.\nIn this case, however, in our opinion the U.S. tries to go outside of Federal common law and other law as we know it and give the tribe immunity when it takes whatever acts in a commercial vein in this situation outside its own reservation, outside the area where it has territorial sovereign immunity.\nSovereign immunity always has a territorial aspect, and that's what we ask in this case, is that territorial aspect be respected and accorded the appropriate proper weight.\nAny further questions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [3372.122, 3374.403, 3384.43, 3412.227, 3427.839], "stop_times": [3374.403, 3384.43, 3412.227, 3427.839, 3432.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3372.122}, "reply_to": "20406__2_081", "speaker": "john_e_patterson_jr"}
{"id": "20406__2_083", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Paterson.\nMr. Wallace, you have a minute remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [3432.741, 3438.147], "stop_times": [3438.147, 3440.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3432.741}, "reply_to": "20406__2_082", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20406__3_000", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "The Puyallup Three case involved a situation where tribal immunity protected a tribe from suit by the State to regulate off-reservation fishing.\nThe fishing was both on and off the reservation.\nThe tribe was protected by this Court from State suit.\nThe Citizen Band case, with respect to its handling of tribal immunity, did not turn on geography.\nInstead, the Court went directly to the concept that there had been a long recognition of the inherent immunity of the tribe.\nCongress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [3440.588, 3456.816, 3459.529, 3463.011, 3476.542, 3485.936], "stop_times": [3456.816, 3459.529, 3463.011, 3476.542, 3485.936, 3487.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3440.588}, "reply_to": "20406__2_083", "speaker": "r_brown_wallace"}
{"id": "20406__3_001", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Wallace.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [3487.218, 3488.867], "stop_times": [3488.867, 3490.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3487.218}, "reply_to": "20406__3_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20406__3_002", "conversation_id": "20406", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1037", "start_times": [3490.55], "stop_times": [3497.354], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3490.55}, "reply_to": "20406__3_001", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19859__0_000", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 96-1395, Janice LaChance v. Lester Erickson.\nGeneral Waxman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [0.0, 9.156], "stop_times": [9.156, 53.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19859__0_001", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nEach of the six Federal employees in this case engaged in sanctionable employment-related misconduct and then knowingly and intentionally falsely denied the misconduct when questioned by agency investigators.\nThe court below held, however, that as a matter of constitutional due process the Government, as employer, may not charge these employees with both misconduct and lying about the misconduct.\nIndeed, the court went beyond that to hold that an employee's deliberate falsification may not even be considered in determining the penalty for the separate underlying misconduct.\nThere is nothing whatsoever in the Due Process Clause or anywhere else in the Constitution, for that matter, that prevents a Government agency from sanctioning an employee who deliberately lies in response to questions about employment misconduct, whether or not the employee is also sanctioned for the misconduct itself.\nWhen the Government acts as an employer, it has the right to demand that its employees respond honestly to work-related questions and to sanction them if they do not, just as all other employers do.\nIndeed, the Government has more reason to demand honesty from its employees, as they employ... as they enjoy a public trust.\nAs this Court held in Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, the Government has a compelling interest in honest civil service.\nThe holding of the Federal Circuit in this case imposes profound anomalies and perverse incentives.\nWrongdoers who tell the truth are required under this holding to be punished just as severely as wrongdoers who then knowingly and intentionally lie about their misconduct when questioned by an investigator or a tribunal.\nAn employee who is questioned about wrongdoing can be punished for lying about it if he didn't do any wrong, but if he did do wrong and lies about it, he can't be separately punished for lying about it.\nUnder the Federal Circuit rule, a rational employee questioned about wrongdoing will always lie, since it's cost-free and perhaps he will fool or dissuade the agency.\nHe would be irrational to 'fess up and, indeed, I think it's fair to say that the consequences, that the rationale of the Federal Circuit's decision in this case goes beyond just what the individual agency can do and presumably would also prevent the Government in its sovereign capacity from making the false statements 1001 or, if their statements were under oath, for perjury.\nSo we submit that the decision of the Federal Circuit in this case, which doesn't follow any decisions by this Court or any decisions by any other Federal court, is simply wrong as a matter of constitutional law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [53.435, 56.628, 72.458, 86.657, 98.676, 120.31, 134.069, 142.103, 150.628, 158.695, 175.886, 190.557, 203.334, 233.494], "stop_times": [56.628, 72.458, 86.657, 98.676, 120.31, 134.069, 142.103, 150.628, 158.695, 175.886, 190.557, 203.334, 233.494, 248.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 53.435}, "reply_to": "19859__0_000", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19859__0_002", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "General Waxman, just for purposes of discussion and not to indicate my view on what the Court's likely to do in the preceding case, but let's assume we recognize an exculpatory no doctrine, does that have any spillover effect in this situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [248.574], "stop_times": [264.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 248.574}, "reply_to": "19859__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19859__0_003", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Boy, the only spillover effect it could have, Justice O'Connor, would be if you found an exculpatory no doctrine required as a matter of constitutional law, because the argument in favor of the exculpatory no doctrine in every court that has adopted some form of it has done so as a matter of statutory construction, trying to define what Congress could have intended.\nThere's no statute at issue in this case that that could be read into.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [264.146, 288.5], "stop_times": [288.5, 294.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 264.146}, "reply_to": "19859__0_002", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19859__0_004", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "I guess as a practical matter the consequences of lying about the situation, if you're correct in this case, are often more severe than the underlying malfeasance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [294.044], "stop_times": [313.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 294.044}, "reply_to": "19859__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19859__0_005", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "It may--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [313.146], "stop_times": [313.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 313.146}, "reply_to": "19859__0_004", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19859__0_006", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "I would assume that could often be the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [313.667], "stop_times": [315.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 313.667}, "reply_to": "19859__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19859__0_007", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--That could often be the case, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [315.718], "stop_times": [317.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 315.718}, "reply_to": "19859__0_006", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19859__0_008", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "I suppose the moral of that is don't lie.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [317.29], "stop_times": [319.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 317.29}, "reply_to": "19859__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19859__0_009", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--That's the moral that we hope people will derive from the long line of cases in which this Court has held that even where there are important constitutional guarantees at issue, for example, in... under the self-incrimination clause, there is never a license to lie.\nHere, of course, the self-incrimination clause is not even in play.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [319.06, 334.491], "stop_times": [334.491, 338.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 319.06}, "reply_to": "19859__0_008", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19859__0_010", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Is there any concern about the conduct on the part of the agent, because most of these interviews are on a one-to-one basis, so is that perhaps what's reflected in this, that if you had a written record or... and the person, the employee when confronted lies, that's one thing, but if it's just an oral translation, how can you be sure that the one who's doing the interview isn't dissembling?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [338.562], "stop_times": [366.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 338.562}, "reply_to": "19859__0_009", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19859__0_011", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Well, a couple of answers.\nFirst of all, in a number of the cases that are collected in this... before this Court, the false statements were written.\nThat is, the employee was given a list of questions, or a series of questions and provided written answers.\nIn other instances, the employees either repeated or made their lies after they were put under oath, so you can't characterize the Federal Circuit's decision in this case as somehow limited to an informal oral question by an investigator.\nBut even if you could, that might go to the question of whether the agency could establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the individual employee had knowingly and with intent to deceive given a false statement.\nThat is, it may make it more difficult for the agency to establish that the misconduct had occurred, but as a constitutional matter, I wouldn't think that any a priori rule would be appropriate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [366.992, 369.263, 376.628, 381.612, 398.322, 415.142], "stop_times": [369.263, 376.628, 381.612, 398.322, 415.142, 426.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 366.992}, "reply_to": "19859__0_010", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19859__0_012", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Was the... did the Federal Circuit in this case rest its holding on any statutory ground, or was it a purely constitutional holding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [426.252], "stop_times": [434.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 426.252}, "reply_to": "19859__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19859__0_013", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "It is a purely constitutional holding.\nThe only statute that's really... it's not even at issue in this case.\nI don't even think that the Federal Circuit cited the statute, although I may be mistaken... is 5 U.S.C. section 7513, which provides that an agency may take action against an employee for misconduct\n\"only for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service. \"\nAnd one of the things that the agency has to establish by a preponderance of the evidence is not only, of course, that the misconduct occurred, but that there is a nexus between the sanction that the agency has imposed and\n\"the promotion of the efficiency of this... of the service. \"\nThat's required both in the statute and by a decision of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [434.095, 436.336, 442.55, 457.931, 462.804, 479.025, 482.227], "stop_times": [436.336, 442.55, 457.931, 462.804, 479.025, 482.227, 485.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 434.095}, "reply_to": "19859__0_012", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19859__0_014", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "As I understand this panel of the Federal Circuit, they were following a precedent already set, and all these MSPB cases nowadays do go to that one circuit.\nWas there any procedure that might have been used to get the court to sit en banc and perhaps reconsider the precedent that was relied on in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [485.47, 497.838], "stop_times": [497.838, 509.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 485.47}, "reply_to": "19859__0_013", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19859__0_015", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "I... sure.\nWe can ask that... the Federal Circuit to reconsider any panel decision en banc.\nThe earlier precedent that you're referring to, a case called Grubka--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [509.646, 512.198, 516.701], "stop_times": [512.198, 516.701, 521.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 509.646}, "reply_to": "19859__0_014", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19859__0_016", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [521.043], "stop_times": [521.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 521.043}, "reply_to": "19859__0_015", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19859__0_017", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--I must say that although several panels of the MSPB itself in several instances in these cases felt that the result that was ultimately reached by the Federal Circuit was dictated by Grubka, but there are other... there were other MSPB decisions that basically distinguish Grubka.\nI'm not certain, but I believe that we did ask the Federal Circuit at least in this case to reconsider this panel decision en banc.\nI don't know whether we did in Grubka or not.\nFrankly, I think it's reading a lot into Grubka to conclude that Grubka dictates the result that was reached by the board and the Federal Circuit in this case.\nThat was a highly unusual case which is and was distinguished by the MSPB subsequently on what I think are reasonable grounds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [521.374, 544.559, 554.505, 556.506, 566.995], "stop_times": [544.559, 554.505, 556.506, 566.995, 577.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 521.374}, "reply_to": "19859__0_016", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19859__0_018", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "There was one curiosity in the Federal Circuit's opinion.\nThat is, they seemed to draw a line between... they said if it's at the investigative stage then the employee could be punished.\nWas the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [577.421, 580.884, 589.52], "stop_times": [580.884, 589.52, 590.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 577.421}, "reply_to": "19859__0_017", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19859__0_019", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "They did say that, but it's a little bit curious because all six of the employees in this case were alleged and proven to have made... to have lied during the investigative stage.\nNow, some of them also lied during the \"administrative stage\", but one of the curious things about the Federal Circuit's decision is that in dicta it does say, well, of course due process wouldn't in any way protect lying at the investigative stage, but that's exactly what happened in each one of these cases.\nIf there are no further questions, I'd like to reserve 10 minutes for rebuttal, if I may.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [590.361, 601.196, 619.9], "stop_times": [601.196, 619.9, 628.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 590.361}, "reply_to": "19859__0_018", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19859__0_020", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--Very well, General Waxman.\nMr. Marth, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [628.946, 630.078], "stop_times": [630.078, 631.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 628.946}, "reply_to": "19859__0_019", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19859__1_000", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIf the Court accepts the Government position in this case that the Federal Circuit created a broad constitutional right to lie, then the respondents lose, because there is no such right, this Court has adamantly over the years asserted that there is no such right, and the respondents are not advocating that right in this case.\nIf, on the other hand, this Court finds that the Federal Circuit narrowly tailored a right to protect the employee's meaningful right to respond to the charges, then the respondents should prevail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [631.758, 635.17, 655.433], "stop_times": [635.17, 655.433, 668.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 631.758}, "reply_to": "19859__0_020", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_001", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Did you tell us that the question presented was not presented in your opposition to the petition, because the question presented surely says what you say is not at issue here, whether the Due Process Clause precludes a Federal... the Due Process Clause precludes a Federal agency from sanctioning an employee for making false statements to the agency regarding allegations that the employee had engaged in employment-related conduct.\nI mean, that's what I thought we were here to talk about, and you're saying it is not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [668.944, 692.338], "stop_times": [692.338, 695.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 668.944}, "reply_to": "19859__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19859__1_002", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "No, Your Honor, I'm not saying that.\nI'm saying that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [695.811, 697.534], "stop_times": [697.534, 698.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 695.811}, "reply_to": "19859__1_001", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_003", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Oh.\nI thought that's what you said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [698.605, 698.944], "stop_times": [698.944, 699.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 698.605}, "reply_to": "19859__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19859__1_004", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--that the Government in its brief and in its argument has characterized this as a broad constitutional right to lie, whereas it's the respondents' position that the Federal Circuit said, in a very narrowly tailored situation, to protect an employee's meaningful right to respond, an employee can deny misconduct and put the Government to its proof.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [699.224], "stop_times": [720.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 699.224}, "reply_to": "19859__1_003", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_005", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Okay.\nI see.\nYou're--\n--the Constitution required that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [720.828, 721.219, 721.519, 721.93], "stop_times": [721.219, 721.519, 721.93, 723.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 720.828}, "reply_to": "19859__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19859__1_006", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Your Honor, I disagree with General Waxman with regard to that issue.\nThe court of appeals relied on and quoted 5 U.S. Code 7513(b), which is the provision which gives... and I believe that's on page 11a of the appendix... which gives the employees certain rights when charges are brought against them, and that includes the right to counsel, the right to a detailed statement of the charges, a right to have a period of time of a minimum of 7 days to respond to those--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [723.92, 728.723], "stop_times": [728.723, 758.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 723.92}, "reply_to": "19859__1_005", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_007", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "And was that denied to these respondents?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [758.492], "stop_times": [761.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 758.492}, "reply_to": "19859__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19859__1_008", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--That was not denied, but what the court of appeals was saying, Your Honor, was that the meaningful right to respond and the meaningful right to have those rights was denied because early on before those rights were ever given, they were... in effect could be... if an employee was forced to respond affirmatively to the Government charges of misconduct, that that subsequent meaningful right was denied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [761.464], "stop_times": [783.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 761.464}, "reply_to": "19859__1_007", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_009", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Well, if it was simply an interpretation of the statute, why did the court of appeals refer to the Due Process Clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [783.4], "stop_times": [789.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 783.4}, "reply_to": "19859__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19859__1_010", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Well, the Due Process Clause comes in because the court of appeals found that there was a risk of erroneous deprivation in this case of those subsequent rights if an employee was forced to respond without a... an opportunity to deny the misconduct at the early stage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [789.925], "stop_times": [806.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 789.925}, "reply_to": "19859__1_009", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_011", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Let me ask my question again, then.\nI thought I had an answer, but then... then you go back and said the same thing again.\nDo you agree that the question presented here is whether the Due Process Clause requires the outcome?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [806.104, 807.616, 811.009], "stop_times": [807.616, 811.009, 817.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 806.104}, "reply_to": "19859__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19859__1_012", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Certainly, but the Due Process Clause, Your Honor, is based on property rights, and the property rights come from the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [817.892], "stop_times": [823.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 817.892}, "reply_to": "19859__1_011", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_013", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Well... okay.\nAnd what in your opinion, Mr. Marth, is the case from this Court that most closely supports the result, the constitutional result reached by the court of appeals here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [823.885, 826.047], "stop_times": [826.047, 836.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 823.885}, "reply_to": "19859__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19859__1_014", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Well, Your Honor, this Court has never, to my knowledge, dealt with this issue in a Federal employment context, where they have looked at the issues in the context of Federal employment.\nI'm not aware of any case where this precise issue has certainly come before the Court in the past.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [836.325, 849.731], "stop_times": [849.731, 856.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 836.325}, "reply_to": "19859__1_013", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_015", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Well, even if the precise issue hasn't, what is the constitutional decision from this Court that most closely supports your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [856.167], "stop_times": [864.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 856.167}, "reply_to": "19859__1_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19859__1_016", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Well, in Garrity v. State of New Jersey this Court said that officers who are given the choice of either answering questions or losing their jobs had their Fourteenth Amendment rights violated, and the statements they gave were not voluntary and could not be used against them.\nThat's probably the closest case, although certainly that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [864.842, 881.104], "stop_times": [881.104, 883.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 864.842}, "reply_to": "19859__1_015", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_017", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "There's no question of using the statements here against these people in some other proceeding, is there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [883.334], "stop_times": [887.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 883.334}, "reply_to": "19859__1_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19859__1_018", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--You mean, whether or not these statements could be used in another proceeding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [887.977], "stop_times": [892.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 887.977}, "reply_to": "19859__1_017", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_019", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [892.752], "stop_times": [893.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 892.752}, "reply_to": "19859__1_018", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19859__1_020", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Your Honor, I would... or, Chief Justice, I would say that there is no prohibition against using those statements in another context, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [893.193], "stop_times": [902.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 893.193}, "reply_to": "19859__1_019", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_021", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "The Government isn't trying to use them... the Government isn't trying to obtain a criminal conviction by using these statements in some sort of a criminal proceeding, is it?\nThe statements were just used in the proceeding in which they were given.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [902.847, 911.213], "stop_times": [911.213, 913.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 902.847}, "reply_to": "19859__1_020", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19859__1_022", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor, but the employees certainly did not know that, and there are several employees in this case, Barrett and Roberts, for example, who could have been charged with taking Government property, misappropriation of Government property, Ms. Kye in this case, who could have been charged with some kind of credit card fraud or abuse, and these employees, when they're brought into the investigation stage, are not told by the Government whether or not criminal consequences are contemplated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [913.986], "stop_times": [944.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 913.986}, "reply_to": "19859__1_021", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_023", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "But no criminal consequences resulted in these cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [944.595], "stop_times": [947.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 944.595}, "reply_to": "19859__1_022", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19859__1_024", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [947.828], "stop_times": [948.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 947.828}, "reply_to": "19859__1_023", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_025", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Now--\n--Mr. Marth, you're drawing a large distinction between the public and private sector, and as I was reading your arguments I was thinking, in the case that we just heard, it's something that can only be between a Government and its citizens, but here we have an employment setting.\nEmployees lie to private employers like they do to public employers, so it seems to me you're extracting from due process a right for a public employee that surely does not exist in a private employer.\nIf that employer is lied to he can say, I don't want dissembling employees on my staff, goodbye.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [948.388, 950.308, 965.107, 980.018], "stop_times": [950.308, 965.107, 980.018, 987.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 948.388}, "reply_to": "19859__1_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19859__1_026", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Well, Justice Ginsburg, you've pointed out a real distinction between the Federal and the private sector, and that is that in the Federal sector an employee has absolutely no right to refuse to answer.\nIn the private sector there's no compulsion upon an employee to have to answer the question, but the Federal Circuit and the Merit Systems Protection Board have held that in any type of investigation an employee does not have a right to refuse to cooperate, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [987.955, 999.001], "stop_times": [999.001, 1017.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 987.955}, "reply_to": "19859__1_025", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_027", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Oh, but that simply means that if the employee refuses there will be consequences for refusal.\nIn each instance, they're... it seems to me, they're in the same position, aren't they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1017.243, 1022.337], "stop_times": [1022.337, 1026.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1017.243}, "reply_to": "19859__1_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19859__1_028", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1026.718], "stop_times": [1027.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1026.718}, "reply_to": "19859__1_027", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_029", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--public and private?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1027.249], "stop_times": [1027.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1027.249}, "reply_to": "19859__1_028", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19859__1_030", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--Your Honor, and even this case, Ms. Kye, one of the charges against her was that supposedly she failed to cooperate in the investigation, so you're correct that an employee is put to a dilemma.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1027.739], "stop_times": [1040.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1027.739}, "reply_to": "19859__1_029", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_031", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "And that's a separate charge from--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1040.568], "stop_times": [1042.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1040.568}, "reply_to": "19859__1_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19859__1_032", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "That's a separate charge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1042.799], "stop_times": [1043.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1042.799}, "reply_to": "19859__1_031", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_033", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--the charge that she in fact lied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1043.119], "stop_times": [1044.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1043.119}, "reply_to": "19859__1_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19859__1_034", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "That's separate from that charge, yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1044.849], "stop_times": [1047.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1044.849}, "reply_to": "19859__1_033", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_035", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "That's right, yes.\nNow, the Federal Circuit seemed to try to draw some line between the types of statements that it's doctrine would apply to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1047.534, 1047.971], "stop_times": [1047.971, 1057.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1047.534}, "reply_to": "19859__1_034", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19859__1_036", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "That's correct, Justice O'Connor.\nThey made it very--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1057.248, 1058.64], "stop_times": [1058.64, 1059.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1057.248}, "reply_to": "19859__1_035", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_037", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "It's a line I don't understand, but is it one you espouse?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1059.52], "stop_times": [1062.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1059.52}, "reply_to": "19859__1_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19859__1_038", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--It is one we espouse, and the Merit Systems Protection Board has had no difficulty applying that line, and we contend that that line is no more difficult--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1062.351], "stop_times": [1072.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1062.351}, "reply_to": "19859__1_037", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_039", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "What is the line?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1072.188], "stop_times": [1073.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1072.188}, "reply_to": "19859__1_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19859__1_040", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--The line is that... the difference between denying the charges, a simple denial of the charges versus telling false tales or creating a story to cover yourself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1073.27], "stop_times": [1083.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1073.27}, "reply_to": "19859__1_039", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_041", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Well, in the case of the employee, Ms. Kye, she asserted that she had lost or torn up her Government credit cards, and yet that is not treated as a false statement.\nHow do you draw the line there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1083.124, 1094.604], "stop_times": [1094.604, 1098.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1083.124}, "reply_to": "19859__1_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19859__1_042", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Your Honor, basically the elements of what the Government had to prove in her case was that she had misused her credit card.\nThe denials in effect were, no I did not misuse my credit card, so that's where the court of appeals came down.\nThey said that when you look at the material facts that are elements of the charge, in this case, did you misuse your Government credit card, she denied it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1098.085, 1108.073, 1116.577], "stop_times": [1108.073, 1116.577, 1125.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1098.085}, "reply_to": "19859__1_041", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_043", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Yes, but she said... she went beyond that.\nShe said, I lost it.\nI tore it up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1125.102, 1126.294, 1127.183], "stop_times": [1126.294, 1127.183, 1128.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1125.102}, "reply_to": "19859__1_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19859__1_044", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "And she also attempted, Your Honor, to correct that later on, and when she attempted to correct it, and that's one of the risks here, that when that employee attempted to correct it she was charged with falsifying evidence and her entire credibility--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1128.265], "stop_times": [1144.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1128.265}, "reply_to": "19859__1_043", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_045", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Which, indeed, she had been doing.\nThat's a risk that she--\n[Laughter]\nA risk that materialized because of her own conduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1144.166, 1145.667, 1147.559, 1148.478], "stop_times": [1145.667, 1147.559, 1148.478, 1151.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1144.166}, "reply_to": "19859__1_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19859__1_046", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1151.57], "stop_times": [1152.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1151.57}, "reply_to": "19859__1_045", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_047", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "So what's wrong with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1152.611], "stop_times": [1153.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1152.611}, "reply_to": "19859__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19859__1_048", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Well, the danger here that if an employee... for example, in a couple of these cases they were asking questions, in Ms. Walsh's case about some conduct that occurred 3 years before, and in the Barrett and Roberts case they were asking them how were they spending a 2-hour period 14 months before.\nSo if an employee who answers, and blurts out an answer... when the Government asks, for example, in Barrett and Roberts, were you working on Government business on June 8, 14 months ago, between the hours of 1:30 and 3:30, they say, yes, we were.\nWell, you know, the risk is that then when they check their records, or have other opportunities to look back, they may find that indeed that that was not what they were doing 14 months before.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1153.553, 1172.035, 1187.396], "stop_times": [1172.035, 1187.396, 1198.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1153.553}, "reply_to": "19859__1_047", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_049", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Well, doesn't there have to be intentional misrepresentation?\nDoesn't the Government have to show it's intentional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1198.292, 1202.105], "stop_times": [1202.105, 1203.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1198.292}, "reply_to": "19859__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19859__1_050", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Well, yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1203.847], "stop_times": [1204.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1203.847}, "reply_to": "19859__1_049", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_051", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Well, doesn't that solve that problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1204.636], "stop_times": [1205.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1204.636}, "reply_to": "19859__1_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19859__1_052", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Well, the problem is the chilling effect on an employee of denying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1205.658], "stop_times": [1209.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1205.658}, "reply_to": "19859__1_051", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_053", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Chilling effect on lying.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1209.812], "stop_times": [1210.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1209.812}, "reply_to": "19859__1_052", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19859__1_054", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--Chilling effect on denying misconduct.\nAs both Justice Kennedy and Justice O'Connor have pointed out in the former argument, what you have here is, for examples, if somebody comes up, an investigator says, were you 5 minutes late to work, and you say, no, I wasn't 5 minutes late to work, well, suddenly what was a 5-minutes-late-to-work charge, which may involve a slap on the wrist, maybe even a written reprimand, now becomes a removable offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1210.931, 1213.603], "stop_times": [1213.603, 1236.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1210.931}, "reply_to": "19859__1_053", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_055", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Yes, but that's because it's a more serious thing to do.\nIt's just... a cover-up is almost always more serious than the underlying offense.\nLook at the Alger Hiss case.\nThey asked him in 1951 or '50, whenever the trial was, about things that happened in 1937.\nThe statute of limitations on the substantive offense had run, so he was just found guilty of perjury, so lying can produce an offense where there was none before.\nThat's what Congress has said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1236.029, 1240.45, 1244.614, 1246.384, 1253.169, 1263.956], "stop_times": [1240.45, 1244.614, 1246.384, 1253.169, 1263.956, 1265.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1236.029}, "reply_to": "19859__1_054", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19859__1_056", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Your Honor, but here Congress has said that employees, when they're going to be disciplined, have certain rights, and the issue is, are those rights to a meaningful opportunity to defend affected when... before those rights are ever given, and here you have... I think it's important to understand the context.\nFor example, in Mr. Erickson's case, the initial decision indicated that he was put into a room and questioned and told to fill out certain answers to questions.\nHe asked for counsel.\nHe was denied it.\nHe asked to leave the interview room.\nHe put down that he felt that he was under duress and loss of his job if he responded, so what meaningful opportunities does he have subsequently to respond when he has been under all this pressure and coercion early on to respond to the Government's investigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1265.836, 1283.59, 1293.815, 1298.628, 1296.717, 1299.639], "stop_times": [1283.59, 1293.815, 1298.628, 1296.717, 1299.639, 1317.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1265.836}, "reply_to": "19859__1_055", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_057", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "But even this case, how does it fit with what the Federal Circuit said its narrow holding was, that as it said, that false statements made during agency investigations may properly be subject to falsification or similar charges?\nWhy wasn't what went on part of an investigation?\nWhy doesn't... shouldn't we read what the Federal Circuit says the law is, apply it to that fact, and doesn't... that person doesn't come within this decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1317.552, 1334.651, 1339.336], "stop_times": [1334.651, 1339.336, 1351.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1317.552}, "reply_to": "19859__1_056", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19859__1_058", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Your Honor, that's the one point I agree with General Waxman on.\nI don't know how the court of appeals could say that in light of these facts, unless the court of appeals was saying, when you begin to focus an investigation on a particular respondent similar to a criminal context, certain rights attach.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1351.454, 1354.735], "stop_times": [1354.735, 1367.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1351.454}, "reply_to": "19859__1_057", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_059", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Well, but this seems to say just the opposite.\nIt says, of course, when they... during the investigation they may be subject to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1367.112, 1369.143], "stop_times": [1369.143, 1374.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1367.112}, "reply_to": "19859__1_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19859__1_060", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Well, I mean, there's no question that these questions were given during the investigation, but what is evident is that the investigation had focused on the individual respondents in this case.\nFor example, in Ms. Walsh's case, the investigator came and said, we have talked to 10 people, and we have statements showing that basically you've lied to us, or that you are guilty of this misconduct, and you better get your answers right, because if you don't get your answers right, we've got other penalties that we can institute.\nSo you're right, Your Honor, that the court of appeals used that phrase about an investigation, and the only way that I can reconcile that phrase is in terms of the fact that the investigation had now focused to the point on these respondents that they were in effect the persons that were going to be put to the charges on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1374.619, 1386.985, 1407.758], "stop_times": [1386.985, 1407.758, 1429.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1374.619}, "reply_to": "19859__1_059", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_061", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--Mr. Marth, can I... let me express what... the trouble I have with your presentation.\nYou're relying on the Due Process Clause which prevents the deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process, and your claim here is that the property of this job, this Federal job is unfairly taken away unless the individual is allowed to make misstatements during the administrative proceeding that would result in taking it away.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1429.725, 1434.607], "stop_times": [1434.607, 1459.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1429.725}, "reply_to": "19859__1_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19859__1_062", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Not exactly, Your Honor.\nIn terms of the administrative proceeding I'm not taking the position that anyone at a Merit Systems Protection Board hearing has a right to lie.\nIn fact, we're saying specifically to the contrary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1459.804, 1461.254, 1467.919], "stop_times": [1461.254, 1467.919, 1470.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1459.804}, "reply_to": "19859__1_061", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_063", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Just in the investigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1470.04], "stop_times": [1471.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1470.04}, "reply_to": "19859__1_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19859__1_064", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Just in the investigation prior to the meaningful rights that Congress has given in 5 U.S. Code section 7513.\nIn other words, when these persons were all questioned they had not been told that they had a right to a lawyer, they had not been told that they had a right to see the charges against them, they were not given any adequate time to respond to the charges.\nThey were basically put in a room and said, respond now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1471.081, 1478.916, 1492.415], "stop_times": [1478.916, 1492.415, 1494.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1471.081}, "reply_to": "19859__1_063", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_065", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Once the proceeding starts, however, you agree that there's no such--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1494.617], "stop_times": [1499.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1494.617}, "reply_to": "19859__1_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19859__1_066", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "I agree, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1499.499], "stop_times": [1500.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1499.499}, "reply_to": "19859__1_065", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_067", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--No such right.\nBut were they told that what you're about to say is important, and if you lie you are subject to criminal liability, or the equivalent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1500.049, 1500.43], "stop_times": [1500.43, 1510.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1500.049}, "reply_to": "19859__1_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19859__1_068", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "I don't think the record is clear on that, Your Honor, Justice Breyer.\nAs far as I can tell, the employees were not told anything about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1510.918, 1516.74], "stop_times": [1516.74, 1520.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1510.918}, "reply_to": "19859__1_067", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_069", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "I mean, what I... the difference between this case and Alger Hiss illustrates the point that when a person commits perjury he is put under oath.\nIt is made clear to that person how important what he's about to say is, and what will happen to him if he lies.\nPeople when they're not under oath say all kinds of things.\nI do.\nYou may.\nI mean, I try not to lie.\n[Laughter]\nI wouldn't like to call my wife in to say, in minor matters I... you know, you say... well, my goodness.\nSo there is a problem, but I don't... I see a problem, and to that extent I understand your point.\nBut what I don't see is how to solve that problem within the context of the law that we're arguing about, and if you can find a way to do that, I would be interested.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1520.302, 1530.58, 1537.355, 1541.559, 1542.769, 1543.28, 1544.351, 1545.39, 1550.805, 1559.901], "stop_times": [1530.58, 1537.355, 1541.559, 1542.769, 1543.28, 1544.351, 1545.39, 1550.805, 1559.901, 1576.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1520.302}, "reply_to": "19859__1_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19859__1_070", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Well, Your Honor, one thing, of course, that would solve the problem would be that there would be no investigation questions to a given employee who's under charges until they're given--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1576.361], "stop_times": [1585.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1576.361}, "reply_to": "19859__1_069", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_071", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Yes, yes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1585.677], "stop_times": [1586.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1585.677}, "reply_to": "19859__1_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19859__1_072", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--Until they're given their rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1586.278], "stop_times": [1587.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1586.278}, "reply_to": "19859__1_071", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_073", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--I mean a legal route within the framework of the law we are discussing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1587.017], "stop_times": [1593.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1587.017}, "reply_to": "19859__1_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19859__1_074", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Well, the legal framework, Your Honor, as I understand the court of appeals decision and what we're advocating here is that for the meaningful rights to apply, an employee has to be able to deny the misconduct, similar to a not guilty plea, and put the Government to its proof.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1593.131], "stop_times": [1609.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1593.131}, "reply_to": "19859__1_073", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_075", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Well, but we're not dealing here, are we, with criminal charges as such.\nThey may have done things that could result in criminal charges, but that's not what happened.\nWe're talking about whether there should be some employee sanction imposed for what they did.\nIsn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1609.923, 1615.427, 1620.1, 1626.374], "stop_times": [1615.427, 1620.1, 1626.374, 1627.315], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1609.923}, "reply_to": "19859__1_074", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19859__1_076", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Well, not only an employee sanction, but a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1627.315], "stop_times": [1629.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1627.315}, "reply_to": "19859__1_075", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_077", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Isn't that what we're talking about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1629.947], "stop_times": [1631.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1629.947}, "reply_to": "19859__1_076", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19859__1_078", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--We are talking about a double sanction, yes, ma'am.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1631.097], "stop_times": [1632.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1631.097}, "reply_to": "19859__1_077", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_079", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "And this Court has never imposed some kind of Miranda rights scheme in the context of looking into employee malfeasance or misfeasance, have we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1632.779], "stop_times": [1643.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1632.779}, "reply_to": "19859__1_078", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19859__1_080", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "No.\nNo, Your Honor, you have not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1643.945, 1644.776], "stop_times": [1644.776, 1645.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1643.945}, "reply_to": "19859__1_079", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_081", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "But you would want us to impose something like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1645.875], "stop_times": [1648.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1645.875}, "reply_to": "19859__1_080", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19859__1_082", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nWhat we're ask... we're not asking necessarily that employees be told anything, I think as Justice Breyer indicated, perhaps maybe give employees some kind of warning before they could be questioned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1648.569, 1649.778], "stop_times": [1649.778, 1660.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1648.569}, "reply_to": "19859__1_081", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_083", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "A Miranda-type scheme for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1660.277], "stop_times": [1662.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1660.277}, "reply_to": "19859__1_082", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19859__1_084", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1662.067], "stop_times": [1662.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1662.067}, "reply_to": "19859__1_083", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_085", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--employees.\nWell, I think you might have a hard time persuading us that we ought to extend that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1662.538, 1662.978], "stop_times": [1662.978, 1668.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1662.538}, "reply_to": "19859__1_084", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19859__1_086", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "No, I'm not advocating that.\nI understood Justice Breyer might be--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1668.543, 1669.531, 1671.023], "stop_times": [1669.531, 1671.023, 1671.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1668.543}, "reply_to": "19859__1_085", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_087", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--But that's not this case.\nMr. Marth, maybe you agreed too quickly that Justice Breyer had a problem.\nI mean, Justice Breyer said he tries not to lie.\nWere your clients trying not to lie?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1671.324, 1672.442, 1676.476, 1679.018], "stop_times": [1672.442, 1676.476, 1679.018, 1681.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1671.324}, "reply_to": "19859__1_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19859__1_088", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1681.358], "stop_times": [1682.289], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1681.358}, "reply_to": "19859__1_087", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_089", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "I thought if they were trying not to lie, nothing could happen to them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1682.289], "stop_times": [1685.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1682.289}, "reply_to": "19859__1_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19859__1_090", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--Well, the risk is that something could happen to them, Your Honor, and... Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1685.562], "stop_times": [1690.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1685.562}, "reply_to": "19859__1_089", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_091", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "The risk is that something could happen to them if it were proven that they were not trying not to lie.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1690.064], "stop_times": [1695.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1690.064}, "reply_to": "19859__1_090", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19859__1_092", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Well, for example, in Ms. Walsh's case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1695.669], "stop_times": [1697.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1695.669}, "reply_to": "19859__1_091", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_093", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "I mean, life is tough.\nWe all have to, you know, live in some risk, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1697.45, 1699.06], "stop_times": [1699.06, 1702.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1697.45}, "reply_to": "19859__1_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19859__1_094", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--In Mrs. Walsh--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1702.073], "stop_times": [1703.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1702.073}, "reply_to": "19859__1_093", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_095", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--that can't be eliminated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1703.425], "stop_times": [1703.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1703.425}, "reply_to": "19859__1_094", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19859__1_096", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--I'm sorry.\nExcuse me, Your Honor.\nIn Mrs. Walsh's case the administrative judge that heard the case found that she did not lie, and when it got to the MSPB they found that she did lie, so there's the risk of credibility determinations here becoming... raising what is a simple minor offense up to a removable offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1703.945, 1704.266, 1704.696], "stop_times": [1704.266, 1704.696, 1723.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1703.945}, "reply_to": "19859__1_095", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_097", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "But the MSPB ruled in favor of these employees, as I understand it, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1723.116], "stop_times": [1726.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1723.116}, "reply_to": "19859__1_096", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19859__1_098", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1726.829], "stop_times": [1727.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1726.829}, "reply_to": "19859__1_097", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_099", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "And was affirmed.\nSo wouldn't that same MSPB, as policer of this, be able to make distinctions between the employee who came across as terribly nervous and just tripped up a little, and say, that one, firing is too much for that, and then take the one who's deliberately trying to put the investigators off the track and say... make the penalty fit the crime.\nYou do have a policer in here independent of the agency, and that is the MSPB.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1727.44, 1727.931, 1752.226], "stop_times": [1727.931, 1752.226, 1758.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1727.44}, "reply_to": "19859__1_098", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19859__1_100", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "We do have a policer for some Federal employees, Your Honor, but not for all.\nPostal employees, for example, unless they're in management, or unless they're veterans--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1758.188, 1761.211], "stop_times": [1761.211, 1765.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1758.188}, "reply_to": "19859__1_099", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_101", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "We're dealing with a case that comes to us through the MSPB.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1765.885], "stop_times": [1768.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1765.885}, "reply_to": "19859__1_100", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19859__1_102", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--Right, but I think it's important, though, if we're looking at due process rights available to the entire Federal workforce, that the Court understand that not all employees have a right to get that independent decisionmaker.\nFor many employees that final decisionmaker is the agency official that decides the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1768.546, 1779.934], "stop_times": [1779.934, 1785.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1768.546}, "reply_to": "19859__1_101", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_103", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "I take it under your scheme if there's suspicion that a credit card has been misused and the supervisor said, I'd like to talk to you about this credit card problem, the employee has a right to say, I decline to make any statements on that unless you want to bring charges.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1785.538], "stop_times": [1802.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1785.538}, "reply_to": "19859__1_102", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19859__1_104", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "An employee can certainly do that, and the agency has the right to bring charges.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1802.277], "stop_times": [1807.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1802.277}, "reply_to": "19859__1_103", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_105", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Can the agency separately charge for noncooperation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1807.372], "stop_times": [1810.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1807.372}, "reply_to": "19859__1_104", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19859__1_106", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1810.945], "stop_times": [1811.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1810.945}, "reply_to": "19859__1_105", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_107", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--and failure to answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1811.334], "stop_times": [1812.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1811.334}, "reply_to": "19859__1_106", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19859__1_108", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Yes.\nThey did in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1812.165, 1812.586], "stop_times": [1812.586, 1813.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1812.165}, "reply_to": "19859__1_107", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_109", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Well, but not under your scheme.\nUnder your scheme, the employer... the employee has a right to in effect be silent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1813.287, 1814.235], "stop_times": [1814.235, 1822.952], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1813.287}, "reply_to": "19859__1_108", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19859__1_110", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "I don't believe I was ever advocating that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1822.952], "stop_times": [1826.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1822.952}, "reply_to": "19859__1_109", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_111", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Oh, you would never give them a right to be silent, only to lie.\n[Laughter]\nI mean... but that will be the scheme you come up with.\nHe can be prosecuted if he says, I'm sorry, I don't want to answer, and then he can be removed for failing to cooperate.\nIf he had only lied, he would have been okay.\nIsn't that what we end up with?\nIsn't that the logical position you're arguing, or are you saying they should also have a right to be silent?\nYou have a choice, to lie or be silent, either one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1826.674, 1841.313, 1829.706, 1833.019, 1838.671, 1841.934, 1843.905, 1849.418], "stop_times": [1841.313, 1829.706, 1833.019, 1838.671, 1841.934, 1843.905, 1849.418, 1851.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1826.674}, "reply_to": "19859__1_110", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19859__1_112", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Well, either one, they're subject to potential penalties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1851.481], "stop_times": [1853.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1851.481}, "reply_to": "19859__1_111", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_113", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Is the penalty the same for simply saying, I don't care to discuss it, as it is for lying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1853.822], "stop_times": [1860.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1853.822}, "reply_to": "19859__1_112", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19859__1_114", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "I am not sure on the table of penalties, Your Honor, whether or not the refusal to cooperate in an investigation is a removable offense or not, so I cannot answer that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1860.648], "stop_times": [1873.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1860.648}, "reply_to": "19859__1_113", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_115", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "But you're not denying that it's permissible to remove the employee for failure to cooperate?\nYou don't deny... you don't assert that there's a constitutional--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1873.354, 1879.147], "stop_times": [1879.147, 1882.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1873.354}, "reply_to": "19859__1_114", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19859__1_116", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "No, but that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1882.169], "stop_times": [1882.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1882.169}, "reply_to": "19859__1_115", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_117", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--prohibition, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1882.48], "stop_times": [1882.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1882.48}, "reply_to": "19859__1_116", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19859__1_118", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--No, but that puts the employee in the difficult situation where they're... where they're questioned, again, before they're given those meaningful rights that Congress has given them, that the issue is, at that point, what do they do?\nDo they lie, do they do a simple no, which is what the Court found happened in this case.\nAgain, I mean, it's important to... for this Court to understand that King v. Erickson specifically said, there's no right to lie or to affirmatively mislead an agency engaged in investigation.\nThey said, merely they had a simple right to deny the charge, and that they did not have a right to tell tall tales, to tamper with evidence, to falsify records... they came down with a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1882.95, 1893.907, 1900.041, 1911.58], "stop_times": [1893.907, 1900.041, 1911.58, 1923.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1882.95}, "reply_to": "19859__1_117", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_119", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Well, certainly it would mislead, if you're asked a question, did you misuse the credit card, and you say no, I didn't, when in fact you did.\nThat surely misleads if anything does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1923.736, 1932.883], "stop_times": [1932.883, 1935.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1923.736}, "reply_to": "19859__1_118", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19859__1_120", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--Well, I guess there is that issue of whether or not a simple denial is misleading, or whether to mislead or to deceive the Government requires some kind of more affirmative misconduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1935.384], "stop_times": [1947.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1935.384}, "reply_to": "19859__1_119", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_121", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Well, it's hard for me to see how the... you know, you could say perhaps a spinner of tall tales would dig their own grave by making extravagant statements that were easily refutable, whereas perhaps a simple no would be less easy to identify as perjurious.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1947.203], "stop_times": [1966.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1947.203}, "reply_to": "19859__1_120", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19859__1_122", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Your Honors, we would contend that the due process concerns in this case with regard to risk of erroneous deprivation, basically that there are six potential risks to the employees in these... in this case.\nFirst, there is the chilling effect stemming from the seriousness of the charge, which we've already talked about.\nSecondly, an employee who is not represented during this process risks being coerced when questioned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1966.316, 1987.029, 1992.104], "stop_times": [1987.029, 1992.104, 1998.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1966.316}, "reply_to": "19859__1_121", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_123", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Mr. Marth, may I just ask you one question about the relationship of the prior decisionmakers?\nDid the MSPB get this rule from the Federal Circuit's prior decision, or did it originate with the MSPB?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [1998.398, 2003.391], "stop_times": [2003.391, 2011.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1998.398}, "reply_to": "19859__1_122", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19859__1_124", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "The Federal Circuit in Grubka came up with the proposition to begin with that a person always has the right to deny a charge and put the Government to its proof.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2011.256], "stop_times": [2021.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2011.256}, "reply_to": "19859__1_123", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_125", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "So it wasn't MSPB as... MSPB was not the originator.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2021.314], "stop_times": [2026.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2021.314}, "reply_to": "19859__1_124", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19859__1_126", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2026.496], "stop_times": [2027.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2026.496}, "reply_to": "19859__1_125", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_127", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "I didn't understand that your theory was risk of erroneous deprivation.\nI thought what you were concerned with was a very sound and justified deprivation, and that's why the person would be allowed to lie a little bit of the way at the beginning so that he would be able to make a more effective defense later on without having given things away.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2027.207, 2032.492], "stop_times": [2032.492, 2050.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2027.207}, "reply_to": "19859__1_126", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19859__1_128", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2050.143], "stop_times": [2050.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2050.143}, "reply_to": "19859__1_127", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_129", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Isn't that your theory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2050.955], "stop_times": [2051.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2050.955}, "reply_to": "19859__1_128", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19859__1_130", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, but the risk comes from requiring an employee at that early stage in effect to give up or minimize his later meaningful rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2051.733], "stop_times": [2061.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2051.733}, "reply_to": "19859__1_129", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_131", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Yes, but it's not a risk of erroneous deprivation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2061.02], "stop_times": [2063.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2061.02}, "reply_to": "19859__1_130", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19859__1_132", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Well, if he is required to respond with more than an exculpatory no in effect at that time, then there is that risk that his later rights would be deprived of him, deprived of him from a meaningful point of view.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2063.581], "stop_times": [2080.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2063.581}, "reply_to": "19859__1_131", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_133", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Well, it's a risk that his later rights will not protect him from a justified deprivation.\nIsn't that it?\nYou're saying if he can't lie, and he doesn't remain silent, and he had to tell the truth, he wouldn't have much of a case later on.\nThat's your concern, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2080.434, 2085.087, 2085.777, 2096.322], "stop_times": [2085.087, 2085.777, 2096.322, 2098.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2080.434}, "reply_to": "19859__1_132", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19859__1_134", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "No.\nMy concern is that before a person has a right to see an attorney, before they have a right to review their own records, before they have a right to look at the Government charges, it risks the deprivation of those rights if the agency can come in and question the employees and the employee does not have a right simply to deny the misconduct until he gets those rights.\nAt that point, any right to deny the misconduct stops, but it's only after he gets the meaningful rights protected to that employee by the Government would his rights continue.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2098.105, 2098.324, 2124.721, 2136.658], "stop_times": [2098.324, 2124.721, 2136.658, 2139.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2098.105}, "reply_to": "19859__1_133", "speaker": "paul_e_marth"}
{"id": "19859__1_135", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Marth.\nMr. Waxman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2139.601, 2141.373], "stop_times": [2141.373, 2143.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2139.601}, "reply_to": "19859__1_134", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19859__2_000", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nMr. Marth may be simply have misunderstood or not know what the facts are with respect to the other five employees before this case, but he surely knows what the facts are with respect to his client, Sergeant Erickson, who was not put in a room and told he had to answer a series of rapid-fire questions.\nThe record in this case reflects that Mr.... that Sergeant Williamson at 7:20 in the morning signed a Kalkind statement acknowledging that he has... may be asked to provide answers to questions: I've been advised that I have a right to remain silent, but that I may be subject to disciplinary action for failure to answer material and relevant questions.\nI've been further advised that the answers I give to these questions, or any evidence gained by reason of my answers--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2143.203, 2145.995, 2166.269, 2190.835], "stop_times": [2145.995, 2166.269, 2190.835, 2197.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2143.203}, "reply_to": "19859__1_135", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19859__2_001", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "But Mr. Waxman, that... none of that was necessary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2197.911], "stop_times": [2200.011], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2197.911}, "reply_to": "19859__2_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19859__2_002", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--It was absolutely not necessary.\nI just don't want this Court to be under the misimpression that this man was somehow treated unfairly, 3 hours later--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2200.011, 2201.972], "stop_times": [2201.972, 2208.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2200.011}, "reply_to": "19859__2_001", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19859__2_003", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "But even if he was put in a room and asked a bunch of rapid-fire questions, it seems to me we've got the same answer under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2208.066], "stop_times": [2213.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2208.066}, "reply_to": "19859__2_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19859__2_004", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--That's... that's right.\nHe could simply have said, I don't remember, or I'd like to take time to think about it, or he could have confessed, and that was the case with respect to all--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2213.15, 2214.109], "stop_times": [2214.109, 2222.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2213.15}, "reply_to": "19859__2_003", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19859__2_005", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--Which is I suppose what he should have done, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2222.434], "stop_times": [2224.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2222.434}, "reply_to": "19859__2_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19859__2_006", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--We have as an... the Government as an employer has the right to ask that they do that, even if we had been \"unreasonable\" and put him on the spot and said, look, we're investigating this Mad Laugher incident, and were you... do you or do you not know anything about that, but none of the cases before this Court are anything approaching that.\nMs. Walsh, who supposedly was asked on the spot to talk about events that happened 3 years before, was accompanied by an attorney, made a long, discursive statement in response to questions, and there was a transcript.\nShe could easily have said, I don't remember.\nIt was a long time ago.\nShe gave a whole false story about a long relationship she had.\nYou are right.\nIt does not matter as a constitutional matter.\nI just wanted the record to be clear with respect to this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2224.026, 2244.8, 2258.178, 2260.812, 2261.82, 2266.385, 2267.034, 2269.307], "stop_times": [2244.8, 2258.178, 2260.812, 2261.82, 2266.385, 2267.034, 2269.307, 2272.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2224.026}, "reply_to": "19859__2_005", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19859__2_007", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "In fact, I don't suppose she could even say I don't remember, if she really did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2272.67], "stop_times": [2274.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2272.67}, "reply_to": "19859__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19859__2_008", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "That's... that's right, and the problem that Justice Breyer was suggesting that some people may have with the potential for abuse I think is dealt with very adequately by Congress and by the Office of Personnel Management in the relevant stat... provisions of the Civil Service Protection Act and the implementing regulations.\nIn 5 U.S.C. section 2301, that is the statutory provision that enunciates the merit systems principles, it states, among other things, that as a matter of statutory law all employees and applicants for employee... employment should receive fair and equitable treatment in all instances of personnel management, and it goes on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2274.15, 2298.266], "stop_times": [2298.266, 2320.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2274.15}, "reply_to": "19859__2_007", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19859__2_009", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Is this... this is a minor... but I mean, it... point, but it's crucial, I guess not necessarily to whether you win or lose, but I'm still worried about whether this is a constitutional or a statutory case, and the language on 12a, you see, they say, the question before us is whether doubling up a misconduct charge, et cetera, deprives the employee of the due process that the statute intends, and then they talk about Federal law throughout the rest of it, and they've got the Constitution in there quite a lot, but I... maybe it's the same answer.\nI don't know.\nBut is this... what do you think about that language?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2320.982, 2356.277, 2357.046], "stop_times": [2356.277, 2357.046, 2361.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2320.982}, "reply_to": "19859__2_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19859__2_010", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "There is simply no doubt that the Federal Circuit was ruling as a matter of constitutional due process.\nIt says so over and over and over again.\nWhen you get to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2361.991, 2368.075, 2370.737], "stop_times": [2368.075, 2370.737, 2371.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2361.991}, "reply_to": "19859__2_009", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19859__2_011", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Mr. Waxman, you would not be happy, I don't suppose, with a decision that says we find no constitutional basis for this decision, but we leave open the question whether it's commanded by the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2371.615], "stop_times": [2380.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2371.615}, "reply_to": "19859__2_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19859__2_012", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--I don't think there would be any basis whatsoever... that would be the most muscular interpretation of the statute imaginable.\nI don't think there would be any basis for it, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2380.421, 2387.817], "stop_times": [2387.817, 2389.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2380.421}, "reply_to": "19859__2_011", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19859__2_013", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "You think it's more muscular than the interpretation of the Due Process Clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2389.407], "stop_times": [2391.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2389.407}, "reply_to": "19859__2_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19859__2_014", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--Well, that's... you mean by the court below?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2391.27], "stop_times": [2394.592], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2391.27}, "reply_to": "19859__2_013", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19859__2_015", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2394.592], "stop_times": [2395.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2394.592}, "reply_to": "19859__2_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19859__2_016", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "That's rather--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2395.091], "stop_times": [2395.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2395.091}, "reply_to": "19859__2_015", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19859__2_017", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "We've muscled that around before, right?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2395.912, 2398.062], "stop_times": [2398.062, 2398.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2395.912}, "reply_to": "19859__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19859__2_018", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "--That's rather muscular.\nWe'll take it, whatever this Court's judgment is.\nThe question presented is a constitutional one.\nI think the reason that there's no statutory question in this case is that there simply is no statutory provision to which this claim could be attached.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2398.403, 2398.813, 2400.846, 2402.877], "stop_times": [2398.813, 2400.846, 2402.877, 2410.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2398.403}, "reply_to": "19859__2_017", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19859__2_019", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Well, he... they've attached 7513 and to the list in 7511 and they say, for the efficiency of the service, and then they list all these rights and they say, well, obviously, this means that you have a right to say no, and certainly during the hearing, and since you must have a right to exculpatory no during the hearing itself you have this reading.\nYes, it's muscular.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2410.812, 2435.208, 2436.319], "stop_times": [2435.208, 2436.319, 2436.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2410.812}, "reply_to": "19859__2_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19859__2_020", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "It's... look, it's not how... it isn't how the Government has read the opinion, but it would be wonderful if the Court could so read the opinion and then hold that even as a matter of statutory construction it simply cannot be that as an a priori matter it doesn't promote the efficiency of the service to sanction employees who deliberately and intentionally lie to their employers.\nWe haven't read it that way, but if the Court feels that it could, we'd embrace it.\nIf there are no further questions, we'll submit.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2436.538, 2457.062, 2463.235, 2466.388], "stop_times": [2457.062, 2463.235, 2466.388, 2466.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2436.538}, "reply_to": "19859__2_019", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "19859__2_021", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Waxman.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2466.838, 2467.921], "stop_times": [2467.921, 2469.038], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2466.838}, "reply_to": "19859__2_020", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19859__2_022", "conversation_id": "19859", "text": "The honorable Court is now adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1395", "start_times": [2469.038], "stop_times": [2474.74], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2469.038}, "reply_to": "19859__2_021", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20490__0_000", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 96-7151, Debra Faye Lewis v. United States.\nMr. Granger.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [0.0, 9.126], "stop_times": [9.126, 56.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20490__0_001", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nDebra Lewis was charged, tried, and convicted under an assimilated Louisiana murder statute for a crime which was committed on a military reservation in Vernon Parish, Louisiana.\nShe was not charged nor tried under the appropriate Federal murder statute.\nOn appeal, the Fifth Circuit agreed and reversed the conviction based upon the assimilated Louisiana statute, finding that it did not apply, and that the Assimilative Crimes Act did not allow the prosecutor to assimilate the State statute when, in fact, a Federal murder statute prohibited the conduct for which she was charged.\nHowever, the Fifth Circuit then affirmed the life imprisonment sentence based upon her conviction of second degree Federal murder.\nWe also contend that the affirmance of the sentence is harmful and prejudicial to Debra Lewis because under the sentencing guidelines applicable to Federal second degree murder, such a sentence could not be imposed.\nFor purposes of this argument, the Assimilative Crimes Act is a longstanding Federal statute which merely is a gap filling and a loophole closing statute.\nThe purpose of the statute was to prevent and allow the Federal Government to prosecute criminal actions on military reservations on territory under exclusive Federal jurisdiction when, by assimilating a State criminal statute if, and only if, there was no Federal statute which made the conduct sort to be prosecuted--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [56.748, 59.48, 70.708, 76.422, 95.814, 102.95, 117.248, 127.113], "stop_times": [59.48, 70.708, 76.422, 95.814, 102.95, 117.248, 127.113, 147.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 56.748}, "reply_to": "20490__0_000", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_002", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Well, I'm not sure that's the backdrop against which that was adopted.\nI think there was considerable sentiment at the time that basically State law ought to apply to crimes committed in areas that the Federal Government was administering, and what do you think our policy should be in general, to find that State law should apply where possible, because that is the backdrop under which this statute was passed in the first place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [147.977, 151.799], "stop_times": [151.799, 177.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 147.977}, "reply_to": "20490__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20490__0_003", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--Yes, Justice O'Connor, I under... I agree with you, but once the Assimilative Crimes Act was adopted initially in approximately 1825, it was because Congress at that particular point in time had not taken a very proactive role in adopting criminal statutes, so what happened was, you'd have a person commit an act or a criminal... or a crime on a military reservation or in the territories and then be able to flaunt and get away with it.\nSo as Justice Story has been noted to say, that necessity... in fact, he was one of the authors of part of the Assimilative Crimes Act, along with Daniel Webster, in saying that we have to allow these crimes to be punished and close... my words, close the loopholes or fill the gap.\nThere is great sentiment to apply State law on these reservations.\nHowever, Congress has spoken.\nIn 18 U.S.C. section 13, which I have at page 5 of my brief, the original brief, it says, whoever is guilty of any act or omission which, although not made punishable by any enactment of Congress.\nSo in times past, and in this particular case before 1909, when there was no Federal murder statute, clearly the Government would have been faced with a proposition that it couldn't prosecute for murder, so obviously they had to assimilate the State crime and say we can't allow you to get away with this, and so we'll take the State crime, and by section 13, it becomes a Federal crime and we prosecute it.\nI think in this particular case we get to the point of whether the particular act is made punishable by an enactment of Congress, and I think that the statutes are clear again.\nCongress has adopted the Federal murder statute at 18 U.S.C. section 1111, which you'll find at page 5 and 6 of my brief.\nThis statute clearly sets forth a comprehensive scheme of murder.\nAs in most States, there's a difference between first degree and second degree murder.\nCongress has done the same thing.\nCongress has found that there would be first degree murders, which are generally murders, or killing of human beings with malice aforethought, but also premeditated murders such as poison, lying in wait, or again they have another group of murders that are specifically listed as first degree murders, which is arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse, or sexual abuse, burglary, or robbery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [177.506, 201.031, 216.713, 220.696, 222.517, 237.916, 260.851, 272.298, 281.014, 285.569, 289.619, 291.332], "stop_times": [201.031, 216.713, 220.696, 222.517, 237.916, 260.851, 272.298, 281.014, 285.569, 289.619, 291.332, 318.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 177.506}, "reply_to": "20490__0_002", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_004", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Was that true in 1993?\nI don't know the answer to this question.\nDid that, the specific breakdown come in the 1994 amendments?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [318.53, 320.321, 323.813], "stop_times": [320.321, 323.813, 329.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 318.53}, "reply_to": "20490__0_003", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20490__0_005", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "There may have been an amendment, Your Honor, Justice Souter, as to the aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, but the other provisions were specifically--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [329.296], "stop_times": [337.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 329.296}, "reply_to": "20490__0_004", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_006", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "They were there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [337.371], "stop_times": [337.912], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 337.371}, "reply_to": "20490__0_005", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20490__0_007", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--However, the statute is also clear, it says any other murder, and that is explicit, that are not listed as first degree murder is murder in the second degree.\nI think the Federal murder statute is very clear--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [337.912, 350.38], "stop_times": [350.38, 353.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 337.912}, "reply_to": "20490__0_006", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_008", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Well, a little bit depends on how you come at it, doesn't it, Mr. Granger?\nI mean, I think you're analyzing it and very likely quite proper in saying, here's how Congress treated murder, but if you say, how did Congress treat offenses against juveniles, then you would come at it in a somewhat different way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [353.122, 356.485], "stop_times": [356.485, 371.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 353.122}, "reply_to": "20490__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20490__0_009", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--I don't entirely agree with that, Mr. Chief Justice.\nI think the way that Congress has specified this statute is merely to set forth the crimes in two broad categories that are fairly com... that are comprehensive.\nHowever, Congress also has another way of doing this, because I know the issue here is murder of a child.\nHowever, if we looked at the sentencing guidelines... I believe it's section 381.2... which provides for an enhancement under the murder statute for a vulnerable victim, clearly, Congress then decided that when you have younger persons we have to make an allowance and enhance the penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [371.474, 376.477, 388.054, 394.008], "stop_times": [376.477, 388.054, 394.008, 412.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 371.474}, "reply_to": "20490__0_008", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_010", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "But that wasn't just under the Federal murder statute, was it?\nThat's for all sentencing for all Federal crimes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [412.631, 415.934], "stop_times": [415.934, 418.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 412.631}, "reply_to": "20490__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20490__0_011", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Correct, Your Honor, and that is merely to take into account the fact that some people are more vulnerable to crimes, such as older people, pigeon drops, or things of that nature, or in our particular situation here, where you have a younger person, a child who is being abused, who is actually being killed by a step parent, a parent and a step parent.\nHowever, the theory of the statute is comprehensive, and it takes into consideration this particular act, whereas--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [418.996, 437.476], "stop_times": [437.476, 444.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 418.996}, "reply_to": "20490__0_010", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_012", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "I'm not sure what your test is.\nYour brief at some point talks about conduct.\nAt other points it talks about the nature of the offense.\nIt seems to me what you're saying now that Congress has addressed the general subject area, and that that should suffice.\nI take it that's the standard you're asking us to apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [444.111, 446.152, 449.234, 451.836, 458.931], "stop_times": [446.152, 449.234, 451.836, 458.931, 462.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 444.111}, "reply_to": "20490__0_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20490__0_013", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--Yes, Justice Kennedy.\nWhat I'm saying is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [462.794, 464.465], "stop_times": [464.465, 465.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 462.794}, "reply_to": "20490__0_012", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_014", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Maybe you're not, but I'm just... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [465.727], "stop_times": [467.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 465.727}, "reply_to": "20490__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20490__0_015", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--Well, my brief, I would admit, is not as articulate as I would like it to have been, but I think the general thought that I was trying to present to the Court is that we have certain conduct, and in this particular case the Federal... the Congress has enacted a murder statute that takes into account conduct which is normally classified as murder, and that is specifically the killing of a human being.\nWhereas, when we look at the Louisiana first degree murder statute, it, in much the same way, has broken down murder into first degree and second degree to take into consideration various persons, statuses, or crimes committed within the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate another crime, just like the first degree murder statute in... that Congress adopted.\nHowever, what Louisiana has done is sought to enforce punishment through the differentiation of the types of murder.\nWhereas in first degree murder you have either a death penalty or life imprisonment without parole, and in second degree murder you have life in prison without parole.\nHowever, the conduct, or the act, is the killing.\nI think it's a fairly specific thing that we can all realize and agree upon that is what murder is, is the killing of a human being.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [467.196, 489.492, 510.044, 518.299, 526.564, 529.657], "stop_times": [489.492, 510.044, 518.299, 526.564, 529.657, 536.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 467.196}, "reply_to": "20490__0_014", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_016", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--Do you take the position essentially that the Government does on the criterion... and, by the way, I'm not suggesting that you give your case away if you do this, but I think you and the Government are getting close, because toward the end of the Government's brief the Government says, if I remember rightly, that the question we should ask is whether Congress has made a considered judgment that the particular peculiarity of State law which might be argued to override the Federal... the general Federal statute should have no bearing, and it's kind of a field preemption sort of concept, and I think that's essentially what you're arguing.\nAm I right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [536.412, 576.477], "stop_times": [576.477, 577.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 536.412}, "reply_to": "20490__0_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20490__0_017", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Justice Souter, yes, I believe that's what I'm getting at, but I think I'm trying to make it in a different way.\nWhat I'm trying to propose is simply a clear reading of the statutes, because it appears to me that it's fairly clear that Congress has taken over the field of murder, especially after 1909, as it applies to any act which has occurred upon a military reservation, or any act under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [577.228, 585.103], "stop_times": [585.103, 603.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 577.228}, "reply_to": "20490__0_016", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_018", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "But I mean you're saying... as I understand it, you're saying that on the basis of reading the congressional statute and saying, in effect, this looks like a statute which is meant to cover the whole waterfront of murder.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [603.525], "stop_times": [614.722], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 603.525}, "reply_to": "20490__0_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20490__0_019", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [614.722], "stop_times": [615.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 614.722}, "reply_to": "20490__0_018", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_020", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [615.383], "stop_times": [615.643], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 615.383}, "reply_to": "20490__0_019", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20490__0_021", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "I do agree with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [615.643], "stop_times": [617.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 615.643}, "reply_to": "20490__0_020", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_022", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Suppose Louisiana had a statute that said, abuse of a child is an offense, juvenile cruelty is an offense.\nThen in your view would it be perfectly proper for the U.S. prosecutor to say, I have one charge under the U.S. Code for murder, and a second charge under Louisiana law for cruelty to a juvenile.\nWould that be compatible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [617.033, 627.752, 645.303], "stop_times": [627.752, 645.303, 647.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 617.033}, "reply_to": "20490__0_021", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20490__0_023", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, I would think that that's more closely compatible to my analysis of the statutes, and I would... if I had to concede a point, I would concede that that is more likely to be an appropriate acceptance of the way the statute should work, because under the Louisiana cruelty to a juvenile statute it covers not only cruelty but also it covers neglect, so then you have a different area than, say, the Federal assault statute, where we deal with the actual striking of someone under the age of 16 or something of that nature.\nBut there again, we see the difference.\nThe chord, or the common chord that goes through these cases, at least in my way of thinking, is the fact we have a killing, and Congress has said, as far as it goes to killing, we've decided what is first degree murder, we have decided what is second degree murder.\nNow, Louisiana, you can decide whatever you want is murder under your State statutes, and you can apply that to whomever you want, as long as they are your citizens or persons in your State, but when it comes to prosecuting this crime on Federal property, in Federal courts, for an offense against the United States, then we're going to look at what we decide murder is and so as not to get too far afield--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [647.143, 675.693, 678.515, 691.833], "stop_times": [675.693, 678.515, 691.833, 712.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 647.143}, "reply_to": "20490__0_022", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_024", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "So is your test, then, just that if the congressional statute covers the crime, murder, homicide, then you don't look any further, that's it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [712.316], "stop_times": [722.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 712.316}, "reply_to": "20490__0_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20490__0_025", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--You would not have to look further for the definition of murder.\nYou would look only to the Federal murder statute, not to any Louisiana statutes dealing with murder, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [722.303, 725.716], "stop_times": [725.716, 730.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 722.303}, "reply_to": "20490__0_024", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_026", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "So it's... you're advocating a simple test that the Federal statute covers it, that's it.\nYou don't augment it in any way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [730.168, 734.381], "stop_times": [734.381, 737.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 730.168}, "reply_to": "20490__0_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20490__0_027", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Yes, Justice Ginsburg, because when we... when I looked at this Court's previous ruling in Williams back in 1946, the issue there really, the way I sum it up, is that you have a competing State and Federal statute.\nThe Federal statute chose in that case to draw the elements of the crime more narrowly, the age of consent being 16, whereas the Arizona statute chose to make the age of consent 18, and this Court held--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [737.193, 751.212], "stop_times": [751.212, 762.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 737.193}, "reply_to": "20490__0_026", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_028", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [762.458], "stop_times": [762.709], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 762.458}, "reply_to": "20490__0_027", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20490__0_029", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--that we cannot allow a State statute to somehow enlarge, broaden, or redefine--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [762.709], "stop_times": [766.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 762.709}, "reply_to": "20490__0_028", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_030", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--Well, most Federal courts have interpreted Williams as adopting some kind of a precise acts test.\nI don't think the courts generally have applied the assimilative crimes statute very literally.\nIt reads broadly, certainly, but they've instead said it's some kind of a precise acts test.\nDo you agree with that approach in most cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [766.733, 777.229, 785.145, 793.039], "stop_times": [777.229, 785.145, 793.039, 797.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 766.733}, "reply_to": "20490__0_029", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20490__0_031", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, I agree with that approach, except that I think in a... the case of a murder versus the case of carnal knowledge versus statutory rape the precise act can only be one act, and that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [797.13], "stop_times": [808.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 797.13}, "reply_to": "20490__0_030", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_032", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Well, how about abuse of a child carried out by beating, and the Federal law just has an assault and battery statute, but the State law has a specific child abuse statute that would govern, what... is it assimilated, or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [808.5], "stop_times": [825.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 808.5}, "reply_to": "20490__0_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20490__0_033", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--If I had to choose I would say it's more like--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [825.902], "stop_times": [829.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 825.902}, "reply_to": "20490__0_032", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_034", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "I mean, it's so curious, because it all depends on how you frame the generality of the act.\nThe act is the beating of a child.\nWell, then the Federal law covers it.\nNo, it's abusing a child.\nWell, then the State law covers it.\nHow do we know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [829.183, 836.797, 839.109, 840.781, 843.081, 844.591], "stop_times": [836.797, 839.109, 840.781, 843.081, 844.591, 845.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 829.183}, "reply_to": "20490__0_033", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20490__0_035", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--I think we have to look at what conduct is being proscribed and whether the statute, whether it be the Federal assault statutes or whether it be a Louisiana cruelty to a juvenile statute, or any State statute that deals with batteries or cruelty to a juvenile, addressed the actual conduct which is being prohibited.\nThere is that gray--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [845.673, 861.845], "stop_times": [861.845, 863.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 845.673}, "reply_to": "20490__0_034", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_036", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Well, how do you answer that question?\nWhich one applies in the case of beating a child?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [863.706, 865.486], "stop_times": [865.486, 868.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 863.706}, "reply_to": "20490__0_035", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20490__0_037", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--I would think that if it's specifically beating of a child, that more than likely it would be assimilated, and it has been assimilated under other circuit courts.\nHowever, I think we also have to understand that assault statutes as written are generally very, very broad, and they're... and they cover a wide range of acts, and in fact they could also, as far as the cruelty to a juvenile statute in Louisiana--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [868.29, 877.774], "stop_times": [877.774, 890.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 868.29}, "reply_to": "20490__0_036", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_038", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "That's pretty close to saying well, murder of a child will apply the State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [890.974], "stop_times": [895.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 890.974}, "reply_to": "20490__0_037", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20490__0_039", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--But in the Louisiana scheme work I believe, Justice O'Connor, that what we're talking about is, there is a killing of a child, and what we're looking now at is the way that Louisiana defines murder from first degree to second degree.\nThat is not really the issue, I think, before this Court.\nThe issue before this Court, has Congress, through the Federal murder statute, defined this crime and, if so, we don't go to a State statute in order to give us a different burden of proof, to give us different elements of the crime, or to give us different sentences.\nWe look only to the Federal statute.\nAnd I think that's what makes those type of cases much different than assault cases, or burglary cases, or cases where you have a long range or a wide range of different actions that can be specifically narrowed down.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [895.215, 908.586, 910.747, 924.655, 926.338], "stop_times": [908.586, 910.747, 924.655, 926.338, 937.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 895.215}, "reply_to": "20490__0_038", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_040", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Mr. Granger, you're not really arguing that we should stick to the words of the statute, are you?\nI mean, the words of the statute say, if the act, any act or omission not made punishable by any enactment of Congress.\nThat's the condition.\nIt has to be an act or omission which is not made punishable by any enactment of Congress.\nNow, I assume, if you follow the language of the statute and you beat somebody to death and Congress had an assault statute but not a murder statute, that would be covered by that language, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [937.815, 941.548, 953.715, 954.456, 959.329], "stop_times": [941.548, 953.715, 954.456, 959.329, 975.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 937.815}, "reply_to": "20490__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20490__0_041", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "I think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [975.418], "stop_times": [977.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 975.418}, "reply_to": "20490__0_040", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_042", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "You could not prosecute under State law for the murder, because the act or omission was punishable.\nWhat he did, the beating of this person which resulted in death, but that was the act or omission, it is punishable, so you would only be able to prosecute under Federal law for assault and no murder prosecution, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [977.01, 983.185], "stop_times": [983.185, 996.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 977.01}, "reply_to": "20490__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20490__0_043", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--No, Justice Scalia, I disagree with that, because I think that we have two different things.\nOne is an assault, which does not mean there is a killing.\nYou can have an assault and there be no death.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [996.603, 1000.697, 1004.219], "stop_times": [1000.697, 1004.219, 1006.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 996.603}, "reply_to": "20490__0_042", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_044", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "That's what I thought you meant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1006.31], "stop_times": [1007.219], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1006.31}, "reply_to": "20490__0_043", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20490__0_045", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "And clearly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1007.219], "stop_times": [1007.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1007.219}, "reply_to": "20490__0_044", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_046", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "In other words, you're urging us to ignore the words, act or omission.\nI mean, the statute doesn't deal with type of offense.\nIt says, act or omission, and we're all agreed that we should forget about that because it doesn't work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1007.48, 1010.613, 1014.484], "stop_times": [1010.613, 1014.484, 1020.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1007.48}, "reply_to": "20490__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20490__0_047", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--No, Justice Scalia.\nI think that we need to look at those words because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1020.639, 1022.289], "stop_times": [1022.289, 1025.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1020.639}, "reply_to": "20490__0_046", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_048", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Well, I thought you had just said we didn't and, indeed, is there a single Federal court that has given it a literal interpretation?\nIf so, what one and what case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1025.021, 1033.915], "stop_times": [1033.915, 1036.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1025.021}, "reply_to": "20490__0_047", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20490__0_049", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--The... I know of none, Justice O'Connor, that has given it that interpretation.\nBut I think the issue here is that when we talk about something such as an assault, which is a very different statute, differently written than a murder, and especially the way that the Federal Congress has defined murder in this case, that it's kind of like mixing apples and oranges together, because assaults do not entail murder, or necessarily.\nYou could have an assault in which someone dies, and then you may be charged with both crimes, but, of course, the murder would be more inclusive of the actual assault on the person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1036.039, 1041.242, 1062.987], "stop_times": [1041.242, 1062.987, 1071.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1036.039}, "reply_to": "20490__0_048", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_050", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "So you want us to define a general subject in a, sort of a preemption context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1071.703], "stop_times": [1077.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1071.703}, "reply_to": "20490__0_049", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20490__0_051", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Justice Kennedy, I believe that is the appropriate way to look at this case, because when Williams grappled with this issue a long time ago we were dealing with situations in which you had, I guess, less Federal criminal legislation than you have now.\nBut even back then we had the murder statute, and more importantly, the case was directed at the conduct that was being prosecuted, and the prosecution of a murder, whether it be a person under the age of 12, as in Louisiana first degree murder, or a person over the age of 12, it is the murder, that is the act and the conduct that we have to look at.\nAnd the issue then becomes, if Congress has chosen to prosecute that particular type of conduct in a certain way, then it would be impermissible to allow the assimilation of a State statute which may define it differently, or may prosecute it differently, or may have different elements of the crime to merely come in to change this Federal statute.\nCongress, if it so chooses, can change the statute.\nIt can change it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1077.026, 1094.487, 1115.692, 1136.424, 1139.797], "stop_times": [1094.487, 1115.692, 1136.424, 1139.797, 1140.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1077.026}, "reply_to": "20490__0_050", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_052", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "But why is it the murder that's... what if they had a homicide statute and say, a third... or a manslaughter provision with negligent driving of a vehicle, or a few other examples, but none that omitted what is the counterpart to first degree murder, would you say that had dealt with the subject of killing the victim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1140.426], "stop_times": [1157.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1140.426}, "reply_to": "20490__0_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20490__0_053", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--Yes, Justice Stevens, because clearly if you look at the murder statutes any other murder than those which are enumerated is going to be murder in the second degree.\nNow, of course, in Federal court, or in the Federal Criminal Code we do have voluntary and involuntary manslaughter statutes, but I think that's what Congress is saying, is that we're specific--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1157.857, 1166.225], "stop_times": [1166.225, 1175.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1157.857}, "reply_to": "20490__0_052", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_054", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "But I want to be sure... I'm not sure I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1175.679], "stop_times": [1176.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1175.679}, "reply_to": "20490__0_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20490__0_055", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1176.58], "stop_times": [1176.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1176.58}, "reply_to": "20490__0_054", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_056", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Supposing the Federal statute merely went so far as most, say, second degree manslaughter, the very least severe penalty, that's all it covered, would the deliberate killing be covered by the Federal statute or by the State statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1176.87], "stop_times": [1193.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1176.87}, "reply_to": "20490__0_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20490__0_057", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "If I understand your hypothetical correctly, Justice Stevens, if there were no premeditate or malice aforethought element--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1193.561], "stop_times": [1199.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1193.561}, "reply_to": "20490__0_056", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_058", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "In the Federal statute, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1199.655], "stop_times": [1200.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1199.655}, "reply_to": "20490__0_057", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20490__0_059", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--then certainly that would be a different type of crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1200.266], "stop_times": [1203.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1200.266}, "reply_to": "20490__0_058", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_060", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "So there you would then look to the State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1203.238], "stop_times": [1205.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1203.238}, "reply_to": "20490__0_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20490__0_061", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "I think you would have to in that particular instance, because what we're discussing is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1205.749], "stop_times": [1212.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1205.749}, "reply_to": "20490__0_060", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_062", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "But then why don't you look to State law if it's not more serious because of deliberateness versus negligence, but rather because the State has chosen to give special protection to youthful victims?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1212.032], "stop_times": [1221.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1212.032}, "reply_to": "20490__0_061", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20490__0_063", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--I think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1221.69], "stop_times": [1224.271], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1221.69}, "reply_to": "20490__0_062", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_064", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "I don't quite understand the logic of your position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1224.271], "stop_times": [1226.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1224.271}, "reply_to": "20490__0_063", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20490__0_065", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--And maybe I understand the error of my ways.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1226.262], "stop_times": [1228.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1226.262}, "reply_to": "20490__0_064", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_066", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1228.683], "stop_times": [1229.003], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1228.683}, "reply_to": "20490__0_065", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20490__0_067", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "I think, Justice Stevens, what I would look at is that, depending, I guess, if we do have crimes that may be crimes under Federal law that are not crimes under State law, and clearly we have crimes under State law which are not crimes under Federal law, whether these apply or don't apply is based on whether they occur on Federal property or not, so if Congress said that we're not going to have any of these murders and we're not going to allow these murders to be prosecuted, then I guess you could not prosecute that person for that type of murder.\nBut if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1229.003, 1253.78], "stop_times": [1253.78, 1254.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1229.003}, "reply_to": "20490__0_066", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_068", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Well, they just... they haven't said it can't be.\nI mean, they just have omitted a particular category.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1254.361, 1256.262], "stop_times": [1256.262, 1258.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1254.361}, "reply_to": "20490__0_067", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20490__0_069", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--They've just omitted it, but then, I guess, then the prosecution would be for the lowest element of murder under Federal law, which would be included within, say, the higher type of murder that you're describing, which is with premeditation, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1258.853], "stop_times": [1270.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1258.853}, "reply_to": "20490__0_068", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_070", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Mr. Granger, now, you say... one of the questions you present is not just whether your client was prosecuted under the proper statute, but if the petitioner was not properly prosecuted under the Assimilative Crimes Act, whether or not the sentence was proper.\nNow, supposing that we should agree with you on your argument under the Assimilated Crimes Act, as the Fifth Circuit did, the Fifth Circuit said nonetheless your client should... the conviction would be upheld because it was equally a violation of the Federal act.\nNow, what's your position on that before this Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1270.651, 1288.013, 1305.513], "stop_times": [1288.013, 1305.513, 1309.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1270.651}, "reply_to": "20490__0_069", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20490__0_071", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--Well, Mr. Chief Justice, I'd raised another issue in cert which was, of course, denied, so in that particular respect the second degree murder conviction found by the Fifth Circuit would also be affirmed.\nHowever, the sentence that was imposed, or at least allowed to stand by the Fifth Circuit, would need to be vacated and the matter remanded.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1309.246, 1319.524], "stop_times": [1319.524, 1328.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1309.246}, "reply_to": "20490__0_070", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_072", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "So you're not asking for a new trial, then.\nAt one point in your brief you say something about a new trial, but you're saying now that all you're asking for is a resentencing under the appropriate statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1328.0, 1330.822], "stop_times": [1330.822, 1338.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1328.0}, "reply_to": "20490__0_071", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20490__0_073", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Your Honor, Mr. Chief Justice, yes, because that issue was not... cert was not granted on that issue and it's not properly before the Court.\nHowever, I would assume that if this Court thought that that issue needed to be raised it could on its own do so.\nBut in this particular circumstance, no.\nThe only issue I have here is if you agree that the Assimilative Crimes Act does not apply, then the only remedy my client has is a remand to the Fifth Circuit to vacate the sentence it imposed, and then remand the matter to the district court for resentencing in accordance with the guidelines, which is basically, as I understand the Government's brief--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1338.575, 1345.691, 1351.455, 1354.447], "stop_times": [1345.691, 1351.455, 1354.447, 1371.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1338.575}, "reply_to": "20490__0_072", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_074", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1371.568], "stop_times": [1371.849], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1371.568}, "reply_to": "20490__0_073", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20490__0_075", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--they conceded--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1371.849], "stop_times": [1372.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1371.849}, "reply_to": "20490__0_074", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_076", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "They agree to that, don't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1372.5], "stop_times": [1373.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1372.5}, "reply_to": "20490__0_075", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20490__0_077", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--And I think that that is really the appropriate measure in this case.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1373.218, 1377.321], "stop_times": [1377.321, 1377.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1373.218}, "reply_to": "20490__0_076", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_078", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Going back to what's covered or not covered, the point where you are in disagreement with the Government, suppose we have the murder statute that we have on the Federal side, the victim is a pregnant woman, and the State also has a murder statute but then it has a separate crime of feticide.\nHow would that... would that be something that under your theory you could take the murder from the Federal and the feticide from the State?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1377.702, 1397.524], "stop_times": [1397.524, 1406.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1377.702}, "reply_to": "20490__0_077", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20490__0_079", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, I don't think it would apply because the Federal statute would have encompassed both those acts, because feticide is actually another form of killing, and therefore it would be covered by the Federal murder statute, as any other crime which is not first degree murder is second degree murder.\nSo you may have... you would have the murder, obviously, of the mother, and then as far as whether... and this is the question I don't know the answer to, whether the Federal murder statute would allow such a claim for an unborn child, then I don't have the answer to that.\nIf it does, you would have to say two counts of murder.\nIf not, you'd only have one count.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1406.57, 1422.371, 1438.651, 1440.504], "stop_times": [1422.371, 1438.651, 1440.504, 1441.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1406.57}, "reply_to": "20490__0_078", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_080", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Mr. Granger, I want to get clear on one thing.\nYou referred... in answering Justice Ginsburg you referred to the fact that the Federal statute covered it.\nIs your test an analytical test?\nIn other words, you can determine it... you apply it solely by looking at the terms of State statute, in terms of Federal statute, or is it an analytical test plus an intent test, so that at the end of the day you say, can we infer from everything we know, including what's on the face of the statute, that Congress intended to cover this particular conduct exclusively by the Federal statute?\nIs it a purely analytical test, or is it ultimately an intent test?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1441.202, 1444.295, 1452.011, 1455.073, 1481.55], "stop_times": [1444.295, 1452.011, 1455.073, 1481.55, 1485.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1441.202}, "reply_to": "20490__0_079", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20490__0_081", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Justice Souter, I believe it's clearly an analytical test because the intent issue clearly is covered within the Federal murder statute if you're thinking of criminal intent, whether it be premeditated or with just malice aforethought.\nHowever, in that respect it's an analytical test because the murders... we're not looking to what State law describes as to what intent should apply, whereas in Louisiana in this particular case you only have the issue of, for first degree murder under Louisiana law, a specific intent to kill, or specific intent to inflict great bodily harm, the death of the person, and the person being under the age of 12.\nSo it's strictly analytical, because we don't look to whether another State or a State statute would describe the intent required to meet the definition of the crime.\nWe look at whether Federal law covers the act, and then Federal law itself then describes what intents are requisite for what purposes, whether it be first degree murder, second degree murder, or voluntary or involuntary manslaughter.\nIf there are no other questions, Mr. Chief Justice, I reserve the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1485.383, 1497.999, 1522.176, 1531.142, 1543.46], "stop_times": [1497.999, 1522.176, 1531.142, 1543.46, 1546.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1485.383}, "reply_to": "20490__0_080", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__0_082", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Very well, Mr. Granger.\nMr. Stewart, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1546.713, 1547.942], "stop_times": [1547.942, 1549.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1546.713}, "reply_to": "20490__0_081", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20490__1_000", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe text of the Assimilative Crimes Act is set forth at page 2 of the Government's brief, and I think the proper disposition of this case hinges on analysis of two phrases within that statute.\nThe first is the phrase, act or omission, the second is the phrase, made punishable, and I'd like to address them in that order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1549.484, 1557.368, 1568.668], "stop_times": [1557.368, 1568.668, 1573.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1549.484}, "reply_to": "20490__0_082", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_001", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "It hinges on either observing them or ignoring them, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1573.721], "stop_times": [1577.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1573.721}, "reply_to": "20490__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20490__1_002", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "I... as to the phrase, act or omission, I think it hinges on interpreting them.\nThe phrase, act or omission, is often used to refer to a particular incident of primary conduct.\nThat is, this Court has frequently stated that a single act may constitute more than one offense, and in that situation it's used in contradistinction to offense.\nOn the other hand, it would not be unnatural to say, for example, that 18 U.S.C. 1111 defines murder as the act of killing a human being with malice aforethought, in which case the word act would be used not to refer to a particular incident at a particular time and place, but to a category of conduct meeting the requisite specifications, and in our view the words act or omission in this statute should be construed to mean, offense.\nThe question is whether the State law offense is made punishable by an enactment of Congress, and I think there are several reasons--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1577.013, 1581.714, 1589.111, 1597.395, 1624.303], "stop_times": [1581.714, 1589.111, 1597.395, 1624.303, 1629.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1577.013}, "reply_to": "20490__1_001", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_003", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Is it your view, just to sum it up, that we apply the Blockburger test unless there's something in the Federal statute that trumps it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1629.856], "stop_times": [1635.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1629.856}, "reply_to": "20490__1_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20490__1_004", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--I think it's not... that's not quite our view, because I think... I'll get to made punishable in more detail, but I think the short answer is, one of the features of the Blockburger test is that a greater and a lesser included offense are treated as the same offense for double jeopardy purposes, and that would not be our position with respect to this statute.\nThat is, if State law has defined a greater offense, we would not say that that has been made punishable by an act of Congress simply because Congress has defined a lesser included offense, as in this case.\nBut to return to the phrase--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1635.981, 1655.123, 1666.431], "stop_times": [1655.123, 1666.431, 1668.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1635.981}, "reply_to": "20490__1_003", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_005", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "The effect of that kind of interpretation is to say that every poor devil who lives in a Federal enclave is subjected to two total systems of criminal law.\nYou think that's what Congress had in mind?\nThis is a very old statute, and I sort of regarded it as, you know, just to fill in the gaps where there are so many Federal, you know, basic crimes, basic wicked things that were not at that time punished by Federal law.\nThere are very few wicked things that aren't punished by Federal law.\nWhy shouldn't we just call a halt to the expansion of this Assimilative Crimes Act?\nI don't know why we want to make everybody subject to twice as many different series of statutes just because they're living on a Federal enclave.\nWhy wouldn't it be enough just to say they're subject to Federal law and this thing has either no application any more or it will be a rare, rare case where it has application?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1668.111, 1677.879, 1679.478, 1693.788, 1697.351, 1701.754, 1711.449], "stop_times": [1677.879, 1679.478, 1693.788, 1697.351, 1701.754, 1711.449, 1722.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1668.111}, "reply_to": "20490__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20490__1_006", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--Well, I think first of all it's obviously not unusual for people living outside Federal enclaves to be subject to both Federal and State criminal laws.\nIndeed, individuals can often be subjected to successive prosecutions by the two sovereigns for the same criminal act.\nNow, it's true that individuals residing on Federal enclaves are subject to some Federal criminal provisions that are applicable only to the enclaves, and in that sense they face a distinctive burden.\nOn the other hand, there is no comprehensive Federal Criminal Code applicable to the enclaves.\nMoreover, an individual on the enclaves has the commensurate advantage that the only prosecution that can be brought will be brought by Federal authorities and, therefore, while individuals residing outside the enclaves may face successive prosecutions for what would be the same offense in Blockburger terms, the individuals on the enclaves will have that added protection.\nBut again, to return to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1722.748, 1730.843, 1738.027, 1748.865, 1753.517, 1773.489], "stop_times": [1730.843, 1738.027, 1748.865, 1753.517, 1773.489, 1774.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1722.748}, "reply_to": "20490__1_005", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_007", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "That's a good point.\nYou're saying that I'm looking at it precisely wrong, that the question is whether... isn't whether people on the enclaves shall be subjected to dual criminal laws which other people aren't, but whether they will be treated like everybody else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1774.681, 1775.012], "stop_times": [1775.012, 1790.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1774.681}, "reply_to": "20490__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20490__1_008", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--That's exactly right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1790.482], "stop_times": [1791.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1790.482}, "reply_to": "20490__1_007", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_009", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "So it is subject to both State and Federal law for the most part.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1791.501], "stop_times": [1793.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1791.501}, "reply_to": "20490__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20490__1_010", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "That's exactly right, and I think the resolution of this case ultimately hinges on how the Court views the concept of applying State law norms on Federal enclaves.\nThat is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1793.364, 1802.829], "stop_times": [1802.829, 1803.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1793.364}, "reply_to": "20490__1_009", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_011", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "In fact, the Federal enclave residents may have a better deal, because they are going to get either one or the other, but people off the enclave may get both.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1803.119], "stop_times": [1812.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1803.119}, "reply_to": "20490__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20490__1_012", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--That's correct.\nThe only sovereign that can prosecute is the Federal Government, although the Federal Government may invoke assimilated State laws.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1812.826, 1813.277], "stop_times": [1813.277, 1820.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1812.826}, "reply_to": "20490__1_011", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_013", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Were you going to focus on the word punishable in this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1820.092], "stop_times": [1824.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1820.092}, "reply_to": "20490__1_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20490__1_014", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Let me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1824.203], "stop_times": [1824.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1824.203}, "reply_to": "20490__1_013", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_015", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--Was that your second--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1824.393], "stop_times": [1825.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1824.393}, "reply_to": "20490__1_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20490__1_016", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--My second... I do want to focus briefly at least on the words act or omission, because I think the meaning of made punishable is easier to follow if the words act or omission are first made clear.\nThat is, I think for a variety of reasons it is appropriate to interpret the phrase, act or omission, to mean the State law offense that is sought to be assimilated.\nFirst of all, as Justice Scalia pointed out in his hypothetical, the contrary reading would create absurd results.\nThat is, in a hypothetical situation in which the Federal Government had an assault statute but no murder statute a State would... the Federal Government would be precluded from proceeding on an assimilated State murder charge simply because the primary conduct would have constituted assault under Federal law.\nTo focus on the individual incident of primary conduct would have a second practical infirmity as well.\nThat is, from the standpoint of sound judicial administration it's certainly important that the propriety of an Assimilated Crimes Act prosecution can be determined at the outset of the proceeding, but an indictment typically doesn't contain any lengthy recitation of the primary conduct in which the individual is alleged to have engaged.\nIt does contain a summary of the essential nature and elements of the offense with which he is charged.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1825.184, 1835.44, 1843.996, 1849.9, 1865.9, 1872.605, 1890.618], "stop_times": [1835.44, 1843.996, 1849.9, 1865.9, 1872.605, 1890.618, 1895.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1825.184}, "reply_to": "20490__1_015", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_017", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--That's the same argument made in favor of Blockburger as the test for double jeopardy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1895.671], "stop_times": [1900.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1895.671}, "reply_to": "20490__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20490__1_018", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1900.052], "stop_times": [1900.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1900.052}, "reply_to": "20490__1_017", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_019", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "You have to know it up front.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1900.763], "stop_times": [1901.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1900.763}, "reply_to": "20490__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20490__1_020", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, and if the test ultimately turned on whether act, the conduct proved at trial would have violated some Federal statute, first you wouldn't know up front, and second you could even have the bizarre situation in which the defendant attempted to introduce evidence showing that his conduct did, in fact, violate a Federal statute even though the evidence introduced by the prosecution had not shown that, so I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1901.555], "stop_times": [1927.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1901.555}, "reply_to": "20490__1_019", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_021", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "But on your theory, I take it we still would not know what offense was the appropriate offense to focus on, and I take it that's the issue that you deal with under the concept of punishables, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1927.03], "stop_times": [1937.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1927.03}, "reply_to": "20490__1_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20490__1_022", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--Well, I think when we ask whether an offense is made punishable the offense should be the State law crime with which the individual is charged, and in this case it's very clear what that was.\nThe jury was instructed at the close of petitioner's trial that in order to find the petitioner guilty it had to find that she killed Jadasha Lowery, that she acted with intent to kill or do great bodily harm, and that the victim was under 12 years old.\nThat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1937.749, 1948.073, 1961.023], "stop_times": [1948.073, 1961.023, 1962.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1937.749}, "reply_to": "20490__1_021", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_023", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "In other words, if the State law offense is more specifically described, if the level of generality is lower, we look to a State law offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1962.002], "stop_times": [1969.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1962.002}, "reply_to": "20490__1_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20490__1_024", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--If... in determining whether the offense is made punishable we first look to the State law offense as defined by the... its essential elements, and then the next question is, what does it mean to say that a State law offense has been made punishable by an enactment of Congress, and in our view a State law offense has been made punishable by an enactment of Congress only if Congress has addressed the class of conduct that constitutes the State offense at the same level of specificity as the State.\nNow, that will be true most obviously--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [1969.088, 1998.827], "stop_times": [1998.827, 2001.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1969.088}, "reply_to": "20490__1_023", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_025", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "So yours is a purely analytical test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2001.239], "stop_times": [2003.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2001.239}, "reply_to": "20490__1_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20490__1_026", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2003.172], "stop_times": [2003.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2003.172}, "reply_to": "20490__1_025", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_027", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "It's not a congressional intent test.\nIt's a purely analytical test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2003.9, 2005.312], "stop_times": [2005.312, 2006.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2003.9}, "reply_to": "20490__1_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20490__1_028", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "It is almost exclusively a purely analytical test.\nThat is, in the great majority of cases the question of whether the State law offense has been made punishable by an enactment of Congress can be resolved by asking, is there a Federal statute that contains precisely the same essential elements as the State statute, so we can--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2006.362, 2009.624], "stop_times": [2009.624, 2024.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2006.362}, "reply_to": "20490__1_027", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_029", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "On that point, what if Congress had a child murder statute and then repealed it, and then this case arises?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2024.223], "stop_times": [2030.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2024.223}, "reply_to": "20490__1_028", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20490__1_030", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--I think that would be a closer case.\nI think that probably wouldn't be clear enough, but I would like to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2030.296, 2033.719], "stop_times": [2033.719, 2037.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2030.296}, "reply_to": "20490__1_029", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_031", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "So then it isn't just an analytical test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2037.162], "stop_times": [2039.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2037.162}, "reply_to": "20490__1_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20490__1_032", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--It isn't purely an analytical test, and I think the Court in Williams addressed a situation in which there were Federal laws on the Federal enclaves that prohibited adultery, fornication, and what was called carnal knowledge, what is usually termed statutory rape, and the Federal carnal knowledge law set the age of consent at 16, made it a crime to have sexual intercourse with a person not the wife of the wrongdoer who was under the age of 16.\nThe State statute set the age of consent at 18, and the question was whether the use of the Assimilated... Assimilative Crimes Act was precluded by the Federal statute.\nNow, it was not the case that there was any Federal statute that had precisely the same elements as the State offense, so part 1 of our test wouldn't be met here, but the Court, surveying all the available evidence, concluded that the reason there was no Federal offense having exactly those same elements was that Congress had considered the matter and had decided that such an offense was not warranted.\nThat is, Congress had considered specifically at what age does an individual become capable of giving meaningful consent to sexual relations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2039.022, 2066.891, 2077.056, 2099.083], "stop_times": [2066.891, 2077.056, 2099.083, 2106.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2039.022}, "reply_to": "20490__1_031", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_033", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Doesn't that say that you've got to have your analytical criterion plus something more, because in the Williams case the level of specificity was precisely the same, i.e., certain ages are to be considered in deciding what the offense is.\nAnd the issue in Williams, I suppose, was, did Congress intend the details of the level of specificity that it chose to prevail over the details of the level of specificity, age of victim, that the State chose?\nAnd so ultimately, and I would suppose even on your specificity criterion, you'd have to say, well, we infer that Congress meant its particular choice of ages to prevail over the State's particular choice of ages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2106.787, 2121.756, 2140.931], "stop_times": [2121.756, 2140.931, 2153.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2106.787}, "reply_to": "20490__1_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20490__1_034", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "That was certainly the Court's inference, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2153.657], "stop_times": [2155.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2153.657}, "reply_to": "20490__1_033", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_035", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "And is... doesn't that have to be, as it were, an adjunct to your analytical test, because at some times your test is going to produce, as it were, a tie.\nYou're not going to know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2155.159, 2163.144], "stop_times": [2163.144, 2164.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2155.159}, "reply_to": "20490__1_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20490__1_036", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--I think that's correct.\nThat's why I said that assimilation is precluded if either there is a Federal statute with precisely the same elements as the State statute, or... and I think the second category will be very rare cases... there is highly persuasive evidence that Congress has considered the matter at the same level of specificity as the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2164.506, 2165.475], "stop_times": [2165.475, 2183.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2164.506}, "reply_to": "20490__1_035", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_037", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "So if, in fact, you have a Federal statute that forbids bank robbery in general, then the State could punish a person... it's assimilated because they have a statute that makes it a crime to forbid... to rob a State bank.\nThat's all.\nYou have... the Federal law says, punishable to rob any bank, and now Louisiana has a statute that says, it's punishable to rob a State bank.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2183.468, 2196.136, 2198.189], "stop_times": [2196.136, 2198.189, 2206.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2183.468}, "reply_to": "20490__1_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20490__1_038", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "I think that's probably correct.\nAt least--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2206.253, 2208.714], "stop_times": [2208.714, 2208.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2206.253}, "reply_to": "20490__1_037", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_039", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Well, I mean, my goodness--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2208.985], "stop_times": [2209.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2208.985}, "reply_to": "20490__1_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20490__1_040", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--At least--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2209.934], "stop_times": [2210.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2209.934}, "reply_to": "20490__1_039", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_041", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--That sounds like a rather odd result.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2210.224], "stop_times": [2212.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2210.224}, "reply_to": "20490__1_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20490__1_042", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--At least if there were any basis for the conclusion that State banks were in some sense--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2212.978], "stop_times": [2217.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2212.978}, "reply_to": "20490__1_041", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_043", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "No, no, what... they are special.\nThey have a special certificate that says the State bank examiner, and they hang that on the wall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2217.09, 2218.362], "stop_times": [2218.362, 2223.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2217.09}, "reply_to": "20490__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20490__1_044", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--It might be the case that if there was nothing different about State banks we could presume that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2223.156], "stop_times": [2228.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2223.156}, "reply_to": "20490__1_043", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_045", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Well, there is.\nThey have that certificate.\nBut the other... taking the other part of your argument, I take it that the only... the only difference here, really, is the death penalty, that if, in fact, we assimilate the State law, the defendant's eligible for the death penalty, and if we don't... I mean, that's what turns on first degree versus second degree.\nSecond degree in Louisiana has a mandatory life without parole, so the only thing putting it in the first degree is the death penalty, and if that's so, if that's all Louisiana's done between going from Louisiana two to Louisiana one, can we really say that Congress has not made any determination about when they want a Federal death penalty?\nI mean, my thought is that they've been debating that in Congress for 30 years, and it's normally a very hot issue, and when Congress lists a whole lot of crimes and doesn't put on the death penalty but does on some others, how is that any different from the statutory rape?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2228.66, 2229.481, 2231.062, 2252.676, 2270.889], "stop_times": [2229.481, 2231.062, 2252.676, 2270.889, 2286.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2228.66}, "reply_to": "20490__1_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20490__1_046", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--Well, I think the other point that turns... the other point that depends on choice between the Assimilative Crimes Act and the Federal murder statute is that the Louisiana first degree murder statute provides for a mandatory life sentence even if the death penalty is not sought, whereas the Federal murder statute provides that the defendant may be sentenced to any term of years or for life, so even in this case, where the Government didn't seek the death penalty, it had potential practical significance to the penalty that was imposed.\nI think... to return to Williams, I think in a sense we could say that this is the case that Williams would have been had there been no Federal carnal knowledge statute.\nThat is, at the time Williams was decided, there were Federal adultery and fornication statutes that broadly prohibited all acts of sexual intercourse on the Federal enclaves between people who were not married to each other, and I suppose it would have been open to Williams, even in the absence of a carnal knowledge statute, to say Congress has occupied the field.\nThe absence of any statutory rape provision should be taken to reflect an implicit determination that Congress believes the age of the parties to be irrelevant--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2286.296, 2313.144, 2321.739, 2339.894], "stop_times": [2313.144, 2321.739, 2339.894, 2349.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2286.296}, "reply_to": "20490__1_045", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_047", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "In other words, to look to intent, it would have been an intent argument, an intent of Congress argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2349.149], "stop_times": [2353.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2349.149}, "reply_to": "20490__1_046", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20490__1_048", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--I think it is an intent of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2353.392], "stop_times": [2354.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2353.392}, "reply_to": "20490__1_047", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_049", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "May I go behind that with this question?\nWhat gives me pause about the... let's say the primacy of your analytical test, so that you get to the intent element only if there's... if you need a tiebreaker, more or less, my concern about giving the primacy to the purely analytical test is that, with respect to every statute, criminal statute that Congress passes, it will have to remain constantly on guard to see whether a State legislature addresses the general criminal conduct in a slightly more specific way, knowing on your test that, if the State legislature does, suddenly the Federal statute has shrunk.\nAnd it's very difficult... I mean, since we're construing an act of Congress here, it's very difficult for me to believe that Congress would have meant us to interpret it in a way that is in effect going to force Congress to keep its eye on what's going on in every single State legislature whenever it's in session, just to see if the legislature addresses a general problem with a statute of greater specificity than Congress does.\nWhat's your response?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2354.314, 2357.135, 2396.85, 2421.587], "stop_times": [2357.135, 2396.85, 2421.587, 2423.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2354.314}, "reply_to": "20490__1_048", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20490__1_050", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--I think there are two responses.\nAt the most basic level, the reason that Congress is in that predicament, if you want to call it that, is simply that it's enacted the Assimilative Crimes Act.\nBut the second reason is that up until 1948, the way the Assimilative Crimes Act was worded it said that people can be prosecuted for committing State crimes that were in effect under the law of the State at the time of the last reenactment of the Assimilative Crimes Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2423.167, 2424.539, 2431.913], "stop_times": [2424.539, 2431.913, 2448.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2423.167}, "reply_to": "20490__1_049", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_051", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "But it doesn't say that any more.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2448.074], "stop_times": [2449.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2448.074}, "reply_to": "20490__1_050", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20490__1_052", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "It doesn't say that any more.\nAnd so up until 1948 it was possible at least to indulge the fiction that Congress had chosen to assimilate State law because it had individually examined the laws of the States and found them to be good.\nWhat Congress did in 1948 was in essence say, we trust the States enough to provide for the assimilation of State law offenses that have not even been enacted, that we've had no opportunity to scrutinize, because we see an independent value in maintaining consistency between the law within the enclaves and the law of the surrounding areas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2449.444, 2450.185, 2463.552], "stop_times": [2450.185, 2463.552, 2482.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2449.444}, "reply_to": "20490__1_051", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_053", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "But you have to... I mean, the corollary of that is, every time Congress enacts a general criminal statute, it's doing it at least with the imputed intent that that statute will, in fact, become inapplicable within the enclaves if there is now or hereafter a more specific State statute, and I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2482.766], "stop_times": [2500.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2482.766}, "reply_to": "20490__1_052", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20490__1_054", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "The Federal statute would not be rendered inapplicable simply because the Assimilative Crimes Act is available.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2500.628], "stop_times": [2505.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2500.628}, "reply_to": "20490__1_053", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_055", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--You can have both.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2505.58], "stop_times": [2506.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2505.58}, "reply_to": "20490__1_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20490__1_056", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "It's a common rule that this Court has announced most obviously in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2506.652], "stop_times": [2509.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2506.652}, "reply_to": "20490__1_055", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_057", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "It would be subject to choice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2509.424], "stop_times": [2510.195], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2509.424}, "reply_to": "20490__1_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20490__1_058", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--Right, subject to choice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2510.195], "stop_times": [2511.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2510.195}, "reply_to": "20490__1_057", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_059", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Subject to choice.\nYou're right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2511.454, 2511.875], "stop_times": [2511.875, 2512.175], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2511.454}, "reply_to": "20490__1_058", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20490__1_060", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Subject to choice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2512.175], "stop_times": [2512.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2512.175}, "reply_to": "20490__1_059", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_061", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "But isn't--\n--Just as it is in the States, anyway.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2512.465, 2513.846, 2515.438], "stop_times": [2513.846, 2515.438, 2515.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2512.465}, "reply_to": "20490__1_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20490__1_062", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2515.638], "stop_times": [2516.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2515.638}, "reply_to": "20490__1_061", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_063", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--they would have to face that question with respect to citizens who are not in enclaves.\nDo they want to enact a Federal statute that's going to more or less duplicate State statutes that already exist?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2516.299, 2522.491], "stop_times": [2522.491, 2528.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2516.299}, "reply_to": "20490__1_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20490__1_064", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "That's correct, and I think if we look at the development of the Federal murder... if we look at the development of the Federal murder statute, that the statute itself doesn't speak to the age of the victim, and one might ask the question, why has Congress failed to enact a child murder provision, and one possible answer would be that Congress has scrutinized laws like Louisiana and finds them to be unwise.\nAnother answer might be, Congress understands that the Assimilative Crimes Act is out there, and is content for child murder provisions either to be enforced or not be enforced.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2528.334, 2548.67], "stop_times": [2548.67, 2557.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2528.334}, "reply_to": "20490__1_063", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_065", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Well, but Congress has focused a lot on whether it wants a death penalty or not, and in what circumstances.\nThere's been a lot of focus on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2557.974, 2564.14], "stop_times": [2564.14, 2565.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2557.974}, "reply_to": "20490__1_064", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20490__1_066", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "There has been, and I think this... the case would present different questions if we attempted to impose the death penalty under the Assimilative Crimes Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2565.52], "stop_times": [2572.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2565.52}, "reply_to": "20490__1_065", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_067", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "No, no, it's the same.\nI mean, the question is whether... you're arguing that the murder one statute in Louisiana applies.\nI take it you don't argue the murder two statute applies, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2572.603, 2573.494, 2581.241], "stop_times": [2573.494, 2581.241, 2584.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2572.603}, "reply_to": "20490__1_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20490__1_068", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "No.\nThat would essentially duplicate the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2584.852, 2585.062], "stop_times": [2585.062, 2586.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2584.852}, "reply_to": "20490__1_067", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_069", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Well, if... so, fine, and the main difference between the murder one and the murder two in Louisiana, in fact I think the only difference, is the death penalty.\nAnd if you then compare it with the Federal law, what you discover, as you said, is a big difference, I would think, is the death penalty, and then in addition the term of years is longer, so you have both.\nThat's true.\nThe death penalty seems a big part of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2586.354, 2594.429, 2606.857, 2607.688], "stop_times": [2594.429, 2606.857, 2607.688, 2610.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2586.354}, "reply_to": "20490__1_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20490__1_070", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--I think so.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2610.049, 2611.299], "stop_times": [2611.299, 2611.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2610.049}, "reply_to": "20490__1_069", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_071", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "You think so.\nHow do you squeeze that into the word, act or omission?\nI mean, whatever else the Assimilative Crime Act doesn't cover, it surely bears no reference to what the punishment is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2611.579, 2612.11, 2615.162], "stop_times": [2612.11, 2615.162, 2621.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2611.579}, "reply_to": "20490__1_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20490__1_072", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--Well, but the Assimilative Crime Act does say at the end of the section that a person who is guilty of an act or omission which is, although not made punishable by Federal law, is made punishable by State law, shall be guilty of a like offense and subject to a like punishment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2621.306], "stop_times": [2636.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2621.306}, "reply_to": "20490__1_071", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_073", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "A like punishment, as a State law, but as to the question of whether the State law applies or not, it's a difference in the act or omission which you want to define as offense, and maybe you can, but there's no way to define act or omission as punishment, and if you can't define act or omission as punishment, punishment should have nothing to do with whether the crime is assimilated or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2636.627], "stop_times": [2658.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2636.627}, "reply_to": "20490__1_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20490__1_074", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "I agree with that.\nWhen I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2658.459, 2658.84], "stop_times": [2658.84, 2659.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2658.459}, "reply_to": "20490__1_073", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_075", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Of course you agree with that.\n[Laughter]\nBut Mr. Stewart, could you remind us of, there was... the act originally used the word offense, and then it changed it to act or omission, and what was the reason for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2659.631, 2660.442, 2660.672], "stop_times": [2660.442, 2660.672, 2673.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2659.631}, "reply_to": "20490__1_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20490__1_076", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--It first changed it to act or thing, which was subsequently changed to act or omission.\nThe reason that was given in the legislative history was that it seemed incongruous to use the phrase... the word offense to describe something that was not in fact defined as offense by Federal law, and this Court in Williams stated that the expressed intent of the committee was to continue in force rather than to change the substantive meaning of the statute.\nAnd again, it would have been easy in Williams... if the Court had believed in Williams that the phrase, act or omission should refer to a particular incident of primary conduct, it would have been easy for the court in Williams to say, this person would have been guilty of adultery under Federal law, and stopped there.\nThe Court instead embarked on a lengthy analysis of Congress' development of a Federal statutory rape law and arrived at the conclusion that Congress had implicitly decided that individuals aged 16 or 17 were capable of giving meaningful consent to sexual relations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2673.209, 2676.364, 2697.265, 2713.968], "stop_times": [2676.364, 2697.265, 2713.968, 2730.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2673.209}, "reply_to": "20490__1_075", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_077", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Well, why couldn't one decide, looking at this whole picture, as was suggested by Mr. Granger, I think, that there's the punishment for murder, and then there's the guidelines that say you take into account the vulnerability of the victim, so looking at it as a whole, Congress has essentially dealt with these elements but in a different way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2730.226], "stop_times": [2752.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2730.226}, "reply_to": "20490__1_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20490__1_078", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "I think it's fair to say that looking at the system as a whole there is some role to play in considering the age of the victim in sentencing a defendant on a charge of Federal second degree murder.\nThat doesn't mean that Congress has addressed the question at the same level of specificity as the States.\nAnd the point I wanted to get back to was, we really don't know why Congress has failed to enact a child murder provision, whether it's because they find such a provision to be undesirable, whether it's because they're content to let the States do what they will on the enclaves, or whether they simply hasn't... haven't thought about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2752.791, 2763.47, 2771.253], "stop_times": [2763.47, 2771.253, 2785.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2752.791}, "reply_to": "20490__1_077", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_079", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Well, in 1994 they passed a huge law that has chapters in it like crimes against children, violence against women, amending the assault statute, and so forth.\nI thought Congress has now specifically focused on this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2785.703, 2794.409], "stop_times": [2794.409, 2797.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2785.703}, "reply_to": "20490__1_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20490__1_080", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Certainly Congress has addressed some aspects of the problem of violence against children.\nThe point I was making was, Congress has not enacted a provision that speaks directly to the question, when is the age of a murder victim deemed to be a more culpable offense, and I think that what you do with that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2797.351, 2801.405], "stop_times": [2801.405, 2813.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2797.351}, "reply_to": "20490__1_079", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_081", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "No, but isn't... doesn't that... I mean, doesn't Justice Breyer's question raise the same problem, in effect, that Williams raises, because it's quite true Congress did not make this precise category of murder a separate offense the way the State did, so you say, aha, the State statute is at a lower level of generality, at a higher level of specificity, and therefore it prevails.\nAnd yet what Congress has done, at least in '94... I realize this is a '93 crime, but just for analytical purposes here, what Congress has done is to say, aha, there will be this specific murder category, that specific murder category, that specific category of crimes against children, and that sounds a lot like what was going on in Williams.\nIt sounds as though Congress is saying, yeah, we are, in fact, going to legislate at a very high level of specificity, but we're not going to make a specific murder provision for this particular subcategory, and that sounds a lot like Williams.\nAnd therefore I would suppose that if you follow the Williams analysis you would say, both State and Federal are legislating at the same level of specificity, and we think the Federal crime ought to... if you follow the Williams analogy, we think the Federal... that Congress' intent was not to assimilate, that the Federal crime would be the sole one because it had addressed the issue and probably meant to occupy the field.\nWhy do you come out differently here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2813.481, 2837.057, 2856.451, 2869.639, 2895.375], "stop_times": [2837.057, 2856.451, 2869.639, 2895.375, 2897.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2813.481}, "reply_to": "20490__1_080", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20490__1_082", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--Well, I think there are two reasons.\nFirst, we do see a difference in specificity as between this case and Williams.\nThat is, in Williams, Congress really had focused on the precise question, at what age does an individual become capable of giving legally meaningful consent to sexual relations, and that's on a different level of generality from what Congress has done in the statutes that you refer to, namely, address other parts of the problem of violence against children.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2897.117, 2898.537, 2901.528], "stop_times": [2898.537, 2901.528, 2919.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2897.117}, "reply_to": "20490__1_081", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_083", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Congress has said what particular crimes ought to be defined with reference to children, or reference to age.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2919.942], "stop_times": [2924.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2919.942}, "reply_to": "20490__1_082", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20490__1_084", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2924.714], "stop_times": [2925.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2924.714}, "reply_to": "20490__1_083", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_085", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "I mean, this is the... well, go... I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2925.255], "stop_times": [2927.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2925.255}, "reply_to": "20490__1_084", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20490__1_086", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--I think what is really crucial here is the default rule that the Court adopts.\nThat is, if the Court's default rule is that application of State law to Federal enclaves should be treated with suspicion, should be reserved for those situations where we really feel quite sure that Congress hasn't spoken to the question at all, then you're right, we lose.\nOur default rule is that individuals all over the country are normally subject to concurrent State and Federal jurisdiction, and an individual should be insulated from potential prosecution and punishment for State law crimes only if Congress has made it very, very clear that it has addressed the precise question at issue and has arrived at a different conclusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2927.125, 2931.368, 2948.609], "stop_times": [2931.368, 2948.609, 2967.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2927.125}, "reply_to": "20490__1_085", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_087", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "You began with a construction of the statute, and I... as I understand it, all that did for us was to get us out of the conduct test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2967.633], "stop_times": [2976.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2967.633}, "reply_to": "20490__1_086", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20490__1_088", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2976.359], "stop_times": [2976.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2976.359}, "reply_to": "20490__1_087", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_089", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Now we're arguing, or trying to decide whether or not your specificity test or what I would call the preemption test of the petitioner is the better of the two, and I don't think the statute helped us much between those two alternatives, or am I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2976.82], "stop_times": [2994.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2976.82}, "reply_to": "20490__1_088", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20490__1_090", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--I think you're right.\nI think we are construing the phrase, made punishable.\nWe are asking, what does it mean to say that a State law offense has been made punishable by an act of Congress, and our view is, it's been made punishable only if Congress has spoken very precisely to the specific class of conduct that constitutes the State offense.\nBut we would readily concede we don't particularly draw that from the literal, necessary significance of the words, made punishable.\nWe draw it instead from what we take to be the underlying premises of the Assimilative Crime Act.\nThat is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [2994.12, 2995.212, 2998.021, 3012.892, 3020.197, 3025.31], "stop_times": [2995.212, 2998.021, 3012.892, 3020.197, 3025.31, 3025.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2994.12}, "reply_to": "20490__1_089", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_091", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--Is the result of your submission that in most cases the harsher of the two sanctions will apply, or is that not the way it's going to work most of the time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3025.981], "stop_times": [3036.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3025.981}, "reply_to": "20490__1_090", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20490__1_092", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--I don't know how that will work.\nCertainly the result of our solution will be that there will be more cases in which the Federal prosecutor will have a choice between two statutes, and I would suppose at least in some of those cases the prosecutor will choose the one that has the harsher penalty.\nWhat the point--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3036.138, 3037.017, 3049.796], "stop_times": [3037.017, 3049.796, 3050.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3036.138}, "reply_to": "20490__1_091", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_093", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Mr. Stewart, your answer to Justice Scalia pointed out quite rightly that concurrent jurisdiction and... I mean, concurrent... subjection to concurrent schemes of law is the norm now.\nIs that a legitimate basis for us to consider in construing this statute, because this statute was intended to address the case in which there is a hiatus, shall State law fill it, and now you're saying, well, we'll use this statute to answer a different question.\nThere is, we presume, a concurrence, and when is it illegitimate not to recognize that concurrence, and that's a different kind of question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3050.527, 3062.506, 3077.783], "stop_times": [3062.506, 3077.783, 3087.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3050.527}, "reply_to": "20490__1_092", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20490__1_094", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--I think it is a different kind of question.\nWhen I spoke of the background norm that individuals are typically subject to concurrent State and Federal law, obviously Congress could have adopted a different regime for the enclaves if had chosen.\nFor one thing, Congress might have decided, for instance, that the criminal law applicable to all the Federal enclaves shall be the Criminal Code of the District of Columbia, which in a sense is the quintessential Federal enclave.\nIf Congress had placed preeminent importance on maintaining uniformity among the enclaves, a solution like that might have occurred to it.\nI think the solution that it chose, assimilating State law, reflects the premise that there was an independent value in maintaining consistency between the enclaves and the surrounding areas of the State, that an enclave is in a meaningful respect part of the State in which it's located.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3087.27, 3088.472, 3100.23, 3111.666, 3119.52], "stop_times": [3088.472, 3100.23, 3111.666, 3119.52, 3134.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3087.27}, "reply_to": "20490__1_093", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_095", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "In practical effect, then, it would give the prosecutor on the enclaves the kind of authority that the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia has.\nThat is, to pick... he could... here, he could pick also courts, but pick whether to indict under the D.C. Code or under the U.S. Code.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3134.501, 3144.358], "stop_times": [3144.358, 3152.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3134.501}, "reply_to": "20490__1_094", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20490__1_096", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "I think that's correct.\nWith... again, with the reminder that because the prosecution would be brought by a single sovereign, the double jeopardy rules applicable to multiple punishments would apply as they would to any claim of multiple punishments by the Federal Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3152.432, 3153.344], "stop_times": [3153.344, 3167.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3152.432}, "reply_to": "20490__1_095", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_097", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "The trouble with the... I can see the practical consequence being, well, so what, they just have both jurisdictions.\nOn the other hand, this book of the Federal Criminal Code didn't used to be, but now it's many times bigger than most State codes, and so what I would fear with your approach is, thousands of cases we're parsing the words of... differently written in State and Federal statutes to try to figure out whether your analytic test or your other test or both are or are not applicable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3167.944, 3175.34], "stop_times": [3175.34, 3196.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3167.944}, "reply_to": "20490__1_096", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20490__1_098", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "I think our test is actually easier to administer than the competing test.\nThat is, it's certainly not going to be a problem to compare the elements of a State offense to the elements of the Federal offense that's alleged to be preemptive and determine whether they are precisely the same elements.\nNow, it's true that the second step of our inquiry will involve a certain amount of indeterminacy, but again, our basic point is, the use of the Assimilative Crimes Act should be precluded only when it is quite clear that Congress has spoken to the precise question and that, in the run of cases, is going to be an easier test to administer than simply one that asks, is it close enough.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3196.921, 3201.265, 3210.73], "stop_times": [3201.265, 3210.73, 3230.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3196.921}, "reply_to": "20490__1_097", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20490__1_099", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Stewart.\nMr. Granger, you have 3 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3230.045, 3231.176], "stop_times": [3231.176, 3233.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3230.045}, "reply_to": "20490__1_098", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20490__2_000", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "I think the question really is, the Louisiana statute really is more a death penalty statute than merely an attempt to particularly define child killing, but I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3233.569], "stop_times": [3247.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3233.569}, "reply_to": "20490__1_099", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__2_001", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "So you're relying on the death penalty.\nDid you do that in your brief?\nI don't recall that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3247.989, 3249.719, 3251.031], "stop_times": [3249.719, 3251.031, 3252.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3247.989}, "reply_to": "20490__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20490__2_002", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--Not... no, sir, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3252.04], "stop_times": [3254.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3252.04}, "reply_to": "20490__2_001", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__2_003", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "But it seems like a good idea to you now.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3254.122, 3255.161], "stop_times": [3255.161, 3255.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3254.122}, "reply_to": "20490__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20490__2_004", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "No, but I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3255.412], "stop_times": [3257.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3255.412}, "reply_to": "20490__2_003", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__2_005", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Can you tell me how you get that into the language of the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3257.004], "stop_times": [3259.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3257.004}, "reply_to": "20490__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20490__2_006", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--Because of the fact that you have to bring the punishment along with the crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3259.055], "stop_times": [3264.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3259.055}, "reply_to": "20490__2_005", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__2_007", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Yes, but that isn't the criterion--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3264.368], "stop_times": [3267.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3264.368}, "reply_to": "20490__2_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20490__2_008", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3267.17], "stop_times": [3267.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3267.17}, "reply_to": "20490__2_007", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__2_009", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--of whether the statute assimilates the State law or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3267.721], "stop_times": [3271.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3267.721}, "reply_to": "20490__2_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20490__2_010", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "I agree with you, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3271.744], "stop_times": [3272.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3271.744}, "reply_to": "20490__2_009", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__2_011", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "The criterion is act or omission.\nIs there any way to get punishment within the meaning of act or omission?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3272.726, 3272.933], "stop_times": [3272.933, 3275.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3272.726}, "reply_to": "20490__2_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20490__2_012", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--No, I don't believe so, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3275.715], "stop_times": [3278.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3275.715}, "reply_to": "20490__2_011", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__2_013", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "I didn't think so.\nWell, why don't... isn't there a way to get it in which is, you want to know whether Congress, in passing these other laws, really intended to forego picking up the Louisiana law, and I guess Congress would look at what the difference is, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3278.059, 3278.657], "stop_times": [3278.657, 3291.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3278.059}, "reply_to": "20490__2_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20490__2_014", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--I would think so, Justice Breyer.\nAlso, I think that if we look at 18 U.S.C. 3551 it also allows the bringing in, even though it may be an assimilated State crime, you have to look at the guideline.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3291.497, 3294.258], "stop_times": [3294.258, 3305.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3291.497}, "reply_to": "20490__2_013", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__2_015", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Which section is it again?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3305.215], "stop_times": [3306.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3305.215}, "reply_to": "20490__2_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20490__2_016", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "3551, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3306.066], "stop_times": [3307.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3306.066}, "reply_to": "20490__2_015", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__2_017", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Thank you.\nWhat does 3551 say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3307.398, 3308.377], "stop_times": [3308.377, 3311.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3307.398}, "reply_to": "20490__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20490__2_018", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Because... what it does, Justice Scalia, is that if you have an assimilated State crime, you then have to look at the guideline that's most analogous to that particular crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3311.95], "stop_times": [3318.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3311.95}, "reply_to": "20490__2_017", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__2_019", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3318.956], "stop_times": [3319.216], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3318.956}, "reply_to": "20490__2_018", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20490__2_020", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "And I think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3319.216], "stop_times": [3320.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3319.216}, "reply_to": "20490__2_019", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__2_021", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Fine, but how does that relate to Congress' intent that Justice Breyer is talking about?\nCan you attach that congressional intent to some enactment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3320.716, 3324.478], "stop_times": [3324.478, 3328.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3320.716}, "reply_to": "20490__2_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20490__2_022", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "--I don't think I can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3328.71], "stop_times": [3330.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3328.71}, "reply_to": "20490__2_021", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__2_023", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Or is it just sort of a wandering congressional intent unreflected in the United States Code?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3330.252], "stop_times": [3335.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3330.252}, "reply_to": "20490__2_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20490__2_024", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "It may be the latter, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3335.284], "stop_times": [3338.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3335.284}, "reply_to": "20490__2_023", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__2_025", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Okay.\nWell, it's an act or omission made punishable, and I suppose it's a legitimate question to say, well, made punishable how?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3338.246, 3338.446], "stop_times": [3338.446, 3343.349], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3338.246}, "reply_to": "20490__2_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20490__2_026", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3343.349], "stop_times": [3343.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3343.349}, "reply_to": "20490__2_025", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__2_027", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "And as Justice Breyer suggested, when you ask, made punishable how, by a lot, by a little, you are, in fact, focusing ultimately on an issue of intent, and I take it... I mean, that's what you want us to do, I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3343.86], "stop_times": [3357.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3343.86}, "reply_to": "20490__2_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20490__2_028", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Correct, but Justice Souter, more importantly, I think what gives me pause is that the argument of the Government then states that people are subjected to two different jurisdictions.\nWell, if you're on a Federal enclave, I don't think you really are subjected to State law.\nYou're subjected to Federal law for a Federal crime on a Federal enclave, so the inquiry is, and what it's always been when we're dealing with these kind of cases is, has Congress enacted a law that prescribes or punishes, makes punishable this conduct?\nIf it has, you don't need to look to State law.\nOtherwise, what we're going to have is 50 States and numerous military reservations all over, and then the U.S. Attorney is going to be forced to say, well, Louisiana defines it a little bit differently here, so I'm going to use Louisiana law.\nWhat happens to the Federal law?\nIs it even necessary any more?\nWhy, then, has Congress chosen, even in the 1940's, to reenact the Assimilative Crimes Act to say we don't have to keep reenacting this act.\nAny time Congress... and this is what Sharpnack was saying.\nAny time Congress makes a new enactment it's automatically going to be brought over.\nIt's going to preempt the field.\nIt's going to cover the area.\nWe don't have to get into this argument every single time that Congress chooses to do something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3357.46, 3365.315, 3369.929, 3383.497, 3385.197, 3396.577, 3397.655, 3398.947, 3406.962, 3409.914, 3413.437, 3415.307, 3417.06], "stop_times": [3365.315, 3369.929, 3383.497, 3385.197, 3396.577, 3397.655, 3398.947, 3406.962, 3409.914, 3413.437, 3415.307, 3417.06, 3420.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3357.46}, "reply_to": "20490__2_027", "speaker": "frank_granger"}
{"id": "20490__2_029", "conversation_id": "20490", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Granger.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7151", "start_times": [3420.82, 3422.292], "stop_times": [3422.292, 3423.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3420.82}, "reply_to": "20490__2_028", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20072__0_000", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 97-288, Vicky Lewis v. Brunswick Corporation.\nMr. Hudson, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [0.0, 11.456], "stop_times": [11.456, 28.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20072__0_001", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court:\nPlaintiffs' claims that Brunswick negligently failed to protect against propeller guard injuries in the circumstances of this case should not be preempted for three reasons.\nFirst of all, the claims we are bringing in this case do not conflict with any Federal regulation.\nUnder Freightliner, there's no preemption.\nSecondly, the text of the preemption clause, section 4306 of the act, does not, much less clearly and unambiguously, reach the body of State law of general application, common law damage claims.\nOur position there is consistent, we think, with all of the preemption cases of this Court.\nThirdly, in this case the reading that we submit for the preemption clause is confirmed by a particular savings clause, where Congress specifically and without qualification provided that compliance with the Boat Safety Act regulation is no defense to common law claims.\nIn this preemption case, as in every case of statutory interpretation, surely the starting point is the text of the act itself.\nWe submit in this case it is also the ending point.\nStarting with a statement of purpose in the policy declaration--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [28.65, 34.221, 48.397, 54.718, 57.77, 75.131, 79.968, 101.466, 111.155, 115.207], "stop_times": [34.221, 48.397, 54.718, 57.77, 75.131, 79.968, 101.466, 111.155, 115.207, 118.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 28.65}, "reply_to": "20072__0_000", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_002", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Mr. Hudson, we have a good amplifying system.\nI think we could hear you even if you didn't speak quite as loud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [118.909, 121.594], "stop_times": [121.594, 124.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 118.909}, "reply_to": "20072__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20072__0_003", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--I will tone it down--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [124.395], "stop_times": [125.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 124.395}, "reply_to": "20072__0_002", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_004", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [125.831], "stop_times": [126.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 125.831}, "reply_to": "20072__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20072__0_005", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Chief Justice.\nStarting with the policy declaration in section 2 of the act, Congress spoke of reciprocity and comity, signal words that State law has a role to play.\nIt spoke of developing and enforcing Federal and State laws, again signalling that State laws would have a role to play.\nAnd then throughout the act Congress over and over again speaks of the enactment of positive regulations both by the Federal Government and by the State, never any reference to common law claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [126.314, 127.597, 140.757, 150.63], "stop_times": [127.597, 140.757, 150.63, 165.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 126.314}, "reply_to": "20072__0_004", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_006", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Well, but we've certainly held in Medtronic and in that Cipollone case that State common law actions can constitute requirements subject to preemption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [165.139], "stop_times": [178.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 165.139}, "reply_to": "20072__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20072__0_007", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, there has a been a holding that the common law can lead to a requirement.\nI don't think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [178.966, 186.053], "stop_times": [186.053, 187.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 178.966}, "reply_to": "20072__0_006", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_008", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Can lead to?\nIt is.\nI mean, they are requirements, and I don't see why we should necessarily create... treat this statute differently in that regard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [187.322, 188.005, 188.588], "stop_times": [188.005, 188.588, 198.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 187.322}, "reply_to": "20072__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20072__0_009", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Well, for a couple of reasons.\nThe language used in this statute is different than the language used in both Cipollone and in Medtronic.\nIn this statute, Congress says that there may not be a State law or regulation.\nIn both Cipollone and Medtronic it was a requirement which arose under State law and this Court has, in a number of cases, not only in Cipollone but following that in Medtronic, English v. GE, Goodyear v. Miller, Silkwood, has explained that common law is a traditional State area.\nIf we were to obtain a judgment in this case, Brunswick would not be required to put a propeller guard on any of its boats in any State, or in any jurisdiction.\nIt would have the discretion as a manufact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [198.88, 200.263, 206.549, 213.722, 233.701, 243.424], "stop_times": [200.263, 206.549, 213.722, 233.701, 243.424, 245.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 198.88}, "reply_to": "20072__0_008", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_010", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Well, I... isn't the whole purpose of your punitive damage claim to require the manufacturer to change his behavior?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [245.741], "stop_times": [252.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 245.741}, "reply_to": "20072__0_009", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20072__0_011", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Even then--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [252.947], "stop_times": [254.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 252.947}, "reply_to": "20072__0_010", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_012", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Isn't that what you're going to argue to the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [254.966], "stop_times": [256.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 254.966}, "reply_to": "20072__0_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20072__0_013", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Even then, Your Honor, it may not be necessary that they actually install a propeller guard.\nIt may be enough that a warning be issued putting consumers on notice that if you are thrown or fall out of this boat there's a danger of this type of injury.\nWe assert in our complaint that they had this knowledge, and they had--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [256.732, 262.803, 273.111], "stop_times": [262.803, 273.111, 277.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 256.732}, "reply_to": "20072__0_012", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_014", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Well, I take it that the main thrust of your argument below is that the propeller guard should have been installed.\nYou're going to change the behavior of the manufacturer.\nThat's the whole justification, at least for your punitive damage award, punitive damage claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [277.812, 283.633, 285.901], "stop_times": [283.633, 285.901, 294.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 277.812}, "reply_to": "20072__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20072__0_015", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--To award compensation to the injured victim is the first purpose.\nThe punitive damage claim is a heightened incentive to do the steps that are necessary to protect persons who use the boats.\nIt would have that impact.\nBut as this Court acknowledged in Silkwood, punitive damage is a customary part of the State common law damage scheme and just because it's a punitive damage claim married with a claim for general damages does not create any heightened point of reference to preempt a State law claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [294.174, 295.457, 303.03, 304.863], "stop_times": [295.457, 303.03, 304.863, 325.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 294.174}, "reply_to": "20072__0_014", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_016", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "On that very point, if... imagine that the Coast Guard here had said what it didn't say, but suppose it said we think that the guards on these propellers are actually a greater danger than an unguarded propeller because somebody can get hit on the head, and that's a bigger chance of harm than the other, so suppose because of that they'd said very clearly, we don't want guards.\nNow, on your view of the statute a jury would be perfectly free to award punitive damages against the manufacturer because he did the very thing that the Coast Guard told him to do.\nNow, what sense would that make of the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [325.71, 349.428, 364.353], "stop_times": [349.428, 364.353, 367.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 325.71}, "reply_to": "20072__0_015", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20072__0_017", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Under that reading it wouldn't make sense, Justice Breyer, and I'd like to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [367.822], "stop_times": [371.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 367.822}, "reply_to": "20072__0_016", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_018", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "So how do you prevent... how do you read it your way, which is to say, it preserves common law claims, and yet avoid what you've just said is a ridiculous result?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [371.424], "stop_times": [382.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 371.424}, "reply_to": "20072__0_017", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20072__0_019", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--May I assume in your question that you are referring to the Coast Guard adopting a regulation saying thou shalt not have propeller guards, and then not as a matter of preemption, but I think as a matter of the Supremacy Clause and cases like American Airlines v. Wollands and the case that was cited from 1907.\nIf the State attempts to do something it is in conflict with the regulation by Supremacy Clause analysis--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [382.065, 399.693], "stop_times": [399.693, 406.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 382.065}, "reply_to": "20072__0_018", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_020", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "What happens to your savings clause here?\nYou said that the savings clause preserves all common law remedies and so why hasn't Congress, on your view of it... I mean, what then does the savings clause mean?\nYou started off pointing to that savings clause which refers to common law and State law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [406.18, 408.214, 421.44], "stop_times": [408.214, 421.44, 427.011], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 406.18}, "reply_to": "20072__0_019", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20072__0_021", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [427.011], "stop_times": [427.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 427.011}, "reply_to": "20072__0_020", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_022", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--and... yes.\nSo you see my question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [427.644, 428.361], "stop_times": [428.361, 430.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 427.644}, "reply_to": "20072__0_021", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20072__0_023", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--It's... I think you have to go one word further.\nBack in the savings clause it refers to liability under common law or State law, is what is preserved, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [430.713, 433.998], "stop_times": [433.998, 442.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 430.713}, "reply_to": "20072__0_022", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_024", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Well--\n--You mean, it reads punitive damages out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [442.52, 443.02], "stop_times": [443.02, 445.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 442.52}, "reply_to": "20072__0_023", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20072__0_025", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--No.\nI think it is... that is a liability claim under State law, but you asked what is the purpose of the savings clause if you cannot bring a claim that is diametrically opposed to a Federal regulation, which is not our case.\nI concede that if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [445.322, 445.755, 459.232], "stop_times": [445.755, 459.232, 460.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 445.322}, "reply_to": "20072__0_024", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_026", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "I'm trying to get your view on it.\nI thought your view was that the common law was simply preserved.\nNow I take it your view is that the common law is simply preserved in the absence of a specific determination by the Coast Guard.\nIs that your view?\nThat's a different view.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [460.982, 462.601, 466.069, 474.075, 475.025], "stop_times": [462.601, 466.069, 474.075, 475.025, 476.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 460.982}, "reply_to": "20072__0_025", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20072__0_027", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--No, sir, I think that is our view, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [476.242], "stop_times": [478.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 476.242}, "reply_to": "20072__0_026", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_028", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "So in other words your view is that the savings clause does nothing if the Coast Guard... it... the savings clause is necessary, I guess, in your view.\nIt's just that this prempt... a straight rule of the Coast Guard preempts the tort remedy, but other than a straight rule it doesn't, is that the view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [478.744, 489.101], "stop_times": [489.101, 498.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 478.744}, "reply_to": "20072__0_027", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20072__0_029", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Well, it depends on whether or not there's a conflict, because if they say thou shalt not have a propeller guard, then our claim would be barred.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [498.774], "stop_times": [505.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 498.774}, "reply_to": "20072__0_028", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_030", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Suppose it simply--\n--Well, but you told me that State common law couldn't be a requirement and could never have any preemptive effect, so you can't have it both ways.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [505.694, 506.88], "stop_times": [506.88, 518.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 505.694}, "reply_to": "20072__0_029", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20072__0_031", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [518.371], "stop_times": [519.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 518.371}, "reply_to": "20072__0_030", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_032", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Now, I take it you're backing off that position and you're saying, well, if it really is in direct conflict, then maybe common law rules can in fact be requirements or regulations under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [519.054], "stop_times": [534.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 519.054}, "reply_to": "20072__0_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20072__0_033", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Fortunately, that's not our case, but I do--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [534.064], "stop_times": [536.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 534.064}, "reply_to": "20072__0_032", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_034", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--No, but even if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [536.43], "stop_times": [537.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 536.43}, "reply_to": "20072__0_033", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20072__0_035", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--I do concede--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [537.932], "stop_times": [538.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 537.932}, "reply_to": "20072__0_034", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_036", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Even if we think that, that doesn't end the case for you because you have another theory here, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [538.532], "stop_times": [545.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 538.532}, "reply_to": "20072__0_035", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20072__0_037", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Well, our theory is that there is no conflict.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [545.252], "stop_times": [548.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 545.252}, "reply_to": "20072__0_036", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_038", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "No, but before you get to... I thought that your position was that the savings clause requires us to read the statute in such a way that the reference to regulations or standards does not necessarily encompass every common law rule.\nDo you go any further than that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [548.471, 569.737], "stop_times": [569.737, 572.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 548.471}, "reply_to": "20072__0_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20072__0_039", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "No, we don't, Justice Souter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [572.02], "stop_times": [574.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 572.02}, "reply_to": "20072__0_038", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_040", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [574.455], "stop_times": [574.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 574.455}, "reply_to": "20072__0_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20072__0_041", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "That is statutory evidence, along with some pretty extensive legislative history, that all concerned thought that common law claims would survive even after the adoption of this act.\nIt is additional authority for the proposition that what was preempted in section 4306 were positive enactments under a State legislative law on affirmative regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [574.872, 586.162], "stop_times": [586.162, 597.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 574.872}, "reply_to": "20072__0_040", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_042", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "And what do you do with the phrase, or under State law?\nI didn't understand your--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [597.07, 601.172], "stop_times": [601.172, 603.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 597.07}, "reply_to": "20072__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20072__0_043", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Justice Scalia, you backed up in that statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [603.391], "stop_times": [606.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 603.391}, "reply_to": "20072__0_042", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_044", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--You just say you have to read it with the word--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [606.01], "stop_times": [609.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 606.01}, "reply_to": "20072__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20072__0_045", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [609.045], "stop_times": [610.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 609.045}, "reply_to": "20072__0_044", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_046", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--liability.\nI don't... that doesn't make any sense to me.\nI don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [610.162, 610.564, 612.714], "stop_times": [610.564, 612.714, 613.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 610.162}, "reply_to": "20072__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20072__0_047", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "For example, Justice Scalia, in our case we are bringing a negligence... we have a negligence count.\nWe have a wrongful death count.\nThe wrongful death count is a statutory claim in Georgia.\nIt's been in existence for over 100 years, so that is a liability claim... that's certainly not common law.\nI don't think wrongful death was recognized at the common law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [613.766, 618.568, 620.352, 623.387, 630.458], "stop_times": [618.568, 620.352, 623.387, 630.458, 633.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 613.766}, "reply_to": "20072__0_046", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_048", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Well, you could call it a State law... it's positive State enactment rather than common law... couldn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [633.327], "stop_times": [638.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 633.327}, "reply_to": "20072__0_047", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20072__0_049", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "The difference, I think, Chief Justice, is it is not a law aimed specifically at boating requirements.\nWhat Congress was addressing in 4306 was acts and regulations enacted by a State and particularly applied to boat safety.\nThese are laws of general application, much as has been said you might have a zoning law or a general safety law.\nThese are different from what Congress preempted in the section under question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [638.647, 644.868, 653.491, 660.645], "stop_times": [644.868, 653.491, 660.645, 665.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 638.647}, "reply_to": "20072__0_048", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_050", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Of course, that reference to State law might be an indication that the only... that the general preemption clause should be read to mean that there is no preemption unless there is a positive enactment of Federal law.\nThat might be one indication of... and that's not the way the Coast Guard read it right after the act, after the passage of act, but it could mean that too, couldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [665.631, 681.993], "stop_times": [681.993, 690.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 665.631}, "reply_to": "20072__0_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20072__0_051", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "I think that is the most logical reading, because when you read 4306 in conjunction with 4305, what you are permitted to obtain exemption from if you apply to the Coast Guard is from existing rules and regulations of the Coast Guard.\nFurthermore, if you read the statute where it says at the conclusion, unless identical to a regulation comprised under section 4302, that's surplus.\nIf what Congress intended to do was to say the only regulation we're going to have are positive enactments of the Coast Guard, then you don't need that language in the statue that says, unless identical to the regulations prescribed under this section.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [690.599, 707.541, 718.749], "stop_times": [707.541, 718.749, 732.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 690.599}, "reply_to": "20072__0_050", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_052", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Well, you could read it either way.\nI mean, there's an ambiguity there.\nI suppose you could read it as saying, all State law goes unless the Coast Guard has adopted a regulation and State law is identical to that regulation, or you could read it as saying, all State law stays unless there is a Coast Guard regulation and in that case the only State law that stays is that which is identical.\nYou could read it either way, I suppose, textually.\nThe reference to State law in the savings clause as distinct from common law might be an indication of which of those two possible readings you should take, i.e. that the State law is preserved in the absence of a positive enactment with conflict.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [732.426, 733.759, 735.128, 759.926, 762.462], "stop_times": [733.759, 735.128, 759.926, 762.462, 779.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 732.426}, "reply_to": "20072__0_051", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20072__0_053", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "To that I would respond, Justice Souter, that the former reading, why do you need State laws that simply parrot an existing Federal regulation that has been enacted by the Coast Guard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [779.24], "stop_times": [788.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 779.24}, "reply_to": "20072__0_052", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_054", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Mm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [788.429], "stop_times": [788.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 788.429}, "reply_to": "20072__0_053", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20072__0_055", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "The conduct is being regulated.\nI would further say, if you have a statue that can be read both ways under the clear and unambiguous standard that this Court cites in every one of its preemption cases, that in itself proves that at the very least this would be an ambiguous statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [788.829, 790.429], "stop_times": [790.429, 803.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 788.829}, "reply_to": "20072__0_054", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_056", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "If that's what we mean.\nYou don't... we don't have to resolve that question, I take it, to decide in your favor, because the Government is taking the position, I assume, that the Coast Guard is right when the Coast Guard says, we're the only ones in the standard-setting business, so to reach your common law claim we don't have to decide--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [803.939, 805.055], "stop_times": [805.055, 827.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 803.939}, "reply_to": "20072__0_055", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20072__0_057", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "That is correct, because from the time of the enactment of the act and through the present time the Coast Guard has never taken the position that common law claims of general application of State laws are preempted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [827.554], "stop_times": [840.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 827.554}, "reply_to": "20072__0_056", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_058", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--May I ask you about the... whether the Georgia... the question of Georgia law of... to introduce to this jury the fact that the Coast Guard did not make a regulation requiring propeller guards would be relevant, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [840.295], "stop_times": [860.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 840.295}, "reply_to": "20072__0_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20072__0_059", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "At least the underlying facts that caused the Coast Guard not to do anything, and the Coast Guard decided not to do anything because they couldn't come up with a common solution and it might expensive and the data was incomplete.\nNow, the study committee said some other things, but the Coast Guard letter was general in that nature.\nYes, I think the underlying facts about whether propeller guards are safe or not safe do come into evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [860.209, 875.301, 880.189], "stop_times": [875.301, 880.189, 885.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 860.209}, "reply_to": "20072__0_058", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_060", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "And the fact that the Coast Guard that has set other standards didn't set this one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [885.759], "stop_times": [891.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 885.759}, "reply_to": "20072__0_059", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20072__0_061", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Yes, I think that could, because it will be a very limited application, even when it comes in, because the Coast Guard's action was very narrow in scope, the letter that adopted the position of the subcommittee that studied propeller guards.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [891.413], "stop_times": [906.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 891.413}, "reply_to": "20072__0_060", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_062", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Mr. Hudson--\n--Are you responding to Justice Ginsburg's question by saying what you think is desirable, or what you feel you know about the Georgia law of evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [906.272, 907.272], "stop_times": [907.272, 916.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 906.272}, "reply_to": "20072__0_061", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20072__0_063", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Well, I think I do know that much, Your Honor.\nIn product liability cases in Georgia there's a recent supreme court decision we cite in our brief, and it allows all of these factors to come into evidence, whether they are other designs, whether they are Federal regulations, or Federal authorities.\nThe whole mix goes into the jury's determination of whether or not this was too dangerous for use under this application.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [916.362, 918.73, 932.49], "stop_times": [918.73, 932.49, 939.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 916.362}, "reply_to": "20072__0_062", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_064", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Mr. Hudson, 4305 is discussed in all the briefs.\nI can't find it set forth anywhere.\nIs it set forth in any of your submissions?\nIt's very annoying to have a lot of discussion going on about a particular statutory provision and you look in the materials in front of you and it's just not there.\nIs it in the red brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [939.144, 944.481, 946.832, 949.266, 959.057], "stop_times": [944.481, 946.832, 949.266, 959.057, 960.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 939.144}, "reply_to": "20072__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20072__0_065", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Your Honor, I can't... we'll look in the blue brief.\nI think 4305 is the statute that allows the regulations to be established.\nOther than the fact that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [960.891, 965.895, 971.032], "stop_times": [965.895, 971.032, 972.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 960.891}, "reply_to": "20072__0_064", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_066", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "It's the one that permits the State to apply--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [972.615], "stop_times": [977.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 972.615}, "reply_to": "20072__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20072__0_067", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--For an exemption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [977.019], "stop_times": [977.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 977.019}, "reply_to": "20072__0_066", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_068", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--For an exemption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [977.986], "stop_times": [978.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 977.986}, "reply_to": "20072__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20072__0_069", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Okay.\nThat's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [978.836, 979.286], "stop_times": [979.286, 979.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 978.836}, "reply_to": "20072__0_068", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_070", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [979.638], "stop_times": [980.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 979.638}, "reply_to": "20072__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20072__0_071", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "It's... if we haven't set it forth, Your Honor, that's an oversight, but it simply says the Coast Guard can grant an exemption from an existing act or a regulation that the Coast Guard has adopted, not an exemption from the wiping-of-the-slate clean notion that Brunswick submits in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [980.105], "stop_times": [999.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 980.105}, "reply_to": "20072__0_070", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_072", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Well, I'm still looking for it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [999.782], "stop_times": [1002.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 999.782}, "reply_to": "20072__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20072__0_073", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "I'd like to reserve the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1002.901], "stop_times": [1005.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1002.901}, "reply_to": "20072__0_072", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__0_074", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Very well, Mr. Hudson.\nMr. Frederick, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1005.003, 1006.538], "stop_times": [1006.538, 1008.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1005.003}, "reply_to": "20072__0_073", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20072__1_000", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nJustice Scalia, it's at page 2 of the red brief.\nActually, sorry, page 1 of the red brief, 4305.\nWe agree with petitioners that common law claims are not expressly preempted or impliedly preempted by Coast Guard regulations that don't exist in this case.\nCongress had two very good reasons to differentiate between positive law enactments and common law remedies that might be available.\nThe first is that common law remedies give manufacturers a choice as to whether or not they would change their product design or to install some particular equipment.\nThey could make a cost-benefit analysis of whether assuming the risk that their product might cause a danger and thereby incur liability is worth the cost of redesigning the equipment or putting on some type of propeller guard, and that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1008.805, 1025.934, 1029.05, 1034.872, 1048.031, 1057.388, 1069.629], "stop_times": [1025.934, 1029.05, 1034.872, 1048.031, 1057.388, 1069.629, 1085.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1008.805}, "reply_to": "20072__0_074", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20072__1_001", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "What about punitives?\nWe've heard that argument before.\nWe heard it in Cipollone.\nWe hear it in every case where the issue is whether common law remedies are precluded, and we have not found it persuasive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1085.655, 1086.822, 1087.841, 1089.224], "stop_times": [1086.822, 1087.841, 1089.224, 1096.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1085.655}, "reply_to": "20072__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20072__1_002", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Well, Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1096.362], "stop_times": [1098.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1096.362}, "reply_to": "20072__1_001", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20072__1_003", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "I mean, it's true, you can roll the dice if you like.\nI suppose you can say the same thing about an explicit regulatory prohibition and there's especially very little difference when you have punitive damages.\nI mean, I could ignore a regulation, too, can't I, and say it's a cost of business.\nA cost of doing business is now and then I'll get picked up for violating the regulation.\nIt's worth it.\nI can say that about a regulation just as well as about a common law liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1098.329, 1101.414, 1112.139, 1116.274, 1121.411, 1122.528], "stop_times": [1101.414, 1112.139, 1116.274, 1121.411, 1122.528, 1127.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1098.329}, "reply_to": "20072__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20072__1_004", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Justice Scalia, I'm trying to set forth the reasons why in 1971, when Congress enacted this statute, it may have differentiated it.\nThe second is that it legislated against a backdrop, the historical traditions of the country that if people were injured they would have the ability to bring a tort claim, and so the words that it used in setting out in sections 4302, 4306, and 4311(g) used words that suggest positive law enactments would be preempted in 4306 and that common law liability would be saved--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1127.082, 1134.135], "stop_times": [1134.135, 1162.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1127.082}, "reply_to": "20072__1_003", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20072__1_005", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Is that true even if the Coast Guard has a particular rule?\nI mean, suppose the Coast Guard said, look, this is obviously a tough question whether you should have propeller guards or not.\nPeople are killed both ways, and if the... you don't want to make a mistake.\nSo the Coast Guard says, we don't want it.\nWe think more people are killed with the propeller guards than without.\nAre you saying under those circumstances in your view a State is perfectly free to award $50, $60, $100 million in punitive damages for doing the very thing the Coast Guard said not to do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1162.053, 1166.04, 1171.344, 1176.229, 1178.597, 1182.549], "stop_times": [1166.04, 1171.344, 1176.229, 1178.597, 1182.549, 1195.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1162.053}, "reply_to": "20072__1_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20072__1_006", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--No.\nWe think implied conflict preemption--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1195.357, 1195.74], "stop_times": [1195.74, 1197.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1195.357}, "reply_to": "20072__1_005", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20072__1_007", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Ah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1197.559], "stop_times": [1197.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1197.559}, "reply_to": "20072__1_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20072__1_008", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--principles would be applicable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1197.992], "stop_times": [1199.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1197.992}, "reply_to": "20072__1_007", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20072__1_009", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "So in other words it's just the fact they don't have a particular reg here that this turns on, in your opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1199.926], "stop_times": [1205.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1199.926}, "reply_to": "20072__1_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20072__1_010", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Well, the savings clause should not be read to eviscerate the power that Congress gave the Coast Guard to promulgate affirmative regulations, so that if in exercising that power that Congress gave the Coast Guard the Coast Guard promulgates a regulation that prohibits propeller guards, it would be anomalous to read the savings clause to bring it into conflict with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1205.164], "stop_times": [1227.161], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1205.164}, "reply_to": "20072__1_009", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20072__1_011", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "So if they have a reg... suppose they do have a reg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1227.161], "stop_times": [1228.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1227.161}, "reply_to": "20072__1_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20072__1_012", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1228.927], "stop_times": [1229.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1228.927}, "reply_to": "20072__1_011", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20072__1_013", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "In your view, should we look to see whether that reg, there's a direct conflict with the State law or common law State... you know, the tort judgment, whether it... the State tort judgment would defeat an object of the reg, or whether the state judgment would be in an area that the reg clearly intends to reserve to the Coast Guard... that's your view of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1229.361], "stop_times": [1251.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1229.361}, "reply_to": "20072__1_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20072__1_014", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "That's correct.\nAll of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1251.442, 1251.976], "stop_times": [1251.976, 1252.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1251.442}, "reply_to": "20072__1_013", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20072__1_015", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Okay.\nIf that's your view of it, why doesn't that apply... and I think maybe that is a perfectly good view.\nWhy doesn't that just as much apply to a State positive regulation as it would to a tort action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1252.376, 1252.642, 1257.263], "stop_times": [1252.642, 1257.263, 1262.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1252.376}, "reply_to": "20072__1_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20072__1_016", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Because in 4306 the words that Congress used, it started out by saying, unless permitted by the Secretary, and everything else follows.\nIt uses terms that parallel the terms that were used in 4302 which allow the Secretary to prom... to establish a safety standard.\nIf you then look at 4306 you see the parallel reference to, a State shall not be allowed to do a law or regulation that establishes a standard or in 4302(a)(2) it says, or impose a requirement or require a... an associated equipment device.\nYou then look at 4306.\nAfter the or, it says, or impose a requirement for associated equipment.\nIn our view, the language the Congress used in 4302 was to say, these are the things that the Secretary is authorized to issue regulations about, and then in 4306 it says, unless the Secretary permits, a State can't do those things which the Secretary is empowered to do in 4302, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1262.834, 1271.94, 1283.414, 1302.392, 1304.161, 1308.946], "stop_times": [1271.94, 1283.414, 1302.392, 1304.161, 1308.946, 1329.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1262.834}, "reply_to": "20072__1_015", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20072__1_017", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "The trouble I find with this analysis, that you rely just on implied preemption for common law, is that would be very peculiar in a statute which in 4306 insists that the State law be identical, that the State regulation, at least, be identical to the Federal law.\nI mean, it's really saying, we don't want any State regulation unless it's the very same one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1329.609, 1353.225], "stop_times": [1353.225, 1360.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1329.609}, "reply_to": "20072__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20072__1_018", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Well, to the contrary, Justice Scalia.\nIf a regulation that a State promulgates is written in words that are going to be easily compared with a Federal standard it would be very easy to determine whether it was identical or not identical.\nAnd the fact that Congress used the phrase, liability under common law in the savings provisions 4311(g), but did not use the phrase, common law to show that which was to be preempted in 4306 is further textual support for our view that those things which were to be preempted in 4306 were positive enactments of State law that would be done by State executive officers because, in fact, they will have to apply to the Secretary for the exemption from a preemption, and they are the ones who have to seek that authority in order to keep that in place, so it is true that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1360.729, 1363.997, 1376.84], "stop_times": [1363.997, 1376.84, 1417.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1360.729}, "reply_to": "20072__1_017", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20072__1_019", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Why would a State want to have a regulation that was identical with the Federal regulation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1417.565], "stop_times": [1422.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1417.565}, "reply_to": "20072__1_018", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20072__1_020", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Mr. Chief Justice, the history of it is that the Coast Guard recognized that it lacked the resources in order to enforce all of these provisions with the tens of millions of boats that were out there, so in fact when the Commandant of the Coast Guard testified he urged Congress to provide a scheme that would allow States to promulgate parallel... an identical regulation so that State enforcement officers could go and help with the enforcement of the safety standards.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1422.469], "stop_times": [1450.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1422.469}, "reply_to": "20072__1_019", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20072__1_021", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "The States couldn't help enforce the Coast Guard regulation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1450.203], "stop_times": [1452.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1450.203}, "reply_to": "20072__1_020", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20072__1_022", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "It wasn't clear at the time whether in the absence of that explicit authority and provision that State officers would have the incentive or necessarily the power to do that, so when the Commandant of the Coast Guard testified before the Senate committee he made very clear that what the concern that the Coast Guard had was the positive enactments that would be conflicting with State law.\nAnd he also made clear in response to a written question that was given to him in advance of his testimony so he had additional time to think about it that private remedies would be available to people if they were injured as a result of an unsafe device that was put on a boat.\nSo we think the legislative history, the structure and the text make very clear that what Congress was intending to do in 4306 was to deal with State positive law enactments.\nI would like to address, briefly address the respondent's theory of the savings clause, because in our view it doesn't really make that much sense.\nThey have two theories.\nThe first is that the savings clause was intended to make clear that there was to be no affirmative defense.\nIn our view, that is incorrect, because it was black letter law in 1971.\nIt was in the Second Restatement of Torts in section 288(c), which was published by the American Law Institute in 1965.\nThe compliance with a legislative enactment or a regulation would not relieve someone of liability if a reasonable person acting under the same or similar circumstances would do otherwise.\nSo that theory for the savings clause really doesn't make much sense.\nThere would have been no need for Congress to have added a specific savings provision.\nThe second theory that they have is that the savings clause was intended to save against breach of warranty or manufacturing defect claims.\nWell, that theory in our view doesn't make any sense because you can't read 4306 to preempt those things, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1452.571, 1477.456, 1493.981, 1508.391, 1516.931, 1518.533, 1524.335, 1529.572, 1537.51, 1548.716, 1552.436, 1556.572, 1565.927], "stop_times": [1477.456, 1493.981, 1508.391, 1516.931, 1518.533, 1524.335, 1529.572, 1537.51, 1548.716, 1552.436, 1556.572, 1565.927, 1573.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1452.571}, "reply_to": "20072__1_021", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20072__1_023", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Do you think the American Law Institute always represents what is the view in almost all of the States?\nThat hasn't been my experience.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1573.183, 1581.437], "stop_times": [1581.437, 1583.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1573.183}, "reply_to": "20072__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20072__1_024", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Well, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1583.305], "stop_times": [1584.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1583.305}, "reply_to": "20072__1_023", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20072__1_025", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "I mean, I think there would be real reason to put that in just in case a number of States were following it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1584.272], "stop_times": [1590.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1584.272}, "reply_to": "20072__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20072__1_026", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Justice Scalia, even if you were to say that what Congress was intending to do was to put the ALI's view right into law, the words that Congress used made very clear that general provisions of common law liability are to be preserved, because it didn't say liability under common law, especially breach of warranty or product defect claims.\nIt didn't create the kind of textual limitation that the respondents would read into the savings clause.\nSo I think that if you look at the way that respondent's theory spells, you know, out what the savings clause was intended to do, there really wouldn't be that much of a reason to do it, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1590.728, 1614.76, 1622.33], "stop_times": [1614.76, 1622.33, 1637.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1590.728}, "reply_to": "20072__1_025", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20072__1_027", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "What do you do--\n--What do you do with... oh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1637.189, 1638.14], "stop_times": [1638.14, 1640.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1637.189}, "reply_to": "20072__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20072__1_028", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1640.391], "stop_times": [1642.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1640.391}, "reply_to": "20072__1_027", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20072__1_029", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Frederick.\nWhen we return at 1:00, Mr. Geller, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1642.327, 1643.327], "stop_times": [1643.327, 1646.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1642.327}, "reply_to": "20072__1_028", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20072__1_030", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Mr. Geller, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1646.962], "stop_times": [1664.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1646.962}, "reply_to": "20072__1_029", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20072__2_000", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nWe heard 25 minutes of argument this morning from the plaintiffs and the Solicitor General explaining why it's perfectly permissible for the State of Georgia through its common law to impose a requirement that boats be equipped with propeller guards, but if Georgia can do this, then presumably South Carolina could through its common law impose a requirement that boats not be equipped with propeller guards for the reasons that, as the Coast Guard found, they make boats less safe.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1664.341, 1669.228, 1699.014], "stop_times": [1669.228, 1699.014, 1699.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1664.341}, "reply_to": "20072__1_030", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_001", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Well, excuse me.\nI didn't know that the Coast Guard had found that at all.\nThe Solicitor General's brief sets out a portion of the Coast Guard's letter stating the reason that it was going to take no actions.\nThis is on page 7 of the SG's brief.\nAt least in the excerpt there the Coast Guard didn't make any such finding.\nIs there more material?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1699.814, 1700.23, 1703.651, 1714.94, 1717.309, 1721.195], "stop_times": [1700.23, 1703.651, 1714.94, 1717.309, 1721.195, 1723.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1699.814}, "reply_to": "20072__2_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20072__2_002", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--No, there's no... I should say the Coast Guard was relying, I believe, on unanimous recommendations from the... from its Subcommittee on Propeller Guards and from the National Boating Safety Advisory Council, each of whom had found that the use of propeller guards would demonstrably make boating less safe, and the Coast Guard--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1723.279], "stop_times": [1741.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1723.279}, "reply_to": "20072__2_001", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_003", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Well, that's right, but the Coast Guard--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1741.407], "stop_times": [1742.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1741.407}, "reply_to": "20072__2_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20072__2_004", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--The Coast Guard--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1742.209], "stop_times": [1742.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1742.209}, "reply_to": "20072__2_003", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_005", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--gave its reasons.\nI mean, it said there was a deficiency of accident data, the difficulty of coming up with a single model, and so on.\nIt didn't, as I understand it, adopt any finding that in fact it would be more dangerous in some cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1742.409, 1743.793, 1753.399], "stop_times": [1743.793, 1753.399, 1759.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1742.409}, "reply_to": "20072__2_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20072__2_006", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1759.487], "stop_times": [1759.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1759.487}, "reply_to": "20072__2_005", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_007", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--so I don't think we can attribute that to the Coast Guard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1759.937], "stop_times": [1762.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1759.937}, "reply_to": "20072__2_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20072__2_008", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--That's true, Justice Souter, although it did find... it did agree with the recommendations of the underlying committees that it shouldn't impose a prop guard requirement.\nBut my point is simply that the accident in this case occurred on a body of water that forms part of the border between South Carolina and Georgia, and the plaintiffs and the Solicitor General don't bother to explain how a manufacturer could possibly build a boat that could operate on that body of water and still comply with these divergent State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1762.689, 1770.176], "stop_times": [1770.176, 1791.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1762.689}, "reply_to": "20072__2_007", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_009", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "What if there had been no Federal statute at all?\nA boat manufacturer would still have a difficult time complying with both--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1791.257, 1794.392], "stop_times": [1794.392, 1798.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1791.257}, "reply_to": "20072__2_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20072__2_010", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1798.612], "stop_times": [1799.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1798.612}, "reply_to": "20072__2_009", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_011", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--South Carolina and Georgia law were they different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1799.262], "stop_times": [1801.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1799.262}, "reply_to": "20072__2_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20072__2_012", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "But it was the very purpose of this statute, Mr. Chief Justice, the very purpose of this statute to avoid that sort of a problem.\nIn fact, the Senate report specifically says in this case it assures that manufacturers for the domestic trade will not... will not involve... will not have to worry about compliance with widely varying local requirements.\nThat's our precise point.\nIt was the purpose of this statute to avoid a situation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1801.564, 1808.968, 1821.978, 1823.078], "stop_times": [1808.968, 1821.978, 1823.078, 1826.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1801.564}, "reply_to": "20072__2_011", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_013", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Well, yes, but the Coast Guard did not, in fact, adopt a regulation on this specific device, and I don't know that South Carolina have a different rule.\nDoes South Carolina have common law principles that say you must have a propeller guard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1826.113, 1837.488], "stop_times": [1837.488, 1844.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1826.113}, "reply_to": "20072__2_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20072__2_014", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--No, it doesn't, and no, I think that would be preempted if it did as well.\nMy point is simply to explain why there's a need for a national uniform rule here, which Congress recognized in passing this statute.\nIt's so you have one single rule that manufacturers can follow throughout the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1844.824, 1847.776, 1854.949], "stop_times": [1847.776, 1854.949, 1860.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1844.824}, "reply_to": "20072__2_013", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_015", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Yes, but it clearly envisions that the Coast Guard might not take action with regard to the whole universe of possible actions it could take, and we have a situation here where it didn't take action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1860.27], "stop_times": [1872.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1860.27}, "reply_to": "20072__2_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20072__2_016", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "But the language--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1872.678], "stop_times": [1874.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1872.678}, "reply_to": "20072__2_015", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_017", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "And that may leave open some room for application of State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1874.078], "stop_times": [1879.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1874.078}, "reply_to": "20072__2_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20072__2_018", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--I think that the language of the preemption provision, Justice O'Connor, specifically addresses the situation and provides, as the Solicitor General acknowledges, the Coast Guard has always interpreted the provision according to its plain... the Coast Guard has always interpreted the provision according to its plain language to preempt State law involving design and equipment requirements even in the absence of a Coast Guard regulation because of this congressional desire to have uniform national requirements.\nIn fact, this act was passed in 1971.\nThe day after the act was passed... the day after... the Coast Guard issued a regulation under section 4305 exempting all existing State requirements from preemption, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1879.998, 1907.167, 1910.119], "stop_times": [1907.167, 1910.119, 1923.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1879.998}, "reply_to": "20072__2_017", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_019", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Well, of course, that included, as I understand it, State regulatory requirements in the narrow sense, so that it did not necessarily imply that the Coast Guard thought that it was necessary to do that to preserve any State common law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1923.426], "stop_times": [1937.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1923.426}, "reply_to": "20072__2_018", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20072__2_020", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--There was no... it simply exempted all existing State requirements.\nThere was no specific discussion of statutes, regulations, common law.\nThe point is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1937.353, 1941.988, 1945.959], "stop_times": [1941.988, 1945.959, 1946.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1937.353}, "reply_to": "20072__2_019", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_021", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Right, and that's... I mean, my only point is, I don't think you can infer from that that the Coast Guard ever took the position that a common law requirement was, in fact, preempted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1946.909], "stop_times": [1955.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1946.909}, "reply_to": "20072__2_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20072__2_022", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--No.\nI'm taking from that the understanding, which has been in existence since the beginning of the statute, that even in the absence of a regulation section 4306 would provide for preemption from State law.\nThat was the point that I think comes through clearly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1955.565, 1955.898, 1967.372], "stop_times": [1955.898, 1967.372, 1969.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1955.565}, "reply_to": "20072__2_021", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_023", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Mr. Geller, doesn't it... it's a little unrealistic to talk about a requirement imposed by State law anyway.\nIt's not as though... I mean, even within the State of South Carolina a manufacturer wouldn't know whether to put on or off the propeller guard, because one jury, the first jury may find it was negligent not to have it, and that... certainly that finding that it was negligent not to have a propeller guard does not prevent a subsequent South Carolina juror, jury from finding that it was negligent to have a propeller guard, isn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [1969.657, 1975.728], "stop_times": [1975.728, 2004.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1969.657}, "reply_to": "20072__2_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20072__2_024", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "That's true.\nThat's why it seems completely irrational for Congress to have prohibited State legislatures or State boating commissioners from entering this area, because it was concerned about the need for national uniform regulation, one rule that every manufacturer could follow throughout the United States, and to create an exception for common law rules, which is I think the point that Justice Breyer made last year in his separate opinion in Medtronic, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2004.312, 2004.664], "stop_times": [2004.664, 2027.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2004.312}, "reply_to": "20072__2_023", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_025", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "But isn't the argument for exception oddly enough supported by the advisory committee's report here, and that is that the designs of boats vary so enormously that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to have a uniform rule in the sense of saying, all boats should have propeller guards, or all boats should have this kind of propeller guard.\nThe kind of multifarious context here suggests exactly what common law adjudication is intended to serve, and that is quite fact-specific adjudications when no uniform rule really could sensibly be written to cover it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2027.678, 2052.828], "stop_times": [2052.828, 2073.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2027.678}, "reply_to": "20072__2_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20072__2_026", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Two requirements, Justice... two responses, Justice Souter.\nThe first is I think that misstates what the advisory committee, commission did here.\nIt tested every type of propeller guard in existence, and it concluded that there was no feasible workable propeller guard that could be used on any type of motor boat, so I don't think it's fair to say that it simply said there wasn't one that could be used on every boat.\nIt tested every single--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2073.324, 2075.844, 2080.045, 2093.237], "stop_times": [2075.844, 2080.045, 2093.237, 2094.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2073.324}, "reply_to": "20072__2_025", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_027", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Well, I thought they... and you know this better than I do.\nI thought they said that in some cases the guard would in fact make it much more dangerous than it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2094.538, 2097.09], "stop_times": [2097.09, 2102.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2094.538}, "reply_to": "20072__2_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20072__2_028", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2102.078], "stop_times": [2102.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2102.078}, "reply_to": "20072__2_027", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_029", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "But not in all cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2102.511], "stop_times": [2104.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2102.511}, "reply_to": "20072__2_028", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20072__2_030", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "In every case in which a motor boat was going more than 10 miles an hour.\nIn other words, they didn't find any application in which it would be safe to require that a motor boat be equipped with a propeller guard.\nBut the second answer to your question, Justice Souter, frankly is that this is an argument that I think... and Justice Scalia said this this morning... the Court has heard many previous times when faced with statutes of this type and has never drawn an exception between statutory requirements and common law requirements.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2104.294, 2107.898, 2114.302], "stop_times": [2107.898, 2114.302, 2131.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2104.294}, "reply_to": "20072__2_029", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_031", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "But we have emphasized the language in the particular statutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2131.53], "stop_times": [2134.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2131.53}, "reply_to": "20072__2_030", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20072__2_032", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Yes, and the language in this statute I think is indistinguishable, Justice Stevens, from--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2134.549], "stop_times": [2139.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2134.549}, "reply_to": "20072__2_031", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_033", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Does it have the word requirement in it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2139.184], "stop_times": [2139.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2139.184}, "reply_to": "20072__2_032", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20072__2_034", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Yes.\nThe list... this statute does.\nIn fact, it might be useful to focus on the specific language at issue here, because I think it answers a lot of questions.\nThe section--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2139.817, 2140.101, 2141.486, 2147.19], "stop_times": [2140.101, 2141.486, 2147.19, 2147.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2139.817}, "reply_to": "20072__2_033", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_035", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Mr. Geller, as you do that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2147.59], "stop_times": [2148.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2147.59}, "reply_to": "20072__2_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20072__2_036", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2148.923], "stop_times": [2149.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2148.923}, "reply_to": "20072__2_035", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_037", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--can you tell me if there's another statute that uses the word, minimum safety standards, because I thought that gave some kind of a tone to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2149.392], "stop_times": [2157.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2149.392}, "reply_to": "20072__2_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20072__2_038", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Yes.\nThe statute, for example, that was at issue in Ray v. Atlantic-Richfield, which this Court considered 20 years ago, had that very language in there, and the Court said that didn't mean there was no preemption.\nIt simply meant the manufacturers--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2157.915, 2158.181, 2168.953], "stop_times": [2158.181, 2168.953, 2170.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2157.915}, "reply_to": "20072__2_037", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_039", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "No, everyone agrees that there's a preemption pro tanto.\nThat is, to the extent the Coast Guard has a standard, the State can't have a different one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2170.738, 2173.507], "stop_times": [2173.507, 2179.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2170.738}, "reply_to": "20072__2_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20072__2_040", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2179.678], "stop_times": [2180.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2179.678}, "reply_to": "20072__2_039", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_041", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "But the word minimum suggests to me that there could be other things, that every--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2180.444], "stop_times": [2188.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2180.444}, "reply_to": "20072__2_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20072__2_042", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "What the Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2188.434], "stop_times": [2188.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2188.434}, "reply_to": "20072__2_041", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_043", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--That those standards must be followed, but there could be additional standards.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2188.984], "stop_times": [2195.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2188.984}, "reply_to": "20072__2_042", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20072__2_044", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--That's not the argument... the Court rejected that very argument in Ray v. Atlantic-Richfield, Your Honor.\nThey're minimum in the sense that manufacturers could add to that.\nThey're not minimum in the sense that States could add to that.\nThat would make... there would be no reason for preemption if they were... if that reading of minimum standards were correct.\nThere would be no reason to have a preemption clause in there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2195.088, 2200.492, 2203.877, 2206.328, 2212.565], "stop_times": [2200.492, 2203.877, 2206.328, 2212.565, 2215.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2195.088}, "reply_to": "20072__2_043", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_045", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "The reason could be that these standards are in place, but we're not saying that that's the universe, that there can't be liability apart from these standards.\nLet me ask you something just as a matter of updating.\nAs I understood the propeller guard, it wasn't dead, that there's still current consideration in the Coast Guard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2215.001, 2227.825, 2230.844], "stop_times": [2227.825, 2230.844, 2239.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2215.001}, "reply_to": "20072__2_044", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20072__2_046", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Yes.\nYes, absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2239.8, 2240.083], "stop_times": [2240.083, 2240.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2239.8}, "reply_to": "20072__2_045", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_047", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Where... what is the status of that now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2240.569], "stop_times": [2242.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2240.569}, "reply_to": "20072__2_046", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20072__2_048", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "As recently as last August, Justice Ginsburg, the Coast Guard again asked for comments from people as to whether there would be a workable type of propeller guard that the Coast Guard could consider.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2242.669], "stop_times": [2253.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2242.669}, "reply_to": "20072__2_047", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_049", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "And that's just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2253.292], "stop_times": [2254.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2253.292}, "reply_to": "20072__2_048", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20072__2_050", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "They haven't yet issued any regulation presumably because they haven't yet been satisfied that they can meet the standards of 4302, which is to say that the requirement that the propeller guard would actually advance the interest of boat safety.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2254.392], "stop_times": [2266.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2254.392}, "reply_to": "20072__2_049", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_051", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--All we know is that they asked again.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2266.867], "stop_times": [2268.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2266.867}, "reply_to": "20072__2_050", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20072__2_052", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2268.302], "stop_times": [2268.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2268.302}, "reply_to": "20072__2_051", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_053", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "And we don't know anything about the answers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2268.952], "stop_times": [2270.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2268.952}, "reply_to": "20072__2_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20072__2_054", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "No.\nI don't believe anything has happened since August of 1997.\nLet me just focus if I could the Court on the language of 4306.\nIt's reprinted in a number of different places, including page 6 of the red brief, and it's helpful to focus on the language.\nThis language, Justice Stevens, is I think identical in respect to the language that the Court had before it in Medtronic and in Cipollone.\nSection 4306 has a broad requirement that... broad preemptions that the State may not establish or enforce a law imposing a requirement for associated equipment, which is... no one disputes that a propeller guard here is associated equipment, and the Court has held in Cipollone, in Easterwood, in Norfolk and Western Railway, in Medtronic, that the word requirement in those very similar statutes includes common law claims.\nIn fact, I don't know of any case in this Court that has ever construed the word requirement to include only positive law, and the Court on a number of occasions has rejected that very argument.\nThe Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2270.254, 2270.571, 2273.456, 2277.908, 2284.746, 2292.851, 2321.437, 2333.244], "stop_times": [2270.571, 2273.456, 2277.908, 2284.746, 2292.851, 2321.437, 2333.244, 2334.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2270.254}, "reply_to": "20072__2_053", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_055", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Well, you take--\n--A law or regulation establishing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2334.528, 2335.363], "stop_times": [2335.363, 2337.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2334.528}, "reply_to": "20072__2_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20072__2_056", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Law or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2337.53], "stop_times": [2338.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2337.53}, "reply_to": "20072__2_055", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_057", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--A law or regulation establishing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2338.815], "stop_times": [2340.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2338.815}, "reply_to": "20072__2_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20072__2_058", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Yes.\nI think the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2340.498, 2340.934], "stop_times": [2340.934, 2341.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2340.498}, "reply_to": "20072__2_057", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_059", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--the requirement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2341.6], "stop_times": [2342.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2341.6}, "reply_to": "20072__2_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20072__2_060", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--I think the language in Medtronic was very, very similar.\nThe law here is the common law, which establishes a requirement for associated equipment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2342.234, 2345.219], "stop_times": [2345.219, 2351.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2342.234}, "reply_to": "20072__2_059", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_061", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Well, you take the position, Mr. Geller, that regardless of whether... what we think of the action or inaction of the Coast Guard on this propeller guard business that any common law requirement for a propeller guard by a State is preempted, no matter what the Coast Guard has done--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2351.539], "stop_times": [2376.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2351.539}, "reply_to": "20072__2_060", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20072__2_062", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2376.17], "stop_times": [2376.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2376.17}, "reply_to": "20072__2_061", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_063", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--or hasn't done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2376.654], "stop_times": [2377.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2376.654}, "reply_to": "20072__2_062", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20072__2_064", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Because I think that section 43... section 4306 enacts a general preemption rule that says no State can impose a requirement for associated equipment.\nNow, there are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2377.67, 2388.562], "stop_times": [2388.562, 2389.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2377.67}, "reply_to": "20072__2_063", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_065", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "So if the Coast Guard had never even studied the problem, nothing had been done--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2389.195], "stop_times": [2393.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2389.195}, "reply_to": "20072__2_064", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20072__2_066", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Absolutely.\nFor the purposes of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2393.616, 2394.166], "stop_times": [2394.166, 2395.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2393.616}, "reply_to": "20072__2_065", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_067", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--you take the position it's still preempted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2395.066], "stop_times": [2396.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2395.066}, "reply_to": "20072__2_066", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20072__2_068", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Yes, for purposes of our express preemption.\nNow, here we have a very powerful implied preemption argument as well, which I'll get to in a minute, Justice O'Connor, because the Coast Guard did do a thorough study, but that's right, and this is, of course, the way the Coast Guard has interpreted this statute over the years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2396.484, 2398.018], "stop_times": [2398.018, 2409.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2396.484}, "reply_to": "20072__2_067", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_069", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "What sense would that make?\nI mean, you bring me along a lot when you say, unless we read the word requirement to include tort action--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2409.541, 2410.927], "stop_times": [2410.927, 2417.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2409.541}, "reply_to": "20072__2_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20072__2_070", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2417.747], "stop_times": [2418.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2417.747}, "reply_to": "20072__2_069", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_071", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--then you would have a Coast Guard explicit rule and a State could have a tort case that would force the opposite.\nThat would make no sense.\nI accept that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2418.397, 2427.27, 2428.539], "stop_times": [2427.27, 2428.539, 2429.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2418.397}, "reply_to": "20072__2_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20072__2_072", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "That would make no sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2429.372], "stop_times": [2430.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2429.372}, "reply_to": "20072__2_071", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_073", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--at least for argument.\nBut doesn't it also make no sense to say, if the Coast Guard doesn't do anything, does nothing whatsoever, that then you couldn't have any State tort law in the area?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2430.055, 2430.889], "stop_times": [2430.889, 2444.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2430.055}, "reply_to": "20072__2_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20072__2_074", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "You couldn't have any--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2444.299], "stop_times": [2445.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2444.299}, "reply_to": "20072__2_073", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_075", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "I mean, I can understand why Congress might have said, if the Coast Guard does nothing at all, still the States aren't supposed to sit there and write rules out on a piece of paper, but I just can't understand why Congress would have said, if the Congress does nothing at all, all of State tort law goes up in smoke.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2445.115], "stop_times": [2463.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2445.115}, "reply_to": "20072__2_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20072__2_076", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Not all of State tort... I think the breadth of this argument has been grossly overstated, Justice Breyer.\nThe States have a large role to play under the Boat Safety Act, but in terms of boat safe use and operation, boater education, boat numbering, tort law can apply in case of manufacturing defects involving boats, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2463.526, 2468.097], "stop_times": [2468.097, 2481.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2463.526}, "reply_to": "20072__2_075", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_077", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "No, no, but why would Congress have wanted to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2481.84], "stop_times": [2483.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2481.84}, "reply_to": "20072__2_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20072__2_078", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Yes, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2483.124], "stop_times": [2483.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2483.124}, "reply_to": "20072__2_077", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_079", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--say that no State tort law for the basic hornbook classic negligence--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2483.757], "stop_times": [2491.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2483.757}, "reply_to": "20072__2_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20072__2_080", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Of design.\nDesign.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2491.129, 2492.012], "stop_times": [2492.012, 2492.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2491.129}, "reply_to": "20072__2_079", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_081", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--of design, any of that stuff when the Coast Guard does nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2492.579], "stop_times": [2495.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2492.579}, "reply_to": "20072__2_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20072__2_082", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Because, as Congress said... as Congress said, there has to be a uniform national rule for design requirements.\nYou can't build a boat, one boat for South Carolina and another boat for Georgia, and that's precisely--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2495.481, 2501.551], "stop_times": [2501.551, 2506.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2495.481}, "reply_to": "20072__2_081", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_083", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Well, I take it... I take it that an additional answer to Justice Breyer... maybe you don't want... is that this didn't prempt all State tort law automatically because the Coast Guard could and, in fact, did leave much of it in place, and in the States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2506.955], "stop_times": [2523.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2506.955}, "reply_to": "20072__2_082", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20072__2_084", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Absolutely.\nIn fact, I want to turn--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2523.584, 2523.984], "stop_times": [2523.984, 2525.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2523.584}, "reply_to": "20072__2_083", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_085", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Under 430... 05.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2525.284], "stop_times": [2527.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2525.284}, "reply_to": "20072__2_084", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20072__2_086", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--4305.\n4305, Justice Kennedy.\nThat's exactly right.\nI think if you look at section 4306, which I keep wanting to bring the Court back to because that's the issue in this case, is how to interpret that provision, there are a number of exceptions that Congress has written into the preemption provision.\nThere's a general preemption provision of State design requirements for the reasons I gave, that there has to be uniformity in design requirements.\nYou can't have... you have to have a single national rule, which is precisely what the Senate report says.\nIt assures that manufacturers will not have to worry about compliance with widely varying local requirements.\nAnd then there are three exceptions to narrow it in section 4306.\nFirst of all, as Justice Kennedy said, the Coast Guard can draft an exemption to allow States to have a rule involving design of boats.\nSecond, even when the Coast Guard hasn't granted an exemption--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2527.136, 2527.636, 2528.553, 2529.038, 2541.812, 2547.866, 2552.27, 2558.072, 2562.042, 2570.564], "stop_times": [2527.636, 2528.553, 2529.038, 2541.812, 2547.866, 2552.27, 2558.072, 2562.042, 2570.564, 2574.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2527.136}, "reply_to": "20072__2_085", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_087", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Are we talking about 4306 or 4305?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2574.016], "stop_times": [2576.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2574.016}, "reply_to": "20072__2_086", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20072__2_088", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Yes, 4306.\n4305 allows the Coast Guard to grant the exemption, but it's... 4306 says that there's a general preemption of State requirements involving the design and equipment of boats, but the Coast Guard can grant an exemption to the States.\nSecondly, the States can operate... their State law can operate to meet some uniquely hazardous local condition, and third, the States are allowed to enforce their law about the design of boats to the extent that it is identical to a regulation promulgated by the Coast Guard, and the scheme of this is obvious.\nThe Coast Guard is supposed to promulgate the rules that tell manufacturers what they have to do in order to build a boat, a recreational boat in interstate commerce, and the States can enforce... if the State law is identical to it, the States can participate in the enforcement.\nSo if a boat is built out of compliance with Federal design requirements, there can be a State law remedy, but the States can't add to the requirement.\nSo that they... so that here, for example, you know, you could have a State requirement that has... that it requires that boats be built with propeller guards.\nThat would be a requirement only for one State.\nIt would dictate the national rule and, if a State had a contrary rule, you couldn't sell a boat in interstate commerce, because one State could say you had to have one type of requirement, another State could say you have to have another.\nThe idea of this was to have a uniform national rule, and as... the Court actually confronted a case almost precisely like this 20 years ago, Ray v. Atlantic Richfield.\nThat was a case in which Congress passed a statute that promulgated... that authorized the Coast Guard to promulgate design requirements for tankers, and the Coast Guard in fact did.\nIt promulgated a long list of design requirements for tankers, and then the State of Washington came in and passed a statute that said, if you want to operate in Puget Sound, you also have to follow the following three additional design requirements.\nYou have to have double hulls, you have to have two radar, working radar, and this Court held that that statute was preempted.\nIt was preempted actually in the absence of an express preemption provision.\nBut the reason the Court gave is... applies here like a glove.\nThe Court said, enforcement of these State requirements would frustrate what seems to us to be the evident congressional intent to establish a uniform Federal regime controlling the design of oil tankers.\nThis is 435 U.S. at page 151.\nIt's precisely the same thing here.\nIn fact, here there's even more evidence that that's what Congress wanted to do, because there's an express preemption provision that says that that's what they're trying to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2576.635, 2577.118, 2590.459, 2609.273, 2625.549, 2633.888, 2643.78, 2646.613, 2657.402, 2666.841, 2678.065, 2690.29, 2698.296, 2702.514, 2705.735, 2719.209, 2721.661, 2723.094], "stop_times": [2577.118, 2590.459, 2609.273, 2625.549, 2633.888, 2643.78, 2646.613, 2657.402, 2666.841, 2678.065, 2690.29, 2698.296, 2702.514, 2705.735, 2719.209, 2721.661, 2723.094, 2731.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2576.635}, "reply_to": "20072__2_087", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_089", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Well, but you also have the savings clause, 4311, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2731.533], "stop_times": [2736.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2731.533}, "reply_to": "20072__2_088", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20072__2_090", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Yes.\nLet's talk about the savings clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2736.837, 2737.437], "stop_times": [2737.437, 2738.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2736.837}, "reply_to": "20072__2_089", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_091", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--its reference to common law and State law cuts the other way, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2738.789], "stop_times": [2744.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2738.789}, "reply_to": "20072__2_090", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20072__2_092", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "I don't think a fair reading of the savings clause cuts the other way, Justice O'Connor, but let's look at that as well.\nThis is on page 2 of the red brief.\nWhat it literally says... what it literally says is that compliance with a Federal regulation or order does not relieve a person from liability at common law or under State law, and the legislative history uses almost the exact same language to describe what Congress was trying to do here.\nWhat Congress was trying to do here, quite specifically, and it says it literally, is that in those areas where State law still has a role to play, areas that are not preempted, it is not a defense to that State law claim that you've complied with the Federal regulation.\nThat's precisely what this says, and that's all that this says.\nIt says nothing about preemption, and if it were truly a savings clause intended to create a gaping hole in section 4306, you'd think it would have been put in section 4306.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2744.527, 2749.661, 2752.196, 2769.908, 2785.52, 2788.555], "stop_times": [2749.661, 2752.196, 2769.908, 2785.52, 2788.555, 2799.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2744.527}, "reply_to": "20072__2_091", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_093", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--What does it apply to?\nGive me a few examples.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2799.077, 2799.811], "stop_times": [2799.811, 2801.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2799.077}, "reply_to": "20072__2_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20072__2_094", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "One example might be, Justice Scalia, if a State had a design requirement that was not preempted because it was intended to deal with uniquely hazardous local conditions.\nThat's not preempted under section 4306.\nOr the State may have a design--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2801.629, 2814.187, 2816.723], "stop_times": [2814.187, 2816.723, 2818.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2801.629}, "reply_to": "20072__2_093", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_095", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Yes, but by the same token you don't need a savings clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2818.491], "stop_times": [2821.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2818.491}, "reply_to": "20072__2_094", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20072__2_096", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--You need a savings clause, Justice Souter, for fear that the... that it might be perceived under State law that it's a complete defense that you've complied with the Federal regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2821.443], "stop_times": [2832.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2821.443}, "reply_to": "20072__2_095", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_097", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Yes, but that would be a bizarre reading of the preemption clause.\nI don't think you really need it for that.\nDo you have any other examples?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2832.398, 2835.636, 2836.652], "stop_times": [2835.636, 2836.652, 2838.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2832.398}, "reply_to": "20072__2_096", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20072__2_098", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Yes.\nWell, I think actually, Justice Scalia, that's precisely what the legislative history again says this was trying to do, because when it discusses the savings clause, which I should say was added at the last minute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2838.186, 2838.571], "stop_times": [2838.571, 2850.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2838.186}, "reply_to": "20072__2_097", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_099", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "You're talking to me?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2850.462, 2851.196], "stop_times": [2851.196, 2851.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2850.462}, "reply_to": "20072__2_098", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20072__2_100", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--I'm talking to the Court.\nBut it does explain what this... what 4311(g) is intended to do.\nIt says, of course, in describing 4311(g) and the reason they put it in, of course, depending on the rules of evidence of the particular judicial forum, such compliance... in other words, compliance with Federal regulations... may or may not be admissible for its evidentiary value.\nIn other words, they couldn't possibly have been talking about Federal preemption here.\nThey were talking about State rules, and contrary--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2851.646, 2854.431, 2859.568, 2874.161, 2877.279], "stop_times": [2854.431, 2859.568, 2874.161, 2877.279, 2880.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2851.646}, "reply_to": "20072__2_099", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_101", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "What would happen in a case that... let's assume that there is fairly clear preemption.\nThe Coast Guard says, no propeller guards, and this boat has no propeller guards, and the accident happened.\nCould the plaintiff sue for failure to warn?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2880.581, 2886.302, 2892.456], "stop_times": [2886.302, 2892.456, 2896.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2880.581}, "reply_to": "20072__2_100", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20072__2_102", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--I think that that claim would... the failure to warn about the absence of propeller guards?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2896.158], "stop_times": [2902.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2896.158}, "reply_to": "20072__2_101", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_103", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "About the absence, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2902.662], "stop_times": [2903.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2902.662}, "reply_to": "20072__2_102", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20072__2_104", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "I think... I think that would probably be preempted as well because of the effect it would have on manufacturers to build their boats to... in other words, the failure to warn would have to warn about some dangerous, perhaps defective condition that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2903.229], "stop_times": [2918.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2903.229}, "reply_to": "20072__2_103", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_105", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "I looked at the complaint briefly.\nI didn't see a failure to warn--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2918.69, 2920.04], "stop_times": [2920.04, 2921.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2918.69}, "reply_to": "20072__2_104", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20072__2_106", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--There isn't a failure to warn claim in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2921.475], "stop_times": [2923.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2921.475}, "reply_to": "20072__2_105", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_107", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--allegation here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2923.258], "stop_times": [2923.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2923.258}, "reply_to": "20072__2_106", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20072__2_108", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--and it's an interesting question.\nI'm not sure that I know the right answer, but I think the argument would be that if you allowed failure to warn claims in that situation it would impose pressure on manufacturers to put on the device that would eliminate the need to make the warning, and that would be a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2923.925, 2925.36], "stop_times": [2925.36, 2940.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2923.925}, "reply_to": "20072__2_107", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_109", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Oh, no.\nIt would just... it would make them warn.\nIt would make them put labels on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2940.636, 2940.903, 2942.336], "stop_times": [2940.903, 2942.336, 2943.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2940.636}, "reply_to": "20072__2_108", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20072__2_110", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--There are warning requirements in the act as well, Federal warning requirements, and it may be that those would preempt a State warning requirement, but that's not what we have here.\nThis is a pure design requirement.\nThey're saying this boat is defective because it didn't have a propeller guard, and what I'm saying is that section 4306 addresses that question precisely and says that the... what equipment a boat operating in interstate commerce should have is a question reserved to the Coast Guard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2943.905, 2952.777, 2954.727], "stop_times": [2952.777, 2954.727, 2973.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2943.905}, "reply_to": "20072__2_109", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_111", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Well, Mr. Geller, it's... you say that a propeller is regarded as associated equipment for the board--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2973.257], "stop_times": [2981.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2973.257}, "reply_to": "20072__2_110", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20072__2_112", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2981.447], "stop_times": [2981.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2981.447}, "reply_to": "20072__2_111", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_113", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--for the boat?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2981.83], "stop_times": [2982.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2981.83}, "reply_to": "20072__2_112", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20072__2_114", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2982.38], "stop_times": [2982.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2982.38}, "reply_to": "20072__2_113", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_115", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "It's not a part of the boat itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2982.88], "stop_times": [2984.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2982.88}, "reply_to": "20072__2_114", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20072__2_116", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "It's defined in Coast Guard regulations as associated equipment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2984.649], "stop_times": [2987.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2984.649}, "reply_to": "20072__2_115", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_117", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "So there's a little bit different language about associated equipment than there is for the vessel itself, isn't there?\nOne says, imposing a requirement for associated equipment, and for the boat it says, enforce a law or regulation establishing performance or other safety standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [2987.516, 2993.504], "stop_times": [2993.504, 3004.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2987.516}, "reply_to": "20072__2_116", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20072__2_118", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Right, and we are relying... this case involves the section of 4306 that talks about imposing a equipment for associated--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3004.276], "stop_times": [3011.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3004.276}, "reply_to": "20072__2_117", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_119", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "A requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3011.216], "stop_times": [3012.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3011.216}, "reply_to": "20072__2_118", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20072__2_120", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--A requirement for associated equipment, that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3012.016], "stop_times": [3014.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3012.016}, "reply_to": "20072__2_119", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_121", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Mr. Geller, can I come back and ask you for another example of how the savings clause would apply State law, other than a State law that had been exempted under 4305?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3014.751], "stop_times": [3026.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3014.751}, "reply_to": "20072__2_120", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20072__2_122", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "There are many types... first of all, I'm not sure that Congress necessarily had in mind a specific situation.\nThey were told--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3026.726, 3031.361], "stop_times": [3031.361, 3032.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3026.726}, "reply_to": "20072__2_121", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_123", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "I don't need many.\nJust give me a couple.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3032.144, 3032.63], "stop_times": [3032.63, 3033.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3032.144}, "reply_to": "20072__2_122", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20072__2_124", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Yes.\nAny case in which State law has a role to play.\nThere could be a tort claim that the boat was defectively manufactured because something was done in a particular way and the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3033.23, 3033.646, 3036.082], "stop_times": [3033.646, 3036.082, 3043.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3033.23}, "reply_to": "20072__2_123", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_125", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "But--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3043.919], "stop_times": [3045.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3043.919}, "reply_to": "20072__2_124", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20072__2_126", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--suggestion is that you shouldn't allow the preemption provision to be broadened beyond Congress' intent by allowing the defense to argue that mere compliance... mere compliance with the Federal regulations is a defense under State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3045.121], "stop_times": [3059.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3045.121}, "reply_to": "20072__2_125", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_127", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--But unless the defective manufacture claim dealt with the manufacture of the propeller--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3059.447], "stop_times": [3064.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3059.447}, "reply_to": "20072__2_126", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20072__2_128", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Yes.\nI mean, it could have.\nIt could have.\nI mean, in other words--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3064.499, 3065.601, 3066.601, 3067.101], "stop_times": [3065.601, 3066.601, 3067.101, 3068.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3064.499}, "reply_to": "20072__2_127", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_129", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--It seems to me it would be preempted anyway.\nI just don't see any realistic situation in which the savings clause would apply, other than when there's been an exemption, which I don't find--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3068.136, 3069.503], "stop_times": [3069.503, 3078.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3068.136}, "reply_to": "20072__2_128", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20072__2_130", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3078.009], "stop_times": [3078.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3078.009}, "reply_to": "20072__2_129", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_131", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--terribly persuasive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3078.342], "stop_times": [3079.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3078.342}, "reply_to": "20072__2_130", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20072__2_132", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--That's one example, but you have to remember, Justice Scalia, this was added at the last minute.\nThis was not part of the original bill.\nIt was stuck in at the Senate committee level at the last minute because someone suggested there might be a problem here, let's put this in, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3079.159, 3082.694, 3084.513], "stop_times": [3082.694, 3084.513, 3091.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3079.159}, "reply_to": "20072__2_131", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_133", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Mr.... finish your answer.\nI'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3091.216, 3092.934], "stop_times": [3092.934, 3093.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3091.216}, "reply_to": "20072__2_132", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20072__2_134", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--But the other key point... I mean, I think the Achille's heel of the plaintiffs' and any attempt to rely on section 4311(g) is that it doesn't distinguish at all between common law and State law.\nI think the Court would have to commit an unnatural act with that language to draw a distinction between the common law and State law for purposes of preemption, and if... and if it saved all State law, which is the only logical reading of it, if it saves common law claims, if it saves State law claims there's no preemption at all.\nIt eliminates completely section 4306.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3093.701, 3104.409, 3122.771], "stop_times": [3104.409, 3122.771, 3125.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3093.701}, "reply_to": "20072__2_133", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_135", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "I want to be sure... I thought you made an acknowledgement of a point I didn't think you would make.\nYou suggested in answer to Justice Scalia that there could be a State law defective manufacture claim even if the Coast Guard had promulgated elaborate regulations about how boats had to be manufactured and the boat complied with every one of those regulations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3125.406, 3130.459], "stop_times": [3130.459, 3146.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3125.406}, "reply_to": "20072__2_134", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20072__2_136", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3146.219], "stop_times": [3146.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3146.219}, "reply_to": "20072__2_135", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_137", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "There could still be a State law claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3146.453], "stop_times": [3147.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3146.453}, "reply_to": "20072__2_136", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20072__2_138", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "There could be a claim... there could well be a State law claim because we would not be within State 4306, that the boat was not manufactured according to its design requirements.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3147.838], "stop_times": [3156.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3147.838}, "reply_to": "20072__2_137", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_139", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "No, I'm assuming it complied with the... because it only talks about when they comply with all the Federal requirements.\nYou think there still could be a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3156.861, 3162.765], "stop_times": [3162.765, 3164.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3156.861}, "reply_to": "20072__2_138", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20072__2_140", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Yes, but there aren't manufacturing requirements.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3164.215], "stop_times": [3166.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3164.215}, "reply_to": "20072__2_139", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_141", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--No, but I'm assuming they... of course, they could have a problem here, of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3166.133], "stop_times": [3169.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3166.133}, "reply_to": "20072__2_140", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20072__2_142", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Yes.\nIn other words, if, for example, the Coast Guard had a propeller... had a propeller guard requirement--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3169.601, 3169.868], "stop_times": [3169.868, 3176.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3169.601}, "reply_to": "20072__2_141", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_143", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3176.505], "stop_times": [3176.722], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3176.505}, "reply_to": "20072__2_142", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20072__2_144", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--and you complied fully with... you put the propeller guard on your boat, so you satisfied the design requirements, but you didn't fasten it properly.\nIt should have been fastened with four bolts and you only put two on, and it fell off in the water, there would be, I think, a plausible--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3176.722, 3183.844], "stop_times": [3183.844, 3190.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3176.722}, "reply_to": "20072__2_143", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_145", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Even if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3190.932], "stop_times": [3192.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3190.932}, "reply_to": "20072__2_144", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20072__2_146", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--failure to manufacture--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3192.2], "stop_times": [3192.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3192.2}, "reply_to": "20072__2_145", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_147", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Assuming that the Coast Guard regulation didn't tell you how many bolts to put on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3192.7], "stop_times": [3196.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3192.7}, "reply_to": "20072__2_146", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20072__2_148", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3196.319], "stop_times": [3196.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3196.319}, "reply_to": "20072__2_147", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_149", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3196.819], "stop_times": [3197.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3196.819}, "reply_to": "20072__2_148", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20072__2_150", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Right.\nBut you see, the... Justice Stevens, the precise difference between that hypothetical--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3197.186, 3197.486], "stop_times": [3197.486, 3202.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3197.186}, "reply_to": "20072__2_149", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_151", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "It seems to me there's a bigger gap in this case than the one you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3202.39], "stop_times": [3204.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3202.39}, "reply_to": "20072__2_150", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20072__2_152", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--A failure to manufacture claim only requires the manufacturer to comply with his own or the Coast Guard's design requirements.\nIt doesn't add any design requirements.\nThe problem with allowing the States to impose design requirements--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3204.025, 3211.845, 3214.297], "stop_times": [3211.845, 3214.297, 3217.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3204.025}, "reply_to": "20072__2_151", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_153", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--But if that's true in regard to a minor matter like nuts and bolts, why isn't it true with regard to the total omission of any requirement for propeller guards?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3217.999], "stop_times": [3225.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3217.999}, "reply_to": "20072__2_152", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20072__2_154", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Because how the boat is to be designed and what equipment the boat is to have on it is a question reserved to the Coast Guard or else you can't have a uniform national rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3225.921], "stop_times": [3236.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3225.921}, "reply_to": "20072__2_153", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_155", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Well, but that's the same... true with the four bolts instead of two.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3236.443], "stop_times": [3238.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3236.443}, "reply_to": "20072__2_154", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20072__2_156", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "No.\nNo, I don't think so, Your Honor, because there would be a uniform national rule.\nYou have to build your boat consistent with the design requirements.\nNow, if in a particular case you don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3238.895, 3239.229, 3242.364, 3245.316], "stop_times": [3239.229, 3242.364, 3245.316, 3247.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3238.895}, "reply_to": "20072__2_155", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_157", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "No, but the omission is, there's no requirement on the number of bolts.\nIn this case, there's no requirement on propeller guards.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3247.334, 3250.469], "stop_times": [3250.469, 3253.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3247.334}, "reply_to": "20072__2_156", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20072__2_158", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--No, but in one case you're simply being asked to comply with your own design requirements.\nIf your own design requirement says it should have four bolts, you have to have four bolts.\nIf you only put two in, it's a manufacturing defect.\nThat's a clear claim that can be brought under State law.\nWe have a completely different type of claim in this case.\nThey're claiming it should have been designed differently.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3253.254, 3259.058, 3262.927, 3265.812, 3268.331, 3271.033], "stop_times": [3259.058, 3262.927, 3265.812, 3268.331, 3271.033, 3273.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3253.254}, "reply_to": "20072__2_157", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_159", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "The statute says performance standard.\nIt doesn't talk about design.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3273.283, 3277.77], "stop_times": [3277.77, 3279.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3273.283}, "reply_to": "20072__2_158", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20072__2_160", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3279.637], "stop_times": [3280.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3279.637}, "reply_to": "20072__2_159", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_161", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "So therefore, if the failure to have... it's the same question.\nIf the failure to have a performance standard permits, in your view, a tort suit in respect to the defective manufacture, why doesn't the failure to have a propeller guard standard permit a tort suit in respect to the failure to have the propeller guard?\nI think that's what Justice Stevens'--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3280.889, 3284.257, 3304.254], "stop_times": [3284.257, 3304.254, 3307.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3280.889}, "reply_to": "20072__2_160", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20072__2_162", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "I thought Justice Stevens was referring to a manufacturing defect, a failure to comply with your own design requirements or the Coast Guard's design requirements.\nThere's a single set of design requirements.\nYou have to comply with it, and if you don't, you're liable as a manufacturer for having a manufacturing defect.\nThat doesn't prevent you from manufacturing one type of boat throughout the United States.\nWhen you're dealing with a design requirement where each State can impose its own design requirement, it is impossible to build a single boat that operates throughout the United States, and that's precisely what the legislative history said Congress had in mind and wanted uniform national design and equipment requirements.\nManufacturing requirements are of a totally different order.\nYou simply screwed up with one particular boat.\nIt doesn't tell you anything at all about how you have to build the generality of your boats.\nNow, I just want to turn for a minute to implied preemption, which provides a separate and totally independent basis for preemption here.\nThe... even if the... even if 4306 didn't cover this situation, it's clear that it would... the State law claim here would be impliedly preempted, because it plainly frustrates what Congress and the Coast Guard were trying to do in this area.\nI don't know of any piece of equipment that's been more thoroughly studied by the Coast Guard than prop guards, and the advisory committee and the Subcommittee on Prop Guards took 18 months, they looked at all the available data, they took a boat out onto Boston Harbor and operated it both with and without prop guards, they held hearings across the country--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3307.206, 3315.21, 3316.962, 3322.632, 3329.386, 3345.831, 3348.116, 3350.349, 3354.77, 3364.459, 3380.504], "stop_times": [3315.21, 3316.962, 3322.632, 3329.386, 3345.831, 3348.116, 3350.349, 3354.77, 3364.459, 3380.504, 3401.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3307.206}, "reply_to": "20072__2_161", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_163", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Mr. Geller, do we give any credence to the fact that the Coast Guard itself doesn't think that this is contrary to what it's intending to do.\nIn fact, it thinks it's consistent with the act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3401.751, 3410.19], "stop_times": [3410.19, 3413.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3401.751}, "reply_to": "20072__2_162", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20072__2_164", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Well, I don't know, Justice Ginsburg.\nThat's the position of the Solicitor General.\nThe Coast... I find it interesting, the Department of Transportation did not sign this brief, which is not typical of its practice.\nIt's signed other briefs in this Court in cases like Myrick in recent years, so I don't know what the position of the Coast Guard is.\nThe Coast Guard has clearly held that even in the absence of a Federal regulation there is preemption of State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3413.408, 3415.927, 3419.045, 3425.949, 3432.937], "stop_times": [3415.927, 3419.045, 3425.949, 3432.937, 3440.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3413.408}, "reply_to": "20072__2_163", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_165", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "The Coast Guard isn't in charge of preemption anyway.\nThe Coast Guard doesn't administer preemption.\nI mean, we give the Coast Guard deference on those matters that are within its bailiwick.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3440.543, 3442.828, 3445.363], "stop_times": [3442.828, 3445.363, 3450.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3440.543}, "reply_to": "20072__2_164", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20072__2_166", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Yes.\nMy point, Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3450.082, 3450.515], "stop_times": [3450.515, 3451.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3450.082}, "reply_to": "20072__2_165", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_167", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Whether the State is preempted or not is not within the Coast Guard's bailiwick.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3451.684], "stop_times": [3455.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3451.684}, "reply_to": "20072__2_166", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20072__2_168", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--All I'm saying, Justice Scalia, the answer to Justice Ginsburg's question is, I don't know of any pronouncement by the Coast Guard, ever, that has ever drawn a distinction between--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3455.636], "stop_times": [3463.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3455.636}, "reply_to": "20072__2_167", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_169", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Well, maybe we should just leave the Coast Guard out of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3463.908], "stop_times": [3465.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3463.908}, "reply_to": "20072__2_168", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20072__2_170", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Well, the fact of the matter is that the Coast Guard has never--\n[Laughter]\nAnd I think it's an important point.\nThe Coast Guard has never, ever drawn a distinction between State, regulatory, statutory, or common law requirements, ever, and I think it would be inconsistent for the Coast Guard to do that, given the fact that common law requirements can frustrate what they're trying to do, as this case shows every bit as much as a State statutory or regulatory--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3465.692, 3469.294, 3469.729, 3470.512], "stop_times": [3469.294, 3469.729, 3470.512, 3489.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3465.692}, "reply_to": "20072__2_169", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_171", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "And I suppose some inquiry into that subject is within their purview, because they can pronounce regulations exempting--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3489.123], "stop_times": [3496.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3489.123}, "reply_to": "20072__2_170", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20072__2_172", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3496.129], "stop_times": [3496.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3496.129}, "reply_to": "20072__2_171", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_173", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--certain State laws.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3496.679], "stop_times": [3497.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3496.679}, "reply_to": "20072__2_172", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20072__2_174", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Right, and I don't know of any instance in which they have ever said, contrary, for example, to in Medtronic, where the FDA had a regulation that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3497.713], "stop_times": [3504.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3497.713}, "reply_to": "20072__2_173", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20072__2_175", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Geller.\nMr. Hudson, you have 4 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3504.217, 3506.669], "stop_times": [3506.669, 3509.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3504.217}, "reply_to": "20072__2_174", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20072__3_000", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "In regard to the position of the Coast Guard, I think in footnote 2 of the blue brief the statement of the Commandant at the time the legislation was enacted is pretty compelling.\nWithout any qualification, without any cramp reading, the Commandant understood that the usual tort law concerning negligence and warranties would survive the enactment of this law.\nIt's consistent with the statement quoted on page 6 of the blue brief by the executive director of the Boatowners Association, who suggested a need for a provision in the law to make it clear that common law claims would survive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3509.371, 3524.213, 3533.986], "stop_times": [3524.213, 3533.986, 3547.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3509.371}, "reply_to": "20072__2_175", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__3_001", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "This is the statement of the Commandant before this legislation was on the books?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3547.829], "stop_times": [3553.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3547.829}, "reply_to": "20072__3_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20072__3_002", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Yes, during the Senate committee hearings in response to a question from the committee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3553.482], "stop_times": [3557.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3553.482}, "reply_to": "20072__3_001", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__3_003", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "You consider that to be a position of the agency as to the meaning of the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3557.953], "stop_times": [3561.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3557.953}, "reply_to": "20072__3_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20072__3_004", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Further evidence of the agency's position I think, Justice Scalia, is found in those 1971 and 1973 Federal Register provisions that are cited in all of the briefs where the Coast Guard specifically left in place all laws enacted by the States prior to 1971.\nIt was talking about statutory enactments, even felt no need to even speak to the common law.\nIf they're going to allow the State law enactments to stay in place, surely the common law survives as well and, in fact, I don't know that there's any recision of those 1971 exemptions from preemption.\nThe claims we're making here, the Georgia wrongful death statute is over 100 years old, the negligence standard has existed for as long as the State of Georgia has existed, so the common law has never been a focus of the Coast Guard restriction, or any need to exempt from preemption common law claims.\nIn regard to the case of Ray v. Atlantic Richfield, it does not fit this case.\nThat was a situation where the Coast Guard was directed... the statute said it shall issue the regulations governing the size of tankers and other activities on the coast.\nThe Coast Guard in fact enacted regulations.\nAnd if the State of Washington was able to put a limit on tanker sizes, contrary to what the Coast Guard had done, it would be the hypothetical Justice Breyer presented this morning.\nYou would have a conflict, and under the Supremacy Clause, the State may not act contrary to any established regulation of the Coast Guard and in this case we don't have an established regulation.\nFinally, I would submit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3561.738, 3578.617, 3583.419, 3593.626, 3610.802, 3616.89, 3627.431, 3630.4, 3638.905, 3648.194], "stop_times": [3578.617, 3583.419, 3593.626, 3610.802, 3616.89, 3627.431, 3630.4, 3638.905, 3648.194, 3649.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3561.738}, "reply_to": "20072__3_003", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__3_005", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "You wouldn't necessarily have a conflict if they added something that the regulations didn't have, like a propeller guard.\nIt wouldn't necessarily conflict any more than it does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3649.944, 3657.133], "stop_times": [3657.133, 3659.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3649.944}, "reply_to": "20072__3_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20072__3_006", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "--I agree there would be no conflict, Justice Scalia.\nIf we are able to prevail on a damage claim there would be no conflict.\nIt seems to me, Your Honors, that for Brunswick to prevail and for preemption to exist in this case five very high hurdles have to be overcome.\nThey must overcome the presumption against the displacement of State law.\nThey must overcome the requirement that preemption be manifest and clear purpose of Congress.\nThey must overcome the lack of any statutory or legislative history showing an intent to restrict the common law.\nThey must overcome the common understanding of the words used in section 4306.\nJustice Stevens, in Cipollone you made a distinction between a preemption of requirements and in the Senate draft in the tobacco legislation they talked about a statute or regulation.\nThat was changed to a requirement, and you pointed out one would be preempted and the other would not.\nAnd finally, they would have to overcome the express mention of the common law in the savings provision in this case.\nOn the other hand, this is a preemption case, after all.\nThe Federal agency with the authority to regulate agrees that common law claims should not be barred, or, indeed, there is no conflict between anything claimed in our lawsuit and any existing regulation of the Coast Guard and, if our claims are successful, we will only enhance the ultimate goal of the Boat Safety Act, which was to improve safety for people using boats.\nThank you, Your Honors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3659.916, 3664.054, 3668.672, 3678.213, 3682.431, 3688.252, 3693.806, 3698.46, 3709.916, 3714.72, 3720.89, 3724.508, 3748.643], "stop_times": [3664.054, 3668.672, 3678.213, 3682.431, 3688.252, 3693.806, 3698.46, 3709.916, 3714.72, 3720.89, 3724.508, 3748.643, 3751.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3659.916}, "reply_to": "20072__3_005", "speaker": "david_e_hudson"}
{"id": "20072__3_007", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Hudson.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3751.16, 3752.593], "stop_times": [3752.593, 3753.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3751.16}, "reply_to": "20072__3_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20072__3_008", "conversation_id": "20072", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-288", "start_times": [3753.876], "stop_times": [3759.647], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3753.876}, "reply_to": "20072__3_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20571__0_000", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "We'll hear argument first this morning in Number 96-1482, Lexicon, Inc. v. Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach.\nMr. Kellogg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [0.0, 12.891], "stop_times": [12.891, 14.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20571__0_001", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nCongress passed the multidistrict litigation statute in 1968 as an experiment for a limited purpose.\nIt wanted to allow cases with common facts filed around the country to be consolidated in a single district for coordinated pretrial proceedings.\nSuch coordinated pretrial proceedings promote judicial efficiency as well as the efficiency of the parties by allowing for single rounds of discovery and single rounds of document requests.\nBut Congress was quite specific that at the conclusion of those coordinated pretrial proceedings the case must be remanded to the original district.\nI quote here from section 1407(a), which is set forth at page 2 of our brief.\nEach action so transferred shall be remanded by the panel at or before the conclusion of such pretrial proceedings, unless it shall have been previously terminated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [14.341, 16.676, 25.465, 36.256, 49.497, 59.372, 66.542], "stop_times": [16.676, 25.465, 36.256, 49.497, 59.372, 66.542, 79.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 14.341}, "reply_to": "20571__0_000", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_002", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well, there is a line you omitted, is there... it doesn't say by the... from the district to which it was transferred, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [79.868], "stop_times": [86.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 79.868}, "reply_to": "20571__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20571__0_003", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "That is section 1404(a), which is the general transfer statute, pursuant to which the District of Arizona transferred this case to itself.\nThis case originated in the Northern District of Illinois.\nIt was transferred pursuant to 1407(a) for coordinated pretrial proceedings in the District of Arizona.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [86.772, 95.728, 100.363], "stop_times": [95.728, 100.363, 108.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 86.772}, "reply_to": "20571__0_002", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_004", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Now, Mr. Kellogg, under your theory when should this... your suit have been remanded?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [108.536], "stop_times": [116.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 108.536}, "reply_to": "20571__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20571__0_005", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "It should have been remanded at the time specified in the statute, which is at or before the conclusion of such pretrial proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [116.807], "stop_times": [125.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 116.807}, "reply_to": "20571__0_004", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_006", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well, was that when the Lincoln Savings litigation ended, when the consolidated proceedings ended, after summary judgment was entered, when?\nI don't know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [125.58, 137.055], "stop_times": [137.055, 138.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 125.58}, "reply_to": "20571__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20571__0_007", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "The appropriate time--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [138.471], "stop_times": [139.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 138.471}, "reply_to": "20571__0_006", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_008", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--when under your theory--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [139.521], "stop_times": [140.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 139.521}, "reply_to": "20571__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20571__0_009", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--The appropriate time in this case is at the time that Lexicon made its motion to remand, because the various factors cited--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [140.34], "stop_times": [147.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 140.34}, "reply_to": "20571__0_008", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_010", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--And what had happened at that time?\nI mean, which of these events had already occurred?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [147.511, 150.713], "stop_times": [150.713, 154.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 147.511}, "reply_to": "20571__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20571__0_011", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Well, the multidistrict panel cited three factors as reasons for sending this case to Arizona.\nOne was the pendency of the potentially related appeal.\nThe second was the existence of a document depository in Arizona, and the third was the fact that there was an unfinished settlement in the Lincoln Savings litigation.\nEach of those three factors had been eliminated.\nThe appeal had been dismissed, the document depository had been shut down, and Lincoln Savings had final judgment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [154.081, 160.401, 163.955, 174.994, 177.696], "stop_times": [160.401, 163.955, 174.994, 177.696, 184.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 154.081}, "reply_to": "20571__0_010", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_012", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "But no determination had been made on summary judgment in your case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [184.1], "stop_times": [189.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 184.1}, "reply_to": "20571__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20571__0_013", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--That is correct.\nAt the time we made our motion--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [189.671, 190.773], "stop_times": [190.773, 192.056], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 189.671}, "reply_to": "20571__0_012", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_014", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Now, maybe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [192.056], "stop_times": [192.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 192.056}, "reply_to": "20571__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20571__0_015", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--no determination had been made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [192.723], "stop_times": [194.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 192.723}, "reply_to": "20571__0_014", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_016", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Maybe the district court, pursuant to that original transfer, could go ahead and decide that, could it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [194.058], "stop_times": [200.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 194.058}, "reply_to": "20571__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20571__0_017", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Not pursuant to the statute, Your Honor.\nThe statute specifically states that at or before the conclusion of a consolidated pretrial proceeding the case must be remanded, and we made our motion at that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [200.895, 202.83], "stop_times": [202.83, 212.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 200.895}, "reply_to": "20571__0_016", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_018", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "So when the consolidated proceedings had ended you say it had to go back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [212.353], "stop_times": [215.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 212.353}, "reply_to": "20571__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20571__0_019", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [215.721], "stop_times": [217.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 215.721}, "reply_to": "20571__0_018", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_020", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "And, in fact, it did not, and a jury trial was held, and it was... the jury determined that against your client.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [217.023], "stop_times": [225.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 217.023}, "reply_to": "20571__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20571__0_021", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [225.261], "stop_times": [226.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 225.261}, "reply_to": "20571__0_020", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_022", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "And at that point, what's the remedy?\nWhy shouldn't we just leave things be?\nEven if you read it right, why should we upset that now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [226.129, 229.915, 232.183], "stop_times": [229.915, 232.183, 238.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 226.129}, "reply_to": "20571__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20571__0_023", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well, because venue is like subject matter jurisdiction in the sense that if it is not waived the case must be reversed afterwards.\nThat was the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [238.27, 250.411], "stop_times": [250.411, 251.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 238.27}, "reply_to": "20571__0_022", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_024", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "What is your authority for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [251.094], "stop_times": [252.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 251.094}, "reply_to": "20571__0_023", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20571__0_025", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--That was the holding of this Court in the Olberding case.\nIt was repeated again in the Schnell case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [252.263, 255.215], "stop_times": [255.215, 257.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 252.263}, "reply_to": "20571__0_024", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_026", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "But those were cases of wrong venue, Mr. Kellogg, were they not?\nThis is a case... the District of Arizona, as I understand it, is a place where personal jurisdiction existed as to all defendants, and it was a place of proper venue.\nOlberding involved a wrong venue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [257.982, 262.119, 276.046], "stop_times": [262.119, 276.046, 279.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 257.982}, "reply_to": "20571__0_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20571__0_027", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "This is a case of wrong venue, Justice Ginsburg, even though respondents argued that we could have filed the case in the District of Arizona, but the fact remains, we did not file the case in the District of Arizona.\nExercising a long-held right, we decided to file this case in the Northern District of Chicago.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [279.513, 293.071], "stop_times": [293.071, 299.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 279.513}, "reply_to": "20571__0_026", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_028", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Illinois.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [299.741], "stop_times": [300.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 299.741}, "reply_to": "20571__0_027", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20571__0_029", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "At the time it was transferred to the Northern District... to Arizona, it was transferred only for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 1407(a), and the statute specifies that at the conclusion of those proceedings the case must be remanded.\nThat means venue was improper in the District of Arizona.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [300.676, 317.036], "stop_times": [317.036, 321.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 300.676}, "reply_to": "20571__0_028", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_030", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "May I go back over your initial answer to Justice O'Connor about summary judgment.\nDo I understand you right to say, not in this case but as a general matter, summary judgment is a pretrial thing, so it could be had, where I think your position is that the multidistrict forum has no authority ever to grant 140... to deal with 1404(a), is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [321.69, 327.244], "stop_times": [327.244, 352.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 321.69}, "reply_to": "20571__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20571__0_031", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [352.875], "stop_times": [353.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 352.875}, "reply_to": "20571__0_030", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_032", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "So summary judgment sometimes, 1404(a) never.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [353.727], "stop_times": [357.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 353.727}, "reply_to": "20571__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20571__0_033", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Summary judgment in appropriate circumstances could be granted by the transferee court.\nIn this instance--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [357.363, 362.75], "stop_times": [362.75, 363.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 357.363}, "reply_to": "20571__0_032", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_034", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "And what are those circumstances?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [363.533], "stop_times": [364.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 363.533}, "reply_to": "20571__0_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20571__0_035", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [364.583], "stop_times": [365.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 364.583}, "reply_to": "20571__0_034", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_036", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "And what are the appropriate circumstances?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [365.202], "stop_times": [366.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 365.202}, "reply_to": "20571__0_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20571__0_037", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "In the appropriate circumstances where it's part of coordinated, consolidated pretrial--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [366.869], "stop_times": [371.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 366.869}, "reply_to": "20571__0_036", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_038", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "You mean if every single case involves the same summary judgment motion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [371.273], "stop_times": [379.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 371.273}, "reply_to": "20571__0_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20571__0_039", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Right.\nFor example, if there's a common issue of law that spans across all the cases, or a common issue of fact, the court might well, pursuant to coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings, grant summary judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [379.961, 380.911], "stop_times": [380.911, 394.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 379.961}, "reply_to": "20571__0_038", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_040", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "So you're saying consolidated means that which is common to all, rather than referring to simply a collection of cases which are consolidated for whatever pretrial proceedings there might be involving common issues?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [394.804], "stop_times": [408.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 394.804}, "reply_to": "20571__0_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20571__0_041", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "The statute says consolidated and coordinated, so the cases are brought together.\nThey are consolidated, but the idea is to connect coordinated pretrial proceedings, and the statute's absolutely explicit that at the conclusion of those proceedings the case has to go back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [408.796, 414.433], "stop_times": [414.433, 424.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 408.796}, "reply_to": "20571__0_040", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_042", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "But I'm sure there are many multidistrict litigation instances where the trial court said, now, there's three different kinds of cases.\nWe're going to have discovery... three different subclasses of cases.\nWe're going to have discovery of one sort in one, another in another.\nI don't see that there has to be a determination of commonality before you can make that ruling.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [424.907, 432.411, 436.381, 439.767], "stop_times": [432.411, 436.381, 439.767, 447.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 424.907}, "reply_to": "20571__0_041", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20571__0_043", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "The key point for our case is that there is a durational limitation built into 1407(a).\nIt says that the transferee court gets the case for a limited period of time to conduct coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.\nNow, in my view, that means it's specific proceedings that cover all those various cases, that span across the cases, but the key point for this case is that there's a durational limitation.\nNo one disputes that at the time Lexecon made its motion to remand there was no prospect of any future coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in this case.\nThe statute therefore is quite explicit that the case has to be remanded.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [447.587, 455.593, 464.448, 476.606, 488.664], "stop_times": [455.593, 464.448, 476.606, 488.664, 492.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 447.587}, "reply_to": "20571__0_042", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_044", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Mr. Kellogg, do you agree that under the rule, 14(b), what the district court did here was proper?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [492.802], "stop_times": [500.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 492.802}, "reply_to": "20571__0_043", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20571__0_045", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "I agree that the JPML rule--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [500.806], "stop_times": [503.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 500.806}, "reply_to": "20571__0_044", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_046", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [503.54], "stop_times": [504.025], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 503.54}, "reply_to": "20571__0_045", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20571__0_047", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--allows for it.\nWhat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [504.025, 505.159], "stop_times": [505.159, 505.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 504.025}, "reply_to": "20571__0_046", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_048", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "But you say, though, the rule is unauthorized.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [505.625], "stop_times": [507.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 505.625}, "reply_to": "20571__0_047", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20571__0_049", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--The rule is directly contrary to the statute.\nWhat the JPML has done is taken a statute with a single specific exception... it says, the case shall be remanded unless it has been previously terminated, and what the JPML has done is said, well, it has to be remanded unless it's been terminated or unless the district court has transferred the case to itself pursuant to 1404(a).\nSo they've read a second exception into the statute that completely swallows the rule, because essentially what they've done is says, the case has to be remanded unless the district court decides not to remand it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [507.394, 509.577, 532.943], "stop_times": [509.577, 532.943, 545.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 507.394}, "reply_to": "20571__0_048", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_050", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well, the district court is... does not have total freedom in its options even under the rule, but it can assign it to itself, I guess, because it's not the transferee court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [545.084], "stop_times": [558.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 545.084}, "reply_to": "20571__0_049", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20571__0_051", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "The transferee court, in this case the District of Arizona, was not free to assign the case to itself, for two reasons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [558.077], "stop_times": [565.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 558.077}, "reply_to": "20571__0_050", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_052", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Even under the rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [565.498], "stop_times": [567.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 565.498}, "reply_to": "20571__0_051", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20571__0_053", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Under the rule it is, but the rule is invalid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [567.266], "stop_times": [569.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 567.266}, "reply_to": "20571__0_052", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_054", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Oh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [569.885], "stop_times": [570.535], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 569.885}, "reply_to": "20571__0_053", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20571__0_055", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "And that's for two reasons.\nFirst it makes nonsense of the shall-be-remanded language, and second, the invocation of 1404 was itself improper, because 1404 specifies that a case may be transferred to any other district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [570.535, 572.42], "stop_times": [572.42, 588.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 570.535}, "reply_to": "20571__0_054", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_056", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Yes, but your opponent say other... when they're referring to other district courts the base of reference is the Northern District of Illinois.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [588.446], "stop_times": [597.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 588.446}, "reply_to": "20571__0_055", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20571__0_057", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well, if you read the language closely, and it's set out at page 2 of our brief, it says specifically, for the convenience of parties and witnesses in the interests of justice a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.\nNow, the only way to make sense of that language is that the district court that does the transferring, the subject of the sentence, is other than the district that receives the case, the other district which is the indirect object of that sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [597.119, 616.533], "stop_times": [616.533, 631.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 597.119}, "reply_to": "20571__0_056", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_058", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "No, it doesn't have to be district.\nOr division.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [631.875, 632.492], "stop_times": [632.492, 633.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 631.875}, "reply_to": "20571__0_057", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20571__0_059", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "It says district or division.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [633.442], "stop_times": [635.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 633.442}, "reply_to": "20571__0_058", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_060", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "It could be a different division within the same district.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [635.26], "stop_times": [636.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 635.26}, "reply_to": "20571__0_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20571__0_061", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "It could be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [636.377], "stop_times": [636.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 636.377}, "reply_to": "20571__0_060", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_062", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [636.779], "stop_times": [637.312], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 636.779}, "reply_to": "20571__0_061", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20571__0_063", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--to a different division within the same district, that's correct, Justice Stevens, but in the absence--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [637.312], "stop_times": [643.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 637.312}, "reply_to": "20571__0_062", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_064", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "You think Congress might be... might have been willing to allow a court to deny itself jurisdiction over the case but not allow a court to obtain jurisdiction that it otherwise wouldn't have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [643.866], "stop_times": [656.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 643.866}, "reply_to": "20571__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20571__0_065", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--I believe that's correct.\nI'm not sure I followed the import of that.\nUnder 1404 a self-transfer is in our view oxymoronic, because no transfer is taking place.\nThe District of Arizona is simply asserting continued authority over the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [656.174, 659.46, 661.728, 669.482], "stop_times": [659.46, 661.728, 669.482, 674.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 656.174}, "reply_to": "20571__0_064", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_066", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "The import is that transferring to yourself is grasping jurisdiction.\nTransferring to someone else is denying yourself jurisdiction, a much... it's not as likely to be motivated by bad reasons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [674.536, 679.69], "stop_times": [679.69, 692.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 674.536}, "reply_to": "20571__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20571__0_067", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "That's correct, Justice Scalia.\nThere's a built-in safeguard there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [692.163, 694.615], "stop_times": [694.615, 696.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 692.163}, "reply_to": "20571__0_066", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_068", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well, why... I don't know that I quite follow that.\nWhy is a judge who doesn't transfer necessarily less worthy than a judge who does transfer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [696.832, 699.334], "stop_times": [699.334, 706.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 696.832}, "reply_to": "20571__0_067", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20571__0_069", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "It's only a question that, under the strict language of 1404 the transfer has to be to some other district.\nA court who merely asserts jurisdiction over the course... case and says, I'm going to keep it for all purposes, is not transferring the case within the meaning of 1404, and there's no reason to distort the language of 1404, which was passed in 1947 at a time when the prospect of self-transferring did not even exist, because the multidistrict litigation statute was not passed until 1968, in which case a court for the first time could get a case for limited purposes, but expressly has to remand that at the conclusion of those purposes and cannot bootstrap that authority by holding onto a case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [706.007, 714.594], "stop_times": [714.594, 755.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 706.007}, "reply_to": "20571__0_068", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_070", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Mr. Kellogg, I want to bring you back to the possible remedy, because even if I were to agree with you on your reading of the statutes, I'm not sure that you're entitled to have the jury verdict set aside now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [755.088], "stop_times": [771.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 755.088}, "reply_to": "20571__0_069", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20571__0_071", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Well, first of all, let me point out that we sought mandamus before the trial in the Ninth Circuit.\nRespondents specifically took the position that we were not entitled to mandamus because we had a complete remedy on appeal, and the Ninth Circuit agreed with that position.\nThey said specifically this issue can be raised and the problem corrected on direct appeal.\nWe obviously invoked that right, under the Court's cases, under Olberding and Schnell, specifically have a right to invoke our venue rights, and then you can--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [771.865, 778.369, 789.077, 795.915], "stop_times": [778.369, 789.077, 795.915, 808.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 771.865}, "reply_to": "20571__0_070", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_072", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well, Caterpillar points the other way.\nThere was no subject matter jurisdiction there, and the Court admitted as much, but said we're not going to upset this verdict.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [808.122, 810.49], "stop_times": [810.49, 818.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 808.122}, "reply_to": "20571__0_071", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20571__0_073", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Well, I think Caterpillar actually plays very well into our argument, Justice O'Connor.\nFirst of all, of course, Caterpillar had nothing to do with venue.\nIt had, as you said, to do with subject matter jurisdiction.\nSecondly, and more importantly, the flaw in Caterpillar was cured at the time of the trial.\nSubject matter jurisdiction did adhere because the nondiverse party had been dismissed.\nHere, the venue flaw was not corrected at the time of trial.\nIt continued throughout the entire case, and continues to affect the case on appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [818.68, 821.882, 824.584, 827.369, 834.606, 840.177, 844.83], "stop_times": [821.882, 824.584, 827.369, 834.606, 840.177, 844.83, 849.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 818.68}, "reply_to": "20571__0_072", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_074", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Is this issue comprised within the question that we granted certiorari?\nCouldn't we just remand to the district court if we agree with... to the court of appeals if we agree with you on this point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [849.215, 854.353], "stop_times": [854.353, 860.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 849.215}, "reply_to": "20571__0_073", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20571__0_075", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "If you agree with us--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [860.59], "stop_times": [862.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 860.59}, "reply_to": "20571__0_074", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_076", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Or is it crucial to deciding whether we have a case or controversy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [862.373], "stop_times": [864.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 862.373}, "reply_to": "20571__0_075", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20571__0_077", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--I don't think you actually need to reach the question of whether the error is harmless or not.\nYou granted certiorari to determine whether the practice of self-transfer is permitted under 1407(a) and under 1404(a).\nAll you have to do is vindicate the precise language of those statutes and remand the case to the court of appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [864.559, 869.196, 879.319], "stop_times": [869.196, 879.319, 887.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 864.559}, "reply_to": "20571__0_076", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_078", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "There's not much of a policy if the district court can assign all of the cases to a second district court.\nIf the district courts in the country thought it was very, very important for them to continue business almost as usual they could assign it to the second best district court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [887.574, 895.346], "stop_times": [895.346, 905.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 887.574}, "reply_to": "20571__0_077", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20571__0_079", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [905.636], "stop_times": [906.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 905.636}, "reply_to": "20571__0_078", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_080", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--and so we'd have the second best district courts trying these cases all over the country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [906.052], "stop_times": [909.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 906.052}, "reply_to": "20571__0_079", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20571__0_081", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Actually, that's not true.\nHe could not assign it to a second district court.\nUnder the language of 1404, sure, it would be a transfer to another district court, but it would still violate the express mandate of 1407(a) that the case shall be remanded to the original court where it was filed.\nSee, 1404 and 1407 are alternative mechanisms.\nThey're strategic choices that a defendant can make at the time that a case is filed.\nIf they think they can satisfy the requirements for a 1404 transfer for all purposes, then they can make such a motion.\nIf not, and they think coordinated proceedings would be appropriate, they can make a 1407 motion.\nWhat they can't do is what happened here, is make a 1407 motion and then bootstrap it into being held for all purposes under 1404(a).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [909.856, 911.54, 914.075, 926.133, 930.436, 936.523, 943.927, 949.581], "stop_times": [911.54, 914.075, 926.133, 930.436, 936.523, 943.927, 949.581, 958.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 909.856}, "reply_to": "20571__0_080", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_082", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Mr. Kellogg, I think you answered in response to my question earlier that 1404(a) is not available at all to this multidistrict forum, not to itself and not to another forum.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [958.687], "stop_times": [970.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 958.687}, "reply_to": "20571__0_081", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20571__0_083", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "No, but it is available to the original court when the case is filed, so it was available--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [970.228], "stop_times": [975.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 970.228}, "reply_to": "20571__0_082", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_084", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "To the Northern District of Illinois, but your position is the District of Arizona could not have transferred it to California any more than it could have transferred it to itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [975.632], "stop_times": [983.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 975.632}, "reply_to": "20571__0_083", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20571__0_085", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--That's correct.\nThat would be a direct violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [983.738, 984.338], "stop_times": [984.338, 986.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 983.738}, "reply_to": "20571__0_084", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_086", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "So 14... and to what extent are you relying on... you said 1404(a) came in in the forties, and this is much later legislation.\n1404(a) when it came in envisioned only a transferor that would ship out, so are you saying that because that was the world at the time 1404 came in, that is to allow a forum to send something out, that it can't be applied in tandem with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [986.004, 995.879], "stop_times": [995.879, 1023.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 986.004}, "reply_to": "20571__0_085", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20571__0_087", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "No, I think I'm making a somewhat different point, Justice O'Connor.\nFirst of all, I'm making the point that 1407--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1023.029, 1025.998], "stop_times": [1025.998, 1028.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1023.029}, "reply_to": "20571__0_086", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_088", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1028.032], "stop_times": [1028.633], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1028.032}, "reply_to": "20571__0_087", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20571__0_089", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg.\nI apologize.\nThe first point I'm making is that section 1407 specifically says that the case shall be remanded.\nThat's a later statute, a specific statute dealing with this instance, and therefore the case has to be remanded.\nThe second point about 1404 is, this sort of self-transfer doesn't fit the language of 1404, and my point is that you should not jerry rig these two statutes together, which were never intended to work in tandem, to reach a result that Congress clearly did not intend.\nNot only is the language of 1407 clear, the legislative history, if one needs to resort to that, is absolutely clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1028.633, 1029.215, 1030.165, 1039.155, 1045.976, 1064.972], "stop_times": [1029.215, 1030.165, 1039.155, 1045.976, 1064.972, 1074.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1028.633}, "reply_to": "20571__0_088", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_090", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "So supposing, Mr. Kellogg, that the Arizona District Court had remanded, as you say it had to, to the district of... then could the District of Illinois have granted a motion for change of venue to the District of Arizona?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1074.095], "stop_times": [1089.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1074.095}, "reply_to": "20571__0_089", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20571__0_091", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Yes, it could have.\nIn this case that never would have happened.\nNone of the parties to this case were from Arizona.\nNone of the witnesses were in Arizona.\nNone of the lead counsel were in Arizona, none of the documents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1089.088, 1090.221, 1092.639, 1095.508, 1098.11], "stop_times": [1090.221, 1092.639, 1095.508, 1098.11, 1101.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1089.088}, "reply_to": "20571__0_090", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_092", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "You say it might not have been brought there, or just as a matter of discretion that the District Court in Illinois wouldn't have done it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1101.912], "stop_times": [1107.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1101.912}, "reply_to": "20571__0_091", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20571__0_093", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "As a matter of discretion a 1404 transfer would never have been granted in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1107.133], "stop_times": [1111.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1107.133}, "reply_to": "20571__0_092", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_094", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Am I... to go back to remedy for a minute, am I right that there is no authority... I couldn't find any.\nI don't see any in the briefs, but you might tell me there is some, in which case... on the following two related questions.\nQuestion 1, a district court makes a mistake about venue and holds the trial.\nIs that harmless, or isn't it?\nThere's just no authority.\nCaterpillar had to do with jurisdiction.\nThe second related question is, let's assume that harmless error applies.\nA court of appeals makes a mistake about mandamus.\nIt says you have an adequate remedy, but you don't because of harmless error.\nThen, given that fact, should, later on, you get an appeal, whereas otherwise you wouldn't?\nOn those two questions... I would assume the answer to the second is no, you're just out of luck, but maybe I'm wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1111.87, 1118.457, 1125.361, 1131.499, 1133.8, 1135.485, 1137.668, 1144.508, 1147.96, 1153.447, 1160.851], "stop_times": [1118.457, 1125.361, 1131.499, 1133.8, 1135.485, 1137.668, 1144.508, 1147.96, 1153.447, 1160.851, 1167.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1111.87}, "reply_to": "20571__0_093", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20571__0_095", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well, let me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1167.374], "stop_times": [1167.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1167.374}, "reply_to": "20571__0_094", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_096", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "And I assume that the answer to the first question is, I don't know.\nIn other words, those seem to be the two cases where I look for authority, the two key matters on your harmless error point.\nI couldn't find any authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1167.974, 1171.241, 1177.329], "stop_times": [1171.241, 1177.329, 1179.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1167.974}, "reply_to": "20571__0_095", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20571__0_097", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--We've cited, actually, the relevant harmless error cases in our brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1179.597], "stop_times": [1185.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1179.597}, "reply_to": "20571__0_096", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_098", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Which one do you think is the best, closest one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1185.835], "stop_times": [1188.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1185.835}, "reply_to": "20571__0_097", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20571__0_099", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "In the reply brief--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1188.72], "stop_times": [1190.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1188.72}, "reply_to": "20571__0_098", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_100", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Which one do you want me to specially look at?\n[Laughter]\nI'll look at them all, but which one do you think is right on point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1190.62, 1194.191, 1194.657], "stop_times": [1194.191, 1194.657, 1198.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1190.62}, "reply_to": "20571__0_099", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20571__0_101", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--There are a number of cases holding that venue errors are not harmless error.\nThere's the Olberding case, when the Court quite specifically... and I'm quoting here from Olberding.\nUnless the defendant has also consented to be sued in that district, he has a right to invoke the protection that Congress has afforded.\nIn the Schnell case, 8 years later, the Court reiterated that point and said, look, there are some people who thinks that's exalting form over substance, but it's not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1198.059, 1203.647, 1209.467, 1219.222], "stop_times": [1203.647, 1209.467, 1219.222, 1231.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1198.059}, "reply_to": "20571__0_100", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_102", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Why not?\nI mean, he's had... they've had a complete trial.\nThey had--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1231.13, 1232.08, 1234.316], "stop_times": [1232.08, 1234.316, 1235.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1231.13}, "reply_to": "20571__0_101", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20571__0_103", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "We've had a trial--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1235.016], "stop_times": [1235.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1235.016}, "reply_to": "20571__0_102", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_104", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Nobody says it's unfair trial.\nThere's certainly jurisdiction.\nIt just happened to be at a place that the statutes don't provide venue, venue after all being a matter of convenience for the parties, rather than the nature of the fairness of the proceeding, it's... or jurisdiction or something.\nSo the reason why it's important is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1235.434, 1236.501, 1238.22, 1252.111], "stop_times": [1236.501, 1238.22, 1252.111, 1254.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1235.434}, "reply_to": "20571__0_103", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20571__0_105", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--The reason why it's important is that the venue was improper.\nThe defect in the trial, unlike Caterpillar, was never cured.\nThis trial was held--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1254.996, 1258.532, 1262.601], "stop_times": [1258.532, 1262.601, 1264.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1254.996}, "reply_to": "20571__0_104", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_106", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Well, I know, but what were... the reason why that's such an important defect that, even though there was a totally fair trial, et cetera, nonetheless we should do this all over again.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1264.001], "stop_times": [1273.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1264.001}, "reply_to": "20571__0_105", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20571__0_107", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--It's an important defect in this case for two reasons, first of all because respondents tried so hard to get this case to the District of Arizona because of popular prejudice and strong feelings about the Lincoln Savings matter and Charles Keating in particular, and were relying on the fact that anyone associated with, or alleged to be associated with Charles Keating was essentially going to get lynched by a jury in Arizona, and as Judge Kozinski said, they peppered their trial arguments with references to Keating's misdeeds and with references to the Lincoln Savings debacle.\nA second reason is that Judge Zagel, to whom this case had been assigned in the Northern District of Illinois, had specifically rejected their argument that Judge Bilby's orders in the Lincoln Savings case somehow had a preclusive effect on parts of this litigation.\nWhen the case was transferred to Arizona, Judge Bilby's colleague immediately gave preclusive effect to Judge Zagel's ruling, so in this case there was substantial prejudice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1273.207, 1311.832, 1333.948], "stop_times": [1311.832, 1333.948, 1344.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1273.207}, "reply_to": "20571__0_106", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_108", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "But are you... is your position that you must show that sort of prejudice, or that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1344.489], "stop_times": [1349.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1344.489}, "reply_to": "20571__0_107", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20571__0_109", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1349.207], "stop_times": [1349.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1349.207}, "reply_to": "20571__0_108", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_110", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--a venue error is always reversible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1349.857], "stop_times": [1352.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1349.857}, "reply_to": "20571__0_109", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20571__0_111", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "No.\nIt's always good to have a fallback--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1352.559, 1352.976], "stop_times": [1352.976, 1354.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1352.559}, "reply_to": "20571__0_110", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_112", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1354.678], "stop_times": [1355.095], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1354.678}, "reply_to": "20571__0_111", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20571__0_113", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--and as a fallback we can show prejudice, but we do not require to.\nVenue is always--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1355.095, 1358.98], "stop_times": [1358.98, 1360.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1355.095}, "reply_to": "20571__0_112", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_114", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Mr. Kellogg, I assume that if it's not reversible, then we would have to allow interlocutory appeals on venue questions.\nDo you know whether interlocutory appeals are possible on venue questions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1360.415, 1366.903], "stop_times": [1366.903, 1372.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1360.415}, "reply_to": "20571__0_113", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20571__0_115", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--My understanding is that they are not, that you only have resort to mandamus--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1372.24], "stop_times": [1377.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1372.24}, "reply_to": "20571__0_114", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_116", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Even under 1292(b) they wouldn't be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1377.211], "stop_times": [1379.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1377.211}, "reply_to": "20571__0_115", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20571__0_117", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1379.377], "stop_times": [1380.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1379.377}, "reply_to": "20571__0_116", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_118", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Even under 1292(b) they would not be possible?\nWhy not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1380.162, 1384.13], "stop_times": [1384.13, 1385.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1380.162}, "reply_to": "20571__0_117", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20571__0_119", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "1292 being--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1385.48], "stop_times": [1387.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1385.48}, "reply_to": "20571__0_118", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_120", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "The interlocutory appeals statute.\nWell, they'd be appealable if they were not reviewable on appeal.\nI mean--\n--You would have to have the certification first from the trial judge.\nYou'd have to agree--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1387.166, 1389.018, 1393.386, 1394.486, 1397.188], "stop_times": [1389.018, 1393.386, 1394.486, 1397.188, 1398.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1387.166}, "reply_to": "20571__0_119", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20571__0_121", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--You'd have to, and it would have to be not reviewable on appeal, which means that you would end up with a lot of appeals raising this issue on an interlocutory status and therefore delaying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1398.374], "stop_times": [1409.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1398.374}, "reply_to": "20571__0_120", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_122", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Well, mandamus.\nIt seems to me we have to allow it to be reviewed at some point, or you may as well throw the statute away.\nIt's either reviewable interlocutorily, or it's reviewable now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1409.58, 1410.932, 1415.567], "stop_times": [1410.932, 1415.567, 1419.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1409.58}, "reply_to": "20571__0_121", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20571__0_123", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--That's exactly the point, and it's another source of difference from the Caterpillar decision, Justice Ginsburg, where the Court said we're not concerned that wrongful removals are going to proliferate in that instance because the chances of the defect being cured by the time of trial are so small that nobody's going to take the chance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1419.953], "stop_times": [1440.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1419.953}, "reply_to": "20571__0_122", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_124", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well, there are many trial errors, aren't there, where judges... the only way to review them is through mandamus, or you lose them.\nThis would be one of those, presumably.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1440.301, 1448.288], "stop_times": [1448.288, 1450.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1440.301}, "reply_to": "20571__0_123", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20571__0_125", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1450.323], "stop_times": [1450.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1450.323}, "reply_to": "20571__0_124", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_126", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "If it's a close question the judge certifies it.\nIf it's not, you'd have to rely on mandamus.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1450.84, 1452.942], "stop_times": [1452.942, 1455.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1450.84}, "reply_to": "20571__0_125", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20571__0_127", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--But the Court has specifically held that this one is reviewable, unless you want to overrule--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1455.627], "stop_times": [1461.614], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1455.627}, "reply_to": "20571__0_126", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_128", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "The Olberding--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1461.614], "stop_times": [1462.364], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1461.614}, "reply_to": "20571__0_127", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20571__0_129", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Olberding and Schnell as well as distorting what I think was the clear import of the opinion in Caterpillar.\nAgain--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1462.364, 1469.601], "stop_times": [1469.601, 1470.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1462.364}, "reply_to": "20571__0_128", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_130", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Is it correct that the... I don't have it in front of me, but there's a specific provision for review by extraordinary writ on this venue issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1470.234], "stop_times": [1480.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1470.234}, "reply_to": "20571__0_129", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20571__0_131", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--No.\nThere is a specific provision in the JPML statute, the multidistrict statute that says orders of the panel are only reviewable via mandamus.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1480.742, 1482.277], "stop_times": [1482.277, 1493.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1480.742}, "reply_to": "20571__0_130", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_132", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Any order of the panel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1493.566], "stop_times": [1494.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1493.566}, "reply_to": "20571__0_131", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20571__0_133", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Any order of the panel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1494.835], "stop_times": [1495.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1494.835}, "reply_to": "20571__0_132", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_134", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "So we cannot say, then, on that basis that this is necessarily made in effect a final order for purposes of interlocutory appeal, because certainly the statute would not be construed that broadly.\nNot every issue that the panel makes would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1495.985, 1510.278], "stop_times": [1510.278, 1513.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1495.985}, "reply_to": "20571__0_133", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20571__0_135", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1513.563], "stop_times": [1513.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1513.563}, "reply_to": "20571__0_134", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_136", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--presumably was intended by Congress to be a final order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1513.947], "stop_times": [1517.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1513.947}, "reply_to": "20571__0_135", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20571__0_137", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--In this instance, of course, we're not challenging an order of the panel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1517.599], "stop_times": [1520.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1517.599}, "reply_to": "20571__0_136", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_138", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "And you don't claim it's a final order, do you?\nI take it you claim that it would be reviewable only if it in fact, it is certified, is that right--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1520.101, 1521.236], "stop_times": [1521.236, 1530.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1520.101}, "reply_to": "20571__0_137", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20571__0_139", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "If it is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1530.341], "stop_times": [1531.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1530.341}, "reply_to": "20571__0_138", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_140", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Reviewable on an interlocutory basis, that's your claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1531.108], "stop_times": [1533.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1531.108}, "reply_to": "20571__0_139", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20571__0_141", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--That's correct.\nAs Professor Wright explained in his amicus brief, this is like subject matters jurisdiction except that it's waivable, but where it's not waived the decision has to be reversed on appeal.\nLet me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1533.21, 1533.61, 1544.768], "stop_times": [1533.61, 1544.768, 1545.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1533.21}, "reply_to": "20571__0_140", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_142", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "A rule couldn't change the statutes governing appealability anyway, could it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1545.234], "stop_times": [1550.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1545.234}, "reply_to": "20571__0_141", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20571__0_143", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1550.255], "stop_times": [1551.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1550.255}, "reply_to": "20571__0_142", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_144", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "If you had gotten your certification and it had been reviewed on the merits on an interlocutory basis and you had lost, you then at the conclusion of the case, I presume, would not claim that you had a right to a second crack at review on that issue, would you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1551.505], "stop_times": [1567.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1551.505}, "reply_to": "20571__0_143", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20571__0_145", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "If we had had an interlocutory appeal and lost?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1567.447], "stop_times": [1570.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1567.447}, "reply_to": "20571__0_144", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_146", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1570.483], "stop_times": [1571.351], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1570.483}, "reply_to": "20571__0_145", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20571__0_147", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "I guess that's... I'm not quite sure what the general rule is on interlocutory appeals and review afterwards.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1571.351], "stop_times": [1579.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1571.351}, "reply_to": "20571__0_146", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_148", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "There's such a thing as law of the case, isn't there?\nI mean, if you've gotten the issue decided on the way up, they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1579.774, 1581.507], "stop_times": [1581.507, 1585.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1579.774}, "reply_to": "20571__0_147", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20571__0_149", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "But in any event, in this case we were specifically told by the court of appeals to raise it on direct appeal.\nWe did so.\nI just want to take 30 seconds to give one more reason why a Caterpillar result does not hold here.\nIn Caterpillar the court specifically stressed that the result was in harmony, ultimately, with the subject matter jurisdiction statutes.\nHere, by contrast, the result is directly contrary to Congress' judgment that even if some efficiency is sacrificed by sending the case back to the original district it still has to be remanded.\nThat was the direct command of Congress, and to set aside that, to say it's harmless error because it would be more efficient to have the case heard just once would be to completely undermine that principle.\nI'd like to remain... reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1585.493, 1593.932, 1595.051, 1601.605, 1610.643, 1624.903, 1638.813], "stop_times": [1593.932, 1595.051, 1601.605, 1610.643, 1624.903, 1638.813, 1642.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1585.493}, "reply_to": "20571__0_148", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__0_150", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Very well, Mr. Kellogg.\nMr. Solovy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1642.098, 1643.448], "stop_times": [1643.448, 1645.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1642.098}, "reply_to": "20571__0_149", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20571__1_000", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe position of the respondents that 30 years of multidistrict panel litigation has served the country well, as has... was intended by the Murrah Committee, and was intended by the judicial conference, and was intended by Congress in enacting this act.\nI want to dispel one false issue, and that is the issue of prejudice of trying this case in Arizona.\nThis case, of course, did reek of Arizona because it was all about the Lincoln Savings case, which was tried in Arizona, services performed by Lexecon in Arizona, but this prejudice issue that somehow they could not get a fair trial in Arizona is only a concept by Judge Kozinski, because it was never raised by petitioners before Judge Roll in the district court before the trial.\nIndeed, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1645.066, 1649.501, 1667.98, 1675.236, 1702.236], "stop_times": [1649.501, 1667.98, 1675.236, 1702.236, 1703.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1645.066}, "reply_to": "20571__0_150", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_001", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "I don't know that they said he couldn't get a fair trial.\nThey just didn't think that was as advantageous a forum for them, and was a much more advantageous forum for you.\nDo you contest that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1703.57, 1705.588, 1713.528], "stop_times": [1705.588, 1713.528, 1714.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1703.57}, "reply_to": "20571__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20571__1_002", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--I do contest that, but that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1714.894], "stop_times": [1716.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1714.894}, "reply_to": "20571__1_001", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_003", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Really.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1716.496], "stop_times": [1716.846], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1716.496}, "reply_to": "20571__1_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20571__1_004", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--That's a different issue, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1716.846], "stop_times": [1718.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1716.846}, "reply_to": "20571__1_003", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_005", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "You think the jury there was no more likely to be favorable to your client than it would have been in Chicago, where Lexecon is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1718.515], "stop_times": [1724.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1718.515}, "reply_to": "20571__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20571__1_006", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "No more favorable, Your Honor, but that issue, Justice Scalia, was never raised.\nIndeed, they didn't even have the voir dire transcribed, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1724.936, 1730.239], "stop_times": [1730.239, 1735.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1724.936}, "reply_to": "20571__1_005", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_007", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "The issue of transferring it because there was excess... so much prejudice that the verdict would be set aside for prejudice is one thing, but whether there was a substantial motive to move it to another forum that was more advantageous, although you couldn't say it would be an unfair trial, is quite a different issue--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1735.041], "stop_times": [1755.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1735.041}, "reply_to": "20571__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20571__1_008", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1755.586], "stop_times": [1756.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1755.586}, "reply_to": "20571__1_007", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_009", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--and it seems to me it's the latter issue that he's raising.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1756.12], "stop_times": [1758.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1756.12}, "reply_to": "20571__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20571__1_010", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--That's what section... this case, number 1, is supposed to involve 1407 and not 1404.\n1404, plaintiff's choice of forum, they tried to elevate the plaintiff's choice of forum as sacrosanct, and they cite Gulf Oil.\nThe trouble with Gulf Oil is that's a forum non conveniens case which was overruled by 1404.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1758.387, 1763.958, 1772.13], "stop_times": [1763.958, 1772.13, 1779.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1758.387}, "reply_to": "20571__1_009", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_011", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "What about the Olberding case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1779.486], "stop_times": [1781.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1779.486}, "reply_to": "20571__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20571__1_012", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well, the Olberding case, Your Honor, is a improper venue statute where the improper venue person was the defendant, not the plaintiff.\nThe whole purpose... this is a case which always could have been brought in Arizona, and there was jurisdiction there.\nArizona said this is not an improper venue case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1781.72, 1790.942, 1797.864], "stop_times": [1790.942, 1797.864, 1800.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1781.72}, "reply_to": "20571__1_011", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_013", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well, but certainly it could have... perhaps it could have been brought in Arizona, but several of our cases talk about the plaintiff's choice of forum.\nThe plaintiffs did not choose to bring it in Arizona.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1800.649, 1807.987], "stop_times": [1807.987, 1810.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1800.649}, "reply_to": "20571__1_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20571__1_014", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "But that's what 1404, Mr. Chief Justice, does.\n1404 makes the plaintiff's choice of forum a factor to be considered in the discretion of the trial court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1810.505, 1813.057], "stop_times": [1813.057, 1819.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1810.505}, "reply_to": "20571__1_013", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_015", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "By the transferor forum, and you quickly went by Gulf Oil, but 1404(a) wasn't rejecting that decision.\nIt was saying the terrible consequence that the forum would dismiss and then you'd be caught up on the statute of limitations, so Congress provided for transfer to another district.\nBut it envisioned the transferor, which in this case would be the Northern District of Illinois, or plaintiff's choice, that forum deciding to send it some place else, so I think you have to stay a little longer with what 1404(a) was meant to do.\nIt was definitely a shipping out provision when Congress enacted it, not a shipping... not a retention.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1819.295, 1827.132, 1839.44, 1855.218], "stop_times": [1827.132, 1839.44, 1855.218, 1862.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1819.295}, "reply_to": "20571__1_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20571__1_016", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well, Justice Ginsburg, section 1404 involves an Article III judge making a determination of where the case can best be tried.\nIn this case, that determination was made by the Article III judge, Judge Roll in Arizona, and he transferred the case to where it had been filed and otherwise would have been tried from Illinois to Arizona, and I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1862.638, 1873.18], "stop_times": [1873.18, 1886.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1862.638}, "reply_to": "20571__1_015", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_017", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "What forum was the transferor forum?\nWe have... the transferee forum ends up being the district court in Arizona, but who is the transferor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1886.837, 1889.105], "stop_times": [1889.105, 1896.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1886.837}, "reply_to": "20571__1_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20571__1_018", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--The transferor... the case was transferred from the District of Illinois where it would otherwise have been trialed to the District of Arizona.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1896.878], "stop_times": [1906.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1896.878}, "reply_to": "20571__1_017", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_019", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "But in the 1404 transfer, the self transfer, do we have a transferor and a transferee?\nOr do we have only a transferee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1906.234, 1916.792], "stop_times": [1916.792, 1919.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1906.234}, "reply_to": "20571__1_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20571__1_020", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well, I think, you know, it depends whether you're looking at this in some metaphysical sense.\nI think within the language of section 1404 you have the case being transferred from the District of... Northern District of Illinois to the District of Arizona, and it so happens that the person issuing that order is the transferee judge, and I would like to step back--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1919.275, 1923.612], "stop_times": [1923.612, 1943.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1919.275}, "reply_to": "20571__1_019", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_021", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well, before you get off that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1943.09], "stop_times": [1944.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1943.09}, "reply_to": "20571__1_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20571__1_022", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1944.692], "stop_times": [1945.259], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1944.692}, "reply_to": "20571__1_021", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_023", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--If you're relying on the Northern District of Illinois as the starting place, that is the transferor, and now we're in the District of Arizona under the multidistrict panel order.\nIf the District of Alabama is at that moment asking the--\n--Arizona.\n--for the Northern District of Illinois, the only transferor in the picture, mustn't it do, in... consistent with Van Dusen v. Barrett say, we're going to make this decision as though we were the Northern District of Illinois, because that's the only transferor that Congress has given power in this setting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1945.259, 1958.619, 1963.003, 1963.67], "stop_times": [1958.619, 1963.003, 1963.67, 1984.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1945.259}, "reply_to": "20571__1_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20571__1_024", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well, I think, Justice Ginsburg, your decision in Korean Air Lines is quite to the contrary, because I don't think the transferee court has a duty to put his or her mind into the mind of the transferor court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1984.936], "stop_times": [1998.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1984.936}, "reply_to": "20571__1_023", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_025", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Mr. Solovy, in... the KAL case involved a question of what was the substance of the Federal law, what was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [1998.76], "stop_times": [2006.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1998.76}, "reply_to": "20571__1_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20571__1_026", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2006.432], "stop_times": [2006.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2006.432}, "reply_to": "20571__1_025", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_027", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--that governed.\nThis is a question of an exercise of discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2006.816, 2008.967], "stop_times": [2008.967, 2012.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2006.816}, "reply_to": "20571__1_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20571__1_028", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2012.269], "stop_times": [2013.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2012.269}, "reply_to": "20571__1_027", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_029", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "So it's quite different in that regard.\nThere is only one Federal law, but in exercises of discretion, reasonable minds can differ.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2013.119, 2016.721], "stop_times": [2016.721, 2023.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2013.119}, "reply_to": "20571__1_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20571__1_030", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2023.209], "stop_times": [2023.761], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2023.209}, "reply_to": "20571__1_029", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_031", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "We were... Mr. Kellogg told us likely the Northern District of Illinois would have kept it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2023.761], "stop_times": [2028.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2023.761}, "reply_to": "20571__1_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20571__1_032", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Well, we don't know what Judge Zagel would have done.\nHe might have been happy to get rid of this case.\nI don't know.\nI mean, I can't read his mind.\nBut let's step back for a moment and look at the purpose of 1407, this statute that has worked so well for the last 29 years, handling over 100,000 cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2028.779, 2030.965, 2032.583, 2033.4, 2035.0], "stop_times": [2030.965, 2032.583, 2033.4, 2035.0, 2046.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2028.779}, "reply_to": "20571__1_031", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_033", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well, Mr. Solovy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2046.658], "stop_times": [2048.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2046.658}, "reply_to": "20571__1_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20571__1_034", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2048.176], "stop_times": [2048.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2048.176}, "reply_to": "20571__1_033", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_035", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--I'd like to look at how well it's worked, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2048.641], "stop_times": [2050.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2048.641}, "reply_to": "20571__1_034", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20571__1_036", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2050.96], "stop_times": [2051.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2050.96}, "reply_to": "20571__1_035", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_037", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "But I think we have to also look at the language of the statute, and I don't think it supports your position very well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2051.494], "stop_times": [2057.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2051.494}, "reply_to": "20571__1_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20571__1_038", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "I think, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2057.132], "stop_times": [2057.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2057.132}, "reply_to": "20571__1_037", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_039", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "It does say it's supposed to be transferred back to the original court for trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2057.848], "stop_times": [2065.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2057.848}, "reply_to": "20571__1_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20571__1_040", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2065.737], "stop_times": [2066.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2065.737}, "reply_to": "20571__1_039", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_041", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Now, it does say that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2066.321], "stop_times": [2067.121], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2066.321}, "reply_to": "20571__1_040", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20571__1_042", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Justice O'Connor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2067.121], "stop_times": [2068.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2067.121}, "reply_to": "20571__1_041", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_043", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "What's your answer to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2068.356], "stop_times": [2069.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2068.356}, "reply_to": "20571__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20571__1_044", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Yes.\nIt says that--\n[Laughter]\n--unless the case is otherwise terminated, and I was surprised Mr. Kellogg--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2069.94, 2070.356, 2071.292, 2071.824], "stop_times": [2070.356, 2071.292, 2071.824, 2076.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2069.94}, "reply_to": "20571__1_043", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_045", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well, but you take the position that the transfer is a termination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2076.177], "stop_times": [2081.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2076.177}, "reply_to": "20571__1_044", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20571__1_046", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--We say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2081.498], "stop_times": [2082.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2081.498}, "reply_to": "20571__1_045", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_047", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "It's not a termination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2082.181], "stop_times": [2083.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2082.181}, "reply_to": "20571__1_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20571__1_048", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Well, but this Court... you know, termination is... has to be used in a practical, common sense--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2083.516], "stop_times": [2088.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2083.516}, "reply_to": "20571__1_047", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_049", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well, it means ended.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2088.835], "stop_times": [2089.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2088.835}, "reply_to": "20571__1_048", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20571__1_050", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--It means ended--\n[Laughter]\nNo, it means ended temporally and I'm looking for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2089.853, 2091.085, 2091.788], "stop_times": [2091.085, 2091.788, 2095.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2089.853}, "reply_to": "20571__1_049", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_051", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Ended temporarily?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2095.322], "stop_times": [2097.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2095.322}, "reply_to": "20571__1_050", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20571__1_052", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Temporally.\nTemporally.\nIt was suspended--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2097.192, 2098.209, 2098.959], "stop_times": [2098.209, 2098.959, 2100.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2097.192}, "reply_to": "20571__1_051", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_053", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "How else is a case ended, other than temporally?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2100.394], "stop_times": [2103.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2100.394}, "reply_to": "20571__1_052", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20571__1_054", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Well, it's ended as a multidistrict litigation.\nFor example, this Court in EEOC v. Commercial Office Products, 48... 486 U.S. 107, had to deal with the word terminated in the EEOC case.\nIn order to have... meet the statute of limitations the question is whether a State, quote, terminated its proceeding when it gave the case back to the EEOC, but it really only suspended, and this Court in that case says you have to use it, that word terminated in a common sense way and give effect to the statute.\nAnd by interpreting terminated to mean terminated as an MDL proceeding, we give effect not only to 1407(a), but to 1407(b), because 1407(b) also says in mandatory language that the transferee judge shall conduct pretrial proceedings... shall conduct pretrial proceedings... and if we want to know what Congress meant we only have to look at what the Murrah Committee meant, because as Professor Wright says in his amicus brief it's fiction here to say what Congress meant, because this was all engineered by the Murrah Committee in the judicial conference.\nCongress passed this statute with only two changes suggested by the Department of Justice, one to exempt Government antitrust cases from the statute, and two, originally the Murrah Committee suggested that the transferor court would have to consent to the transfer.\nThey took that out, so any proprietary interest of the transferor court disappears.\nNow, we have within 8 months after the passage of this act a case called In re Plumbing Fixtures, which we cite at pages 19 and 26 of our brief, and there, Judge Becker, talking for the entire panel, which was a panel, you know, of distinguished jurors, Judge Wisdom, Murrah, Becker, et cetera, in that case the petitioner, like the petitioner here, said that the transferee court could not pass upon class action issues.\nThat had to be passed upon only by the transferor court.\nAnd the panel said, well, number 1, let's look at the legislative history.\nThe legislative history rejected the suggestion that only discovery matters be handled by the transferee court.\nAll pretrial proceedings must be handled by the transferee judge.\nThe court said, number 2, look at the House and Senate report.\nIt says that pretrial proceedings means everything a judge does up to a trial.\nIt said, also--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2103.263, 2106.298, 2118.789, 2140.119, 2183.214, 2202.61, 2209.514, 2247.055, 2250.591, 2255.66, 2263.583, 2268.135, 2272.439, 2279.693], "stop_times": [2106.298, 2118.789, 2140.119, 2183.214, 2202.61, 2209.514, 2247.055, 2250.591, 2255.66, 2263.583, 2268.135, 2272.439, 2279.693, 2282.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2103.263}, "reply_to": "20571__1_053", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_055", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "What does that have to do with this?\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2282.045, 2283.58], "stop_times": [2283.58, 2284.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2282.045}, "reply_to": "20571__1_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20571__1_056", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Well, because, Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2284.264], "stop_times": [2285.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2284.264}, "reply_to": "20571__1_055", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_057", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--The issue is not that the Arizona court terminated the proceeding by granting summary judgment.\nThey didn't do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2285.964, 2290.734], "stop_times": [2290.734, 2291.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2285.964}, "reply_to": "20571__1_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20571__1_058", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2291.95], "stop_times": [2292.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2291.95}, "reply_to": "20571__1_057", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_059", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "They transferred the proceeding to themselves.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2292.685], "stop_times": [2294.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2292.685}, "reply_to": "20571__1_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20571__1_060", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Because In re Plumbing Fixtures says that what this pretrial proceedings means, and it says the plain language of pretrial proceedings means everything up to a trial, which includes a motion to dismiss, a motion for summary judgment, class certification, and it also inexorably means a motion to transfer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2294.769], "stop_times": [2314.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2294.769}, "reply_to": "20571__1_059", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_061", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Oh, of course it means that.\nI have no doubt that the court can rule on a motion to transfer.\nThe question is whether it can grant it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2314.949, 2315.885, 2319.337], "stop_times": [2315.885, 2319.337, 2321.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2314.949}, "reply_to": "20571__1_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20571__1_062", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2321.789], "stop_times": [2324.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2321.789}, "reply_to": "20571__1_061", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_063", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "You don't get where you want to go by saying that the transfer, that the court to which the panel has given the case may pass upon that question.\nOf course it may.\nThat's a pretrial question like a lot of other things.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2324.155, 2334.929, 2335.746], "stop_times": [2334.929, 2335.746, 2338.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2324.155}, "reply_to": "20571__1_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20571__1_064", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2338.714], "stop_times": [2339.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2338.714}, "reply_to": "20571__1_063", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_065", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "The issue is whether it may grant the motion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2339.264], "stop_times": [2341.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2339.264}, "reply_to": "20571__1_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20571__1_066", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Well, if it can pass upon it, inexorably it has to grant it or deny it.\nI mean, what's the purpose--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2341.083, 2345.052], "stop_times": [2345.052, 2346.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2341.083}, "reply_to": "20571__1_065", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_067", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Under your view of the case, termination occurs when the district judge makes the order transferring the case to itself?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2346.17], "stop_times": [2354.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2346.17}, "reply_to": "20571__1_066", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20571__1_068", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--That's correct, Justice Kennedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2354.158], "stop_times": [2355.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2354.158}, "reply_to": "20571__1_067", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_069", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "So if that's the first order that it makes, everything after that is not a pretrial order?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2355.676], "stop_times": [2359.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2355.676}, "reply_to": "20571__1_068", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20571__1_070", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "It's no longer an MDL proceeding.\nYou see, Rule 14(b) of the MDL panel, the expert body that administers this act, says if a motion to transfer is granted either to some other court or to the transferee court, then no further order of the panel is needed and the case is concluded as an MDL case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2359.812, 2363.116], "stop_times": [2363.116, 2385.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2359.812}, "reply_to": "20571__1_069", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_071", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "But then you give no effect to the statutory language at or before the conclusion of the pretrial proceeding.\nYou say the pretrial proceedings are concluded the second the district court gets the case if that's its first order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2385.629, 2391.949], "stop_times": [2391.949, 2398.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2385.629}, "reply_to": "20571__1_070", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20571__1_072", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "That would be correct, but that would be highly unusual.\nLet's take the normal case.\nLet's take an airplane crash case, because that's a normal MDL case.\nThe plane crashes in Iowa.\nThe MDL panel gives it to a judge in Chicago, and they're... you're going to get all sorts of motions.\nYou're going to get discovery motions, you're going to get statute of limitations issues, you're going to get Hague Convention issues, you're going to get all sorts of issues passed, and somewhere along these proceedings somebody's going to file, say in the 2-year mark, a motion to transfer, and that transferee judge is going to say, okay, number 1, could I transfer this case to myself?\nAre the provisions of 1404 complied with?\nIn many instances they won't be, because the case could not... that case could not have been brought in the District of Chicago, so that transferee judge could transfer some of those cases to himself, or he could transfer it to other places.\nThe Pfizer, on which retired Justice Clark sat, said you have to have the transferee judge rule upon motions to transfer, otherwise the transfer issue is going to be in limbo during the entire existence of these MDL proceedings, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2398.789, 2401.907, 2403.691, 2407.895, 2410.847, 2417.517, 2439.014, 2443.068, 2457.059], "stop_times": [2401.907, 2403.691, 2407.895, 2410.847, 2417.517, 2439.014, 2443.068, 2457.059, 2475.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2398.789}, "reply_to": "20571__1_071", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_073", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Mr. Solovy, the main problem that I have with using the motion to transfer as a lever to get trial under a statute, 1407, that has pretrial written all over it, the multidistrict panel transfers it to a district for consolidated pretrial proceedings.\n1407(b) begins such consolidated pretrial proceedings.\nPretrial, pretrial is all over this, and then you're saying, ah, but transfer is a pretrial motion.\nTherefore, we can use it as a lever to have a trial under a statute that had in mind pretrial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2475.455, 2499.988, 2504.54, 2511.628], "stop_times": [2499.988, 2504.54, 2511.628, 2520.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2475.455}, "reply_to": "20571__1_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20571__1_074", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--The debate in Congress, if there was a debate, was not whether a district court could exercise... a transferee court could exercise traditional 1404 powers, because in the electrical equipment cases they issued 1404 orders.\nThe question was whether the panel could have the supertransfer power not only for pretrial but for trial, because remember, the panel can ship the case to a court without jurisdiction and a court without venue.\nThat's entirely different than a 1404 motion, and the debate was never, could the transferee court transfer cases, because the Murrah Committee knew they had done so in the electrical equipment cases.\nThis system can't work--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2520.984, 2537.713, 2552.789, 2566.53], "stop_times": [2537.713, 2552.789, 2566.53, 2568.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2520.984}, "reply_to": "20571__1_073", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_075", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "On... my... the question for me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2568.465], "stop_times": [2570.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2568.465}, "reply_to": "20571__1_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20571__1_076", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2570.131], "stop_times": [2570.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2570.131}, "reply_to": "20571__1_075", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_077", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--For me.\nI'm not speaking for anyone else, is I thought the question that was bothering me is where does the district court get the legal power to transfer a case to himself for trial?\nIt doesn't seem to come out of 1407 for the reason... in addition to what you say to me it's very important... that the judicial conference drafted the bill and wrote to conference, wrote to Congress, right in the report the letter from the judges, at or before the completion of the pretrial proceedings the panel would remand each case to the district from which it has originally come.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2570.648, 2571.231, 2585.575], "stop_times": [2571.231, 2585.575, 2612.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2570.648}, "reply_to": "20571__1_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20571__1_078", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2612.994], "stop_times": [2614.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2612.994}, "reply_to": "20571__1_077", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_079", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "It hasn't finished.\nAnd then they have attached a little report from the coordinating committee of judges who said the major innovation proposed is transferred solely for pretrial purposes.\nNow, if the judges say that to Congress and the language supports it, don't they have to stick to it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2614.21, 2614.71, 2625.052], "stop_times": [2614.71, 2625.052, 2632.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2614.21}, "reply_to": "20571__1_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20571__1_080", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well, if that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2632.888], "stop_times": [2633.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2632.888}, "reply_to": "20571__1_079", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_081", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "And the part... the other place where you try to get your authority from is 1404(a) in the absence of 1407.\nWell, in the absence of 1407 I become concerned about the language, which does say, other court... it says a district court may transfer a civil action to any other district, and I don't know how that language in the absence of 1407 can be avoided, and I don't see how 1407, given its language, purposes, and representations by the judges to Congress, can help.\nThat's the problem I'm having with the merits of your argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2633.657, 2641.911, 2671.347], "stop_times": [2641.911, 2671.347, 2674.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2633.657}, "reply_to": "20571__1_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20571__1_082", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--All right.\nLet's attack it step by step, okay.\nThe first step is on what did the Murrah Committee intend?\nWell, number 1, you know, we do have the little experiment that you normally wouldn't have.\nYou wouldn't have Congress talking right away, but you have Congress talking through the Murrah Committee almost immediately in the Plumbing Fixtures case.\nThat's 8 months after Congress adopted this act, and they say what they mean.\nNumber 2, Justice Breyer, we cite at page--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2674.734, 2675.117, 2677.617, 2681.388, 2688.208, 2696.648, 2700.783], "stop_times": [2675.117, 2677.617, 2681.388, 2688.208, 2696.648, 2700.783, 2705.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2674.734}, "reply_to": "20571__1_081", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_083", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "What are you--\n--I'm sorry, I wasn't following you.\n--How does a court decision 8 months later convey Congress' understanding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2706.104, 2705.037, 2706.587], "stop_times": [2705.037, 2706.587, 2713.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2706.104}, "reply_to": "20571__1_082", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20571__1_084", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Well, because, Justice Ginsburg, as even Professor Wright says, the fact... what Congress intended here is fiction.\nCongress took what the Murrah Committee submitted to them and crafted and adopted it, and so if you want to get at least in the minds of the people who drafted the statute, namely the Murrah Committee, you but have to look at the Plumbing Fixtures case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2713.109, 2720.613], "stop_times": [2720.613, 2736.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2713.109}, "reply_to": "20571__1_083", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_085", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "But Congress passed words in a statute, not... the Murrah Committee didn't pass anything, and what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2736.891], "stop_times": [2742.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2736.891}, "reply_to": "20571__1_084", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20571__1_086", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "But--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2742.027], "stop_times": [2742.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2742.027}, "reply_to": "20571__1_085", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_087", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--is troubling me about this, as bright an idea, and as efficient as it is, isn't it the kind of thing that the judges, if they want it, should tell Congress this is it, transfer for trial includes trial, rather than go about it in this rather complicated way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2742.712], "stop_times": [2762.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2742.712}, "reply_to": "20571__1_086", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20571__1_088", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Justice Breyer, if you'll allow me to defer for a second to Justice Ginsburg's question, what they said was, not only 1407(a) but 1407(b), which mandates that the transferee judge shall conduct pretrial proceedings, in the Plumbing Fixture case there's a sort of a ironic heading which says that construction of the plain meaning of section 1407, which they thought was plain then, and they said that the language of 1407(b) is mandatory, and number 2, it says that in transfer statutes, whether it's 1404(a) or 1407, the transferee judge can issue any order, make any judgment, do anything that the transferor judge could do.\nYou have sort of, in property sense, a livery of Caesar.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2762.523, 2812.623], "stop_times": [2812.623, 2816.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2762.523}, "reply_to": "20571__1_087", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_089", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well, but I wonder how much that Plumbing Fixtures case should influence us.\nIf you take a cognate situation, we give great weight to things that were enacted by the First Congress, the Judiciary Act of 1789, because Members of that Congress sat in the Constitutional Convention, but it's not as if these judges sat in Congress at the time Congress enacted it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2816.225, 2820.712], "stop_times": [2820.712, 2838.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2816.225}, "reply_to": "20571__1_088", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20571__1_090", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well, they... Judge Becker, Judge--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2838.856], "stop_times": [2841.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2838.856}, "reply_to": "20571__1_089", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_091", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Are you telling me that Judge Becker was in Congress?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2841.958], "stop_times": [2844.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2841.958}, "reply_to": "20571__1_090", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20571__1_092", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--He was.\nHe wasn't in Congress, but he testified before the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2844.427, 2844.794], "stop_times": [2844.794, 2847.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2844.427}, "reply_to": "20571__1_091", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_093", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well, that's quite different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2847.612], "stop_times": [2849.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2847.612}, "reply_to": "20571__1_092", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20571__1_094", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Well, of course, Chief Justice, it's quite different, but they are the persons that crafted the statute.\nThey are the persons who Congress gave the authority to administer the statute, so I think their views are quite influential and you know, we're dealing with 30 years of precedent where no one ever dreamed up this argument before.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2849.148, 2854.016], "stop_times": [2854.016, 2869.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2849.148}, "reply_to": "20571__1_093", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_095", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well, it's about as influential as testimony by the Justice Department on a bill that's later adopted and administered by the Justice Department.\nThere are some opinions that refer to that testimony, but it's not overwhelmingly persuasive, is it, even to those who believe that Congress does not act in its statutes but in its committees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2869.026, 2878.564], "stop_times": [2878.564, 2891.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2869.026}, "reply_to": "20571__1_094", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20571__1_096", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well, Justice Scalia, I'm a believer here that the Murrah Committee crafted this, that this is quite influential, but you draw from it what you wish, but here is a contemporaneous decision.\nBut let me go--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2891.439, 2902.663], "stop_times": [2902.663, 2903.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2891.439}, "reply_to": "20571__1_095", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_097", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Mr. Solovy, are you going back to Justice Breyer's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2903.463], "stop_times": [2905.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2903.463}, "reply_to": "20571__1_096", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20571__1_098", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2905.449], "stop_times": [2905.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2905.449}, "reply_to": "20571__1_097", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_099", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--I have one, but I want to hear your answer to him first.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2905.965], "stop_times": [2908.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2905.965}, "reply_to": "20571__1_098", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20571__1_100", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "All right.\nJustice Breyer, if I can remember your question, it's twofold: a) Is, Mr. Solovy, the Murrah Committee promised it would go back.\nThat is not correct.\nThe Murrah Committee repeatedly said it will go back unless 1404 is utilized, okay, so that's... I mean, at page 25 of our brief it says 1407 would not affect the place of the trial in any case or exclude the possibility of transfer under other Federal statutes.\nAt page 27 of our brief--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2908.401, 2908.801, 2917.839, 2918.958, 2941.955], "stop_times": [2908.801, 2917.839, 2918.958, 2941.955, 2944.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2908.401}, "reply_to": "20571__1_099", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_101", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Transfer by whom?\nBy whom?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2944.324, 2947.376], "stop_times": [2947.376, 2947.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2944.324}, "reply_to": "20571__1_100", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20571__1_102", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Well, obviously--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2947.842], "stop_times": [2949.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2947.842}, "reply_to": "20571__1_101", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_103", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Isn't that the tough issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2949.061], "stop_times": [2950.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2949.061}, "reply_to": "20571__1_102", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20571__1_104", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--I don't think it's a tough issue, because it's the transferee judge, 1407(b) says that a transferee judge must conduct pretrial proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2950.694], "stop_times": [2959.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2950.694}, "reply_to": "20571__1_103", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_105", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "But there's nothing either in the report that you were reading or in the text of the statute that affirmatively supports that position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2959.683], "stop_times": [2967.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2959.683}, "reply_to": "20571__1_104", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20571__1_106", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well, I don't believe that's correct, Justice Souter, because in the electrical equipment cases which spawned this litigation, section 1404 motions were used to expedite these cases, and as Pfizer says, if you don't have the transferee judge have the ability to transfer the case, then you're going to throw this whole statute up in havoc, because now the case inheres... my air crash case, it inheres in Chicago for 4 years.\nYou've got 40 different cases, and the transferee judge says it makes sense to have this case tried in the Northern District of Iowa.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [2967.939, 2997.892], "stop_times": [2997.892, 3007.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2967.939}, "reply_to": "20571__1_105", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_107", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "And all he's got to do, if that is his conclusion, is follow 1407 prior to the conclusion of his consolidated pretrial proceedings, transfer it back to the original transferor judge, and say, these people want to transfer to some other district.\nI think it makes sense.\nI don't have the authority to do it.\nYou do.\nThat's the way out of that conundrum.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3007.682, 3026.061, 3027.361, 3028.93, 3030.096], "stop_times": [3026.061, 3027.361, 3028.93, 3030.096, 3031.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3007.682}, "reply_to": "20571__1_106", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20571__1_108", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3031.798], "stop_times": [3032.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3031.798}, "reply_to": "20571__1_107", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_109", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "That's the way out of what Justice Clark referred to as the limbo, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3032.348], "stop_times": [3035.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3032.348}, "reply_to": "20571__1_108", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20571__1_110", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--No, because in most MDL cases you're going to have to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3035.767], "stop_times": [3038.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3035.767}, "reply_to": "20571__1_109", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_111", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well, that can be done, can't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3038.885], "stop_times": [3039.987], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3038.885}, "reply_to": "20571__1_110", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20571__1_112", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Well, you have to ship it back--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3039.987], "stop_times": [3040.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3039.987}, "reply_to": "20571__1_111", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_113", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Excuse me.\nIt can be done, can't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3040.837, 3041.27], "stop_times": [3041.27, 3042.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3040.837}, "reply_to": "20571__1_112", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20571__1_114", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Not practically, because in my air crash case, Justice Souter, you've got 24 different cases in different parts of the country, and that's exactly what they are trying to overcome in the electrical equipment cases, because you couldn't get these judges to coordinate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3042.82], "stop_times": [3056.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3042.82}, "reply_to": "20571__1_113", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_115", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "I took it that your argument was basically something like this, that the... an Illinois judge under 1404(a) could always transfer to Arizona.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3056.513], "stop_times": [3067.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3056.513}, "reply_to": "20571__1_114", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20571__1_116", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3067.388], "stop_times": [3068.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3067.388}, "reply_to": "20571__1_115", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_117", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "All right.\nNow, what 1407 does is, it says for purposes of the pretrial proceedings, Arizona judge, you stand in the shoes of the Illinois judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3068.055, 3068.721], "stop_times": [3068.721, 3077.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3068.055}, "reply_to": "20571__1_116", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20571__1_118", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Justice Breyer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3077.077], "stop_times": [3078.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3077.077}, "reply_to": "20571__1_117", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_119", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "All right.\nAnd since you're standing in the shoes of the Illinois judge you are in effect the transfer court.\nTherefore, transfer it to yourself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3078.211, 3078.362, 3082.997], "stop_times": [3078.362, 3082.997, 3084.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3078.211}, "reply_to": "20571__1_118", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20571__1_120", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3084.766], "stop_times": [3085.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3084.766}, "reply_to": "20571__1_119", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_121", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "All right.\nNow, what I was looking for in support for that argument is, is there something in the history, or is there something in the law that says... because it's a kind of fiction in an effort to squeeze what's practical into the language of 1404.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3085.216, 3085.482], "stop_times": [3085.482, 3097.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3085.216}, "reply_to": "20571__1_120", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20571__1_122", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3097.907], "stop_times": [3098.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3097.907}, "reply_to": "20571__1_121", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_123", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Now, is there something that supports that kind of fiction in the legislative history or elsewhere that would be helpful to you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3098.207], "stop_times": [3105.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3098.207}, "reply_to": "20571__1_122", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20571__1_124", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Yes.\nLet's talk about that before my time here on Earth elapses, okay.\nNumber 1, we say the 1404 issue is not encompassed in the question presented, because the question presented deals with 1407 and not 14... (a), 1404(a).\nBut assuming it does, this Court has held in Continental Grain that 1404 is a common sense--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3105.68, 3105.946, 3109.715, 3121.071], "stop_times": [3105.946, 3109.715, 3121.071, 3128.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3105.68}, "reply_to": "20571__1_123", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_125", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Held in what case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3128.51], "stop_times": [3129.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3128.51}, "reply_to": "20571__1_124", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20571__1_126", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Continental Grain, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3129.81], "stop_times": [3131.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3129.81}, "reply_to": "20571__1_125", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_127", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Continental Grain?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3131.294], "stop_times": [3132.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3131.294}, "reply_to": "20571__1_126", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20571__1_128", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Yes.\nIt's cited in our brief, I hope... that it's a common sense statute, and number 2, in the Piper Aircraft case, 454 U.S. 235, at 253, 254, this Court said of 1404, Justice Breyer, that it is a Federal housekeeping measure allowing easy change of venue in a unified Federal system, and what we have is a unified Federal system and you want to make changes of venue, if it's in the interest of justice, work well.\nAnd to show that this Court was common sense, in the Koehring case, which we also cite in our brief, this Court interpreted the power of the district court to issue a 1404 transfer into the power of an appellate court to issue a 1404 transfer.\nNow, that's surely not within the literal language of 1404, but it made good common sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3132.428, 3132.811, 3166.718, 3183.077], "stop_times": [3132.811, 3166.718, 3183.077, 3190.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3132.428}, "reply_to": "20571__1_127", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_129", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "All right.\nCan I ask you one other quick question?\nYou... did I hear you correctly that you thought Olberding and Schnell, the cases involving the harmless error, involved venue?\nThis does not involve venue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3190.433, 3190.85, 3192.133, 3199.123], "stop_times": [3190.85, 3192.133, 3199.123, 3200.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3190.433}, "reply_to": "20571__1_128", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20571__1_130", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "This does not involve venue--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3200.723], "stop_times": [3202.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3200.723}, "reply_to": "20571__1_129", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_131", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "So in this case jurisdiction and venue are proper in either court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3202.225], "stop_times": [3206.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3202.225}, "reply_to": "20571__1_130", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20571__1_132", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Absolutely correct, and in either court, and bear in mind, section 1406, let's not forget 1406.\nEven a judge without venue could issue a transfer order, so this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3206.11, 3216.9], "stop_times": [3216.9, 3221.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3206.11}, "reply_to": "20571__1_131", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_133", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Let's assume that the plaintiff brings an action with proper venue in district A, and the defendant doesn't like district A, so he simply seeks to bring the court in district Z.\nNow, is it your contention that venue is not involved when he runs to district Z and the court in district Z can take the case if the court in district Z takes the case?\nSo long as venue could have lain there it doesn't matter whether district A transferred it or not, venue is proper, just because the defendant runs over there and says, please take this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3221.786, 3240.766, 3253.073], "stop_times": [3240.766, 3253.073, 3263.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3221.786}, "reply_to": "20571__1_132", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20571__1_134", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Well, you have to go through... you know, you have to go through the hoops.\nYou have to file--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3263.965, 3266.333], "stop_times": [3266.333, 3267.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3263.965}, "reply_to": "20571__1_133", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_135", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "And if you don't go through the hoops, venue is improper.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3267.1], "stop_times": [3269.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3267.1}, "reply_to": "20571__1_134", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20571__1_136", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--You have to file the motion, but here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3269.285], "stop_times": [3271.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3269.285}, "reply_to": "20571__1_135", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_137", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Isn't venue improper in district Z so long as it was not properly transferred to district Z, even though it could have been brought there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3271.119], "stop_times": [3278.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3271.119}, "reply_to": "20571__1_136", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20571__1_138", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3278.391], "stop_times": [3279.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3278.391}, "reply_to": "20571__1_137", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_139", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Wouldn't you say venue is improper?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3279.341], "stop_times": [3281.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3279.341}, "reply_to": "20571__1_138", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20571__1_140", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Let me answer the question this way, Justice Scalia.\nI know of no case where they have an error-free trial, as this one, where the court who tried the case had venue and jurisdiction, and the case gets reversed for a new trial--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3281.093, 3283.193], "stop_times": [3283.193, 3294.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3281.093}, "reply_to": "20571__1_139", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_141", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Do you know of any case in which an interlocutory appeal has been allowed where venue is challenged?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3294.067], "stop_times": [3301.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3294.067}, "reply_to": "20571__1_140", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20571__1_142", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Very seldom, Justice Scalia, and for good reason, because you know, venue will seldom be an error... if it be an error in a 1404 motion it's going to seldom be overturned because it's not substantial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3301.488], "stop_times": [3314.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3301.488}, "reply_to": "20571__1_141", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_143", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "You say very seldom.\nDo you know any case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3314.314, 3315.098], "stop_times": [3315.098, 3315.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3314.314}, "reply_to": "20571__1_142", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20571__1_144", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3315.998], "stop_times": [3316.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3315.998}, "reply_to": "20571__1_143", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_145", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "I don't, either.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3316.433], "stop_times": [3317.416], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3316.433}, "reply_to": "20571__1_144", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20571__1_146", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "I don't, either, and for good reason, and that's why we get into section 2111, which is also mandatory in terms.\nThis court is directed to give effect to judgment where there has not been any substantial prejudice to the petitioner, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3317.416, 3324.687], "stop_times": [3324.687, 3334.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3317.416}, "reply_to": "20571__1_145", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_147", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Well, is it your view that improper venue could never prejudice the petitioner?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3334.061], "stop_times": [3340.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3334.061}, "reply_to": "20571__1_146", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20571__1_148", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--It might be, Mr. Chief Justice, but this isn't a case of improper venue.\nVenue lied in the District of Arizona.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3340.715, 3345.083], "stop_times": [3345.083, 3347.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3340.715}, "reply_to": "20571__1_147", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_149", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Laid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3347.535], "stop_times": [3347.985], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3347.535}, "reply_to": "20571__1_148", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20571__1_150", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Laid.\nThank you very much, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3347.985, 3348.651], "stop_times": [3348.651, 3349.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3347.985}, "reply_to": "20571__1_149", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_151", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Mr. Solovy, can I ask one... may I ask just one question?\nIn Pfizer was... did the... was the transfer to the court itself or to another district?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3349.818, 3353.537], "stop_times": [3353.537, 3358.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3349.818}, "reply_to": "20571__1_150", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20571__1_152", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--It was to another district.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3358.941], "stop_times": [3360.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3358.941}, "reply_to": "20571__1_151", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_153", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3360.726], "stop_times": [3361.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3360.726}, "reply_to": "20571__1_152", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20571__1_154", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Because Judge Lord was sitting by designation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3361.126], "stop_times": [3363.761], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3361.126}, "reply_to": "20571__1_153", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_155", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3363.761], "stop_times": [3364.861], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3363.761}, "reply_to": "20571__1_154", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20571__1_156", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "In New York, and that's the other beauty of the statute.\nThe judges can be, you know, shipped around through the country, and in Woops, for example, Judge Browning was designated to sit in Seattle.\nHe transferred the case for trial to himself in Tucson.\nIt made a lot of sense to try that case there.\nSo in Pfizer, it was a transfer to another district because Judge Lord... but he really transferred it to himself, because he transferred it to himself for trial in Minnesota.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3364.861, 3367.03, 3375.552, 3380.087, 3382.639, 3393.097], "stop_times": [3367.03, 3375.552, 3380.087, 3382.639, 3393.097, 3393.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3364.861}, "reply_to": "20571__1_155", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_157", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "In 1406(b), which you... 1406, subsection (b) that you cited to us, it says, nothing in this chapter shall impair the jurisdiction of a district court of any matter involving a party who does not interpose timely and sufficient objection to venue.\nThat indicates to me a statutory command that improper venue can be jurisdictional just as the petitioners say it is in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3393.58, 3408.54], "stop_times": [3408.54, 3417.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3393.58}, "reply_to": "20571__1_156", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20571__1_158", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Well, but they did not... they didn't ever do the correct thing, because it's ironic again here, they lay upon the mandatory language of shall remand, but they never went back to the panel and said, please remand the case to Illinois.\nMy time has expired.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3417.379, 3434.007, 3435.374], "stop_times": [3434.007, 3435.374, 3436.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3417.379}, "reply_to": "20571__1_157", "speaker": "jerold_s_solovy"}
{"id": "20571__1_159", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Solovy.\nMr. Kellogg, you have 4 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3436.441, 3437.243], "stop_times": [3437.243, 3439.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3436.441}, "reply_to": "20571__1_158", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20571__2_000", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Are you going to respond to Mr. Solovy's last point, that you never went back to the panel?\nYes.\nI'll respond to that directly.\nWe did exactly what the panel's rules require, which is to go in the first instance to the district court, the transferee court, and ask for a suggestion of remand.\nWhen the district court denied that motion, it simultaneously transferred the case to itself, which under the JPML rules deprived the panel of any further jurisdiction over the case, so we had no choice at that point but to seek mandamus in the Ninth Circuit, which we did.\nRespondents of course at that point argued to the Ninth Circuit mandamus is inappropriate because they have a complete remedy on appeal.\nThe Ninth Circuit accepted that argument and that's why we're here today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3439.495, 3443.613, 3444.33, 3445.899, 3454.152, 3469.68, 3476.934], "stop_times": [3443.613, 3444.33, 3445.899, 3454.152, 3469.68, 3476.934, 3481.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3439.495}, "reply_to": "20571__1_159", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__2_001", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Can I ask you this, on that particular point: what's worrying me about... venue and jurisdiction are proper in both places, not proper, but they lie in both places, so we're really asking the question of whether a 1404 error, a 1404(a) error is reviewable despite the fact that there was a trial.\nIf you're right on that, and it is reviewable after trial, does that mean there'd always be the argument after a fair trial this was not a jurisdiction where it was convenient for the witnesses?\nThis was not a jurisdiction... there was abuse of discretion on that, and therefore we will have review in the courts of appeals and set aside trials because of a 1404(a) violation on the ground, abuse of discretion in respect to.\nDo you see what's bothering me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3481.155, 3499.799, 3511.341, 3526.934], "stop_times": [3499.799, 3511.341, 3526.934, 3528.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3481.155}, "reply_to": "20571__2_000", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20571__2_002", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Yes, exactly, but we're not dealing here with an abuse of discretion action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3528.136], "stop_times": [3531.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3528.136}, "reply_to": "20571__2_001", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__2_003", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "No, but if you win, don't we also have to say that the trial doesn't cure an abuse of discretion in a transfer in respect to convenience of witnesses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3531.42], "stop_times": [3541.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3531.42}, "reply_to": "20571__2_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20571__2_004", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "I don't think you do.\nFirst of all, we're asking you to vindicate the mandate of 1407 in the first instance, which is absolutely clear, and says the case shall be remanded.\nSecond, even under 1404 we're not talking about a discretionary balancing of factors.\nWe're talking about a direct violation of the statute.\nI mean, you had mentioned the polite fiction that somehow the Arizona court stands in the shoes of the Illinois court, but it's really a distortion of the statutory language to say that the court is both the self and the other within the scope of that single sentence, and there's no reason to distort that language in order to reach a result that Congress clearly did not intend--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3541.026, 3541.893, 3550.466, 3555.536, 3558.488], "stop_times": [3541.893, 3550.466, 3555.536, 3558.488, 3578.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3541.026}, "reply_to": "20571__2_003", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__2_005", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "May I ask if you would take the same position if the transfer had been to a different district?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3578.485], "stop_times": [3582.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3578.485}, "reply_to": "20571__2_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20571__2_006", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "--Well, then we would not rely on 1404, but our position would be exactly the same under 1407.\nTheir position has rendered the language, shall be remanded, into a nullity.\nIt has also turned the unless previously translated language into utter surplusage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3582.703, 3588.007, 3593.495], "stop_times": [3588.007, 3593.495, 3598.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3582.703}, "reply_to": "20571__2_005", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__2_007", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "So your basic position, and it's consistent with the question presented in the cert petition, doesn't really rely on 1404.\nYour primary submission is the 1407 submission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3598.13, 3605.053], "stop_times": [3605.053, 3607.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3598.13}, "reply_to": "20571__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20571__2_008", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "In the first instance, but we also in our cert position said can he transfer it to himself, and that's an independent violation which we were allowed to, and did, raise.\nNow, I'd like to go back to the issue of remedy, Justice O'Connor, because I think it's quite critical.\nThere are potential cases in which it's going to be difficult for the transferee court to decide when pretrial proceedings have or have not ended, and the JPML's rules, that's why they require you to go to him in the first instance, because he's the one who's going to know.\nBut this case is an easy one, because there's no dispute that any prospect of coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings had ended at that point, so the case had to be remanded as of the date that Lexecon made its motion, because that is the triggering event.\nVenue, unlike subject matter jurisdiction, can be waived, but where it's not waived the statute is absolutely clear, and that's the relevant cut-off date.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3607.755, 3617.626, 3622.145, 3637.69, 3654.717], "stop_times": [3617.626, 3622.145, 3637.69, 3654.717, 3663.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3607.755}, "reply_to": "20571__2_007", "speaker": "michael_k_kellogg"}
{"id": "20571__2_009", "conversation_id": "20571", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Kellogg.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1482", "start_times": [3663.072, 3663.988], "stop_times": [3663.988, 3665.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3663.072}, "reply_to": "20571__2_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20242__0_000", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 96-1462, Christopher H. Lunding v. the New York Tax Appeals Tribunal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [13.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20242__0_001", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIn calendar year 1990 I was a lawyer practicing law in the City of New York and residing some 38 miles from my office in the State of Connecticut, some 9,000 feet, plus or minus, over the State border.\nIt is something I did not think of when I moved to the State of Connecticut that I would be here today on my on behalf, challenging a statute of the State of New York as discriminating against me as a nonresident in taxation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [13.17, 70.856, 86.167], "stop_times": [70.856, 86.167, 99.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 13.17}, "reply_to": "20242__0_000", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_002", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "What, 9,000 feet would be roughly, what, 2--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [99.157], "stop_times": [102.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 99.157}, "reply_to": "20242__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20242__0_003", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "A little less than 2 miles over the State line, Your Honor, into Connecticut.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [102.799], "stop_times": [106.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 102.799}, "reply_to": "20242__0_002", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_004", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--Well, but... okay.\nOkay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [106.231, 108.492], "stop_times": [108.492, 108.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 106.231}, "reply_to": "20242__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20242__0_005", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Right.\nClose to the border.\nNot that I think that in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [108.893, 109.372, 110.864], "stop_times": [109.372, 110.864, 113.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 108.893}, "reply_to": "20242__0_004", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_006", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "That doesn't make a difference, though.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [113.294], "stop_times": [114.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 113.294}, "reply_to": "20242__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20242__0_007", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--No, it does not, Your Honor.\nI do not urge that the distance from the State line is legally relevant in this case.\nWhat is legally relevant, though, is the question of the constitutionality of New York State tax law 631(b)(6), which entirely denies--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [114.997, 115.726, 119.799], "stop_times": [115.726, 119.799, 132.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 114.997}, "reply_to": "20242__0_006", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_008", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Well, you don't argue, do you, or maybe you do, that in apportioning this income for people who work full or part-time in New York, that New York has to allow personal deductions of various kinds to out-of-State residents, do you?\nI mean, deductions that don't relate to the production of income in New York?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [132.108, 151.459], "stop_times": [151.459, 155.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 132.108}, "reply_to": "20242__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20242__0_009", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [155.753], "stop_times": [157.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 155.753}, "reply_to": "20242__0_008", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_010", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Let's talk about that kind of deduction.\nIt doesn't relate to the production of your income in New York.\nNow, does New York have to worry about personal deductions of that kind?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [157.894, 160.125, 164.248], "stop_times": [160.125, 164.248, 169.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 157.894}, "reply_to": "20242__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20242__0_011", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--Well, the money is fungible, Justice O'Connor, and a substantial portion of my income and a much more substantial person... portion of other taxpayers' nonresident-in-New York income is earned in the State of New York.\nI think there could be made a persuasive argument that, because of that, it is a requirement of the Privileges and Immunities Clause that nonresidents be allowed to take deductions in proportion that their New York income bears to their total income for personal expense items.\nIt is not necessary to reach that point in this case, and that's particularly because the nature of alimony is very different from the nature of other personal expense items in several respects.\nIn the first respect, in the State of Connecticut, as well as in other States, the amount of alimony is based, must be based upon the payor's total income from all sources.\nInevitably... one case so holding is Wanatowitz v. Wanatowitz, which is found in 533 A. 2d.\nBecause of that, inevitably in the setting of the amount of the alimony my New York income was taken into account.\nSo that's point number 1.\nThere's a direct connection there between the alimony and my New York income which is not present if it were a charitable deduction, or a real estate tax, or any number of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [169.842, 187.843, 204.194, 216.633, 230.142, 240.468, 248.142, 249.985], "stop_times": [187.843, 204.194, 216.633, 230.142, 240.468, 248.142, 249.985, 258.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 169.842}, "reply_to": "20242__0_010", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_012", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Couldn't you say, too, that you couldn't afford a very nice house in Connecticut which perhaps you have if you didn't make a good deal of money in New York, and therefore that New York ought to allow your property tax in Connecticut to be deducted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [258.57], "stop_times": [274.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 258.57}, "reply_to": "20242__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20242__0_013", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--That may be true, but it wouldn't... but the property tax would not be determined based upon my New York income in part.\nThat's the difference I'm articulating here.\nAlimony specifically is determined on the basis of total income.\nProperty taxes are determined on the basis of the value of the real estate in question, and therefore not so clearly connected to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [274.13, 281.345, 283.635, 287.699], "stop_times": [281.345, 283.635, 287.699, 294.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 274.13}, "reply_to": "20242__0_012", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_014", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Yes, but that would be true even... supposing your divorce took place while you were getting all your income in Connecticut, and then you later started to practice in New York and had the same alimony, would that make it a different case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [294.505], "stop_times": [304.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 294.505}, "reply_to": "20242__0_013", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20242__0_015", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--Well, we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [304.24], "stop_times": [306.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 304.24}, "reply_to": "20242__0_014", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_016", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "You're relying on the fact that your alimony is partially determined by your New York income, but we'd have the same case before us if that were not the fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [306.682], "stop_times": [313.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 306.682}, "reply_to": "20242__0_015", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20242__0_017", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--Right.\nI believe I must say that that is correct, and it's because this statute has as its unitary basis for discrimination nonresidents and no other factor.\nIt is, of course, true that only that factor is really before this Court, and to some degree all other elements are extraneous.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [313.976, 314.386, 324.183], "stop_times": [314.386, 324.183, 331.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 313.976}, "reply_to": "20242__0_016", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_018", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Well, I'm not sure that that's the way the State of New York would see it.\nWon't... wouldn't they say we're not discriminating based solely on residence, we're discriminating based on (a) nonresidents, and (b) the fact that this particular deduction was not related to the earning of income in New York?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [331.156, 336.041], "stop_times": [336.041, 349.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 331.156}, "reply_to": "20242__0_017", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20242__0_019", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Well, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [349.939], "stop_times": [351.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 349.939}, "reply_to": "20242__0_018", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_020", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "And--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [351.141], "stop_times": [351.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 351.141}, "reply_to": "20242__0_019", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20242__0_021", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [351.86], "stop_times": [352.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 351.86}, "reply_to": "20242__0_020", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_022", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--that seems to me very, very... a very different case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [352.461], "stop_times": [355.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 352.461}, "reply_to": "20242__0_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20242__0_023", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Well, they are discriminating--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [355.302], "stop_times": [357.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 355.302}, "reply_to": "20242__0_022", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_024", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Now, am I characterizing their position correctly, to begin with?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [357.814], "stop_times": [362.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 357.814}, "reply_to": "20242__0_023", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20242__0_025", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--Well, let me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [362.058], "stop_times": [362.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 362.058}, "reply_to": "20242__0_024", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_026", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Perhaps not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [362.809], "stop_times": [363.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 362.809}, "reply_to": "20242__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20242__0_027", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--Let me go back and state the analysis here under the Privileges and Immunities Clause.\nThe first element is, is this statute discriminatory against nonresidents.\nThere's a two-prong test.\nI will answer your question, but in a long way, if I may.\nThe first test is to be satisfied is, is this statute discriminatory?\nWell, this statute is discriminatory.\nIt has one sole, unique, intentional purpose, which is to discriminate against nonresidents by denying this particular adjustment to income.\nThat element is satisfied in this case.\nThe State of New York is unclear actually on that point, but objectively we certainly assert that it's satisfied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [363.818, 369.461, 374.347, 375.426, 378.257, 382.491, 384.712, 391.636, 394.048], "stop_times": [369.461, 374.347, 375.426, 378.257, 382.491, 384.712, 391.636, 394.048, 400.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 363.818}, "reply_to": "20242__0_026", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_028", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Mr. Lunding, let me ask you about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [400.693], "stop_times": [402.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 400.693}, "reply_to": "20242__0_027", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20242__0_029", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [402.743], "stop_times": [403.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 402.743}, "reply_to": "20242__0_028", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_030", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Because I had always thought of alimony as an income-splitting between the payor and the ex-spouse.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [403.024], "stop_times": [411.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 403.024}, "reply_to": "20242__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20242__0_031", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [411.129], "stop_times": [412.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 411.129}, "reply_to": "20242__0_030", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_032", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Now, I could see, if you were presenting us with a situation where what... New York lets you deduct the tax to your ex-spouse so that New York gets the tax on that amount of money that you earned in New York, but you would like to take the deduction while on the income side, if there is any income, it is to the exspouse, who is a Connecticut residence, so it seems to me you say, let me take the sweet and New York will be stuck with the bitter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [412.011], "stop_times": [446.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 412.011}, "reply_to": "20242__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20242__0_033", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Well, I would not agree with that conclusion, Your Honor, but I would point out this about the nature of alimony.\nThe statute calls alimony a deduction, and we... we're talking about personal deductions here.\nAlimony is not really a deduction at all.\nFor Federal purposes and for New York purposes it is an adjustment to income, meaning it is... and it is taken out of the income of the payor, transferred to... functionally the responsibility to pay tax transferred to the income of the payee, or the recipient for tax purposes.\nOn your Federal return that's the way it works, and if you're a resident in New York that's the way it works, and that's irrespective of where the recipient lives.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [446.693, 455.038, 461.603, 464.825, 481.354], "stop_times": [455.038, 461.603, 464.825, 481.354, 489.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 446.693}, "reply_to": "20242__0_032", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_034", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [489.411], "stop_times": [489.952], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 489.411}, "reply_to": "20242__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20242__0_035", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [489.952], "stop_times": [490.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 489.952}, "reply_to": "20242__0_034", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_036", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "And in the Federal union that's fine, because the IRS is going to get it either way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [490.551], "stop_times": [494.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 490.551}, "reply_to": "20242__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20242__0_037", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [494.815], "stop_times": [495.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 494.815}, "reply_to": "20242__0_036", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_038", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "The husband or the wife, it could be, deducts it, and the one who receives it pays income on it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [495.065], "stop_times": [501.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 495.065}, "reply_to": "20242__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20242__0_039", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [501.429], "stop_times": [501.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 501.429}, "reply_to": "20242__0_038", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_040", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "But when you're in one State and you're dealing with nonresidents, in the generality of cases if you have a marital situation it's in the State of their residence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [501.978], "stop_times": [511.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 501.978}, "reply_to": "20242__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20242__0_041", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [511.644], "stop_times": [512.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 511.644}, "reply_to": "20242__0_040", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_042", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "So one State is going to get the income to tax, the other State is not going to get that tax, so there seems an imbalance there, and my only question is, why is it a violation of Privileges and Immunities to say that when New York doesn't get the chance to tax the one who's getting the money, getting the alimony, it shouldn't have to give a deduction to the one who's paying it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [512.105], "stop_times": [541.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 512.105}, "reply_to": "20242__0_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20242__0_043", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Well, my point there was, if I had been a resident of New York there would have been an adjustment in which I would have been absolved entirely for the tax on the alimony amount, and it would have been transferred to my spouse.\nNow, the New York statute doesn't require for that operation for a resident that the spouse live in New York.\nThe spouse could live anywhere in the world, and if the spouse did not live in New York there would be no tax captured by New York on any part of that transferred income, so this is really, I believe, a factor which is not a motivating factor for New York, and if you look at it in terms of the incidence of the tax as to residence, it apparently is completely irrelevant in the economic analysis.\nIn the case of nonresidents, in any event the residence of the recipient is also irrelevant.\nThe statute doesn't say, which it could, if the recipient lives in New York, and therefore we tax that money in New York, we let you off the hook, Connecticut taxpayer.\nIt hits everybody.\nThis is... these are another example of extraneous elements that are not really involved here, where the only basis for discrimination is nonresidence and everything else is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [541.945, 554.884, 559.917, 582.131, 590.268, 600.803, 601.945], "stop_times": [554.884, 559.917, 582.131, 590.268, 600.803, 601.945, 612.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 541.945}, "reply_to": "20242__0_042", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_044", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Now, I don't think we completed our--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [612.571], "stop_times": [615.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 612.571}, "reply_to": "20242__0_043", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20242__0_045", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--Yes.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [615.674, 616.194], "stop_times": [616.194, 616.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 615.674}, "reply_to": "20242__0_044", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_046", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--brief colloquy on what you think the standard is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [616.953], "stop_times": [618.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 616.953}, "reply_to": "20242__0_045", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20242__0_047", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [618.636], "stop_times": [619.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 618.636}, "reply_to": "20242__0_046", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_048", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Does New York have to treat residents precisely the same as nonresidents in every category of taxation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [619.447], "stop_times": [625.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 619.447}, "reply_to": "20242__0_047", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20242__0_049", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--Well, Austin v. New Hampshire teaches us that New York has to treat nonresidents under a rule of substantial equality of treatment, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [625.841], "stop_times": [638.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 625.841}, "reply_to": "20242__0_048", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_050", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Can that substantial equality of treatment be based on a theory that the income... pardon me, that the deduction or the adjustment must be related to the income that's earned in New York, and income-producing activities in New York?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [638.838], "stop_times": [654.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 638.838}, "reply_to": "20242__0_049", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20242__0_051", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--As regards personal expenses, the answer is no, because money being fungible, as a practical matter, looking at the actual, practical impact of the tax, which is the method of analysis, not labels, not anything else, but the actual practical impact, there is a discrimination here.\nThere is a higher tax paid by nonresidents than by residents.\nIt is not insubstantial in this instance or in any other, and it is much worse in the case of people with proportionately greater New York-source income in proportion to the whole, and therefore New York may not, the petitioners urge, distinguish between the two in the manner that this statute does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [654.119, 676.412, 679.464], "stop_times": [676.412, 679.464, 695.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 654.119}, "reply_to": "20242__0_050", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_052", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Now, you don't earn all your income in New York, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [695.195], "stop_times": [699.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 695.195}, "reply_to": "20242__0_051", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20242__0_053", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "About half of it in my case, year-in, year-out.\nThat's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [699.579, 701.76], "stop_times": [701.76, 702.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 699.579}, "reply_to": "20242__0_052", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_054", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "But a person who earns all income in New York but lives in Connecticut, strictly the bedroom community situation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [702.531], "stop_times": [711.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 702.531}, "reply_to": "20242__0_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20242__0_055", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "There are many such people, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [711.415], "stop_times": [712.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 711.415}, "reply_to": "20242__0_054", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_056", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--As to that person, there would be a very substantial difference, I suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [712.886], "stop_times": [719.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 712.886}, "reply_to": "20242__0_055", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20242__0_057", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Well, the State has--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [719.28], "stop_times": [721.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 719.28}, "reply_to": "20242__0_056", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_058", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "If alimony is not deductible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [721.782], "stop_times": [723.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 721.782}, "reply_to": "20242__0_057", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20242__0_059", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--Or... well, it would be... yes, that is correct, and the amount of course, would vary according to how much alimony, and in proportion to the total income, but in that scenario the amount which would be paid by the nonresident in New York tax would be greater than the amount that would be paid by a resident of New York.\nI mean, in whole dollars, not in proportion to anything.\nAnd this is another problem with the way this statute does operate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [723.653, 741.444, 744.637], "stop_times": [741.444, 744.637, 748.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 723.653}, "reply_to": "20242__0_058", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_060", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "May I ask you a question just for my own clarification?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [748.48], "stop_times": [752.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 748.48}, "reply_to": "20242__0_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20242__0_061", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [752.093], "stop_times": [752.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 752.093}, "reply_to": "20242__0_060", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_062", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Is it correct that the rate that New York imposes on the nonresident is based in part on the nonresident's non-New York income?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [752.663], "stop_times": [760.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 752.663}, "reply_to": "20242__0_061", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20242__0_063", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "That's correct.\nThe case that allowed that is named Brady v. State, and they take into account worldwide income in setting the rate, which is progressive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [760.547, 761.659], "stop_times": [761.659, 768.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 760.547}, "reply_to": "20242__0_062", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_064", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Do you... did you... you didn't challenge that feature of the tax in this case, did you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [768.194], "stop_times": [773.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 768.194}, "reply_to": "20242__0_063", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20242__0_065", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "No, I did not, and I... therefore I don't have the standing to... I have a view on it, but I don't think it's appropriate necessarily to state it at this time.\nBut you're--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [773.937, 780.312], "stop_times": [780.312, 781.592], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 773.937}, "reply_to": "20242__0_064", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_066", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "What is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [781.592], "stop_times": [782.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 781.592}, "reply_to": "20242__0_065", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20242__0_067", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [782.253], "stop_times": [782.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 782.253}, "reply_to": "20242__0_066", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_068", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--What is the top rate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [782.743], "stop_times": [783.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 782.743}, "reply_to": "20242__0_067", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20242__0_069", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "I don't really... 9 percent, I believe, currently.\nI don't... I'm not sure what it is today, but it's 8 or 9 percent is the... and I'm thinking about 1990.\nI frankly don't remember.\nBut that's ball park, and it is progressive, and they do tax... they do take into account in setting the rate worldwide income, and that could be another basis upon which it could be said as a matter of the Privileges and Immunities Clause that they also must allow some proportion of worldwide deductions, whatever they may be, or adjustments, because strictly speaking alimony is not a deduction, not subject, for example, to the Federal limit on deductions, but an income transfer, as Justice Ginsburg pointed out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [783.765, 788.157, 795.624, 796.551], "stop_times": [788.157, 795.624, 796.551, 826.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 783.765}, "reply_to": "20242__0_068", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_070", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "But an income transfer that can be very beneficial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [826.192], "stop_times": [828.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 826.192}, "reply_to": "20242__0_069", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20242__0_071", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Well, the actual effect in any particular case will, of course, vary according to the personal circumstances, where the receiving ex-spouse lives and many other factors, but the effect of this statute in all cases compared to the situation if the statute were not there will be to discriminate against nonresident taxpayers who pay alimony, because this reduction in their income, taxable income, will obviously discriminate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [828.933], "stop_times": [856.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 828.933}, "reply_to": "20242__0_070", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_072", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Well, when you say discriminate, you mean treat differently, I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [856.862], "stop_times": [859.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 856.862}, "reply_to": "20242__0_071", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20242__0_073", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Treat differently than residents who pay alimony, yes, that's what I mean, and the amount in this case is [dollars] 3,724 for the year 1990 in my particular case, or a 15-percent increase in the tax in my case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [859.524], "stop_times": [874.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 859.524}, "reply_to": "20242__0_072", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_074", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "But you deduct if Connecticut has an income tax?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [874.534], "stop_times": [877.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 874.534}, "reply_to": "20242__0_073", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20242__0_075", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "It did not have a tax on earned income in 1990 at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [877.805], "stop_times": [882.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 877.805}, "reply_to": "20242__0_074", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_076", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Which is the year in question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [882.017], "stop_times": [883.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 882.017}, "reply_to": "20242__0_075", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20242__0_077", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Issue.\nThe year in issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [883.76, 884.11], "stop_times": [884.11, 884.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 883.76}, "reply_to": "20242__0_076", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_078", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "But ordinarily, if a State has an income tax, the resident State, you could then deduct the New York tax from the Connecticut tax.\nI'm just trying to see how much in practice is left when you take into account, well, you have to pay New York more, but then you got a bigger deduction in your home State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [884.719, 894.646], "stop_times": [894.646, 903.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 884.719}, "reply_to": "20242__0_077", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20242__0_079", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Well, looking at the matter currently, the tax rate in Connecticut is 4-1/2 percent.\nThe tax rate in New York is... I don't remember, 8 or 9 percent.\nThe deduction in Connecticut is at the rate in Connecticut, and therefore there still is something left over to be discriminatory on that regime, 4-1/2 percent, whatever it is, the difference between the marginal rates in the two States, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [903.412, 910.959, 914.569], "stop_times": [910.959, 914.569, 928.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 903.412}, "reply_to": "20242__0_078", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_080", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "And in figuring the level of discrimination, do we take account at all of the tax that's being paid on these funds by the Connecticut resident who's receiving them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [928.009], "stop_times": [939.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 928.009}, "reply_to": "20242__0_079", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20242__0_081", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--No, and that is because in Austin v. New Hampshire this Court held that the constitutionality of one State statute that discriminates against nonresidents may not be... depend upon the present configuration of the statutes of another State, which is what we're talking about here as to the State of Connecticut.\nWhat its tax laws may or may not be at any particular time cannot be the basis for holding constitutional this discriminatory statute in the State of New York.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [939.636, 958.937], "stop_times": [958.937, 967.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 939.636}, "reply_to": "20242__0_080", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_082", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Are there some deductions or credits that really are closely tied to the taxpayer's domestic life as opposed to his or her business life?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [967.162], "stop_times": [977.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 967.162}, "reply_to": "20242__0_081", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20242__0_083", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Well, there are commentators... Professor Hellerstein in a 1974 article in the Michigan Law Review seems to suggest a possible test in the abstract that there would be some particular deductions which are particularly tied to the particular circumstances of the State of residence, without identifying what they are.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [977.35], "stop_times": [996.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 977.35}, "reply_to": "20242__0_082", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_084", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Isn't it true, Mr. Lunding, that the standards by which tax law classifications are judged are about the most generous known to the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [996.622], "stop_times": [1007.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 996.622}, "reply_to": "20242__0_083", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20242__0_085", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "No, I don't think that... well, the petitioners would not agree with that statement.\nAustin--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1007.75, 1015.667], "stop_times": [1015.667, 1016.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1007.75}, "reply_to": "20242__0_084", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_086", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Well, several of our cases say that.\nPerhaps not in the Privileges and Immunities Clause kind, but just in the sense of classification generally for tax laws.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1016.709, 1019.658], "stop_times": [1019.658, 1026.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1016.709}, "reply_to": "20242__0_085", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20242__0_087", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--Well, the standard there... I'm thinking of Allied Stores v. Bowers, which is one of the places where the test you're describing I believe is set forth.\nAssuming first that the particular act by the State does not violate the Federal Constitution, which is what it says in that case, there is a wide latitude, but if it... but if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1026.031, 1038.04], "stop_times": [1038.04, 1049.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1026.031}, "reply_to": "20242__0_086", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_088", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1049.379], "stop_times": [1050.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1049.379}, "reply_to": "20242__0_087", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20242__0_089", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--that assumes the conclusion which is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1050.068], "stop_times": [1051.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1050.068}, "reply_to": "20242__0_088", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_090", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--There's a total latitude if it doesn't violate the Federal Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1051.77], "stop_times": [1055.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1051.77}, "reply_to": "20242__0_089", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20242__0_091", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--Well, that... and in any event, that is not the... yes, that's correct, but the issue in the privileges & immunities context, in light of Austin v. New Hampshire, the first thing is that there is a standard of review substantially more rigorous under the Privileges and Immunities Clause for State taxing decisions affecting individuals than affecting business organizations, trades, or professions.\nThat is part of what the case says, and therefore I would not agree that there is a... in this context a greater degree of latitude than in others.\nIn fact, in the taxing area petitioners would argue that this is a case where a substantially heightened scrutiny is required, a rule of substantial equality is required, and it is our position that it has not been met in this instance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1055.212, 1078.258, 1087.734], "stop_times": [1078.258, 1087.734, 1100.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1055.212}, "reply_to": "20242__0_090", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_092", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Mr. Lunding--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1100.373], "stop_times": [1101.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1100.373}, "reply_to": "20242__0_091", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20242__0_093", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1101.134], "stop_times": [1101.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1101.134}, "reply_to": "20242__0_092", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_094", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--I hate to think we're going to have to go through State deductions one by one in order... in case after case in order to decide which must be allowed to out-of-Staters and which need not be.\nWhat is your criterion for whether it must or need not be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1101.685, 1115.073], "stop_times": [1115.073, 1119.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1101.685}, "reply_to": "20242__0_093", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20242__0_095", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Well, the only criterion that needs to be addressed... well, I guess I under... I'll answer the question in two parts.\nThe only criterion that needs to be addressed in this case is evidently whether alimony as an adjustment, and I've stated the unique aspects of that, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1119.327, 1125.13], "stop_times": [1125.13, 1133.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1119.327}, "reply_to": "20242__0_094", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_096", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "If that's all we do, then we're going to have another case on the next item, and another case on the next item.\nI want a principle.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1133.475, 1138.428], "stop_times": [1138.428, 1139.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1133.475}, "reply_to": "20242__0_095", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20242__0_097", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--Well, the simple principle view... the simple principle view is that when you're talking about taxes which fall by their terms upon personal service income... and this is a personal income tax in New York.\nThat's the label that goes on it.\nThat's what it taxes, my personal individual income in New York.\nWhen the State wishes to tax a nonresident's personal income, the bright line rule would be that if there are personal deductions, no matter what they are, or adjustments, such as alimony, no matter what they are, then they must be allowed in the proportion that the New York State income bears to total income, period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1139.509, 1152.859, 1154.15, 1158.143], "stop_times": [1152.859, 1154.15, 1158.143, 1177.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1139.509}, "reply_to": "20242__0_096", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_098", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "What are nonpersonal deductions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1177.544], "stop_times": [1179.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1177.544}, "reply_to": "20242__0_097", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20242__0_099", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Business expenses, or running a donut shop in Connecticut, or something along those lines might be treated differently, and I'm thinking of Shaffer v. Carter, which appeared to do that.\nWhether there's a principle basis to treat any deduction differently we could debate, but we're talking about personal deductions here and I was trying to answer your specific--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1179.196, 1192.925], "stop_times": [1192.925, 1203.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1179.196}, "reply_to": "20242__0_098", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_100", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1203.231], "stop_times": [1203.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1203.231}, "reply_to": "20242__0_099", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20242__0_101", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--question on that subject.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1203.641], "stop_times": [1204.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1203.641}, "reply_to": "20242__0_100", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_102", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "What about life insurance--\n--What about--\n--premiums?\nWhat about home... excuse me.\nWhat about... what about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1204.443, 1205.594, 1205.945, 1206.271, 1207.293], "stop_times": [1205.594, 1205.945, 1206.271, 1207.293, 1209.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1204.443}, "reply_to": "20242__0_101", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20242__0_103", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Life insurance or home mortgage interest?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1209.724], "stop_times": [1211.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1209.724}, "reply_to": "20242__0_102", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_104", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--No.\nWhat about a deduction for investing in a solar panel for your home, which is in Connecticut?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1211.126, 1211.527], "stop_times": [1211.527, 1217.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1211.126}, "reply_to": "20242__0_103", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20242__0_105", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Well, responding to Justice Scalia, the bright line rule which will avoid what... the problem he foresees is to just say, if you tax personal income, you must give all personal deductions that the State gives to its own residents in the proportion that the income in that State bears to total income.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1217.869], "stop_times": [1237.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1217.869}, "reply_to": "20242__0_104", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_106", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "So this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1237.063], "stop_times": [1237.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1237.063}, "reply_to": "20242__0_105", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20242__0_107", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Therefore the answer would be, for solar panels or for anything else, if New York gives that personal deduction from personal income of its residents, it must do so in proportion for nonresidents which it taxes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1237.744], "stop_times": [1247.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1237.744}, "reply_to": "20242__0_106", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_108", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--Of course, when I asked you that question at the start, you said, oh, no, no, no, we're just talking about alimony here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1247.939], "stop_times": [1253.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1247.939}, "reply_to": "20242__0_107", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20242__0_109", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1253.192], "stop_times": [1253.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1253.192}, "reply_to": "20242__0_108", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_110", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--and there's a big difference, and that's all we're talking about, and we're not going to talk about personal deductions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1253.753], "stop_times": [1257.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1253.753}, "reply_to": "20242__0_109", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20242__0_111", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1257.816], "stop_times": [1258.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1257.816}, "reply_to": "20242__0_110", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_112", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Now we've got a whole different approach.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1258.217], "stop_times": [1259.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1258.217}, "reply_to": "20242__0_111", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20242__0_113", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--Well, no.\nHe asked me a hypothetical question about where the line would be in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1259.357, 1259.757], "stop_times": [1259.757, 1262.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1259.357}, "reply_to": "20242__0_112", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_114", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1262.158], "stop_times": [1262.979], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1262.158}, "reply_to": "20242__0_113", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20242__0_115", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--if we were dealing with other subjects.\nIt is... to be clear, it is our position that the question before the Court today is one and unitary, and that is the adjustment-for-alimony issue, and we do believe it's different, and I pointed out why I believe it's different, for many reasons, from the standard run of personal deductions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1262.979, 1264.481], "stop_times": [1264.481, 1279.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1262.979}, "reply_to": "20242__0_114", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_116", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Mr. Lunding, are you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1279.63], "stop_times": [1280.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1279.63}, "reply_to": "20242__0_115", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20242__0_117", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--and not getting into solar panels or other matters.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1280.221], "stop_times": [1281.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1280.221}, "reply_to": "20242__0_116", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_118", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--Are you attacking the New York statute as it applies to your particular facts, or are you saying it is invalid as to everybody who doesn't get an alimony deduction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1281.242], "stop_times": [1290.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1281.242}, "reply_to": "20242__0_117", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20242__0_119", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "The latter is the answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1290.027], "stop_times": [1292.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1290.027}, "reply_to": "20242__0_118", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_120", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Across the board.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1292.578], "stop_times": [1293.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1292.578}, "reply_to": "20242__0_119", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20242__0_121", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "It is... yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1293.229], "stop_times": [1294.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1293.229}, "reply_to": "20242__0_120", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_122", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "So you're in effect here on behalf of the person who has 100-percent New York income, 100 percent of his income comes from New York, but if his alimony is... if he's a nonresident he gets taxed at a higher rate than the New York resident does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1294.521], "stop_times": [1307.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1294.521}, "reply_to": "20242__0_121", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20242__0_123", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "It is certainly true that the petitioners view themselves... well, we are attacking the statute on its face, not as apply to the petitioners in particular, and proceeding, if you will, by principles of stare decisis at least, whatever happens here, for the benefit of all other nonresidents similarly situated who pay alimony.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1307.91], "stop_times": [1327.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1307.91}, "reply_to": "20242__0_122", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_124", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "And then we get into this fascinating question of what is the standard for judging a facial attack, because under your view... you might say it's clearly unconstitutional in the hypothetical you have in your brief about the... all the income comes from a New York... you know, a New York resident and a nonresident both earn all their income in New York.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1327.976], "stop_times": [1346.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1327.976}, "reply_to": "20242__0_123", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20242__0_125", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1346.447], "stop_times": [1346.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1346.447}, "reply_to": "20242__0_124", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_126", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "On the other hand, at the other end of the spectrum you say it's perfectly all right... you might say it's perfectly all right on a fact picture such as yours, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1346.936], "stop_times": [1353.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1346.936}, "reply_to": "20242__0_125", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20242__0_127", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1353.043], "stop_times": [1353.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1353.043}, "reply_to": "20242__0_126", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_128", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--your income is... you know, is different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1353.08], "stop_times": [1356.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1353.08}, "reply_to": "20242__0_127", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20242__0_129", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--It would... the petitioners evidently would not agree with that conclusion, Your Honor, but I think I may bring in here some question of the particular laws of New York and why I'm standing here alone rather than in a representative capacity or some other.\nNew York has a rule, which was stated in a case called Martin v. Lavine, L-a-v-i-n-e, in 1976 and elsewhere, including in the intermediate appellate court in Brady v. State, that when a tax statute is challenged in New York, generally speaking, you cannot have a representative action.\nYou have to proceed individually, and therefore in the State court system, which is where this started, you are prohibited from proceeding in a representative capacity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1356.273, 1371.222, 1391.425], "stop_times": [1371.222, 1391.425, 1401.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1356.273}, "reply_to": "20242__0_128", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_130", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "I didn't know you could sue for a refund or... in the Federal system either in a class action capacity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1401.402], "stop_times": [1409.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1401.402}, "reply_to": "20242__0_129", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20242__0_131", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1409.937], "stop_times": [1410.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1409.937}, "reply_to": "20242__0_130", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_132", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Isn't that generally the rule with respect to challenges?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1410.228], "stop_times": [1412.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1410.228}, "reply_to": "20242__0_131", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20242__0_133", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--I can only say in Brady v. State, which involved the question of considering worldwide income and setting the progressive rate in New York, it was brought as a class action, and it was stopped as a class action because of this rule, and the rule is based on the theory as to the Government that an individual who would win a case on the constitutionality of a statute gives the benefit to all others by way of stare decisis, and therefore there is no need for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1412.399], "stop_times": [1440.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1412.399}, "reply_to": "20242__0_132", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_134", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Oh, this Court has said that in a number of cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1440.619], "stop_times": [1442.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1440.619}, "reply_to": "20242__0_133", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20242__0_135", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--Yes, of course, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1442.951], "stop_times": [1444.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1442.951}, "reply_to": "20242__0_134", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_136", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Let me just be clear, because you do have to, if you're invoking privileges and immunities, give us some kind of principle.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1444.282], "stop_times": [1451.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1444.282}, "reply_to": "20242__0_135", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20242__0_137", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1451.966], "stop_times": [1452.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1451.966}, "reply_to": "20242__0_136", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_138", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "That you... you are candidly saying yes, anything that's personal, including your medical expenses, including what could be ambiguous in some cases like life insurance, whether it's to protect the business or to protect the individual, but all of those you have to be treated just like a resident.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1452.557], "stop_times": [1471.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1452.557}, "reply_to": "20242__0_137", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20242__0_139", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "I'm saying if a bright line rule is desired, which is what Justice Scalia asked, that that would be a rational bright line rule which would avoid the necessity for future definition of what is or is not appropriately required.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1471.728], "stop_times": [1486.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1471.728}, "reply_to": "20242__0_138", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_140", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "May I raise one--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1486.288], "stop_times": [1487.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1486.288}, "reply_to": "20242__0_139", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20242__0_141", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "But that's... but it's not this case, and we do not argue for the adoption of such a general rule in this case.\nThis case is limited to alimony, and the only purpose of the petitioners here is to have a decision on the question of whether the adjustment for alimony, which in many ways is different from other sorts of items which are deductions, must be given as a matter of constitutional right under the Privileges and Immunities Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1487.62, 1492.461], "stop_times": [1492.461, 1511.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1487.62}, "reply_to": "20242__0_140", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_142", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--Well, if Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1511.495], "stop_times": [1512.386], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1511.495}, "reply_to": "20242__0_141", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20242__0_143", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "It need not get into all this other--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1512.386], "stop_times": [1512.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1512.386}, "reply_to": "20242__0_142", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_144", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--Assuming we--\n--If Justice Souter would permit me for just one reason, to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1512.714, 1513.135], "stop_times": [1513.135, 1515.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1512.714}, "reply_to": "20242__0_143", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20242__0_145", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1515.447], "stop_times": [1515.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1515.447}, "reply_to": "20242__0_144", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_146", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg and I have all asked you, what is your... we have to write this opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1515.787], "stop_times": [1520.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1515.787}, "reply_to": "20242__0_145", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20242__0_147", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1520.682], "stop_times": [1521.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1520.682}, "reply_to": "20242__0_146", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_148", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "This violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause because it's not equal?\nThat... That's not the standard.\nWe need a standard that's more specific than that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1521.182, 1525.825, 1528.359], "stop_times": [1525.825, 1528.359, 1530.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1521.182}, "reply_to": "20242__0_147", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20242__0_149", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "It favors... well, it... well, I think the standard under Austin v. New Hampshire is that there is a rule of substantial equality of treatment of nonresidents mandated by the Privileges and Immunities Clause in the area of judging the constitutionality of State taxes which impact nonresidents, and the petitioners' view of the matter is that in this instance there is a lack of equality.\nThere are no reasons for it which are cognizable, and accordingly it's a rather simple matter that this particular exaction and the statute which gives rise to it is unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1530.159, 1555.764], "stop_times": [1555.764, 1565.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1530.159}, "reply_to": "20242__0_148", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_150", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Mr. Lunding, I, too would like to have, if not a bright line rule, at least a bright line principle, and I have this reservation about the one that you suggested.\nYou suggest a line to be drawn essentially between personal expenses and... or deductions and business deductions, deductions for the production of income in the other State.\nMy reservation comes for this reason.\nYou also suggested, and I thought with some cogency, that because New York takes into consideration worldwide income when the rate is set, therefore, New York ought to take into consideration worldwide deductions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1565.392, 1575.009, 1587.918, 1590.87], "stop_times": [1575.009, 1587.918, 1590.87, 1607.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1565.392}, "reply_to": "20242__0_149", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20242__0_151", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1607.94], "stop_times": [1608.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1607.94}, "reply_to": "20242__0_150", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_152", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "The income, the worldwide income that New York takes into consideration includes business income, I assume.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1608.689], "stop_times": [1615.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1608.689}, "reply_to": "20242__0_151", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20242__0_153", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Yes, it does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1615.284], "stop_times": [1615.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1615.284}, "reply_to": "20242__0_152", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_154", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "And therefore, if we were to adopt what I suggested might be a cogent rationale, I think we've got to go the whole hog, and I think we've got to say, whatever is related to the production of any income, or whatever would be appropriate as a deduction from any income, must be allowed in New York pro tanto.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1615.895], "stop_times": [1635.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1615.895}, "reply_to": "20242__0_153", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20242__0_155", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Certainly petitioners would not object to such a rule for... but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1635.547], "stop_times": [1640.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1635.547}, "reply_to": "20242__0_154", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_156", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1640.572], "stop_times": [1641.3], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1640.572}, "reply_to": "20242__0_155", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20242__0_157", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--I mean, I can understand the struggle here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1641.3], "stop_times": [1644.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1641.3}, "reply_to": "20242__0_156", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_158", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "But wait a minute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1644.383], "stop_times": [1644.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1644.383}, "reply_to": "20242__0_157", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20242__0_159", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "I don't mean to indicate... I don't mean to indicate, though, Justice Souter, that there should necessarily be a different rule for business than for personal deductions.\nI mention that only because of Shaffer v. Carter and there are no business deductions involved in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1644.864, 1652.988], "stop_times": [1652.988, 1658.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1644.864}, "reply_to": "20242__0_158", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_160", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--Surely that would be an unfair rule, because New York takes into account out-of-State income--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1658.772], "stop_times": [1663.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1658.772}, "reply_to": "20242__0_159", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20242__0_161", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1663.737], "stop_times": [1664.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1663.737}, "reply_to": "20242__0_160", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_162", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--For purposes of what rate you pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1664.147], "stop_times": [1665.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1664.147}, "reply_to": "20242__0_161", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20242__0_163", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1665.938], "stop_times": [1666.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1665.938}, "reply_to": "20242__0_162", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_164", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "But it does not tax you on that out-of-State income.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1666.539], "stop_times": [1669.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1666.539}, "reply_to": "20242__0_163", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20242__0_165", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1669.1], "stop_times": [1669.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1669.1}, "reply_to": "20242__0_164", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_166", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "So it would certainly be unfair to let you get dollar-for-dollar deductions on that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1669.59], "stop_times": [1674.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1669.59}, "reply_to": "20242__0_165", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20242__0_167", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "We're only asking for it in proportion.\nWe're not asking for it dollar-for-dollar.\nWe're asking for it in the proportion that the New York State income bears to the total income and because of that it doesn't raise the question of fairness which I think you're--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1674.393, 1676.386, 1678.085], "stop_times": [1676.386, 1678.085, 1690.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1674.393}, "reply_to": "20242__0_166", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_168", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--Well, and you're only asking for it to the extent that New York allows the same deduction for its own residents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1690.284], "stop_times": [1697.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1690.284}, "reply_to": "20242__0_167", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20242__0_169", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--Yes.\nIt can certainly make the decision not to allow it to its own residents and it need not give it to nonresidents, and that's true whether it's a deduction or an adjustment or they use some other label because, as this Court's decisions tell us, labels are not determinative.\nIt's the practical effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1697.607, 1697.898, 1709.846], "stop_times": [1697.898, 1709.846, 1711.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1697.607}, "reply_to": "20242__0_168", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_170", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Well, I thought our test was something along the following lines, that a statute that discriminates against nonresidents must be justified by a substantial reason for the discrimination against the nonresidents, beyond the mere fact that they're citizens of another State.\nWhat do you think the reason is that's offered by New York here, and is it substantial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1711.218, 1727.477], "stop_times": [1727.477, 1733.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1711.218}, "reply_to": "20242__0_169", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20242__0_171", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Well, there are two reasons.\nOne is that there exists untaxed income, meaning they can't reach it because of the Due Process Clause under Shaffer v. Carter, and for that reason they're free to discriminate as they please, which is their actual position as regards personal deductions, adjustments, or whatever.\nThat part of the position is foreclosed by Travis v. Yale & Towne, which says because the statute does not condition its discrimination on the existence of untaxed income, whether that exists or not is irrelevant to the constitutionality of the statute on its face, so that reason number 1, Travis takes out.\nThe only other reason that... well, my colleague will speak for himself, but the only other reason that I foresee here is the lack of connection argument which we've been talking about for most of this oral argument, and we allege that there is a sufficient connection and obvious connection, and that therefore this statute is unconstitutional on its face--\nIf I may, I'd like to reserve the remainder... well, I have no time remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1733.852, 1736.233, 1753.133, 1770.995, 1788.747], "stop_times": [1736.233, 1753.133, 1770.995, 1788.747, 1792.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1733.852}, "reply_to": "20242__0_170", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_172", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Thank you... thank you, Mr. Lunding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1792.219], "stop_times": [1793.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1792.219}, "reply_to": "20242__0_171", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20242__0_173", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1793.851], "stop_times": [1794.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1793.851}, "reply_to": "20242__0_172", "speaker": "christopher_h_lunding"}
{"id": "20242__0_174", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Mr. Bing, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1794.53], "stop_times": [1796.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1794.53}, "reply_to": "20242__0_173", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20242__1_000", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe issue in this case is really whether New York is required by the Privileges and Immunities Clause to afford nonresidents an alimony deduction because it affords the same alimony deduction to residents.\nIn New York's view, New York is not so required because the basis upon which New York taxes residents and nonresidents is completely different.\nNew York's taxation of residents is based on the fact that they reside within New York, residence giving New York plenary jurisdiction over their income from every source worldwide.\nWith respect to nonresidents, the basis of New York's taxation is that nonresidents--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1796.413, 1802.006, 1813.925, 1822.91, 1833.668], "stop_times": [1802.006, 1813.925, 1822.91, 1833.668, 1839.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1796.413}, "reply_to": "20242__0_174", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_001", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Would you address at the outset the one little flaw in that presentation, namely the rate is in part determined by non-New York income and therefore, whether directly or indirectly, you are to a certain extent taxing this gentleman at a higher rate than you would someone who had just the same amount of New York income, who lived in New York, that he has.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1839.682], "stop_times": [1862.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1839.682}, "reply_to": "20242__1_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20242__1_002", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--Justice Stevens, it is correct that we tax... that the rate is set based upon the nonresident's worldwide income, but as Justice Scalia pointed out a moment ago we are not taxing the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1862.548], "stop_times": [1874.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1862.548}, "reply_to": "20242__1_001", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_003", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "But you really are in a way, if the bottom line, you get more money than you would if that weren't the fact.\nWhether you say it's taxing, it does affect the total tax he pays.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1874.665, 1880.067], "stop_times": [1880.067, 1884.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1874.665}, "reply_to": "20242__1_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20242__1_004", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--It affects the rate, Justice Stevens.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1884.072, 1886.292], "stop_times": [1886.292, 1886.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1884.072}, "reply_to": "20242__1_003", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_005", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Well, it affects the rate, the... more money on the check he has to write to you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1886.923], "stop_times": [1890.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1886.923}, "reply_to": "20242__1_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20242__1_006", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1890.886], "stop_times": [1891.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1890.886}, "reply_to": "20242__1_005", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_007", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Does it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1891.728], "stop_times": [1893.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1891.728}, "reply_to": "20242__1_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20242__1_008", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--It does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1893.468], "stop_times": [1894.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1893.468}, "reply_to": "20242__1_007", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_009", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Yes.\nWhat's the percentage of... you say... I believe Mr. Lunding said the high end of New York's tax rate was 9 percent.\nWhat is the low rate?\nWhat is the low end?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1894.078, 1894.559, 1902.185, 1903.587], "stop_times": [1894.559, 1902.185, 1903.587, 1904.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1894.078}, "reply_to": "20242__1_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20242__1_010", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "During the... during 1990, the lowest marginal rate for married filing jointly and surviving spouse was 4 percent, and the highest rate at which I believe... the top marginal rate was 7.875 percent, which was the rate at which the additional deficiency was calculated in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1904.977], "stop_times": [1922.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1904.977}, "reply_to": "20242__1_009", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_011", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Now, let's consider the situation, which must occur with some frequency, of people who earn all their earned income in New York and live outside the city, outside the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1922.599], "stop_times": [1934.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1922.599}, "reply_to": "20242__1_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20242__1_012", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Those--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1934.947], "stop_times": [1936.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1934.947}, "reply_to": "20242__1_011", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_013", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "And the end result is going to be the payment of a substantially higher tax than would be the case for a similarly situated New York resident who nevertheless lived in New York.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1936.687], "stop_times": [1949.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1936.687}, "reply_to": "20242__1_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20242__1_014", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--It is true that in the case of the nonresident who derived all, or substantially all his or her income in New York, that the tax that the nonresident pays would be higher than the resident who derives all of his income in New York.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1949.446], "stop_times": [1965.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1949.446}, "reply_to": "20242__1_013", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_015", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "What is the substantial reason that New York offers for the validity of such an arrangement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1965.845], "stop_times": [1970.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1965.845}, "reply_to": "20242__1_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20242__1_016", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "This is the inevitable result of the fact that New York, with respect to nonresidents, is only looking at, and believes it is entitled to only look at their net income from the economic activity that they conduct within New York State, and that deductions, however large they may be in relationship to the total income, which have no relat... which are not incurred to produce or to generate that in-State income, are simply not something that New York is required to take into account.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [1970.781], "stop_times": [2003.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1970.781}, "reply_to": "20242__1_015", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_017", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Why?\nYou don't do that for New Yorkers.\nYou allow New Yorkers to do that stuff.\nIt is not incurred in the generation of the New York income.\nYou give them all sorts of personal deductions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2003.92, 2004.29, 2005.202, 2007.523, 2013.156], "stop_times": [2004.29, 2005.202, 2007.523, 2013.156, 2014.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2003.92}, "reply_to": "20242__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20242__1_018", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "But again--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2014.859], "stop_times": [2015.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2014.859}, "reply_to": "20242__1_017", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_019", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "What justification is there for not allowing the same treatment to the out-of-Staters?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2015.74], "stop_times": [2019.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2015.74}, "reply_to": "20242__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20242__1_020", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--In the context of the New York resident, again we are looking not only at the New York resident's New York income but the New York resident's worldwide income, and so the New York resident as a general matter is someone who will generally be subject to a burden of taxation which is greater than that of an individual in petitioner's situation.\nAgain, under the Privileges and Immunities Clause--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2019.431, 2044.127], "stop_times": [2044.127, 2047.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2019.431}, "reply_to": "20242__1_019", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_021", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "You're saying if you're looking at all his income for purposes of taxes, you're entitled to give him all deductions of any sort, but these people, since they're out-of-Staters and you're not looking at all of their income, except as to the rate, and therefore you don't have to give them all of the deductions.\nI guess there's a certain parallelism there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2047.661, 2062.751], "stop_times": [2062.751, 2064.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2047.661}, "reply_to": "20242__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20242__1_022", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--That is correct, Justice Scalia.\nResidence also affords the State an opportunity to take into account certain personal activities of its residents that it is not in our view required to take into account for purposes of nonresidents, and under the Privileges and Immunities Clause absolute equality of treatment has never been the hallmark.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2064.511, 2066.583], "stop_times": [2066.583, 2088.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2064.511}, "reply_to": "20242__1_021", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_023", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "But absolute equality of treatment, I found it awfully easy to construct bizarre examples.\nThat is, I just imagined a person at $100,000 income, all out of New York, and $50,000 alimony, and all you have to do is, you multiply by 4 percent, and that person is paying, what, 4 percent times 50,000 I guess is $2,000, and then apply your formula, and your formula will be [dollar]s 100,000, the total income, over Federal, minus the alimony, which will be 50, so you get a multiple of 2, and so you have the New York person paying 2,000, the Connecticut person paying 4,000.\nAnd if, by the way, the person had a bad year, and his income went down to where it was close to the judicial decree for alimony, suppose he had 100,000, his alimony was 90, you're going to get results that are going to be phenomenal.\nI mean, what will happen is the New York person on [dollars] 1,000 will pay... let's say, if it's 10 percent, they pay 1,000.\nYou'd have to multiply by a multiple of 10, and you would discover that the Connecticut resident has a $10,000 tax in New York, or if it's 8 percent, $8,000, and his real income is 10,000.\nAm I wrong in those?\nI mean, I just... all I did was apply the formula, you know.\nI took the formula.\nIt says, he has [dollars] 100,000, he has 90,000 alimony.\nFor New York purposes, he has [dollars] 10,000 income.\nHe pays, let's say, 8 percent, or 10 percent.\nThat's [dollars] 1,000.\nThen it says you're supposed to take the New York total, which is [dollars] 100,000, right, and then you have in the... that's the denominator, his Federal, but not counting alimony, so that's 10.\nSo 100 is 10 x 10, so you multiply 10 times the New York tax, and you discover you've got [dollars] 10,000 in tax.\nWow.\nI mean, I could create, you know, worse ones, or I suppose there are a lot of better ones, but it seemed to me that it was pretty easy to create odd examples, and... which seem very unfair.\nNow, am I wrong about the ease of doing that, or is there some justification for that, or is it just bizarre that a person would have, say, half his income in alimony and yet all of his income out of New York, or that he could have a bad year, or what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2088.536, 2094.239, 2124.63, 2138.84, 2144.384, 2159.514, 2160.074, 2162.478, 2163.497, 2167.421, 2170.222, 2172.605, 2173.695, 2187.546, 2198.121, 2199.002, 2210.81], "stop_times": [2094.239, 2124.63, 2138.84, 2144.384, 2159.514, 2160.074, 2162.478, 2163.497, 2167.421, 2170.222, 2172.605, 2173.695, 2187.546, 2198.121, 2199.002, 2210.81, 2223.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2088.536}, "reply_to": "20242__1_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20242__1_024", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Your mathematics are entirely correct, and your application of the formula are correct.\nThe justification for it that New York has offered is, I guess, twofold.\nThe first one, again, is this is exactly the result that is contemplated by this Court's decision in Shaffer and by this Court's decisions in the portion of Travis upon which we rely, and has been accepted--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2223.507, 2228.712, 2237.728], "stop_times": [2228.712, 2237.728, 2251.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2223.507}, "reply_to": "20242__1_023", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_025", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "What was that portion, because that's been a little fuzzy to me.\nI know what they held about the exemptions, that you have to give the out-of-Stater the same personal exemption, but what is the part that you were relying on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2251.206, 2253.089], "stop_times": [2253.089, 2260.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2251.206}, "reply_to": "20242__1_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20242__1_026", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--The taxpayer in Travis also specifically challenged a provision of the New York... then New York tax laws, section 360, subdivision 11, which permitted nonresidents the deductions available to residents only if and to the extent connected with New York income, and the taxpayer specifically challenged that provision in its brief in this Court arguing that it would, for example, disallow the Connecticut resident who worked in New York the deduction for his real property taxes while at the same time allowing the New York resident a deduction for the real property taxes on the New York residence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2260.493], "stop_times": [2293.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2260.493}, "reply_to": "20242__1_025", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_027", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Was it hypothetical, or was there something in the case, that this taxpayer said, I want a deduction for my real property tax or my life insurance premium and they're not giving it to me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2293.444], "stop_times": [2304.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2293.444}, "reply_to": "20242__1_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20242__1_028", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "I believe that because of the posture of that case and because of who the taxpayer was that issue was hypothetical.\nThe taxpayer in this case was a Connecticut corporation that employed a number of Connecticut residents in New York as well as residents of other States and was challenging the entire personal income tax treatment of nonresidents, including personal exemptions, including the fact that it was required to withhold only with respect to nonresidents in this deduction provision.\nSo there were a number of provisions that were being challenged by the employer rather than by any particular taxpayer who was pointing to him or herself and saying, this tax adversely affects me this way, but that example was included within their brief, and I believe that that example was what this Court responded to when it said that the State is permitted to limit the deduction in the case of nonresidents to those expenses that are connected with the New York income, as settled by the Shaffer case.\nI think they were referring to that particular contention of the taxpayer in the Travis case, and subsequent to Travis, this Court has repeatedly in summary dismissals in effect permitted States to recognize that the difference in tax treatment which is mandated by the Constitution, the fact that we can only reach the nonresident's State-source income, permits, justifies a State treating personal deductions differently in the case of nonresidents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2304.02, 2311.096, 2331.048, 2356.666], "stop_times": [2311.096, 2331.048, 2356.666, 2386.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2304.02}, "reply_to": "20242__1_027", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_029", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "You say personal deductions, so I gather that you are making the distinction between expenses for the production of income and personal expenses, and you are not relying to any extent on the peculiarity of alimony, that it is a two-way thing, one gets a deduction, the other gets income.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2386.937], "stop_times": [2406.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2386.937}, "reply_to": "20242__1_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20242__1_030", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "We treat alimony... in our view alimony is properly treated as a personal expense deduction because it is not incurred to produce income within New York State, that New York State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2406.459], "stop_times": [2417.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2406.459}, "reply_to": "20242__1_029", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_031", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Just like the sole, or whatever, so... but you're not... I would just like to be clear on getting a factor out of my head if it shouldn't be there, that is that the spouse who receives the alimony would be paying the State in which he resides income on it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2417.996], "stop_times": [2437.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2417.996}, "reply_to": "20242__1_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20242__1_032", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--The residence of the recipient is not a factor in our analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2437.637], "stop_times": [2442.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2437.637}, "reply_to": "20242__1_031", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_033", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Well, if the former wife receiving the alimony lived in New York, would that spouse be taxed on the alimony income by New York?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2442.693], "stop_times": [2452.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2442.693}, "reply_to": "20242__1_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20242__1_034", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Yes, New York would tax the recipient.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2452.498], "stop_times": [2455.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2452.498}, "reply_to": "20242__1_033", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_035", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2455.099], "stop_times": [2455.54], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2455.099}, "reply_to": "20242__1_034", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20242__1_036", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Regardless of the location of the payor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2455.54], "stop_times": [2457.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2455.54}, "reply_to": "20242__1_035", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_037", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Right.\nBut you don't, on the other hand, allow the deduction as a result, as the Federal Government would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2457.322, 2457.643], "stop_times": [2457.643, 2464.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2457.322}, "reply_to": "20242__1_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20242__1_038", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "We--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2464.175], "stop_times": [2466.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2464.175}, "reply_to": "20242__1_037", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_039", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "I thought that under our cases, under the Privileges and Immunities Clause there had to be a reasonable relationship between whatever the evil is presented by the nonresident and the rule adopted by the State, and I just haven't heard what that reasonable relationship is here to justify New York's rule.\nI'd really like to hear that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2466.158, 2489.643], "stop_times": [2489.643, 2492.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2466.158}, "reply_to": "20242__1_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20242__1_040", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--The... again, the relationship is, I guess, twofold.\nFirst, we don't tax the nonresident with respect to anything that occurs outside New York, and in our view we are not required, as a result of that, to take into account with respect to the nonresident anything that is unrelated to the economic activity that that nonresident is doing within the State of New York.\nAgain, we're put in the posture of not being able to afford equality of treatment.\nFrom the very beginning, this is not a case where New York has gone out of its way to single out nonresidents.\nThey're different by virtue of the Due Process Clause and by virtue of our reach.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2492.064, 2498.679, 2523.003, 2528.759, 2534.763], "stop_times": [2498.679, 2523.003, 2528.759, 2534.763, 2538.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2492.064}, "reply_to": "20242__1_039", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_041", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "But he's not asking for the entirety of the deduction.\nHe's only asking for a percentage of the deduction that is equivalent to the percentage of his total income which consists of New York income.\nI mean, your answer would be a good one if he was coming in and saying, give me a full deduction, and you say, well, we can't tax you on your out-of-State and therefore we don't have to give you a deduction.\nBut he's saying, don't give me the whole deduction.\nJust give me the same percentage that I... you know, that New York income constitutes of my total income.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2538.074, 2540.905, 2549.921, 2559.007, 2560.429], "stop_times": [2540.905, 2549.921, 2559.007, 2560.429, 2565.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2538.074}, "reply_to": "20242__1_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20242__1_042", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "We don't dispute that that is a reasonable approach.\nIn fact, it's one that New York did follow between 1961 and 1987.\nWe do believe, however, that New York is not required to afford a proportionate deduction, and we believe that our rule is, in fact, a better rule because it recognizes that the alimony simply has nothing to do with where petitioner earns his income.\nThere's no particular reason--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2565.823, 2569.565, 2574.588, 2600.194], "stop_times": [2569.565, 2574.588, 2600.194, 2602.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2565.823}, "reply_to": "20242__1_041", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_043", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "How is it a better rule in the circumstances described by Justice Breyer?\nWhy is New York's present rule better?\nIt looks to me like there are some circumstances where it's an absolutely lousy rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2602.047, 2606.338, 2609.431], "stop_times": [2606.338, 2609.431, 2615.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2602.047}, "reply_to": "20242__1_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20242__1_044", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--There are cases where the hypothetical posited by Justice Breyer will happen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2615.574], "stop_times": [2622.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2615.574}, "reply_to": "20242__1_043", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_045", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "In fact, isn't it true that... one of the things that troubles me, and I... it's a very troublesome case... is if the nonresident turns out in one year to be extraordinarily generous, giving large amounts of money to charity, to hospitals, one thing and another, they're all deductible on his Federal return.\nThe net effect of that is to increase his New York tax, because it makes the denominator so much bigger in your fraction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2622.08, 2639.08], "stop_times": [2639.08, 2647.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2622.08}, "reply_to": "20242__1_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20242__1_046", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "That's true, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2647.055], "stop_times": [2648.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2647.055}, "reply_to": "20242__1_045", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_047", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "So that in a way his activities out of State... this is a second way in which activities out of State impact on the tax he pays in New York in kind of a perverse way, because if he's a very generous person, he'll end up with a higher New York tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2648.717], "stop_times": [2660.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2648.717}, "reply_to": "20242__1_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20242__1_048", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--He ends up with a higher New York tax than a comparably situated New York resident having the same--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2660.675], "stop_times": [2666.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2660.675}, "reply_to": "20242__1_047", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_049", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Or that he would have had to pay if he didn't do all these things.\nIf he didn't have all those deductions the denominator would be smaller, and therefore his New York would be smaller.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2666.178, 2668.099], "stop_times": [2668.099, 2676.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2666.178}, "reply_to": "20242__1_048", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20242__1_050", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--With respect to charitable contribution deductions I'm not sure that they... because they don't affect either... they're below-the-line deductions, in other words.\nThey're deductions from adjusted gross income for Federal purposes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2676.604, 2686.471], "stop_times": [2686.471, 2689.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2676.604}, "reply_to": "20242__1_049", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_051", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Could I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2689.352], "stop_times": [2690.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2689.352}, "reply_to": "20242__1_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20242__1_052", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--to get the taxable income.\nThey're not... I believe that the fraction is neutral with respect to them, because they are not a reduction of either New York-source income or Federal adjusted gross income.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2690.023, 2690.544], "stop_times": [2690.544, 2700.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2690.023}, "reply_to": "20242__1_051", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_053", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--I failed to understand that from the briefs.\nI see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2700.179, 2700.569], "stop_times": [2700.569, 2700.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2700.179}, "reply_to": "20242__1_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20242__1_054", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Federal adjusted gross is the denominator in that, so with respect to those, I don't believe that there would be a difference akin to the difference with respect to alimony, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2700.99], "stop_times": [2711.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2700.99}, "reply_to": "20242__1_053", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_055", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "My examples were meant to be quite ordinary, most of them.\nI mean, the one that they have 100 percent in New York, then you get the odd rate.\nBut whether it's those examples or the... you know, the unusual ones you can construct with the generous person, you had two justifications, because you've said twofold several times, and I've heard one, and I want to be sure I get the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2711.938, 2715.109, 2719.152], "stop_times": [2715.109, 2719.152, 2732.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2711.938}, "reply_to": "20242__1_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20242__1_056", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--The second one is simply, again, the concept that New York can do for its residents things that it is not obligated to do for nonresidents, and that... again, the Privileges and Immunities Clause and other provisions of the Constitution have been allowed... have been construed to permit certain beneficial residence treatments based on policy adopted by particular States with respect to the right to vote, the right to hold elective office, the right to free public education or welfare or medical benefits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2732.96], "stop_times": [2765.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2732.96}, "reply_to": "20242__1_055", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_057", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Well, maybe you could allow... I could see your allowing a deduction for contributions to New York charities that are not allowed for deductions to out-of-State charities, or maybe allowing a deduction for payment of county or municipal taxes in New York only, and not out of State.\nI can see some policy justification for that.\nBut you're not giving me any policy justification, just sort of a yah, yah, yah argument.\nWe do it because we can do it, that's why.\nI mean, that doesn't seem to me a policy justification.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2765.982, 2786.055, 2788.86, 2794.102, 2797.004], "stop_times": [2786.055, 2788.86, 2794.102, 2797.004, 2800.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2765.982}, "reply_to": "20242__1_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20242__1_058", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "It's not intended to be a simply-because-we-can argument, Justice Scalia.\nWith respect to the treatment of alimony, the policy, if you will, is to really conform the treatment of alimony, of income-splitting post marriage with the treatment of income-splitting if people are married.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2800.898, 2806.8], "stop_times": [2806.8, 2822.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2800.898}, "reply_to": "20242__1_057", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_059", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "So now you are going back when you say it does count that most often the spouse will be in the other State, so that you are not allowing the deduction, but on the other hand, you're not getting your hands on the income to tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2822.51], "stop_times": [2837.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2822.51}, "reply_to": "20242__1_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20242__1_060", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "It's because with respect to married people we don't allow income-splitting unless they're both residents.\nIf one of the parties is a nonresident, income-splitting is not permitted in the case of people who are still married, and this provision is... conforms that same rule with respect to income-splitting with respect to people who are no longer married.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2837.37, 2843.033], "stop_times": [2843.033, 2857.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2837.37}, "reply_to": "20242__1_059", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_061", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "But even--\n--Why did New York change in 1987?\nYou said they had the other rule where they allowed the same deductions, personal deductions, and then they changed.\nWhat prompted the change?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2857.422, 2858.042, 2859.824, 2865.008], "stop_times": [2858.042, 2859.824, 2865.008, 2866.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2857.422}, "reply_to": "20242__1_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20242__1_062", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Well, the treatment of marital income generally was addressed in '87, and at that time New York abolished the filing-separately-on-the-same-return status that married people had previously enjoyed and went to more or less full income-splitting for the first time, which is premised on the assumption that spouses share total marital income equally.\nAgain, that was the assumption underlying treatment of people who are still married to each other, and because alimony, as you pointed out, is a tax-shifting device rather than a true deduction, the treatment of alimony with respect to nonresidents was designed to bring it into congruence with the treatment of income-splitting for people who are still together, still married to each other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2866.839, 2892.524], "stop_times": [2892.524, 2918.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2866.839}, "reply_to": "20242__1_061", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_063", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "But there's the countervailing consideration, isn't there, in the fact pointed out by your brother that alimony is characteristically assessed on the basis of total income, and therefore there is a very strong relationship between the amount of alimony ordered and income earned in New York.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2918.223], "stop_times": [2934.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2918.223}, "reply_to": "20242__1_062", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20242__1_064", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "There is a relationship, but in our view the controlling standard is the one set forth by this court in the Gilmore case, which looks to the origin of the claim in characterizing an expense as personal or business under section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code with respect to marital dissolution.\nIn Gilmore, simply because the expenses were incurred to preserve and to protect the taxpayer's income-producing assets, it was not enough to give them a sufficient nexus to make them related under section 162 to be deductible for income tax purposes.\nWe argue the same standard ought to apply in a case like this, that the alimony in this case, related though it may have been to petitioner's... the amount of petitioner's worldwide income, including the New York-source income, was not incurred to produce that income, or incurred in carrying on the trade or business that generated that income, and that that should be the test with respect to alimony or any other personal expense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2934.603, 2952.804, 2969.464], "stop_times": [2952.804, 2969.464, 2994.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2934.603}, "reply_to": "20242__1_063", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_065", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Do you know how many States do it the way New York is currently doing it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2994.142], "stop_times": [2998.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2994.142}, "reply_to": "20242__1_064", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20242__1_066", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "I believe that in addition to New York there are six other States that specifically disallow alimony deductions.\nHowever, there are a number of other States that have relied upon the general tenor of the Shaffer and Travis cases, as well as summary dismissals such as Goodwin, to treat a number of different items differently for nonresidents, including, in addition to the alimony expenses we're talking about today, real estate taxes and mortgage interest in out-of-State residence, medical expenses, insurance premiums, moving expenses, income averaging, rollover of gain on sale of principal residence, grocery and medical tax rebates, food sales tax credit, and homestead tax rebates, all of which have been upheld under Privileges and Immunities Clause challenges.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [2998.015, 3006.74], "stop_times": [3006.74, 3044.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2998.015}, "reply_to": "20242__1_065", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_067", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Well, under your principle I suppose if a taxpayer living in Connecticut had a second home on Long Island in New York, you could deny him the home interest deduction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [3044.835], "stop_times": [3054.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3044.835}, "reply_to": "20242__1_066", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20242__1_068", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "The deduction would not be allowed in computing New York-source income, that is correct, because it does not relate to the production of the New York-source income.\nI guess I'd like to address the policy reason.\nWhat is it about these personal deductions and about the nonresident status that seems to be... that justifies what we're doing, and again, we're not simply saying we're doing it because Shaffer and Travis and Goodwin and the others say we can.\nWe're doing it because we think it's perfectly reasonable, and it's entirely justified for New York to say with respect to nonresidents, all we have jurisdiction over regarding you is what you do here, your economic activity here, and that it's reasonable and permissible for us to say to those people, we will allow you deductions with respect to the production of the income, the net income from your economic activity.\nWe'll look at what you do here, and we'll let you deduct that.\nWe'll tax you on your net income, but we're not going to let you take into account either losses or deductions arising from expenses in out-of-State businesses over which we have no jurisdiction, and we're also not going to take into account personal expenses that you may incur in your personal life in some other jurisdiction, even though with respect to people who reside in New York we will allow them.\nNew York has believed and continues to believe that that is a substantial justification and a legitimate reason for what New York has done in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [3054.431, 3063.678, 3077.406, 3094.108, 3125.838, 3128.571, 3152.406], "stop_times": [3063.678, 3077.406, 3094.108, 3125.838, 3128.571, 3152.406, 3161.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3054.431}, "reply_to": "20242__1_067", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_069", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Why aren't those personal expenses... I mean, if 20 percent of your income is from New York, why isn't 20 percent of those personal expenses fairly attributable to New York income?\nI mean, you're sort of adopting the premise that all of your personal expenses come from non-New York State income.\nThat seems to me an unreasonable premise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [3161.712, 3174.171, 3185.728], "stop_times": [3174.171, 3185.728, 3187.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3161.712}, "reply_to": "20242__1_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20242__1_070", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Again, we're not saying that the contention is... is being argued for in terms of this would be a reasonable approach is not true.\nWe're not saying it's an unreasonable approach, but we are saying that we don't think the Privileges and Immunities Clause--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [3187.869, 3200.929], "stop_times": [3200.929, 3205.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3187.869}, "reply_to": "20242__1_069", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_071", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Requires--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [3205.143], "stop_times": [3205.714], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3205.143}, "reply_to": "20242__1_070", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20242__1_072", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--requires that absolute equality, or at least that percentage equality of treatment.\nAnd again, these expense actions have nothing to do with where Mr. Lunding earned his income, and there really is no principle basis, other than just saying, well, 20 percent of the income, 20 percent of the deductions, for looking at what happened in Connecticut.\nThere's no reason for us to say well, it could be 20, but it could be more than 20.\nWe could say that with respect to his medical expenses he's entitled to more than that because it was really primarily related to his getting back and forth to New York and dealing with the rush-hour traffic.\nI mean, there's no principled reason, no constitutional principled requirement for New York to be forced under the Privileges and Immunities Clause to adopt a rateable approach, even though, as I said, that is one that New York has followed in the past.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [3205.714, 3209.825, 3226.694, 3232.569, 3248.501], "stop_times": [3209.825, 3226.694, 3232.569, 3248.501, 3265.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3205.714}, "reply_to": "20242__1_071", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_073", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--Can I just give you one hypothetical that keeps running through my mind and just ask you to comment on it?\nSupposing you've got a Connecticut resident and a New York resident, both of whom make exactly the same amount of money, both of whom derive all of their income from New York... they're commuters.\nOne of them is a commuter and one lives in the city, and one of them, the one who lives in Connecticut, donates a substantial amount of money to the law school in New York and wants a charitable deduction.\nThe one who lives in New York donates a substantial amount of money to Yale in Connecticut.\nThe one who gets the deduction is the one who makes a donation to the New York recipient.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [3265.12, 3270.683, 3280.891, 3291.988, 3296.261], "stop_times": [3270.683, 3280.891, 3291.988, 3296.261, 3300.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3265.12}, "reply_to": "20242__1_072", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20242__1_074", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Well, Justice Stevens, in computing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [3300.362], "stop_times": [3302.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3300.362}, "reply_to": "20242__1_073", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_075", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "I mean, the one who does not get the deduction is the one... yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [3302.954], "stop_times": [3304.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3302.954}, "reply_to": "20242__1_074", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20242__1_076", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--In computing the New York-source income portion of the equation, that's correct, but in computing the tax as if a resident, which is the number by which the fraction is multiplied, you do treat the nonresident as if the nonresident were a resident, so that there is... again, this doesn't affect the computation of the fraction, because the charitable contribution--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [3304.936], "stop_times": [3325.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3304.936}, "reply_to": "20242__1_075", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_077", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [3325.791], "stop_times": [3326.122], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3325.791}, "reply_to": "20242__1_076", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20242__1_078", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--deduction is below the line in both cases, so there is a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [3326.122], "stop_times": [3329.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3326.122}, "reply_to": "20242__1_077", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_079", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Would they be taxed the same in my hypothetical as... would the bottom line be the same?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [3329.522], "stop_times": [3332.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3329.522}, "reply_to": "20242__1_078", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20242__1_080", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--I believe that the... obviously the... when you computed the New York... the taxes if a resident, on the part of the New York resident, then obviously you'd stop, because that would be the answer.\nThe percentage of that that would be paid by the nonresident wouldn't be affected by the formula, by the fraction, which is the other thing, because New York-source income is a net number without any reduction for... itemized deduction such as the charitable contribution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [3332.895, 3347.235], "stop_times": [3347.235, 3365.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3332.895}, "reply_to": "20242__1_079", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_081", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "I thought, to oversimplify it, that the New York resident would get the deduction and the Connecticut resident would not, in my hypothetical.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [3365.376], "stop_times": [3371.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3365.376}, "reply_to": "20242__1_080", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20242__1_082", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "In looking at the New York fraction, Justice Stevens, there's no difference in the New York-source income number... there would be no deduction in computing New York-source income for the charitable contribution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [3371.711], "stop_times": [3382.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3371.711}, "reply_to": "20242__1_081", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_083", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "That's not a constitutional point, so any constitutional holding that permitted you to do what you've done here would permit Justice Stevens' hypothetical.\nAll it would take would be a Federal statute that does the same thing that this statute did here.\nA delegation imposes... you know, convinces the other Members of Congress to write a little thing which says that New York-source alimony is not... you know, the way they did it here, they'd do the same thing for charities.\nThey could do the same thing for anything, so it would be easy under the Constitution to replicate just that problem, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [3382.886, 3392.463, 3397.556, 3408.526], "stop_times": [3392.463, 3397.556, 3408.526, 3414.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3382.886}, "reply_to": "20242__1_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20242__1_084", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Our--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [3414.699], "stop_times": [3415.577], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3414.699}, "reply_to": "20242__1_083", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_085", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "And that's what's worrying me.\nOf course, if it's constitutionally permissible to do this, the States that are always anxious to get more money could think of, you know, dozens and dozens of ways to produce the kinds of results that we were talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [3415.577, 3416.579], "stop_times": [3416.579, 3429.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3415.577}, "reply_to": "20242__1_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20242__1_086", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--It's true that I believe our argument would permit... it doesn't work in New York's particular methodology, but our argument is based on the legitimacy of permitting States to focus solely on the economic activity within the State and not to look at the personal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [3429.018], "stop_times": [3447.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3429.018}, "reply_to": "20242__1_085", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_087", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Maybe the distinction is that New York treats nonresidents as just purely mechanical money-making machines, whereas it treats its own people as whole persons and citizens who have all sorts of interests other than making money, because that's what you treat the nonresident--\n--They're New Yorkers, after all.\nYes.\n[Laughter]\nOr they're non-New Yorkers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [3447.431, 3462.481, 3463.953, 3465.362, 3465.492], "stop_times": [3462.481, 3463.953, 3465.362, 3465.492, 3466.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3447.431}, "reply_to": "20242__1_086", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20242__1_088", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "--In fact, as to New York State, that is a permissible... in our view, that's all right.\nThat's a distinction that we seek to draw.\nIt's a distinction that New York and other States have always, at least since 1920, thought that they had the power to draw, and it's a reasonable distinction based on the fact that we argue that we should not be required to take into account the fact that yes, Mr. Lunding does have a personal life, but it's a personal life that is related to Connecticut, not related to any of the other places from which Mr. Lunding derives his income.\nIf there are no further questions, thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [3466.494, 3472.498, 3474.348, 3502.367], "stop_times": [3472.498, 3474.348, 3502.367, 3507.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3466.494}, "reply_to": "20242__1_087", "speaker": "andrew_d_bing"}
{"id": "20242__1_089", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Bing.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [3507.501, 3508.182], "stop_times": [3508.182, 3509.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3507.501}, "reply_to": "20242__1_088", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20242__1_090", "conversation_id": "20242", "text": "The honorable Court is now adjourned until Monday next at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1462", "start_times": [3509.661], "stop_times": [3516.058], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3509.661}, "reply_to": "20242__1_089", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_000", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 96-1060, Lorelyn Miller v. Madeleine K. Albright.\nMr. Patterson.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [0.0, 10.378], "stop_times": [10.378, 53.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19965__0_001", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe Court granted certiorari in this case on one issue only, whether the gender discrimination provisions in 8 U.S.C. section 1409 violate the Constitution.\nThe court of appeals felt that this Court's opinion in Fiallo v. Bell was a controlling precedent.\nIt is our position that Fiallo can be distinguished, but that if the Court feels that it applies, that Fiallo is out of step with the Court's more recent decisions that refuse to sanction official actions that close a door to opportunity based on overbroad generalizations concerning the abilities, or personalities or such, of males and females.\nThe Immigration & Nationality Act draws some clear distinctions between the naturalization of an individual about whom alienage is not in dispute and those persons who are citizens at birth.\nNaturalization is the conferring of nationality of a State upon an individual subsequent to their birth.\nPersons who are born overseas to a U.S. citizen are citizens and nationals of the United States at birth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [53.695, 57.369, 69.306, 74.67, 100.576, 118.528, 124.782], "stop_times": [57.369, 69.306, 74.67, 100.576, 118.528, 124.782, 133.869], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 53.695}, "reply_to": "19965__0_000", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_002", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Am I right, Mr. Patterson, in thinking that your client has never set foot in the United States?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [133.869], "stop_times": [139.953], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 133.869}, "reply_to": "19965__0_001", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_003", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "My client has set foot in the United States, in fact is presently in the United States, but not at the time that this case was filed and originally came forth, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [139.953], "stop_times": [148.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 139.953}, "reply_to": "19965__0_002", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_004", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [148.858], "stop_times": [149.659], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 148.858}, "reply_to": "19965__0_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_005", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Unlike the person who is seeking naturalization or immigration, Ms. Miller seeks to establish her citizenship by virtue of her birth.\nThe deference accorded the Congress power over admissions of aliens is inapplicable in dealing with a situation where someone claims citizenship from birth, and we feel there is a clear distinction here, that she has been denied her equal protection rights, and she seeks a finding that she is a citizen at birth, and thus Fiallo can be distinguished.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [149.659, 162.449], "stop_times": [162.449, 186.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 149.659}, "reply_to": "19965__0_004", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_006", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "But how do you say Fiallo is distinguishable in that regard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [186.097], "stop_times": [190.118], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 186.097}, "reply_to": "19965__0_005", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_007", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Fiallo dealt with a situation where there was no question concerning the alienage of the persons involved.\nIn this case, we claim that my client should have been entitled to citizenship at birth, and therefore it is not an immigration matter but a citizenship matter, and could be distinguished on that basis.\nFiallo could be left to apply in cases in which they were purely immigration.\nThis case is not so much based on the immigration powers of Congress as it is upon the gender discrimination that is established in this provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [190.118, 196.922, 206.838, 211.583], "stop_times": [196.922, 206.838, 211.583, 219.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 190.118}, "reply_to": "19965__0_006", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_008", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "But you have to have a part of a law of Congress declared unconstitutional in order to establish your client's citizenship, do you not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [219.938], "stop_times": [227.213], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 219.938}, "reply_to": "19965__0_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_009", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.\nWe feel that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [227.213, 230.285], "stop_times": [230.285, 231.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 227.213}, "reply_to": "19965__0_008", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_010", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "You say there's no deference to Congress in this respect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [231.315], "stop_times": [234.227], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 231.315}, "reply_to": "19965__0_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_011", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--Your Honor, while the Court gives deference to Congress in many areas, the Court has held that it does not... deference does not mean abdication, and that if a statute is violative of the provisions of the Constitution, then that statute cannot stand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [234.227], "stop_times": [252.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 234.227}, "reply_to": "19965__0_010", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_012", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Yes, but I think some of... there's language in some of our cases that say in the field of immigration and nationality we give extraordinary deference to what Congress has decided.\nNow, you're saying, I guess, that when you're talking about nationality as opposed to immigration the Congress gets no special deference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [252.55, 262.096], "stop_times": [262.096, 269.923], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 252.55}, "reply_to": "19965__0_011", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_013", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "I think Congress always gets a certain amount of deference, Your Honor, in any case, because I think the Court normally approaches that they are... Congress is entitled to do what is within its realm, but if it violates... if it provides a provision that deprives people of the equal protection of the Constitution, then that statute cannot stand, and dealing with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [269.923], "stop_times": [293.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 269.923}, "reply_to": "19965__0_012", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_014", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "May I just interrupt with a question?\nI'm not sure I understood.\nAre you saying there is a constitutional entitlement to citizenship at birth?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [293.108, 294.949, 295.82], "stop_times": [294.949, 295.82, 300.792], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 293.108}, "reply_to": "19965__0_013", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_015", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--There is not a constitutional entitlement of citizenship at birth unless you are born in the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [300.792], "stop_times": [306.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 300.792}, "reply_to": "19965__0_014", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_016", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [306.646], "stop_times": [307.187], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 306.646}, "reply_to": "19965__0_015", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_017", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "However, the Congress has created a statute which provides that children of U.S. citizen parents are entitled to citizenship at birth, but then they have in effect taken away that right as to those children who are illegitimate in that section 1401 establishes a broad general statement that all children born to U.S. citizen parents in the world are U.S. citizens at birth.\nThen in 14--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [307.187, 331.724], "stop_times": [331.724, 332.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 307.187}, "reply_to": "19965__0_016", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_018", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Well, let me just interrupt with a simple question to be sure.\nWould it be constitutional for Congress to pass a statute saying that any child born abroad of American parents shall become a citizen at the age of 10, regardless of who the... which parent was the... the male or female parent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [332.953, 334.085], "stop_times": [334.085, 349.095], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 332.953}, "reply_to": "19965__0_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_019", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--I think it would be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [349.095], "stop_times": [350.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 349.095}, "reply_to": "19965__0_018", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_020", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [350.263], "stop_times": [350.824], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 350.263}, "reply_to": "19965__0_019", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_021", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "The Congress has tremendous powers.\nCongress probably could decide--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [350.824, 352.176], "stop_times": [352.176, 354.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 350.824}, "reply_to": "19965__0_020", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_022", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [354.067], "stop_times": [354.507], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 354.067}, "reply_to": "19965__0_021", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_023", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--that no one born outside of the United States was a citizen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [354.507], "stop_times": [358.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 354.507}, "reply_to": "19965__0_022", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_024", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "All right.\nMr. Patterson, on that line, you don't take issue with Judge Wald's statement, do you, that I see no problem with the requirement that a U.S. citizen parent take some action to acknowledge parentage or responsibility for a child before the child reaches age 18?\nIf... suppose Congress said, mothers, fathers, they're both parents, and if a child is born abroad, one of them has to say, I will take responsibility for this child till she's 18.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [358.211, 359.11, 376.651], "stop_times": [359.11, 376.651, 390.141], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 358.211}, "reply_to": "19965__0_023", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_025", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "I would have no problem with that, Your Honor.\nHowever, that's not what Congress has done.\nCongress on the one hand has established a situation where the mother has to do nothing except be the mother, and her children become a U.S. citizen.\nBut then it has placed very strict requirements on a father for his children to become a U.S. citizen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [390.141, 392.501, 395.174, 404.29], "stop_times": [392.501, 395.174, 404.29, 409.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 390.141}, "reply_to": "19965__0_024", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_026", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Well--\n--It's interesting, is it not, that from 1790 till 1934, there was, as I understand the statutes, no way that a mother could fit under them.\nIt all depended on fatherhood.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [409.502, 410.394, 422.182], "stop_times": [410.394, 422.182, 424.413], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 409.502}, "reply_to": "19965__0_025", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_027", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "That is my understanding, Your Honor, and as to children born prior to 1934, it's only been recently that Congress has gone back to correct that situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [424.413], "stop_times": [434.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 424.413}, "reply_to": "19965__0_026", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_028", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "So that was unconstitutional, from--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [434.099], "stop_times": [437.021], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 434.099}, "reply_to": "19965__0_027", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_029", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [437.021], "stop_times": [438.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 437.021}, "reply_to": "19965__0_028", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_030", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--And that was unconstitutional, from 1796 to whatever?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [438.532], "stop_times": [442.264], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 438.532}, "reply_to": "19965__0_029", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_031", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "I feel that under the present interpretations of the Constitution, that it would be found to be unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [442.264], "stop_times": [451.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 442.264}, "reply_to": "19965__0_030", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_032", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "We're talking about 1790 to 1934, and under the precedent that then existed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [451.951], "stop_times": [457.054], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 451.951}, "reply_to": "19965__0_031", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_033", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Under the precedent that then existed, I would assume that it was not unconstitutional, but I feel that under the precedents that exist now, it would be considered unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [457.054], "stop_times": [466.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 457.054}, "reply_to": "19965__0_032", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_034", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--I see.\nBut you're still talking about the same Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [466.351, 466.872], "stop_times": [466.872, 468.324], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 466.351}, "reply_to": "19965__0_033", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_035", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [468.324, 469.542], "stop_times": [469.542, 470.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 468.324}, "reply_to": "19965__0_034", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_036", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Mr. Patterson, you mentioned a moment ago that the way you view the relationship between 1401 and 1409 is that 1401 first provides citizenship on individuals like your client, and then 1409 in effect takes it away, but that does not seem to me a fair characterization of the statute, because 1409, in its subsection (a) seems to me to make it pretty clear that 1401 simply does not apply to individuals like your client in cases of illegitimacy unless certain conditions are satisfied, so I don't see how you can start your argument by assuming that 1401 gives you something which is then taken away on a disparate criterion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [470.844], "stop_times": [516.763], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 470.844}, "reply_to": "19965__0_035", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_037", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Well, Your Honor, we feel that 1409 as it exists now is an unconstitutional discrimination based on gender, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [516.763], "stop_times": [527.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 516.763}, "reply_to": "19965__0_036", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_038", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Well, that's the... maybe I misunderstand you, but I think that's a separate argument.\nI thought you... the question was, you know, how do you get into court in the first place, and you say, well... or I guess the question was on deference, and you say, well, the deference issue is different here because my client in effect is given citizenship to begin with, so that she starts as a citizen claimant in a way that the other plaintiff did not.\nBut it seems to me that if your reason for that is the provision of 1401, your argument fails, because 1409 says 1401 doesn't apply unless you meet these conditions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [527.622, 531.834, 555.699], "stop_times": [531.834, 555.699, 568.268], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 527.622}, "reply_to": "19965__0_037", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_039", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--Your Honor, basically, though, 1409 we view as being a gender discrimination issue, and that in this situation, that if it did not apply my client would be, under the general terms of 1401, a citizen, and we feel that there is a distinction between a situation where someone is purely an alien, no question about it all, of their alienage, and a situation where there is a relationship, a tie to the United States through a citizen parent, and that the rules as to the citizen parent should be the same whether the parent is a woman or a man.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [568.268], "stop_times": [607.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 568.268}, "reply_to": "19965__0_038", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_040", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Let me interrupt you there, because is it not the fact that most of the cases we're concerned with probably are illegitimate children of service people abroad, and isn't it also a fact that the vast... maybe not the vast majority, but the preponderant number of those would probably be of a male parent rather than a female parent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [607.554], "stop_times": [627.828], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 607.554}, "reply_to": "19965__0_039", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_041", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [627.828], "stop_times": [630.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 627.828}, "reply_to": "19965__0_040", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_042", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "And isn't it also true that at the time of birth, when it's a female parent there's no question about what's going to happen to that child, whereas at the time of birth of a child of a male parent by a female alien, when the male parent may not be on the spot at all, or even within the general area, there are a lot of questions that have to be resolved in the future?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [630.8], "stop_times": [648.949], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 630.8}, "reply_to": "19965__0_041", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_043", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--All right.\nThere are some questions, Your Honor, but my understanding is that statistically there are more female U.S. citizens abroad than male U.S. citizens.\nI do know that within the Armed Forces that now the percentage is somewhere like 13 or 14 percent of all the Armed Forces are now female.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [648.949, 649.399, 658.376], "stop_times": [649.399, 658.376, 666.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 648.949}, "reply_to": "19965__0_042", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_044", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [666.083], "stop_times": [667.001], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 666.083}, "reply_to": "19965__0_043", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_045", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "So while we may have had a problem with one situation in the past, I think the situation is... has the potential to change.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [667.001], "stop_times": [672.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 667.001}, "reply_to": "19965__0_044", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_046", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Well, but 13 percent is quite different from 87 percent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [672.595], "stop_times": [674.768], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 672.595}, "reply_to": "19965__0_045", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_047", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Right.\nThat is correct, Your Honor, but I think that also the question or the issue we have here is that the requirements are placed on the male to do something.\nAll that the woman has to do is be the parent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [674.768, 675.079, 686.385], "stop_times": [675.079, 686.385, 688.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 674.768}, "reply_to": "19965__0_046", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_048", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "That's right, and... which is established at the moment of birth, no matter where the birth takes place, if there's any hospital record to establish--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [688.215], "stop_times": [694.54], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 688.215}, "reply_to": "19965__0_047", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_049", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Right.\nIf there's any hospital record--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [694.54, 694.78], "stop_times": [694.78, 695.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 694.54}, "reply_to": "19965__0_048", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_050", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--With regard to the male parent, there are a lot of questions that are unanswered at the time of birth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [695.872], "stop_times": [699.124], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 695.872}, "reply_to": "19965__0_049", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_051", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--But there... the answers as to the male parent can be established with modern technology.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [699.124, 705.817], "stop_times": [705.817, 706.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 699.124}, "reply_to": "19965__0_050", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_052", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "They cannot be established as promptly in the routine case as they can with regard to the woman, if you're talking about situations abroad where personnel are transferred from location to location within 6-month periods.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [706.538], "stop_times": [717.975], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 706.538}, "reply_to": "19965__0_051", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_053", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--That is true, Your Honor.\nHowever--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [717.975, 720.727], "stop_times": [720.727, 721.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 717.975}, "reply_to": "19965__0_052", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_054", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Servicemen being overseas and shipped back to this country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [721.518], "stop_times": [724.62], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 721.518}, "reply_to": "19965__0_053", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_055", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--Right.\nThere are potential problems, but the problems can be dealt with.\nWe feel that the only requirement should be that there be proof submitted that this is the child of a U.S. citizen.\nNow, what that proof may be, because there's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [724.62, 726.3, 729.452, 736.507], "stop_times": [726.3, 729.452, 736.507, 739.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 724.62}, "reply_to": "19965__0_054", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_056", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Would you say that it would be fair to say the proof must be submitted within 36 hours after birth, and if you treat both sexes equally, the only requirement is that parentage must be established within the first 2 weeks after birth?\nI think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [739.28, 752.557], "stop_times": [752.557, 754.55], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 739.28}, "reply_to": "19965__0_055", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_057", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [754.55], "stop_times": [754.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 754.55}, "reply_to": "19965__0_056", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_058", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--you'd have many, many children of male, unmarried parents who would not be able to comply with that requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [754.911], "stop_times": [759.211], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 754.911}, "reply_to": "19965__0_057", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_059", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--That is correct, Your Honor, and I feel that while there have been some other areas where this Court has determined that it is not necessary to have an immediate determination of the parentage of a child for the child to ultimately be able to proceed in terms of inheritance and this sort of thing, in a sense this is an inheritance.\nThis is an inheritance of a citizenship, and we would like to see the tables leveled as to both the male and female as to what takes place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [759.211, 782.077], "stop_times": [782.077, 791.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 759.211}, "reply_to": "19965__0_058", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_060", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "But only in one way, only in one direction.\nLet me ask you this.\nDoes your client have standing to assert the father's gender discrimination claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [791.324, 794.185, 795.527], "stop_times": [794.185, 795.527, 803.671], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 791.324}, "reply_to": "19965__0_059", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_061", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Your Honor, we feel that she--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [803.671], "stop_times": [806.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 803.671}, "reply_to": "19965__0_060", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_062", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "I hadn't thought so.\nHe was in the case at one point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [806.613, 807.524], "stop_times": [807.524, 809.114], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 806.613}, "reply_to": "19965__0_061", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_063", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--Right, Your Honor, and the Government in a motion said that the rights and benefits of U.S. citizenship he already enjoys simply have not been injured by the denial of Lorelyn Penero Miller's application.\nThe rights, if any, which have been injured are those of Lorelyn Penero Miller, the true plaintiff in this action.\nAnd so while he was in the case the Government--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [809.114, 823.515, 830.078], "stop_times": [823.515, 830.078, 833.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 809.114}, "reply_to": "19965__0_062", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_064", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Well, the short answer is, the father is no longer before us, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [833.622], "stop_times": [837.444], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 833.622}, "reply_to": "19965__0_063", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_065", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--That is correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [837.444], "stop_times": [838.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 837.444}, "reply_to": "19965__0_064", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_066", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "And does this petitioner, can she... does she have standing to raise any claims that he might raise on gender discrimination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [838.813], "stop_times": [846.911], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 838.813}, "reply_to": "19965__0_065", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_067", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "We feel that under the criteria that the Court has set out for third party plaintiffs to proceed are based on third party claims, that there has to be an injury, which there is, there has to be a relationship, which there is.\nThe only issue that the Government has raised in its brief is the issue of a hindrance, and we would say that there is a hindrance created by the Government in their motion to remove him from the case, that they took him out--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [846.911, 864.182], "stop_times": [864.182, 874.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 846.911}, "reply_to": "19965__0_066", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_068", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "When the Government moved to dismiss the father and then coupled that with a motion to transfer the case from Texas to the District of Columbia, I assume that if the Government thought that there was no... well, what did the Government tell the district court in Texas about why the father had no standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [874.498], "stop_times": [893.731], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 874.498}, "reply_to": "19965__0_067", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_069", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--Basically their argument in their motion, Your Honor, was as I said, that he had not made application for U.S. citizenship; he was not denied any rights; he had his citizenship; that the denial--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [893.731], "stop_times": [907.259], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 893.731}, "reply_to": "19965__0_068", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_070", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Then the case got shipped to the district court in D.C.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [907.259], "stop_times": [910.061], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 907.259}, "reply_to": "19965__0_069", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_071", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [910.061], "stop_times": [911.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 910.061}, "reply_to": "19965__0_070", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_072", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--Was there an effort made by the father to appeal his dismissal from the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [911.163], "stop_times": [917.718], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 911.163}, "reply_to": "19965__0_071", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_073", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "No, Your Honor, there was not an attempt to appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [917.718], "stop_times": [922.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 917.718}, "reply_to": "19965__0_072", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_074", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Would there have been a... the problem of the transfer intervening, where would the father have brought that appeal?\nOnce the case is shipped out of the district court in Texas, they lose... that circuit loses authority over it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [922.078, 931.825], "stop_times": [931.825, 938.531], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 922.078}, "reply_to": "19965__0_073", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_075", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "I am not certain, Your Honor, and I would think that that was... one of the factors that entered into us not appealing was the fact that it was moved to another circuit, that the principal issues were still before the court in the District, and we felt that we could go forward and proceed there, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [938.531], "stop_times": [956.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 938.531}, "reply_to": "19965__0_074", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_076", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "I'd like you to clarify one earlier point, because there were references to many, many qualifications, but I think... am I right about this... that you were relying at least alternately on the prior version of 1409, when there was no requirement of a written acknowledgement of support, when all that was required was an acknowledgement, a legitimation of the child by the father saying yes, I am the father.\nThere was not this additional requirement, as there is now, about a written undertaking to support.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [956.433, 989.204], "stop_times": [989.204, 995.086], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 956.433}, "reply_to": "19965__0_075", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_077", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--That is correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [995.086], "stop_times": [996.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 995.086}, "reply_to": "19965__0_076", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_078", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "So we don't have before us the question of the residency requirement, because he satisfies that, so that's an academic question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [996.348], "stop_times": [1002.562], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 996.348}, "reply_to": "19965__0_077", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_079", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1002.562], "stop_times": [1003.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1002.562}, "reply_to": "19965__0_078", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_080", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "We don't have before us the written support obligation, because that wasn't required at the relevant time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1003.403], "stop_times": [1007.914], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1003.403}, "reply_to": "19965__0_079", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_081", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1007.914], "stop_times": [1008.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1007.914}, "reply_to": "19965__0_080", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_082", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "So it's only one--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1008.655], "stop_times": [1009.537], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1008.655}, "reply_to": "19965__0_081", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_083", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "The only issue is the issue of the legitimation and my client, though subsequent to the age of 21, or that was required under the prior statute, went into court in Texas, filed a voluntary paternity... or her father, my client's father went into court in Texas, filed a voluntary paternity action, and was determined by the courts of Texas that he is the father of Ms. Miller, and ultimately, so far as Texas is concerned, legally his child and his heir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1009.537], "stop_times": [1039.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1009.537}, "reply_to": "19965__0_082", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_084", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--I have one--\n--You're relying here on the Fourteenth Amendment, which... you have the equal protection provision, which was surely directed most immediately not to sex discrimination but most immediately to race discrimination.\nNow, Congress, however, under its immigration policies, can certainly discriminate on the basis of race, can't it, all the time?\nI mean, it says, you know, you can immigrate if you're coming from Ireland, but not if you're coming from Italy or Greece, or whatever.\nIt's done this from the beginning.\nThat's national origin, which--\n--Well, okay.\n--is what the immigration act is all about.\nJust a minute.\nLet him answer Justice Scalia's question.\nI'm sorry.\nConsider it race, consider it national origin, whatever you want.\nThe two are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1039.434, 1042.326, 1055.726, 1063.851, 1071.478, 1072.346, 1074.499, 1075.63, 1076.821, 1077.713, 1079.532, 1080.414, 1082.604], "stop_times": [1042.326, 1055.726, 1063.851, 1071.478, 1072.346, 1074.499, 1075.63, 1076.821, 1077.713, 1079.532, 1080.414, 1082.604, 1083.184], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1039.434}, "reply_to": "19965__0_083", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_085", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1083.184], "stop_times": [1083.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1083.184}, "reply_to": "19965__0_084", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_086", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--The two are closely allied, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1083.555], "stop_times": [1085.476], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1083.555}, "reply_to": "19965__0_085", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_087", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1085.476], "stop_times": [1087.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1085.476}, "reply_to": "19965__0_086", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_088", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--much closer to the Fourteenth Amendment than sex.\nNow, how can it be that Congress can do that?\nCould Congress say that the children of American fathers who are born in, let's say, Somalia can immigrate to the United States and be United States citizens, but those children of American fathers born in Ireland cannot?\nCould Congress say that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1087.046, 1089.509, 1092.111, 1108.361], "stop_times": [1089.509, 1092.111, 1108.361, 1109.502], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1087.046}, "reply_to": "19965__0_087", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_089", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--I am... my reaction is that whether Congress could do it or not, it would be wrong.\nNow--\n[Laughter]\nMy feeling, though, is that basically--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1109.502, 1117.807, 1118.308, 1118.879], "stop_times": [1117.807, 1118.308, 1118.879, 1121.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1109.502}, "reply_to": "19965__0_088", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_090", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Well, everything that's wrong is not necessarily unconstitutional.\nI mean, that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1121.68, 1123.801], "stop_times": [1123.801, 1124.492], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1121.68}, "reply_to": "19965__0_089", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_091", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--But basically, Your Honor, I think that the issue here has to do with the cases, and... such as Mississippi University for Women, et cetera, where they have said that distinctions based on gender have to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1124.492], "stop_times": [1138.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1124.492}, "reply_to": "19965__0_090", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_092", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--Mr. Patterson, may I just vary my colleague's question and say, suppose Congress said that the children of citizen fathers... citizen fathers who are Caucasian are citizens at birth, but that children of citizen fathers who are not Caucasian, people born in the United States, fathers born in the United States but not Caucasian, the children of those fathers born abroad shall not be considered citizens at birth?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1138.49], "stop_times": [1173.232], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1138.49}, "reply_to": "19965__0_091", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_093", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--I think, Your Honor, that if we take the Government's argument, accept it in toto, Congress could do that.\nWe feel that would be wrong, and we feel that it is wrong--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1173.232, 1181.488], "stop_times": [1181.488, 1183.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1173.232}, "reply_to": "19965__0_092", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_094", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "I don't think that's the Government's argument at all.\nThey have not argued that would be rational.\nThey have argued there's a... there are good reasons for the distinction in this case, and your suggestion is there's no justification for differentiation on the basis of the sex of the parent in... when there's an illegitimate birth.\nThat's really the question we have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1183.981, 1186.132, 1187.973, 1201.363], "stop_times": [1186.132, 1187.973, 1201.363, 1203.663], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1183.981}, "reply_to": "19965__0_093", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_095", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--Your Honor, we feel that there is a matter of discrimination here based on gender, and we feel that if you take it to the logical extreme that the Government espouses, that the Court should defer to Congress' decisions in anything having to do with immigration, citizenship, et cetera.\nIf you take it to that... to the extreme, then the suggestion by the Justice would be permissible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1203.663, 1221.645], "stop_times": [1221.645, 1229.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1203.663}, "reply_to": "19965__0_094", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_096", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "But you surely don't have to take it to that extreme to try and figure out whether there is some sensible basis for drawing a distinction between a single parent abroad in the military... I think of the military because I know there are many, many cases that arise this way, when it's the mother on the one hand and when it's the father on the other.\nIt seems to me there are quite obvious differences, and I... at least justifying some differential in treatment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1229.87, 1246.72], "stop_times": [1246.72, 1253.396], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1229.87}, "reply_to": "19965__0_095", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_097", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Well, I think that, Your Honor, basically the issue is one of who is entitled to citizenship at birth, and Congress has decided that as a general rule, anybody born to a U.S. citizen parent is entitled to be a citizen at birth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1253.396], "stop_times": [1271.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1253.396}, "reply_to": "19965__0_096", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_098", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Any legitimate person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1271.147], "stop_times": [1272.208], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1271.147}, "reply_to": "19965__0_097", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_099", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "I didn't hear the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1272.208], "stop_times": [1274.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1272.208}, "reply_to": "19965__0_098", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_100", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "I say, Congress has decided that any person born legitimately is so entitled.\nThat's as far as Congress has gone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1274.35, 1278.561], "stop_times": [1278.561, 1280.533], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1274.35}, "reply_to": "19965__0_099", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_101", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Well, they then have decided that any person who is born illegitimately to a mother who is a U.S. citizen is a citizen at birth.\nThe only distinction that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1280.533, 1292.662], "stop_times": [1292.662, 1295.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1280.533}, "reply_to": "19965__0_100", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_102", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Well, if the mother has lived in the country for a year.\nLet me go to that point, because I wanted to ask you this question anyway.\nTwo of the Government's justifications for drawing the distinction that it draws are these.\nOne, there are differences in problems of proof, and your answer to that is, well, in this day of genetic testing, those problems really have evaporated, and I'll assume that for the moment.\nThe second major justification that the Government brings up is that there is a difference, depending on whether the single citizen parent is male or female, depending... which affects the likelihood of the attachment of the child to the country.\nThe Government says, look, most children stay with their mothers when they're young, just as a matter of fact.\nThat's the way it happens.\nIf, in fact, the mother is a citizen, then the child is likely to be in the company of an American citizen, and I suppose most American citizens tend to, sooner or later, come back to the United States, even if they were abroad at some point.\nSo the Government's argument is, the likelihood is that the child who is born to the female citizen will in fact, because of the mother's company and because of the mother's probable residence, gain an attachment to the United States, whereas that will not necessarily be so if in fact the mother is an alien and it's the father who in Justice Stevens' example comes back from the service assignment at some point.\nIs there something unsound factually about the Government's argument, and is there something illegitimate, constitutionally, to the Government's argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1295.663, 1298.125, 1301.558, 1306.93, 1318.899, 1336.781, 1342.764, 1344.384, 1362.887, 1389.865], "stop_times": [1298.125, 1301.558, 1306.93, 1318.899, 1336.781, 1342.764, 1344.384, 1362.887, 1389.865, 1398.901], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1295.663}, "reply_to": "19965__0_101", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_103", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--All right.\nYour Honor, on the one hand they talk about attachment, but there's nothing in the statute that requires any showing of attachment or the mother do anything, other than have the child.\nIf the mother had the child and abandoned it immediately, the child would still be eligible for citizenship regardless of whether--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1398.901, 1399.592, 1410.878], "stop_times": [1399.592, 1410.878, 1419.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1398.901}, "reply_to": "19965__0_102", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_104", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "But the point is that as a generalization, the attachment will exist in the one case, and as a generalization it will not exist in the other.\nNow, what's your response to that, that this is a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1419.314, 1427.499], "stop_times": [1427.499, 1429.17], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1419.314}, "reply_to": "19965__0_103", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_105", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--I believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1429.17], "stop_times": [1429.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1429.17}, "reply_to": "19965__0_104", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_106", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--an unconstitutional stereotyping, or what?\nIs it true or false?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1429.54, 1432.432], "stop_times": [1432.432, 1433.774], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1429.54}, "reply_to": "19965__0_105", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_107", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--I think, Your Honor, in other contexts the Court has said that you deal with individuals, not with generalizations, and while this may be true as a generalization, it is not true in all circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1433.774], "stop_times": [1444.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1433.774}, "reply_to": "19965__0_106", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_108", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Every law is based on a generalization.\nYou really want us to adopt the proposition that Congress cannot generalize when it makes laws?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1444.42, 1445.932], "stop_times": [1445.932, 1452.046], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1444.42}, "reply_to": "19965__0_107", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_109", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Obviously, Congress can to some extent, but where they discriminate against a group based on generalizations that are based on stereotypic, archaic ideas, then--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1452.046], "stop_times": [1462.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1452.046}, "reply_to": "19965__0_108", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_110", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "It may not be archaic.\nThe... I think the classifications this Court was confronted with in the Frontiero case, in the Wiesenfeld... those weren't archaic.\nThey did represent the way the world was for most people.\nMost men supported most women, and yet the Court did say that in this category sex discrimination, you could not rely on those generally true propositions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1462.321, 1464.612, 1473.558, 1476.032], "stop_times": [1464.612, 1473.558, 1476.032, 1495.904], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1462.321}, "reply_to": "19965__0_109", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_111", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--I would agree with Your Honor on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1495.904], "stop_times": [1498.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1495.904}, "reply_to": "19965__0_110", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_112", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "I did want to ask one question about this statute that does draw a distinction that's different for men and women.\nThat is, the very first requirement, that blood relationship between the child and the father be established by clear and convincing evidence.\nAre you challenging the constitutionality of such a requirement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1498.816, 1508.871, 1518.018], "stop_times": [1508.871, 1518.018, 1521.81], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1498.816}, "reply_to": "19965__0_111", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_113", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "I think, Your Honor, that for anyone there would have to be some clear and convincing evidence that they were the parent, be it the mother or the father.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1521.81], "stop_times": [1529.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1521.81}, "reply_to": "19965__0_112", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_114", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "But suppose the statute, all it said was that.\nThat was the only distinction that was drawn on the basis of sex.\nIt says, in the case of the father, the blood relationship must be established by clear and convincing evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1529.784, 1533.798, 1536.8], "stop_times": [1533.798, 1536.8, 1542.855], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1529.784}, "reply_to": "19965__0_113", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_115", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "I don't believe I would have any problem with that, Your Honor, because I feel that to me would be a prerequisite regardless, though it is not spelled out that there has to be clear and convincing evidence that the mother was the mother of the child for the child to be able to claim U.S. citizenship.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1542.855], "stop_times": [1559.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1542.855}, "reply_to": "19965__0_114", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_116", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "I have one question, which is a very preliminary nature.\nI take it as a general rule that if you're a person outside the United States you do not have capacity to sue for a violation of the Constitution, and this is... you say this is different because the claim at issue is citizenship?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1559.104, 1563.869], "stop_times": [1563.869, 1576.786], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1559.104}, "reply_to": "19965__0_115", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_117", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "I feel that that is a distinction that could be drawn.\nHowever, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1576.786, 1582.251], "stop_times": [1582.251, 1583.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1576.786}, "reply_to": "19965__0_116", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_118", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "I was just curious to know, do you have some precedent for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1583.54], "stop_times": [1587.494], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1583.54}, "reply_to": "19965__0_117", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_119", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--I have some precedents, and I was trying to find it, that the Constitution is not limited to the boundaries of the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1587.494], "stop_times": [1596.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1587.494}, "reply_to": "19965__0_118", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_120", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "But Rogers v. Belli, the Court said that foreign-born children of citizens have no constitutional right to citizenship.\nWe'd have to disavow that, wouldn't we?\nIt's limited at least to the soil of the United States and the blood of the United States.\nI mean, you're either applying jurisdiction on the basis of territory or on the basis of blood, and--\n--Let me put it--\n--your client here is neither on the territory of the United States nor a United States citizen, so that you could say her actions are governed abroad by United States law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1596.69, 1605.776, 1608.869, 1615.132, 1621.895, 1622.837], "stop_times": [1605.776, 1608.869, 1615.132, 1621.895, 1622.837, 1634.174], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1596.69}, "reply_to": "19965__0_119", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_121", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Your Honor, in United States, and I'm not sure of the exact pronunciation, V-e-r-d-u-g-o... U-r-i-q-u-i-d-e-z, at 494, 259, 278, in a concurring opinion, Judge Kennedy indicated that the Government may only act as the Constitution authorizes whether the actions in question are foreign or domestic.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1634.174], "stop_times": [1662.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1634.174}, "reply_to": "19965__0_120", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_122", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Yes, but you see, there there was a citizen... there was a person who was being tried in a United States criminal court, but here your client has never been in the United... for... just for our purposes, at this time the suit was filed was outside the United States.\nWell, perhaps the Government will address that briefly.\nI would like you to, because I thought Rogers supported you.\nThat is, I thought Rogers was a case where a person claimed citizenship.\nHe was wrong on the merits, but the Court permitted him to raise the claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1662.532, 1676.022, 1678.233, 1680.844, 1684.848], "stop_times": [1676.022, 1678.233, 1680.844, 1684.848, 1689.319], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1662.532}, "reply_to": "19965__0_121", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_123", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1689.319], "stop_times": [1690.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1689.319}, "reply_to": "19965__0_122", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_124", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Because had he won, he would have been a citizen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1690.62], "stop_times": [1692.872], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1690.62}, "reply_to": "19965__0_123", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_125", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1692.872], "stop_times": [1693.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1692.872}, "reply_to": "19965__0_124", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_126", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "And there... so is... but don't say yes if I'm not right, because... because it won't do any good.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1693.312, 1697.904], "stop_times": [1697.904, 1698.595], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1693.312}, "reply_to": "19965__0_125", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_127", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Well, I believe that is my recollection, but I... it's been a while since I have read that, but I do know that it raised the issue, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1698.595], "stop_times": [1707.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1698.595}, "reply_to": "19965__0_126", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_128", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "So Rogers is the precedent, you say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1707.381], "stop_times": [1709.452], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1707.381}, "reply_to": "19965__0_127", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_129", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--I believe so.\nI'd have to check to be sure, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1709.452, 1710.814], "stop_times": [1710.814, 1712.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1709.452}, "reply_to": "19965__0_128", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_130", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "And you're still relying on the third party standing that you cited Craig v. Boren, that if the beer seller could raise the boy's equal protection rights, then the daughter can raise her father's rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1712.765], "stop_times": [1724.652], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1712.765}, "reply_to": "19965__0_129", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__0_131", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nMr. Chief Justice, may I reserve the rest of my time, if there are no further questions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1724.652, 1725.804], "stop_times": [1725.804, 1730.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1724.652}, "reply_to": "19965__0_130", "speaker": "donald_patterson"}
{"id": "19965__0_132", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "You have no time left.\nMr. Kneedler, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1730.205, 1732.649], "stop_times": [1732.649, 1734.179], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1730.205}, "reply_to": "19965__0_131", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_000", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe Naturalization Clause of the Constitution commits to Congress the power that is inherent in any sovereign nation to determine which aliens abroad will be granted United States citizenship.\nAs this Court said in the Ginsberg decision, no alien has the slightest right to naturalization unless all statutory conditions are satisfied, any by the same token, the Court has said in the Rogers v. Belli decision that was just cited, no United States citizen has a right to transmit citizenship by dissent.\nNow, to be sure, where the interests of the United States citizen are properly before the Court, and in this case we suggest that they're not, but where they are, such as in Fiallo or Kleindienst v. Mandel, this Court has declined to hold that Congress' judgments in this area are wholly beyond judicial review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1734.179, 1741.475, 1753.393, 1772.203], "stop_times": [1741.475, 1753.393, 1772.203, 1788.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1734.179}, "reply_to": "19965__0_132", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_001", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Mr.--\n--Mr. Kneedler, why did the Government move to dismiss the father when he was in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1788.165, 1788.716], "stop_times": [1788.716, 1791.868], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1788.165}, "reply_to": "19965__1_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_002", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "The motion to dismiss in Texas, there were really two grounds.\nOne was essentially, while couched as a standing ground was essentially a merits argument, and that is that his argument of gender-based discrimination was foreclosed by Fiallo v. Bell.\nThe Government also argued essentially that because the claim to citizenship was that of the petitioner here and not his own, that he effectively had no ability to insist that the Government confer citizenship on her.\nThat is more in the nature of a standing argument.\nNow, again, in Fiallo, where the... there were rights of... both citizen plaintiffs and alien plaintiffs were before the Court, and the Court then, because of that presence, addressed the constitutional question because of the presence of the alien parent, even though the... I mean, the citizen parent, even though the citizen parent couldn't have required in a sense to have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1791.868, 1795.889, 1807.737, 1823.328, 1827.529], "stop_times": [1795.889, 1807.737, 1823.328, 1827.529, 1848.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1791.868}, "reply_to": "19965__1_001", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_003", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "If Fiallo was controlling, it should have been controlling on her claim as well as his, so it's a little odd that the Government moved only to dismiss him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1848.193], "stop_times": [1855.648], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1848.193}, "reply_to": "19965__1_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_004", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--The... it is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1855.648], "stop_times": [1857.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1855.648}, "reply_to": "19965__1_003", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_005", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "And not her.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1857.319], "stop_times": [1858.21], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1857.319}, "reply_to": "19965__1_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_006", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--Well, it did... it moved to dismiss her also on a ground that she could not claim his equal protection rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1858.21], "stop_times": [1865.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1858.21}, "reply_to": "19965__1_005", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_007", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "And third party standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1865.045], "stop_times": [1866.535], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1865.045}, "reply_to": "19965__1_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_008", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1866.535], "stop_times": [1866.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1866.535}, "reply_to": "19965__1_007", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_009", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "But the Government... if the Government's position was Fiallo v. Bell, then it's very difficult to understand why it didn't... they didn't do that across the board.\nThey chose to do it only with respect to the father and with respect to her said she has no third party standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1866.776, 1875.12], "stop_times": [1875.12, 1881.145], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1866.776}, "reply_to": "19965__1_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_010", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Well, the Government certainly did argue that Fiallo was controlling across the board, but I think our... the point here is that whatever the label attached to it, the father was dismissed from the case, essentially rejecting his claim under Fiallo, and he did not appeal either from the Texas ruling at the time or from the final judgment at the time it was rendered in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1881.145], "stop_times": [1900.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1881.145}, "reply_to": "19965__1_009", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_011", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "But it is sort of ironic.\nThe Government argued he didn't have standing, it was her claim, and here you're arguing that she doesn't have standing, it's his claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1900.458, 1901.717], "stop_times": [1901.717, 1907.291], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1900.458}, "reply_to": "19965__1_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_012", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1907.291], "stop_times": [1907.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1907.291}, "reply_to": "19965__1_011", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_013", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "That's a little hard to swallow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1907.802], "stop_times": [1909.434], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1907.802}, "reply_to": "19965__1_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_014", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "I acknowledge that the standing argument in Texas may not have been properly couched as a standing argument.\nThe fact remains, though, that that is a past ruling in the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1909.434, 1914.077], "stop_times": [1914.077, 1917.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1909.434}, "reply_to": "19965__1_013", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_015", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "May I ask just that you refer to the Texas proceeding?\nWhat evidence was taken on the issue of parentage?\nWas it just his testimony?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1917.77, 1919.85, 1922.812], "stop_times": [1919.85, 1922.812, 1924.634], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1917.77}, "reply_to": "19965__1_014", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_016", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "You mean in the Texas State court proceeding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1924.634], "stop_times": [1926.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1924.634}, "reply_to": "19965__1_015", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_017", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "How was his... how do we know he's the real father?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1926.375], "stop_times": [1929.477], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1926.375}, "reply_to": "19965__1_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_018", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Well, the record in this case does not disclose what was before the Texas court at the time.\nIt's not clear that it consisted of much more than his statement that he is the father, but of course, under the immigration statute, and the naturalization statute we have at issue here, that's all that would have been required as well to establish paternity, given... in light of the 1986 amendments.\nPrior to that time, he would have needed a formal legitimation such as the court decree here, but under the 1986 amendments all that was required was an acknowledgement before the State Department of his paternity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1929.477, 1935.01, 1951.061], "stop_times": [1935.01, 1951.061, 1963.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1929.477}, "reply_to": "19965__1_017", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_019", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Mr. Kneedler--\n--He had much more, though.\nHe is the... he has become a legitimate father, has he not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1963.458, 1964.63, 1965.341], "stop_times": [1964.63, 1965.341, 1970.764], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1963.458}, "reply_to": "19965__1_018", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_020", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "As a matter of State law, yes.\nMy only point is that we have not acknowledged in this case that he has satisfied all the requirements as a matter of Federal law.\nIf the legitimation decree was... had been entered before she was a teen, or before she was 21 under the prior version of this statute, that official determination would have been controlling, but if that decree is simply relied on as evidence of blood relationship, then we do not think it is controlling on the State Department.\nThe State Department was not a party to that case, so insofar as she is applying on the basis of events that happened before age 21, or before age 18, we think she would have to carry that burden of proof before the State Department.\nThe State Department did not reach that question, as you pointed out in this case.\nThe basis for the State Department's rejection for a claim in this case was really the failure to establish the formal parent-child relationship prior to the age 18 or, under the prior statute, age 21, so really the issue before this Court and before the district court was whether Congress can properly impose a limitation of that sort on the time in which the father of a child born out of wedlock can take steps to legitimate the child.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [1970.764, 1971.835, 1979.619, 1996.45, 2008.378, 2012.362], "stop_times": [1971.835, 1979.619, 1996.45, 2008.378, 2012.362, 2038.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1970.764}, "reply_to": "19965__1_019", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_021", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "But then we take--\n--Just before we get to--\n--Yes.\nI'm sorry.\nJust one more moment on the standing and the transfer.\nHow would the father, or where would the father have appealed that dismissal?\nThe case had been transferred to the district court in the District of Columbia.\nThere was the father, left at the post back in Texas.\nWhere would he... where would that... his appeal go?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2038.658, 2039.48, 2040.211, 2040.378, 2040.739, 2044.412, 2050.396, 2054.099, 2057.938], "stop_times": [2039.48, 2040.211, 2040.378, 2040.739, 2044.412, 2050.396, 2054.099, 2057.938, 2062.152], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2038.658}, "reply_to": "19965__1_020", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_022", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "I think he probably could have done either of two things.\nOne would be to ask for a Rule 54(b) certification in Texas and taken immediate appeal then, perhaps, or, with the case transferred, once the final judgment was entered here, I assume that the father could have... that Mr. Miller could have appealed from the final judgment at that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2062.152, 2064.083], "stop_times": [2064.083, 2081.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2062.152}, "reply_to": "19965__1_021", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_023", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "In the District of Columbia?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2081.107], "stop_times": [2082.987], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2081.107}, "reply_to": "19965__1_022", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_024", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Yes, I think so.\nI'm--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2082.987, 2084.007], "stop_times": [2084.007, 2084.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2082.987}, "reply_to": "19965__1_023", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_025", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Because my understanding was that once the case gets transferred, the transferor court loses authority over it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2084.319], "stop_times": [2089.672], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2084.319}, "reply_to": "19965__1_024", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_026", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--Right.\nYes.\nNo, I meant if a 54(b) certification or an interlocutory appeal request had been filed before the case was actually transferred, but... and he presumably could have requested the district court in Texas to say, before you actually transfer the case... I know that's what the Government has asked for, but before you actually do that, afford me the opportunity to take an interlocutory appeal, or appeal of the final judgment insofar as the case would... the decision would finally dispose of my claim.\nBut he didn't do that.\nThe case was transferred to the District of Columbia, and I don't think he would have been foreclosed from--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2089.672, 2090.271, 2090.71, 2115.628, 2116.868], "stop_times": [2090.271, 2090.71, 2115.628, 2116.868, 2122.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2089.672}, "reply_to": "19965__1_025", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_027", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "You ordinarily would get 60 days if the Government's on the other side.\nHow much time did he have between when the case was ordered transferred and when it left Texas and went to the District of Columbia?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2122.952, 2125.546], "stop_times": [2125.546, 2132.9], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2122.952}, "reply_to": "19965__1_026", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_028", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--I'm not sure of that timing.\nI think that once there is the order of transfer, I think it would be entry of the order of transfer that would transfer it to the District of Columbia, but again, I don't believe that would have terminated his right to take an appeal, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2132.9, 2133.681], "stop_times": [2133.681, 2145.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2132.9}, "reply_to": "19965__1_027", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_029", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "But it would have shortened what is the usual time one has.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2145.778], "stop_times": [2149.95], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2145.778}, "reply_to": "19965__1_028", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_030", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--In Texas.\nMy point is that I think he was a party to this case when it was filed.\nThere was no final judgment.\nOnce the case got to the District of Columbia, I don't know a reason why he couldn't have appealed from the final judgment here.\nThe case was transferred along, I assume with all interlocutory orders that led up to that, and one of those orders was the dismissal of him as a party, so I think once the final judgment was entered here... this has not been an issue in the case, but that has been my sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2149.95, 2151.212, 2155.354, 2156.435, 2161.798], "stop_times": [2151.212, 2155.354, 2156.435, 2161.798, 2177.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2149.95}, "reply_to": "19965__1_029", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_031", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "I don't want to delay you any longer in getting to the merits, subject to one question.\nRogers v. Belli, is that the precedent that we look to to see that this petitioner has standing to invoke the assistance of the Federal courts when she's... and of the Constitution when she is outside the jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2177.199, 2181.171], "stop_times": [2181.171, 2193.55], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2177.199}, "reply_to": "19965__1_030", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_032", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "No, I think it's not.\nIn Rogers, there was a situation where there was a conferral of citizenship subject to a subsequent loss of divestiture, on failure to satisfy conditions subsequent, so at that point we think that the person had her foot in the door, or his foot in the door towards citizenship, in fact was granted citizenship, and it was about to be taken away.\nAnd this situation is very different.\nThe question is whether the petitioner is entitled to citizenship in the first instance and, as this Court pointed out many years ago in the Wong Kim Ark decision, the conferral of citizenship on anyone who is not born within the United States is an act of naturalization.\nWhether that's done at the time of birth or whether it's done by procedures in the United States later, or whether it's done by categories in conquered territory or whatever, that is all an exercise of Congress' naturalization power.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2193.55, 2194.479, 2215.444, 2217.585, 2233.385], "stop_times": [2194.479, 2215.444, 2217.585, 2233.385, 2245.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2193.55}, "reply_to": "19965__1_031", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_033", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "And she says she's a citizen by virtue of 1401, and you say well, that can't be until you knock out 1409, and you can't do that because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2245.644], "stop_times": [2252.777], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2245.644}, "reply_to": "19965__1_032", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_034", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "No, we don't believe she could... that 1401 would grant citizenship at all, because 1409--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2252.777], "stop_times": [2257.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2252.777}, "reply_to": "19965__1_033", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_035", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--Well, I mean, that's her position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2257.952], "stop_times": [2259.04], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2257.952}, "reply_to": "19965__1_034", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_036", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--That's her position, but we think that's an incorrect interpretation of the statute.\n1409 is the only subject... section of the act that deals with the subject of children born out of wedlock, and Congress... it was a very difficult subject for Congress to address in the Nationality Act of 1940 and ever since then, and there was considerable debate leading up to the passage of the 1940 act about how to deal with a situation of one citizen parent, one foreign parent, and in particular, how to deal with the problem posed where you had a child born out of wedlock where you have a U.S. citizen parent and an alien parent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2259.04, 2263.645], "stop_times": [2263.645, 2294.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2259.04}, "reply_to": "19965__1_035", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_037", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Mr. Kneedler, do you... when this case began, at least, the petitioner here was outside the jurisdiction of the United States.\nDo you take the position that she was a person within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment for bringing the equal protection kind of claim that she brings at that time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2294.484, 2305.022], "stop_times": [2305.022, 2316.33], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2294.484}, "reply_to": "19965__1_036", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_038", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "No.\nOur bottom line is that the Due Process Clause does not apply to her.\nWhether that comes from interpreting the word person or whether it is just a broader consideration of the territorial scope of the Fifth Amendment, I'm not sure much turns on that, but in this Court's decision in Johnson v. Eisentrager, which was reiterated in the Verdugo decision, the Court said that aliens outside the United States have no rights under the Fifth Amendment.\nWhether she has since come to the United States is irrelevant for these purposes, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2316.33, 2317.191, 2322.644, 2342.596], "stop_times": [2317.191, 2322.644, 2342.596, 2346.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2316.33}, "reply_to": "19965__1_037", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_039", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Didn't Johnson v. Eisentrager make a distinction between one who was an alien and, I think the words of the decision were, if a person makes a claim to U.S. citizenship, and distinguish the person who said, I'm an alien and would like the opportunity to become a U.S. citizen, and someone who was making a claim to U.S. citizenship.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2346.019], "stop_times": [2368.092], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2346.019}, "reply_to": "19965__1_038", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_040", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--I believe that was with respect to access to courts, where another aspect of Johnson v. Eisentrager was whether habeas corpus jurisdiction would lie.\nWe're not suggesting that she has no right of access to the U.S. courts to make her claim.\nAll we're saying is that her claim fails on the merits because both, we think as an attribute of the sovereignty of the United States, someone outside the United States who is not a citizen has no constitutional right to claim it, but also because the Fifth Amendment, which is the clause of the Constitution on which she specifically relies, that that does not apply outside the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2368.092, 2374.868, 2379.051], "stop_times": [2374.868, 2379.051, 2399.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2368.092}, "reply_to": "19965__1_039", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_041", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Mr. Kneedler, can I--\n--Is there anything... I take it there's nothing peculiar about the equal protection nature of the claim that she's bringing that you invoke to support your position that she's not a person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2399.444, 2400.884], "stop_times": [2400.884, 2409.71], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2399.444}, "reply_to": "19965__1_040", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_042", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2409.71], "stop_times": [2411.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2409.71}, "reply_to": "19965__1_041", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_043", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "The reason I ask the question, I mean, under the Fourteenth Amendment it refers to the... to persons within the jurisdiction, so I suppose you would be making the argument, if this were somehow a claim against a State, that she would not, as an alien living abroad, be such a person for that peculiar reason, and that's not your argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2411.142], "stop_times": [2427.902], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2411.142}, "reply_to": "19965__1_042", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_044", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Or in another State under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2427.902], "stop_times": [2430.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2427.902}, "reply_to": "19965__1_043", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_045", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2430.323], "stop_times": [2430.723], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2430.323}, "reply_to": "19965__1_044", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_046", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--Under the Fourteenth Amendment.\nBut we believe that aspect... and, again, it's an inherent aspect of the sovereignty of the United States.\nThe Constitution is a compact among the people of the United States, and Congress is the political branch responsible for determining who can be admitted and assume the rights and responsibilities of being a member of that society, so we think that this is a proposition that inheres in the nature of sovereignty, and is not trumped by the Fifth Amendment, particularly with respect to an alien abroad.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2430.723, 2431.855, 2437.099], "stop_times": [2431.855, 2437.099, 2458.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2430.723}, "reply_to": "19965__1_045", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_047", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Can I ask you a question on the merits?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2458.283], "stop_times": [2460.123], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2458.283}, "reply_to": "19965__1_046", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_048", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2460.123], "stop_times": [2461.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2460.123}, "reply_to": "19965__1_047", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_049", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "I've two questions, actually, on the merits, and what I'm thinking of is not the problem of proving paternity.\nI'm assuming that out with genetic testing.\nPerhaps it's the same.\nAssume that's so.\nYou have a separate argument that I think Justice Souter addressed earlier, and it's on pages 25, 26, 27, 28 of your brief, and basically you're arguing, I think, that there is more likely to... you want a substantial tie with the parent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2461.375, 2467.589, 2470.46, 2471.119, 2472.511], "stop_times": [2467.589, 2470.46, 2471.119, 2472.511, 2487.812], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2461.375}, "reply_to": "19965__1_048", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_050", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2487.812], "stop_times": [2488.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2487.812}, "reply_to": "19965__1_049", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_051", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "A substantial tie, or something like that, a personal tie, and that's more likely to be there in the mind run of cases with the mother than it is with the father, and that's why we need the extra proof.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2488.904], "stop_times": [2498.598], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2488.904}, "reply_to": "19965__1_050", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_052", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2498.598], "stop_times": [2499.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2498.598}, "reply_to": "19965__1_051", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_053", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "That's the argument I'm thinking of.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2499.359], "stop_times": [2501.109], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2499.359}, "reply_to": "19965__1_052", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_054", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2501.109], "stop_times": [2501.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2501.109}, "reply_to": "19965__1_053", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_055", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Basically.\nAnd I thought at first that's a pretty good argument, and then I realized that the reason I'm thinking that is in my mind I'm dividing parents into caretaker parents and noncaretaker parents, and that argument makes a lot of sense if you compare the noncaretaker citizen father with the caretaker citizen mother.\nOf course it's true then.\nIt's true by definition.\n5 minutes before the patient died he was still alive.\nBut suppose you switch to what I'd think would be the relevant comparisons.\nThose are my two questions.\nFirst let's think of the noncaretaker parents who are both citizens.\nThey're in the United States, the baby's over in the Philippines, and my first question is, why is there any reason in the world to believe that a noncaretaker father has less of a personal tie than a noncaretaker mother who's abandoned the child?\nAnd now my second question looks at it just the other way.\nLet's imagine now that both citizens are caretakers, and what reason in the world is there to think that a caretaker mother has more of a connection with the child than a caretaker father, who after all is trying to bring up the child by himself?\nNow, those seem to me to be the two relevant comparisons, and as soon as I think of those comparisons, it seems to me this distinction is irrational, or close to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2501.47, 2501.87, 2526.668, 2529.118, 2530.32, 2534.492, 2538.836, 2541.127, 2547.23, 2565.842, 2569.405, 2588.357], "stop_times": [2501.87, 2526.668, 2529.118, 2530.32, 2534.492, 2538.836, 2541.127, 2547.23, 2565.842, 2569.405, 2588.357, 2599.204], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2501.47}, "reply_to": "19965__1_054", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_056", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "With all respect, we think it is quite soundly rational, and if I may just preface my response--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2599.204], "stop_times": [2605.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2599.204}, "reply_to": "19965__1_055", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_057", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Well, I'm trying to get you to respond.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2605.339, 2606.34], "stop_times": [2606.34, 2606.958], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2605.339}, "reply_to": "19965__1_056", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_058", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--With a... preface it with an important point that I think sometimes gets overlooked in this.\nThe point is not simply what tends to be true factually.\nWhat... the steps that a father can take, are formal, recorded steps that are parallel to what happens when a child is born in the hospital.\nWhere there's a birth certificate, you have a witnessed birth, there will normally be no question whatsoever as to who the mother is, and by virtue of that you have an established legal relationship from the moment of birth.\nNot... we're not getting to the question of caretaker or anything.\nYou have an established legal relationship from the moment of birth that follows the profound experience of carrying and bearing the child.\nAt that point, it is reasonable to assume that a parent, mother or father, but in this case it is only the mother, because the child was born out of wedlock, who has the legal relationship, will follow through with the caretaking relationship, with the love and responsibilities that come in the case of only one parent, and that is the situation that is addressed by 309(c).\nThere may be other--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2606.958, 2613.353, 2617.447, 2627.183, 2640.32, 2644.024, 2651.139, 2672.161], "stop_times": [2613.353, 2617.447, 2627.183, 2640.32, 2644.024, 2651.139, 2672.161, 2673.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2606.958}, "reply_to": "19965__1_057", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_059", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Mr. Kneedler, I understand that very well with respect to your first criterion, where you say you can't claim father status unless you show by clear and convincing evidence that you are the father.\nBut for the rest, for the life of me... if you're going to say, yes, only the woman can bear the child, there's no doubt that men will never be able to have that great joy, but--\n[Laughter]\n--just as only women can bear children, so both parents can care for children, and increasingly fathers are beginning to recognize the joy and the obligation of parenthood.\nSo your division for purpose of, am I a parent, I understand that, but after the birth, and after the paternity is established, the rest of it, just as in Justice Breyer's case, I have great difficulty following.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2673.272, 2682.879, 2696.417, 2697.228, 2714.509], "stop_times": [2682.879, 2696.417, 2697.228, 2714.509, 2731.572], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2673.272}, "reply_to": "19965__1_058", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_060", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--The question, Justice Ginsburg, is not am I a parent, but am I a parent in contemplation of law, and citizenship is a formal relationship between the United States and a person.\nIt is a permanent relationship, and Congress is entitled to insist on an element of formality and legal acknowledgement in doing that.\nThe question is not whether Mr. Miller had an established personal relationship with petitioner during her minority, although there's no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2731.572, 2742.088, 2749.575], "stop_times": [2742.088, 2749.575, 2759.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2731.572}, "reply_to": "19965__1_059", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_061", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Accepting that standard as a legal standard, clear and convincing evidence is lawyer talk.\nClear and convincing evidence that he's the father, that's a legal standard, and that relates to birth, who is the parent of this newborn child.\nAfter that this talks about written obligation, written undertaking to support, all that, and why is that only one way, and I would like to ask in that connection whether the Government is now retreating from something it told the Court just 2 years ago over and over again, I think to the annoyance of some people because it was repeated so often at the oral argument and in the brief.\nThe Government said in the University of Virginia, United States v. Virginia said, differences in treatment based on sex are suspect.\nEven when stereotypes reflect current realities, courts have condemned them because the law must not restrict men and women by reflecting and reinforcing patterns of historic discrimination.\nThe Government said that over and over.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2759.011, 2762.852, 2774.389, 2801.567, 2811.923, 2825.423], "stop_times": [2762.852, 2774.389, 2801.567, 2811.923, 2825.423, 2827.234], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2759.011}, "reply_to": "19965__1_060", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_062", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--We have certainly not retreated from that.\nYou've asked me several questions, if I could just take a moment and respond to them.\nFirst of all, in the... as this Court's decision in Fiallo made clear, Congress' power over immigration and naturalization is quite different from something that would happen in the domestic context, and there are a variety of reasons why that's so.\nOne of the parties to the transaction is an alien abroad, not even protected by the Constitution at all.\nThere are questions of sovereign authority, of foreign relations, of Congress taking into account conditions abroad.\nThat's both fact-finding and meshing U.S. law with foreign law.\nSo the circumstances we think are very different.\nThere's another big difference in the way that just what's at stake in this case and in the VMI case.\nThere, the Court was dealing with a categorical exclusion of women from the institution, and the Court was concerned with closing the door and denying opportunities to men and women, as the Court put it.\nHere, there is no denial... no categorical exclusion, no denial of opportunities.\nAll Mr. Miller had to do, if he had the sort of relationship that you were describing, is to take the simple step of making that relationship formal and legal during the child's minority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2827.234, 2829.644, 2833.227, 2845.034, 2850.859, 2856.833, 2859.615, 2862.717, 2868.481, 2878.217, 2883.079], "stop_times": [2829.644, 2833.227, 2845.034, 2850.859, 2856.833, 2859.615, 2862.717, 2868.481, 2878.217, 2883.079, 2893.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2827.234}, "reply_to": "19965__1_061", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_063", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "May I ask you if you would answer the question that was asked before in the context of not national origin, but race.\nSuppose the United States took the position, we know as a matter of statistics that there are many more white fathers that take responsibility for their children than nonwhite fathers.\nTherefore, we're going to have this written acknowledgement of an obligation to support.\nThat will be required of citizen fathers who are nonwhite, but not citizen fathers who are white, and we're basing that on solid, empirical evidence of who provides support for children.\nWould that be constitutional because it's in the immigration and nationality area?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2893.578, 2900.463, 2914.572, 2918.993, 2932.885], "stop_times": [2900.463, 2914.572, 2918.993, 2932.885, 2938.377], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2893.578}, "reply_to": "19965__1_062", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_064", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Needless to say, this case doesn't go that far, but the question under Fiallo, the standard, is whether the justification advanced is one that is facially legitimate and bona fide, and in this country's history of race relations it would be difficult to imagine what a proper justification would be under parallel, I suppose, to those sorts of things that might be proffered for compelling justification, but here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2938.377], "stop_times": [2960.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2938.377}, "reply_to": "19965__1_063", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_065", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "But you... compelling justification doesn't fit with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2960.751], "stop_times": [2964.043], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2960.751}, "reply_to": "19965__1_064", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_066", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--No, I'm saying in terms of what sort of justifications one could imagine, and I... this country--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2964.043], "stop_times": [2969.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2964.043}, "reply_to": "19965__1_065", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_067", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--The justification is the practical one that I gave you, the statistics will show that disproportionately nonwhite fathers don't accept the support obligation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2969.797], "stop_times": [2982.186], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2969.797}, "reply_to": "19965__1_066", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_068", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--Well, in... again, given this country's history of race relations, and if there was a U.S. citizen claiming an effect on his ability to transmit because of that, it may be that under the phrase, facially legitimate, this Court would conclude that that is not a legitimate justification.\nBut there's a very different... if I may just go... explain what's different about this case, this... I think it is clear that at the moment of birth there is a categorical difference between the mother and the father of the U.S. citizen and the mother because, as I described earlier, in the child born out of wedlock, the mother has a legal relationship with the child from the moment of birth.\nThe father does not, unless the father or someone else takes a step in law to establish that relationship.\nIt isn't just the question of clear and convincing evidence of proof 20 or 30 years later as to whether in fact the man was the father.\nThe question is, was that legal relationship established during the child's minority, because the legal relationship is not just important in its own right.\nIt is emblematic and often fostering of a deeper personal relationship.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [2982.186, 2999.747, 3020.3, 3026.635, 3033.52, 3040.813], "stop_times": [2999.747, 3020.3, 3026.635, 3033.52, 3040.813, 3044.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2982.186}, "reply_to": "19965__1_067", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_069", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Let's go to the emblematic issue, because that's part of your argument with the converse argument with respect to the more lenient treatment of the child of the citizen mother.\nOne step in that argument, as I understand it, is that because the mother is the citizen, the child will be with the mother, the mother has an attachment to the United States, therefore ultimately that will foster an attachment of the child to the United States.\nMy question is, should we take that argument seriously when in fact the statute requires of the citizen's mother that she have an attachment only to the extent of once at any time having lived for 1 year prior to birth in the United States?\nThat doesn't seem to me to be a criterion that calls for very much sense of attachment and if, in fact, that's the low value that the United States is willing to put on this attachment concept, isn't the argument a very weak argument, if not perhaps a sham?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [3044.176, 3055.636, 3070.156, 3088.247], "stop_times": [3055.636, 3070.156, 3088.247, 3104.306], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3044.176}, "reply_to": "19965__1_068", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_070", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "No.\nWith all respect, I think that very situation shows why Congress has particularly broad deference in this area, because what... Congress has to judge not only the situation in the United States and the U.S. citizen who may have a stake in it, but what is the situation abroad in the foreign country where, after all, the child was born?\nAnd as we explain in our brief, Congress was very concerned, and the legislative history makes this quite clear, that a child born to a U.S. citizen on foreign soil, and this remains true in the Philippines, that child does not have citizenship of the country where she is born, so there's a very real problem of statelessness.\nSo what Congress is weighing there is perhaps a weaker tie to the United States, but perhaps no legal status at all in the country of birth, and so what Congress did there is to say, in that situation, because we are concerned for the child and for the mother of the child, who is a U.S. citizen, we are prepared to accept a somewhat weaker link to the United States in that situation because of the counterbalance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [3104.306, 3104.516, 3122.778, 3140.551], "stop_times": [3104.516, 3122.778, 3140.551, 3161.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3104.306}, "reply_to": "19965__1_069", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_071", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Is that on record somewhere?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [3161.063], "stop_times": [3161.574], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3161.063}, "reply_to": "19965__1_070", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_072", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [3161.574], "stop_times": [3161.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3161.574}, "reply_to": "19965__1_071", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_073", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "I mean, can I find that reasoning somewhere in the legislative history?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [3161.874], "stop_times": [3165.465], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3161.874}, "reply_to": "19965__1_072", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_074", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Yes.\nIt's... we quote it in the... in the 1952 report in our brief, and there is discussion--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [3165.465, 3165.806], "stop_times": [3165.806, 3171.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3165.465}, "reply_to": "19965__1_073", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_075", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Do you have the cite?\nI didn't remember it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [3171.52, 3172.371], "stop_times": [3172.371, 3173.463], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3171.52}, "reply_to": "19965__1_074", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_076", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [3173.463], "stop_times": [3176.795], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3173.463}, "reply_to": "19965__1_075", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_077", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "No, if you don't have it right at hand, I don't want to take your time looking for it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [3176.795], "stop_times": [3179.997], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3176.795}, "reply_to": "19965__1_076", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_078", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "On page 34 of our brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [3179.997], "stop_times": [3181.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3179.997}, "reply_to": "19965__1_077", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_079", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Okay.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [3181.307, 3182.138], "stop_times": [3182.138, 3182.489], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3181.307}, "reply_to": "19965__1_078", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_080", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "We cite the Senate report.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [3182.489], "stop_times": [3183.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3182.489}, "reply_to": "19965__1_079", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_081", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "By the same token, if this child had in fact lived with her father, suppose he went... took him... took a ship, took her back to the United States, she's a teenager, she proves to be trouble, so he says, out with you, back, I don't want anything to do with you.\nShe would have had all her growing up years in the United States and yet, under this statute, she could not qualify as the child of a U.S. born citizen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [3183.117, 3198.599], "stop_times": [3198.599, 3208.905], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3183.117}, "reply_to": "19965__1_080", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_082", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "All the father had to do during her minority was to take the step of either legitimating the child--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [3208.905], "stop_times": [3216.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3208.905}, "reply_to": "19965__1_081", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_083", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "I'm just asking the question about the tie to the United States, so that becomes irrelevant.\nEven though this child grew up in the United States, that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [3216.079, 3220.073], "stop_times": [3220.073, 3224.227], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3216.079}, "reply_to": "19965__1_082", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_084", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--It's conceivable there could be an as-applied challenge to this statute, but in the immigration area in particular Congress is entitled to legislate by categories, and Congress is entitled--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [3224.227], "stop_times": [3233.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3224.227}, "reply_to": "19965__1_083", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_085", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--In social and economic legislation, too.\nSee, that's really the problem that I have with it.\nIt used to be for years and years social and economic legislation is anything goes, what Congress wants to do, and yet all the precedent in the gender cases were made in that area which traditionally has been a largely judicial hands-off, so I'm frankly puzzled about why the Government, after saying all gender classifications are subject to heightened scrutiny, now says we found an exception, so I'd like to know, are there other exceptions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [3233.483, 3235.104, 3237.537], "stop_times": [3235.104, 3237.537, 3267.855], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3233.483}, "reply_to": "19965__1_084", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19965__1_086", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "--No.\nThe exception and whether there might be another one I can't address.\nWhat we have here is a very different context.\nAt the time the Court decided Fiallo this Court has already decided Craig v. Boren and concluded that gender distinctions in the domestic context have to be justified as having a substantial relation to an important governmental interest, and also applied heightened scrutiny with respect to illegitimacy.\nBut right contemporaneously with that... and this case is really about children born out of wedlock, and as in this Court's decision in Lehrer v. Robertson, where the Court said the statutory scheme is not likely to omit many responsible parents, we think that is exactly true here.\nAnyone who wanted to establish the requisite relationship during the child's minority, and that's the period that Congress was focusing on, all that person had to do prior to 1986 was to provide for legitimation of the child.\nCongress in 1986 liberalized that, not requiring a formal court to create it, not requiring the father to go to another country.\nAll he had to do was file a statement with the State Department acknowledging the paternity of the child and assuming an obligation equivalent to that of the mother that flows from that, even in the absence of a legal relationship, the acknowledgment, the promise to support that would flow from the mother's preexisting legal relationship with the child.\nAnd if I may, with respect to the suggestion of the irresponsible parent, or the parent who may abandon, I don't think Congress is required to establish a statutory scheme on the possibility that someone in the other category may not live up to the legal responsibilities that the law prescribes, but in any event, this statute applies equally as to both categories.\nThe mother who bears the child and either abandons or gives the child up a week later, that child is a citizen.\nThe same is true for a father who acknowledges or legitimates a child.\nIf that father does not subsequently remain responsible, that child remains a citizen.\nThe question is simply the timing of when the father steps forward to assume his responsibilities for the child abroad.\nAnd one other point to bear in mind, in many cases... and this is not a generalization about the nature of men and women.\nIt's a statistical legal fact that in the cases of a child born out of wedlock, when you have a U.S. citizen mother, that will very often be the only parent.\nWhere you have a U.S. citizen father who takes the steps to legitimate and the other steps, that means there are two parents with a legal relationship, one parent here and one parent in the other country.\nSo this is a situation which, in fashioning these categorical schemes, Congress necessarily has to balance the different considerations that arise, and so it's not just the question of the U.S. citizen parent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [3267.855, 3268.586, 3273.799, 3275.412, 3290.1, 3304.059, 3315.546, 3321.89, 3340.173, 3360.766, 3367.191, 3370.714, 3375.205, 3381.02, 3387.894, 3396.35, 3406.805], "stop_times": [3268.586, 3273.799, 3275.412, 3290.1, 3304.059, 3315.546, 3321.89, 3340.173, 3360.766, 3367.191, 3370.714, 3375.205, 3381.02, 3387.894, 3396.35, 3406.805, 3417.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3267.855}, "reply_to": "19965__1_085", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "19965__1_087", "conversation_id": "19965", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Kneedler.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1060", "start_times": [3417.394, 3418.243], "stop_times": [3418.243, 3419.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3417.394}, "reply_to": "19965__1_086", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20093__0_000", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 97-6146, Angel Monge v. California.\nSpectators are admonished do not talk until you get out of the Courtroom.\nThe Court remains in session.\nMr. Gardner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [0.0, 9.447, 54.337, 55.428], "stop_times": [9.447, 54.337, 55.428, 68.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20093__0_001", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIf the judge in this case, or the jury, had found sufficient evidence to sustain the charged allegation, and the State court of appeal had affirmed that finding, that judgment as to my client would have been final.\nI could not go into State court, empanel a new fact-finder, and try it again.\nThis case arises, or presents the flip side of the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [68.027, 71.669, 84.639, 88.993], "stop_times": [71.669, 84.639, 88.993, 93.547], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 68.027}, "reply_to": "20093__0_000", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_002", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Could you in other States, or is that a peculiarity under California law, or is this just a rule of finality that prevails, you think, in most jurisdictions?\nYou just... no way to reopen it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [93.547, 102.76], "stop_times": [102.76, 104.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 93.547}, "reply_to": "20093__0_001", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20093__0_003", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "My guess is that it's a rule of finality.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [104.643], "stop_times": [106.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 104.643}, "reply_to": "20093__0_002", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_004", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Newly discovered evidence, can't you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [106.386], "stop_times": [107.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 106.386}, "reply_to": "20093__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20093__0_005", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Well, there could be a collateral attack, certainly, but I could not go in in the absence of some kind of new evidence.\nThe case would be final on direct appeal as to my client.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [107.547, 113.671], "stop_times": [113.671, 117.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 107.547}, "reply_to": "20093__0_004", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_006", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--But any number of collateral attacks might be possible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [117.494], "stop_times": [121.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 117.494}, "reply_to": "20093__0_005", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20093__0_007", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Certainly.\nThere's a presence of collateral attacks, new evidence if there was suppressed evidence, but this case presents the flip side of the factual scenario I started with, where there's been a finding of insufficient evidence, and the question is, finding by the appellate court, does that finding have any finality?\nThe question in this case is, does double jeopardy prevent the State from going in and relitigating the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [121.177, 121.407, 137.338], "stop_times": [121.407, 137.338, 141.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 121.177}, "reply_to": "20093__0_006", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_008", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Well, does California have... in your first hypothetical, assuming you lose and you find there was something wrong, there was not really a prior conviction, there's no motion to modify the sentence?\nAfter the court has affirmed the conviction, the man has served for a year, and all of a sudden we find out that the three strikes isn't right, he can't go into the superior court in the State of California and ask for... to modify the sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [141.432, 150.989], "stop_times": [150.989, 159.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 141.432}, "reply_to": "20093__0_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20093__0_009", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "He could seek a writ of habeas corpus, or if the trial court still had jurisdiction, perhaps.\nThere are collateral attacks that could be made on that sentence, absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [159.427, 163.618], "stop_times": [163.618, 167.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 159.427}, "reply_to": "20093__0_008", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_010", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "And of course the State can't collaterally attack the sentence.\nThe State is bound by what happens on direct review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [167.141, 170.223], "stop_times": [170.223, 172.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 167.141}, "reply_to": "20093__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20093__0_011", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "There is... under the Double Jeopardy Clause the State has no right to collaterally attack or direct attack the judgment of acquittal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [172.887], "stop_times": [177.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 172.887}, "reply_to": "20093__0_010", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_012", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Well, but the State, there's simply no proceeding available.\nIf, say, the jury acquits your client there's no proceeding available whereby the State could appeal and say, probably because of double jeopardy, that this was a wrong result.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [177.578, 180.981], "stop_times": [180.981, 192.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 177.578}, "reply_to": "20093__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20093__0_013", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "I think that's right, because of the Double Jeopardy Clause there is no right to appeal a jury's finding, or a jury verdict of acquittal.\nWhat the question really gets at in this situation is the tension I think that the Court addressed in Burks v. United States, the possible distinction between a judgment of acquittal by an appellate court and a judgment of acquittal by a jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [192.381, 198.498], "stop_times": [198.498, 210.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 192.381}, "reply_to": "20093__0_012", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_014", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Well, of course, it's not just a judgment... you're saying that a judgment of acquittal is the same thing as a sentencing determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [210.443], "stop_times": [218.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 210.443}, "reply_to": "20093__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20093__0_015", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Well, for purposes of the distinction between an appellate court's finding and a jury verdict, the distinction that the Court was referring to in Burks, the question is, should those two be treated differently?\nThere may be other reasons why a sentence enhancement trial is not subject to double jeopardy and we're certainly going to talk about those, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [218.73, 230.057], "stop_times": [230.057, 235.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 218.73}, "reply_to": "20093__0_014", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_016", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "I hope you will, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [235.721], "stop_times": [236.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 235.721}, "reply_to": "20093__0_015", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20093__0_017", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--I suspect, but for purposes of the distinction between a trial acquittal and an appellate acquittal, Burk suggests that there's no rational reason why there should be a difference.\nIn both situations the treatment should be the same, otherwise the petitioner or the appellant is arbitrarily deprived of some right simply because the trial level fact-finder made the wrong call.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [236.753, 245.609], "stop_times": [245.609, 258.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 236.753}, "reply_to": "20093__0_016", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_018", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Well now, historically I guess we have not thought that sentencing aspects are covered by the Double Jeopardy Clause for most crimes, have we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [258.353], "stop_times": [271.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 258.353}, "reply_to": "20093__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20093__0_019", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [271.244], "stop_times": [272.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 271.244}, "reply_to": "20093__0_018", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_020", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "And if there were a judge imposing a sentence in a case and imposes it and then the defendant who is sentenced appeals on the ground that the judge imposed a sentence not authorized by law and prevails, then I suppose it would be remanded for resentencing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [272.195], "stop_times": [292.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 272.195}, "reply_to": "20093__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20093__0_021", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Yes, it... I agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [292.309], "stop_times": [293.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 292.309}, "reply_to": "20093__0_020", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_022", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "You wouldn't be arguing double jeopardy here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [293.768], "stop_times": [295.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 293.768}, "reply_to": "20093__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20093__0_023", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "I certainly wouldn't, or certainly not here.\nThat would not be... under the Court's precedents double jeopardy plainly does not apply to decisions made at traditional sentencing hearings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [295.341, 296.89], "stop_times": [296.89, 305.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 295.341}, "reply_to": "20093__0_022", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_024", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [305.755], "stop_times": [306.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 305.755}, "reply_to": "20093__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20093__0_025", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "That's not what this case is all about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [306.076], "stop_times": [308.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 306.076}, "reply_to": "20093__0_024", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_026", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "But you say that this is different because of the special procedures that California employs in the context of this sentencing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [308.149], "stop_times": [316.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 308.149}, "reply_to": "20093__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20093__0_027", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Yes.\nIn all respects the sentencing in this case is identical to a trial on guilt or innocence... proof beyond a reasonable doubt, notice, the right to confrontation, the right to a jury verdict--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [316.344, 316.725], "stop_times": [316.725, 327.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 316.344}, "reply_to": "20093__0_026", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_028", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "California was foolish to provide those protections.\nYou're saying California should have simply left it up to the judge to find those aggravating factors by a preponderance of the evidence, and in that case if the judge was reversed you'd be able to send it back and have it found again, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [327.364, 331.177], "stop_times": [331.177, 348.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 327.364}, "reply_to": "20093__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20093__0_029", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--Well, I don't agree with the predicate that California was foolish for doing it.\nI think there were sound policy reasons that the legislature had for giving these rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [348.888, 352.24], "stop_times": [352.24, 357.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 348.888}, "reply_to": "20093__0_028", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_030", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "But your argument is so counterintuitive, that the more protection the State gives to the defendant the worse shape the State is in as far as being able to resentence if it's overturned on appeal.\nWhy do you want to punish the State for being more concerned about the prisoner's rights, and instead of letting the judge find it by a preponderance, saying, we're going to insist that it be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [357.325, 371.173], "stop_times": [371.173, 382.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 357.325}, "reply_to": "20093__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20093__0_031", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "I don't view it as punishing the State.\nThis is the argument that's been made by some of the amicus, the so-called no good deed goes unpunished, which is certainly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [382.2, 385.342], "stop_times": [385.342, 390.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 382.2}, "reply_to": "20093__0_030", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_032", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "I didn't think of that.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [390.758, 391.907], "stop_times": [391.907, 394.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 390.758}, "reply_to": "20093__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20093__0_033", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--Then I'm sorry I suggested it.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [394.38, 395.971], "stop_times": [395.971, 396.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 394.38}, "reply_to": "20093__0_032", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_034", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "But are you accepting... you are accepting that California, unlike the death situation where there has to be a procedure to present the mitigators and the aggravators and... that for this kind of sentencing it isn't required to have a trial-type hearing at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [396.282], "stop_times": [414.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 396.282}, "reply_to": "20093__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20093__0_035", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [414.013], "stop_times": [414.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 414.013}, "reply_to": "20093__0_034", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_036", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "You're conceding that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [414.644], "stop_times": [415.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 414.644}, "reply_to": "20093__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20093__0_037", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Well, certainly perhaps 3 weeks ago I could have made a different argument.\nIn light of Almendarez-Torres I don't think I'm in a position to make that argument, and so I'm not going to make that argument.\nWhat I am saying is that when a State elects to treat this just as a trial on guilt or innocence, then there are some consequences, because when the State is enacting this legislation there really are two models, generally, in criminal law.\nWe have the traditional guilt-or-innocence model, which has all the rights, all the constitutional rights that typically attach to such proceedings, and we have traditional sentencing, and the legislature in this case did not choose the traditional sentencing model, which we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [415.936, 419.238, 424.572, 436.76], "stop_times": [419.238, 424.572, 436.76, 450.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 415.936}, "reply_to": "20093__0_036", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_038", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "But why is the State locked into two models?\nWhy can't a State say, look, we want to give him some kind of hearing, but we don't want it to be... we don't want to get into the Bullington mode, so are you really saying that as a matter of constitutional law the State is frozen into that stark choice?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [450.449, 453.099], "stop_times": [453.099, 470.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 450.449}, "reply_to": "20093__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20093__0_039", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--No, and I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [470.872], "stop_times": [471.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 470.872}, "reply_to": "20093__0_038", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_040", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Either give him no hearing, or give him the full-dress hearing with the double jeopardy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [471.893], "stop_times": [475.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 471.893}, "reply_to": "20093__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20093__0_041", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--I didn't mean to suggest that.\nIf I did, then I misspoke.\nWhat I'm suggesting is that as a practical matter, when you look at the statutes that the States have enacted, when you look at 50 statutes as to sentence enhancements, what you see is State legislatures choosing from two models.\nNow, I agree they don't have to, but as a practical matter, that's what we see.\nWe see either a selection of a trial model with all the rights, or we see selection of a traditional sentencing model.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [475.875, 476.744, 477.906, 488.942, 492.967], "stop_times": [476.744, 477.906, 488.942, 492.967, 499.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 475.875}, "reply_to": "20093__0_040", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_042", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "But this isn't exactly one or the other, is it, because although you said in a conclusory way a moment ago that this, in fact, is the choice of the trial model, there are at least two respects in which it's different from the usual trial model and different from what was involved in Bullington.\nNumber 1, although in one respect there is a so-called binary choice here, the binary choice nonetheless operates in the sentencing proceeding in which there is the traditional judicial discretion to set the base sentence upon which the binary... the multiplier will be applied and number 2, as I understand it in this case the State has an appeal which the State does not normally have in the traditional model, so we're somewhere in between, it seems to me, here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [499.13, 513.59], "stop_times": [513.59, 543.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 499.13}, "reply_to": "20093__0_041", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20093__0_043", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "I don think so, and let me, if I can, take them one at a time.\nAs to the first point, the point that although the jury is making... the fact-finder is making a binary determination ultimately there's discretion at sentencing to choose from among the various sentencing options--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [543.37, 547.961], "stop_times": [547.961, 559.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 543.37}, "reply_to": "20093__0_042", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_044", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "And in fact I... perhaps I didn't speak properly on that.\nThe discretion is even greater than that, isn't it?\nI mean, is it the judge or the jury that can decide for policy reasons that in fact the so-called strike scheme shouldn't apply?\nOne of them can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [559.27, 562.342, 564.443, 571.997], "stop_times": [562.342, 564.443, 571.997, 572.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 559.27}, "reply_to": "20093__0_043", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20093__0_045", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--Well, with respect to all sentence enhancement allegations in California, whether it's a current conduct enhancement such as firearm use or great bodily injury, or a strikes allegation, there's a right to a jury, and the jury, or the judge if a jury is waived, is the fact-finder for purposes of making the determination as to whether the State has presented in... sufficient evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [572.838], "stop_times": [591.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 572.838}, "reply_to": "20093__0_044", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_046", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "But isn't... even beyond sufficiency of evidence, isn't there also a discretionary element somewhere?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [591.02], "stop_times": [598.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 591.02}, "reply_to": "20093__0_045", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20093__0_047", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "After the fact-finding stage, where the jury or the judge, if a jury is waived, makes the determination that yes, the firearm use has been proved, or yes, the strike allegation has been proved.\nThe judge has discretion under California law, under section 1385, to dismiss that in the interests of justice.\nThat may be what Your Honor is referring to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [598.896, 608.721, 614.378], "stop_times": [608.721, 614.378, 616.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 598.896}, "reply_to": "20093__0_046", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_048", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Okay.\nThat's a much broader discretion than we find in any trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [616.148, 616.328], "stop_times": [616.328, 620.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 616.148}, "reply_to": "20093__0_047", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20093__0_049", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Well, actually--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [620.28], "stop_times": [621.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 620.28}, "reply_to": "20093__0_048", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_050", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Normal trial scheme.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [621.341], "stop_times": [621.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 621.341}, "reply_to": "20093__0_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20093__0_051", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--Actually, under California law it isn't, judge... I'm sorry, Your Honor... because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [621.962], "stop_times": [627.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 621.962}, "reply_to": "20093__0_050", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_052", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Don't worry, I don't regard it an insult.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [627.275, 629.807], "stop_times": [629.807, 631.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 627.275}, "reply_to": "20093__0_051", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20093__0_053", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--It isn't because what we see in trials on substantive offenses in California is that very same power under section 1385.\nThat in no way distinguishes a trial on a sentence enhancement allegation from a trial on a substantive offense under California law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [631.927, 639.653], "stop_times": [639.653, 647.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 631.927}, "reply_to": "20093__0_052", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_054", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "You mean, if someone is charged with armed robbery and the case is proved and so on the judge can say, well, I think in the interest of justice this should be dismissed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [647.74], "stop_times": [654.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 647.74}, "reply_to": "20093__0_053", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20093__0_055", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "The judge, under California law, can dismiss any allegation in the interests of justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [654.633], "stop_times": [660.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 654.633}, "reply_to": "20093__0_054", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_056", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Really.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [660.369], "stop_times": [660.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 660.369}, "reply_to": "20093__0_055", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20093__0_057", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "So in that sense--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [660.669], "stop_times": [661.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 660.669}, "reply_to": "20093__0_056", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_058", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Okay, so we're back to my original two.\nI put you off your argument.\nWe're back to my original two, the two distinctions from the normal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [661.999, 663.441, 664.813], "stop_times": [663.441, 664.813, 668.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 661.999}, "reply_to": "20093__0_057", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20093__0_059", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--Yes.\nYou may be, Your Honor, but I have forgotten.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [668.816, 668.996, 671.358], "stop_times": [668.996, 671.358, 671.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 668.816}, "reply_to": "20093__0_058", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_060", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--Okay.\nFair enough.\nI said there's discretion in the sentencing function in deciding, sort of the basic sentence to which the multiplier will be applied, and secondly there's a State appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [671.628, 671.838, 673.681], "stop_times": [671.838, 673.681, 685.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 671.628}, "reply_to": "20093__0_059", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20093__0_061", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Yes.\nAs to the first of those, there is discretion, when we come to sentencing, for the trial court to choose among the appropriate sentences, and yes, that is not a binary decision.\nThat is the traditional, normative decision that is made at sentencing hearings, and I'm not suggesting for a moment double jeopardy applies to that situation.\nWhat I am suggesting is that in the separate hearing, and often it's combined directly with the trial on guilt or innocence, when the jury has reached a verdict on a firearm use allegation or on a strike allegation, that binary determination, yes, the defendant had a gun, no, the defendant didn't have a gun, or yes, you've proven the strike, no you didn't, it's that binary determination to which double jeopardy applies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [685.229, 686.208, 696.295, 705.351], "stop_times": [686.208, 696.295, 705.351, 727.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 685.229}, "reply_to": "20093__0_060", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_062", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Okay, so in fact you're--\n--In... go ahead.\nI was just going to... you're arguing for something a little different, I guess, from what was involved in Bullington, because I thought... I thought in Bullington the sentencing proceeding was regarded as one, in effect, unitary proceeding, and you're now saying, well, there are two subparts of the sentencing proceeding.\nDouble jeopardy applies to one but not to the other.\nMay I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [727.087, 728.429, 728.927, 747.65, 749.993], "stop_times": [728.429, 728.927, 747.65, 749.993, 750.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 727.087}, "reply_to": "20093__0_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20093__0_063", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "I think as a... as a matter of the facts of Bullington, it turned out that they were the same, the jury's sentence, both on... the factual determination and the sentence was the same, but I think that the critical component, if I had to break them out, would be the binary determination of fact that was made, and that's made here.\nIt's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [750.414, 765.915], "stop_times": [765.915, 766.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 750.414}, "reply_to": "20093__0_062", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_064", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--May I... excuse me.\nI thought you were through with your answer.\nMay I ask you, if you can do it in just a sentence or two, because I don't want to take too much of your time, to state the argument you would have made if we hadn't decided Almendarez the other way a few days ago?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [766.416, 767.047, 768.897], "stop_times": [767.047, 768.897, 778.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 766.416}, "reply_to": "20093__0_063", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20093__0_065", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--If Almendarez-Torres had been decided differently, or perhaps not been here, I probably would have placed a greater significance on the fact that... the additional exposure to punishment that a client faces under a three strikes or a firearms allegation is so high that that in itself should--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [778.844], "stop_times": [799.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 778.844}, "reply_to": "20093__0_064", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_066", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "And it cannot be imposed unless this critical finding is made by the fact-finder.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [799.037], "stop_times": [802.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 799.037}, "reply_to": "20093__0_065", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20093__0_067", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--Yes, that's right, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [802.99], "stop_times": [804.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 802.99}, "reply_to": "20093__0_066", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_068", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Mr. Gardner, even though Almendarez-Torres has been decided, isn't it possible... all that said is that recidiv... it doesn't say that recidivism laws must be nonelements.\nIt just says that they may be, and isn't it open to us to find that even if the State calls it a sentencing enhancement, if, in fact, it is treating it with a separate jury trial beyond the reasonable doubt finding and what-not, in fact it's not just a sentencing enhancement.\nIn fact, the State is treating it as an element of the offense, and if it is an element of the offense, then by reason of normal double jeopardy principles and not the invention of some new double jeopardy application to things that aren't elements of the offense, your client would be entitled not to be tried again.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [804.441, 818.23, 835.912], "stop_times": [818.23, 835.912, 852.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 804.441}, "reply_to": "20093__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20093__0_069", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "I agree, and that's precisely the argument I'm trying to make.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [852.503], "stop_times": [855.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 852.503}, "reply_to": "20093__0_068", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_070", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Well, I don't think you made the argument... no, you've never come out and confronted the State and said, even though they say it's an enhancement, it's not an enhancement, it's actually an element.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [855.925], "stop_times": [867.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 855.925}, "reply_to": "20093__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20093__0_071", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Then let me state it now, if I haven't before.\nThe label that's attached, whether it's enhancement, or whether they call it trial, is of no moment to the double jeopardy analysis.\nWhat's important in the double jeopardy analysis are three things.\nDoes the fact expose the defendant to additional punishment, does it have the hallmarks of trial, particularly proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and is it a binary determination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [867.131, 870.223, 876.247, 879.61], "stop_times": [870.223, 876.247, 879.61, 888.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 867.131}, "reply_to": "20093__0_070", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_072", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Now, what's your authority for those three propositions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [888.707], "stop_times": [891.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 888.707}, "reply_to": "20093__0_071", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20093__0_073", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "The hallmarks of trial, of course, stems from Bullington.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [891.378], "stop_times": [894.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 891.378}, "reply_to": "20093__0_072", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_074", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [894.971], "stop_times": [896.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 894.971}, "reply_to": "20093__0_073", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20093__0_075", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "The exposure to... the fact that exposes to additional punishment really stems from some of the due process cases this Court has now--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [896.01], "stop_times": [902.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 896.01}, "reply_to": "20093__0_074", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_076", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "So you're not relying on any one case, then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [902.204], "stop_times": [905.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 902.204}, "reply_to": "20093__0_075", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20093__0_077", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--No.\nI think one of the problems with some of the double jeopardy cases, or the analysis, is that there are a number of different policies on which the Double Jeopardy Clause is implicated, so it isn't always possible to rely on one case to establish or set forth a framework.\nI'm trying to pull from the Court's precedents what I see happening, and that is, in the due process cases, Specht, and Chandler, and Chewning, the Court said, this is a new fact that exposes you to additional punishment, so we're not going to treat it like traditional sentencing, and I'm suggesting that take that analysis into the double jeopardy context, because at some level I think it makes sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [905.055, 905.446, 919.207], "stop_times": [905.446, 919.207, 936.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 905.055}, "reply_to": "20093__0_076", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_078", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Well, but what do you do with a due process case like North Carolina v. Pearce?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [936.749], "stop_times": [941.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 936.749}, "reply_to": "20093__0_077", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20093__0_079", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Well, I don't think Pearce... Pearce--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [941.039], "stop_times": [947.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 941.039}, "reply_to": "20093__0_078", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_080", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Pearce says you can get a tougher sentence on resentencing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [947.625], "stop_times": [952.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 947.625}, "reply_to": "20093__0_079", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20093__0_081", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--Yes.\nI have no problem with that.\nThe difference between this case and Pearce, of course, is what the State is suggesting here is that despite the fact that it had one full bite at the apple and presented insufficient evidence, which is conceded, they get another trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [952.026, 952.436, 954.409], "stop_times": [952.436, 954.409, 964.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 952.026}, "reply_to": "20093__0_080", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_082", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Well, that's not the only difference.\nPearce also didn't involve a sentence that... a fact that increased the sentence to which the defendant was exposed.\nIt was all within the range of the original crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [964.736, 966.238, 977.475], "stop_times": [966.238, 977.475, 980.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 964.736}, "reply_to": "20093__0_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20093__0_083", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Well, that, too--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [980.947], "stop_times": [982.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 980.947}, "reply_to": "20093__0_082", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_084", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "That's crucial, that if you're going to say, even though this looks like an enhancement, it smells like an enhancement, it's not an enhancement.\nIt seems to me you have to say not only because we gave it a jury trial, but also because the effect of the fact found is to increase the criminal liability of the individual.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [982.98, 990.263], "stop_times": [990.263, 999.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 982.98}, "reply_to": "20093__0_083", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20093__0_085", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--Well, I agree, it is crucial, and that's why the first part--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [999.229], "stop_times": [1002.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 999.229}, "reply_to": "20093__0_084", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_086", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Wait a minute.\nI don't understand.\nWhy isn't... this charming book is the Sentencing Guidelines.\nLet's imagine that... Federal... it has, let's say, 800 or 1,000 different factors.\nWhy, in your view, is it the case that all of these findings that the judges make, of course, are yes or no.\nI mean, they did it or they didn't.\nThere's a lot of enhancements in there and, moreover, the judge makes it, and then the person's exposed to higher punishment.\nIn your view the Double Jeopardy Clause apply to each of those?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1002.083, 1002.241, 1002.702, 1006.235, 1012.139, 1018.674, 1020.066, 1026.849], "stop_times": [1002.241, 1002.702, 1006.235, 1012.139, 1018.674, 1020.066, 1026.849, 1029.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1002.083}, "reply_to": "20093__0_085", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20093__0_087", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1029.753], "stop_times": [1030.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1029.753}, "reply_to": "20093__0_086", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_088", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1030.073], "stop_times": [1030.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1030.073}, "reply_to": "20093__0_087", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20093__0_089", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Because although the Sentencing Guidelines are a way to increase punishment, it increases it within a previously prescribed range.\nIn no way can a Sentencing Guideline finding expose the defendant to punishment in addition--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1030.603, 1036.117], "stop_times": [1036.117, 1040.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1030.603}, "reply_to": "20093__0_088", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_090", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Oh, so if, in fact, this book had been enacted by Congress rather than delegating the power to the agency, i.e., the commission, then in your view the Double Jeopardy Clause would apply?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1040.751], "stop_times": [1052.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1040.751}, "reply_to": "20093__0_089", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20093__0_091", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--No.\nActually--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1052.128, 1053.768], "stop_times": [1053.768, 1054.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1052.128}, "reply_to": "20093__0_090", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_092", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Then I don't understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1054.338], "stop_times": [1055.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1054.338}, "reply_to": "20093__0_091", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20093__0_093", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--If I expressed that view, then again I misspoke.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1055.37], "stop_times": [1057.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1055.37}, "reply_to": "20093__0_092", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_094", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "I don't think you did.\nI'm trying to understand why not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1057.18, 1058.872], "stop_times": [1058.872, 1060.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1057.18}, "reply_to": "20093__0_093", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20093__0_095", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "No, I think the difference is this.\nAs I understand the Sentencing Guidelines, what they do is assist the judge in selecting a sentence from among a previously prescribed range of sentences.\nThat's what they do, as opposed to the distinction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1060.864, 1062.255, 1069.801], "stop_times": [1062.255, 1069.801, 1071.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1060.864}, "reply_to": "20093__0_094", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_096", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "It says in the statute... it says in the statute, say, zero to 20 years, and within that, these are factors, and you're saying it's the zero to 20 years that makes the difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1071.822], "stop_times": [1083.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1071.822}, "reply_to": "20093__0_095", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20093__0_097", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--That's part of the difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1083.549], "stop_times": [1084.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1083.549}, "reply_to": "20093__0_096", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_098", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1084.721], "stop_times": [1084.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1084.721}, "reply_to": "20093__0_097", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20093__0_099", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "That's part of the difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1084.921], "stop_times": [1085.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1084.921}, "reply_to": "20093__0_098", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_100", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "What else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1085.912], "stop_times": [1086.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1085.912}, "reply_to": "20093__0_099", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20093__0_101", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "That's the first part.\nThe second part is that my understanding of the Sentencing Guidelines is that none of them have the hallmarks of trial in the sense that there's no proof beyond a reasonable doubt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1086.142, 1086.623], "stop_times": [1086.623, 1093.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1086.142}, "reply_to": "20093__0_100", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_102", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Well, that has never been decided, I mean, I think in this Court.\nIn this Court it hasn't.\nThe... all right, hall... all right.\nNow, in California, my understanding is that California did try to adopt a system that they intended to be like the Sentencing Guidelines, but instead of doing it through delegation to a commission, what they did is the set of statutory provisions that we have here.\nThey give three choices, they... you know, they have low, medium, and high, they build all the things into the statute, just as... that's my correct understanding, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1093.787, 1096.732, 1098.101, 1101.263, 1116.093], "stop_times": [1096.732, 1098.101, 1101.263, 1116.093, 1125.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1093.787}, "reply_to": "20093__0_101", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20093__0_103", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1125.389], "stop_times": [1125.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1125.389}, "reply_to": "20093__0_102", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_104", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "All right.\nSo why, if this is constitutional, should the effort to... without double jeopardy, why should the effort of the State legislature to do roughly the same kind of thing through a set of statutes suddenly expose a person to double jeopardy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1125.91, 1126.24], "stop_times": [1126.24, 1141.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1125.91}, "reply_to": "20093__0_103", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20093__0_105", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Well, the difference isn't between a statute and a regulation, and I'm not suggesting for a moment that the California system of what we call determinate sentencing level, where the judge chooses from 2, 3, or 4 years, where choice is within that previously prescribed range, are subject to double jeopardy.\nWhat I'm saying is that the very separate factual determination which exposes someone to 25 years to life in addition to that 4 years, that's imposed on top of the 4 years and that could not be imposed in the absence of a finding, that binary determination is subject to the Double Jeopardy Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1141.371, 1153.869], "stop_times": [1153.869, 1168.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1141.371}, "reply_to": "20093__0_104", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_106", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Can you tell me--\n--Mr. Gardner, you don't think that this Court would have permitted judges to participate in the drafting and promulgation of the guidelines if they were functionally the same as legislation, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1168.349, 1168.559], "stop_times": [1168.559, 1181.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1168.349}, "reply_to": "20093__0_105", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20093__0_107", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Actually, I'd rather not express an opinion on that.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1181.836, 1185.61], "stop_times": [1185.61, 1188.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1181.836}, "reply_to": "20093__0_106", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_108", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "You don't think that's relevant to this case, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1188.832], "stop_times": [1191.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1188.832}, "reply_to": "20093__0_107", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20093__0_109", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "That's certainly not an issue in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1191.176], "stop_times": [1194.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1191.176}, "reply_to": "20093__0_108", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_110", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "May I ask you this.\nGoing to the discretionary law, the trial judge says, I've weighed all of the factors and I'm giving you a sentence of 5 years, 4 years later, after he has only 1 year left, under a State procedure it comes back before the trial judge, he says, I've changed my mind.\nI think I was wrong the first time.\nYou really should have 8.\nThere's no finality?\nThere's no double jeopardy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1194.717, 1196.049, 1215.503, 1217.122, 1218.333, 1220.525], "stop_times": [1196.049, 1215.503, 1217.122, 1218.333, 1220.525, 1222.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1194.717}, "reply_to": "20093__0_109", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20093__0_111", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Well, double jeopardy typically would not apply to sentences.\nThere are some... it's difficult for me to answer the question in the absence of knowing why it's back there.\nIf, for example, it's back there because defendant's appeal took longer and he got a new trial--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1222.037, 1226.852, 1232.455], "stop_times": [1226.852, 1232.455, 1235.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1222.037}, "reply_to": "20093__0_110", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_112", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "No, no.\nIt's final, but the judge just said, I'm going to retain jurisdiction in this case to think about this a little longer, and he waits 4 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1235.938, 1236.138], "stop_times": [1236.138, 1243.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1235.938}, "reply_to": "20093__0_111", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20093__0_113", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--You can't do that under California law, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1243.134], "stop_times": [1246.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1243.134}, "reply_to": "20093__0_112", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_114", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "But I'm assuming that you have some State procedure where this happens.\nI'm trying to ask whether or not there... double jeopardy doesn't have, in your view, some component of finality, so that the defendant is not subject to the anguish, the agony of having to go back before a sentencing judge and think he might get more.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1246.035, 1249.026], "stop_times": [1249.026, 1267.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1246.035}, "reply_to": "20093__0_113", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20093__0_115", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Certainly, I think that there's a component of finality in the Double Jeopardy Clause.\nI think it's the primary purpose of the Double Jeopardy Clause, but putting together this Court's decisions in Bullington and DiFrancesco, I think what we get is that one of the things the Double Jeopardy Clause protects is the reasonable expectation of the finality of the parties.\nOn DiFrancesco, the Court looked at the existence of a statute which said, you can... Government, you have the right to appeal a sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1267.71, 1271.752, 1284.111], "stop_times": [1271.752, 1284.111, 1290.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1267.71}, "reply_to": "20093__0_114", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_116", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Mr. Gardner, it would help me to put a little flesh on these bones and to tell us exactly what was the proof deficiency here.\nIt's a little fuzzy.\nI mean, it was a prior conviction based on a guilty plea, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1290.965, 1298.301, 1299.851], "stop_times": [1298.301, 1299.851, 1304.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1290.965}, "reply_to": "20093__0_115", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20093__0_117", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1304.475], "stop_times": [1305.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1304.475}, "reply_to": "20093__0_116", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_118", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "To a crime called what, assault with a deadly weapon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1305.457], "stop_times": [1308.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1305.457}, "reply_to": "20093__0_117", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20093__0_119", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "It was a guilty plea to assault and the proof deficiency requires a brief understanding of the particular allegation at issue here, and that is, in defendant's current offense he was charged with having committed the prior assault, but that does not expose one, under the California scheme, to additional punishment.\nWhat exposes you under the California scheme as... what triggers the strike provisions if you have a prior assault is the question of whether you used, personally used a weapon in that prior assault.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1308.178, 1326.8], "stop_times": [1326.8, 1337.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1308.178}, "reply_to": "20093__0_118", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_120", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Wasn't that charged as part of the indictment in that prior crime?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1337.317], "stop_times": [1343.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1337.317}, "reply_to": "20093__0_119", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20093__0_121", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "In the original assault?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1343.852], "stop_times": [1345.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1343.852}, "reply_to": "20093__0_120", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_122", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1345.301], "stop_times": [1345.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1345.301}, "reply_to": "20093__0_121", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20093__0_123", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "It was not either charged or established from the records of the prior conviction, and that was the proof deficiency in this case, to just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1345.762], "stop_times": [1353.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1345.762}, "reply_to": "20093__0_122", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_124", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "What would it have taken to supply the deficiency?\nIt was something about there only being four pages, or... I forgot exactly what it was, but I was trying to figure out where the prosecutor slipped here.\nIt didn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1353.368, 1358.832, 1368.509], "stop_times": [1358.832, 1368.509, 1369.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1353.368}, "reply_to": "20093__0_123", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20093__0_125", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1369.647], "stop_times": [1369.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1369.647}, "reply_to": "20093__0_124", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_126", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1369.848], "stop_times": [1370.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1369.848}, "reply_to": "20093__0_125", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20093__0_127", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--The prosecutor slipped here because what the prosecutor introduced was a four-page document that did, indeed, show that the defendant was convicted of assault in 1992.\nWhat the prosecutor did not show is any documentation or any evidence whatsoever that the defendant personally used a weapon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1370.348, 1379.034], "stop_times": [1379.034, 1385.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1370.348}, "reply_to": "20093__0_126", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_128", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "And where would that document, documentation have come from?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1385.479], "stop_times": [1389.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1385.479}, "reply_to": "20093__0_127", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20093__0_129", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Now, under California law the State has a limited universe of places to provide that information, or to seek that information, called the record of conviction, so the State would have had to look in the record of conviction to see if there was documentation to establish that in the 1992 assault--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1389.292], "stop_times": [1403.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1389.292}, "reply_to": "20093__0_128", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_130", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "What's in the record of conviction, the transcript of the evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1403.421], "stop_times": [1407.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1403.421}, "reply_to": "20093__0_129", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20093__0_131", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--Yes.\nThe transcript of a preliminary hearing, if it's a guilty plea situation, if it goes to trial--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1407.034, 1407.585], "stop_times": [1407.585, 1411.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1407.034}, "reply_to": "20093__0_130", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_132", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Which this was.\nThis was a guilty plea, so I... there were some pieces of paper that were missing, right, that the prosecutor didn't put in, and if he had put in those pieces of paper there would have been no problem, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1411.375, 1411.736], "stop_times": [1411.736, 1422.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1411.375}, "reply_to": "20093__0_131", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20093__0_133", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--Well, if the pieces of paper that Your Honor is referring to were admissible and if, indeed, they contained the information that was necessary to cure the insufficiency--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1422.522], "stop_times": [1429.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1422.522}, "reply_to": "20093__0_132", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_134", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Were they records of the very court that we were dealing with, or was there some other court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1429.808], "stop_times": [1434.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1429.808}, "reply_to": "20093__0_133", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20093__0_135", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--If the question is, was the 1992 assault conviction from the same superior court in the current case, I don't know the answer.\nBut the earlier question is, was it just a piece of paper, I mean, I suppose one can say that in any insufficiency situation, is that it could have been easily proven.\nI don't know the answer as to whether--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1434.162, 1443.048, 1453.693], "stop_times": [1443.048, 1453.693, 1456.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1434.162}, "reply_to": "20093__0_134", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_136", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Well, it can't be easily proven if there's a presumption of innocence that applies.\nYou presume a man's innocent till there's evidence to the contrary, and there's no evidence to the contrary here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1456.155, 1459.307], "stop_times": [1459.307, 1463.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1456.155}, "reply_to": "20093__0_135", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20093__0_137", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--Ultimately, that's the evidentiary failure in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1463.391], "stop_times": [1465.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1463.391}, "reply_to": "20093__0_136", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_138", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "But you're saying there was proof of a prior assault, that there was proof of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1465.833], "stop_times": [1472.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1465.833}, "reply_to": "20093__0_137", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20093__0_139", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "The question as to whether defendant committed a 1992 assault was, indeed, established by the State.\nThe only question was whether he personally used a weapon, and the State introduced no evidence to that.\nYour question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1472.028, 1476.732, 1482.195], "stop_times": [1476.732, 1482.195, 1482.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1472.028}, "reply_to": "20093__0_138", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_140", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "What about the fact that the lawyer didn't contest it?\nI mean, the lawyer didn't say, he didn't personally use it.\nThe lawyer said, a stick isn't a deadly weapon, so no one's... no one's... there's a charge, assault with a deadly weapon.\nIt's introduced by the State as a... the... you know, to satisfy the requirement, which is what, assault with a deadly weapon that you use personally?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1482.866, 1485.808, 1488.98, 1495.746], "stop_times": [1485.808, 1488.98, 1495.746, 1503.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1482.866}, "reply_to": "20093__0_139", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20093__0_141", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1503.921], "stop_times": [1504.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1503.921}, "reply_to": "20093__0_140", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_142", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "And then there is no objection on the ground of personal use.\nThere's objection only on the ground that a stick isn't a deadly weapon, so why... I never understood why, given that circumstance, the California intermediate court could have held that there wasn't enough evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1504.371, 1507.212], "stop_times": [1507.212, 1518.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1504.371}, "reply_to": "20093__0_141", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20093__0_143", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Okay, for two reasons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1518.121], "stop_times": [1519.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1518.121}, "reply_to": "20093__0_142", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_144", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1519.193], "stop_times": [1519.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1519.193}, "reply_to": "20093__0_143", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20093__0_145", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "First, the fact that there's no objection does not in any way undercut the State's burden to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.\nThat ultimately is the question.\nThe reason the court of appeal correctly held... and respondent has never even disputed the insufficiency, Your Honor... is that an assault finding, even if it's with... even if it's assault with a deadly weapon doesn't mean personal use, because there's always the factor of aiding and abetting.\nYou're just as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1519.393, 1525.488, 1526.64, 1540.42], "stop_times": [1525.488, 1526.64, 1540.42, 1541.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1519.393}, "reply_to": "20093__0_144", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_146", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "But it was... it was a single defendant case.\nI mean, that much was established, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1541.19, 1543.521], "stop_times": [1543.521, 1545.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1541.19}, "reply_to": "20093__0_145", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20093__0_147", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--That part was never established, Your Honor, at this trial, absolutely not.\nIn an informal colloquy before the hearing, the prosecutor said to the judge, well, judge, you know, this was a single defendant, but that was never introduced into evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1545.524, 1548.105], "stop_times": [1548.105, 1556.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1545.524}, "reply_to": "20093__0_146", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_148", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "But what was introduced into evidence, the issue is whether there was an assault with a deadly weapon, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1556.071], "stop_times": [1562.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1556.071}, "reply_to": "20093__0_147", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20093__0_149", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "The issue is whether defendant personally used a weapon during the assault.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1562.455], "stop_times": [1565.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1562.455}, "reply_to": "20093__0_148", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_150", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Personally used a weapon.\nNow we have the following.\nHe was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon.\nThat's introduced.\nSecond, the weapon involved was a stick, and now the question is, those two things, do they permit someone to conclude that he personally assaulted a person with a deadly weapon, particularly because nobody denies it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1565.117, 1565.358, 1566.38, 1568.38, 1569.281], "stop_times": [1565.358, 1566.38, 1568.38, 1569.281, 1582.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1565.117}, "reply_to": "20093__0_149", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20093__0_151", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Well, if we had those two things--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1582.762], "stop_times": [1585.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1582.762}, "reply_to": "20093__0_150", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_152", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Now, you have those three things--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1585.063], "stop_times": [1585.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1585.063}, "reply_to": "20093__0_151", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20093__0_153", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--I will answer that question, but we don't have those things, because at the first hearing the State introduced no evidence that a stick was used.\nRemember, what happened at that first hearing was, the judge said, I'm going to take judicial notice of the conviction, and the conviction was for assault with a deadly weapon.\nThat, in and of itself under California law in over a decade, does not provide sufficient evidence, because there could be aiding and abetting, someone else could have used the weapon, or there could have been an infliction of great bodily injury.\nThen the court said, is there any other evidence?\nThe prosecutor said yes, I have a piece of evidence.\nI have Exhibit 1.\nThat showed that the defendant had been convicted of assault, but it did not provide any evidence that a stick was used or that defendant was the one who used it.\nThat was never introduced into evidence at the first hearing, and that's why, under State law, the California court of appeal held there was insufficient evidence, after the Attorney General conceded it on appeal, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1585.533, 1591.466, 1599.812, 1609.189, 1612.682, 1614.314, 1615.195, 1623.44], "stop_times": [1591.466, 1599.812, 1609.189, 1612.682, 1614.314, 1615.195, 1623.44, 1633.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1585.533}, "reply_to": "20093__0_152", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_154", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--But... so what exactly was presented?\nIt was more than a guilty plea to... there was more information that simply that the defendant had pled guilty to assault, is that not so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1633.936, 1637.159], "stop_times": [1637.159, 1651.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1633.936}, "reply_to": "20093__0_153", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20093__0_155", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Yes, that's not so.\nThere was nothing else presented, Your Honor.\nThe four-page prison package showed nothing but that defendant was convicted or pled guilty--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1651.39, 1653.39, 1655.9], "stop_times": [1653.39, 1655.9, 1660.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1651.39}, "reply_to": "20093__0_154", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_156", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Does it take four pages to say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1660.035], "stop_times": [1661.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1660.035}, "reply_to": "20093__0_155", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20093__0_157", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--Well, it's a prison package, and it comes from the prison.\nIt's not like the prosecutor crafted it for this case.\nIt's a standard document.\nIt has finger prints, often has finger prints, it has a picture, it has the nature of the conviction, sometimes it has the prison of commitment... it's a standard package not crafted for this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1661.484, 1664.187, 1667.22, 1668.451], "stop_times": [1664.187, 1667.22, 1668.451, 1678.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1661.484}, "reply_to": "20093__0_156", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_158", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--And there would be no description of the crime beyond assault?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1678.179], "stop_times": [1682.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1678.179}, "reply_to": "20093__0_157", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20093__0_159", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Beyond, in this case, Penal Code section 245(a)(1), I believe was the provision, which, of course, is not sufficient in and of itself and that's why we have this finding by the State court of appeal, that was agreed to by the Attorney General and has never been contested, of insufficient evidence.\nI did want to briefly talk about one of the other purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1682.7, 1697.709], "stop_times": [1697.709, 1703.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1682.7}, "reply_to": "20093__0_158", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_160", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "And there was an objection to that evidence being insufficient at the sentencing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1703.804], "stop_times": [1709.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1703.804}, "reply_to": "20093__0_159", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20093__0_161", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--There was no argument on insufficiency of the evidence, but under State law that is not necessary to raise insufficiency of the evidence on appeal, which was done, and the court of appeals said, you know, by gosh, you're right, there was insufficient evidence.\nSo there is no question as to whether defense counsel, under California law, has to raise a sufficiency argument at trial.\nHe or she does not.\nI did want to talk briefly about one other of the policies underlying the Double Jeopardy Clause.\nAs this Court noted, I think in Burks, one of the other chief policies is the idea of preventing the State from refining its evidentiary presentation in successive trials, and that policy is directly implicated in this case, because after all, what did the State get from the court of appeal in this case?\nThey got a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1709.849, 1721.188, 1729.552, 1730.712, 1736.875, 1753.579], "stop_times": [1721.188, 1729.552, 1730.712, 1736.875, 1753.579, 1754.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1709.849}, "reply_to": "20093__0_160", "speaker": "clifford_gardner"}
{"id": "20093__0_162", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Gardner.\nYour time has expired.\nMr. Glassman, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1754.208, 1755.5, 1756.662], "stop_times": [1755.5, 1756.662, 1760.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1754.208}, "reply_to": "20093__0_161", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20093__1_000", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe respondent asks this Court to confirm that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply to noncapital sentencing determinations.\nThe Court has traditionally not applied the clause to noncapital sentencing determinations, actually not to sentencing at all, and there are good reasons for reserving or limiting, I should say, the sole exception that has been recognized thus far by the Court, and that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1760.493, 1767.759, 1776.203], "stop_times": [1767.759, 1776.203, 1793.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1760.493}, "reply_to": "20093__0_162", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_001", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Would you agree, then, that it would be a limitation, based on the rule as we would understand it, if we go back to Bullington?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1793.023], "stop_times": [1800.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1793.023}, "reply_to": "20093__1_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20093__1_002", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--Your Honor, it's our position that Bullington is self-limiting, that Bullington does not purport to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1800.37], "stop_times": [1806.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1800.37}, "reply_to": "20093__1_001", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_003", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Well, I don't see how you can say that in the light of DiFrancesco, because DiFrancesco wasn't a capital, and if it had been the capital versus noncapital character, DiFrancesco would have been distinguished right then and there.\nOn the other hand, that isn't what this Court did.\nThis Court distinguished it on characteristics of the sentencing proceeding, so it seems to me that at least through DiFrancesco that's not the way we were viewing it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1806.595, 1820.862, 1824.235], "stop_times": [1820.862, 1824.235, 1834.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1806.595}, "reply_to": "20093__1_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20093__1_004", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I think more recently, specifically in Caspari v. Bohlen, the Court has described Bullington as arising and based largely on the rationale that applies in the death penalty context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1834.974], "stop_times": [1849.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1834.974}, "reply_to": "20093__1_003", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_005", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Your position is that it was Bullington that was a departure from the line of cases like Stroud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1849.394], "stop_times": [1854.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1849.394}, "reply_to": "20093__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20093__1_006", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Yes, it is, Your Honor, because it is our position that the ultimate inquiry in the double jeopardy context is whether a criminal offense is being adjudicated.\nThe Fifth Amendment, after all, speaks in terms of a criminal offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1854.556, 1864.863], "stop_times": [1864.863, 1868.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1854.556}, "reply_to": "20093__1_005", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_007", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "May I ask one question, Mr. Glassman?\nThis case happens to involve an enhancement because of a prior act of the defendant that was not actually proven.\nIf the enhancement had been based on the use of a gun instead, would your argument be precisely the same?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1868.965, 1870.607, 1876.901], "stop_times": [1870.607, 1876.901, 1882.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1868.965}, "reply_to": "20093__1_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20093__1_008", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Well, Justice Stevens, the Court has allowed for enhancements that share elements of the... or aspects, I should say, of the underlying crime, so... I don't know if that answered the question, but our argument generally--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1882.507], "stop_times": [1899.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1882.507}, "reply_to": "20093__1_007", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_009", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "It seems to me you could answer the argument yes or no, and I'm not quite--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1899.348], "stop_times": [1902.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1899.348}, "reply_to": "20093__1_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20093__1_010", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1902.059], "stop_times": [1902.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1902.059}, "reply_to": "20093__1_009", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_011", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--I want to be sure I get what your answer is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1902.269], "stop_times": [1904.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1902.269}, "reply_to": "20093__1_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20093__1_012", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Our argument is that... is yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1904.231], "stop_times": [1906.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1904.231}, "reply_to": "20093__1_011", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_013", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "That's what I thought.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1906.553], "stop_times": [1907.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1906.553}, "reply_to": "20093__1_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20093__1_014", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "That, for example, use of a weapon is a typical element of a sentence enhancement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1907.495], "stop_times": [1911.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1907.495}, "reply_to": "20093__1_013", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_015", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Now, you don't rely on the fact that it... this might be characterized as a recidivism case, as distinct... as... with any special weight in your argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1911.097], "stop_times": [1919.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1911.097}, "reply_to": "20093__1_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20093__1_016", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Well, it's given weight, in our view, insofar as the Court has generally decided that recidivism statutes do not present a double jeopardy concern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1919.603], "stop_times": [1930.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1919.603}, "reply_to": "20093__1_015", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_017", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Right, but if you relied just on that, and we only decided that, then it would leave open the question whether your statute would be valid as applied to use of a firearm, for instance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1930.108], "stop_times": [1939.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1930.108}, "reply_to": "20093__1_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20093__1_018", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "And that is why, Your Honor, our position ultimately is that the crucial concern is the guilt or innocence determination, but that is the concern... that is the idea--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1939.685], "stop_times": [1949.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1939.685}, "reply_to": "20093__1_017", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_019", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Right, and the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1949.71], "stop_times": [1950.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1949.71}, "reply_to": "20093__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20093__1_020", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--of the Double Jeopardy Clause that's described by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1950.621], "stop_times": [1951.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1950.621}, "reply_to": "20093__1_019", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_021", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--And the question that's missing here is he was not proven to be guilty of precisely what needed to enhance, and in another example he might not have been proven guilty of using a firearm, if you call it an element of the offense rather than an enhancement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1951.603], "stop_times": [1963.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1951.603}, "reply_to": "20093__1_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20093__1_022", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--Well, there is disagreement, I think, in terms of the nature of this... of exactly what happened in this case, and perhaps... and this relates back to Justice Ginsburg's question, Justice Stevens, but if I could describe my view of how this originated in the first place, although--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1963.832], "stop_times": [1979.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1963.832}, "reply_to": "20093__1_021", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_023", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Yes, before you get back into the facts... I would like to hear your view of it, but it seems to me you've overstated what we've held.\nWe haven't held that recidivism does not raise double jeopardy concerns.\nWe have held that if a recidivist statute is not an... is not an element of the offense, if it treats recidivism as an enhancement, that is constitutional, but we haven't said that every recidivism statute is automatically an enhancement, nor have we ever said that for purposes of the Federal Constitution, it is an enhancement simply because the State chooses to call it an enhancement.\nAnd what you have here is a situation in which the State calls it an enhancement, but both its effects and the trappings with which the court surrounds it do not look... it doesn't walk and talk like an enhancement.\nIt's just called that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [1979.051, 1985.203, 1990.478, 2021.818, 2037.149], "stop_times": [1985.203, 1990.478, 2021.818, 2037.149, 2038.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1979.051}, "reply_to": "20093__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20093__1_024", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--Well, actually, Your Honor, it's our position that this is a traditional recidivism statute.\nThe somewhat unique context of this case is that because California restricts the aggregating prior conviction to be a so-called serious felony, as described in California, there needed to be in this case an inquiry into whether it was a particular type of assault, but all of this arises after and only after the guilt determination is made, and returning to DiFrancesco, it's our view that DiFrancesco recognizes that the ordeal that's described as part of the double jeopardy inquiry is an ordeal that extends until the conclusion of the guilt determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2038.24, 2044.491], "stop_times": [2044.491, 2085.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2038.24}, "reply_to": "20093__1_023", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_025", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "But you wouldn't deny, would you, that if, in fact, the existence of the three pre-existing felonies, if the fact that they exist of a certain sort or not, if each of those were an element of the offense, then I take it you would not deny the applicability of the Double Jeopardy Clause.\nIf the offense were the offense of the underlying ones, plus felony A, plus felony B, plus felony C, that's called superoffense.\nUnder those circumstances, I take it the Double Jeopardy Clause would apply.\nThat's not a hard question.\nI mean, the answer's yes or no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2085.891, 2104.121, 2114.799, 2118.711, 2122.033], "stop_times": [2104.121, 2114.799, 2118.711, 2122.033, 2124.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2085.891}, "reply_to": "20093__1_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20093__1_026", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "I believe the answer would be yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2124.244], "stop_times": [2127.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2124.244}, "reply_to": "20093__1_025", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_027", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "All right.\nI think it would be yes, too.\nHas anyone in this case at any level ever argued that these extra three elements are... the three felonies are, in fact, elements of the offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2127.288, 2127.395, 2128.968], "stop_times": [2127.395, 2128.968, 2139.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2127.288}, "reply_to": "20093__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20093__1_028", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Your Honor, my understanding of the petitioner's argument is that the double jeopardy determination is based solely on whether or not the proceeding which has been labeled a sentencing proceeding and which we, of course, consider a sentencing proceeding, is, in fact, so akin to a trial on guilt or innocence in terms of its structure--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2139.343], "stop_times": [2160.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2139.343}, "reply_to": "20093__1_027", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_029", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "I know he's... I know what he's arguing, and I asked him if he--\n--Justice Breyer asked you a question that I think could be answered yes or no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2160.858, 2163.25], "stop_times": [2163.25, 2165.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2160.858}, "reply_to": "20093__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20093__1_030", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--That is not the argument.\nThe argument that you have proposed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2165.87, 2166.451], "stop_times": [2166.451, 2168.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2165.87}, "reply_to": "20093__1_029", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_031", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "I asked you, has it ever been argued that these three things, the three extra felonies of a certain kind, their existence, that the need to have them is an element of the offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2168.993], "stop_times": [2179.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2168.993}, "reply_to": "20093__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20093__1_032", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--I cannot recall a case that involves that particular--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2179.681], "stop_times": [2182.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2179.681}, "reply_to": "20093__1_031", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_033", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "I'm asking if in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2182.363], "stop_times": [2184.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2182.363}, "reply_to": "20093__1_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20093__1_034", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--No.\nThe answer is no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2184.524, 2184.754], "stop_times": [2184.754, 2186.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2184.524}, "reply_to": "20093__1_033", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_035", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--It was not argued.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2186.016, 2186.236], "stop_times": [2186.236, 2186.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2186.016}, "reply_to": "20093__1_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20093__1_036", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "The answer is no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2186.415], "stop_times": [2187.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2186.415}, "reply_to": "20093__1_035", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_037", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "And now you were going to tell us what this deficiency in the evidence was and how that deficiency could have been supplied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2187.176], "stop_times": [2195.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2187.176}, "reply_to": "20093__1_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20093__1_038", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Your Honor, in this case the trial judge was reviewing... or the sentencing judge, I should say, was reviewing a series of documents, and the judge, in view of the appellate court in California, was not entirely precise as to the basis of the judge's determination of the prior conviction.\nThere was a charge of a prior assault with a deadly weapon, and there was a guilty plea.\nThe judge only formally announced that he was moving the document reflecting the conviction into evidence.\nHe used other words, such as judicial notice, to refer to his review of other documents, and as soon as he decided that the prior conviction had been established, he added that lest there be any doubt, he was... he had reviewed the court file.\nNow, the court file refers to the documents that had been previously submitted to that court and in this case, in fact, there had been a prior hearing at which the petitioner's guilt... the petitioner's eligibility under the statute would have been established by proof of his personal use.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2195.09, 2212.981, 2217.826, 2224.559, 2240.611], "stop_times": [2212.981, 2217.826, 2224.559, 2240.611, 2259.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2195.09}, "reply_to": "20093__1_037", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_039", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "The court file that you refer to is something different than what Mr. Gardner referred to as the four-page thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2259.444], "stop_times": [2266.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2259.444}, "reply_to": "20093__1_038", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20093__1_040", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nIt's our interpretation that the court file ostensibly refers to the documents in that proceeding that have been previously adjudicated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2266.117, 2266.858], "stop_times": [2266.858, 2276.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2266.117}, "reply_to": "20093__1_039", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_041", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Are you arguing that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the trial judge's sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2276.244], "stop_times": [2280.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2276.244}, "reply_to": "20093__1_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20093__1_042", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Your Honor, I'm aware that the State courts have found that the evidence is insufficient.\nI'm not... but my point--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2280.706, 2285.101], "stop_times": [2285.101, 2286.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2280.706}, "reply_to": "20093__1_041", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_043", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "But you're not asking us to review that, are you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2286.453], "stop_times": [2288.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2286.453}, "reply_to": "20093__1_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20093__1_044", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--No, but this Court has in effect reevaluated those kinds of determinations in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2288.323], "stop_times": [2293.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2288.323}, "reply_to": "20093__1_043", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_045", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "By State courts, by... we second-guess the State court on its application of its own law to the facts in the record here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2293.327], "stop_times": [2300.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2293.327}, "reply_to": "20093__1_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20093__1_046", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--No, Your Honor, but I think, for example, Lockhart v. Nelson indicates that the Court evaluates the nature of the finding that was made to determine whether it's properly characterized, for example, as insufficient evidence or trial error.\nThe same is true in Poland v. Arizona, which is a case in the Bullington context.\nBut no, we do not dispute that the State courts have determined that there was insufficient evidence in this case.\nIn our view, however, that entire analysis is confined to the sufficiency context, which is concluded when this proceeding begins.\nI would also like to describe the nature of this proceeding, because the petitioner's argument is that if it looks sufficiently like a trial on guilt or innocence, it is a trial on guilt or innocence, notwithstanding the fact that guilt has been resolved prior to the hearing in this case, and therefore and argue the Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply.\nIn California in these proceedings, the record is abbreviated.\nIt is six pages in the excerpts here.\nThe record is static and fixed under State law.\nThe trier of fact is not allowed to look beyond the record in the underlying case.\nThat is, the original record.\nThe defendant is on notice and aware of all potential evidence.\nTypically, no defense is offered and none was offered here, as has been pointed out, and it is true that California has elected to provide additional procedural guarantees in these proceedings, but it is our view that because the guilt determination has been completed by the time of this event, as Justice Blackmun's majority opinion in DiFrancesco describes it, that is behind the defendant at the time of sentencing.\nThere is no process here that is comparable to the determination of guilt or innocence, and in our view that also distinguishes this case from Bullington v. Missouri, and that is to say that in Bullington, of course, the Court held that the jury's decision to sentence the defendant to life in a capital case constitutes an acquittal of death.\nAnd Justice Souter, I would agree with your observation, or the suggestion in your question, that the inquiry in Bullington ultimately was, is there evidence of the sole issue the jury decides, namely death or life, and I submit that is a fundamentally different issue, because in this case, unlike in the capital context, the jury in the petitioner's case was not the sentencer.\nThe jury, it is true, decides a fact within the sentencing context, and that fact determines whether the judge can double the sentence, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2300.391, 2314.101, 2319.765, 2325.69, 2335.167, 2355.78, 2360.014, 2362.285, 2366.389, 2371.421, 2372.573, 2376.036, 2401.611, 2424.207, 2449.133], "stop_times": [2314.101, 2319.765, 2325.69, 2335.167, 2355.78, 2360.014, 2362.285, 2366.389, 2371.421, 2372.573, 2376.036, 2401.611, 2424.207, 2449.133, 2457.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2300.391}, "reply_to": "20093__1_045", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_047", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Mr.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2457.538], "stop_times": [2457.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2457.538}, "reply_to": "20093__1_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20093__1_048", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--I'm sorry, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2457.979], "stop_times": [2459.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2457.979}, "reply_to": "20093__1_047", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_049", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--I think Justice Souter wanted to ask you--\n--I was just going to say yes, but there are points on the other side, too, and the points on the other side is that it's a fact that must be charged, it's a fact which is historical in nature as to which the jury has to say yes or no, it's a fact that has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and these in fact are very trial-like determinations.\nThey're very element-like determinations.\nSo it seems to me that it's difficult on your side for that reason to say, we can draw an easy categorical distinction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2459.551, 2462.912, 2484.325, 2486.977], "stop_times": [2462.912, 2484.325, 2486.977, 2495.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2459.551}, "reply_to": "20093__1_048", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20093__1_050", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "The distinction that we would draw, though, Justice Souter, is that in Bullington the Court attaches significance to the fact that the only choice in the sentence is the choice made by that trier of fact, and in this case that is... it is true that is the only choice the jury makes, but that is not the choice that ultimately or definitively decides the sentence.\nOnce the jury--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2495.395, 2516.358], "stop_times": [2516.358, 2517.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2495.395}, "reply_to": "20093__1_049", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_051", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Well, do you take the position that in California, for example, Bullington wouldn't apply because the sentencer can always say, well, for reasons of justice I'm not going to apply this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2517.45], "stop_times": [2529.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2517.45}, "reply_to": "20093__1_050", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20093__1_052", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--Of course not, Your Honor, but that's because I'm not merely describing a process in California in which the judge as... decides to accept or reject the verdict, or the decision of the jury.\nMy point is that it is the judge in California in this noncapital context who arrives at the sentence.\nThe judge decides to apply either the lower, the middle, or the aggravated term, and the judge decides whether to allow the strike, so it is... it seems to me it's fundamentally different than in Bullington, in which the jury's decision decides the entire event in the sentencing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2529.067, 2540.686, 2546.73], "stop_times": [2540.686, 2546.73, 2565.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2529.067}, "reply_to": "20093__1_051", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_053", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Well, you're certainly right there.\nGoing back to an earlier colloquy, if the argument had been made here that in fact that was an element because... for the reasons I just ticked off, it seems to have some element characteristics, would you agree that there might be a reason for... a very good reason for coming out against you, not on the Bullington reason but, in fact, on the reasoning that what is really being charged here is an element, whether it's called that or not, so we might get the Bullington result for a different reason?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2565.081, 2566.371], "stop_times": [2566.371, 2592.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2565.081}, "reply_to": "20093__1_052", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20093__1_054", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--I think... I guess that I would disagree, Your Honor, because it seems to me that the trial on the offense concern remains paramount in the double jeopardy context, but with respect to your question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2592.98], "stop_times": [2610.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2592.98}, "reply_to": "20093__1_053", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_055", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "So there's just... then you're saying there's just... there's always a categorical distinction between offense and sentence except in the capital area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2610.462], "stop_times": [2617.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2610.462}, "reply_to": "20093__1_054", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20093__1_056", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--I believe that's the lesson of Bullington, Your Honor.\nI believe that the Court's holding in Bullington is that it is unique to the death penalty process to carry over, or that the offense consideration survives, and returning to the Court's opinion in Caspari v. Bohlen, the Court there has suggested that it is that uniqueness.\nIt is the uniqueness that Bullington describes as arising out of Furman v. Georgia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2617.385, 2619.986, 2637.291], "stop_times": [2619.986, 2637.291, 2641.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2617.385}, "reply_to": "20093__1_055", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_057", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Mm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2641.754], "stop_times": [2641.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2641.754}, "reply_to": "20093__1_056", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20093__1_058", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "And the sentencing discretion that is required, or certainly more important in the capital phase, is not at issue in this case, and that is why, in our view, when Justice Blackmun's majority opinion in Bullington described a hallmarks penalty trial as unique, he was referring to the uniqueness of the context of that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2641.914], "stop_times": [2666.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2641.914}, "reply_to": "20093__1_057", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_059", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "We even... our terminology even suggests that.\nWe speak of innocence of the death penalty as though that particular penalty were a substantive offense.\nWe never speak of innocence of any other sentencing factor, just innocence of the death penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2666.25, 2669.853, 2678.071], "stop_times": [2669.853, 2678.071, 2684.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2666.25}, "reply_to": "20093__1_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20093__1_060", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, and the Court does not, and I don't think... I don't understand analytically how one could be acquitted of a sentence and that is, of course, the petitioner's argument, that this is somehow an acquittal, as though, if he is correct, the State would be foreclosed from alleging a future recidivism action, for example, or that in the context of a death penalty case, if the sole aggravator was another criminal offense, the acquittal, or the decision of life, would constitute an acquittal of that future crime.\nFor these reasons, because this case fits squarely within the recidivism context, or the sentencing context, I believe that the Court's description in Caspari is significant here, and that is, the Court has observed in Caspari, which has been minimalized as a Teague v. Lane case, but in fact I think the Teague analysis is not irrelevant here when the Court in Caspari says that the determination, the prior determination of a sentence is an objectively verifiable fact, based upon readily available evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2684.983, 2720.176], "stop_times": [2720.176, 2751.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2684.983}, "reply_to": "20093__1_059", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_061", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "But Teague doesn't apply to a case coming from a State court, Mr. Glassman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2751.478], "stop_times": [2756.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2751.478}, "reply_to": "20093__1_060", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20093__1_062", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Your honor, I'm not suggesting that the Teague analysis controls the case or is determinative, but my point is simply that when the Court said in Teague that, in terms of whether or not double jeopardy applied to noncapital sentencing, Justice O'Connor's majority opinion clearly says that the Court's prior precedents had gone in exactly the opposite direction.\nI think that that observation in Caspari was correct, as was the Court's observation in Caspari, unlike the concerns in the double jeopardy context, that when dealing with noncapital sentencing, and particularly the prior offender, there is an increased accuracy in verifying the record in the prior case.\nCalifornia has implemented a variety of procedures, all of which are discretionary, to make this a fair proceeding.\nNone of the rights that California has granted are required and in our view those rights do not constitutionalize this event or otherwise graduate it into a double jeopardy context that it would not be in unless these hallmarks are present.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2756.043, 2776.215, 2795.319, 2802.675], "stop_times": [2776.215, 2795.319, 2802.675, 2817.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2756.043}, "reply_to": "20093__1_061", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_063", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Although they may elevate it to being an element of the crime, in which event they would elevate it to all the other things.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2817.965], "stop_times": [2824.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2817.965}, "reply_to": "20093__1_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20093__1_064", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Your Honor, I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2824.968], "stop_times": [2826.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2824.968}, "reply_to": "20093__1_063", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_065", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Although the point's been made that that argument was not presented.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2826.09], "stop_times": [2828.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2826.09}, "reply_to": "20093__1_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20093__1_066", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--And I don't believe that their argument... in other words, that the presence of these hallmarks is directed at the element issue.\nIn other words, the emphasis that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2828.371, 2835.998], "stop_times": [2835.998, 2837.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2828.371}, "reply_to": "20093__1_065", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_067", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "But why can't I answer the question that way?\nThe question presented is, does the Double Jeopardy Clause apply to noncapital sentencing proceedings that have all the hallmarks of a trial on guilt or innocence?\nWhy can't I answer that and say, yes, when those hallmarks in their context demonstrate that what was at issue was an element of the crime?\nIsn't that a fair way to answer the question presented?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2837.11, 2839.08, 2846.757, 2856.564], "stop_times": [2839.08, 2846.757, 2856.564, 2861.098], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2837.11}, "reply_to": "20093__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20093__1_068", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--It's a fair way to answer it, perhaps, but again, my reading of cases such as McMillan v. Pennsylvania indicate that it is not the shared elements test that is determinative, and that in our context, in the double jeopardy analysis--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2861.098], "stop_times": [2887.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2861.098}, "reply_to": "20093__1_067", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_069", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Why is it a fair element if it's not in the case, elements of the offense?\nWhy is it a fair reading if the issue of elements of the offense is not in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2887.605, 2890.988], "stop_times": [2890.988, 2896.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2887.605}, "reply_to": "20093__1_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20093__1_070", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--May I answer the question, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2896.051], "stop_times": [2898.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2896.051}, "reply_to": "20093__1_069", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_071", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2898.682], "stop_times": [2899.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2898.682}, "reply_to": "20093__1_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20093__1_072", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Double jeopardy in my view speaks to guilt only.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2899.233, 2902.675], "stop_times": [2902.675, 2904.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2899.233}, "reply_to": "20093__1_071", "speaker": "david_f_glassman"}
{"id": "20093__1_073", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Glassman.\nMr. Roberts, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2904.466, 2906.579], "stop_times": [2906.579, 2908.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2904.466}, "reply_to": "20093__1_072", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20093__2_000", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nWe believe the Court should not extend Bullington v. Missouri beyond capital sentencing.\nIt should instead reaffirm the well-established rule that the pronouncement of sentence in noncapital cases is not accorded the same finality as an acquittal of substantive criminal charges.\nBullington turned on two factors, each of which was essential to the outcome.\nFirst, the sentencing proceeding at issue had all the hallmarks of a trial on guilt or innocence.\nSecond, the ordeal and anxiety posed by capital sentencing are uniquely severe and invariably as great as those posed by a typical trial on guilt or innocence.\nThat's not the case with noncapital sentencing, so a bar on resentencing is not warranted.\nThe Court's cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2908.161, 2917.608, 2921.949, 2931.366, 2935.429, 2940.202, 2949.138, 2953.852], "stop_times": [2917.608, 2921.949, 2931.366, 2935.429, 2940.202, 2949.138, 2953.852, 2955.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2908.161}, "reply_to": "20093__1_073", "speaker": "matthew_d_roberts"}
{"id": "20093__2_001", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Well, it can be.\nI mean, you say... what was the last part of it, that the consequences are just as severe as the consequences on guilt or innocence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2955.402, 2956.384], "stop_times": [2956.384, 2963.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2955.402}, "reply_to": "20093__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20093__2_002", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--That they're uniquely severe, and invariably as great as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2963.148], "stop_times": [2966.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2963.148}, "reply_to": "20093__2_001", "speaker": "matthew_d_roberts"}
{"id": "20093__2_003", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Invariably.\nWell, okay.\nNot invariably, but in some cases the so-called enhancement factor can up the ante on the sentence tenfold.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2966.661, 2967.472, 2968.243], "stop_times": [2967.472, 2968.243, 2978.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2966.661}, "reply_to": "20093__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20093__2_004", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--It still is not a choice between life and death.\nThe prisoner in all those cases, his life is not at stake, and it wouldn't make sense to look at each particular sentencing, at each particular sentencing procedure to evaluate not only whether it has the hallmarks but also whether the anxiety is so great that it ought to trigger double jeopardy.\nThat would be an administrative nightmare.\nThe Court's... besides, the Court's cases make clear that the central purpose of the Double Jeopardy Clause is to protect defendants against being repeatedly subjected to the ordeal and anxiety of a trial on guilt or innocence, and against the risk of erroneous conviction, not to guard against repeated sentencing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [2978.24, 2982.563, 3002.306, 3004.577], "stop_times": [2982.563, 3002.306, 3004.577, 3020.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2978.24}, "reply_to": "20093__2_003", "speaker": "matthew_d_roberts"}
{"id": "20093__2_005", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "If it did apply... I'm not certain of the answer to this.\nI'm having... suppose that you lost this case.\nIs the consequence of it... I can see the consequence of it would be that when a person appealed and lost on appeal on the ground of insufficient evidence, you couldn't... you're stuck with that.\nIs there any other consequence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [3020.069, 3022.52, 3025.672, 3037.002], "stop_times": [3022.52, 3025.672, 3037.002, 3038.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3020.069}, "reply_to": "20093__2_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20093__2_006", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "We would contend not, although there might be an argument that under the collateral estoppel line of double jeopardy that we would... that the State would be bound in future--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [3038.442], "stop_times": [3052.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3038.442}, "reply_to": "20093__2_005", "speaker": "matthew_d_roberts"}
{"id": "20093__2_007", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "They are anyway, aren't they, under collateral estoppel, or not?\nI mean, if a State tried to punish a person again, say for a somewhat different crime, but there was a factual issue that was identical, the same issue, aren't they bound by it, or not, to litigate it between the two parties?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [3052.109, 3054.352], "stop_times": [3054.352, 3068.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3052.109}, "reply_to": "20093__2_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20093__2_008", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--They wouldn't be bound necessarily, because there would be a question of whether this determination in the sentencing context has all the... you mean not as a constitutional matter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [3068.742], "stop_times": [3084.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3068.742}, "reply_to": "20093__2_007", "speaker": "matthew_d_roberts"}
{"id": "20093__2_009", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "No, I mean... you know, I mean, what happens if, in fact, they have another trial, another punishment, another sentencing phase on a different matter, and it turns out that there's a factual issue that's identical, the very same fact?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [3084.921], "stop_times": [3096.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3084.921}, "reply_to": "20093__2_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20093__2_010", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "That would be a rule of State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [3096.059], "stop_times": [3097.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3096.059}, "reply_to": "20093__2_009", "speaker": "matthew_d_roberts"}
{"id": "20093__2_011", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Yes, but don't all the States... do they, or not?\nHow does it work?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [3097.249, 3099.46], "stop_times": [3099.46, 3100.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3097.249}, "reply_to": "20093__2_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20093__2_012", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--I think that it's the case with sentencing determinations like this, and recidivist determinations, that it's a new... that the State has a new chance to establish that true finding.\nIt has been traditionally the case that that would bind the State in future cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [3100.061, 3110.91], "stop_times": [3110.91, 3115.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3100.061}, "reply_to": "20093__2_011", "speaker": "matthew_d_roberts"}
{"id": "20093__2_013", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "The State loses the first time in the sentencing proceeding, where the issue is what happened on the night of July 5, 1988, at 6:00 in the morning, did he have a gun or not, and then he commits another crime, and in sentencing it becomes relevant again, and the State isn't bound, they can bring it up again, try and get him again?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [3115.251], "stop_times": [3131.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3115.251}, "reply_to": "20093__2_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20093__2_014", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "My understanding, from what the California supreme court stated to be the rule, is that that's... that the case with recidivist findings is that the findings may be alleged again in future proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [3131.603], "stop_times": [3147.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3131.603}, "reply_to": "20093__2_013", "speaker": "matthew_d_roberts"}
{"id": "20093__2_015", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Do you think there's a Due Process Clause issue there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [3147.643], "stop_times": [3149.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3147.643}, "reply_to": "20093__2_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20093__2_016", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "There certainly might be limitations under the Due Process Clause on what would be permissible, but that... you know, obviously that's not the question here.\nThat hasn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [3149.435, 3160.662], "stop_times": [3160.662, 3161.233], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3149.435}, "reply_to": "20093__2_015", "speaker": "matthew_d_roberts"}
{"id": "20093__2_017", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Well, DiFrancesco talked about an expectation of finality, and pointed out that there the defendant knew that there was a proceeding where the sentence could be appealed and that there might be more hearings, but if you have a procedure in which the sentence is final, the appellate court affirms the sentence, and then there's some proceeding, new proceeding to reopen it, it seems to me that that does maybe indicate that an expectation of finality is being disappointed.\nThat's not this case, I don't think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [3161.233, 3196.516], "stop_times": [3196.516, 3198.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3161.233}, "reply_to": "20093__2_016", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20093__2_018", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "--Correct, it's not this case, Justice Kennedy, and we would submit that the expectation of finality that's created only goes so far as the State law that creates it.\nI think it's important to recognize that the rule advanced by petitioner that trial-like hallmarks at sentencing automatically triggers a bar on resentencing places too little value on society's interest in accurate and appropriate punishment, and too great a value on defendant's interest in finality.\nAnd it's been pointed out, it might discourage States from providing procedural protections at sentencing, because they wouldn't be free to do so without also triggering double jeopardy protection.\nFinally, just to briefly address the issue that came up on the question of Almendarez-Torres.\nIn addition to the fact that it hasn't been argued here, I think it would be inappropriate... for the same reason that it would be inappropriate to have a rule that triggered double jeopardy by the procedural protections, it would be inappropriate to have a rule that said that the State has to make things an element of the offense when it decides it wants to provide certain procedural protections, because that's forcing it to trade off its interests in accurate and appropriate punishment against its decision to afford defendant certain protections to make the sentencing proceeding more fair.\nIn essence, the reading of Bullington that's advanced by petitioner here is as unworkable and unwise as it is unwarranted by precedent and principle, and we would ask that the Court should affirm the judgment of the California supreme court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [3198.018, 3209.965, 3226.786, 3238.143, 3247.97, 3280.872], "stop_times": [3209.965, 3226.786, 3238.143, 3247.97, 3280.872, 3295.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3198.018}, "reply_to": "20093__2_017", "speaker": "matthew_d_roberts"}
{"id": "20093__2_019", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Roberts.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [3295.491, 3296.983], "stop_times": [3296.983, 3298.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3295.491}, "reply_to": "20093__2_018", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20093__2_020", "conversation_id": "20093", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-6146", "start_times": [3298.483], "stop_times": [3303.535], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3298.483}, "reply_to": "20093__2_019", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21193__0_000", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-1829, Montana v The Crow Tribe of Indians.\nMr. Smith.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [0.0, 7.888], "stop_times": [7.888, 9.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21193__0_001", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court--\nThe issue today is whether a Federal court may award to respondents, Crow Tribe and the United States, 58 million paid to the petitioners by a third party, Westmoreland Resources.\nReduced to its essentials, the respondents' theory is that a Federal court has this discretion and in reality the obligation to make such an award merely because the taxes have been held preempted and the actual taxpayer has no entitlement to their recovery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [9.278, 12.84, 26.957], "stop_times": [12.84, 26.957, 50.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.278}, "reply_to": "21193__0_000", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_002", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Mr. Smith, I'd like to pursue with you what you assert is the underlying cause of action here.\nIs it for some kind of breach of tribal sovereignty, some Federal cause of action, or is it limited to a cause of action for money had and received based on an implied contract?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [50.699, 57.93], "stop_times": [57.93, 76.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 50.699}, "reply_to": "21193__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21193__0_003", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Justice O'Connor, we believe the action in this matter is limited to a cause of action for money had and received, a cause--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [76.251], "stop_times": [85.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 76.251}, "reply_to": "21193__0_002", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_004", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, that's interesting, because I thought it had been determined in earlier litigation that there was a Federal cause of action here based on a... an invasion of tribal sovereignty and a preemption by Federal law of any State tax law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [85.701], "stop_times": [106.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 85.701}, "reply_to": "21193__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21193__0_005", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--Your Honor, that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [106.661], "stop_times": [109.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 106.661}, "reply_to": "21193__0_004", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_006", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "And I thought we had basically summarily affirmed that notion.\nNow, is that right or wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [109.253, 115.11], "stop_times": [115.11, 116.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 109.253}, "reply_to": "21193__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21193__0_007", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--Your Honor, that is correct in the Crow II decision, the 1987 Ninth Circuit decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [116.72], "stop_times": [125.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 116.72}, "reply_to": "21193__0_006", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_008", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [125.201], "stop_times": [125.92], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 125.201}, "reply_to": "21193__0_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21193__0_009", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "The court of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [125.92], "stop_times": [126.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 125.92}, "reply_to": "21193__0_008", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_010", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "So are we dealing here in this suit with what remedy is appropriate based on that theory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [126.543], "stop_times": [134.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 126.543}, "reply_to": "21193__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21193__0_011", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, we are, but I would add, by way of further elaboration, that in determining the appropriate remedy I think the Court is confronted with the question of whether a Federal cause of action or a Federal common law claim should be recognized under these circumstances for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [134.947], "stop_times": [157.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 134.947}, "reply_to": "21193__0_010", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_012", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, if it's been determined that there is some breach of tribal sovereignty by the State of Montana, and if what we at bottom are faced with here is what's the remedy, then I think your argument might focus on what should be the remedy, and it's entirely possible to me that it shouldn't be just a disgorgement of all the taxes but, rather, a requirement that the Court would have to look at what injury was suffered by the tribe in crafting the amount of the remedy.\nIs that an argument you make, or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [157.484, 192.97], "stop_times": [192.97, 197.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 157.484}, "reply_to": "21193__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21193__0_013", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--Your Honor, that is not precisely the argument we make.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [197.016], "stop_times": [201.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 197.016}, "reply_to": "21193__0_012", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_014", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "No, I didn't think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [201.295], "stop_times": [202.06], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 201.295}, "reply_to": "21193__0_013", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21193__0_015", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "The argument we make, if I may go on, is that in this case we essentially dealt... played the hand we were dealt in terms of the respondent's theory and their theory of recovery, as set forth in their amended complaints and, indeed, in subsequent pleadings and in the pretrial order, was a theory which sought recovery of taxes paid by Westmoreland Resources.\nHad... had the respondents attempted to recover compensatory damages, that is to say, damages directed specifically to the injury that the tribe suffered with respect to the marketability of its coal, we would have an entirely different case than we have before us today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [202.06, 229.751], "stop_times": [229.751, 251.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 202.06}, "reply_to": "21193__0_014", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_016", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "And the complaint was amended, as I recall, after our affirmance in Crow II?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [251.946], "stop_times": [257.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 251.946}, "reply_to": "21193__0_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21193__0_017", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, that is correct.\nIt was amended in 1989 by the tribe, it's fourth amended complaint, and the United States filed essentially the same complaint 6 months later in 1990.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [257.819, 260.379], "stop_times": [260.379, 271.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 257.819}, "reply_to": "21193__0_016", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_018", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Is money had and received the same as restitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [271.937], "stop_times": [275.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 271.937}, "reply_to": "21193__0_017", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21193__0_019", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Your Honor, I would say not.\nRestitution is a broader concept which covers a rather extensive range of potential remedies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [275.171, 279.56], "stop_times": [279.56, 286.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 275.171}, "reply_to": "21193__0_018", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_020", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Why can't they just get restitution?\nWhy couldn't... I mean, here why can't the... here's... I take it there's a person who paid some taxes to the State and the Indian tribe says, well, the State doesn't... isn't entitled to that money, and we're more entitled to it than they are, because probably we would have gotten at least some of it, so we would like it in restitution.\nWhy shouldn't they have it?\nThe State isn't entitled to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [286.166, 290.118, 309.329, 310.61], "stop_times": [290.118, 309.329, 310.61, 312.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 286.166}, "reply_to": "21193__0_019", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21193__0_021", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [312.016], "stop_times": [313.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 312.016}, "reply_to": "21193__0_020", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_022", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "I'll add that my law clerk found a bunch of cases that do seem, in restitution, to give one of the two competing entities in taxes... you pay it to the wrong one, well, the right one has a right in restitution to get it from the wrong one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [313.936], "stop_times": [328.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 313.936}, "reply_to": "21193__0_021", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21193__0_023", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--Justice Breyer, the claim that is sought, again, or is alleged, deals with restitution of a specific kind of payment, in this case taxes paid to the respondents by Westmoreland.\nIt seeks, in essence, a traditional quasicontract remedy, and it has been the petitioners' position throughout that, given the nature of the quite specific remedy sought, that the traditional standards associated with quasicontract govern the respondents' entitlement to those moneys.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [328.868, 351.858], "stop_times": [351.858, 376.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 328.868}, "reply_to": "21193__0_022", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_024", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Mr. Smith, may I ask you to clarify in response to Justice Breyer's inquiry?\nI understood your brief to say it's not a question of one Government receiving the tax versus the other, like one county getting what belonged to another county.\nI think your position was that even if there had been no tax by the State of Montana there could not have been a tax by the tribe instead, because it didn't have the requisite Federal permission in the years in question, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [376.146, 383.533, 395.996], "stop_times": [383.533, 395.996, 411.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 376.146}, "reply_to": "21193__0_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21193__0_025", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor and, indeed, the district court so found following the 1994 trial, the second trial in this matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [411.944], "stop_times": [419.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 411.944}, "reply_to": "21193__0_024", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_026", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "So it's not like getting benefits that should have gone to you that went to somebody else, but your position is that it would have been... the tribe could not have gotten the tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [419.784], "stop_times": [429.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 419.784}, "reply_to": "21193__0_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21193__0_027", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nThe vast bulk of the taxes at issue were paid during the period betweenl 1975 and 1982.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [429.702, 430.623], "stop_times": [430.623, 440.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 429.702}, "reply_to": "21193__0_026", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_028", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Another way of saying that would be that there was no duty to pay the tribe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [440.494], "stop_times": [444.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 440.494}, "reply_to": "21193__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21193__0_029", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, there was no duty on the part of Westmoreland to pay the tribe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [444.618], "stop_times": [450.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 444.618}, "reply_to": "21193__0_028", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_030", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "In the restitution cases there's usually a duty to pay the person that seeks to recover later on.\nMr. Smith, judging from the number of times you cite it in your brief I gather you rely rather heavily on our decision in United States v. California.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [450.256, 455.566], "stop_times": [455.566, 466.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 450.256}, "reply_to": "21193__0_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21193__0_031", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "That's correct, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [466.155], "stop_times": [468.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 466.155}, "reply_to": "21193__0_030", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_032", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "And how do you fit that into your case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [468.139], "stop_times": [471.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 468.139}, "reply_to": "21193__0_031", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21193__0_033", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Your Honor, we believe that California stands for the general proposition that quasicontract relief is available as a matter of Federal common law only with respect to the entity or person who bears the legal incidence of the tax.\nMoreover, the facts in California are remarkably similar to the facts here, in the sense that the United States in that case, similar to the tribe in this case, was attempting to enforce in essence an independent obligation that may have existed between the Federal contractor in that case and the United States, just as the tribe in this case is, when you cut through the chaff, is attempting to enforce real or imagined obligations that the... that Westmoreland may have had to the tribe under the terms of the 1976 Tribal Tax Code.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [471.263, 492.613], "stop_times": [492.613, 543.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 471.263}, "reply_to": "21193__0_032", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_034", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, but the big difference, of course, is that in U.S. v. California the suit was based on money had and received, which this Court said required finding an implied contract, and the tax was found to have violated State law.\nState law.\nHere, you've got in earlier litigation resolved in Crow II a determination, affirmed by this Court, that the Montana law violated tribal sovereignty and was, indeed, preempted by Federal law.\nNow, that is a different cause of action, and maybe will give rise to some right for compensatory damages.\nI think U.S. v. California on that basis is distinguishable.\nHow would you say it is not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [543.108, 556.979, 558.571, 576.33, 584.076, 589.574], "stop_times": [556.979, 558.571, 576.33, 584.076, 589.574, 592.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 543.108}, "reply_to": "21193__0_033", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21193__0_035", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Justice O'Connor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [592.151], "stop_times": [594.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 592.151}, "reply_to": "21193__0_034", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_036", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "You've got a separate cause of action here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [594.495], "stop_times": [596.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 594.495}, "reply_to": "21193__0_035", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21193__0_037", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, as I said before if the tribe and the United States had pursued an actual or compensatory damages case, this matter would be quite different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [596.368], "stop_times": [608.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 596.368}, "reply_to": "21193__0_036", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_038", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, is it too late?\nMaybe what needs to be done is to vacate and remand, so that the Court can address what is the appropriate remedy.\nThe Court may well have found an improper remedy, just lumping all the taxes together and saying, fine, you get it, but they're probably entitled to something if they can establish injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [608.989, 610.364, 617.297], "stop_times": [610.364, 617.297, 629.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 608.989}, "reply_to": "21193__0_037", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21193__0_039", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Your Honor, the respondents in this case made a very conscious decision not to pursue a damages claim with respect to Westmoreland.\nIndeed, they did pursue a damages claim with respect to Shell, the Shell transaction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [629.511, 643.24], "stop_times": [643.24, 648.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 629.511}, "reply_to": "21193__0_038", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_040", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "No.\nThey're talking about some remedy against the State of Montana, which... and it is the State of Montana by its law that is said to have violated tribal sovereignty, not Westmoreland.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [648.786, 649.253], "stop_times": [649.253, 661.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 648.786}, "reply_to": "21193__0_039", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21193__0_041", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Your Honor, I may have misspoke.\nThe tribe attempted to amend its complaint in 1993 to allege, in essence, a damages claim against the State and the county with respect to the nondevelopment of a project on the reservation called Young's Creek, and we loosely call that the Shell issue, and that issue was resolved against it by the district court and by the court of appeals.\nWith respect to Westmoreland, the tribe has consistently declined to pursue a damages claim.\nIndeed, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [661.233, 664.607, 687.456, 700.249], "stop_times": [664.607, 687.456, 700.249, 705.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 661.233}, "reply_to": "21193__0_040", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_042", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "When you say with respect to Westmoreland you mean with respect to that operation, not suing... the tribe suing Westmoreland, I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [705.231], "stop_times": [714.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 705.231}, "reply_to": "21193__0_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21193__0_043", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.\nThe... when I say Westmoreland, I'm speaking of the production under the lease agreement between Westmoreland and the tribe, but as... and it's summarized perhaps in most detail in our opposition, which is Clerk's Record 600, to the United States and the tribe's motion to amend their amended complaints in 1993.\nWe summarized in some detail the conscious decision by the respondents not to pursue a damages claim, and that description appears on pages 2 through 11 of Clerk's Record 600.\nThere is simply no question, we respectfully submit, in this case that if there in fact could have been a damages claim the respondents made a conscious litigation decision not to pursue it, and that was not an unreasonable determination.\nThe district court, following the first trial in this case, following the 1984 trial, concluded that there was no evidence to establish that Westmoreland had lost any prospective or existing coal contracts because of the State taxes.\nThe district court in the second trial noted, based on testimony adduced at that trial, that there was, again, no further evidence that Westmoreland had lost any contracts because of these State taxes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [714.18, 715.633, 743.403, 758.865, 778.981, 798.209], "stop_times": [715.633, 743.403, 758.865, 778.981, 798.209, 814.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 714.18}, "reply_to": "21193__0_042", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_044", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, Mr. Smith, was Westmoreland a plaintiff in some of these actions?\nI mean, did it sue the State of Montana?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [814.921, 820.95], "stop_times": [820.95, 823.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 814.921}, "reply_to": "21193__0_043", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21193__0_045", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "It did, Your Honor.\nIt... excuse me.\nI'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [823.089, 824.449, 825.417], "stop_times": [824.449, 825.417, 825.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 823.089}, "reply_to": "21193__0_044", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_046", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Yes, by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [825.683], "stop_times": [828.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 825.683}, "reply_to": "21193__0_045", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21193__0_047", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "The... Westmoreland intervened as a defendant in 1978, shortly after this matter was initiated.\nIt crossclaimed against the State, seeking a determination in 1978 that the taxes were unlawful.\nIt amended its crossclaim in 1983 to seek recovery of the taxes paid to the State between 1976 and 1982.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [828.681, 836.381, 844.69], "stop_times": [836.381, 844.69, 856.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 828.681}, "reply_to": "21193__0_046", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_048", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--And how did that claim finally come out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [856.561], "stop_times": [859.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 856.561}, "reply_to": "21193__0_047", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21193__0_049", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "That claim, Your Honor, was eventually dismissed with prejudice as a result of a settlement in 1991.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [859.669], "stop_times": [866.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 859.669}, "reply_to": "21193__0_048", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_050", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "A settlement between the State and Westmoreland?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [866.463], "stop_times": [869.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 866.463}, "reply_to": "21193__0_049", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21193__0_051", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [869.024], "stop_times": [870.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 869.024}, "reply_to": "21193__0_050", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_052", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Could I ask, about that settlement... it really puzzles me.\nThey had a claim for millions of dollars, as I remember it, and they settled for 50,000.\nWas there some other consideration given to Westmoreland in that settlement, other than 50,000?\nIt seems very strange.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [870.165, 873.195, 879.067, 884.783], "stop_times": [873.195, 879.067, 884.783, 886.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 870.165}, "reply_to": "21193__0_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21193__0_053", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "No... there was no other consideration given, Your Honor.\nThe... Westmoreland at that point in time had a claim that from the petitioner's view and I believe from Westmoreland's view had zero value, because at that point in time it had long since passed any... bypassed any opportunity to challenge the State taxes under State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [886.002, 888.798], "stop_times": [888.798, 913.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 886.002}, "reply_to": "21193__0_052", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_054", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, the State statute of limitations in effect had run on its ability to recover.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [913.115], "stop_times": [917.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 913.115}, "reply_to": "21193__0_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21193__0_055", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [917.38], "stop_times": [918.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 917.38}, "reply_to": "21193__0_054", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_056", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [918.177], "stop_times": [919.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 918.177}, "reply_to": "21193__0_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21193__0_057", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "And so the 50,000 from its perspective was approximately 50,000 more than its claim was worth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [919.567], "stop_times": [925.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 919.567}, "reply_to": "21193__0_056", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_058", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "What is the State's procedure?\nMust you protest within a certain amount of time, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [925.783, 926.846], "stop_times": [926.846, 929.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 925.783}, "reply_to": "21193__0_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21193__0_059", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Excuse me.\nI'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [929.829, 931.704], "stop_times": [931.704, 931.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 929.829}, "reply_to": "21193__0_058", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_060", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--What did Westmoreland fail to do that made its claim, as you say, worthless?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [931.968], "stop_times": [939.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 931.968}, "reply_to": "21193__0_059", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21193__0_061", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Your Honor, under State law... first of all, there are two taxes involved in this question, in this case, a gross proceeds tax and a severance tax, and there are actually different protest procedures for each of those taxes, but generally speaking for each tax the... Westmoreland was required within a specific period of time to file a protest and then with respect to the gross proceeds tax and the severance tax for a period of time to initiate a lawsuit in State district court.\nIt failed to do that.\nThe State procedures for protest with respect to the severance tax changed in 1983 retroactive to 1981, which provided for a protest procedure and then administrative review by the Department of Revenue and a lawsuit if the... if Westmoreland was dissatisfied with the resolution of its claim.\nSo again, the... by the time the settlement agreement was entered into in 198... in 1991, Westmoreland's claim had, I think from its perspective, zero value.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [939.482, 970.64, 972.39, 994.318], "stop_times": [970.64, 972.39, 994.318, 1006.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 939.482}, "reply_to": "21193__0_060", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_062", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Mr. Smith, may I ask you about a possibly different way of looking at the case or characterizing the claim?\nUp to this point we've been doing it in terms of basically a competition between two taxing sovereigns.\nOne taxed when it shouldn't.\nThe other one could have and in effect wants the money that the first one wrongfully took.\nBut there's another way, I think, to look at this, and that is to emphasize what I take is not subject to dispute either as a matter of the record or as a matter of economics, and that was that what the State of Montana took through its taxation was a very substantial percentage of the economic value of the coal.\nThey were... the tribe was able to keep, or Westmoreland was able to keep on selling it with the tax added, but in fact the ultimate party losing was the party that owned the coal.\nSo that if we look at it that way, what we have here is a contest between a Government which, through its taxation, took a substantial interest in the property of the tribe.\nNow the tribe, whether you call it a taxing authority or simply the owner of the coal, wants that wrongfully taken portion of its economic value back.\nThe State of Montana does not have a legal leg to stand on as the taxing authority.\nThat's behind us.\nWe know that the tax was in fact an invalid tax, so as between the State of Montana, which took this substantial economic value, and the owner of the property, the owner of the value which was taken, why isn't it fairly clear that the owner of the value taken, the tribe, ought to get it back?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1006.438, 1013.279, 1020.417, 1021.714, 1029.974, 1053.497, 1069.976, 1082.922, 1096.653, 1103.899, 1104.805], "stop_times": [1013.279, 1020.417, 1021.714, 1029.974, 1053.497, 1069.976, 1082.922, 1096.653, 1103.899, 1104.805, 1127.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1006.438}, "reply_to": "21193__0_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21193__0_063", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Your Honor, I think there are two reasons why a negative answer is appropriate.\nFirst, the State of Montana did not take value during the period we're really concerned with, 1976 through 1982, from the tribe.\nIt took value from Westmoreland Resources in terms of Westmoreland's taxes.\nNow, at that point in time, the district court found, and we believe the record supports the factual and legal conclusion that Westmoreland simply would not have paid the 19... paid taxes under the 1976 Tribal Taxation Code, so it was not as if the State of Montana--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1127.732, 1135.854, 1146.71, 1152.644], "stop_times": [1135.854, 1146.71, 1152.644, 1171.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1127.732}, "reply_to": "21193__0_062", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_064", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, it wouldn't have because Westmoreland couldn't have passed it on, either as a matter of the utilities law or as a matter of economics.\nWhat, as I understand it, Westmoreland was doing with respect to the Montana tax was simply passing it on to its customers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1171.043, 1179.649], "stop_times": [1179.649, 1188.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1171.043}, "reply_to": "21193__0_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21193__0_065", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1188.287], "stop_times": [1190.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1188.287}, "reply_to": "21193__0_064", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_066", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Yes.\nSo Westmoreland was getting the same profit on its contract that it would have been getting if it had, in fact, not been subject to Montana tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1190.896, 1191.193], "stop_times": [1191.193, 1201.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1190.896}, "reply_to": "21193__0_065", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21193__0_067", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1201.749], "stop_times": [1203.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1201.749}, "reply_to": "21193__0_066", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_068", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1203.312], "stop_times": [1204.077], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1203.312}, "reply_to": "21193__0_067", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21193__0_069", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Because, again, the economic incidence of this tax was passed contractually through to Westmoreland's utility customers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1204.077], "stop_times": [1209.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1204.077}, "reply_to": "21193__0_068", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_070", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "But the fact that the coal was still saleable at Westmoreland's price, plus the 35 percent, is an indication of the value that was in the coal and ultimately that value belonged to the owner of the coal who was selling it, and that was the tribe, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1209.59], "stop_times": [1224.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1209.59}, "reply_to": "21193__0_069", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21193__0_071", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Your Honor, the... we would suggest that the value of the coal was the value... from the tribe's perspective was the value that it received under its 1974 lease agreement with Westmoreland.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1224.365], "stop_times": [1238.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1224.365}, "reply_to": "21193__0_070", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_072", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, maybe they didn't make a good lease agreement.\nI have no idea.\nBut the fact is, even if they didn't make a good lease agreement, it doesn't follow that the State of Montana is entitled to take what they should have been getting for themselves.\nAs between the State of Montana and the tribe, I don't see why the tribe's claim is not the obviously prevailing one, if that's a proper way of looking at the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1238.781, 1240.187, 1241.218, 1251.12], "stop_times": [1240.187, 1241.218, 1251.12, 1262.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1238.781}, "reply_to": "21193__0_071", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21193__0_073", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, Your Honor, again, I think that the issue in this case is whether the tribe has a legal entitlement to recovery of those taxes, even when the taxpayer itself does not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1262.023], "stop_times": [1276.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1262.023}, "reply_to": "21193__0_072", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_074", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, we're in the position of fashioning a remedy for what was, in fact, a violation of Federal law, and I'm not sure that I agree with you that we are necessarily bound by categories of common law remedial practice in fashioning that remedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1276.704], "stop_times": [1296.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1276.704}, "reply_to": "21193__0_073", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21193__0_075", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Your Honor, if we depart from common law tradition in this regard, one must ask him or herself the question of why the tribe as opposed to Westmoreland, or for that matter Westmoreland's customers, is more entitled to these moneys.\nWestmoreland, through the legal incidence, and Westmoreland's customers through the economic incidence, actually bore the burden of this tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1296.961, 1317.953], "stop_times": [1317.953, 1327.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1296.961}, "reply_to": "21193__0_074", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_076", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "But Mr. Smith, why... I'm not following this colloquy between you and Justice Souter.\nIt seems... was the coal contracted for and the price fixed between the tribe and Westmoreland before the taxes were imposed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1327.419, 1333.619], "stop_times": [1333.619, 1345.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1327.419}, "reply_to": "21193__0_075", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21193__0_077", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "They were, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1345.02], "stop_times": [1346.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1345.02}, "reply_to": "21193__0_076", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_078", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "So at that point, it seems to me, the value of the coal to the tribe was no more and no less than what it had contracted to sell it for.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1346.755], "stop_times": [1358.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1346.755}, "reply_to": "21193__0_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21193__0_079", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1358.437], "stop_times": [1359.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1358.437}, "reply_to": "21193__0_078", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_080", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Period.\nI mean, it might be worth more in the abstract, but if it made a bad contract its value to the tribe at that point is simply what it contracted to sell it for, I assume.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1359.483, 1359.874], "stop_times": [1359.874, 1369.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1359.483}, "reply_to": "21193__0_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21193__0_081", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "That's correct and, Your Honor, indeed, the tribe did not make a bad contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1369.98], "stop_times": [1374.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1369.98}, "reply_to": "21193__0_080", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_082", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, I guess the tribe is saying, though that, but for the subsequently enacted tax, that Westmoreland would have taken more coal out and been able to sell more and they would have gotten more royalties and what's more maybe there was some other land they could have leased out for coal removal, but because of Montana's tax they weren't able to do it.\nBut that doesn't equate automatically with the amount of Montana's tax, it seems to me.\nI still think we need to pursue what really is the injury to the tribe in terms of dollars.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1374.368, 1395.312, 1400.732], "stop_times": [1395.312, 1400.732, 1410.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1374.368}, "reply_to": "21193__0_081", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21193__0_083", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Your Honor, I agree, and the injury to the tribe in terms of dollars would, at least in theory, have been best quantified through a compensatory damages kind of claim and, as I've said before, that is not the kind of claim that has ever been maintained in this action and, indeed, it is the kind of claim that the tribe and the United States disclaimed any interest in pursuing.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1410.026, 1435.219], "stop_times": [1435.219, 1437.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1410.026}, "reply_to": "21193__0_082", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_084", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "You say that remedy was unavailable because it had not been sought.\nIs that your position here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1437.53, 1441.014], "stop_times": [1441.014, 1442.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1437.53}, "reply_to": "21193__0_083", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21193__0_085", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1442.949], "stop_times": [1444.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1442.949}, "reply_to": "21193__0_084", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_086", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "When you say common law authority, what common law authority?\nThat is, I found... I thought restitution authority is you're supposed to do basically what's just, and if person A takes the property of person B and puts it to a use whereby he makes some money out of it, that money... you know, person A wrongfully takes the property of B and makes some money out of its use, and that money finds its way into the hands of C, I would have thought restitution would give it back to the original owner of the property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1444.293, 1447.854], "stop_times": [1447.854, 1472.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1444.293}, "reply_to": "21193__0_085", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21193__0_087", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "And--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1472.656], "stop_times": [1474.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1472.656}, "reply_to": "21193__0_086", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_088", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "I mean, I didn't think there was some general, technical thing.\nI thought you're supposed to do basically what's fair.\nHere they had some property, and it was put to some use, and it ended up generating some money, and the money ends up in the hands of a person who has no right to it whatsoever, but they might have gotten it out of the property.\nWhy shouldn't restitution or equity come back and put it where it belongs?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1474.062, 1477.092, 1478.685, 1488.447], "stop_times": [1477.092, 1478.685, 1488.447, 1492.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1474.062}, "reply_to": "21193__0_087", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21193__0_089", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--Your Honor, in fact the petitioners did not receive any property of the tribe.\nThe tribe conferred no benefit on the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1492.305, 1501.941], "stop_times": [1501.941, 1503.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1492.305}, "reply_to": "21193__0_088", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_090", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "But they got 58 million which was tax, which tax was generated through the use of some coal that started out belonging to the tribe, and that coal generated some money that was used to pay a tax that went into the hands of a person who has no right to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1503.832], "stop_times": [1520.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1503.832}, "reply_to": "21193__0_089", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21193__0_091", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--Your Honor, but following that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1520.934], "stop_times": [1527.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1520.934}, "reply_to": "21193__0_090", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_092", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "I mean, is there some common law authority that says you couldn't do that, bring it back?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1527.213], "stop_times": [1530.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1527.213}, "reply_to": "21193__0_091", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21193__0_093", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--Your Honor, we believe there is, and we believe that the common law authority is United States v. California.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1530.462], "stop_times": [1534.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1530.462}, "reply_to": "21193__0_092", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_094", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well--\n--If the tribe had executed its leases and the... and with the royalty agreements, and after the execution of those mining agreements or leases had then imposed a tax, would that have been inconsistent with the contract documents?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1534.898, 1538.413], "stop_times": [1538.413, 1556.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1534.898}, "reply_to": "21193__0_093", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21193__0_095", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "I think Westmoreland, Your Honor, would have said was... it wasn't consistent, because Westmoreland saw the 1974 lease amendment as the complete economic settlement between the parties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1556.92], "stop_times": [1568.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1556.92}, "reply_to": "21193__0_094", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_096", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "So it's not at all clear that the tribe could have imposed its tax if it had chosen to do so after executing the agreements.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1568.494], "stop_times": [1574.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1568.494}, "reply_to": "21193__0_095", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21193__0_097", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, the record shows the tribe in fact did attempt to impose their tax, but was prevented from doing so by the Department of Interior.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1574.101], "stop_times": [1583.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1574.101}, "reply_to": "21193__0_096", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_098", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "That's what I thought.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1583.879], "stop_times": [1584.614], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1583.879}, "reply_to": "21193__0_097", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21193__0_099", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Because the Department had doubted the authority of the tribe to tax offreservation transactions, and the ceded strip is outside--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1584.614], "stop_times": [1596.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1584.614}, "reply_to": "21193__0_098", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_100", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, was that a matter of the tribe's sovereign authority, or was part of that decision motive, it was one of the reasons offered in denial of the permission to tax, the fact that the tribe had already made a contract?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1596.218], "stop_times": [1607.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1596.218}, "reply_to": "21193__0_099", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21193__0_101", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nIt was based solely on the tribe's constitution and the Department's interpretation that it did not permit offreservation taxation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1607.713, 1609.508], "stop_times": [1609.508, 1619.271], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1607.713}, "reply_to": "21193__0_100", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_102", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "And there was a subsequent district court decision saying that in fact it was part... the ceded land was part of the reservation and the tribe did have the power to tax, isn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1619.271], "stop_times": [1628.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1619.271}, "reply_to": "21193__0_101", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21193__0_103", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, that's correct, but that was in 1988, long after--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1628.736], "stop_times": [1632.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1628.736}, "reply_to": "21193__0_102", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_104", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1632.968], "stop_times": [1633.546], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1632.968}, "reply_to": "21193__0_103", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21193__0_105", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--the events we're concerned with occurred, and that decision was thereafter reconsidered by the district court in its 1994 decision, and in essence the district court stated that it was not intended to speak to any obligation that Westmoreland may have had under the 1976 Tribal Taxation Code.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1633.546], "stop_times": [1652.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1633.546}, "reply_to": "21193__0_104", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_106", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "But quite apart from the tribe's sovereign authority, Westmoreland might have had an argument that this... that the imposition of the tax was inconsistent with its contract negotiations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1652.179], "stop_times": [1660.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1652.179}, "reply_to": "21193__0_105", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21193__0_107", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "It did and, indeed, Westmoreland made that argument, but that is not the argument that the Department of Interior relied upon in disapproving the ordinance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1660.692], "stop_times": [1669.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1660.692}, "reply_to": "21193__0_106", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_108", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Mr. Smith, in your answer to Justice Breyer's question a moment ago, your reliance on California and, I gather, in your answer to me, you're assuming that one... I think one of the things you're assuming is that in the question of, as it were, the value of the property to the tribe and what the tribe may properly claim as value taken from it, the tribe's contract with Westmoreland is in fact a limitation on what the tribe can claim.\nWhy should that be a limitation as between the tribe and Montana?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1669.048, 1701.425], "stop_times": [1701.425, 1705.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1669.048}, "reply_to": "21193__0_107", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21193__0_109", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Your Honor, it should be a limitation between the tribe and Montana because the respondents are seeking a very specific remedy, Westmoreland's taxes.\nThat is the remedy they have sought for the last 10 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1705.799, 1721.244], "stop_times": [1721.244, 1725.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1705.799}, "reply_to": "21193__0_108", "speaker": "clay_riggs_smith"}
{"id": "21193__0_110", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Smith.\nI think you've answered the question.\nMr. Pelcyger, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1725.68, 1727.539, 1729.101], "stop_times": [1727.539, 1729.101, 1731.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1725.68}, "reply_to": "21193__0_109", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21193__1_000", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Rehnquist, and may it please the Court--\nI'd like to start by addressing some of the questions that were raised by the Court to Mr. Smith.\nFirst, I'd like briefly to refer to Rule 54(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief in the party's pleadings.\nThat's quoted at page 24 and footnote 18 of our brief.\nI'd also like to bring the Court's attention to the district court's 1990 interlocutory decision, also quoted in that same footnote.\nIt's in the petitioner's appendix at pages 74 to 76.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1731.037, 1738.004, 1742.783, 1760.587, 1763.946, 1773.771], "stop_times": [1738.004, 1742.783, 1760.587, 1763.946, 1773.771, 1777.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1731.037}, "reply_to": "21193__0_110", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_001", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Which footnote is it in your brief, Mr. Pelcyger?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1777.16], "stop_times": [1779.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1777.16}, "reply_to": "21193__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21193__1_002", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Footnote 18, page 24, Mr. Chief Justice, in which the district court denied the motion... this was in 1990, long before the trial in this case, in which the district court denied Montana's motion to dismiss, stating that the current phase of this case was an extension of the district court's previously invoked equity jurisdiction and that, once violations of significant tribal interest were established, the district court had \"broad equitable powers\" that refers... broad equitable powers to construct a remedy that refers to State law and is not defeated by it, so it was known throughout this litigation what this case was about, and this is not a pleading case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1779.206], "stop_times": [1820.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1779.206}, "reply_to": "21193__1_001", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_003", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, Mr. Pelcyger, why shouldn't the remedy be tailored to the damages suffered by the tribe?\nIn other words, the loss to the tribe of royalties that it otherwise would have had if more coal had been taken by Westmoreland and sold, or other revenues that it might have derived if other people had not been discouraged by the amount of Montana's unlawful tax from making lease arrangements with the tribe?\nI don't see why the measure of damages should automatically be the amount of the taxes collected by Montana.\nI think it should be directed to the tribe's injuries.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1820.721, 1827.498, 1852.005, 1859.174], "stop_times": [1827.498, 1852.005, 1859.174, 1863.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1820.721}, "reply_to": "21193__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21193__1_004", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Let me say first that that's not the question that's presented.\nThe question presented was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1863.313, 1866.015], "stop_times": [1866.015, 1867.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1863.313}, "reply_to": "21193__1_003", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_005", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "I'd like you to answer that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1867.295], "stop_times": [1869.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1867.295}, "reply_to": "21193__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21193__1_006", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--I would be glad to answer that question and I'm glad you asked it.\nThe court of appeals held twice, both in Crow II and in Crow IV, that Montana's illegal coal taxes, quote, took revenues that would otherwise go towards supporting the tribe and its programs.\nThat was with reference to the coal that was actually mined, not the coal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1869.513, 1872.246, 1885.757], "stop_times": [1872.246, 1885.757, 1890.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1869.513}, "reply_to": "21193__1_005", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_007", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "I don't understand what that means.\nI mean, what does that mean, that would otherwise go?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1890.192, 1890.817], "stop_times": [1890.817, 1893.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1890.192}, "reply_to": "21193__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21193__1_008", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--It means that Westmoreland--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1893.036], "stop_times": [1894.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1893.036}, "reply_to": "21193__1_007", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_009", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Because the tribe would have taxed it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1894.502], "stop_times": [1895.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1894.502}, "reply_to": "21193__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21193__1_010", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--The tribe would have taxed it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1895.612], "stop_times": [1897.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1895.612}, "reply_to": "21193__1_009", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_011", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "The tribe couldn't have taxed it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1897.611], "stop_times": [1898.064], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1897.611}, "reply_to": "21193__1_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21193__1_012", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, the tribe could have taxed it, Your Honor, and let me also say in response to Justice Kennedy's question that this Court held in the case of Hickory Apache Tribe... Marian v. Hickory Apache Tribe that in the absence of an expressed waiver of the sovereign right to tax, the tribe could go back... the circumstances there were virtually identical and the tribe could go back and impose taxes after entering into a mineral lease, so that issue was resolved by this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1898.064], "stop_times": [1923.304], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1898.064}, "reply_to": "21193__1_011", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_013", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "But there they had the consent of the Secretary of Interior.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1923.304], "stop_times": [1924.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1923.304}, "reply_to": "21193__1_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21193__1_014", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "They had the consent of the Secretary of Interior, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1924.617], "stop_times": [1927.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1924.617}, "reply_to": "21193__1_013", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_015", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Which is a little different than this one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1927.022], "stop_times": [1928.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1927.022}, "reply_to": "21193__1_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21193__1_016", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, that's a... perhaps a complicating factor or a distraction, depending upon how it's viewed.\nBut what the record shows here clearly and unmistakably, the first thing, Justice O'Connor, that needs to be looked at is what has actually happened in the absence of the State tax.\nThe State tax was held invalid in 1987 in Crow II, summarily affirmed by this Court in 1988.\nSince that time, the tribe has, in fact, received 100 percent of the State... of taxes measured precisely by the amount of the State severance and gross proceeds taxes, so the best evidence of what would have happened but for the State taxes is what actually did happen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1928.069, 1933.426, 1943.139, 1949.277], "stop_times": [1933.426, 1943.139, 1949.277, 1966.303], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1928.069}, "reply_to": "21193__1_015", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_017", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "I don't follow that.\nThey didn't have permission from the Department of Interior for those years, and at least Mr. Smith took the position that... both on brief and before us that, even if Montana hadn't tried to tax any part of this, the tribe could not without the Secretary's permission, which it didn't have in those years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1966.303, 1966.615], "stop_times": [1966.615, 1987.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1966.303}, "reply_to": "21193__1_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21193__1_018", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, this is not a case between the tribe and Westmoreland.\nThis is a case... this is... in order to recover against the State... Westmoreland's not the wrongdoer.\nThe State is the wrongdoer.\nWe're seeking to recover not against Westmoreland.\nWe're seeking to recover against the State of Montana.\nI see no reason why recovery against the State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [1987.247, 1990.371, 1995.354, 1996.728, 1999.196, 2001.258], "stop_times": [1990.371, 1995.354, 1996.728, 1999.196, 2001.258, 2005.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1987.247}, "reply_to": "21193__1_017", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_019", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, why shouldn't it be measured by your injury?\nI would appreciate your answering that question before we go on to other things.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2005.818, 2007.068], "stop_times": [2007.068, 2011.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2005.818}, "reply_to": "21193__1_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21193__1_020", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--I'm trying to... I'm trying to answer... I'm trying to answer the question.\nThe record shows that Montana... and this is clear by the testimony of Montana's president, and it's clear by a 1976 letter that is in the record in the joint appendix at page 87 where Westmoreland says, and it's position from the beginning was that it was willing to pay one tax, not two, it didn't matter to Westmoreland who it paid the taxes to, and that Westmoreland was willing to pay the tribe any additional payments that the tribe was exempt from by virtue of its status and by virtue of its sovereignty.\nAnd that is exactly what the Ninth Circuit held below, relying on that 1976 letter which was quoted in the court of appeals decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2011.644, 2014.831, 2046.912], "stop_times": [2014.831, 2046.912, 2055.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2011.644}, "reply_to": "21193__1_019", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_021", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "You mean, Westmoreland would have paid it without the Department of Interior permission on the part of the tribe?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2055.783], "stop_times": [2061.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2055.783}, "reply_to": "21193__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21193__1_022", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "I can't speak for Westmoreland, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2061.109], "stop_times": [2062.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2061.109}, "reply_to": "21193__1_021", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_023", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "No.\nDon't you think they'd be liable to their stockholders if they did something like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2062.264, 2062.545], "stop_times": [2062.545, 2066.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2062.264}, "reply_to": "21193__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21193__1_024", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--Your Honor, the record shows, and again it's very clear on this point, Westmoreland recognized what the traffic bore for Montana coal after 1975.\nWestmoreland recognized that one way or another it was going to have to pay, whether in the form of increased royalties or taxes, that additional amount of money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2066.795, 2075.761], "stop_times": [2075.761, 2083.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2066.795}, "reply_to": "21193__1_023", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_025", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "That's all very true.\nThey didn't care who they paid the taxes to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2083.366, 2083.866], "stop_times": [2083.866, 2085.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2083.366}, "reply_to": "21193__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21193__1_026", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2085.958], "stop_times": [2086.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2085.958}, "reply_to": "21193__1_025", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_027", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "But that still doesn't settle the question of whether the tribe could have imposed the tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2086.286], "stop_times": [2090.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2086.286}, "reply_to": "21193__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21193__1_028", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, but again the question is, why... the Secretary of Interior made a mistake.\nAssume the Secretary of the Interior made a mistake.\nNow, in fact the tax was approved as to reservation coal and it was subsequently determined that this coal was reservation coal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2090.176, 2094.455, 2096.235], "stop_times": [2094.455, 2096.235, 2102.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2090.176}, "reply_to": "21193__1_027", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_029", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, not only that, the tribe's tax was 25 percent, Montana's was 35 percent, so even if the tribe could have taxed, it wasn't going to tax it the same amount.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2102.437], "stop_times": [2111.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2102.437}, "reply_to": "21193__1_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21193__1_030", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2111.776], "stop_times": [2112.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2111.776}, "reply_to": "21193__1_029", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_031", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "I mean, this... we're just addressing what the injury is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2112.87], "stop_times": [2115.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2112.87}, "reply_to": "21193__1_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21193__1_032", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--Well, Montana, of course, was free to defend on that ground, that there was a disparity and, indeed, the law of restitution recognizes that if there is a gross disparity between the unlawful gain and the amount... restitution does not exist in order to give plaintiffs an unjust enrichment, and Montana was free to argue that.\nIn fact, they did not argue that, not at all.\nWhat Montana argued was that we provided services to all the Crow members, the same services they would have received in the absence of this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2115.571, 2135.501, 2138.266], "stop_times": [2135.501, 2138.266, 2145.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2115.571}, "reply_to": "21193__1_031", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_033", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, I suppose it's not too late.\nWe have to look now in this case at whether the remedy of disgorgement of all of the taxes and handing it over to the tribe is correct as a matter of Federal law.\nMaybe it's not.\nMaybe it ought to be sent back so we can look at what the injury to the tribe was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2145.262, 2146.262, 2157.086, 2158.399], "stop_times": [2146.262, 2157.086, 2158.399, 2162.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2145.262}, "reply_to": "21193__1_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21193__1_034", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--The critical question here is what would have happened in the absence of the State's unlawful taxes, and whether or not the tribe might have been able to recover against Westmoreland is beside the point.\nThe question is, what would have happened but for the State taxes, and the record--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2162.662, 2173.236], "stop_times": [2173.236, 2177.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2162.662}, "reply_to": "21193__1_033", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_035", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "May I ask in that connection, assume that Westmoreland had not been tardy in making its claim for a refund and it had promptly filed a claim for a refund and all of the money had been refunded to Westmoreland, would you still be able to maintain precisely the same claim that you're now maintaining?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2177.968], "stop_times": [2193.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2177.968}, "reply_to": "21193__1_034", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21193__1_036", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--Of course, that's not our situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2193.04], "stop_times": [2194.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2193.04}, "reply_to": "21193__1_035", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_037", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2194.806], "stop_times": [2195.509], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2194.806}, "reply_to": "21193__1_036", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21193__1_038", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "But I believe yes, we would, Your Honor, and the reason is that the Court's... the remedial powers of this Court should be guided primarily here by the purposes of the statute that was violated, but the purposes of the statute here were not to benefit Westmoreland.\nIt was not to give Westmoreland a competitive advantage visavis other coal producers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2195.509, 2208.847], "stop_times": [2208.847, 2213.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2195.509}, "reply_to": "21193__1_037", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_039", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "What was violated was the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2213.937], "stop_times": [2216.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2213.937}, "reply_to": "21193__1_038", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21193__1_040", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "No.\nWhat was violated... and the Commerce Clause of the Constitution was not violated.\nIn fact, this Court in CommonwealthEdison specifically upheld this same tax as applied to Federal coal.\nWhat was violated here was the tribe's sovereignty and the Indian Mineral Leasing Act under which the tribe's minerals are leased, not the Federal minerals, or not other people's minerals.\nSo this is unique to the tribes, and the purpose... this is a very, very unique tax, because the tax... sorry.\nThis is a very unique statute under which the tax was held invalid, because the purpose of the statute was not to protect the taxpayer.\nThe purpose of the statute was to protect the tribe.\nWestmoreland, the taxpayer, was a bystander, caught in a big conflict, in the middle of a conflict between three sovereigns, Federal, State, and tribal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2216.281, 2217.045, 2219.669, 2226.886, 2236.867, 2245.113, 2253.079, 2256.093], "stop_times": [2217.045, 2219.669, 2226.886, 2236.867, 2245.113, 2253.079, 2256.093, 2264.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2216.281}, "reply_to": "21193__1_039", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_041", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "It wasn't exactly a bystander when it got back all the money in escrow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2264.465], "stop_times": [2268.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2264.465}, "reply_to": "21193__1_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21193__1_042", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "No, but it was... no.\nWell, it didn't get back... no, the tribe got the money that was in escrow, Your Honor, not Westmoreland.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2268.072, 2268.635], "stop_times": [2268.635, 2272.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2268.072}, "reply_to": "21193__1_041", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_043", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Oh, that's right.\nThat's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2272.759, 2273.071], "stop_times": [2273.071, 2273.368], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2272.759}, "reply_to": "21193__1_042", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21193__1_044", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "So--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2273.368], "stop_times": [2273.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2273.368}, "reply_to": "21193__1_043", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_045", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "They did get a... didn't they get something back, Westmoreland?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2273.821], "stop_times": [2276.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2273.821}, "reply_to": "21193__1_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21193__1_046", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--No.\nWestmoreland just got the 50,000 that you referred to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2276.164, 2276.539], "stop_times": [2276.539, 2279.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2276.164}, "reply_to": "21193__1_045", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_047", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2279.225], "stop_times": [2279.553], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2279.225}, "reply_to": "21193__1_046", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21193__1_048", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "So you have to look at the purpose of the Federal statute.\nThe purpose of the Federal statute was not to confer a benefit on the taxpayer.\nOrdinarily, when taxes are held invalid the automatic assumption is, the taxes were held invalid, the taxpayer gets to get the money back because the taxes were invalid, but here the sole and exclusive intended beneficiary of the laws that were violated was the tribe, it wasn't Westmoreland, and for Westmoreland to escape with no taxes whatsoever would not be a result that is consistent with the purposes of the statute and would not effectuate the purposes of the statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2279.553, 2282.865, 2286.519], "stop_times": [2282.865, 2286.519, 2311.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2279.553}, "reply_to": "21193__1_047", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_049", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Mr.... I'm sorry.\nMr. Pelcyger, I want to ask whether the terms of the lease might have a bearing on the answer to Justice O'Connor's question.\nAssume the following.\nAssume that at a given time the Secretary of the Interior said, you may not tax.\nAssume that Westmoreland says, as it did, I don't care who I pay the money to.\nI can sell the coal at this price, and you guys fight it out.\nIf the tax at that point had been declared invalid, as it was, could the tribe... did the tribe have a right under its lease agreement simply to demand a renegotiation of the price at which it would sell so that it could have gotten as its lease price what the Department of the Interior was not allowing it to get by way of taxation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2311.884, 2312.884, 2319.693, 2320.708, 2329.345, 2333.702, 2337.263], "stop_times": [2312.884, 2319.693, 2320.708, 2329.345, 2333.702, 2337.263, 2357.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2311.884}, "reply_to": "21193__1_048", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21193__1_050", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--There was not... there was a provision for renegotiation of royalties, but on specific dates.\nI think the first one was 10 years after the original lease, not in 1975.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2357.974, 2362.91], "stop_times": [2362.91, 2367.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2357.974}, "reply_to": "21193__1_049", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_051", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2367.815], "stop_times": [2368.377], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2367.815}, "reply_to": "21193__1_050", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21193__1_052", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Because the lease was entered into in 1974, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2368.377], "stop_times": [2370.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2368.377}, "reply_to": "21193__1_051", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_053", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Are you going to be able to show... are you going to be able to show that if the Montana tax... everybody had known from the very beginning that they couldn't have done it, everybody would have known that you... that the tribe could have gotten more royalties from Westmoreland?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2370.563], "stop_times": [2383.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2370.563}, "reply_to": "21193__1_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21193__1_054", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2383.495], "stop_times": [2385.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2383.495}, "reply_to": "21193__1_053", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_055", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "It's the same pile of money.\nI mean, it's a pile of money that's traceable--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2385.464, 2386.307], "stop_times": [2386.307, 2388.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2385.464}, "reply_to": "21193__1_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21193__1_056", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--That's right, and Westmoreland testified it didn't make any difference.\nThey passed on both the royalties--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2388.43, 2390.477], "stop_times": [2390.477, 2392.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2388.43}, "reply_to": "21193__1_055", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_057", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--I know from West... we're talking about the damages, and what I'm interested in is whether you think you'd be able to show that in the absence of this unlawful tax, everybody knew it was unlawful.\nEverybody knew from the year 1800 that they couldn't do it.\nNow, if they had known that all in advance, would the tribe have been able, even if the Secretary of the Interior made the mistake about the tax, they say, okay, you're right, we can't tax you, Westmoreland, but what we can do is increase our royalties, and we will.\nNow, do you think that you can show that that's what would have happened?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2392.133, 2402.206, 2404.736, 2419.496], "stop_times": [2402.206, 2404.736, 2419.496, 2422.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2392.133}, "reply_to": "21193__1_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21193__1_058", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--I can't predict what would have happened under those circumstances.\nWhat I can say is that the record before this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2422.792, 2426.164], "stop_times": [2426.164, 2428.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2422.792}, "reply_to": "21193__1_057", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_059", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Wasn't the price set... wasn't the price set before the tax was imposed?\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2428.383, 2430.835], "stop_times": [2430.835, 2431.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2428.383}, "reply_to": "21193__1_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21193__1_060", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--The royalty was set--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2431.303], "stop_times": [2432.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2431.303}, "reply_to": "21193__1_059", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_061", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2432.162], "stop_times": [2432.459], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2432.162}, "reply_to": "21193__1_060", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21193__1_062", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--before the tax was imposed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2432.459], "stop_times": [2433.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2432.459}, "reply_to": "21193__1_061", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_063", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Yes, but at that time... that's what I wonder, you see.\nAt that time when they set the royalty, what was in the air?\nWhat did--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2433.272, 2435.255, 2439.66], "stop_times": [2435.255, 2439.66, 2440.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2433.272}, "reply_to": "21193__1_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21193__1_064", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, that was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2440.94], "stop_times": [2441.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2440.94}, "reply_to": "21193__1_063", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_065", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--I mean, I can understand my... to reveal what I'm thinking, I'm thinking that if this money can be traceable really to the sale of the coal, which is the tribe's, it is rather like somebody unlawfully taking my car and use it to sell pizzas, and earns money for it, and I should get it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2441.659], "stop_times": [2455.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2441.659}, "reply_to": "21193__1_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21193__1_066", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2455.138], "stop_times": [2455.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2455.138}, "reply_to": "21193__1_065", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_067", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "But if you can't show that, it might be different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2455.591], "stop_times": [2457.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2455.591}, "reply_to": "21193__1_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21193__1_068", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, let me just say, the record leaves no doubt that but... and this is clear from Westmoreland's testimony, that but for the State taxes they would have paid the same amount of money to the tribe.\nThey were not looking... Westmoreland was not looking to try to get something cheaper than the market conditions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2457.544, 2466.992], "stop_times": [2466.992, 2472.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2457.544}, "reply_to": "21193__1_067", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_069", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "I thought the tribe's position was that had there been no heavy Montana tax, that Westmoreland would have been able to take and sell more coal, which would have generated more royalties to the tribe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2472.974], "stop_times": [2485.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2472.974}, "reply_to": "21193__1_068", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21193__1_070", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "That's part of the position, Your Honor.\nThere are two different discrete claims of injury here, both of which were found by the lower courts.\nThe first discrete claim relates to the coal that was actually produced and sold, and there the claim is the tribe was deprived of its fair share of the economic rent.\nIn addition to that, there's a claim with regard to... or an injury with regard to the coal that was not sold because the price was too high because of the State's tax.\nThere's no damages sought now on the basis of that second category, but the first category is what we're talking about, and that's what the focus is on.\nNow, let me just say one other thing.\nThere's no reason--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2485.407, 2486.782, 2491.42, 2500.307, 2509.303, 2517.284, 2518.721], "stop_times": [2486.782, 2491.42, 2500.307, 2509.303, 2517.284, 2518.721, 2519.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2485.407}, "reply_to": "21193__1_069", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_071", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "But as to that... as to that, the tribe had entered into an agreement before there were any taxes by either Montana or the tribe, or the amount of the royalties it wanted and would accept, and so it's hard to understand how the subsequent imposition of a tax which was passed on to the consumers by Westmoreland alters that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2519.971], "stop_times": [2542.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2519.971}, "reply_to": "21193__1_070", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21193__1_072", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--Well, again, the lease just dealt with royalties.\nThe tribe is both the owner of the coal and the sovereign.\nLet me just make one thing real clear.\nThere's no reason--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2542.399, 2545.694, 2548.506, 2550.239], "stop_times": [2545.694, 2548.506, 2550.239, 2551.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2542.399}, "reply_to": "21193__1_071", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_073", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, at a time... at a time when the tribe was not permitted to impose its own tax, it's hard to equate that with the direct injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2551.599], "stop_times": [2559.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2551.599}, "reply_to": "21193__1_072", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21193__1_074", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--Well, the reason... the tribe was permitted to impose its own tax.\nThe Secretary made a mistake, because the Secretary didn't realize at the time that the ceded strip coal was part of the reservation.\nNow, the question is, why should the benefit of that mistake inure to the wrongdoer?\nThe tribe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2559.644, 2561.143, 2567.578, 2573.152], "stop_times": [2561.143, 2567.578, 2573.152, 2573.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2559.644}, "reply_to": "21193__1_073", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_075", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "It was the reality, whether it was a mistake or not.\nIt's not a question of why should--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2573.715, 2576.183], "stop_times": [2576.183, 2577.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2573.715}, "reply_to": "21193__1_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21193__1_076", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--No, but the question is, this is a claim of the tribe versus the wrongdoer.\nThis is a claim for violation of the tribe's federally secured rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2577.464, 2580.666], "stop_times": [2580.666, 2584.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2577.464}, "reply_to": "21193__1_075", "speaker": "robert_s_pelcyger"}
{"id": "21193__1_077", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--Thank you, Mr. Pelcyger.\nMr. Lamken, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2584.836, 2586.242], "stop_times": [2586.242, 2588.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2584.836}, "reply_to": "21193__1_076", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21193__2_000", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2588.381], "stop_times": [2603.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2588.381}, "reply_to": "21193__1_077", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "21193__2_001", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Mr. Lamken, sometime in the course of your argument I'd appreciate your saying why this case isn't controlled by California v. United States.\nIt's been suggested that California did not involve a Federal cause of action, and here it does, a violation of a Federal right, but as I read the California opinion, the Court's reasoning didn't turn on that fact.\nIf you'll just address that sometime in your argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2603.485, 2611.404, 2623.179], "stop_times": [2611.404, 2623.179, 2625.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2603.485}, "reply_to": "21193__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21193__2_002", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nWhy don't I begin with that.\nCalifornia involved a claim that the... the question was whether there was a Federal common law cause of action in the United States against the State of California where California had not violated Federal law and it had not invaded any sovereign right of the United States.\nThe only reason the United States was in the case was it had voluntarily agreed to indemnify a third party that had paid the tax potentially in violation of State law.\nThis Court held that the United States could not use its voluntary indemnification of that third party to create a Federal common law cause of action out of what was in essence a State law cause of action.\nIn essence, the Federal Government did not obtain any greater rights than the third party that had indemnified had to begin with.\nHere, in contrast, there is a Federal cause of action.\nMontana violated not State law, but it violated Federal law, and it did not violate the law... the rights of a third party.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2625.897, 2626.85, 2627.881, 2646.28, 2655.901, 2668.833, 2675.58, 2678.876], "stop_times": [2626.85, 2627.881, 2646.28, 2655.901, 2668.833, 2675.58, 2678.876, 2686.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2625.897}, "reply_to": "21193__2_001", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "21193__2_003", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, you say a Federal cause of action.\nThe United States v. California came up through the Federal courts, didn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2686.061, 2688.622], "stop_times": [2688.622, 2693.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2686.061}, "reply_to": "21193__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21193__2_004", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Certainly, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2693.917], "stop_times": [2694.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2693.917}, "reply_to": "21193__2_003", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "21193__2_005", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "So there must have been... the United States must have had a right to go into court to make the assertion that it should recover.\nI wonder if your denominated cause of action is right, or whether you don't mean that your argument is there was a violation of a Federal right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2694.541, 2700.132], "stop_times": [2700.132, 2709.458], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2694.541}, "reply_to": "21193__2_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21193__2_006", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--Cause of action can be... the phrase, cause of action, can be used two ways.\nOne is in the sense of a valid stated claim on which relief can be granted.\nThe other one is the question of whether the litigant is within the category of potential plaintiffs who are entitled to bring that sort of claim.\nRegardless of which sense it is, it was... you use the word, it was clear in the United States v. California case that the United States could not bring that cause of action, and here it's clear that we are.\nThe United States in this case did not only bring a case, it prevailed.\nIt obtained permanent relief based on its claim, so here there is a cause of action.\nIn California the substantive holding was there was no cause of action.\nAccordingly, the claim by the United States should have been dismissed, and it should not have been in Federal court to begin with.\nIt simply was not a proper party to bring that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2709.458, 2712.847, 2717.548, 2725.123, 2734.712, 2738.57, 2742.991, 2746.52, 2751.237], "stop_times": [2712.847, 2717.548, 2725.123, 2734.712, 2738.57, 2742.991, 2746.52, 2751.237, 2754.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2709.458}, "reply_to": "21193__2_005", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "21193__2_007", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "As I understand your theory, if California taxed a corporation that was doing business in California and Nevada and the corporation said, you know, really, this is interstate commerce, you can't tax our income, and settled with California, under your theory I guess Nevada could say, we don't have a corporate income tax, but you know, you took the tax that really should have been ours, so we'll sue you, State of California.\nI suppose under your theory Nevada would prevail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2754.471, 2783.693], "stop_times": [2783.693, 2785.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2754.471}, "reply_to": "21193__2_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21193__2_008", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "No, Your Honor, I don't believe that that case could be brought, and I think this is in part a response to Justice O'Connor's question, and that is that the purpose of a remedy such as restitution is to restore the parties to the position they would have occupied had Federal law been respected to begin with.\nRestitution begins that process by forcing the defendant to disgorge its unlawful gains.\nNow, it's important in tax cases to start with a disclosure and then let defendant--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2785.285, 2802.186, 2808.87], "stop_times": [2802.186, 2808.87, 2812.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2785.285}, "reply_to": "21193__2_007", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "21193__2_009", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, under that, Nevada says, you know, this money must belong to somebody.\nThe company's settled.\nCalifornia, it's not yours.\nIt should be ours.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2812.4, 2815.54, 2817.243, 2818.303], "stop_times": [2815.54, 2817.243, 2818.303, 2818.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2812.4}, "reply_to": "21193__2_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21193__2_010", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--Well, the next step, however, in the analysis, Your Honor, is, where there's a gross disparity between the two... between the injury to the plaintiff and the unjust gain to the defendant, the court can deny restitution because the restitution would not... the enrichment was not unjust visavis the plaintiff.\nAnother way of looking at it is simply, if the plaintiff has no injury whatsoever it cannot seek restitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2818.928, 2837.703], "stop_times": [2837.703, 2843.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2818.928}, "reply_to": "21193__2_009", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "21193__2_011", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Their point is that, that I take it that the, Montana's point is that in the absence of this unlawful tax of the 58 million, or whatever, the tribe couldn't have gotten the money.\nIt couldn't have gotten the money through a royalty because it had long previously signed a definite contract.\nIt couldn't have gotten the money through a tax because the Secretary of the Interior had said you can't tax.\nSo in the absence of their having taken the money, the tribe could never have seen a penny of it, regardless, and therefore they are not a proper person to give the money back to.\nNow, I take it that that's basically their point, as I've understood it, and so what is your response directly to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2843.107, 2855.321, 2861.115, 2867.128, 2877.78], "stop_times": [2855.321, 2861.115, 2867.128, 2877.78, 2885.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2843.107}, "reply_to": "21193__2_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21193__2_012", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Our response to that is the same response that the court below had, which is, it's not supported by the evidence, and there's two reasons why--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2885.152], "stop_times": [2890.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2885.152}, "reply_to": "21193__2_011", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "21193__2_013", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "And what does... and fine, so what is... what does the evidence support, in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2890.588], "stop_times": [2894.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2890.588}, "reply_to": "21193__2_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21193__2_014", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--First, the evidence supports that in the absence of the Montana tax, Westmoreland is willing to pay additional royalties to the tribe whether by way of tax or by way of royalty agreements in any amount that it saved from the Montana tax.\nIn other words, any reduction in the Montana tax would have been... Westmoreland was willing to pay that to the tribe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2894.726, 2907.861], "stop_times": [2907.861, 2912.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2894.726}, "reply_to": "21193__2_013", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "21193__2_015", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Is that right?\nI mean, is that really credible?\nI mean, the tribe would have come and said, you know, this tax is unlawful, and we know we can't get any more royalties from you, we have a deal, and we know we can't tax you because we've been told by the Secretary of the Interior he won't give permission, and Westmoreland says, oh, that's okay, I'll give you the 38 million instead of the State.\nThat's fine with us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2912.828, 2913.687, 2916.232, 2934.429], "stop_times": [2913.687, 2916.232, 2934.429, 2935.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2912.828}, "reply_to": "21193__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21193__2_016", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "There's a letter from Westmoreland to the tribe in joint appendix page 87, and during that it says that we have previously negotiated regarding additional royalties.\nHowever, any additional payments to you will have to be in lieu of the State tax and not in addition to.\nAnd in addition, at joint appendix pages 397 and 400 there are statements by Westmoreland to the effect that they were willing... any reduction in Montana tax that the tribe could obtain through its use of its governmental or sovereign authority--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2935.117, 2943.846, 2950.11], "stop_times": [2943.846, 2950.11, 2961.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2935.117}, "reply_to": "21193__2_015", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "21193__2_017", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "That's a quite different statement, any additional payments to you will have to be in lieu of instead of in addition to, and you characterize that as a sort of volunteering to give you the money that we save from the tax?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2961.731], "stop_times": [2973.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2961.731}, "reply_to": "21193__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21193__2_018", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--In light of the negotiations that had occurred, that is what it means, and on page 397 and 400 of the joint appendix, again there is testimony that they're willing to share any savings that the tribe could obtain from the Montana tax for them through use of its governmental authorities with the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2973.695], "stop_times": [2988.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2973.695}, "reply_to": "21193__2_017", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "21193__2_019", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Oh, so now they're willing to share it.\nThat's a deal that I think the company might cut.\nThat is plausible.\nIf you get Montana off our back, we'll give you 19 of the 38 million.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2988.515, 2989.796, 2992.279, 2993.795], "stop_times": [2989.796, 2992.279, 2993.795, 2998.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2988.515}, "reply_to": "21193__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21193__2_020", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [2998.637], "stop_times": [3000.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2998.637}, "reply_to": "21193__2_019", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "21193__2_021", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "That's more plausible, but you've already cut your claim by 50 percent now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3000.417], "stop_times": [3003.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3000.417}, "reply_to": "21193__2_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21193__2_022", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Your Honor, it's not... I don't think there is a precise one... necessarily a proven precise onetoone correspondence between the loss to this tribe in this case and the amount of restitution awarded by the court of appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3003.604], "stop_times": [3014.959], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3003.604}, "reply_to": "21193__2_021", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "21193__2_023", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, exactly.\nWell... yes.\nI mean, that's the whole point, and why shouldn't this be sent back to determine what was the injury to the tribe?\nI... this business of equating it automatically with the amount of the tax I just don't understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3014.959, 3015.505, 3015.927, 3022.549], "stop_times": [3015.505, 3015.927, 3022.549, 3028.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3014.959}, "reply_to": "21193__2_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21193__2_024", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, I think Your Honor, equity starts... restitution starts with the unlawful gain to the defendant, and the reason it starts there... and I'll go to how it can get reduced.\nThe reason it starts there is an important protection for the State.\nIf it were simply a damages action the State's liability would not be limited to the amount of its unjust gain.\nIt would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3028.234, 3035.731, 3038.792, 3043.556], "stop_times": [3035.731, 3038.792, 3043.556, 3044.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3028.234}, "reply_to": "21193__2_023", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "21193__2_025", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "On that theory, I take it you disagree with your colleague on the same side, is that if Westmoreland had recovered all the tax itself, then the tribe would not be able to get any money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3044.462], "stop_times": [3052.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3044.462}, "reply_to": "21193__2_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21193__2_026", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--If Westmoreland had recovered the money, under the doctrines of benefits conferred the claim would no longer be against Montana but upon... the beneficiary of the tax would be Westmoreland, so the tribe's action would have to run against Westmoreland and not the State of Montana.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3052.569], "stop_times": [3065.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3052.569}, "reply_to": "21193__2_025", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "21193__2_027", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "You mean they would have been able to recover this money from Westmoreland if Westmoreland had recovered it from Montana?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3065.75], "stop_times": [3070.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3065.75}, "reply_to": "21193__2_026", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21193__2_028", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "The answer is potentially yes, and this is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3070.186], "stop_times": [3072.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3070.186}, "reply_to": "21193__2_027", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "21193__2_029", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "But what... why was Westmoreland a wrongdoer?\nI mean, they have to have done something wrong to give up several million dollars, don't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3072.217, 3074.575], "stop_times": [3074.575, 3077.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3072.217}, "reply_to": "21193__2_028", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21193__2_030", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, and that would depend on the validity of the 1976 tax.\nThe 1976 tax, although initially the Secretary declined to approve it, the Secretary did approve the tax--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3077.683, 3081.323], "stop_times": [3081.323, 3088.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3077.683}, "reply_to": "21193__2_029", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "21193__2_031", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "The tribal tax.\nThe amount of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3088.038, 3090.006], "stop_times": [3090.006, 3090.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3088.038}, "reply_to": "21193__2_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21193__2_032", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--Excuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3090.616], "stop_times": [3091.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3090.616}, "reply_to": "21193__2_031", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "21193__2_033", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--The amount of the tribal tax is not equal to the amount of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3091.053], "stop_times": [3092.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3091.053}, "reply_to": "21193__2_032", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21193__2_034", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3092.928], "stop_times": [3094.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3092.928}, "reply_to": "21193__2_033", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "21193__2_035", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--the Montana tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3094.677], "stop_times": [3095.067], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3094.677}, "reply_to": "21193__2_034", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21193__2_036", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "That's correct, and when there is... and if Westmoreland objected on that basis a trial court would be justified in rolling back the restitutionary remedy and saying, well, the goal here is to return the parties to the position they would have occupied if Federal law had been obeyed.\nI think the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3095.067, 3108.312], "stop_times": [3108.312, 3110.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3095.067}, "reply_to": "21193__2_035", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "21193__2_037", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "The same would be true for Montana, then, too, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3110.234], "stop_times": [3111.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3110.234}, "reply_to": "21193__2_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21193__2_038", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3111.327], "stop_times": [3111.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3111.327}, "reply_to": "21193__2_037", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "21193__2_039", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3111.639], "stop_times": [3112.077], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3111.639}, "reply_to": "21193__2_038", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21193__2_040", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "If Montana had raised and proven through evidence that the damages were grossly disproportionate, got much lower than the restitution or remedy, a court would be justified in rolling back the restitution or remedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3112.077], "stop_times": [3123.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3112.077}, "reply_to": "21193__2_039", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "21193__2_041", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "No, but isn't it clear on the record that if the criterion of what the tribe gets looks to the position that the tribe would have been in but for the tax, even on that criterion, the tribe, based on the record we've got, would not have gotten all that Montana took.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3123.026], "stop_times": [3143.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3123.026}, "reply_to": "21193__2_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21193__2_042", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "I think, Your Honor, the starting point is always the gain to the defendant.\nAt that point, it's the defendant's obligation to come forward and say, assert and prove that this inherent restitutionary remedy, based on its gain, is inequitable--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3143.236, 3147.124], "stop_times": [3147.124, 3155.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3143.236}, "reply_to": "21193__2_041", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "21193__2_043", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, is this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3155.84], "stop_times": [3156.527], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3155.84}, "reply_to": "21193__2_042", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21193__2_044", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--because it overcompensates the plaintiff.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3156.527], "stop_times": [3157.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3156.527}, "reply_to": "21193__2_043", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "21193__2_045", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--Excuse me.\nAre you making this turn basically on procedure, that although there is indication in the record that the tribe in fact would not have received, either by lease negotiation or by taxation, what dollarfordollar Montana took, that somehow Montana nonetheless has got to give it all back because Montana did not go through some procedure of proving that, even though we've got evidence in the record that indicates that?\nIs that your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3157.574, 3157.84, 3184.188], "stop_times": [3157.84, 3184.188, 3185.249], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3157.574}, "reply_to": "21193__2_044", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21193__2_046", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThe position is that if it's not grossly disproportional, a little bit of difference between the restitutionary measure and the damages measure does not make a difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3185.249, 3186.03], "stop_times": [3186.03, 3194.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3185.249}, "reply_to": "21193__2_045", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "21193__2_047", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, it sounds... this--\n--You're writing all of this from cases, moreover, in which the restitution is being made to the person from whom the money was taken.\nIn this case, it would have been the corporation and not the tribe, and I think to simply use the same burden of proof rules in this very different situation is unreasonable.\nIt is, indeed, reasonable to presume that the whole amount of wrongfully acquired money goes back to the person whom you took it from, and the burden would be on Benvenuto Cellini to show that in fact he gave added value to the lump of gold that he had stolen.\nThat's very reasonable.\nBut where you're asking us to give the money to a third party, not to the person from whom it was taken, it seems to me the burden of proof should be on that third party to show that I was injured by this taking from somebody else.\nDon't you... doesn't that seem reasonable to you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3194.449, 3195.058, 3205.259, 3218.299, 3238.306, 3239.4, 3251.161], "stop_times": [3195.058, 3205.259, 3218.299, 3238.306, 3239.4, 3251.161, 3253.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3194.449}, "reply_to": "21193__2_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21193__2_048", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "In the abstract--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3253.331], "stop_times": [3255.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3253.331}, "reply_to": "21193__2_047", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "21193__2_049", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "You want us to assume automatically that the tribe was injured 38 million worth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3255.19], "stop_times": [3257.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3255.19}, "reply_to": "21193__2_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21193__2_050", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--The cases run exactly that way.\nEven where the money is not obtained directly from the plaintiff, it is the defendant's obligation to come forward and show that restitution would be unjust or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3257.83, 3260.735], "stop_times": [3260.735, 3268.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3257.83}, "reply_to": "21193__2_049", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "21193__2_051", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Mr. Lamken, something happened in the district court, and the district court thought, I'm supposed to do something equitable, and that seems to have been forgotten by everybody, that here was a district judge, he said, I'm going to consider the factors on both sides.\nAnd one of the things that he said he thought might be relevant... I hope I remember this correctly... was from day one the tribe could have stopped Montana because the tribe is not blocked by the AntiInjunction Act, so he's kind of mixing all the equities.\nSo... but he did take into account a lot of the things that we have been talking about.\nWhere did he go wrong if we don't buy your theory that you start with every penny that Montana got and then, if we don't buy that, what's wrong with what the district judge did?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3268.122, 3282.508, 3299.844, 3304.436], "stop_times": [3282.508, 3299.844, 3304.436, 3316.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3268.122}, "reply_to": "21193__2_050", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21193__2_052", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--The first error the district court committed, Your Honor, is the district court failed to consider additional royalties as a possible source of gain to the tribe.\nThe district court looked simply at the possibility of a tax, and even there the district court had conflicting holdings.\nOn the one hand it held that the tax had not been approved by the Secretary, so Westmoreland wouldn't have paid it.\nOn the other hand, it held that the tax had been approved by the Secretary because the ceded strip is part of the reservation and the tax was approved as to the... excuse me, the coal under the ceded strip was part of the reservation and the tax had been approved as to the reservation.\nAccordingly, under that holding, if Westmoreland had not paid the money to the State of Montana instead, the tribe would be proceeding against Westmoreland for the money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3316.526, 3322.523, 3328.63, 3332.879, 3345.843], "stop_times": [3322.523, 3328.63, 3332.879, 3345.843, 3353.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3316.526}, "reply_to": "21193__2_051", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "21193__2_053", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "But that was much, much later.\nIn the years that we're talking about, '75 to '82, none of that was settled.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3353.964, 3355.494], "stop_times": [3355.494, 3359.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3353.964}, "reply_to": "21193__2_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21193__2_054", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "The district court's holding came from 1990, that's correct, but the court of appeals had the same holding back in 1982 in Crow I.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3359.149], "stop_times": [3368.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3359.149}, "reply_to": "21193__2_053", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "21193__2_055", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Even '82 was the end of this period.\nWe're talking about '75 to '82.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3368.239, 3370.208], "stop_times": [3370.208, 3372.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3368.239}, "reply_to": "21193__2_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21193__2_056", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor, but I'm not sure why it would make any difference, because the point of the matter is, if the tax was valid the Crow tribe could go after Westmoreland for the tax.\nIt's not doing so here because Westmoreland was not the party--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3372.66, 3381.719], "stop_times": [3381.719, 3384.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3372.66}, "reply_to": "21193__2_055", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "21193__2_057", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Well, if the United States didn't give the tribe permission to tax in '75, could a decision by a court saying, oh, United States, you should have authorized the tax, that the tribe meant to reach back 7 years and say, taxpayer, now cough up?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3384.25], "stop_times": [3399.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3384.25}, "reply_to": "21193__2_056", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21193__2_058", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--Actually, the court... the district court didn't say you should have given permission.\nIt said that you in fact did.\nYou may not have intended to, but the moment you said the tax is approved as to the reservation, a fortiori it applied to the coal in the ceded strip, because that is part of the reservation, so when the Secretary wrote down the words, approved--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3399.571, 3402.663, 3404.382], "stop_times": [3402.663, 3404.382, 3416.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3399.571}, "reply_to": "21193__2_057", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "21193__2_059", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "And where does it say that Westmoreland would have been bound to pay the tribe because all those years later a court said, gee, we got it wrong the first time, or the Secretary got it wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3416.065], "stop_times": [3426.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3416.065}, "reply_to": "21193__2_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21193__2_060", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "--There is no district court holding on that point, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3426.481], "stop_times": [3428.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3426.481}, "reply_to": "21193__2_059", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "21193__2_061", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "What about the Tax Injunction Act, that the tribe is in an advantageous position with respect to that, it can do what others can't do?\nIt didn't.\nWhy at no point didn't the United States and the tribe think about enjoining Montana from collecting this unlawful tax?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3428.2, 3439.133, 3440.101], "stop_times": [3439.133, 3440.101, 3448.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3428.2}, "reply_to": "21193__2_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21193__2_062", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "It did, Your Honor.\nThe suit was filed in 1978.\nThe only reason they didn't get an injunction until 1982 was the claim was dismissed for failure to state a claim.\nUntil the Ninth Circuit reversed that dismissal there's no chance whatsoever of our... of obtaining an injunction against the tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3448.974, 3449.755, 3451.55, 3456.533], "stop_times": [3449.755, 3451.55, 3456.533, 3462.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3448.974}, "reply_to": "21193__2_061", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "21193__2_063", "conversation_id": "21193", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Lamken.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1829", "start_times": [3462.219, 3463.219], "stop_times": [3463.219, 3464.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3462.219}, "reply_to": "21193__2_062", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20393__0_000", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "We'll hear argument first this morning in Number 96-1654, Frank Muscarello v. United States, and Number 96-8837, Donald E. Cleveland and Enrique GraySantana v. United States.\nMr. Klonoff.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [0.0, 17.369], "stop_times": [17.369, 18.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20393__0_001", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--\nThis case raises the issue left open in Bailey v. United States, what it means to carry a firearm under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1).\nPetitioner submits that for four principal reasons carries a firearm means, bears a firearm on one's person.\nFirst, the plain meaning of the phrase, carries a firearm, directly supports petitioner's position.\nDictionaries repeatedly and consistently equate carries a firearm with having a firearm on the person.\nSecond, the Government has not cited a single dictionary that defines the phrase, carries a firearm, to mean transporting or possessing a firearm in a vehicle.\nInstead, the Government improperly isolates the word carry, rather than looking at the specific context, carries a firearm, but although the term carry has multiple definitions, this Court has made clear in Deal v. United States and elsewhere that when a dictionary offers multiple definitions, all but one of those meanings is ordinarily eliminated by context.\nHere, the context is carries a firearm.\nThird, the Government's view would make carries a firearm the same as transporting a firearm, but section 924(b) and numerous other gun provisions use the word transport, showing that Congress knew how to get across the concept of transport when it wanted to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [18.43, 24.646, 34.205, 41.655, 47.919, 54.088, 63.647, 85.996, 88.121], "stop_times": [24.646, 34.205, 41.655, 47.919, 54.088, 63.647, 85.996, 88.121, 103.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 18.43}, "reply_to": "20393__0_000", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__0_002", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Do any of those other provisions speak of transport in relation to a crime of violence, or a drug crime, or is it just transport in the abstract?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [103.707], "stop_times": [113.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 103.707}, "reply_to": "20393__0_001", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20393__0_003", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Well, there are a whole variety of provisions, Justice Souter.\nI guess one that comes to mind is 18 U.S.C. 926 (a), which talks about transporting, shipping or receiving a firearm or transporting a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such a firearm.\nThat is the closest analogy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [113.486, 119.312, 133.228], "stop_times": [119.312, 133.228, 135.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 113.486}, "reply_to": "20393__0_002", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__0_004", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "For an unlawful purpose, you say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [135.665], "stop_times": [137.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 135.665}, "reply_to": "20393__0_003", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__0_005", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "No, it does not use that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [137.242], "stop_times": [138.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 137.242}, "reply_to": "20393__0_004", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__0_006", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "For a lawful purpose.\nFor a lawful purpose?\nIt's a crime to transport it for a lawful purpose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [138.819, 139.256, 140.116], "stop_times": [139.256, 140.116, 143.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 138.819}, "reply_to": "20393__0_005", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__0_007", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--Not... transporting, shipping or receiving for any lawful purpose from where he may legally possess.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [143.099], "stop_times": [150.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 143.099}, "reply_to": "20393__0_006", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__0_008", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "But it--\n--That's a crime?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [150.112, 151.393], "stop_times": [151.393, 152.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 150.112}, "reply_to": "20393__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__0_009", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [152.393], "stop_times": [154.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 152.393}, "reply_to": "20393__0_008", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__0_010", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "I didn't realize we'd gone that far yet.\n[Laughter]\nIn any case, I take it the other references to transport as a prohibition did not make the limitation that this prohibition has on carries.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [154.471, 156.157, 157.5], "stop_times": [156.157, 157.5, 173.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 154.471}, "reply_to": "20393__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__0_011", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Not in that precise terminology, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [173.898], "stop_times": [176.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 173.898}, "reply_to": "20393__0_010", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__0_012", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "So that to read it as the Government would read it I think probably would not, therefore, just duplicate, in effect, all of the other prohibitions on transportation, correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [176.758], "stop_times": [187.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 176.758}, "reply_to": "20393__0_011", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20393__0_013", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Well, we think that it would.\nIn fact, the Government itself in its--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [187.472, 189.003], "stop_times": [189.003, 190.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 187.472}, "reply_to": "20393__0_012", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__0_014", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Maybe I'm not getting my point across.\nI thought the reason that it wouldn't was that there's a limitation.\nThere's a restriction here, in relation to a drug crime or crime of violence, and that restriction does not occur in the instances in which transportation is specifically prohibited in other parts of the statute.\nThat's the only point that I'm trying to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [190.456, 191.924, 195.391, 208.043], "stop_times": [191.924, 195.391, 208.043, 209.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 190.456}, "reply_to": "20393__0_013", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20393__0_015", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--No, I understand, but the during and in relation to is a separate component, but in terms of the meaning of the word carry we think that it is instructive to look at the other statutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [209.198], "stop_times": [218.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 209.198}, "reply_to": "20393__0_014", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__0_016", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--I still don't think you're understanding Justice Souter's point.\nHe's saying that just as you say the word firearm must be taken into account in determining the meaning of the word carry because that's part of its context, so also the phrase, in relation to a crime of violence or a drug offense must be taken into account in gathering the meaning of carry, because that is part of its context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [218.256, 220.49], "stop_times": [220.49, 243.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 218.256}, "reply_to": "20393__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__0_017", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Oh, I agree with that point, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [243.56], "stop_times": [244.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 243.56}, "reply_to": "20393__0_016", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__0_018", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Okay.\nNow, the second question is, are there any other statutes that have similar language?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [244.668, 245.137], "stop_times": [245.137, 249.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 244.668}, "reply_to": "20393__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__0_019", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "No, there are not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [249.994], "stop_times": [250.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 249.994}, "reply_to": "20393__0_018", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__0_020", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "I can't imagine that there's none that says it's a crime to transport a firearm for an unlawful purpose--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [250.711], "stop_times": [257.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 250.711}, "reply_to": "20393__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__0_021", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "There's no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [257.709], "stop_times": [259.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 257.709}, "reply_to": "20393__0_020", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__0_022", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--from a statute that makes it a crime to carry it for a lawful purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [259.74], "stop_times": [261.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 259.74}, "reply_to": "20393__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__0_023", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--There's no statute precisely like that, Your Honor.\nThat is the answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [261.926, 264.066], "stop_times": [264.066, 264.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 261.926}, "reply_to": "20393__0_022", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__0_024", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "With reference to carry, the definition of firearm includes a missile, a rocket launcher--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [264.941], "stop_times": [271.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 264.941}, "reply_to": "20393__0_023", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20393__0_025", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Yes.\nThere is a broad--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [271.251, 272.533], "stop_times": [272.533, 273.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 271.251}, "reply_to": "20393__0_024", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__0_026", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--Do you have to carry the rocket launcher in your vest pocket?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [273.938], "stop_times": [276.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 273.938}, "reply_to": "20393__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20393__0_027", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--No, and that is correct, Your Honor.\nThere are some types of firearms as defined in 921 that you couldn't physically have on your person, of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [276.734, 279.247], "stop_times": [279.247, 286.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 276.734}, "reply_to": "20393__0_026", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__0_028", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Or a land mine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [286.479], "stop_times": [286.917], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 286.479}, "reply_to": "20393__0_027", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20393__0_029", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "That's correct.\nOf course, the definition of firearm in 921 is for the entire Chapter 44, and it's not surprising that there may be situations that don't fit every circumstance, and that would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [286.917, 288.524], "stop_times": [288.524, 298.303], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 286.917}, "reply_to": "20393__0_028", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__0_030", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "So then if you had a land mine in your... in the trunk of your car or in the back of the utility vehicle, that would be carrying it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [298.303], "stop_times": [306.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 298.303}, "reply_to": "20393__0_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20393__0_031", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--It would not be.\nOur definition of carrying is limited to on the person.\nThere are some kinds of firearms--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [306.22, 307.47, 310.704], "stop_times": [307.47, 310.704, 312.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 306.22}, "reply_to": "20393__0_030", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__0_032", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "So there are some kinds of firearms that cannot be carried and therefore there's no violation of the statute, in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [312.875], "stop_times": [318.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 312.875}, "reply_to": "20393__0_031", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20393__0_033", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--Well, there could be a violation for using in those circumstances, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [318.481], "stop_times": [323.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 318.481}, "reply_to": "20393__0_032", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__0_034", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Transporting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [323.246], "stop_times": [323.902], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 323.246}, "reply_to": "20393__0_033", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20393__0_035", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--Exactly, under other provisions, so there are a number of ways you could get at the same conduct.\nIf Congress wanted to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [323.902, 328.337], "stop_times": [328.337, 329.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 323.902}, "reply_to": "20393__0_034", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__0_036", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "But are there any statutes in which Congress has defined something like firearm, punishing its carrying, but then the firearm is so defined that it cannot be carried?\nI don't understand how that works.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [329.618, 339.566], "stop_times": [339.566, 340.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 329.618}, "reply_to": "20393__0_035", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20393__0_037", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--Well, it only... as I said, it only applies to a small number of the firearms contained with the definition of 921(a)(3), and again we don't think it at all surprising that when you have a statute that's applied to the entire firearms chapter, that there may be one or two types of firearms as defined that you could not physically carry on your person.\nThat is a problem for Congress to fix under the proposed legislation, which would expand to include possession.\nThat would be encompassed, and I would submit that's a problem that Congress has to fix.\nThere are some oddities of the statute under any possible interpretation, but we don't think that the mere fact that some conceivable type of firearm could not be carried on the person should inform this Court's interpretation of the words, carries a firearm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [340.832, 361.558, 367.4, 373.287], "stop_times": [361.558, 367.4, 373.287, 387.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 340.832}, "reply_to": "20393__0_036", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__0_038", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "What about Judge Trott's view that whatever line is drawn here it would make no sense to say to the savvy criminal, hide the gun and you're home free.\nJust don't keep it on your person.\nKeep it where you can get at it when you need it.\nWould that be a sensible line to attribute to Congress?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [387.593, 399.34, 402.104, 406.087], "stop_times": [399.34, 402.104, 406.087, 410.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 387.593}, "reply_to": "20393__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20393__0_039", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Judge Trott's analysis is entirely flawed.\nIf the Court looks at his opinion, he talks about the absurdity of a situation where somebody has a gun on his person and then puts it on the car seat and all of a sudden he's scott free.\nThat's not at all the position we're arguing.\nWe're not focusing entirely on the point of arrest, and if the Government can prove to the jury that the individual had the firearm on his person at some point during and in relation to the crime at issue, he would be prosecuted.\nSo in Judge Trott's example, there is adequate evidence under petitioner's definition of carries a firearm to convict that person.\nNow, let me just respond, though, to Your Honor's question.\nI submit that Judge Kozinski has it right in terms of what the everyday criminal thinks, and he thinks of carrying a firearm as packing heat, and I would give the Court an example that illustrates the point.\nTwo individuals are in a car.\nThey're on the way to engage in a bank robbery and they're very close to the scene.\nThe gun is under the back seat, or in the trunk, or wherever.\nOne individual says to the other as they're getting ready to pull up, hey, are you carrying the gun?\nWhere the gun is in the trunk or in some other place, no one would say, yes, I'm carrying the gun.\nHe'd say, no, it's in the trunk.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [410.085, 413.037, 422.002, 424.158, 437.605, 445.134, 447.571, 458.972, 461.237, 465.516, 469.669, 474.246, 479.307], "stop_times": [413.037, 422.002, 424.158, 437.605, 445.134, 447.571, 458.972, 461.237, 465.516, 469.669, 474.246, 479.307, 481.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 410.085}, "reply_to": "20393__0_038", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__0_040", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Well, let me ask you this.\nSuppose the person with the gun physically had it in his hands and put it in the car in order to go and have a drug transaction and in order to have a weapon available to facilitate carrying out the drug transaction.\nYou say the person would have carried the gun when he was putting it in the car.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [481.493, 482.743, 500.674], "stop_times": [482.743, 500.674, 506.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 481.493}, "reply_to": "20393__0_039", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20393__0_041", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Depending on the crime.\nFor a crime of possession with intent to distribute, that's correct.\nHe had the gun on his person.\nHe would be carrying it.\nHe could have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [506.655, 508.436, 510.919, 512.216, 513.59], "stop_times": [508.436, 510.919, 512.216, 513.59, 514.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 506.655}, "reply_to": "20393__0_040", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__0_042", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Well, I mean, carried it for use at the time the drug sale is made, for example.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [514.668], "stop_times": [519.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 514.668}, "reply_to": "20393__0_041", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20393__0_043", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--Yes, during and in relation to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [519.587], "stop_times": [521.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 519.587}, "reply_to": "20393__0_042", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__0_044", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "So can he be charged with carrying the gun because he carried it to the car, where he then put it where it was not immediately available?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [521.024], "stop_times": [529.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 521.024}, "reply_to": "20393__0_043", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20393__0_045", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Under our view yes if... as long as the Government can also show the during and in relation to, and for example, a possession with intent to distribute situation, where you're putting drugs in the car, you're putting your gun in the car, seems to me there's more than sufficient evidence there, and again, that's why I think Judge Trott's analysis is faulty, because in many of those situations you will have sufficient evidence of carries a firearm on the person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [529.897], "stop_times": [551.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 529.897}, "reply_to": "20393__0_044", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__0_046", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "In every case, Mr. Klonoff, where you have a drug in the trunk... a gun in the trunk, a gun in the glove... someone carried it and put it there, so under your analysis, much would depend on how we define in relation to.\nI mean, how far back can you go.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [551.933, 566.787], "stop_times": [566.787, 568.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 551.933}, "reply_to": "20393__0_045", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20393__0_047", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nThat is true.\nIn our case, though, there was a gun in the locked glove compartment.\nThere's no evidence of when it was put there, and the Government couldn't conceivably make the argument that that gun was carried to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [568.834, 569.582, 570.52, 573.784], "stop_times": [569.582, 570.52, 573.784, 580.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 568.834}, "reply_to": "20393__0_046", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__0_048", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "So it follows from your analysis that the informed drug dealer will have a drug... will have a gun in his car at all times, when he goes shopping, when he goes to church, and when he distributes the drugs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [580.157], "stop_times": [590.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 580.157}, "reply_to": "20393__0_047", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20393__0_049", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--If he's reading up on the statute that might be correct, but again, that's a problem--\n[Laughter]\nAnd that goes back to what Judge Trott said.\nBut the point is, is that those oddities, we submit, are for Congress to fix.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [590.995, 595.9, 596.431, 598.024], "stop_times": [595.9, 596.431, 598.024, 602.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 590.995}, "reply_to": "20393__0_048", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__0_050", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "What are the oddities?\nThat's... I mean, I carry plants in the back of my car in the trunk, I think, haven't I, when I go to the nursery, pick up the plants, put them in the trunk, carry them to my house.\nI always thought I was carrying the plants.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [602.803, 603.522, 613.878], "stop_times": [603.522, 613.878, 614.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 602.803}, "reply_to": "20393__0_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20393__0_051", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Again, that's contextual--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [614.861], "stop_times": [615.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 614.861}, "reply_to": "20393__0_050", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__0_052", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [615.596], "stop_times": [615.892], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 615.596}, "reply_to": "20393__0_051", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20393__0_053", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--and I our point is, is when you're talking about the phrase--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [615.892], "stop_times": [617.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 615.892}, "reply_to": "20393__0_052", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__0_054", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "But what I really want to know is, I'm pointing out I don't find that odd.\nI do find it odd, as you do, that if there really are things like you see in the movies, you know, big gangsters with huge guns guarding the place, that that wouldn't fall within the statute.\nWe both find that odd.\nWhat are the oddities on the Government's interpretation?\nYou said that was odd, and I'm not certain... I want to know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [617.532, 620.844, 631.058, 632.573, 635.822], "stop_times": [620.844, 631.058, 632.573, 635.822, 638.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 617.532}, "reply_to": "20393__0_053", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20393__0_055", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--Well, there are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [638.789], "stop_times": [639.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 638.789}, "reply_to": "20393__0_054", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__0_056", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--I want you to focus on what those are.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [639.382], "stop_times": [641.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 639.382}, "reply_to": "20393__0_055", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20393__0_057", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--There are several.\nFirst of all, under the Government's own theory, since movement is required, if an individual was sitting on a couch and the gun's next to him, he's not carrying it, so there's immediate access but the Government says it's not carried.\nSecondly, it's not clear whether the Government's position--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [641.007, 641.444, 652.049], "stop_times": [641.444, 652.049, 655.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 641.007}, "reply_to": "20393__0_056", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__0_058", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Or, indeed, even if it's on his person, so long as he hasn't moved it, I suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [655.407], "stop_times": [658.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 655.407}, "reply_to": "20393__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__0_059", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--Exactly, that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [658.672], "stop_times": [659.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 658.672}, "reply_to": "20393__0_058", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__0_060", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "If he gets one of his confederates to come and hand him the gun and he puts it--\n--So there are oddities of omission, but is there any oddity of... is there any oddity that is produced... if we accept the Government's interpretation, does that produce anything odd?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [659.484, 662.436], "stop_times": [662.436, 675.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 659.484}, "reply_to": "20393__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__0_061", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "I think it does.\nFor example--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [675.243, 675.726], "stop_times": [675.726, 676.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 675.243}, "reply_to": "20393__0_060", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__0_062", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "What is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [676.164], "stop_times": [676.554], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 676.164}, "reply_to": "20393__0_061", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20393__0_063", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--I don't think the Government's position applies to a passenger.\nI think it only applies to the person in control, so you'd have an odd situation of the gun sitting next to the passenger who's orchestrating the entire drug transaction.\nHe's not carrying it, but the driver would be.\nIf I could save the balance of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [676.554, 679.507, 687.832, 690.441], "stop_times": [679.507, 687.832, 690.441, 692.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 676.554}, "reply_to": "20393__0_062", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__0_064", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Very well, Mr. Klonoff.\nMr. Zalkind, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [692.939, 694.704], "stop_times": [694.704, 696.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 692.939}, "reply_to": "20393__0_063", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20393__1_000", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court--\nIn deciding Bailey, you have given those of us who labor in the fields of criminal law a clear line definition, and we're asking for the same with the word carry.\nWe're asking for really the ordinary and plain meaning of the word carry in context of firearms, and of all the cases that I've read I haven't heard about rocket launchers used in drug transactions in any of the circuit cases.\nWe're really talking about firearms, portable firearms, and that's bearing on the person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [696.595, 701.296, 713.259, 727.628], "stop_times": [701.296, 713.259, 727.628, 733.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 696.595}, "reply_to": "20393__0_064", "speaker": "norman_s_zalkind"}
{"id": "20393__1_001", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Well, in days gone by if some rider had a gun in the scabbard on his saddle, as used to be the day when I lived on a ranch, is that person carrying a weapon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [733.235], "stop_times": [746.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 733.235}, "reply_to": "20393__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20393__1_002", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "If it's right on his--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [746.152], "stop_times": [748.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 746.152}, "reply_to": "20393__1_001", "speaker": "norman_s_zalkind"}
{"id": "20393__1_003", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Right there on the saddle.\nYou know where they put the scabbard on a saddle.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [748.073, 749.37], "stop_times": [749.37, 751.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 748.073}, "reply_to": "20393__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20393__1_004", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--I understand that, Justice O'Connor.\nI would say, under our definition, that that would not be carried, because it's not on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [751.899, 754.023], "stop_times": [754.023, 760.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 751.899}, "reply_to": "20393__1_003", "speaker": "norman_s_zalkind"}
{"id": "20393__1_005", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Nor would it be if you had it in a wheelbarrow and were moving it from place to place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [760.459], "stop_times": [765.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 760.459}, "reply_to": "20393__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20393__1_006", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--No, that would not be carried.\nIf you had... and if you had a locked briefcase, and in the locked briefcase there was cocaine and there was a Mack 20, one of these fierce firearms that was mentioned in Smith, that would be carried.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [765.16, 765.441], "stop_times": [765.441, 778.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 765.16}, "reply_to": "20393__1_005", "speaker": "norman_s_zalkind"}
{"id": "20393__1_007", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Why do... why when I put the... I mean, this is what... because I so often use the words, I put a flower plant or something for my wife in the trunk, and I feel I'm carrying that to my house, and why, in the plain meaning of the words, if instead of a... I hope I wouldn't do it... instead of a flower plant, it happens to be a case of rifles that we're using to... for the big drug transaction.\n[Laughter]\nWhy am I not carrying that?\nI mean, if I'm carrying the plant, why wouldn't I be carrying the case of rifles?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [778.998, 801.551, 801.973, 803.737], "stop_times": [801.551, 801.973, 803.737, 808.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 778.998}, "reply_to": "20393__1_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20393__1_008", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Because we're talking about statutory interpretation and we're--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [808.143], "stop_times": [810.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 808.143}, "reply_to": "20393__1_007", "speaker": "norman_s_zalkind"}
{"id": "20393__1_009", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "That's true, so that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [810.205], "stop_times": [810.845], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 810.205}, "reply_to": "20393__1_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20393__1_010", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--talking about a narrow meaning of the word carry, which is bear on the person, and we're--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [810.845], "stop_times": [815.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 810.845}, "reply_to": "20393__1_009", "speaker": "norman_s_zalkind"}
{"id": "20393__1_011", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--I guess you can carry a grudge, you can carry a tune, you can carry a whole lot of things and it has different meanings, depending on--\n[Laughter]\n--what you're carrying, right?\nThat's your point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [815.64, 820.684, 820.981, 822.262], "stop_times": [820.684, 820.981, 822.262, 823.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 815.64}, "reply_to": "20393__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__1_012", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--Justice Scalia, I totally agree with you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [823.933], "stop_times": [824.995], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 823.933}, "reply_to": "20393__1_011", "speaker": "norman_s_zalkind"}
{"id": "20393__1_013", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "But I'm... my problem, to be specific, and I'm trying to get an answer to this, is whenever I would think of an anomaly, and I've been trying to think of them, is it seems to me the anomalies tend to be taken care of on the Government's interpretation by the words, in relation to a drug transaction, so I really haven't, once I play with those words, found anything odd about the Government's interpretation, and that's why I'm asking you to tell me if I... if I adopt the Government's interpretation and work with those words, in relation to, does it produce any odd result?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [824.995], "stop_times": [859.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 824.995}, "reply_to": "20393__1_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20393__1_014", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Yes, because the Government's... Justice Breyer, the Government's interpretation is basically a transportation interpretation, and you're talking about the trunk of a vehicle.\nWhat about the ocean liner?\nWhat about the double truck, where you have the double caboose?\nWhat about the caboose at the end of the railroad line?\nWhat about the power boat that is 20 feet, and then it's 40 feet, and then it's 75 feet?\nWhat about the... I sail on racing boats.\nWhat about the 50-foot racing boat, and it's a trimaran, and you're out on the furthest end of the trimaran, and that's where you could carry firearms.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [859.512, 872.008, 873.508, 877.63, 880.302, 885.519, 889.313], "stop_times": [872.008, 873.508, 877.63, 880.302, 885.519, 889.313, 898.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 859.512}, "reply_to": "20393__1_013", "speaker": "norman_s_zalkind"}
{"id": "20393__1_015", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "But under your view you say that putting it in a wheelbarrow and pushing it isn't carrying.\nHow about one of these luggage containers that's on a little strap and wheels?\nNot carrying, I guess, huh?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [898.528, 904.791, 909.572], "stop_times": [904.791, 909.572, 912.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 898.528}, "reply_to": "20393__1_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20393__1_016", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "That's becoming closer, Your Honor, because we're talking about on the person, and once you have that luggage that you're carrying right with you, that's not really a separate... that's right on the... that's very on the person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [912.179], "stop_times": [929.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 912.179}, "reply_to": "20393__1_015", "speaker": "norman_s_zalkind"}
{"id": "20393__1_017", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "A purse would clearly qualify, wouldn't it?\nIf a woman carried a gun in her purse, that would qualify?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [929.484, 930.328], "stop_times": [930.328, 935.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 929.484}, "reply_to": "20393__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__1_018", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Justice Scalia, that would qualify.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [935.044], "stop_times": [937.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 935.044}, "reply_to": "20393__1_017", "speaker": "norman_s_zalkind"}
{"id": "20393__1_019", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "You make the purse a little bigger and it's a suitcase, and would that qualify?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [937.997], "stop_times": [941.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 937.997}, "reply_to": "20393__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__1_020", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "If the person is carrying that suitcase?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [941.87], "stop_times": [943.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 941.87}, "reply_to": "20393__1_019", "speaker": "norman_s_zalkind"}
{"id": "20393__1_021", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [943.745], "stop_times": [944.432], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 943.745}, "reply_to": "20393__1_020", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20393__1_022", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Justice Scalia, that would qualify, but if the wheelbarrow... we would say there's a line draw... that's a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [944.432], "stop_times": [950.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 944.432}, "reply_to": "20393__1_021", "speaker": "norman_s_zalkind"}
{"id": "20393__1_023", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "The line is between the suitcase and the wheelbarrow?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [950.773], "stop_times": [952.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 950.773}, "reply_to": "20393__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__1_024", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--No, between the body.\n[Laughter]\nBetween the body.\nWe would include, for instance, if you had 10 layers of clothes, and there would be a firearm that you... that was in... under the 10 layers, that would be carried, even though you would not have immediate access.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [952.789, 953.616, 954.053, 955.256], "stop_times": [953.616, 954.053, 955.256, 965.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 952.789}, "reply_to": "20393__1_023", "speaker": "norman_s_zalkind"}
{"id": "20393__1_025", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "There are going to be fine lines we have to draw no matter whose version of the statute we interpret.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [965.892], "stop_times": [971.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 965.892}, "reply_to": "20393__1_024", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20393__1_026", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Chief Justice, that's correct, but the version that we're suggesting is the easiest and it has the easiest line to draw.\nCongress, if they want to make possession a crime, then they... and they're trying to right now.\nThey can add the word possession if they want to, or they can add the word transport, but the line that we're drawing is the easiest, and you did it for us in Bailey.\nWe know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [971.107, 977.683, 983.4, 991.865], "stop_times": [977.683, 983.4, 991.865, 993.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 971.107}, "reply_to": "20393__1_025", "speaker": "norman_s_zalkind"}
{"id": "20393__1_027", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "But what about the Government's argument that your client loses in any case, because your client went to a shop, purchased a gun for the specific purpose of having it with him in this drug deal, carried the gun in his hand to the car, so your client, whatever it might be in another case where the gun was just in the car, your client carried the gun to the car.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [993.099], "stop_times": [1020.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 993.099}, "reply_to": "20393__1_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20393__1_028", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, I most respectfully disagree with you, because he did carry some firearms to the car, but it wasn't in relation to a drug crime at that time.\nIt hadn't... he... that issue was never raised.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1020.745, 1030.598], "stop_times": [1030.598, 1033.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1020.745}, "reply_to": "20393__1_027", "speaker": "norman_s_zalkind"}
{"id": "20393__1_029", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "So you say that doesn't present a carry problem.\nIt is carried, but not in relation to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1033.911, 1036.83], "stop_times": [1036.83, 1038.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1033.911}, "reply_to": "20393__1_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20393__1_030", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Not in my case.\nI... if a drug connection was really evolving, it... let's say the drug transaction started down in Symphony Hall, and he had some guns hidden in a building near Symphony Hall, and once he made the conversation with the drug dealers they really knew they were going to a motel, and he went over to a building, grabbed his guns, and brought them and threw them in the trunk at that... while the drug transaction was moving, that would be different.\nBut in my case, sometime earl... much earlier in the afternoon, when he didn't know that where there was going to be a meeting, what the quantity was of... what the negotiations were, was he going to get the drugs fronted or was he going to rip the drugs off, there was no specific plan, he was charged with an attempt to commit possession with intent to distribute cocaine.\nHe wasn't... the other charges were dismissed.\nThat's the charge that he made a conditional plea to, so in our case he would be not guilty.\nThere are cases that if it's all within an immediate activity, during the drug transaction, yes, I would agree with you, Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1038.738, 1041.049, 1063.696, 1088.546, 1091.499, 1096.184], "stop_times": [1041.049, 1063.696, 1088.546, 1091.499, 1096.184, 1104.306], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1038.738}, "reply_to": "20393__1_029", "speaker": "norman_s_zalkind"}
{"id": "20393__1_031", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "You seem to be taking the view that the inrelationto has to be specific to the transaction as it finally turned out.\nWhy should that be?\nWhy can't in relation to simply refer to the general subject matter?\nIf he put the guns in the trunk for whatever use they would turn out to be to him in whatever drug transaction he succeeded in engaging in, why isn't that enough for in relation to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1104.306, 1111.943, 1114.223, 1117.941], "stop_times": [1111.943, 1114.223, 1117.941, 1131.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1104.306}, "reply_to": "20393__1_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20393__1_032", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "It isn't because there's no... he could have been arrested at the... when he carried the guns to the car and charged with the specific crime of attempting to possess with intent to distribute cocaine at that time.\nHe could have been arrested by the State of Massachusetts for possession of firearms, but he couldn't have been arrested for during a drug crime, because the drug crime wasn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1131.233, 1144.649], "stop_times": [1144.649, 1154.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1131.233}, "reply_to": "20393__1_031", "speaker": "norman_s_zalkind"}
{"id": "20393__1_033", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "I didn't say anything about during.\nI said... I was asking you why it is not sufficient for the inrelationto prong to prove that he put them in the car for whatever use they might turn out to be in whatever drug transaction he succeeded in engaging in.\nHe didn't know, on my hypothesis, what that transaction would be exactly, but he did know that he intended to engage in a drug transaction.\nWhy, under those circumstances, is not the inrelationto prong satisfied?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1154.16, 1155.66, 1172.169, 1182.306], "stop_times": [1155.66, 1172.169, 1182.306, 1187.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1154.16}, "reply_to": "20393__1_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20393__1_034", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--Well, every single drug transaction where there are firearms at some point, and I think it was mentioned by one of the justices before, somebody would be bringing the guns to the car, and they're just not committing a crime at that time.\nJust because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1187.742, 1204.249], "stop_times": [1204.249, 1205.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1187.742}, "reply_to": "20393__1_033", "speaker": "norman_s_zalkind"}
{"id": "20393__1_035", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Well, what's--\n--Well, that's... that's--\n--the language of the statute?\nAt 924(c) it says whoever during and--\n--And.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1205.171, 1206.046, 1206.703, 1207.467, 1210.856], "stop_times": [1206.046, 1206.703, 1207.467, 1210.856, 1211.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1205.171}, "reply_to": "20393__1_034", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20393__1_036", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--In relation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1211.059], "stop_times": [1211.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1211.059}, "reply_to": "20393__1_035", "speaker": "norman_s_zalkind"}
{"id": "20393__1_037", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--in relation to any crime of violence or drugtrafficking crime uses or carries a firearm.\nThey have to go together, do they, during and in relation to?\nIt has to be both.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1211.778, 1216.651, 1219.713], "stop_times": [1216.651, 1219.713, 1220.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1211.778}, "reply_to": "20393__1_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20393__1_038", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, I agree with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1220.447], "stop_times": [1221.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1220.447}, "reply_to": "20393__1_037", "speaker": "norman_s_zalkind"}
{"id": "20393__1_039", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Yes, but isn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1221.51], "stop_times": [1222.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1221.51}, "reply_to": "20393__1_038", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20393__1_040", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "During and in relation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1222.556], "stop_times": [1223.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1222.556}, "reply_to": "20393__1_039", "speaker": "norman_s_zalkind"}
{"id": "20393__1_041", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--the point that he is committing and that he has taken the substantial step so that he has committed the crime of attempt when he starts loading the guns in the car?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1223.697], "stop_times": [1232.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1223.697}, "reply_to": "20393__1_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20393__1_042", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--Justice Souter, not if he doesn't place them at or near the scene of the crime.\nWhen he placed the firearms in the car, that was not... that would not be considered--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1232.489, 1237.753], "stop_times": [1237.753, 1243.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1232.489}, "reply_to": "20393__1_041", "speaker": "norman_s_zalkind"}
{"id": "20393__1_043", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Well, I don't have to be near the scene of the consummated crime to engage in an attempt, if I take a substantial step somewhere else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1243.001], "stop_times": [1249.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1243.001}, "reply_to": "20393__1_042", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20393__1_044", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--Most respectfully, we would disagree with you, Justice Souter.\nYou would have to take a... the substantial step would be if the instruments of the crime were placed there at or near the scene of the crime that he's attempting.\nIf you get burglarious instruments and you don't go to the place, you just have, you know, hammers and tongs, you're not going to be committing that crime.\nIf you decide in your mind you're going to murder someone and you get the firearm and you put it in your car and you're going to go looking for this person, at that point you're not committing an attempted murder.\nIt's only when--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1249.857, 1252.871, 1263.696, 1273.192, 1283.875], "stop_times": [1252.871, 1263.696, 1273.192, 1283.875, 1284.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1249.857}, "reply_to": "20393__1_043", "speaker": "norman_s_zalkind"}
{"id": "20393__1_045", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "You haven't taken the substantial step at that point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1284.89], "stop_times": [1287.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1284.89}, "reply_to": "20393__1_044", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20393__1_046", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--You have not.\nEven though you... but you are guilty of the possession of the firearm, but that's a separate... that's a State statute, or it could be a Federal statute, but it's not this case, 924(c), or I gave... given hypotheticals relating to other kinds of crimes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1287.046, 1287.452], "stop_times": [1287.452, 1302.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1287.046}, "reply_to": "20393__1_045", "speaker": "norman_s_zalkind"}
{"id": "20393__1_047", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "If we had just the word, in relation to, I should think that the modifying phrase has something more than a temporal aspect to it, that it's pragmatic as well if it... it's accessible if it facilitates the drug offense.\nDuring does seem to be mostly a temporal term.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1302.617, 1316.987], "stop_times": [1316.987, 1321.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1302.617}, "reply_to": "20393__1_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20393__1_048", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Justice Kennedy, I would... if I understand the word temporal, because I don't want to say something that I don't totally understand, but as I understand what you're saying I would agree with you that it's an active... it's an active word, and it does... we would prevail under that definition, as we would prevail under immediate accessibility, but we think immediate accessibility is another transport excuse.\nTo carry, you don't have to move the firearm.\nYou can carry a firearm by just having it inside your pocket.\nAs the examples were made both in... both in Bailey and Smith as to what carry would be, and although that's not totally instructive to us, it is saying something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1321.281, 1350.723, 1354.722, 1360.079], "stop_times": [1350.723, 1354.722, 1360.079, 1369.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1321.281}, "reply_to": "20393__1_047", "speaker": "norman_s_zalkind"}
{"id": "20393__1_049", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "You say, are you carrying any money to somebody, and even though they're standing still they would say, yes, I am carrying money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1369.872], "stop_times": [1376.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1369.872}, "reply_to": "20393__1_048", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20393__1_050", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Chief Justice Rehnquist, I agree.\nIf you have the money in your pocket you are carrying money.\nIf you have even an unloaded firearm in your pocket, you are carrying a firearm, and the... what the transport theory does is, it might convict someone that has an unloaded derringer in the trunk, but it won't convict the big drug dealer that has an automatic machine gun in the next room that's sitting there, so... I mean, not that that has... we have to draw a line somewhere, but I just want to point out our thinking about this.\nAgain, there's no linguistic reason to define carry as an auto... as transporting, and pure transport has enormous problems, as I think we've pointed out to you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1376.26, 1377.712, 1381.742, 1413.635], "stop_times": [1377.712, 1381.742, 1413.635, 1425.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1376.26}, "reply_to": "20393__1_049", "speaker": "norman_s_zalkind"}
{"id": "20393__1_051", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Suppose you define carry as transport but omit the meaning of transport that means ship.\nIn other words, transport some... it's transport, but not arrange for transport.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1425.489, 1430.565], "stop_times": [1430.565, 1435.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1425.489}, "reply_to": "20393__1_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20393__1_052", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Well, Justice Breyer, then you... you're adding to the interpretive problems even further.\nYou're getting into ambiguity with that, and if you're getting into ambiguity we start to think about the Rule of Lenity, because we're talking about very serious crimes.\nIn the Cleveland and Gray case, they got 10 years to begin with.\nForget about the firearm.\nThey start off with 10 years of their lives, and now we have this enormous minimum mandatory 5 years that's going to be added, and if they're not convicted of that the judge could have... in that case he could have used the guidelines, bump it up two more levels anyway.\nSo it isn't that the trial judges don't have power to penalize bad behavior, but we're talking about carrying firearms, a sort of narrow class of separate minimum mandatory crimes for people that are being severely punished, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1435.657, 1441.592, 1451.869, 1457.445, 1459.555, 1477.767], "stop_times": [1441.592, 1451.869, 1457.445, 1459.555, 1477.767, 1498.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1435.657}, "reply_to": "20393__1_051", "speaker": "norman_s_zalkind"}
{"id": "20393__1_053", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Do you accept the Kozinski line that it's not... doesn't have to be on the defendant's body, but if it's right next to him where it's within handsreach--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1498.93], "stop_times": [1508.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1498.93}, "reply_to": "20393__1_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20393__1_054", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, no, we don't accept that line, although if you accept that line, then we would prevail.\nBut again, that's another transport exception, because there is that movement that Justice Kozinski eloquently states in his en banc decision, and we're saying that no, that that would not be carry.\nThat would be the line that's drawn, would be at that point.\nEven though it was within immediate access, that would not be carry, and I think that's consistent with the Bailey decision.\nAnd again, once those lines are drawn--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1508.425, 1515.501, 1530.76, 1534.57, 1541.786], "stop_times": [1515.501, 1530.76, 1534.57, 1541.786, 1545.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1508.425}, "reply_to": "20393__1_053", "speaker": "norman_s_zalkind"}
{"id": "20393__1_055", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--So if a defendant starts out with the gun in his pocket, and in the course of the ride to the scene of the deal puts it on the seat, then the statute doesn't apply?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1545.02], "stop_times": [1558.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1545.02}, "reply_to": "20393__1_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20393__1_056", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, if there was, for instance, somebody in the back seat, and that person ended up cooperating with the Government and said, look, we're driving along in the car and he sees the police and he flips the gun beside him, he's be... he'd be guilty of carrying, because his is during, in relation to a drug crime.\nBut if it just so happens he puts the gun on the seat, he might be guilty of use, because if somebody comes over and they see that gun and says, now--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1558.685, 1577.241], "stop_times": [1577.241, 1584.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1558.685}, "reply_to": "20393__1_055", "speaker": "norman_s_zalkind"}
{"id": "20393__1_057", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "I think you've answered the question, Mr. Zalkind.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1584.706, 1587.08], "stop_times": [1587.08, 1587.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1584.706}, "reply_to": "20393__1_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20393__1_058", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1587.502], "stop_times": [1587.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1587.502}, "reply_to": "20393__1_057", "speaker": "norman_s_zalkind"}
{"id": "20393__1_059", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Mr. Feldman, we'll hear from you.\nMr. Feldman, do you know if criminals still talk about packing heat, or has Judge Kozinski been watching too many Bogey movies?\nI--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1587.846, 1589.391, 1600.309, 1601.168], "stop_times": [1589.391, 1600.309, 1601.168, 1601.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1587.846}, "reply_to": "20393__1_058", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20393__2_000", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "I haven't... I'm not aware of the continued use of that phrase, no.\nThe Government's position is that Congress used the term, carries a firearm in section 924(c) in its ordinary sense, to refer to all of the means by which a firearm would ordinarily be said to be carried.\nNow, it is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1601.715, 1605.214, 1618.02], "stop_times": [1605.214, 1618.02, 1618.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1601.715}, "reply_to": "20393__1_059", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_001", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "I think the Government has some problem just in the colloquial sense of the word.\nYou ask a person, are you carrying a gun, you know, and the person I think ordinarily thinks that means on your person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1618.817, 1624.284], "stop_times": [1624.284, 1630.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1618.817}, "reply_to": "20393__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20393__2_002", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--I... Mr. Chief Justice, I think a lot depends on when it's asked.\nIf you imagine a case where a policeman stops a motorist and says... walks up to the motorist and says, are you carrying a firearm, I don't think the motorist would have to stop to think if he wanted to answer honestly, is it on my person, did I put it on the seat, is it in the trunk or in the glove compartment, did I lock the glove compartment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1630.515, 1635.108], "stop_times": [1635.108, 1650.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1630.515}, "reply_to": "20393__2_001", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_003", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "I'm not sure I agree with you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1650.554], "stop_times": [1651.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1650.554}, "reply_to": "20393__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20393__2_004", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "You don't think... I... well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1651.257], "stop_times": [1652.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1651.257}, "reply_to": "20393__2_003", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_005", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Maybe my eight colleagues do, but I'm not sure that I do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1652.398], "stop_times": [1655.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1652.398}, "reply_to": "20393__2_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20393__2_006", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--At least our feeling, and it's consistent with standard dictionary definitions, that if you ask someone if they're carrying a gun in their car they would say either yes, or no, depending on whether the gun was in the car.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1655.694], "stop_times": [1665.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1655.694}, "reply_to": "20393__2_005", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_007", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "If you ask them if they're carrying your gun in the car, yes.\nBut what if you ask them just, are you carrying a gun?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1665.704, 1668.125], "stop_times": [1668.125, 1670.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1665.704}, "reply_to": "20393__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20393__2_008", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "No, I think the same answer would... I think the same answer would be true even if you said if you're carrying a gun, in a circumstance where you're talking about where that seems the reasonable reference.\nIf you're talking... going up to someone walking on the street, they'll likely interpret that to mean on the person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1670.188, 1679.528], "stop_times": [1679.528, 1684.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1670.188}, "reply_to": "20393__2_007", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_009", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Most dictionaries seem to... which I'm sure we've all been looking at since this case arose, they seem to say two different things.\nThey say carry means to convey or transport as in a cart or a car, and also they say, to have or bear about one's person, as a watch or a weapon, locomotion not being essential.\nI mean, they seem to have both concepts in there, so which one do we look to, and do you think movement is required?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1684.275, 1694.88, 1712.419], "stop_times": [1694.88, 1712.419, 1720.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1684.275}, "reply_to": "20393__2_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20393__2_010", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Our position is that Congress intended it to refer to both, and that movement is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1720.479], "stop_times": [1725.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1720.479}, "reply_to": "20393__2_009", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_011", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "So someone with a gun in a pocket who's sitting in a chair and not moving is covered under your definition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1725.54], "stop_times": [1733.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1725.54}, "reply_to": "20393__2_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20393__2_012", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--Yes, and I'll tell you why.\nOrdinarily the word carry, with its etymological roots and its many common usages, refers to locomotion, but because common experience tells us that people move a lot, unlike vehicles, which sit parked in garages or at the curb for long periods of time, I think the concept that you have to have movement at a particular moment with a person has kind of dropped out or become vestigial.\nAnd as a result when it's talking about carrying it on a person, although in point of fact if movement were required it wouldn't make any difference, because people do move, and the inference that someone has moved, if they have one on their person, would be very, very strong, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1733.396, 1734.74, 1755.872], "stop_times": [1734.74, 1755.872, 1769.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1733.396}, "reply_to": "20393__2_011", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_013", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Well, if the weapon is in the car, in the Government's view is movement required?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1769.257], "stop_times": [1772.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1769.257}, "reply_to": "20393__2_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20393__2_014", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--Yes, and my only qualification I would give for that, if the defendant is just storing a gun in the car in his garage, for example, I don't think that he's carrying it.\nIf the car is in the process of moving from one place to another and stops at a red light for a minute, or is in the... a process of movement--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1772.583, 1782.533], "stop_times": [1782.533, 1788.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1772.583}, "reply_to": "20393__2_013", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_015", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Well, the car stops, so the drug transaction can be carried out.\nThere's no movement at the time, during the drug transaction.\nThe car is parked.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1788.545, 1792.84, 1797.339], "stop_times": [1792.84, 1797.339, 1798.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1788.545}, "reply_to": "20393__2_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20393__2_016", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--Right.\nAt that time I would say he's still carrying it.\nIf there's a course of movement that's going on and this is part of it I think the defendant is still carrying it at that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1798.042, 1799.136, 1801.041], "stop_times": [1799.136, 1801.041, 1806.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1798.042}, "reply_to": "20393__2_015", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_017", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "And what about--\n--But if he--\n--the overlap between carry and transport?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1806.82, 1807.117, 1807.508], "stop_times": [1807.117, 1807.508, 1809.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1806.82}, "reply_to": "20393__2_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20393__2_018", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "I... carry and transport, as the dictionaries, as every dictionary I think recognizes, there is a lot of overlap between the terms, but there's a couple of features that clearly... I think three things that clearly distinguish them.\nFirst, carry requires that the person who's carrying it accompany the item that's carried.\nI don't think transport requires that.\nSecond, carrying is more commonly used, and this may be just a question of connotations, but where the person who's doing the carrying also intends to use it, it's much more common to say that it's carried than used, and an example I'd give simply would be, if you're talking about a flashlight that maybe in the glove compartment of a car, it would be unusual for somebody to say, I transport a flashlight in the glove compartment of my car.\nI don't think it would be unusual to say, I carry a glove... a flashlight in the glove compartment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1809.912, 1820.361, 1824.781, 1826.531, 1847.694], "stop_times": [1820.361, 1824.781, 1826.531, 1847.694, 1852.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1809.912}, "reply_to": "20393__2_017", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_019", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Well, what do you do about two people in a vehicle in the Government's definition?\nThere's a driver and there's a passenger and there's a gun in the glove compartment.\nWho's carrying the weapon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1852.334, 1855.77, 1860.876], "stop_times": [1855.77, 1860.876, 1862.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1852.334}, "reply_to": "20393__2_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20393__2_020", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "I think it's usually... those cases are resolved in terms of who has dominion and control over the gun.\nIt may be one or the other, or both.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1862.297, 1867.108], "stop_times": [1867.108, 1868.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1862.297}, "reply_to": "20393__2_019", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_021", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Well, who has it, in the Government's view, driver, passenger, weapon in glove compartment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1868.325], "stop_times": [1873.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1868.325}, "reply_to": "20393__2_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20393__2_022", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "I... you know, I don't... ordinarily it would be the driver, but it could easily be the passenger too, or instead of.\nIt depends on whose gun it was, whether the passenger knew the gun was in the glove compartment, a number of factors.\nIn other words, in order--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1873.262, 1879.494, 1884.055], "stop_times": [1879.494, 1884.055, 1884.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1873.262}, "reply_to": "20393__2_021", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_023", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "It could be both?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1884.743], "stop_times": [1885.274], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1884.743}, "reply_to": "20393__2_022", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20393__2_024", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--It could be both, also.\nGenerally speaking possession, I think, is necessary for either use or carrying, and that would be... you have to look and see who's exercising dominion and control, but they're both responsible for the movement of the car and the movement of the gun.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1885.274, 1886.632], "stop_times": [1886.632, 1898.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1885.274}, "reply_to": "20393__2_023", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_025", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "What about the examples of being in a catamaran, or being in the caboose of a long train?\nIs it still being carried?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1898.909, 1905.703], "stop_times": [1905.703, 1906.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1898.909}, "reply_to": "20393__2_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__2_026", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Our position is that it's still being carried.\nIt's still being carried because if the gun... it may or may not be in relation to a drugtrafficking offense, but if the gun is being moved from one place to another so that it can be of use and available in a drugtrafficking crime, then it is being carried.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1906.78, 1909.201], "stop_times": [1909.201, 1922.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1906.78}, "reply_to": "20393__2_025", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_027", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "It's very strange for Congress to convey those two quite different meanings.\nNumber 1, I'm worried about somebody carrying a gun on his person, so that even if he's sitting there stock still, I want this statute to cover him, but I'm also worried about that gun in the caboose, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1922.384, 1926.319], "stop_times": [1926.319, 1938.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1922.384}, "reply_to": "20393__2_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__2_028", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1938.766], "stop_times": [1939.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1938.766}, "reply_to": "20393__2_027", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_029", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--to use the same word to cover both of those things, I find that extraordinary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1939.111], "stop_times": [1942.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1939.111}, "reply_to": "20393__2_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__2_030", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--I think... let me approach that in two ways.\nOne is, the case with the caboose, I do think that would be a carry, but the term, the fact that the term carry, when you get a vehicle that's sufficiently large, the Queen Elizabeth, or something like that, whether... the defendant is in one place, the gun is in another, whether the term carry has some fuzziness in that kind of a case I don't think should affect the fact that in a case like these, which is where you have it in a vehicle and where I think it would ordinarily be said that the gun is carried--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1942.969, 1945.468], "stop_times": [1945.468, 1970.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1942.969}, "reply_to": "20393__2_029", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_031", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Those cases just make the point more vivid, and the point is, it seems strange... sure, the word can bear each of those meanings, but it seems strange for Congress to pick that word without using an additional word to cover both of them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1970.114], "stop_times": [1986.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1970.114}, "reply_to": "20393__2_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__2_032", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--I... yes.\nYour Honor, I don't think it is strange, for two reasons.\nOne is, I do think what Congress was getting at was the act of taking that gun to the scene of a drug transaction, just as the defendants were doing here, and it was not material to Congress whether defendants did that in a suitcase, on their... in a pocket, in the car, in the trunk, or on the seat.\nThey--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [1986.153, 1986.841, 1988.887, 2003.569], "stop_times": [1986.841, 1988.887, 2003.569, 2003.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1986.153}, "reply_to": "20393__2_031", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_033", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Well, your definition is really... adds very little to the word... makes carry very little different from possess.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2003.975], "stop_times": [2011.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2003.975}, "reply_to": "20393__2_032", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20393__2_034", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--No, I don't think that's true, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2011.864], "stop_times": [2013.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2011.864}, "reply_to": "20393__2_033", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_035", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "The movement is the only thing that makes it different, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2013.393], "stop_times": [2016.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2013.393}, "reply_to": "20393__2_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20393__2_036", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Right, and I think that that's crucial, because what Congress... as this Court I think recognized in Bailey, what Congress was concerned about was not just criminalizing their possession of someone who keeps a gun in their house and who then... they were worried that that, the fact that someone keeps a gun in their house should not be a predicate liability here if it has no other relationship to the crime or if it's just a matter of intent.\nBut where someone takes the intentional act of taking the gun and taking it with that person, as these defendants did, so it would be at the scene of the crime... in fact, in the case of Cleveland and Gray, it would be essential to commit that crime because they were intending to rob drugs from another, a dealer, then I think that is the crime that Congress was trying to get at.\nIt was trying to get at the conduct that's preparatory to the use--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2016.079, 2037.212, 2055.721], "stop_times": [2037.212, 2055.721, 2060.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2016.079}, "reply_to": "20393__2_035", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_037", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Under your view, can you give me an example of where you are not carrying a firearm but you are using it, so that we can give each of the terms in the statute an independent force?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2060.235], "stop_times": [2074.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2060.235}, "reply_to": "20393__2_036", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20393__2_038", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--Yes.\nI would point out... I can.\nAn example would be where you refer to it, where you display it, perhaps in some circumstances where you trade somebody for it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2074.246, 2074.543, 2076.431], "stop_times": [2074.543, 2076.431, 2082.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2074.246}, "reply_to": "20393__2_037", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_039", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Well, how can you do that if it's not in your car or on your person?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2082.6], "stop_times": [2084.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2082.6}, "reply_to": "20393__2_038", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20393__2_040", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--No, well, for example, if it's sitting on a table in your house and sitting out there on the table while you're doing the drug transaction, or not in your house, or some other location, I think that you might be referring to it or displaying it, but I don't think you would be carrying it.\nBut I would also point out that I think that the same view would hold true if you adopt petitioner's view of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2084.022, 2095.94], "stop_times": [2095.94, 2102.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2084.022}, "reply_to": "20393__2_039", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_041", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Excuse me.\nYou're saying that when we say using a firearm included displaying it, it means displaying it up on the wall?\nI thought it meant, you know, hands up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2102.25, 2102.563, 2109.434], "stop_times": [2102.563, 2109.434, 2111.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2102.25}, "reply_to": "20393__2_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__2_042", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "No, Your--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2111.512], "stop_times": [2111.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2111.512}, "reply_to": "20393__2_041", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_043", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "You know, you're not shooting at anybody, but you're brandishing the firearm.\nYou think if you have it displayed on the wall, that... you're displaying a firearm, you're using a firearm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2111.981, 2115.853], "stop_times": [2115.853, 2120.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2111.981}, "reply_to": "20393__2_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__2_044", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--Your Honor, I was... I answered... I meant to refer to, if it's sitting on a table, for example, and the drugs--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2120.726], "stop_times": [2126.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2120.726}, "reply_to": "20393__2_043", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_045", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "You think that's displaying it.\nI don't think that's displaying it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2126.427, 2126.786], "stop_times": [2126.786, 2127.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2126.427}, "reply_to": "20393__2_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__2_046", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--Well, we would take the position that it is if the... if you imagine a case where the drugs are being dealt right there, the gun is sitting on the table, it's a very powerful message to whoever's on the other side of the table--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2127.552], "stop_times": [2137.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2127.552}, "reply_to": "20393__2_045", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_047", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Well, you wouldn't have it on the table so... when either person can grab it.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2137.064, 2140.719], "stop_times": [2140.719, 2141.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2137.064}, "reply_to": "20393__2_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20393__2_048", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--Well, grab... again... you're right, the circumstances could vary, but perhaps somewhere where it's available.\nIt's quite clear out there in the open where the dealer can deal with it and not the adversary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2141.733, 2147.7], "stop_times": [2147.7, 2152.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2141.733}, "reply_to": "20393__2_047", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_049", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "The two things I don't see about your definition.\nThe first thing I don't see... these may or may not be relevant, but I don't see why you say the train, why he's carrying it in the train, unless he happens to be Sidney... who was the person, Averell Harriman or someone, who owned the train and was also the engineer at the time.\nThen I guess he's carrying it, but otherwise I would think he's arranging to have it carried.\nI don't understand that part, and I also don't understand this last part where you say having it on the person is carry within this, because I would have thought on your theory that's what Kozinski was talking about, packing a gun.\nThat is, I thought that the second definition in there, in the dictionary, was referring to the instance where there is no physical movement but you say, are you carrying a gun, and the answer to that question is yes, even if the person has never moved an inch, because sometimes carry means packing, and I don't see why you bring either of those two things within your definition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2152.527, 2155.104, 2172.362, 2176.75, 2189.824], "stop_times": [2155.104, 2172.362, 2176.75, 2189.824, 2214.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2152.527}, "reply_to": "20393__2_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20393__2_050", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "I think the train, perhaps you're right, it may be it would only be an extraordinary circumstance where a train had a case like that where it would be said to be carried.\nI'm really not sure.\nAs far as on the person, I do think that Congress intended to use the term in all of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2214.173, 2223.794, 2224.965], "stop_times": [2223.794, 2224.965, 2229.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2214.173}, "reply_to": "20393__2_049", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_051", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Well, they put use.\nThat's why use is there.\nI mean, certainly it's an odd... I mean, it's in the dictionary.\nYou go ahead, because I want your answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2229.902, 2230.713, 2232.135, 2234.65], "stop_times": [2230.713, 2232.135, 2234.65, 2237.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2229.902}, "reply_to": "20393__2_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20393__2_052", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--I was going to say, I think Congress... our basic submission is that Congress intended to use the term in all of the ways in which the term would ordinarily be used to talk about carrying and when it's on the person, if the Court were to hold that there had to be movement, it really wouldn't make very much difference.\nI guess... I think that because of common... under common experience people do move very frequently, the word no longer requires much in the way of movement at a particular moment when it's on the person, but if the Court were to hold otherwise that would be satisfactory with us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2237.289, 2251.079], "stop_times": [2251.079, 2264.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2237.289}, "reply_to": "20393__2_051", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_053", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "You know, words are not normally used in those... in every sense that they can have.\nThey're usually used in a... you know, there's some line by... I think it's an Ogden Nash line.\nHe... she made out his purpose up his mind, up her mind and a dash for the door.\nI mean, you know, made has all of those meanings.\nShe made out his purpose up her mind and a dash for the door.\nBut you don't use words with all three meanings, and I find it strange to think that Congress is going to use the word carry with those two quite different meanings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2264.294, 2270.104, 2275.961, 2283.177, 2286.471, 2290.017], "stop_times": [2270.104, 2275.961, 2283.177, 2286.471, 2290.017, 2298.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2264.294}, "reply_to": "20393__2_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__2_054", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "I think... I guess I think Congress did, and I'd like to point out that in the numerous authorization statutes that we cite Congress plainly intended to use the word carry to refer to all of those things.\nThere are numerous statutes that authorize Federal officers to carry firearms.\nBut equally important, State law consistently recognizes that carry can be used to mean all of those things in a wide range of different contexts and statutes, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2298.591, 2309.822, 2313.383], "stop_times": [2309.822, 2313.383, 2322.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2298.591}, "reply_to": "20393__2_053", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_055", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "But this is carry during and in relation to, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2322.77], "stop_times": [2326.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2322.77}, "reply_to": "20393__2_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20393__2_056", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--That's right, and that is... that is certainly a separate qualification, and things like immediate... not immediate accessibility, maybe, but a degree of accessibility may be relevant for whether it's in relation to a drugtrafficking crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2326.785], "stop_times": [2337.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2326.785}, "reply_to": "20393__2_055", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_057", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--That was the one part of your brief that stymied me was the, and you said, well, as far as Cleveland is concerned, he's out because he carried the gun from the shop to the car, and I thought, trying to fathom what line a sensible Congress would draw, it wouldn't make a distinction based on whether it's the shop clerk that carries the gun and puts it on the seat, or the defendant purchased the gun and carried it out himself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2337.842], "stop_times": [2367.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2337.842}, "reply_to": "20393__2_056", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20393__2_058", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "In our view, both cases... I mean, our primary submission here is that both cases would plainly be carrying, because when he drives off in that vehicle he's carrying the car, the gun in his car.\nBut I'd like to make one other point about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2367.362, 2375.889], "stop_times": [2375.889, 2377.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2367.362}, "reply_to": "20393__2_057", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_059", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Before you get off the example you gave about these other statutes, I think it seems to me that the petitioners have an adequate response to that, and that is that when you talk about permissive statutes authorizing Federal agents to carry guns you can apply the principle that the authorization of the greater is implicitly an authorization of the lesser.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2377.108], "stop_times": [2397.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2377.108}, "reply_to": "20393__2_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__2_060", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--I agree with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2397.192], "stop_times": [2399.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2397.192}, "reply_to": "20393__2_059", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_061", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "So that if you author them to carry a gun in the sense of bear it on their person, you obviously authorize them to take it from place to place whether it's in the trunk of the car or on the seat, but you cannot use the greater includes the lesser for criminal punishments.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2399.442], "stop_times": [2415.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2399.442}, "reply_to": "20393__2_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__2_062", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--But Your Honor, I don't believe that we are trying to use the greater to include the lesser here.\nI think you could construe those statutes that way, but you also could look at those dozens of statutes and say that Congress used the natural word there, carry, to refer to a whole variety of things that they were referring--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2415.092, 2418.777], "stop_times": [2418.777, 2429.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2415.092}, "reply_to": "20393__2_061", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_063", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "If there is this amount of different possibilities in the meaning of ambiguities, then surely the Rule of Lenity comes into play somewhere.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2429.85], "stop_times": [2438.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2429.85}, "reply_to": "20393__2_062", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20393__2_064", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--Your Honor, I would think it would, but not in this case, because I don't think there is any ambiguity, any substantial ambiguity in the question of whether you can be said to carry something in a vehicle.\nI think that that's clarified by all of the ordinary canons of statutory interpretation.\nI'd like to make one point related to the State laws, which is petitioners argue that Congress was unaware of all these numerous State laws and therefore we shouldn't pay any attention to them in construing section 924(c).\nWell, when Congress enacted section 924(c) in 1968 it said the statute provided for prohibition of carrying unlawfully during a predicate offense.\nWhen they said carry unlawfully, they were exactly intending to pick up, and they knew that they were intending to pick up State law on carrying.\nAn unlawful carry was a carry that was primarily in violation of State law.\nThere were very few Federal laws that governed carrying at the time.\nNow, there's no denying that in 1968 there were numerous State statutes that prohibited carrying in a vehicle, and when Congress removed that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2438.067, 2447.922, 2452.749, 2463.353, 2474.067, 2481.377, 2485.267, 2487.703], "stop_times": [2447.922, 2452.749, 2463.353, 2474.067, 2481.377, 2485.267, 2487.703, 2496.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2438.067}, "reply_to": "20393__2_063", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_065", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "But there were also State statutes that were limited to carrying on the person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2496.044], "stop_times": [2498.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2496.044}, "reply_to": "20393__2_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20393__2_066", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--That's right, and it was only the ones they were... they were referring to State law which plainly recognizes that carrying can... some States it could refer to a vehicle, some States it couldn't, but the term... the ones that we've heard of person say, carry on a person, and the ones that require immediate accessibility say, carry about a person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2498.996], "stop_times": [2514.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2498.996}, "reply_to": "20393__2_065", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_067", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Oh, I don't know, it seems to me if I'm a person reading... isn't that the test?\nIf I'm a person reading a statute, would I be given adequate notice that that's what it's about?\nIt's a statute making it unlawful to carry a firearm, and you think I'm put on adequate notice that it's if I have it in the trunk of my car I'm carrying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2514.521, 2518.721, 2525.593], "stop_times": [2518.721, 2525.593, 2535.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2514.521}, "reply_to": "20393__2_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__2_068", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "I think there would be ample notice.\nAs I said, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2535.247, 2538.058], "stop_times": [2538.058, 2538.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2535.247}, "reply_to": "20393__2_067", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_069", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--I don't care about State statutes or anything else.\nYou could have dozens of them, but if the language doesn't give fair notice to whoever's going to be... going to get this mandatory minimum--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2538.839, 2541.181], "stop_times": [2541.181, 2548.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2538.839}, "reply_to": "20393__2_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__2_070", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--I think if someone were to read this statute and take... and say to his confederate in crime, say, well, you know, let's make sure that we have the gun on the seat of the car and not in your pocket, because if it's in your pocket you're going to be carrying it when we're driving to the drug deal, I think that would be a pretty improbable event, that most likely someone would read the statute and say, there's a severe penalty that Congress has imposed for this, and we should make sure that we're not carrying it, and we can't carry it in the car, we can't carry it on our persons, we can't carry it in any way.\nI just want to add, though, about State law that when Congress removed the requirement of unlawfully in 1984 they were plainly intending to broaden the reach of the statute, and so it's really just a little question that from the time the statute was enacted in 1968 until the present, it's referred to carrying in a vehicle as well as carrying on a person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2548.443, 2574.917], "stop_times": [2574.917, 2595.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2548.443}, "reply_to": "20393__2_069", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_071", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--May I just... I just want to clear up one very small point that I was unclear about your answer to Justice Kennedy.\nYou don't take the position, do you, that the two... the term use and the term carry are mutually exclusive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2595.346, 2601.406], "stop_times": [2601.406, 2606.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2595.346}, "reply_to": "20393__2_070", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20393__2_072", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2606.421], "stop_times": [2606.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2606.421}, "reply_to": "20393__2_071", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_073", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "So you could do one thing that would violate both.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2606.888], "stop_times": [2609.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2606.888}, "reply_to": "20393__2_072", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20393__2_074", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "You certainly could.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2609.357], "stop_times": [2610.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2609.357}, "reply_to": "20393__2_073", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_075", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2610.232], "stop_times": [2610.716], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2610.232}, "reply_to": "20393__2_074", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20393__2_076", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Petitioners have argued that we should... that the Court should construe the term carry narrowly because the Court adopted a narrow construction of the term use in Bailey, but I think that would be turning the reasoning of Bailey on its head.\nOne of the reasons why the Court in Bailey construed the term use a little bit narrowly was to still leave some room for carrying.\nThat principle shouldn't be applied here to construe the term carrying narrowly and therefore leave a complete gap in the statute for things that people--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2610.716, 2622.305, 2628.303], "stop_times": [2622.305, 2628.303, 2637.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2610.716}, "reply_to": "20393__2_075", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_077", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Well, there are separate offenses for transporting firearms.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2637.143], "stop_times": [2641.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2637.143}, "reply_to": "20393__2_076", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20393__2_078", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--That's correct, but the... but nonetheless, when you're... it's true that there are, and those offenses cover somewhat different conduct.\nThey cover people who give somebody... who consign something to be transported, and also people don't... people don't accompany the item, and also that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2641.892, 2648.654], "stop_times": [2648.654, 2656.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2641.892}, "reply_to": "20393__2_077", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_079", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Well, they cover this, too, don't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2656.901], "stop_times": [2657.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2656.901}, "reply_to": "20393__2_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__2_080", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--They'd cover... I think they'd probably cover most of this, that's correct, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2657.979], "stop_times": [2662.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2657.979}, "reply_to": "20393__2_079", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_081", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "The transport statutes would cover what happened here, do you think?\nI mean, could the Government have charged either of these petitioners with one of the transportation offenses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2662.664, 2668.412], "stop_times": [2668.412, 2678.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2662.664}, "reply_to": "20393__2_080", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20393__2_082", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--The transportation statute, 924(b), which is the one that's been referred to earlier today, requires that the crime be committed therewith.\nYou're transporting it with intent that the crime be committed therewith, and I'm not sure whether it would cover these cases or not.\nIt would depend on whether the crime was actually being committed with the gun, or whether the gun was... it was... whether the gun was being carried in relation to the crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2678.626, 2689.074, 2695.634], "stop_times": [2689.074, 2695.634, 2702.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2678.626}, "reply_to": "20393__2_081", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_083", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Well, you don't need a gun to commit the basic offense--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2702.992], "stop_times": [2705.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2702.992}, "reply_to": "20393__2_082", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20393__2_084", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2705.272], "stop_times": [2705.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2705.272}, "reply_to": "20393__2_083", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_085", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2705.538], "stop_times": [2705.975], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2705.538}, "reply_to": "20393__2_084", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20393__2_086", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "That's correct, and that's why I'm not sure as... it may depend on the facts of the case.\nI'm not sure whether the... whether those... what occurs here and what occurs in the majority of 924(c) cases would be covered by the other... by 924(b).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2705.975, 2710.035], "stop_times": [2710.035, 2718.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2705.975}, "reply_to": "20393__2_085", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_087", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Well, it also says, or with knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that an offense is to be committed therewith.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2718.672], "stop_times": [2725.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2718.672}, "reply_to": "20393__2_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__2_088", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Right.\nRight, but it's the point... the offense has to be committed with the gun, and that is not the formulation that Congress used in 924(c), where it said during and in relation to.\nThe gun has to be carried during and in relation to.\nBut I think most significantly 924(b) is a broader statute because transport is a broader statute and as I said, where... what Congress had in mind was that the defendant him or herself is going to be the one who not only has the gun in the car, but then... with the idea that it will be used at some later date, I think it's much more natural to use the word carry than transport, which refers just to the bare movement from one place to another for some purpose or for somebody else to use it or for all... for all kinds of other possible reasons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2725.654, 2725.967, 2734.463, 2736.494], "stop_times": [2725.967, 2734.463, 2736.494, 2763.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2725.654}, "reply_to": "20393__2_087", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_089", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "May I go back to the provision, for transportation with intent that the crime be committed therewith.\nWould that intent element be satisfied if they transported knowing that they might need to use the gun, but hoping that they might in fact be able to commit, their crime without it?\nWould the intent element be satisfied with that state of mind?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2763.701, 2770.605, 2788.583], "stop_times": [2770.605, 2788.583, 2794.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2763.701}, "reply_to": "20393__2_088", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20393__2_090", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "You know, I'm not really aware of exactly how that's been interpreted in a case like... I guess... if I can be permitted I'd guess at it, but I'm not sure it's going to be borne out by whatever cases have come up, which is in Muscarello's case it may be difficult to show that it was transported, that the crime would be committed with the gun, because the gun was there to provide him protection during the crime.\nIn Cleveland and Gray's case I think probably it would be, because they were going to use the gun in order to rob the dealer and... to steal drugs from another drug dealer, and I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2794.548, 2813.852], "stop_times": [2813.852, 2822.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2794.548}, "reply_to": "20393__2_089", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_091", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Well, that does argue, then, for a comparatively narrow reason, narrow reading of carry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2822.49], "stop_times": [2828.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2822.49}, "reply_to": "20393__2_090", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20393__2_092", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--I don't believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2828.503], "stop_times": [2829.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2828.503}, "reply_to": "20393__2_091", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_093", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Because you don't need... you don't need the broad reading of carry to get the kind of instance which, as a matter of fact, most of our hypotheticals have been describing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2829.737], "stop_times": [2839.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2829.737}, "reply_to": "20393__2_092", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20393__2_094", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--I don't know... I don't know... it may be that there's an overlap and there's other statutes in title 18 that would cover the conduct of these defendants, and there's a very broad range of different kinds of cases that come up under 924(c), but I think the important point is that the term carry is naturally used to carrying it in a vehicle.\nIt's been used that way since 1968.\nThere's... no court has ever said that it's not used that way, and I think that's a reflection of the way that term would ordinarily be used and ordinarily understood by Congress at that time and at each of the times that it's amended the statute since then.\nAnd for that reason I don't... I think that Congress was very concerned with seeing to it that the conduct that leads up to the possible use of a gun, this was... the carrying offense is really meant to kind of take care of the preparation for use, and for Congress it was of no moment whether someone takes a gun, puts it in an attache case, locks it, and carries it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2839.155, 2859.741, 2861.912, 2873.392], "stop_times": [2859.741, 2861.912, 2873.392, 2895.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2839.155}, "reply_to": "20393__2_093", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_095", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "You say preparation, but the statute says during and in relation.\nYou say during any crime.\nSurely the during has a different connotation than preparation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2895.335, 2901.412, 2903.098], "stop_times": [2901.412, 2903.098, 2906.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2895.335}, "reply_to": "20393__2_094", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20393__2_096", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--That's correct, but for instance, if the offense is possession with intent to distribute, that's a crime that can be... that can--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2906.643], "stop_times": [2914.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2906.643}, "reply_to": "20393__2_095", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_097", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Oh, you're talking not just a carry--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2914.031], "stop_times": [2915.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2914.031}, "reply_to": "20393__2_096", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20393__2_098", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--I'm talking about in preparation for the use.\nI'm really not talking about, here, in preparation for the crime, and I think what Congress was trying to get at was that if someone takes a gun in preparation to commit a drug offense and puts it in a suitcase... Cleveland and Gray, for example, in this case had taken... they took... they planned to rob the other dealers.\nThey put the gun in a bag.\nThey put it in the trunk of their car and waited for the call to determine the rendezvous point where they would meet them.\nNow, if they had instead... and it happened it was far enough away they needed to take the car, so they got in the car and drove there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2915.484, 2916.031, 2929.9, 2931.414, 2936.007], "stop_times": [2916.031, 2929.9, 2931.414, 2936.007, 2941.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2915.484}, "reply_to": "20393__2_097", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_099", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--But robbery is a separate offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2941.973], "stop_times": [2943.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2941.973}, "reply_to": "20393__2_098", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20393__2_100", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2943.847], "stop_times": [2945.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2943.847}, "reply_to": "20393__2_099", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_101", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "That isn't the drug crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2945.175], "stop_times": [2945.987], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2945.175}, "reply_to": "20393__2_100", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20393__2_102", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "That's correct, but their drug crime was attempted possession with intent to distribute.\nIt was going to be their attempt to get the drugs.\nBut if they had carried... the rendezvous point had been a couple of blocks from where they were and they had carried the bag in their hands rather than in the trunk of the car, it would have made no difference from what Congress was trying to get at in this statute.\nWhat they were concerned was getting that... people taking that gun to the scene of the crime and especially as this Court has interpreted use, I think they didn't want to have to wait until someone actually pulls it out and starts using it in a very active sense in order to say that that... we want to keep that gun away from that drug offense, and whether they take it there in their car, or take it there in a bag I don't think was of great significance, nor should be in interpreting the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2945.987, 2950.064, 2953.376, 2965.23], "stop_times": [2950.064, 2953.376, 2965.23, 2990.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2945.987}, "reply_to": "20393__2_101", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_103", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Is carrying... the half of carrying that doesn't consist of on the person, is that always transportation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [2990.064], "stop_times": [3000.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2990.064}, "reply_to": "20393__2_102", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__2_104", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Yes.\nI think... is it always transportation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3000.123, 3001.715], "stop_times": [3001.715, 3003.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3000.123}, "reply_to": "20393__2_103", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_105", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Let me tell you why you should say no.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3003.402, 3007.948], "stop_times": [3007.948, 3008.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3003.402}, "reply_to": "20393__2_104", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__2_106", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "No, it's not always--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3008.323], "stop_times": [3009.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3008.323}, "reply_to": "20393__2_105", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_107", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "I don't want to lead you into the hole.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3009.573], "stop_times": [3012.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3009.573}, "reply_to": "20393__2_106", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__2_108", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3012.041], "stop_times": [3012.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3012.041}, "reply_to": "20393__2_107", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_109", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "But I am sort of bemused by section 925, which says the provisions of this chapter, except for a few sections which are not the one we're talking about here, shall not apply with respect to the transportation, shipment, receipt, possession, or importation of any firearm or ammunition imported for, sold, or shipped to or issued for the use of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or any State.\nNow, I suppose that that... you know, if transportation includes carry, I guess that would let the... or if carry is always transportation, the carry section wouldn't apply if you're using a... I don't know, a gun that's been taken from a Federal agent, which wouldn't make much sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3012.353, 3037.781], "stop_times": [3037.781, 3055.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3012.353}, "reply_to": "20393__2_108", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__2_110", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "That may be true.\nI'm--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3055.976, 3057.21], "stop_times": [3057.21, 3057.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3055.976}, "reply_to": "20393__2_109", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_111", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "So your answer is no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3057.476], "stop_times": [3058.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3057.476}, "reply_to": "20393__2_110", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__2_112", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--My answer is no.\nMy answer is no for another reason as well, which is, as I said, I think transportation doesn't require that the defendant accompany the gun, and I think carrying does require that the defendant accompany the gun.\nAnd again, that points out why the... the seriousness of this offense and the reason why Congress wanted to get at carrying, which is, they were concerned with the defendant taking the gun along so that it would be there and available for use at the time when the defendant is prepared to commit a drug deal to possess the drugs, to rip off another dealer, to sell the drugs, whatever it is the defendant--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3058.101, 3058.818, 3068.924], "stop_times": [3058.818, 3068.924, 3087.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3058.101}, "reply_to": "20393__2_111", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_113", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Your answer isn't really no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3087.277], "stop_times": [3089.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3087.277}, "reply_to": "20393__2_112", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20393__2_114", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--I beg your pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3089.04], "stop_times": [3090.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3089.04}, "reply_to": "20393__2_113", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_115", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Your answer wasn't really no, was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3090.165], "stop_times": [3091.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3090.165}, "reply_to": "20393__2_114", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20393__2_116", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Yes, it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3091.165], "stop_times": [3092.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3091.165}, "reply_to": "20393__2_115", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_117", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Then I am confused.\nYou mean that carry is not... does not include trans--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3092.118, 3094.819], "stop_times": [3094.819, 3097.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3092.118}, "reply_to": "20393__2_116", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20393__2_118", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Because I don't think it requires that you accompany the item that's being transported, unless I'm misunderstanding your... in other words, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3097.522], "stop_times": [3104.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3097.522}, "reply_to": "20393__2_117", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_119", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--I'm sorry--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3104.675], "stop_times": [3105.144], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3104.675}, "reply_to": "20393__2_118", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20393__2_120", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--carrying usually involves transporting it, but transporting it does not always involve carrying it.\nI don't... does that help?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3105.144, 3109.611], "stop_times": [3109.611, 3110.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3105.144}, "reply_to": "20393__2_119", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_121", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--I thought carrying, at its heart, from Middle English on, was having somebody in a cart, or a car, and we often use the word transportation for that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3110.86], "stop_times": [3121.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3110.86}, "reply_to": "20393__2_120", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20393__2_122", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "That's correct, and I think... I didn't... there's certainly a great overlap between the two words, but there are some different uses.\nFor example, where you take a gun to have it... to transport it to somebody else in another State, but you're not going to accompany it, I don't think you'd say that you're carrying it in that case.\nSo there are differences between the two statutes, and there's reasons why Congress would have chosen to treat them differently.\nI also think, though, that where it's ultimately intended that the person who's doing the carrying is going to be the one who's doing the using also, it's much more natural to refer to carry rather than use, as, for example, you carry... as I said before, you carry a pen in your pocket, you carry a flashlight in your glove compartment.\nYou could say you're transporting the flashlight, but I think it's much more natural to say that you're carrying it.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3121.137, 3127.291, 3136.131, 3141.347, 3158.997, 3163.495], "stop_times": [3127.291, 3136.131, 3141.347, 3158.997, 3163.495, 3165.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3121.137}, "reply_to": "20393__2_121", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "20393__2_123", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Feldman.\nMr. Klonoff, you have 3 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3165.307, 3166.744], "stop_times": [3166.744, 3169.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3165.307}, "reply_to": "20393__2_122", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20393__3_000", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Thank you.\nThe Government's argument in answer to Justice Breyer's question about where are the anomalies in the Government's position, the Government really couldn't answer what happens when a car is stopped, and if it does apply, then the whole theory of transportation makes no sense.\nThe Government couldn't answer the train hypothetical.\nThese are going to create enormous linedrawing problems for the, for future courts.\nThe Government really couldn't explain the passenger situation.\nWhere does this rule get them if the only person that can be charged under that theory is the driver, so we would submit that the Government--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3169.18, 3169.712, 3181.613, 3183.862, 3188.283, 3191.188], "stop_times": [3169.712, 3181.613, 3183.862, 3188.283, 3191.188, 3197.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3169.18}, "reply_to": "20393__2_123", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__3_001", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Well, it seems to me in the great runofthemind cases the gun is in the glove compartment, or in the... in a bag under a newspaper on the passenger seat within easy reach, or even in the trunk.\nWe don't have too many cases... just like we don't have too many cases with missiles, we don't have too many cases with guns in cabooses, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3197.981, 3209.976], "stop_times": [3209.976, 3216.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3197.981}, "reply_to": "20393__3_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20393__3_002", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--There are cases of guns in ships and trains, and there are many, many cases of guns in the back seat between the passengers, and the Government's position is anomalous there.\nNow, in response to Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3216.396, 3224.47], "stop_times": [3224.47, 3225.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3216.396}, "reply_to": "20393__3_001", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__3_003", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--Guns in the suitcase on the train.\nI mean, if you get on a train, you chuck your suitcase up on the rack or in the back of the car.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3225.423, 3226.345], "stop_times": [3226.345, 3230.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3225.423}, "reply_to": "20393__3_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20393__3_004", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--Exactly.\nIn response to Justice O'Connor's question... this points up Justice Souter's point about the reason for construing carry narrowly... the Government does prosecute transport in precisely these circumstances.\nWe cite in our reply brief United States v. Albaron, the Fourth Circuit case, exactly the same situation, gun in a glove compartment on the way to a drug transaction, so there are statutes to get at precisely this situation.\nIn terms of the State statutes, we would disagree with the Government's position.\nThe Congress was not incorporating the whole sweep of State statutes.\nIt would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3230.562, 3231.078, 3240.214, 3252.131, 3256.27, 3260.002], "stop_times": [3231.078, 3240.214, 3252.131, 3256.27, 3260.002, 3260.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3230.562}, "reply_to": "20393__3_003", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__3_005", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "No, but on the State statutes let me ask you this question.\nThere are several State statutes that say carry on the person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3260.377, 3262.065], "stop_times": [3262.065, 3265.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3260.377}, "reply_to": "20393__3_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20393__3_006", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--There are a few.\nMost of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3265.204, 3265.954], "stop_times": [3265.954, 3266.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3265.204}, "reply_to": "20393__3_005", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__3_007", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Would you not agree that if you're correct the words, on the person in those statutes are redundant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3266.548], "stop_times": [3270.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3266.548}, "reply_to": "20393__3_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20393__3_008", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--Those few statutes.\nThere are many statutes that say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3270.468, 3271.779], "stop_times": [3271.779, 3273.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3270.468}, "reply_to": "20393__3_007", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__3_009", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "So at least some States thought carry was broader than on a person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3273.185], "stop_times": [3276.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3273.185}, "reply_to": "20393__3_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20393__3_010", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--Well, most of the States say on or about, and many of them, 22 of them, and they're cited in the Cleveland brief, say on or about, or including broadly, in the vehicle.\nNow, those 22 States would be surplusage under the Government's position.\nYou wouldn't need to say in the vehicle.\nSo the overwhelming weight of the State statutes, we submit, supports our position and not the Government's, and at most, as was pointed out in the questioning I think by the Chief Justice, all you get from looking at the State statutes ultimately is an application of the Rule of Lenity.\nThere is no way that you come to the conclusion that the Government's position is unambiguous, so we submit that that whole exercise simply demonstrates why the petitioner should prevail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3276.699, 3286.663, 3290.022, 3291.334, 3304.938], "stop_times": [3286.663, 3290.022, 3291.334, 3304.938, 3314.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3276.699}, "reply_to": "20393__3_009", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__3_011", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "May I ask you to comment on one other thing that's kind of puzzled me?\nIn our opinion in Bailey we said that a person puts a gun next to him during the transaction, it just sits there, that's not use, and one reason why it's not use was, that would leave no room for carry to cover that situation.\nDo you think that situation is covered either by carry or use?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3314.7, 3316.932, 3329.241], "stop_times": [3316.932, 3329.241, 3332.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3314.7}, "reply_to": "20393__3_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20393__3_012", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Well, I don't believe that the Court was referring to the situation where the gun was just laying there in terms of carry.\nThe examples of carry--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3332.255, 3337.018], "stop_times": [3337.018, 3338.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3332.255}, "reply_to": "20393__3_011", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__3_013", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Well, he puts... the defendant puts a gun into a place to protect drugs or to embolden himself, were the Court's words, and we all signed on to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3338.221], "stop_times": [3345.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3338.221}, "reply_to": "20393__3_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20393__3_014", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--Right, but the Court was not describing carry there.\nEvery time the Court used--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3345.64, 3347.875], "stop_times": [3347.875, 3348.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3345.64}, "reply_to": "20393__3_013", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__3_015", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "It was saying the reason that we don't want to read it as use is, that would mean... it would leave no room for carry to cover that situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3348.826], "stop_times": [3355.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3348.826}, "reply_to": "20393__3_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20393__3_016", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "--Well, I... respectfully, Justice Stevens, I would submit that the Court was not in any way suggesting that carry cover that situation.\nThe Court's examples of carry in Bailey were always in reference to on the person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3355.323, 3362.585], "stop_times": [3362.585, 3367.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3355.323}, "reply_to": "20393__3_015", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__3_017", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Klonoff.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3367.272], "stop_times": [3368.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3367.272}, "reply_to": "20393__3_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20393__3_018", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3368.188], "stop_times": [3368.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3368.188}, "reply_to": "20393__3_017", "speaker": "robert_h_klonoff"}
{"id": "20393__3_019", "conversation_id": "20393", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1654", "start_times": [3368.605], "stop_times": [3369.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3368.605}, "reply_to": "20393__3_018", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21237__0_000", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "We'll hear argument now in No. 86-843, National Credit Union Administration <v@l> [= v.] the First National Bank and Trust Company, and a related case.\nGeneral Waxman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [0.0, 13.261], "stop_times": [13.261, 14.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21237__0_001", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nCongress enacted the Federal Credit Union Act to foster the development of strong and stable, cooperative credit institutions so that persons not being served by banks could obtain credit at non-usurious rates.\nCredit union proponents advocated including the common bond provision because experience had shown that credit unions organized around preexisting, cohesive groups were most likely to form economically strong cooperative institutions.\nThe banks lack standing under the APA to challenge the NCUA's interpretation of the common bond provision because Congress enacted that provision as an organizing principle to promote financially viable credit unions and not to impose substantive restrictions or constraints on competition.\nThus, the banks' competitive interests are not within the, quote, zone of interests Congress sought to protect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [14.839, 17.931, 33.002, 52.152, 72.924], "stop_times": [17.931, 33.002, 52.152, 72.924, 80.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 14.839}, "reply_to": "21237__0_000", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_002", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Well, how do you reconcile that petition... position, Mr. Waxman, with our decision in the Clarke case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [80.484], "stop_times": [86.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 80.484}, "reply_to": "21237__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21237__0_003", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Well, Justice Rehnquist, in Clarke, this Court determined that the plaintiffs, the security industry, had standing because it found that Section... Sections 36 and 81 of the McFadden Act, which were the substantive provisions at issue there, had been enacted to reflect a, quote, congressional concern to keep national banks from obtaining monopoly power over credit and money through unlimited branching.\nAnd, therefore, Congress... the Court found, Congress had arguably legislated against the very competition that the securities interest was seeking to challenge.\nIn this case, the common bond provision, in particular, and even the Federal Credit Union Act in general, was not enacted with any thought to restrict or control competition in any way.\nIt was enacted in order to provide a means for strengthening the development of credit institutions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [86.309, 115.813, 126.715, 138.883], "stop_times": [115.813, 126.715, 138.883, 144.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 86.309}, "reply_to": "21237__0_002", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_004", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Well, Mr. Waxman, the... the Investment Company Institute v. Camp case was enacted, of course, to restrict competition.\nAnd we found standing there, didn't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [144.864, 152.532], "stop_times": [152.532, 154.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 144.864}, "reply_to": "21237__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21237__0_005", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "You did, Justice O'Connor.\nAnd I think it's fair to acknowledge that that case, at least in our view, represents the outer limits of where this Court has gone in zone of interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [154.578, 156.608], "stop_times": [156.608, 165.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 154.578}, "reply_to": "21237__0_004", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_006", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Yeah, I think that's the... the closest case for the standing argument.\nI mean, how do you get around that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [165.308, 167.683], "stop_times": [167.683, 169.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 165.308}, "reply_to": "21237__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21237__0_007", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "I... I... I... I think... I think it is... and I think it's important and can be readily distinguished in three ways.\nFirst of all, although the Court acknowledged that the principle reason for enacting Section 16 of the Glass-Steagall Act had been to protect banks from engaging in investment activities of their own sake, the Court, both in the opinion in Investment Company Institute, and subsequently in Clarke, also noted that Congress had been concerned with, quote, the danger to the economy as a whole.\nSo it wasn't the only reason.\nBut, more importantly, the basis for the holding in Investment Company Institute was that Section 16 of the Glass-Steagall Act was legislation against competition.\nThe Court found in that case that Congress had legislated against the competition that the petitioners sought to challenge.\nSo even if you construe that case in the broadest possible way... and I would simply adopt Justice Harlan's characterization of the majority opinion in that case in dissent... he said, if Congress prohibited entry into a field of business for reasons relating to competition, then a competitor has standing to seek observance of the prohibition.\nNow, he thought that that was a holding that was not warranted by the Court's prior precedence.\nBut even if that is what Investment Company Institute v. Camp stands for, that's not this case.\nThe common bond provision, and, indeed, the FCUA in general, have nothing to do with competition.\nThey were not... there was not a reason for enacting the common bond--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [169.276, 172.962, 200.201, 202.247, 213.882, 222.317, 246.213, 251.929, 258.975, 265.222], "stop_times": [172.962, 200.201, 202.247, 213.882, 222.317, 246.213, 251.929, 258.975, 265.222, 269.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 169.276}, "reply_to": "21237__0_006", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_008", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "But in order to find out the answer to that question, what was the reason for enacting the common bond, must we go back into the legislative history?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [269.703], "stop_times": [277.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 269.703}, "reply_to": "21237__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21237__0_009", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--I think you do, because prudential... the prudential standing inquiry this Court has taught is an analysis of what Congress intended; that is, the interest... to quote Association of Data Processors... the interest sought to be protected by the complainant must be arguably within the zone of interest to be protected by the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [277.762], "stop_times": [299.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 277.762}, "reply_to": "21237__0_008", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_010", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "So this is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [299.926], "stop_times": [301.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 299.926}, "reply_to": "21237__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21237__0_011", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "So you must determine what the zone of interest to be protected by the statute was.\nAnd here it was clearly an intent to foster the development... the rapid development of stable and strong credit unions, because... and I think it's also important to... to understand this... in 1934, when Congress was considering enactment of the Federal Credit Union Act, the country was beginning to come out of the Great Depression.\nThat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [301.128, 306.127, 328.539], "stop_times": [306.127, 328.539, 329.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 301.128}, "reply_to": "21237__0_010", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_012", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Well, it just came out of the Great Depression and the War.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [329.07], "stop_times": [331.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 329.07}, "reply_to": "21237__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21237__0_013", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--The banks... it was in the Great Depression.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [331.085], "stop_times": [334.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 331.085}, "reply_to": "21237__0_012", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_014", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [334.052], "stop_times": [334.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 334.052}, "reply_to": "21237__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21237__0_015", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "The banks had failed in great numbers.\nBut, for the past 10 or 15 years, there had been developed state-chartered credit institutions, many... most characterized by the existence... or formed around a common bond.\nAnd Con... the legislative history is replete with recognition that notwithstanding the banks' record during the Great Depression, not a single state-chartered credit union had failed.\nAnd what Congress wanted to do, in enacting the Federal Credit Union Act, was replicate the success of the state-chartered institutions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [334.521, 336.552, 349.014, 360.822], "stop_times": [336.552, 349.014, 360.822, 370.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 334.521}, "reply_to": "21237__0_014", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_016", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Mr. Waxman--\n--But isn't it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [370.444, 370.819], "stop_times": [370.819, 371.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 370.444}, "reply_to": "21237__0_015", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21237__0_017", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Wow.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [371.116, 372.054], "stop_times": [372.054, 375.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 371.116}, "reply_to": "21237__0_016", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_018", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--You might want to start at the end and work down.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [375.287, 377.1], "stop_times": [377.1, 378.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 375.287}, "reply_to": "21237__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21237__0_019", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [378.926], "stop_times": [380.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 378.926}, "reply_to": "21237__0_018", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_020", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "If we go to the zone test, which is you're arguing that... that the banks are outside the zone, I believe that test was first introduced in an opinion by Justice White, where he said, it's only arguably within the zone.\nSo I would assume one need not consult the legislative history.\nOne could see if a lawyer could construct a good argument.\nAnd further, didn't Justice White say that this was not a... a difficult test to meet?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [380.41, 397.434, 402.213, 405.337], "stop_times": [397.434, 402.213, 405.337, 413.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 380.41}, "reply_to": "21237__0_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21237__0_021", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [413.114], "stop_times": [414.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 413.114}, "reply_to": "21237__0_020", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_022", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "He was, in that opinion, expanding standing beyond what it had been up until then.\nAnd he explained that this test was rather easier to meet.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [414.974, 420.629], "stop_times": [420.629, 426.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 414.974}, "reply_to": "21237__0_021", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21237__0_023", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, the zone of interest test, which I believe was first articulated in the Data Processing case, was a case that was decided with explicit reference to the legislative history in order to determine Congress' purpose; that is, who Congress intended to benefit.\nThe substantive statute at issue in this... in that case was Section 4 of the National Banking Act.\nAnd in analyzing the standing question, the Court looked, basically, to two sources: first, the legislative history and the extensive comments in the legislative history that showed that Section 4 was... and I am quoting the Court now... a response to the fears expressed by a few senators that without such a prohibition, the bill would have enabled banks to engage in non-banking activity, and thus constitute a serious exception to the excepted policy which strictly limits banks to banking.\nNow, the other--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [426.079, 443.947, 449.991, 482.696], "stop_times": [443.947, 449.991, 482.696, 483.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 426.079}, "reply_to": "21237__0_022", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_024", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--extensive... such extensive legislative history... if legislative history is the proper source of this, I suppose all you would need is a couple of statement by individual senators, who could... who could cause the statute to be broader than it otherwise would.\nSurely one or two senators can render it arguably within the zone of interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [483.555, 497.691], "stop_times": [497.691, 502.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 483.555}, "reply_to": "21237__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21237__0_025", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Well, I... I think, Jus--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [502.814], "stop_times": [503.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 502.814}, "reply_to": "21237__0_024", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_026", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "That just puts an awful lot of weight on legislative history.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [503.798], "stop_times": [505.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 503.798}, "reply_to": "21237__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21237__0_027", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--I... I... I did not mean to... to suggest that a tremendous amount of weight ought to be put on legislative history.\nBut, nonetheless, the Court has, on occasion, looked at legislative history to determine Congress' intent.\nBut I think, Justice Scalia, in response to your point, it's also very important, in looking at the Court's opinion in Data Processing, which is the landmark case that established the zone of interest test, it... the Court made explicit reference to two of its prior decisions in competitor standing cases: The Acheson-Topeka Railway case and Hardin v. Kentucky Utilities.\nAnd it characterized its decision in Association of Data Processing as an extension, or consistent with those prior competitor standing cases.\nAnd it's very instructive, I think, if I can just beg the Court's indulgence for a moment, to recite what this Court stated in Harden v. Kentucky Utilities in its 1968 opinion.\nIt said:\nThis Court has, it is true, repeatedly held that the economic injury which results from lawful competition cannot, in and of itself, confer standing on the injured business to question the legality of any aspect of its competitor's operations.\nAnd it cited a line of cases between 1880 and 1940.\nBut competitive injury provided no basis for standing in the above cases simply because the statutory and constitutional requirements the plaintiff sought to enforce were in no way concerned with protecting against competitive injury.\nIn contrast, it has been the rule, at least since the Chicago Junction case, decided in 1924, that where the particular statutory provision invoked does reflect a legislative purpose to protect a competitive interest the injured competitor has standing to require compliance with that provision.\nAnd that, Justice O'Connor, is the precise rationale on which this case is distinguished from Investment Company Institute v. Camp.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [505.531, 511.498, 518.292, 544.064, 554.638, 565.602, 566.102, 583.157, 587.312, 603.118, 624.999], "stop_times": [511.498, 518.292, 544.064, 554.638, 565.602, 566.102, 583.157, 587.312, 603.118, 624.999, 634.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 505.531}, "reply_to": "21237__0_026", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_028", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Suppose that--\n--Well, do you... do you agree--\n--Suppose that we could establish by the legislative history that we would accept this dispositive, or by judicial notice, that if the agency's interpretation of the statute had been intended by the legislature or put into the statute in explicit terms, that the banks would have actively opposed it on the grounds of it being a compet... a competitive injury, does that... would that change this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [634.902, 635.667, 636.104], "stop_times": [635.667, 636.104, 662.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 634.902}, "reply_to": "21237__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21237__0_029", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "It... I don't think it does.\nI don't think it could be established, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [662.999, 665.06], "stop_times": [665.06, 667.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 662.999}, "reply_to": "21237__0_028", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_030", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Because it seems to me that that's quite a plausible in... inference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [667.31], "stop_times": [670.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 667.31}, "reply_to": "21237__0_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21237__0_031", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--The legislative history... to the extent the legislative history reflects anything at all about the banks' interest in this, it reflects two things.\nOne, with respect to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [670.138, 678.806], "stop_times": [678.806, 680.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 670.138}, "reply_to": "21237__0_030", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_032", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "But I'm assuming that it does establish the proposition that... that I put forward, that the banks would have been very active in opposition to this bill had this interpretation been written explicitly into the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [680.461], "stop_times": [692.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 680.461}, "reply_to": "21237__0_031", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21237__0_033", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Well, then, I think the answer is that the banks would have the same remedy now that they would have had then, which is to go to Congress and ask for a legislative adjustment.\nIf the statute is... in turning to the merits... if the statute is, as we argue, ambiguous... that is, that the phrase \"groups having a common bond\", can just as easily be interpreted to mean groups, each having its own common bond or groups all sharing a single common bond, the agency's interpretation must be given deference.\nAnd that, I sus... I... I would submit to the Court, is the position that the banks would be in had they believed at the time that this would be given the interpretation it was and objected.\nThat is, they would have had a legislative remedy.\nCongress, for whatever reason--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [692.91, 702.342, 727.286, 741.344, 744.046], "stop_times": [702.342, 727.286, 741.344, 744.046, 745.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 692.91}, "reply_to": "21237__0_032", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_034", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "What if I don't... what if I don't agree with you that it's at all ambiguous?\nAnd if I thought any banker or, indeed, beer salesman, who read this... this language would come to the conclusion that... that each member of the group had to have a common bond with the others, then... then what would your response to Justice Kennedy's argument be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [745.748, 748.605], "stop_times": [748.605, 762.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 745.748}, "reply_to": "21237__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21237__0_035", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Then, it seems to me, the banks are out of luck on standing grounds.\nThat is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [762.975, 765.754], "stop_times": [765.754, 766.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 762.975}, "reply_to": "21237__0_034", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_036", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "No, but his argument is they... they would have opposed it.\nThe... the language seems to limit these... these credit unions to a particular field, and the banks surely would have come in against it if they weren't limited in... in this way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [766.27, 769.067], "stop_times": [769.067, 779.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 766.27}, "reply_to": "21237__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21237__0_037", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Justice Scalia, Chevron says, as I understand it, that if an agency's interpretation is not in conflict with the plain language of the statute, deference is due.\nAnd if the plain language of the statute, for whatever reason... inadvertence by Congress or a conscious choice to leave the decision to the agency... persists, what this Court must do in response to a challenge by the banks, if they have standing, is look to determine whether the agency's interpretation is a permissible or reasonable one.\nAnd here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [779.125, 791.323, 813.096], "stop_times": [791.323, 813.096, 813.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 779.125}, "reply_to": "21237__0_036", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_038", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "General Waxman, my... I just want to be clear on one point.\nIs, essentially, your standing argument that there could be no challenger to this in the court; that, essentially, the logical challenger, the banks, are out; so this would be, essentially, immune from judicial review, accepting your view of standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [813.971, 816.532], "stop_times": [816.532, 831.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 813.971}, "reply_to": "21237__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21237__0_039", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Not at all, Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [831.9], "stop_times": [833.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 831.9}, "reply_to": "21237__0_038", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_040", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Who could challenge it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [833.228], "stop_times": [834.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 833.228}, "reply_to": "21237__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21237__0_041", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "We think the logical challengers are in fact the same kind of parties that have been challenging chartering decisions.\nAnd that is members of credit unions.\nThe common bond provision was enacted to protect the strength and stability of credit unions, and therefore to protect the members of the credit unions.\nAnd in the cases that we cited in our principal brief, there are instances in which members of credit unions have sued either the NCUA or the State chartering agencies, saying, you're trying to add disparate groups or you're trying to add more groups than we think is safe and sound.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [834.368, 839.959, 842.146, 851.159], "stop_times": [839.959, 842.146, 851.159, 866.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 834.368}, "reply_to": "21237__0_040", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_042", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Could a competing credit union have standing to challenge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [866.918], "stop_times": [870.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 866.918}, "reply_to": "21237__0_041", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21237__0_043", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "I think... I think a competing credit union might have standing if it was challenging a decision that the agency had made under Section 1754 of the Act, which requires that the... the NCUA ascertain that economic advisability of the proposed... of the proposed chartering or proposed merger, but not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [870.728], "stop_times": [891.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 870.728}, "reply_to": "21237__0_042", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_044", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Why doesn't that open it to... why doesn't that open it to banks?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [891.424], "stop_times": [893.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 891.424}, "reply_to": "21237__0_043", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21237__0_045", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [893.437], "stop_times": [894.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 893.437}, "reply_to": "21237__0_044", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_046", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "That... economic advisability sounds to me something like a competitive possibility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [894.5], "stop_times": [900.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 894.5}, "reply_to": "21237__0_045", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21237__0_047", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Here... here's the reason.\nBecause the agency has interpreted economic advisability, the statutory term, to mean, quote, that it will be a viable institution, and its chartering will not materially affect the interest of other credit unions or the credit union system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [900.936, 901.637], "stop_times": [901.637, 916.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 900.936}, "reply_to": "21237__0_046", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_048", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Yeah, but that's... that's a two-part standard.\nAnd it seems to me the first part is... is equally open to the banks to raise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [916.99, 919.442], "stop_times": [919.442, 923.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 916.99}, "reply_to": "21237__0_047", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21237__0_049", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "In any event, Justice Souter--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [923.238], "stop_times": [924.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 923.238}, "reply_to": "21237__0_048", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_050", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Isn't it?\nI don't know what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [924.738, 925.377], "stop_times": [925.377, 926.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 924.738}, "reply_to": "21237__0_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21237__0_051", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--No, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [926.533], "stop_times": [926.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 926.533}, "reply_to": "21237__0_050", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_052", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--viability is a wonderful word, but it... and I'm not sure what it means, but it says something about economic feasibility.\nAnd that's a product of competition.\nAnd that implicates banks in general, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [926.908, 932.813, 934.749], "stop_times": [932.813, 934.749, 937.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 926.908}, "reply_to": "21237__0_051", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21237__0_053", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Justice Souter, the banks, number one, have not challenged the determination of economic advisability here.\nBut if they had--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [937.998, 944.027], "stop_times": [944.027, 944.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 937.998}, "reply_to": "21237__0_052", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_054", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "But what about the answer to my question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [944.715], "stop_times": [945.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 944.715}, "reply_to": "21237__0_053", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21237__0_055", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--if they had, I would argue that they do not have standing, because the evident purpose of that statutory provision was to make sure that when the NCUA charters a credit union, it does so, taking cognizance of the interests of other credit unions and the credit union system, not the banks.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [945.449], "stop_times": [963.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 945.449}, "reply_to": "21237__0_054", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_056", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Well, that certainly is included.\nBut it seems to me that in this argument... and I... and I thought in the argument you were... you were making earlier, you are making the assumption that there can only be one purpose, or that there is at least a predominant purpose, and that controls.\nAnd is... is there authority in our cases for that?\nIn other words, why... why, for example, in this case, could it not have been both the purpose of Congress to... to assure the... the... the kind of community soundness of these credit unions and to protect regular banks from their competition?\nWhy can't it be both?\nAnd if it's both, why isn't there standing to the bank?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [963.846, 964.237, 978.997, 983.121, 1000.035, 1001.285], "stop_times": [964.237, 978.997, 983.121, 1000.035, 1001.285, 1004.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 963.846}, "reply_to": "21237__0_055", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21237__0_057", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "The... the answer to your question is your cases, most recently, Bennett v. Spear, do recognize that Congress can have two purposes.\nBut in this case, there was none.\nThere was no purpose reflected in the legislative history and the '34 Act to benefit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1004.221, 1010.797, 1012.671], "stop_times": [1010.797, 1012.671, 1018.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1004.221}, "reply_to": "21237__0_056", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_058", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Well, but that isn't the only--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1018.012], "stop_times": [1018.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1018.012}, "reply_to": "21237__0_057", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21237__0_059", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--banks from competition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1018.825], "stop_times": [1019.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1018.825}, "reply_to": "21237__0_058", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_060", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--But let me ask you this.\nLet's assume we had a case in which the legislative history was totally silent.\nWould we not... and... and let's assume that were the case here... I realize that's not your position... wouldn't it be fair in that case for us to infer that the purpose of this limitation, or at least one purpose of this limitation, was in fact the protection of neighboring banks from competition.\nWould that be legitimate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1019.466, 1020.934, 1025.541, 1046.048], "stop_times": [1020.934, 1025.541, 1046.048, 1047.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1019.466}, "reply_to": "21237__0_059", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21237__0_061", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "It would not be fair.\nEven if the legislative history itself, the debate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1047.611, 1048.783], "stop_times": [1048.783, 1051.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1047.611}, "reply_to": "21237__0_060", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_062", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Well, then, how would we ever decide the standing question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1051.938], "stop_times": [1053.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1051.938}, "reply_to": "21237__0_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21237__0_063", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Well, I think maybe then it goes to who has the burden of proof.\nThe plaintiff has the burden of showing that it is within the zone of interest that Congress sought to protect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1053.874, 1056.733], "stop_times": [1056.733, 1062.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1053.874}, "reply_to": "21237__0_062", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_064", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Right.\nAnd why wouldn't the plaintiff have a perfectly sound argument to say, look, this seems, among other things, to protect us from competition.\nWhy, therefore, may we not infer a... a purpose for standing doctrine?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1062.793, 1063.027, 1069.649], "stop_times": [1063.027, 1069.649, 1074.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1062.793}, "reply_to": "21237__0_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21237__0_065", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "The... the accepted purpose... and the... and the Court of Appeals, the court below, specifically found that it would be anomalous, in light of the available evidence, to suggest that this provision had been intended.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1074.335], "stop_times": [1085.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1074.335}, "reply_to": "21237__0_064", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_066", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "No, but I'm... no... you're changing the question, I think, with respect.\nI'm saying let's assume the... the record is silent.\nWe don't have any legislative history.\nAll we have is what's on the face of the statute.\nWould it not be a legitimate inference that the protection of banks against competition was at least a purpose of this limitation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1085.799, 1087.844, 1091.109, 1093.125, 1096.389], "stop_times": [1087.844, 1091.109, 1093.125, 1096.389, 1105.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1085.799}, "reply_to": "21237__0_065", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21237__0_067", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "I think it would not.\nBecause the way that the common bond provision works is not to set up any sort of substantive picket line or bar or entry restriction.\nIt is purely to determine which individuals in the United States get to belong to which credit unions.\nThere's no allegation in this case that there is any individual member who belongs to a credit union which, if the banks win, will not be able to belong to some other credit union.\nThis is purely an internal governing device for the industry to decide who belongs to which credit union.\nMay I reserve--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1105.463, 1106.244, 1115.506, 1122.192, 1133.937, 1141.433], "stop_times": [1106.244, 1115.506, 1122.192, 1133.937, 1141.433, 1142.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1105.463}, "reply_to": "21237__0_066", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_068", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "But it is a limitation of some kind, isn't it?\nI mean it is a limitation on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1142.058, 1144.057], "stop_times": [1144.057, 1145.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1142.058}, "reply_to": "21237__0_067", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21237__0_069", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--It's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1145.963], "stop_times": [1146.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1145.963}, "reply_to": "21237__0_068", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_070", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--the... the credit union.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1146.198], "stop_times": [1149.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1146.198}, "reply_to": "21237__0_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21237__0_071", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--It... it is.\nIt is expressed as a limitation, at the urging of the proponents of the credit union industry to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1149.399, 1149.867], "stop_times": [1149.867, 1156.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1149.399}, "reply_to": "21237__0_070", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_072", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "But it... so it's meant to be confining to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1156.287], "stop_times": [1158.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1156.287}, "reply_to": "21237__0_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21237__0_073", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--It is meant to be confining in the sense that the statute requires something that the... the proponents of the credit union movement desperately wanted, which is to maximize success, that these groups be organized around... that credit unions be organized around groups having a common bond.\nMay I reserve the balance of my time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1158.474, 1178.247], "stop_times": [1178.247, 1179.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1158.474}, "reply_to": "21237__0_072", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__0_074", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Yes.\nThank you, General Waxman.\nMr. Roberts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1179.589, 1179.964, 1180.979], "stop_times": [1179.964, 1180.979, 1182.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1179.589}, "reply_to": "21237__0_073", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21237__1_000", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice; and may it please the Court:\nI would like to pick up with Justice Kennedy's question: If the banks had known about this interpretation, they would have objected.\nFirst of all, that's beside the point.\nYou don't get standing under the zone of interest test simply because you objected.\nCongress may not have accepted your objections.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1182.229, 1189.555, 1195.818, 1197.755, 1202.409], "stop_times": [1189.555, 1195.818, 1197.755, 1202.409, 1205.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1182.229}, "reply_to": "21237__0_074", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "21237__1_001", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Well, I... I don't know that it's beside the point, because the way you're arguing, it's something of... of a trap.\nLet's assume that the most plausible interpretation of this regulation is... is the interpretation that the banks now advance.\nIf they were satisfied that that's what the statute meant, you know the bankers' lobbyists... I assume the bankers had lobbyists in 19... in the 1930's?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1205.237, 1210.483, 1223.541], "stop_times": [1210.483, 1223.541, 1231.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1205.237}, "reply_to": "21237__1_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21237__1_002", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "They did--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1231.522], "stop_times": [1232.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1231.522}, "reply_to": "21237__1_001", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "21237__1_003", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "I'm sure they did.\nAnd... and... and if--\n[Laughter]\nAnd... and they would have been all over this statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1232.709, 1233.771, 1236.27, 1237.332], "stop_times": [1233.771, 1236.27, 1237.332, 1240.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1232.709}, "reply_to": "21237__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21237__1_004", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--But--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1240.05], "stop_times": [1240.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1240.05}, "reply_to": "21237__1_003", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "21237__1_005", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--and all over the Hill had it... had it been given the plausible interpretation that you're now arguing for.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1240.628], "stop_times": [1248.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1240.628}, "reply_to": "21237__1_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21237__1_006", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--I... I think they would not have been for the simple reason that banks were not in the business of making small consumer loans in 1934.\nThat was the very reason you needed a Federal Credit Union Act in the first place, because nobody was competing to provide these loans other than loan sharks.\nAnd Congress had no interest in protecting their competitive status.\nBanks were not in this business.\nThat's why you needed the Act.\nTheir competitive interests were not in Congress' mind.\nEven if it had the interpretation that it has today, they were still not in that business.\nThis was not what they were about.\nAnd simply because they would have objected doesn't mean Congress took their interest into account.\nThis was a Congress that was not particularly sympathetic to the interests and concerns of banks--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1248.172, 1255.278, 1263.588, 1267.056, 1269.321, 1270.132, 1273.474, 1277.691, 1279.58, 1283.626], "stop_times": [1255.278, 1263.588, 1267.056, 1269.321, 1270.132, 1273.474, 1277.691, 1279.58, 1283.626, 1288.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1248.172}, "reply_to": "21237__1_005", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "21237__1_007", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "What is your basis for saying that banks were not into this business in the 1930's?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1288.155], "stop_times": [1293.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1288.155}, "reply_to": "21237__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21237__1_008", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--It... it resounds throughout the legislative record.\nThey say the reason we need this statute is because no one is in a position to provide small consumer loans.\nThe small consumer couldn't put up adequate security for the bank to provide the loan.\nAnd it was usually in amounts too small for... for the banks to bother with.\nOver time, they have become competitors with credit unions.\nBut the question is, did Congress view them as competitors in 1934?\nAnd did it enact the common bond provision to protect their status as competitors?\nAnd it is clear that they did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1293.436, 1295.731, 1301.604, 1305.946, 1309.147, 1312.974, 1317.284, 1321.548], "stop_times": [1295.731, 1301.604, 1305.946, 1309.147, 1312.974, 1317.284, 1321.548, 1323.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1293.436}, "reply_to": "21237__1_007", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "21237__1_009", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Do you agree that a member of a credit union would have standing to establish... to... to attack this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1323.687], "stop_times": [1330.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1323.687}, "reply_to": "21237__1_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21237__1_010", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Certainly.\nThe purpose of the provision is to ensure the strength and stability of the credit union.\nIt's a cooperative enterprise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1330.701, 1331.357, 1334.918], "stop_times": [1331.357, 1334.918, 1336.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1330.701}, "reply_to": "21237__1_009", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "21237__1_011", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Then... then it seems to me we're really enforcing something of... of a fiction on our standing doctrine; that the most interested challenger in this interpretation, the most injured person or entity is the bank.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1336.339], "stop_times": [1350.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1336.339}, "reply_to": "21237__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21237__1_012", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "I think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1350.755], "stop_times": [1351.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1350.755}, "reply_to": "21237__1_011", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "21237__1_013", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "And so we're having a credit union member front for the banks' interest.\nThat doesn't make much sense to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1351.443, 1355.956], "stop_times": [1355.956, 1357.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1351.443}, "reply_to": "21237__1_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21237__1_014", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Well, I think the argue... the line... that line of argument confuses the Article III standing inquiry and the prudential standing inquiry.\nIf it is enough to simply show competitive harm and a regulatory effect to establish prudential standing, then there's no difference between Article III standing and prudential standing.\nThis Court has made clear... most recently, in the Air Courier case... that there is a difference, and Article III injury is not sufficient to establish prudential standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1357.878, 1364.125, 1373.355], "stop_times": [1364.125, 1373.355, 1381.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1357.878}, "reply_to": "21237__1_013", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "21237__1_015", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Well, no, it wouldn't show that there's no difference.\nIt would just... just say that... it would just show that... that when you have a regulatory provision, competitive injury is... is one thing that will establish... will establish both Article I and prudential standing.\nBut there are a lot of other injuries that... that wouldn't satisfy prudential standing even though they'd satisfy Article I.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1381.79, 1383.805, 1398.737], "stop_times": [1383.805, 1398.737, 1406.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1381.79}, "reply_to": "21237__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21237__1_016", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "The Court has told us that the prudential standing inquiry turns on congressional intent, not simply effect.\nEvery time Congress imposes a limitation on a regulated entity, it's not necessarily acting with competitive concerns in mind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1406.061, 1412.402], "stop_times": [1412.402, 1419.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1406.061}, "reply_to": "21237__1_015", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "21237__1_017", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Mr. Roberts, what will we presume the congressional intent to be?\nThese are hard questions.\nAnd I... I personally am not going to comb through the legislative history to find a statement by a couple of senators that will render this arguably within the zone of interest.\nThat does not seem to me an intelligent way for this Court, or even a... a banking lawyer, to try to figure out what the answer is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1419.306, 1422.304, 1423.866, 1432.567], "stop_times": [1422.304, 1423.866, 1432.567, 1439.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1419.306}, "reply_to": "21237__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21237__1_018", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "See, our--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1439.439], "stop_times": [1440.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1439.439}, "reply_to": "21237__1_017", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "21237__1_019", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "So we... we have some presumptions.\nAnd... and... and Congress should be aware of those presumptions.\nSurely a reasonable presumption would be, when you have a regulatory statute, any provision in that regulatory statute that was designed to limit the scope of activity of the regulated entity can be sued upon by someone who is... who is within the regulated industry and a competitor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1440.095, 1441.858, 1444.639], "stop_times": [1441.858, 1444.639, 1462.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1440.095}, "reply_to": "21237__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21237__1_020", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Well, then that's... that's a new exception to the zone of interest test.\nIf, for example, Congress passes a law, saying, we're restricting late-night flights into National because of the noise, that might benefit bus and train companies who provide late-night service.\nBut they wouldn't have standing to sue if the FAA changes the definition of when late-night begins.\nThey would be injured as competitors.\nBut the intent of Congress was not to protect competition--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1462.194, 1465.678, 1476.018, 1482.046, 1483.998], "stop_times": [1465.678, 1476.018, 1482.046, 1483.998, 1487.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1462.194}, "reply_to": "21237__1_019", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "21237__1_021", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Change the statute a little.\nI mean, by saying \"late night\", you make it obvious that the purpose of the statute is to... is to hold down noise.\nBut suppose the statute is: We are reducing the number of flights into National, period?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1487.044, 1488.044, 1493.074], "stop_times": [1488.044, 1493.074, 1498.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1487.044}, "reply_to": "21237__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21237__1_022", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Then, as the Court has said in all the other prudential standing cases, you look to see what the intent of Congress was.\nYou start with the language of the statute, as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1498.369, 1504.648], "stop_times": [1504.648, 1506.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1498.369}, "reply_to": "21237__1_021", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "21237__1_023", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "You don't have to find the intent.\nYou have to find what was arguably the intent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1506.928, 1507.709], "stop_times": [1507.709, 1509.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1506.928}, "reply_to": "21237__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21237__1_024", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Arguably--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1509.644], "stop_times": [1510.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1509.644}, "reply_to": "21237__1_023", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "21237__1_025", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Does arguably within the zone of interest mean you have to identify... you have to identify the purpose for sure, and then the question is whether this is arguably within that purpose?\nOr does arguably within the zone of interest mean this was arguably the purpose and this is arguably within it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1510.441, 1520.266], "stop_times": [1520.266, 1525.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1510.441}, "reply_to": "21237__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21237__1_026", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Arguably... arguably doesn't mean you just sort of have to get in the neighborhood.\nArguably is in the case because it's a standing inquiry.\nIt's not a determination on the merits.\nIt means that you don't have to make a final decision on exactly what the statute was designed to do, as you would in deciding the merits of the case, but appreciate that it's just a standing inquiry.\nBut you do have to decide.\nIf there is going to be a difference between an Article III standing test and a prudential standing inquiry, you do have to decide what the intent of Congress was.\nAnd here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1525.452, 1528.919, 1531.652, 1533.854, 1544.131, 1545.568, 1553.72], "stop_times": [1528.919, 1531.652, 1533.854, 1544.131, 1545.568, 1553.72, 1554.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1525.452}, "reply_to": "21237__1_025", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "21237__1_027", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Mr.... Mr. Roberts, the zone test came up in a case where the Court recognized that there was standing.\nAnd it was stated in that case, and then it's been discussed in... in other cases.\nIt's a little hard, isn't it, for you to extract from a case that found standing all these results where there would be no standing?\nBecause you're using a case that said there was standing, and then say, but we can find certain language in it, instead of saying, well, the Court dealt with the zone test, and it would elaborate on it in a further case.\nIt seems to me you're taking a lot of negative out of a case that was positive on standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1554.142, 1560.265, 1566.826, 1575.838, 1589.769], "stop_times": [1560.265, 1566.826, 1575.838, 1589.769, 1595.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1554.142}, "reply_to": "21237__1_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21237__1_028", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Well, the Court found standing in the Data Processing case, but it has, on other cases, other articulated a test for determining whether there's standing, and it said you looked to congressional intent.\nAnd the one thing that's clear here is that this provision was not put in to protect banks.\nIt came from the credit union proponents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1595.345, 1605.528, 1609.979], "stop_times": [1605.528, 1609.979, 1612.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1595.345}, "reply_to": "21237__1_027", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "21237__1_029", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Mr. Roberts, I... I know you're still trying to address standing, but, so far, nobody has even talked about the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1612.244], "stop_times": [1618.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1612.244}, "reply_to": "21237__1_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21237__1_030", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Well, I'll turn to that right now, Your Honor.\nThe test is that the banks must show that Congress unambiguously expressed its intent on the precise question at issue.\nThe precise question at issue is, may the multiple groups in a Federal credit union each have their own common bond or must they share a common bond?\nThe language simply says: Federal credit union membership shall be limited to groups having a common bond.\nThere is no way to tell from that, as a matter of common parlance or technical grammar, whether each group must have its own common bond or whether all of the groups in a Federal credit union must share the same common bond.\nIt is simply ambiguous language.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1618.32, 1619.945, 1627.754, 1637.39, 1643.982, 1655.368], "stop_times": [1619.945, 1627.754, 1637.39, 1643.982, 1655.368, 1658.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1618.32}, "reply_to": "21237__1_029", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "21237__1_031", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Well, in light of that second geographical limitation clause, it... it's awfully hard to give it this broadest reading of groups, each of which could have a common bond.\nWhy would you need the geographical limit, then?\nI mean, it's just in... in the second part of the sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1658.883, 1672.282, 1674.734], "stop_times": [1672.282, 1674.734, 1678.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1658.883}, "reply_to": "21237__1_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21237__1_032", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "In the community... the community--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1678.467], "stop_times": [1679.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1678.467}, "reply_to": "21237__1_031", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "21237__1_033", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1679.17], "stop_times": [1679.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1679.17}, "reply_to": "21237__1_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21237__1_034", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--The phrase is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1679.467], "stop_times": [1680.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1679.467}, "reply_to": "21237__1_033", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "21237__1_035", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "It just seems like... like such... interpretation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1680.638], "stop_times": [1684.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1680.638}, "reply_to": "21237__1_034", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21237__1_036", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--There are two different types of credit unions.\nThe occupational credit union isn't confined to a well-defined neighborhood.\nOnly the community credit union has that limitation.\nAnd although the court below said this gives different meaning to the... to the word \"groups\", it doesn't.\nIn each case, \"groups\" means more than one group.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1684.699, 1686.589, 1691.556, 1694.711, 1700.037], "stop_times": [1686.589, 1691.556, 1694.711, 1700.037, 1702.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1684.699}, "reply_to": "21237__1_035", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "21237__1_037", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "You couldn't have a single group?\nYou couldn't have a credit union composed of only a single group?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1702.052, 1703.66], "stop_times": [1703.66, 1706.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1702.052}, "reply_to": "21237__1_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21237__1_038", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "You can--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1706.94], "stop_times": [1708.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1706.94}, "reply_to": "21237__1_037", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "21237__1_039", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "It has to be composed of groups that have a common bond.\nSo there... there must be more than one group in every credit union under your reading?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1708.706, 1711.127], "stop_times": [1711.127, 1713.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1708.706}, "reply_to": "21237__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21237__1_040", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--No, I... I don't think that's a... if it is a plausible reading, it's not the only plausible reading of the language.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1713.968], "stop_times": [1722.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1713.968}, "reply_to": "21237__1_039", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "21237__1_041", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "I don't think it's a plausible reading, but it's your reading.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1722.152], "stop_times": [1723.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1722.152}, "reply_to": "21237__1_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21237__1_042", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Our... our reading is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1723.512], "stop_times": [1725.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1723.512}, "reply_to": "21237__1_041", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "21237__1_043", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "It shall be limited to groups having a common bond.\nSo it seems to me you can't have a single group, because that would not be a group having a common bond with other groups.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1725.588, 1728.165], "stop_times": [1728.165, 1736.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1725.588}, "reply_to": "21237__1_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21237__1_044", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--I think the plural... as 1 U.S.C. 1 provides... the plural includes the singular.\nSo that groups could be read to... to include group.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1736.226, 1742.566], "stop_times": [1742.566, 1745.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1736.226}, "reply_to": "21237__1_043", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "21237__1_045", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "The plural includes the singular?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1745.502], "stop_times": [1746.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1745.502}, "reply_to": "21237__1_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21237__1_046", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "1 U.S.C., Section 1, the Dictionary Act, says, unless otherwise compelled by the language--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1746.705], "stop_times": [1751.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1746.705}, "reply_to": "21237__1_045", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "21237__1_047", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "You see, you could have... you could have one credit union to which every person in the United States belongs, who is employed, but for sole proprietorships?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1751.875], "stop_times": [1760.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1751.875}, "reply_to": "21237__1_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21237__1_048", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--The cred... nothing in the common bond provision would prevent that.\nThere are other provisions in the statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1760.98, 1765.681], "stop_times": [1765.681, 1767.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1760.98}, "reply_to": "21237__1_047", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "21237__1_049", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Well, then, I mean, this wasn't much of a limitation of anything, if that's so, isn't it?\nI mean you could have... you could have 200 million people in one single credit union.\nI don't know why Congress bothered with this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1767.165, 1770.243, 1774.383], "stop_times": [1770.243, 1774.383, 1776.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1767.165}, "reply_to": "21237__1_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21237__1_050", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--As the agency interprets it, it's still a significant distinction.\nYou cannot walk down the street and turn into the nearest credit union and say, I want to make a deposit, or, give me a loan.\nYou have to be a member of a group that has joined that credit union as a group--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1776.381, 1779.13, 1785.003], "stop_times": [1779.13, 1785.003, 1789.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1776.381}, "reply_to": "21237__1_049", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "21237__1_051", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "But I mean everyone except for sole proprietors, who is employed, works with at least one other person.\nAnd, therefore, those two people... two people anywhere in the United States, could join a credit union.\nI mean, is that a plausible interpretation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1789.158, 1794.327, 1800.466], "stop_times": [1794.327, 1800.466, 1802.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1789.158}, "reply_to": "21237__1_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21237__1_052", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Nothing in the common bond provision prohibits it.\nIf a court determines that's unreasonable under step 2 of Chevron, it may be invalid.\nBut not because the language is unambiguous under step 1.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1802.855, 1805.712, 1810.868], "stop_times": [1805.712, 1810.868, 1814.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1802.855}, "reply_to": "21237__1_051", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "21237__1_053", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Roberts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1814.351], "stop_times": [1815.866], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1814.351}, "reply_to": "21237__1_052", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21237__1_054", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1815.866], "stop_times": [1816.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1815.866}, "reply_to": "21237__1_053", "speaker": "j__john_g_roberts_jr"}
{"id": "21237__1_055", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Mr. Helfer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1816.147], "stop_times": [1818.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1816.147}, "reply_to": "21237__1_054", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21237__2_000", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nCongress expressly limited membership in Federal credit unions in the except clause, and the whole clause is critical.\nIt reads, except that Federal credit union membership shall be limited to groups having a common bond of occupation or association, and it then goes on, or to groups within a well-defined neighborhood community or rural district.\nWe submit that the first thing you do in making the standing determination under the cases is look at the text and what it does.\nWhat does the common bond requirement do?\nIt limits the persons to whom a credit union can offer its banking services.\nThat's what it does.\nThat's the effect of it.\nThe first thing you look at is the text.\nIt's just like the Clarke case.\nIn Clarke, the McFadden Act limitations limited the locations at which a bank could market its services to other people.\nIt has the same effect.\nSo the presumption... to go back to Justice Scalia's question, the presumption, then, ought to be that a limitation of that kind that has that effect is intended as a competitive limitation, particularly in the context in which the legislation was passed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1818.318, 1827.83, 1836.124, 1851.617, 1858.208, 1862.63, 1870.048, 1871.095, 1872.64, 1874.437, 1875.779, 1884.619, 1887.368], "stop_times": [1827.83, 1836.124, 1851.617, 1858.208, 1862.63, 1870.048, 1871.095, 1872.64, 1874.437, 1875.779, 1884.619, 1887.368, 1902.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1818.318}, "reply_to": "21237__1_055", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_001", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Well, in that context, are you going to address Mr. Roberts' point that not merely as legislative history but as a matter of real history, there simply was no competition at that time as between banks and credit unions for the kind of business that the credit unions served?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1902.456], "stop_times": [1921.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1902.456}, "reply_to": "21237__2_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21237__2_002", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Yes.\nI'll be happy to answer that, to respond to that point.\nIn the first place, the banks did testify at the hearings on the D.C. Credit Union Act, which was the precursor to the Federal Credit Union Act, and which Mr. Berengren, who was the... Bergengren, pardon me, who was the chief credit union advocate, has described as a copy... that the Federal act is a copy of the D.C. act.\nThe banks testified, and they testified about their competitive concerns with the act.\nCongress made a change relating to demand deposits, and Congress then carried forward that change into the Federal Credit Union Act.\nWith respect to the precise question of the... were the banks providing these services, banks were viewed... the NCUA brief at 5, and again at 21, tells us that banks were viewed as an alternative to credit unions when the FCUA was passed.\nCongress wanted--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1921.151, 1921.448, 1924.416, 1943.596, 1949.0, 1956.809, 1972.491], "stop_times": [1921.448, 1924.416, 1943.596, 1949.0, 1956.809, 1972.491, 1972.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1921.151}, "reply_to": "21237__2_001", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_003", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Were they alternatives for deposits, or alternatives for loans, or both?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1972.989], "stop_times": [1977.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1972.989}, "reply_to": "21237__2_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21237__2_004", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--They would be alternatives, I believe, for both.\nNot all... banks were not failing to make any loans at all.\nWhat Congress wanted in the Credit Union--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1977.191, 1979.956, 1984.907], "stop_times": [1979.956, 1984.907, 1986.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1977.191}, "reply_to": "21237__2_003", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_005", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Well, loans to the small borrower.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1986.563], "stop_times": [1988.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1986.563}, "reply_to": "21237__2_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21237__2_006", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--I'm sorry.\nI meant loans to... we're talking about consumer loans, yes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1988.718, 1988.983], "stop_times": [1988.983, 1990.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1988.718}, "reply_to": "21237__2_005", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_007", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1990.656], "stop_times": [1991.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1990.656}, "reply_to": "21237__2_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21237__2_008", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Justice Souter.\nWhen Congress... what Congress wanted was more sources of credit.\nWhen you read what they were talking about, they wanted more sources of credit.\nThe banks weren't doing enough.\nThe loan sharks were paying... were charging very high prices.\nThe banks, of course, had been through a very difficult time and were asking for a lot of security and other things.\nCongress had just passed... to go to the historical context--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [1991.123, 1991.889, 1995.949, 1998.558, 2000.635, 2005.227, 2011.959], "stop_times": [1991.889, 1995.949, 1998.558, 2000.635, 2005.227, 2011.959, 2014.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1991.123}, "reply_to": "21237__2_007", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_009", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Wait, I assume there are two clients of banks, aren't there, the people who put money in and people who take money out?\nI mean, those who make deposits, and those who make loans.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2014.973, 2020.954], "stop_times": [2020.954, 2024.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2014.973}, "reply_to": "21237__2_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21237__2_010", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2024.204], "stop_times": [2024.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2024.204}, "reply_to": "21237__2_009", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_011", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "And even if it were true that banks were not competing with credit unions for loans, they might still... it would seem would still be competing with them for depositors, no?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2024.516], "stop_times": [2037.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2024.516}, "reply_to": "21237__2_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21237__2_012", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Well, that's a very fair point.\nI'm sorry, I was focusing on loans coming out of Justice Souter's question.\nThe focus in the legislative history was on getting money back in to get the economy rolling again.\nCongress of course didn't want to take away the source of deposits in banks, which were making commercial loans as well as some consumer loans, but making commercial loans.\nIt wanted to get the economy going again.\nThat's why it passed the Glass-Steagall Act and the Federal Deposit Insurance.\nIn June 1933... to put it in its historical concept, in June 1933 Congress passed the Banking Act of 1933, which included Glass-Steagall and Federal Deposit Insurance, and it was during that month that the hearings were held on the Federal Credit Union Act, and there was an inquiry, not surprisingly, about what the position of the banks was with respect to the bill, and Mr. Berengren, having laid the groundwork, said the banks weren't opposed.\nIt's clear that the banks were in the picture, and the concerns of the banks were in the picture.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2037.183, 2039.416, 2043.307, 2049.07, 2058.922, 2060.891, 2065.108, 2090.411], "stop_times": [2039.416, 2043.307, 2049.07, 2058.922, 2060.891, 2065.108, 2090.411, 2094.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2037.183}, "reply_to": "21237__2_011", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_013", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Were bank rates regulated, the interest that a bank could pay on a deposit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2094.676], "stop_times": [2100.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2094.676}, "reply_to": "21237__2_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21237__2_014", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "I don't believe their--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2100.657], "stop_times": [2102.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2100.657}, "reply_to": "21237__2_013", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_015", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "At that time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2102.141], "stop_times": [2102.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2102.141}, "reply_to": "21237__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21237__2_016", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--At that time, I don't believe so.\nReg Q came into effect later on.\nThey were not interest rates at that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2102.937, 2103.999, 2106.951], "stop_times": [2103.999, 2106.951, 2109.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2102.937}, "reply_to": "21237__2_015", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_017", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "How about State regu--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2109.997], "stop_times": [2111.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2109.997}, "reply_to": "21237__2_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21237__2_018", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "They were straight limitations, I believe, at that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2111.857], "stop_times": [2112.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2111.857}, "reply_to": "21237__2_017", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_019", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--You're not saying there was no State regulations?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2112.06], "stop_times": [2114.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2112.06}, "reply_to": "21237__2_018", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21237__2_020", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "No, I'm sorry, there certainly was State regulation on the usury side, on the lending side.\nI'm not familiar, Your Honor, although I haven't looked carefully at whether there was State regulation that might have been applicable on the deposit side.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2114.324, 2118.073], "stop_times": [2118.073, 2125.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2114.324}, "reply_to": "21237__2_019", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_021", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Mr. Helfer, the court below, the CADC, in finding standing for the bank, relied on a suitable challenger test for finding standing.\nDo you defend that test here, or should we look to the zone of interest test?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2125.023, 2138.345], "stop_times": [2138.345, 2142.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2125.023}, "reply_to": "21237__2_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21237__2_022", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "I believe that under this Court's decisions the question is the zone of interest.\nWhat the D.C. Circuit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2142.797, 2146.858], "stop_times": [2146.858, 2148.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2142.797}, "reply_to": "21237__2_021", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_023", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "So you do not defend the D.C. Circuit's suitable challenge test?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2148.45], "stop_times": [2152.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2148.45}, "reply_to": "21237__2_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21237__2_024", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Well, I do in this sense, Justice O'Connor.\nWhat the D.C. Circuit does is, in trying to implement zone of interest, carry out this Court's decisions, it's divided its thinking, its verbal formulation, into intended beneficiary and suitable challenger, but both are ways of determining whether or not the zone of interest test is met, and the zone of interest test--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2152.215, 2153.871], "stop_times": [2153.871, 2173.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2152.215}, "reply_to": "21237__2_023", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_025", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Well, there isn't much left of the zone of interest test if you rely on the suitable challenger notion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2173.222], "stop_times": [2177.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2173.222}, "reply_to": "21237__2_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21237__2_026", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2177.891], "stop_times": [2178.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2177.891}, "reply_to": "21237__2_025", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_027", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "That seemed a little odd to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2178.36], "stop_times": [2179.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2178.36}, "reply_to": "21237__2_026", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21237__2_028", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Well, that formulation is one which I think this Court doesn't have to reach.\nThis Court's formulation has always been zone of interest.\nJudge Wald, in concurring in the decision below, actually criticized the suitable challenger test as implemented by the majority in this case and others as too narrow, as not fully carrying out the zone of interest test, and so we... but we think that test is the zone of interest test, and that's what Clarke and Camp and the other cases show.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2179.657, 2182.811, 2184.826], "stop_times": [2182.811, 2184.826, 2203.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2179.657}, "reply_to": "21237__2_027", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_029", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "You would... if... there would be standing for the banks if the provision, instead of the one we had before us, said that the credit union has to have its offices in the same building that the employer has its offices, and then they want to open an office next door.\nCould the bank say, hey, you're getting too big?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2203.319, 2219.405], "stop_times": [2219.405, 2221.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2203.319}, "reply_to": "21237__2_028", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21237__2_030", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Well, I think if that were part of this test, that sounds very much to me like the McFadden Act limitations on where a bank can put an office that were at issue in the Clarke case, Justice Stevens, and so I think on that basis I would conclude yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2221.233], "stop_times": [2234.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2221.233}, "reply_to": "21237__2_029", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_031", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "You think there would be standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2234.743], "stop_times": [2235.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2234.743}, "reply_to": "21237__2_030", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21237__2_032", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "I think so, because that sounds to me just like McFadden.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2235.462], "stop_times": [2237.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2235.462}, "reply_to": "21237__2_031", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_033", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "What if the provision limited the people who could serve on the board of directors of the credit union--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2237.804], "stop_times": [2242.271], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2237.804}, "reply_to": "21237__2_032", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21237__2_034", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2242.271], "stop_times": [2242.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2242.271}, "reply_to": "21237__2_033", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_035", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--so you have to have two appointed by management and two employees and a third party, or something like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2242.787], "stop_times": [2247.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2242.787}, "reply_to": "21237__2_034", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21237__2_036", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--I think there, when you look at that kind of a statute, you would conclude, I think, that it isn't a competitive boundary.\nIt isn't a competitive limit.\nNow, a bank might come in and say, well, if they say they pay their--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2247.504, 2255.391, 2256.578], "stop_times": [2255.391, 2256.578, 2259.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2247.504}, "reply_to": "21237__2_035", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_037", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "It might limit the number of associations that could do business.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2259.64], "stop_times": [2263.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2259.64}, "reply_to": "21237__2_036", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21237__2_038", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--It might do that.\nYou'd have to make that assessment.\nThe question would be, of course, whether there'd be Article III standing in the first place where you could show a direct--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2263.17, 2264.091, 2266.06], "stop_times": [2264.091, 2266.06, 2271.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2263.17}, "reply_to": "21237__2_037", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_039", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Well, you'd have a proliferation of credit unions that didn't qualify on the director standing.\nThey're just all over the country taking a lot of loans that the banks would otherwise get.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2271.698, 2277.569], "stop_times": [2277.569, 2280.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2271.698}, "reply_to": "21237__2_038", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21237__2_040", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2280.897], "stop_times": [2282.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2280.897}, "reply_to": "21237__2_039", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_041", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "If they could demonstrate that factually, that they just... for some reason it's a lot easier to organize them quickly if they don't have to go through the red tape of appointing all these directors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2282.193], "stop_times": [2290.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2282.193}, "reply_to": "21237__2_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21237__2_042", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--I think that is harder than a clear competitive boundary like this one on who you can serve, and in that one I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2290.331], "stop_times": [2297.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2290.331}, "reply_to": "21237__2_041", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_043", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "It's who can serve, not only who you can serve.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2297.671], "stop_times": [2300.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2297.671}, "reply_to": "21237__2_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21237__2_044", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--That's right.\nBut what if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2300.482, 2300.841], "stop_times": [2300.841, 2301.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2300.482}, "reply_to": "21237__2_043", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_045", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "That would identify what unit can serve, which is also what happens here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2301.42], "stop_times": [2303.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2301.42}, "reply_to": "21237__2_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21237__2_046", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--What affects the bank's competitive interest is, as shown--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2303.872], "stop_times": [2308.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2303.872}, "reply_to": "21237__2_045", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_047", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "The proliferation of credit unions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2308.105], "stop_times": [2310.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2308.105}, "reply_to": "21237__2_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21237__2_048", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Is the... is taking away customers, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2310.213], "stop_times": [2313.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2310.213}, "reply_to": "21237__2_047", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_049", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "And wouldn't that mean that any time a restriction affected the number of credit unions out in the market, the bank could have standing to challenge that restriction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2313.29], "stop_times": [2321.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2313.29}, "reply_to": "21237__2_048", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21237__2_050", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Well, I think you have to... when you look--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2321.989], "stop_times": [2324.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2321.989}, "reply_to": "21237__2_049", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_051", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "And if not, why not?\nWhy wouldn't that be enough?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2324.144, 2324.613], "stop_times": [2324.613, 2325.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2324.144}, "reply_to": "21237__2_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21237__2_052", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--I think that the... at some point the relationship between the nature of the limitation and the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2325.754], "stop_times": [2337.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2325.754}, "reply_to": "21237__2_051", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_053", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "I'm suggesting that maybe the limitation has to be on... one on conduct, rather than one on who may do business.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2337.765], "stop_times": [2343.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2337.765}, "reply_to": "21237__2_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21237__2_054", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--And in response to that I would say that Clarke is a case... Camp is a case on who may do business, what business you can do.\nThat's a Glass-Steagall case.\nBut Clarke is a case on where you can do business.\nIt's not an activities case.\nIt's not a Glass-Steagall case, it's a McFadden Act case, which is why I answered your... the first--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2343.638, 2351.135, 2353.101, 2355.944, 2357.381], "stop_times": [2351.135, 2353.101, 2355.944, 2357.381, 2362.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2343.638}, "reply_to": "21237__2_053", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_055", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Well, a movement from where to who?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2362.629, 2363.472], "stop_times": [2363.472, 2364.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2362.629}, "reply_to": "21237__2_054", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21237__2_056", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Where to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2364.222], "stop_times": [2365.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2364.222}, "reply_to": "21237__2_055", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_057", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "I'm just wondering if your test wouldn't require us to say, any restriction that limits the number of entities that may do business by meeting certain qualifications would be subject to challenge by a competitor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2365.675], "stop_times": [2377.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2365.675}, "reply_to": "21237__2_056", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21237__2_058", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Well, I think that if the limitation affected the competitive authority of a regulated entity in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2377.56], "stop_times": [2389.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2377.56}, "reply_to": "21237__2_057", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_059", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Well, it affects number, and number always affects competition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2389.931], "stop_times": [2393.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2389.931}, "reply_to": "21237__2_058", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21237__2_060", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Well, if number always affects competition and... it seems to me that the principle is that in a regulated marketplace limitations on your competitor are limitations that it's sensible to believe that Congress would permit the other competitors to meet, and if that's that kind of limitation, then I would agree that they would have standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2393.383], "stop_times": [2415.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2393.383}, "reply_to": "21237__2_059", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_061", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "There's standing any time you have a limitation on the number of entities that may enter the business.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2415.076], "stop_times": [2420.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2415.076}, "reply_to": "21237__2_060", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21237__2_062", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Well, there's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2420.216], "stop_times": [2420.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2420.216}, "reply_to": "21237__2_061", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_063", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Or that may, by its natural tendency, limit the number of entities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2420.808], "stop_times": [2425.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2420.808}, "reply_to": "21237__2_062", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21237__2_064", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--I think it is true that the first thing you look at is the text, and what it does, and if it has the effect of limiting one competitor in a regulated marketplace, which is what this is, that cases like Data Processing, which involved data processors, Arnold Tours, which is about travel agents coming in, even though the Court said there was no indication at all that the Court was concerned about data... about travel agents, would permit standing under those circumstances, what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2425.417], "stop_times": [2455.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2425.417}, "reply_to": "21237__2_063", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_065", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "I'm... go ahead, please.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2455.545], "stop_times": [2457.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2455.545}, "reply_to": "21237__2_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21237__2_066", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--I'm sorry.\nJust to finish up on that, what we're doing here, what's involved here on the standing side, the cause of action comes from section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act.\nThe question is carrying out Congress' intent in the Administrative Procedure Act.\nThe Court has interpreted Congress' intent as being to facilitate judicial review.\nIt makes it presumptively reviewable.\nIt's not an especially demanding test.\nThese are all the terms in Clarke in carrying out Congress' intent in section 10.\nThen you only deny standing in carrying out section 10, congressional intent, when the interests are simply not implicated by or are inconsistent with the statue.\nThat was Air Courier, the postal employees in Air Courier.\nThey're just separate from the interests of the statute, but it is congressional intent in section 10 which is critical, and when you combine that with the clear congressional intent to limit credit unions, who they can serve--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2457.06, 2457.294, 2464.12, 2469.368, 2474.13, 2475.693, 2477.817, 2482.954, 2494.624, 2497.464], "stop_times": [2457.294, 2464.12, 2469.368, 2474.13, 2475.693, 2477.817, 2482.954, 2494.624, 2497.464, 2509.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2457.06}, "reply_to": "21237__2_065", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_067", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Would it be a different case if Congress had made an express finding that the sole reason for making this requirement is that we think this will maximize the number of credit unions that can succeed in the marketplace?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2509.461], "stop_times": [2519.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2509.461}, "reply_to": "21237__2_066", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21237__2_068", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--It certainly is true--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2519.738], "stop_times": [2521.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2519.738}, "reply_to": "21237__2_067", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_069", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "If they'd made such a finding, would there be standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2521.175], "stop_times": [2523.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2521.175}, "reply_to": "21237__2_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21237__2_070", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--If they'd made such a finding at some point you're going to get close to a case like Block v. Community Nutrition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2523.704], "stop_times": [2529.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2523.704}, "reply_to": "21237__2_069", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_071", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "I don't want another case.\nWhat about my case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2529.327, 2529.499], "stop_times": [2529.499, 2530.249], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2529.327}, "reply_to": "21237__2_070", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21237__2_072", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Okay.\nI'm sorry.\nI'm just using that to discern the principle that would be applicable.\nWhen Congress manifests an intention that a particular group... it was... in Block it was the milk consumers... not be allowed to get judicial review, either by what it says in the statute or by the way it structures the statute, then you don't have standing under section 10.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2530.249, 2530.467, 2530.733, 2535.279], "stop_times": [2530.467, 2530.733, 2535.279, 2550.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2530.249}, "reply_to": "21237__2_071", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_073", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "When I... or, does that mean in the hypo I gave you you'd say there was standing, or was not standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2550.834], "stop_times": [2556.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2550.834}, "reply_to": "21237__2_072", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21237__2_074", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "In that hypothetical, I think if Congress clearly said in the statute this is the sole and only purpose of it, then that would be a manifestation of congressional intent that other people not sue, but legislation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2556.425], "stop_times": [2570.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2556.425}, "reply_to": "21237__2_073", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_075", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "It's your understanding there'd be no standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2570.997], "stop_times": [2571.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2570.997}, "reply_to": "21237__2_074", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21237__2_076", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--There would be no standing, I'm sorry, yes, but... I'm sorry.\nI didn't mean to... I didn't want to duck it, but yes.\nYes, there would be no standing.\nBut legislation is almost never passed for one purpose.\nThey always have multiple purposes.\nYou know, here, to come back to a point on the legislative history of the act, a ponit was made by my colleagues that the banks didn't say anything about the common bond provision.\nWell, they didn't say anything about the common bond provision because it was in the bill from the beginning.\nIt was... the very point that they made, that the trade union advocates had put it in, the banks didn't have to ask for a common bond provision.\nThe... there is an indication in one of the NCUA studies that's cited in the brief that suggests that one hypothesis was that the common bond was designed by Mr. Filene, who was a credit union advocate, and others to assure that the banks would not object to the bill.\nThat's at page 4 of the NCUA study in Federal credit union member--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2571.81, 2573.653, 2574.981, 2576.402, 2582.869, 2586.18, 2599.174, 2605.593, 2613.153, 2628.538], "stop_times": [2573.653, 2574.981, 2576.402, 2582.869, 2586.18, 2599.174, 2605.593, 2613.153, 2628.538, 2632.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2571.81}, "reply_to": "21237__2_075", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_077", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Mr. Helfer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2632.661], "stop_times": [2633.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2632.661}, "reply_to": "21237__2_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21237__2_078", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--charter--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2633.208], "stop_times": [2633.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2633.208}, "reply_to": "21237__2_077", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_079", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Mr. Helfer, do I understand correctly that the language, common bond, was originally in State provisions before there was a Federal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2633.537], "stop_times": [2640.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2633.537}, "reply_to": "21237__2_078", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21237__2_080", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Yes, it was in State provisions, and in a model provision as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2640.579], "stop_times": [2645.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2640.579}, "reply_to": "21237__2_079", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_081", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "And in that line I'd like to know whether any States have interpreted their legislation using the same language, groups having a common bond, to mean what the Government and their credit unions are now asserting.\nHave any States--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2645.172, 2663.414], "stop_times": [2663.414, 2664.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2645.172}, "reply_to": "21237__2_080", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21237__2_082", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Attorneys merits... no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2664.742], "stop_times": [2667.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2664.742}, "reply_to": "21237__2_081", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21237__2_083", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--interpreted that language?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2667.053], "stop_times": [2667.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2667.053}, "reply_to": "21237__2_082", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21237__2_084", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "None is cited in the briefs, and I'm not aware of any, Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2667.241], "stop_times": [2671.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2667.241}, "reply_to": "21237__2_083", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_085", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Can--\n--But do I also understand that if the legislation that's now pending, the proposed legislation with respect to defining precisely groups having a common bond, if that legislation passed, this case would be moot?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2671.38, 2672.55], "stop_times": [2672.55, 2688.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2671.38}, "reply_to": "21237__2_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21237__2_086", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "If that legislation passed, parts of this legislation might be moot.\nIt would depend, because it would not... I guess there is actually some legislation which might moot the whole case, because it would eliminate the common bond requirement completely, and if that happened--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2688.825, 2694.324], "stop_times": [2694.324, 2702.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2688.825}, "reply_to": "21237__2_085", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_087", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "It says that members of any Federal credit union shall be limited to one or more groups, each of which have within such group a common bond.\nIf that's... if that were passed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2702.977, 2711.504], "stop_times": [2711.504, 2717.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2702.977}, "reply_to": "21237__2_086", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21237__2_088", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--If that legislation were passed, it would eliminate... yes, it would eliminate our argument that the statute now requires one common bond for all of the members.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2717.767], "stop_times": [2727.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2717.767}, "reply_to": "21237__2_087", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_089", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--I'd like to ask you a couple of questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2727.122], "stop_times": [2729.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2727.122}, "reply_to": "21237__2_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21237__2_090", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Certainly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2729.153], "stop_times": [2729.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2729.153}, "reply_to": "21237__2_089", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_091", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "I assume that the basic standing question... this is the assumption... is whether you, your clients, the plaintiffs, suffer the kind of injury that Congress or that this statute intended to protect these kind of people against.\nThat's basically the question of standing, isn't it?\nAre they... and then you have to add the word, arguably, and once you add the word arguably, it becomes a problem.\nI don't know if you have, but I never, in 17 years of being a judge, have found a position that a lawyer couldn't plausibly argue for.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2729.434, 2748.349, 2752.004, 2759.484, 2766.763], "stop_times": [2748.349, 2752.004, 2759.484, 2766.763, 2768.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2729.434}, "reply_to": "21237__2_090", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21237__2_092", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Well, and I think that Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2768.466], "stop_times": [2771.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2768.466}, "reply_to": "21237__2_091", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_093", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Am I right?\nI'm just asking... that's the assumption on which my question... I take it you basically agree with that assumption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2771.42, 2772.074], "stop_times": [2772.074, 2776.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2771.42}, "reply_to": "21237__2_092", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21237__2_094", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Yes, Justice Breyer, with... although it is not necessary to show under the cases that there was a spec... an intent to benefit the particular--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2776.323], "stop_times": [2784.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2776.323}, "reply_to": "21237__2_093", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_095", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "I'm saying we have to interpret a statute, the object... the question is, is, are the plaintiffs suffering the kind of injury that this statute seeks to protect these kind of people against, or compensate them for, or prevent in the future?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2784.93], "stop_times": [2801.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2784.93}, "reply_to": "21237__2_094", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21237__2_096", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Or prevent them from suffering?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2801.327], "stop_times": [2801.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2801.327}, "reply_to": "21237__2_095", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21237__2_097", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Yes, right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2801.827], "stop_times": [2802.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2801.827}, "reply_to": "21237__2_096", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21237__2_098", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2802.077], "stop_times": [2802.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2802.077}, "reply_to": "21237__2_097", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_099", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Right.\nOkay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2802.39, 2802.827], "stop_times": [2802.827, 2802.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2802.39}, "reply_to": "21237__2_098", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21237__2_100", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Yes, essentially--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2802.999], "stop_times": [2803.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2802.999}, "reply_to": "21237__2_099", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_101", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Now, that's the question, all right, and the answer is, how do we decide if it's arguably so.\nNow, what I don't understand, and this is my question, and I got this very much from Justice Stevens, I think, what he was trying to do, is say, why do we answer this question through the use of presumptions?\nIt's going to be pretty tough.\nWe'll make up a presumption, and then in the 400,000 pages of statutes and regulations we're going to find some cases where a presumption doesn't work, it mixes up the lawyers, they forget it... why don't we just answer that question exactly like we answer any other statutory question and if, in fact, we use legislative history, fine, and if in fact we don't, fine, but it's a typical statutory question that should be answered without the use of presumptions that will be good for this ticket and day only.\nThat's basically my question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2803.343, 2808.482, 2819.602, 2821.258, 2851.886], "stop_times": [2808.482, 2819.602, 2821.258, 2851.886, 2854.182], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2803.343}, "reply_to": "21237__2_100", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21237__2_102", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--I don't think that you need to have any presumptions here.\nI think if you use the traditional tools of statutory--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2854.182, 2858.337], "stop_times": [2858.337, 2860.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2854.182}, "reply_to": "21237__2_101", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_103", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Okay.\nThen if you do not want us to use presumptions and think we don't have to, my next question would be, right here we have some language that restricts this to groups.\nFrom looking at the language I have no reason at all to think this was done to protect banks at a time in history when, in fact, people were passing this kind of statute to protect depositors, lenders, and get out of the Depression.\nThey wanted... all right.\nNow, so the language doesn't help me.\nI personally sometimes find legislative history useful, and when I go to that legislative history I do not find one word that suggests that this statute was designed to help competing banks, and therefore whether I use legislative history or whether I don't use legislative history, without any presumption coming in, which I don't know what it would do elsewhere, I find it difficult to see how your clients have standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2860.914, 2861.133, 2870.441, 2884.623, 2886.074, 2888.683], "stop_times": [2861.133, 2870.441, 2884.623, 2886.074, 2888.683, 2915.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2860.914}, "reply_to": "21237__2_102", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21237__2_104", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Justice Breyer, the reasons that we have standing are that the statute... the effect of the statute, what the statute does is to limit who the credit unions can sell their banking services to.\nThat's the first thing you look at.\nThe second thing you look at when you look at the legislative history is that, with all respect, you do find that the banks were involved, and that they were concerned, and that they were there, and that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2915.516, 2928.73, 2930.51], "stop_times": [2928.73, 2930.51, 2943.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2915.516}, "reply_to": "21237__2_103", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_105", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "All right, good.\nSo where is that?\nNow, will you tell me that were in the legislative history--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2943.646, 2944.256, 2944.443], "stop_times": [2944.256, 2944.443, 2946.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2943.646}, "reply_to": "21237__2_104", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21237__2_106", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--That is in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2946.285], "stop_times": [2946.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2946.285}, "reply_to": "21237__2_105", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_107", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--that would be helpful.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2946.504], "stop_times": [2946.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2946.504}, "reply_to": "21237__2_106", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21237__2_108", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--That is in... you have to start with the legislative history of the D.C. Credit Union legislation, which was passed in 1932, okay.\nAt the hearings on that act, Senator Kean said, I agree with the President that we ought to go very slowly with anything that will interfere with banks at the present time.\nThat's in the 1932 hearings at page 31.\nAt those same--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2946.941, 2953.642, 2965.636, 2969.635], "stop_times": [2953.642, 2965.636, 2969.635, 2970.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2946.941}, "reply_to": "21237__2_107", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_109", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "But that's on a different... a different provision.\nI mean, you're referring us to what happened in a whole different law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2970.885, 2972.915], "stop_times": [2972.915, 2978.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2970.885}, "reply_to": "21237__2_108", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21237__2_110", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Justice O'Connor this law, and my colleagues agree, is the precursor to the Federal Credit Union Act, and Mr. Bergengren, who was the sole witness on the Federal act, referred to the D.C. act as a copy.\nThat's at 1933 hearings at page 29.\nSo this is not some separate and different law that we're looking at.\nIt is the exact precursor that Congress passed before it passed the Federal Credit Union Act--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [2978.647, 2994.312, 2997.796, 3001.059], "stop_times": [2994.312, 2997.796, 3001.059, 3006.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2978.647}, "reply_to": "21237__2_109", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_111", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "And it had the groups language in it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3006.183], "stop_times": [3007.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3006.183}, "reply_to": "21237__2_110", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21237__2_112", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Yes, it did.\nIt had exactly the same groups language--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3007.291, 3007.916], "stop_times": [3007.916, 3010.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3007.291}, "reply_to": "21237__2_111", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_113", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Was Senator Kean still alive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3010.025], "stop_times": [3011.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3010.025}, "reply_to": "21237__2_112", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21237__2_114", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--the same common bond limitation, exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3011.728], "stop_times": [3012.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3011.728}, "reply_to": "21237__2_113", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_115", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Was Senator Kean still alive when the act we're looking at was enacted?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3012.337, 3016.413], "stop_times": [3016.413, 3016.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3012.337}, "reply_to": "21237__2_114", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21237__2_116", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "I'm sorry, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3016.991], "stop_times": [3019.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3016.991}, "reply_to": "21237__2_115", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_117", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "We don't really know, do we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3019.584], "stop_times": [3020.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3019.584}, "reply_to": "21237__2_116", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21237__2_118", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--I'm sorry, Justice Scalia, I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3020.334], "stop_times": [3022.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3020.334}, "reply_to": "21237__2_117", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_119", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Never mind.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3022.427, 3022.739], "stop_times": [3022.739, 3023.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3022.427}, "reply_to": "21237__2_118", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21237__2_120", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--I don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3023.114], "stop_times": [3023.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3023.114}, "reply_to": "21237__2_119", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_121", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "I don't want you to stop before you've said... I have page 31 of the '32 act.\nIs there anything else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3023.833, 3028.595], "stop_times": [3028.595, 3029.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3023.833}, "reply_to": "21237__2_120", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21237__2_122", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Well, you also have the bankers testifying in... on... in the proceedings on the '32 act about their competitive concerns, particularly with respect to deposit-taking by the credit unions, and you have that, Congress changing the act in that respect to accommodate the bankers' concerns, and you have that change carried forward to the Federal Credit Union Act as well.\nYou do not have the banks complaining about the common bond provision, because the common bond provision, the common bond restriction was in the act already.\nThere just wasn't any need to say anything about it or to ask for it.\nNow, not in the legislative history but in the record here let me point out something else.\nMr. Filene wrote an article in the American Bankers Association Journal in 1925.\nIt's in the lodged materials, lodged by the Government, at tab 2, at page 24, in which... he wrote it in the Bankers Association Journal to reassure the banks that the credit union system wouldn't be a competitor because... and this is a quote now...\n\"credit unions are organized within specific groups. \"\nand have to meet the common bond requirement.\nSo I think the fair reading of the overall history... and I emphasize, Justice Breyer, that Filene article is not in the legislative history technically, but it is in the materials before the Court.\nThe overall reading is that the credit union advocates wanted the common bond for their own purposes, recognized that it would help to make sure that the banks didn't oppose the bill, at a time in which... the congressional goal was not to injure or hurt the banks.\nThe goal was to restore the banking system to health, which is why they passed the Banking Act of 1933.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3029.642, 3052.368, 3060.707, 3063.894, 3067.627, 3075.451, 3092.507, 3096.271, 3099.036, 3108.922, 3123.213], "stop_times": [3052.368, 3060.707, 3063.894, 3067.627, 3075.451, 3092.507, 3096.271, 3099.036, 3108.922, 3123.213, 3129.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3029.642}, "reply_to": "21237__2_121", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_123", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "At least arguably, you say.\nI recognize this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3129.477, 3130.663], "stop_times": [3130.663, 3131.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3129.477}, "reply_to": "21237__2_122", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21237__2_124", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "At least arguably, yes.\n[Laughter]\nI find it persuasive, but I... but at least arguably.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3131.007, 3131.913, 3132.6], "stop_times": [3131.913, 3132.6, 3135.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3131.007}, "reply_to": "21237__2_123", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_125", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--I... we're talking about Federal law here, but there is some law in the States on the position.\nThere are a number of States that have provisions regulating medical practice, that dentists and optometrists cannot use certain procedures or administer certain drugs.\nI take it under your theory that, if those were changed to expand the functions and the privileges of an optometrist or a dentist, that any doctor could sue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3135.49, 3140.659, 3152.905], "stop_times": [3140.659, 3152.905, 3166.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3135.49}, "reply_to": "21237__2_124", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21237__2_126", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Any doctor who was injured by that.\nI think the same principles that have been used in the standing cases would lead to that result.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3166.196, 3169.289], "stop_times": [3169.289, 3172.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3166.196}, "reply_to": "21237__2_125", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_127", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Is that the law in the States generally?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3172.538], "stop_times": [3175.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3172.538}, "reply_to": "21237__2_126", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21237__2_128", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "I'm sorry, Justice Kennedy, I simply can't answer that question over--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3175.474], "stop_times": [3178.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3175.474}, "reply_to": "21237__2_127", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_129", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Unauthorized practice of law actions are largely based on that sort of re... actual research.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3178.519], "stop_times": [3184.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3178.519}, "reply_to": "21237__2_128", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21237__2_130", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--And are permitted, yes, Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3184.126], "stop_times": [3186.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3184.126}, "reply_to": "21237__2_129", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_131", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Probably not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3186.078], "stop_times": [3186.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3186.078}, "reply_to": "21237__2_130", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21237__2_132", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "If I may turn to the merits... I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3186.516], "stop_times": [3188.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3186.516}, "reply_to": "21237__2_131", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_133", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Just a little... one tiny question on history.\nAm I correct in assuming that the '32 statute involving the District of Columbia was enacted during the Hoover administration, and this statute was enacted after a rather dramatic change in the status of the Government?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3188.422, 3190.75], "stop_times": [3190.75, 3202.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3188.422}, "reply_to": "21237__2_132", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21237__2_134", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "That's... that is correct.\nThe statute was... '32 and then '34.\nThat's absolutely correct.\nOn the merits, we think that Congress... that the question here... the Chevron question is not what General Waxman, as General Waxman described, about unambiguous language used by Congress.\nThe question is, is the congressional intent clear, and you determine congressional intent largely by looking at the language, to be sure, but by using all of the tools of statutory construction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3202.743, 3204.696, 3207.601, 3208.663, 3222.689], "stop_times": [3204.696, 3207.601, 3208.663, 3222.689, 3232.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3202.743}, "reply_to": "21237__2_133", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_135", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Well, I guess we have to ask if the statutory language is ambiguous.\nIs it ambiguous?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3232.856, 3236.918], "stop_times": [3236.918, 3239.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3232.856}, "reply_to": "21237__2_134", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21237__2_136", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "We... I submit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3239.354], "stop_times": [3240.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3239.354}, "reply_to": "21237__2_135", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_137", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "If it is, then we would defer to any reasonable interpretation by the agency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3240.682], "stop_times": [3248.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3240.682}, "reply_to": "21237__2_136", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21237__2_138", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--That's right, and I submit that the... and the courts, both the Sixth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit, held that the legislative intent, as expressed in this language, was not ambiguous, shown in two ways that I will summarize here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3248.193], "stop_times": [3259.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3248.193}, "reply_to": "21237__2_137", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_139", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "I would hope we would look at the language of the statute to answer the question of whether it's ambiguous, not at some legislative intent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3259.408], "stop_times": [3268.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3259.408}, "reply_to": "21237__2_138", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21237__2_140", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Well, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3268.358], "stop_times": [3268.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3268.358}, "reply_to": "21237__2_139", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_141", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Let's look at the language.\nIs the language ambiguous?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3268.998, 3270.778], "stop_times": [3270.778, 3273.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3268.998}, "reply_to": "21237__2_140", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21237__2_142", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--The... we submit that the language is not.\nChevron says that the intention, congressional intention is the law and must be given effect, but the language is not ambiguous in terms of what the statute intended for two reasons.\nOne is that the except clause, the whole clause that we've been talking about, is an exception that both limits credit union membership and limits the NCUA's otherwise broad authority at the beginning of the statute.\nThey get very broad authority to determine who can be the member of any credit union.\nThen they go on and... Congress goes on and says, except that credit union membership shall be limited to groups having a common bond.\nIf... the limit has to be, we submit, and as the Sixth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit held, has to be one common bond per credit union, because if it isn't, if a credit union can join together an infinite number of distinct groups, then the credit union, or then the common bond limitation would not have its intended limiting effect.\nMr. Roberts conceded that point.\nHe said--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3273.231, 3275.793, 3286.506, 3301.204, 3306.389, 3312.372, 3333.206, 3335.128], "stop_times": [3275.793, 3286.506, 3301.204, 3306.389, 3312.372, 3333.206, 3335.128, 3335.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3273.231}, "reply_to": "21237__2_141", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_143", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Mr. Helfer, aren't there other limitations that would prevent this infinite progression?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3335.831], "stop_times": [3340.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3335.831}, "reply_to": "21237__2_142", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21237__2_144", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--There are at the... there are other limitations that the agency has imposed in its discretion, like not letting credit unions compete with one another.\nThose are not statutory.\nBut the key point, Justice Ginsburg, is that, as Mr. Roberts admitted, the way they read the statute, the common bond limitation has no effect.\nIt allows everybody who is employed to join AT&T Credit.\nThis clause, the except that credit union membership shall be limited to groups having a common bond, has no limiting effect, and that's what the Sixth Circuit said.\nThere's no reason to have that clause if you read it the way the NCUA reads it right now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3340.813, 3349.481, 3350.761, 3360.18, 3365.913, 3375.096], "stop_times": [3349.481, 3350.761, 3360.18, 3365.913, 3375.096, 3380.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3340.813}, "reply_to": "21237__2_143", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_145", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Well, we know the agency considers the language ambiguous, and we know that some Members of Congress do, too.\nWhat credit, if any, should we give to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3380.546, 3386.325], "stop_times": [3386.325, 3388.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3380.546}, "reply_to": "21237__2_144", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21237__2_146", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Well, the agency and its predecessors interpreted the common bond clause to require one common bond per credit union from the time of enactment until 1982, nearly 50 years, and from the time of enactment and for that long is strong evidence about what the clarity of the original intention was.\nIt's a Chevron I relevant point.\nWith all respect, Congress is in the business of determining what the law is going to be, this Congress is, and its views about whether the law ought to change are views that are entitled to respect going forward, but not about what this law means.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3388.935, 3409.255, 3411.191], "stop_times": [3409.255, 3411.191, 3427.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3388.935}, "reply_to": "21237__2_145", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_147", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "But they did say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3427.653], "stop_times": [3428.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3427.653}, "reply_to": "21237__2_146", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21237__2_148", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "This case is like--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3428.215], "stop_times": [3428.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3428.215}, "reply_to": "21237__2_147", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_149", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--They did say this is a bill to clarify the existing law and ratify the NCUA interpretation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3428.59], "stop_times": [3433.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3428.59}, "reply_to": "21237__2_148", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21237__2_150", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Well, I think I can say with all respect the credit unions have lobbyists, too, and the--\n[Laughter]\nAnd that we ought to look at what the... at what this text says.\nIn this respect--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3433.979, 3437.868, 3438.414, 3442.381], "stop_times": [3437.868, 3438.414, 3442.381, 3443.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3433.979}, "reply_to": "21237__2_149", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_151", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Who said that?\nDo we know who said that, that particular quote?\nWas that Senator What's-his-Name, too?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3443.334, 3443.663, 3445.88, 3447.38], "stop_times": [3443.663, 3445.88, 3447.38, 3448.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3443.334}, "reply_to": "21237__2_150", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21237__2_152", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--If he was still alive, I'm sure he would have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3448.706], "stop_times": [3451.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3448.706}, "reply_to": "21237__2_151", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_153", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "That's why I thought it might be relevant if States having the same language interpreted it the way the Government is urging us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3451.986], "stop_times": [3458.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3451.986}, "reply_to": "21237__2_152", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21237__2_154", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Yes, absolutely, and the Government doesn't cite any such interpretations, and I'm not aware of any, Your Honor.\nThis case is a lot like Dimension, the Dimension case, where the Fed came in and wanted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3458.187, 3466.184], "stop_times": [3466.184, 3470.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3458.187}, "reply_to": "21237__2_153", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_155", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "What case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3470.401], "stop_times": [3470.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3470.401}, "reply_to": "21237__2_154", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21237__2_156", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "I'm sorry, Chief Justice, the Dimension case, Dimension v. Board of Governors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3470.839], "stop_times": [3475.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3470.839}, "reply_to": "21237__2_155", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_157", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "I thought you said dementia.\nYou said this case is a lot like dementia.\n[Laughter]\nThat's arguable, too, I suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3475.196, 3476.118, 3483.194, 3478.695], "stop_times": [3476.118, 3483.194, 3478.695, 3485.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3475.196}, "reply_to": "21237__2_156", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21237__2_158", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Perhaps I ought to skip Dimension and go on to parallel clauses.\n[Laughter]\nThe... in Dimension, in any event, the agency came in and said, we need to construe the definition of bank in the Bank Holding Company Act so as to reach institutions that are so-called nonbank banks, and that there were strong public policy reasons to do it.\nThe agency here says there's strong public policy reasons to have a multiple unlimited common bond requirement provision, and that's properly addressed to Congress, as in Dimension, where Congress, after this Court's decision, made the change.\nGoing back to the parallel clauses for one moment, the community credit union clause, the agency agrees, does require every community credit union to have a single common bond of community, but it says the preceding and parallel clause in the statute permits this unlimited number of members, and we submit, with all respect, that doesn't make any sense.\nBoth clauses are doing the same work in the statute.\nBoth clauses are limiting the groups that can join any one credit union.\nThe difference, we're told, is the difference between within, which is a restrictive prepositional phrase, and having, which is, we are told, an explanatory participle phrase.\nThat just isn't reading the statute.\nThat's an overemphasis on the grammatical... on the King's English, not what Congress intended.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3485.192, 3489.579, 3490.767, 3509.151, 3523.661, 3550.478, 3554.243, 3559.053, 3569.908, 3573.937], "stop_times": [3489.579, 3490.767, 3509.151, 3523.661, 3550.478, 3554.243, 3559.053, 3569.908, 3573.937, 3580.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3485.192}, "reply_to": "21237__2_157", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_159", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "I suppose under the agency's interpretation, if there is only one group in a credit union, the people in that group don't have to have any common bond at all.\nIt's only groups that have to have a common bond, right?\nSo if you had--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3580.091, 3590.477, 3594.835], "stop_times": [3590.477, 3594.835, 3596.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3580.091}, "reply_to": "21237__2_158", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21237__2_160", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "I think that's the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3596.381], "stop_times": [3596.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3596.381}, "reply_to": "21237__2_159", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_161", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--You know, AT&T and other companies, all those other companies have to have a common bond.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3596.85], "stop_times": [3600.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3596.85}, "reply_to": "21237__2_160", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21237__2_162", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--I think that's a logical conclusion, Justice Scalia, but they do--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3600.958], "stop_times": [3606.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3600.958}, "reply_to": "21237__2_161", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_163", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Either that, or you can only have groups, and you can't have one company.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3606.972], "stop_times": [3609.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3606.972}, "reply_to": "21237__2_162", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21237__2_164", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--That's right, but they do in fact permit one company, one group there.\nThey do permit those kinds of credit unions, in any event.\nThat's not at all... let me just finish up by saying what <ATandT> [= AT&T] is.\nAT&T here, so you can get a sense of what it is, is a $500 million tax-exempt conglomerate, and it has more than 300 distinct employee and associational groups in it.\nThat means it has more than 300 separate common bonds inside it.\nIts range is truly enormous.\nIt has picked up employee groups that are as small as eight workers, so it is capable of going around the country and drawing in virtually everybody who is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3609.408, 3613.498, 3616.825, 3620.215, 3632.46, 3637.661, 3639.974], "stop_times": [3613.498, 3616.825, 3620.215, 3632.46, 3637.661, 3639.974, 3650.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3609.408}, "reply_to": "21237__2_163", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_165", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "How does it compare in size to your client?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3650.704], "stop_times": [3651.951], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3650.704}, "reply_to": "21237__2_164", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21237__2_166", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "It compares in size as follows, Your Honor.\nRandolph State Bank, of Asheville, North Carolina, is one-third the size of AT&T Credit.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3651.951, 3654.763, 3660.059], "stop_times": [3654.763, 3660.059, 3661.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3651.951}, "reply_to": "21237__2_165", "speaker": "michael_s_helfer"}
{"id": "21237__2_167", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Helfer.\nMr. Waxman, you have 1 minute remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3661.261, 3661.605], "stop_times": [3661.605, 3664.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3661.261}, "reply_to": "21237__2_166", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21237__3_000", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Thank you.\nJustice Ginsburg, in response to your question about the States, the amicus brief submitted by the parties in support of our position advised us that 36 or 37 of the States permit... State regulators permit multiple groups within a single common bond and multiple groups with different bonds.\nThere... of the five States that have the exact language that the Federal statute has, either two or three have already interpreted that statute to permit the interpretation that the National Credit Union Administration has.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3664.056, 3664.572, 3683.878], "stop_times": [3664.572, 3683.878, 3696.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3664.056}, "reply_to": "21237__2_167", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__3_001", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "Was that after the Federal interpretation, or was it before the Federal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3696.855], "stop_times": [3699.995], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3696.855}, "reply_to": "21237__3_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21237__3_002", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "I don't know, but it's referenced, Justice Scalia, at page 3 and 4 in the amicus brief of the National Association of State Credit Union Supervisors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3699.995], "stop_times": [3710.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3699.995}, "reply_to": "21237__3_001", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__3_003", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--I mean, it may be a copy cat kind of thing.\nI'd be more impressed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3710.32, 3712.646], "stop_times": [3712.646, 3713.537], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3710.32}, "reply_to": "21237__3_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21237__3_004", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3713.537], "stop_times": [3714.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3713.537}, "reply_to": "21237__3_003", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21237__3_005", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--if it came sooner rather than later.\nYour time has expired.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3714.005, 3715.348, 3719.441], "stop_times": [3715.348, 3719.441, 3721.582], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3714.005}, "reply_to": "21237__3_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21237__3_006", "conversation_id": "21237", "text": "--Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-843", "start_times": [3721.582], "stop_times": [3723.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3721.582}, "reply_to": "21237__3_005", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_000", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "We'll hear argument first this morning in Number 97-371, National Endowment for the Arts v. Karen Finley.\nGeneral Waxman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [0.0, 8.587], "stop_times": [8.587, 9.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21162__0_001", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nSince 1965, the National Endowment for the Arts has selectively provided funding, public funding to arts projects on the basis of aesthetic judgments in order to enrich the lives of all Americans and to expand public appreciation of art.\nThe question presented in this case is whether, although it thus expands the opportunities for artistic expression, Congress violated the First Amendment... that is, made a law abridging the freedom of speech... by directing that the NEA ensure, quote, that artistic excellence and artistic merit are the standards by which applications are judged, taking into consideration general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [9.872, 12.141, 29.401], "stop_times": [12.141, 29.401, 60.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.872}, "reply_to": "21162__0_000", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_002", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "I'm sure the Court is as anxious as I am to get to the merits.\nDo you think this case is justiciable?\nYou took the position in the district court that it was not.\nWhat's the best case that makes it justiciable, if you think it is?\nIt seems remote.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [60.103, 63.705, 65.99, 68.859, 72.494], "stop_times": [63.705, 65.99, 68.859, 72.494, 74.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 60.103}, "reply_to": "21162__0_001", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21162__0_003", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Justice Kennedy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [74.013], "stop_times": [75.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 74.013}, "reply_to": "21162__0_002", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_004", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "It seems not concrete.\nThe plaintiff originally sued because he didn't get a grant.\nThen he sued because he did.\nI don't know what he wants to produce.\nI don't know if he's been denied any specific rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [75.163, 76.03, 79.732, 81.065, 83.184], "stop_times": [76.03, 79.732, 81.065, 83.184, 89.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 75.163}, "reply_to": "21162__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21162__0_005", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [89.504], "stop_times": [90.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 89.504}, "reply_to": "21162__0_004", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_006", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "I'm dealing with the question in the abstract, it seems.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [90.388], "stop_times": [92.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 90.388}, "reply_to": "21162__0_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21162__0_007", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Justice Kennedy, I think that the question of Article III justiciability, which of course must be measured at the time the suit was commenced or, really, in this case at the time that the pre-1990 claims were settled and all that was left in the case was the facial challenge to the 1990 act, is a close one.\nIn the district court we challenged Article III, the Article III justiciability issue both on the question that these plaintiffs lacked standing and also because, since the agency had adopted an interpretation that basically concluded that the 1990 language was satisfied merely by the creation of extremely diverse panels and that decency and respect were not expressly to be considered as independent factors at the grant-making stage, the agency was in the process.\nProcess was in effect no different than it had been before, other than the fact that the diversity of the panels was greater, and therefore our view was that the agency was not doing anything significantly different after the district court ruled than before it ruled, and conversely, if this Court were to agree with our statutory interpretation, the agency would be permitted, although not compelled, to continue to operate the program precisely the way it's operating now.\nNow, this was not an issue that we raised on appeal or we raised in our petition in this Court, and I wish I could tell you exactly why that's the case, because I wasn't there, but I suspect that we concluded that there was some marginal concreteness, or some marginal justiciability here by the fact that before... between the time that the 1990 amendment was passed in November of '90 and the time that the district court issues, issued its injunction in June of 1992, we actually read to the panel members the language of the statute.\nWe then told them that they were to judge applications on the basis of artistic merit and artistic excellence, and that the other words, the words that follow taking into consideration, had been taken into consideration by the creation of extremely diverse panels in which each person from a diverse walk of life would bring his or her own individual sensibilities to that question, and we argued to the district court that, in fact, the case was not justiciability.\nThere was no injury and there was no redressability possible.\nIn fact, during the period between the time that the 1990 amendments were passed and the district court ruled, three of the five plaintiffs in this case received grants under the standard that they had concluded was unconstitutional and a fourth had benefited indirectly from a grant given to an organization.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [92.556, 111.084, 142.222, 170.575, 206.848, 237.767, 241.754], "stop_times": [111.084, 142.222, 170.575, 206.848, 237.767, 241.754, 261.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 92.556}, "reply_to": "21162__0_006", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_008", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "General Waxman, let me see if I understand you.\nI gather that you have no doubts on the Article III question if your interpretation of the statute is not correct--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [261.464, 263.601], "stop_times": [263.601, 274.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 261.464}, "reply_to": "21162__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21162__0_009", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [274.142], "stop_times": [276.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 274.142}, "reply_to": "21162__0_008", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_010", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--in this facial challenge.\nThe statute which says, taking into account, requires that in passing upon the applications the panels, diverse though they may be, must take into account decency and the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [276.025, 277.025], "stop_times": [277.025, 293.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 276.025}, "reply_to": "21162__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21162__0_011", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [293.118], "stop_times": [297.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 293.118}, "reply_to": "21162__0_010", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_012", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--beliefs and values, right, okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [297.736], "stop_times": [299.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 297.736}, "reply_to": "21162__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21162__0_013", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Yes.\nIf, in fact our--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [299.188, 299.688], "stop_times": [299.688, 300.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 299.188}, "reply_to": "21162__0_012", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_014", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Do they, indeed, ensure that they have decent panels?\nI mean, how do they go about ensuring that?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [300.988, 304.724, 306.676], "stop_times": [304.724, 306.676, 307.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 300.988}, "reply_to": "21162__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21162__0_015", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--They ensure... Justice Scalia, they ensure that they have diverse panels, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [307.176], "stop_times": [311.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 307.176}, "reply_to": "21162__0_014", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_016", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "But that's just half of it.\nI mean, it says decency, standards of decency and respect for diverse beliefs and values.\nI... it's... I guess it's easy to get diverse... maybe it's easy to get diverse, but how do they ensure decency?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [311.83, 312.78, 317.983], "stop_times": [312.78, 317.983, 322.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 311.83}, "reply_to": "21162__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21162__0_017", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Well, the chairperson has the discretion to create the pro... the selection procedures any way she or he wants, so long as he is satisfied or ensured that general standards of decency will be taken into account in the process.\nThe NEA thus far has considered that, since... for most people--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [322.185, 337.278], "stop_times": [337.278, 343.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 322.185}, "reply_to": "21162__0_016", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_018", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "What do you mean, in the process?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [343.015], "stop_times": [344.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 343.015}, "reply_to": "21162__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21162__0_019", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--In the process of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [344.134], "stop_times": [344.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 344.134}, "reply_to": "21162__0_018", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_020", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "In the process of selecting the panel?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [344.784], "stop_times": [345.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 344.784}, "reply_to": "21162__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21162__0_021", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--In the process--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [345.267], "stop_times": [346.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 345.267}, "reply_to": "21162__0_020", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_022", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "How do you take into account standards of decency in selecting the panel?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [346.167], "stop_times": [348.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 346.167}, "reply_to": "21162__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21162__0_023", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--In... no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [348.686], "stop_times": [349.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 348.686}, "reply_to": "21162__0_022", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_024", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "I don't understand how you do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [349.205], "stop_times": [350.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 349.205}, "reply_to": "21162__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21162__0_025", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "In the process of deciding which proposals will be granted on the basis of merit and excellence, and here's how the NEA has construed the statute to work.\nThe NEA Chair thus far has concluded that whatever factors an individual takes into consideration in deciding whether something is art, nonethe... not to mention artistically excellent and artistically merit, meritorious, may be considerations of the mode and form of expression in the case.\nIt's not dispositive, but if it includes a mode or form of communication, the kind of thing that this Court distinguished from viewpoint in Denver Area, and Pacifica, and Pico, and Bethel, that it... the NEA concluded that many, if not most, if not all, certainly at least some people in deciding whether something is really artistically excellent or meritorious or how much it is, will at least think about the mode or form of the presentation that the artist is using, and that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [350.105, 360.043, 382.576], "stop_times": [360.043, 382.576, 415.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 350.105}, "reply_to": "21162__0_024", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_026", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Well, quite apart from the... what the NEA has done, I've got some difficulties about the standing question akin to those that Justice Kennedy mentioned.\nI mean, certainly people can't just walk in off the street and make a facial challenge to a statute, can they?\nThey have to have some connection with what's being done under the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [415.297, 423.367, 429.938], "stop_times": [423.367, 429.938, 433.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 415.297}, "reply_to": "21162__0_025", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21162__0_027", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Absolutely, and what's so... I don't want to use a pejorative adjective.\nWhat's so unusual about this case is that the plaintiffs in the case, who were very successful in forcing Congress to reject what was the alternative to this amendment, the Rohrabacher provision that would have prohibited the NEA from funding any art that manifested certain viewpoints, and Congress instead passed a compromise provision along the lines of the recommendations of the independent commission that it had appointed, the same organizations, the same plaintiffs who were successful in the legislature in defeating a viewpoint-discriminatory prohibition, have challenged this provision on the grounds that our interpretation, the way that the NEA has chosen to interpret the statute is wrong, although it's wrong in a way that benefits them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [433.092, 438.726], "stop_times": [438.726, 487.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 433.092}, "reply_to": "21162__0_026", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_028", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Well, I think you can take one position in the legislature and another in the courts.\nThe question is, what does the statute say, is there any injury, and I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [487.976, 492.713], "stop_times": [492.713, 495.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 487.976}, "reply_to": "21162__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21162__0_029", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "What's... right.\nWhat's unusual in this case is that the courts have... are being asked to reject an interpretation, an application of the statute that the agency has reasonably made and which does not, concededly does not violate the First Amendment rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [495.332, 496.332], "stop_times": [496.332, 510.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 495.332}, "reply_to": "21162__0_028", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_030", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Well, Mr. Waxman, could we talk about the statutory language?\nYou know, just reading it, I thought it meant that the chairperson of the NEA had to ensure that its... that the regulations and procedures were to provide that artistic excellence and artistic merit are the criteria, but in considering the excellence and merit, they have to take into consideration general standards of decency and respect for diversity.\nThat the interpretation suggested by the agency that just setting up the panels differently was enough strikes me as possibly in conflict with the language of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [510.759, 514.961, 547.182], "stop_times": [514.961, 547.182, 561.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 510.759}, "reply_to": "21162__0_029", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21162__0_031", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Well, Justice O'Connor, both lower courts agreed with you.\nWe still submit that there are two possibly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [561.941, 566.143], "stop_times": [566.143, 568.761], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 561.941}, "reply_to": "21162__0_030", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_032", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Well, if that is the meaning of the statute, do we nonetheless have a justiciability question, or do you think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [568.761], "stop_times": [577.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 568.761}, "reply_to": "21162__0_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21162__0_033", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [577.617], "stop_times": [577.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 577.617}, "reply_to": "21162__0_032", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_034", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--if that's the meaning of the statute we don't have a problem of justiciability?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [577.7], "stop_times": [581.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 577.7}, "reply_to": "21162__0_033", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21162__0_035", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--I'm not sure.\nI know that the plaintiffs would claim that insofar as any decisionmaker along the line, whether it be a panel member, a council member, or the chair, takes into consideration these two factors, they believe that they are harmed in some way.\nWe don't think that they have demonstrated in any tangible way that they have established injury, in the sense that none of them suggests that they have applied for an application and been denied it because an impermissible reading of these... a viewpoint-discriminatory reading of these words caused it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [581.835, 582.769, 599.614], "stop_times": [582.769, 599.614, 618.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 581.835}, "reply_to": "21162__0_034", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_036", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Well, do they have to have suffered a denial?\nI mean, their claim is that the statute on its face, if read as Justice O'Connor suggested, in effect is a limitation based on viewpoint which tends to and reasonably will tend to affect both the production of art and the applications, so that even before you get to the stage of granting or denying, you in fact will have had an impermissible effect.\nIsn't that their argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [618.944, 620.91, 647.011], "stop_times": [620.91, 647.011, 648.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 618.944}, "reply_to": "21162__0_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21162__0_037", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Well, I guess if we're talking now simply about justiciability and not the merits, and I'll restrict my comments accordingly, first of all, because of the way the agency has interpreted this statute before it was very shortly enjoined from doing it at all, it hasn't had the occasion to define the terms general standard of decency and respect for diverse values.\nBut the way in which... if this Court were to conclude that the statutory interpretation that the NEA adopted was not only the best... not the best interpretation, but was an unreasonable interpretation by the agency charged with carrying it out, the appropriate course at this point would be to allow the agency to define the terms and... in order to determine whether or not they are in fact viewpoint discriminatory at all.\nWe contend in our brief--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [648.629, 668.341, 694.908], "stop_times": [668.341, 694.908, 696.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 648.629}, "reply_to": "21162__0_036", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_038", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Now, are you suggesting that we would find it nonjusticiable because they have not gone through the process of defining--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [696.11], "stop_times": [703.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 696.11}, "reply_to": "21162__0_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21162__0_039", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Not because they haven't... not because they haven't gone through the process, and again this falls a little bit into the merits, but I think the justiciability is very much in question, because these terms, general standards of decency and respect for diverse beliefs and values, can be defined by the agency, could readily be defined by the agency in a manner that is not viewpoint discriminatory, as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [703.764], "stop_times": [726.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 703.764}, "reply_to": "21162__0_038", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_040", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Are you saying, General Waxman, that if the law is as you say it is, then nobody is being hurt because these words are largely hortatory, is that essentially your position, and that challengers can't say, agency, you've got it wrong, you have to interpret this more strictly against us than you're willing to do?\nIs that the essence of your justiciability--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [726.712, 747.043], "stop_times": [747.043, 750.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 726.712}, "reply_to": "21162__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21162__0_041", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Well, that's... that's the essence of why we think, if our reading is right, there probably is not much of an Article III case or controversy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [750.161], "stop_times": [758.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 750.161}, "reply_to": "21162__0_040", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_042", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Even if your reading is wrong, aren't you saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [758.434], "stop_times": [760.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 758.434}, "reply_to": "21162__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21162__0_043", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Even if our reading--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [760.45], "stop_times": [760.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 760.45}, "reply_to": "21162__0_042", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_044", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--that even if your reading is wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [760.867], "stop_times": [761.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 760.867}, "reply_to": "21162__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21162__0_045", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Even if... right.\nThe point, Justice Ginsburg, that I was making to Justice Souter is that even if you reject that, even if you say no, what this means is that when these--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [761.552, 762.352], "stop_times": [762.352, 769.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 761.552}, "reply_to": "21162__0_044", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_046", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "But how would we even get to that?\nYou see, if the challengers are stuck with what the agency says the law is, because that's the only thing that's being applied currently, how can a challenger then require... bring this question to us unless what they're saying is, what's on today could be off tomorrow, and that's their real concern, because you're not saying that the only construction of these words is the one that you're putting on it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [769.706, 771.472], "stop_times": [771.472, 799.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 769.706}, "reply_to": "21162__0_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21162__0_047", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--No, that's... we're absolutely not, but I think the appropriate course for this Court to take if it rejects... if it concluded that our statutory interpretation was unreasonable would be to permit the agency... after all, none of these people have grants that have... this is not an as-applied challenge.\nThe appropriate course would be to permit the agency to define and apply general standards of decency and respect and see whether it's done in a way that could be said to violate the First Amendment at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [799.808, 815.901], "stop_times": [815.901, 827.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 799.808}, "reply_to": "21162__0_046", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_048", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Hasn't it had 8 years, hasn't it had 8 years to do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [827.809], "stop_times": [830.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 827.809}, "reply_to": "21162__0_047", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21162__0_049", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Precisely to the contrary.\nDuring the year-and-a-half period in which the language was passed and the district court enjoined the agency from applying it, it said, we think that this provision can be satisfied... that is, that the chairperson can ensure that these things will be taken into account... when you have a diverse... when you have a diverse group of people who bring their own sensibilities to bear in making aesthetic judgments.\nSince then, the agency has been precluded from doing anything.\nWe have been under an injunction since June of 1992 from implementing this statute in any way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [830.911, 832.962, 857.062, 860.264], "stop_times": [832.962, 857.062, 860.264, 866.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 830.911}, "reply_to": "21162__0_048", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_050", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Even issuing a reg?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [866.501], "stop_times": [866.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 866.501}, "reply_to": "21162__0_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21162__0_051", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Of course.\nWe can't even read to panelists what the statute says.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [866.834, 867.284], "stop_times": [867.284, 871.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 866.834}, "reply_to": "21162__0_050", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_052", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Why didn't the Government seek a stay from a single-judge injunction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [871.719], "stop_times": [877.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 871.719}, "reply_to": "21162__0_051", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21162__0_053", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "I think the answer... I don't know the answer to that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [877.522], "stop_times": [883.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 877.522}, "reply_to": "21162__0_052", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_054", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "You weren't around then, either, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [883.76], "stop_times": [884.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 883.76}, "reply_to": "21162__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21162__0_055", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "I was around--\n[Laughter]\nI was around in the physical... in the existential sense I was--\nI was in the process of a private citizen, indeed a private lawyer very much enjoying the arts in all of their manifest expressions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [884.795, 900.388, 886.062, 890.849], "stop_times": [900.388, 886.062, 890.849, 901.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 884.795}, "reply_to": "21162__0_054", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_056", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "But that's in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [901.222], "stop_times": [902.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 901.222}, "reply_to": "21162__0_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21162__0_057", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "But let me just say this, we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [902.757], "stop_times": [904.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 902.757}, "reply_to": "21162__0_056", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_058", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--General Waxman, that's been affirmed on... that view that the law is unconstitutional been affirmed on appeal, and there was a denial of rehearing en banc.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [904.207], "stop_times": [912.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 904.207}, "reply_to": "21162__0_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21162__0_059", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--That's true, and I think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [912.363], "stop_times": [914.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 912.363}, "reply_to": "21162__0_058", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_060", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Nobody sought a stay from this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [914.064], "stop_times": [916.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 914.064}, "reply_to": "21162__0_059", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21162__0_061", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--And I... if... Mr. Chief Justice, if I can just get to what I thought my... the pitch was going to be after my wind-up, the point is--\n[Laughter]\n--that the agency has never see its... the agency views what the district court did as essentially enjoining it from doing something that it wasn't doing, and didn't particularly think had to be done, and so the only tangible way in which the agency's operation of this program has been affected by the district court order and the court of appeals order is that when it talks to new panel members it can't read them the statute, read them the words of the statute.\nIt just tells them it's artistic excellence and artistic--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [916.164, 923.42, 924.187, 953.273], "stop_times": [923.42, 924.187, 953.273, 956.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 916.164}, "reply_to": "21162__0_060", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_062", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "General Waxman, are you trying to persuade us that, even after the statute was passed, Andres Serrano would have the same chance of getting a grant as he did before?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [956.574], "stop_times": [964.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 956.574}, "reply_to": "21162__0_061", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21162__0_063", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Well, I don't know whether... I don't think we have to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [964.394], "stop_times": [967.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 964.394}, "reply_to": "21162__0_062", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_064", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Yes, but that's what you're arguing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [967.43], "stop_times": [968.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 967.43}, "reply_to": "21162__0_063", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21162__0_065", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--decide whether he would have the same chance, but what I'm suggesting is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [968.798], "stop_times": [970.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 968.798}, "reply_to": "21162__0_064", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_066", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Well, if he has a lesser chance, doesn't the... hasn't the statute had some impact?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [970.648], "stop_times": [974.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 970.648}, "reply_to": "21162__0_065", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21162__0_067", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Well, I... we don't think actually that he would have a lesser chance.\nCongress rejected... and the legislative debate which we've reprinted in our brief, in our reply brief, is very instructive.\nCongress rejected a provision that would have denied funding to the Merchant of Venice or Rigoletto, or D. W. Griffiths' Birth of a Nation.\nIt wanted those provisions to be funded.\nIt just wanted to make sure that in the process of deciding what is the most excellent art in a program which is designed to benefit the American people and expose people, including young people and people in rural areas, to the benefits of artistic expression, that those things were taken into account.\nThe agency's view, Justice Stevens, is that many people... I know it would be true of me... who go into an evaluative process as to whether something is art, or excellent art, or meritorious art, or art that's... that the Congress can spend taxpayer's money to fund, one of the things you think about is the mode of expression.\nIt can either add to or detract from the merit of the proposal, but it's not irrelevant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [974.166, 977.535, 986.51, 996.198, 998.567, 1019.147, 1043.179], "stop_times": [977.535, 986.51, 996.198, 998.567, 1019.147, 1043.179, 1048.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 974.166}, "reply_to": "21162__0_066", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_068", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "It seems to me you're going to have a hard time persuading me the statute's essentially meaningless, which is basically what you're arguing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1048.75], "stop_times": [1054.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1048.75}, "reply_to": "21162__0_067", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21162__0_069", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Well, we... I feel like I'm here making an argument in support of a... we didn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1054.57], "stop_times": [1058.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1054.57}, "reply_to": "21162__0_068", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_070", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "I have the same problem.\nSuppose the statute said that each and every grant must meet the following standard, and then it set forth the statutory standard, and that each panel member will certify that as to each particular artist whose work has been approved, that this statute has been met, is your position the same?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1058.622, 1060.205], "stop_times": [1060.205, 1080.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1058.622}, "reply_to": "21162__0_069", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21162__0_071", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--In other words, if, instead of having two criteria with considerations, there were four criteria that had... and each thing had to be judged?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1080.285], "stop_times": [1088.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1080.285}, "reply_to": "21162__0_070", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_072", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1088.641], "stop_times": [1089.057], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1088.641}, "reply_to": "21162__0_071", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21162__0_073", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Our position would be twofold.\nOne, because we think that standards of decency, or general standards of decency and respect for diverse values can be defined in a manner that does not take account of viewpoint, that is not viewpoint discriminatory, for that reason the provision would be constitutional.\nAs a fallback, if you didn't... if you thought that it was absolutely unreasonable for the agency to conclude that those provisions couldn't be defined without reference to viewpoint, you would have to then address... we would have to then address the very difficult question that Congress thought in passing this compromise you wouldn't have to address.\nThat is, do we have a statute that establishes independent funding prohibitions that can't be viewed other than as viewpoint discriminatory, and we do acknowledge that that would pose additional First Amendment concerns, but they were concerns that this... that Congress didn't intend that this Court address.\nOne of the reasons... the Congress was told with respect to the Rohrabacher amendment that it may very well be constitutional.\nThere was a big argument among the First Amendment scholarly community, and they very deliberately chose a provision which they thought was going to not embroil the agency in a kind of litigation, endless litigation over its meaning, much the same as the decision that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1089.057, 1090.907, 1108.971, 1128.849, 1147.513, 1153.167], "stop_times": [1090.907, 1108.971, 1128.849, 1147.513, 1153.167, 1168.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1089.057}, "reply_to": "21162__0_072", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_074", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Well, I would think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1168.926], "stop_times": [1169.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1168.926}, "reply_to": "21162__0_073", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21162__0_075", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--If I may just finish... much the same as the decision the Combined Federal Campaign made in the Cornelius case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1169.709], "stop_times": [1175.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1169.709}, "reply_to": "21162__0_074", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_076", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--I would think that most artists would say that they're interested primarily in mode of expression.\nDid Picasso have a viewpoint?\nI think he was more, much more interested in mode of expression.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1175.763, 1180.317, 1181.967], "stop_times": [1180.317, 1181.967, 1184.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1175.763}, "reply_to": "21162__0_075", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21162__0_077", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1184.869], "stop_times": [1185.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1184.869}, "reply_to": "21162__0_076", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_078", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "It seems to me ultimately that's an unstable line you're drawing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1185.721], "stop_times": [1188.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1185.721}, "reply_to": "21162__0_077", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21162__0_079", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Well, I do respectfully disagree to this extent, Justice Kennedy.\nThere is no doubt that in considering the content of a work of art, you consider the subject matter, the medium, the mode of expression, and the viewpoint expressed if it's a kind of art that is expressing a viewpoint, or could be interpreted as expressing a viewpoint.\nThis Court has recognized on several occasions that decency, in the term that it was used in Pacifica, and Denver Area, and Pico, and Bethel, and Kohlmeier is distinct from viewpoint.\nYes, use of indecent speech or controversial speech may very, very well add to or subtract from the force of the message, but it's not the same as viewpoint, and similarly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1188.507, 1192.375, 1210.353, 1224.263], "stop_times": [1192.375, 1210.353, 1224.263, 1236.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1188.507}, "reply_to": "21162__0_078", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_080", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Well, will you help me with some just basic inquiry?\nIf the Federal Government wants to buy artwork to put in the Capitol, I assume it can go out and select works of art that its committee thinks are decent and represent diversity, and can spend the Federal money for that kind of art, and it isn't open to challenge, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1236.154, 1238.856], "stop_times": [1238.856, 1258.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1236.154}, "reply_to": "21162__0_079", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21162__0_081", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Assuredly right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1258.733], "stop_times": [1259.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1258.733}, "reply_to": "21162__0_080", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_082", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Now, if the Government wants to educate children, or people, and chooses to speak by way of paying for certain kind of artistic expression as a means of the Government speaking and educating, and insists on decency and diversity, it can do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1259.602], "stop_times": [1277.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1259.602}, "reply_to": "21162__0_081", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21162__0_083", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "We believe that it can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1277.731], "stop_times": [1279.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1277.731}, "reply_to": "21162__0_082", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_084", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "All right.\nHere, it has a limited amount of money to give away.\nNow, what is it that makes it impossible for the Government to give a limited amount of money away on the same standards?\nIs the Government not speaking?\nI mean, what do we have here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1279.431, 1279.914, 1283.55, 1292.406, 1294.34], "stop_times": [1279.914, 1283.55, 1292.406, 1294.34, 1296.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1279.431}, "reply_to": "21162__0_083", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21162__0_085", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "I will state the obvious and suggest that the question probably would be better answered then my friend Professor Cole, because we don't think that there is any constitutional problem here with this provision.\nI mean, the argument on the other side boils down to the fact that 3 years ago this Court decided, in a context that is wholly different than the one we have here, a case called Rosenberger v. The Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1296.275, 1306.833], "stop_times": [1306.833, 1320.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1296.275}, "reply_to": "21162__0_084", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_086", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "General Waxman, may I suggest that maybe there is something different?\nMaybe if a faithful executive is trying to carry out the legislative will, the message that comes from the whole history of this is, don't fund Serrano or Mapplethorpe.\nI think that that's the concern, and not the Rosenberger v. Rust, or... that, if I am an executive who is trying to be faithful to the legislative will, I know what prompted this, so why don't I say, well, that's my marching orders.\nI know what the legislature didn't want.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1320.891, 1323.224, 1337.066, 1358.314], "stop_times": [1323.224, 1337.066, 1358.314, 1361.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1320.891}, "reply_to": "21162__0_085", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21162__0_087", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Well, I guess I have a couple of answers: 1) a chairperson could have done that.\nChairpersons, as the other side points out, were highly cognizant of political concerns without the enactment of this rather innocuous amendment.\nThat's number 1.\nNumber 2, what the 1990 legislative debate shows is exactly the opposite.\nThe point of view expressed in the Rohrabacher amendment and previously challenged by Representative Biaggi that certain art that is viewpoint discriminatory or denigrates religion or races won't be funded was rejected.\nAnd the legislative history is shot through and through with the fact that what Congress wanted was what the independent commission it had appointed was... had suggested, which is that you change the procedures, you not employ specific content or viewpoint prohibitions, and to the extent you want things like decency to be considered, it be embedded in the subjective, aesthetic judgments about what's meritorious and excellent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1361.432, 1367.169, 1374.525, 1375.358, 1381.095, 1394.939], "stop_times": [1367.169, 1374.525, 1375.358, 1381.095, 1394.939, 1422.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1361.432}, "reply_to": "21162__0_086", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_088", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "General Waxman, I thought your first response to Justice Ginsburg's question was going to be, so what?\nI thought that what you responded to Justice O'Connor was, the Government doesn't have to buy Mapplethorpe pictures to hang up itself, and so also when it funds the arts, it doesn't have to fund Mapplethorpe, and it can say we don't like Mapplethorpe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1422.256, 1427.493], "stop_times": [1427.493, 1443.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1422.256}, "reply_to": "21162__0_087", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21162__0_089", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "I knew that that would... I knew you would support--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1443.503, 1449.489], "stop_times": [1449.489, 1449.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1443.503}, "reply_to": "21162__0_088", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_090", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "You knew I was going to say that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1449.956], "stop_times": [1450.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1449.956}, "reply_to": "21162__0_089", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21162__0_091", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "May I reserve the balance of my time for rebuttal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1450.775], "stop_times": [1454.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1450.775}, "reply_to": "21162__0_090", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_092", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "But why isn't he right?\nWhy isn't he right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1454.477, 1455.177], "stop_times": [1455.177, 1455.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1454.477}, "reply_to": "21162__0_091", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21162__0_093", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1455.993], "stop_times": [1457.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1455.993}, "reply_to": "21162__0_092", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_094", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "I mean, does the Government have to or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1457.179], "stop_times": [1459.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1457.179}, "reply_to": "21162__0_093", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21162__0_095", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Well, if you're talking about... if we're talking about whether Congress can say, okay, the NEA is going to apply the following standards but it's not going to fund Robert Mapplethorpe, that raises many different constitutional concerns that don't have... in other words, going to single out one particular person, at that point may violate... it would have to be scrutinized under, for example, the Due Process Clause as to whether there is a rational basis--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1459.631], "stop_times": [1483.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1459.631}, "reply_to": "21162__0_094", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_096", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Well, is it constitutionally principled for the Government to do this by a wink-wink, nudge-nudge--\n[Laughter]\n--approach, which is what you're suggesting, that they pass a statute which is really meaningless, but everybody knows what it means?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1483.33, 1495.22, 1488.281], "stop_times": [1495.22, 1488.281, 1495.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1483.33}, "reply_to": "21162__0_095", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21162__0_097", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--That's... that is not... that's not, Justice Kennedy, what we're suggesting was done here.\nWhat was done... this is... almost a year ago to the day I was up here arguing the constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act, which was an act that Congress passed without any hearings and without any debate, and without hearing anybody's views, and was just stuck in on the floor in a rather quick attempt to deal with a serious problem.\nIn this case, Congress did just the opposite, and it rejected the kind of provision for... whether it had to or didn't have to, it rejected as more First-Amendment controversial the Rohrabacher provision that had been urged.\nIt--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1495.687, 1499.672, 1520.003, 1534.929], "stop_times": [1499.672, 1520.003, 1534.929, 1535.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1495.687}, "reply_to": "21162__0_096", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_098", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "But you assume that that's unconstitutional.\nWhat if Congress doesn't name names?\nIt just says, no crucifixes in urine.\nCan it say that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1535.462, 1537.464, 1538.764, 1540.766], "stop_times": [1537.464, 1538.764, 1540.766, 1541.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1535.462}, "reply_to": "21162__0_097", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21162__0_099", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--I... Justice Scalia, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1541.466], "stop_times": [1542.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1541.466}, "reply_to": "21162__0_098", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_100", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Can it say that?\nIt doesn't name any names.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1542.966, 1543.332], "stop_times": [1543.332, 1544.182], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1542.966}, "reply_to": "21162__0_099", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21162__0_101", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Justice Scalia, I am not assuming... I'm not standing up here arguing that it would be unconstitutional.\nI think it may well be that in the unique circumstances of public arts funding, unlike the very different context in Rosenberger, viewpoint distinctions may be constitutionally defensible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1544.182, 1549.036], "stop_times": [1549.036, 1562.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1544.182}, "reply_to": "21162__0_100", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_102", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "So you in effect are saying, I'm not going to rest my argument on the claim that the Government is hiring anyone to speak here, or that what it's doing bears an analogy to that, or that in fact the Government is buying art, or that it bears an analogy to that.\nYou're really saying there's a third rule, the Government... the Government as distributor of largesse to the arts, and that, that's a third rule, but you're not saying that the Government is either the speaker or the buyer, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1562.295, 1576.019], "stop_times": [1576.019, 1591.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1562.295}, "reply_to": "21162__0_101", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21162__0_103", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Well, I think the Government is the buyer.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1591.046, 1592.898], "stop_times": [1592.898, 1593.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1591.046}, "reply_to": "21162__0_102", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_104", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "What's it buying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1593.665], "stop_times": [1594.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1593.665}, "reply_to": "21162__0_103", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21162__0_105", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--It's buying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1594.248], "stop_times": [1594.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1594.248}, "reply_to": "21162__0_104", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_106", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "What does it own, when it... after the grant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1594.767], "stop_times": [1596.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1594.767}, "reply_to": "21162__0_105", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21162__0_107", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--This... I think this is a distinction without a difference to our argument, but it is... in fact it's behaving as Governments and sovereigns as arts patrons always have.\nWhen the Medicis--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1596.65, 1606.99], "stop_times": [1606.99, 1608.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1596.65}, "reply_to": "21162__0_106", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_108", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Yes, but the King ended up with the picture.\nThe Government is not ending up with the picture.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1608.207, 1610.026], "stop_times": [1610.026, 1611.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1608.207}, "reply_to": "21162__0_107", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21162__0_109", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--The King did not necessarily end up with the picture.\nThe Medicis, for example, funded art that was placed in... all over their realm.\nThe same people who funded and allowed to flourish the great university, that forum, that community where free and uninhibited expression of debate and views occurred, were also arts patrons, and they bought and funded what they liked.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1611.792, 1613.978, 1618.632], "stop_times": [1613.978, 1618.632, 1634.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1611.792}, "reply_to": "21162__0_108", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_110", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Okay, then you are saying there is an art patrons rule.\nI take it you're not hitching your argument either to the claim that the Government is buying, or the claim that the Government... what is my--\n--Is speaking.\nIs itself the speaker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1634.142, 1637.527, 1649.317, 1650.234], "stop_times": [1637.527, 1649.317, 1650.234, 1652.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1634.142}, "reply_to": "21162__0_109", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21162__0_111", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Well, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1652.019], "stop_times": [1652.869], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1652.019}, "reply_to": "21162__0_110", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_112", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Is hiring its speaker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1652.869], "stop_times": [1653.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1652.869}, "reply_to": "21162__0_111", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21162__0_113", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Yes.\nTo the... if you're asking whether we're suggesting that there is something unique, particularly unique about the Government funding of the arts for First Amendment purposes, the answer is yes, and for a variety of reasons.\nFor one thing, and most critically, this is an area in which Government decisionmakers are expected and required to make precisely the kind of aesthetic judgments which are subjective and may take content and viewpoint into account, and which the Government is ordinarily prohibited from doing.\nIt's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1653.553, 1654.055, 1664.911, 1682.206], "stop_times": [1654.055, 1664.911, 1682.206, 1682.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1653.553}, "reply_to": "21162__0_112", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_114", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Why are they required, when they're not required to do this at all?\nWhy is the Government required, when the Government is not required, in fact, to fund the arts at all?\nWhere does the requirement come from?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1682.939, 1685.407, 1692.227], "stop_times": [1685.407, 1692.227, 1693.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1682.939}, "reply_to": "21162__0_113", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21162__0_115", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Unless you have a program, Justice Souter, in which the NEA is simply disestablished because of a belief that the First Amendment wouldn't permit funding of the arts, or unless you can set up a program where, you know, the proposals that were on the thickest paper, or the ones that came in, you know, first, were granted, inevitably the decisionmaker is going to be making the kind of aesthetic judgments that, for example, were not permitted in Ward v. Rock Against Racism.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1693.744, 1723.347], "stop_times": [1723.347, 1724.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1693.744}, "reply_to": "21162__0_114", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21162__0_116", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Thank you, General Waxman.\nMr. Cole, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1724.199, 1724.649], "stop_times": [1724.649, 1726.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1724.199}, "reply_to": "21162__0_115", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21162__1_000", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nAs the Government concedes, this is not a case about Government speech.\nIt's not a case about the Government hiring artists to express a Government message.\nRather, it's a case about the Government selectively subsidizing private speakers speaking for themselves, and in that setting two fundamental First Amendment principles apply, and the decency and respect clause violates both.\nFirst, the Government subsidies must be viewpoint neutral.\nThis Court has held that in Lamb's Chapel, in Rosenberger, in Cornelius.\nSecond--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1726.734, 1739.042, 1743.01, 1747.046, 1759.456, 1763.008, 1767.876], "stop_times": [1739.042, 1743.01, 1747.046, 1759.456, 1763.008, 1767.876, 1768.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1726.734}, "reply_to": "21162__0_116", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_001", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Rosenberger was quite different from this, Mr. Cole.\nThere were just a number of... everybody was going to get something in Rosenberger except the people who wanted to do something religious.\nHere, the Government doesn't purport to say we're going to give grants to everybody that wants it.\nThere's a definite degree of selectivity involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1768.511, 1771.513, 1779.417, 1783.737], "stop_times": [1771.513, 1779.417, 1783.737, 1786.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1768.511}, "reply_to": "21162__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21162__1_002", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--There is a degree of selectivity involved here but there was also, Chief Justice Rehnquist, a degree of selectivity in Rosenberger.\nApproximately 9 of 10 applicants were funded in Rosenberger.\nApproximately 2 of 7 applicants to the NEA are granted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1786.123, 1791.843, 1795.712], "stop_times": [1791.843, 1795.712, 1799.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1786.123}, "reply_to": "21162__1_001", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_003", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Well, that's quite different, I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1799.331], "stop_times": [1800.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1799.331}, "reply_to": "21162__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21162__1_004", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Well, I don't think it makes a constitutional difference, and I think when you look at Rosenberger what Rosenberger... what the University of Virginia did was, they said we will fund not any student activity that comes to us, but any student activity that is related to the educational purposes of the university, so they were selective.\nThey were making a content--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1800.164, 1814.691], "stop_times": [1814.691, 1815.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1800.164}, "reply_to": "21162__1_003", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_005", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Yes, but I think the Chief Justice is correct in making the distinction.\nThere were no aesthetic judgments to be made.\nThere were no subjective judgments to be made.\nIf you were a student newspaper you fell within the program.\nThat was it.\nAnd I think your statistical analysis is misleading, because NEA statistics are that they have only so many funds and they base it on aesthetics.\nThe only reason there were rejections in Rosenberger was, they just didn't... they weren't the kind of newspapers that were under the program.\nSo I think the Chief Justice is correct in the distinction he makes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1815.991, 1819.309, 1822.244, 1824.946, 1827.481, 1828.181, 1840.122, 1846.36], "stop_times": [1819.309, 1822.244, 1824.946, 1827.481, 1828.181, 1840.122, 1846.36, 1849.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1815.991}, "reply_to": "21162__1_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21162__1_006", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Well, I'm not sure, Justice Kennedy, whether there's a distinction between a Government agency which makes judgments about educational purpose and allocates funds selectively on that basis, or academic merit, which is what public universities do in hiring, and the NEA, which makes judgments base on artistic merit.\nAll of those programs are selective.\nThey take into account consent.\nBut what this Court has said is that you cannot, when subsidizing private speakers, when the Government is not speaking itself you cannot engage in viewpoint bias, and the decency--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1849.245, 1866.856, 1869.058, 1871.343], "stop_times": [1866.856, 1869.058, 1871.343, 1883.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1849.245}, "reply_to": "21162__1_005", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_007", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Mr. Cole, may I suggest that one is a prize or an award, and there really is a difference between a student activity fund that if you're not social and you're engaged in some respectable student activity you get it, and an award, a prize, a grant that is highly selective, and so I quite agree, and I don't think that you can maintain that this is just like Rosenberger, just like a bulletin board, anybody can put up their names or draw from that pot except certain people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1883.401], "stop_times": [1911.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1883.401}, "reply_to": "21162__1_006", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21162__1_008", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Okay.\nWell, Justice Ginsburg, I don't think that the Rosenberger case would have come out differently if the University of Virginia had a limited pot of funds and it said, based on that limited pot of funds we're going to give funding to those groups which best further the educational purpose of the university, and they... it turned out they gave them out to 2 of 7 applicants, but they excluded religious groups, groups with religious perspectives.\nThat would still be an exclusion based upon viewpoint, which would be impermissible, and I don't think the case would have come out differently if it 2 of 7.\nThe Court in Rosenberger said scarcity is not a justification for viewpoint discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1911.651, 1912.068, 1934.583, 1941.07], "stop_times": [1912.068, 1934.583, 1941.07, 1945.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1911.651}, "reply_to": "21162__1_007", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_009", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "You're a better predictor than I am.\nI'm not at all sure it wouldn't have come out differently.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1945.224, 1945.891], "stop_times": [1945.891, 1947.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1945.224}, "reply_to": "21162__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21162__1_010", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Well, you were in the majority, so you're a better predictor than I am, I'm sure.\n[Laughter]\nBut I don't think it should come--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1947.991, 1951.795, 1952.311], "stop_times": [1951.795, 1952.311, 1954.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1947.991}, "reply_to": "21162__1_009", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_011", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "My record's not too good.\nI wouldn't--\n[Laughter]\nI wouldn't give up too easily.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1954.58, 1955.53, 1955.98, 1956.647], "stop_times": [1955.53, 1955.98, 1956.647, 1958.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1954.58}, "reply_to": "21162__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21162__1_012", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--I guess... I think what's important is that it shouldn't come out differently, and here's why.\nWhat Rosenberger recognized is that there's a very big difference between the Government speaking for itself, where it can make viewpoint decisions, as in Rust, and where the Government is facilitating private expression.\nWhy is that an important distinction?\nI think that's an important distinction because there's a very big difference between the Government participating in the marketplace with the power of its ideas on the one hand and the Government engaging in a kind of deceptive ventriloquism in which it says it's funding a broad range of private expression, but then it uses viewpoint-based criteria to exclude--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1958.032, 1962.853, 1975.243, 1976.493], "stop_times": [1962.853, 1975.243, 1976.493, 1994.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1958.032}, "reply_to": "21162__1_011", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_013", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Well, I'm not sure that decency or indecency is viewpoint-based.\nI'm not sure it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [1994.638, 1998.859], "stop_times": [1998.859, 2000.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1994.638}, "reply_to": "21162__1_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21162__1_014", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Well, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2000.976], "stop_times": [2001.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2000.976}, "reply_to": "21162__1_013", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_015", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "I'm not sure that respect is a viewpoint-based thing, or diversity.\nI don't even know what this is, and you've got some kind of a facial challenge here, I gather.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2001.978, 2007.982], "stop_times": [2007.982, 2014.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2001.978}, "reply_to": "21162__1_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21162__1_016", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Right.\nWell, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2014.701, 2015.051], "stop_times": [2015.051, 2015.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2014.701}, "reply_to": "21162__1_015", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_017", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "And I'd be interested for you to also pursue whether we have an Article III case at all here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2015.617], "stop_times": [2022.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2015.617}, "reply_to": "21162__1_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21162__1_018", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Okay.\nAll right.\nWell, I'll answer your questions in turn, Justice O'Connor.\nFirst, decency and respect are inherently, as they are used in this statute, viewpoint-based.\nIt's common definition of decency is conformity to accepted standards of morality.\nThat's what this Court said in Pacifica, conformity to accepted standards of morality.\nWhether something conforms or not is a viewpoint distinction.\nThe same subject matter, if it's treated in a way that conforms to accepted standards of morality, is permitted.\nIf it's treated through a viewpoint that does not, it is not.\nThe same with respect.\nThe respect clause requires respect of American beliefs and values.\nIf you are disrespectful of American beliefs and values, you are disadvantaged.\nIf you are respectful, you are advantaged.\nThat... the Court in Rosenberger said the way you distinguish viewpoint--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2022.621, 2022.921, 2023.405, 2025.823, 2032.393, 2036.595, 2040.749, 2044.285, 2049.521, 2052.806, 2053.723, 2058.46, 2061.411, 2063.411], "stop_times": [2022.921, 2023.405, 2025.823, 2032.393, 2036.595, 2040.749, 2044.285, 2049.521, 2052.806, 2053.723, 2058.46, 2061.411, 2063.411, 2066.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2022.621}, "reply_to": "21162__1_017", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_019", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "All right.\nYou don't argue here that somehow the Government has created some kind of a public forum, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2066.864, 2067.08], "stop_times": [2067.08, 2072.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2066.864}, "reply_to": "21162__1_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21162__1_020", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Well, in essence that's what the NEA says.\nThe NEA says that the arts funding--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2072.518, 2074.768], "stop_times": [2074.768, 2077.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2072.518}, "reply_to": "21162__1_019", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_021", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "I didn't hear that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2077.32], "stop_times": [2078.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2077.32}, "reply_to": "21162__1_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21162__1_022", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Well, they say in their mission statement, and it's cited in the record, that they create a national forum for the exchange of ideas by creating, as is set forth in the statute, a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2078.07], "stop_times": [2088.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2078.07}, "reply_to": "21162__1_021", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_023", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Well, I'm talking about a public forum in the sense that this Court had used it.\nDo you take the position and rely on some kind of forum analysis, then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2088.175, 2092.46], "stop_times": [2092.46, 2097.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2088.175}, "reply_to": "21162__1_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21162__1_024", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Well, I think under forum analysis we win.\nI think under forum analysis, as this Court has said, even if you conclude that it's a nonpublic forum--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2097.947, 2099.483], "stop_times": [2099.483, 2104.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2097.947}, "reply_to": "21162__1_023", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_025", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "That doesn't answer the question.\nDo you take the position that this funding program creates some kind of public forum?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2104.201, 2105.22], "stop_times": [2105.22, 2110.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2104.201}, "reply_to": "21162__1_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21162__1_026", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2110.522], "stop_times": [2111.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2110.522}, "reply_to": "21162__1_025", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_027", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Yes or no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2111.207], "stop_times": [2111.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2111.207}, "reply_to": "21162__1_026", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21162__1_028", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--We take the position that whether it does or not we prevail because this Court has held that even in a nonpublic forum viewpoint neutrality is required and vagueness is not permitted, and these criteria are both viewpoint-based and vague.\nIf I could address your standing question and Justice Kennedy's standing question for a moment, I think City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing clearly establishes that there is standing here.\nIn Plain Dealer... in that case, the Court held that there was standing to bring a facial challenge by a newspaper who sought access to a benefit for speech, access to news boxes.\nThere was no requirement that the city give out news boxes, but they had given a Government official unbridled discretion in how to give them out, and the Court held in that case that the chill from unbridled discretion statutes and the allocation of benefits to speech... no entitlement, benefits to speech... can be alleviated only through a facial challenge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2111.924, 2126.049, 2136.072, 2146.63], "stop_times": [2126.049, 2136.072, 2146.63, 2168.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2111.924}, "reply_to": "21162__1_027", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_029", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "I think I would agree with you if the agency here were applying the law the way you interpret it and the way the lower courts interpret it, but I do find it strange that where you have a law which, however unrealistic the interpretation may be, the agency says, we're interpreting it in such a way that we will fund Mapplethorpe and everything else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2168.376], "stop_times": [2190.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2168.376}, "reply_to": "21162__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21162__1_030", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2190.124], "stop_times": [2191.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2190.124}, "reply_to": "21162__1_029", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_031", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Now, that may be wrong.\nI don't know how anybody on the other side of this issue could compel the agency to do it right, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2191.909, 2193.259], "stop_times": [2193.259, 2199.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2191.909}, "reply_to": "21162__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21162__1_032", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Well, it certainly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2199.146], "stop_times": [2199.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2199.146}, "reply_to": "21162__1_031", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_033", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--But why did that hurt you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2199.682], "stop_times": [2200.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2199.682}, "reply_to": "21162__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21162__1_034", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Well, it hurts us for the following reason, Justice Scalia.\nThe Government has been quite ambiguous about its statutory construction, and what it has said is that the statutory construction it is advancing to this Court today is the same statutory construction that they applied for the year-and-a-half before the statute was declared unconstitutional, so let's look at what they did for the year-and-a-half before the Court struck it down.\nThey instructed each panelist to bring their own standards of decency to the table in making these decisions.\nThey went to each panel, they read them the statute, they said the statute says that you must consider artistic excellence and artistic merit, taking into consideration general standards of decency--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2200.398, 2204.634, 2225.88, 2233.419], "stop_times": [2204.634, 2225.88, 2233.419, 2240.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2200.398}, "reply_to": "21162__1_033", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_035", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Mr. Cole, may I stop you just for a moment, because it sounds like you are veering away from a case that would be fit for summary judgment, which is what this was.\nI take it there would be some dispute about what went on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2240.823, 2247.745], "stop_times": [2247.745, 2251.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2240.823}, "reply_to": "21162__1_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21162__1_036", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2251.547], "stop_times": [2252.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2251.547}, "reply_to": "21162__1_035", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_037", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "There was no hearing about that, to develop that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2252.08], "stop_times": [2254.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2252.08}, "reply_to": "21162__1_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21162__1_038", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--I don't think there's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2254.332], "stop_times": [2255.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2254.332}, "reply_to": "21162__1_037", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_039", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "The Government... you're making assertions today.\nI would certainly be interested to find out what the Government's position is on it, but I thought we're dealing with a ruling as a matter of law and that we take the Government's position of what they say this statute means.\nThat's what they say the statute means, and that's what they're enforcing.\nThat's what they represented to this Court, and to say no, they're not telling you the truth about what standard they're applying is quite a charge to make.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2255.082, 2259.22, 2272.361, 2274.98], "stop_times": [2259.22, 2272.361, 2274.98, 2284.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2255.082}, "reply_to": "21162__1_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21162__1_040", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, all I can say is the record is very clear.\nThe reason that it was a summary judgment is that there was no dispute about this.\nThe... Chairman Frohnmayer testified before Congress, was asked, how do you take into consideration general standards of decency?\nHe said, well, I can't... I'm going to read.\nHe said, no one individual is wise enough to be able to consider general standards of decency and the diverse beliefs and values of the American public all by his or herself.\nThese are group decisions.\nThey are made by the National Council on the Arts as well as the panelists.\nNow, if the chair was making decisions about decency in selecting panels, he wouldn't say these are group decisions made by the Council on the Arts as well as the panelists.\nHe was then asked, what happens if you get--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2284.002, 2287.621, 2291.191, 2298.511, 2300.761, 2309.033, 2310.735, 2314.621, 2323.892], "stop_times": [2287.621, 2291.191, 2298.511, 2300.761, 2309.033, 2310.735, 2314.621, 2323.892, 2326.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2284.002}, "reply_to": "21162__1_039", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_041", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "He was the chairman of the NEA at the time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2326.328], "stop_times": [2327.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2326.328}, "reply_to": "21162__1_040", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21162__1_042", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--He was the Chair... yes, Chief Justice Rehnquist, he was the Chair at the time that the statute was being enforced.\nHe as then asked, well, what would you do... are you advocating your responsibility in applying this statute?\nWhat would you do if something came up to you and it was indecent or disrespectful?\nHe said, I would send it back to the panels and the council if I thought they made a mistake.\nSo he's saying, I'll look at decency to make sure that they've not made a mistake.\nThe next Chair, who was also enforcing the statute before it was struck down, Ms. Radice, testified in Congress that she would be happy to and would apply decency to the grant-making process.\nSo I think you have to look... at this Court said in Forsyth County, in a facial challenge you have to look at how the agency has in fact applied the statute.\nThere's no dispute about it.\nAnd they're quite vague, actually, in this Court in what they say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2327.911, 2332.665, 2337.886, 2341.504, 2346.242, 2350.46, 2361.751, 2370.107, 2371.173], "stop_times": [2332.665, 2337.886, 2341.504, 2346.242, 2350.46, 2361.751, 2370.107, 2371.173, 2375.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2327.911}, "reply_to": "21162__1_041", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_043", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "They're quite vague about how they apply it, I agree with that, but I also found right in the record what the Solicitor General just quoted was there, on page 33, the instructions that they give, so if you have an... I assume you don't object to that as a correct... my basic question is, given the uncertainty that you... you started with a premise, and if I accept that premise a lot flows.\nYou said, all they're doing is subsidizing private views here, but in looking at the endowment charter it sounds as if they have a lot they do.\nIt talks about education.\nIt talks about grants to schools.\nIt talks about workshops.\nIt talks about teaching children.\nIt talks about a whole host of things that aren't simply that that could include giving money to somebody to teach art in the public school grade 4, that could include having a television program on Sesame Street... dozens of things, all right.\nIs... am I accurate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2375.075, 2396.508, 2403.328, 2404.444, 2406.446, 2408.398, 2410.684, 2426.444], "stop_times": [2396.508, 2403.328, 2404.444, 2406.446, 2408.398, 2410.684, 2426.444, 2427.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2375.075}, "reply_to": "21162__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21162__1_044", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2427.277], "stop_times": [2428.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2427.277}, "reply_to": "21162__1_043", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_045", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "All right.\nWell, if I'm accurate, how can you have a facial challenge no matter how you interpret indecency, because after all there are some important uses where the most tough definition would apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2428.077, 2428.646], "stop_times": [2428.646, 2438.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2428.077}, "reply_to": "21162__1_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21162__1_046", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Well, Justice Breyer, two points with respect to that.\nFirst of all, I think you have to look at the breadth of the statute.\nThis statute does not say, take into consideration decency where children are involved.\nIt requires the agency to take into consideration standards of decency and American beliefs and values in every application decision.\nSecondly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2438.502, 2444.738, 2448.94, 2449.106, 2458.462], "stop_times": [2444.738, 2448.94, 2449.106, 2458.462, 2459.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2438.502}, "reply_to": "21162__1_045", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_047", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Well, we've said you can't bring a facial challenge if any part of the statute can be constitutionally applied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2459.312], "stop_times": [2467.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2459.312}, "reply_to": "21162__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21162__1_048", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--And our position is that this statute is unconstitutional because it is viewpoint-based, it uses a viewpoint-based criteria... it would... it would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2467.067], "stop_times": [2476.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2467.067}, "reply_to": "21162__1_047", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_049", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "If you say it could be... the language could be applied where children were involved, you lose your facial challenge there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2476.09], "stop_times": [2481.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2476.09}, "reply_to": "21162__1_048", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21162__1_050", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--I don't think it could be applied where children... but what the Court could do in a... what the agency could do is decide whether a particular application was suitable for children, but an application could be suitable or unsuitable for children for all sorts of ways that don't have to do with viewpoint.\nWhat's problematic about this statute is, it singles out art precisely because it has a nonconforming or disrespectful viewpoint and, as this Court has said, even when the Government is allocating subsidies, if it's doing it to private speakers it can't skew the marketplace by attempting to impost that kind of ideological screen.\nI think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2481.427, 2496.853, 2514.731], "stop_times": [2496.853, 2514.731, 2515.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2481.427}, "reply_to": "21162__1_049", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_051", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "No, that wasn't my question.\nMy question was basically, you're making a facial challenge.\nI don't see it says all, not in my version it doesn't say all, and as long as there... the problem in my mind, for you, is I can easily think of some... some instances of importance in the life of the NEA where it would be obviously appropriate or lawful to take into account even tough standards of decency, and the other problem for you is, I don't know what the word decency means.\nIt... there's certainly a sense of decency, a sense of it, in which no work of art that is good could be indecent.\nIt's very hard for me to think, if I think of that sense, that a great work of art is also an indecent work.\nI can't think of one.\nSo since we don't know either the... let's call it the horizontal meaning, or the vertical application, how can we now strike the statute down on its face?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2515.581, 2517.35, 2521.052, 2547.453, 2555.558, 2562.629, 2563.612], "stop_times": [2517.35, 2521.052, 2547.453, 2555.558, 2562.629, 2563.612, 2575.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2515.581}, "reply_to": "21162__1_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21162__1_052", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, in the Lakewood case the Government came forward and said certainly there would be appropriate considerations that the mayor could use in deciding how to allocate these benefits to speech.\nThe Court said that is not permissible to defeat a statute which is vague and gives the agency--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2575.537, 2588.445], "stop_times": [2588.445, 2594.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2575.537}, "reply_to": "21162__1_051", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_053", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Well then, should we also strike down the entire NEA, because at the very beginning of it, after all, there is at the very beginning all kinds of language about how this has to be done with general regard for taxpayer sensibilities, and do we have to strike down the FCC statute because the FCC says award licenses in the public interest, which has been plainly interpreted to give the FCC power to do all kinds of restrictions in the area of indecency.\nI mean, there are lots of statutes on the statute books that have general language that might be interpreted by an agency to censor in accordance with viewpoints, but the agency doesn't do it.\nCorrectly so.\nDo you see my point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2594.932, 2624.768, 2637.527, 2638.96], "stop_times": [2624.768, 2637.527, 2638.96, 2641.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2594.932}, "reply_to": "21162__1_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21162__1_054", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2641.645], "stop_times": [2642.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2641.645}, "reply_to": "21162__1_053", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_055", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "My question is, why should we not give them the same presumption we give to every other agency?\nThey'll do it properly, we assume, until they don't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2642.112, 2646.197], "stop_times": [2646.197, 2648.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2642.112}, "reply_to": "21162__1_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21162__1_056", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Well, first of all they did it, and you can see how they did it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2648.299], "stop_times": [2651.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2648.299}, "reply_to": "21162__1_055", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_057", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "The client got the grant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2651.251], "stop_times": [2652.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2651.251}, "reply_to": "21162__1_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21162__1_058", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--The client... the way that this statute... the way that this statute was enforced, they never issue a decision saying, you're denied because of indecency.\nWe... I represent the National Association of Artists' Organizations, which represents 500 arts institutions and individuals who have regularly applied for, are denied funding by the NEA.\nWhat the... the claim is that the application of such open-ended criteria to an applicant creates a chill which, as this Court held in Lakewood, requires a facial challenge, and you can't sit back and let that chill affect artists' speech in the meantime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2652.068, 2662.643, 2672.165], "stop_times": [2662.643, 2672.165, 2687.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2652.068}, "reply_to": "21162__1_057", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_059", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "And that would be so no matter how the agency itself is interpreting the statute, because you claim that the possibility of interpreting it to mean what it says is substantial enough that artists who are developing projects are not likely to develop projects that would offend--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2687.174], "stop_times": [2702.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2687.174}, "reply_to": "21162__1_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21162__1_060", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2702.284], "stop_times": [2702.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2702.284}, "reply_to": "21162__1_059", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_061", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--the statute as it's written?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2702.636], "stop_times": [2703.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2702.636}, "reply_to": "21162__1_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21162__1_062", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Well, I think certainly it applies here, where the agency did apply it in a way that was chilling.\nThe language does not permit an--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2703.303, 2707.938], "stop_times": [2707.938, 2709.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2703.303}, "reply_to": "21162__1_061", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_063", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Let's assume the agency didn't, because I think that's going to be a very controverted proposition that wouldn't justify a summary judgment.\nLet's assume that the agency has not interpreted it in such a way that there's any constitutional violation of the sort you allege, but let's also assume that you claim that in doing it that way, they are not complying with the proper interpretation of the statute, all right.\nWould you not still make the argument that since the statute says something different from what they're doing, our First Amendment cases, which allow challenges of a much broader scope than in other fields, would enable your clients to say that they are being deterred from developing indecent artistic programs by the statute that's staring them in the face, even though today the agency has said, well, we're going to ignore it?\nIsn't that your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2709.873, 2716.111, 2734.005, 2762.341], "stop_times": [2716.111, 2734.005, 2762.341, 2764.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2709.873}, "reply_to": "21162__1_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21162__1_064", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Well, that is... that is... we would make that claim, but we would also make the claim, Justice Scalia, that the Government itself took... has taken the position in this litigation that the statute is indeterminate, and no one can guess how the chairperson might implement the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2764.124], "stop_times": [2778.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2764.124}, "reply_to": "21162__1_063", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_065", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "If you take Justice... if you answer yes to Justice Scalia, then you're just sticking pins into yourself, basically.\nYou're saying that things are all right now, but if they really opened up on this thing, they might be worse later.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2778.534, 2783.855], "stop_times": [2783.855, 2790.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2778.534}, "reply_to": "21162__1_064", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21162__1_066", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "No, I'm not saying that, Chief Justice Rehnquist.\nI'm saying if that were the case, but that is not the case, as the record makes absolutely clear, and secondly, I'm saying that even... even if the agency were somehow able to read a statute which says, decency and respect must be considered, to say decency and respect will not be considered, the agency can't do that.\nThe statute simply cannot be read in that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2790.842, 2792.527, 2814.457], "stop_times": [2792.527, 2814.457, 2817.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2790.842}, "reply_to": "21162__1_065", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_067", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Now, I don't know why you've run away from this.\nSuppose you had a municipal office that issues parade permits, and it sets forth criteria that are plainly discriminatory.\nIt says, we won't allow parades by this group, that group and the other group, and plainly unconstitutional, but the agency in fact says, well, that's what it says, but we don't really apply these regulations that way, you'd have a First Amendment claim to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2817.142, 2818.844, 2828.55], "stop_times": [2818.844, 2828.55, 2843.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2817.142}, "reply_to": "21162__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21162__1_068", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2843.309], "stop_times": [2843.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2843.309}, "reply_to": "21162__1_067", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_069", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--to challenge the regulation as written, wouldn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2843.876], "stop_times": [2844.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2843.876}, "reply_to": "21162__1_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21162__1_070", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "That's right.\nAll I'm suggesting in response to Chief Justice Rehnquist is that is not the facts of this case, but yes, we would have a claim, and I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2844.995, 2845.378], "stop_times": [2845.378, 2851.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2844.995}, "reply_to": "21162__1_069", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_071", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Now, is it the case, just to go to the merits for a second, and I'm only asking these questions in order to get your response, say, if, in fact the NEA wants to give a grant for somebody to produce something that's public work, and suppose what they do is a white supremacist group, and they want to have racial epithets all over the picture, and the NEA says we think that's an inappropriate use of this money, in your opinion is that... and we can imagine the most... imagine the most horrible ones you can possibly think of, all right, and they say, the person gets up there and he says, I'm a member of the Ku Klux Klan, or whatever, and this is my point of view, and is it your view that the Constitution requires the NEA to fund that, that particular applicant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2851.982], "stop_times": [2898.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2851.982}, "reply_to": "21162__1_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21162__1_072", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Well, Justice Breyer, the Constitution doesn't require the NEA to fund anybody.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2898.63], "stop_times": [2902.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2898.63}, "reply_to": "21162__1_071", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_073", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "No, no... no, I'm sorry.\nEverything else being equal, what the person says, I'm taking you at your... you know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2902.748, 2903.598], "stop_times": [2903.598, 2908.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2902.748}, "reply_to": "21162__1_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21162__1_074", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2908.069], "stop_times": [2908.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2908.069}, "reply_to": "21162__1_073", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_075", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Tough, for... take... everything you say is correct, and then we get to this point, and the panel's sitting there and saying, you know, I grant you it's as good a work of art as anything else, purely artistically, but I don't think that this particular work of art is appropriate for a school, for a public place, for a television program.\nAnd then the hardest case, you know, which you're most likely to say yes, that's... I agree with you, but it's unconstitutional, just because what this person wants to do is go and exhibit it at a lot workshops.\nNow, what's your view on that, on the merits of that constitutional question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2908.719, 2925.963, 2935.053], "stop_times": [2925.963, 2935.053, 2939.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2908.719}, "reply_to": "21162__1_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21162__1_076", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Our position, Justice Breyer, is that it is unconstitutional for the Government to set up the funding program to fund private speech broadly and then to exclude recipients based on their viewpoint.\nNow, a... the examples you gave might be denied funding for all sorts of reasons, but if it is denied because of disapproval of the viewpoint, that is what this Court has said the paradigmatic First Amendment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2939.623, 2951.431], "stop_times": [2951.431, 2966.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2939.623}, "reply_to": "21162__1_075", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_077", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "So do we have to distribute, or exhibit it in the courthouse?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2966.524], "stop_times": [2970.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2966.524}, "reply_to": "21162__1_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21162__1_078", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--No, because then you're engaged in Government speech.\nOf course, the Government in making decisions about its own aesthetic spaces--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2970.226, 2972.844], "stop_times": [2972.844, 2977.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2970.226}, "reply_to": "21162__1_077", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_079", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "If it's a program... I have that.\nIf it's a program for a school.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2977.23, 2979.415], "stop_times": [2979.415, 2980.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2977.23}, "reply_to": "21162__1_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21162__1_080", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--If it's a program for a school, I think it's appropriate to consider what is suitable for children.\nI don't think it's appropriate to use viewpoint as a proxy for suitability for children.\nSuitability for children could take into account all sorts of... all sorts of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2980.332, 2984.902, 2990.556], "stop_times": [2984.902, 2990.556, 2993.592], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2980.332}, "reply_to": "21162__1_079", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_081", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "So they have to exhibit my example in the school.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2993.592], "stop_times": [2996.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2993.592}, "reply_to": "21162__1_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21162__1_082", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--No.\nIf... if the reason that they have... well, let me step back for one moment.\nFirst, if the reason is that they disapprove of the viewpoint that's problematic generally.\nIn the school setting... in the school setting this court has recognized that there's a legitimate inculcative role that the school board plays, and can therefore make all kinds of viewpoint... it is engaged in Government speech, but the NEA... this is not... this is a... the breadth of this statute I think distinguishes it from anything like that, and this is kind of like Romer.\nYou could imagine a situation in which it would be appropriate or not unconstitutional to deny civil rights protections to gays and lesbians, but the breadth of the statute, the application of it across the board--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [2996.46, 2997.044, 3003.048, 3007.434, 3026.746], "stop_times": [2997.044, 3003.048, 3007.434, 3026.746, 3039.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2996.46}, "reply_to": "21162__1_081", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_083", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Well then... then... I take it then that you would say that if general standards of decency were left out of the statute so the statute read, NEA must take into consideration respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American people, same problem, unconstitutional viewpoint?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [3039.906], "stop_times": [3056.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3039.906}, "reply_to": "21162__1_082", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21162__1_084", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Well, I think they have to bread together, Your Honor, in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [3056.265], "stop_times": [3059.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3056.265}, "reply_to": "21162__1_083", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_085", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "No.\nMy hypothetical is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [3059.95, 3060.167], "stop_times": [3060.167, 3060.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3059.95}, "reply_to": "21162__1_084", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21162__1_086", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Okay.\nI'm--\n[Laughter]\nOn your hypothetical... on your hypothetical, Justice Kennedy, if what it means is that it is favoring those artistic expressions which are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [3060.902, 3061.302, 3061.852, 3062.369], "stop_times": [3061.302, 3061.852, 3062.369, 3071.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3060.902}, "reply_to": "21162__1_085", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_087", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--But that's the problem, what it means, that... and that's... the Government tells us, this is what it means, and you say no, it can't mean that, and two courts have said it can't mean that.\nAnd yet the Government is saying, here were words, decent, respect.\nThey can be interpreted different ways, and usually I thought it was the obligation of a Government officer to give words a meaning that renders them consistent, not inconsistent with constitutional limitations, and yet you're insisting that Government officers take the position with respect to these two words that they interpret them in the way that would be most offensive to the Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [3071.308, 3080.997, 3085.698], "stop_times": [3080.997, 3085.698, 3109.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3071.308}, "reply_to": "21162__1_086", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21162__1_088", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Well, I'm just saying what they did, and I'm saying that the suggestion that decency and respect might be considered simply through picking diverse panels and no more, and not taking decency and respect even into account in choosing the panels is completely inconsistent with the statute.\nIt would render the... 954(d)(1) redundant of 959(c).\nCongress in the statute said, decency and respect are the criteria by which applications are to be judged, in 954(d)(1).\nIn 959(c) it said, panels shall be chosen in a diverse way.\nYou can't... they must have meant something when they put the decency and respect clause in the criteria subsection of the statute, and not in the panel selection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [3109.683, 3129.061, 3133.548, 3140.869, 3145.856], "stop_times": [3129.061, 3133.548, 3140.869, 3145.856, 3154.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3109.683}, "reply_to": "21162__1_087", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_089", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Mr. Cole, may I ask you a question about your constitutional position?\nWe've talked a lot about what the statute means.\nAssume your meaning... your reading of the statute is entirely correct.\nAs I understand your brief, you draw this distinction between the Government as a speaker and the Government subsidizing private speech, and I have two questions.\nFirst, if the Government has a list of topics such as say no to drugs, guns are dangerous, preserve the environment, one, I think you would agree they could subsidize private speech by saying we want poems, plays and so forth advocating those particular causes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [3154.712, 3157.497, 3159.297, 3162.735, 3171.321], "stop_times": [3157.497, 3159.297, 3162.735, 3171.321, 3187.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3154.712}, "reply_to": "21162__1_088", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21162__1_090", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [3187.283], "stop_times": [3187.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3187.283}, "reply_to": "21162__1_089", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_091", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "And maybe have a list of 20 things.\nNow, if they can do that by subsidizing private speakers to come up with creative ways of carrying that message, why can they not subsidize all other speech and say, you may not contravene any of the messages we want to finance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [3187.966, 3189.25], "stop_times": [3189.25, 3202.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3187.966}, "reply_to": "21162__1_090", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21162__1_092", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Well, the reason, I think, is the distinction this Court drew in Rosenberger between Government speech and facilitating private expression, and when the Government comes out and says, we're engaging in a Government speech program, we know, as the citizens of the United States, it is the Government speaking.\nWhen they hire artists to do a Say No to Drugs campaign throughout the schools, et cetera, we know it's the Government speaking.\nWe can take that into account.\nWhen they, by contrast, set up a program which is purportedly a program to fund--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [3202.276, 3217.785, 3223.456, 3224.725], "stop_times": [3217.785, 3223.456, 3224.725, 3229.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3202.276}, "reply_to": "21162__1_091", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_093", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "No, it isn't, because they say very clearly, it's general... for all kinds of speech you can think of except topics 1 through 20.\nWe will finance those, and we will also refuse to finance those who oppose those topics.\nNow, what... there's no mystery about what they're saying.\nYou're saying that it's kind of a misleading thing because they tell everybody we're subsidizing everything, but I'm saying the statute is perfectly clear that there are 20 topics that may not be controverted.\nNow, there's no misleading aspect to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [3229.343, 3236.264, 3241.585, 3245.037, 3254.827], "stop_times": [3236.264, 3241.585, 3245.037, 3254.827, 3256.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3229.343}, "reply_to": "21162__1_092", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21162__1_094", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [3256.86], "stop_times": [3257.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3256.86}, "reply_to": "21162__1_093", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_095", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Why can't they do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [3257.796], "stop_times": [3259.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3257.796}, "reply_to": "21162__1_094", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21162__1_096", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--that was Rosenberger.\nIn Rosenberger they said, we're not funding religious viewpoints.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [3259.079, 3259.762], "stop_times": [3259.762, 3264.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3259.079}, "reply_to": "21162__1_095", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_097", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Your whole point... your whole case rests on Rosenberger?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [3264.016], "stop_times": [3266.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3264.016}, "reply_to": "21162__1_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21162__1_098", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Oh, I don't think so, Your Honor, because in Lamb's Chapel this Court held that viewpoint discrimination is not permitted in nonpublic forums.\nIn Cornelius it held the same.\nI think what this Court has said repeatedly is that when the Government is facilitating private expression it cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [3266.635, 3273.539, 3274.991], "stop_times": [3273.539, 3274.991, 3283.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3266.635}, "reply_to": "21162__1_097", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_099", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "But you've just agreed it can if you give a list of 20 topics that you will finance, and finance private speakers to speak any way they want to on those topics.\nIt is doing it on a purely viewpoint-based ground.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [3283.764, 3291.417], "stop_times": [3291.417, 3295.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3283.764}, "reply_to": "21162__1_098", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21162__1_100", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Oh, well, I'm... if you're saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [3295.119], "stop_times": [3296.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3295.119}, "reply_to": "21162__1_099", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_101", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "They're financing private speech on the 20 topics they want to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [3296.635], "stop_times": [3299.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3296.635}, "reply_to": "21162__1_100", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21162__1_102", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--If they're... Justice Stevens, if they're funding topics, that's subject matter.\nThat's permissible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [3299.068, 3303.039], "stop_times": [3303.039, 3303.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3299.068}, "reply_to": "21162__1_101", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_103", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--No, they're funding artists, but artists who just portray these particular 20 topics that they've designated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [3303.772], "stop_times": [3308.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3303.772}, "reply_to": "21162__1_102", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21162__1_104", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Right.\nTopics... there's no problem with topics.\nThe Court has held that repeatedly.\nIt's viewpoint discrimination which is impermissible, and it's when you take one side or another on a given subject matter.\nUnder this statute, if you... if an artists has a... presents a nude which is disrespectful or indecent, that viewpoint is disadvantaged.\nIf it's respectful or decent, it's advantaged.\nThat is viewpoint discrimination.\nAnd finally, I'd like to say the Court has consistently required--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [3308.693, 3309.076, 3310.393, 3311.895, 3318.398, 3328.67, 3330.622, 3331.906], "stop_times": [3309.076, 3310.393, 3311.895, 3318.398, 3328.67, 3330.622, 3331.906, 3335.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3308.693}, "reply_to": "21162__1_103", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_105", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Well, it's surely viewpoint discrimination if you say, I'll finance a program that says don't... say no to drugs, but I won't finance one that says say yes to drugs.\nThat's viewpoint discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [3335.76, 3343.747], "stop_times": [3343.747, 3345.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3335.76}, "reply_to": "21162__1_104", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21162__1_106", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--That is, and then that would be the Government speaking and we would know that.\nBut the Government... if you think about private expression in this country, virtually every form of important private expression is funded by the Government.\nThe print press gets mailing privileges.\nThe broadcast press gets licenses.\nThe public broadcasting gets taxpayer dollars.\nThe public--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [3345.032, 3347.834, 3355.221, 3357.356, 3359.123, 3361.791], "stop_times": [3347.834, 3355.221, 3357.356, 3359.123, 3361.791, 3362.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3345.032}, "reply_to": "21162__1_105", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_107", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "I see where you're going there.\nCan I give you... just 30 seconds on the subject of the Ninth Circuit opinion.\nWhy is it that the word decency or respect is somehow more vague than the words, artistic excellence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [3362.827, 3363.493, 3367.362], "stop_times": [3363.493, 3367.362, 3373.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3362.827}, "reply_to": "21162__1_106", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21162__1_108", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Well, for two reasons, Justice Breyer.\nFirst, artistic merit has been applied by a profession so that there is a set of people, the people who are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [3373.783, 3376.051], "stop_times": [3376.051, 3383.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3373.783}, "reply_to": "21162__1_107", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_109", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "You mean, people who are professionals know more about what's artistically good than the average person?\nI would have thought there's a strong view, isn't there, that what is good and beautiful is accessible to everyone?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [3383.122, 3387.458], "stop_times": [3387.458, 3392.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3383.122}, "reply_to": "21162__1_108", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21162__1_110", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--Well, I think there's a strong view, Your Honor, that artistic merit, like academic merit, and like character and fitness--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [3392.596], "stop_times": [3399.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3392.596}, "reply_to": "21162__1_109", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_111", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Oh, my good... but if the Government says what we want is that which ordinary people believe is beautiful, doesn't the Government have a right to fund that kind of program?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [3399.5], "stop_times": [3408.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3399.5}, "reply_to": "21162__1_110", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21162__1_112", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "--I think what the Government does not have the right to do is to exclude viewpoints which it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [3408.772], "stop_times": [3416.795], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3408.772}, "reply_to": "21162__1_111", "speaker": "david_d_cole"}
{"id": "21162__1_113", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "We're talking only about... I'm talking about the... sorry.\nYou're--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [3416.795, 3419.747], "stop_times": [3419.747, 3420.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3416.795}, "reply_to": "21162__1_112", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21162__1_114", "conversation_id": "21162", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Cole.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-371", "start_times": [3420.18, 3422.446], "stop_times": [3422.446, 3423.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3420.18}, "reply_to": "21162__1_113", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20129__0_000", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "We'll hear argument first this morning in Number 96-1769, the Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard.\nMr. Klatt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [0.0, 8.887], "stop_times": [8.887, 10.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20129__0_001", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court--\nThis case presents a challenge to Ohio's death penalty clemency procedures under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the SelfIncrimination Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.\nIf I may, I'd like to address the due process challenge first.\nFundamentally, respondent's due process challenge fails for two reasons.\nFirst, he has no constitutional or inherent right to clemency based upon this Court's decision in Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat.\nSecond, Ohio's adoption of the clemency power and the procedures associated with it do not create a constitutional entitlement because the Governor's exercise of that power remains wholly discretionary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [10.387, 14.245, 28.786, 32.128, 37.657, 50.356], "stop_times": [14.245, 28.786, 32.128, 37.657, 50.356, 66.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.387}, "reply_to": "20129__0_000", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_002", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Well, let me ask you something, Mr. Klatt.\nSuppose that the Governor... obviously an unlikely scenario, but suppose the Governor of Ohio, some future Governor, decided that he would grant clemency to... he would at least allow clemency hearings and consider clemency for white defendants but not black.\nNo limit there on a policy like that, would you say, under the Constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [66.645, 69.738, 94.495], "stop_times": [69.738, 94.495, 100.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 66.645}, "reply_to": "20129__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20129__0_003", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "I believe there would be a limit under that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [100.523], "stop_times": [103.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 100.523}, "reply_to": "20129__0_002", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_004", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "So what we have to decide--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [103.473], "stop_times": [104.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 103.473}, "reply_to": "20129__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20129__0_005", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--There would be an equal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [104.348], "stop_times": [105.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 104.348}, "reply_to": "20129__0_004", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_006", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--is, what are the limits, and how do we draw that line.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [105.066], "stop_times": [107.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 105.066}, "reply_to": "20129__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20129__0_007", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [107.909], "stop_times": [109.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 107.909}, "reply_to": "20129__0_006", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_008", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "So you do concede that there would be some equal protection concerns, certainly, constitutionally imposed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [109.128], "stop_times": [118.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 109.128}, "reply_to": "20129__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20129__0_009", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, we do concede that, not rational basis equal protection, but certainly a suspect category, perhaps even a substantive due process problem in an outrageous circumstance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [118.233], "stop_times": [133.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 118.233}, "reply_to": "20129__0_008", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_010", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "The court of appeals here, as I understand it, based its ruling on the Due Process Clause, not the Equal Protection Clause, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [133.07], "stop_times": [141.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 133.07}, "reply_to": "20129__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20129__0_011", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [141.552], "stop_times": [142.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 141.552}, "reply_to": "20129__0_010", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_012", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "I don't see... what difference would that make, what clause you're proceeding under?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [142.676], "stop_times": [148.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 142.676}, "reply_to": "20129__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20129__0_013", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Your Honor, I don't believe it would make a difference in terms of equal protection, rational basis and due process.\nI think the analysis would be essentially the same, although for slightly different reasons.\nFundamentally, the Due Process Clause is not violated in this instance because there is no underlying life, liberty, or property interest that's at stake.\nThat interest has been adequately safeguarded by the substantial protections that exist at the trial court level and certainly throughout the appeal process leading to the final conviction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [148.08, 155.031, 160.45, 171.555], "stop_times": [155.031, 160.45, 171.555, 183.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 148.08}, "reply_to": "20129__0_012", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_014", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Mr. Klatt, are you then saying that what... there may be some process due, but whatever process due it has been allowed, or are you taking the position that due process, as distinguished from equal protection, your answer to Justice O'Connor, due process doesn't enter into it?\nThe examples that, was it Judge Nelson gave, were due process examples.\nThat is, arbitrary decisionmaking.\nShe gave the example of a coin toss, or picking the straw out.\nSo are you saying, suppose the parole board said, oh, we have better things to do with our time than read all this stuff, so we're going to toss a coin and every tenth or, say, every tenth applicant will get clemency?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [183.19, 202.341, 208.102, 210.945, 221.737], "stop_times": [202.341, 208.102, 210.945, 221.737, 235.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 183.19}, "reply_to": "20129__0_013", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20129__0_015", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Your Honor, our position is that fundamentally, because there is no underlying life, liberty, or property interest, that a Governor could make a clemency decision in an arbitrary manner.\nIt's almost inherent in the concept of unfettered discretion.\nI don't think that would happen.\nThere's no reason to believe that a Governor would act any less responsibly than a court would in exercising power, and in fact clemency by constitutional design was meant to be an unfettered power of the executive branch as a check on the judicial branch, so fundamentally our position--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [235.686, 249.992, 254.38, 257.051], "stop_times": [249.992, 254.38, 257.051, 280.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 235.686}, "reply_to": "20129__0_014", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_016", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "So it could be totally arbitrary as long as it's not a denial, so you're saying there is an equal protection check but not a due process check, is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [280.481], "stop_times": [286.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 280.481}, "reply_to": "20129__0_015", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20129__0_017", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--Yes.\nYes.\nThat's exactly our position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [286.992, 287.258, 288.164], "stop_times": [287.258, 288.164, 289.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 286.992}, "reply_to": "20129__0_016", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_018", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--Then it does matter on your analysis that, although the State... although there is no... in your judgment, although there is no life interest to be protected, and although the State is not obligated to give any clemency consideration at all, it still does not matter on your analysis that the State has chosen to do it, that that does not implicate a due process concern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [289.975], "stop_times": [315.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 289.975}, "reply_to": "20129__0_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20129__0_019", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "It does not implicate it on these facts for the simple reason that Ohio, in enacting the power, did not in any way create standards or criteria that limit the discretion of the decisionmaker.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [315.388], "stop_times": [328.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 315.388}, "reply_to": "20129__0_018", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_020", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Well, that's certainly what Dumschat held, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [328.709], "stop_times": [331.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 328.709}, "reply_to": "20129__0_019", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20129__0_021", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "That's exactly what Dumschat held, Your Honor, and it's a case that we rely very heavily on.\nWe believe it's a case that is right on point in terms of the facts that are confronted with... that are confronted the Court in our case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [331.1, 337.066], "stop_times": [337.066, 345.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 331.1}, "reply_to": "20129__0_020", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_022", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "And the answer that the respondents give is that they say because this is a death penalty it is necessarily a part of the criminal process, and Dumschat was not.\nIs that how you understand their argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [345.516, 355.372], "stop_times": [355.372, 357.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 345.516}, "reply_to": "20129__0_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20129__0_023", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "They, of course, make a number of arguments, Your Honor, but that is one of them, and I believe the argument is flawed for the simple reason that the Court in Dumschat, relying I think principally on the Greenholtz analysis, basically said that if the interest that was at issue... and in that case I admit it was a liberty interest, not a life interest, but I don't think that matters, because what the Court was saying is, if the interest that was at issue was contemplated and encompassed in the underlying conviction and sentence, that that interest has been adequately safeguarded, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [357.557], "stop_times": [397.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 357.557}, "reply_to": "20129__0_022", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_024", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Now, suppose... and I suppose it's not too unimaginable a hypothetical... that the clemency authorities said that you may not consult counsel in preparation for your clemency hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [397.918], "stop_times": [413.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 397.918}, "reply_to": "20129__0_023", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20129__0_025", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--Well, I think that would... it sounds as if you're asking a straight right to counsel question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [413.442], "stop_times": [428.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 413.442}, "reply_to": "20129__0_024", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_026", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Yes.\nThat would probably be under just the Sixth Amendment, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [428.513, 428.966], "stop_times": [428.966, 431.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 428.513}, "reply_to": "20129__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20129__0_027", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "It would be I think just under the Sixth Amendment, which of course is not at issue in this case.\nIn answer to your question, I believe there is no right to counsel constitutionally to... in the clemency process, so the State would not have to provide a counsel.\nNow, of course, Ohio does provide counsel in that process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [431.231, 435.511, 447.96], "stop_times": [435.511, 447.96, 451.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 431.231}, "reply_to": "20129__0_026", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_028", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Well, but in my hypothetical he has a counsel but he's forbidden to consult the counsel in preparing his written submission to the clemency board.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [451.301], "stop_times": [459.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 451.301}, "reply_to": "20129__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20129__0_029", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "I don't believe that would violate due process, because there is no underlying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [459.282], "stop_times": [464.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 459.282}, "reply_to": "20129__0_028", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_030", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Well, would it violate any provision of the Constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [464.78], "stop_times": [466.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 464.78}, "reply_to": "20129__0_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20129__0_031", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--It potentially could violate the Sixth Amendment.\nIt potentially could.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [466.747, 470.59], "stop_times": [470.59, 473.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 466.747}, "reply_to": "20129__0_030", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_032", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Well, of course, now the Sixth Amendment is applicable to the States via the Fourteenth, and then you're right back into the question of having to have a life, liberty or property interest.\nI would assume it would be life here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [473.479, 482.07], "stop_times": [482.07, 483.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 473.479}, "reply_to": "20129__0_031", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20129__0_033", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "It certainly is a life interest here.\nIn that hypothetical, denying counsel at all in the process certainly does not seem correct, but if there's no underlying life, liberty, or property interest I don't know how it would implicate a due process interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [483.163, 486.303], "stop_times": [486.303, 505.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 483.163}, "reply_to": "20129__0_032", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_034", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Does it follow from your argument that there is no due process implication to the provision of direct appeals in criminal cases, no due process implication in providing the cert process that we do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [505.122], "stop_times": [519.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 505.122}, "reply_to": "20129__0_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20129__0_035", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "I don't believe that does follow, Your Honor.\nClemency and that power is very distinct from the processes that involve the judicial processes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [519.274, 522.991], "stop_times": [522.991, 530.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 519.274}, "reply_to": "20129__0_034", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_036", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Oh, I will grant... I'll grant you that, but what I was picking up on was the statement you made ago in one of your answers, I guess, to Justice Kennedy, that the interest being protected had been protected in the underlying proceeding.\nAnd I thought your point was that when in the underlying criminal proceeding, for example, leading to conviction, these interests had been protected, and there was simply a constitutionally unnecessary further proceeding, whether it be appeal, or cert, or clemency in this case, that there was no application of due process to those superadded stages.\nMaybe I misunderstood your argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [530.222, 544.201, 572.159], "stop_times": [544.201, 572.159, 573.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 530.222}, "reply_to": "20129__0_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20129__0_037", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "If I implied that, I misspoke.\nIt's our position that Evitts, which, of course, is a case that is heavily relied upon by my opponent and relied upon by the Sixth Circuit below, is also correctly decided in the sense that due process certainly applies throughout the adjudicatory process, which would include the appeal process.\nHow much--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [573.564, 576.156, 601.287], "stop_times": [576.156, 601.287, 602.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 573.564}, "reply_to": "20129__0_036", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_038", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Right, but on your theory why shouldn't the due process stop at the conviction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [602.364], "stop_times": [607.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 602.364}, "reply_to": "20129__0_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20129__0_039", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--Because the other processes are part of the system for adjudicating the guilt or innocence of the defendant.\nClemency is not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [607.801, 616.719], "stop_times": [616.719, 617.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 607.801}, "reply_to": "20129__0_038", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_040", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "So the adjudication's not final, in other words.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [617.499], "stop_times": [618.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 617.499}, "reply_to": "20129__0_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20129__0_041", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--Correct.\nCorrect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [618.905, 619.187], "stop_times": [619.187, 619.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 618.905}, "reply_to": "20129__0_040", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_042", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Then under your position, as I understand it, a State could totally abolish appeal and say after the trial court proceedings are over whether or not the man will be sentenced or executed should be left entirely to the unbridled discretion of the Governor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [619.749], "stop_times": [632.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 619.749}, "reply_to": "20129__0_041", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20129__0_043", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [632.76], "stop_times": [633.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 632.76}, "reply_to": "20129__0_042", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_044", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "They could do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [633.65], "stop_times": [634.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 633.65}, "reply_to": "20129__0_043", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20129__0_045", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [634.213], "stop_times": [634.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 634.213}, "reply_to": "20129__0_044", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_046", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "That's certainly consistent with the reasoning in Evitts, is it not, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [634.65], "stop_times": [638.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 634.65}, "reply_to": "20129__0_045", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20129__0_047", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "I believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [638.274], "stop_times": [638.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 638.274}, "reply_to": "20129__0_046", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_048", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--you can't block an appeal from an indigent if the State provides one, but the State under Durston v. King doesn't have to provide one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [638.665], "stop_times": [646.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 638.665}, "reply_to": "20129__0_047", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20129__0_049", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--I believe that's correct, Your Honor.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [646.084, 648.457], "stop_times": [648.457, 648.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 646.084}, "reply_to": "20129__0_048", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_050", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "And if there's anything that seems harsh about that, I suppose it is the deprivation of the appeal, not the deprivation of additional procedures in the pardon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [648.723], "stop_times": [659.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 648.723}, "reply_to": "20129__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20129__0_051", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--I would agree, Your Honor.\nI might add that the fundamental flaw, I believe, in the application of Evitts to this case, is that the lower court's decision was based upon a faulty premise, and that premise is, that faulty premise is that clemency is part of Ohio's system for the adjudication of the guilt or innocence of the defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [659.312, 660.78], "stop_times": [660.78, 681.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 659.312}, "reply_to": "20129__0_050", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_052", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Well, we have said in cases such as the Herrera case, in talking about the finality of habeas corpus, that there is always clemency.\nWe have made the link, to some extent, in our own writing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [681.788, 691.754], "stop_times": [691.754, 695.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 681.788}, "reply_to": "20129__0_051", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20129__0_053", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Well, I would contend, Your Honor, that simply acknowledging the existence of a power of another branch of Government does not, in and of itself, make it part of the process, and in fact, as I mentioned earlier, as a matter of constitutional structure, clemency is one of the checks and balances that we believe exists, certainly under Ohio's constitution, that is an executive branch's check on the judicial system.\nAnd of course, the check on the clemency power itself is basically the electoral process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [695.063, 724.442], "stop_times": [724.442, 730.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 695.063}, "reply_to": "20129__0_052", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_054", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Well, Mr. Klatt, in Dumschat this Court's opinion said that unlike probation pardon and commutation decisions have not traditionally been the business of the courts and, as such, they're rarely subjects for judicial review.\nIf we were to take the position that it is conceivable that wholly arbitrary action in the clemency procedure could be addressed under the Due Process Clause, how would you address the allegations that are made here?\nWould they survive that rare situation, or how would you address those challenges in this case, if there... if we left open the possibility that there could conceivably be a due process violation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [730.533, 750.947, 773.813], "stop_times": [750.947, 773.813, 792.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 730.533}, "reply_to": "20129__0_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20129__0_055", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Well, I certainly would hope that you wouldn't, but I believe that Ohio's death penalty clemency procedure in this case would survive such scrutiny.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [792.15], "stop_times": [801.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 792.15}, "reply_to": "20129__0_054", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_056", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Are you going to address the allegations with any particularity or specificity in giving me that answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [801.739], "stop_times": [807.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 801.739}, "reply_to": "20129__0_055", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20129__0_057", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "I'd be certainly happy to.\nKeep in mind here that this policy was enacted to address a problem, and the problem was that the Governor was confronted with clemency applications with very little information, oftentimes because counsel for the death row inmates would not seek stays until the very last minute.\nIn fact, they had a situation where counsel for a death row inmate filed for the stay the day before the execution date with the district court judge.\nThat judge denied the stay.\nThe stay was subsequently granted later that day in the Sixth Circuit, but the Governor was quite upset that with practically no information he was confronted with a clemency situation, so they enact these procedures.\nThe procedures are designed to be fair--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [807.486, 809.876, 832.367, 843.05, 844.566, 858.075], "stop_times": [809.876, 832.367, 843.05, 844.566, 858.075, 860.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 807.486}, "reply_to": "20129__0_056", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_058", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "I didn't quite... was the stay application, a request for a stay--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [860.356], "stop_times": [863.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 860.356}, "reply_to": "20129__0_057", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20129__0_059", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--Of the execution--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [863.731], "stop_times": [864.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 863.731}, "reply_to": "20129__0_058", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_060", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--of the execution by the Governor, so that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [864.525], "stop_times": [866.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 864.525}, "reply_to": "20129__0_059", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20129__0_061", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [866.978], "stop_times": [867.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 866.978}, "reply_to": "20129__0_060", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_062", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--clemency process could take place, or it was just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [867.572], "stop_times": [869.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 867.572}, "reply_to": "20129__0_061", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20129__0_063", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "I'm sorry--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [869.728], "stop_times": [870.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 869.728}, "reply_to": "20129__0_062", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_064", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--a collateral... additional collateral attack on the conviction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [870.446], "stop_times": [873.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 870.446}, "reply_to": "20129__0_063", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20129__0_065", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--It was a stay obtained in the Sixth Circuit, a stay of execution so that he could pursue Federal habeas.\nI'm sorry if I misspoke.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [873.101, 881.893], "stop_times": [881.893, 885.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 873.101}, "reply_to": "20129__0_064", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_066", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "The problem that I'm having is, this case is in an interlocutory posture, and so looking at the opinion, I thought perhaps the circuit has just held that the Due Process Clause could, in some conceivable circumstance, be violated, and can we say now that we could never even imagine a circumstance, so matter how bizarre or peculiar or unfair the system was, that it couldn't possibly be a violation no matter what, and the same, really, in a sense is true of the Fifth Amendment part.\nIs it... do we have to say that there's never a circumstance, even if the clemency board were to say, you have to confess to every crime ever, ever conceivable by any member of... you know, I mean think of the most bizarre circumstance you can.\nAnd now, if there is such a circumstance in which either of these clauses would apply, how can we say that you win, in this posture of the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [885.329, 915.442, 929.124], "stop_times": [915.442, 929.124, 938.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 885.329}, "reply_to": "20129__0_065", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20129__0_067", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Well, it's our position, Your Honor, and we are taking an absolute position, that with respect to due process there is no due process protections that apply here for the simple reason, as I stated earlier, that there is no underlying life, liberty, or property interest to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [938.73], "stop_times": [956.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 938.73}, "reply_to": "20129__0_066", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_068", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "I suppose we could put the same kind of questions if you were arguing about the executive power to appoint or to... in the Federal context to recognize a foreign nation.\nWe don't like arbitrary government, but certain powers are committed to the executive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [956.191, 964.564], "stop_times": [964.564, 969.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 956.191}, "reply_to": "20129__0_067", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20129__0_069", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--Some power, some delegation of power is absolute.\nThe veto power.\nState--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [969.64, 972.014, 972.905], "stop_times": [972.014, 972.905, 974.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 969.64}, "reply_to": "20129__0_068", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_070", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Mr. Klatt, I thought that that was one of the arguments that you made, but in your first exchange with Justice O'Connor you said yes, there'd be an equal protection check, so I was thinking that your argument was kind of like a, what's labeled political question.\nThis is committed to another branch of Government, totally executive, judiciary, hands off.\nBut your immediate response was no, there is judicial review for constitutionality under the heading of equal protection, so I gathered from that answer that you weren't taking the answer that you are now giving, that this is just handsoff for the judiciary, it is entirely executive branch business.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [974.028, 987.696, 993.192], "stop_times": [987.696, 993.192, 1011.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 974.028}, "reply_to": "20129__0_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20129__0_071", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--I may have misspoke.\nMy point was that with respect to a due process analysis our position is absolute, because you could--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1011.248, 1013.606], "stop_times": [1013.606, 1018.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1011.248}, "reply_to": "20129__0_070", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_072", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "But if you're using the political question doctrine, that model, it isn't that as to one clause or as to another clause, it's even... it's a First Amendment violation, whatever.\nIt simply is committed to another branch of Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1018.635, 1029.756], "stop_times": [1029.756, 1032.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1018.635}, "reply_to": "20129__0_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20129__0_073", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--We're not going quite that far, because we have acknowledged that there might be some outrageous circumstance where there could be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1032.769], "stop_times": [1041.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1032.769}, "reply_to": "20129__0_072", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_074", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "What is outrageous?\nI mean, once you say equal protection, it seems to me you give... suppose the Governor has two applicants for pardon, they are identical in all their circumstances, and the Governor says, I grant one and I don't grant the other.\nIs that... you think we can intervene in that case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1041.345, 1041.891, 1056.807], "stop_times": [1041.891, 1056.807, 1060.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1041.345}, "reply_to": "20129__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20129__0_075", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1060.774], "stop_times": [1061.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1060.774}, "reply_to": "20129__0_074", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_076", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "And if we can't intervene in that case, I suppose we can look to see if they are identical circumstances, so the ball game's over.\nYou've gotten the whole matter into the court.\nI don't see how you can give away the Equal Protection Clause and achieve what you're seeking to achieve here.\nWell... go ahead.\nAnswer Justice Scalia.\nIf you consider it a question, answer it.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1061.165, 1069.896, 1071.38, 1076.003, 1077.69, 1078.595, 1081.282], "stop_times": [1069.896, 1071.38, 1076.003, 1077.69, 1078.595, 1081.282, 1083.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1061.165}, "reply_to": "20129__0_075", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20129__0_077", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "I'd be happy to respond--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1083.188], "stop_times": [1085.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1083.188}, "reply_to": "20129__0_076", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_078", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Don't you think that if you give away the Equal Protection Clause--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1085.937, 1088.733], "stop_times": [1088.733, 1089.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1085.937}, "reply_to": "20129__0_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20129__0_079", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--It's the position of the State of Ohio that since the clemency power comes from the constitution, at least the Ohio constitution, in Ohio, that it can't violate another expressed provision of the Constitution, and the only one I can think of would be a racebased decision.\nThat seems inherently wrong--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1089.749, 1110.24], "stop_times": [1110.24, 1111.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1089.749}, "reply_to": "20129__0_078", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_080", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Why, because that is currently a very enraging thing, but why is that any more enraging than two identically qualified people, and the Governor says, I like this guy, you get it, you don't get it?\nWhy is that any different?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1111.725, 1124.469], "stop_times": [1124.469, 1125.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1111.725}, "reply_to": "20129__0_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20129__0_081", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--Well, even in Dumschat the Court seemed to indicate that you could deny clemency for any reason or no reason at all for any constitutionally permissible reason.\nIf it's not a constitutionally permissible reason it might create a problem.\nNow, keep in mind, equal protection is not an issue that's currently before you, but if I understand, it's... it's a diff... hypothetical.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1125.516, 1137.464, 1142.854], "stop_times": [1137.464, 1142.854, 1149.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1125.516}, "reply_to": "20129__0_080", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_082", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "So, supposing the Governor has complete control over the use of the Ohio State stadium for the Ohio StateMichigan game, and he decides that only white people will be admitted for that game.\nNow, nobody has any sort of a protected liberty interest or property interest to go to that game at all, but nonetheless the Equal Protection Clause would apply to prevent that sort of discrimination, would it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1149.35, 1159.97], "stop_times": [1159.97, 1171.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1149.35}, "reply_to": "20129__0_081", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20129__0_083", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "I believe it would, and that's I think our essential point, and I don't think quite frankly from a practical standpoint it's that much of a concession.\nWhat is really a problem here is applying a due process analysis which would... at any level, which seems to totally open up the door.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1171.076, 1179.557], "stop_times": [1179.557, 1188.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1171.076}, "reply_to": "20129__0_082", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_084", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "It's easy enough if you limit it to race alone, but once you say you're entitled to equal treatment, why isn't he entitled to come to the court and say, look, just last year somebody was pardoned who has, you know, exactly the same qual... or no better qualifications?\nWhy doesn't... isn't that a denial of... is race the only basis for denial of equal protection?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1188.71, 1205.467], "stop_times": [1205.467, 1211.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1188.71}, "reply_to": "20129__0_083", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20129__0_085", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Well, certainly, race is not the only basis, but the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1211.512], "stop_times": [1216.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1211.512}, "reply_to": "20129__0_084", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_086", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Well, I guess if it's a racebased discrimination we apply heightened scrutiny to it, and if it's not, you have a totally different standard, wouldn't you say?\n--then you agree the Governor could have a policy of pardoning all women and no men, or could he not?\nThat also invokes heightened scrutiny of some sort, does it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1216.089, 1225.179, 1233.317], "stop_times": [1225.179, 1233.317, 1237.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1216.089}, "reply_to": "20129__0_085", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20129__0_087", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--That would be intermediate scrutiny, which would be higher.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1237.471], "stop_times": [1239.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1237.471}, "reply_to": "20129__0_086", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_088", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "We could review his pardoning power on such a challenge, you would agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1239.658], "stop_times": [1243.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1239.658}, "reply_to": "20129__0_087", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20129__0_089", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "That, I think, is a very close question.\nI think it would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1243.75, 1247.216], "stop_times": [1247.216, 1248.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1243.75}, "reply_to": "20129__0_088", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_090", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "You want to have it both ways on almost every hypothetical.\n[Laughter]\nNo, but Mr. Klatt, isn't your argument here that the Equal Protection Clause does not apply contingent upon the kind of protected interest analysis which is identical to the Due Process Clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1248.044, 1251.231, 1253.261], "stop_times": [1251.231, 1253.261, 1267.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1248.044}, "reply_to": "20129__0_089", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20129__0_091", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--That's exactly it, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1267.834], "stop_times": [1268.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1267.834}, "reply_to": "20129__0_090", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_092", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "And your argument as I understood it was that once there has been a final adjudication through the appellate process which has resulted in a judgment that this individual should lose his life, that there is no life interest left for the Due Proces Clause to protect.\nIsn't that your argument, and that's why you take the absolutist position on due process?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1268.553, 1284.233], "stop_times": [1284.233, 1289.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1268.553}, "reply_to": "20129__0_091", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20129__0_093", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1289.168], "stop_times": [1289.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1289.168}, "reply_to": "20129__0_092", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_094", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "So that if we disagree with you on that, if we say, for example, well, clemency really is part of the adjudicatory process, or if we were to say, well, if you grant a clemency proceeding you've got to have some minimal process for it, you would lose, but at least you would lose because we were rejecting that absolutist analysis as being sufficient, but that's still consistent, I think, with your position on equal protection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1289.527], "stop_times": [1315.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1289.527}, "reply_to": "20129__0_093", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20129__0_095", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "I believe that's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1315.58], "stop_times": [1318.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1315.58}, "reply_to": "20129__0_094", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_096", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Well, Mr. Klatt, you never have answered my question.\nWould you lose if we said there might be some extreme situation governed by the Due Process Clause?\nYou've never addressed what the allegations are here.\nOne is based on the Fifth Amendment, I believe, and one is based on the timing of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1318.048, 1321.515, 1331.386, 1334.854], "stop_times": [1321.515, 1331.386, 1334.854, 1340.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1318.048}, "reply_to": "20129__0_095", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20129__0_097", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Correct, and I didn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1340.523], "stop_times": [1343.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1340.523}, "reply_to": "20129__0_096", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_098", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--clemency hearing.\nAre you going to talk about the merits of the claims at all, or are we to end this argument without ever hearing whether you would lose in the event we don't adopt the absolutist position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1343.008, 1343.725], "stop_times": [1343.725, 1353.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1343.008}, "reply_to": "20129__0_097", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20129__0_099", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--I believe we would win even if there were some level of due process protection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1353.55], "stop_times": [1359.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1353.55}, "reply_to": "20129__0_098", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_100", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Well, why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1359.11], "stop_times": [1359.438], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1359.11}, "reply_to": "20129__0_099", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20129__0_101", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "And the reason is, is because here we had notice, and opportunity for an interview.\nCounsel could participate in terms of helping with the preparation of written materials that the applicant could submit if they wanted to, so you certainly had notice, opportunity for participation, an informal review process... the whole procedure was designed to be fair both to the inmate as well as to the public, as well as to the courts, and as well as to the prosecutor, so I believe the procedure is a fair one under any analysis.\nIt is not, however, an adjudicatory process, and it is not an adversarial process, which is the very reason why counsel were not permitted at the interview, and counsel would not be permitted at the review itself, and we don't believe that that is in any way problematic, because there's no due process requirement under our argument that that applies, and it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1359.438, 1366.576, 1405.435], "stop_times": [1366.576, 1405.435, 1430.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1359.438}, "reply_to": "20129__0_100", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_102", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "I take it part of his argument might be, though I'm not positive on this, is that the timing of this is really... there's no reason in the world under the... as far as clemency is concerned that you have to have the timing deadlines the way you do, and the way you do means that he has to incriminate himself completely at a time prior to the ultimate affirmation of his convictions, and you could move that easily so he didn't have to do that, but the way it stands, he might have to have a new trial, and then he'd be convicted out of his own mouth simply because of an unnecessary and arbitrary timing circumstance in the rules.\nI think there's something like that going on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1430.862, 1467.41], "stop_times": [1467.41, 1468.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1430.862}, "reply_to": "20129__0_101", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20129__0_103", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--I believe that's their argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1468.956], "stop_times": [1469.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1468.956}, "reply_to": "20129__0_102", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_104", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Well, what's the answer to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1469.909], "stop_times": [1471.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1469.909}, "reply_to": "20129__0_103", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20129__0_105", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "I think the answer is that there is a legitimate... it's not an unreasonable and arbitrary matter of timing.\nThere's a very good reason for it, and the reason is that the Governor needs to be sure that he has the information necessary so that he can responsibly exercise the discretion that he has.\nWe're talking about a very short time frame here.\nThe rule says that if you're within 45 days of an execution date and it hasn't been stayed, that's when the interview process and the formal review process goes forward, so there is a legitimate State interest--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1471.346, 1477.265, 1489.197, 1492.29], "stop_times": [1477.265, 1489.197, 1492.29, 1505.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1471.346}, "reply_to": "20129__0_104", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_106", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "And in this case there was a delay in filing the habeas petition, I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1505.924], "stop_times": [1509.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1505.924}, "reply_to": "20129__0_105", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20129__0_107", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--There was, and the timing problem in this case was created essentially by the respondent themselves for not getting the stay in a timely way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1509.627], "stop_times": [1515.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1509.627}, "reply_to": "20129__0_106", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_108", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "But suppose, just to test the theory and to take Justice Breyer's question a little bit further, a State had a parallel track.\nThe minute the trial court proceedings were concluded the clemency proceedings started, and the Governor said, it's very important that you admit guilt, failure to admit guilt will be an inference against you, and this was a parallel process with the direct review.\nAny problems with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1515.859, 1522.404, 1538.302], "stop_times": [1522.404, 1538.302, 1539.677], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1515.859}, "reply_to": "20129__0_107", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20129__0_109", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "The further--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1539.677], "stop_times": [1542.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1539.677}, "reply_to": "20129__0_108", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_110", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "I know that's not your case, but we're just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1542.77], "stop_times": [1544.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1542.77}, "reply_to": "20129__0_109", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20129__0_111", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--That's obviously not our case, but I suppose that there is a line some place where timing seems to give rise to compulsion, and that might be a problem.\nI'm not sure that it exists in the hypothetical that you proposed, but it might, but certainly, given where the process was in this case, that does not seem to be problematic.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1544.596, 1558.014], "stop_times": [1558.014, 1568.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1544.596}, "reply_to": "20129__0_110", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_112", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--I assume that this answer is on the assumption that the Due Process Clause applies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1568.806], "stop_times": [1573.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1568.806}, "reply_to": "20129__0_111", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20129__0_113", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1573.725], "stop_times": [1573.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1573.725}, "reply_to": "20129__0_112", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_114", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "This is not your position in this litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1573.975], "stop_times": [1576.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1573.975}, "reply_to": "20129__0_113", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20129__0_115", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Absolutely not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1576.147], "stop_times": [1576.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1576.147}, "reply_to": "20129__0_114", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_116", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "You would say in this litigation it doesn't matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1576.772], "stop_times": [1579.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1576.772}, "reply_to": "20129__0_115", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20129__0_117", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Yes.\nIf I may, I'd like to reserve the remainder of my time, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1579.162, 1579.631], "stop_times": [1579.631, 1582.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1579.162}, "reply_to": "20129__0_116", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__0_118", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Very well, Mr. Klatt.\nMs. Shank, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1582.504, 1583.971], "stop_times": [1583.971, 1585.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1582.504}, "reply_to": "20129__0_117", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20129__1_000", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--\nRespondent Eugene Woodard asks only that this Court find that within the parameters of the pleadings there may be some set of facts upon which he may prevail and that this case be remanded to determine whether such set of facts exists.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1585.69, 1590.938], "stop_times": [1590.938, 1606.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1585.69}, "reply_to": "20129__0_118", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_001", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Well, we deal, Ms. Shank, don't we, with the facts that were alleged with respect to the Ohio parole, Ohio clemency process.\nI mean, it's not as if we could conjure up some hypothetical set of facts that weren't the standard Ohio clemency process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1606.29, 1613.772], "stop_times": [1613.772, 1624.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1606.29}, "reply_to": "20129__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20129__1_002", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "We are bound by what's in the pleadings and by the process as it appears in the record, Your Honor, and if I understand your question, I think you're asking if the Court can make a decision on those facts alone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1624.018], "stop_times": [1637.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1624.018}, "reply_to": "20129__1_001", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_003", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Well, the... I got the intimation, perhaps mistakenly, from your statement that if we could conceive of some clemency process somewhere that had some sort of provisions in it that would be so arbitrary we would say due process applies, we should bring that to bear on this case, but we're dealing with an established system of clemency in Ohio, are we not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1637.637], "stop_times": [1661.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1637.637}, "reply_to": "20129__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20129__1_004", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "And I agree, it has to be some process that you can conceive within the procedure that is present here, but I think there are many such conceivable fact situations that may or may not be able to be proved on remand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1661.081], "stop_times": [1673.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1661.081}, "reply_to": "20129__1_003", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_005", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "But I thought the remand was limited to whether the district court could find that the coercion to confess guilt was an unconstitutional condition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1673.78], "stop_times": [1690.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1673.78}, "reply_to": "20129__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20129__1_006", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Your Honor, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1690.226], "stop_times": [1690.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1690.226}, "reply_to": "20129__1_005", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_007", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Wasn't that what the remand was limited to, or was it remanded for the district court to come up with any other due process violation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1690.897], "stop_times": [1698.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1690.897}, "reply_to": "20129__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20129__1_008", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--Well, it was remanded with respect to both the Sixth Circuit's analysis of Evitts v. Lucey and the idea that clemency is, in fact, as it is, an integral part of Ohio's criminal justice system as well as on the Fifth Amendment issue.\nBut, of course, because this is a case that was ruled on based on a motion to dismiss and therefore the pleadings, this Court comes to it as if it's de novo review, and so the Court can look within the pleadings as broadly as it chooses to, so any set of facts that the Court can conceive would be... that would allow due process to apply--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1698.629, 1712.858], "stop_times": [1712.858, 1733.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1698.629}, "reply_to": "20129__1_007", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_009", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Well, I would assume we at least have to look at the facts alleged in this complaint, not some conceivable set of facts from somebody else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1733.521], "stop_times": [1741.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1733.521}, "reply_to": "20129__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20129__1_010", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--Again, Justice O'Connor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1741.58], "stop_times": [1742.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1741.58}, "reply_to": "20129__1_009", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_011", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Don't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1742.674], "stop_times": [1743.049], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1742.674}, "reply_to": "20129__1_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20129__1_012", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--Yes, absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1743.049], "stop_times": [1743.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1743.049}, "reply_to": "20129__1_011", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_013", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Don't we look at this complaint?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1743.658], "stop_times": [1744.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1743.658}, "reply_to": "20129__1_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20129__1_014", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "I do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1744.549], "stop_times": [1745.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1744.549}, "reply_to": "20129__1_013", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_015", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "And this complaint says--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1745.063], "stop_times": [1746.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1745.063}, "reply_to": "20129__1_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20129__1_016", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1746.125], "stop_times": [1746.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1746.125}, "reply_to": "20129__1_015", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_017", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--Well, under Ohio's provisions here, which gives the convicted defendant an opportunity to ask for an interview but doesn't require it, you say that's a Fifth Amendment violation there, and it won't stand up.\nI assume we can address that, can't we, just head on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1746.578, 1768.383], "stop_times": [1768.383, 1771.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1746.578}, "reply_to": "20129__1_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20129__1_018", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Certainly, Justice O'Connor, the Court can do anything as if on de novo review within the parameters of the pleadings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1771.302], "stop_times": [1780.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1771.302}, "reply_to": "20129__1_017", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_019", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1780.111], "stop_times": [1780.783], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1780.111}, "reply_to": "20129__1_018", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20129__1_020", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "And that is what I'm trying to say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1780.783], "stop_times": [1783.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1780.783}, "reply_to": "20129__1_019", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_021", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--But also we have to take it in the prism of the Sixth Circuit's analysis.\nI mean, if we disagree with the Sixth Circuit's analysis, the fact that the pleadings might have formed the basis for some other sort of analysis wouldn't have much to do with how we treated the opinion of the Sixth Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1783.111, 1788.156], "stop_times": [1788.156, 1803.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1783.111}, "reply_to": "20129__1_020", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20129__1_022", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Chief Justice Rehnquist, it's true that the Sixth Circuit's opinion surely should be informative and helpful to the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1803.867], "stop_times": [1814.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1803.867}, "reply_to": "20129__1_021", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_023", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1814.285], "stop_times": [1814.645], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1814.285}, "reply_to": "20129__1_022", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20129__1_024", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "But it is my understanding that the Court can clearly look, as if on de novo review, at the pleadings and determine whether or not there are other problems or other aspects of this process that need to be considered in order to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1814.645], "stop_times": [1828.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1814.645}, "reply_to": "20129__1_023", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_025", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "But what we granted review on was not the pleadings that were filed in the district court.\nIt was the opinion of the Sixth Circuit, and if, for example, we should feel that the Sixth Circuit totally misapprehended our Dumschat opinion we would probably say so in an opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1828.999, 1832.466], "stop_times": [1832.466, 1842.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1828.999}, "reply_to": "20129__1_024", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20129__1_026", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--And it could very well be that the Court would choose to remand for... to the Sixth Circuit for assessment in light of what it took to be a misunderstanding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1842.32], "stop_times": [1850.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1842.32}, "reply_to": "20129__1_025", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_027", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "And we also would, and I think must examine the Sixth Circuit's holding that the selfincrimination aspect of the case presents a serious constitutional problem in that it's an unconstitutional condition on the imposition of the... on the Fifth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1850.802], "stop_times": [1873.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1850.802}, "reply_to": "20129__1_026", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20129__1_028", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Certainly the Court may choose to do that.\nYou are obviously not required to do so.\nWe think that it is an unconstitutional condition, and I hope I haven't said anything to make you think I'm saying you should only address one issue.\nI'm not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1873.278, 1877.37, 1879.916, 1888.318], "stop_times": [1877.37, 1879.916, 1888.318, 1889.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1873.278}, "reply_to": "20129__1_027", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_029", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Well, but that's the best way for us to get into the case and that's, it seems to me, a quite problematic holding on the part of the court of appeals.\nSuppose the Governor says, I'm not interested in granting clemency to people that haven't confessed, that shows remorse.\nThat's what I'm interested in.\nThere's no problem with that, is there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1889.115, 1897.955, 1906.248, 1908.498], "stop_times": [1897.955, 1906.248, 1908.498, 1910.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1889.115}, "reply_to": "20129__1_028", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20129__1_030", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Well, one of the things that I'd like to point out which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1910.496], "stop_times": [1915.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1910.496}, "reply_to": "20129__1_029", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_031", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "You may disagree with it as a policy matter, but as a constitutional matter he has a complete right to say that, I should assume.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1915.027], "stop_times": [1920.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1915.027}, "reply_to": "20129__1_030", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20129__1_032", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--It's absolutely true that the Governor has complete discretion under Ohio's clemency processes.\nHowever, the Governor's executive discretionary decisionmaking authority truly is not at issue in this case.\nWe are looking not at the end result, which is the decision made by the chief executive of the State, but rather at the procedures that are limiting the right to seek clemency.\nWe're looking at the front end of a process.\nAs this Court noted in Dumschat, there the Court found there was no due process interest in that end result, at least none that required an explanation of the reasons for a clemency decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1920.93, 1929.801, 1937.455, 1952.387, 1955.135], "stop_times": [1929.801, 1937.455, 1952.387, 1955.135, 1967.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1920.93}, "reply_to": "20129__1_031", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_033", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "It said none at all.\nDidn't the Dumschat opinion say that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1967.818, 1969.02], "stop_times": [1969.02, 1971.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1967.818}, "reply_to": "20129__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20129__1_034", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "The Court found that there were no due process liberty interests at that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1971.815], "stop_times": [1977.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1971.815}, "reply_to": "20129__1_033", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_035", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1977.142], "stop_times": [1977.423], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1977.142}, "reply_to": "20129__1_034", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20129__1_036", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "But the important point for us with regard to Dumschat is the fact that the Court noted in the final line of the opinion that Connecticut had a State right to clemency and there had been no breach of that right.\nNow, the Court went no further, but the fact that the Court recognized a difference between the end result of the executive discretionary decisionmaking process and a possible difference between that and the right to get your papers on the Governor's desk is what we are focusing on here.\nThe other thing is that I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [1977.423, 1991.682, 2009.207], "stop_times": [1991.682, 2009.207, 2010.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1977.423}, "reply_to": "20129__1_035", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_037", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Well, let me read you a couple of sentences from Dumschat which strike me as being a little different than the way you interpret... the Court said we rejected the claim that a constitutional entitlement to release from a valid prison sentence exists independently of a right explicitly conferred by the State, and then it goes on to quote from Greenholtz.\nThere is no constitutional or inherent right of a convicted person to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence.\nWell, it seems to me that says that unless the State has created some sort of a liberty interest there isn't any.\nJustice Stevens in dissent, of course, felt differently.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2010.863, 2028.668, 2036.367, 2044.77], "stop_times": [2028.668, 2036.367, 2044.77, 2047.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2010.863}, "reply_to": "20129__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20129__1_038", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--Chief Justice Rehnquist, I agree with what you just read from Dumschat, and I think that what is important about it is that it does focus on the decision, and that's what this Court said there isn't an interest in.\nAt the end of this process, as Justice Ginsburg noted, we are moving into the executive discretionary decisionmaking process, and there, the Court is right, but we are not looking at that end of it, and we're not looking at what the decision is.\nWe are looking at the right to apply for clemency and get to the point where we get a decision, and I think Ohio--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2047.941, 2059.951, 2074.335], "stop_times": [2059.951, 2074.335, 2081.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2047.941}, "reply_to": "20129__1_037", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_039", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "This is... I don't understand this.\nThis is sort of a right to the process with nothing at the end of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2081.333, 2081.989], "stop_times": [2081.989, 2086.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2081.333}, "reply_to": "20129__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20129__1_040", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--It's a right--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2086.909], "stop_times": [2088.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2086.909}, "reply_to": "20129__1_039", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_041", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Just a right to the process... I can understand, and I think Dumschat permits your claiming a right to the procedure which the State has accorded, so that if they violate their own procedures for clemency, yes, you would have some right to complain.\nBut where their procedures give you no more than what you've received, you're asserting that you've been deprived of what?\nYou say, I'm not being deprived of my liberty, but I'm just being deprived of something in the abstract that... I don't... I really don't understand--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2088.129, 2103.934, 2110.651], "stop_times": [2103.934, 2110.651, 2120.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2088.129}, "reply_to": "20129__1_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20129__1_042", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--Well, okay, Justice Scalia, we're actually presenting four different grounds, one of them being the fact that the State has created a liberty interest and a life interest in clemency in Ohio, and that is in the right to seek it, and the Ohio supreme court noted in Weaver v. State that clemency is the remedy that is available to individuals who are unable to achieve redress in the courts.\nThey said in In re Kline that Ohio defendants who can't have a conviction overturned because it's beyond judicial process have a right to apply for clemency.\nOn top of that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2120.584, 2144.121, 2158.068], "stop_times": [2144.121, 2158.068, 2159.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2120.584}, "reply_to": "20129__1_041", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_043", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--Right, but... let me just clarify.\nYou're not contending that Ohio violated any of its own laws pertaining to the clemency application.\nYou're saying that something which they have in there shouldn't be there, or that something which they don't have should.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2159.006, 2160.13, 2167.534], "stop_times": [2160.13, 2167.534, 2173.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2159.006}, "reply_to": "20129__1_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20129__1_044", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--We are saying that this process violates that Statecreated right to seek clemency in that particular analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2173.938], "stop_times": [2183.137], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2173.938}, "reply_to": "20129__1_043", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_045", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "The court of appeals disagreed with you on that point though, didn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2183.137], "stop_times": [2185.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2183.137}, "reply_to": "20129__1_044", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20129__1_046", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "The court of appeals--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2185.917], "stop_times": [2187.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2185.917}, "reply_to": "20129__1_045", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_047", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Did it, or did it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2187.074], "stop_times": [2188.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2187.074}, "reply_to": "20129__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20129__1_048", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--They did not accept that position, but again, I would like to put forward, Your Honor, that we were on motions and pleadings, and the facts hadn't been fully explicated, so the court didn't have before it the full history and background--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2188.355], "stop_times": [2205.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2188.355}, "reply_to": "20129__1_047", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_049", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Well, but presumably the court of appeals well knew that you... dealing with a complaint dismissed on motion you give it a generous construction.\nYou say that's what we should do, and certainly I'm sure the court of appeals knew that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2205.536, 2216.968], "stop_times": [2216.968, 2220.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2205.536}, "reply_to": "20129__1_048", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20129__1_050", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--Your Honor, I can tell you from reviewing the pleadings that the cases that I've just cited to you, In re Kline and Weaver v. State were not before the court, and very, very little--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2220.655], "stop_times": [2230.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2220.655}, "reply_to": "20129__1_049", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_051", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "You didn't argue that point to the court of appeals?\nDid--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2230.98, 2232.541], "stop_times": [2232.541, 2234.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2230.98}, "reply_to": "20129__1_050", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20129__1_052", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--Your Honor, the question of whether or not there was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2234.446], "stop_times": [2236.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2234.446}, "reply_to": "20129__1_051", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_053", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--I asked you a question, Ms. Shank.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2236.149], "stop_times": [2237.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2236.149}, "reply_to": "20129__1_052", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20129__1_054", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--I'm sorry, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2237.57], "stop_times": [2238.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2237.57}, "reply_to": "20129__1_053", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_055", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "I asked you, did you argue those cases that you just cited to the court of appeals?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2238.32], "stop_times": [2242.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2238.32}, "reply_to": "20129__1_054", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20129__1_056", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "No, they were not included in the briefing at that point, Your Honor, but the issue was included, the question of whether there was a State right.\nBut I think that the entire process has been truncated by the fact that it was... that the Court... it's here before the Court without sufficient fact development.\nThat's why a remand is in order.\nWere the Court to send it back--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2242.459, 2248.598, 2257.312, 2258.888], "stop_times": [2248.598, 2257.312, 2258.888, 2260.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2242.459}, "reply_to": "20129__1_055", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_057", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Ms. Shank, one of the problems is, it's always going to be facial because you took this case out of the Ohio system... true, it's an executive process, and you're taking it into the Federal court and you're saying now, what if, what if.\nWe don't know what it would be.\nAre you taking the position that it is inevitable that this procedure that Ohio has would yield a violation of due process?\nCouldn't one say, well, it may work so that he is treated fairly.\nHow can one say just on what we have here that applying these rules to his case would inevitably deny due process?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2260.982, 2279.412, 2281.238, 2292.234, 2298.95], "stop_times": [2279.412, 2281.238, 2292.234, 2298.95, 2309.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2260.982}, "reply_to": "20129__1_056", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20129__1_058", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, we agree with that.\nWe think that it is possible that it could go back on remand.\nThere could be full hearings, and there could be factual development that determined that in fact sufficient due process protections have been recognized, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2309.68, 2311.805, 2315.506], "stop_times": [2311.805, 2315.506, 2325.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2309.68}, "reply_to": "20129__1_057", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_059", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "But it had been... nothing has happened.\nYou took... you got a stay and took it all into the Federal court, so we don't know how this State process would work because it didn't get off the ground.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2325.689, 2328.578], "stop_times": [2328.578, 2338.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2325.689}, "reply_to": "20129__1_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20129__1_060", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--That's correct.\nIt--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2338.903, 2340.012], "stop_times": [2340.012, 2340.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2338.903}, "reply_to": "20129__1_059", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_061", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "The analogy that I'm... sorry.\nWere you... answer Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2340.543, 2342.182], "stop_times": [2342.182, 2344.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2340.543}, "reply_to": "20129__1_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20129__1_062", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--I was just going to say, it's correct we would... for this Court right now the determination has to be whether within the parameters of what's before it, that we might possibly prevail on a set of facts that could be established on remand, and so what you suggested earlier, that we could go back and find that what has been provided is sufficient, is a very real possibility.\nIt's certainly not what we believe, but it is possible, and it could happen.\nSo there's nothing in this case to say that we couldn't go back and find ourselves being told that due process parameters have already been satisfied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2344.759, 2368.281, 2373.076], "stop_times": [2368.281, 2373.076, 2381.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2344.759}, "reply_to": "20129__1_061", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_063", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Or will be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2381.151], "stop_times": [2381.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2381.151}, "reply_to": "20129__1_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20129__1_064", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Or will be under the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2381.698], "stop_times": [2384.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2381.698}, "reply_to": "20129__1_063", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_065", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "May I go back to Dumschat for a second, because I didn't think you distinguished it in the same way that the court of appeals did.\nIt seems to me one can reasonably say that the right to due process before liberty is taken away is exhausted once you're in jail, because your liberty's gone.\nBut you're relying on the right to due process before life is taken away, and this man is still alive, so you have an argument for a protected interest in procedures until his life is taken away that just wasn't available in Dumschat because he was in jail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2384.713, 2391.273, 2400.316], "stop_times": [2391.273, 2400.316, 2414.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2384.713}, "reply_to": "20129__1_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20129__1_066", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--That's correct.\nWe do also present to the Court the fact that there is a Federal life interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment that is independent of the other issues that we've presented, the other types of interests, and that that was not present in Dumschat, and that it independently is basis alone to allow this Court to make the decision that special... that this special proceeding for death penalty cases impacts that life interest and therefore distinguishes it from Dumschat.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2414.919, 2415.669], "stop_times": [2415.669, 2442.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2414.919}, "reply_to": "20129__1_065", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_067", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "I think the State might argue this way in response to your argument about the life interest.\nI think the State might say, we agree that there is a life interest up to the time which may lawfully be set for execution under Ohio law, but that's not what's in question here.\nWhat's in question here is an opportunity to have life after the date which the law has already said at which it may be taken away, and because you have no life interest after that point... you litigated that on direct appeal and you lost... because you have no life interest after that point, and because that is the only life interest that could be served by clemency, there is no interest for Fourteenth... for due process analysis, to which process could apply and help you.\nWhat's your answer to that argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2442.33, 2449.046, 2461.401, 2497.979], "stop_times": [2449.046, 2461.401, 2497.979, 2499.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2442.33}, "reply_to": "20129__1_066", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20129__1_068", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Well, first that the life interest remains fully intact as long as a person is alive.\nI mean, the Fourteenth Amendment right to life that is protected is nothing more and as simple as the right to be alive and to continue to live, and a date does not determine when that right that is protected ends.\nThe only thing that ends that right and its protection under the Constitution is actual death.\nSo the life interest, unlike liberty, isn't diminished in increments.\nIt's not diminished by having been placed into the prison, as is the liberty interest, and it can't be diminished in bits and pieces.\nIt exists with all of its... in its fullblown state until the moment of death.\nAnd I think recently this Court recognized that in its... addressing the question of whether or not there was a right to assisted suicide.\nThere the Court even cited the Ohio supreme court, saying that even condemned prisoners have the right to protection of law up until the last moment of life.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2499.775, 2506.304, 2519.206, 2525.156, 2529.936, 2538.136, 2544.368, 2553.52], "stop_times": [2506.304, 2519.206, 2525.156, 2529.936, 2538.136, 2544.368, 2553.52, 2563.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2499.775}, "reply_to": "20129__1_067", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_069", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Well, all we held in the assisted suicide case was that there was no constitutional right to have the assistance of a physician if you wanted to commit suicide, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2563.672], "stop_times": [2575.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2563.672}, "reply_to": "20129__1_068", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20129__1_070", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2575.121], "stop_times": [2575.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2575.121}, "reply_to": "20129__1_069", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_071", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Can you think of any other analogies?\nI take it your basic argument is that the procedural part of this is something that the Ohio legislature itself has said is not within the Governor's exclusive power.\nThey say the general assembly's authority to regulate the application process extends from the time just before the Governor reaches the decision, and you're talking about that time before, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2575.48, 2578.557, 2591.114], "stop_times": [2578.557, 2591.114, 2601.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2575.48}, "reply_to": "20129__1_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20129__1_072", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2601.907], "stop_times": [2602.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2601.907}, "reply_to": "20129__1_071", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_073", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "And what I'm looking for, the only one with a very far analogy is like international airline applications, where the Courts won't review what the President's final decision is, but I've always thought they would review what used to be the Civil Aeronautics Board's preparation of the recommendation to the President.\nThat's a pretty farout analogy, and I wonder if there are other instances you could think of where the congressionally regulated preparation of the application is certainly reviewable, but the final decision is not.\nYou've looked into this, so I assume your answer is no, you can't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2602.281, 2617.995, 2634.346], "stop_times": [2617.995, 2634.346, 2637.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2602.281}, "reply_to": "20129__1_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20129__1_074", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "I have looked into it, and I think that there are some arguments about veto.\nI mean, that's a possibility, although there are different remedies, rather than going back to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2637.829, 2643.811], "stop_times": [2643.811, 2648.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2637.829}, "reply_to": "20129__1_073", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_075", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "All right.\nHave you... the other question that I has is, is the particular problem here, which I couldn't quite figure out from the dates... I can't keep them quite in mind, but the particular problem is that the State says, prepare this 45 days before the execution is scheduled, but in the case of your client, he had to go to his hearing 6 months before, or 4 months before, because there was a stay that said the execution couldn't take place until January 18, '95, but they wanted to have the hearing on September 9, 1994, and you're objecting to the fact that they made him come to that hearing without a lawyer, and having to incriminate himself so soon.\nCould you explain that a little bit, how those work?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2648.67, 2650.106, 2694.276], "stop_times": [2650.106, 2694.276, 2696.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2648.67}, "reply_to": "20129__1_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20129__1_076", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--Sure.\nThere are a number of factors involved in it.\nThe time frame is that if you have not managed to get a stay when... within 45 days before the first scheduled execution date after the Ohio supreme court finishes direct appellate review, a hearing will be scheduled, and even if you get a subsequent stay... in this case the stay was actually granted on the 45th day, so it's one of those counting things.\nThey decided that day did count for their purposes, and we would, of course--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2696.01, 2696.477, 2698.633, 2721.827], "stop_times": [2696.477, 2698.633, 2721.827, 2727.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2696.01}, "reply_to": "20129__1_075", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_077", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "So your objection, then, precisely is you say, look, he can't have a lawyer, he has to incriminate himself, and all they have to do to avoid the problem and keep their time is, you say, do it 45 days before, but if there's been an extension of a stay, well, then it's 45 days before the real execution date, not the one that was just hypothetical.\nIs that the problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2727.715, 2748.817], "stop_times": [2748.817, 2750.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2727.715}, "reply_to": "20129__1_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20129__1_078", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--Well, the problem is more complicated than that because, of course, the petition... I mean, the respondent in this case, or the inmate in any case has an extremely limited control on that timing.\nYou can file for a stay, but there are many exigencies that come up in the court system that sometimes it takes 2 months to get a stay, sometimes you're very lucky and you can get a stay within a week or 2 or 3 days, so you don't have control over the timing in this case no matter how it is handled.\nBut part of the reason that this is so critical is that whenever this particular process kicks in it then negates the opportunity... well, I should say, negates the right to have a clemency application filed by the inmate and have it considered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2750.44, 2762.092, 2778.054], "stop_times": [2762.092, 2778.054, 2797.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2750.44}, "reply_to": "20129__1_077", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_079", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Ms. Shank, is there any rule in Ohio that you know of that would prevent your client in his interview with the clemency people from declining to answer a question because it might incriminate him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2797.561], "stop_times": [2812.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2797.561}, "reply_to": "20129__1_078", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20129__1_080", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "There's nothing in the procedure that says that that could not be done, although the procedure itself is, with regard to the interview is inherently coercive, counsel is specifically prohibited from being there, in this case we had 3 days' notice and counsel would not have had an opportunity--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2812.368], "stop_times": [2830.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2812.368}, "reply_to": "20129__1_079", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_081", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "But so far as you know there are no further sanctions... in fact, it's difficult to see what further sanction could be attached to someone who is condemned to death... would be attached if the... if your client simply said, I'm not going to answer that question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2830.174], "stop_times": [2847.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2830.174}, "reply_to": "20129__1_080", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20129__1_082", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--Well, they may draw an adverse inference from his silence, may view him as being uncooperative, and go--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2847.385], "stop_times": [2855.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2847.385}, "reply_to": "20129__1_081", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_083", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "But that wouldn't incriminate him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2855.195], "stop_times": [2856.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2855.195}, "reply_to": "20129__1_082", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20129__1_084", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--Well, but it's part of what the problem is with the choice that he is facing.\nIncriminating him if he chose to speak and then those matters were used against him--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2856.288, 2860.755], "stop_times": [2860.755, 2865.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2856.288}, "reply_to": "20129__1_083", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_085", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "But that happens in civil proceedings all the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2865.987], "stop_times": [2867.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2865.987}, "reply_to": "20129__1_084", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20129__1_086", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--And it's possible, too, that it could be used to impeach him, and the silence itself could at least be attempted to be used for impeachment in subsequent criminal proceedings, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2867.752], "stop_times": [2878.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2867.752}, "reply_to": "20129__1_085", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_087", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Well, by the time you get to clemency beggars can't be choosers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2878.044], "stop_times": [2881.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2878.044}, "reply_to": "20129__1_086", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20129__1_088", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, and I think that if clemency were to be handled at the end of the process instead of at this premature point where you have ongoing litigation and future litigation as a right still in front of you, that it might be possible that a procedure that set some time limits toward the end of the process would meet due process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2881.324], "stop_times": [2903.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2881.324}, "reply_to": "20129__1_087", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_089", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Ms. Shank, it's not only capital defendants who apply for clemency, and it's quite possible to talk about the end of the process when you're dealing with a capital defendant who's lost, but what about other defendants?\nWhat's the end of the process?\nAs long as they're in prison they can continue to find new reasons why the case should be reopened, and so forth and so on.\nWhat is the end of the process for someone who hasn't... you know, who hasn't been condemned to death?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2903.675, 2915.247, 2916.622, 2924.275], "stop_times": [2915.247, 2916.622, 2924.275, 2928.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2903.675}, "reply_to": "20129__1_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20129__1_090", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Well, for Ohio's purposes it's not relevant because they don't put these restrictions on noncapital defendants.\nThese restrictions and these time frames, this mandatory, this forced clemency review at this early date is only applied in capital cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2928.68, 2934.178], "stop_times": [2934.178, 2941.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2928.68}, "reply_to": "20129__1_089", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_091", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Well, but in any of the other cases, whenever the hearing is held, wouldn't the prisoner have the same objection?\nYou know, I'm going to be spending years in prison trying to figure out what went wrong in my trial, and I'm going to file collateral review applications, and by making me come in and confess, you're making it impossible for me to do that.\nWouldn't every prisoner have that claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2941.581, 2947.875, 2963.119], "stop_times": [2947.875, 2963.119, 2965.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2941.581}, "reply_to": "20129__1_090", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20129__1_092", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Well, Justice Scalia, I think it's part of the problem with that process, is that if a prisoner initiates the clemency process, if he exercises that State right we've talked to you about seeking clemency, then he's made some choices about where he wants to go and the statements he's making.\nBut when he is subjected to a forced process at a time when he is still in litigation, those considerations aren't available to him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2965.43, 2980.081], "stop_times": [2980.081, 2987.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2965.43}, "reply_to": "20129__1_091", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_093", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "I understand, but my... the point I'm making is, we can't solve the problem, as Justice Breyer suggests, by simply making sure that the proceeding here is held after the last habeas before the execution.\nThe problem's going to exist in noncapital cases perpetually.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [2987.61, 2999.355], "stop_times": [2999.355, 3004.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2987.61}, "reply_to": "20129__1_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20129__1_094", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Justice Scalia, I must say that if it was a forced process at some time I think that perhaps the hypothetical you're proposing would have application to noncapital cases, but that's not the situation in Ohio.\nNoncapital cases aren't subjected to that standard.\nThey aren't forced into clemency review and, of course, we are dealing with the capital case here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [3004.337, 3021.549, 3025.141], "stop_times": [3021.549, 3025.141, 3029.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3004.337}, "reply_to": "20129__1_093", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_095", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Suppose Ohio said, well, for capital cases we're going to have a simple proceeding.\nIt's just the Governor and whatever trusted advisor, so we cut out all this process that you're complaining is inadequate.\nWould it be constitutional for Ohio to have such a system, just the Governor, who will consult with a trusted advisor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [3029.422, 3036.933, 3045.851], "stop_times": [3036.933, 3045.851, 3056.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3029.422}, "reply_to": "20129__1_094", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20129__1_096", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "I think that at least under the parameters that we're dealing with in this case the answer would be yes, because the right to seek would not have been impaired.\nAs long as the State doesn't erect a barrier to getting to the decisionmaker, I think that the clemency right to seek has been observed.\nPart of the problem we have here is that we have a process that keeps us--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [3056.815, 3066.328, 3076.293], "stop_times": [3066.328, 3076.293, 3080.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3056.815}, "reply_to": "20129__1_095", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_097", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "So once you have a process, once you try to install something like this, it better be meticulously observed.\nDoesn't that give the signal that it's not very wise for a State to have these processes, that they ought to stick with just a simple, you ask the Governor, the Governor says no, that's it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [3080.478, 3087.35], "stop_times": [3087.35, 3101.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3080.478}, "reply_to": "20129__1_096", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20129__1_098", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--I don't think it has that meaning here, because the meticulous observation of rules comes from that line of cases, Meacham and the prison cases, Greenholtz, some of the cases that have been mentioned.\nBut in those cases, the procedure did not erect a barrier either to getting to the final decisionmaker even in Dumschat, even in the prison cases, and it did not prevent the ultimate decisionmaker from making his decision.\nThis process has to be complied with... I mean, the application process has to be complied with for the Governor to make a valid decision, and it's a forced process that once it's been engaged in, its initial timing denies a meaningful opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and then precludes the right to seek when it is meaningful, because it becomes discretionary with the APA whether a subsequent application from the inmate will be considered for clemency.\nThat is under paragraph G of the policy, which makes it forever, and then in the administrative code, 5120 1-1-15 puts a 2-year limit on it.\nAt the moment I cannot tell you which of those the courts of Ohio will determine may or may not be the final time limit on how long they can withhold the clemency application from consideration.\nSo I think that the process distinction here, and the reason we don't have to worry about the details, is that this is a process that keeps us from getting there.\nThose cases that address that kind of detailed parsing of the language are ones where you always were able to get there.\nI also think that in this case we have a situation where the process itself has created the kinds of parameters that this Court has recognized as creating a due process interest, a Statecreated liberty interest that deserves due process protection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [3101.001, 3112.45, 3131.504, 3161.507, 3171.753, 3181.687, 3191.84, 3199.21], "stop_times": [3112.45, 3131.504, 3161.507, 3171.753, 3181.687, 3191.84, 3199.21, 3215.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3101.001}, "reply_to": "20129__1_097", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_099", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Do we have... it seems to me that the most forceful of your arguments is the unconstitutional condition argument on the selfincrimination privilege that he has in the criminal proceedings, and there we focus on the criminal side and say, he's losing something on the criminal side because you're coercing or compelling the abandonment of the privilege.\nWhat's your best case on that?\nBaxter doesn't work for you, really.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [3215.985, 3239.617, 3241.428], "stop_times": [3239.617, 3241.428, 3245.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3215.985}, "reply_to": "20129__1_098", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20129__1_100", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [3245.599], "stop_times": [3246.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3245.599}, "reply_to": "20129__1_099", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_101", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "And as sort of a followup to that, do we ultimately come back to the question whether or not there is a right to the clemency proceeding, so that we're back to the initial point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [3246.598], "stop_times": [3261.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3246.598}, "reply_to": "20129__1_100", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20129__1_102", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--You don't have to come back... I'll answer the last part first.\nYou don't have to come back to there being a right to the clemency proceeding in order to reach the question whether or not this imposes an unconstitutional condition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [3261.842, 3264.466], "stop_times": [3264.466, 3272.306], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3261.842}, "reply_to": "20129__1_101", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_103", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "And what's the best case for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [3272.306], "stop_times": [3273.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3272.306}, "reply_to": "20129__1_102", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20129__1_104", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "I think that the best case for us is one that analyzes the rough proportionality or rational nexus that must exist between the condition that's being imposed and the policy it's supposed to implement, and that is Dolan v. City of Tigard, where this Court found that that was essential.\nThe purpose, the stated purpose, the declared purpose by the Ohio supreme court and the Ohio constitutional debates for these legislative regulations on the application process, and they are legislative, not executive, is to ensure the quality of information that reaches the Government.\nWhen you put the person in the position of either being unable to participate because they have to exert their Fifth Amendment rights, or being in a coercive situation, then you have undermined the State's stated purpose for having these regulations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [3273.697, 3293.704, 3309.589], "stop_times": [3293.704, 3309.589, 3324.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3273.697}, "reply_to": "20129__1_103", "speaker": "s_adele_shank"}
{"id": "20129__1_105", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Shank.\nMr. Klatt, you have 3 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [3324.598, 3325.55], "stop_times": [3325.55, 3328.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3324.598}, "reply_to": "20129__1_104", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20129__2_000", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Thank you.\nOne thing I'd like to make very clear is that there is nothing in Ohio's death penalty clemency procedures that compel the respondent to incriminate himself.\nThe interview places no condition requiring the waiver of any constitutional right, and has no element of compulsion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [3328.238, 3329.283, 3344.511], "stop_times": [3329.283, 3344.511, 3353.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3328.238}, "reply_to": "20129__1_105", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__2_001", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Suppose it was very clear that silence would be not only an adverse inference but would likely result in denial of clemency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [3353.196], "stop_times": [3361.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3353.196}, "reply_to": "20129__2_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20129__2_002", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "You might have compulsion under those circumstances.\nThat's not the situation here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [3361.754, 3365.628], "stop_times": [3365.628, 3366.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3361.754}, "reply_to": "20129__2_001", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__2_003", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "What if the... I don't know if she wants this argument, but the strongest point, I thought, going back to the complaint, would be a Mathews v. Eldridge point, that all she wants is you to postpone this hearing until it's 45 days before the real execution, and you won't do it.\nAnd the State's interest in not doing it... you know, not postponing it till the 45 days is real, is zero, her interest is... well, she loses her right, the client loses right to a lawyer and selfincrimination in a real practical way, very strong.\nThe administrative ease is tremendous.\nAll you have to do is say we're going to follow what the court does, and therefore this is a tremendously strong argument for... since it isn't even the Governor, it's the special board run by the legislature, for denial of due process.\nNow, I'm being quick about that, but I... so what's your... what... I got that out of the complaint... what's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [3366.799, 3382.23, 3398.928, 3401.537, 3415.17], "stop_times": [3382.23, 3398.928, 3401.537, 3415.17, 3421.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3366.799}, "reply_to": "20129__2_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20129__2_004", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Well, I would respectfully disagree, that there is a very important, legitimate State interest in the timing of obtaining the information.\nEven if a stay would be obtained, the order--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [3421.528, 3430.399], "stop_times": [3430.399, 3434.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3421.528}, "reply_to": "20129__2_003", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__2_005", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--Sure there is, but everybody else, everybody without a stay it's 45 days before, it's before the real execution, so what's your interest in getting that information 6 months before the execution, where all that's happened is that there's been a court order delaying it for 6 months.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [3434.616], "stop_times": [3449.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3434.616}, "reply_to": "20129__2_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20129__2_006", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--Well, if I understand your question, I don't know that the State would have an interest at that point--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [3449.171], "stop_times": [3454.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3449.171}, "reply_to": "20129__2_005", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__2_007", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Here they ask... they pointed out, they enclose, attached to the complaint, the court order of Ohio making the execution date not 45 days after September 9, but sometime after the following January 18, and still the board, they say, wouldn't postpone the hearing.\nThey wanted to have it on the 9th.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [3454.655, 3469.945], "stop_times": [3469.945, 3471.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3454.655}, "reply_to": "20129__2_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20129__2_008", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "--That's correct.\nThe simple fact that there is a time limit... in this instance it was 45 days, which seems to be a reasonable period of time... who knows when the stay might ultimately be obtained.\nIt might never be obtained.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [3471.242, 3472.086, 3485.595], "stop_times": [3472.086, 3485.595, 3486.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3471.242}, "reply_to": "20129__2_007", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__2_009", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "I suppose for Mathews v. Eldridge to apply there has to be some protected interest under the Due Process Clause in the first place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [3486.845], "stop_times": [3494.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3486.845}, "reply_to": "20129__2_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20129__2_010", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Absolutely, and fundamentally--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [3494.56], "stop_times": [3497.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3494.56}, "reply_to": "20129__2_009", "speaker": "william_a_klatt"}
{"id": "20129__2_011", "conversation_id": "20129", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Klatt.\nI think you've answered the question.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1769", "start_times": [3497.996, 3499.079, 3500.446], "stop_times": [3499.079, 3500.446, 3502.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3497.996}, "reply_to": "20129__2_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20340__0_000", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 97-16, Ohio Forestry Association v. Sierra Club.\nMr. Stewart.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [0.0, 8.127], "stop_times": [8.127, 9.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20340__0_001", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--\nThe National Forest Management Act requires the United States Forest Service to devise forest plans for each of the units within the national forest system.\nThat the plans are to be revised at 10 to 15-year intervals, and they perform two basic functions.\nFirst, they provide general guidance to Forest Service employees in the management of the affected unit and, second, they serve a public informational function by giving the public general information about the likely management activities within the forest and, while the plans vary widely from place to place, all forest plans contain projections concerning anticipated timber harvesting activities within the national forest, and it's that feature of the plan that's at issue here today.\nI'd like to start by saying that in our view it would be misleading to frame the question presented in this case as whether forest plans are reviewable.\nWe're not asking for a per se rule in this case and, indeed, we're really not asking for a special rule for forest plans.\nWhat we're saying is that the Court should examine the particular plan provision that is at issue and ask whether the decision or determination reflected in that provision is reviewable under ordinary principles of administrative law and, in our view, the timber harvesting projections at issue in this case don't meet that test.\nThe harvesting--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [9.037, 18.022, 25.959, 31.422, 56.668, 65.212, 71.077, 88.688], "stop_times": [18.022, 25.959, 31.422, 56.668, 65.212, 71.077, 88.688, 89.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 9.037}, "reply_to": "20340__0_000", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20340__0_002", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Well then, in most cases the plans aren't unified documents?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [89.73], "stop_times": [92.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 89.73}, "reply_to": "20340__0_001", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20340__0_003", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--The plans are unified documents.\nThat is, the plan is bound together.\nIt is a single document, but it contains a variety of provisions and some provisions may reflect decisions having immediate on the ground impact, others will not, and the question should be whether the particular plan provision at issue in a case has immediate on the ground impact, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [92.812, 94.703, 96.525], "stop_times": [94.703, 96.525, 114.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 92.812}, "reply_to": "20340__0_002", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20340__0_004", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Can you give me an example of a provision that would have immediate impact?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [114.366], "stop_times": [118.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 114.366}, "reply_to": "20340__0_003", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__0_005", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--One of the cases we had in the Ninth Circuit this past summer and fall was a case in which the Forest Service amended the standards and guidelines contained in a plan that regulated the manner in which timber harvesting activities would be conducted and the document that adopted the plan amendment said, these amended standards and guidelines will not apply to ongoing timber harvesting activities.\nAnd we were sued in that case and the plaintiff's contended that the agency had behaved unlawfully in failing to apply the new standards and guidelines to ongoing projects.\nIn the end we prevailed on the merits in that case, but we conceded that that was a justiciable controversy, because the decision not to make the standards and guidelines immediately applicable would have immediate on the ground impact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [118.899, 139.102, 148.647], "stop_times": [139.102, 148.647, 159.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 118.899}, "reply_to": "20340__0_004", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20340__0_006", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Well, I take it you'd agree here that if their claim were that your plan was allowing motorcycles into a bird watching area or something that like, that would be immediately justiciable on your theory, would it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [159.025], "stop_times": [168.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 159.025}, "reply_to": "20340__0_005", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20340__0_007", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [168.741], "stop_times": [169.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 168.741}, "reply_to": "20340__0_006", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20340__0_008", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [169.222], "stop_times": [169.783], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 169.222}, "reply_to": "20340__0_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20340__0_009", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "And our view is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [169.783], "stop_times": [170.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 169.783}, "reply_to": "20340__0_008", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20340__0_010", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Mr. Stewart, the respondents have filed some supplemental affidavits, have they not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [170.594], "stop_times": [176.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 170.594}, "reply_to": "20340__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20340__0_011", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--They have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [176.728], "stop_times": [177.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 176.728}, "reply_to": "20340__0_010", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20340__0_012", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Is there anything... should we consider those and, if so, is there anything in those that would reflect an immediate actionable matter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [177.329], "stop_times": [187.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 177.329}, "reply_to": "20340__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20340__0_013", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "I think the Court frankly has discretion whether to consider them or not.\nThey are part of the record below.\nI think probably the more normal course would be not to consider them because they were filed after the court of appeals issued its decision and consequently they weren't part of the record that was before the court of appeals.\nWe don't believe, in any event, that the affidavits affect the justiciability of plaintiff's facial challenge to the plan.\nThat is, the affidavits may suggest that there are individual timber harvesting activities which are having, or did have before they were enjoined, immediate on the ground impact and those specific timber harvesting activities would have been subject to judicial review.\nThat wouldn't mean that the plan level projections were suitable for judicial review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [187.075, 191.4, 192.659, 203.556, 210.742, 224.71], "stop_times": [191.4, 192.659, 203.556, 210.742, 224.71, 228.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 187.075}, "reply_to": "20340__0_012", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20340__0_014", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Was this action brought under the Administrative Procedure Act in the district court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [228.793], "stop_times": [232.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 228.793}, "reply_to": "20340__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20340__0_015", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nThe National Forest Management Act doesn't contain its own judicial review provision, so that the suit was brought under the APA.\nNow, the harvesting projections contained in the Wayne plan are contingent and uncertain in several important respects.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [232.814, 233.635, 239.099], "stop_times": [233.635, 239.099, 246.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 232.814}, "reply_to": "20340__0_014", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20340__0_016", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Would you be saying the same thing if it were the timber companies complaining and saying this plan doesn't reserve enough land for timber harvesting, it gives over too much land to other uses and excludes harvesting?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [246.245], "stop_times": [260.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 246.245}, "reply_to": "20340__0_015", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20340__0_017", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Well, if, for instance, the timber industry contended that particular areas of the forest had been improperly designated as unsuitable for harvesting I think you'd really have a different sort of justiciability problem.\nThat is, that sort of decision would be final in a way that the suitability determination here is not.\nThat is, if land is designated as off limits for harvesting there's not some subsequent site specific decision as to whether timber will actually be harvested.\nI think, though, that to establish--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [260.974, 272.311, 278.656, 285.802], "stop_times": [272.311, 278.656, 285.802, 287.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 260.974}, "reply_to": "20340__0_016", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20340__0_018", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "The difference is that in the case posited by Justice Ginsburg it is clear that no harvesting will occur.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [287.241], "stop_times": [296.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 287.241}, "reply_to": "20340__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__0_019", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--That's correct, and here it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [296.037], "stop_times": [297.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 296.037}, "reply_to": "20340__0_018", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20340__0_020", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Whereas here it is not clear that harvesting will occur.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [297.62], "stop_times": [299.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 297.62}, "reply_to": "20340__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__0_021", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--That's correct.\nNow, I think the industry plaintiff might still have difficulty establishing the redressibility component of standing, because the plaintiff would have to show that redesignation of the land as suitable for timber harvesting was ultimately likely to lead to a decision actually to harvest timber and to the award of a contract to the particular company, so there would be a different sort of justiciability problem.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [299.75, 300.479, 320.162], "stop_times": [300.479, 320.162, 320.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 299.75}, "reply_to": "20340__0_020", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20340__0_022", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Could I ask just sort of a background question?\nI'm a little confused about the whole... as I understand it, about... most of the land in the national... in this forest is owned privately.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [320.723, 323.436], "stop_times": [323.436, 329.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 320.723}, "reply_to": "20340__0_021", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20340__0_023", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [329.389], "stop_times": [330.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 329.389}, "reply_to": "20340__0_022", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20340__0_024", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "And is the clearcutting and the timber that's cut down, is that all on private land, or is that on public land?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [330.91], "stop_times": [336.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 330.91}, "reply_to": "20340__0_023", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20340__0_025", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "No.\nThe only thing we're talking about here, and the only part of this area that the plan regulates is the federally owned land.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [336.433, 336.873], "stop_times": [336.873, 342.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 336.433}, "reply_to": "20340__0_024", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20340__0_026", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "It's only federally owned land?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [342.257], "stop_times": [343.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 342.257}, "reply_to": "20340__0_025", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20340__0_027", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [343.749], "stop_times": [344.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 343.749}, "reply_to": "20340__0_026", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20340__0_028", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "So that about 80 percent of the forest, the plan just doesn't apply to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [344.27], "stop_times": [347.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 344.27}, "reply_to": "20340__0_027", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20340__0_029", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "I'm not even sure if you would call that the national forest.\nIt is land within... this is an odd sort of national forest in that it consists of three or four noncontiguous segments and it's interspersed with privately owned land, but the management plan takes into account uses on surrounding property, but it does not regulate those uses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [347.779, 350.603], "stop_times": [350.603, 365.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 347.779}, "reply_to": "20340__0_028", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20340__0_030", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "So the plan itself just regulates activities on Government owned property?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [365.143], "stop_times": [368.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 365.143}, "reply_to": "20340__0_029", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20340__0_031", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [368.954], "stop_times": [369.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 368.954}, "reply_to": "20340__0_030", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20340__0_032", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "And that's only about 20 percent of the total forest?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [369.445], "stop_times": [371.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 369.445}, "reply_to": "20340__0_031", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20340__0_033", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "It's... that's correct.\nIt's around 176,000 federally owned acres.\nNow, the forest plan contains projections as to the possible aggregate quantity of timber that might be harvested on the forest during the plan period, but those harvesting projections are not binding.\nIt's not uncommon for the Forest Service to harvest substantially less timber than it is allowed to harvest on a particular unit.\nAnd I think, second, even leaving aside the determination as to aggregate quantity of timber, the forest plan leaves the Service with very substantial latitude as to where within the forest harvesting will occur.\nFor example, this forest plan designated approximately 126,000 acres within the forest as suitable for timber harvesting, but it projected that less than 8,000 acres within the forest would actually be harvested during the first 10 years of the plan and until we know where within the forest the Service intends to harvest timber, various things remain uncertain.\nFirst, we don't know whether particular people will be hurt, whether their activities within the forest will be impaired by the harvesting that does occur.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [371.405, 372.206, 375.198, 387.267, 393.54, 406.169, 426.834], "stop_times": [372.206, 375.198, 387.267, 393.54, 406.169, 426.834, 435.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 371.405}, "reply_to": "20340__0_032", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20340__0_034", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "What if they claim that they use the entire forest?\nThat would cover that problem, I assume.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [435.037, 437.098], "stop_times": [437.098, 439.349], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 435.037}, "reply_to": "20340__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__0_035", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "I think if they literally claimed that they use the entire forest, they... at least at the motion to dismiss stage, that would take care of it.\nAt the summary judgment stage they would be required to furnish evidence to that effect.\nSecond, even aside from the uncertainty as to what people will be injured, we really don't know whether logging will be rational until we know on what site it is designated to occur.\nThat is, it's integral to the Forest Service's implementation of the National Forest Management Act that the propriety of timber harvesting can vary widely from site to site even within a particular national forest.\nThat's why--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [439.349, 444.845, 448.606, 459.134, 470.931], "stop_times": [444.845, 448.606, 459.134, 470.931, 471.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 439.349}, "reply_to": "20340__0_034", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20340__0_036", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Suppose they said that about 80,000 would be targeted for timber... out of the 126,000 acres total, and they said, oh, about 80,000 are eligible for timber cutting.\nWould the standing calculus, the ripeness calculus here vary?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [471.582, 481.199], "stop_times": [481.199, 485.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 471.582}, "reply_to": "20340__0_035", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20340__0_037", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--I don't think that it would vary because the 80,000, whatever figure the Forest Service projected would still only be a projection.\nWe still wouldn't know whether the Forest Service would actually harvest timber up to that amount and until it conducted the site specific analysis of particular tracts we wouldn't know whether it made sense to harvest timber there, so I think in a sense this is a paradigmatic example of a case in which deferral of litigation until a latter stage in the process would conserve the resources of the court and prevent unnecessary litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [485.162, 492.288], "stop_times": [492.288, 515.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 485.162}, "reply_to": "20340__0_036", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20340__0_038", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Mr. Stewart, your... the Sierra Club at least has raised one answer to that argument and I'd like you to comment on it.\nThey say that if, in fact, they have to wait for site specific decisions they will, in order to maintain their objection to the plan, have to challenge every single one of them, because part of their argument is that there is just a legally erroneous imbalance here between the timbering decision... the timbering allocation and the nontimbering allocation, and so they say I think at one point in their brief that if they do what you claim they should do they're going to have to file something like 40 lawsuits and that would not conserve judicial resources.\nThey're addressing, in other words, the hardship prong both to themselves and, I suppose, to the courts under Abbott Lab.\nWhat is your response to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [515.313, 522.318, 560.704, 566.267], "stop_times": [522.318, 560.704, 566.267, 567.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 515.313}, "reply_to": "20340__0_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20340__0_039", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "I think there are about three different responses.\nThe first is that if it is, in fact, true that there is a particular plan level determination that is dispositive with respect to a number of timber sales then, if the plaintiff files suit to challenge an initial sale and persuades the district court or the court of appeals, if the case is taken up on appeal that the plan level determination is irrational, that determination will be preclusive in subsequent litigation between the same parties, so a single party is not going to have to relitigate the same issue over and over.\nThe second thing we would point out is that both the Eighth and Eleventh--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [567.529, 569.019, 598.808], "stop_times": [569.019, 598.808, 601.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 567.529}, "reply_to": "20340__0_038", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20340__0_040", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Excuse me.\nHow could you ever come to a determination in a single suit that the overall plan level is irrational?\nThe Government will come in and say, well, even if we did set aside too much for logging activity, had we set aside less, we still might have decided that this was the tract that we were going to log on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [601.75, 603.332, 609.805], "stop_times": [603.332, 609.805, 622.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 601.75}, "reply_to": "20340__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__0_041", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--I mean, I think one example of a situation in which a plan level determination might be dispositive is if the plaintiffs came in and said, here is a large area within the forest and the Forest Service should have left that area entirely off limits to logging, and it was irrational for the Forest Service to permit any logging within that area, and if they persuaded the court that it was indeed irrational to permit logging anywhere within that area, that determination would be preclusive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [622.395], "stop_times": [649.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 622.395}, "reply_to": "20340__0_040", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20340__0_042", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "It wouldn't go to the whole plan, though, just to allowing that area to be logged.\nIt would be very hard, it seems to me, in any individual case to challenge the overall determination that X number of acres should be logged.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [649.583, 654.485], "stop_times": [654.485, 665.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 649.583}, "reply_to": "20340__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__0_043", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "I think... I think... well, I think it is certainly true that it's hard to imagine a site specific activity that would present a suitable vehicle for the court to review the whole plan, and I think if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [665.845], "stop_times": [677.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 665.845}, "reply_to": "20340__0_042", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20340__0_044", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Do you concede that there has to be some mechanism for reviewing the whole plan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [677.012], "stop_times": [682.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 677.012}, "reply_to": "20340__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__0_045", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [682.124], "stop_times": [682.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 682.124}, "reply_to": "20340__0_044", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20340__0_046", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "That every governmental determination, no matter how high the level of generality at which it is made, must be subject to judicial review?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [682.635], "stop_times": [689.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 682.635}, "reply_to": "20340__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__0_047", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "No, we don't.\nIf it were the case that the Federal courts had unlimited time and resources and if it were the case that the role of the Federal courts was to monitor the agency's protection of the public interest, then it would be a strong objection to our theory that there will be no site specific action that brings the whole plan before the courts.\nBut, in fact, as this Court noted in Defenders of Wildlife, the role of the Federal courts is to protect the rights of individual litigants and Forest Service employees whose specialty it is to manage the forests spend years devising these plans, and to expect--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [689.57, 690.041, 708.011], "stop_times": [690.041, 708.011, 722.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 689.57}, "reply_to": "20340__0_046", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20340__0_048", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Why?\nWhy is it... why can't you just say, they wouldn't have cut these trees if they'd had a legally correct plan?\nThis plan is not legally correct.\nWe don't know what they would have done with a legally correct plan, but they wouldn't be cutting these trees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [722.231, 723.21, 729.344, 731.566], "stop_times": [723.21, 729.344, 731.566, 736.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 722.231}, "reply_to": "20340__0_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20340__0_049", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--I mean, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [736.521], "stop_times": [737.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 736.521}, "reply_to": "20340__0_048", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20340__0_050", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "So why wouldn't they be able to challenge it just as an agency which takes action pursuant to a rule?\nYou would say, the rule isn't valid, therefore... we don't know if they would have done it with some other rule or not, but they can't do it from this rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [737.369, 741.973], "stop_times": [741.973, 748.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 737.369}, "reply_to": "20340__0_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20340__0_051", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Well, I think in a sense this is a familiar sort of problem in administrative law.\nThat is, it's often the case that a particular agency action will be brought before a court that implicates a narrow, specific regulatory provision, and a court will be told by the parties, in order to understand why this action does or doesn't make sense, you have to have an appreciation of the larger legal context, and the parties will provide the court at least with general information about what that context is.\nBut to say that you can review a specific action within a larger context is different from saying that you review the context as such.\nThe plaintiffs are always free to challenge individual site specific actions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [748.749, 752.349, 773.474, 780.489], "stop_times": [752.349, 773.474, 780.489, 783.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 748.749}, "reply_to": "20340__0_050", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20340__0_052", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Well, Mr. Stewart, what they basically, as I understand it, want to attack is a policy of allowing clearcutting, or even aged forest management, whatever euphemistic term you want to call it, but clearcutting, and they say that the overall plan envisions clearcutting and that's wrong, and they want to challenge that concept.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [783.912], "stop_times": [806.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 783.912}, "reply_to": "20340__0_051", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20340__0_053", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "And our point is that they have not been harmed in any way by the clearcutting projections contained in the plan unless and until clearcutting actually occurs.\nI mean, one of the noteworthy things about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [806.855, 816.212], "stop_times": [816.212, 817.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 806.855}, "reply_to": "20340__0_052", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20340__0_054", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "May I ask you, would you take that position if the statute said in so many words, or at least there was a reasonable legal argument for saying clearcutting shall be prohibited, period?\nWould they have a right to challenge a plan that authorized clearcutting if the statute clearly, or at least arguably prohibited it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [817.522, 825.777], "stop_times": [825.777, 831.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 817.522}, "reply_to": "20340__0_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20340__0_055", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--No, and I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [831.861], "stop_times": [833.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 831.861}, "reply_to": "20340__0_054", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20340__0_056", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "You'd say no?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [833.924], "stop_times": [834.505], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 833.924}, "reply_to": "20340__0_055", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20340__0_057", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--No, and I think this falls squarely within this Court's decision in National Wildlife Federation in which the Court said, absent an instruction from Congress, that review should proceed at a higher level of generality.\nOrdinarily, we... the Court entertains challenges to regulations only when the regulation is applied to a particular set of facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [834.505, 842.759], "stop_times": [842.759, 850.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 834.505}, "reply_to": "20340__0_056", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20340__0_058", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "So if the regulation is unlawful, you can't do the clearcutting, right?\nI mean, if you have a plan that's unlawful and you clearcut in a particular place, how could you do it if the regulation, i.e. the plan, was unlawful?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [850.283, 854.237], "stop_times": [854.237, 862.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 850.283}, "reply_to": "20340__0_057", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20340__0_059", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "I mean, that's correct in a challenge to a site specific--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [862.742], "stop_times": [865.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 862.742}, "reply_to": "20340__0_058", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20340__0_060", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [865.054], "stop_times": [865.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 865.054}, "reply_to": "20340__0_059", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20340__0_061", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--clearcutting determination.\nThat would be a dispositive objection if that's what the statute said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [865.635, 866.306], "stop_times": [866.306, 869.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 865.635}, "reply_to": "20340__0_060", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20340__0_062", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Stewart.\nMr. Quarles, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [869.598, 871.077], "stop_times": [871.077, 873.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 869.598}, "reply_to": "20340__0_061", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20340__1_000", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--\nI would like to turn to the merits and discuss three of the Sixth Circuit's decisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [873.448, 881.995], "stop_times": [881.995, 888.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 873.448}, "reply_to": "20340__0_062", "speaker": "steven_r_quarles"}
{"id": "20340__1_001", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Just before you do that, why was it that you intervened here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [888.059], "stop_times": [891.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 888.059}, "reply_to": "20340__1_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20340__1_002", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "We intervened here because we believed that the respondents, or, rather, the plaintiffs had raised issues which we felt were inappropriate both as to justiciability and as to the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [891.329], "stop_times": [910.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 891.329}, "reply_to": "20340__1_001", "speaker": "steven_r_quarles"}
{"id": "20340__1_003", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Well, are your clients injured by this plan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [910.323], "stop_times": [912.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 910.323}, "reply_to": "20340__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20340__1_004", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Our clients are clearly injured by the decision in the Sixth Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [912.584], "stop_times": [918.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 912.584}, "reply_to": "20340__1_003", "speaker": "steven_r_quarles"}
{"id": "20340__1_005", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "So that the plan does have some concrete effect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [918.278], "stop_times": [920.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 918.278}, "reply_to": "20340__1_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20340__1_006", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "The decision gives it concrete effect.\nThe decision said that because the Forest Service was biased the plan was unlawful and, in fact, when the Sixth Circuit decision was remanded to the district court, the district court read the Sixth Circuit decision as saying that the Forest Service could not, in fact, prepare a lawful plan, that the entire plan was unlawful, and enjoined timber sales, so we are clearly injured.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [920.968, 924.451], "stop_times": [924.451, 948.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 920.968}, "reply_to": "20340__1_005", "speaker": "steven_r_quarles"}
{"id": "20340__1_007", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "But the redress you seek is the reinstatement of the plan and I assume that's because it gives you some specific advantage.\nI can't see how you can have it both ways, and to say that the Sierra Club has no standing if they set aside the plan but that you have injury if the plan is set aside, it seems to me is just inconsistent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [948.508, 953.331], "stop_times": [953.331, 967.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 948.508}, "reply_to": "20340__1_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20340__1_008", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Our belief is that neither we nor the Sierra Club typically have standing to challenge a general plan, and that only in very unusual circumstances will a plan be site specific enough to provide both ripeness and Article III standing, including redressibility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [967.959], "stop_times": [991.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 967.959}, "reply_to": "20340__1_007", "speaker": "steven_r_quarles"}
{"id": "20340__1_009", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "You're claiming the ability to challenge the proposition that there can be no plan, which is to say there can be no timber sales in this area.\nYou're not claiming that this particular plan has to be brought back in... I mean, the source of your injury is not that the... every jot and tittle of this plan isn't valid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [991.916, 1000.573], "stop_times": [1000.573, 1015.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 991.916}, "reply_to": "20340__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__1_010", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "No, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1015.47], "stop_times": [1016.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1015.47}, "reply_to": "20340__1_009", "speaker": "steven_r_quarles"}
{"id": "20340__1_011", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "But rather that the court has held no plan at all, that is to say no timber sales at all--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1016.602], "stop_times": [1023.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1016.602}, "reply_to": "20340__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__1_012", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "That is correct, and that's exactly what the district court found on remand, that there could not be a timber sale.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1023.017], "stop_times": [1028.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1023.017}, "reply_to": "20340__1_011", "speaker": "steven_r_quarles"}
{"id": "20340__1_013", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Well, your position is something like that of the petitioner here in that Asarco case that we decided several years ago, where perhaps at the beginning you didn't have standing but once the court rules that there can be no cutting at all, then you certainly do have standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1028.42], "stop_times": [1043.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1028.42}, "reply_to": "20340__1_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20340__1_014", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "That's correct.\nThe three merits issues that I would like to talk about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1043.409, 1043.99], "stop_times": [1043.99, 1047.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1043.409}, "reply_to": "20340__1_013", "speaker": "steven_r_quarles"}
{"id": "20340__1_015", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Well, I'll think about it, because I want to hear about the merits, but it still seems to me that why you're... the reason you're here is so that there can be logging, and that's the same reason the Sierra Club's here.\nI don't understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1047.463, 1055.668], "stop_times": [1055.668, 1056.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1047.463}, "reply_to": "20340__1_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20340__1_016", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--We will always prefer to have a plan, because a plan without a plan, nothing can occur.\nWith a plan, something can occur, but our view is that typically we will not be able to challenge a plan either until such time as there is a site specific decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1056.977, 1064.594], "stop_times": [1064.594, 1074.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1056.977}, "reply_to": "20340__1_015", "speaker": "steven_r_quarles"}
{"id": "20340__1_017", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "I suppose the Sierra Club would be in the same position as you are if the plan said this entire area will be clearcut.\nWould you acknowledge that the Sierra Club would have standing in that case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1074.269, 1081.876], "stop_times": [1081.876, 1085.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1074.269}, "reply_to": "20340__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__1_018", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "I would acknowledge that it's clearly ripe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1085.768], "stop_times": [1088.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1085.768}, "reply_to": "20340__1_017", "speaker": "steven_r_quarles"}
{"id": "20340__1_019", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1088.38], "stop_times": [1090.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1088.38}, "reply_to": "20340__1_018", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20340__1_020", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "There may be a question as to standing simply because of the redressibility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1090.0], "stop_times": [1093.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1090.0}, "reply_to": "20340__1_019", "speaker": "steven_r_quarles"}
{"id": "20340__1_021", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "And this is the opposite of that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1093.602], "stop_times": [1094.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1093.602}, "reply_to": "20340__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__1_022", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Because they could wait till the first clearcut sale in order to challenge, but yes, I would believe either of two things.\nIf a plan said there shall be no cutting at all, then we would come very close to being in a position to challenge the plan and also if the plan said that the entire forest will be cut.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1094.594, 1101.046], "stop_times": [1101.046, 1110.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1094.594}, "reply_to": "20340__1_021", "speaker": "steven_r_quarles"}
{"id": "20340__1_023", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--You don't mean you're just close.\nYou could challenge that plan, couldn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1110.493, 1111.565], "stop_times": [1111.565, 1112.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1110.493}, "reply_to": "20340__1_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20340__1_024", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Excuse me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1112.774], "stop_times": [1113.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1112.774}, "reply_to": "20340__1_023", "speaker": "steven_r_quarles"}
{"id": "20340__1_025", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "If it said no clearcutting at all you don't think you could challenge that plan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1113.525], "stop_times": [1115.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1113.525}, "reply_to": "20340__1_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20340__1_026", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Well, I think we could... if they said no clearcutting at all I think it would certainly be ripe for us, but there is still a redressibility question, and that was found against us by the Eleventh Circuit in Region 8 Forest Timber Purchaser's Council, so I cannot be confident that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1115.967], "stop_times": [1132.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1115.967}, "reply_to": "20340__1_025", "speaker": "steven_r_quarles"}
{"id": "20340__1_027", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "But that plan didn't say no clearcutting at all, did it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1132.949], "stop_times": [1134.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1132.949}, "reply_to": "20340__1_026", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20340__1_028", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Excuse me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1134.639], "stop_times": [1135.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1134.639}, "reply_to": "20340__1_027", "speaker": "steven_r_quarles"}
{"id": "20340__1_029", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "In that case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1135.621], "stop_times": [1136.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1135.621}, "reply_to": "20340__1_028", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20340__1_030", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "No, it did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1136.64], "stop_times": [1137.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1136.64}, "reply_to": "20340__1_029", "speaker": "steven_r_quarles"}
{"id": "20340__1_031", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--No.\nBut you suggest you wouldn't have standing if they said you could never cut timber in this forest?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1137.201, 1137.701], "stop_times": [1137.701, 1141.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1137.201}, "reply_to": "20340__1_030", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20340__1_032", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "If it said no clearcutting it would still allow some other forms of cutting, and if the plan was remanded and the Forest Service proceeded to redo the plan, the Forest Service still has the discretion to offer very little or very much timber, and there is a redressibility question.\nI like to believe we could get to court, but all I'm saying is at least one circuit has found a problem with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1141.374, 1159.988], "stop_times": [1159.988, 1164.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1141.374}, "reply_to": "20340__1_031", "speaker": "steven_r_quarles"}
{"id": "20340__1_033", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Of course, on the other side, the... as I understand it plans do not mandate cutting, plans authorize cutting, so that if a plan said there may be clearcutting on every acre of this property, as far as... I suppose your position would be that the Sierra Club still would not have a ripe claim because they would still have to wait to see on a site specific basis whether clearcutting would be allowed on this acre.\nWouldn't that be your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1164.95, 1186.702], "stop_times": [1186.702, 1187.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1164.95}, "reply_to": "20340__1_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20340__1_034", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "That is our position.\nIn fact, in their complaint they complained that the plan did not provide a site specific decision as to optimality and, indeed, that's impossible until a site specific decision is raised and it is clear--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1187.774, 1189.544], "stop_times": [1189.544, 1201.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1187.774}, "reply_to": "20340__1_033", "speaker": "steven_r_quarles"}
{"id": "20340__1_035", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Optimality?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1201.493], "stop_times": [1202.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1201.493}, "reply_to": "20340__1_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__1_036", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Optimality.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1202.114], "stop_times": [1202.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1202.114}, "reply_to": "20340__1_035", "speaker": "steven_r_quarles"}
{"id": "20340__1_037", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "They really said that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1202.745], "stop_times": [1203.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1202.745}, "reply_to": "20340__1_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__1_038", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "The National Forest Management Act requires that for even aged management, clearcutting in particular, that the Forest Service at the time of the sale has to find that clearcutting is the optimum method, or that other even aged management is the appropriate method for timber harvesting on that site.\nAnd that's why clearly, in most instances, even if it said clearcutting will be allowed, it's important to see the site specific analysis to determine whether or not it is appropriate for that site, and that's what the statute says.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1203.355, 1222.276], "stop_times": [1222.276, 1235.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1203.355}, "reply_to": "20340__1_037", "speaker": "steven_r_quarles"}
{"id": "20340__1_039", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Can I ask you a quick question about... I'm a little nervous about the Government's answer to my last question, which was qualified at the end that it was ripe if that's what the statute provided.\nSo imagine that 5 years from now, having won this case... you won it... then the Sierra Club, at the point when they've actually going to clearcut, the saws are there, I mean, every legal thing is done, the trees are about to come down, at that point they come into court and they say, look, the trees are being cut down.\nWe certainly have standing to complain, and one of our legal arguments is that the plan that led to this particular sale is legally invalid.\nDo you know any reason why they would be unable to make that argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1235.015, 1246.772, 1267.146, 1277.942], "stop_times": [1246.772, 1267.146, 1277.942, 1282.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1235.015}, "reply_to": "20340__1_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20340__1_040", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "At the time of the sale?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1282.026], "stop_times": [1284.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1282.026}, "reply_to": "20340__1_039", "speaker": "steven_r_quarles"}
{"id": "20340__1_041", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1284.246], "stop_times": [1284.667], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1284.246}, "reply_to": "20340__1_040", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20340__1_042", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Absolutely not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1284.667], "stop_times": [1285.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1284.667}, "reply_to": "20340__1_041", "speaker": "steven_r_quarles"}
{"id": "20340__1_043", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Fine.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1285.098, 1285.608], "stop_times": [1285.608, 1286.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1285.098}, "reply_to": "20340__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20340__1_044", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Certainly they could, and I think that's an important issue to raise, because what both... what respondents and their amici said in their briefs is, they thought that the plan should be challenged before it can be implemented, and I remind you that these are 10 to 15-year plans and we are 10 years from the date on which... 10-1/2 years from the date on which the plan was first proposed.\n40 sales have proceeded.\nUnder respondent's theory, the Forest Service would have been paralyzed to do anything for these last 10 years until the validity of the plan had been established, and we believe that's inappropriate.\nThe three bias issues that I would like to talk about are first the... or the three merits issues, are first the issue of bias in favor of the timber harvesting by virtue, it seems, of the very statutes that require the Forest Service to provide for that activity.\nThe second is the Sixth Circuit's overturning of the Forest Service multiple use allocations on the basis that the plan overvalued timber, undervalued wilderness recreation, when the agency's broad discretion and technical expertise should have elicited judicial deference.\nAnd third, that they concluded even age management is restricted to exceptional circumstance when that very proposition had been addressed and rejected by the Fifth Circuit in an exhaustive opinion which the Sixth Circuit did not even cite or address.\nI think at the outset it's worth noting... observing that the bias and merits rulings and the standing rulings, the justiciability rulings, are cut from the same cloth.\nEach set of rulings in its own way demonstrates the Sixth Circuit's failure to acknowledge the limited authority of the Federal courts to inject themselves into areas of policy that have been entrusted to the political branches, and this is particularly true in the case of the bias proposal of the Sixth Circuit.\nRespondents did not attempt to defend that, but they did say that it's dicta, and that this Court should ignore it.\nThat seems to be very wrong to me as an idea.\nWe don't believe it's dicta, but even if it is, the suggestion that this Court should ignore it seems to be in error.\nFirst of all, the Sixth Circuit clearly gave that dicta for effect, and that effect that they wanted was to have the agency note it and alter their behavior accordingly and to have the district courts in the circuit note it, and that's exactly what happened on remand.\nThe district court, in a transcript we lodged with this Court, reviewed the bias ruling and found that it made the entire plan unlawful, and that the Forest Service would be incapable of preparing a lawful plan under that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1286.099, 1307.754, 1309.386, 1320.863, 1339.693, 1357.716, 1373.897, 1384.633, 1406.729, 1412.984, 1416.827, 1421.489, 1441.763], "stop_times": [1307.754, 1309.386, 1320.863, 1339.693, 1357.716, 1373.897, 1384.633, 1406.729, 1412.984, 1416.827, 1421.489, 1441.763, 1456.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1286.099}, "reply_to": "20340__1_043", "speaker": "steven_r_quarles"}
{"id": "20340__1_045", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Mr. Quarles, you don't have too much more time.\nWhy was the bias ruling wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1456.364, 1458.084], "stop_times": [1458.084, 1460.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1456.364}, "reply_to": "20340__1_044", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20340__1_046", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--The bias ruling in my view is wrong for several reasons.\nFirst of all, it was made without any reference to the administrative record.\nThere is nothing in the administrative record to demonstrate that bias and the court, in fact, used the bias ruling to avoid providing any deference to the agency, even though this is the kind of case that requires deference... broad discretion, technical expertise... and, as this Court said in Chevron, circumstances where Congress entrusted to the agency to solve competing interests.\nThis is exactly such a case, because Congress entrusted to the agency to solve competing demands by multiple users of the forest, so in that sense I think it's very wrong.\nIt's also wrong in the sense that typically there is supposed to be a presumption of agency regularity and good faith, and the only time that I'm aware when they found bias has been in extrajudicial circumstances, and that's not the case here.\nThey just simply said it was bias.\nAnd the third reason that is so extraordinary--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1460.076, 1463.227, 1467.13, 1488.594, 1498.281, 1512.7, 1514.783], "stop_times": [1463.227, 1467.13, 1488.594, 1498.281, 1512.7, 1514.783, 1517.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1460.076}, "reply_to": "20340__1_045", "speaker": "steven_r_quarles"}
{"id": "20340__1_047", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "I don't know what you mean by extrajudicial circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1517.334], "stop_times": [1519.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1517.334}, "reply_to": "20340__1_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__1_048", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Circumstances in which it was outside of the legal framework, where somebody had gone on television, a judge had gone on television and made a comment, or something like that.\nBut the third reason I think is the most extraordinary, and that is, the court found that bias in the statutory mission of the agencies.\nIt found it in three statutes, the first the 1897 Organic Act, which requires the Forest Service to establish forests for purposes of continue... furnishing a continuous timber supply to meet the needs of the American people.\nA second statute that returned 25 percent of the revenues to local communities for use for roads and forests, and a third statute that returned a part of the revenue to the Forest Service for purposes of reforestation.\nWithout acknowledging that those were statutory provisions, the court pointed to those three reasons as to why there was bias in the Forest Service, and I would maintain the notion that an agency's following the law is a bias, which allows the court not to provide deference to the agency, is an extraordinary notion that goes well beyond the bounds of judicial behavior.\nMore importantly, under that bias theory--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1519.215, 1529.082, 1538.018, 1551.205, 1563.533, 1589.01], "stop_times": [1529.082, 1538.018, 1551.205, 1563.533, 1589.01, 1591.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1519.215}, "reply_to": "20340__1_047", "speaker": "steven_r_quarles"}
{"id": "20340__1_049", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "I suppose we can't say anything about all this if we agree with your first point, that there's no ripeness here anyway.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1591.924], "stop_times": [1596.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1591.924}, "reply_to": "20340__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__1_050", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--That's correct.\nIf there... if we find there is no justiciability, then this Court need not comment on it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1596.836, 1597.838], "stop_times": [1597.838, 1604.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1596.836}, "reply_to": "20340__1_049", "speaker": "steven_r_quarles"}
{"id": "20340__1_051", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "The district courts in the Sixth Circuit continue to believe it all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1604.48], "stop_times": [1606.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1604.48}, "reply_to": "20340__1_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__1_052", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Well, that's an interesting question.\nOf course, it would say vacated on other grounds, and this was en banc reviewed, and so there's always a question whether they would believe it.\nI think that this dicta is so extraordinary that the notion that, because it's dicta this Court can't address it, is a notion that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1606.413, 1609.435, 1617.4], "stop_times": [1609.435, 1617.4, 1626.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1606.413}, "reply_to": "20340__1_051", "speaker": "steven_r_quarles"}
{"id": "20340__1_053", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "You'd like some dicta from us, too, wouldn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1626.126], "stop_times": [1627.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1626.126}, "reply_to": "20340__1_052", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20340__1_054", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Yes.\n[Laughter]\nExactly.\nThe notion that this... the notion that the farther a circuit court goes in dicta beyond its proper judicial function the more this Court has to stay silent seems to me to be highly inappropriate, and I believe this Court has the supervisory power to inform lower courts when they clearly have violated the separation of powers limitations, so for that reason, yes, I think it is perfectly permissible, but certainly a cautious court would say that once justiciability isn't there, that there's no need to go on to any of the merits, including the dicta.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1627.685, 1632.27, 1628.797, 1632.791, 1667.072], "stop_times": [1632.27, 1628.797, 1632.791, 1667.072, 1669.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1627.685}, "reply_to": "20340__1_053", "speaker": "steven_r_quarles"}
{"id": "20340__1_055", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "You wouldn't just say a cautious court, a principled court should do that, shouldn't it?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1669.896, 1673.527], "stop_times": [1673.527, 1673.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1669.896}, "reply_to": "20340__1_054", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20340__1_056", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--That, too, Your Honor.\nThe uneven age management issue, I... well, first of all let me say that the notion about multiple use allocation, the bias toward timber, that was proven wrong.\nIf the Court had provided deference and looked at the administrative record, the fact is that primitive recreation received 26,000 acres, whereas timber harvesting will only occur on 7,000.\nThat's 15 percent of the forest that went to primitive recreation, 5 percent that would have gone to timber harvesting.\nThey make much of the fact that 126,000 acres were found suitable for timber harvesting, but the plan is clear that in the life of the plan only 7,800-and-some-odd acres would actually be harvested.\nI think that's very important.\nThe second thing is, is that... thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1673.957, 1675.079, 1684.964, 1698.053, 1704.207, 1717.027, 1719.168], "stop_times": [1675.079, 1684.964, 1698.053, 1704.207, 1717.027, 1719.168, 1722.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1673.957}, "reply_to": "20340__1_055", "speaker": "steven_r_quarles"}
{"id": "20340__1_057", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Quarles.\nMr. Gittes, we'll hear from you.\nMr. Gittes, do you defend the bias ruling of the Sixth Circuit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1722.19, 1723.449, 1725.592], "stop_times": [1723.449, 1725.592, 1730.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1722.19}, "reply_to": "20340__1_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20340__2_000", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Your Honor, yes, I do, because the bias ruling is based on the factual record.\nIf you read the opinion, you'll notice the Court says, this plan was biased, let us give you some examples of why, and then proceeds to discuss the heart of the merits of this case, which is that the Forest Service violated the primary obligation under the act.\nThat obligation is to come up with a plan that maximizes the net public benefit.\nThey didn't do that in this case, because they only protected 10 percent of this forest for recreational users like the respondents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1730.584, 1734.167, 1748.597, 1753.311], "stop_times": [1734.167, 1748.597, 1753.311, 1759.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1730.584}, "reply_to": "20340__1_057", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_001", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Is that a proper bias analysis, to say that the agency here came down in favor of one side rather than another, therefore it must be legally biased in the sense of just, forever slanted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1759.927], "stop_times": [1773.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1759.927}, "reply_to": "20340__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20340__2_002", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Your Honor, specifically what the Court illustrated is as follows.\nThis plan, they fail to explain or even analyze their own expert's warning to them that they were greatly... and I use the expert's word... greatly undervaluing the demand for hiking and recreation in this forest.\nTwo, the basis... as pointed out in the court below there was a distorted view of the forest, and that included--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1773.343, 1778.248, 1791.987], "stop_times": [1778.248, 1791.987, 1799.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1773.343}, "reply_to": "20340__2_001", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_003", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Mr. Gittes, didn't this motivating course for all this begin with a statute that said... didn't the Sixth Circuit said, under this statute that puts the agency and the logging companies in bed with each other?\nIsn't that in the Sixth Circuit's opinion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1799.14, 1812.449], "stop_times": [1812.449, 1814.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1799.14}, "reply_to": "20340__2_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20340__2_004", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Your Honor, this opinion was not based on that discussion and we know that because of the concurrence.\nWe have a judge below who concurred that this plan was illegal and did not concur in any of the analysis about the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1814.361, 1818.214], "stop_times": [1818.214, 1825.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1814.361}, "reply_to": "20340__2_003", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_005", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "But the opinion of the court is driven by the arrangement under this statute that makes the agency relationship with the regulated party very close, and that's hardly unique to this kind of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1825.139], "stop_times": [1838.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1825.139}, "reply_to": "20340__2_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20340__2_006", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1838.537], "stop_times": [1839.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1838.537}, "reply_to": "20340__2_005", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_007", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--to this particular agency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1839.659], "stop_times": [1840.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1839.659}, "reply_to": "20340__2_006", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20340__2_008", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--I'm sorry.\nI absolutely do not believe the opinion was driven by that language.\nIf you follow the structure of the opinion, first they discuss how they failed to analyze the, or assign any values to the detrimental effect of timbering on other recreational uses.\nThey discuss the undervaluation, cautioned by their own experts, that they ignored, they talk about how the whole purpose of the plan's timbering program was to generate more animals like deer, skunks, squirrels, possums, of which there is an overpopulation in the area.\nIn fact, it's causing a major problem in southeast--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1840.507, 1841.288, 1844.522, 1853.887, 1867.475], "stop_times": [1841.288, 1844.522, 1853.887, 1867.475, 1869.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1840.507}, "reply_to": "20340__2_007", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_009", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Well, all of that would prove a very... if it were all true, a very bad decision, but is every very bad decision biased?\nDoes... I mean, my goodness, we really have an awful lot of disqualified judges if every time--\n[Laughter]\n--we found a decision really wrong we said this is a biased judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1869.806, 1877.323, 1883.858, 1884.268], "stop_times": [1877.323, 1883.858, 1884.268, 1887.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1869.806}, "reply_to": "20340__2_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__2_010", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, the standard under the APA, as this Court knows, it's not enough just to be wrong.\nIt has to be arbitrary and capricious, and this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1887.52, 1891.993], "stop_times": [1891.993, 1895.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1887.52}, "reply_to": "20340__2_009", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_011", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--it's an established bias.\nThat... I mean, that shows that it's wrong and can be reversed by a court, but every time an agency can be reversed by a court as being arbitrary and capricious, does that mean the agency has been biased?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1895.144, 1896.593], "stop_times": [1896.593, 1906.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1895.144}, "reply_to": "20340__2_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__2_012", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Your Honor, I'm not going to sit here and say that the word bias is always an equivalent of arbitrary and capricious.\nAll I'm trying to emphasize is that what generated that conclusion in this case, and if you read the opinion it's clear, was the factual record, the erroneous assumptions made by the Forest Service, the disregard for their own experts, the absurdity of justifying a timber program to have more deer when all the communities in that area are complaining about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1906.731, 1912.956], "stop_times": [1912.956, 1934.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1906.731}, "reply_to": "20340__2_011", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_013", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Do you know of any case of this Court in which, on the basis of the judgment below of an agency or of a court, just on the basis of how wrong the judgment was, this Court has said that the agency or the court was biased?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1934.15], "stop_times": [1947.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1934.15}, "reply_to": "20340__2_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__2_014", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Your Honor, no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1947.798], "stop_times": [1948.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1947.798}, "reply_to": "20340__2_013", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_015", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Just on the basis of what they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1948.559], "stop_times": [1950.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1948.559}, "reply_to": "20340__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__2_016", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Your Honor, I do not know of one, and I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1950.019], "stop_times": [1951.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1950.019}, "reply_to": "20340__2_015", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_017", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--I don't either.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1951.772], "stop_times": [1952.372], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1951.772}, "reply_to": "20340__2_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20340__2_018", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--I believe the Sixth Circuit's intent was to say the plan was biased, and I believe that's their wording.\nThey did go on in the majority opinion to discuss the statutory framework as to a factor that might have been an explanation which led them to disregard their own experts.\nThat part we don't defend.\nWe do believe that was dicta, and that's highlighted by the concurrence.\nBut one other point I want to emphasize here, to really understand this whole case the Court needs to understand what it is, the injury that led to this case.\nThis case arose because Forest Service administrators only protected 10 percent of the only national forest in the State of Ohio, the sixth most populous State in this country, for this kind of back packing, undisturbed recreational use.\nNow, that is the same kind of decision that the Government has conceded in their brief creates an injury, in this respect.\nThe Government has conceded that a decision not to close roads, for example, or as mentioned earlier, a decision to close off a forest area to offroad vehicle use, is an injury that's being inflicted.\nThis plan inflicted that injury when they basically said, we will not close off more of this forest from a wide range of activities--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [1952.372, 1957.205, 1965.871, 1967.203, 1970.392, 1979.187, 1993.589, 1999.691, 2011.361], "stop_times": [1957.205, 1965.871, 1967.203, 1970.392, 1979.187, 1993.589, 1999.691, 2011.361, 2019.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1952.372}, "reply_to": "20340__2_017", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_019", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "But they did not at the same time say, with respect to timbering, we will open it at this moment to timbering now, and isn't that the nub of your disagreement with the Government?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2019.265], "stop_times": [2030.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2019.265}, "reply_to": "20340__2_018", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20340__2_020", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--No, Your Honor, it's not the nub.\nIt's one of the most graphic features of it, but it's not the nub.\nOur con--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2030.932, 2031.934, 2034.696], "stop_times": [2031.934, 2034.696, 2035.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2030.932}, "reply_to": "20340__2_019", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_021", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--you said below... I mean, in your brief you said, well, we have standing because we have some people who watch birds and this plan allows the motorcycle to come through and that disturbs the birds.\nAll right, that might give you standing, as was just conceded.\nBut I didn't notice in your complaint or in the arguments below where this was made a point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2035.204, 2046.063, 2047.983], "stop_times": [2046.063, 2047.983, 2053.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2035.204}, "reply_to": "20340__2_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20340__2_022", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Your--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2053.748], "stop_times": [2054.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2053.748}, "reply_to": "20340__2_021", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_023", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "I mean, maybe you'd have a different case.\nI thought this case was about clearcutting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2054.708, 2056.087], "stop_times": [2056.087, 2057.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2054.708}, "reply_to": "20340__2_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20340__2_024", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Your Honor, it's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2057.679], "stop_times": [2058.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2057.679}, "reply_to": "20340__2_023", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_025", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "And that's what it seems to have been argued on, so if now it's a question of motorcycles disturbing the hikers, that sounds like a different case, which the Government said you might have standing on that one, so where is, now, that all been argued.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2058.731], "stop_times": [2068.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2058.731}, "reply_to": "20340__2_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20340__2_026", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, this case has always been about one principal issue how much of this very small forest, extremely small, one of the smallest in the country, is going to be protected for back country hiking.\nIn fact, in technical terms this was about designating more of the forest, in Forest Service jargon, 6.2.\nWell, that has a specific meaning, Your Honor.\nThat means none of these other activities.\nThat's what it means, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2068.867, 2079.415, 2086.217, 2087.58, 2089.221], "stop_times": [2079.415, 2086.217, 2087.58, 2089.221, 2090.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2068.867}, "reply_to": "20340__2_025", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_027", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "My question is, where has this been argued below, or that what you're actually bringing this case for is to protect the interests of hikers and bird watchers from being disturbed by motorcycles.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2090.371], "stop_times": [2101.458], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2090.371}, "reply_to": "20340__2_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20340__2_028", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Your Honor will find it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2101.458], "stop_times": [2103.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2101.458}, "reply_to": "20340__2_027", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_029", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Can you cite something in that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2103.148], "stop_times": [2104.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2103.148}, "reply_to": "20340__2_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20340__2_030", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Yes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2104.51], "stop_times": [2104.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2104.51}, "reply_to": "20340__2_029", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_031", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--where you've mentioned that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2104.971], "stop_times": [2105.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2104.971}, "reply_to": "20340__2_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20340__2_032", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2105.522], "stop_times": [2105.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2105.522}, "reply_to": "20340__2_031", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_033", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2105.972], "stop_times": [2106.271], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2105.972}, "reply_to": "20340__2_032", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20340__2_034", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "If you take a look at tab 100 of the administrative appeal of the Citizen's Council--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2106.271], "stop_times": [2110.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2106.271}, "reply_to": "20340__2_033", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_035", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "I mean in the courts.\nI mean, this has been a case in the courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2110.405, 2111.176], "stop_times": [2111.176, 2112.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2110.405}, "reply_to": "20340__2_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20340__2_036", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2112.575], "stop_times": [2113.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2112.575}, "reply_to": "20340__2_035", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_037", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "They're saying you don't have standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2113.516], "stop_times": [2114.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2113.516}, "reply_to": "20340__2_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20340__2_038", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Yes.\nYour Honor, in the complaint itself, I believe it is paragraph 25 talks about NEPA violations.\nThat allegation was based upon one principal argument that not enough alternatives made allowances for larger areas of protected 6.2... in other words, back country hiking.\nWe also specifically address in paragraph 20 of the complaint the failure to consider the road situation properly.\nWe also in our briefing extensively discuss the problem of undervaluation of the demand for back country hiking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2114.538, 2115.177, 2121.04, 2131.97, 2138.053], "stop_times": [2115.177, 2121.04, 2131.97, 2138.053, 2145.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2114.538}, "reply_to": "20340__2_037", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_039", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Well, I don't see in paragraph 20 anything that says the roads will interfere with hikers or motorcyclists, and I don't see anything in paragraph 25 that says anything like that, either.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2145.367], "stop_times": [2156.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2145.367}, "reply_to": "20340__2_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20340__2_040", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Your Honor, it does not specifically specify the uses that are interfered with.\nIt specifies that the plan failed to consider the impact of these roads on the uses of the plaintiffs and in the first allegations, early allegations in the complaint we set out the uses of the plaintiff.\nWe describe the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2156.246, 2160.298, 2171.106], "stop_times": [2160.298, 2171.106, 2172.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2156.246}, "reply_to": "20340__2_039", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_041", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "I mean, I take that to assume, reading this and reading the arguments below, that you're talking about clearcutting.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2172.847, 2177.751], "stop_times": [2177.751, 2178.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2172.847}, "reply_to": "20340__2_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20340__2_042", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2178.78], "stop_times": [2179.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2178.78}, "reply_to": "20340__2_041", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_043", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--I mean, I guess I'm pushing this a little bit because I want to satisfy myself that there really isn't this bird watcher hiker motorcycle argument in the case, because I do believe it would make quite a different case out of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2179.331], "stop_times": [2190.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2179.331}, "reply_to": "20340__2_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20340__2_044", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Your Honor, and I don't want to back off of the timber issue because I believe we have clear standing and ripeness on that as well, and we'll get back to it in a moment, but this case was always about one principal issue, how much of the forest was going to be protected from a wide range of activities.\nThe very first--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2190.977, 2204.897], "stop_times": [2204.897, 2205.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2190.977}, "reply_to": "20340__2_043", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_045", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "I thought the guts of your complaint was number... was paragraph 23 on page 139a, the plan adopted by the defendants is unlawful and arbitrary and capricious because among other reasons, then it goes down A, B, C, D, E, and F, all of which refer to timber harvesting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2205.848], "stop_times": [2221.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2205.848}, "reply_to": "20340__2_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__2_046", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Your Honor, that is one portion of the allegations in the complaint, but there are other allegations regarding, for example, the NEPA violation that stands in a separate paragraph unrelated to that and that NEPA violation, as briefed in the court below, was concerned with not having enough alternatives with more land protected for back country hiking.\nThere's... from the very beginning--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2221.669, 2239.09], "stop_times": [2239.09, 2241.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2221.669}, "reply_to": "20340__2_045", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_047", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "I certainly would have been surprised if I had been served with this complaint, you know, to have to come in and defend the exclusion of motor... the admission of motorcyclists.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2241.051, 2251.279], "stop_times": [2251.279, 2251.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2241.051}, "reply_to": "20340__2_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__2_048", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Your Honor, I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2251.667], "stop_times": [2252.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2251.667}, "reply_to": "20340__2_047", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_049", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--I would have said, where did this come from?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2252.338], "stop_times": [2253.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2252.338}, "reply_to": "20340__2_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__2_050", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--I don't mean to focus on motorcycles.\nThe very first filing in the administrative record of substance--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2253.279, 2255.62], "stop_times": [2255.62, 2258.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2253.279}, "reply_to": "20340__2_049", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_051", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "25 doesn't deal with... I don't think it deals with NEPA violations.\nYou may have the wrong number--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2258.622, 2262.165], "stop_times": [2262.165, 2263.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2258.622}, "reply_to": "20340__2_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20340__2_052", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Perhaps--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2263.166], "stop_times": [2263.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2263.166}, "reply_to": "20340__2_051", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_053", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2263.654], "stop_times": [2264.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2263.654}, "reply_to": "20340__2_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20340__2_054", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--I'm sorry, paragraph 47, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2264.305], "stop_times": [2267.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2264.305}, "reply_to": "20340__2_053", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_055", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Well, Mr. Gittes, if you read 2a at the petition for writ of certiorari, the first part of the court of appeals opinion, which is telling what the quote is about, the second paragraph says we're talking about clearcutting, even... it doesn't say anything about anything else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2267.057], "stop_times": [2286.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2267.057}, "reply_to": "20340__2_054", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20340__2_056", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Your Honor, there's no question the court of appeals focused on timbering as being the primary injury here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2286.231], "stop_times": [2292.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2286.231}, "reply_to": "20340__2_055", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_057", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2292.165], "stop_times": [2292.686], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2292.165}, "reply_to": "20340__2_056", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20340__2_058", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--and then the most graphic injury, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2292.686], "stop_times": [2293.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2292.686}, "reply_to": "20340__2_057", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_059", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Well then, you're in effect asking us to affirm the court of appeals on an alternate ground.\nYou're not really defending what the court of appeals did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2293.975, 2297.919], "stop_times": [2297.919, 2300.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2293.975}, "reply_to": "20340__2_058", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20340__2_060", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nThe one thing the court of appeals did, besides talk about timbering, is how this plan failed to properly consider the demand for recreational uses of the forest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2300.399, 2300.99], "stop_times": [2300.99, 2310.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2300.399}, "reply_to": "20340__2_059", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_061", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "But it talked about that in the context of timbering and clearcutting, didn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2310.747], "stop_times": [2315.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2310.747}, "reply_to": "20340__2_060", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20340__2_062", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "It did in terms of timber, but it also talked about it in terms of the Forest Service simply not valuating properly the demand for these other uses.\nBut even as to the timber program, Your Honor, there clearly is standing in this case.\nThis... there is no question, under a plan like this, there will be timbering.\nThis is not... the Government may be correct that... as to where and when the timbering will occur, but there is no question that there will--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2315.25, 2323.475, 2328.547, 2333.302], "stop_times": [2323.475, 2328.547, 2333.302, 2339.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2315.25}, "reply_to": "20340__2_061", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_063", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Even if there's standing there's a ripeness issue as well, is there not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2339.486], "stop_times": [2344.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2339.486}, "reply_to": "20340__2_062", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20340__2_064", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Yes, there is, Your Honor, and we believe not only is the plan, the timing of this case the best time for challenging plan decisions which are unlawful, but it may be the only time, because in fact the Government has maintained a mantra in the courts below that goes like this.\nIt's either not ripe, or it's not relevant.\nIt's not ripe because you're too early, or you haven't exhausted your administrative appeals, the plan isn't finalized.\nNow, we waited till we had exhausted our administrative appeals required by the Government's regulations in this case.\nNow, when you go to tie up a project the Government's position has been highlighted in the ICL v. Mumma case that, well, wait a minute, this project only has to do with deciding whether this location fits the plan's conditions and serves the objectives of the plan.\nIt does not involve any review of the balancing act, the trade offs, the multiuse determination which is the core of all plans.\nTherefore, it's not really raised by the project.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2344.138, 2360.949, 2363.663, 2369.115, 2373.968, 2387.906, 2396.661], "stop_times": [2360.949, 2363.663, 2369.115, 2373.968, 2387.906, 2396.661, 2399.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2344.138}, "reply_to": "20340__2_063", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_065", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "But your... it seems to me the premise of your argument is that every governmental decision needs to be reviewable immediately, and that... let's assume the FCC decides that it's... we are going to have no more than 5,000 radio stations per State, and let's assume that no State currently has any more than 3,000.\nNow, that may be a very stupid policy for the FCC to adopt, but unless there's... unless there's some special provision for immediate judicial review, do you think that that generalized determination could be immediately reviewable when nobody is affected by it immediately?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2399.333, 2426.04], "stop_times": [2426.04, 2445.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2399.333}, "reply_to": "20340__2_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__2_066", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Well, if no one claims to have wanted to open a station in one of the States that were barred from having a station, you're right, there would be no standing, but in light of someone like--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2445.414], "stop_times": [2453.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2445.414}, "reply_to": "20340__2_065", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_067", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Even though it may be a very stupid policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2453.88], "stop_times": [2456.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2453.88}, "reply_to": "20340__2_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__2_068", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, but here we have a situation where the plan creates the injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2456.933], "stop_times": [2462.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2456.933}, "reply_to": "20340__2_067", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_069", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Well, no, because the... it seems to me on the analogy with Justice Scalia's hypothesis the injury in your case occurs when the hiker goes to the tract to hike and can't hike in it, or finds that the timber company's saws are waiting to cut, so the injury is imminent.\nIsn't that the analogy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2462.264, 2480.327], "stop_times": [2480.327, 2481.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2462.264}, "reply_to": "20340__2_068", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20340__2_070", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Well, Your Honor, our complaint is not just with timber, it's with a wide range of activities, including roadwork, road reconstruction, and many of those--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2481.418], "stop_times": [2491.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2481.418}, "reply_to": "20340__2_069", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_071", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "And if the... you know, if the road building equipment is there and they're about to lay the asphalt, no question, I assume, on the Government's part you've got your standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2491.283], "stop_times": [2500.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2491.283}, "reply_to": "20340__2_070", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20340__2_072", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Well, in... the plans... this plan would be purposeless.\nIt would be a meaningless exercise taking years of energy, millions of dollars, if the plan wasn't going to try to accomplish its objectives.\nIts objectives.\nFor example, since the Court has focused on timbering, although I think that it's not the heart of this case, which is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2500.53, 2505.353, 2513.188, 2514.56], "stop_times": [2505.353, 2513.188, 2514.56, 2520.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2500.53}, "reply_to": "20340__2_071", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_073", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "No, but can't you... I don't mean to cut off your argument, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2520.235], "stop_times": [2522.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2520.235}, "reply_to": "20340__2_072", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20340__2_074", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--That's all right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2522.728], "stop_times": [2523.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2522.728}, "reply_to": "20340__2_073", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_075", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--can't you make the same argument with respect to any prospective governmental determination that has not yet been implemented?\nYou can always say, they wouldn't be saying this, or writing this, or promulgating this unless they intended, in fact, to do what they say, and so if your argument is sufficient, it seems to me it really cuts the ripeness doctrine out of the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2523.198, 2530.021], "stop_times": [2530.021, 2545.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2523.198}, "reply_to": "20340__2_074", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20340__2_076", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Well, Your Honor, this is not a typical Government decision, in the sense that number 1 the very purpose of NFMA is served by having review of the plan at the earliest stage possible.\nSecondly, this... by law, this plan is to set the objectives for the forest and these objectives, whether it's having more ORV or timbering to generate more deers, whether it's to have more hiking area, can never be achieved unless what the plan suggests be done be done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2545.661, 2561.253], "stop_times": [2561.253, 2581.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2545.661}, "reply_to": "20340__2_075", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_077", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "All right, that may be, but isn't the question before you whether your objection to these objectives cannot be raised and fairly litigated until the moment at which they start to implement it?\nIsn't that the problem before us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2581.626, 2594.542], "stop_times": [2594.542, 2595.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2581.626}, "reply_to": "20340__2_076", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20340__2_078", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, and the reason it's not a problem is for three reasons.\nFirst of all, the first injury is inflicted the moment the plan is finalized, because that injury is, they haven't closed off more of the forest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2595.984, 2597.795], "stop_times": [2597.795, 2606.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2595.984}, "reply_to": "20340__2_077", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_079", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "But nothing may change from what is, and I suppose this is the problem lurking behind all of this.\nThere may be some things that will immediately injure somebody in this plan, or... but you're coming to a court which this abstract challenge.\nYou say, court, go over the whole thing.\nThere's lots of problems with this, and it's sort of a super... you're putting the court as the superadministrator over an agency when nothing is done, has been done, and courts, you know, are accustomed to thinking small, to having a concrete case where somebody is hurt or is about to be hurt, but this sprawling, what... first it's clearcutting and then it's the motorcycles and the birds.\nIt's just everything, and that's kind of overwhelming for a court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2606.092, 2614.057, 2623.373, 2625.335, 2647.439], "stop_times": [2614.057, 2623.373, 2625.335, 2647.439, 2651.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2606.092}, "reply_to": "20340__2_078", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20340__2_080", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Your Honor, first of all, the heart of the injury here, I have to emphasize, is not having more area protected.\nThat's the claim.\nFor the State of Ohio, this is a... this forest is so small, to give you an idea, it's a... if you put it all together in a square, it's about 20 by 15 miles square.\nYou can hike this whole forest, across it, in a day.\nThe respondents, as put out in the administrative record, made clear, live in this area.\nThey use it every day.\nNow, let me address the issue of too big a decision.\nThe real decision here and that we're arguing about is that basic decision, the equation that led to so little of this forest, which is a unique resource for the State of Ohio, being made available for back country hiking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2651.04, 2658.025, 2658.676, 2668.14, 2671.054, 2674.865, 2675.957, 2679.089], "stop_times": [2658.025, 2658.676, 2668.14, 2671.054, 2674.865, 2675.957, 2679.089, 2693.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2651.04}, "reply_to": "20340__2_079", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_081", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Now, even if you were right about that, couldn't a court just say what, essentially, this district court did.\nThe district court didn't throw it out on justiciability.\nIt looked it over and it said, we have to be extremely deferential to an agency at this just going in threshold stage.\nNow, you have conceded that the bias part, the Sixth Circuit shouldn't have said... I think you said that... that this is not a dishonest, corrupt agency, so if you got to the merits at this abstract stage, wouldn't the agency be owed the utmost deference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2693.11, 2697.202, 2700.244, 2708.628], "stop_times": [2697.202, 2700.244, 2708.628, 2729.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2693.11}, "reply_to": "20340__2_080", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20340__2_082", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Your Honor, the agency is owed deference but not absolute deference, obviously, as this Court has emphasized, Motor Vehicles Manufacturing Association being a good example.\nA close look at this record, as I was trying to indicate earlier, shows the classic indicators of arbitrariness.\nWhen an agency completely fails to explain or even analyze a warning from their own experts, when an agency violates its own regulations and fails to factor in the negative impact of timbering, when an agency justifies a timbering program to get more deer when their own regulations say you've got to consider what's surrounding the forest and there's a deer problem throughout the private holdings around the forest, that reaches a level of arbitrariness under this Court's standard, even with deference.\nAnd to get back to the injury question on ripeness, the reality of the situation is, this plan is being implemented.\nWe're not dealing with a plan attack where nothing has happened.\nSecondly, the plan will be meaningless unless they do do things.\nThird, as Justice Scalia emphasized, and I think it's critical in this case, this is not like the NWF case.\nThis is not 2 million acres.\nThis place is so small that literally, as indicated in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2729.485, 2736.981, 2743.606, 2770.473, 2777.98, 2780.731, 2784.973, 2791.097, 2792.839], "stop_times": [2736.981, 2743.606, 2770.473, 2777.98, 2780.731, 2784.973, 2791.097, 2792.839, 2796.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2729.485}, "reply_to": "20340__2_081", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_083", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "What is the... if you'd focus, it would help me.\nIf you'd first assume with me that you didn't clearly argue... I know you don't want to make this assumption, but let's assume that you clearly... or did not argue clearly that you're trying to protect the hikers, the bird watchers, et cetera, from the motorcycles.\nAssume that all that is at stake is a claim that you made that we are harmed by clearcutting.\nAll right.\nFocusing solely on that now, I'm curious as to why it's ripe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2796.88, 2798.462, 2812.962, 2819.476, 2820.635], "stop_times": [2798.462, 2812.962, 2819.476, 2820.635, 2825.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2796.88}, "reply_to": "20340__2_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20340__2_084", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2825.53], "stop_times": [2826.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2825.53}, "reply_to": "20340__2_083", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_085", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "What they've said, the Government, is it will be ripe at the point when somebody has a definite plan to cut the tree, i.e., the permissions have been granted, this tree will be cut.\nAt that point you would come in and say, this tree is going to be cut.\nWe think that's unlawful because it flows from an unlawful plan, making just the arguments you make now.\nNow, why can't you do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2826.839, 2836.977, 2842.21, 2850.218], "stop_times": [2836.977, 2842.21, 2850.218, 2852.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2826.839}, "reply_to": "20340__2_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20340__2_086", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Your Honor, if literally this Court were to rule that the entire multiuse analysis, which means factoring in total demand for recreation, for hiking, total demand for hunting, total demands for wildlife preservation, total demands for timbering, that whole equation and balancing that goes on in a plan can be reviewed in the context of a single timber project, then that would lead to the review that we're seeking.\nThe problem is and the reality is that the record concerning the plan has been completed.\nThe siting of a particular timber sale is not what we're concerned about.\nWe're not concerned about that tree over there, or that tree over there.\nWe're concerned with how much of the total area is going to be protected from any timbering.\nAnd I have to emphasize this.\nPerhaps I can get this one point across.\nTimbering is being viewed here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2852.148, 2878.996, 2883.72, 2887.192, 2891.104, 2896.409, 2897.679, 2899.74], "stop_times": [2878.996, 2883.72, 2887.192, 2891.104, 2896.409, 2897.679, 2899.74, 2901.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2852.148}, "reply_to": "20340__2_085", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_087", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Excuse me, but if and when they go beyond what you think the amount of the area that should have been allowed for clearcutting, then certainly that whole issue would come up.\nFor example, if you think it's arbitrary and capricious to allow any clearcutting at all, then the very first logging enter... attempt would enable you to challenge that portion of the general plan which allows any clearcutting, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2901.291, 2915.64], "stop_times": [2915.64, 2928.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2901.291}, "reply_to": "20340__2_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__2_088", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Your Honor, that is our position, basically, that this is such a small forest and such a unique resource that there should be none of these kinds of activities--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2928.54], "stop_times": [2936.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2928.54}, "reply_to": "20340__2_087", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_089", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Well, then you'll be able to challenge it as soon as they allow clearcutting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2936.154], "stop_times": [2941.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2936.154}, "reply_to": "20340__2_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__2_090", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Your Honor, I could go tomorrow to the courthouse and file a complaint which has added to it a count that project X is... violates the plan and use it to bootstrap a plan attack.\nHere's why that makes no sense, at least to me.\nNumber 1, the factors that go into that siting have nothing to do with the plan decision.\nAll that you do in a project level is decide, does this meet the plan's standards, will it meet the plan's goal.\nYou don't even consider the big questions that the plan had already decided.\nSecond--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2941.396, 2954.546, 2956.697, 2962.36, 2968.885, 2972.057], "stop_times": [2954.546, 2956.697, 2962.36, 2968.885, 2972.057, 2972.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2941.396}, "reply_to": "20340__2_089", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_091", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Well, the administrator doesn't, but it doesn't follow from that that you cannot at that point raise the bigger issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2972.718], "stop_times": [2978.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2972.718}, "reply_to": "20340__2_090", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20340__2_092", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--If this Court clearly and unequivocally were to allow that, that would solve part of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2978.583], "stop_times": [2983.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2978.583}, "reply_to": "20340__2_091", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_093", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Well, why... you can say, look, you see this tree, it's coming down.\nYou know why it's coming down?\nBecause they had a faulty plan.\nIf they had not put aside 40 acres, or 4,000, or whatever they'd done, they'd put aside some different amount, and we have no way of knowing it would have been this tree.\nNobody could say it would have been this tree, and therefore you have to look at the faulty plan.\nWhat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [2983.293, 2986.106, 2987.257, 2989.869, 2996.952, 3001.116], "stop_times": [2986.106, 2987.257, 2989.869, 2996.952, 3001.116, 3001.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2983.293}, "reply_to": "20340__2_092", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20340__2_094", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Your Honor, but in the context of that project challenge, in order to challenge the plan we're going to have to be discussing a lot more than just timber and even the timber base.\nWe're going to have to discuss recreational demand, we're going to have to discuss all the cost benefit analysis that fill up the whole book of the planning records here, because it isn't just a matter of deciding about the timbering issue that leads to the timbering, because it's a balance of every use of the forest, and the particulars of that sale have nothing to do with that balancing act.\nIt only occurs at the plan level, and the administrative record is complete, and our other--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3001.997, 3010.192, 3031.136], "stop_times": [3010.192, 3031.136, 3034.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3001.997}, "reply_to": "20340__2_093", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_095", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Okay, but your argument is that if you challenge the point at which the one tree is going to be cut, you're going to have to bring all of these other things in.\nYou want to bring all of those other things in now.\nThe question is, when do you bring them in, and it seems to me it's not an objection to the ripeness suggestion that Justice Breyer made to say, well, we'll have to litigate a lot when we do.\nThat's accept... that's a wash.\nThat's going to be true whenever you litigate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3034.849, 3043.425, 3045.996, 3056.523, 3057.844], "stop_times": [3043.425, 3045.996, 3056.523, 3057.844, 3059.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3034.849}, "reply_to": "20340__2_094", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20340__2_096", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Your Honor, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3059.356], "stop_times": [3060.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3059.356}, "reply_to": "20340__2_095", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_097", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--on your theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3060.327], "stop_times": [3061.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3060.327}, "reply_to": "20340__2_096", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20340__2_098", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--The reasons we don't think that ripeness in this case calls for tying it to a particular project is twofold.\nFirst of all, because the project specifics do not illuminate, they aren't really relevant to the larger plan decisions, secondly the whole purpose of NFMA is to get a plan and get it clarified as early as possible, and third, there are many projects which occur of which we don't even get notice.\nI guess since the Court wants to focus on the timbering, which I have to emphasize again is... it's the collection of activities that's the injury here, many of which happen instantaneously when the plan's adopted.\nBut a timbering example.\nIn this plan, there is provided for what are known as wildlife openings.\nIt sounds wonderful, but really what it is about is doing three--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3061.336, 3067.1, 3082.941, 3093.256, 3094.668, 3099.123], "stop_times": [3067.1, 3082.941, 3093.256, 3094.668, 3099.123, 3102.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3061.336}, "reply_to": "20340__2_097", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_099", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Wildlife what?\nI didn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3102.793, 3103.674], "stop_times": [3103.674, 3104.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3102.793}, "reply_to": "20340__2_098", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__2_100", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Openings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3104.235], "stop_times": [3104.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3104.235}, "reply_to": "20340__2_099", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_101", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Openings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3104.846], "stop_times": [3105.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3104.846}, "reply_to": "20340__2_100", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__2_102", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Openings, and under the plan the Forest Service is going to go in and cut all the threes in 3 to 5-acre areas, up to 17 cuts in a 1,000-acre area through the designated areas.\nThe purpose is to promote deer and other wildlife associated with it.\nNow, the Government has suggested to you there's some big, formal decision making process, and appeals, and a real clear opportunity to challenge all this.\nThat's not the way it works.\nA forest ranger one day will decide, hey, the plan calls for wildlife openings.\nUnder their own regulations and rules, that is categorically excluded from any further formal analysis and any appeal process, so the forest ranger decides, okay, I'm going to go over here, I'm going to cut down 5 acres, and we're going to have a wildlife opening, and the next day he'll pick another area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3105.505, 3116.444, 3119.556, 3127.641, 3128.563, 3133.103], "stop_times": [3116.444, 3119.556, 3127.641, 3128.563, 3133.103, 3147.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3105.505}, "reply_to": "20340__2_101", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_103", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Okay.\nI think you're making a pretty good argument for the fact that you can go in before the moment of the cutting, and maybe you can go in now, because you're saying, I won't get notice and, in fact, the hardship of waiting until they start cutting will in practice mean we'll never get to challenge them, but that's a very different thing, I think, from the challenge to clearcutting as such.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3147.072, 3147.513], "stop_times": [3147.513, 3169.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3147.072}, "reply_to": "20340__2_102", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20340__2_104", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3169.279], "stop_times": [3170.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3169.279}, "reply_to": "20340__2_103", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_105", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "I mean, that... I can see the... your argument there, whether it wins or not, is much stronger than your argument with respect to clearcutting tracts which will require further administrative action, which you will have notice of.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3170.24], "stop_times": [3181.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3170.24}, "reply_to": "20340__2_104", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20340__2_106", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, timber cuts... the timbering program is much more than just the big sales.\nFor example, a lot of prep work goes in before the first tree is cut, even for a big sale.\nThey have to build trails, some of which may be a short couple of miles, which are categorically excluded from any appeal process or further assessment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3181.325, 3185.828, 3191.203], "stop_times": [3185.828, 3191.203, 3198.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3181.325}, "reply_to": "20340__2_105", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_107", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Yes, but do they build those trails before the timber cut is approved?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3198.307], "stop_times": [3202.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3198.307}, "reply_to": "20340__2_106", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__2_108", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Your Honor, they build trails both for timber cuts, in which case they would not build them before they're approved.\nThey also build trails to do what is known as timber management, which is to do things to the timber to make it grow faster.\nThey also for the purposes of wildlife openings... and again, if we're talking about openings just to create more deer habitat.\nThey will go in... these rangers are making these kinds of decisions under a plan every day, and a good percentage of those decisions are not subject to any formal decisionmaking process, and I'm not even mentioning now the whole issue of roads and ORV trails and, you know, the other things the Court is uncomfortable with, although I assure you they were raised in the administrative record and have been a subject of discussion below.\nThe real issue here is, how much of this forest is going to be available for the millions of Ohioans who want to go hiking somewhere and not run into a motorcycle and not watch timber being cut and not have huge openings, and not have too many deer running around causing accidents on the road on the way in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3202.591, 3209.904, 3217.968, 3224.123, 3244.319], "stop_times": [3209.904, 3217.968, 3224.123, 3244.319, 3259.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3202.591}, "reply_to": "20340__2_107", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_109", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "If we wanted substantiation for the argument that you're now making, is it contained in any other decisions of any other courts, or in the record here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3259.055], "stop_times": [3266.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3259.055}, "reply_to": "20340__2_108", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20340__2_110", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Your Honor, I'm not sure if I understood what you're referring to.\nIn terms of the issues being raised--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3266.291, 3271.454], "stop_times": [3271.454, 3272.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3266.291}, "reply_to": "20340__2_109", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_111", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Well, you want us to write an opinion in this part of your argument saying that these decisions are being made all the time, the forest is being affected even as we sit here, et cetera.\nHow do I know that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3272.836, 3280.25], "stop_times": [3280.25, 3281.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3272.836}, "reply_to": "20340__2_110", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20340__2_112", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Well, you can--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3281.341], "stop_times": [3282.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3281.341}, "reply_to": "20340__2_111", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_113", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--other than your submission?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3282.133], "stop_times": [3283.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3282.133}, "reply_to": "20340__2_112", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20340__2_114", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Your Honor, the Forest Service's own regulations, and their own Forest Service handbook, which is certainly available to the Court, talks about projects being categorically excluded.\nThey have fire break limitations, they have a whole list of certain kinds of things that are excluded from formal decisionmaking and appeals.\nSo it is true that on the large timber sales we get a notice, but even there, Your Honor, they are certainly impending.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3283.392, 3291.48, 3297.691], "stop_times": [3291.48, 3297.691, 3304.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3283.392}, "reply_to": "20340__2_113", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_115", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Did you come in and say, we want no clearcutting at all, zero clearcutting, we want zero wildlife openings, we want zero... zero roads?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3304.045], "stop_times": [3317.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3304.045}, "reply_to": "20340__2_114", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__2_116", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3317.085], "stop_times": [3317.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3317.085}, "reply_to": "20340__2_115", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_117", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "I mean, if you came in with all of that, then I suppose any plan would immediate... and your people used all of the forest, I suppose any plan would immediately affect you.\nWas that your... you really think that they couldn't have provided for any timbering at all, or any wildlife--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3317.967, 3324.99], "stop_times": [3324.99, 3332.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3317.967}, "reply_to": "20340__2_116", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__2_118", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Your Honor, timbering in this forest is ridiculous.\nIt is so small, and even if you do timber, at its peak of timbering in the Wayne it was providing barely over 1 percent of the timber that comes out of Ohio.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3332.205, 3334.527], "stop_times": [3334.527, 3343.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3332.205}, "reply_to": "20340__2_117", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_119", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Was that your contention below, that no timber--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3343.501], "stop_times": [3345.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3343.501}, "reply_to": "20340__2_118", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__2_120", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3345.442], "stop_times": [3345.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3345.442}, "reply_to": "20340__2_119", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_121", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--at all should be allowed here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3345.963], "stop_times": [3346.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3345.963}, "reply_to": "20340__2_120", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__2_122", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Your Honor, I didn't use zero, but our contention was the timbering program was illegal, and the reason clearcutting came up is because, since the forest plan chose as its objective trying to create habitat for more deer, which nobody needed, that automatically meant clearcutting, because the Forest Service's own analysis says, if you want to clear the forest the cheapest and fastest way to do it is to cut everything.\nTherefore, that's why the plan said 80 percent of all cutting's going to be by clearcutting.\nBut it's the timber program that was the complaint here, and the heart of the complaint wasn't even that.\nIt was, give us more of this forest, if not all of it, so the people of Ohio can have one place--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3346.664, 3370.931, 3374.392, 3378.945], "stop_times": [3370.931, 3374.392, 3378.945, 3385.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3346.664}, "reply_to": "20340__2_121", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_123", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "And where... the paragraphs in the complaint that show its heart are which paragraphs?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3385.53], "stop_times": [3390.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3385.53}, "reply_to": "20340__2_122", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20340__2_124", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Your Honor, I would focus on, in terms of that part of it, the NEPA claims, and if you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3390.252], "stop_times": [3394.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3390.252}, "reply_to": "20340__2_123", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_125", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "But that... it's... now you're telling us is not that part of it.\nYou say, this is the heart... if I were to look at this entire complaint, I would find the heart, the heartbeats, so I want to know where I'm going to find the heart of, not this part, because you're shifting.\nIs it the heart of the whole case, or just part of the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3394.406, 3397.368, 3409.126], "stop_times": [3397.368, 3409.126, 3412.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3394.406}, "reply_to": "20340__2_124", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20340__2_126", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Your Honor, it's the heart of the whole case.\nThe reason we challenged timbering is because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3412.787, 3414.019], "stop_times": [3414.019, 3415.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3412.787}, "reply_to": "20340__2_125", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_127", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Okay.\nWhere do I find in this complaint the heart of the whole case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3415.778, 3416.309], "stop_times": [3416.309, 3418.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3415.778}, "reply_to": "20340__2_126", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20340__2_128", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Your Honor, if you look at the NEPA arguments below, in the appeal court and the trial court, you will find discussion about not enough recreational lands being protected.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3418.779], "stop_times": [3428.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3418.779}, "reply_to": "20340__2_127", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_129", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Excuse me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3428.847], "stop_times": [3429.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3428.847}, "reply_to": "20340__2_128", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20340__2_130", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Thank you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3429.398], "stop_times": [3429.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3429.398}, "reply_to": "20340__2_129", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20340__2_131", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Chief Justice, could I ask--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3429.858], "stop_times": [3430.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3429.858}, "reply_to": "20340__2_130", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__2_132", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3430.878], "stop_times": [3431.349], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3430.878}, "reply_to": "20340__2_131", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20340__2_133", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--What paragraph of the complaint, because you first said the NEPA thing was 25.\nIt wasn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3431.349, 3434.812], "stop_times": [3434.812, 3435.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3431.349}, "reply_to": "20340__2_132", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__2_134", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "It's 47, Your Honor.\nI got the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3435.282, 3436.204], "stop_times": [3436.204, 3436.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3435.282}, "reply_to": "20340__2_133", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_135", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--47?\nIs there a 47?\nNo, there isn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3436.571, 3437.122, 3437.993], "stop_times": [3437.122, 3437.993, 3439.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3436.571}, "reply_to": "20340__2_134", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__2_136", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--There isn't?\nThen I had written down the wrong--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3439.363, 3439.894], "stop_times": [3439.894, 3440.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3439.363}, "reply_to": "20340__2_135", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_137", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "I end at 42.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3440.665], "stop_times": [3441.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3440.665}, "reply_to": "20340__2_136", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20340__2_138", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "Well, you can file it with the Clerk, perhaps.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3441.636], "stop_times": [3443.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3441.636}, "reply_to": "20340__2_137", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20340__2_139", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3443.736], "stop_times": [3444.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3443.736}, "reply_to": "20340__2_138", "speaker": "frederick_m_gittes"}
{"id": "20340__2_140", "conversation_id": "20340", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-16", "start_times": [3444.952], "stop_times": [3446.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3444.952}, "reply_to": "20340__2_139", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21084__0_000", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-568, Joseph Oncale v. Sundowner's Offshore Services, Inc.--\nMr. Canaday.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [0.0, 9.206], "stop_times": [9.206, 10.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21084__0_001", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nRejecting Joseph Oncale's title VII claims, the Fifth Circuit stated, same-sex harassment claims are not cognizable under title VII.\nThe question presented through this appeal is whether the Fifth Circuit's categorical rejection of same-sex claims under title VII is correct.\nWe argue that it is not.\nThe court below should be reversed.\nSame-sex sexual harassment claims are actionable under title VII.\nThis case is not about the outer limits or parameters of same-sex sexual harassment as an actionable form of discrimination because of sex, nor is this case about the methods of proof of such a claim.\nThis case is about whether a same-sex sexual harassment claim exists as a matter of law.\nThe Fifth Circuit rule that same-sex claims do not exist under title VII is not sex-specific.\nIt is an absolute rule.\nBoth sides to this litigation agree that women are entitled to the protections of title VII, but to accept the Fifth Circuit rule is to accept the proposition that a woman's right to work in an environment free of unwelcome sexual conduct, or sexual solicitation, turns on the sex of her harasser.\nIf the harasser is a female, the woman has no rights or remedies under title VII as interpreted by the Fifth Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [10.689, 16.443, 25.918, 33.262, 35.214, 37.027, 41.118, 55.77, 63.036, 70.569, 72.662, 95.427], "stop_times": [16.443, 25.918, 33.262, 35.214, 37.027, 41.118, 55.77, 63.036, 70.569, 72.662, 95.427, 102.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.689}, "reply_to": "21084__0_000", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_002", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "I thought this case involved a man.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [102.632], "stop_times": [104.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 102.632}, "reply_to": "21084__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21084__0_003", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "It does, Your Honor.\nThis case does involve a man, but I emphasize that the Fifth Circuit's ruling is not a male-on-male decision, it is a same-sex decision, and I emphasize that to point out the breadth of the Fifth Circuit's categorical and absolute rule that same-gender sexual harassment claims, regardless of the genders, as long as they're identical, and regardless of the underlying facts, would, under the Fifth Circuit's rule, be dismissed as a matter of law, but Your Honor, you're exactly correct, this is a male-on-male situation, but the court did not decide the case on that fact except to recognize that the genders of the two parties, the harasser and the victim, were the same.\nSo to accept the Fifth Circuit's rule, then, is to agree that the sex of the harasser defines the scope of title VII.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [104.494, 105.456, 146.225], "stop_times": [105.456, 146.225, 154.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 104.494}, "reply_to": "21084__0_002", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_004", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Not necessarily.\nI mean, you could say if the harasser, whoever he or she is, treats members of one sex, whether the same sex as the harasser or the opposite sex, differently, you could... so you... if you have a difference of... in treatment by the perpetrator of males and females, that's one thing.\nSo I don't think that the Fifth Circuit has ruled quite as broadly as you suggest.\nYou could have a male perpetrator and a male victim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [154.419, 155.671, 176.574, 182.168], "stop_times": [155.671, 176.574, 182.168, 186.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 154.419}, "reply_to": "21084__0_003", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21084__0_005", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Your Honor, the Fifth Circuit has ruled categorically that if there is a male victim and a male perpetrator they do not look at the underlying facts or circumstances of the harassment.\nThey decided as a matter of law that same-gender causes of actions do not exist.\nThe Fifth Circuit's rule would be equally applicable were this a woman-on-woman case.\nThe fact that it is male-on-male--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [186.101, 195.298, 200.674, 206.217], "stop_times": [195.298, 200.674, 206.217, 208.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 186.101}, "reply_to": "21084__0_004", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_006", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "But my point is, this was an all-male environment, too, and wasn't that... don't we have to take the decision in that context?\nIn other words, they didn't say that if you have an employer who treats members of one sex one way and members of another sex another way there would still be no claim under title VII if the victim is a male and the perpetrator is a male.\nThey didn't say that.\nThere was no other sex involved in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [208.117, 215.734, 229.824, 231.334], "stop_times": [215.734, 229.824, 231.334, 235.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 208.117}, "reply_to": "21084__0_005", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21084__0_007", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--That is correct, there was no other sex involved, but that factual determination is not the foundation of the Fifth Circuit's rule.\nThe Fifth Circuit's rule is a categorical rule.\nThe Fifth Circuit in fact did not discern or consider the underlying circumstances or the maleness of the workplace.\nThe Fifth Circuit's rule is the broadest of possible brushes.\nIt's an absolute rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [235.148, 241.373, 243.967, 251.641, 255.064], "stop_times": [241.373, 243.967, 251.641, 255.064, 256.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 235.148}, "reply_to": "21084__0_006", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_008", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Well, as I understand, Mr. Canaday, you're not asking us to decide whether or not there was discrimination in this case.\nYou're simply asking us to say that the fact that it was male on male does not prevent there from having been discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [256.095, 262.49], "stop_times": [262.49, 269.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 256.095}, "reply_to": "21084__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21084__0_009", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Your Honor, that's exactly correct, because my case was thrown out as a matter of law.\nThe court below found that no facts were material.\nThe court below did not review the facts and determine which facts of the alleged harassing situation were material.\nThey didn't decide this case as a matter of fact.\nThey decided this case as a matter of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [269.225, 273.67, 276.932, 282.726, 284.859], "stop_times": [273.67, 276.932, 282.726, 284.859, 286.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 269.225}, "reply_to": "21084__0_008", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_010", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Well, what are you going to have to show if you prevail?\nWhat does a judge tell the jury?\nLadies and gentlemen of the jury, you may find for the plaintiff if, what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [286.621, 290.374, 291.295], "stop_times": [290.374, 291.295, 295.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 286.621}, "reply_to": "21084__0_009", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21084__0_011", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "We would prevail if the jury was instructed that sexual harassment is a cognizable form of discrimination based on sex.\nThe jury could then be instructed on the law as established in the circuits and as articulated by this Court, and then the court, the trier of fact could draw the reasonable inference... well, first of all, under the facts alleged the trier of fact could determine that Joseph Oncale was quid pro... the victim of quid pro quo sexual harassment, or the trier of fact, under the facts as they currently stand, could find that Joseph Oncale was victimized of a hostile sexual environment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [295.528, 308.228], "stop_times": [308.228, 334.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 295.528}, "reply_to": "21084__0_010", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_012", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "But title VII doesn't speak of sexual harassment or a hostile sexual environment.\nThat is a part of a... the basic is discrimination.\nYou would have to show that he was treated differently because he was a man, would you not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [334.358, 339.229, 344.052], "stop_times": [339.229, 344.052, 349.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 334.358}, "reply_to": "21084__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21084__0_013", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Your Honor, we would have to show that discrimination because of sex, as defined by this Court in the Meritor case, did in fact occur, yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [349.287], "stop_times": [357.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 349.287}, "reply_to": "21084__0_012", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_014", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Well, suppose you had a case in which an uncouth supervisor tells very offensive and suggestive jokes to both sexes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [357.953], "stop_times": [368.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 357.953}, "reply_to": "21084__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21084__0_015", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Well, on the facts--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [368.459], "stop_times": [372.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 368.459}, "reply_to": "21084__0_014", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_016", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Or, in your case, if we could change the facts a little bit, if almost the same conduct was perpetrated against both sexes by this supervisor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [372.362], "stop_times": [381.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 372.362}, "reply_to": "21084__0_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21084__0_017", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--If it is the off-color, or the poor joke case, Your Honor, I believe the argument then would be, or the issue then would be whether or not the severity or pervasiveness of the conduct raised the level--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [381.147], "stop_times": [392.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 381.147}, "reply_to": "21084__0_016", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_018", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Well, you know what I'm trying to say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [392.214], "stop_times": [392.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 392.214}, "reply_to": "21084__0_017", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21084__0_019", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Yes, sir.\nIf the facts were that the... all employees of both genders are treated equally, the equal opportunity harasser... first of all, let me emphasize that's not this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [392.945, 393.156], "stop_times": [393.156, 407.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 392.945}, "reply_to": "21084__0_018", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_020", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [407.765], "stop_times": [408.166], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 407.765}, "reply_to": "21084__0_019", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21084__0_021", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "But assume hypothetically it was, then the question would be whether or not that under the facts you could... the jury could discern an attempt to discriminate based on sex.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [408.166, 417.362], "stop_times": [417.362, 419.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 408.166}, "reply_to": "21084__0_020", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_022", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "So you're saying that the other sexual harasser, or the homosexual harasser is liable, but the bisexual harasser is not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [419.092], "stop_times": [432.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 419.092}, "reply_to": "21084__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__0_023", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [432.259], "stop_times": [432.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 432.259}, "reply_to": "21084__0_022", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_024", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "That there is immunity for the bisexual harasser.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [432.5], "stop_times": [435.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 432.5}, "reply_to": "21084__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__0_025", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "No, sir.\nThat is not our position in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [435.201, 435.641], "stop_times": [435.641, 437.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 435.201}, "reply_to": "21084__0_024", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_026", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Oh, I thought... I thought--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [437.454], "stop_times": [437.785], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 437.454}, "reply_to": "21084__0_025", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21084__0_027", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "No, sir.\nIf I stated that, I misspoke.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [437.785, 438.503], "stop_times": [438.503, 440.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 437.785}, "reply_to": "21084__0_026", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_028", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Well, if not, why is there discrimination?\nI think that's what we're both asking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [440.746, 442.329], "stop_times": [442.329, 443.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 440.746}, "reply_to": "21084__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21084__0_029", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "In the pure... in the true bisexual harasser scenario, which again this case is not, the court could then look at the sexual nature of the conduct and could, under existing precedent, argue that each victim was a victim of sexual harassment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [443.808], "stop_times": [463.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 443.808}, "reply_to": "21084__0_028", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_030", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "No.\nEach victim would have been a victim of... would have been discriminated against on the basis of that person's sexuality, but not on the basis of that person's sex, because it was indifferent to the harasser whether the person was male or female.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [463.412, 463.773], "stop_times": [463.773, 477.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 463.412}, "reply_to": "21084__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__0_031", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "But the individual claimant, Your Honor, who brought the cause of action alleging that he or she was the victim of sexual discrimination could demonstrate that their work environment was a discriminatorily hostile work environment and then, perhaps as a matter of defense--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [477.213], "stop_times": [491.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 477.213}, "reply_to": "21084__0_030", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_032", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "No more so than people of the other sex.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [491.574], "stop_times": [493.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 491.574}, "reply_to": "21084__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__0_033", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Then that would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [493.284], "stop_times": [493.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 493.284}, "reply_to": "21084__0_032", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_034", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "That's what the person has to show.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [493.855], "stop_times": [494.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 493.855}, "reply_to": "21084__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__0_035", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--But that would be a matter of affirmative defense, would it not, not as matter of an element of cause of action.\nIf that person shows that they are singled out for mistreatment based upon sex--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [494.956, 499.859], "stop_times": [499.859, 504.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 494.956}, "reply_to": "21084__0_034", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_036", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Yes, if they show they're singled out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [504.714], "stop_times": [506.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 504.714}, "reply_to": "21084__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__0_037", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [506.604], "stop_times": [506.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 506.604}, "reply_to": "21084__0_036", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_038", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "But the point is, they haven't been singled out.\nThis person treats males and females alike.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [506.985, 508.206], "stop_times": [508.206, 512.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 506.985}, "reply_to": "21084__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__0_039", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Right, and again, if that was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [512.048], "stop_times": [513.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 512.048}, "reply_to": "21084__0_038", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_040", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "I just wonder... you know, if you acknowledge that the bisexual harasser does not violate this law, I just wonder how that transfers over to the case that you have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [513.23], "stop_times": [522.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 513.23}, "reply_to": "21084__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__0_041", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Well, I do not believe it transfers over to the case that I have because the case before you now is the first-step case as to whether the cause of action exists and secondly, in my case, only men were harassed under the situation on the Sundowner rig.\nOnly Joseph Oncale was harassed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [522.957, 536.383], "stop_times": [536.383, 538.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 522.957}, "reply_to": "21084__0_040", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_042", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "No, but you don't concede as a matter of law, do you, that the bisexual harasser cannot harass on the basis of sex?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [538.496], "stop_times": [547.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 538.496}, "reply_to": "21084__0_041", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21084__0_043", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "That is exactly correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [547.312], "stop_times": [548.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 547.312}, "reply_to": "21084__0_042", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_044", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "I mean, a person may be quite neutral on sexuality and still in fact discriminate on the basis of sex, and you're not conceding that fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [548.642], "stop_times": [556.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 548.642}, "reply_to": "21084__0_043", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21084__0_045", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Absolutely not, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [556.358], "stop_times": [556.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 556.358}, "reply_to": "21084__0_044", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_046", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [556.738], "stop_times": [556.949], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 556.738}, "reply_to": "21084__0_045", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21084__0_047", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Your Honor.\nI do not concede that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [556.949, 557.279], "stop_times": [557.279, 558.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 556.949}, "reply_to": "21084__0_046", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_048", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Well, are you taking the position that any harassment, provided that it's grave, fits under title VII, then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [558.711], "stop_times": [569.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 558.711}, "reply_to": "21084__0_047", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21084__0_049", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "No, Your Honor, we're not taking the position that any harassment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [569.187], "stop_times": [572.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 569.187}, "reply_to": "21084__0_048", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_050", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "So what would you exclude?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [572.74], "stop_times": [574.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 572.74}, "reply_to": "21084__0_049", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21084__0_051", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Well, I believe that the exclusions would be a matter of fact, whether or not it... whether or not the harassment was shown as a matter of fact to raise to the level of severity of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [574.061], "stop_times": [584.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 574.061}, "reply_to": "21084__0_050", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_052", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Oh, let's assume that it's very gross, but... so... and it meets all the standards of our case law about it has to be pervasive and grave.\nIs there any category that you would then omit, or are you saying that all sexual harassment, provided it meets the standards of being severe and pervasive, fits under title VII?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [584.457, 595.416], "stop_times": [595.416, 609.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 584.457}, "reply_to": "21084__0_051", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21084__0_053", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--If... assuming the harassment does raise to the level of severity and pervasiveness and would be recognized as sexual harassment, then our position is that the gender of the harasser vis-a-vis the gender of the victim is not a material fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [609.487], "stop_times": [626.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 609.487}, "reply_to": "21084__0_052", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_054", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Well, why is that discrimination, then?\nYou would agree that you also have to show that the harasser is discriminating--\n--Yes--\n--on the basis of sex, which the statute says, would you not, that he is treating, or she is treating one sex differently from the other?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [626.988, 628.367, 633.323, 634.041], "stop_times": [628.367, 633.323, 634.041, 641.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 626.988}, "reply_to": "21084__0_053", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21084__0_055", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "I believe that's an essential element of the cause of action, but the Fifth Circuit in this case said that those circumstances could never be proved in a same-gender sexual harassment claim.\nThese questions that the court have posed are questions of proof, or questions of motive, but not of questions of definition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [641.358, 651.633], "stop_times": [651.633, 657.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 641.358}, "reply_to": "21084__0_054", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_056", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "No, but it's also a question of how we're going to write the opinion.\nI mean, maybe you would prevail under these facts, but we have to understand the nature of the cause of action, and we're asking you why there is discrimination in some of these hypotheticals that we have posed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [657.629, 658.741], "stop_times": [658.741, 668.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 657.629}, "reply_to": "21084__0_055", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21084__0_057", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Your Honor, there is discrimination because Joseph Oncale in this case, alone among men in a workplace, was selected by his supervisor, a male, to be the victim of that male supervisor's unsolicited, unwanted, and obnoxious sexual advances.\nThat is sexual harassment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [668.386, 686.258], "stop_times": [686.258, 688.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 668.386}, "reply_to": "21084__0_056", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_058", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "I wouldn't really call them sexual advances.\nIt was certainly not... a lot cruder than that, but suppose... suppose that Mr. Oncale had been hazed, which is what the other side says.\nThis is just, you know, good frolics, and male hazing.\nSuppose he had been hazed in some other fashion.\nI mean, just as obnoxious, but just not... you know, nothing to do with genitals or anything else.\nThey just said, you know, you're a fat slob.\nYour eyes are crooked.\nAnd, you know, they just made life miserable.\nThe same, but... just as obnoxious.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [688.24, 690.25, 702.248, 706.061, 708.633, 713.797, 715.84, 718.902, 721.674], "stop_times": [690.25, 702.248, 706.061, 708.633, 713.797, 715.84, 718.902, 721.674, 724.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 688.24}, "reply_to": "21084__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__0_059", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "But removing the element of sex, then--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [724.378], "stop_times": [726.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 724.378}, "reply_to": "21084__0_058", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_060", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Well, just using something else, other than his manhood, as the basis for the hazing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [726.09], "stop_times": [733.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 726.09}, "reply_to": "21084__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__0_061", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Then he would not have... I don't believe, under that fact pattern, he would have a right of action under title VII.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [733.484], "stop_times": [738.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 733.484}, "reply_to": "21084__0_060", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_062", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "You see, I find that difficult to understand.\nI mean, that... he's still singling out this person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [738.389, 739.809], "stop_times": [739.809, 742.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 738.389}, "reply_to": "21084__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__0_063", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Well, if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [742.333], "stop_times": [745.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 742.333}, "reply_to": "21084__0_062", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_064", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "I don't know why singling him out on the basis of his sexuality means that you're singling him out on the basis of his sex.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [745.117], "stop_times": [752.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 745.117}, "reply_to": "21084__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__0_065", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Well, I believe that what we've argued in brief is that it is... the singling out for sex-specific or sex-driven conduct is one category, this category, but your hypothetical--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [752.12], "stop_times": [761.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 752.12}, "reply_to": "21084__0_064", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_066", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Why is that?\nIs this a law... I mean, is this a dirty-word law, or something?\nIt wasn't meant to produce politeness and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [761.817, 762.017, 765.29], "stop_times": [762.017, 765.29, 768.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 761.817}, "reply_to": "21084__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__0_067", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Right.\nTo answer your question, though, you asked earlier, Your Honor, is if the conduct was devoid of sexual connotations, or didn't involve grabbing Mr. Oncale's genitalia, or didn't involve use of a bar of soap in a shower, as this case did, then perhaps there would have to be showing of modus, or motive, or intent, or animus, independent of the facts.\nBut given that this man was singled out for sexual abuse by his supervisors, the component of sexuality as a component of... because of his sex is inherent in the fact pattern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [768.983, 769.223, 790.257], "stop_times": [769.223, 790.257, 801.887], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 768.983}, "reply_to": "21084__0_066", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_068", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Well, take Justice Scalia's hypothesis that the hazing here did not involve genitals, but just very nasty treatment.\nNow, if you could show the supervisor, or whoever was the hazer, did not treat women the same way given the same circumstances, then I suppose you could make out a claim of discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [801.887, 808.921], "stop_times": [808.921, 825.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 801.887}, "reply_to": "21084__0_067", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21084__0_069", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [825.212], "stop_times": [825.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 825.212}, "reply_to": "21084__0_068", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_070", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "But just the hazing by itself, unless you can show that men are treated differently than women, doesn't make out a claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [825.581], "stop_times": [831.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 825.581}, "reply_to": "21084__0_069", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21084__0_071", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "I believe if the harassing conduct is nonsexual then the plaintiff would have a burden of establishing a disparity of treatment and show that perhaps that supervisor didn't treat women the same way so as to show the motive to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [831.187], "stop_times": [844.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 831.187}, "reply_to": "21084__0_070", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_072", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "But supposing it is sexual, you still have to show different treatment of men versus women, do you not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [844.055], "stop_times": [850.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 844.055}, "reply_to": "21084__0_071", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21084__0_073", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--You have to show that this individual was harassed or discriminated against because of his sex.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [850.83], "stop_times": [858.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 850.83}, "reply_to": "21084__0_072", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_074", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "And to be discriminated against, that is, treated differently than someone of the other sex.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [858.495], "stop_times": [864.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 858.495}, "reply_to": "21084__0_073", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21084__0_075", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "That is true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [864.101], "stop_times": [866.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 864.101}, "reply_to": "21084__0_074", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_076", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Isn't your point here that when the hazing is of the sexual nature here, simply by proving what went on, you make a stronger prima facie case that in fact there was sex discrimination going on than you would be if you were merely to prove hazing of a totally nonsexual nature?\nIsn't that the real difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [866.993, 888.425], "stop_times": [888.425, 889.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 866.993}, "reply_to": "21084__0_075", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21084__0_077", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [889.446], "stop_times": [890.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 889.446}, "reply_to": "21084__0_076", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_078", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "But theoretically your burden is the same.\nIn this case, your burden is to prove that in fact these... the individual defendants here would not have treated women the same way they were treating this man.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [890.568, 892.869], "stop_times": [892.869, 904.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 890.568}, "reply_to": "21084__0_077", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21084__0_079", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [904.809], "stop_times": [906.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 904.809}, "reply_to": "21084__0_078", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_080", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "And that the employer would not have reacted or have condoned this sort of treatment in a women... had women been the object of it, whereas they have condoned it in this case.\nThose are your two burdens, then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [906.169, 921.099], "stop_times": [921.099, 922.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 906.169}, "reply_to": "21084__0_079", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21084__0_081", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Right, and the manner in which members of the opposite gender are treated and the manner in which the employer may respond to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [922.571], "stop_times": [928.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 922.571}, "reply_to": "21084__0_080", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_082", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "But how could you show that for an all-male workforce?\nThat's... you seem to be thinking that it's irrelevant that we don't have any comparison group, and yet you answered Justice Souter, yes, it is relevant.\nWhere you have an all-male workforce, how can we know how the... this... these gross people would have treated women, or how the employer would have reacted to it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [928.274, 929.716, 941.925], "stop_times": [929.716, 941.925, 953.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 928.274}, "reply_to": "21084__0_081", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21084__0_083", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Your Honor, it may well be relevant, but we do not concede that it's determinative.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [953.371], "stop_times": [957.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 953.371}, "reply_to": "21084__0_082", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_084", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "But how would you prove anything at all about it, because what evidence would you have about how women would have been treated had they been in the workplace?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [957.394], "stop_times": [971.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 957.394}, "reply_to": "21084__0_083", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21084__0_085", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "We might be able to show how women were treated in other circumstances, in other work offices of Sundowner, or how they responded to sexual harassments by other individuals.\nWe may be able to demonstrate that Mr. Lyons may confess that had Joseph Oncale not been a man he never would have done that.\nIn the current posture of this case we haven't had an opportunity to take Mr. Lyons' deposition, but those are the types of questions we would certainly explore with him.\nI'd like to save some time for rebuttal, if I may.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [971.053, 981.631, 987.448, 993.352], "stop_times": [981.631, 987.448, 993.352, 995.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 971.053}, "reply_to": "21084__0_084", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__0_086", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Very well, Mr. Canaday.\nMr. Kneedler.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [995.764, 997.265], "stop_times": [997.265, 998.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 995.764}, "reply_to": "21084__0_085", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21084__1_000", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [998.266], "stop_times": [1008.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 998.266}, "reply_to": "21084__0_086", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21084__1_001", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Mr. Kneedler, will you please get into this question of what a plaintiff has to show when it's a same-sex situation, in the Government's view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1008.645], "stop_times": [1018.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1008.645}, "reply_to": "21084__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21084__1_002", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Yes.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1018.001, 1018.702], "stop_times": [1018.702, 1018.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1018.001}, "reply_to": "21084__1_001", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21084__1_003", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Is there an element of discrimination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1018.953], "stop_times": [1020.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1018.953}, "reply_to": "21084__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21084__1_004", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1020.805], "stop_times": [1021.056], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1020.805}, "reply_to": "21084__1_003", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21084__1_005", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "And how can that be shown?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1021.056], "stop_times": [1023.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1021.056}, "reply_to": "21084__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21084__1_006", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--The test under title VII is whether a person was treated in the way he or she was because of that employee's sex.\nAs this Court said in Vinson, to quote, without question, when a supervisor sexually harasses a subordinate because of the subordinate's sex, that supervisor discriminates on the basis of sex, or, put another way, as in Manhart, when the person is treated in a manner different from what he would have been treated if gender had not been taken into account.\nThe question of how someone of the opposite sex is treated is one way of proving that ultimate question, but the Court in Vinson regarded it as treating someone because of their sex as discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1023.237, 1032.492, 1051.286], "stop_times": [1032.492, 1051.286, 1063.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1023.237}, "reply_to": "21084__1_005", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21084__1_007", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "How can that possibly be involved in this case?\nI mean, there were other men in the workplace who weren't treated this way.\nThey just didn't like this guy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1063.174, 1065.375, 1069.569], "stop_times": [1065.375, 1069.569, 1070.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1063.174}, "reply_to": "21084__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__1_008", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Well, that... there's a difference between motive and treatment.\nI mean, if we look at Harris, for example, in Harris the harassment was explicitly sexual, sex-based.\nThe employer was saying, you dumb woman, comments like that.\nIt was facially sex-based, just like in Johnson Controls the policy with respect to employment was explicitly sex-based, and the Court said when you have something that's explicitly sex-based the motive behind that does not detract from the fact that it is a violation of title VII.\nAnd when you... in the opposite gender harassment cases the courts, lower courts have been prepared to assume, as I think this Court's descriptions in Vinson and Harris have, that it is because of sex.\nNow, that may--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1070.61, 1074.845, 1081.32, 1084.982, 1101.074, 1113.793], "stop_times": [1074.845, 1081.32, 1084.982, 1101.074, 1113.793, 1114.304], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1070.61}, "reply_to": "21084__1_007", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21084__1_009", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "So it's a presumption?\nJustice Souter used the kinder, gentler word of prima facie case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1114.304, 1115.894], "stop_times": [1115.894, 1119.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1114.304}, "reply_to": "21084__1_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21084__1_010", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1119.026], "stop_times": [1119.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1119.026}, "reply_to": "21084__1_009", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21084__1_011", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "But is there a presumption that this kind of conduct is discriminatory?\nIs that what you're saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1119.286, 1123.72], "stop_times": [1123.72, 1124.271], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1119.286}, "reply_to": "21084__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21084__1_012", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Well, I think that the courts have assumed that it's because of sex, that there's something relational about sex.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1124.271], "stop_times": [1130.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1124.271}, "reply_to": "21084__1_011", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21084__1_013", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "But the statute requires discrimination, and that's what we're puzzled--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1130.094], "stop_times": [1133.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1130.094}, "reply_to": "21084__1_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21084__1_014", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "The... what I was saying, though, is that it prohibits action because of sex.\nIt was intended to remove race, sex, national origin from the decision-making process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1133.427, 1139.04], "stop_times": [1139.04, 1144.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1133.427}, "reply_to": "21084__1_013", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21084__1_015", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Well, because of the sex of the victim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1144.095], "stop_times": [1146.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1144.095}, "reply_to": "21084__1_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21084__1_016", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Yes, because of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1146.376], "stop_times": [1146.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1146.376}, "reply_to": "21084__1_015", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21084__1_017", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Isn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1146.987], "stop_times": [1147.328], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1146.987}, "reply_to": "21084__1_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21084__1_018", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Because of the sex of the victim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1147.328], "stop_times": [1148.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1147.328}, "reply_to": "21084__1_017", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21084__1_019", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Okay.\nSo suppose you have an employer who has the unfortunate habit of patting every single employee, male or female, on the fanny every day, indiscriminately, both sexes.\nNow, how do you show sexual harassment under that discrimination requirement of title VII?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1148.317, 1148.497, 1164.648], "stop_times": [1148.497, 1164.648, 1171.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1148.317}, "reply_to": "21084__1_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21084__1_020", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "It may well be that in that situation the conduct is not because of the recipient's... of the victim's sex.\nThat is the requirement, and as the Court said in Harris, this is a question of the facts and circumstances and the severity--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1171.693, 1177.858], "stop_times": [1177.858, 1184.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1171.693}, "reply_to": "21084__1_019", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21084__1_021", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "You're concentrating on because of sex, which is in the statute, I agree, but discriminate... discriminate is also a word in the statute, and you're leaving that out of your analysis, it seems to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1184.222], "stop_times": [1191.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1184.222}, "reply_to": "21084__1_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21084__1_022", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Well, it textually... this is a constructive discharge case, among other things, and the statute says it's an unlawful employment practice to fail or refuse to hire... excuse me, or to discharge an individual or otherwise discriminate because of the individual's sex.\nThe suggestion textually, discharge because of sex, is taken to be discrimination in that situation, and this is consistent with the purpose of title VII, which is to render irrelevant a person's sex, just as the person's race or national origin is to be irrelevant in the workplace.\nSo if you have... in the hypothetical equal opportunity harasser, if someone uses explicitly sex-based harassing terms, rising to the level of offensiveness at issue in Harris, against women using sex-specific words and men using derogatory, sex-specific terms, each of those employees experiences the terms and conditions of his or her employment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1191.746, 1209.008, 1225.208], "stop_times": [1209.008, 1225.208, 1251.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1191.746}, "reply_to": "21084__1_021", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21084__1_023", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "I don't see how you can get that out of the statute, Mr. Kneedler.\nIt says discriminate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1251.004, 1253.318], "stop_times": [1253.318, 1254.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1251.004}, "reply_to": "21084__1_022", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21084__1_024", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Well, each... going back to Manhart, the question is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1254.93], "stop_times": [1260.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1254.93}, "reply_to": "21084__1_023", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21084__1_025", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Well, but I'm talking about the statute.\nI'm not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1260.724, 1261.605], "stop_times": [1261.605, 1262.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1260.724}, "reply_to": "21084__1_024", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21084__1_026", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--But the words used, discriminate means treat differently, or a draw a distinction between, and the words chosen for the harassment of the woman are different from the words chosen of the harassment of the man, and specifically because of the recipient's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1262.015], "stop_times": [1275.564], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1262.015}, "reply_to": "21084__1_025", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21084__1_027", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Well then, Justice O'Connor's hypothetical, then, would not meet the statute because no words were chosen.\nEach one is just patted on the fanny.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1275.564, 1281.23], "stop_times": [1281.23, 1282.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1275.564}, "reply_to": "21084__1_026", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21084__1_028", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--And it is not... it is not... perhaps looked at in other ways, it's not facially sex-based.\nIn the opposite sex sexual harassment cases the courts have been prepared to assume, I think, that it is because of sex.\nMaybe that's an assumption about human behavior, and probably an accurate one.\nIt is seldom the case that the victim, or the other person's sex is irrelevant in sexual conduct.\nSex is relational.\nIt's done with regard to the sex of the other person, whether it's the same sex or opposite sex.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1282.801, 1287.193, 1294.049, 1297.892, 1305.676, 1306.587], "stop_times": [1287.193, 1294.049, 1297.892, 1305.676, 1306.587, 1312.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1282.801}, "reply_to": "21084__1_027", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21084__1_029", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "I find it difficult to see that there ought to be a distinction, with regard to the application of this law, whether the particular individual who was harassed in this case is made to feel small and insignificant and embarrassed by using dirty sex words or in some other fashion.\nI can't see how that would have anything to do with whether he's being discriminated against on the basis of his sex.\nYou're telling me if you call him a jerk every day, that's okay, but if you use some sex-related word it's not okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1312.762, 1334.476, 1340.18], "stop_times": [1334.476, 1340.18, 1349.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1312.762}, "reply_to": "21084__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__1_030", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Well, it's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1349.137], "stop_times": [1349.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1349.137}, "reply_to": "21084__1_029", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21084__1_031", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "That doesn't make any sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1349.427], "stop_times": [1351.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1349.427}, "reply_to": "21084__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__1_032", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--It wouldn't be okay... if you have very abusive conduct that is not sex-based on its face, it would still be open to the employee to show that it is because of the employee's sex by showing that women were not treated in the same way.\nBut where it is explicitly sex-based, where it is by use of the sex organs, it would at least be a permissible inference for a finder of fact to conclude that this conduct would not have been engaged in with a woman, that this was done--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1351.16, 1363.969], "stop_times": [1363.969, 1379.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1351.16}, "reply_to": "21084__1_031", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21084__1_033", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "A mandatory... would it be a mandatory conclusion?\nDoes it go to the jury?\nYou know, if... do you tell the jury, if you find that the reason they were giving this man a hard time, including through sexual acts and so forth, is because of his sex, you will find for the plaintiff.\nHowever, if you think they were doing this just because for some reason they didn't like this guy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1379.687, 1381.37, 1383.56, 1399.45], "stop_times": [1381.37, 1383.56, 1399.45, 1404.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1379.687}, "reply_to": "21084__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__1_034", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Well, I think again--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1404.464], "stop_times": [1407.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1404.464}, "reply_to": "21084__1_033", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21084__1_035", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--you won't find for the plaintiff?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1407.605], "stop_times": [1408.375], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1407.605}, "reply_to": "21084__1_034", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21084__1_036", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--It would depend on the facts and circumstances.\nIf the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1408.375, 1409.617], "stop_times": [1409.617, 1409.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1408.375}, "reply_to": "21084__1_035", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21084__1_037", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "I just want to know what the charge is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1409.908], "stop_times": [1411.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1409.908}, "reply_to": "21084__1_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__1_038", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Well, the charge would be that it has to be because of sex, and I would think ordinarily that would be... the jury could draw an inference... I think it should go to the jury, but it's a question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1411.628], "stop_times": [1419.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1411.628}, "reply_to": "21084__1_037", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21084__1_039", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Would the instruction that I just gave... if you think the reason they did these sex-based acts is because they didn't like his sex, that's one thing, if you think they did it just because they didn't like this jerk, that's something else--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1419.924], "stop_times": [1430.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1419.924}, "reply_to": "21084__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__1_040", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--But if the method that was done was sex-specific... for example, the grabbing of the genitals--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1430.01], "stop_times": [1434.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1430.01}, "reply_to": "21084__1_039", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21084__1_041", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Yes, right.\nThen what?\nEven if it's not, wouldn't you also say, even if it's not sex-specific, even if it doesn't get beyond the point of calling the person a jerk, if the employer calls males he doesn't like jerks, and does not do the same thing for females he doesn't like, that would qualify under the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1434.574, 1434.894, 1435.445], "stop_times": [1434.894, 1435.445, 1452.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1434.574}, "reply_to": "21084__1_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21084__1_042", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Right.\nNo, absolutely.\nNo, I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1452.798, 1453.416, 1453.917], "stop_times": [1453.416, 1453.917, 1455.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1452.798}, "reply_to": "21084__1_041", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21084__1_043", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Sure.\nI... that's no question.\nI'm talking about this case, an all-male workforce, and they have picked on this fellow, and they've picked on him in ways that have sexual connotations.\nWhat charge do you give to the jury?\nIs it enough that they've picked on him in ways that have sexual connotations?\nIf you find that they did this, there has been sexual discrimination.\nIs that the charge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1455.98, 1456.3, 1456.55, 1466.578, 1468.358, 1471.61, 1473.944], "stop_times": [1456.3, 1456.55, 1466.578, 1468.358, 1471.61, 1473.944, 1475.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1455.98}, "reply_to": "21084__1_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__1_044", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1475.023], "stop_times": [1475.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1475.023}, "reply_to": "21084__1_043", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21084__1_045", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Or do you tell the jury, in addition to finding that they did this, you have to find that they did it because they didn't like his maleness, and it... this was not just some other way of hazing him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1475.203], "stop_times": [1487.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1475.203}, "reply_to": "21084__1_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__1_046", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--No, I think the question is, was he treated in a manner but for the fact that he was a man he would have been treated differently, and the fact that it was sexual conduct is a permissible basis upon which a trier of fact can conclude that that was so.\nI mean, this conduct may have been--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1487.692, 1502.151], "stop_times": [1502.151, 1503.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1487.692}, "reply_to": "21084__1_045", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21084__1_047", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Well, would it be wrong for the judge to charge, you make a decision.\nWas it because of his sex?\nDid they want to demean him because they didn't consider him sufficiently male, or was it just that they didn't like him and they used this disgusting way of showing it?\nWould that be a proper charge?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1503.563, 1506.194, 1507.336, 1517.534], "stop_times": [1506.194, 1507.336, 1517.534, 1519.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1503.563}, "reply_to": "21084__1_046", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21084__1_048", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Well, it might be, but I just want to make clear, for example, in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1519.624], "stop_times": [1526.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1519.624}, "reply_to": "21084__1_047", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21084__1_049", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Well, under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1526.61], "stop_times": [1527.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1526.61}, "reply_to": "21084__1_048", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21084__1_050", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--that if something is... if the method... it's not just the identity of the person.\nif the manner of the treatment is selected because of the sex of the person, in this case placing the penis on the person's head because it was... it would be regarded as especially humiliating for a man to be subjected to that treatment, then the manner of treatment as well as the selection of the individual, if that is because of sex, then there is a violation of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1527.171, 1532.625], "stop_times": [1532.625, 1554.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1527.171}, "reply_to": "21084__1_049", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21084__1_051", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Well, you're leaving out the word discriminate, which is in the statute.\nYou're just looking at the part of the statute that says, because of.\nNow, don't you have to at least instruct on... that a discrimination because of the individual's sex--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1554.55, 1558.764, 1562.147], "stop_times": [1558.764, 1562.147, 1570.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1554.55}, "reply_to": "21084__1_050", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21084__1_052", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, I think as in Price Waterhouse, the question of how a woman would have been treated, or a man, in that case, may be evidence that goes to whether the person... whether sex was made relevant in the action, but the ultimate question is whether something that shouldn't have been relevant was made relevant in that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1570.555], "stop_times": [1586.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1570.555}, "reply_to": "21084__1_051", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21084__1_053", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Thank you, Mr. Kneedler.\nMr. Reasoner, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1586.756, 1587.367], "stop_times": [1587.367, 1591.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1586.756}, "reply_to": "21084__1_052", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21084__2_000", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI would like to rest our argument on three points, to the extent that the Court would permit.\nFirst, I think the question by Mr. Chief Justice about the relationship of sexual harassment to this discrimination statute is at the heart of the case.\nThis is a discrimination statute.\nIt was passed in 1964, clearly, we submit by its plain language to deal with discrimination between men and women.\nIn our language, words take their meaning from the context, and in the context of this statute it did refer to discrimination between men and women.\nSexual harassment, although both the Government and petitioner treat it as if it were an independent, statutory concept not tied to the fundamental finding of discrimination, is not an independent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1591.1, 1594.583, 1601.027, 1612.046, 1614.457, 1622.394, 1632.889], "stop_times": [1594.583, 1601.027, 1612.046, 1614.457, 1622.394, 1632.889, 1646.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1591.1}, "reply_to": "21084__1_053", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_001", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Mr. Reasoner, can I ask you sort of a basic question?\nYour opponent relied on the Manhart case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1646.971, 1648.53], "stop_times": [1648.53, 1650.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1646.971}, "reply_to": "21084__2_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21084__2_002", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1650.832], "stop_times": [1651.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1650.832}, "reply_to": "21084__2_001", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_003", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Which I guess the basic test is, if this person would have been treated differently if he had been of the opposite sex, then that's a prima facie proof of discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1651.383], "stop_times": [1660.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1651.383}, "reply_to": "21084__2_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21084__2_004", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1660.178], "stop_times": [1660.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1660.178}, "reply_to": "21084__2_003", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_005", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Would you agree that if the jury could reasonably infer from the set of circumstances that the same thing would not have happened if this person had been a woman, that then that would be the necessary showing of discrimination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1660.839], "stop_times": [1671.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1660.839}, "reply_to": "21084__2_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21084__2_006", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "I would not, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1671.605], "stop_times": [1672.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1671.605}, "reply_to": "21084__2_005", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_007", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "You would not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1672.466], "stop_times": [1672.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1672.466}, "reply_to": "21084__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21084__2_008", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "And if I might attempt to explain, I think that when you... that the Court extended the statute to say that sexual harassment can so affect the conditions of employment that it violates the statute, creates discrimination.\nThat is clearly powerfully true with regard to women.\nCongress was well-informed on that.\nThey had passed in 1963 the Equal Pay Act, and so to extend the statute to say if you are harassing women in the workplace you are creating a discrimination which deprives them of a level playing field.\nWe do not... and I think that this extension is reasonable.\nThe question that is now being asked, the Court is now being asked to do is say, you have extended sexual harassment into the area of men and women, discrimination between men and women.\nNow we want you to extend it to regulate the conduct of men.\nSexual--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1672.907, 1688.879, 1693.333, 1695.424, 1707.482, 1710.194, 1722.273, 1725.975], "stop_times": [1688.879, 1693.333, 1695.424, 1707.482, 1710.194, 1722.273, 1725.975, 1727.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1672.907}, "reply_to": "21084__2_007", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_009", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "The statute doesn't say either women or men.\nIt says sex.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1727.307, 1730.81], "stop_times": [1730.81, 1731.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1727.307}, "reply_to": "21084__2_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21084__2_010", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--It says because of sex, Your Honor, correct, and I would interpret that to mean the two sexes, men and women.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1731.801], "stop_times": [1738.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1731.801}, "reply_to": "21084__2_009", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_011", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Yes.\nThere are only two, so far as we know.\n[Laughter]\nBut you answered my question by saying, if there was a fair inference for the jury to draw that the man was treated differently because he was not a woman, that a woman would have been treated one way and a man a different way, that's not discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1738.356, 1738.617, 1739.776, 1740.487], "stop_times": [1738.617, 1739.776, 1740.487, 1752.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1738.356}, "reply_to": "21084__2_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21084__2_012", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "What I would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1752.906], "stop_times": [1753.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1752.906}, "reply_to": "21084__2_011", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_013", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "I think that's how you answered me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1753.868], "stop_times": [1756.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1753.868}, "reply_to": "21084__2_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21084__2_014", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--I think I did, too.\nWhat I'm trying to say, at least, is this.\nIf we move into Federal regulation the whole spectrum of male relationships which are sexually, which have sexual content and are abusive and in the workplace... and I submit to you, that is what both the petitioner and the Government are asking for.\nIf you look at page 21 of the Government's paper, in response to Justice O'Connor and Justice Ginsburg's question, they would include it all, all male conduct that has a sexual content that is in the workplace and is abusive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1756.129, 1757.781, 1760.242, 1776.701], "stop_times": [1757.781, 1760.242, 1776.701, 1791.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1756.129}, "reply_to": "21084__2_013", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_015", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "And supposing we disagree with that.\nWe're not bound by what they said.\nSupposing we say, this is just a discrimination statute.\nThen why doesn't it apply in the hypo I give you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1791.243, 1791.682, 1793.124, 1795.928], "stop_times": [1791.682, 1793.124, 1795.928, 1798.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1791.243}, "reply_to": "21084__2_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21084__2_016", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "If Mr. Oncale would have been treated differently if he had been a woman?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1798.461], "stop_times": [1803.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1798.461}, "reply_to": "21084__2_015", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_017", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "If the evidence were clear that the... that if a woman had been on the barge, that he would not have done this because he had a special interest in relationships with men, if that was clearly proved--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1803.504], "stop_times": [1813.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1803.504}, "reply_to": "21084__2_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21084__2_018", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1813.889], "stop_times": [1814.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1813.889}, "reply_to": "21084__2_017", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_019", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--would that... why would that not be discrimination within the meaning of the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1814.22], "stop_times": [1818.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1814.22}, "reply_to": "21084__2_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21084__2_020", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Let me suggest to you why I think that the statute should not be applied in that way, and three circuits have followed that notion.\nThe Fourth Circuit, Sixth Circuit, and the Eleventh Circuit have adopted the concept of a homosexual... if the homosexual... there's a homosexual harassment, then they can meet the because-of-sex requirement.\nYou would argue that if you can find homosexuality, or raise an issue of homosexuality, then it was because of Mr. Oncale's sex that this occurred.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1818.264, 1827.531, 1840.15, 1851.349], "stop_times": [1827.531, 1840.15, 1851.349, 1851.577], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1818.264}, "reply_to": "21084__2_019", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_021", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "But employers can discriminate because of sex without the discriminator having any particular sexual desires for the victim of the discrimination.\nI mean, under the Fifth Circuit's ruling a man who discriminates against a man or a woman who discriminates against a woman in the workplace is immune, and it seems to me that's very difficult to justify.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1851.577, 1861.554], "stop_times": [1861.554, 1879.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1851.577}, "reply_to": "21084__2_020", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21084__2_022", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--I... with respect, Mr. Chief Justice, I would say that is an overstatement of the Fifth Circuit's position, as I would understand it.\nI think you must bear in mind that the Fifth Circuit was speaking only to sexual harassment, and only to the question that when the Court has extended this discrimination statute into the area of sexual harassment to meet its purposes, should it then extend it further to regulate same-sex conduct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1879.707, 1886.96], "stop_times": [1886.96, 1905.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1879.707}, "reply_to": "21084__2_021", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_023", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "I don't know that we regard it as an extension of the statute to say that it covered sexual harassment.\nI think what we said was that sexual harassment without actual resulting in a discharge or a demotion was nonetheless actionable.\nI don't think we changed the actors involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1905.733, 1910.668, 1920.245], "stop_times": [1910.668, 1920.245, 1925.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1905.733}, "reply_to": "21084__2_022", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21084__2_024", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "I think, Your Honor, what... Mr. Chief Justice, what I understood you to say in Meritor is that sexual harassment can be equivalent to discrimination if it is so severe and pervasive that it changes the conditions of employment, thereby discriminating against the sex being harassed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1925.118], "stop_times": [1943.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1925.118}, "reply_to": "21084__2_023", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_025", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Well, sexual harassment directed in a discriminatory way against a victim, but certainly we didn't say that sexual harassment that was meted out equally to everybody is discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1943.691], "stop_times": [1956.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1943.691}, "reply_to": "21084__2_024", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21084__2_026", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Well, yes, Mr. Chief Justice, I agree with that, and both in Meritor and Harris you were dealing with sexual harassment of women, very clear based on congressional findings... I mean, that there was a disparity.\nThere's a disparity in power.\nThere was a need to level--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1956.45, 1968.578, 1970.26], "stop_times": [1968.578, 1970.26, 1972.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1956.45}, "reply_to": "21084__2_025", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_027", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "But there were no findings at all in connection with the inclusion of sex in the 1964 acts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1972.19], "stop_times": [1977.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1972.19}, "reply_to": "21084__2_026", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21084__2_028", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--I would submit, Your Honor, that the Court can look to the Equal Pay Act of 1963, that there were extensive findings by Congress that there was a disparate treatment of women in the workplace.\nMy point on federalism is that there are no findings, anywhere, that suggest that Congress needs to pass a statute to regulate discrimination among males, or to regulate male conduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [1977.904, 1988.612], "stop_times": [1988.612, 2000.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1977.904}, "reply_to": "21084__2_027", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_029", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Mr.--\n--Well--\n--Then you defend the fifth Circuit's rationale based on a nonstatutory analysis.\nYou would have us hold that if a homosexual supervisor trades favors with people of his own sex for advancement, that this is not a violation of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2000.48, 2000.721, 2000.891, 2006.344], "stop_times": [2000.721, 2000.891, 2006.344, 2020.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2000.48}, "reply_to": "21084__2_028", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21084__2_030", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "I would, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2020.252], "stop_times": [2021.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2020.252}, "reply_to": "21084__2_029", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_031", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Why is that?\nBecause if a Jew could discriminate against a Jew, an African American against an African American, an Italian against an Italian, all those things could happen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2021.744, 2022.836], "stop_times": [2022.836, 2033.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2021.744}, "reply_to": "21084__2_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21084__2_032", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Certainly, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2033.414], "stop_times": [2035.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2033.414}, "reply_to": "21084__2_031", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_033", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "So why isn't it possible that a homosexual or nonhomosexual man, irrespective, could discriminate against another man on the basis of sex, and so could a woman?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2035.394], "stop_times": [2042.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2035.394}, "reply_to": "21084__2_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21084__2_034", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Well, I think... you're using the word discriminate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2042.467], "stop_times": [2045.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2042.467}, "reply_to": "21084__2_033", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_035", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Yes.\nWell, if that's so, if those things are possible--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2045.94, 2046.36], "stop_times": [2046.36, 2048.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2045.94}, "reply_to": "21084__2_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21084__2_036", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "There's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2048.732], "stop_times": [2049.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2048.732}, "reply_to": "21084__2_035", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_037", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--as they think they are, how could you have a circuit that has a rule that says they're not possible under the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2049.042], "stop_times": [2054.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2049.042}, "reply_to": "21084__2_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21084__2_038", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--I don't think it does, Your Honor.\nI think what the Fifth--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2054.675, 2056.538], "stop_times": [2056.538, 2058.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2054.675}, "reply_to": "21084__2_037", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_039", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Well, if we think that's what they held, I guess we'd have to say that's wrong.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2058.451, 2063.033], "stop_times": [2063.033, 2065.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2058.451}, "reply_to": "21084__2_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21084__2_040", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2065.156], "stop_times": [2065.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2065.156}, "reply_to": "21084__2_039", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_041", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Yes.\nMr. Reasoner--\n--And it sure reads that way, so I think you have to come to grips with that and then help us--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2065.877, 2066.376, 2067.007], "stop_times": [2066.376, 2067.007, 2073.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2065.877}, "reply_to": "21084__2_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21084__2_042", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2073.0], "stop_times": [2073.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2073.0}, "reply_to": "21084__2_041", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_043", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--decide what it is this statute really means.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2073.331], "stop_times": [2076.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2073.331}, "reply_to": "21084__2_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21084__2_044", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2076.152], "stop_times": [2076.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2076.152}, "reply_to": "21084__2_043", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_045", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "And in that context, do we consider at all the EEOC guideline on this?\nNow, the guideline says that harassment on the basis of sex is a violation of title VII if it's physical conduct of a sexual nature when such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.\nThe guideline does not refer at all to discrimination, I notice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2076.443, 2084.289, 2108.005], "stop_times": [2084.289, 2108.005, 2113.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2076.443}, "reply_to": "21084__2_044", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21084__2_046", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--No, and the EEOC flatly argues, Your Honor, if you look at their brief they want to include it all.\nThey feel no obligation to prove discrimination.\nBut again, all the Fifth Circuit was addressing was sexual harassment, and I respectfully submit, as the circuits which struggled with this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2113.739, 2119.552, 2123.005], "stop_times": [2119.552, 2123.005, 2132.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2113.739}, "reply_to": "21084__2_045", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_047", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "I just read you the EEOC guideline--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2132.149], "stop_times": [2135.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2132.149}, "reply_to": "21084__2_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21084__2_048", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2135.0], "stop_times": [2135.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2135.0}, "reply_to": "21084__2_047", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_049", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--on sexual harassment, or harassment, however you pronounce it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2135.531], "stop_times": [2138.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2135.531}, "reply_to": "21084__2_048", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21084__2_050", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2138.292], "stop_times": [2138.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2138.292}, "reply_to": "21084__2_049", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_051", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Now, does that... do we rely on that?\nAre they entitled to some deference there--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2138.613, 2144.059], "stop_times": [2144.059, 2146.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2138.613}, "reply_to": "21084__2_050", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21084__2_052", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2146.41], "stop_times": [2146.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2146.41}, "reply_to": "21084__2_051", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_053", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--in how we interpret this statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2146.81], "stop_times": [2148.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2146.81}, "reply_to": "21084__2_052", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21084__2_054", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--I think they're entitled to deference only insofar as the Court finds them consistent, and they're not entitled to a Chevron-type deference, as this Court has made clear, only insofar as you find them consistent and persuasive.\nBut I would respectfully submit, Your Honor, the question here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2148.911, 2160.391], "stop_times": [2160.391, 2163.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2148.911}, "reply_to": "21084__2_053", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_055", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Excuse me.\nThey get no Chevron deference, you say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2163.972, 2164.232], "stop_times": [2164.232, 2165.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2163.972}, "reply_to": "21084__2_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__2_056", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--That is my understanding, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2165.984], "stop_times": [2167.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2165.984}, "reply_to": "21084__2_055", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_057", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Well, what's the basis for that understanding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2167.895], "stop_times": [2171.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2167.895}, "reply_to": "21084__2_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__2_058", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "If I might... I don't recall your case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2171.118], "stop_times": [2174.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2171.118}, "reply_to": "21084__2_057", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_059", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "The General Electric case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2174.671], "stop_times": [2175.552], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2174.671}, "reply_to": "21084__2_058", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21084__2_060", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Justice Stevens.\nI will rely on Mr. Justice Stevens.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2175.552, 2178.424, 2180.775], "stop_times": [2178.424, 2180.775, 2182.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2175.552}, "reply_to": "21084__2_059", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_061", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Are you--\n--You could rely on the Chief Justice.\nHe wrote it.\n[Laughter]\nMr. Reasoner, have you finished your answer to Justice O'Connor?\nI have a question, but I... if you have more to say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2182.107, 2182.986, 2185.019, 2185.82, 2186.972, 2190.444], "stop_times": [2182.986, 2185.019, 2185.82, 2186.972, 2190.444, 2193.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2182.107}, "reply_to": "21084__2_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21084__2_062", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "If I could say this one word, or sentence, the Fifth Circuit is saying that discrimination because of sex was not intended to comprehend relationships between the same sex.\nIt was not intended to comprehend all the whole spectrum of males' treatment of males.\nBecause of sex meant discrimination between men and women.\nThat's why they would exclude sexual harassment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2193.068, 2205.595, 2211.701, 2214.723], "stop_times": [2205.595, 2211.701, 2214.723, 2218.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2193.068}, "reply_to": "21084__2_061", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_063", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Then you could... is it in general?\nIf you have a male boss who takes good care of the women but treats the men miserably, that would not be... that would not be in title VII?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2218.476, 2220.84], "stop_times": [2220.84, 2232.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2218.476}, "reply_to": "21084__2_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21084__2_064", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, I think there is a clear distinction between policies regarding to pay, promotion, et cetera.\nThat's clear.\nYou can't discriminate.\nThe sex of the superior deciding that is immaterial.\nIt is only the area of sexual harassment, this interpersonal abuse--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2232.627, 2239.68, 2241.372, 2242.103, 2245.877], "stop_times": [2239.68, 2241.372, 2242.103, 2245.877, 2251.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2232.627}, "reply_to": "21084__2_063", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_065", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Well, why would it be different?\nLet's say you had two rooms in the same, and in one there were women working, in the other, men, and when the women complain about sexual harassment, the boss attends to it, takes it seriously, and when the men complain about the grossest treatment, the kind we have here, the boss says, boys will be boys.\nThat would be okay?\nThat would not be within title VII?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2251.363, 2251.791, 2272.535, 2274.267], "stop_times": [2251.791, 2272.535, 2274.267, 2277.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2251.363}, "reply_to": "21084__2_064", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21084__2_066", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--No, it would not be okay.\nThe conduct alleged here, for example, would violate five Louisiana criminal statutes, and subject all the participants to damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2277.059, 2277.469], "stop_times": [2277.469, 2285.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2277.059}, "reply_to": "21084__2_065", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_067", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "But I'm talking only about title VII, so... but I've given you a situation where the employer responds to women's complaints of sexual harassment, says to the guys, you've got to be made of sterner stuff, so I'm not going to pay any attention.\nThat would not come within title VII?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2285.043, 2296.701], "stop_times": [2296.701, 2298.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2285.043}, "reply_to": "21084__2_066", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21084__2_068", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "No, Your Honor, I think not, in the sense if what is being complained about is male harassment of a male.\nThe... now, to the extent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2298.544, 2308.358], "stop_times": [2308.358, 2311.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2298.544}, "reply_to": "21084__2_067", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_069", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "The same boss treats women one way, he attends to their complaints, and he treats men a different way, says, I'm not going to listen to you.\nI've no sympathy with you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2311.51, 2320.887], "stop_times": [2320.887, 2323.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2311.51}, "reply_to": "21084__2_068", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21084__2_070", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Let me say, clearly, Justice Ginsburg, I think such a boss would be foolish, and would be inviting action under State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2323.588], "stop_times": [2332.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2323.588}, "reply_to": "21084__2_069", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_071", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "But you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2332.845], "stop_times": [2333.115], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2332.845}, "reply_to": "21084__2_070", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21084__2_072", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--But the question here is, did Congress in 1964, when it said discrimination because of sex intend to encompass not only discrimination between men and women based on sex, but the entire gambit of sexuality... and that is what the Government would argue for.\nAs Mr. Justice Scalia said, we would now be into sexuality, for example--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2333.115, 2350.917], "stop_times": [2350.917, 2355.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2333.115}, "reply_to": "21084__2_071", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_073", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--But our choice is not between nothing and everything, so... and your argument is for nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2355.97], "stop_times": [2363.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2355.97}, "reply_to": "21084__2_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21084__2_074", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--My... I do not believe, Your Honor, that if you cross this threshold, certainly you have no assistance from the petitioner or the Government in drawing a line, and if you look at how the circuits have tried to struggle with this, in Doe the Seventh Circuit said we will... in trying to say what because of sex means, they looked at sexual stereotyping, sexual orientation, sexuality in general.\nThey then attempted to retreat from that in Johnson v. Hondo shortly thereafter saying, well, we won't look at sexual content alone, but once you get into regulating male behavior with sexual content--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2363.185, 2388.26], "stop_times": [2388.26, 2401.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2363.185}, "reply_to": "21084__2_073", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_075", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Why isn't the Manhart test the answer to all this?\nYou say there are all sorts of problems, but why don't you just have a very simple rule?\nIf the plaintiff sustains the burden of proving that the victim would have been treated differently if he or she had been of the opposite sex, that proves discrimination.\nWhy isn't that a simple test that works?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2401.811, 2402.993, 2405.895, 2413.98], "stop_times": [2402.993, 2405.895, 2413.98, 2415.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2401.811}, "reply_to": "21084__2_074", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21084__2_076", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Because it's not simple, Your Honor, because how do you give content to it?\nThe Fourth, Sixth, and Eleventh--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2415.642, 2418.965], "stop_times": [2418.965, 2420.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2415.642}, "reply_to": "21084__2_075", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_077", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Well, you require the proof in the particular case and make the plaintiff prove his case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2420.534], "stop_times": [2424.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2420.534}, "reply_to": "21084__2_076", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21084__2_078", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Well, what is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2424.017], "stop_times": [2424.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2424.017}, "reply_to": "21084__2_077", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_079", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "And if the jury finds here, well, we're pretty well convinced that this fellow would have done the same thing to women, the plaintiff loses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2424.297], "stop_times": [2431.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2424.297}, "reply_to": "21084__2_078", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21084__2_080", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--I would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2431.373], "stop_times": [2432.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2431.373}, "reply_to": "21084__2_079", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_081", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "But if the reasonable inference is he wouldn't have, the plaintiff wins.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2432.185], "stop_times": [2435.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2432.185}, "reply_to": "21084__2_080", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21084__2_082", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--I would submit, Your Honor, that that would be the creation of a statute that was not intended by Congress.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2435.175], "stop_times": [2439.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2435.175}, "reply_to": "21084__2_081", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_083", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "We'd just be following what we wrote in Manhart, you know, 15 or 20 years ago.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2439.427], "stop_times": [2443.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2439.427}, "reply_to": "21084__2_082", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21084__2_084", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "I think not, Your Honor.\nI mean, there in Manhart you're talking about treating men and women differently--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2443.08, 2444.222], "stop_times": [2444.222, 2448.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2443.08}, "reply_to": "21084__2_083", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_085", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2448.196], "stop_times": [2448.446], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2448.196}, "reply_to": "21084__2_084", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21084__2_086", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--on levels of policy, pension plans, pregnancy leave, et cetera.\nNow, when we're talking about interpersonal relationships and we're going to attach them to discrimination in some way, what's the content we give to them?\nWhat does because of sex mean?\nThe only thing the Fourth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuit could figure out that because of sex meant was that we inquire into the sexual orientation of the predator.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2448.446, 2451.999, 2459.283, 2460.845], "stop_times": [2451.999, 2459.283, 2460.845, 2469.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2448.446}, "reply_to": "21084__2_085", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_087", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "But that must be wrong, isn't it?\nI mean, isn't it the... that they're trying to get at the problem of whether the employer has imposed a term or condition, a significant term or condition because of the person's gender, and in those instances where, for example, people create a workplace where there is either quid pro quo or some frightful situation where the women have to suffer because of their gender, they have a term or condition that the others don't, and the same could happen to a man, couldn't it?\nI grant you it's hard to work out in the... in some individual cases.\nIn many it's not hard to work out.\nBut how does that differentiate this from any other area of law, antitrust, or, you know, thinking of difficult ones, and how could you escape that in this statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2469.952, 2471.233, 2501.383, 2506.628, 2507.798], "stop_times": [2471.233, 2501.383, 2506.628, 2507.798, 2519.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2469.952}, "reply_to": "21084__2_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21084__2_088", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "I... Your Honor, I think that you would go where Congress did not intend.\nI think when they said discrimination because of sex, it's very clear that they were trying to level the playing field between men and women, and that there's no evidence, not the slightest evidence that they intended to federalize the regulation between men and men.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2519.234, 2524.98], "stop_times": [2524.98, 2538.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2519.234}, "reply_to": "21084__2_087", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_089", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Mr. Reasoner--\n--Well, Mr. Reasoner... go ahead.\nLet me see if I understand what your position is.\nSuppose that there had been hazing of male employees without any sexual allusions or connotations, and you have a workplace in which only male employees are hazed, they are made to feel insignificant, or, you know, horseplay, whatever, but no sexual connotations, and this is never done to women employees, what is your position on whether that would violate the legislation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2538.831, 2539.81, 2541.272, 2546.105], "stop_times": [2539.81, 2541.272, 2546.105, 2573.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2538.831}, "reply_to": "21084__2_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__2_090", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "I would say it would not, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2573.003], "stop_times": [2574.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2573.003}, "reply_to": "21084__2_089", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_091", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "It would not.\nWell then, I don't understand your position.\n[Laughter]\nYou told me that you thought the male-on-male was no good, only as it relates to sexual harassment, and you said that's what the position of the court of appeals here was.\nI give you a case that doesn't involve any sexual harassment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2574.855, 2576.075, 2577.717, 2578.826, 2590.664], "stop_times": [2576.075, 2577.717, 2578.826, 2590.664, 2593.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2574.855}, "reply_to": "21084__2_090", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__2_092", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "I apologize, Mr. Scalia.\nI did not realize you... that was the case you were giving me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2593.727, 2595.319], "stop_times": [2595.319, 2597.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2593.727}, "reply_to": "21084__2_091", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_093", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Oh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2597.492], "stop_times": [2597.673], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2597.492}, "reply_to": "21084__2_092", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21084__2_094", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2597.673], "stop_times": [2597.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2597.673}, "reply_to": "21084__2_093", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_095", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Well, that was the case I gave you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2597.973], "stop_times": [2599.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2597.973}, "reply_to": "21084__2_094", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__2_096", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2599.172], "stop_times": [2599.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2599.172}, "reply_to": "21084__2_095", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_097", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "So your answer is what I thought it should be, right, that that would be a violation.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2599.522, 2604.196], "stop_times": [2604.196, 2604.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2599.522}, "reply_to": "21084__2_096", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__2_098", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Yes.\nI clearly... if a company set a discriminatory policy, that would be a different... discriminating between men and women, that would clearly be reached by the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2604.404, 2605.055], "stop_times": [2605.055, 2614.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2604.404}, "reply_to": "21084__2_097", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_099", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Okay.\nSo if you haze them with no sexual allusions and you don't haze women, then it is a violation of title VII, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2614.141, 2614.562], "stop_times": [2614.562, 2623.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2614.141}, "reply_to": "21084__2_098", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__2_100", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "If the company sets a discriminatory policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2623.718], "stop_times": [2626.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2623.718}, "reply_to": "21084__2_099", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_101", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Yes.\nThen... now suppose you haze them with sexual allusions, but you don't haze women.\nSuddenly it does not become a violation of title VII?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2626.41, 2626.57, 2631.816], "stop_times": [2626.57, 2631.816, 2636.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2626.41}, "reply_to": "21084__2_100", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__2_102", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "I think what a court must then ask itself, Your Honor, is what does because of sex mean, and I submit to you... Congress has not passed, as you know, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which I think tries to deal in a way that would be workable and not intrusive and violative of privacy, with harassment based on sexuality or orientation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2636.628], "stop_times": [2656.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2636.628}, "reply_to": "21084__2_101", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_103", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "But discriminatory hazing is discriminatory hazing, whether the hazing has sexual allusions mixed into it or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2656.95], "stop_times": [2662.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2656.95}, "reply_to": "21084__2_102", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__2_104", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "But that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2662.023], "stop_times": [2662.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2662.023}, "reply_to": "21084__2_103", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_105", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "I would think your answer would have to be, yes, if it's discriminatory hazing, it's bad.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2662.694], "stop_times": [2666.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2662.694}, "reply_to": "21084__2_104", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__2_106", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--If the defendant is going to be allowed to raise the issue as to whether it is because of sex, Mr. Justice Scalia, then I think you are opening it up into inquiry as to the sexual orientation of all of the parties involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2666.417], "stop_times": [2681.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2666.417}, "reply_to": "21084__2_105", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_107", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Is that any part of this case?\nAs far as I know, it isn't, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2681.738, 2684.519], "stop_times": [2684.519, 2686.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2681.738}, "reply_to": "21084__2_106", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21084__2_108", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "The... I... Justice Ginsburg, I would be inclined to say not, but you... I think I just heard the petitioner say that they would argue that there was quid pro quo possibility involved.\nThey will, and if you're going to argue quid pro quo, of course you have to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2686.77, 2699.9], "stop_times": [2699.9, 2703.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2686.77}, "reply_to": "21084__2_107", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_109", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--But you see, we don't know that at this stage.\nThe case has been thrown out because it says no matter what, if it's male-male, it's not covered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2703.77, 2704.792], "stop_times": [2704.792, 2711.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2703.77}, "reply_to": "21084__2_108", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21084__2_110", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--You know that the petitioner is trying to assert that over these facts, and, of course, this is a fee-shifting statute.\nYou would make the Federal courts the forum of choice for all litigation involving abusive male-on-male--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2711.507, 2719.234], "stop_times": [2719.234, 2726.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2711.507}, "reply_to": "21084__2_109", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_111", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Mr.--\n--If we were to decide, Mr. Reasoner, that in some cases discrimination by a man against a man violates the statute, it seems to me we would have to reverse the Fifth Circuit here, because they said that just can't be, and very likely we don't have to work out the rules that would apply to whatever factual development comes in this case, but I don't see how we can possibly sustain the ruling of the Fifth Circuit that it never could be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2726.447, 2726.807], "stop_times": [2726.807, 2757.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2726.447}, "reply_to": "21084__2_110", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21084__2_112", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I think that when one looks at the struggles of the Seventh Circuit, the Fourth, the Sixth, and the Eleventh, to work out a rationale to make this statute... and I submit one reason it is so difficult to work out is because this statute was never designed to regulate conduct among the same sex, then I think that the... that it's fair to say that the courts desperately need guidance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2757.569], "stop_times": [2786.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2757.569}, "reply_to": "21084__2_111", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_113", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "How about a woman supervisor discriminating against a woman?\nWould that... is that immune from the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2786.597, 2789.939], "stop_times": [2789.939, 2794.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2786.597}, "reply_to": "21084__2_112", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21084__2_114", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "If she discriminates in an employment decision, a promotion decision, certainly not.\nYou know, discrimination at the level of company policy or supervision is certainly not immune.\nIf she discriminates... if she propositions her, or makes sexual overtures to her, then yes, we would say that that is not implicated by the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2794.241, 2799.326, 2804.729], "stop_times": [2799.326, 2804.729, 2816.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2794.241}, "reply_to": "21084__2_113", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_115", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Well, and is the reason... is the reason it is not implicated simply because it was not the intent of Congress to implicate it?\nIs that your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2816.597, 2823.262], "stop_times": [2823.262, 2824.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2816.597}, "reply_to": "21084__2_114", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21084__2_116", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2824.443], "stop_times": [2825.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2824.443}, "reply_to": "21084__2_115", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_117", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "In other words, it's the... the text covers it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2825.654], "stop_times": [2828.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2825.654}, "reply_to": "21084__2_116", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21084__2_118", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "I think not, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2828.007], "stop_times": [2829.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2828.007}, "reply_to": "21084__2_117", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_119", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "But that was not the problem that Congress was addressing.\nIs that your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2829.208, 2831.16], "stop_times": [2831.16, 2832.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2829.208}, "reply_to": "21084__2_118", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21084__2_120", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "I think that the text does not cover it.\nI think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2832.202, 2834.743], "stop_times": [2834.743, 2835.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2832.202}, "reply_to": "21084__2_119", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_121", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Then why does the text cover white against white discrimination?\nThe language is equally undifferentiated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2835.484, 2838.456], "stop_times": [2838.456, 2842.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2835.484}, "reply_to": "21084__2_120", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21084__2_122", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Well, the statute would cover reverse discrimination.\nIt would... I mean, in all its aspects, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2842.268, 2846.931], "stop_times": [2846.931, 2849.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2842.268}, "reply_to": "21084__2_121", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_123", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Well then, why doesn't the statute cover reverse sexual discrimination when it happens to take a sexually explicit form?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2849.295], "stop_times": [2857.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2849.295}, "reply_to": "21084__2_122", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21084__2_124", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2857.099], "stop_times": [2857.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2857.099}, "reply_to": "21084__2_123", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_125", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "I mean, so far as the text of the statute is concerned, I don't see how you can draw a distinction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2857.31], "stop_times": [2861.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2857.31}, "reply_to": "21084__2_124", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21084__2_126", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Well, I would submit that you're having to change the meaning.\nIf you say discrimination because of sex, speaking of gender, you're talking about discrimination because somebody's a male or because somebody's a female.\nThat's exactly what you had in Meritor and Harris.\nYou went no further than that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2861.303, 2864.676, 2872.182, 2874.866], "stop_times": [2864.676, 2872.182, 2874.866, 2875.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2861.303}, "reply_to": "21084__2_125", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_127", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Sure, but at the time the statute was passed, exactly the same argument could have been made about discrimination because of race.\nYou're talking about somebody of race A who treats race B in a disadvantageous way, and exactly that same argument, if it were sound, would have led to the conclusion that you can't have discrimination by one white against another white.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2875.755, 2881.829], "stop_times": [2881.829, 2898.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2875.755}, "reply_to": "21084__2_126", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21084__2_128", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "No, Your Honor, I would suggest that if you look at because of sex, when you apply it to... a female to a female, or a male to a male, you have changed the meaning.\nYou are now making it because of this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2898.211, 2908.937], "stop_times": [2908.937, 2910.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2898.211}, "reply_to": "21084__2_127", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_129", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Why have you changed it when--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2910.72], "stop_times": [2911.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2910.72}, "reply_to": "21084__2_128", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21084__2_130", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2911.351], "stop_times": [2911.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2911.351}, "reply_to": "21084__2_129", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_131", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Why have you not changed it when you say because of race?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2911.561], "stop_times": [2915.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2911.561}, "reply_to": "21084__2_130", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21084__2_132", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--I think, Your Honor, that we're... that sexual harassment is a complex concept that implicates many things that because of race does not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2915.091], "stop_times": [2924.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2915.091}, "reply_to": "21084__2_131", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_133", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Because it--\n--Well, are you... may I... are you saying that it's simply the nature of the harassment rather than the nature of the discrimination against a member of one sex or the other which is the crucial thing, so that it comes down to a point almost of evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2924.807, 2925.008], "stop_times": [2925.008, 2940.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2924.807}, "reply_to": "21084__2_132", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21084__2_134", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2940.699], "stop_times": [2942.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2940.699}, "reply_to": "21084__2_133", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_135", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2942.019], "stop_times": [2942.5], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2942.019}, "reply_to": "21084__2_134", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21084__2_136", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "I would say that on the harassment that male-on-male, it's not because of sex.\nIt may be because of orientation, it may be because of sexuality, it may be because he doesn't like him--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2942.5, 2950.895], "stop_times": [2950.895, 2955.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2942.5}, "reply_to": "21084__2_135", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_137", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Why couldn't it be because you're not the right kind of man, just as with respect to women, and wasn't there, at least in one case, a statement to the effect of what title VII is aimed at is getting rid of stereotypical notions about the way men are or the way women are, so that if you... we know that an employer can't say, as in Martin Marietta, how could I discriminate against women, most of the people I hire are women, but I won't take the ones who have children.\nSo if that's what title VII is about, you're not the right kind of male, or you're not the right kind of female, why wouldn't it fit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2955.279, 2983.616], "stop_times": [2983.616, 2994.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2955.279}, "reply_to": "21084__2_136", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21084__2_138", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Well, I think Your Honor illustrates the difficulty.\nMartin Marietta is easy.\nOf course that's discrimination.\nBut are we now going to say that, on male-on-male relationships, that abuse, because we don't like their appearance... I mean, does it all go back to sex and harassment, and I submit to you that's what the Government would have you do.\nThey say to you flatly it's immaterial what the motives were, and the test is tautological.\nYou say, because of sex.\nMan harasses a man, of course it's because of sex.\nWhat else?\nHe is a sex.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [2994.826, 2997.721, 2998.809, 3000.341, 3013.17, 3018.546, 3019.514, 3022.908, 3023.249], "stop_times": [2997.721, 2998.809, 3000.341, 3013.17, 3018.546, 3019.514, 3022.908, 3023.249, 3024.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2994.826}, "reply_to": "21084__2_137", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_139", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "But why do we have to go as far as you go?\nAs... I understand your position.\nYou're not saying that male-on-male is bad.\nThere can be discrimination male-on-male.\nYou're just saying that sexual harassment male-on-male does not automatically constitute discrimination under the act, as male-on-female or female-on-male would.\nIs that right?\nDoes not automatically.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3024.411, 3026.04, 3027.863, 3031.556, 3033.438, 3042.916, 3043.557], "stop_times": [3026.04, 3027.863, 3031.556, 3033.438, 3042.916, 3043.557, 3045.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3024.411}, "reply_to": "21084__2_138", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__2_140", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "I would certainly agree that it does not automatically--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3045.357], "stop_times": [3048.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3045.357}, "reply_to": "21084__2_139", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_141", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3048.148], "stop_times": [3048.329], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3048.148}, "reply_to": "21084__2_140", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21084__2_142", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3048.329], "stop_times": [3048.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3048.329}, "reply_to": "21084__2_141", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_143", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "But just because it does not automatically, I don't know why that leads to the conclusion that it does not ever, and why was a summary judgment proper here?\nWhy shouldn't it have been left to the jury to say, well, regardless of whether there were sexual overtones or not, that doesn't decide the case, but nonetheless, if you think that this individual male was being discriminated against because he was a man and not for some other reason, you can find for the plaintiff?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3048.689, 3058.974], "stop_times": [3058.974, 3077.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3048.689}, "reply_to": "21084__2_142", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__2_144", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "It leads to that conclusion, Your Honor, if you conclude that, looking at the language of title VII in context, that Congress intended to limit it to discrimination between men and women, that it did not intend to reach into same-sex harassment, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3077.918], "stop_times": [3094.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3077.918}, "reply_to": "21084__2_143", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_145", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Wait, you've acknowledged that it didn't intend to limit it between men and women.\nYou've acknowledged that if you... that if a woman discriminates against another woman because of her womanness, say, I just want a male workforce, I'm not going to promote any women, you've acknowledged that that's a violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3094.731, 3098.032], "stop_times": [3098.032, 3108.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3094.731}, "reply_to": "21084__2_144", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__2_146", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Certainly.\nCertainly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3108.288, 3108.488], "stop_times": [3108.488, 3108.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3108.288}, "reply_to": "21084__2_145", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_147", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "It's only in the sexual harassment area--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3108.979], "stop_times": [3110.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3108.979}, "reply_to": "21084__2_146", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__2_148", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3110.58], "stop_times": [3110.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3110.58}, "reply_to": "21084__2_147", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_149", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--you think that it does not automatically constitute a violation, but why do you have to say it does not ever constitute a violation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3110.81], "stop_times": [3119.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3110.81}, "reply_to": "21084__2_148", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__2_150", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "I have to say that, Your Honor, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3119.288], "stop_times": [3120.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3119.288}, "reply_to": "21084__2_149", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_151", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "To win the case.\nOkay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3120.848, 3121.559], "stop_times": [3121.559, 3121.849], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3120.848}, "reply_to": "21084__2_150", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21084__2_152", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--the Fifth Circuit said that.\n[Laughter]\nBut... but let me say, I do believe that is correct.\nI think it implicates serious concerns of federalism to now say that this statute will be expanded to uncover this entire spectrum of relationships, and to do it with no... you have no standard.\nOnce you've cut loose from the moorings of the two sexes, because of sex, are we then going to get into homosexuality--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3121.849, 3122.18, 3123.442, 3127.465, 3141.214], "stop_times": [3122.18, 3123.442, 3127.465, 3141.214, 3147.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3121.849}, "reply_to": "21084__2_151", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_153", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Of course, there's another way of looking at it.\nInstead of saying it's expanding the statute, say the statute's always covered discrimination, and you're asking to cut out of the general field of discrimination this one area.\nOne can look at it that way, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3147.178, 3147.869, 3156.255], "stop_times": [3147.869, 3156.255, 3157.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3147.178}, "reply_to": "21084__2_152", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21084__2_154", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--One could, Your Honor, but I submit, and even the Government admits this at page 10 of their brief, that sexual harassment was an expansion of the statute based on the intent of the statute, and I think necessary to achieve the statutory purposes, and the question before the Court now is, does sexual harassment need to be applied in the context of single-sex relationships in order to achieve the statutory purposes, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3157.887], "stop_times": [3182.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3157.887}, "reply_to": "21084__2_153", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_155", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "But it's not necessary to look at it as an expansion of the statute.\nIt seems to me that it's sufficient to look at the sexual harassment law as being in effect a kind of evidentiary gloss on the statute, that when this kind of conduct occurs, as Thoreau put it, you know, there's a trout in the milk.\nWe know what that means, and I don't see why we don't also draw an inference when the harassment is between the same sexes.\nIt may in some instances be more difficult to draw it, but as Justice Scalia says, what is the theoretical basis for saying you can never draw that kind of an inference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3182.972, 3185.576, 3200.473, 3212.442], "stop_times": [3185.576, 3200.473, 3212.442, 3223.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3182.972}, "reply_to": "21084__2_154", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21084__2_156", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Well, you know, first I would say that there... the statute is solid.\nIt does not create such an offense.\nSecond, we have a history in the literature.\nWe know about the disparate treatment of women, et cetera.\nWe know that there was something for Congress to remedy there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3223.36, 3227.09, 3229.653, 3233.104, 3236.557], "stop_times": [3227.09, 3229.653, 3233.104, 3236.557, 3239.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3223.36}, "reply_to": "21084__2_155", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_157", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "That's why we can draw the inference so easily, right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3239.441], "stop_times": [3242.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3239.441}, "reply_to": "21084__2_156", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21084__2_158", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "With regard to women, correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3242.553], "stop_times": [3242.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3242.553}, "reply_to": "21084__2_157", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_159", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "As a practical, common sense thing, right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3242.912], "stop_times": [3244.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3242.912}, "reply_to": "21084__2_158", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21084__2_160", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "But now, on same sex, we have the whole spectrum, from hazing, bullying... you know, I mean, would we argue that generations of fraternity boys are liable under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3244.414], "stop_times": [3254.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3244.414}, "reply_to": "21084__2_159", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_161", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3254.381], "stop_times": [3255.02], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3254.381}, "reply_to": "21084__2_160", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21084__2_162", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--title VI, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3255.02], "stop_times": [3255.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3255.02}, "reply_to": "21084__2_161", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_163", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "More difficult to draw.\nI can understand your point there, but how do you take the final leap, you can't draw it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3255.471, 3256.753], "stop_times": [3256.753, 3261.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3255.471}, "reply_to": "21084__2_162", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21084__2_164", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--But I would say, Your Honor, that because of sex becomes contentless in this statute if you're going to say every time there's sexual content, male-on-male abuse, it's sexual harassment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3261.979], "stop_times": [3272.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3261.979}, "reply_to": "21084__2_163", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_165", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Reasoner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3272.805], "stop_times": [3273.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3272.805}, "reply_to": "21084__2_164", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21084__2_166", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3273.856], "stop_times": [3275.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3273.856}, "reply_to": "21084__2_165", "speaker": "harry_m_reasoner"}
{"id": "21084__2_167", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Mr. Canaday, you have 2 minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3275.166], "stop_times": [3277.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3275.166}, "reply_to": "21084__2_166", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21084__3_000", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "The Fifth Circuit held that same-sex harassment is not cognizable under title VII.\nThat is the holding of the court below.\nAgain, we re-urge the Court to reverse that holding.\nThe language of title VII is broad enough to... that a decision of the court below is inconsistent with this Court's interpretations of the statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3277.409, 3290.386, 3292.627, 3295.88], "stop_times": [3290.386, 3292.627, 3295.88, 3304.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3277.409}, "reply_to": "21084__2_167", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__3_001", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "The statute doesn't make unlawful same-sex harassment, or any harassment.\nIt makes unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3304.186, 3308.488], "stop_times": [3308.488, 3313.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3304.186}, "reply_to": "21084__3_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__3_002", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, and this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3313.102], "stop_times": [3314.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3313.102}, "reply_to": "21084__3_001", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__3_003", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "So you don't want us to say that same-sex harassment is actionable.\nIt isn't necessarily actionable.\nIt's actionable if it constitutes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3314.524, 3317.593, 3318.754], "stop_times": [3317.593, 3318.754, 3320.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3314.524}, "reply_to": "21084__3_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__3_004", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--Sexual discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3320.815], "stop_times": [3322.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3320.815}, "reply_to": "21084__3_003", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__3_005", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--If and only if it constitutes sexual discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3322.077], "stop_times": [3324.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3322.077}, "reply_to": "21084__3_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__3_006", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Yes, sir, as set forth in the Meritor case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3324.398], "stop_times": [3327.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3324.398}, "reply_to": "21084__3_005", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__3_007", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Which you say it always does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3327.09], "stop_times": [3328.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3327.09}, "reply_to": "21084__3_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__3_008", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3328.261], "stop_times": [3328.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3328.261}, "reply_to": "21084__3_007", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__3_009", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "And your opponent says it never does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3328.532], "stop_times": [3330.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3328.532}, "reply_to": "21084__3_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21084__3_010", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "--No, sir.\nI said that the--\n[Laughter]\nOur position is that the sexual nature of the conduct does allow for the inference which has been recognized in the cross-gender cases of the fact that it is because of sex, but our position is that it is inherently a question of fact which needs to move to the trier of fact.\nIt is not a... we are not asking for a per se rule.\nWe're asking for a rule that recognizes the factual nature of the inquiry, and with that, we thank the Court for its attention in our case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3330.473, 3330.683, 3331.555, 3332.125, 3348.924, 3351.097], "stop_times": [3330.683, 3331.555, 3332.125, 3348.924, 3351.097, 3360.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3330.473}, "reply_to": "21084__3_009", "speaker": "nicholas_canaday_iii"}
{"id": "21084__3_011", "conversation_id": "21084", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Canaday.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-568", "start_times": [3360.902, 3362.034], "stop_times": [3362.034, 3363.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3360.902}, "reply_to": "21084__3_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20332__0_000", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-1291, Delores Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc.--\nMs. Haynie.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [0.0, 8.946], "stop_times": [8.946, 10.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20332__0_001", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nAfter 2 years of careful consideration, in response to a regulatory void, Congress enacted the Older Worker Benefit Protection Act to protect the rights of older workers who were in greater force leaving... being forced to leave the work place.\nThe Older Worker Benefit Protection Act mandates that an older worker may not waive their rights secured under the ADEA unless such waiver is knowing and voluntary as defined by the act.\nIf an employer chooses to utilize a waiver of age discrimination rights, Congress requires an employer to provide the older worker with the requisite information and time to assess the value of the right to be waived.\nThe Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' adoption of the common law contract principles of ratification and tender-back in addressing a situation where the employer uses a waiver which is... does not comply with the Older Worker Benefit Protection Act will in all practical purpose render the act meaningless.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [10.068, 12.469, 24.847, 35.004, 47.461], "stop_times": [12.469, 24.847, 35.004, 47.461, 63.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.068}, "reply_to": "20332__0_000", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_002", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "What would happen in the case if the day after the release is signed, but before any money changed hands, the employer says, we've made a mistake, it's a good faith mistake, we didn't know about the ADEA, we want to rescind the release?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [63.573], "stop_times": [81.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 63.573}, "reply_to": "20332__0_001", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20332__0_003", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well, Your Honor, pursuant to the statute there is a revocation period of 7 days after the release is signed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [81.554], "stop_times": [88.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 81.554}, "reply_to": "20332__0_002", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_004", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "No, but this is the employer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [88.02], "stop_times": [88.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 88.02}, "reply_to": "20332__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20332__0_005", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "I understand.\nThere will be a 7-day--that release is not effective pursuant to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [88.639, 89.991], "stop_times": [89.991, 92.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 88.639}, "reply_to": "20332__0_004", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_006", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well, let's change the hypothetical.\nSuppose... I want the release to be effective.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [92.943, 94.035], "stop_times": [94.035, 96.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 92.943}, "reply_to": "20332__0_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20332__0_007", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--7 days after it.\nThe employer would not have the right to rescind the release.\nIt is an invalid release with regard to ADEA claims if it does not comply with the statute.\nIf they rescind the release to all other waivers, I believe the plaintiff or the older worker will have the right to proceed against the employer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [96.145, 97.347, 102.64, 107.924], "stop_times": [97.347, 102.64, 107.924, 114.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 96.145}, "reply_to": "20332__0_006", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_008", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "But in other words you couldn't have--\n--doesn't have to rescind it.\nExcuse me.\nYou couldn't have an equitable action to rescind the release at the employer's behest?\nLet's assume a good faith mistake on his part.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [114.327, 115.418, 116.988, 117.699, 120.902], "stop_times": [115.418, 116.988, 117.699, 120.902, 123.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 114.327}, "reply_to": "20332__0_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20332__0_009", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "No, sir.\nIf the waiver does not comply with the requirements of the act, it is a void waiver pursuant to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [123.884, 124.645], "stop_times": [124.645, 132.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 123.884}, "reply_to": "20332__0_008", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_010", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well then, he wouldn't have to pay... he wouldn't have to pay any of the money, either?\nRight.\nIf it's void, he wouldn't have to pay the money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [132.54, 134.83, 137.453], "stop_times": [134.83, 137.453, 138.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 132.54}, "reply_to": "20332__0_009", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20332__0_011", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Well, the problem with not having to pay the money, Your Honor, is that the waiver includes, and particularly in this case, many other actions, other than a waiver of ADEA--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [138.384], "stop_times": [145.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 138.384}, "reply_to": "20332__0_010", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_012", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "That's, it seems to me, one of the points, is that this might very well be valid as to everything but the ADEA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [145.859], "stop_times": [150.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 145.859}, "reply_to": "20332__0_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20332__0_013", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--And I believe that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [150.781], "stop_times": [151.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 150.781}, "reply_to": "20332__0_012", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_014", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "There's a lot of talk on void and voidable, but this covers so many claims that it seems to me that's something that may be more of a problem for the respondent than for you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [151.543], "stop_times": [158.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 151.543}, "reply_to": "20332__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20332__0_015", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--I believe it would be void to the ADEA claims.\nI believe that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [158.616, 161.758], "stop_times": [161.758, 162.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 158.616}, "reply_to": "20332__0_014", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_016", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "As to them, then, the employer can, on day eight, say, I'm not going to pay anything insofar as it might be attributable... let's assume, keep the example, that he broke down the various considerations and said, with respect to this particular claim I'm not going to pay anything because it's void, because it violates the statute.\nThat would be legally proper, I take it, on your view.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [162.409, 182.483], "stop_times": [182.483, 186.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 162.409}, "reply_to": "20332__0_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20332__0_017", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor, that would be, and the plaintiff can go forward and pursue their age discrimination claim in court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [186.215], "stop_times": [191.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 186.215}, "reply_to": "20332__0_016", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_018", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "But in order to determine how much harm we're doing by saying these things are void from the outset I think we should be realistic and know that most of them do not assign a certain amount of money to the ADEA release and a certain amount of money to various other releases, and I doubt very much, when it's not broken out that way, whether you can say the contract is valid in part and invalid as to that one little item.\nI mean, this is a standard question of severability.\nI don't know how you can rip that contract apart, especially when the ADEA claim is a very major part of the consideration.\nDo you know any other contract that's picked apart like that where it's just partially valid and we're going to enforce all the rest of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [191.117, 213.082, 214.843, 222.67], "stop_times": [213.082, 214.843, 222.67, 228.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 191.117}, "reply_to": "20332__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__0_019", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well, I think Congress has clearly spoken here that if the waiver drafted by the employer does not comply with the Older Worker Benefit Protection Act--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [228.822], "stop_times": [236.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 228.822}, "reply_to": "20332__0_018", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_020", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [236.668], "stop_times": [237.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 236.668}, "reply_to": "20332__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__0_021", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--That waiver is nonenforceable--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [237.048], "stop_times": [240.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 237.048}, "reply_to": "20332__0_020", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_022", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Therefore that portion of the contract is bad, and I would say the whole contract is bad.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [240.13], "stop_times": [243.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 240.13}, "reply_to": "20332__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__0_023", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--because I do believe the other portions of that waiver remain valid.\nIf the employer does not break out the enumeration for each right to be waived, that's the argument to save the set-off for the remedial phase of the trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [243.621, 247.224], "stop_times": [247.224, 256.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 243.621}, "reply_to": "20332__0_022", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_024", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "So all the employers who have these, have made these commitments can now simply stop paying money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [256.55], "stop_times": [262.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 256.55}, "reply_to": "20332__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__0_025", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "If they choose to stop paying money and have not enumerated out which moneys are going to be designated for which rights are being waived, then I believe the plaintiff has a simple right of breach of contract for all other rights that they had signed, if the money has stopped.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [262.775], "stop_times": [276.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 262.775}, "reply_to": "20332__0_024", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_026", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "No, but a contract is... you can't pick apart a contract like that.\nIf the contract's void, it's void.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [276.523, 280.096], "stop_times": [280.096, 281.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 276.523}, "reply_to": "20332__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__0_027", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [281.578], "stop_times": [282.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 281.578}, "reply_to": "20332__0_026", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_028", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "What do you mean, he's breached it?\nHow much money is he supposed to pay, two-thirds of the full contract, or... I mean, how do you decide how much?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [282.537, 283.308], "stop_times": [283.308, 288.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 282.537}, "reply_to": "20332__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__0_029", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [288.313], "stop_times": [288.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 288.313}, "reply_to": "20332__0_028", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_030", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "The full amount?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [288.824], "stop_times": [289.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 288.824}, "reply_to": "20332__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__0_031", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--I agree, Your Honor, I believe that's one of the practical problems of this case, and that's why the tender back at the very beginning of a case to bar plaintiff to going into court is very prac... impractical.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [289.252], "stop_times": [299.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 289.252}, "reply_to": "20332__0_030", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_032", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "What I am worried about is, you are destroying cause... you are destroying entitlements to these payments on the part of all older workers who have been terminated, including the majority of them who do not have any ADEA claims.\nI'm not sure you're doing them a favor.\nYou're saying if the employer is confident enough that this worker doesn't have an ADEA claim he can just say, I'm sorry, we made a mistake.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [299.28, 316.37, 318.961], "stop_times": [316.37, 318.961, 327.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 299.28}, "reply_to": "20332__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__0_033", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well, I believe that's what Congress has established--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [327.198], "stop_times": [331.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 327.198}, "reply_to": "20332__0_032", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_034", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well, Ms. Haynie, we aren't sure about that, because Congress did not expressly say such an agreement that fails to comply with these requirements is void, as they have done in some other legislation.\nThey don't say that, so at common law I suppose an agreement where the employer was guilty of some kind of fraud, duress, or coercion would be voidable, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [331.24, 344.45], "stop_times": [344.45, 357.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 331.24}, "reply_to": "20332__0_033", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20332__0_035", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [357.787], "stop_times": [358.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 357.787}, "reply_to": "20332__0_034", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_036", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Voidable at the option of the person defrauded.\nMaybe this contract is voidable, not void.\nCongress didn't say, one way or another.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [358.368, 361.269, 364.722], "stop_times": [361.269, 364.722, 368.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 358.368}, "reply_to": "20332__0_035", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20332__0_037", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "I believe the phrase, may not waive, is tantamount to announce, or proclaiming void any waivers which do not comply with the Older Worker Benefit Protection Act for those rights secured under the ADEA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [368.205], "stop_times": [379.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 368.205}, "reply_to": "20332__0_036", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_038", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "But why?\nWhy would Congress wanted to have done that, because what you're being told, I think, from Justice Scalia and others, is let's imagine... let's imagine that a... that we have 100,000 workers who are quitting, and each of them has a contract, and they all promise not to bring claims, and each of them is paid [dollars] 5,000 for that promise.\nAll right.\nNow, very few of them will have real ADEA claims.\nVery few.\nBut suppose they're all like this, that they didn't comply with the rule exactly.\nNow, on your theory one day every employer is going to wake up to the fact that he hasn't bought a single thing for his [dollars] 5,000, and somebody might go around and collect the lawsuits and sue everybody and get the money back, so you'd be taking from 100,000 or 90 of the 100,000, [dollars] 5,000 each have to go right back.\nOn the other hand, if you're wrong, all that happens is when somebody has a good claim they have to put up a little bit of money up front, whatever the proportionate amount of the ADEA part is, which might be [dollars] 500, and the lawyer could front it for him.\nSo why would Congress want the result that you want, which would seem to put at risk hundreds of thousands of workers to have to give back the money who would have no claim... the employer would sue them... and at the same time to protect some lawyer from not having to put up a very little money up front.\nNow, I'm putting it strongly, but it's exactly that practical consideration that I'm very disturbed about in terms of your position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [379.753, 380.424, 405.429, 406.57, 410.203, 412.123, 418.318, 436.481, 452.001, 470.093], "stop_times": [380.424, 405.429, 406.57, 410.203, 412.123, 418.318, 436.481, 452.001, 470.093, 477.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 379.753}, "reply_to": "20332__0_037", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20332__0_039", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Your Honor, with regard to the practical--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [477.29], "stop_times": [479.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 477.29}, "reply_to": "20332__0_038", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_040", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "It's not practical, it's legal, and what I'm asking is, why would Congress have wanted that result?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [479.75], "stop_times": [486.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 479.75}, "reply_to": "20332__0_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20332__0_041", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Congress was very clear in enacting this statute to protect the rights of older workers when negotiating with employers when they're forced out of the work place.\nThey are not arm-length negotiators.\nCongress put in very specific requirements an employer must meet so that an employee knows they are giving up a valuable right in exchange for that consideration.\nIf they're given adequate considera... or information, and there is some specter of discrimination, then the employer can go... the employee can go back to the employer and negotiate for a greater severance or say, no, I'm not going to sign this.\nWithout that knowledge, and without the time to consider it in a coercion case, then the employee is really left with no option but to take the money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [486.503, 496.54, 498.52, 509.139, 521.664], "stop_times": [496.54, 498.52, 509.139, 521.664, 531.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 486.503}, "reply_to": "20332__0_040", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_042", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "We're not talking about the same thing.\nWhat I'm talking about is, I agree with you the contract is no good.\nI agree with you the employee can sue.\nI agree with you that that provision in the contract promising not to sue is worthless.\nIt's no good.\nThe question involved is whether, before he brings the lawsuit, he has to give back a proportionate share of the money that he's been paid for his promise not to sue.\nI would imagine if they're paying five or [dollars] 6,000 for such a promise he'd have to give [dollars] 500 back, or... and the lawyer could put it up front.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [531.112, 532.845, 538.077, 541.75, 546.743, 547.864, 560.14], "stop_times": [532.845, 538.077, 541.75, 546.743, 547.864, 560.14, 567.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 531.112}, "reply_to": "20332__0_041", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20332__0_043", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [567.827], "stop_times": [568.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 567.827}, "reply_to": "20332__0_042", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_044", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "So what is the big problem about... that you're worried about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [568.538], "stop_times": [574.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 568.538}, "reply_to": "20332__0_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20332__0_045", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--The problem is twofold, Your Honor.\nFirst, the monetary amount could be greater.\nThe employee expends the money looking... for living expenses while looking for other employment.\nThe second problem is, who is to decide what the proportionate share will be?\nThat's going to have to be decided by a trier of fact, a judicial tribunal.\nThat means you're in court already.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [574.311, 577.654, 580.285, 585.168, 588.291, 592.692], "stop_times": [577.654, 580.285, 585.168, 588.291, 592.692, 594.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 574.311}, "reply_to": "20332__0_044", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_046", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well, can a proportionate share be determined?\nHow do we determine the proportionate share?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [594.244, 596.806], "stop_times": [596.806, 599.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 594.244}, "reply_to": "20332__0_045", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20332__0_047", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "The proportionate share can be determined at the end of the litigation, when a trial judge has taken into--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [599.988], "stop_times": [606.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 599.988}, "reply_to": "20332__0_046", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_048", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well, I thought courts have routinely said they are unable to make that kind of a determination.\nI mean, they can't do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [606.342, 611.465], "stop_times": [611.465, 612.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 606.342}, "reply_to": "20332__0_047", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20332__0_049", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Well, if you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [612.837], "stop_times": [614.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 612.837}, "reply_to": "20332__0_048", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_050", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "You get a... you either have to give it all back or none, as I see it.\nI don't see how that could possibly be made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [614.366, 618.441], "stop_times": [618.441, 620.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 614.366}, "reply_to": "20332__0_049", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20332__0_051", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--If you require the plaintiff to tender back all the money received, then it is the employer who receives the windfall there, because the employee has waived many other rights under that waiver.\nThe employer can raise the defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [620.691, 634.222], "stop_times": [634.222, 637.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 620.691}, "reply_to": "20332__0_050", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_052", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "But if you say the contract is void, then what you're doing is saying that the ADEA tail wags the State law dog with respect to all releases.\nYou are saying that all State law releases, State claim releases are, I take it, void because the contract is not severable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [637.244, 648.039], "stop_times": [648.039, 656.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 637.244}, "reply_to": "20332__0_051", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20332__0_053", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "No, I don't believe that, Your Honor.\nI don't believe that.\nI believe Congress spoke directly and specifically to those rights secured under the ADEA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [656.985, 659.357, 660.178], "stop_times": [659.357, 660.178, 666.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 656.985}, "reply_to": "20332__0_052", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_054", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Ms. Haynie, suppose--\n--Ms. Haynie, did... maybe I misunderstood your argument, but I thought your position was, may not waive is... leaves employer and employee without any authority, without any power to do anything with respect to the ADEA claim.\nThat being so, you construe this contract as though what may not be done wasn't done, so that the only thing that would be covered would be the non-ADEA claims.\nMaybe you're not making that argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [666.292, 667.363, 686.764, 697.872], "stop_times": [667.363, 686.764, 697.872, 699.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 666.292}, "reply_to": "20332__0_053", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20332__0_055", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "No, I am making that argument, Your Honor, that again the statute speaks specifically to ADEA claims, and those are the... that is the waiver that is void.\nThat is the waiver that is nonenforceable against the plaintiff who signs it.\nAll other waivers of claims can be possibly enforceable against the plaintiff, unless the plaintiff can show that it was not an involuntary waiver.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [699.554, 710.13, 713.773], "stop_times": [710.13, 713.773, 722.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 699.554}, "reply_to": "20332__0_054", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_056", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "What if it was just an ADEA claim here, so that we didn't have the problem of breaking out a partial amount, and the... would you say that the employee did not have to tender it back?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [722.129], "stop_times": [734.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 722.129}, "reply_to": "20332__0_055", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20332__0_057", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nIf the waiver does not comply with the statute it is an ineffective waiver.\nIt is a void waiver.\nThe plaintiff can go forward with the lawsuit, and if there is some--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [734.175, 736.197, 741.091, 742.371], "stop_times": [736.197, 741.091, 742.371, 745.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 734.175}, "reply_to": "20332__0_056", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_058", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "The plaintiff just gets to keep it, then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [745.584], "stop_times": [749.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 745.584}, "reply_to": "20332__0_057", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20332__0_059", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Well, there's a concern with regard to equity amongst the parties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [749.206], "stop_times": [751.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 749.206}, "reply_to": "20332__0_058", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_060", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well, there's a considerable concern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [751.467], "stop_times": [752.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 751.467}, "reply_to": "20332__0_059", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20332__0_061", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "It can come at the remedial phase of the trial--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [752.609], "stop_times": [754.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 752.609}, "reply_to": "20332__0_060", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_062", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [754.73], "stop_times": [755.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 754.73}, "reply_to": "20332__0_061", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20332__0_063", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--with either an offset--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [755.03], "stop_times": [755.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 755.03}, "reply_to": "20332__0_062", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_064", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Well, supposing the plaintiff loses at the trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [755.942], "stop_times": [758.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 755.942}, "reply_to": "20332__0_063", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20332__0_065", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--I believe that part of the incentive in complying with the statute is a loss of that money, the severance pay, if you do not draft a valid waiver under the Older Worker Benefits Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [758.974], "stop_times": [770.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 758.974}, "reply_to": "20332__0_064", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_066", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "You mean--\n--That's totally contrary to any concept of the law of contracts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [770.74, 771.081], "stop_times": [771.081, 774.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 770.74}, "reply_to": "20332__0_065", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20332__0_067", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well, this is... we're not dealing with the law of contracts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [774.381], "stop_times": [778.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 774.381}, "reply_to": "20332__0_066", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_068", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well, you may be dealing with the law of contracts except as Congress has otherwise provided.\nYou're arguing for a very expansive construction of a particular language of Congress.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [778.295, 783.208], "stop_times": [783.208, 787.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 778.295}, "reply_to": "20332__0_067", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20332__0_069", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "I believe, Your Honor, that it's warranted in this case.\nThe legislative history is replete and is quite full with Congress' intent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [787.791, 791.344], "stop_times": [791.344, 796.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 787.791}, "reply_to": "20332__0_068", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_070", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "We don't ordinarily get into legislative history.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [796.229], "stop_times": [797.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 796.229}, "reply_to": "20332__0_069", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20332__0_071", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "And I understand, Your Honor, but Congress' intent to occupy this entire area.\nIn fact, the respondent has conceded that in enacting this statute there is as Federal statutory standard for knowing and voluntary.\nIt is all-encompassing.\nThere is no room for judicial common law development here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [797.921, 802.574, 809.959, 811.101], "stop_times": [802.574, 809.959, 811.101, 814.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 797.921}, "reply_to": "20332__0_070", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_072", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "No, but you don't have to have judicial common law development with respect to the protections of this statute, I suppose, in order to recognize that if on a void contract there is a total failure of consideration the employer at least would have the right to bring action for the return of the consideration that he has furnished, and do you deny that he would have such an action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [814.791], "stop_times": [837.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 814.791}, "reply_to": "20332__0_071", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20332__0_073", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Your Honor, to require the tender back would be to engraft on the statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [837.378], "stop_times": [841.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 837.378}, "reply_to": "20332__0_072", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_074", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "I'm not talking about tender-backs.\nI'm simply saying, let's assume that your conclusion is correct, and we recognize it.\nThe employer says... and by the way, we're operating here on the hypothesis that it's only the age claim that's involved.\nThe employer says, I got nothing.\nThere has been a total failure of consideration.\nI want my money back.\nThe employer can sue for it, can't he?\nHe may have a tough time collecting it.\nYou've pointed out, and I'm sure you're right, that in most of these cases the money has been spent, but the... we don't have to deny the employer the cause of action to get the consider... to get his consideration back in order to enforce this act, do we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [841.89, 842.972, 848.806, 857.72, 860.012, 864.293, 865.515, 867.215, 870.738], "stop_times": [842.972, 848.806, 857.72, 860.012, 864.293, 865.515, 867.215, 870.738, 885.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 841.89}, "reply_to": "20332__0_073", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20332__0_075", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, there may be some State claims in restitution or unjust enrichment that the employer could bring.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [885.999], "stop_times": [892.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 885.999}, "reply_to": "20332__0_074", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_076", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "That's what I'm talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [892.754], "stop_times": [893.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 892.754}, "reply_to": "20332__0_075", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20332__0_077", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Certainly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [893.652], "stop_times": [894.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 893.652}, "reply_to": "20332__0_076", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_078", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "You're not denying that, are you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [894.113], "stop_times": [894.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 894.113}, "reply_to": "20332__0_077", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20332__0_079", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "No, certainly I'm not denying that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [894.954], "stop_times": [896.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 894.954}, "reply_to": "20332__0_078", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_080", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [896.604], "stop_times": [897.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 896.604}, "reply_to": "20332__0_079", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20332__0_081", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "And to try to place the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [897.345], "stop_times": [897.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 897.345}, "reply_to": "20332__0_080", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_082", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "And you're not denying, in fact I think you suggest it, that if your client should win, quite properly if the employer has brought his claim there could be a set-off against the recovery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [897.866], "stop_times": [908.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 897.866}, "reply_to": "20332__0_081", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20332__0_083", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [908.712], "stop_times": [910.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 908.712}, "reply_to": "20332__0_082", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_084", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Ms. Haynie, could I--\n--And State law might operate as well to say that it's not severable, that you can't decide how much goes to ADEA and how much consideration--\n--Yes, right.\n--went to these other claims.\nThat's possible, too, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [910.044, 910.865, 921.212, 921.582, 922.634], "stop_times": [910.865, 921.212, 921.582, 922.634, 924.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 910.044}, "reply_to": "20332__0_083", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20332__0_085", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "It's possible, Your Honor, but I believe the trial court will be in the best position, after all the evidence is taken in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [924.126], "stop_times": [929.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 924.126}, "reply_to": "20332__0_084", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_086", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [929.349], "stop_times": [929.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 929.349}, "reply_to": "20332__0_085", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__0_087", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--to assess the values of this claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [929.86], "stop_times": [931.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 929.86}, "reply_to": "20332__0_086", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_088", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--is that right?\nMs. Haynie, suppose I sell you five tickets on horses in a horse race, okay.\nOne of them wins.\nThe other four don't, okay.\nDo you think that it's fair if the contract should be rescinded as to only one of those tickets, one of the losing ones, that you should get back 20 percent of your money?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [931.44, 932.171, 939.634, 943.097, 945.798], "stop_times": [932.171, 939.634, 943.097, 945.798, 956.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 931.44}, "reply_to": "20332__0_087", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__0_089", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [956.785], "stop_times": [958.547], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 956.785}, "reply_to": "20332__0_088", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_090", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "I mean, that is what is called an aleatory contract, a contract that depends on future events to some extent, as does any waiver of rights.\nYou don't know whether the person has claims that he will sue on or not.\nWhen he does have one, is it fair to say, well, that claim was one-fifth of the whole contract, we'll give you one-fifth of your money back?\nYou can't do that.\nThe one ticket for the winning horse is what the whole thing was about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [958.547, 968.594, 971.836, 980.3, 983.104], "stop_times": [968.594, 971.836, 980.3, 983.104, 985.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 958.547}, "reply_to": "20332__0_089", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__0_091", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--I believe that is what the trial court is going to be charged with doing.\nIf you attempt to put the parties back into the places they were before the invalid waiver was offered to the employee, you must then give Ms. Oubre her lost wages, you must put her in a position again of making the decision as to whether she wants to stay with the company or leave the company, and you also must provide all the information required by the act, which the respondent has not done to date in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [985.215, 988.187], "stop_times": [988.187, 1010.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 985.215}, "reply_to": "20332__0_090", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_092", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Let me ask you a factual question.\nwe've all been making the same assumption here, but let me just question the assumption.\nIs there any way of knowing, in the run-of-the-mill situation in which there is a release and the object, the obvious principal purpose of the release is the age claim, whether in those cases there tends to be a, in fact, others unrelated claims?\nI mean, for example, in this case, was she an employee at-will, so... or was she subject to some kind of a cause requirement so that she would have had a lost wage claim?\nBecause if most of these releases in the real world are simply releases of nothing but the age claim, then this problem that's being raised would loom smaller than it might otherwise be.\nHow do we... is there any way for us to know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1010.212, 1011.844, 1016.717, 1037.79, 1048.455, 1060.255], "stop_times": [1011.844, 1016.717, 1037.79, 1048.455, 1060.255, 1061.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1010.212}, "reply_to": "20332__0_091", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20332__0_093", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well, I could tell you factually for this situation she was an at-will employee, and certainly these waivers contain... I've never seen a waiver that just contains an ADEA waiver.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1061.965], "stop_times": [1071.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1061.965}, "reply_to": "20332__0_092", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_094", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Right.\nI'm sure that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1071.843, 1072.143], "stop_times": [1072.143, 1072.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1071.843}, "reply_to": "20332__0_093", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20332__0_095", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "They contain numerous other waivers with regard to Worker's Compensation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1072.794], "stop_times": [1074.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1072.794}, "reply_to": "20332__0_094", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_096", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--be crazy not to, but in fact, do you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1074.774], "stop_times": [1075.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1074.774}, "reply_to": "20332__0_095", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20332__0_097", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "All other waivers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1075.645], "stop_times": [1076.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1075.645}, "reply_to": "20332__0_096", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_098", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Is there any way for us to know whether it's really covering anything else in most cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1076.276], "stop_times": [1080.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1076.276}, "reply_to": "20332__0_097", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20332__0_099", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "I believe that the language of the waiver--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1080.078], "stop_times": [1082.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1080.078}, "reply_to": "20332__0_098", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_100", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Oh, I know what the language of the waiver says, but I mean, in fact, are there any real claims... is there any way for us to know whether there are in fact any substantial claims in most of these cases, other than the age claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1082.571], "stop_times": [1096.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1082.571}, "reply_to": "20332__0_099", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20332__0_101", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Well, if the plaintiff brings the suit, obviously, or files her claim against... files her claim with the EEOC, or, you know, the State regulatory agency--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1096.72], "stop_times": [1105.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1096.72}, "reply_to": "20332__0_100", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_102", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "This would waive title VII claims, too, I suppose.\nThis waiver, if I remember correctly, waived any and all claims.\nIt didn't mention any specific ones.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1105.845, 1109.366, 1113.91], "stop_times": [1109.366, 1113.91, 1115.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1105.845}, "reply_to": "20332__0_101", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20332__0_103", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1115.661], "stop_times": [1116.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1115.661}, "reply_to": "20332__0_102", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_104", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "But apart from State law claims and title VII claims raised with sex discrimination, would there be anything else that might be included in that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1116.642], "stop_times": [1128.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1116.642}, "reply_to": "20332__0_103", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20332__0_105", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well, there's Workers' Compensation claims.\nThere could be any other causes of action that may have come up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1128.409, 1131.331], "stop_times": [1131.331, 1134.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1128.409}, "reply_to": "20332__0_104", "speaker": "barbara_g_haynie"}
{"id": "20332__0_106", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Haynie.\nMs. Brinkmann.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1134.594, 1136.013], "stop_times": [1136.013, 1140.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1134.594}, "reply_to": "20332__0_105", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20332__1_000", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nTo respond to the concerns that the Court has raised, we would agree that the congressional scheme that has been established here addresses these concerns in that Congress gave the courts broad equitable authority, and the Court recognized that in McKennon, that that equitable authority is something that the district courts in ADEA cases exercised to take into account concerns of employers.\nThat is consistent with the common law trend, also.\nAs respondent pointed out in its brief, the common law tender-back was not required in equity, generally.\nIt was only for settlement releases, and in those cases those were... the cases we've seen are ones that only had one topic of the release, so by suing you were undoing the release.\nBut in cases like this, this is a waiver that violates a statute.\nAt common law, that was one of the major bases for not enforcing a contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1140.598, 1145.02, 1166.395, 1170.508, 1176.762, 1187.07, 1191.933], "stop_times": [1145.02, 1166.395, 1170.508, 1176.762, 1187.07, 1191.933, 1196.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1140.598}, "reply_to": "20332__0_106", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_001", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well, is it void or voidable?\nAt common law, it would have been voidable for fraud or coercion or duress, and this is a substitute for that.\nThis is a statutory expression of conditions that have to be there to avoid any kind of coercion or fraud, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1196.116, 1197.996, 1204.412], "stop_times": [1197.996, 1204.412, 1211.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1196.116}, "reply_to": "20332__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20332__1_002", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "We believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1211.997], "stop_times": [1212.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1211.997}, "reply_to": "20332__1_001", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_003", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "So why isn't it voidable at the instance of the employee?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1212.656], "stop_times": [1215.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1212.656}, "reply_to": "20332__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20332__1_004", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Your Honor, we do believe it goes beyond that, the requires provision of information, a lot more protection than the common law.\nWhether--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1215.307, 1222.793], "stop_times": [1222.793, 1224.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1215.307}, "reply_to": "20332__1_003", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_005", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well, is it void?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1224.263], "stop_times": [1224.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1224.263}, "reply_to": "20332__1_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20332__1_006", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--We believe that the waiver of the ADEA claim is void, Your Honor.\nAt common law what they would have done with something like that, they would have applied the practice of divisibility.\nWhen there was an illegal contract for gambling, or something that violated an antitrust statute, they would look and see if that statute was divisible.\nIf it was not divisible, often illegal contracts parties were left as they were.\nThere were some exceptions to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1224.884, 1228.207, 1233.262, 1240.906, 1245.73], "stop_times": [1228.207, 1233.262, 1240.906, 1245.73, 1247.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1224.884}, "reply_to": "20332__1_005", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_007", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "What is it... is it divisible in most cases here, do you think?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1247.541], "stop_times": [1252.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1247.541}, "reply_to": "20332__1_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20332__1_008", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "I think it may very well be.\nI mean, part of the thing that is even more complicated, Your Honor, much more consideration was given for the [dollars] 6,000 than an ADEA waiver.\nPetitioner resigned from her job, in addition to waiving other claims, so there's a lot of equity, and that's exactly what courts of equities would look at, and that's why that decision was made at the remedy phase of the proceeding, where the court could take into account those equitable concerns, and we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1252.172, 1253.474, 1261.128], "stop_times": [1253.474, 1261.128, 1278.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1252.172}, "reply_to": "20332__1_007", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_009", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Ms. Brinkmann, if the void waiver leaves the parties where they were, then doesn't someone who is asserting that the waiver violates the statute by bringing a lawsuit, doesn't that person have to return... in order to be consistent in the pleading, doesn't the person have to return whatever money that person has acquired under the contract?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1278.632], "stop_times": [1301.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1278.632}, "reply_to": "20332__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__1_010", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Your Honor, we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1301.468], "stop_times": [1302.577], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1301.468}, "reply_to": "20332__1_009", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_011", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "You say it's void.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1302.577], "stop_times": [1303.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1302.577}, "reply_to": "20332__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__1_012", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--No.\nWe believe that Congress made clear in this statute that waivers were void if they did not comply with these requirements.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1303.188, 1304.66], "stop_times": [1304.66, 1311.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1303.188}, "reply_to": "20332__1_011", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_013", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1311.744], "stop_times": [1312.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1311.744}, "reply_to": "20332__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__1_014", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "And that means that that waiver violates the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1312.214], "stop_times": [1315.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1312.214}, "reply_to": "20332__1_013", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_015", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1315.618], "stop_times": [1315.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1315.618}, "reply_to": "20332__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__1_016", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "So it's an illegal waiver.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1315.958], "stop_times": [1317.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1315.958}, "reply_to": "20332__1_015", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_017", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Right.\nTherefore, if you assert that that has happened, you should return the money when you bring the lawsuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1317.918, 1318.9], "stop_times": [1318.9, 1323.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1317.918}, "reply_to": "20332__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__1_018", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1323.803], "stop_times": [1324.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1323.803}, "reply_to": "20332__1_017", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_019", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Otherwise you're being inconsistent with your theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1324.544], "stop_times": [1325.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1324.544}, "reply_to": "20332__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__1_020", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "At common law a tender-back was just not that... all... Farnsworth, Dobbs, and all of your discussions make clear that tender-back was not that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1325.993], "stop_times": [1333.209], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1325.993}, "reply_to": "20332__1_019", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_021", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "I don't... I don't even care about the common law.\nI just care about someone who comes in and asserts that this contract is void, but wants to keep the money the person has under the contract, or at least use it to hire the lawyer to bring the lawsuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1333.209, 1334.27], "stop_times": [1334.27, 1343.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1333.209}, "reply_to": "20332__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__1_022", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--The problem--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1343.617], "stop_times": [1344.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1343.617}, "reply_to": "20332__1_021", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_023", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "And then if you lose you keep the money, but if you win, oh, I'll cough up the money, but I'll get more.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1344.645], "stop_times": [1350.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1344.645}, "reply_to": "20332__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__1_024", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--The problem is the statute, Your Honor.\nIt's Congress.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1350.21, 1351.862], "stop_times": [1351.862, 1352.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1350.21}, "reply_to": "20332__1_023", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_025", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "The Congress... the statute says nothing about this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1352.851], "stop_times": [1354.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1352.851}, "reply_to": "20332__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__1_026", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "No, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1354.904], "stop_times": [1355.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1354.904}, "reply_to": "20332__1_025", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_027", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "The statute says nothing about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1355.465], "stop_times": [1356.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1355.465}, "reply_to": "20332__1_026", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20332__1_028", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--But you are creat... you would be creating another condition precedent to bringing suit, and Congress was very clear about what was required in that event, and it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1356.473], "stop_times": [1366.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1356.473}, "reply_to": "20332__1_027", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_029", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Where was that clarity manifested?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1366.381], "stop_times": [1368.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1366.381}, "reply_to": "20332__1_028", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20332__1_030", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--We believe in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1368.772], "stop_times": [1369.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1368.772}, "reply_to": "20332__1_029", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_031", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "What section of the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1369.453], "stop_times": [1370.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1369.453}, "reply_to": "20332__1_030", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20332__1_032", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--In 626, Your Honor.\nIt's enfolding respondent's brief in the appendix.\n(f)(1) makes quite clear Congress expressly said an individual may not waive any right or claim--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1370.353, 1371.855, 1376.365], "stop_times": [1371.855, 1376.365, 1383.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1370.353}, "reply_to": "20332__1_031", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_033", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "We know that, but you're saying that Congress made expressly clear that no tender back would be required.\nWhere is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1383.491, 1390.697], "stop_times": [1390.697, 1391.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1383.491}, "reply_to": "20332__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20332__1_034", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, we believe that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1391.405], "stop_times": [1393.488], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1391.405}, "reply_to": "20332__1_033", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_035", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "I thought you said Congress made expressly clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1393.488], "stop_times": [1396.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1393.488}, "reply_to": "20332__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20332__1_036", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Yes.\nWe believe, when you look at the... for example, (f)(3), where Congress foresaw that there would be disputes among parties about the validity of these waivers, Congress specifically said the burden would be on the employer, or the person asserting the validity of the waiver.\nIn this case it would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1396.461, 1397.592, 1414.333], "stop_times": [1397.592, 1414.333, 1415.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1396.461}, "reply_to": "20332__1_035", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_037", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "What does that have to do about tender back?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1415.735], "stop_times": [1418.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1415.735}, "reply_to": "20332__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20332__1_038", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Because tender back, Your Honor, was to put up the money to counter the presumption of the validity of the contract, and here it's to the contrary.\nCongress has supplanted that, and I think it's important to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1418.035, 1425.852], "stop_times": [1425.852, 1429.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1418.035}, "reply_to": "20332__1_037", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_039", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "That certainly is not an express provision about tender back, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1429.315], "stop_times": [1432.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1429.315}, "reply_to": "20332__1_038", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20332__1_040", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--No, but Your Honor, in case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1432.427], "stop_times": [1434.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1432.427}, "reply_to": "20332__1_039", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_041", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "I thought you said it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1434.758], "stop_times": [1435.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1434.758}, "reply_to": "20332__1_040", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20332__1_042", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--No, because I think that the tender back clearly conflicts with the purposes and the construct, the mechanism which Congress created.\nTo impose--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1435.439, 1443.045], "stop_times": [1443.045, 1443.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1435.439}, "reply_to": "20332__1_041", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_043", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Ms. Brinkmann, may I ask you to address a specific point there?\nI thought one of the strongest, if not the strongest argument for the position that you and the petitioner take is that if you require a tender back, the prohibition in the statute is a dead letter, because in fact you're dealing with people who are not going to have the money to tender back, not because they went to the race track because they used it to pay the rent and buy the food.\nIs there anything we can look at to find out whether that... that seems to have an intuitive appeal to it.\nIs... has it gotten anything more than an intuitive appeal?\nAre there statistics anywhere, or is there anything in the record to the effect that that is so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1443.684, 1446.566, 1467.87, 1474.545, 1477.037], "stop_times": [1446.566, 1467.87, 1474.545, 1477.037, 1481.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1443.684}, "reply_to": "20332__1_042", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20332__1_044", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Certainly, Your Honor.\nIn the first section of the ADEA, 621, Congress made a specific find or example that older workers are much less likely to retain and regain employment once they're terminated, so it's a specific class.\nThe legislative history also concerns information about that.\nAlso, even where courts have applied a tender-back requirement as Judge Posner did in his opinion for the Seventh Circuit in a title VII case, he recognized that where there was a situation in which living expenses would preclude the bringing of the suit, that would not be permitted as a matter of equity.\nHe also pointed out that, you know, perhaps an offer would be sufficient, would be offset at the remedial phase.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1481.861, 1482.851, 1494.948, 1497.791, 1514.472], "stop_times": [1482.851, 1494.948, 1497.791, 1514.472, 1519.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1481.861}, "reply_to": "20332__1_043", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_045", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "In other words, I will... I offer to pay you back if I get the money from which I can do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1519.755], "stop_times": [1523.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1519.755}, "reply_to": "20332__1_044", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20332__1_046", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "That's an offset remedy, and I just have to urge the Court to realize that to adopt the court of appeals approach would be to put the workers exactly back where they were before enactment of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1523.537], "stop_times": [1534.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1523.537}, "reply_to": "20332__1_045", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_047", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well, are you saying that we have to enact as a matter of Federal common law some rule about tender-back, or do we look to State law to see what the normal contract situation would be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1534.655], "stop_times": [1547.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1534.655}, "reply_to": "20332__1_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20332__1_048", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nWe believe that Congress has spoken, has established this very specific scheme--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1547.121, 1547.802], "stop_times": [1547.802, 1551.795], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1547.121}, "reply_to": "20332__1_047", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_049", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well, we... suppose we don't find an express provision in the statute governing tender-back.\nDo we look to the State law where the contract was created?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1551.795, 1555.937], "stop_times": [1555.937, 1560.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1551.795}, "reply_to": "20332__1_048", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20332__1_050", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1560.802], "stop_times": [1561.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1560.802}, "reply_to": "20332__1_049", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_051", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Or do we try to create some Federal legal principle to cover this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1561.453], "stop_times": [1564.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1561.453}, "reply_to": "20332__1_050", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20332__1_052", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nWe believe Congress created that because to impose tender-back would be nullify the statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1564.953, 1565.444], "stop_times": [1565.444, 1569.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1564.953}, "reply_to": "20332__1_051", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_053", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well, where do you get the offset authority?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1569.497], "stop_times": [1571.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1569.497}, "reply_to": "20332__1_052", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20332__1_054", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--The equitable authority of the court.\nThat's clear, and this Court has, you know, agreed with that in McKennon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1571.489, 1574.07], "stop_times": [1574.07, 1576.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1571.489}, "reply_to": "20332__1_053", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_055", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Why does the court have equitable authority at the end of the case but not the beginning?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1576.811], "stop_times": [1580.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1576.811}, "reply_to": "20332__1_054", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20332__1_056", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Congress gave it remedial authority in 626(b)... or... yes, 626(b) of the act, and made clear all the remedies that the court could give, and it's important to realize that at this point if this worker has to make a choice of whether to have the severance pay or a waiver, that worker is exactly where they were before passage of the act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1580.054], "stop_times": [1601.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1580.054}, "reply_to": "20332__1_055", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_057", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "I don't understand that.\nAm I missing a... I mean, I only have one question, really, for this side of the case, and I couldn't find the answer in any brief, and it seemed so obvious I must be missing something.\nThat is, I absolutely take in your point that if the worker has to front the money sometimes they won't have it, and maybe their lawyer wouldn't give it to them.\nI see that as a problem.\nI don't think it makes the worker back at stage zero, but it could be a problem.\nBut if we agree with you, everyone's been pointing out that in all the millions of retirements contracts in the United States, every one that doesn't comply with all this is void, and why won't, at some day, some clever person work out that he could go from employer to employer, buy up tens of thousands of suits, and all the people who don't have ADEA claims will have to give back several thousand dollars to their employer?\nI mean, it's the people who don't have the claim who vastly outnumber the ones who do, who would be suddenly left high and dry, on your theory, at the mercy of whether an employer would just decide to sue him for the money back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1601.699, 1602.48, 1611.185, 1620.262, 1622.421, 1626.054, 1652.635], "stop_times": [1602.48, 1611.185, 1620.262, 1622.421, 1626.054, 1652.635, 1667.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1601.699}, "reply_to": "20332__1_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20332__1_058", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1667.521], "stop_times": [1668.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1667.521}, "reply_to": "20332__1_057", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_059", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Now, that seems to me an obvious point, but no one mentions it, and therefore I must be missing something, so I want you to tell me what I'm missing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1668.192], "stop_times": [1675.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1668.192}, "reply_to": "20332__1_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20332__1_060", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--I think Your Honor is pointing out the fact that it's unclear whether a worker could even avoid this waiver if they wanted to enforce--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1675.638], "stop_times": [1682.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1675.638}, "reply_to": "20332__1_059", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_061", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "No.\nI'm talking about workers who don't... they're happy.\nThere are millions of them.\nThey have their contracts and they have [dollars] 6,000 to boot, and they don't have a dream of a claim, and those workers, on your theory, it seems to me, if the provision in the contract is void, are at the mercy of any lawyer working for an employer who would ask for the money back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1682.291, 1682.562, 1686.094, 1687.416], "stop_times": [1682.562, 1686.094, 1687.416, 1705.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1682.291}, "reply_to": "20332__1_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20332__1_062", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Again, Your Honor, we don't believe so.\nIt's an illegal contract that is not enforceable even at the common law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1705.469, 1707.158], "stop_times": [1707.158, 1710.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1705.469}, "reply_to": "20332__1_061", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_063", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "If it's not enforceable, why... it's the fourth time I've said the exact... I must be not be saying it well.\nSuppose it's not enforceable.\nIt's then void.\nThere is no such provision.\nEach worker is there with [dollars] 4,000 that he got.\nWhy can't the employer just sue him to get the [dollars] 4,000 back?\nHe was unjustly enriched.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1710.601, 1716.094, 1717.855, 1719.497, 1722.118, 1727.011, 1732.266], "stop_times": [1716.094, 1717.855, 1719.497, 1722.118, 1727.011, 1732.266, 1734.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1710.601}, "reply_to": "20332__1_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20332__1_064", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Your Honor, may I answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1734.067], "stop_times": [1735.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1734.067}, "reply_to": "20332__1_063", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_065", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1735.068], "stop_times": [1735.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1735.068}, "reply_to": "20332__1_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20332__1_066", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "At common law there could... we don't want to preclude that there would never be an unjust enrichment situation.\nPerhaps it was some egregious unjust enrichment, but at common law those would have been exceptions to the principle that illegal contracts were against public policy and the parties were left as they were.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1735.597, 1740.892], "stop_times": [1740.892, 1751.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1735.597}, "reply_to": "20332__1_065", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_067", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Brinkmann.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1751.378], "stop_times": [1753.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1751.378}, "reply_to": "20332__1_066", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20332__1_068", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1753.391], "stop_times": [1753.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1753.391}, "reply_to": "20332__1_067", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "20332__1_069", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Mr. Phillips, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1753.93], "stop_times": [1757.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1753.93}, "reply_to": "20332__1_068", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20332__2_000", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIt seems to me that the bulk of the discussion that's gone on today suggests as strongly as anything that I could propose to you why it is that we would do far better to leave the common law in place, providing us with a set of guideposts that can be applied on a regular basis and on a case-by-case basis, and recognize that section 626(f) is a very pointed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1757.212, 1759.712], "stop_times": [1759.712, 1777.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1757.212}, "reply_to": "20332__1_069", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_001", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Mr. Phillips, let me just raise a question that... you know somebody's got to ask you a question about this.\nI agree with everything in your brief about the common law, the equities, the fairness, but the statute never says anything about void or voidable, but the statute does say, an individual may not waive this claim unless the waiver complies with the statute, and in this case the waiver did not comply with the statute.\nIf they do not come up with the money to pay you in advance, is it not true you claim you would have a defense to the suit which would be a waiver?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1777.395, 1781.768, 1798.638], "stop_times": [1781.768, 1798.638, 1806.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1777.395}, "reply_to": "20332__2_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20332__2_002", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--If they do not pay it... no.\nNo, no.\nIt's not the waiver argument.\nWhat we're saying is that they've forfeited their rights as a matter of common law by their failure to comply with an independent State law duty to tender back the consideration.\nIt doesn't revive the waiver.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1806.803, 1809.536, 1810.187, 1811.549, 1819.343], "stop_times": [1809.536, 1810.187, 1811.549, 1819.343, 1821.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1806.803}, "reply_to": "20332__2_001", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_003", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "What is your defense to the suit?\nIs it not the document that she signed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1821.085, 1823.276], "stop_times": [1823.276, 1825.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1821.085}, "reply_to": "20332__2_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20332__2_004", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "No.\nThe... it's not.\nIt is the failure to tender back, and the failure to pay the consideration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1825.239, 1826.098, 1827.36], "stop_times": [1826.098, 1827.36, 1832.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1825.239}, "reply_to": "20332__2_003", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_005", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Why should she have to... what in the statute compels her to tender anything back?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1832.112], "stop_times": [1835.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1832.112}, "reply_to": "20332__2_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20332__2_006", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Nothing in the statute compels her to tender it back.\nIt is a bedrock principle of the common law and contract law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1835.205, 1837.168], "stop_times": [1837.168, 1839.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1835.205}, "reply_to": "20332__2_005", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_007", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "You say she has not... you say there's just no waiver issue at all, then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1839.679], "stop_times": [1843.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1839.679}, "reply_to": "20332__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20332__2_008", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "I've lost the waiver issue, Your Honor.\nThat's right.\nShe is perfectly available to come forward into court and bring her claim.\nWe do not fear, and I don't think any of the employers in these cases fear having these age discrimination cases go forward if that's what they want to do, but what we are concerned about, and what the common law protects, is our right to say, look, you have to put the money in.\nThat's the consideration you have to pay as a condition of coming in.\nThat is a wholly independent legal requirement that's been embedded in the common law for 200 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1843.76, 1844.671, 1845.172, 1850.064, 1862.753, 1865.986], "stop_times": [1844.671, 1845.172, 1850.064, 1862.753, 1865.986, 1870.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1843.76}, "reply_to": "20332__2_007", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_009", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "But if she had never signed a contract she wouldn't have to do that.\nIf she'd never signed the waiver she would not have to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1870.607, 1873.129], "stop_times": [1873.129, 1876.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1870.607}, "reply_to": "20332__2_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20332__2_010", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "If we had given her money in return--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1876.542], "stop_times": [1878.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1876.542}, "reply_to": "20332__2_009", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_011", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Say she signed no document whatsoever, and you just said to her, we think you've been a wonderful employee, we don't think you're going to sue us, here's a lot of money.\nWould she have to give that back?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1878.752, 1884.876], "stop_times": [1884.876, 1886.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1878.752}, "reply_to": "20332__2_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20332__2_012", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Of course she'd have to give that back.\nThe point is, is if you want to get--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1886.168, 1888.258], "stop_times": [1888.258, 1889.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1886.168}, "reply_to": "20332__2_011", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_013", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "To bring an ADEA suit?\nWhy?\nIf she never signed a release she wouldn't have to give anything back, would she?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1889.75, 1891.231, 1892.122], "stop_times": [1891.231, 1892.122, 1896.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1889.75}, "reply_to": "20332__2_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20332__2_014", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--As I understand the State common law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1896.583], "stop_times": [1897.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1896.583}, "reply_to": "20332__2_013", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_015", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Would you... I'm asking you, would you have a defense to this case if she had not signed a release?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1897.635], "stop_times": [1901.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1897.635}, "reply_to": "20332__2_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20332__2_016", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--If she had not signed the release.\nNo.\nUltimately we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1901.329, 1903.269, 1906.631], "stop_times": [1903.269, 1906.631, 1907.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1901.329}, "reply_to": "20332__2_015", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_017", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "So the heart of your defense is the fact she signed a document that she has not rescinded.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1907.162], "stop_times": [1910.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1907.162}, "reply_to": "20332__2_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20332__2_018", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--No, but that's not... no.\nNo, Justice Stevens.\nThe heart of my defense is that the common law recognizes an independent obligation, apart from whether the release is waived or not waived, that you must as a condition of coming to court pay back moneys that have been paid to you as a part--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1910.903, 1912.005, 1913.026], "stop_times": [1912.005, 1913.026, 1928.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1910.903}, "reply_to": "20332__2_017", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_019", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "If you want to avoid a release.\nThat's what... the payback is in order to make something that is voidable... keep it alive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1928.205, 1930.527], "stop_times": [1930.527, 1937.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1928.205}, "reply_to": "20332__2_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20332__2_020", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--You can construe it that way, but that's not the way the common law views it.\nCommon law imposes it as an independent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1937.633, 1942.427], "stop_times": [1942.427, 1944.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1937.633}, "reply_to": "20332__2_019", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_021", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "I agree with you on the common law entirely.\nMy question is, how can you get around the statutory language that says she may not waive unless you comply with the statute, and you're saying she did waive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1944.859, 1945.367], "stop_times": [1945.367, 1953.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1944.859}, "reply_to": "20332__2_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20332__2_022", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--I will go back to the Court's opinion in United States v. Olano, which draws a clear distinction between waiver, which is the knowing and voluntary relinquishment of a known right and the implications of that, and it's a narrow concept, and a forfeiture of your rights which arises because you don't fulfill your independent common law duties, and that's what we have here, is an independent common law duty to put forward the consideration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1953.845], "stop_times": [1975.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1953.845}, "reply_to": "20332__2_021", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_023", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "But that duty would not arise unless she'd signed a waiver.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1975.778], "stop_times": [1978.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1975.778}, "reply_to": "20332__2_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20332__2_024", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "That--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1978.83], "stop_times": [1980.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1978.83}, "reply_to": "20332__2_023", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_025", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Mr. Phillips, your argument does not assume that the waiver is valid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1980.242], "stop_times": [1984.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1980.242}, "reply_to": "20332__2_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__2_026", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1984.993], "stop_times": [1985.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1984.993}, "reply_to": "20332__2_025", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_027", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "It just assumes that the waiver was signed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1985.785], "stop_times": [1988.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1985.785}, "reply_to": "20332__2_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__2_028", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1988.106], "stop_times": [1988.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1988.106}, "reply_to": "20332__2_027", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_029", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Isn't that quite different?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1988.647], "stop_times": [1989.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1988.647}, "reply_to": "20332__2_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__2_030", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Yes.\nYou're right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1989.766, 1990.477], "stop_times": [1990.477, 1990.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1989.766}, "reply_to": "20332__2_029", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_031", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "It's essential to your case that she signed a piece of paper.\nIt is not essential to your case that that waiver be valid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1990.938, 1992.688], "stop_times": [1992.688, 1995.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1990.938}, "reply_to": "20332__2_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__2_032", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "That's correct.\nIndeed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1995.821, 1996.392], "stop_times": [1996.392, 1996.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1995.821}, "reply_to": "20332__2_031", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_033", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "But it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1996.433], "stop_times": [1996.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1996.433}, "reply_to": "20332__2_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20332__2_034", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Indeed, we readily concede that it's an invalid waiver.\nIt's just not void.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [1996.843, 1999.444], "stop_times": [1999.444, 2000.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1996.843}, "reply_to": "20332__2_033", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_035", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--It's essential to your case that she signed the piece of paper, and that the piece of paper has the effect that Justice Stevens has been positing in his question.\nThe signature is not a mere incidental fact of history.\nIt has an operative effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2000.256, 2007.07, 2010.783], "stop_times": [2007.07, 2010.783, 2012.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2000.256}, "reply_to": "20332__2_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20332__2_036", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "I understand that, Justice... Your Honor, but the bottom line here, the problem with that is, is how far are you going to take statutory language to do damage to the common law, and basically what this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2012.234], "stop_times": [2025.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2012.234}, "reply_to": "20332__2_035", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_037", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Or you might pose the question, how far are you going to allow a common law process in effect to thwart the statute, and if, in fact, we are correct in the intuitive assumption that has been suggested here, that in most of these cases in which this is going to be a serious question the worker is simply not going to be in a position to make the tender, then, in fact, on your theory the statute is a dead letter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2025.032], "stop_times": [2052.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2025.032}, "reply_to": "20332__2_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20332__2_038", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Well, let's step back for a second, because that is... there is no support anywhere, empirical, that I know of, that that's true.\nI mean, the principle of tender-back has been available for 200 years.\nThere's not a shred of evidence anywhere--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2052.958, 2058.416, 2062.375], "stop_times": [2058.416, 2062.375, 2064.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2052.958}, "reply_to": "20332__2_037", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_039", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Yes, but the statute hasn't been.\nI mean, we're in this position because we've got a fairly unequivocal-looking statute, and the fact that the common law may have operated without the hindrance of statute for 200 years leaves us, I think, exactly where Justice Stevens is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2064.617, 2065.118], "stop_times": [2065.118, 2078.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2064.617}, "reply_to": "20332__2_038", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20332__2_040", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Well, no, but there have been principles by which one can void or declare unenforceable contracts for 200 years, and there has been a tender-back requirement that applies to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2078.167], "stop_times": [2084.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2078.167}, "reply_to": "20332__2_039", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_041", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "But the tender-back--\n--Well, what was the common law, though, if it was void?\nWas it the situation that the parties might be left where the law found them at the time it was voided?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2084.601, 2086.072, 2088.302], "stop_times": [2086.072, 2088.302, 2095.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2084.601}, "reply_to": "20332__2_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20332__2_042", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Yes, that is my general understanding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2095.178], "stop_times": [2096.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2095.178}, "reply_to": "20332__2_041", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_043", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "So there might not be a tender-back requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2096.069], "stop_times": [2099.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2096.069}, "reply_to": "20332__2_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20332__2_044", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Right, if it... if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2099.09], "stop_times": [2099.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2099.09}, "reply_to": "20332__2_043", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_045", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "If it were totally void.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2099.581], "stop_times": [2101.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2099.581}, "reply_to": "20332__2_044", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20332__2_046", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--That's correct, if it's totally void.\nOn the other hand, there is not a shred of evidence that Congress intended to declare these totally void, for the reasons I think Justice Breyer's agrument describes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2101.291, 2102.671], "stop_times": [2102.671, 2109.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2101.291}, "reply_to": "20332__2_045", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_047", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "But your argument depends upon our determining that the waiver is voidable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2109.936], "stop_times": [2114.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2109.936}, "reply_to": "20332__2_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20332__2_048", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.\nIf it's voidable--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2114.771, 2115.823], "stop_times": [2115.823, 2116.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2114.771}, "reply_to": "20332__2_047", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_049", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "And if, in fact, it's void, we're faced with something else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2116.771], "stop_times": [2119.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2116.771}, "reply_to": "20332__2_048", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20332__2_050", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2119.032], "stop_times": [2119.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2119.032}, "reply_to": "20332__2_049", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_051", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Why--\n--Again--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2119.663, 2120.394], "stop_times": [2120.394, 2120.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2119.663}, "reply_to": "20332__2_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__2_052", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "I agree with that, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2120.845], "stop_times": [2122.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2120.845}, "reply_to": "20332__2_051", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_053", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--In response to Justice Stevens' point that I still think we'd better get straight, if we're the trial court, you don't say that the suit cannot proceed because the money was not paid back.\nYou say the suit was not... cannot proceed because (a) the money was not paid back, and (b) that allows you to plead the waiver.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2122.355, 2134.714], "stop_times": [2134.714, 2142.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2122.355}, "reply_to": "20332__2_052", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20332__2_054", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2142.628], "stop_times": [2144.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2142.628}, "reply_to": "20332__2_053", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_055", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "But the statute says the individual can't waive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2144.14], "stop_times": [2146.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2144.14}, "reply_to": "20332__2_054", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20332__2_056", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "But the point of the ultimate... the significance in terms of how the law operates, and it's true in Louisiana as it is in every other State, that is, if... you know, the fundamental principle is, you pay back as a condition.\nIt is true that I... they... I have both components of it, but the part that precludes you from going forward and has precluded plaintiffs from going forward for 200 years is the failure to tender back the consideration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2146.791, 2158.669], "stop_times": [2158.669, 2170.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2146.791}, "reply_to": "20332__2_055", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_057", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Mr. Phillips--\n--But not under Federal statutes like the FELA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2170.217, 2170.598], "stop_times": [2170.598, 2172.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2170.217}, "reply_to": "20332__2_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__2_058", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well, the FELA is exactly on point in my favor on this, Your Honor, because there the language of section 55 says as plainly as possible any contract or device to limit the liability of an employer is void, and it says it in so many words.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2172.227], "stop_times": [2186.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2172.227}, "reply_to": "20332__2_057", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_059", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "But that's significant in this case for another reason.\nThis waiver is void only insofar as it waives FE... ADEA claims.\nIt doesn't purport to make the entire document void.\nIt just says it cannot operate as a waiver of this particular cause of action.\nSo it's void pro tanto.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2186.696, 2188.769, 2194.833, 2196.946, 2200.837], "stop_times": [2188.769, 2194.833, 2196.946, 2200.837, 2201.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2186.696}, "reply_to": "20332__2_058", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20332__2_060", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well, that goes back to Justice Scalia's question about severability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2201.649], "stop_times": [2204.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2201.649}, "reply_to": "20332__2_059", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_061", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Your point is that the FELA language about void does not find a counterpart in the ADEA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2204.64], "stop_times": [2208.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2204.64}, "reply_to": "20332__2_060", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20332__2_062", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Exactly.\nCongress had a model it could follow in this context.\nIt had not only a statute that describes the matter as void, it also had a decision of this Court that enforced that statute in a way that eliminated the tender-back requirement, and Congress didn't follow that model here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2208.684, 2209.245, 2212.515], "stop_times": [2209.245, 2212.515, 2224.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2208.684}, "reply_to": "20332__2_061", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_063", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "But there's a very good reason.\nIt did not want to create the specter that Justice Breyer's example creates of creating everything void.\nIt just said it's void insofar as it affects this particular claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2224.054, 2224.873, 2230.416], "stop_times": [2224.873, 2230.416, 2234.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2224.054}, "reply_to": "20332__2_062", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20332__2_064", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "But it doesn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2234.83], "stop_times": [2235.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2234.83}, "reply_to": "20332__2_063", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_065", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "It didn't say void.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2235.381], "stop_times": [2236.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2235.381}, "reply_to": "20332__2_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20332__2_066", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--It doesn't say that either.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2236.192], "stop_times": [2236.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2236.192}, "reply_to": "20332__2_065", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_067", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "It says, it shall not operate as a waiver of this narrow claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2236.561], "stop_times": [2239.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2236.561}, "reply_to": "20332__2_066", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20332__2_068", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Right.\nIt seems to me Congress knows how to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2239.823, 2240.124], "stop_times": [2240.124, 2241.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2239.823}, "reply_to": "20332__2_067", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_069", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "But you can't give effect to that language, as I understand your position, and still say she has to tender back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2241.536], "stop_times": [2245.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2241.536}, "reply_to": "20332__2_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20332__2_070", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--But Your Honor, if the position of the common law would have set aside the contract for reasons of coercion or duress or fraud or any of those other reasons, it's still, under those circumstances, no more than voidable, and so it would seem--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2245.546], "stop_times": [2256.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2245.546}, "reply_to": "20332__2_069", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_071", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "We have an example, Mr. Phillips of State law... of a State law that says may not waive, do you agree that that's... the essence of this case is for us to construe what those words mean, may not waive, and I take that to be an instruction to the employer as well as to the employee, so may I ask you to respond to the question that I put to Ms. Haynie?\nThat is, one way to look at what Congress did, these words, may not waive, is to say, well, that's a condition, that whatever else this contract does, it can't do that.\nThe employer doesn't have the power to put it in, the employee doesn't have the power to agree to it, so the contract... the employer knowing that full well, by the way... the contract then must be construed to waive the host of other claims that are waivable, and it's enforceable to the extent that it doesn't include the one thing that Congress says thou shalt not.\nSo it's perfectly good to waive title VII, to waive a slew of other claims.\nWhy isn't that the most sensible reading of the may-not-waive language?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2256.236, 2283.403, 2294.363, 2318.606, 2323.241], "stop_times": [2283.403, 2294.363, 2318.606, 2323.241, 2329.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2256.236}, "reply_to": "20332__2_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20332__2_072", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Because the language has to be... I mean, you can look at may-not-waive on its own, but the truth is, it's a part of a provision that is designed to modify a very discrete element of the common law.\nIt eliminates the requirement and the burden on the employee to come forward and prove fraud, duress, or the other conditions that would justify setting aside a release.\nCongress said, we're not going to put employees to that burden.\nWe are going to eliminate that obligation.\nWe're going to lower the burden that otherwise would exist.\nBut beyond that, Congress didn't say, and in addition to that we mean to eliminate through the language, waiver, all other forfeitures of rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2329.032, 2339.36, 2345.364, 2350.977, 2352.897, 2355.832], "stop_times": [2339.36, 2345.364, 2350.977, 2352.897, 2355.832, 2363.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2329.032}, "reply_to": "20332__2_071", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_073", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "No, just may not waive this one claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2363.186], "stop_times": [2364.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2363.186}, "reply_to": "20332__2_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20332__2_074", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "But this one claim is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2364.415], "stop_times": [2366.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2364.415}, "reply_to": "20332__2_073", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_075", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "And you think they can waive... they can waive it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2366.198], "stop_times": [2367.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2366.198}, "reply_to": "20332__2_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20332__2_076", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--No, of course not.\nI'm not saying... they're not waiving by failing to tender back.\nThat's not a waiver.\nThat is, as this Court said in Olano, a forfeiture, just as she's not waiving if she fails to satisfy a statute of limitations or other restrictions on the ability to go forward.\nThe fact that she doesn't do that doesn't trigger 626 as a set of conditions on that forfeiture, even though we might colloquially describe that as a waiver.\nThat's not what Congress meant in 626.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2367.277, 2369.4, 2373.474, 2376.043, 2385.869, 2394.377], "stop_times": [2369.4, 2373.474, 2376.043, 2385.869, 2394.377, 2397.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2367.277}, "reply_to": "20332__2_075", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_077", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Mr. Phillips--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2397.908], "stop_times": [2398.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2397.908}, "reply_to": "20332__2_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__2_078", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "The context is very narrow and specific.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2398.459], "stop_times": [2400.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2398.459}, "reply_to": "20332__2_077", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_079", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Mr. Phillips, I am surprised at your concession that if this contract is void the employee can keep all the money that he received.\nYou say that that's the common law rule?\nI know that contracts that are void for reasons of public policy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2400.429, 2410.809, 2414.412], "stop_times": [2410.809, 2414.412, 2419.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2400.429}, "reply_to": "20332__2_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__2_080", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2419.357], "stop_times": [2419.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2419.357}, "reply_to": "20332__2_079", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_081", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--If I hire you to murder someone and give you money, I can't get my money back, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2419.665], "stop_times": [2424.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2419.665}, "reply_to": "20332__2_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__2_082", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "That's what I thought the question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2424.881], "stop_times": [2426.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2424.881}, "reply_to": "20332__2_081", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_083", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--if I pay you to fix prices or something like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2426.791], "stop_times": [2427.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2426.791}, "reply_to": "20332__2_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__2_084", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2427.642], "stop_times": [2428.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2427.642}, "reply_to": "20332__2_083", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_085", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "But where a contract is void because the deal between the people is not... for example, void for want of consideration.\nI give you money, and you've made an illusory promise in exchange.\nCan I get... that's a void con--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2428.013, 2436.387, 2441.79], "stop_times": [2436.387, 2441.79, 2443.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2428.013}, "reply_to": "20332__2_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__2_086", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "No--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2443.721], "stop_times": [2444.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2443.721}, "reply_to": "20332__2_085", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_087", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Can I not get my money back?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2444.021], "stop_times": [2444.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2444.021}, "reply_to": "20332__2_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__2_088", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--No, I was using void in the much more stringent term.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2444.803], "stop_times": [2447.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2444.803}, "reply_to": "20332__2_087", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_089", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2447.404], "stop_times": [2447.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2447.404}, "reply_to": "20332__2_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__2_090", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Which is the one I think that the question invited, was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2447.684], "stop_times": [2449.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2447.684}, "reply_to": "20332__2_089", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_091", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Well, let me put it to you squarely.\nDo you... are you concerned about the things that Justice Breyer is concerned about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2449.286, 2450.737], "stop_times": [2450.737, 2455.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2449.286}, "reply_to": "20332__2_090", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__2_092", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Of course.\nI think those are fundamental reasons why you would not interpret this language--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2455.041, 2455.438], "stop_times": [2455.438, 2458.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2455.041}, "reply_to": "20332__2_091", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_093", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Then you can't say that a void contract leaves everybody where they are.\nIt depends on the basis for the voidness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2458.48, 2461.553], "stop_times": [2461.553, 2463.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2458.48}, "reply_to": "20332__2_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__2_094", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--No, you're absolutely right.\nAll I was answering was that as a matter of the... there are common law rules in which a particular finding of void leaves you without any ability--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2463.155, 2464.645], "stop_times": [2464.645, 2472.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2463.155}, "reply_to": "20332__2_093", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_095", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Not every void--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2472.121], "stop_times": [2473.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2472.121}, "reply_to": "20332__2_094", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__2_096", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--No, you're right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2473.009], "stop_times": [2473.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2473.009}, "reply_to": "20332__2_095", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_097", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--And this is not one of those, so in this case I take it your position... is it your position in this case that if this Court holds that the entire waiver is void, that any employer can sue to get the entire... in effect can sue to rescind the contract?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2473.36], "stop_times": [2488.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2473.36}, "reply_to": "20332__2_096", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20332__2_098", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "I would assume that that follows quite naturally.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2488.681], "stop_times": [2490.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2488.681}, "reply_to": "20332__2_097", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_099", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "All right.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2490.984, 2491.373], "stop_times": [2491.373, 2491.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2490.984}, "reply_to": "20332__2_098", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20332__2_100", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "And frankly I haven't heard word one from the other side to counter that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2491.693], "stop_times": [2493.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2491.693}, "reply_to": "20332__2_099", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_101", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--My question is... and I don't know the answer to this.\nI wish I'd thought of it before argument, but my question, then, is this.\nIf I can remember back to first-year contracts I thought rescission was an equitable remedy.\nWouldn't the court, if I'm right, simply say to the employer, no, you can't get the entire consideration back because they waived a lot of... if this is true, you know, they waived other things besides the age claim, so I'll give you part of it back.\nI will come up... in effect, I'm going to do an intellectual... an equitable slice here.\nIs that possible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2493.896, 2496.268, 2499.52, 2506.894, 2523.234, 2527.817], "stop_times": [2496.268, 2499.52, 2506.894, 2523.234, 2527.817, 2528.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2493.896}, "reply_to": "20332__2_100", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20332__2_102", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "No, that... no, and I don't know who taught you first-year contracts, but my understanding--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2528.638, 2532.87], "stop_times": [2532.87, 2533.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2528.638}, "reply_to": "20332__2_101", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_103", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "He was very good.\nThe pupil wasn't, but the teacher was okay.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2533.361, 2533.992, 2536.312], "stop_times": [2533.992, 2536.312, 2537.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2533.361}, "reply_to": "20332__2_102", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20332__2_104", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "But my understanding of first year contracts is that if you come forward you have to bring back the entire consideration, and that is clearly the law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2537.795], "stop_times": [2545.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2537.795}, "reply_to": "20332__2_103", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_105", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Wait... wait.\nCan I just go right into that, because my professor was Jack Dawson, who was a fabulous first-year--\n[Laughter]\nAny failing is one of my own memory.\nBut the... my belief... I thought of this, is, there is no contract.\nWe don't have to rescind it.\nThere's a contract, but the provision at issue is void... it's not there.\nForget the word void.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2545.051, 2545.802, 2550.094, 2550.845, 2552.838, 2558.632, 2559.614, 2563.063], "stop_times": [2545.802, 2550.094, 2550.845, 2552.838, 2558.632, 2559.614, 2563.063, 2563.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2545.051}, "reply_to": "20332__2_104", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20332__2_106", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--I would say voidable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2563.343], "stop_times": [2563.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2563.343}, "reply_to": "20332__2_105", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_107", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "It's invalid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2563.874], "stop_times": [2564.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2563.874}, "reply_to": "20332__2_106", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20332__2_108", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Invalid, un--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2564.585], "stop_times": [2565.306], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2564.585}, "reply_to": "20332__2_107", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_109", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "It's gone.\nPretend it isn't there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2565.306, 2565.507], "stop_times": [2565.507, 2566.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2565.306}, "reply_to": "20332__2_108", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20332__2_110", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2566.598], "stop_times": [2567.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2566.598}, "reply_to": "20332__2_109", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_111", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "At that point, we have a human being called a worker who has some money that the employer paid him, and I would have guessed, because I don't remember the course that well, that he is entitled, the employer, to get back the money to the extent that the employee has been unjustly enriched, and I would think that he has been unjustly enriched only to the extent that he received money for a promise not to sue which is invalid, i.e., only in respect to the ADEA claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2567.139], "stop_times": [2602.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2567.139}, "reply_to": "20332__2_110", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20332__2_112", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "He--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2602.711], "stop_times": [2603.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2602.711}, "reply_to": "20332__2_111", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_113", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "And therefore, what happens all the time in unjust enrichment, we have difficult questions to look into, and therefore he wouldn't get back [dollars] 6,000 here.\nHe would get back a proportionate share.\nNo.\nThe employee would have to give... why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2603.122, 2613.028, 2616.24, 2616.611], "stop_times": [2613.028, 2616.24, 2616.611, 2618.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2603.122}, "reply_to": "20332__2_112", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20332__2_114", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Well, I mean, that is a rule that could have been adopted, but it is not the rule that was adopted--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2618.363], "stop_times": [2623.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2618.363}, "reply_to": "20332__2_113", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_115", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Where?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2623.206], "stop_times": [2623.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2623.206}, "reply_to": "20332__2_114", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20332__2_116", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--and I think the reason is is because these are difficult--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2623.567], "stop_times": [2625.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2623.567}, "reply_to": "20332__2_115", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_117", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Which rule wasn't adopted where?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2625.176], "stop_times": [2626.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2625.176}, "reply_to": "20332__2_116", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20332__2_118", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--The tender-back requirement requires you to tender back the entirety of the consideration.\nIf you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2626.919, 2631.66], "stop_times": [2631.66, 2632.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2626.919}, "reply_to": "20332__2_117", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_119", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Entirety of consideration for what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2632.021], "stop_times": [2633.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2632.021}, "reply_to": "20332__2_118", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20332__2_120", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--For the severance that you signed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2633.731], "stop_times": [2636.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2633.731}, "reply_to": "20332__2_119", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_121", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well, but severance only if the--\n--But that's on the assumption that it's voidable, and the assumption of the question is that it's void.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2636.272, 2638.105], "stop_times": [2638.105, 2640.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2636.272}, "reply_to": "20332__2_120", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20332__2_122", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well... no, we didn't... no, that's not true, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2640.516], "stop_times": [2644.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2640.516}, "reply_to": "20332__2_121", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_123", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "I'd--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2644.329], "stop_times": [2644.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2644.329}, "reply_to": "20332__2_122", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20332__2_124", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "The assumption was that it is unenforceable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2644.62], "stop_times": [2646.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2644.62}, "reply_to": "20332__2_123", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_125", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--All right, I'll take it... I'll go to voidable, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2646.179], "stop_times": [2648.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2646.179}, "reply_to": "20332__2_124", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20332__2_126", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Right.\n[Laughter]\nSo if I'm right about the assumption that it's voidable, and I think I was right about that, then the common law rule... because voidable's one that arises all the time.\nYou get it in fraud and coercion, et cetera.\nIt may apply to a part of the agreement, it may apply to all of the agreement.\nThe rule of tender-back, as I understand it, and again I may not have had the greatest first-year law professor, either, but as I understood the rule is, you have to tender back the entirety of the consideration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2648.25, 2648.581, 2649.872, 2659.039, 2660.88, 2663.351], "stop_times": [2648.581, 2649.872, 2659.039, 2660.88, 2663.351, 2672.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2648.25}, "reply_to": "20332__2_125", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_127", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--The entirety of the consideration for?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2672.336], "stop_times": [2673.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2672.336}, "reply_to": "20332__2_126", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20332__2_128", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "For the underlying dispute between the parties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2673.938], "stop_times": [2676.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2673.938}, "reply_to": "20332__2_127", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_129", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "For that portion--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2676.78], "stop_times": [2677.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2676.78}, "reply_to": "20332__2_128", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20332__2_130", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "No, I don't think it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2677.431], "stop_times": [2678.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2677.431}, "reply_to": "20332__2_129", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_131", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--In other words, if he was paid [dollars] 10 million as part of a golden parachute, and the entire... and just in that golden parachute contract, which is 48 pages long, there's only one line talking about a promise not to sue, he has to give back the whole [dollars] 4 million, or [dollars] 10 million?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2678.16], "stop_times": [2695.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2678.16}, "reply_to": "20332__2_130", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20332__2_132", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "It seems like an unjust result, but as I understand the basic hornbook rule... I'm not saying there couldn't be exceptions that would exist, but if you're looking for the hornbook rule, and the rule as it exists in Louisiana, at least in cases that don't pose that question, it's pretty consistently that you bring back the entirety of the consideration, and let's be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2695.872], "stop_times": [2710.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2695.872}, "reply_to": "20332__2_131", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_133", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Mr. Phillips, I used to teach first-year contract--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2710.711, 2713.583], "stop_times": [2713.583, 2715.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2710.711}, "reply_to": "20332__2_132", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__2_134", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--I must say I'm happy I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2715.196], "stop_times": [2716.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2715.196}, "reply_to": "20332__2_133", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_135", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "He was not my teacher.\n[Laughter]\nAnd I don't know what the rule is generally about returning the whole thing or not, but I'm sure that where a contract contains several items, and the value all of those items depends upon future contingencies, you cannot await for... wait for one of those contingencies to occur, such as the bringing of a lawsuit, the discovery of a claim, and then say, well, you take back all the rest.\nGive me... you know, I'll give you back only the money I paid for the four horses that didn't win.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2716.766, 2717.276, 2718.849, 2748.916], "stop_times": [2717.276, 2718.849, 2748.916, 2755.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2716.766}, "reply_to": "20332__2_134", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__2_136", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2755.311], "stop_times": [2755.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2755.311}, "reply_to": "20332__2_135", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_137", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "And the one horse that did win, I only paid 20 percent of the whole thing for that ticket.\nI am sure that a court would not allow that.\nI'm not sure you have to go as far as the general rule you're pressing on the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2755.692, 2759.525, 2762.407], "stop_times": [2759.525, 2762.407, 2766.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2755.692}, "reply_to": "20332__2_136", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__2_138", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "No, and I don't mean to press that rule, and I ought to step back, because it seems to me what this tells us is you ought to look to the common law, and you ought to see how the States apply these principles rather than--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2766.541], "stop_times": [2774.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2766.541}, "reply_to": "20332__2_137", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_139", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "I'm interested in that.\nNow, what are you asking... I'm not sure how much difference it makes in this case, but just as a matter of curiosity, I wasn't clear from your brief, are you asking us to look to the law of a particular State here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2774.996, 2775.984], "stop_times": [2775.984, 2786.122], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2774.996}, "reply_to": "20332__2_138", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__2_140", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--No, although that might be a suitable vehicle for deciding this case, but as it happens the law in Louisiana is exactly the Federal common law, law rule, and so it doesn't make any difference.\nIn terms of the basic principle, is there a tender-back rule--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2786.122, 2797.369], "stop_times": [2797.369, 2800.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2786.122}, "reply_to": "20332__2_139", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_141", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "It's nice to know what we're doing.\nI mean--\n--May I--\n--Well, you don't think that Congress was enacting this law in the back... with the backdrop of State common law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2800.281, 2801.093, 2801.774, 2802.735], "stop_times": [2801.093, 2801.774, 2802.735, 2810.249], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2800.281}, "reply_to": "20332__2_140", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__2_142", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Oh, absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2810.249], "stop_times": [2811.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2810.249}, "reply_to": "20332__2_141", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_143", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--to several questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2811.589], "stop_times": [2812.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2811.589}, "reply_to": "20332__2_142", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20332__2_144", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2812.78], "stop_times": [2813.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2812.78}, "reply_to": "20332__2_143", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_145", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--that it didn't cover in the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2813.281], "stop_times": [2814.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2813.281}, "reply_to": "20332__2_144", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20332__2_146", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Absolutely it did, but the real question is, if you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2814.39], "stop_times": [2816.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2814.39}, "reply_to": "20332__2_145", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_147", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well, do you think... are we really dealing here with whether we should construct some principle of Federal law to fill in a gap?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2816.622], "stop_times": [2823.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2816.622}, "reply_to": "20332__2_146", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20332__2_148", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2823.415], "stop_times": [2824.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2823.415}, "reply_to": "20332__2_147", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_149", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Is that what we're talking about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2824.006], "stop_times": [2824.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2824.006}, "reply_to": "20332__2_148", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20332__2_150", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "No.\nWhat we do have is a Federal question to decide where you look to the law, and my instinctive reaction is that you ought to look to the principles of State law and borrow those principles.\nIn this particular case, however, it makes no difference, because Louisiana, like the law of every other... all 50 States, and if there were a Federal common law rule what would be the Federal common law rule--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2824.887, 2825.218, 2833.826], "stop_times": [2825.218, 2833.826, 2843.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2824.887}, "reply_to": "20332__2_149", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_151", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "May I ask--\n--And you say that under the Federal common law... we have two cases.\nCase one, there's a release that says ADEA release, but it doesn't comply with the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2843.4, 2843.841, 2847.564], "stop_times": [2843.841, 2847.564, 2853.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2843.4}, "reply_to": "20332__2_150", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20332__2_152", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2853.748], "stop_times": [2855.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2853.748}, "reply_to": "20332__2_151", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_153", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "The other case is a case like this in which, let us say, there might have been some substantial State law claims that were released as well as the ADEA claim.\nIt also is void.\nYou say the two cases are exactly the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2855.912, 2863.995, 2865.277], "stop_times": [2863.995, 2865.277, 2868.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2855.912}, "reply_to": "20332__2_152", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20332__2_154", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Yes.\nI think they should... well, they're not the same in... with respect to being able to waive the rights, sure.\nThat... the statute takes care of that.\nBut with respect to the obligation to come forward and satisfy the tender-back obligation as an independent, legal obligation that the State common law and, frankly, Federal common law applies, yes, those are exactly the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2868.029, 2869.459, 2872.862, 2874.254], "stop_times": [2869.459, 2872.862, 2874.254, 2886.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2868.029}, "reply_to": "20332__2_153", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_155", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Mr. Phillips, can I ask you another question?\nI also took contracts in law school by the way.\n[Laughter]\nSupposing one reads the statute noting that it doesn't use the word void or voidable, they're simply saying that when you have a release which purports to release 19 different claims, and if one of those claims is an ADEA claim the release shall not be enforceable insofar as it purports to release that claim, because that would be a waiver... they don't even talk about void or voidable... why wouldn't that be a reasonable reading of this statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2886.061, 2888.002, 2890.394, 2892.066], "stop_times": [2888.002, 2890.394, 2892.066, 2916.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2886.061}, "reply_to": "20332__2_154", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20332__2_156", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well, that doesn't answer the question, though.\nI mean, it's a perfectly reasonable answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2916.911, 2919.234], "stop_times": [2919.234, 2920.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2916.911}, "reply_to": "20332__2_155", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_157", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "What question doesn't it answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2920.723], "stop_times": [2921.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2920.723}, "reply_to": "20332__2_156", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20332__2_158", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "It doesn't answer the question whether you have an obligation to tender back as a precondition--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2921.374], "stop_times": [2925.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2921.374}, "reply_to": "20332__2_157", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_159", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "It says it shall not be enforceable, period, regardless of whether you're able or willing or not to tender back.\nDoesn't... isn't it perfectly clear what the mean... and isn't that a fair reading of the plain language of this statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2925.738, 2930.922], "stop_times": [2930.922, 2936.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2925.738}, "reply_to": "20332__2_158", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20332__2_160", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--No, because that gives a meaning to the word waiver that is much broader than that term is entitled to carry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2936.746], "stop_times": [2943.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2936.746}, "reply_to": "20332__2_159", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_161", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "The meaning is, it shall not be enforceable as to that narrow claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2943.329], "stop_times": [2945.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2943.329}, "reply_to": "20332__2_160", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20332__2_162", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2945.571], "stop_times": [2946.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2945.571}, "reply_to": "20332__2_161", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_163", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2946.041], "stop_times": [2946.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2946.041}, "reply_to": "20332__2_162", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20332__2_164", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "But it doesn't mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2946.77], "stop_times": [2947.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2946.77}, "reply_to": "20332__2_163", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_165", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "And that's much broader than the statutory language that says you may not waive that claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2947.451], "stop_times": [2950.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2947.451}, "reply_to": "20332__2_164", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20332__2_166", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--But all that says is... and again, I think it's inappropriate to read that just as, may not waive.\nI think you have to read it against the backdrop of all of those conditions that are imposed, because all of the conditions that are imposed in determining whether a waiver is voluntary and knowing are all conditions that would go to the question of coercion, duress, and all of the other--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2950.473, 2956.397], "stop_times": [2956.397, 2968.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2950.473}, "reply_to": "20332__2_165", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_167", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Which, they put the employer on notice that if they want this to cut off the ADEA claim they must comply with these provisions, which your client didn't comply with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2968.227], "stop_times": [2975.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2968.227}, "reply_to": "20332__2_166", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20332__2_168", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2975.941], "stop_times": [2976.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2975.941}, "reply_to": "20332__2_167", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_169", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Therefore, you have a perfectly valid document as to everything except the ADEA claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2976.502], "stop_times": [2980.182], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2976.502}, "reply_to": "20332__2_168", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20332__2_170", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2980.182], "stop_times": [2980.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2980.182}, "reply_to": "20332__2_169", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_171", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "So I don't understand why that doesn't fit the plain language of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2980.753], "stop_times": [2984.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2980.753}, "reply_to": "20332__2_170", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20332__2_172", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Because what fits the plain language, Justice Stevens, is, in the ordinary case she has an age discrimination claim.\nShe's not happy with the release she signed.\nShe's got [dollars] 6,000.\nIt is her obligation, in order to get into court in the first instance, to show fraud, coercion, duress, or some other justification for setting aside the agreement.\nCongress stepped in... and this is an important right.\nIt seems to be lost sight of in this context.\nCongress stepped in and modified that directly, saying, first of all, you don't have to satisfy any of those requirements that ordinarily entitle a contract to be respected.\nWe're going to drop the barrier significantly, and second, we're going to impose upon the employer an ongoing obligation to prove that this was knowing and voluntary, a burden of proof that otherwise doesn't exist.\nBy doing that... and if we don't satisfy those requirements, she is free to go into court against those common law doctrines that would clearly prevent her from going into court, and that's what Congress had in mind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [2984.616, 2990.601, 2992.814, 2994.036, 3001.663, 3004.902, 3007.306, 3016.011, 3027.017], "stop_times": [2990.601, 2992.814, 2994.036, 3001.663, 3004.902, 3007.306, 3016.011, 3027.017, 3038.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2984.616}, "reply_to": "20332__2_171", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_173", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "It's the last part that's not in the statute, that you're bringing in against those common law doctrines.\nYou've just acknowledged that this modified the common law by saying you don't have those thresholds, you have a statutory threshold--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3038.976, 3042.368], "stop_times": [3042.368, 3048.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3038.976}, "reply_to": "20332__2_172", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20332__2_174", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "But I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3048.593], "stop_times": [3049.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3048.593}, "reply_to": "20332__2_173", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_175", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--which your client did not comply with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3049.182], "stop_times": [3050.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3049.182}, "reply_to": "20332__2_174", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20332__2_176", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--But... and I understand that, but then I go back to the Court's opinion in United States v. Texas, where it says, when Congress sits down and tries to modify the common law, we do not presume that Congress means to undo any broader than Congress states expressly in the language of the statute itself.\nTherefore, it's perfectly sensible to me under United States v. Texas to say 626(f) would get her into court if there are no other legal impediments to going into court, but it doesn't go that extra step and offer her an opportunity to avoid a forfeiture, a forfeiture of her right that arises as an independent common law doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3050.764, 3068.074], "stop_times": [3068.074, 3086.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3050.764}, "reply_to": "20332__2_175", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_177", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "But if the common law in a State were not the unreasonable position that a may-not-waive provision leaves both sides powerless, so the contract is construed, as Justice Stevens suggested, to cover everything else that could be covered to dispose of anything the parties could dispose of, but just as though it weren't there, the thing that they can't dispose of, so the common law, let's, say, in New York or New Jersey was not as you described it to be in Louisiana, could we then say that for these kinds of claims the Age Discrimination Act is going to mean one thing in one State, another thing in another State, or that there will be the Federal common law so that you'd have the same rule in all the States?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3086.748], "stop_times": [3133.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3086.748}, "reply_to": "20332__2_176", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20332__2_178", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "I think the farthest you can go with Federal common law is to deal with precisely how you analyze the precise waiver, because that comes from the statute, and if you have interstices within the application of 626(f), it seems to me those you would clearly fill in by reference to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3133.408], "stop_times": [3146.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3133.408}, "reply_to": "20332__2_177", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_179", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well now, in Hogue, which you say doesn't directly apply here because in FELA Congress said it's going to be void, but nonetheless at the end of the day in Hogue the Court said we're going to require an offset at the end of the day.\nIf the plaintiff recovers something under the FELA claim we'll offset whatever the employer already had paid.\nNow, what about such a provision?\nI guess the Court was crafting some principle of Federal law there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3146.965, 3162.797, 3169.933, 3172.694], "stop_times": [3162.797, 3169.933, 3172.694, 3177.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3146.965}, "reply_to": "20332__2_178", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20332__2_180", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Well, it seemed clearly to be crafting a principle of Federal law, and I'm not sure the approach the Court followed there would necessarily be the course they would follow here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3177.275], "stop_times": [3184.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3177.275}, "reply_to": "20332__2_179", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_181", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Maybe it should do that here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3184.809], "stop_times": [3186.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3184.809}, "reply_to": "20332__2_180", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20332__2_182", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3186.201], "stop_times": [3186.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3186.201}, "reply_to": "20332__2_181", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_183", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--and does that partially meet your concern?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3186.631], "stop_times": [3188.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3186.631}, "reply_to": "20332__2_182", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20332__2_184", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well, obviously, as between having an opportunity to get some money back at the end of the day or not, undoubtedly my client would prefer that alternative, but the truth is, what we seek to have vindicated here is the common law rule, recognized in all 50 States and as a matter of Federal common law, that you must come forward with the consideration at the outset of the litigation.\nThat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3188.062, 3207.396], "stop_times": [3207.396, 3207.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3188.062}, "reply_to": "20332__2_183", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_185", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Mr. Phillips, to come back to Justice Ginsburg's question, what if there were different rules in Louisiana and New York, would a suit in New York come out differently?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3207.707], "stop_times": [3217.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3207.707}, "reply_to": "20332__2_184", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__2_186", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--If we're talking--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3217.123], "stop_times": [3218.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3217.123}, "reply_to": "20332__2_185", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_187", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "If New York did not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3218.852], "stop_times": [3219.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3218.852}, "reply_to": "20332__2_186", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__2_188", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--If we're talking about no tender back requirement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3219.513], "stop_times": [3221.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3219.513}, "reply_to": "20332__2_187", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_189", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--No... well, a proportionate tenderback.\nWe'll guess at some proportion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3221.374, 3222.696], "stop_times": [3222.696, 3225.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3221.374}, "reply_to": "20332__2_188", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__2_190", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Yeah, my instincts are to say there ought to be different rules in those cases, that Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3225.557], "stop_times": [3229.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3225.557}, "reply_to": "20332__2_189", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_191", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "For different States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3229.301], "stop_times": [3229.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3229.301}, "reply_to": "20332__2_190", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__2_192", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Yes, because Congress would have looked to the State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3229.842], "stop_times": [3232.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3229.842}, "reply_to": "20332__2_191", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_193", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "What if New York had only adopted that rule for this statute, for an ADEA case, could it... could New York say, in ADEA cases, given the nature of this statute and what-not, we're going to adopt that rule, although in all other cases in New York we won't do it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3232.153], "stop_times": [3248.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3232.153}, "reply_to": "20332__2_192", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__2_194", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--I mean, they... well... can they adopt that rule, that question is yes.\nWould that be preempted, the answer to that is probably no.\nThe question is, would a Federal court be obliged to borrow that kind of a direct intrusion into the manipulation, or whether it would feel more comfortable saying that interferes with a Federal policy in a way that would require us to set it aside.\nThat seems to me a tough question to answer in the abstract, but those are the legal principles that I think would apply--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3248.212, 3251.604, 3253.897, 3265.655], "stop_times": [3251.604, 3253.897, 3265.655, 3270.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3248.212}, "reply_to": "20332__2_193", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_195", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "I think maybe we'd get into a lot of difficult questions if we say this is governed by State-by-State law.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3270.628, 3274.621], "stop_times": [3274.621, 3275.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3270.628}, "reply_to": "20332__2_194", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20332__2_196", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Well, but that's true in lots of Federal statutes, Your Honor, and at least with respect to 626 and the important elements of protection of Federal law that are embodied in there, I'm not saying you look to State-by-State law there.\nIt seems to me clear the interstices of that provision, because it's designed to oust common law, you have to come in with Federal rules to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3275.01, 3285.738], "stop_times": [3285.738, 3292.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3275.01}, "reply_to": "20332__2_195", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_197", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Could this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3292.322], "stop_times": [3292.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3292.322}, "reply_to": "20332__2_196", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20332__2_198", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "But when you get out of that mold, then it seems to me you almost certainly in general look to State law, because that really will tell you the answer for most day-to-day primary activities--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3292.541], "stop_times": [3300.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3292.541}, "reply_to": "20332__2_197", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_199", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Mr Phillips--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3300.607], "stop_times": [3301.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3300.607}, "reply_to": "20332__2_198", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20332__2_200", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--and that's my personal preference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3301.076], "stop_times": [3302.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3301.076}, "reply_to": "20332__2_199", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_201", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "--Could we solve the problem this way, by saying that the tender-back requirement can be looked at as essentially a remedial condition.\nWe're not going to give a remedy when the person keeps 100 percent of what, in fact, he is claiming inoperative, and therefore we're going to leave the question of what has to be, in effect, tendered and ultimately paid back to the remedy stage.\nAt the remedy stage, the Federal court does have fairly broad powers to craft a remedy without any violation of Erie, and therefore solve both the problem of state variation and the tender-back problem by saying it's going to be a remedial issue here.\nWhat's wrong with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3302.068, 3310.743, 3325.853, 3342.924], "stop_times": [3310.743, 3325.853, 3342.924, 3343.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3302.068}, "reply_to": "20332__2_200", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20332__2_202", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "What's wrong with that is, that's not the scheme Congress adopted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3343.705], "stop_times": [3346.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3343.705}, "reply_to": "20332__2_201", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_203", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Well, it's also, what if the plaintiff loses the suit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3346.256], "stop_times": [3348.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3346.256}, "reply_to": "20332__2_202", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20332__2_204", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "That's the other side of it.\nYou may never get anything back.\nBut the bottom line is that the tender-back rule is not a remedial rule.\nIt is a rule that serves the ends of justice and fairness, but it does so substantively.\nIt is a fundamental principle of contract law, it creates an independently recognized right, it is enforceable independently, and it is that right which she forfeited and which justifies the dismissal of her claim, and why the judgment of the Fifth Circuit should be affirmed.\nIf there are no other questions I'll yield back my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3348.568, 3350.28, 3352.321, 3355.743, 3359.706, 3373.013], "stop_times": [3350.28, 3352.321, 3355.743, 3359.706, 3373.013, 3375.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3348.568}, "reply_to": "20332__2_203", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "20332__2_205", "conversation_id": "20332", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Phillips.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1291", "start_times": [3375.517, 3376.158], "stop_times": [3376.158, 3376.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3375.517}, "reply_to": "20332__2_204", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21132__0_000", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 97-581, Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott.\nGeneral Fisher.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [0.0, 9.677], "stop_times": [9.677, 17.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21132__0_001", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nThis case is about Pennsylvania's ability to properly supervise the 21,000 prisoners who have been released from jail into the community on parole.\nIn this case, Keith Scott, the respondent, was a convicted murderer given a 20-year prison sentence and was released on parole in his eleventh... during his eleventh year.\nThat release was subject to a number of conditions, among them that he not possess or use firearms, that he not possess or use drugs or alcohol, that he reside in an approved residence, and the condition most important for the consideration of this case was a requirement that he consent to a search of his person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [17.942, 19.594, 30.391, 42.589], "stop_times": [19.594, 30.391, 42.589, 62.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 17.942}, "reply_to": "21132__0_000", "speaker": "d_michael_fisher"}
{"id": "21132__0_002", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Now, let me ask you a question or two, if I may, General Fisher.\nI take it the Pennsylvania courts have determined that the consent provision that was signed simply did not go beyond consent to search without a warrant and determined that that did not mean that consent was given to a search without reasonable suspicion.\nI take it that's the thrust of what the courts below found.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [62.221, 68.346, 91.242], "stop_times": [68.346, 91.242, 95.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 62.221}, "reply_to": "21132__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21132__0_003", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [95.864], "stop_times": [96.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 95.864}, "reply_to": "21132__0_002", "speaker": "d_michael_fisher"}
{"id": "21132__0_004", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "And presumably Pennsylvania can redraft its consent form to cover that, I suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [96.735], "stop_times": [103.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 96.735}, "reply_to": "21132__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21132__0_005", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Justice O'Connor, Pennsylvania supreme court interpreted the consent provision to mean that, in this case, that Scott agreed to reasonable searches within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and to be reasonable the Pennsylvania supreme court said that the search required reasonable suspicion.\nThat is the issue with which we are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [103.629, 121.401], "stop_times": [121.401, 123.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 103.629}, "reply_to": "21132__0_004", "speaker": "d_michael_fisher"}
{"id": "21132__0_006", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Well, I... to get back to my question, I take it they just said that this form that was signed didn't cover the issue of reasonable suspicion, that all it covered was whether it could be without a warrant, and in the absence of a consent, then, they said reasonable suspicion is still required.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [123.423], "stop_times": [142.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 123.423}, "reply_to": "21132__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21132__0_007", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--They said that the... their interpretation was that... their reading of the Fourth Amendment was that the... that Scott consented to a reasonable search, and that a reasonable search required reasonable suspicion.\nWe believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [142.013, 156.745], "stop_times": [156.745, 157.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 142.013}, "reply_to": "21132__0_006", "speaker": "d_michael_fisher"}
{"id": "21132__0_008", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "I'm not sure you're right in saying that the Pennsylvania supreme court based its interpretation of the consent form on its reading of the Fourth Amendment.\nI thought they might have just based it on an interpretation of Pennsylvania law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [157.515, 165.521], "stop_times": [165.521, 169.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 157.515}, "reply_to": "21132__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21132__0_009", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--Mr. Chief Justice, we argue very strongly that they did, in fact, interpret it based on their reading of the Fourth Amendment, and that is where we disagree.\nWe believe that a search of a parolee's residence may be without suspicion, or a suspicionless search.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [169.563, 178.191], "stop_times": [178.191, 185.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 169.563}, "reply_to": "21132__0_008", "speaker": "d_michael_fisher"}
{"id": "21132__0_010", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Well, you... suppose this consent form were redrafted to make clear that the person paroled is consenting to a search without a warrant and to a search without any suspicion whatever.\nSuppose it were drafted that way.\nNow, what do you think the Pennsylvania courts would say to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [185.324, 199.193, 202.585], "stop_times": [199.193, 202.585, 207.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 185.324}, "reply_to": "21132__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21132__0_011", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "It's... we believe that the Pennsylvania courts would say, based on what they said in this case, that we could not have that kind of consent form, because we believe they have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [207.25], "stop_times": [218.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 207.25}, "reply_to": "21132__0_010", "speaker": "d_michael_fisher"}
{"id": "21132__0_012", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--the Fourth Amendment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [218.947], "stop_times": [219.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 218.947}, "reply_to": "21132__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21132__0_013", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--Because the Fourth Amendment requires reasonable suspicion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [219.899], "stop_times": [222.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 219.899}, "reply_to": "21132__0_012", "speaker": "d_michael_fisher"}
{"id": "21132__0_014", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "It just wasn't clear to me whether that's what they said, because they could have meant the consent form just didn't cover it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [222.403], "stop_times": [231.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 222.403}, "reply_to": "21132__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21132__0_015", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "No, Justice O'Connor, we think they said very clearly that the Fourth Amendment requires reasonable suspicion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [231.039], "stop_times": [235.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 231.039}, "reply_to": "21132__0_014", "speaker": "d_michael_fisher"}
{"id": "21132__0_016", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Where do they say that?\nDo you want to gives us the--\n--Don't they say that in the earlier Williams case is where they said it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [235.754, 236.135, 237.847], "stop_times": [236.135, 237.847, 240.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 235.754}, "reply_to": "21132__0_015", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21132__0_017", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Well, they said it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [240.879], "stop_times": [243.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 240.879}, "reply_to": "21132__0_016", "speaker": "d_michael_fisher"}
{"id": "21132__0_018", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "It's not in this case.\nIt's in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [243.533, 244.051], "stop_times": [244.051, 244.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 243.533}, "reply_to": "21132__0_017", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21132__0_019", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--They said it both in the Williams case, but in this case at the... in our petition for certiorari, which contains the opinion of the Pennsylvania supreme court at page 10a, about half-way down that page, the second paragraph.\nIt says applying Williams to the instant case we hold that appellee has a Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures that is unaffected by his signing of the consent to search provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [244.532, 260.524], "stop_times": [260.524, 272.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 244.532}, "reply_to": "21132__0_018", "speaker": "d_michael_fisher"}
{"id": "21132__0_020", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--Because the consent provision did not... did not purport to waive it.\nI mean, isn't that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [272.481, 276.094], "stop_times": [276.094, 277.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 272.481}, "reply_to": "21132__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21132__0_021", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Going back to Williams, the Court then said in Williams that you had to have as a matter of Fourth Amendment rights reasonable suspicion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [277.226], "stop_times": [284.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 277.226}, "reply_to": "21132__0_020", "speaker": "d_michael_fisher"}
{"id": "21132__0_022", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--Williams really isn't all that clear, because Williams relied on the Arkansas Williams case, which is also ambiguous.\nI think it's really hard to get at a clear bright line answer from the Williams opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [284.661, 291.016], "stop_times": [291.016, 295.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 284.661}, "reply_to": "21132__0_021", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21132__0_023", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Well, we argue, Justice Stevens, that the issue before this Court is whether or not the consent in this case, and whether or not the law of the Fourth Amendment gives parole boards and parole agents such as ours the right to conduct these searches without--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [295.158], "stop_times": [316.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 295.158}, "reply_to": "21132__0_022", "speaker": "d_michael_fisher"}
{"id": "21132__0_024", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "There are two questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [316.172], "stop_times": [317.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 316.172}, "reply_to": "21132__0_023", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21132__0_025", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--Without suspicion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [317.473], "stop_times": [317.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 317.473}, "reply_to": "21132__0_024", "speaker": "d_michael_fisher"}
{"id": "21132__0_026", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--There are two questions here really, are there not?\nThe first is the Fourth Amendment question, and the second is whether the exclusionary rule applies to probation revocation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [317.712, 320.055], "stop_times": [320.055, 329.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 317.712}, "reply_to": "21132__0_025", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21132__0_027", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [329.191], "stop_times": [331.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 329.191}, "reply_to": "21132__0_026", "speaker": "d_michael_fisher"}
{"id": "21132__0_028", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--Now, what if we thought the exclusionary rule didn't apply?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [331.232], "stop_times": [334.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 331.232}, "reply_to": "21132__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21132__0_029", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [334.054], "stop_times": [334.304], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 334.054}, "reply_to": "21132__0_028", "speaker": "d_michael_fisher"}
{"id": "21132__0_030", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Didn't apply.\nThen do we reach the first question or not?\nWhat difference does it make--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [334.304, 335.293, 338.826], "stop_times": [335.293, 338.826, 341.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 334.304}, "reply_to": "21132__0_029", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21132__0_031", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--Mr. Chief Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [341.177], "stop_times": [341.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 341.177}, "reply_to": "21132__0_030", "speaker": "d_michael_fisher"}
{"id": "21132__0_032", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--if it doesn't apply?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [341.969], "stop_times": [342.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 341.969}, "reply_to": "21132__0_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21132__0_033", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--and Justice O'Connor, I think that there are two separate questions here.\nWe believe, as we have argued, that you do not... that you... that parole agents in our State can conduct suspicionless searches of parolees, but in the event this Court does not agree with our opinion on that, we believe very clearly that the exclusionary rule should not apply.\nIn fact, the Court has always recognized that the exclusionary rule imposes substantial costs on society, as it withholds trustworthy evidence and impedes the search for the truth and, in fact, this Court has never extended the exclusionary rule beyond criminal trials or criminal appeals, and there... we think that the... in fact the Court has ruled that the exclusionary rule is not applicable to civil proceedings, that the exclusionary rule is not applicable to grand jury proceedings, nor is it applicable to civil deportation proceedings.\nThe exclusionary rule... parole revocation proceedings are informal, flexible administrative proceedings, as a contrast to a formal criminal trial.\nThat is why we believe this Court has never extended other rights, such as the right to counsel, the right to a jury trial, the right to confront witnesses, or the right to object to hearsay testimony.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [342.259, 345.461, 361.954, 399.027, 409.805], "stop_times": [345.461, 361.954, 399.027, 409.805, 421.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 342.259}, "reply_to": "21132__0_032", "speaker": "d_michael_fisher"}
{"id": "21132__0_034", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "One of our concerns with the exclusionary rule in the case of police investigations of crime is that the police have an interest in trying to get a conviction.\nWill the respondents tell us in this case that parole officers have an equivalent interest in showing that there's been a violation of parole, or is the dynamic, the incentive, the motivation of the parole officer somehow different than the police officer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [421.702, 434.38], "stop_times": [434.38, 452.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 421.702}, "reply_to": "21132__0_033", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21132__0_035", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "We think the motives, and we think the role of parole agents is different than police officers.\nSo the police officer's primary job is to investigate crime, make cases, get convictions, which has been recognized in cases by this Court, but parole officers, their job is a two-part role.\nIt is protecting the community from people like Scott, convicted murderers who have been put back in the community, but also to rehabilitate the individual.\nParole officers who returned all of their parolees to jail would be failures, so we think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [452.752, 458.396, 470.724, 479.23], "stop_times": [458.396, 470.724, 479.23, 485.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 452.752}, "reply_to": "21132__0_034", "speaker": "d_michael_fisher"}
{"id": "21132__0_036", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "But you don't think the police officer wants to put somebody in jail unless he thinks he's guilty, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [485.435], "stop_times": [489.258], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 485.435}, "reply_to": "21132__0_035", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21132__0_037", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--Certainly he wouldn't, but still there's a different standard, and I believe that this Court has recognized that the principal role of a police officer is to enforce the law, to carry out the law, but the parole agent's job is significantly different from a police officer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [489.258], "stop_times": [503.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 489.258}, "reply_to": "21132__0_036", "speaker": "d_michael_fisher"}
{"id": "21132__0_038", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Yes, but doesn't the parole agent have a slightly different motivation in this respect.\nIf the parolee whom he is supervising goes berserk, or just returns to criminal activity, the... you know, the outcry is going to be, where was the parole supervision?\nWhy didn't they catch this?\nIsn't there therefore a sort of built-in motivation on the part of a parole officer to be very cautious, to be careful, and to be looking for signs of trouble, which puts him pretty much in the same position that the police officer is in in looking for signs of trouble, and taking action to cover himself as well as to protect the community if he sees signs of risk?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [503.079, 508.101, 523.481, 524.772], "stop_times": [508.101, 523.481, 524.772, 549.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 503.079}, "reply_to": "21132__0_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21132__0_039", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nCertainly the parole officer has a dual role.\nAs you have said, they have to be concerned about the community.\nWhen people like Scott, convicted murderers, are placed back in that community they obviously have a responsibility to try to protect the community, but just as important to that parole officer is rehabilitation.\nBut obviously, one of the reasons why we believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [549.368, 551.188, 555.923, 560.064, 570.293], "stop_times": [551.188, 555.923, 560.064, 570.293, 572.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 549.368}, "reply_to": "21132__0_038", "speaker": "d_michael_fisher"}
{"id": "21132__0_040", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Well, he wants to rehabilitate those who are not violating conditions, but I... it seems to me he has just as much motivation to recommit those who are violating conditions as the police officer does to arrest and see to the conviction of somebody who is violating a statute in the street.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [572.756], "stop_times": [592.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 572.756}, "reply_to": "21132__0_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21132__0_041", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--But so, too, we think that the difference between a formal criminal trial and of revocation proceeding is important in looking at the question of the exclusionary rule.\nOne who stands trial stands before that Court cloaked with the presumption of innocence.\nWhat you have here when you're dealing with a convicted murderer who is out on parole is someone who has been convicted, so that I think that the important thing for the parole--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [592.268, 601.264, 608.19], "stop_times": [601.264, 608.19, 617.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 592.268}, "reply_to": "21132__0_040", "speaker": "d_michael_fisher"}
{"id": "21132__0_042", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Which means that the significance of illegally seized evidence is more damning in the parole case than it is, perhaps, in the trial case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [617.046], "stop_times": [624.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 617.046}, "reply_to": "21132__0_041", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21132__0_043", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [624.95], "stop_times": [626.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 624.95}, "reply_to": "21132__0_042", "speaker": "d_michael_fisher"}
{"id": "21132__0_044", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Because as you say, there's no such presumption that the evidence has to overcome.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [626.66], "stop_times": [631.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 626.66}, "reply_to": "21132__0_043", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21132__0_045", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--But the issue before the parole board at a revocation proceeding is whether or not in fact the parolee has conducted himself pursuant to the conditions upon which he was released, and I think the parole board has the right to know all of the reliable evidence which if, in fact, the exclusionary rule were applied would deny that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [631.674], "stop_times": [653.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 631.674}, "reply_to": "21132__0_044", "speaker": "d_michael_fisher"}
{"id": "21132__0_046", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "General Fisher, are other rules of evidence relaxed or foregone in a parole revocation hearing as compared with a criminal trial?\nI mean, here you're asking... we're discussing a rule of evidence that applies sometimes in criminal proceedings.\nIn what other respects, if any, are rules of evidence different in parole hearings?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [653.117, 666.067, 674.354], "stop_times": [666.067, 674.354, 683.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 653.117}, "reply_to": "21132__0_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21132__0_047", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--Well, yes, Your Honor, the rules of evidence are relaxed in parole revocation proceedings.\nFor instance, the... hearsay evidence is readily admitted in parole revocation proceedings.\nThere is a... it's an informal process.\nNormally, the case for the parole board would be presented by a parole agent, not an attorney, not an attorney representing the parole board, but a parole agent who would give his version of the facts, his version of what the parolee has done while out on parole, and there's a vastly different give-and-take in the process of the parole hearing.\nFor instance, parolees generally testify, give testimony as to what they have done, and so it is a very informal, flexible proceeding, and that is why I believe it is important for a parole board to be able to get the benefit of all relevant evidence which goes to the question of whether or not that parolee should be allowed to stay in the community subject to the conditions or to be turned... to be sent back to jail, so that's why we would ask that the exclusionary rule not be extended to parole revocation proceedings.\nI would like to get back to the issue involving the validity of the search.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [683.56, 688.833, 698.919, 702.962, 725.986, 763.011], "stop_times": [688.833, 698.919, 702.962, 725.986, 763.011, 770.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 683.56}, "reply_to": "21132__0_046", "speaker": "d_michael_fisher"}
{"id": "21132__0_048", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "In respect to that, could I ask you, the part that I found most difficult in respect to the question Justice O'Connor asked is on page 9a, in talking about the question of consent, the court cites a... an earlier case and says that there, I guess, if I'm reading it correctly, we concluded that the parolee's signing of a parole agreement giving the officer permission to conduct a warrantless search does not mean... and here they say two things.\nAnd the first, it's either-or, and the either says, either that the parole officer can conduct a search at any time and for any reason, i.e., it does not consent to random searches, or that he relinquish his Fourth Amendment rights, so it sounds because of that either-or that the Court in Pennsylvania is holding that this consent is not a consent to random searches, and if that is so, how could we reach the issue of whether it is constitutionally permissible for a State to do what you want to do, which is to conduct random searches?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [770.856, 802.907], "stop_times": [802.907, 842.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 770.856}, "reply_to": "21132__0_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21132__0_049", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Justice Breyer, in the court's opinion in the Scott case, from which you read, we believe that a full reading of that opinion, and particularly their holding, makes it clear that they were interpreting what they believed to be a reasonable search, which was that a reasonable search required reasonable suspicion.\nThat goes back to the Williams case, but an analysis of the Williams case, Williams... Commonwealth v. Williams in Pennsylvania, as opposed to the other case which Justice Stevens referred to, an analysis of that Williams case goes in quite at length as an analysis of what is required under both the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and what is required under article I, section 8 of the Pennsylvania constitution, and we believe very strongly that the Court couched their opinion in both Williams and in Scott on what they interpreted the requirements of the Fourth Amendment to do, and that is where we disagree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [842.063, 870.441], "stop_times": [870.441, 906.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 842.063}, "reply_to": "21132__0_048", "speaker": "d_michael_fisher"}
{"id": "21132__0_050", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "So in your view if Pennsylvania corrections officials recast this consent and said, I consent to the search not only without a warrant but without reasonable suspicion, the supreme court of Pennsylvania would say, under the Fourth Amendment you can't do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [906.836], "stop_times": [922.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 906.836}, "reply_to": "21132__0_049", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21132__0_051", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "That is correct, Mr. Chief Justice, and that is where we find the major disagreement, and we think that the suspicionless search which we believe is permissible under the Fourth Amendment dealing with parolees is very similar to the kinds of searches that this Court has approved before, in the past.\nThe analysis to look at is whether or not the individual had a diminished expectation of privacy and whether there were special needs.\nClearly, we think that a parolee who was released--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [922.005, 943.05, 948.823], "stop_times": [943.05, 948.823, 953.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 922.005}, "reply_to": "21132__0_050", "speaker": "d_michael_fisher"}
{"id": "21132__0_052", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "To be more precise, you think the suspicionless search would not violate the Fourth Amendment if the parolee has consented to it, and that if the Pennsylvania supreme court were free to adopt what it though the right reading of that consent form was, it would so interpret it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [953.205], "stop_times": [967.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 953.205}, "reply_to": "21132__0_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21132__0_053", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--That's correct.\nThat's correct.\nBut in the prior cases, where this Court has approved suspicionless searches involving drug tests of student athletes, sobriety checkpoints, the searches of firearm dealers border stops, we think this case... we think this case involving parolees fits right within those exceptions which the Court has properly made in the past, approving suspicionless searches.\nMr. Chief Justice, if there are no further questions, I will reserve the balance of my time for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [967.383, 967.984, 969.456, 994.792], "stop_times": [967.984, 969.456, 994.792, 998.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 967.383}, "reply_to": "21132__0_052", "speaker": "d_michael_fisher"}
{"id": "21132__0_054", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Very well, General Fisher.\nMr. Stewart, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [998.565, 999.657], "stop_times": [999.657, 1001.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 998.565}, "reply_to": "21132__0_053", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21132__1_000", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nAlthough the United States believes that parole may validly be conditioned on the parolee's consent to search, we also believe that this case can be decided on the alternative ground that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should not apply to parole revocation proceedings.\nThis Court, when deciding whether the exclusionary rule should be extended to procedural settings other than the criminal trial, has recognized that that determination turns on a balance of the public and governmental interests at stake against the likely determination of exclusion of unlawfully acquired evidence, and in our view there are two distinct governmental interests that militate against application of the exclusionary rule.\nFirst, and I think the nub of our argument is that where an individual has already been convicted of a crime and has been released in the community based upon the condition that he abide by specified terms of release, there is an overriding public and governmental interest in accurate and complete information regarding the question of whether the parolee has, in fact, complied with those terms.\nAt the very premise of parole is that parolees, persons previously convicted of crimes, pose a greater risk of committing further unlawful acts than does the average citizen, and the purpose of the revocation hearing is not simply to punish the parolee for violation of the conditions of his release but rather to determine whether the parolee can safely be left in the community.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1001.149, 1014.97, 1029.109, 1050.393, 1072.368], "stop_times": [1014.97, 1029.109, 1050.393, 1072.368, 1094.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1001.149}, "reply_to": "21132__0_054", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "21132__1_001", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Yes, but is that realistic, because I don't know how much longer this individual is going to be put away as a result of the revocation here, but I assume that in most States a parole revocation can result in a very substantial incarceration.\nAnd I am assuming the second thing that you may want to comment on, and that is that if there is a substantial period of reincarceration, the likelihood of an independent criminal prosecution for the acts that led to the commitment, recommitment, is probably very low.\nThe State is probably not going to bother to prosecute if they can put the person away for a substantial period of time on a parole revocation.\nSo my questions are, isn't it in fact a lot like a criminal trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1094.444, 1109.063, 1124.844, 1132.598], "stop_times": [1109.063, 1124.844, 1132.598, 1138.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1094.444}, "reply_to": "21132__1_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21132__1_002", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "It is certainly... it has some of the same consequences of a criminal trial, namely that the individual is incarcerated.\nWith respect to Mr. Scott, the State has represented in its reply brief that Scott was up for reparole I believe in 1997 and reparole was denied, and that he is up for reparole again in 1998, so certainly the finding of parole violations may ultimately have the effect of requiring him to serve his whole term.\nOn the other hand, they do not preclude the possibility that he can convince the State parole board that in fact he warrants rerelease notwithstanding both the prior crime and the subsequent violation of the terms of parole.\nAs to your second question, while parole does have some of the same consequences as the initial criminal conviction, the Court has recognized most emphatically in Morrissey v. Brewer that the parole revocation proceeding need not take on the procedural accoutrements of the criminal trial, that because the individual's initial liberty interest has already been extinguished by the fact of the prior crime and the prior conviction, what is at stake is the conditional liberty interest of somebody who has been released as subject both to conditions that wouldn't be imposed on the citizenry at large and closer supervision and monitoring to make sure that those conditions are met.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1138.644, 1145.627, 1165.752, 1178.442], "stop_times": [1145.627, 1165.752, 1178.442, 1216.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1138.644}, "reply_to": "21132__1_001", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "21132__1_003", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "I think what I had in the back of my mind was this argument.\nThe argument is made, and I guess, as I recall, it's made here, that nothing much is to be gained for society at large by applying an exclusionary rule here because it's already gained by applying the exclusionary rule in criminal trials, so that in point of fact, if the officer is not deterred from illegal conduct by knowledge that the evidence so seized cannot be used in a criminal trial, there's not going to be any incremental deterrence by saying well, you can't use it in a parole revocation either.\nIf, on the other hand, the parole revocation is probably going to be the only proceeding in which this evidence is used, if the parole revocation really is functioning like a criminal trial and that's the only trial that there's going to be, then the argument about deterring the police is not a sound... or the parole officers in this case is not a sound argument.\nBecause in fact the only proceeding in which the evidence is likely to be used to satisfy society's demands is the proceeding for the revocation of parole and therefore it would make sense, if we are going to take the Fourth Amendment to apply here, to say there ought to be an exclusionary rule for the same reason that we do in the case of a normal criminal trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1216.356, 1220.069, 1256.163, 1280.049], "stop_times": [1220.069, 1256.163, 1280.049, 1302.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1216.356}, "reply_to": "21132__1_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21132__1_004", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "I think the two answers we would say to that are, first, individual cases may arise in which the primary or even the only use of the evidence acquired is for parole revocation proceedings.\nBut an officer certainly wouldn't know that before he or she began to conduct the search, and the possibility that evidence of very serious additional criminal acts might be discovered and might not be usable at a subsequent criminal prosecution for those acts would be expected to amount to a substantial deterrent to the extent that the individual parole officer was looking at things from a law enforcement perspective.\nThe other thing, the point I would like to make, and I think this follows on the heels of the point that General Fisher was making, is that we expect parole officers to operate under a different incentive structure than do police officers.\nThat is not to deny that there is a law enforcement component to what parole officers do.\nCertainly there is.\nBut the parole officer also develops a continuing relationship with the parolee, thinks of the parolee as a client in some sense, and is expected to balance those two possibly competing obligations.\nAnd for instance, this Court has said that magistrates and State legislators don't need the deterrent of the exclusionary rule, because they can be expected to be neutral without it.\nPresumably the Court didn't mean that magistrates and State legislators have no interest in the apprehension of criminals or the enforcement of the criminal law.\nRather, those officials are neutral in the sense that they are institutionally well-positioned to take account both of the societal interest in the enforcement of the law and the individual interest in avoiding unwarranted incursions on personal liberty, and we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1302.265, 1312.709, 1335.957, 1347.614, 1352.399, 1353.3, 1365.218, 1375.305, 1383.99], "stop_times": [1312.709, 1335.957, 1347.614, 1352.399, 1353.3, 1365.218, 1375.305, 1383.99, 1398.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1302.265}, "reply_to": "21132__1_003", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "21132__1_005", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Mr. Stewart, can I ask you one question before your time is up?\nWhat is the position of the United States on the other issue in the case, whether there was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and whether Pennsylvania was following Pennsylvania law or Federal law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1398.34, 1400.901], "stop_times": [1400.901, 1409.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1398.34}, "reply_to": "21132__1_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21132__1_006", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--Our position is that if the consent form is construed to authorize searches without individualized suspicion, that that consent form is consistent with the Fourth Amendment.\nWe don't take a position on what the Pennsylvania consent form meant, and we frankly think that the Pennsylvania supreme court's opinion both in this case and in Williams are ambiguous on that score.\nI think that means on the one hand that there is not the plain statement of independent State law grounds that would preclude this Court's jurisdiction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1409.5, 1418.946, 1430.383], "stop_times": [1418.946, 1430.383, 1438.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1409.5}, "reply_to": "21132__1_005", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "21132__1_007", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "So--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1438.02], "stop_times": [1438.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1438.02}, "reply_to": "21132__1_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21132__1_008", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--but I think it also means--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1438.39], "stop_times": [1438.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1438.39}, "reply_to": "21132__1_007", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "21132__1_009", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--you would take the view that if it's ambiguous, then, the Michigan v. Long principle applies, and we assume that they were at least pushed in their direction by the Federal Constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1438.881], "stop_times": [1447.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1438.881}, "reply_to": "21132__1_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21132__1_010", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--I... we assume for purposes of determining whether this Court has jurisdiction to reach the issue obviously, when the Court has two alternative grounds on which it could decide the case, the relative certainty that the Pennsylvania supreme court's resolution of exclusionary rule issue was based solely on Federal constitutional grounds might cause the Court as a prudential matter to decide that that's likely to be a cleaner and more final resolution of the case than deciding the case on the consent issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1447.657], "stop_times": [1474.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1447.657}, "reply_to": "21132__1_009", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "21132__1_011", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "What would we do if we disagreed with you on that question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1474.084], "stop_times": [1476.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1474.084}, "reply_to": "21132__1_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21132__1_012", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "If you disagreed with us on the exclusionary rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1476.785], "stop_times": [1478.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1476.785}, "reply_to": "21132__1_011", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "21132__1_013", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1478.808], "stop_times": [1479.038], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1478.808}, "reply_to": "21132__1_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21132__1_014", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "If you disagreed with us on the exclusionary rule, then I suppose you would have to determine first whether you had jurisdiction to determine the propriety of the search and, second, if you had jurisdiction whether the search was valid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1479.038], "stop_times": [1491.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1479.038}, "reply_to": "21132__1_013", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "21132__1_015", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "You regard both of those questions to be constitutional questions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1491.415], "stop_times": [1494.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1491.415}, "reply_to": "21132__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21132__1_016", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Well, the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule question is... it's a question of Federal law.\nIt is constitutionally grounded.\nObviously, the Court has said that the exclusionary rule is not constitutionally compelled.\nThe Court has, however, held that State courts are required to employ the Federal... the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule in State criminal proceedings, and to that extent this Court has held it has authority to require that procedure of at least some State officials.\nAgain, going back to what we see as the overriding governmental interest here, this Court in Lopez-Mendoza made clear that the exclusionary rule, at least ordinarily, would not be applicable in situations where the purpose of a proceeding was to determine whether an ongoing violation was being committed, as opposed to proceedings where the purpose was to impose a sanction for a prior violation.\nI mean, in some sense a parole revocation hearing has attributes of both.\nOn the one hand, we are talking about a violation, possession of firearms, that occurred at a discrete point in time.\nOn the other hand, the point of the proceeding is, again, to determine not simply whether Mr. Scott should be punished for a prior bad act, but whether he can safely be allowed to remain in the community.\nAnd the final thing I'd say is, we do think that the nature of parole revocation hearings is such that imposition of the exclusionary rule would substantially change the character of the proceeding.\nThat is, in the Federal system, for instance... I'm sorry.\nThank you, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1494.219, 1499.954, 1501.532, 1505.345, 1522.208, 1547.563, 1551.807, 1558.462, 1568.59, 1580.107, 1582.33], "stop_times": [1499.954, 1501.532, 1505.345, 1522.208, 1547.563, 1551.807, 1558.462, 1568.59, 1580.107, 1582.33, 1583.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1494.219}, "reply_to": "21132__1_015", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "21132__1_017", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Stewart.\nMr. Sosnov, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1583.91, 1585.893], "stop_times": [1585.893, 1587.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1583.91}, "reply_to": "21132__1_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21132__2_000", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nAs an initial matter I think there are two reasons why the Court should not raise... reach the issue of whether a parolee can voluntarily consent to suspicionless searches.\nThe first one the Court has already mentioned, and that is that there is an independent and adequate State ground here.\nUnlike Michigan v. Long, this case involves a State regulation, a State parole form to construe.\nMichigan v. Long just involved a free-floating constitutional analysis.\nSecondly, this Court said in Griffin that when there is a State regulation involved, as in this case, we take the meaning as fixed by the Supreme Court before we get to any constitutional analysis.\nThirdly, if you look at the Pennsylvania supreme court in this case, as far as the opinion, the supreme court opinion refers only to one case, Williams.\nIt says, we rely on Williams, the Pennsylvania supreme court case.\nIt says that twice.\nIf this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1587.752, 1591.686, 1602.943, 1608.356, 1615.602, 1620.347, 1631.732, 1640.719, 1644.302, 1645.333], "stop_times": [1591.686, 1602.943, 1608.356, 1615.602, 1620.347, 1631.732, 1640.719, 1644.302, 1645.333, 1646.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1587.752}, "reply_to": "21132__1_017", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_001", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "In regard to your second point, Mr. Sosnov, we do have several cases that say if a State court in deciding a question before it is mistakenly of the view that its conclusion is required by the Fourth Amendment, then we will... we have jurisdiction to disabuse it of that if we don't think it's required by the Fourth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1646.485], "stop_times": [1670.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1646.485}, "reply_to": "21132__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21132__2_002", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--Correct, if the State felt compelled, and what I'm saying is that the evidence here is not that the State felt compelled, because the Pennsylvania supreme court referred only to a Pennsylvania supreme court decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1670.882], "stop_times": [1682.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1670.882}, "reply_to": "21132__2_001", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_003", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Yes, but it's true, the portion of the Pennsylvania supreme court in Williams, it's under the subhead Fourth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1682.957], "stop_times": [1687.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1682.957}, "reply_to": "21132__2_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21132__2_004", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Well, there's another portion of Williams--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1687.071], "stop_times": [1689.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1687.071}, "reply_to": "21132__2_003", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_005", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "And then... I know, later--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1689.012], "stop_times": [1689.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1689.012}, "reply_to": "21132__2_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21132__2_006", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--There's another portion of Williams.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1689.602], "stop_times": [1690.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1689.602}, "reply_to": "21132__2_005", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_007", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--And that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1690.554], "stop_times": [1690.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1690.554}, "reply_to": "21132__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21132__2_008", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "The other portion of Williams--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1690.824], "stop_times": [1691.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1690.824}, "reply_to": "21132__2_007", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_009", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--And that's still ambiguous because it refers to an Arkansas case that it says it decided, and that's ambiguous, so the whole thing is pretty ambiguous.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1691.455], "stop_times": [1698.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1691.455}, "reply_to": "21132__2_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21132__2_010", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--Well, there's two things about that.\nFirst of all, the last part of Williams independently analyzes the Pennsylvania constitution, and reaches the result of that's how we're going to construe that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1698.409, 1699.34], "stop_times": [1699.34, 1707.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1698.409}, "reply_to": "21132__2_009", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_011", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "And that part of it says that in... lots of times our constitution gives greater protection than the Federal does, but not in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1707.505], "stop_times": [1713.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1707.505}, "reply_to": "21132__2_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21132__2_012", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--And it cites no Federal constitutional law in making the independent constitutional analysis.\nUnder Pennsylvania constitutional analysis this Court's opinions are not referred to.\nThey look to other States.\nThey look to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1713.4, 1718.946, 1723.358, 1724.429], "stop_times": [1718.946, 1723.358, 1724.429, 1725.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1713.4}, "reply_to": "21132__2_011", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_013", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Don't they say in the opinion, this very opinion, that they're not relying on the Pennsylvania constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1725.348], "stop_times": [1730.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1725.348}, "reply_to": "21132__2_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21132__2_014", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--They're not relying on the Pennsylvania constitution in this very case, but in this very case, before they get to the Fourth Amendment issue they're making an independent construction of the State provision.\nI'd like to point out one other thing, and that is that this Court looks beyond the face of Scott referring to Williams.\nThere's another Pennsylvania supreme court case, Commonwealth v. Gibson, cited in my brief, which says as a matter of State Pennsylvania law consent has to be specific and unequivocal, and now that gets to my second position.\nWhen you read the provision, the provision says, I consent to without a warrant.\nLet's say this Court disagrees with me on the adequate independent State ground issue.\nWhere does that leave us?\nThat leaves us with this Court construing that provision.\nIf you construe that provision without a warrant, certainly in light of this Court's prior jurisprudence without a warrant doesn't mean without any objective level of information.\nGriffin itself said, you need reasonable suspicion to search a parolee's home.\nYou don't need a warrant.\nTerry v. Ohio, you need reasonable suspicion.\nThere is nothing on the face of this provision that waives anything, if it's capable of waiving anything, that waives anything except a warrant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1730.494, 1740.658, 1745.961, 1759.903, 1764.154, 1768.949, 1769.627, 1772.829, 1783.207, 1791.713, 1788.47, 1792.714], "stop_times": [1740.658, 1745.961, 1759.903, 1764.154, 1768.949, 1769.627, 1772.829, 1783.207, 1791.713, 1788.47, 1792.714, 1800.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1730.494}, "reply_to": "21132__2_013", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_015", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "But if you did interpret it... I mean, I'm not... I know that you think we shouldn't, but if you did reach the following question, is a random gun search consistent with the Fourth Amendment, I take it on the merits the question would be, if the Fourth Amendment permits random drug searches without consent of persons who have never been convicted of a crime, why doesn't it permit random gun searches with consent of persons who have been convicted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1800.649], "stop_times": [1830.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1800.649}, "reply_to": "21132__2_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21132__2_016", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "If the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1830.308], "stop_times": [1831.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1830.308}, "reply_to": "21132__2_015", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_017", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "I'm trying to focus directly on the constitutional question there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1831.26], "stop_times": [1834.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1831.26}, "reply_to": "21132__2_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21132__2_018", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--Aside from consent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1834.231], "stop_times": [1835.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1834.231}, "reply_to": "21132__2_017", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_019", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "No.\nI said, assuming that Pennsylvania wrongly thought... I don't know if we get there.\nAssuming that Pennsylvania thought that the Constitution, the Fourth Amendment, prohibits a random gun search of a parolee with consent, what's your view on that?\nThe argument against it, if the Constitution permits a random gun search without consent of a person who hasn't been convicted in certain circumstances, why doesn't it permit a random gun search with consent of a person who has been convicted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1835.751, 1836.342, 1843.227, 1855.937], "stop_times": [1836.342, 1843.227, 1855.937, 1870.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1835.751}, "reply_to": "21132__2_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21132__2_020", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "I think there--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1870.976], "stop_times": [1871.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1870.976}, "reply_to": "21132__2_019", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_021", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Maybe you'll agree that that is constitutional, or maybe you won't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1871.647], "stop_times": [1873.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1871.647}, "reply_to": "21132__2_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21132__2_022", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--I think it would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1873.7], "stop_times": [1873.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1873.7}, "reply_to": "21132__2_021", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_023", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "I don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1873.841], "stop_times": [1874.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1873.841}, "reply_to": "21132__2_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21132__2_024", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--A two-part answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1874.141], "stop_times": [1874.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1874.141}, "reply_to": "21132__2_023", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_025", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1874.291], "stop_times": [1874.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1874.291}, "reply_to": "21132__2_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21132__2_026", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "First of all, a random search of an individual's home would not be permissible under the constitutional normally.\nOf course, you need... under Payton you need a... probably cause and a warrant, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1874.531, 1880.676], "stop_times": [1880.676, 1884.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1874.531}, "reply_to": "21132__2_025", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_027", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "But they say no probable cause, no warrant, if it's random, done as a law enforcement measure, with consent by the parolee.\nNow, that's the question.\nNow, what's the answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1884.56, 1892.995, 1895.937], "stop_times": [1892.995, 1895.937, 1897.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1884.56}, "reply_to": "21132__2_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21132__2_028", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--The answer to that is that this Court should not find voluntary consent, because as this Court has interpreted the term before, it certainly should not abandon that interpretation.\nWhat voluntary consent means is a free and unconstrained choice without any coercion, explicit or implied.\nNow, unless--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1897.729, 1906.454, 1914.629], "stop_times": [1906.454, 1914.629, 1915.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1897.729}, "reply_to": "21132__2_027", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_029", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Are you saying, then, that a parolee can't consent to any of the terms of the parole?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1915.53], "stop_times": [1920.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1915.53}, "reply_to": "21132__2_028", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21132__2_030", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--No.\nThat's not my position at all.\nWhat I'm saying is, the State cannot impose an unconstitutional condition as a matter of probation or parole and then try to sustain that on a theory, a fictional theory of consent, as in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1920.623, 1921.454, 1922.816], "stop_times": [1921.454, 1922.816, 1934.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1920.623}, "reply_to": "21132__2_029", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_031", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Well, suppose you have somebody like Michael Milliken, who is paroled after having some securities fraud.\nDo you think the parole authorities can say you can't write any prospectuses while you're on parole?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1934.524, 1939.316], "stop_times": [1939.316, 1944.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1934.524}, "reply_to": "21132__2_030", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21132__2_032", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1944.479], "stop_times": [1945.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1944.479}, "reply_to": "21132__2_031", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_033", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "That's certainly a violation of the First Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1945.41], "stop_times": [1946.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1945.41}, "reply_to": "21132__2_032", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21132__2_034", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "But it doesn't depend... the validity of parole conditions and probation conditions don't depend on the consent, or a fictional notion of consent of the probation of parolee.\nEvery day around the country people are put on probation, they're put on parole, and nobody asks the consent of the probationer to particular conditions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1946.942, 1954.837], "stop_times": [1954.837, 1963.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1946.942}, "reply_to": "21132__2_033", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_035", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Well, then what you're saying is that the Pennsylvania parole authorities without calling this a consent form could simply say, here are the conditions under which you must be... which you will... your house will be searched.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1963.583], "stop_times": [1975.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1963.583}, "reply_to": "21132__2_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21132__2_036", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "That's correct, but as long as they were constitutional they'd be upheld by this Court, but if Pennsylvania, as in this case, touched an unconstitutional search provision, it should be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1975.681], "stop_times": [1984.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1975.681}, "reply_to": "21132__2_035", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_037", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Mr. Sosnov, aren't you really talking about notice and not consent?\nI mean, it's the same form that says... isn't it the same form that says, no drugs, no firearms, and warrantless search?\nIt's all on the same form, and you wouldn't be arguing that the no-firearms-no-drugs... it's really a notice to the parolee that these are the terms of your release.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [1984.526, 1988.099, 1995.213], "stop_times": [1988.099, 1995.213, 2005.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1984.526}, "reply_to": "21132__2_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21132__2_038", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2005.701], "stop_times": [2006.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2005.701}, "reply_to": "21132__2_037", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_039", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "If you violate them, you go back.\nSo to talk about consent for any of this, it's really... these are the terms and conditions of your release.\nIt's a true Hobson's choice.\nYou want a horse, this is the horse you get.\nSo I think it would be, I think more honest if we talked in terms of notice.\nWas there notice when this form says, warrantless search, that there's not going to be a search unless there's reasonable suspicion, or there's... in other words, is there ambiguity in the terms--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2006.503, 2007.294, 2013.829, 2014.81, 2017.361, 2022.547], "stop_times": [2007.294, 2013.829, 2014.81, 2017.361, 2022.547, 2037.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2006.503}, "reply_to": "21132__2_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21132__2_040", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--That--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2037.196], "stop_times": [2038.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2037.196}, "reply_to": "21132__2_039", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_041", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--that he was given.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2038.715], "stop_times": [2039.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2038.715}, "reply_to": "21132__2_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21132__2_042", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--Excuse me.\nThat's exactly my position, and that was the position of the supreme court, that when you list the conditions of probation and parole, it serves only the function of notice.\nIt doesn't determine the constitutionality.\nIf we use the fiction of consent in this case, Pennsylvania can just simply attach a couple of new conditions the next time.\nTheir form the next time--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2039.136, 2039.386, 2048.362, 2050.663, 2056.937], "stop_times": [2039.386, 2048.362, 2050.663, 2056.937, 2058.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2039.136}, "reply_to": "21132__2_041", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_043", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "I still don't see your... understand your response to the Chief Justice's question.\nYou acknowledge that the conditions of parole for Milliken could be, you will not write any prospectuses, so the condition here is, you will be subject to search in your home.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2058.359, 2062.112], "stop_times": [2062.112, 2074.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2058.359}, "reply_to": "21132__2_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21132__2_044", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--And--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2074.282], "stop_times": [2075.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2074.282}, "reply_to": "21132__2_043", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_045", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "I mean, and the one no more than the other is consonant with the application of the bill of rights to people who were not on parole.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2075.422], "stop_times": [2083.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2075.422}, "reply_to": "21132__2_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21132__2_046", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--This Court would have to determine that each one, whether it was reasonable or not.\nGiven all the reasoning of Griffin, the one... it could set explicitly, your condition of parole is that you will be subjected to searches of your home without reasonable suspicion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2083.417, 2086.779], "stop_times": [2086.779, 2096.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2083.417}, "reply_to": "21132__2_045", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_047", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2096.806], "stop_times": [2097.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2096.806}, "reply_to": "21132__2_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21132__2_048", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "That would be totally inconsistent with the reasoning of this Court's decision in Griffin.\nIn... and this Court's decision in many other areas.\nIn other words, this Court has said the proper balance that a parolee certainly has a right to an expectation of privacy in his home and a right to reasonable searches.\nThis Court said in Griffin, we're not going to require probable cause and a warrant.\nWe're not going to require, as if she was a free citizen, the proper balance between the Government's needs and the right of privacy of the parolee.\nThe proper balance is struck with reasonable suspicion, the lowest objective standard known under the law, as this Court emphasized by Richards v. Wisconsin.\nBut it's an objective standard.\nPennsylvania's not free to unilaterally get around constitutional restraints.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2097.097, 2100.791, 2104.604, 2112.968, 2117.583, 2125.71, 2133.827, 2135.439], "stop_times": [2100.791, 2104.604, 2112.968, 2117.583, 2125.71, 2133.827, 2135.439, 2140.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2097.097}, "reply_to": "21132__2_047", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_049", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Why is that in the Chief Justice's hypothetical the consent is valid and in the case we have, assuming the consent form is very clear that you consent to searches that are absolutely random and without sufficient... what is the difference in the two cases?\nI don't understand your position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2140.512, 2156.834], "stop_times": [2156.834, 2158.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2140.512}, "reply_to": "21132__2_048", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21132__2_050", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Because in neither case does it depend on consent.\nIn neither case the correct constitutional analysis is to determine, is it reasonable, considering the Government's needs and concerning the rights of the parolee, whether we talk about First Amendment rights, Fourth Amendment rights, so that this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2158.694, 2161.846], "stop_times": [2161.846, 2174.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2158.694}, "reply_to": "21132__2_049", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_051", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Well, but suppose you have consent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2174.825], "stop_times": [2176.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2174.825}, "reply_to": "21132__2_050", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21132__2_052", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--The consent would be involuntary.\nThat's my point.\nIt's... in other words, if we consider, if I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2176.757, 2178.767, 2179.528], "stop_times": [2178.767, 2179.528, 2181.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2176.757}, "reply_to": "21132__2_051", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_053", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "I don't see why it's any more involuntary than on a guilty plea situation, where someone says, okay, I'm going to agree... I'm guilty, and I will agree to a prison sentence of 3 years, very coercive.\nHeavens, look at the power the Government has, and yet I think we would say it's okay to give up your right to a jury trial, your right to remain free, the right to do all those things.\nYou can consent to that.\nNow, don't look at the clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2181.169, 2196.969, 2209.859, 2211.301], "stop_times": [2196.969, 2209.859, 2211.301, 2212.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2181.169}, "reply_to": "21132__2_052", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21132__2_054", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2212.523], "stop_times": [2213.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2212.523}, "reply_to": "21132__2_053", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_055", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "I want to know why somebody can't consent on parole and say, fine, I would like to be paroled and I will consent to these terms and conditions.\nWhy isn't that perfectly okay?\nThe person can refuse parole and say no, I don't want those terms and conditions.\nI'll serve my time, thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2213.925, 2225.222, 2227.504, 2232.429], "stop_times": [2225.222, 2227.504, 2232.429, 2233.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2213.925}, "reply_to": "21132__2_054", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21132__2_056", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "I think the answer, Justice O'Connor, is that there's nothing... this is nothing like the free bargaining process.\nWhat this Court has emphasized in a number of decisions is the plea-bargaining process is bargaining between two roughly equal parties, and that the defendant has a lot of bargaining chips in that situation, so the process is completely different.\nThe defendant can insist on a trial.\nThe defendant can insist to be put to the proof of beyond a reasonable doubt, so that every day, defendants reject plea bargains that are offered, because defendant calculates, I may make out better at trial, and the Government calculates, we need this plea bargain because we may lose entirely and the defendant will go scott-free.\nHere, the process itself, the parolee has no bargaining chips whatsoever.\nThe parolee has no constitutional rights that he can bargain with, so the process is different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2233.657, 2239.381, 2251.209, 2252.952, 2271.255, 2276.226], "stop_times": [2239.381, 2251.209, 2252.952, 2271.255, 2276.226, 2280.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2233.657}, "reply_to": "21132__2_055", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_057", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Well, but the parolee can decline it and say, I'll serve my time and when I get out I am free.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2280.029], "stop_times": [2285.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2280.029}, "reply_to": "21132__2_056", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21132__2_058", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "If... the parolee has the ability to say no, and Schneckloth said everybody always has the ability to say no.\nIn other words, a voluntary, free and unconstrained choice is not the same thing simply as a choice.\nIn other words, every individual can say no unless you're drugged or unconscious.\nThat's what Schneckloth said.\nI think Minnesota v. Murphy is a good example of coercion, where a person has a right to say no.\nMinnesota v. Murphy, the police officer was given the choice.\nYou can continue being a police officer, or you can start talking, even though you have Fifth Amendment rights, and the police officer started talking.\nHe had a choice, just like Scott, and this Court said, that was a violation of the Fifth Amendment.\nThat was involuntary.\nThat was the antithesis... the economic coercion was the antithesis of a free and unconstrained choice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2285.773, 2294.389, 2301.414, 2304.735, 2306.127, 2310.721, 2314.534, 2321.797, 2327.1, 2328.392], "stop_times": [2294.389, 2301.414, 2304.735, 2306.127, 2310.721, 2314.534, 2321.797, 2327.1, 2328.392, 2334.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2285.773}, "reply_to": "21132__2_057", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_059", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Is there any shortage of parole officers in Pennsylvania?\nThere is in a lot of States.\nI think there are.\nWhat's the circumstance there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2334.496, 2337.728, 2339.02, 2340.48], "stop_times": [2337.728, 2339.02, 2340.48, 2342.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2334.496}, "reply_to": "21132__2_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21132__2_060", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "I'm not aware that there's a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2342.273], "stop_times": [2343.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2342.273}, "reply_to": "21132__2_059", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_061", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "I'm just wondering--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2343.993], "stop_times": [2345.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2343.993}, "reply_to": "21132__2_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21132__2_062", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--I can't address that.\nI don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2345.485, 2345.896], "stop_times": [2345.896, 2346.564], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2345.485}, "reply_to": "21132__2_061", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_063", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--what is in the back of my mind, which is, is whether it might be reasonable for a State to say we don't have that many parole officers, we'll let more people out of prison on parole, but they give up all their privacy in prison, and we want them to give up some of their privacy on parole, and the reason is that random checking can catch those who have guns or drugs.\nSo I mean, suppose they're reasoning that way, and so the object is a system that will actually protect people's privacy in a sense.\nIn other words, you're better off than in prison, but you've got to give up a certain amount of your privacy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2346.564, 2365.527, 2375.065], "stop_times": [2365.527, 2375.065, 2380.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2346.564}, "reply_to": "21132__2_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21132__2_064", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "This Court has never accepted that argument.\nMorrissey v. Brewer, the exact same argument was made.\nWe're going to parole fewer people if you actually make us have a hearing to determine whether we revoke them or not, and this Court said there's no empirical proof that if people have a hearing and have some rights that they're going to stop paroling people.\nAnd, in fact, most jurisdictions around the country right now have interpreted Griffin as... in fact, every court that has interpreted Griffin has interpreted it to require reasonable suspicion.\nHowever, you have not seen a drop-off of paroles around the country or any disadvantage to the parole system, so there is no demonstrated need.\nAnd getting back to the plea-bargaining question of Justice O'Connor, the other thing that distinguishes this from a plea bargain is that of course the Government doesn't have the power to impose a guilty verdict.\nThe plea bargain--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2380.777, 2382.87, 2385.401, 2398.35, 2408.407, 2415.891, 2426.239], "stop_times": [2382.87, 2385.401, 2398.35, 2408.407, 2415.891, 2426.239, 2428.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2380.777}, "reply_to": "21132__2_063", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_065", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "You would think that a defendant could agree in a pre-trial plea bargain to accept parole with the condition of suspicionless search.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2428.911], "stop_times": [2440.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2428.911}, "reply_to": "21132__2_064", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21132__2_066", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--Possibly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2440.579], "stop_times": [2443.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2440.579}, "reply_to": "21132__2_065", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_067", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Release--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2443.08], "stop_times": [2443.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2443.08}, "reply_to": "21132__2_066", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21132__2_068", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "That's a difficult question to be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2443.451], "stop_times": [2444.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2443.451}, "reply_to": "21132__2_067", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_069", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--Release, but I agree, suspicionless searches pretrial--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2444.489], "stop_times": [2449.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2444.489}, "reply_to": "21132__2_068", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21132__2_070", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--That--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2449.715], "stop_times": [2450.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2449.715}, "reply_to": "21132__2_069", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_071", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--Do you think there's a question about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2450.526], "stop_times": [2451.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2450.526}, "reply_to": "21132__2_070", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21132__2_072", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--That... there is a question there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2451.695], "stop_times": [2454.887], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2451.695}, "reply_to": "21132__2_071", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_073", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2454.887], "stop_times": [2455.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2454.887}, "reply_to": "21132__2_072", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21132__2_074", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "But it's completely different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2455.218], "stop_times": [2456.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2455.218}, "reply_to": "21132__2_073", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_075", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Well, why?\nWhy is there a question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2456.379, 2456.788], "stop_times": [2456.788, 2457.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2456.379}, "reply_to": "21132__2_074", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21132__2_076", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Because... because this Court would have to determine whether, considering the invasion of privacy down the line, which is... which is all the people that are on parole as far as... and their families being subjected to unbridled discretion.\nThis Court has to decide whether that is one of those rare, bargained-for, agreed conditions that should be overturned.\nMost likely--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2457.81, 2469.337, 2476.893], "stop_times": [2469.337, 2476.893, 2477.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2457.81}, "reply_to": "21132__2_075", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_077", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Well, that's very... very odd.\nI mean, he can give up his right to a jury, his right to an attorney, his right to everything else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2477.812, 2478.152], "stop_times": [2478.152, 2484.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2477.812}, "reply_to": "21132__2_076", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21132__2_078", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--The key difference... the key difference there, and maybe that is constitutional.\nI'm not saying it's not.\nThe key difference there is that it is one of the bargained-for things as part of the plea-bargain process.\nThere is no bargaining process here.\nThere is no deal in the end, and a plea bargain in the end is enforceable by a court.\nOnce you have plea bargain, each side has to abide by the plea bargain.\nThis is nothing like a plea bargain because in the end here Pennsylvania by law, State law, Pennsylvania can impose subsequent conditions after the person is released from parole, so after he signs that form there with all the conditions, they can come 2 days later, oh, by the way, you've got 10 more conditions.\nThey don't have to have him sign a form and agree.\nThe consent is a fictional notion.\nIf this Court would accept the fictional notion of consent, Pennsylvania could have a couple of new provisions, and one of them could say that when you're on probation or parole, you have to tell us everything of any criminal activity you're doing.\nIn other words, despite your Fifth Amendment rights, in return for parole you'd have to tell us everything about your criminal activities.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2484.076, 2488.16, 2488.971, 2494.365, 2496.145, 2500.537, 2504.619, 2520.982, 2522.674, 2525.236, 2539.334, 2546.169], "stop_times": [2488.16, 2488.971, 2494.365, 2496.145, 2500.537, 2504.619, 2520.982, 2522.674, 2525.236, 2539.334, 2546.169, 2546.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2484.076}, "reply_to": "21132__2_077", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_079", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Well, don't they do that... don't they do that now?\nThey require the parolee to come in periodically and report to the officer what he's been doing for the last couple of weeks.\nIsn't that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2546.49, 2547.582, 2552.834], "stop_times": [2547.582, 2552.834, 2553.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2546.49}, "reply_to": "21132__2_078", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21132__2_080", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--But--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2553.245], "stop_times": [2553.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2553.245}, "reply_to": "21132__2_079", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_081", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--That's standard, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2553.555], "stop_times": [2554.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2553.555}, "reply_to": "21132__2_080", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21132__2_082", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--But there's one restriction, and that's the Fifth Amendment.\nUnder Minnesota v. Murphy this Court said you cannot have a valid condition of parole that requires the parolee or probationer to talk about criminal activity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2554.307, 2557.379], "stop_times": [2557.379, 2566.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2554.307}, "reply_to": "21132__2_081", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_083", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "You mean, he can come in and when his parole officer says, well, you know, what have you been doing the last couple of weeks, he can say, well, you know, I'd like to tell you that, but I have a Fifth Amendment right not to tell you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2566.155], "stop_times": [2577.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2566.155}, "reply_to": "21132__2_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21132__2_084", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "No.\nHe can... no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2577.383, 2577.604], "stop_times": [2577.604, 2578.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2577.383}, "reply_to": "21132__2_083", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_085", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "That's pretty easy.\nThat can't be what it means, can it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2578.062, 2578.262], "stop_times": [2578.262, 2580.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2578.062}, "reply_to": "21132__2_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21132__2_086", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "No, that's not what it means.\nIt means he can talk about... he must talk about everything except activity that is protected by the Fifth Amendment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2580.595, 2581.596], "stop_times": [2581.596, 2588.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2580.595}, "reply_to": "21132__2_085", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_087", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Well, you mean you can say he could--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2588.101], "stop_times": [2590.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2588.101}, "reply_to": "21132__2_086", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21132__2_088", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--or new criminal activity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2590.124], "stop_times": [2590.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2590.124}, "reply_to": "21132__2_087", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_089", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--incriminate him.\nI mean--\n--You can say, I went to the movie, and I had dinner at home with the kids, and then I did something else I can't tell you about?\n[Laughter]\nThat just can't be the rule.\nThat can't be the rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2590.324, 2590.665, 2590.865, 2596.81, 2598.742, 2600.352], "stop_times": [2590.665, 2590.865, 2596.81, 2598.742, 2600.352, 2602.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2590.324}, "reply_to": "21132__2_088", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21132__2_090", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "I... I'm relying on Minnesota v. Murphy.\nThis Court said it would be the classic penalty situation if a probation condition required somebody to talk about criminal activity.\nLet me mention another one.\nMorrissey v. Brewer, the rights at a hearing, Pennsylvania under the fiction of consent could say, in return for you getting probation or parole you hereby agree that if we decide to revoke your parole you won't assert your right to try to cross-examine and confront witnesses.\nIn other words, this Court would be ceding its role as being the ultimate determiner of what's reasonable under the Constitution if it accepts the fiction of consent, which it has refused to do in the economic context repeatedly, such as Garrity v. New Jersey.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2602.125, 2604.979, 2610.943, 2612.083, 2626.601], "stop_times": [2604.979, 2610.943, 2612.083, 2626.601, 2640.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2602.125}, "reply_to": "21132__2_089", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_091", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Mr. Sosnov, may I ask if you would get to the second question, because as I understand it all of this is academic if the exclusionary rule doesn't apply.\nThen we could say, yeah, he didn't get notice, but so what, the evidence comes in anyway.\nYou made the point that most States require suspicion for a search, but isn't it also true that most States say the exclusionary rule does not apply to parole or probation revocation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2640.612, 2650.247, 2655.741], "stop_times": [2650.247, 2655.741, 2670.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2640.612}, "reply_to": "21132__2_090", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21132__2_092", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "The majority of States have ruled, and this Court should rule that the exclusionary rule applies, because it's especially needed in this context.\nFirst of all, under Pennsylvania law, what was being performed here was a classic law enforcement function.\nPennsylvania's own manual says that the parole officers share with police the primary goal of law enforcement.\nAs matter of State law, parole officers are peace officers with police powers.\nIn this very case, the parole agent had arrested Mr. Scott for parole violations.\nHe was in a post arrest situation.\nHe was in cuffs, in custody, when the parole agent goes to his home to conduct a search for any evidence of other violations.\nThe parole agent in Pennsylvania serves as prosecutor at the parole violation hearing, so certainly in the context of this case to start out with, in the context of this case, this was a classic law enforcement-type--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2670.781, 2677.537, 2683.871, 2690.656, 2695.018, 2701.873, 2703.635, 2710.311], "stop_times": [2677.537, 2683.871, 2690.656, 2695.018, 2701.873, 2703.635, 2710.311, 2723.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2670.781}, "reply_to": "21132__2_091", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_093", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Why was the respondent arrested, for what suspected offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2723.597], "stop_times": [2729.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2723.597}, "reply_to": "21132__2_092", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21132__2_094", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--He was arrested for... I think it was four violations.\nTwo violations were that on an individual occasion while people were shooting target practice that he held the gun and took a shot, and he's not allowed to possess a gun even momentarily, so back in September when he was first paroled he was alleged to... on two separate occasions to have taken a shot from... one shot and then two shots on another occasion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2729.171, 2734.394], "stop_times": [2734.394, 2755.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2729.171}, "reply_to": "21132__2_093", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_095", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Okay, so the arrest was not dependent upon the subsequent search?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2755.918], "stop_times": [2761.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2755.918}, "reply_to": "21132__2_094", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21132__2_096", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "No.\nThe search followed the arrest.\nIt was to gain evidence of parole violations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2761.242, 2762.944, 2763.575], "stop_times": [2762.944, 2763.575, 2765.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2761.242}, "reply_to": "21132__2_095", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_097", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Why didn't they have suspicion here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2765.868], "stop_times": [2768.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2765.868}, "reply_to": "21132__2_096", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21132__2_098", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Because the two incidents that I referred to were 5 or 6 months earlier, and the only information conveyed to the searching officer, at page 92a of the appendix, is that one officer said to the other, he may have firearms, and that's all that was communicated, nothing else about a basis for a search, and Pennsylvania has never claimed that there's reasonable suspicion in this case in the lower courts or here.\nThe primary zone of interest, as this Court has defined, looking at the exclusionary rule, the purpose is deterrence.\nThe question is deterrence.\nSo when the Attorney General talks about the question of we're looking for the truth at a parole revocation hearing, we're looking at the truth in the probation revocation hearing, that's what we seek, that's true, but it's talking about constitutional apples and oranges here.\nThere is a cost whenever you apply the exclusionary rule as far as some evidence that might be helpful to determine the truth if it's going to be excluded from the proceeding.\nThe question is, though, is it necessary to enforce Fourth Amendment values?\nThat's the question.\nAnd here, the answer is clear.\nThe parole officer is even more motivated than a police officer looking for a crime to look for evidence of a parole violation.\nThe police officer in the community has many functions besides law enforcement, some general safety in the community, and has no one-on-one responsibility, generally, unless they're in a very small town, has no one-on-one responsibility for any particular individuals.\nThe parole officer deals only with the population of convicted criminals, the pressure, the institutional pressure being responsible for convicted criminals and their supervision, and secondly, one-on-one responsibility.\nThat parole agent was assigned to a particular individual, so if that particular individual violates parole in a serious way, commits a new crime, the responsibility goes right back to the parole agent, so we start out with great institutional pressures on the parole agent, more so than the policeman, to try to detect violations of parole.\nAnd Pennsylvania, if you look at are there alternative remedies to the exclusionary rule to try to provide a disincentive for unconstitutional searches, Pennsylvania has no alternative remedies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2768.119, 2792.637, 2801.151, 2802.954, 2819.016, 2828.539, 2832.362, 2834.313, 2836.105, 2844.29, 2860.132, 2875.34, 2894.694], "stop_times": [2792.637, 2801.151, 2802.954, 2819.016, 2828.539, 2832.362, 2834.313, 2836.105, 2844.29, 2860.132, 2875.34, 2894.694, 2906.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2768.119}, "reply_to": "21132__2_097", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_099", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "So a good parole officer has more people reincarcerated than on release.\nTwo parole officers, one has a very high reincarceration rate, the other doesn't, and the first is the better parole officer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2906.671, 2912.478], "stop_times": [2912.478, 2918.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2906.671}, "reply_to": "21132__2_098", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21132__2_100", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "No, I didn't say good or better.\nWhat I'm saying is, the institutional pressure, so that a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2918.171, 2919.321], "stop_times": [2919.321, 2922.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2918.171}, "reply_to": "21132__2_099", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_101", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Well, I... institutional pressure I assume relates to performance and to merit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2922.913], "stop_times": [2927.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2922.913}, "reply_to": "21132__2_100", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21132__2_102", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--But performance and merit should be constrained by the Fourth Amendment, so I wouldn't call a good parole officer one who, because of institutional pressures and zeal at doing their job and protecting themselves from possible repercussions if somebody messes up on parole, I would say that's not a good parole officer who violates the Constitution.\nWhat it shows us, the institutional pressures--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2927.395, 2946.688], "stop_times": [2946.688, 2949.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2927.395}, "reply_to": "21132__2_101", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_103", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "But if being a good parole officer, as Justice Kennedy's question... means keeping your people out on parole rather than reincarcerating them, one would think that the institutional, pressures are in the opposite direction, not to return as many of the people in your charge to prison as possible, but to work with them to keep them out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2949.571], "stop_times": [2970.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2949.571}, "reply_to": "21132__2_102", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21132__2_104", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--Some work to keep them out, but the pressures to make sure that they're complying with parole regulations, we're talking about now the pressures as far as individuals who may go into somebody's home with no reasonable suspicion whatsoever.\nWe're not talking about parole agents who, in accordance with the reasoning of Griffin, only go in the homes where they have that low objective standard of reasonable suspicion.\nWe're talking about parole agents who may go into their home without that objective basis of reasonable suspicion.\nThe institutional pressures might be, I don't want to see my name in the newspaper possibly because my parolee got in some kind of trouble, so therefore... this is going to be some parole officers... the institutional pressures are going to cause them to violate the Constitution unless there's some deterrence, and that's the need for the exclusionary rule.\nPennsylvania, the amicus of the United States, nor the other four amicus briefs filed against our position, cite a single instance, either under Pennsylvania law or anywhere in the country where there has been any discipline of a parole agent for... for violation of Fourth Amendment rights, any successful--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [2970.034, 2981.892, 2990.487, 2997.152, 3018.697], "stop_times": [2981.892, 2990.487, 2997.152, 3018.697, 3039.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2970.034}, "reply_to": "21132__2_103", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_105", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Who would decide... supposing... what does the Pennsylvania parole board... they have a parole board and they have hearings on revocation.\nWho would decide whether or not the exclusionary rule would bar a particular witness' testimony, the parole board?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [3039.45, 3046.483], "stop_times": [3046.483, 3053.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3039.45}, "reply_to": "21132__2_104", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21132__2_106", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--The Fourth Amendment issue, if we had exclusionary rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [3053.519], "stop_times": [3055.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3053.519}, "reply_to": "21132__2_105", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_107", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [3055.85], "stop_times": [3056.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3055.85}, "reply_to": "21132__2_106", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21132__2_108", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "In many juris... in Pennsylvania it would be a hearing examiner or the board itself.\nThe hearings are conducted by the parole board or hearings... many jurisdictions it's judges.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [3056.04, 3060.743], "stop_times": [3060.743, 3064.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3056.04}, "reply_to": "21132__2_107", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_109", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "And are the Pennsylvania examiners all lawyers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [3064.656], "stop_times": [3068.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3064.656}, "reply_to": "21132__2_108", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21132__2_110", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "No, they're not all lawyers, but I think that that would not seriously burden the proceedings for... for two reasons.\nOne is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [3068.058, 3074.192], "stop_times": [3074.192, 3074.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3068.058}, "reply_to": "21132__2_109", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_111", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Have them toss a coin?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [3074.622], "stop_times": [3075.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3074.622}, "reply_to": "21132__2_110", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21132__2_112", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--I hope not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [3075.684], "stop_times": [3077.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3075.684}, "reply_to": "21132__2_111", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_113", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Well, what is a nonlawyer going to do with some of our rather highly filigreed Fourth Amendment jurisprudence?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [3077.957, 3085.451], "stop_times": [3085.451, 3085.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3077.957}, "reply_to": "21132__2_112", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21132__2_114", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Well, I think fortunately in this context the hearing examiner would not have the learn the highly filigreed Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, because we would have a single standard, which is not a very high standard of reasonable suspicion.\nIn other words, Griffin has set the stage as reasonable suspicion for the entry into a home, so they'd have to understand reasonable suspicion, and this Court in Shadwick v. City of Tampa said that even a court clerk can figure out what probable cause means in determining, for example, when people should be arrested for minor offenses, so I don't think it's going to be beyond the intellectual abilities of hearing examiners--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [3085.882, 3098.199], "stop_times": [3098.199, 3121.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3085.882}, "reply_to": "21132__2_113", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_115", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "But that was the neutral magistrate to issue a warrant, or... it wasn't to ultimately decide the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [3121.165], "stop_times": [3127.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3121.165}, "reply_to": "21132__2_114", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21132__2_116", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--Well, but the question had to be decided whether it was probably cause or not to issue a warrant.\nIn other words, every day the court clerk sits there and the applications come in and the court clerk has to say, do I find enough here for probable cause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [3127.019, 3131.293], "stop_times": [3131.293, 3139.289], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3127.019}, "reply_to": "21132__2_115", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_117", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Yes, but that's... a neutral magistrate in that sense is not the same as the person who finally disposes of a case, of a question the way you would have under the exclusionary rule.\nDo you know of any other situations in which nonlawyers decide whether or not evidence should be excluded pursuant to the exclusionary rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [3139.289, 3148.676], "stop_times": [3148.676, 3156.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3139.289}, "reply_to": "21132__2_116", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21132__2_118", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "I know that right now there are about eight States that are applying the exclusionary rule either on State constitutional grounds, where they've interpreted it under the Federal Constitution, and not all of them have judges deciding these issues, and there's been no evidence that they've been incapable of making this reasonable suspicion determination as to whether the Constitution has been complied with as far as reasonable suspicion being required for an entry into the home of a parolee and his family.\nThere have been... no encountered difficulties have been reported.\nOne of the dangers here, I think if the exclusionary rule is not recognized in this context, is because the standard is only reasonable suspicion for the intrusion in the first place, if this Court doesn't recognize the exclusionary rule, that means that there's no neutral oversight whatsoever before the parole agents go into the home, nor is there any kind of neutral oversight after the fact.\nThe creation is, as the Pennsylvania supreme court said, I think they got it right as far as concluding there will be nothing else to deter parole agents.\nYou will have no neutral oversight before, because only reasonable suspicion is required, you will have no neutral oversight after the fact, the Pennsylvania parole board has no institutional deterrence mechanisms in force, there's no punishment for violations--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [3156.39, 3183.378, 3186.56, 3212.748, 3220.731], "stop_times": [3183.378, 3186.56, 3212.748, 3220.731, 3235.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3156.39}, "reply_to": "21132__2_117", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_119", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "No worse than the situation that the individual would have confronted if he were still incarcerated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [3235.121], "stop_times": [3240.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3235.121}, "reply_to": "21132__2_118", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21132__2_120", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--That's correct, but this Court had--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [3240.236], "stop_times": [3241.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3240.236}, "reply_to": "21132__2_119", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_121", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "He would have been subject to invasions upon his privacy without any recourse.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [3241.976], "stop_times": [3246.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3241.976}, "reply_to": "21132__2_120", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21132__2_122", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--And--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [3246.999], "stop_times": [3247.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3246.999}, "reply_to": "21132__2_121", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_123", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "And this is... this goes along with parole.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [3247.83], "stop_times": [3250.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3247.83}, "reply_to": "21132__2_122", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21132__2_124", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--Well, it hasn't so far, because this Court has never held that a home can be searched on the basis without any reasonable suspicion whatsoever, I think for good reasons.\nThis Court in a whole line of decisions has said the home is sacrosanct as far as... as far as protecting the privacy of the home.\nThis Court has allowed the closely guarded category of suspicionless minimal intrusions, like drugtesting under some circumstances.\nThis is a maximum intrusion.\nThis is the biggest intrusion, to go into somebody's home--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [3250.371, 3261.32, 3267.543, 3276.369, 3277.831], "stop_times": [3261.32, 3267.543, 3276.369, 3277.831, 3280.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3250.371}, "reply_to": "21132__2_123", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_125", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Mr. Sosnov, you don't mean it happens so far in the sense of the real world, because you told me it was correct that most States in their parole revocation hearings do not exclude unlawfully seized evidence, so it's true that right now, that this happens all the time, is that not so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [3280.584], "stop_times": [3299.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3280.584}, "reply_to": "21132__2_124", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21132__2_126", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--That this is happening--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [3299.907], "stop_times": [3301.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3299.907}, "reply_to": "21132__2_125", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_127", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [3301.558], "stop_times": [3301.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3301.558}, "reply_to": "21132__2_126", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21132__2_128", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--in some jurisdictions as far as... now, as far as... and that's the... that's why we need deterrence, because these unconstitutional searches are happening.\nIn other words--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [3301.838, 3309.351], "stop_times": [3309.351, 3310.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3301.838}, "reply_to": "21132__2_127", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_129", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "I think you've answered the question, Mr. Sosnov.\nGeneral Fisher, you have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [3310.223, 3312.376], "stop_times": [3312.376, 3314.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3310.223}, "reply_to": "21132__2_128", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21132__2_130", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [3314.155], "stop_times": [3314.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3314.155}, "reply_to": "21132__2_129", "speaker": "leonard_n_sosnov"}
{"id": "21132__2_131", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "--3 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [3314.646], "stop_times": [3315.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3314.646}, "reply_to": "21132__2_130", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21132__3_000", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "No rebuttal, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [3315.325], "stop_times": [3316.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3315.325}, "reply_to": "21132__2_131", "speaker": "d_michael_fisher"}
{"id": "21132__3_001", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "Very well.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [3316.396, 3317.017], "stop_times": [3317.017, 3317.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3316.396}, "reply_to": "21132__3_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21132__3_002", "conversation_id": "21132", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-581", "start_times": [3317.017], "stop_times": [3321.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3317.017}, "reply_to": "21132__3_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21020__0_000", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 97-634, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey, Ronald Yeskey.\nMr. Tufano.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [0.0, 9.347], "stop_times": [9.347, 10.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21020__0_001", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nApplying the Americans With Disabilities Act to State prisoners goes against the intent of Congress and violates the Constitution.\nIt also allows Congress to alter the Federal-State balance of power without first giving States notice and then opportunity to be heard, and it ignores this Court's clear mandate that State prison administrators who have difficult and dangerous jobs be given great deference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [10.999, 14.78, 22.986], "stop_times": [14.78, 22.986, 40.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.999}, "reply_to": "21020__0_000", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_002", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Well, Mr.--\n--Mr. Tufano, did you make your constitutional argument in the courts below?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [40.107, 41.008], "stop_times": [41.008, 46.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 40.107}, "reply_to": "21020__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21020__0_003", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Your Honor, we did make constitutional arguments in that we have always argued in this case as a matter of statutory construction, federalism issues, and the issue of the clear statement rule, and as a matter of statutory construction we believe that the Court is to be guided by possible serious and grave constitutional questions which could arise from an interpretation of the Americans With Disabilities Act as applying to prisoners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [46.752], "stop_times": [74.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 46.752}, "reply_to": "21020__0_002", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_004", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Did you make that argument below, that the statute should be construed a particular way because to construe it another way would get into constitutional difficulties?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [74.801], "stop_times": [86.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 74.801}, "reply_to": "21020__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21020__0_005", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "We did not, Your Honor.\nWe argued below, as we have always, the issues of federalism and the same arguments that we've raised below regarding federalism go to the arguments which we have made as a matter of statutory construction regarding the Fourteenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [86.699, 88.75], "stop_times": [88.75, 105.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 86.699}, "reply_to": "21020__0_004", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_006", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Mr. Tufano, the language of the statute says that public entity means any State or local government, any department, agency, district or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government.\nThat's very broad language, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [105.612, 121.652], "stop_times": [121.652, 124.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 105.612}, "reply_to": "21020__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21020__0_007", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Yes, it is, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [124.183], "stop_times": [125.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 124.183}, "reply_to": "21020__0_006", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_008", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Now, what about the application of the ADA... disabilities act... to employees of prisons?\nDoes it apply there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [125.364, 135.812], "stop_times": [135.812, 137.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 125.364}, "reply_to": "21020__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21020__0_009", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Yes, it does, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [137.422], "stop_times": [138.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 137.422}, "reply_to": "21020__0_008", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_010", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "How about to visitors at prisons?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [138.043], "stop_times": [140.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 138.043}, "reply_to": "21020__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21020__0_011", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "We would take the position that it does apply to visitors, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [140.955], "stop_times": [143.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 140.955}, "reply_to": "21020__0_010", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_012", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Well then, what, in the language that I read, gets you off the hook for prisoners?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [143.507], "stop_times": [150.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 143.507}, "reply_to": "21020__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21020__0_013", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "We don't dispute the fact that the Department of Corrections is a public entity within the meaning of the ADA and in title II, but there is a difference between the Department of Corrections being considered a public entity and whether a prison is a public entity or a program, activity, or service.\nWhen the Department of Corrections wears its--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [150.691, 168.083], "stop_times": [168.083, 170.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 150.691}, "reply_to": "21020__0_012", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_014", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Well, a prison might not itself be a program, but it might have within the prison context a program or activity.\nIn this very case it's alleged that the particular program, the boot camp, is a sort of program or activity of the prison.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [170.655, 180.151], "stop_times": [180.151, 191.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 170.655}, "reply_to": "21020__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21020__0_015", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--We believe, Your Honor, that program, activity, and service have different meanings in the context of a prison, that it is not the... it was not the intent of Congress to cover something like prisoners, that prisoners are not part of the public, and that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [191.941], "stop_times": [209.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 191.941}, "reply_to": "21020__0_014", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_016", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "I can understand an argument that in complying with the statute and the regulations, that the prison only has to make reasonable modifications based on the circumstances.\nNow, surely the circumstance that it's a prison and there are great security concerns would affect that determination, would it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [209.121, 223.841], "stop_times": [223.841, 233.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 209.121}, "reply_to": "21020__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21020__0_017", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--It would affect it, Your Honor, but again, you have to look at the fact that Congress' findings in enacting the ADA talked about employment, housing, voting, medical services, and it talked about access to public services, and it talked about people having... being able to live independently, and they talked about living in a free society, and the fact that they based their findings in large part on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Report of 1983, which they lifted the conclusions almost verbatim, except for one, on involuntary sterilization, and they chose a couple of more which were not in the conclusions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [233.217], "stop_times": [274.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 233.217}, "reply_to": "21020__0_016", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_018", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Mr. Tufano, which Civil Rights Act did you say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [274.663], "stop_times": [277.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 274.663}, "reply_to": "21020__0_017", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21020__0_019", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Report of 1983, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [277.156], "stop_times": [280.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 277.156}, "reply_to": "21020__0_018", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_020", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "And that is of the same genre, I believe, as title VI, which, as you know, covers race discrimination, and I think the language is almost identical, so would you say, then, on your reasoning about prisoners, that title VI would not apply either to prisoners?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [280.938], "stop_times": [308.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 280.938}, "reply_to": "21020__0_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21020__0_021", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nThe Congress specifically chose two or three findings, or list of areas in the appendix to this report which did not discuss them as areas where discriminatory practices occur, and they specifically left behind the criminal justice system, where--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [308.248, 309.279], "stop_times": [309.279, 326.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 308.248}, "reply_to": "21020__0_020", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_022", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Who is they?\nWas this report approved by the whole Congress?\nWho is it a report of?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [326.352, 327.05, 329.503], "stop_times": [327.05, 329.503, 331.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 326.352}, "reply_to": "21020__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21020__0_023", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--It was a report of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and it was, I believe, introduced into both committees of Congress, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [331.874], "stop_times": [339.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 331.874}, "reply_to": "21020__0_022", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_024", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "And you want to attribute that to the whole Congress?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [339.609], "stop_times": [341.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 339.609}, "reply_to": "21020__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21020__0_025", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Well, Justice O'Connor's question about public entity, and whether a prison is a program, statutory construction, as this Court has held, is a holistic endeavor, and you look not only at individual sentences, but you also look at the whole purpose of the law, and the purpose of the ADA was to provide for the assimilation in free society of American citizens in employment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [341.96], "stop_times": [368.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 341.96}, "reply_to": "21020__0_024", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_026", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Well, what about the background of the Rehabilitation Act, which has been on the books since the seventies, and as I understand it, the ADA is modeled precisely on that, and there is some 20 years of Department of Justice regulations saying that prisons are covered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [368.529], "stop_times": [388.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 368.529}, "reply_to": "21020__0_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21020__0_027", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--In... that's correct, Your Honor.\nIn... the Rehab Act regulations which were promulgated by the Justice Department referred to prisons, and in 1990, when Congress enacted the ADA, and the States were to supposed to have been given a clear statement that the historic sovereign function of State prison management was about to be entered into by the Congress, the... what Congress was aware of at best was Rehabilitation Act regulations promulgated by the agency, nothing in the act, and there were... there was a Circuit Court decision and two district court decisions, and in the ADA, it refers back to parts of the Rehab Act regulations, part 39 and part 41.\nPart 41 doesn't say anything about prisons, and the respondent and the Federal Government argue that the States were to know that in part 42 there is mention about prisons.\nPart 39 talks about the Justice Department and Federal prisons very much into the fine print, and that's what's wrong with the ADA.\nThe ADA... the argument of the respondent in the Federal Government as to what the clear statement was in the ADA is to read the fine print.\nThe problem is that the fine print is in another set of regulations under a different law, and it does not appear in the four corners of the document, and it's our position that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [388.633, 391.675, 436.905, 449.785, 457.871, 465.655], "stop_times": [391.675, 436.905, 449.785, 457.871, 465.655, 477.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 388.633}, "reply_to": "21020__0_026", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_028", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "What does appear in the four corners of the document that enables you to exclude prisons?\nWhat language do you rely upon that excludes... it doesn't really exclude prisons entirely, just excludes those programs in prisons that relate to prisoners?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [477.173, 482.319], "stop_times": [482.319, 497.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 477.173}, "reply_to": "21020__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21020__0_029", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--You start with the findings, Your Honor, by Congress, in the findings section of the ADA, where they talk about the different areas where they have found problems with discrimination and the... they don't talk about the criminal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [497.469], "stop_times": [511.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 497.469}, "reply_to": "21020__0_028", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_030", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "So any area that is not mentioned in the finding is not covered by the text of the act, even though the words otherwise would cover it.\nIs that the principle you want us to apply?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [511.858, 520.645], "stop_times": [520.645, 523.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 511.858}, "reply_to": "21020__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21020__0_031", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--Well, that's part of the principle I'd want you to apply.\nThe other part would to be... to look at the meanings of the words in the statute regarding a qualified individual who meets the essential eligibility requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [523.157, 525.079], "stop_times": [525.079, 533.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 523.157}, "reply_to": "21020__0_030", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_032", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "May I go back to the findings for a minute?\nWhat is it in the findings that excludes prisons?\nIt starts out, some 43 million Americans have one or more physical or mental disability.\nAre you saying that's 43 million not counting prisoners?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [533.807, 535.167, 537.738, 542.062], "stop_times": [535.167, 537.738, 542.062, 545.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 533.807}, "reply_to": "21020__0_031", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21020__0_033", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Yes, I am, Your Honor, because if you look below that they talk about discrimination in such areas as employment, housing, public accommodations, education, transportation, communication, and recreation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [545.335], "stop_times": [558.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 545.335}, "reply_to": "21020__0_032", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_034", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Such areas as.\nInstitutionalization is also in there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [558.531, 560.053], "stop_times": [560.053, 561.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 558.531}, "reply_to": "21020__0_033", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21020__0_035", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Institutionalization is there, but again--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [561.553], "stop_times": [565.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 561.553}, "reply_to": "21020__0_034", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_036", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "And this is an institution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [565.697], "stop_times": [566.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 565.697}, "reply_to": "21020__0_035", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21020__0_037", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--It's a correctional institution, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [566.638], "stop_times": [568.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 566.638}, "reply_to": "21020__0_036", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_038", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [568.799], "stop_times": [569.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 568.799}, "reply_to": "21020__0_037", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21020__0_039", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--we believe that the meaning of institutionalization, which again these areas were lifted, that that sentence in 12101(a)(3) is almost verbatim language from the U.S. Commission Report, where institutionalization is not discussed in the criminal justice context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [569.059], "stop_times": [585.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 569.059}, "reply_to": "21020__0_038", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_040", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Well, but just staying within the four corners of the document is what we started to do.\nI would have thought institutionalization includes being institutionalized in a prison or a mental institution or whatever kind of institution, just without knowing the background of your argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [585.439, 588.612], "stop_times": [588.612, 598.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 585.439}, "reply_to": "21020__0_039", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21020__0_041", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "I understand, Your Honor, but again, if you look at the language in the ADA which talks about qualified individuals who meet essential eligibility requirements... and it's in the context of title II, which is about public services, and I don't think that you can reasonably conclude that meeting the eligibility requirements to receive food stamps, or to get into a library or a museum, is the same as meeting the eligibility requirements to get into prison.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [598.64], "stop_times": [627.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 598.64}, "reply_to": "21020__0_040", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_042", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "It isn't a matter of getting into prison, but once you're in prison, the eligibility requirements to use the prison exercise facilities, right?\nI guess not everybody's allowed to use them.\nI suppose the guards can't use them.\nAren't there eligibility requirements for various activities in the prison?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [627.227, 635.693, 638.047, 640.717], "stop_times": [635.693, 638.047, 640.717, 646.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 627.227}, "reply_to": "21020__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21020__0_043", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "There are eligibility requirements within a prison, but the difference is that public services are provided to the public for their benefit, and not all of the programs and activities and services of a prison are primarily for the benefit of the prisoner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [646.191], "stop_times": [661.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 646.191}, "reply_to": "21020__0_042", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_044", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Okay, but you don't... the word public, I take it, you don't have a textual argument on that.\nThe word public is not defined anywhere so as to say it means free people rather than incarcerated people, so you... am I correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [661.771, 666.025], "stop_times": [666.025, 673.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 661.771}, "reply_to": "21020__0_043", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21020__0_045", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "That's correct that that's our position, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [673.909], "stop_times": [676.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 673.909}, "reply_to": "21020__0_044", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_046", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Well then, public apparently means, I assume from the act, any person in relation to the Government.\nWouldn't that be the normal significance of the term?\nIf Government is being bound, public is that which is not Government, so public I presume would include prisoners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [676.413, 685.468, 689.389], "stop_times": [685.468, 689.389, 696.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 676.413}, "reply_to": "21020__0_045", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21020__0_047", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Well, the public in the context of the ADA, which talks about assimilation of people immediately into free society, is very different from what happens with prisoners, where we take them out of society.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [696.014], "stop_times": [709.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 696.014}, "reply_to": "21020__0_046", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_048", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "It is very different, but is it defined in the ADA anywhere?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [709.374], "stop_times": [713.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 709.374}, "reply_to": "21020__0_047", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21020__0_049", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "The word public is not defined anywhere, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [713.598], "stop_times": [716.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 713.598}, "reply_to": "21020__0_048", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_050", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "You said not all prison programs are for the benefit of the prisoner, but the very one we have before us surely is, this boot camp that allows a prisoner to save many, many months of incarceration, isn't that right?\nWouldn't you call that for the benefit of the prisoner?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [716.41, 731.999], "stop_times": [731.999, 735.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 716.41}, "reply_to": "21020__0_049", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21020__0_051", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Certainly there's a incidental benefit for the prisoner, but if you look at the Boot Camp Act, the General Assembly in Pennsylvania was seeking to deal with the problem of overcrowding in prison, and to deal with the problems of riots in prison, and that was the purpose of the statute.\nIt was not to give inmates an early way out of prison.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [735.613, 752.834], "stop_times": [752.834, 757.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 735.613}, "reply_to": "21020__0_050", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_052", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "What about mental, State mental institutions?\nAre they public institutions?\nAre the residents of mental institutions members of the public?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [757.446, 761.49, 763.323], "stop_times": [761.49, 763.323, 766.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 757.446}, "reply_to": "21020__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21020__0_053", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Yes, they are, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [766.496], "stop_times": [767.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 766.496}, "reply_to": "21020__0_052", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_054", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Why is that different from prisons?\nI don't understand that.\nI mean, they're certainly separated from the public just as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [767.617, 769.858, 770.989], "stop_times": [769.858, 770.989, 775.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 767.617}, "reply_to": "21020__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21020__0_055", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "But in mental institutions, Your Honor, they're there because they need help, because they can't make decisions for themselves, and in many cases the court makes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [775.223], "stop_times": [783.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 775.223}, "reply_to": "21020__0_054", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_056", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Well, that's all very true, but how does that bear upon the word public?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [783.107], "stop_times": [786.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 783.107}, "reply_to": "21020__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21020__0_057", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--Because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [786.209], "stop_times": [787.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 786.209}, "reply_to": "21020__0_056", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_058", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "I don't see any element of voluntary, or you know, having committed criminal acts in... there's just nothing in the word public that makes that distinction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [787.489], "stop_times": [796.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 787.489}, "reply_to": "21020__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21020__0_059", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--I think that a couple of differences.\nOne, that public does not imply someone who, when they go through a prison gate, gives up or has curtailed many of their rights, unlike somebody who is in a mental institution who is there at times against their will because they can't... they don't have the capacity to make a decision for themselves.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [796.305, 798.986], "stop_times": [798.986, 817.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 796.305}, "reply_to": "21020__0_058", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_060", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Well, but they've given... they're certainly deprived of rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [817.009], "stop_times": [820.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 817.009}, "reply_to": "21020__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21020__0_061", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "They are, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [820.982], "stop_times": [821.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 820.982}, "reply_to": "21020__0_060", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_062", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "The basic right to walk out of the institution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [821.823], "stop_times": [823.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 821.823}, "reply_to": "21020__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21020__0_063", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--They are, but they're there for their own help.\nThey're there for their benefit, and a prisoner is not in prison for his or her benefit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [823.955, 829.217], "stop_times": [829.217, 833.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 823.955}, "reply_to": "21020__0_062", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_064", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "That's all very true, but how do you read that into the word public?\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [833.862, 836.483], "stop_times": [836.483, 837.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 833.862}, "reply_to": "21020__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21020__0_065", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [837.054], "stop_times": [838.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 837.054}, "reply_to": "21020__0_064", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_066", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--You have to give me a text to... as the doorway to what you want to achieve.\nI don't see a single word in the act that has any of these notions.\nThey may make a lot of sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [838.216, 844.907, 848.71], "stop_times": [844.907, 848.71, 850.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 838.216}, "reply_to": "21020__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21020__0_067", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--Again, looking at what the goals of Congress were in implementing the ADA and what they talked about, the different areas that there, had problems with, knowing that for 25 years and more this Court has consistently talked about the problems unique to prison management and have not applied the same constitutional analysis to prisoners, so I believe that when you look at the way prisoners are treated in the eyes of the Constitution, if you look at the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [850.092], "stop_times": [883.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 850.092}, "reply_to": "21020__0_066", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_068", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Well, let me ask you this.\nDo you think that this Court would sanction a prison policy that said black prisoners can't eat in the dining hall with white prisoners because they don't have any constitutional rights?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [883.632, 884.844], "stop_times": [884.844, 896.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 883.632}, "reply_to": "21020__0_067", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21020__0_069", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--I don't think this Court would sanction it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [896.461], "stop_times": [898.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 896.461}, "reply_to": "21020__0_068", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_070", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "I don't think so, either, and if Congress were enacting legislation based on its perception that handicapped people suffer from discriminatory attitudes and practices, then Congress might think that that should be stopped, just like the thing I just asked you about.\nI think that's possible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [898.384, 919.386], "stop_times": [919.386, 920.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 898.384}, "reply_to": "21020__0_069", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21020__0_071", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "It's possible, Your Honor, but again, what Congress has done in... if they have tried to apply the ADA to State prisons, what they've done is applied a different standard now to how prison management have to deal with the disabled, and in your example of blacks in the cafeteria, this Court has held that the normal strict scrutiny analysis doesn't apply in the prison context when fundamental rights or a suspect class are involved.\nYou look at whether it's reasonably related to a legitimate penalogical interest, and with the disabled, this Court has held that they're not a suspect class, and that with prisoners, even in the most strictest of scrutiny situations, you wouldn't normally apply that, so now we have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [920.287, 949.296], "stop_times": [949.296, 967.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 920.287}, "reply_to": "21020__0_070", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_072", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "You wouldn't normally apply what?\nWe don't have an as-applied challenge here in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [967.198, 968.6], "stop_times": [968.6, 972.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 967.198}, "reply_to": "21020__0_071", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21020__0_073", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [972.842], "stop_times": [973.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 972.842}, "reply_to": "21020__0_072", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_074", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--the context that you are concerned about, I think, and as I suggested before it's quite possible that concerns for prison security would be relevant in deciding what specific action a prison has to take with regard to a specific handicapped prisoner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [973.213], "stop_times": [993.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 973.213}, "reply_to": "21020__0_073", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21020__0_075", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Again, Your Honor, the problem is that applying the ADA in title II to State prisoners will shift the burden.\nCurrently, the actions or policies of a Department of Corrections are presumed to be valid.\nUnder the ADA, the standard will be that prison administrators with... only with regard to the disabled will have to show that there weren't any other means by which they could have accommodated this person, that any other... this was the only way--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [993.669, 1001.732, 1007.916], "stop_times": [1001.732, 1007.916, 1023.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 993.669}, "reply_to": "21020__0_074", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_076", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "What sort of things practically, Mr. Tufano, do you envision happening if the Third Circuit opinion is upheld, or what sort of things are the prison administrators going to be confronted with?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1023.535], "stop_times": [1035.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1023.535}, "reply_to": "21020__0_075", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21020__0_077", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--Well, one of the things, and we cite it in our brief, Your Honor, is in the Purcell case, where an inmate was told that he had a doctor's appointment, and he refused to go to the doctor's appointment because he wanted to go into a cell and release his tics because he had Tourette's Syndrome.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1035.163], "stop_times": [1050.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1035.163}, "reply_to": "21020__0_076", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_078", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Release his what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1050.954], "stop_times": [1052.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1050.954}, "reply_to": "21020__0_077", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21020__0_079", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "His tics, his... the emotional outbursts which are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1052.496], "stop_times": [1056.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1052.496}, "reply_to": "21020__0_078", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_080", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Oh, t-i-c-s.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1056.579], "stop_times": [1058.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1056.579}, "reply_to": "21020__0_079", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21020__0_081", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1058.382], "stop_times": [1058.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1058.382}, "reply_to": "21020__0_080", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_082", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Okay.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1058.6, 1059.231], "stop_times": [1059.231, 1060.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1058.6}, "reply_to": "21020__0_081", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21020__0_083", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "A different kind of tics.\nHe told the guard that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1060.803, 1062.225], "stop_times": [1062.225, 1065.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1060.803}, "reply_to": "21020__0_082", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_084", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "I still don't understand the expression, to release the tics, but--\n[Laughter]\n--if it satisfies the Chief Justice--\nGo ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1065.187, 1071.355, 1069.041, 1074.526], "stop_times": [1071.355, 1069.041, 1074.526, 1075.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1065.187}, "reply_to": "21020__0_083", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21020__0_085", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--But in that case... in that case, a simple situation where an inmate is telling a corrections guard, I don't have to go to my medical appointment, and he was given the opportunity to sign a release if he didn't go to the appointment.\nHe didn't want to do either because, I have Tourette's Syndrome and I'm allowed to go into my cell and release my tics at my leisure.\nNow we're facing in that case the possibility of punitive damages for the guards telling the inmate either go to your doctor's appointment... he wasn't sending him to the rock pile.\nHe was sending him to his medical appointment... or sign this release that you refuse to go to your medical appointment, and he said no, I don't have to do that, and we were not able to get the court in that case to agree with us that that did not state a claim under the Americans With Disabilities Act.\nAnd the problem is, in a prison environment, where you have murderers, rapists, the worst people in society, if the disabled are going to be able to put a guard on his defensive, that he's now got to think unlike he has to think with regard to any other type of inmate, but just with the disabled, that he has to start thinking almost from a litigation avoidance perspective about whether if he's going to be sued under the ADA, the institution's going to get dragged into court, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1075.306, 1090.008, 1097.221, 1107.807, 1122.728], "stop_times": [1090.008, 1097.221, 1107.807, 1122.728, 1150.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1075.306}, "reply_to": "21020__0_084", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_086", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Why is it different than under title VI, with race discrimination?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1150.246], "stop_times": [1156.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1150.246}, "reply_to": "21020__0_085", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21020__0_087", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--I'm sorry, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1156.511], "stop_times": [1158.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1156.511}, "reply_to": "21020__0_086", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_088", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Why is it any different... Congress has said, here's a class, and thou shalt not discriminate, but we recognize the need for reasonable regulations.\nCongress says, thou shalt not discriminate in prisons, you've conceded, even though they didn't use the word prisons, on the basis of race, and apparently the prison authorities are able to cope with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1158.964, 1167.72], "stop_times": [1167.72, 1181.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1158.964}, "reply_to": "21020__0_087", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21020__0_089", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "The difference is, Your Honor, it's one thing to say, thou shalt not discriminate on the basis of race, it's another thing, in the Americans With Disabilities Act, to say you shall not discriminate on the basis of disability in a program activity or service and you shall affirmatively make accommodations for this person, and you shall only pick your course of action if you can show that there wasn't anything else available according to what the inmate wanted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1181.307], "stop_times": [1208.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1181.307}, "reply_to": "21020__0_088", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_090", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Well now, Mr. Tufano, the Federal regulations dealing with the application of this act say things such as the following:\nA public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures where necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, and unless the entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program or activity.\nNow, that seems on its face to leave room for prisons to say, it's not a reasonable modification that's being sought, and it would alter the program or activity that's necessary in the prison context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1208.847, 1219.231, 1241.789], "stop_times": [1219.231, 1241.789, 1262.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1208.847}, "reply_to": "21020__0_089", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21020__0_091", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "It might at first glance, Your Honor, but a couple of points.\nOne is that that is a standard which prison officials do not have to apply with regard to any other inmate, including inmates that would be in a suspect class.\nThe other is that if you look at the regulations it talks about the head of the agency or his or her designee having to put in writing the fact that there were no other ways of doing this without fundamentally altering the program.\nAnd recently some corrections officials asked the Justice Department to exempt certain types of programs, including boot camps, because clearly, to be in a boot camp, given the physical regimen there would be... they talked about boot camps, and I believe they talked about firing ranges.\nAnd the Justice Department's response was to deny the request for exemption and said, only physical and structural issues will be a reason for an exemption for that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1262.121, 1265.784, 1275.891, 1289.151, 1307.191], "stop_times": [1265.784, 1275.891, 1289.151, 1307.191, 1317.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1262.121}, "reply_to": "21020__0_090", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_092", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Mr. Tufano, what responsibility does the Justice Department have for the administration of this law?\nDoes it have any responsibility, other than issuing regulations interpreting the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1317.109, 1323.363], "stop_times": [1323.363, 1328.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1317.109}, "reply_to": "21020__0_091", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21020__0_093", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--I believe that they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1328.999], "stop_times": [1329.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1328.999}, "reply_to": "21020__0_092", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_094", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Does it do anything else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1329.79], "stop_times": [1330.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1329.79}, "reply_to": "21020__0_093", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21020__0_095", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--I believe that they have responsibility in the compliance section, Your Honor, with regard to complaints under the ADA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1330.651], "stop_times": [1339.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1330.651}, "reply_to": "21020__0_094", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_096", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "What is that?\nComplaints are made to them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1339.006, 1340.759], "stop_times": [1340.759, 1342.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1339.006}, "reply_to": "21020__0_095", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21020__0_097", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "They could be made to them, if not brought into court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1342.79], "stop_times": [1346.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1342.79}, "reply_to": "21020__0_096", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_098", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "And what do they do when complaints are made to them?\nThey bring suit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1346.353, 1347.652], "stop_times": [1347.652, 1348.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1346.353}, "reply_to": "21020__0_097", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21020__0_099", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "They can, is my understanding, but again--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1348.454], "stop_times": [1352.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1348.454}, "reply_to": "21020__0_098", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_100", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "I mean, that's the same with any criminal law, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1352.216], "stop_times": [1355.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1352.216}, "reply_to": "21020__0_099", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21020__0_101", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--Well, it's not the same with any criminal law, and that's part of our concern about the ADA, Your Honor, is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1355.217], "stop_times": [1361.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1355.217}, "reply_to": "21020__0_100", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_102", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "We usually don't let the Justice Department say what our criminal laws mean by issuing regulations interpreting those criminal laws.\nSo why... why is that?\nWhat's your problem, and I'm not saying you don't have one, because I hear this kind of problem quite a lot.\nWhat Justice O'Connor said, I thought was the case.\nThe law requires reasonable accommodation, and so you produce examples where it seems they're requiring unreasonable accommodation, so why don't you say to the court or whoever, reasonable is what it requires, what we're doing is reasonable, and if you're right, you can do it, and if you're wrong, you shouldn't do it?\nI'm not saying it's that simple, but I want to know what the problem is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1361.702, 1370.008, 1372.839, 1378.505, 1380.736, 1401.579], "stop_times": [1370.008, 1372.839, 1378.505, 1380.736, 1401.579, 1405.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1361.702}, "reply_to": "21020__0_101", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21020__0_103", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--The problem is, Your Honor, in attempting to do that under either the section 5 enforcement powers of the Fourteenth Amendment or under the Commerce Clause, there's no basis to do that to lift the standard above which this Court has held.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1405.5], "stop_times": [1420.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1405.5}, "reply_to": "21020__0_102", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_104", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "But now you're getting--\n--I'm not... that isn't my question.\nMy question is, is there any practical problem in applying it to prisons that wouldn't exist in any other institution in society?\nOf course people can disagree about what's reasonable, but ultimately, if you're reasonable you should be permitted to do it and if you're not reasonable you shouldn't be.\nIs there some kind of special problem?\nWhat is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1420.202, 1422.293, 1422.784, 1430.43, 1440.515, 1442.388], "stop_times": [1422.293, 1422.784, 1430.43, 1440.515, 1442.388, 1443.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1420.202}, "reply_to": "21020__0_103", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21020__0_105", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Well, the special problem is the unique situation of prisons.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1443.069, 1448.012], "stop_times": [1448.012, 1448.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1443.069}, "reply_to": "21020__0_104", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_106", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "They should be able to be unreasonable but nobody else should?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1448.693], "stop_times": [1451.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1448.693}, "reply_to": "21020__0_105", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21020__0_107", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--They should be able to, as they have with issues of people's First Amendment Rights, whether it's the free exercise of religion or freedom of speech, they should be able to at least be able to treat the disabled under... at a minimum under the same standard or the way they've had to treat other classes of inmates who, like the disabled, are not in a suspect class, and the fact that they're now going to have to treat prisoners who are disabled different--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1451.063], "stop_times": [1476.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1451.063}, "reply_to": "21020__0_106", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_108", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "They'll have to treat them reasonably, in light of their disability.\nAre you arguing that they should be able to treat them unreasonably?\nI mean, I'm getting to the same point over and over, but I'm trying to find out what is your real problem here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1476.859, 1480.642, 1483.686], "stop_times": [1480.642, 1483.686, 1489.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1476.859}, "reply_to": "21020__0_107", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21020__0_109", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--The real problem is having the Federal Government involved in State prison management.\nThat's the basic problem, having to have... for the first time treating disabled inmates different from everyone else, knowing, as this Court has held, that preferential treatment for inmates poses security problems in a prison.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1489.461, 1494.886], "stop_times": [1494.886, 1508.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1489.461}, "reply_to": "21020__0_108", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_110", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Why didn't anyone make this argument to Congress?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1508.916], "stop_times": [1511.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1508.916}, "reply_to": "21020__0_109", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21020__0_111", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Well, because I believe that... Congress I don't believe made a clear statement in the ADA.\nIn over 70 hearings and public forums in 50 States we have not been able to find one instance where a State correctional officer or official testified, or provided any written testimony or comments.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1511.225, 1517.891], "stop_times": [1517.891, 1531.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1511.225}, "reply_to": "21020__0_110", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_112", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "But since the position has been taken by some courts, by the Department of Justice, that first under the Rehabilitation Act, now under the Disabilities Act, prisons are covered, have any States, Pennsylvania or any others, said to Congress please amend this statute?\nWhatever you meant, please amend it so that we don't have this litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1531.389, 1549.231], "stop_times": [1549.231, 1554.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1531.389}, "reply_to": "21020__0_111", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21020__0_113", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "I'm not aware, Your Honor, of anyone after the fact doing that, but again, to rely on the ADA regulations, and to allow this fine print in other regulations under another law become the clear statement, goes from where the States are supposed to have notice and opportunity to be heard by Congress before the law is enacted as opposed to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1554.385], "stop_times": [1577.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1554.385}, "reply_to": "21020__0_112", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_114", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Are you making the argument that even though Congress says all and any, prisons are out, unless Congress specifically mentions prisons, even though all or any will cover any other kind of institution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1577.621], "stop_times": [1589.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1577.621}, "reply_to": "21020__0_113", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21020__0_115", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--I do believe that when it comes to prison management, which is a fundamental aspect of our sovereignty, that Congress could have spoken a lot more clearly.\nThey could have put the word prisons or correctional facilities in their findings of areas where discrimination persists.\nThey might have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1589.489, 1597.595, 1603.489], "stop_times": [1597.595, 1603.489, 1604.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1589.489}, "reply_to": "21020__0_114", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_116", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "But they didn't put in anything... they used all, as Justice O'Connor said.\nThey used any.\nThey used sweepingly encompassing, inclusive language, and you're saying they have to single out prisons, I take it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1604.258, 1608.211, 1609.032], "stop_times": [1608.211, 1609.032, 1617.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1604.258}, "reply_to": "21020__0_115", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21020__0_117", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1617.988], "stop_times": [1618.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1617.988}, "reply_to": "21020__0_116", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_118", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--as apart from all other institutions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1618.569], "stop_times": [1621.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1618.569}, "reply_to": "21020__0_117", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21020__0_119", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nI'd like to reserve the rest of my time, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1621.561, 1621.982], "stop_times": [1621.982, 1624.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1621.561}, "reply_to": "21020__0_118", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__0_120", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Very well, Mr. Tufano.\nMr. Specter, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1624.433, 1625.963], "stop_times": [1625.963, 1628.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1624.433}, "reply_to": "21020__0_119", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21020__1_000", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nWhether the ADA applies to State prisoners is not a close question.\nThe words of the ADA are clear.\nThe words are plain, and they cover State prisoners.\nThe ADA was enacted for one overriding purpose, and that purpose was to eliminate discrimination in a clear and comprehensive manner wherever it occurs in our society, and that includes prisons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1628.306, 1640.524, 1645.297, 1648.469, 1652.79], "stop_times": [1640.524, 1645.297, 1648.469, 1652.79, 1666.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1628.306}, "reply_to": "21020__0_120", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_001", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "May I ask you, Mr. Specter, one question just to straighten me out.\nDoes the statute apply to Federal prisons?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1666.081, 1669.222], "stop_times": [1669.222, 1671.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1666.081}, "reply_to": "21020__1_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21020__1_002", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Yes.\nIt applies under section 504 to the Federal prisons, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1671.763, 1672.364], "stop_times": [1672.364, 1676.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1671.763}, "reply_to": "21020__1_001", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_003", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Under 504?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1676.476], "stop_times": [1677.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1676.476}, "reply_to": "21020__1_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21020__1_004", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1677.767], "stop_times": [1678.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1677.767}, "reply_to": "21020__1_003", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_005", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Does the Rehab Act apply to Federal prisons?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1678.178], "stop_times": [1682.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1678.178}, "reply_to": "21020__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21020__1_006", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Yes, it does, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1682.67], "stop_times": [1683.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1682.67}, "reply_to": "21020__1_005", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_007", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Yes, and it's basically the same provision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1683.331], "stop_times": [1687.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1683.331}, "reply_to": "21020__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21020__1_008", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1687.054], "stop_times": [1687.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1687.054}, "reply_to": "21020__1_007", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_009", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "What is section 504?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1687.775], "stop_times": [1689.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1687.775}, "reply_to": "21020__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21020__1_010", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "That's the Rehabilitation Act, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1689.064], "stop_times": [1691.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1689.064}, "reply_to": "21020__1_009", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_011", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Oh, the Rehabilitation Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1691.687], "stop_times": [1692.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1691.687}, "reply_to": "21020__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21020__1_012", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1692.588], "stop_times": [1693.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1692.588}, "reply_to": "21020__1_011", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_013", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "The Rehabilitation Act covers Federal facilities and... which came first, the Rehabilitation Act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1693.867], "stop_times": [1699.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1693.867}, "reply_to": "21020__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21020__1_014", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "The Rehabilitation Act came in 1973, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1699.831], "stop_times": [1702.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1699.831}, "reply_to": "21020__1_013", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_015", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Which covers only federally funded programs in the Federal Government, and then the ADA essentially extended the same thing more generally to all State and public institutions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1702.074], "stop_times": [1713.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1702.074}, "reply_to": "21020__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21020__1_016", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "I couldn't have said it any more clearly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1713.331], "stop_times": [1715.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1713.331}, "reply_to": "21020__1_015", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_017", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "What's been the history of litigation from prisoners in the Federal system under the Rehab Act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1715.414], "stop_times": [1722.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1715.414}, "reply_to": "21020__1_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21020__1_018", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "To my knowledge, Your Honor, there haven't been very many reported cases of Federal prisoners suing under the Rehabilitation Act.\nI know the Federal Government and the Bureau of Prisons has policies which prohibit discrimination based on disability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1722.307, 1732.415], "stop_times": [1732.415, 1740.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1722.307}, "reply_to": "21020__1_017", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_019", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Is the Federal Government liable for punitive damages in the event of default?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1740.6], "stop_times": [1744.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1740.6}, "reply_to": "21020__1_018", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21020__1_020", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "I don't think it is, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1744.432], "stop_times": [1746.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1744.432}, "reply_to": "21020__1_019", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_021", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "So that's the big difference.\nThere'll be a big damages component under the ADA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1746.282, 1747.694], "stop_times": [1747.694, 1751.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1746.282}, "reply_to": "21020__1_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21020__1_022", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "I don't know if big is the right word, Your Honor, but there will--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1751.437], "stop_times": [1754.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1751.437}, "reply_to": "21020__1_021", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_023", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Well, punitive--\n--Maybe huge.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1754.451, 1754.85, 1756.172], "stop_times": [1754.85, 1756.172, 1758.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1754.451}, "reply_to": "21020__1_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21020__1_024", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--It depends on your perspective.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1758.612], "stop_times": [1760.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1758.612}, "reply_to": "21020__1_023", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_025", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "And attorney's fees recoverable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1760.074], "stop_times": [1762.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1760.074}, "reply_to": "21020__1_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21020__1_026", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Yes, they are, Your Honor, just as they're recoverable--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1762.246], "stop_times": [1764.577], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1762.246}, "reply_to": "21020__1_025", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_027", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Under ADA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1764.577], "stop_times": [1765.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1764.577}, "reply_to": "21020__1_026", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21020__1_028", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--Yes, but I would like to mention, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1765.027], "stop_times": [1767.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1765.027}, "reply_to": "21020__1_027", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_029", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Now, is there a federal enforcement arm under the Justice Department or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1767.409], "stop_times": [1773.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1767.409}, "reply_to": "21020__1_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21020__1_030", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--The Justice Department has the authority to enforce the ADA.\nThey have authority to investigate, to seek alternative dispute resolution of the issues, and to bring lawsuits, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1773.452, 1778.605], "stop_times": [1778.605, 1787.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1773.452}, "reply_to": "21020__1_029", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_031", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Is that by statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1787.871], "stop_times": [1789.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1787.871}, "reply_to": "21020__1_030", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21020__1_032", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "That's by statute, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1789.263], "stop_times": [1790.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1789.263}, "reply_to": "21020__1_031", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_033", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "By provisions of the ADA?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1790.543], "stop_times": [1793.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1790.543}, "reply_to": "21020__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21020__1_034", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, and I would like to mention in response to Justice O'Connor's question about the potential for litigation under this act, the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, many of the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act which would drastically limit the abilities of prisoners to sue State officials, applies to many of the provisions of the act, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1793.107], "stop_times": [1818.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1793.107}, "reply_to": "21020__1_033", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_035", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Well, how do you think that they drastically limit it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1818.452], "stop_times": [1821.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1818.452}, "reply_to": "21020__1_034", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21020__1_036", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "They impose filing fees, they have certain--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1821.043], "stop_times": [1824.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1821.043}, "reply_to": "21020__1_035", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_037", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Well, but if some lawyer thought there was the potential for attorney's fees and punitive damages in a case, I assume the attorney would pay filing fees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1824.546], "stop_times": [1835.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1824.546}, "reply_to": "21020__1_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21020__1_038", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--That is true, Your Honor, but I can tell you from 20 years of experience in prison litigation that there are very few lawyers out there who are willing to take these cases, so... but your theoretical concern is a real one, but practically, there aren't that many prison lawyers out in the real world.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1835.004], "stop_times": [1854.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1835.004}, "reply_to": "21020__1_037", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_039", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Supposing, Mr. Specter, that a criminal defendant in Pennsylvania has just been convicted and he's going to be in prison for a long period of time, and the judge sentences him to a regular prison, can he make an argument that, you know, I've got a heart condition and therefore I should go to a special... to a more lenient prison for that reason?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1854.725], "stop_times": [1881.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1854.725}, "reply_to": "21020__1_038", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21020__1_040", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "I wouldn't call it more lenient, Your Honor.\nHe could go to a special prison.\nEven under the Eighth Amendment he would have that argument, that, as you say, if he's otherwise disabled, such as he's a person who uses a wheelchair--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1881.483, 1883.345, 1885.147], "stop_times": [1883.345, 1885.147, 1897.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1881.483}, "reply_to": "21020__1_039", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_041", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "I'm not talking about somebody who uses a wheelchair.\nSupposing he says, you know, I had a heart attack 6 years ago, I just should get special consideration, and the regime in the prison you're going to send me to is just too rigorous.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1897.335, 1901.089], "stop_times": [1901.089, 1912.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1897.335}, "reply_to": "21020__1_040", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21020__1_042", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--If his heart condition would substantially limit his... any major life activity, then that would be an issue at the prison he was being sent to.\nThen he could make that argument.\nIn the real world, with all due respect, Your Honor, that type of scenario is not likely to occur very often.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1912.215, 1927.015, 1928.666], "stop_times": [1927.015, 1928.666, 1936.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1912.215}, "reply_to": "21020__1_041", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_043", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1936.191], "stop_times": [1937.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1936.191}, "reply_to": "21020__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21020__1_044", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Because most prison systems have medical facilities for people who have medical conditions.\nThey go to those situations, and in the real world... in prisons, there aren't... if you have a heart condition and you can't do strenuous exercise, for example, you're usually classified for what's called light duty, in which you'd be given a job sitting at a desk, or some such--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1937.042, 1943.725], "stop_times": [1943.725, 1961.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1937.042}, "reply_to": "21020__1_043", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_045", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Without benefit of the ADA?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1961.748], "stop_times": [1963.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1961.748}, "reply_to": "21020__1_044", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21020__1_046", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--Even without the benefit of the ADA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1963.21], "stop_times": [1964.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1963.21}, "reply_to": "21020__1_045", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_047", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "The ADA only requires reasonable accommodation, isn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1964.539], "stop_times": [1968.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1964.539}, "reply_to": "21020__1_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21020__1_048", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1968.382], "stop_times": [1969.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1968.382}, "reply_to": "21020__1_047", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_049", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "And what would constitute reasonable accommodation in a prison is not necessarily the same thing that would constitute reasonable accommodation in some other public facility, isn't that so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1969.033], "stop_times": [1982.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1969.033}, "reply_to": "21020__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21020__1_050", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "I agree with that completely, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1982.391], "stop_times": [1983.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1982.391}, "reply_to": "21020__1_049", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_051", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "And in this case we didn't get into any of that.\nHe made a claim, but there's nothing exploring whether he has any right to be in this boot camp, is that so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1983.953, 1989.065], "stop_times": [1989.065, 1999.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1983.953}, "reply_to": "21020__1_050", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21020__1_052", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Yes, Justice Ginsburg, that's exactly correct.\nThat would be decided upon remand to the district court if the court affirms the Third Circuit's opinion.\nPetitioners do not dispute in this case that... at least in their brief that the Department of Correct--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [1999.814, 2001.637, 2009.692], "stop_times": [2001.637, 2009.692, 2018.137], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1999.814}, "reply_to": "21020__1_051", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_053", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Now, what if the medical condition is such that the prison says, if you participate in the boot camp program--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2018.137], "stop_times": [2026.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2018.137}, "reply_to": "21020__1_052", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21020__1_054", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2026.583], "stop_times": [2026.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2026.583}, "reply_to": "21020__1_053", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_055", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--it will be a severe hazard to your health?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2026.682], "stop_times": [2030.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2026.682}, "reply_to": "21020__1_054", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21020__1_056", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "If the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2030.495], "stop_times": [2031.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2030.495}, "reply_to": "21020__1_055", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_057", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "And it's a serious risk to you to engage in this program in any meaningful way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2031.246], "stop_times": [2037.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2031.246}, "reply_to": "21020__1_056", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21020__1_058", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--If they can prove that, Your Honor, and they can prove that the person's participation in the program in that way is an essential requirement of the program, then they have no liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2037.36], "stop_times": [2052.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2037.36}, "reply_to": "21020__1_057", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_059", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "And they're not a qualified individual, I assume--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2052.36], "stop_times": [2054.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2052.36}, "reply_to": "21020__1_058", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21020__1_060", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2054.764], "stop_times": [2055.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2054.764}, "reply_to": "21020__1_059", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_061", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--under the statute.\nThey just don't qualify.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2055.132, 2055.732], "stop_times": [2055.732, 2057.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2055.132}, "reply_to": "21020__1_060", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21020__1_062", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "That's exactly right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2057.175], "stop_times": [2058.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2057.175}, "reply_to": "21020__1_061", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_063", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "And you share, I take it, my concern that the requirements of the statute should be interpreted in light of the prison need for security.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2058.955], "stop_times": [2072.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2058.955}, "reply_to": "21020__1_062", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21020__1_064", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "I do, Your Honor.\nI... we have said in our brief and we endorse the lower court decisions that have made that statement, that prison is different.\nThe ADA was developed to be a very flexible statute.\nIt was developed and enacted to cover a very wide range of programs, and it has to be applied when considering the particular factual circumstance of that program, and we do not deny that prisons are different than many other programs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2072.164, 2073.223, 2083.491, 2087.795], "stop_times": [2073.223, 2083.491, 2087.795, 2102.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2072.164}, "reply_to": "21020__1_063", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_065", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Suppose the prison official said, this person can really participate in only about half of our program.\nHe can do a half a day of the strenuous running, getting up early, marching, and calisthenics and so forth.\nHe can do this for half a day but not a full day, and we think that the program really operates best with a full day.\nAnd it's just a matter of money, and they could have a program so that... say, if three or four prisoners could do the half-day program, it might work, it might not work.\nWe're not sure how well boot camp programs work.\nThat's about the evidence.\nWhat would the district judge do with a case like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2102.905, 2111.323, 2117.648, 2124.914, 2136.311, 2138.454, 2140.004], "stop_times": [2111.323, 2117.648, 2124.914, 2136.311, 2138.454, 2140.004, 2142.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2102.905}, "reply_to": "21020__1_064", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21020__1_066", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Well, Your Honor, if you go to the appendix of, the last page of the appendix of our brief, you'll find the boot camp schedule, and you'll notice that the physical activity covers about 40 minutes of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2142.087], "stop_times": [2155.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2142.087}, "reply_to": "21020__1_065", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_067", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Well, use my hypothetical.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2155.985], "stop_times": [2157.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2155.985}, "reply_to": "21020__1_066", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21020__1_068", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2157.745], "stop_times": [2157.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2157.745}, "reply_to": "21020__1_067", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_069", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Use my hypothetical.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2157.955], "stop_times": [2158.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2157.955}, "reply_to": "21020__1_068", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21020__1_070", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nIn that circumstance the district judge may very well conclude that the physical activity is an essential part of the program and it would let the Department of Corrections off the hook if there was no other way that they could reasonably modify the program.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2158.526, 2159.307], "stop_times": [2159.307, 2178.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2158.526}, "reply_to": "21020__1_069", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_071", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Well, suppose they could have a twotrack program, for some people do it half-a-day, some people do it a full day, would they have to do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2178.391], "stop_times": [2184.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2178.391}, "reply_to": "21020__1_070", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21020__1_072", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "They don't have to operate a separate program, Your Honor, but they do have to make reasonable accommodations.\nFor example, for... well, they do have to make whatever accommodations that the district court finds reasonable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2184.502, 2189.697], "stop_times": [2189.697, 2199.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2184.502}, "reply_to": "21020__1_071", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_073", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "How does that work in the statute?\nThat is, one of the things that was worrying me is that in section 12131(2) it uses... you know, that's the one that says... defines qualified individual with a disability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2199.612, 2201.064], "stop_times": [2201.064, 2212.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2199.612}, "reply_to": "21020__1_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21020__1_074", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2212.802], "stop_times": [2213.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2212.802}, "reply_to": "21020__1_073", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_075", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Well, it uses the word reasonable in respect to modification to rules, policies, or practices, and then when you get to the provision of auxiliary aids and services the word reasonable doesn't easily fit there, but it wouldn't make sense not to have it fit, so how... and it similarly wouldn't make... I mean, I don't think the statute intends to make people do things that are not reasonable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2213.323], "stop_times": [2234.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2213.323}, "reply_to": "21020__1_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21020__1_076", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "It doesn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2234.496], "stop_times": [2235.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2234.496}, "reply_to": "21020__1_075", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_077", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "So how is that worked out in the interpretation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2235.035], "stop_times": [2237.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2235.035}, "reply_to": "21020__1_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21020__1_078", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Well, auxiliary aids and services is, the difference is because in auxiliary aids and services you cannot participate in a program without them.\nIf you're deaf and you don't have an assisted--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2237.649, 2249.317], "stop_times": [2249.317, 2252.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2237.649}, "reply_to": "21020__1_077", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_079", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Well, why isn't a... is auxiliary service like an extra boot camp?\nI mean, suppose somebody said--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2252.318, 2255.822], "stop_times": [2255.822, 2257.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2252.318}, "reply_to": "21020__1_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21020__1_080", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--No, no.\nAn auxiliary aid, or auxiliary service can mean an assisted listening device, for example.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2257.321, 2257.491], "stop_times": [2257.491, 2261.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2257.321}, "reply_to": "21020__1_079", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_081", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--Yes, but suppose the person argues, in my case what it requires is the following, because of the boot camp something costs $1 billion.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2261.784, 2268.698], "stop_times": [2268.698, 2269.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2261.784}, "reply_to": "21020__1_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21020__1_082", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2269.379], "stop_times": [2270.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2269.379}, "reply_to": "21020__1_081", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_083", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--Which would be totally unreasonable.\nI'm looking for something that's totally unreasonable and then asking you how does that work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2270.648, 2272.601], "stop_times": [2272.601, 2277.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2270.648}, "reply_to": "21020__1_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21020__1_084", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Oh, surely, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2277.075], "stop_times": [2277.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2277.075}, "reply_to": "21020__1_083", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_085", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "How does the word reasonable come into it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2277.917], "stop_times": [2280.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2277.917}, "reply_to": "21020__1_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21020__1_086", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Well, the regulations, which were specifically incorporated into the statute within the text of the act itself that were promulgated under section 504 and carried over to section (a) have an undue burden defense, so when the prison can say, this would be an undue financial or administrative burden, they have a defense to liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2280.428], "stop_times": [2302.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2280.428}, "reply_to": "21020__1_085", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_087", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "And is that true also of architectural barriers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2302.221], "stop_times": [2304.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2302.221}, "reply_to": "21020__1_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21020__1_088", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Architectural barriers in existing facilities, I believe it's true.\nIn new facilities, they have to build new facilities so that they're accessible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2304.384, 2311.016], "stop_times": [2311.016, 2317.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2304.384}, "reply_to": "21020__1_087", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_089", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Even if it costs $10 billion to build a one-room shack.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2317.121], "stop_times": [2320.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2317.121}, "reply_to": "21020__1_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21020__1_090", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Well, it doesn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2320.075], "stop_times": [2320.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2320.075}, "reply_to": "21020__1_089", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_091", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "But I mean, if it did.\n[Laughter]\nMy question is, is reasonableness there coming into it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2320.873, 2322.205, 2322.435], "stop_times": [2322.205, 2322.435, 2325.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2320.873}, "reply_to": "21020__1_090", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21020__1_092", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "I would think so, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2325.878], "stop_times": [2327.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2325.878}, "reply_to": "21020__1_091", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_093", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "But you're not sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2327.038], "stop_times": [2329.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2327.038}, "reply_to": "21020__1_092", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21020__1_094", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "But I can't point to any part of the regulation, because this is not a structural accessibility case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2329.401], "stop_times": [2334.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2329.401}, "reply_to": "21020__1_093", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_095", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Mr. Specter, the reasonable accommodation standard crops up in various places in the law, and one is in title VII in reasonable accommodation to religious practices.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2334.523], "stop_times": [2346.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2334.523}, "reply_to": "21020__1_094", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21020__1_096", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2346.23], "stop_times": [2346.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2346.23}, "reply_to": "21020__1_095", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_097", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Are there other examples that one would look to if we want to understand this concept of reasonableness and how it relates to expense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2346.811], "stop_times": [2357.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2346.811}, "reply_to": "21020__1_096", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21020__1_098", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Well, I think the clearest way to look to read what Congress meant about reasonableness in the ADA is to look at the great body of law that's developed under section 504, which has applied the reasonable... basically the same regulations that are... were incorporated into the ADA.\nAnd I think that's one of the ways that Congress was being flexible and sensitive to the needs of the State agencies, including Department of Corrections, by using a word with which district court judges and other courts are familiar and know how to apply in a sensible fashion, and I think that's an appropriate way to cover such a broad range of activities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2357.378, 2374.419], "stop_times": [2374.419, 2399.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2357.378}, "reply_to": "21020__1_097", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_099", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Mr. Tufano told us what he's concerned about is turning all these matters into Federal cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2399.305], "stop_times": [2408.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2399.305}, "reply_to": "21020__1_098", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21020__1_100", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nWell, I would hope that that would not be necessary, because many of the accommodations or reasonable modifications that would be made would be made as a matter of course by prison officials anyway.\nThat's the first thing.\nSecondly, I think many of them are very easy to make.\nPutting up some grab bars, for example, is very inexpensive.\nIt's very... a quick procedure, and it allows a person who doesn't have the use of his legs an easy access to the facilities, to toilet facilities or shower facilities or the like.\nMany of these things are not very difficult to accomplish.\nThe petitioners do not dispute that the Department of Corrections is a public entity, but they contend that it's ambiguous whether the boot camp is a service, program, or activity, and our contention is that the State... I wanted to clear up one thing Mr. Tufano said, is that... or, Justice Ginsburg, you hinted at, is the State boot camp statute which establishes the boot camp, establishes it and defines it, describes this as a program itself, so we believe that it's very clear that program, service, or activity basically covers anything that a State agency does.\nThe words program and activity were statutorily defined by the Rehabilitation Act to cover all of the operations of a prison, and those words were taken from the Rehabilitation Act and put into the ADA so Congress would ensure that they would have the same meaning.\nWe believe that the universal language of the statute, its foundation in the Rehabilitation Act, and the regulations which cover prisons, which were expressly incorporated into the act, make it plain that there is no statutory exception for prisoners, which is what the State is arguing for.\nWe do not believe, and we don't think it would be... we think it would be an impossible burden for the... for Congress to have to list every single entity which it wanted to cover.\nI don't think it could even... it would be very difficult.\nI think it would be an impossible burden for Congress to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2408.822, 2410.512, 2424.28, 2425.181, 2429.065, 2433.349, 2447.617, 2451.731, 2493.989, 2515.192, 2537.657, 2549.725, 2554.891], "stop_times": [2410.512, 2424.28, 2425.181, 2429.065, 2433.349, 2447.617, 2451.731, 2493.989, 2515.192, 2537.657, 2549.725, 2554.891, 2558.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2408.822}, "reply_to": "21020__1_099", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_101", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Mr. Specter--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2558.401], "stop_times": [2559.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2558.401}, "reply_to": "21020__1_100", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21020__1_102", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2559.202], "stop_times": [2559.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2559.202}, "reply_to": "21020__1_101", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_103", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--do you agree with Mr. Tufano that the State did not raise any constitutional argument in the lower courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2559.432], "stop_times": [2566.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2559.432}, "reply_to": "21020__1_102", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21020__1_104", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Emphatically, Your Honor.\nSince... we believe that the case is clear, that the language of the statute is clear, that this is a plain meaning case, that the Court, because this case arises from a motion to dismiss, that the Court must assume that Mr. Yeskey has been discriminated against on the basis of his disability, and he should not be denied relief because the disability discrimination that occurred, or is alleged to have occurred, occurred in a prison and while Mr. Yeskey was a prisoner.\nWe believe, for all the reasons that I've stated and those in our brief, that the judgment of the Third Circuit should be affirmed.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2566.699, 2569.19, 2609.595, 2615.779], "stop_times": [2569.19, 2609.595, 2615.779, 2616.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2566.699}, "reply_to": "21020__1_103", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_105", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Just one question.\nThe cases of ramps and some of the fixtures are fairly easy and straightforward cases, but we both know that in the employment context there's such a thing... reasonable accommodation includes reassignment.\nIt also includes redesigning of jobs.\nNow, would you see... seek in this case a redesigning of the boot camp to accommodate a... an individual who is disabled in some way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2616.45, 2619.321, 2634.673, 2638.033], "stop_times": [2619.321, 2634.673, 2638.033, 2649.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2616.45}, "reply_to": "21020__1_104", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "21020__1_106", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Well, that might even not be necessary in this case, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2649.273], "stop_times": [2653.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2649.273}, "reply_to": "21020__1_105", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_107", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Well, if it was necessary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2653.583], "stop_times": [2654.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2653.583}, "reply_to": "21020__1_106", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "21020__1_108", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "If it was necessary and they could make reasonable modifications--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2654.284], "stop_times": [2657.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2654.284}, "reply_to": "21020__1_107", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_109", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Sort of on the scale of light duty in the post office or something like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2657.746], "stop_times": [2661.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2657.746}, "reply_to": "21020__1_108", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "21020__1_110", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, with one major qualification, and that... two major qualifications, and that are... they are that it didn't fundamentally alter the essential requirements of the program and that it didn't cause an undue financial or administrative burden.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2661.09], "stop_times": [2677.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2661.09}, "reply_to": "21020__1_109", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_111", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Yes, and... I understand that, but that's... we both know that that's tough.\nThe... you can redesign jobs that fundamentally do the same thing, but with half the efficiency, so we know there's a problem there.\nLet me ask you one other question.\nEven though the accommodation may be different or reasonableness may take on a different meaning in the remedial context, the definition, very personalized definition of what is a disability, let's say someone has a disability, of course, of a psychological nature.\nThat would have to be accommodated in prison, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2677.51, 2681.112, 2689.818, 2691.167, 2712.552], "stop_times": [2681.112, 2689.818, 2691.167, 2712.552, 2715.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2677.51}, "reply_to": "21020__1_110", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "21020__1_112", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "If it substantially limited their major life activities, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2715.454], "stop_times": [2721.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2715.454}, "reply_to": "21020__1_111", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_113", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Well, let's say it's in Pennsylvania in the employment context some... you can prove, this individual can prove that claustrophobia is my disability, and let's say this person has a history of claustrophobia as a disability, and the... as soon as he's sentenced by the judge he says, I have claustrophobia.\nNow, how do you accommodate that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2721.278, 2740.671], "stop_times": [2740.671, 2743.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2721.278}, "reply_to": "21020__1_112", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "21020__1_114", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "You might not be able to.\nIt might not be a... it might not be reasonable, and it would certainly make a fundamental alteration in the nature of cells.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2743.103, 2745.123, 2752.149], "stop_times": [2745.123, 2752.149, 2755.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2743.103}, "reply_to": "21020__1_113", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_115", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "But we both know it's a little bit more... reasonable accommodation is a bit more difficult than our discussion's been so far.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2755.151], "stop_times": [2763.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2755.151}, "reply_to": "21020__1_114", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "21020__1_116", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "I don't think the task that Congress gave to district courts is necessarily easy in every case, but I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2763.697], "stop_times": [2770.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2763.697}, "reply_to": "21020__1_115", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_117", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "But we know under 504 it's pretty difficult.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2770.97], "stop_times": [2773.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2770.97}, "reply_to": "21020__1_116", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "21020__1_118", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2773.234], "stop_times": [2773.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2773.234}, "reply_to": "21020__1_117", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_119", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2773.894], "stop_times": [2774.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2773.894}, "reply_to": "21020__1_118", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "21020__1_120", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "I think it's a task--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2774.411], "stop_times": [2774.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2774.411}, "reply_to": "21020__1_119", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_121", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2774.731], "stop_times": [2775.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2774.731}, "reply_to": "21020__1_120", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21020__1_122", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--that the district courts are up to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2775.062], "stop_times": [2777.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2775.062}, "reply_to": "21020__1_121", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_123", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--Did Congress give the task to district courts or to prison administrators?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2777.363], "stop_times": [2781.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2777.363}, "reply_to": "21020__1_122", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21020__1_124", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Well, hopefully they... district courts will not have to deal with this.\nI believe that in the first instance the prison administrators are the ones charged with being responsible for making these decisions.\nIf there are no other questions I will--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2781.998, 2785.74, 2794.148], "stop_times": [2785.74, 2794.148, 2798.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2781.998}, "reply_to": "21020__1_123", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_125", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Very well, Mr. Specter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2798.359], "stop_times": [2799.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2798.359}, "reply_to": "21020__1_124", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21020__1_126", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--yield the rest of my time to Mr. Gornstein.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2799.66], "stop_times": [2800.869], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2799.66}, "reply_to": "21020__1_125", "speaker": "donald_specter"}
{"id": "21020__1_127", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Mr. Gornstein.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2800.869], "stop_times": [2802.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2800.869}, "reply_to": "21020__1_126", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21020__2_000", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe court of appeals correctly held that the ADA prohibits State prisons from discriminating against disabled inmates in their programs, services, and activities that they provide to inmates for three reasons:\nFirst, the text of the act unambiguously prohibits such discrimination, second, the application of the ADA to prisons was a logical... State prisons was a logical extension of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act's application to Federal prisons and to State prisons that receive Federal funding, and third, the interpretive principles that are relied on by petitioner do not support the creation of a nontextually based exemption to the act.\nBeginning with the text, the act applies to any public entity that provides programs, services, or activities and, since the act defines a public entity to include any agency or department to a State, the State Department of Corrections is clearly covered.\nNor is there any question that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2802.422, 2815.261, 2828.511, 2861.533, 2878.113], "stop_times": [2815.261, 2828.511, 2861.533, 2878.113, 2881.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2802.422}, "reply_to": "21020__1_127", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21020__2_001", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "I think I'm very interested, Mr. Gornstein, if it does apply, how you interpret the accommodation that's required in the prison context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2881.135], "stop_times": [2892.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2881.135}, "reply_to": "21020__2_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21020__2_002", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--Well, there would be two things you would look to.\nFirst of all, the backdrop of section 504, which this Court interpreted in Southeastern Community College v. Davis not to require accommodations that impose undue burdens and not to require accommodations that would lead to a fundamental alteration in the program, which in that case included lowering standards and substantially modifying a nursing program, and second of all you would look to a general principle that this Court has applied in section 504(2), to deferring to the reasonable medical judgments of health professionals.\nBy a parity of reasoning, in the prison context you would defer to the reasonable security judgments of correctional officials in the context of an ADA case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2892.092, 2896.406, 2933.311], "stop_times": [2896.406, 2933.311, 2945.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2892.092}, "reply_to": "21020__2_001", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21020__2_003", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Mr. Gornstein, how much litigation has there been on the section 504, because that's been around for a couple of decades, involving prisons, either Federal prisons or State prisons receiving Federal assistance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2945.64], "stop_times": [2962.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2945.64}, "reply_to": "21020__2_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21020__2_004", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "There has not been a lot relating to prisons, very little.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2962.129], "stop_times": [2965.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2962.129}, "reply_to": "21020__2_003", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21020__2_005", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Are damages available under the Rehab Act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2965.101], "stop_times": [2969.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2965.101}, "reply_to": "21020__2_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21020__2_006", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Damages are available under the Rehab Act with respect to State prisons, not federally assisted prisons, but not with respect to Federal correctional--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2969.285], "stop_times": [2982.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2969.285}, "reply_to": "21020__2_005", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21020__2_007", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Right, so that might indicate why there's less litigation, and no punitive damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2982.453], "stop_times": [2989.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2982.453}, "reply_to": "21020__2_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21020__2_008", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--It might, but the thing that I wanted to add about that is that the Prison Litigation Reform Act now does have a prison that... a provision that relates to damages, which can only be recovered when there is physical injury.\nThat is, psychological damages and damages of that sort can only be recovered when there is physical injury under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [2989.637, 3008.231], "stop_times": [3008.231, 3017.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2989.637}, "reply_to": "21020__2_007", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21020__2_009", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "But under... and that would cover the ADA--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [3017.888], "stop_times": [3020.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3017.888}, "reply_to": "21020__2_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21020__2_010", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "It would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [3020.35], "stop_times": [3020.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3020.35}, "reply_to": "21020__2_009", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21020__2_011", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--as well?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [3020.68], "stop_times": [3021.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3020.68}, "reply_to": "21020__2_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21020__2_012", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "It would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [3021.091], "stop_times": [3021.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3021.091}, "reply_to": "21020__2_011", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21020__2_013", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Tell us a little bit more about how the boot camp might work.\nLet's suppose that a high school had a physical conditioning program, very rigorous, for its students 2 or 3 hours a day, and that a disabled student wanted to participate, and it would cost $5,000 a year per disabled student increase to run a separate track program for the disabled student.\nThe same with the boot camp.\nA disabled prisoner wants to participate in boot camp.\nIt would cost $5,000 a year for the second track for the disabled prisoner.\nWould the judge make the same determination in each case, or would he say, prison budgets are such that $5,000 is more significant for a prison than it is for schools?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [3021.772, 3025.194, 3051.623, 3054.464, 3057.587, 3061.611], "stop_times": [3025.194, 3051.623, 3054.464, 3057.587, 3061.611, 3072.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3021.772}, "reply_to": "21020__2_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21020__2_014", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "I think that the real difference would not come in in measuring undue burden but would come in in the question of security, deferring to security interests.\nI'm not sure the case would look that much different when the question is just a financial one.\nBut I would add in response to your hypothetical--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [3072.55, 3083.626, 3088.317], "stop_times": [3083.626, 3088.317, 3090.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3072.55}, "reply_to": "21020__2_013", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21020__2_015", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Well, let's say in each case you can do it for $5,000, second track, a second track for the school $5,000, second track for the prisoners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [3090.489], "stop_times": [3096.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3090.489}, "reply_to": "21020__2_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21020__2_016", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--There's a question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [3096.014], "stop_times": [3096.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3096.014}, "reply_to": "21020__2_015", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21020__2_017", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Is the calculus just the same?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [3096.884], "stop_times": [3097.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3096.884}, "reply_to": "21020__2_016", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21020__2_018", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--There would be a question that would arise whether you have to do any sort of new and separate program at all, whether that... regardless of how much it might cost.\nWhether you would have to run a separate or new program, that would be a question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [3097.975, 3108.011], "stop_times": [3108.011, 3112.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3097.975}, "reply_to": "21020__2_017", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21020__2_019", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Why wouldn't you in the boot camp hypothetical, if it's feasible to do for $5,000 a prisoner, or $5,000 a student?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [3112.275], "stop_times": [3120.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3112.275}, "reply_to": "21020__2_018", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21020__2_020", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "I think that the question is whether you're being denied access to services or a program that is being provided by the institution.\nHere, the program or service is the boot camp program, and the question would be, would admission to that require fundamentally altering that program.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [3120.198, 3134.06], "stop_times": [3134.06, 3143.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3120.198}, "reply_to": "21020__2_019", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21020__2_021", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "$5,000.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [3143.634], "stop_times": [3145.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3143.634}, "reply_to": "21020__2_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21020__2_022", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "If rigorous physical exercise is an essential part of that program, and there is no... it wouldn't matter how much money it would cost to construct another one, it would be a different program.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [3145.217], "stop_times": [3156.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3145.217}, "reply_to": "21020__2_021", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21020__2_023", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Let's assume that we think it might work if it's altered for this person.\nWe're not sure, but we're pretty sure it will work.\nIt won't be as good, but it will certainly have some benefits.\nThe same with the high school.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [3156.993, 3162.207, 3164.059, 3167.101], "stop_times": [3162.207, 3164.059, 3167.101, 3168.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3156.993}, "reply_to": "21020__2_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21020__2_024", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "If it doesn't substantially change the nature of the program, then if it's not costly, then it may have to be provided under the ADA and section 504 as well.\nOn... now, there is no question that States provide programs, services, or activities.\nState prisons do.\nThey provide medical services to inmates.\nThey provide recreational activities, and they also provide many programs like the boot camp program at issue in this case, so there's no basis for an exemption in the terms, programs, services, or activities.\nI wanted to add that there's nothing unusual at all about applying the ADA to State prisons.\nPrior to the enactment of the ADA, the section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act already applied through the Department of Justice's regulations to State prisons receiving Federal funding and to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [3168.341, 3181.251, 3188.878, 3190.417, 3193.199, 3206.837, 3213.612], "stop_times": [3181.251, 3188.878, 3190.417, 3193.199, 3206.837, 3213.612, 3230.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3168.341}, "reply_to": "21020__2_023", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21020__2_025", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Through the regulations, or through the statute?\nThat doesn't... I thought the statute was clear enough.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [3230.513, 3233.154, 3236.456], "stop_times": [3233.154, 3236.456, 3237.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3230.513}, "reply_to": "21020__2_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21020__2_026", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "The statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [3237.237], "stop_times": [3238.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3237.237}, "reply_to": "21020__2_025", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21020__2_027", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--It's as clear as this one, you say.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [3238.249, 3239.908], "stop_times": [3239.908, 3240.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3238.249}, "reply_to": "21020__2_026", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21020__2_028", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--It's perfectly clear what the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [3240.129], "stop_times": [3240.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3240.129}, "reply_to": "21020__2_027", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21020__2_029", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "You wouldn't disagree with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [3240.83], "stop_times": [3242.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3240.83}, "reply_to": "21020__2_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21020__2_030", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "--I would not disagree with that.\nI would only add that they didn't specifically mention prisons, but the Department of Justice regulations did.\nThe final point I wanted to make was that petitioners' reliance on Gregory v. Ashcroft and the principles of constitutional doubt is misplaced in this case.\nEach of those principles only comes into play when there is genuine ambiguity in a statute to resolve and here there is no genuine ambiguity.\nThe text of the act clearly and unambiguously prohibits State prisons from discriminating against disabled inmates, so the court of appeals' judgment should be affirmed.\nIf there aren't any further questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [3242.031, 3243.412, 3249.776, 3261.614, 3272.702, 3281.686], "stop_times": [3243.412, 3249.776, 3261.614, 3272.702, 3281.686, 3283.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3242.031}, "reply_to": "21020__2_029", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "21020__2_031", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Gornstein.\nMr. Tufano, you have 3 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [3283.95, 3287.542], "stop_times": [3287.542, 3289.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3283.95}, "reply_to": "21020__2_030", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21020__3_000", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Your Honor, I have no further rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [3289.854], "stop_times": [3292.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3289.854}, "reply_to": "21020__2_031", "speaker": "paul_a_tufano"}
{"id": "21020__3_001", "conversation_id": "21020", "text": "Very well.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-634", "start_times": [3292.506, 3293.507], "stop_times": [3293.507, 3294.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3292.506}, "reply_to": "21020__3_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20368__0_000", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 96-1578, Thomas R. Phillips, et al. v. Washington Legal Foundation.\nMr. Jordan.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [0.0, 10.122], "stop_times": [10.122, 12.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20368__0_001", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nThe Texas IOLTA program is an extension of the ethical rules that have always been applicable to lawyers in connection with their maintenance of client funds.\nLawyers have always been required to manage client funds as fiduciaries.\nThe rules required this before IOLTA programs were adopted, they require it today under IOLTA, and they would require it tomorrow if IOLTA programs went away.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [12.058, 14.908, 28.651, 32.804], "stop_times": [14.908, 28.651, 32.804, 43.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 12.058}, "reply_to": "20368__0_000", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_002", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "But they're required to manage it as fiduciaries for the benefit of the clients, are they not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [43.077], "stop_times": [47.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 43.077}, "reply_to": "20368__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20368__0_003", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, Mr. Chief Justice.\nClients received no interest income on their nominal and short-term deposits before IOLTA.\nDuring IOLTA, they don't receive any interest income on their nominal and short-term deposits, and if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [47.462, 50.331, 58.087], "stop_times": [50.331, 58.087, 64.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 47.462}, "reply_to": "20368__0_002", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_004", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Well, Mr. Jordan, by way of background, the IOLTA funds account also include deposits from corporations, do they not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [64.741], "stop_times": [75.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 64.741}, "reply_to": "20368__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20368__0_005", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--That's correct, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [75.113], "stop_times": [76.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 75.113}, "reply_to": "20368__0_004", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_006", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "And as to the corporate moneys that are deposited as opposed to the share that's the result of deposits by individuals, is there a correspondingly larger amount of interest earned?\nI mean, is there interest being earned in the accounts for the corporate funds that exceed the cost of maintenance of the funds?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [76.798, 94.26], "stop_times": [94.26, 103.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 76.798}, "reply_to": "20368__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20368__0_007", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Justice O'Connor, we are not able to track what percentage of the IOLTA interest income that gets to the foundation comes from corporate or partnership deposits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [103.632], "stop_times": [114.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 103.632}, "reply_to": "20368__0_006", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_008", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Do you know what percentage of the deposits are from corporate as opposed to individuals?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [114.257], "stop_times": [119.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 114.257}, "reply_to": "20368__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20368__0_009", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "I only have my opinion, and that would be, Justice O'Connor, that probably about 60 percent or so do come from corporate or partnership--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [119.308], "stop_times": [130.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 119.308}, "reply_to": "20368__0_008", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_010", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "I was curious because the amounts of individuals that... of interest earned that wouldn't exceed the cost of establishment and maintenance of the fund nevertheless seem to be generating substantial amounts of money for these programs, and so it seemed to me very likely there were corporate deposits that were generating substantially more interest, and that's why so much was being earned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [130.366], "stop_times": [162.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 130.366}, "reply_to": "20368__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20368__0_011", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--One of the reasons, Your Honor, that IOLTA is able to earn interest for the foundation when it cannot for individual clients whose money is deposited, whose short-term and nominal funds are deposited in IOLTA accounts, is that it takes advantage of the changes in the banking law that occurred in 1980 where corporate and partnership accounts can be pooled with individual funds in an IOLTA account, and then, based on the tax ruling, there's no taxable transaction, the efficiency of the economy of scale where one pooled account and the recipient can be attributed to one foundation, all of this generates--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [162.42], "stop_times": [202.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 162.42}, "reply_to": "20368__0_010", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_012", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Are corporations making these deposits, or anyone, for that matter, given an option about whether to have their moneys go into an IOLTA account or not, or is it required that they go into an IOLTA account?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [202.981], "stop_times": [217.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 202.981}, "reply_to": "20368__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20368__0_013", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, the IOLTA program is mandatory for the lawyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [217.241], "stop_times": [220.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 217.241}, "reply_to": "20368__0_012", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_014", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [220.693], "stop_times": [221.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 220.693}, "reply_to": "20368__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20368__0_015", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "It's part of the disciplinary rules.\nIf--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [221.076, 222.576], "stop_times": [222.576, 222.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 221.076}, "reply_to": "20368__0_014", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_016", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "How about for the client?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [222.776], "stop_times": [223.526], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 222.776}, "reply_to": "20368__0_015", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20368__0_017", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--But if there's any way a client's deposit can earn net interest for that client, whether it's a corporate client, whether it's an individual client, the lawyer's ethical responsibility is to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [223.526], "stop_times": [235.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 223.526}, "reply_to": "20368__0_016", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_018", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Well--\n--But I thought for the corporate client they were prohibited from receiving the interest from the NOW account.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [235.05, 235.434], "stop_times": [235.434, 242.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 235.05}, "reply_to": "20368__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20368__0_019", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Your Honor, they would not be able to have those funds placed in a NOW account, a demand account.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [242.405], "stop_times": [246.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 242.405}, "reply_to": "20368__0_018", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_020", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Right.\nNow, could the corporation doing business say, okay, I'm going to get legal services, but you put my deposit with an account that's not a NOW account and I'll take the interest, thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [246.94, 247.24], "stop_times": [247.24, 260.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 246.94}, "reply_to": "20368__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20368__0_021", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Under our rules, Your Honor, that may be permissible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [260.367], "stop_times": [264.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 260.367}, "reply_to": "20368__0_020", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_022", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "May?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [264.902], "stop_times": [265.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 264.902}, "reply_to": "20368__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20368__0_023", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "If the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [265.319], "stop_times": [265.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 265.319}, "reply_to": "20368__0_022", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_024", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Is or is not, or you don't know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [265.702], "stop_times": [267.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 265.702}, "reply_to": "20368__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20368__0_025", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Well, I know that it is, and the rule that the fund must be returned to the client on demand is satisfied as long as the account is placed in a bank.\nIt could be a time... but as long as the client understands that, our rules permit it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [267.437, 281.696], "stop_times": [281.696, 286.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 267.437}, "reply_to": "20368__0_024", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_026", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Mr. Jordan, one of your earlier statements makes me think that very likely times have changed since I practiced law long ago, but my... I'm familiar with a firm trust account, whereby a number of clients' moneys would be placed in the same account.\nI don't ever recall a situation where you opened up a separate account for each client whose money you had in trust.\nThe firm put all of the money in the trust account.\nSo it seems to me it's not entirely accurate to say that these moneys could never have earned interest.\nYou treat it as if every single separate trust deposit would be a separate account.\nThat was never true when I practiced.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [286.565, 307.598, 315.085, 317.887, 323.79, 329.325], "stop_times": [307.598, 315.085, 317.887, 323.79, 329.325, 331.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 286.565}, "reply_to": "20368__0_025", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20368__0_027", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, before IOLTA, of course, the deposits from clients were put into a noninterest-bearing demand account, for the most part.\nWith the advent of IOLTA, if the amount of the client deposit was small enough, or was going to be held for a short enough period of time, they went into the IOLTA account.\nIOLTA doesn't apply to any amounts of money that are going to be able to earn net interest for the client, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [331.777, 339.347, 350.755], "stop_times": [339.347, 350.755, 357.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 331.777}, "reply_to": "20368__0_026", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_028", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Well, how about if the amounts were pooled?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [357.308], "stop_times": [359.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 357.308}, "reply_to": "20368__0_027", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20368__0_029", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--IOLTA enables, Mr. Chief Justice, the client funds of many clients to be pooled.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [359.908], "stop_times": [366.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 359.908}, "reply_to": "20368__0_028", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_030", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "And why shouldn't that interest go to the clients?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [366.897], "stop_times": [369.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 366.897}, "reply_to": "20368__0_029", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20368__0_031", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Because the client, Mr. Chief Justice, had no reasonable expectation to receive interest income, net interest income on small or short-term deposits before IOLTA, during IOLTA, and if IOLTA were to go away, that benefit would be retained by the banks.\nIt would not change one thing for the client.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [369.747, 386.109], "stop_times": [386.109, 388.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 369.747}, "reply_to": "20368__0_030", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_032", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "You mean that if a firm pooled its trust accounts and put them all in one account, called a trust account, the bank would not have to pay interest on it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [388.493], "stop_times": [400.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 388.493}, "reply_to": "20368__0_031", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20368__0_033", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [400.884], "stop_times": [402.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 400.884}, "reply_to": "20368__0_032", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_034", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Do you mean that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [402.034], "stop_times": [404.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 402.034}, "reply_to": "20368__0_033", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20368__0_035", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--A lawyer or a law firm is able now, Mr. Chief Justice, to pool eligible client funds, and if there can be any way that that account can yield a net benefit to the client, that's what the lawyer is supposed to do.\nThat's the fiduciary responsibility of a lawyer to his or her client.\nIt's only the funds that are incapable, whether using technology, subaccounting, pooling, or whatever, that cannot yield a net benefit to a client, that go into IOLTA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [404.05, 418.96, 424.03], "stop_times": [418.96, 424.03, 434.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 404.05}, "reply_to": "20368__0_034", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_036", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "So IOLTA accounts wouldn't cover a situation where the firm, say, has 20 trust deposits, and no one of those could earn interest worthwhile separately, but 20 of them pooled could?\nIOLTA does or does not cover that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [434.236, 447.246], "stop_times": [447.246, 449.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 434.236}, "reply_to": "20368__0_035", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20368__0_037", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "It does cover those.\nIf a separate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [449.129, 450.281], "stop_times": [450.281, 450.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 449.129}, "reply_to": "20368__0_036", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_038", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "I thought you just said it didn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [450.898], "stop_times": [451.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 450.898}, "reply_to": "20368__0_037", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20368__0_039", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Mr. Chief Justice, I must have misunderstood your question, then, because what I'm saying is that when the lawyer receives the funds from the client, he or she makes an independent determination about whether they're able to be placed in an account that would benefit the client, using any means that are legal, subaccounting, pooling, whatever.\nIf they determine, in good faith, that those funds cannot be placed so as to benefit the client, then they go into the IOLTA account, and if the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [451.815, 470.693], "stop_times": [470.693, 479.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 451.815}, "reply_to": "20368__0_038", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_040", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Well, take my hypothesis.\nThe firm has 20 separate trust deposits.\nPooling them would result in interest that was useful to the various clients.\nIs there... does the lawyer have any option in a situation like that, under your rules?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [479.798, 481.417, 485.202, 490.773], "stop_times": [481.417, 485.202, 490.773, 496.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 479.798}, "reply_to": "20368__0_039", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20368__0_041", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--No, Mr. Chief Justice.\nIf the lawyer, in good faith, determines that there is no way that that client fund can earn net interest, interest over the cost of attributing it, then the money goes into an IOLTA account.\nThat is required under our rules.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [496.927, 498.477, 513.037], "stop_times": [498.477, 513.037, 514.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 496.927}, "reply_to": "20368__0_040", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_042", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "I'm not sure you've answered the Chief Justice's question, if I might interrupt.\nI think his hypothesis is that no one of them could separately earn interest, but that pooled in the lawyer's office, they could earn such interest.\nWhat is done in that situation?\nIn other words, we would... I had the same practice years ago.\nWe would have one trust account in which we would deposit money.\nIt was the property of several different clients.\nWe wouldn't treat them each separately, but you have a separate trust account which was a pooled account and could earn interest, and what does the lawyer do in that situation?\nUnder your rules, what must he do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [514.703, 518.322, 528.13, 530.497, 533.082, 537.235, 539.687, 547.341], "stop_times": [518.322, 528.13, 530.497, 533.082, 537.235, 539.687, 547.341, 549.293], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 514.703}, "reply_to": "20368__0_041", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20368__0_043", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Looked at independently--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [549.293], "stop_times": [551.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 549.293}, "reply_to": "20368__0_042", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_044", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Well, what do you mean independently?\nBut I'm saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [551.21, 552.462], "stop_times": [552.462, 553.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 551.21}, "reply_to": "20368__0_043", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20368__0_045", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--These funds usually come in at different times.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [553.712], "stop_times": [555.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 553.712}, "reply_to": "20368__0_044", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_046", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--I look at it independently.\nI say, yes, but if I put it with 19 other clients' accounts it will earn money.\nAm I looking at it independently or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [555.997, 556.964, 562.318], "stop_times": [556.964, 562.318, 564.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 555.997}, "reply_to": "20368__0_045", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20368__0_047", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "If you could, Justice Stevens, put them with 19 other eligible accounts into a pooled account in the name of the law firm--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [564.27], "stop_times": [571.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 564.27}, "reply_to": "20368__0_046", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_048", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [571.757], "stop_times": [572.124], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 571.757}, "reply_to": "20368__0_047", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20368__0_049", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--and if that process enables you to earn a net interest benefit for the client, then you are able to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [572.124], "stop_times": [578.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 572.124}, "reply_to": "20368__0_048", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_050", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Why isn't that always going to be the case if you have more than one client?\nYou have a bunch of clients who deposit money, you put all their money in the trust account.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [578.243, 581.981], "stop_times": [581.981, 585.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 578.243}, "reply_to": "20368__0_049", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20368__0_051", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [585.366], "stop_times": [585.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 585.366}, "reply_to": "20368__0_050", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_052", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "It would always earn interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [585.749], "stop_times": [587.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 585.749}, "reply_to": "20368__0_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20368__0_053", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Justice Stevens, it's only the amounts from clients that are unable to be placed in an account that would yield a net benefit to a client... you... it's the net--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [587.265], "stop_times": [597.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 587.265}, "reply_to": "20368__0_052", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_054", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "It's the net benefit that you're emphasizing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [597.954], "stop_times": [599.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 597.954}, "reply_to": "20368__0_053", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20368__0_055", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--It's the net benefit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [599.156], "stop_times": [599.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 599.156}, "reply_to": "20368__0_054", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_056", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that if, after subtracting either the law firm's or the bank's accounting cost, so much as one penny could be earned for the client, it does not go into IOLTA and, in fact, it will be invested in a way that will get the penny to the client.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [599.623], "stop_times": [620.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 599.623}, "reply_to": "20368__0_055", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20368__0_057", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [620.569], "stop_times": [620.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 620.569}, "reply_to": "20368__0_056", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_058", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "But in these pooled funds, even though the pooled funds earn interest, the cost of accounting for that interest separately to the client would be greater than the interest that would be attributable to the client.\nIs that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [620.969, 634.144], "stop_times": [634.144, 634.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 620.969}, "reply_to": "20368__0_057", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20368__0_059", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "That is correct, Justice Souter, and one other thing that I think is important--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [634.746], "stop_times": [638.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 634.746}, "reply_to": "20368__0_058", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_060", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Except for the corporate deposits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [638.031], "stop_times": [640.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 638.031}, "reply_to": "20368__0_059", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20368__0_061", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Except for the corporate deposits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [640.297], "stop_times": [641.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 640.297}, "reply_to": "20368__0_060", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_062", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Now, let's not forget that, because they can be very substantial, but there's some provision in the law for NOW accounts that says you can't pay anything to a corporation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [641.399], "stop_times": [652.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 641.399}, "reply_to": "20368__0_061", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20368__0_063", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Justice O'Connor, one of the things that makes IOLTA possible, of course, is the IRS ruling that allows there to be no taxable transaction.\nIf, in Justice Souter's question, you were attributing and tracking the interest to be paid to each client, then the bank, whether it's a sub account or whatever, would have to have a taxpayer ID number, the bank would have to send a 1099, the law firm would either... then have to figure out who gets what amount of interest, and there's an awful lot of additional administrative accounting expense that must be taken into account.\nBut the fact remains, if a lawyer can find a legal way to create a benefit for a client using those funds, then they're supposed to do it.\nBut as a practical matter--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [652.171, 660.527, 686.444, 697.669], "stop_times": [660.527, 686.444, 697.669, 699.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 652.171}, "reply_to": "20368__0_062", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_064", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Why does it say... it says, considered without regard to funds of other clients.\nThat's what's causing the confusion, I think, because if you think of three clients, A, B, and C, and they each give you 100,000 dollars to hold for a day, all right, and you'd think, well, there's no way at all that I can open up--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [699.352, 703.555], "stop_times": [703.555, 716.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 699.352}, "reply_to": "20368__0_063", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20368__0_065", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Justice Breyer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [716.796], "stop_times": [717.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 716.796}, "reply_to": "20368__0_064", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_066", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--three accounts, but if I have a regular account here and I put all 300,000 dollars in this account of the firm, maybe then it would earn interest, and then the words here, it says, such funds could not reasonably expected to earn interest, but it says, considered without regard to other funds.\nThat's what's mixing me up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [717.113, 732.138], "stop_times": [732.138, 734.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 717.113}, "reply_to": "20368__0_065", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20368__0_067", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Justice Breyer, in a situation where there are many lawyers in a firm, as Chief Justice Rehnquist posed, you have to make... the lawyer has to make that decision about whether the client funds are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [734.821], "stop_times": [747.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 734.821}, "reply_to": "20368__0_066", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_068", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Do you consider it without regard to other funds or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [747.398], "stop_times": [749.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 747.398}, "reply_to": "20368__0_067", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20368__0_069", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Yes, you do.\nYes, you do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [749.831, 750.414], "stop_times": [750.414, 751.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 749.831}, "reply_to": "20368__0_068", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_070", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "So that means, in the example that's being given... I'm sorry to give this, but its... everyone has, and I think it's not totally clear yet, that what we have is a circumstance where there are three clients.\nThey each give you some money, if you have to open up three accounts it's just not going to be worthwhile because the administrative expenses are too great.\nBut the banker comes to you and says, give me all three together.\nThere is no IOLTA fund in the State I'm talking about.\nHe gives me all three together, and I will generate interest for you that exceeds administrative costs.\nNow, in that circumstance, do you put that money in that fund, which is private, or do you give it to IOLTA?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [751.114, 764.055, 772.994, 776.981, 780.433, 787.087], "stop_times": [764.055, 772.994, 776.981, 780.433, 787.087, 796.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 751.114}, "reply_to": "20368__0_069", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20368__0_071", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "If, Justice Breyer, there's any way that, using the banking accounts that are available to you as a lawyer, you can create a net benefit to a client, then you're supposed to do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [796.11], "stop_times": [807.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 796.11}, "reply_to": "20368__0_070", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_072", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "So you... my answer is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [807.518], "stop_times": [808.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 807.518}, "reply_to": "20368__0_071", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20368__0_073", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Your answer is yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [808.518], "stop_times": [808.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 808.518}, "reply_to": "20368__0_072", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_074", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--you do consider--\n--Then what's... what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [808.87, 809.453], "stop_times": [809.453, 810.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 808.87}, "reply_to": "20368__0_073", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20368__0_075", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "You look at it... you look at it independently, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [810.636], "stop_times": [813.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 810.636}, "reply_to": "20368__0_074", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_076", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--What's the meaning of considered without regard to others?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [813.487], "stop_times": [817.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 813.487}, "reply_to": "20368__0_075", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20368__0_077", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Because, Mr. Chief Justice, the fact is that you have to look at the amount of money that comes from a client and the approximate length, in your good faith judgment, that it's going to be held in your account, without... you won't know, as a lawyer, what else is in that trust account.\nIf you're in a firm, for instance, that it... that has several lawyers, each of whom handle, during the course of their practice, client funds, you may not know, and usually it's an accounting person that's going to decide and give you guidance about whether or not there's some opportunity there that can benefit a client, so... but as a lawyer, you're the one under the court's... the supreme court of Texas is, anyways, supervision, and told to determine whether in good faith you think it can be earned some benefit for a client, so that's the reason.\nThe practical approach--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [817.539, 839.268, 869.657], "stop_times": [839.268, 869.657, 871.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 817.539}, "reply_to": "20368__0_076", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_078", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "It doesn't mean, then, that in Justice Breyer's hypothesis, you would consider only whether one of the 100,000 dollars deposits could earn--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [871.074], "stop_times": [880.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 871.074}, "reply_to": "20368__0_077", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20368__0_079", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--No.\nMr. Chief Justice, generally speaking, if you had 100,000 dollars client fund there's probably some way you're going to be able to place it in a way that benefits a client.\nYou... these amounts are usually smaller.\nThey're usually held for only as long as it takes a check to clear.\nIf you take into account, let's say a 50,000 dollars settlement in a tort case, and let's assume that in your State the maximum rate in a NOW account is 2-1/2 percent.\n2-1/2 percent, 50,000 dollars, earns about 2.05 dollars a day.\nIf it's going to be held for the 5 days that it takes the check to clear, that's 10 dollars and, what, 25 cents.\nThere's no practical way that you can create an account and capture that net interest benefit for the client.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [880.529, 881.112, 890.735, 895.455, 898.741, 909.762, 914.833, 920.57], "stop_times": [881.112, 890.735, 895.455, 898.741, 909.762, 914.833, 920.57, 928.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 880.529}, "reply_to": "20368__0_078", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_080", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Okay, but in--\n--Mr. Jordan, there was a reference in the American Bar Association brief... it's page 9, footnote 10... that says that there is a mechanism in Texas to reimburse a client if it turns out that the funds could have generated interest and instead--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [928.843, 929.61], "stop_times": [929.61, 945.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 928.843}, "reply_to": "20368__0_079", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20368__0_081", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Yes, Justice Ginsburg.\nIf the... at the foundation they believe that somebody has erred, there's precedent for calling the lawyer and saying what are the facts here, and at least four times there have been reimbursements made through the bank.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [945.369, 946.285], "stop_times": [946.285, 960.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 945.369}, "reply_to": "20368__0_080", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_082", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--How does that mechanism work, because it's just a very quick footnote.\nIt doesn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [960.462, 963.414], "stop_times": [963.414, 963.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 960.462}, "reply_to": "20368__0_081", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20368__0_083", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "The person at the foundation realizes that this is an abnormal amount of interest that has come from an account that historically has not generated that kind of activity.\nThey call the lawyer, find out what the facts are with regard to the account, if the mistake has been made in good faith, well then the interest is returned to the bank, and the transaction between the bank and the lawyer is straightened out.\nThat's what we do.\nIn Texas, Justice Ginsburg, we've got about 60,000 lawyers.\n30,000 of those say they have occasion during their practices to handle client funds, and they answered our compliance request affirmatively.\nOf those 30,000, there are about 16,000 active IOLTA accounts.\nWe get about five and a half million dollars a year, which means that each active IOLTA account of the 16,000 generates less than 1 dollar a day.\nIt's a little bit of money coming in from a lot of accounts that makes this whole program possible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [963.914, 973.619, 986.86, 988.879, 993.997, 1001.869, 1007.84, 1015.696], "stop_times": [973.619, 986.86, 988.879, 993.997, 1001.869, 1007.84, 1015.696, 1020.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 963.914}, "reply_to": "20368__0_082", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_084", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Mr. Jordan, let me ask you something before your time is up.\nThe court below found there's a property interest, a cognizable property interest here.\nIt didn't go on and determine whether there had been a taking, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1020.498, 1024.468, 1029.337], "stop_times": [1024.468, 1029.337, 1034.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1020.498}, "reply_to": "20368__0_083", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20368__0_085", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Yes, Justice O'Connor.\nThat's... they incorrectly, we feel, determined that a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1034.324, 1035.775], "stop_times": [1035.775, 1039.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1034.324}, "reply_to": "20368__0_084", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_086", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1039.227], "stop_times": [1039.627], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1039.227}, "reply_to": "20368__0_085", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20368__0_087", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--property interest was there.\nWe don't agree with them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1039.627, 1040.961], "stop_times": [1040.961, 1042.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1039.627}, "reply_to": "20368__0_086", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_088", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Well, I guess it's possible that there might be a property interest, but nonetheless it might turn out at the end of the day there's no taking.\nNo damages, no loss, no taking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1042.128, 1049.75], "stop_times": [1049.75, 1051.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1042.128}, "reply_to": "20368__0_087", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20368__0_089", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nWe don't believe there's a property interest that these respondents have raised.\nIf this Court disagrees with us, we still believe that it's a regulatory taking and there's... on something that's worth nothing, the just compensation is nothing, and therefore we're back to where we were.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1051.702, 1052.785, 1058.356], "stop_times": [1052.785, 1058.356, 1068.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1051.702}, "reply_to": "20368__0_088", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_090", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Are you familiar with any case in which there is a regulation but the State is enriched as a result?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1068.462], "stop_times": [1081.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1068.462}, "reply_to": "20368__0_089", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20368__0_091", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "No, Justice Kennedy, I'm not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1081.87], "stop_times": [1084.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1081.87}, "reply_to": "20368__0_090", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_092", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "There are a lot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1084.036], "stop_times": [1086.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1084.036}, "reply_to": "20368__0_091", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20368__0_093", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "But I believe that the principal tenets of the IOLTA programs in Texas and across the country are entirely consistent with this Court's jurisprudence in the Lucas case, where we're talking about economic reality, not abstract economic theory, where we're talking about the historic understandings of our citizens regarding their rights and reasonable investment-backed expectations.\nThat's what clients before IOLTA did not have with regard to any interest opportunities--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1086.702, 1111.353], "stop_times": [1111.353, 1116.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1086.702}, "reply_to": "20368__0_092", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_094", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Did you ever overpay your income tax?\nYou know, you have to pay so much a quarter?\nYou ever pay more than, the first quarter than you actually owed proportionately?\nDid they give you a refund check back at the end of the year?\nI haven't gotten mine.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1116.638, 1118.357, 1120.707, 1124.925, 1128.611, 1129.627], "stop_times": [1118.357, 1120.707, 1124.925, 1128.611, 1129.627, 1131.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1116.638}, "reply_to": "20368__0_093", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20368__0_095", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1131.643, 1132.393], "stop_times": [1132.393, 1134.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1131.643}, "reply_to": "20368__0_094", "speaker": "darrell_e_jordan"}
{"id": "20368__0_096", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Jordan.\nMr. Kneedler, we'll hear from you.\nMr. Kneedler, is there any requirement that you overpay your installments of income tax?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1134.595, 1136.078, 1144.951, 1149.605], "stop_times": [1136.078, 1144.951, 1149.605, 1150.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1134.595}, "reply_to": "20368__0_095", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20368__1_000", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "No, there's not, but there's also no requirement, State-imposed requirement that a client turn over money to the lawyer.\nThat is a matter of private contractual--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1150.688, 1158.811], "stop_times": [1158.811, 1160.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1150.688}, "reply_to": "20368__0_096", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_001", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "What about federally imposed requirements?\nCan the Federal and the State Governments collude to establish a system in which it is impossible for a private individual to earn any interest by reason of the way the banking laws are written, and then the State come in and say, well, since you can't make any interest privately, we're going to take your... we're going to take the interest that's earned and use it in this governmental scheme.\nDoesn't something strike you wrong about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1160.411, 1161.913, 1186.944], "stop_times": [1161.913, 1186.944, 1189.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1160.411}, "reply_to": "20368__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20368__1_002", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1189.396], "stop_times": [1189.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1189.396}, "reply_to": "20368__1_001", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_003", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "I mean, this whole thing works only because... because corporate money can't receive interest--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1189.73], "stop_times": [1196.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1189.73}, "reply_to": "20368__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20368__1_004", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1196.384], "stop_times": [1196.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1196.384}, "reply_to": "20368__1_003", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_005", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--in immediate payment accounts, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1196.7], "stop_times": [1198.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1196.7}, "reply_to": "20368__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20368__1_006", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1198.217], "stop_times": [1198.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1198.217}, "reply_to": "20368__1_005", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_007", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "That rule is adopted, but if you allow those corporate funds to be used for something else, some good thing that the State wants to do, then it's okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1198.752], "stop_times": [1207.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1198.752}, "reply_to": "20368__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20368__1_008", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Well, I think the basic point here is that the... whether the Federal Constitution requires the State of Texas to conclude that the interest generated by an IOLTA account, which State law declares to be the property of the Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation, instead to be the property of the individual client, and it's important to remember that the question of whether a property right arises takes place in a... in two heavily regulated areas.\nOne is the practice of law, and the other is the banking industry, which this Court has recognized is perhaps the most... the classic example of a heavily federally regulated area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1207.691, 1234.508], "stop_times": [1234.508, 1243.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1207.691}, "reply_to": "20368__1_007", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_009", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Well, but it's been... this isn't any regulation of banks.\nIt's a regulation of clients.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1243.364, 1246.399], "stop_times": [1246.399, 1248.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1243.364}, "reply_to": "20368__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20368__1_010", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "No, but whether... the question of whether a client has a legitimate or a reasonable investment-back expectation in earning net interest necessarily arises against the background of the banking--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1248.032], "stop_times": [1258.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1248.032}, "reply_to": "20368__1_009", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_011", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1258.79], "stop_times": [1259.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1258.79}, "reply_to": "20368__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20368__1_012", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--banking regulations and economic reality.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1259.59], "stop_times": [1260.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1259.59}, "reply_to": "20368__1_011", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_013", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Well, you could have said the same thing in Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies, that the person had no expectation under State law because there was a State rule that said you didn't get it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1260.991], "stop_times": [1269.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1260.991}, "reply_to": "20368__1_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20368__1_014", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1269.847], "stop_times": [1270.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1269.847}, "reply_to": "20368__1_013", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_015", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "But that didn't control the result in that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1270.214], "stop_times": [1273.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1270.214}, "reply_to": "20368__1_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20368__1_016", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--No, but there are several important distinctions between this case and Webb's, if I may highlight them, because I do think they're... they illustrate what's so different about this case.\nFirst of all, in Webb's the premise of the Court's opinion was that the interest earned was not tied to reimbursing the State for its costs.\nIn other words, the premise was that there was net interest earned.\nThere was a separate exaction by the State calculated on a percentage of the amount deposited to reimburse the State for its costs, so that was a case where there was net interest.\nHere, the fundamental precept of IOLTA is that the individual client's accounts would not be able to earn net interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1273.049, 1280.203, 1288.726, 1292.261, 1300.866], "stop_times": [1280.203, 1288.726, 1292.261, 1300.866, 1307.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1273.049}, "reply_to": "20368__1_015", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_017", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Well, would this be a different case, do you think, if each person giving a lawyer money that might go into an IOLTA account were given a choice and asked to decide whether to agree with the IOLTA scheme or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1307.12], "stop_times": [1321.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1307.12}, "reply_to": "20368__1_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20368__1_018", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "The difficulty with that option, Justice O'Connor, is that one of the important considerations in the IRS' approval of this and the revenue ruling 81-209 that we cite in our brief was that the client did not have control, because if the client has control as to... over whether the lawyer will deposit the money in the IOLTA account, then the income generated by that account, which goes to a charitable contribution, might be an assignment of income by the individual taxpayer, individual client, because the client would be exercising control over the disposition, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1321.714], "stop_times": [1354.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1321.714}, "reply_to": "20368__1_017", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_019", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Oh, but you said a moment ago, and I thought correctly, that the client does, in fact, have that option.\nIn answering Justice Scalia's question you said the client doesn't have to leave any money in a lawyer's trust account.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1354.185, 1358.739], "stop_times": [1358.739, 1363.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1354.185}, "reply_to": "20368__1_018", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20368__1_020", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Right.\nNow, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1363.707, 1364.041], "stop_times": [1364.041, 1364.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1363.707}, "reply_to": "20368__1_019", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_021", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Oh, as opposed to assigning it to a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1364.507], "stop_times": [1366.293], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1364.507}, "reply_to": "20368__1_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20368__1_022", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Right.\nThere are two separate... the client doesn't have to give money to the lawyer.\nThat's a matter of private contractual--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1366.293, 1366.743, 1370.88], "stop_times": [1366.743, 1370.88, 1372.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1366.293}, "reply_to": "20368__1_021", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_023", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--So under the IRS there's no problem in the client having a choice as to whether or not to take the money back as opposed to leaving it in in a way that will earn interest for this charitable organization.\nThat doesn't offend the IRS reg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1372.047, 1382.252], "stop_times": [1382.252, 1383.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1372.047}, "reply_to": "20368__1_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20368__1_024", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Right.\nRight.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1383.935, 1384.202], "stop_times": [1384.202, 1384.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1383.935}, "reply_to": "20368__1_023", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_025", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1384.552], "stop_times": [1384.785], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1384.552}, "reply_to": "20368__1_024", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20368__1_026", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "It's the fact of whether the... and after all, it's... again, looking at the overall--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1384.785], "stop_times": [1389.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1384.785}, "reply_to": "20368__1_025", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_027", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "The client doesn't have the option if the lawyer is not willing to proceed without some funds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1389.153], "stop_times": [1393.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1389.153}, "reply_to": "20368__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20368__1_028", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--But... but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1393.455], "stop_times": [1394.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1393.455}, "reply_to": "20368__1_027", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_029", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "I mean, this is a rather unrealistic option, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1394.021], "stop_times": [1396.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1394.021}, "reply_to": "20368__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20368__1_030", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--But that's not a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1396.323], "stop_times": [1397.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1396.323}, "reply_to": "20368__1_029", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_031", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "You've got to find a lawyer who's willing to go ahead without any deposit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1397.073], "stop_times": [1399.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1397.073}, "reply_to": "20368__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20368__1_032", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--That's not a State-imposed requirement.\nThat's a matter of private contractual relationship, and it's... I think it would be the rare client who would have the sort of substantial objection that the client has in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1399.342, 1401.627], "stop_times": [1401.627, 1408.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1399.342}, "reply_to": "20368__1_031", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_033", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Well, but this, as I understand it, was a retainer, which ordinarily wouldn't go into any lawyer's trust account.\nYou get a retainer to... for your own income.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1408.715, 1415.101], "stop_times": [1415.101, 1420.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1408.715}, "reply_to": "20368__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20368__1_034", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "For the lawyer's own income, but it is protection for the lawyer's income, and the retainer is regarded as the client's property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1420.136], "stop_times": [1429.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1420.136}, "reply_to": "20368__1_033", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_035", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Well, since when?\nI mean, I never regard a retainer as a client's property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1429.242, 1430.658], "stop_times": [1430.658, 1434.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1429.242}, "reply_to": "20368__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20368__1_036", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Once the matter is over with--\n[Laughter]\nIt's security for the lawyer, but once the matter is over with the money is returned to the client--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1434.127, 1436.896, 1439.014], "stop_times": [1436.896, 1439.014, 1445.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1434.127}, "reply_to": "20368__1_035", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_037", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1445.918], "stop_times": [1446.552], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1445.918}, "reply_to": "20368__1_036", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20368__1_038", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--if the client is separately billed.\nIf the lawyer draws down on the retainer, then obviously when the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1446.552, 1447.62], "stop_times": [1447.62, 1450.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1446.552}, "reply_to": "20368__1_037", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_039", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1450.405], "stop_times": [1450.805], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1450.405}, "reply_to": "20368__1_038", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20368__1_040", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--when the money is paid out that belongs to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1450.805], "stop_times": [1452.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1450.805}, "reply_to": "20368__1_039", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_041", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Well, agreements may differ.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1452.088], "stop_times": [1454.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1452.088}, "reply_to": "20368__1_040", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20368__1_042", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1454.354], "stop_times": [1454.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1454.354}, "reply_to": "20368__1_041", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_043", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "But I think it's a mistake to think that you would generally categorize what someone calls a retainer as something that belongs in a trust account.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1454.654], "stop_times": [1461.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1454.654}, "reply_to": "20368__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20368__1_044", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Right.\nI think that's right, but it's important... this is not real property, as in Lucas.\nThis is personal property, and as the Court said in the Lucas case, that questions of property arise looking at background principles of State and Federal law, and here it couldn't be clearer, looking at the background of State law, that the client has no established entitlement to the interest generated by the IOLTA account.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1461.027, 1462.043, 1465.995], "stop_times": [1462.043, 1465.995, 1483.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1461.027}, "reply_to": "20368__1_043", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_045", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "How can we reach this question?\nThis is just... there is some property.\nI have 1,000 dollars.\nYou're my lawyer.\nI give it to you.\nThe State of Texas is taking my 1,000 dollars and using it to make money for other people.\nI can imagine somebody arguing that they don't have the power to use my money to make money for somebody else, but somehow that isn't being argued.\nThat is to say, we're in this question of a property interest, and... so how in your opinion would we reach that question, whether Texas does or does not have the power to take my money and use it to generate some money for another person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1483.389, 1486.174, 1489.376, 1490.726, 1491.426, 1492.494, 1498.482, 1507.17], "stop_times": [1486.174, 1489.376, 1490.726, 1491.426, 1492.494, 1498.482, 1507.17, 1522.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1483.389}, "reply_to": "20368__1_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20368__1_046", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Well, let me answer it this way.\nTypically, when a person deposits money in a bank... I realize this... the client is not directly depositing it in the bank, the lawyer is.\nBut when a person deposits money in a bank, what the depositor gets in return is, it's really a debt owed by the bank.\nWhen you write a check the bank has promised to pay you to allow you to withdraw funds.\nBut once the funds are deposited in the bank, the bank uses them.\nThe bank earns money on them.\nSo at a time when there were no... there was no interest on demand deposits, and that's still true for corporations, it's not as if no one is benefiting from that money.\nThe bank--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1522.013, 1523.946, 1530.416, 1536.955, 1540.807, 1544.343, 1545.911, 1554.049], "stop_times": [1523.946, 1530.416, 1536.955, 1540.807, 1544.343, 1545.911, 1554.049, 1554.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1522.013}, "reply_to": "20368__1_045", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_047", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "They're doing it with my money.\nSuppose, Mr. Kneedler, I have a piece of land that has no economic value.\nIt simply is not rentable, it's not usable for anything.\nDoes that mean the Government can come in and take it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1554.401, 1555.101, 1561.255, 1563.957], "stop_times": [1555.101, 1561.255, 1563.957, 1565.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1554.401}, "reply_to": "20368__1_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20368__1_048", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--No.\nI... that's because I think real property... real property is different.\nThere's no question that you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1565.407, 1565.74, 1568.575], "stop_times": [1565.74, 1568.575, 1569.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1565.407}, "reply_to": "20368__1_047", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_049", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Real property is different?\nI just... it doesn't seem to me the Government has the right to take something away from me just because it says, hey, it's no use to you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1569.409, 1570.444], "stop_times": [1570.444, 1576.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1569.409}, "reply_to": "20368__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20368__1_050", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--The question here is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1576.514], "stop_times": [1577.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1576.514}, "reply_to": "20368__1_049", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_051", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "And that's what's going on here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1577.197], "stop_times": [1577.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1577.197}, "reply_to": "20368__1_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20368__1_052", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--The question is just the interest, and it... the history of our country shows that there is no constitutional entitlement to earn interest.\nThe background of our banking laws--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1577.914, 1584.684], "stop_times": [1584.684, 1585.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1577.914}, "reply_to": "20368__1_051", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_053", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "But Mr. Kneedler, I thought the answer was simpler than that.\nI thought the answer was the one you mentioned earlier.\nThe client is not being forced to devote his property to someone else's benefit.\nThe client can say, give me the retainer back.\nI won't give you the money.\nPay me the closing costs in cash immediately.\nHe may have trouble finding a lawyer who wants to do that, but that's not a requirement of the State.\nIsn't that the reason--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1585.767, 1587.183, 1591.051, 1597.289, 1600.007, 1601.041, 1606.426, 1610.794], "stop_times": [1587.183, 1591.051, 1597.289, 1600.007, 1601.041, 1606.426, 1610.794, 1611.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1585.767}, "reply_to": "20368__1_052", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20368__1_054", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Right.\nThat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1611.961, 1612.194], "stop_times": [1612.194, 1612.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1611.961}, "reply_to": "20368__1_053", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_055", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--that we don't have in this case the question, how can you make me, in effect, devote my property to someone else's benefit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1612.796], "stop_times": [1618.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1612.796}, "reply_to": "20368__1_054", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20368__1_056", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--That is a sufficient reason, but I did want to answer Justice Breyer's question, because in the banking situation someone else is clearly earning money on the deposit.\nIf what Texas did was, instead of setting up this program in the way that it did, required every bank to pay 2 percent, or the equivalent demand deposit amount to the State for all... measured by the amount of IOLTA accounts in the bank without setting up a separate account, but simply all clients' funds in the bank of a certain minimal amount, the bank has to pay an exaction measured by that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1618.567, 1626.587], "stop_times": [1626.587, 1651.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1618.567}, "reply_to": "20368__1_055", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_057", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Well, I guess--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1651.371], "stop_times": [1651.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1651.371}, "reply_to": "20368__1_056", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20368__1_058", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--there would be no question that the clients' property--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1651.871], "stop_times": [1653.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1651.871}, "reply_to": "20368__1_057", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_059", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Mr. Kneedler, though, in the case of a corporation it's the Federal Government that's saying a corporation can't have any interest earned on its money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1653.487], "stop_times": [1662.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1653.487}, "reply_to": "20368__1_058", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20368__1_060", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Right, and petitioners concede at page 35 of their brief that there is no constitutional entitlement that interest is... interest is only allowed when provided for by statute or agreement of the parties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1662.06], "stop_times": [1670.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1662.06}, "reply_to": "20368__1_059", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_061", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Well, suppose we have a client who does have a huge trust deposit, and the State of Texas says, you know, this IOLTA's working pretty well.\nWe're going to take the interest from everybody.\nWe're going to take the interest on the million dollar trust account, and we're going to use it for State programs.\nThat's a taking, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1670.583, 1679.854, 1682.77, 1687.972], "stop_times": [1679.854, 1682.77, 1687.972, 1689.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1670.583}, "reply_to": "20368__1_060", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20368__1_062", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Well, the... that's a very different situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1689.007], "stop_times": [1691.792], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1689.007}, "reply_to": "20368__1_061", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_063", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Is that a taking?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1691.792], "stop_times": [1694.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1691.792}, "reply_to": "20368__1_062", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20368__1_064", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "I'm... I think... I'm not certain that it would be.\nIt depends... it depends--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1694.708, 1696.41], "stop_times": [1696.41, 1697.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1694.708}, "reply_to": "20368__1_063", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_065", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "What about--\n--Why is isn't it a taking?\n--Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1697.494, 1698.312, 1699.312], "stop_times": [1698.312, 1699.312, 1700.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1697.494}, "reply_to": "20368__1_064", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20368__1_066", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--In Webb's... it would depend upon whether there was any reasonable relation between the exaction and the interest, but here the background rule is that the money could not earn any interest for the client to begin with, and therefore putting it into the account, from one noninterest-bearing account to another from the perspective of the client does not affect the client's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1700.731], "stop_times": [1718.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1700.731}, "reply_to": "20368__1_065", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_067", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Kneedler.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1718.859], "stop_times": [1719.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1718.859}, "reply_to": "20368__1_066", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20368__1_068", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1719.542], "stop_times": [1720.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1719.542}, "reply_to": "20368__1_067", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "20368__1_069", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Mr. Samp, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1720.425], "stop_times": [1726.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1720.425}, "reply_to": "20368__1_068", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20368__2_000", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nRespondents wish at the outset to take issue with some of the confusing language in the question presented by the petitioners.\nPetitioners contend that it is a fundamental precept of the IOLTA program that only those funds which could not on their own generate what they call net interest go to an account which generates IOLTA.\nThat simply is not the rule in the State of Texas.\nThere are many--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1726.579, 1729.447, 1736.351, 1750.009, 1753.062], "stop_times": [1729.447, 1736.351, 1750.009, 1753.062, 1753.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1726.579}, "reply_to": "20368__1_069", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_001", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Isn't that the premise on which the court of appeals decided the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1753.695], "stop_times": [1757.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1753.695}, "reply_to": "20368__2_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20368__2_002", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--The court of appeals said, even if that is the case, that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1757.68], "stop_times": [1760.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1757.68}, "reply_to": "20368__2_001", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_003", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "They assume that, and we're asked to pass on whether their decision was correct on that assumption, and that's why the question was phrased the way it was.\nWe've rephrased the question, as I remember it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1760.632, 1769.119], "stop_times": [1769.119, 1771.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1760.632}, "reply_to": "20368__2_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20368__2_004", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "That is correct, and we believe that the Court should uphold the Fifth Circuit's decision.\nWe believe that an alternative basis for upholding the decision is that the fundamental precept as stated by the petitioners is simply wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1771.738, 1776.808], "stop_times": [1776.808, 1784.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1771.738}, "reply_to": "20368__2_003", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_005", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "We don't have a factual record developed to support that, do we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1784.33], "stop_times": [1787.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1784.33}, "reply_to": "20368__2_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20368__2_006", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "We do not have a factual record, and that was why--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1787.865], "stop_times": [1789.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1787.865}, "reply_to": "20368__2_005", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_007", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Then I don't know why we would decide the case on that assumption.\nI mean, you may have a different... you may have a very different case to bring, and anything based upon the premise of this case might be quite irrelevant to the one that you are now telling us exists, but I don't see how we can decide your other case on a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1789.832, 1792.584], "stop_times": [1792.584, 1807.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1789.832}, "reply_to": "20368__2_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20368__2_008", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1807.158], "stop_times": [1807.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1807.158}, "reply_to": "20368__2_007", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_009", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--factual premise that we don't have before us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1807.51], "stop_times": [1808.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1807.51}, "reply_to": "20368__2_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20368__2_010", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--The court of appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment to the petitioners.\nWe believe that that was the correct decision under any of the two theories that we are here.\nThe court of appeals said that it was not proper to grant summary judgment, and if we are correct that there was a factual dispute in the district court as to whether or not this fundamental precept really exists, then that would be a correct reason for reversing the grant of summary judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1808.91, 1813.414, 1820.402], "stop_times": [1813.414, 1820.402, 1837.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1808.91}, "reply_to": "20368__2_009", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_011", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "It might be a correct reason for digging this case, too.\nWell, so you're saying... you're arguing for affirmance on an alternate ground as well as on the ground that the court of appeals took?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1837.779, 1841.064], "stop_times": [1841.064, 1847.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1837.779}, "reply_to": "20368__2_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20368__2_012", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "That is correct, and certainly that would be an option to dig the case, if Your Honor so chose.\nWe do believe, however, as we pointed out in our response to the cert petition, that the issue on which the Fifth Circuit ruled was directly in conflict with that of two other circuits, and so long as the Court is... has agreed to hear the case, we think it ought to decide that issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1847.135, 1851.337], "stop_times": [1851.337, 1867.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1847.135}, "reply_to": "20368__2_011", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_013", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Mr. Samp--\n--And also, isn't it clear that if you lose on the question that is presented, you can still make that argument in the court of appeals?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1867.381, 1867.914], "stop_times": [1867.914, 1874.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1867.381}, "reply_to": "20368__2_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20368__2_014", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "That is correct, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1874.368], "stop_times": [1875.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1874.368}, "reply_to": "20368__2_013", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_015", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "You're still protected in that regard.\nIn this case, which is not a class action, there's a vague reference to what is at stake for... is it Mr. Summers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1875.335, 1876.737], "stop_times": [1876.737, 1886.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1875.335}, "reply_to": "20368__2_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20368__2_016", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1886.759], "stop_times": [1886.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1886.759}, "reply_to": "20368__2_015", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_017", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "I believe the complaint says a small amount of his money has been in an IOLTA account since May 1993.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1886.993], "stop_times": [1896.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1886.993}, "reply_to": "20368__2_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20368__2_018", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1896.965], "stop_times": [1897.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1896.965}, "reply_to": "20368__2_017", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_019", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "We know there's no economic stake for the lawyer or for the organization.\nWhat is the pocketbook interest for Mr. Summer?\nWhat is the small amount?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1897.733, 1902.018, 1905.554], "stop_times": [1902.018, 1905.554, 1906.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1897.733}, "reply_to": "20368__2_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20368__2_020", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "The small amount is 1,000 dollars that has been in this account since 1993.\nThe financial stake of his lawyer is that his lawyer holds the legal title to these trust funds.\nThe beneficial or equitable title is held by Mr. Summers, so they both have a financial interest in these particular funds.\nAnd under this Court's decision in Webb's Fabulous Pharmacy, the Court said very explicitly the earnings of the fund are incidents of ownership of the fund itself and are property, just as the fund itself is property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1906.856, 1911.291, 1917.195, 1924.884], "stop_times": [1911.291, 1917.195, 1924.884, 1937.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1906.856}, "reply_to": "20368__2_019", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_021", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "But can we argue the case on the assumption that no net interest can be attributed to this client?\nCan we argue the case on that assumption?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1937.876, 1945.897], "stop_times": [1945.897, 1947.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1937.876}, "reply_to": "20368__2_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20368__2_022", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "If you so choose.\nThere is an alternate basis for upholding the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1947.833, 1948.649], "stop_times": [1948.649, 1951.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1947.833}, "reply_to": "20368__2_021", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_023", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "On that assumption, why should you still prevail?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1951.165], "stop_times": [1953.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1951.165}, "reply_to": "20368__2_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20368__2_024", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Because it has been the common law rule for 250 years that if, in fact, interest is generated, that interest belongs to the client.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1953.767], "stop_times": [1963.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1953.767}, "reply_to": "20368__2_023", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_025", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Well, if that's so, why... this is exactly the problem I'm having.\nIt's very easy for me to see arguments both ways if we look at the property as the deposit, because then the issue becomes, can the Government take this piece of property and use it to earn money for another person?\nNow, we know the Government can take real property and can insist you put up an antipollution thing.\nAnd they do it just to earn money for a downstream business, say a tourist business.\nThey perhaps could force my water over a dam, which would generate electricity that would go to another person, and maybe even they take my advance payment on my taxes and they use that payment to make money for the Government, and they never pay me anything.\nIn any of those cases it seems to me the issue is the correct use, constitutional or not, of the property I own, not the electricity, not the money that's earned in the tourist attraction, and not the money that the Government happens to use my money to get for itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [1963.742, 1969.027, 1983.37, 1990.059, 1995.444, 2011.155], "stop_times": [1969.027, 1983.37, 1990.059, 1995.444, 2011.155, 2029.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1963.742}, "reply_to": "20368__2_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20368__2_026", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2029.017], "stop_times": [2029.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2029.017}, "reply_to": "20368__2_025", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_027", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "So on any of those analogies, the answer is there is no property interest in what's used, what's gained, but the question is whether we can use the basic fund for that purpose.\nNow, I put that quite squarely because I want to hear your response to the point, why is there a property interest in that electricity that my water is used to make, or the interest here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2029.567, 2040.575], "stop_times": [2040.575, 2053.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2029.567}, "reply_to": "20368__2_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20368__2_028", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Justice Breyer, the Court in its Webb's Fabulous Pharmacy case saw these two issues that you're presenting as really the flip side of each other, that really the reason that interest follows principal is because in effect the use of the principal is what generates the interest, and therefore the Government's temporary taking or use of the original principal is the same thing as the taking of the interest.\nNow, in some of the examples you have given, there are many things that distinguish them.\nFor example, in the case of the Government taking a tax, it has always been thought that a properly constituted tax that does not violate either equal protection or due process does not constitute a taking.\nThe same would be true of any sort of user fee.\nThe... I'm not sure I understand the case of the water.\nGenerally, the water--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2053.382, 2081.735, 2085.353, 2096.911, 2100.864, 2105.0], "stop_times": [2081.735, 2085.353, 2096.911, 2100.864, 2105.0, 2106.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2053.382}, "reply_to": "20368__2_027", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_029", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "They take my water and they say, run it over the TVA dam, and as a result it makes electricity which otherwise couldn't be produced.\nThe Government takes that electricity, sells it, keeps the money.\nIt's just like the interest here.\nThey take your money and they use it to make some other thing that's worth something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2106.017, 2115.873, 2119.259, 2120.444], "stop_times": [2115.873, 2119.259, 2120.444, 2125.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2106.017}, "reply_to": "20368__2_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20368__2_030", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--In all respect, the navigable... the water in navigable streams has never been though to be private property.\nThe riverbeds can be private property but not the water, so I'm not sure that any of those analogies prove your point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2125.163, 2130.781], "stop_times": [2130.781, 2136.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2125.163}, "reply_to": "20368__2_029", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_031", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "It seems to me this case is something like an escheat.\nAll States escheat bank accounts after different periods of time, some 7 years.\nCan a property owner come and say, well, you know, you really should give me 10 years.\nIn 10 years I would have got this.\nThis is really mine?\nThe State uses it for escheats and uses it for... it takes the money and uses it for any purpose it wants.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2136.185, 2139.137, 2145.457, 2148.576, 2149.593, 2150.926], "stop_times": [2139.137, 2145.457, 2148.576, 2149.593, 2150.926, 2155.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2136.185}, "reply_to": "20368__2_030", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20368__2_032", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "In the case of abandoned property, that is correct, and the rules of escheat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2155.497], "stop_times": [2159.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2155.497}, "reply_to": "20368__2_031", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_033", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Well, isn't this something like abandoned property, because under the assumption... and I know you have an alternate base, but under the assumption that we... on which we're considering the case, you simply cannot trace and pay the interest, so it seems to me very much like an escheat.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2159.032], "stop_times": [2175.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2159.032}, "reply_to": "20368__2_032", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20368__2_034", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Well, let me distinguish what... within the question presented from what all the facts of this case are.\nThe petitioners say that you cannot earn interest.\nYes, you can earn interest.\nInterest is what a willing borrower is willing to pay for the use of money.\nInterest is generated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2175.874, 2182.064, 2184.614, 2185.682, 2191.42], "stop_times": [2182.064, 2184.614, 2185.682, 2191.42, 2192.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2175.874}, "reply_to": "20368__2_033", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_035", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "I thought that we made it very clear that interest is earned, but that it's not net interest in the sense that the administrative cost of tracing it and paying it to the client will exceed the interest itself.\nI thought that's the basis we're arguing the case on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2192.37, 2203.894], "stop_times": [2203.894, 2206.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2192.37}, "reply_to": "20368__2_034", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20368__2_036", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "And let me add, Justice Kennedy, that the underlying premise of IOLTA is that there will be these costs, yet those costs will exist in any event.\nIf I operate a trust account, I am going to have certain bank charges.\nI am going to have certain overhead costs in my office, including the cost of entering the names on a daily basis into the account.\nI am going to have the cost of reconciling the account at the end of the month.\nThose costs will exist no matter whether I put my funds into an account that earns interest for IOLTA or earns interest for my client.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2206.096, 2215.285, 2219.987, 2227.276, 2231.878], "stop_times": [2215.285, 2219.987, 2227.276, 2231.878, 2241.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2206.096}, "reply_to": "20368__2_035", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_037", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "No, but the... when IOLTA talks about the offset it's talking about offsets beyond that.\nIt's talking about offsets necessary, not only to account for the funds, but to account for them separately to each source, to file the appropriate tax information for each source, to pay the interest out to each source, and so on, and those, in fact, are separate costs which are not incurred in a pooled fund.\nSo sure, you're right, no matter how you hold it there's going to be some accounting cost, but the premise of IOLTA is, there are going to be more accounting and reporting costs if you're going to account for them separately to the client and, in fact, when you do so that's going to wipe out any benefit to the client.\nThere will be a net of zero or less.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2241.103, 2247.423, 2271.704, 2289.416], "stop_times": [2247.423, 2271.704, 2289.416, 2291.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2241.103}, "reply_to": "20368__2_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20368__2_038", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Justice Souter, I'd like to call your attention both to Rule 6--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2291.516], "stop_times": [2293.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2291.516}, "reply_to": "20368__2_037", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_039", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "No, but isn't that the premise?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2293.885], "stop_times": [2295.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2293.885}, "reply_to": "20368__2_038", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20368__2_040", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--No, that is not.\nThe premise is that if the net interest to the client is less than zero, that the money does not go at all to the client.\nThe... however, a net interest of less than zero will almost always be a, still a net benefit for the client.\nIf you look at IOLTA Rule 6, if you look at page 43 of our brief in which we lay out in footnote 16 all of the overhead cost that the State of Texas tells lawyers should be taken into account before the... it is determined whether there can be net interest, you will see that only one out of seven items mentioned is the cost of producing a 1099 form.\nThe cost of computing interest separately--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2295.487, 2296.087, 2304.074, 2311.18, 2334.193], "stop_times": [2296.087, 2304.074, 2311.18, 2334.193, 2336.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2295.487}, "reply_to": "20368__2_039", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_041", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "What is the Texas State law about interest following principal?\nIs it the law in the State of Texas that net interest follows principal, only the net?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2336.045, 2341.116], "stop_times": [2341.116, 2349.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2336.045}, "reply_to": "20368__2_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20368__2_042", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2349.603], "stop_times": [2349.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2349.603}, "reply_to": "20368__2_041", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_043", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "The Sellers case sort of sounds like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2349.972], "stop_times": [2352.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2349.972}, "reply_to": "20368__2_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20368__2_044", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--The Sellers case indicates that if a fund of interest is generated, the person responsible for generating the interest is entitled to take a reasonable fee for their expenses before paying on the interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2352.072], "stop_times": [2366.564], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2352.072}, "reply_to": "20368__2_043", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_045", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "I mean, if Texas law is to the effect that only net interest goes with the property, and if we take this case on the assumption that there isn't any net interest, then where does that leave us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2366.564], "stop_times": [2376.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2366.564}, "reply_to": "20368__2_044", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20368__2_046", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Texas law does not say only net interest.\nTexas law says a reasonable fee can be deducted.\nIt says nothing about other costs that someone other than the State might be incurring, so that, for example, in this particular case there will be costs that the attorney incurs for overhead, for setting up of the account, for all of these other things, yet the State of Texas does nothing to generate any of those funds.\nThis is not a case where somehow the State has pooled money.\nThis is pooling by the lawyer that, as Chief Justice Rehnquist indicated before, has always been going on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2376.705, 2379.574, 2382.692, 2404.372, 2407.157], "stop_times": [2379.574, 2382.692, 2404.372, 2407.157, 2413.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2376.705}, "reply_to": "20368__2_045", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_047", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Mr. Samp, can I... coming back to Justice Kennedy's escheat example, I was thinking that that differs from this in that the owner of a bank account that would be escheated has voluntarily let it go.\nHe's abandoned it, in effect.\nBut then, maybe that's not true, because the contention has been made here that these people have an option, too, that they don't have to let the lawyer hold onto their money.\nWhat is your response to that argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2413.211, 2432.792, 2434.459, 2445.932], "stop_times": [2432.792, 2434.459, 2445.932, 2447.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2413.211}, "reply_to": "20368__2_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20368__2_048", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "There is nothing voluntary about the IOLTA program.\nFirst of all, it says explicitly in the IOLTA rules that the attorney is not required to tell the clients about the existence of the IOLTA program.\nIndeed, virtually no clients know that their money is going in here, so they really don't have that option.\nIn the case of Mr. Summers, he was never told that his funds were going into an IOLTA account.\nWhen he finally did learn, his case was already 18 months down the road, so that to say that there was any sort of realistic option at that point to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2447.468, 2449.668, 2458.574, 2463.561, 2468.982], "stop_times": [2449.668, 2458.574, 2463.561, 2468.982, 2478.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2447.468}, "reply_to": "20368__2_047", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_049", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Well, I thought that the statements made here say that it was just ordinarily funds kept for a very short time while a check cleared.\nHis funds were kept for 18 months?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2478.004, 2486.009], "stop_times": [2486.009, 2488.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2478.004}, "reply_to": "20368__2_048", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20368__2_050", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--They are still in the fund.\nHe was sued in a civil action in 1993... or, excuse me, 1992.\nThe... he was... this was a retainer of a different sort than the one you were describing.\nThis was not an advance payment.\nRather, this was 1,000 dollars that was put into a trust account.\nIt was to be used to ensure payment of regular bills.\nSo long as regular bills were paid, and they have been in all the years since then, then the money remains in the trust account.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2488.559, 2489.628, 2494.949, 2500.317, 2501.769, 2506.607, 2509.875], "stop_times": [2489.628, 2494.949, 2500.317, 2501.769, 2506.607, 2509.875, 2517.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2488.559}, "reply_to": "20368__2_049", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_051", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Does the State require him to pay the 1,000 dollars to the lawyer?\nThat's a matter of his contract between him and the lawyer.\nI don't see how that's attributable to the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2517.696, 2521.266, 2523.816], "stop_times": [2521.266, 2523.816, 2526.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2517.696}, "reply_to": "20368__2_050", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20368__2_052", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "The State has stated that any money in a trust account must go--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2526.416], "stop_times": [2530.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2526.416}, "reply_to": "20368__2_051", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_053", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Yes, but the State doesn't say that this 1,000 dollars has got to be paid to the lawyer and put in... to be put in a trust account.\nThe State doesn't tell him he's got to pay the lawyer 1,000 dollars.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2530.97, 2536.957], "stop_times": [2536.957, 2539.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2530.97}, "reply_to": "20368__2_052", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20368__2_054", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Similarly, in the Webb's Fabulous Pharmacy case, there was no requirement that anybody make a claim against the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2539.492], "stop_times": [2545.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2539.492}, "reply_to": "20368__2_053", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_055", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "No, but there was a difference in Webb's, and the difference was in effect that there was a background of practice in dealing with money, and given that background of practice with dealing with money, it was the standard, the norm that the interest went to the person whose principal was earning it.\nThere isn't that kind of a background of practice here.\nMaybe we should say that there should be a legal requirement that the two be treated the same, but we are certainly going to go beyond Webb's if we hold your way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2545.98, 2566.659, 2569.695], "stop_times": [2566.659, 2569.695, 2578.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2545.98}, "reply_to": "20368__2_054", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20368__2_056", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--In all due respect, in Webb's there was no such history.\nThe history in Webb was that in general, when money had been put into the court registry, it sat there and no interest was earned.\nAt some point--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2578.617, 2581.086, 2587.222], "stop_times": [2581.086, 2587.222, 2589.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2578.617}, "reply_to": "20368__2_055", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_057", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "But there was a general background principle that sums of money capable of earning interest at commercial rates in substantial amounts, as a general rule, went to the... as a general rule under those circumstances the interest went to the person who owned the principal.\nThat was the background.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2589.008, 2607.386], "stop_times": [2607.386, 2608.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2589.008}, "reply_to": "20368__2_056", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20368__2_058", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--The background in Florida is precisely the same in Texas, and that is a general rule that interest follows principal.\nI have not seen anything in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2608.603, 2614.724], "stop_times": [2614.724, 2615.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2608.603}, "reply_to": "20368__2_057", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_059", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "No, but there is a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2615.992], "stop_times": [2616.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2615.992}, "reply_to": "20368__2_058", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20368__2_060", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--background principle that adds the caveats that you have suggested.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2616.609], "stop_times": [2619.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2616.609}, "reply_to": "20368__2_059", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_061", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--But the question, I think, is whether we should say that the, I guess consistently different background treatment in commercial and legal practice here is not entitled to some constitutional significance, and we can't make that determination simply by saying this is like Webb's, because the question in this case is whether it is like Webb's.\nDo you agree at least with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2619.075, 2645.692], "stop_times": [2645.692, 2648.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2619.075}, "reply_to": "20368__2_060", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20368__2_062", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Webb's did not directly address the issue here.\nThe general background principles in Webb's apply equally here, and I think perhaps an effective way of looking at this is to look at it really perhaps in the way that Justice Breyer was suggesting before, which is that we have the right to exclude others from the use of our property.\nPresumably--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2648.542, 2651.194, 2666.621], "stop_times": [2651.194, 2666.621, 2667.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2648.542}, "reply_to": "20368__2_061", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_063", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Mr. Samp, I'd like to ask you... your time is running out.\nI take it that on the theory you're presenting, this would go for what the Justice's brief brought up.\nThat is, the prisoners who want to buy things at the commissary have to put a deposit, and they don't get any interest on it, but the interest is used to make... do things to administer the prison, so I take it, if you prevail here, the same would follow for the prisoners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2667.355, 2670.057, 2676.461], "stop_times": [2670.057, 2676.461, 2693.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2667.355}, "reply_to": "20368__2_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20368__2_064", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Precisely, and in fact that is the unanimous view of the court of appeals right now, is that prison accounts, when they are set up and they actually earn interest, the prison is entitled to take a reasonable administrative fee off of the top, but any interest that remains is the property of the clients, and they... generally courts of appeals have said that prisons may not take that money and use them as they see fit for the general benefit of the prison.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2693.256], "stop_times": [2713.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2693.256}, "reply_to": "20368__2_063", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_065", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Is there any... please.\nNo, go--\n--Let me ask you a question if they're hesitating, then.\n[Laughter]\nDo you think Texas could pass a statute repealing the rule that interest follows principal at least in a limited category of cases, including deposits by clients with their lawyers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2713.134, 2715.217, 2717.086, 2719.388, 2721.438], "stop_times": [2715.217, 2717.086, 2719.388, 2721.438, 2730.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2713.134}, "reply_to": "20368__2_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20368__2_066", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Well, that's what they have done in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2730.846], "stop_times": [2732.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2730.846}, "reply_to": "20368__2_065", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_067", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Do you think they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2732.612], "stop_times": [2733.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2732.612}, "reply_to": "20368__2_066", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20368__2_068", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "They have announced a rule repealing it, and the question is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2733.179], "stop_times": [2735.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2733.179}, "reply_to": "20368__2_067", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_069", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--The question is, as a matter of State... if they did it as a matter of State statutory law, say, you say they... the Constitution would permit or prohibit that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2735.548], "stop_times": [2742.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2735.548}, "reply_to": "20368__2_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20368__2_070", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--They have done that, and it prohibits it, because this Court said in Webb's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2742.202], "stop_times": [2746.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2742.202}, "reply_to": "20368__2_069", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_071", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "But they do it by defining property in a way that doesn't include this category of interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2746.154], "stop_times": [2750.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2746.154}, "reply_to": "20368__2_070", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20368__2_072", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Yes, and this Court in Webb's said that when you simply announce by ipse dixit that some piece of property that used to be protected by State law no longer is, that that is precisely what the Takings Clause was intended to prevent.\nNow, the State is permitted to redefine property, but it may not do so in a way that defines one category of property totally different from similarly situated property and, for example, in our brief we point out that the State of Texas itself right now is litigating in the Ninth Circuit the right to have its trust funds, any interest earned on those trust funds, have the interest go to the State of Texas even though in that particular case Texas had no right in the first instance to insist that interest be generated.\nSo that if Texas is going to be taking... making that argument, right now in court in that case, it should not be allowed to change property law for similarly situated property--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2750.64, 2765.067, 2795.936], "stop_times": [2765.067, 2795.936, 2804.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2750.64}, "reply_to": "20368__2_071", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_073", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Let me ask you this.\nIf it were not for the Webb's case... you rely very heavily and very properly on it... would you have any authority for your position, your response to my question, except Webb's?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2804.775, 2805.442], "stop_times": [2805.442, 2813.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2804.775}, "reply_to": "20368__2_072", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20368__2_074", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Yes.\nIn the Lucas case, this Court generally talked about the ability of the State to change property law and nuisance law, and what the Court said was that if you are going to declare something a nuisance, that really has to be consistent with background principles of property and nuisance law.\nYou can't just simply, by ipse dixit, declare that something is a nuisance and therefore say that no compensation is due when you pass a regulation stopping a particular activity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2813.846, 2814.298, 2834.009], "stop_times": [2814.298, 2834.009, 2843.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2813.846}, "reply_to": "20368__2_073", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_075", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Well, is--\n--Mr. Samp, can I ask you, is this case necessarily over, have you gotten over the hill if we agree with you on this aspect of the case?\nAs I understand it, the only thing before us is whether your client has a property interest in the interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2843.198, 2843.983, 2853.856], "stop_times": [2843.983, 2853.856, 2861.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2843.198}, "reply_to": "20368__2_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20368__2_076", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2861.862], "stop_times": [2862.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2861.862}, "reply_to": "20368__2_075", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_077", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "It's conceivable that he has a property interest but that there hasn't been a taking.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2862.279], "stop_times": [2865.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2862.279}, "reply_to": "20368__2_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20368__2_078", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2865.581], "stop_times": [2866.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2865.581}, "reply_to": "20368__2_077", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_079", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Because since he could not harvest that property interest, so to speak, it was worthless to him, the holding below on remand could be there's been no taking of that property interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2866.514], "stop_times": [2877.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2866.514}, "reply_to": "20368__2_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20368__2_080", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "While we would argue against that result, that is a possible result after a favorable decision to us today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2877.871], "stop_times": [2882.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2877.871}, "reply_to": "20368__2_079", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_081", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Okay, but you acknowledge that they are two separate questions, and all we're talking about here is whether there is a property interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2882.942], "stop_times": [2888.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2882.942}, "reply_to": "20368__2_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20368__2_082", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2888.262], "stop_times": [2888.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2888.262}, "reply_to": "20368__2_081", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_083", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Do you think they are necessarily two separate questions for us here?\nIt's one thing, I suppose, to ask abstractly whether there is a property right in the interest, but it seems to me equally legitimate to ask the question, should we recognize a property right in the interest for Fifth Amendment purposes if, in fact, the result on the premise of the case would be that there was no just compensation due at the end of the road because the client, in... because... yes, the client in fact had lost nothing that the client would otherwise have had?\nIn other words, wouldn't it be legitimate for us to consider what will happen at stage... or what ought to happen at stage 2 in deciding whether in the first instance to recognize a property right at stage 1?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2888.879, 2893.247, 2925.135], "stop_times": [2893.247, 2925.135, 2938.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2888.879}, "reply_to": "20368__2_082", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20368__2_084", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "I think it would be a preferable course for the Court to have a full record as to whether or not there was a loss to the client prior to making that determination.\nThe initial decision the court of... the district court will have to face is whether or not the per se taking rules apply and then, if they do not, then the question is, each of the various factors that the Court has enunciated for whether a taking exists, and those sorts of questions perhaps could best be decided on a fuller record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2938.043, 2947.214], "stop_times": [2947.214, 2966.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2938.043}, "reply_to": "20368__2_083", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_085", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "The court of appeals made no effort to decide the second question, did it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2966.109], "stop_times": [2970.293], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2966.109}, "reply_to": "20368__2_084", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20368__2_086", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "That is correct, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2970.293], "stop_times": [2970.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2970.293}, "reply_to": "20368__2_085", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_087", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "It expressly reserved it, as I recall.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2970.912, 2972.712], "stop_times": [2972.712, 2973.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2970.912}, "reply_to": "20368__2_086", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20368__2_088", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "That's correct, and they also, while they reinstated our First Amendment claim, they really had... had virtually no discussion of the First Amendment issue, so that regardless of how the Court rules today on the Fifth Amendment issue, we would hope that that issue would be... would still be open on remand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2973.112], "stop_times": [2988.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2973.112}, "reply_to": "20368__2_087", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_089", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "There's a lot of law that concerns contracts and trusts, and misuse of trusts, and I take it it's common law in most States that if a trustee misuses your money and makes money out of it he's going to have to pay that to you, and that seems to help you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [2988.172], "stop_times": [3007.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2988.172}, "reply_to": "20368__2_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20368__2_090", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [3007.919], "stop_times": [3008.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3007.919}, "reply_to": "20368__2_089", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_091", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "All right.\nBut what's worrying me here is that we're talking about, not your loss, but the misperforming trustee's gain, let's say, assuming everything in your favor, the misperforming trustee's gain over and above your loss, and I'm... have you found anything... I'm nervous about, or would worry about the consequences of constitutionalizing that amount, of suddenly we invade trust law and contract law by saying there is a property interest in... let's take a misperforming trustee, who makes some money out of your money in an amount greater than you could have ever made.\nAnd now, what happens, once we say there's a constitutional interest in that?\nIs there suddenly going to be an implication for bankruptcy proceedings, or for State laws that decide for some reason not to give that extra amount back to the person who put the money into the trust?\nWhat happens in a... I'm... I can't quite foresee, the terrible word, ERISA cases.\n[Laughter]\nI can't quite foresee that, and I'd like to get your reaction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [3008.653, 3009.204, 3048.329, 3052.947, 3067.124, 3072.878, 3074.48], "stop_times": [3009.204, 3048.329, 3052.947, 3067.124, 3072.878, 3074.48, 3079.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3008.653}, "reply_to": "20368__2_090", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20368__2_092", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "I am not sure that a decision in our favor in this case would constitutionalize the entire law of trusts.\nA trustee, for example, could be found to have failed to properly invest the money, but that would not be a subject for the Takings Clause.\nHowever, it has long been the case that if a trustee earns interest, that even though he had no obligation to do so in the first place, it has been considered that the Takings Clause requires that interest to be paid over, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [3079.449, 3086.288, 3095.976], "stop_times": [3086.288, 3095.976, 3111.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3079.449}, "reply_to": "20368__2_091", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_093", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Not the Taking Clause, just normal property law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [3111.07], "stop_times": [3116.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3111.07}, "reply_to": "20368__2_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20368__2_094", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Yes.\nIn the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [3116.39, 3116.69], "stop_times": [3116.69, 3117.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3116.39}, "reply_to": "20368__2_093", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_095", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "My worry was just the opposite of Justice Breyer's.\nI worry that if we hold that there is no property interest here, that where this kind of a plan did not exist, the lawyer himself would be able to merge all clients' funds that could not individually make a profit and keep whatever interest comes.\nI'm sure that that's not what the common law would normally provide, that that interest would be considered the property of the individual clients who ponied up the money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [3117.057, 3120.925, 3136.619], "stop_times": [3120.925, 3136.619, 3145.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3117.057}, "reply_to": "20368__2_094", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20368__2_096", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [3145.474], "stop_times": [3145.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3145.474}, "reply_to": "20368__2_095", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_097", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "But if there's no property interest, there would be no basis for such a rule, I assume.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [3145.907], "stop_times": [3149.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3145.907}, "reply_to": "20368__2_096", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20368__2_098", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--I agree with you completely, and it seems to me that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [3149.778], "stop_times": [3151.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3149.778}, "reply_to": "20368__2_097", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_099", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "But Mr. Samp, I thought that the... once I... tell me if this is a wrong fix on the case, that it was a question between who was going to get this money, the Texas fund or the bank, that in no event was it going to enrich the lawyer or the client, so there were two choices.\nIf IOLTA is no good, the bank gets the money.\nIf IOLTA's okay, the fund gets the money, but not the lawyer and not the client in any event.\nI thought that was the basic premise of this whole thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [3151.644, 3166.454, 3169.073, 3173.977], "stop_times": [3166.454, 3169.073, 3173.977, 3176.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3151.644}, "reply_to": "20368__2_098", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20368__2_100", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--Perhaps that was a premise back in 1976, at a time when interest could not effectively be earned on accounts.\nHowever, there is a difference between a bank having free use of money and a bank paying interest and then deciding who gets that money.\nInterest is an actual payment of money for the use of funds.\nThat has been this Court's definition--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [3176.727, 3186.249, 3195.105, 3199.073], "stop_times": [3186.249, 3195.105, 3199.073, 3201.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3176.727}, "reply_to": "20368__2_099", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_101", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "But that's--\n--Well, assume that's still the premise of this case.\nYes.\nAssume that's still the premise of this case.\nAs Justice Ginsburg outlined it, why does the client have a reasonable investment-backed expectation of interest when we stipulate that he could never get that interest?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [3201.009, 3201.375, 3203.958, 3204.327, 3206.527], "stop_times": [3201.375, 3203.958, 3204.327, 3206.527, 3217.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3201.009}, "reply_to": "20368__2_100", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20368__2_102", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--I don't believe he has an investment-backed expectation, and that goes to the issue of whether there is a taking.\nHe has not invested anything here.\nHe does have a very legitimate expectation that any interest that is earned will be his, and that's why this should be considered to be his property.\nBut once that issue is reached, then, of course, we have to consider whether the per se taking rule applies.\nIf not, then the issue of whether or not there is a reasonable investment-backed expectation would be one of a number of factors that would be taken into account in determining whether there is a taking, but I don't believe that we need to show that there was any kind of reasonable investment-backed expectation in order to prevail on the issue today, which is whether or not this is property in the first place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [3217.301, 3222.538, 3224.454, 3232.81, 3238.798], "stop_times": [3222.538, 3224.454, 3232.81, 3238.798, 3257.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3217.301}, "reply_to": "20368__2_101", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_103", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Well, why wouldn't your case be basically the same even if there were no IOLTA and the banks were simply getting the benefit of the deposit?\nIt's true, the banks would not be going through the formality of paying itself interest, but you would have, it seems to me, exactly the same property claim that you've got here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [3257.775, 3266.279], "stop_times": [3266.279, 3275.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3257.775}, "reply_to": "20368__2_102", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20368__2_104", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "The banking industry has always been subject to regulation, and if they are prohibited from paying interest, we don't claim that we would have any sort of claim.\nHowever, banks are ready, willing, and able to pay interest.\nThey compete actively for the money of depositors.\nThey want to have this money in order to be able to lend it out to others.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [3275.301, 3283.555, 3285.741, 3289.125], "stop_times": [3283.555, 3285.741, 3289.125, 3292.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3275.301}, "reply_to": "20368__2_103", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_105", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "So interest follows principal only if there is a background practice of paying interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [3292.66], "stop_times": [3297.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3292.66}, "reply_to": "20368__2_104", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20368__2_106", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Any interest that is paid follows principal.\nThat is the rule.\nIf it is not paid, then there is no right to accrued interest for the use of one's money, and we don't claim that that's any kind of constitutional right.\nGoing back to your question, Justice Scalia, it seems to me that it's very easy to foresee many examples where the Government, for example, might come in and say that you're not gardening in your backyard, why don't we come in and grow a vegetable garden there.\nAnd I'd say, well, I want to exclude you, and they say, well, it would cost you too much to buy the fertilizer for the backyard, so you can't do it profitably, but we buy our fertilizer in bulk, so we can do it more profitably, let us use it since you're not doing it otherwise, and it would seem to me that a decision that this is not property would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [3297.528, 3300.314, 3301.047, 3308.02, 3321.993], "stop_times": [3300.314, 3301.047, 3308.02, 3321.993, 3338.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3297.528}, "reply_to": "20368__2_105", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_107", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "No, no.\nNo.\nThat's a misuse of the yard.\nThat's right.\nThat's what I think is the question in the case.\nCan they or can they not use the 1,000 dollars in this way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [3338.872, 3339.622, 3339.891, 3341.357, 3341.957, 3344.443], "stop_times": [3339.622, 3339.891, 3341.357, 3341.957, 3344.443, 3348.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3338.872}, "reply_to": "20368__2_106", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20368__2_108", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--And I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [3348.661], "stop_times": [3348.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3348.661}, "reply_to": "20368__2_107", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_109", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "I mean, whether the vegetables if they do use it, who they happen to belong to, I mean, I don't know.\nI guess that's a question of State restitution law.\nIf it was a misused garden, I don't know that the Constitution says who the vegetables have to belong to, but the Constitution might say whether you can use the garden that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [3348.978, 3354.299, 3356.501], "stop_times": [3354.299, 3356.501, 3369.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3348.978}, "reply_to": "20368__2_108", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20368__2_110", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "--The... it's not the Constitution, it is common law and State law that has always said that the earnings of a fund, the earnings of property are the property of those who own the fund that generate it.\nJust as, because I own the garden, I own the vegetables that are produced from it, so, too, because I own the fund, I own the interest that is generated by my fund.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [3369.308, 3379.514], "stop_times": [3379.514, 3388.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3369.308}, "reply_to": "20368__2_109", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_111", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Yes, but because you can tell the Government to get out of your yard you're in the same position, it seems to me, that you're in here, when you can say to the lawyer, give me the 1,000 dollars.\nThe Government isn't stopping you from doing that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [3388.722, 3398.578], "stop_times": [3398.578, 3401.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3388.722}, "reply_to": "20368__2_110", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20368__2_112", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "The Government hasn't even... the Government has said to the lawyers, you don't even have to tell me, so I don't even know that you're in my backyard.\nI've gone off on vacation, and I come back, and all of a sudden--\n[Laughter]\n--the yard is occupied.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [3401.03, 3406.433, 3409.468, 3409.918, 3411.084], "stop_times": [3406.433, 3409.468, 3409.918, 3411.084, 3412.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3401.03}, "reply_to": "20368__2_111", "speaker": "richard_a_samp"}
{"id": "20368__2_113", "conversation_id": "20368", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Samp.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1578", "start_times": [3412.218, 3412.684], "stop_times": [3412.684, 3414.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3412.218}, "reply_to": "20368__2_112", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21270__0_000", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "We'll hear argument first this morning in Number 96-1470, Quality King Distributors v. L'anza Research International.\nMr. Snyder.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [0.0, 5.618], "stop_times": [5.618, 7.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21270__0_001", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe Members of Congress in 1976 who enacted the copyright law of 1976 would be quite surprised to learn from the Ninth Circuit's decision below that Congress allegedly intended section 602 of that law to override the longstanding and fundamental principle in copyright law known as the first sale doctrine and thus to allow a manufacturer to control the import and the subsequent resale of particular copies of goods that the manufacturer itself had already sold.\nThis Ninth Circuit decision is inconsistent not only with the statutory language but also with the legislative history and, indeed, Congress simply has not addressed either in the copyright law or elsewhere respondent's efforts to curtail parallel imports--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [7.904, 11.039, 48.247], "stop_times": [11.039, 48.247, 67.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7.904}, "reply_to": "21270__0_000", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "21270__0_002", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Well, Mr. Snyder, the Government has come in and urged us to rely on the section that... 602, dealing with infringing importation of goods, and they tell us that the United States has entered into treaties on the assumption that that provision governs.\nWhat do we do with that argument made by the Government?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [67.608, 94.962], "stop_times": [94.962, 99.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 67.608}, "reply_to": "21270__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21270__0_003", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, I believe the issue before the Court is what did Congress say and what did Congress intend in a statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [99.497], "stop_times": [106.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 99.497}, "reply_to": "21270__0_002", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "21270__0_004", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Yes, I think so, but I would be very interested to know how you evaluate the extent to which this country has relied on some other interpretation, as the Government argues.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [106.269], "stop_times": [120.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 106.269}, "reply_to": "21270__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21270__0_005", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "I believe that the Government has shown that in several bilateral trade agreements that were never submitted to Congress either for consideration or for action, the Government has asserted the position in dealing with the Governments of Cambodia, Trinidad and Tobago, and several other countries, that it is the executive branch's position that parallel imports of the kind at issue here should be curtailed.\nWe believe that, to the extent the Government is relying on copyright law for that position, that it is up to Congress to pass the law and set the policy, and it is up to this Court to interpret that position of Congress and what Congress said and meant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [120.243, 149.512], "stop_times": [149.512, 164.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 120.243}, "reply_to": "21270__0_004", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "21270__0_006", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Do we owe deference to any Government agency in interpreting these laws before us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [164.772], "stop_times": [170.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 164.772}, "reply_to": "21270__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21270__0_007", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "I believe not, Justice O'Connor.\nThis is not a case where the Government has even alleged Chevron deference.\nThis is not a case where the Government has been assigned by Congress any duty under 602(a).\nThere are no regulations.\nThere is no role for the Copyright Office or any other agency of the executive branch to administer 602(a).\nIt is solely a private right of action, and under those circumstances we think there is no deference to be accorded.\nThe executive branch is free to take whatever position it wishes in bilateral negotiations, but if their positions conflict with the position of Congress, we submit they should go to Congress for a change in the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [170.074, 171.259, 176.044, 181.615, 183.067, 190.637, 197.04], "stop_times": [171.259, 176.044, 181.615, 183.067, 190.637, 197.04, 208.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 170.074}, "reply_to": "21270__0_006", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "21270__0_008", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Let me ask you one more question, since I have you interrupted, and then I'll leave it alone.\nSection 501, dealing with infringement of copyright, says anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner covered by sections 106 through 118, or who imports copies into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer.\nUnder your theory, that section wouldn't be needed, I suppose, insofar as it refers to section 602.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [208.948, 213.669, 233.832], "stop_times": [213.669, 233.832, 243.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 208.948}, "reply_to": "21270__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21270__0_009", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "I think it's correct that that particular language could have been omitted.\nHowever, it would have raised questions where, in... for courts to interpret the language, since section 106 obviously deals with distribution to the extent we're discussing it here, and we all agree that importation is not literally the same thing as distribution, Congress chose to make importation part of the distribution right.\nHad section 501 not specifically referred to importation, someone could have argued that the reference there to distribution or to section 106 didn't necessarily cover things that were actually dealt with in 602 but not literally in 106.\nI think it was a situation where Congress appropriately tried to be sure that their intention was crystal clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [243.788, 248.259, 270.006, 287.634], "stop_times": [248.259, 270.006, 287.634, 295.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 243.788}, "reply_to": "21270__0_008", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "21270__0_010", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Mr. Snyder, I--\n--Of course, one of the things they... just on this point.\nOne of the things they wanted to make sure of, perhaps, is that 602 was kept intact as an independent provision, because 602 says, under their reading, that it is an independent act of infringement to import without the consent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [295.99, 296.99, 298.875], "stop_times": [296.99, 298.875, 316.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 295.99}, "reply_to": "21270__0_009", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21270__0_011", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Well, it is an act of infringement.\nHowever, I think it's not totally independent in the sense that the language of 602 specifically made importation a violation of the distribution right under 106, so as we interpret the language, Congress was saying that we wish to make importation a separate type of violation of the distribution right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [316.319, 318.855], "stop_times": [318.855, 340.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 316.319}, "reply_to": "21270__0_010", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "21270__0_012", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "But Mr. Snyder, if you're right about that, wouldn't it have been more logical to say, in the first part of 501(a), exclusive rights, section 106 through, including the right, the 602 right, instead of making it conjunctive, as... instead of making it separate?\nYour argument would fit very well if Congress had said 602 belongs with 106A, but it makes it separate, and in that light, going back to Justice O'Connor's point about the representations this Nation has made, the Government isn't making them in the air.\nIt does point to this 501(a), and if that's a plausible reading, even if we don't owe Chevron deference, don't we owe some... don't we give some weight to the representations our Government has made to other Governments?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [340.269, 361.098, 383.512], "stop_times": [361.098, 383.512, 401.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 340.269}, "reply_to": "21270__0_011", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21270__0_013", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Well, first of all, Justice Ginsburg, 501 obviously is not the section that specifically was dealing with either the distribution right or the importation issue, and I think to determine Congress' intent, the first place that I would urge the Court to look would be the statutes directly on point, including 109, but I take your point that it could have been phrased in a different way.\nHowever, I would suggest respectfully to the Court that by referring in 602 to the rights under 106, Congress was doing something that really made quite a bit of sense, and that is that all of the panoply of conditions and exceptions to distribution rights that are contained within 106 and its cross-referenced sections thereby were applied here.\nSection 106 begins by saying, subject to sections 107 through 120, quote-unquote, there will be certain exclusive rights, including the distribution right.\nThose exceptions include such things as the fair use doctrine, which is a quite fundamental element of American copyright law.\nBy... by making 602 a part of the 106 right and cross-referencing it the way Congress did, it included the fair use doctrine, the first sale doctrine, the other exceptions, into the importation rules just as they're in all the other parts of the copyright law.\nSection 501 simply provides for the enforcement mechanism for all of the rights, and I would respectfully suggest that, because it lists importation as an additional word in 501, it really doesn't negate, I don't believe, the intent of Congress in the operative sections.\nAnd obviously one of the key operative sections here is section 109, and 109, which is the current codification of the first sale doctrine, which is a doctrine that goes back well over 100 years in copyright law, section 109 says that if someone is the owner of a particular copy that was lawfully made under this title, that that owner can sell or otherwise dispose of that copy.\nAnd we believe that that is about as broad language as Congress could use and in fact follows a... quite a lengthy history of broad language in the statutes, the predecessor statutes, and in the legislative history, all of which have made clear that Congress intended to say that once a particular copy that's lawfully made under the U.S. copyright law has been sold, the copyright owner's rights cease, and that's the actual language in the legislative history of the '76 act.\nThe rights cease, of the U.S. copyright owner, as to that particular copy.\nWe think that the first sale doctrine, there is nothing in the language of the statute that suggests that the first sale doctrine was being overridden, or that Congress intended to change it, there's nothing in the legislative history where Congress was talking about changing the first sale doctrine, and we think the more natural reading of all of these sections together, including section 501, the more natural reading, to try to follow the congressional intent, not the policy arguments that each side can make, not the positions that the executive branch might wish to take as a matter of policy or as a matter of bilateral negotiations, we think that the fairer way to read the actual language of Congress is the way we've set forth.\nThe treaties... excuse me.\nThey're not treaties, actually.\nThey're bilateral agreements that the Government has cited.\nThey represent positions that the executive branch has taken.\nI might add that they've taken that position in multilateral negotiations and the international community has so far rejected them, but Trinidad and Tobago and several other countries, and you have the lodgings in front of you, have agreed to the U.S. position.\nHowever, there is no liability on the part of the United States if the U.S. position is wrong.\nIf there's a violation of those agreements, there is an obligation for consultation.\nThere is no arbitration, there is no financial liability, and we would respectfully suggest that if the executive branch wishes to curtail parallel imports beyond the language of existing statutes, then if they wish to rely on copyright law or any other congressional enactment, they should go to Congress.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [401.592, 423.006, 449.156, 460.798, 469.57, 489.198, 509.629, 538.548, 571.685, 577.256, 623.737, 625.57, 626.537, 630.239, 635.107, 650.152, 656.306, 660.858], "stop_times": [423.006, 449.156, 460.798, 469.57, 489.198, 509.629, 538.548, 571.685, 577.256, 623.737, 625.57, 626.537, 630.239, 635.107, 650.152, 656.306, 660.858, 681.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 401.592}, "reply_to": "21270__0_012", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "21270__0_014", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Mr. Snyder, can I ask you another question.\nI haven't quite figured out the answer.\nIf your position is correct, what is the function of the three exceptions to the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [681.003, 683.021, 685.056], "stop_times": [683.021, 685.056, 691.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 681.003}, "reply_to": "21270__0_013", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21270__0_015", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "The 602 exceptions, Justice Stevens, we believe apply on their terms to very limited situations where people are importing or bringing property in for personal use or for noncommercial use.\nEach of the exceptions, library use, Government use, do not apply to commercial distributions, and they apply generally to very limited numbers.\nIn other words, you can bring in one copy or bring in a copy in your baggage.\nWe think those are very different situations from the first sale doctrine that deals with sales.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [691.877, 705.887, 716.326, 719.98], "stop_times": [705.887, 716.326, 719.98, 727.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 691.877}, "reply_to": "21270__0_014", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "21270__0_016", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Why wouldn't those exceptions already be protected by the first sale doctrine if it applied?\nThat's what I'm not quite clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [727.55, 732.204], "stop_times": [732.204, 733.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 727.55}, "reply_to": "21270__0_015", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21270__0_017", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Justice Stevens, they are not because the language of the 602 exceptions is not limited to copies that are lawfully made under this title.\nIn other words, one of the paradigm situations that the copyright considerations were looking at was where property is copyrighted under a foreign copyright, and this happens very frequently.\nThis is a quite common situation, and it was discussed at length in the deliberations leading up to the statute.\nIf an author gives the British copyright to his or her book to a British company, and the U.S. copyright to his or her book to a U.S. copyright holder, the U.S. copyright holder obviously wishes to avoid having the unrelated British copyright holder ship 1,000 copies of the book here because the U.S. copyright holder has no control over the independent entity, has not been paid anything for those copies, et cetera.\nThat was discussed in the deliberations leading up to the statute, and the phrase in 109, lawfully made under this title, we submit means copies that are made under the U.S. copyright law or made with the authorization of the U.S. copyright holder, whereas, Justice Stevens, under 602, if I'm traveling in Britain, and I pick up a copy of a British book that's been British-copyrighted and I put it in my baggage, I can come home with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [733.37, 743.512, 759.455, 765.341, 794.945], "stop_times": [743.512, 759.455, 765.341, 794.945, 822.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 733.37}, "reply_to": "21270__0_016", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "21270__0_018", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Or, if you're traveling in some other country and you pick up a totally unauthorized copy of a phonograph, a CD or some... or a book, totally unauthorized, you'd be protected as a traveler if you bought it and brought it back in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [822.695], "stop_times": [836.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 822.695}, "reply_to": "21270__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21270__0_019", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Yes, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [836.605], "stop_times": [837.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 836.605}, "reply_to": "21270__0_018", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "21270__0_020", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--under the 602 exceptions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [837.355], "stop_times": [839.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 837.355}, "reply_to": "21270__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21270__0_021", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [839.49], "stop_times": [840.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 839.49}, "reply_to": "21270__0_020", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "21270__0_022", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "But it would not be protected under 106, presumably.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [840.09], "stop_times": [844.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 840.09}, "reply_to": "21270__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21270__0_023", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "We agree with that, and we think that is a very significant distinction between the two statutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [844.21], "stop_times": [849.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 844.21}, "reply_to": "21270__0_022", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "21270__0_024", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Maybe I'll reveal my ignorance about that.\nI just want to be sure I understand.\nIn other words, if the author gave the British copyrights to a separate company from the publisher, the American publisher, the British company then sells to some person in Britain, abroad, a bunch of copies, those are not protected by the first sale doctrine?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [849.662, 852.114, 853.483], "stop_times": [852.114, 853.483, 870.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 849.662}, "reply_to": "21270__0_023", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21270__0_025", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "As... not as we interpret the statute, although this has not been addressed in any of the decisions that I'm aware of precisely.\nBut the lawfully-made-under-this-title language of the first sale doctrine in 109, the Government agrees with us on this point that that means it's made with the authorization of the U.S. copyright holder, in other words, made under U.S. copyright law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [870.426, 877.098], "stop_times": [877.098, 891.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 870.426}, "reply_to": "21270__0_024", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "21270__0_026", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Yes, but if the U.S. copyright... oh, I see.\nThe U.S. copyright holder could be a licensee of the author, and you have a different copyright holder who's also a licensee in Britain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [891.941, 893.358], "stop_times": [893.358, 900.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 891.941}, "reply_to": "21270__0_025", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21270__0_027", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "That's correct.\nIt's quite common for property--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [900.345, 900.797], "stop_times": [900.797, 903.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 900.345}, "reply_to": "21270__0_026", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "21270__0_028", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "So British copies would not be lawfully made under this title, within the meaning of 109, in your view.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [903.014], "stop_times": [908.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 903.014}, "reply_to": "21270__0_027", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21270__0_029", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--That is our understanding, and that is exactly the parallel or analogue to what this Court held in the K Mart case, which obviously arose under customs laws and trademark law, but in K Mart the Solicitor General then argued that the first sale doctrine in the trademark law should protect a U.S. mark holder from competition from a totally unrelated entity, such as the kind we're talking about now, but should not protect the U.S. mark holder if the U.S. mark holder is a parent or a subsidiary of the foreign mark holder.\nThat was the position the Government took then, and this Court was unanimous... while it... the Court split on several other of the various alternative cases dealt with in K Mart, the case 1 and the case 2A situations that I've just referred to, the Court was unanimous on that.\nThe position we are taking is exactly the same under copyright law as this Court found Congress had authorized under the trademark law, and we think it makes good sense in terms of the interests that are at stake and, most importantly, it follows the language of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [908.618, 946.926, 964.787], "stop_times": [946.926, 964.787, 981.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 908.618}, "reply_to": "21270__0_028", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "21270__0_030", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Does the U.S. copyright holder have to have specific authorization from the author to manufacture abroad in order to avoid a violation of 602?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [981.349], "stop_times": [993.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 981.349}, "reply_to": "21270__0_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21270__0_031", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Well, we do not believe that 602 limits the question of where you manufacture, and there's a BMG decision from the Ninth Circuit that we cite in our brief that seems to say the opposite, but that decision's been criticized by a number of other courts, including the Ninth Circuit in a later case.\nWe don't think the language of Congress makes anything turn specifically on where you manufacture.\nNow, to fully answer your question, Justice Souter, there could well be contractual limitations.\nIf the author divided up the worldwide rights in a certain way, where it's manufactured--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [993.407, 1010.332, 1015.986, 1020.974], "stop_times": [1010.332, 1015.986, 1020.974, 1027.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 993.407}, "reply_to": "21270__0_030", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "21270__0_032", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "But if the contract is silent, your answer is the geography of manufacture is irrelevant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1027.461], "stop_times": [1037.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1027.461}, "reply_to": "21270__0_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21270__0_033", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--I think that's correct, but I... I'm not certain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1037.067], "stop_times": [1041.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1037.067}, "reply_to": "21270__0_032", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "21270__0_034", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Am I right in my understanding of your answer to Justice Stevens that (1), (2), and (3) are exceptions from 602?\nThey all deal with, let's imagine a human being who comes to the border.\nThat human being who comes to the border got his book, for example, some way or other.\nIf the way he got that book was subject to the first sale doctrine, then under your theory you wouldn't need (1), (2), or (3), but if it was not, you do need (1), (2), or (3), and whether that category, not, is big or little or medium-sized is beside the point.\nIt's not the null set.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1041.702, 1050.04, 1054.861, 1060.848, 1079.494], "stop_times": [1050.04, 1054.861, 1060.848, 1079.494, 1081.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1041.702}, "reply_to": "21270__0_033", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21270__0_035", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "I think that's correct, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1081.927], "stop_times": [1083.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1081.927}, "reply_to": "21270__0_034", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "21270__0_036", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1083.196], "stop_times": [1083.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1083.196}, "reply_to": "21270__0_035", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21270__0_037", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "There could... there are cases I think where there could be some overlap between the 109 protection and 602, but there are a great number of cases where there's not overlap.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1083.529], "stop_times": [1092.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1083.529}, "reply_to": "21270__0_036", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "21270__0_038", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "I mean, there might be a lot of people who have those books coming to the border who didn't buy them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1092.016], "stop_times": [1097.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1092.016}, "reply_to": "21270__0_037", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21270__0_039", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1097.651], "stop_times": [1098.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1097.651}, "reply_to": "21270__0_038", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "21270__0_040", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "In which case there's no first sale doctrine under anybody's theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1098.253], "stop_times": [1103.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1098.253}, "reply_to": "21270__0_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21270__0_041", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Well, if they don't own them--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1103.138], "stop_times": [1104.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1103.138}, "reply_to": "21270__0_040", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "21270__0_042", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "There was no sale.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1104.071], "stop_times": [1104.49], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1104.071}, "reply_to": "21270__0_041", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21270__0_043", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--If they don't own them, there might not... there wouldn't be a first sale doctrine.\nYou actually... you don't have to have bought them, I believe.\nIt could have been a gift or other situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1104.49, 1107.375, 1109.692], "stop_times": [1107.375, 1109.692, 1111.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1104.49}, "reply_to": "21270__0_042", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "21270__0_044", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Where there are other... yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1111.144], "stop_times": [1112.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1111.144}, "reply_to": "21270__0_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21270__0_045", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "There also could be situations where the property wasn't... was made under U.S. law or wasn't made under U.S. law.\nThere could be cases where the traveler took it with him or her when they went abroad and then brought it back.\nSo there are a variety of hypotheticals.\nI agree with you they're not totally separate.\nThe two statutes have some overlapping situations, I agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1112.077, 1120.266, 1125.403, 1127.772, 1130.724], "stop_times": [1120.266, 1125.403, 1127.772, 1130.724, 1135.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1112.077}, "reply_to": "21270__0_044", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "21270__0_046", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "There's one other language point that the Government makes in addition to its 501 argument.\nIt refers to the later provision, the one in the... what is it, the chip, the 905 and 906, and that 906 includes... 906(b) refers not simply to otherwise dispose, but includes the word, import, and the argument is, and when Congress... Congress knows there's a difference between importing and otherwise disposing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1135.442, 1140.144], "stop_times": [1140.144, 1170.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1135.442}, "reply_to": "21270__0_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21270__0_047", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Well, Justice Ginsburg, I think it's fair to say that this statute, as many other congressional enactments, probably could have been phrased in different ways, some of which would have made our job easier.\nBut, for example, 106A, which we cite, is a statute that specifically says that that provision is an exception, is... that the first sale doctrine, the other exceptions don't apply to that one.\nIn other words, in 106A Congress made it very clear they were enacting a provision that wasn't going to include the exceptions in 106 that we've relied on, so you know, we've made the assertion that if... that Congress knows how to make it clear that something is not subject to the exceptions.\nThey did it in 106A.\nI think you're correct, the Government is correct that there are other ways that Congress could have phrased several of these provisions that probably would have made them a little bit clearer, but I don't think there's anything in the sections that you just cited, Justice Ginsburg, that's inconsistent with our position.\nThey simply made that section a little clearer than they made 602 and 106.\nI think it's undisputed by everyone that there is no specific reference in the legislative history to the interplay between 106... I'm sorry, between 602 and 109.\nIn other words, no Congress Member ever addressed how these two should go together.\nWe believe that the best way to deal with that, given the language that's in the statutes at issue here, the most relevant statutes, 602 and 109, is to say Congress just hasn't addressed the matter.\nCongress obviously is free to address it, and the Government can either submit the bilateral agreements that it's negotiated to Congress for review, or it can go in with a statute on parallel imports.\nThere actually have been quite a number of proposed bills to curtail parallel imports.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1170.246, 1181.554, 1196.147, 1215.394, 1216.977, 1233.606, 1239.925, 1251.567, 1258.904, 1271.397, 1283.788], "stop_times": [1181.554, 1196.147, 1215.394, 1216.977, 1233.606, 1239.925, 1251.567, 1258.904, 1271.397, 1283.788, 1288.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1170.246}, "reply_to": "21270__0_046", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "21270__0_048", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "What is your response to the argument... I recall it was part of the Ninth Circuit's opinion... that the predecessor of 602 was worded in a way which would cover many of the examples you gave, and yet they added the terms, acquired outside the United States, so it seems that your arguments give very little weight or significance to the changes between the two... between the predecessor statute and 602 as now written.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1288.173], "stop_times": [1314.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1288.173}, "reply_to": "21270__0_047", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21270__0_049", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "I think the predecessor statute only applied to pirated goods, Justice Kennedy, and the Government and the respondent have both made the... have both referred to the fact that the new statute in '76 was clearly intended to cover more than just pirated goods, but so-called lawfully made goods as well.\nWe agree with that, and that's exactly the case that I referred to that's analogous to the K Mart situation.\nIn other words, goods that are lawfully made under foreign copyright laws but not under the U.S. law we think are covered by 602, and the fact that 109 is limited to lawfully made goods under this title we think draws the line between goods made under U.S. copyright law and goods made under foreign copyright law, and we've laid out in our brief quite a number of situations where the new 602 does have meaning, because it applies, for example, in the case where an unrelated foreign copyright holder has produced the good, it applies to many other cases.\nBasically, our position is that 109 applies in the importation situation just as it applies to all other aspects of the distribution right, and 109 limits the distribution right to some extent, and we think the importation rules in 602 have become part of the distribution right, and 109 applies to those as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1314.641, 1332.952, 1338.439, 1375.131], "stop_times": [1332.952, 1338.439, 1375.131, 1396.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1314.641}, "reply_to": "21270__0_048", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "21270__0_050", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Well, to prevail, do we have to think that importation is a form of distribution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1396.878], "stop_times": [1405.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1396.878}, "reply_to": "21270__0_049", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21270__0_051", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "No.\nI do not believe it is literally a form of distribution.\nIf it were, there would be no need for the 602 statute.\nBut Congress, we believe, intended to subsume 602 within the distribution right.\nWe think that's what it meant by saying that an unauthorized importation is a violation of the right under 106, that Congress was simply declaring it to be a... for legal purposes a form of distribution, even though linguistically it may not be precisely that.\nIf I may, Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to reserve the balance of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1405.817, 1406.133, 1409.185, 1412.221, 1418.91, 1435.02], "stop_times": [1406.133, 1409.185, 1412.221, 1418.91, 1435.02, 1439.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1405.817}, "reply_to": "21270__0_050", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "21270__0_052", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Very well, Mr. Snyder.\nMr. Goettsch, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1439.222, 1440.622], "stop_times": [1440.622, 1450.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1439.222}, "reply_to": "21270__0_051", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21270__1_000", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI think it's important at the outset to note that we believe that the K Mart v. Cartier case is not apposite to this case at all.\nIn that case, the Court addressed section 526 of the Tariff Act of 1930, and under section 526, a U.S. entity can record its U.S. trademark with the Customs Service to prevent unauthorized importation of goods, even those with a genuine trademark.\nThe protection, however, extends only to goods of foreign manufacture, and the issue before the Court was whether the Customs Service's regulations were based upon a reasonable interpretation of that statute, and a majority of the Court found the phrase, foreign manufacture, to be ambiguous and then as a result found that some of the regulations of the Customs Service were reasonable.\nBut to the extent that the K Mart case dealt with trademark law, it's important to remember that, as this Court recognized in the Sony v. Universal Studios case, the... there's a difference between the scope and scheme and purpose of the trademark law as opposed to the copyright law, and the courts are not to take principles or doctrines from trademark law and extend them to copyright law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1450.446, 1453.148, 1463.103, 1483.767, 1510.734], "stop_times": [1453.148, 1463.103, 1483.767, 1510.734, 1537.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1450.446}, "reply_to": "21270__0_052", "speaker": "raymond_h_goettsch"}
{"id": "21270__1_001", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "May I ask, since you've cited the Sony case, which dealt in part with fair use, how, under your reading of the statute, does the fair use doctrine protect the importation of foreign-made goods?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1537.802], "stop_times": [1551.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1537.802}, "reply_to": "21270__1_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21270__1_002", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Well, I think that in enacting section 602(a) Congress made a decision that the limitations under Chapter 1 of the Copyright Act, which would include the fair use under section 107 as well as the first sale defense under section 109(a), did not apply to section 602(a).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1551.526], "stop_times": [1573.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1551.526}, "reply_to": "21270__1_001", "speaker": "raymond_h_goettsch"}
{"id": "21270__1_003", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Oh, so your view is there is no fair use defense in this... for imported goods.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1573.475], "stop_times": [1578.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1573.475}, "reply_to": "21270__1_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21270__1_004", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Yes, except to the extent that we think that the three exceptions that Congress did set out expressly to section 602(a) do have a fair use element to them.\nThe question, of course, before this Court is whether section 109(a) of the Copyright Act is a defense to copyright infringement under section 602(a) for unauthorized importation of copies acquired outside the United States.\nThe answer to this question should be purely a product of statutory interpretation.\nPrior to the enactment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1578.36, 1593.02, 1609.414, 1615.552], "stop_times": [1593.02, 1609.414, 1615.552, 1617.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1578.36}, "reply_to": "21270__1_003", "speaker": "raymond_h_goettsch"}
{"id": "21270__1_005", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Mr. Goettsch, you don't question the contention of petitioners that there is no need to give any deference to the negotiation... negotiating position of the United States in trade agreements?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1617.67], "stop_times": [1632.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1617.67}, "reply_to": "21270__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21270__1_006", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--Well, I don't... no, we do not agree with that.\nFirst of all, I think it's important to recognize that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1632.347, 1635.466], "stop_times": [1635.466, 1638.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1632.347}, "reply_to": "21270__1_005", "speaker": "raymond_h_goettsch"}
{"id": "21270__1_007", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Well, then you say that there is some... I thought you just said that we just pay attention to the language used by Congress, but you're saying, though, that that language should be interpreted through the prism of the executive branch deference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1638.168], "stop_times": [1651.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1638.168}, "reply_to": "21270__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21270__1_008", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--No, I'm not saying that.\nWhat I'm saying is that... first of all, I don't think that the Court needs to reach that issue to interpret this statute.\nI think the statute is unambiguous on its face.\nHowever, if the Court were to consider legislative intent, since the Copyright Office was very much involved in the writing of the 1976 Copyright Act, then I would simply say that its interpretation of that act corroborates--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1651.891, 1652.841, 1659.414, 1662.866], "stop_times": [1652.841, 1659.414, 1662.866, 1680.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1651.891}, "reply_to": "21270__1_007", "speaker": "raymond_h_goettsch"}
{"id": "21270__1_009", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "It has no duties under this section, does it?\nI mean, it doesn't administer this act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1680.578, 1683.946], "stop_times": [1683.946, 1686.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1680.578}, "reply_to": "21270__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21270__1_010", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--No.\nUnlike 602(b), where Customs is required to prohibit or bar the import of piratical copies, under section 602(a) it's up to the copyright holder to enforce the bar to entry of unauthorized importation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1686.314, 1686.748], "stop_times": [1686.748, 1708.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1686.314}, "reply_to": "21270__1_009", "speaker": "raymond_h_goettsch"}
{"id": "21270__1_011", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Well, on your interpretation of the statute, actually, that it's sort of an import violation rather than a distribution violation, it really ought to be the Customs Service to whom we might defer rather than the Copyright Office.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1708.062], "stop_times": [1724.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1708.062}, "reply_to": "21270__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21270__1_012", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Well, that could be.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1724.588, 1726.438], "stop_times": [1726.438, 1727.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1724.588}, "reply_to": "21270__1_011", "speaker": "raymond_h_goettsch"}
{"id": "21270__1_013", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "But I don't understand your argument that just because the Copyright Office had much to do with the drafting of this provision we give them deference.\nI mean, we certainly don't give General Motors deference if they have had substantial participation in the drafting of a particular provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1727.421, 1734.71], "stop_times": [1734.71, 1744.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1727.421}, "reply_to": "21270__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21270__1_014", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--Well, I think what I meant by deference, and probably my choice of words was not particularly apt, what I meant was that if the Court is going to look at legislative intent, which I don't think the Court needs to do, that the Copyright Office's role in the writing of the statute is corroborated... is evidence of intent, and its current interpretation corroborates the legislative intent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1744.05], "stop_times": [1768.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1744.05}, "reply_to": "21270__1_013", "speaker": "raymond_h_goettsch"}
{"id": "21270__1_015", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Okay.\nYou don't... you do not contend that we owe them deference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1768.581, 1768.848], "stop_times": [1768.848, 1772.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1768.581}, "reply_to": "21270__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21270__1_016", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Not in that sense, just in the sense that this is corroborative evidence of legislative intent if the Court needs to reach that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1772.3], "stop_times": [1779.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1772.3}, "reply_to": "21270__1_015", "speaker": "raymond_h_goettsch"}
{"id": "21270__1_017", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Will you... just concentrating on the language for a minute, will you explain how you get out of the box that the right that's been infringed is the exclusive right to distribute copies under section 106, a right which is otherwise qualified as a first sale doctrine, fair use doctrine and others.\nWhy, if it's the right granted by 106, why isn't that right qualified by the other provisions between 107 and 119?\nI don't quite understand your answer to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1779.72, 1799.617, 1808.973], "stop_times": [1799.617, 1808.973, 1810.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1779.72}, "reply_to": "21270__1_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21270__1_018", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Well, there are several reasons.\nFirst of all, if section 109(a), the first sale defense, applied to section 602(a), then the three exceptions that Congress expressly identified--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1810.758, 1813.591], "stop_times": [1813.591, 1828.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1810.758}, "reply_to": "21270__1_017", "speaker": "raymond_h_goettsch"}
{"id": "21270__1_019", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Well, I understand.\nAs... you're saying... I understand that argument, but initially, if it's just the 106 right, which has already been curtailed by the first sale doctrine, how can you say it's more... I don't understand.\nYou say the 106 right has two different scopes, one for most infringement cases, and then a broader right under 602(a), is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1828.886, 1829.403, 1842.96], "stop_times": [1829.403, 1842.96, 1854.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1828.886}, "reply_to": "21270__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21270__1_020", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--Well, section 106, subparagraph (3), which provides for the copyright holder--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1854.685], "stop_times": [1862.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1854.685}, "reply_to": "21270__1_019", "speaker": "raymond_h_goettsch"}
{"id": "21270__1_021", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Subject to 107 through 120, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1862.774], "stop_times": [1865.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1862.774}, "reply_to": "21270__1_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21270__1_022", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--Right, but that gives the copyright holder the right to control the exclusive distribution of a copy, is not exhausted unless there is a sale, and importation does not denote a sale, so the distribution right under section 106 is complementary but separate from the importation right under section 602(a).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1865.076], "stop_times": [1895.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1865.076}, "reply_to": "21270__1_021", "speaker": "raymond_h_goettsch"}
{"id": "21270__1_023", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Well, but the importation right is treated as though it were an infringing sale, and to be an infringing sale, it has to get by all the things like the fair use doctrine, the first sale doctrine, and so forth.\nMaybe I just don't quite--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1895.662, 1905.57], "stop_times": [1905.57, 1906.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1895.662}, "reply_to": "21270__1_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21270__1_024", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "No, I don't think it is Justice Stevens, I don't think it is treated as an infringing sale.\nThe importation, the act of unauthorized importation of copies acquired outside of the United States itself is copyright infringement, as recognized separately in section 501(a) of the act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1906.87, 1912.707], "stop_times": [1912.707, 1927.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1906.87}, "reply_to": "21270__1_023", "speaker": "raymond_h_goettsch"}
{"id": "21270__1_025", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--But, of course, the argument on the other side is, there's no infringement, obviously, if there's been a first sale, because 109 applies.\nI mean, that's the argument, and I don't... it's kind of odd that you're here arguing, all you have to do is look at the statute, it's so clear.\nThe other side is saying the same thing.\nFrankly, I think the other side has the better argument on looking at the statute and seeing what it means, so I'm concerned about what, if any, deference is owed to anybody here.\nWhat about the Government's position on these bilateral trade agreements?\nHow much does that concern us?\nIs this something Congress can fix, if they're worried about it?\nIs it not odd that we would find in the middle of the copyright statute some effort to control importation of some kind of goods?\nI mean, it just doesn't fit comfortably under the copyright law, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1927.966, 1936.655, 1945.611, 1948.647, 1963.972, 1971.328, 1973.614, 1977.416, 1991.159], "stop_times": [1936.655, 1945.611, 1948.647, 1963.972, 1971.328, 1973.614, 1977.416, 1991.159, 1995.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1927.966}, "reply_to": "21270__1_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21270__1_026", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Well, I don't agree, Justice O'Connor, because prior to the enactment of the 1976 Copyright Act section 602 prohibited the importation of piratical goods, meaning unauthorized copies, and Congress... by enacting section 602(a), Congress intended to extend that protection to the copyright holder beyond piratical goods to the unauthorized importation of authentic copies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [1995.778], "stop_times": [2025.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1995.778}, "reply_to": "21270__1_025", "speaker": "raymond_h_goettsch"}
{"id": "21270__1_027", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Well, of course, that gets us to the issue.\nMay I ask this, do you agree that there was a distinction which... and again, I don't know the answer to this by any means, but is there a distinction between piratical goods on the one hand and goods lawfully manufactured pursuant to a British licensee of an American author?\nIsn't it... he relies heavily on that distinction.\nIs there such a distinction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2025.98, 2029.201, 2046.21, 2049.262], "stop_times": [2029.201, 2046.21, 2049.262, 2051.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2025.98}, "reply_to": "21270__1_026", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21270__1_028", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "I don't think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2051.777], "stop_times": [2052.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2051.777}, "reply_to": "21270__1_027", "speaker": "raymond_h_goettsch"}
{"id": "21270__1_029", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "You would say that the piratical goods encompass lawfully made goods pursuant to a license from the original author--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2052.964], "stop_times": [2061.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2052.964}, "reply_to": "21270__1_028", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21270__1_030", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2061.985], "stop_times": [2062.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2061.985}, "reply_to": "21270__1_029", "speaker": "raymond_h_goettsch"}
{"id": "21270__1_031", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--in the other... the British copyright.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2062.219], "stop_times": [2064.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2062.219}, "reply_to": "21270__1_030", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21270__1_032", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--Justice Stevens, if you're asking, prior to the enactment of section 602(a) was the provision with respect to piratical goods applicable to that situation, then I think it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2064.57], "stop_times": [2079.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2064.57}, "reply_to": "21270__1_031", "speaker": "raymond_h_goettsch"}
{"id": "21270__1_033", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "You think it was?\nIt was.\nWell, what were all those experts who testified saying they needed 602 for, including Ms. Harriet Spilpellan, Horace Man--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2079.33, 2080.596, 2082.196], "stop_times": [2080.596, 2082.196, 2091.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2079.33}, "reply_to": "21270__1_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21270__1_034", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Well, it wasn't... there was no case law that expressly said that, and I think that Congress, by enacting section 602(a), wanted to make it very clear that the unauthorized importation of authentic copies was copyright infringement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2091.885], "stop_times": [2114.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2091.885}, "reply_to": "21270__1_033", "speaker": "raymond_h_goettsch"}
{"id": "21270__1_035", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--That makes sense, but I don't see how it helps you.\nI mean, they wanted to say, suppose that I bring in some books from England, and really they are perfectly legitimate, but if I were to distribute them in the shop it would violate the distribution right of the copyright holder.\nWell, 602 says, stop them at the border.\nI mean, nothing in that theory tells you whether they are or are not subject to the first sale doctrine.\nIt wouldn't hurt if they were, wouldn't hurt if they weren't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2114.964, 2117.583, 2132.01, 2136.128, 2143.448], "stop_times": [2117.583, 2132.01, 2136.128, 2143.448, 2146.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2114.964}, "reply_to": "21270__1_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21270__1_036", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2146.9], "stop_times": [2147.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2146.9}, "reply_to": "21270__1_035", "speaker": "raymond_h_goettsch"}
{"id": "21270__1_037", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "If there's been a first sale, no more reason to... no more reason, if there's been a first sale, to stop them than if there's been a first sale in the United States.\nIt's the same problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2147.116, 2154.82], "stop_times": [2154.82, 2155.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2147.116}, "reply_to": "21270__1_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21270__1_038", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--Well, of course--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2155.753], "stop_times": [2156.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2155.753}, "reply_to": "21270__1_037", "speaker": "raymond_h_goettsch"}
{"id": "21270__1_039", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Do you want to apply a first sale doctrine to copyrighted books or not?\nIf the answer is yes, why distinguish them where the first sale was abroad?\nIf the answer's no, treat them all alike.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2156.253, 2159.872, 2163.676], "stop_times": [2159.872, 2163.676, 2166.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2156.253}, "reply_to": "21270__1_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21270__1_040", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--Well, because the first sale is intended to reflect the fact that the copyright holder has exhausted its exclusive distribution right and has received the full value of its copyright, and a sale abroad, a sale outside the United States, since the Copyright Act operates territorially, the sale outside of the United States does not exhaust--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2166.628], "stop_times": [2192.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2166.628}, "reply_to": "21270__1_039", "speaker": "raymond_h_goettsch"}
{"id": "21270__1_041", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "No, but he's been paid for it, hasn't he?\nI mean, if they're legitimate and not pirated, he's been paid for that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2192.743, 2194.361], "stop_times": [2194.361, 2197.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2192.743}, "reply_to": "21270__1_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21270__1_042", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--Well, under the facts of this case, which is true in many situations where copyright holders sell the copyright goods abroad, they're sold at a discount, a significant discount.\nIf those copies are allowed to come back into the United States and compete with the copies--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2197.111, 2208.502], "stop_times": [2208.502, 2214.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2197.111}, "reply_to": "21270__1_041", "speaker": "raymond_h_goettsch"}
{"id": "21270__1_043", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "They would like... the copyright holder, I take it, would like to have a vertically imposed territorial division, as would many manufacturers.\nNormally we control that through the antitrust laws.\nSometimes you can do it, sometimes you can't.\nWhy, to repeat Justice O'Connor's question, would this antitrust issue of vertically imposed territorial restrictions suddenly be brought into the copyright law when it isn't brought into the trademark law or most other laws?\nI mean, wouldn't you have to have a fairly clear expression of congressional intent to find it, rather than the other way around?\nI mean, that's basically my underlying question in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2214.239, 2222.178, 2225.296, 2228.248, 2241.592, 2249.079], "stop_times": [2222.178, 2225.296, 2228.248, 2241.592, 2249.079, 2253.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2214.239}, "reply_to": "21270__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21270__1_044", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--Well, the concern is that if the copies acquired outside the United States at a discount come back into this country, then they compete with the copyright holders--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2253.4], "stop_times": [2263.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2253.4}, "reply_to": "21270__1_043", "speaker": "raymond_h_goettsch"}
{"id": "21270__1_045", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Yes.\nThat's also true when you sell to California.\nIt's also true when you sell to Maine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2263.755, 2264.071, 2265.873], "stop_times": [2264.071, 2265.873, 2267.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2263.755}, "reply_to": "21270__1_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21270__1_046", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--No--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2267.957], "stop_times": [2268.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2267.957}, "reply_to": "21270__1_045", "speaker": "raymond_h_goettsch"}
{"id": "21270__1_047", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "If you decide to sell at a discount, it would be nice to do that often, and many manufacturers feel that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2268.309], "stop_times": [2274.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2268.309}, "reply_to": "21270__1_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21270__1_048", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2274.313], "stop_times": [2274.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2274.313}, "reply_to": "21270__1_047", "speaker": "raymond_h_goettsch"}
{"id": "21270__1_049", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "You can't sell at a discount to Maine, and you won't be able to to France.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2274.746], "stop_times": [2278.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2274.746}, "reply_to": "21270__1_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21270__1_050", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--Well, if the sale were in the United States, then the copyright holder would have exhausted the right under 106(3) to control the exclusive distribution, and then section 109(a) would apply, but if the sale is outside of the United States, then the right to control distribution has not been exhausted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2278.781], "stop_times": [2302.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2278.781}, "reply_to": "21270__1_049", "speaker": "raymond_h_goettsch"}
{"id": "21270__1_051", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "May I ask... just to comment very briefly on one aspect of the case that I just can't quite get out of my head, it's easy to follow the arguments when you're talking about books and records and so forth, but when you're talking about the label on a product that is not itself patented or copyrighted, the label is controlling the distribution of the product, is that relevant at all in the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2302.027], "stop_times": [2321.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2302.027}, "reply_to": "21270__1_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21270__1_052", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "No, because the Copyright Act does not recognize classes of copyrights.\nThere's no first class copyright for a book or play and a second class copyright for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2321.524, 2327.345], "stop_times": [2327.345, 2333.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2321.524}, "reply_to": "21270__1_051", "speaker": "raymond_h_goettsch"}
{"id": "21270__1_053", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "For a label.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2333.516], "stop_times": [2334.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2333.516}, "reply_to": "21270__1_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21270__1_054", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--a product label or a product design.\nIf--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2334.099, 2336.368], "stop_times": [2336.368, 2336.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2334.099}, "reply_to": "21270__1_053", "speaker": "raymond_h_goettsch"}
{"id": "21270__1_055", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Goettsch.\nI think you've answered the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2336.751, 2337.334], "stop_times": [2337.334, 2338.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2336.751}, "reply_to": "21270__1_054", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21270__1_056", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2338.617], "stop_times": [2339.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2338.617}, "reply_to": "21270__1_055", "speaker": "raymond_h_goettsch"}
{"id": "21270__1_057", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Mr. Wallace, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2339.084], "stop_times": [2340.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2339.084}, "reply_to": "21270__1_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21270__2_000", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nOne very important component of the text of the statute which I believe has been overlooked in the discussion thus far is 602 itself.\nWhat is set forth in the appendix to the petition for certiorari on the very last page, E-3, is not all of section 602.\nIt is section 602(a), which is in substance the new part of section 602.\nSection 602 also contains a subsection (b).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2340.869, 2365.584, 2382.363, 2393.671, 2401.324], "stop_times": [2365.584, 2382.363, 2393.671, 2401.324, 2407.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2340.869}, "reply_to": "21270__1_057", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__2_001", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Where do you want us to be reading?\nWhat brief, and what page?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2407.126, 2409.411], "stop_times": [2409.411, 2411.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2407.126}, "reply_to": "21270__2_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21270__2_002", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Well, subsection... the 602(a)--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2411.93], "stop_times": [2415.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2411.93}, "reply_to": "21270__2_001", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__2_003", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2415.048], "stop_times": [2415.482], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2415.048}, "reply_to": "21270__2_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21270__2_004", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--is set forth in the appendix to the petition for certiorari.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2415.482], "stop_times": [2418.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2415.482}, "reply_to": "21270__2_003", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__2_005", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Yes, but you're referring us to something else.\nWhere do we find the something else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2418.25, 2420.786], "stop_times": [2420.786, 2422.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2418.25}, "reply_to": "21270__2_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21270__2_006", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "It's not set forth in any of the briefs, the text of it.\nIt's the very--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2422.019, 2425.671], "stop_times": [2425.671, 2426.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2422.019}, "reply_to": "21270__2_005", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__2_007", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "And yet it's the most important part of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2426.937], "stop_times": [2428.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2426.937}, "reply_to": "21270__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21270__2_008", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2428.521], "stop_times": [2428.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2428.521}, "reply_to": "21270__2_007", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__2_009", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "What is actually--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2428.956, 2429.473], "stop_times": [2429.473, 2430.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2428.956}, "reply_to": "21270__2_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21270__2_010", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--I say that it's been overlooked.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2430.273], "stop_times": [2433.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2430.273}, "reply_to": "21270__2_009", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__2_011", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "It's on page 2 of the appendix in the amicus brief that Mr. Olson filed.\nWell, isn't it on page 2 of the red brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2433.091, 2437.979], "stop_times": [2437.979, 2440.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2433.091}, "reply_to": "21270__2_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21270__3_000", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2440.245], "stop_times": [2442.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2440.245}, "reply_to": "21270__2_011", "speaker": "raymond_h_goettsch"}
{"id": "21270__4_000", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "All right.\nIt's on page 2 of the red brief, then.\nI'm sorry.\nIn any event, the very first sentence carries forward what had been in existence in somewhat different words in the 1909 Copyright Act, that importation of piratical copies is prohibited, and the Customs Service is given authority to stop those at the border.\nThat was always true.\nWhat is added in 602(a)--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2442.078, 2442.445, 2444.88, 2445.98, 2473.213, 2474.482], "stop_times": [2442.445, 2444.88, 2445.98, 2473.213, 2474.482, 2477.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2442.078}, "reply_to": "21270__3_000", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_001", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "May I ask right there, Mr. Wallace... it's quite important to me... did that section cover copies made pursuant to the... an authorized British copyright?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2477.434], "stop_times": [2489.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2477.434}, "reply_to": "21270__4_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21270__4_002", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--Piratical copies are copies that are not legitimate in the country where acquired, and not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2489.742], "stop_times": [2496.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2489.742}, "reply_to": "21270__4_001", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_003", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "So you're answer is no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2496.896], "stop_times": [2497.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2496.896}, "reply_to": "21270__4_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21270__4_004", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--My answer is no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2497.479], "stop_times": [2499.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2497.479}, "reply_to": "21270__4_003", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_005", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "And so his response to the argument you're developing as well, this... the big change in this statute was, it covers that universe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2499.329], "stop_times": [2506.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2499.329}, "reply_to": "21270__4_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21270__4_006", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "The authority that has been given in 602(a), the new authority, allows the owner of the copyright to prevent without... if it doesn't have his permission, to prevent importation of legitimate copies as well as piratical copies, but the piratical copies are prohibited from entry separately as well, under 602(b).\nTherefore, the exceptions listed in 602(a) cannot be exceptions to allow the entry of piratical copies because their importation is already prohibited by the companion provision.\nIt can... they can only be exceptions to allow the importation of copies that were legitimate copies authorized by the copyright holder where acquired.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2506.002, 2533.235, 2548.745], "stop_times": [2533.235, 2548.745, 2560.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2506.002}, "reply_to": "21270__4_005", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_007", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Or by the British copyright, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2560.803], "stop_times": [2562.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2560.803}, "reply_to": "21270__4_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21270__4_008", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "However... but it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2562.519], "stop_times": [2563.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2562.519}, "reply_to": "21270__4_007", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_009", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "It would have permitted those.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2563.838], "stop_times": [2565.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2563.838}, "reply_to": "21270__4_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21270__4_010", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2565.288], "stop_times": [2565.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2565.288}, "reply_to": "21270__4_009", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_011", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "I want to be sure we understand what it does apply to.\nThere are three categories of goods, piratical goods, stuff made pursuant to the British copyright, and stuff made pursuant to the American copyright.\nIt picks up the middle category.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2565.521, 2568.456, 2576.229], "stop_times": [2568.456, 2576.229, 2577.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2565.521}, "reply_to": "21270__4_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21270__4_012", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Of course, we have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2577.712], "stop_times": [2579.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2577.712}, "reply_to": "21270__4_011", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_013", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Do you agree with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2579.014], "stop_times": [2579.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2579.014}, "reply_to": "21270__4_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21270__4_014", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--Yes, but we have agreements with these countries so that there's reciprocal recognition of copyright rights, and the British copyright is very apt to derive from the American copyright, or vice versa, depending on where the original copyright is, so that we're not really separating out very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2579.648], "stop_times": [2599.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2579.648}, "reply_to": "21270__4_013", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_015", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Is there a substantial reduction of copyrighted goods, pursuant to copyrights in Trinidad and these other countries, that these agreements are made with?\nTobago... yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2599.594, 2605.748], "stop_times": [2605.748, 2609.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2599.594}, "reply_to": "21270__4_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21270__4_016", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "There... the goods are marketed in these countries, and our concern in negotiating these agreements has been in protecting the distributors from gray market imports that would undermine the distribution of the American made works in these other countries.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2609.033], "stop_times": [2633.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2609.033}, "reply_to": "21270__4_015", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_017", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Briefly, you want to assure that the Americans can sell cheaper in that country than they do at home, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2633.648], "stop_times": [2640.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2633.648}, "reply_to": "21270__4_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21270__4_018", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2640.635], "stop_times": [2641.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2640.635}, "reply_to": "21270__4_017", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_019", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Briefly put.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2641.254], "stop_times": [2641.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2641.254}, "reply_to": "21270__4_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21270__4_020", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--there... that is part of the reason why we have been--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2641.787], "stop_times": [2647.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2641.787}, "reply_to": "21270__4_019", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_021", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "We don't even do that at home.\nWe... you know, we generally don't... don't make sure that people can sell in Maine cheaper than they can sell in California.\nWhy do we want to do it for Tobago?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2647.658, 2649.125, 2653.895], "stop_times": [2649.125, 2653.895, 2656.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2647.658}, "reply_to": "21270__4_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21270__4_022", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--There are reasons why we've been espousing this, because in order to market copyrighted works, and the whole point of copyright is to give incentives to created copyrighted works and to protect their... the ability of the authors to market them--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2656.645], "stop_times": [2673.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2656.645}, "reply_to": "21270__4_021", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_023", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "We're talking about shampoo here, aren't we?\nI mean, these people don't care about the labels.\nThey're trying to piece out the market for shampoo.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2673.957, 2675.408, 2677.358], "stop_times": [2675.408, 2677.358, 2680.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2673.957}, "reply_to": "21270__4_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21270__4_024", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--The statutory issue is going to apply to motion pictures, sound recordings--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2680.878], "stop_times": [2686.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2680.878}, "reply_to": "21270__4_023", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_025", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "But it's also going to apply to shampoo.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2686.782], "stop_times": [2688.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2686.782}, "reply_to": "21270__4_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21270__4_026", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--When the label that is affixed to it qualifies for copyrighting.\nThis is a venerable part of the copyright law, but I think it would be a mistake to let that drive this case, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2688.948, 2694.769], "stop_times": [2694.769, 2702.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2688.948}, "reply_to": "21270__4_025", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_027", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Well, is it your position that in construing the statutory language we should give some sort of deference to the position that our Government has taken in negotiating with Trinidad and Tobago?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2702.124], "stop_times": [2715.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2702.124}, "reply_to": "21270__4_026", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21270__4_028", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--We have not asked for deference, nor do we think deference is the right approach to this.\nWe do believe that the Court was entitled to be informed about this.\nWe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2715.865, 2722.621, 2728.109], "stop_times": [2722.621, 2728.109, 2728.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2715.865}, "reply_to": "21270__4_027", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_029", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Well, if there's no deference, why... I'm sure we're entitled to be informed about it, but why do you take up your time informing us about it?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2728.625, 2737.195], "stop_times": [2737.195, 2737.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2728.625}, "reply_to": "21270__4_028", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21270__4_030", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--Well, because of the very reason that the Court gave.\nWe... just 2 years ago in the case of Vimar Seguros... we quoted on page 25 of our brief one sentence from the opinion.\nThe very next sentence is what we think is pertinent here, and the very next sentence starts out--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2737.481, 2741.349, 2752.824], "stop_times": [2741.349, 2752.824, 2761.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2737.481}, "reply_to": "21270__4_029", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_031", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "The sentence that you didn't quote?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2761.096], "stop_times": [2762.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2761.096}, "reply_to": "21270__4_030", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21270__4_032", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--That we didn't quote, and the very next sentence starts off, that concern counsels against construing the act differently.\nThat's all it does.\nIt is a factor to take into consideration--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2762.146, 2771.285, 2772.904], "stop_times": [2771.285, 2772.904, 2775.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2762.146}, "reply_to": "21270__4_031", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_033", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Well, should we look, for example--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2775.454], "stop_times": [2776.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2775.454}, "reply_to": "21270__4_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21270__4_034", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--as the Court said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2776.856], "stop_times": [2777.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2776.856}, "reply_to": "21270__4_033", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_035", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--Is it the case... I'm not certain at all about this.\nI've a recollection, though, that the European Court of Justices found a first sale right, a similar kind of thing, through imports from one country to another.\nAre those relevant, too?\nAm I supposed to look at those cases to see which way they come out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2777.439, 2780.324, 2790.616, 2791.599], "stop_times": [2780.324, 2790.616, 2791.599, 2793.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2777.439}, "reply_to": "21270__4_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21270__4_036", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Well, they have not been brought to my attention, and we're talking here about construing an act of Congress, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2793.818], "stop_times": [2804.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2793.818}, "reply_to": "21270__4_035", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_037", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "So why is the Government... normally the Government takes the position, with what I consider here... you can see the analogy to territorial restrictions imposed by a manufacturer.\nNormally the Government wants those viewed under a rule of reason and is often hostile.\nWhy, in this case, is the Government willing to forego the rule of reason and just saying, well, they're okay across the board?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2804.09, 2816.564, 2821.651], "stop_times": [2816.564, 2821.651, 2827.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2804.09}, "reply_to": "21270__4_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21270__4_038", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--Well, there are trade restraints in copyrighted and patented materials that are not permitted elsewhere, and they're permitted under statutes that Congress has enacted.\nWe really think the answer to this case is in the statutes that Congress has enacted--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2827.872, 2840.863], "stop_times": [2840.863, 2846.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2827.872}, "reply_to": "21270__4_037", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_039", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Mr. Wallace, since it's obvious that there is some ambiguity here, room for different views, since the Government was taking this position in its representations to other nations, why didn't it ask Congress for a clarifying amendment so that there would be no doubt about how the statute should be read?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2846.684], "stop_times": [2867.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2846.684}, "reply_to": "21270__4_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21270__4_040", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--Well, I'm not privy to reasons that... why it did not.\nIt took 15 years to do the revision in 1976.\nIt started off at the very beginning of the 1960's with a series of studies by Congress and the committee and they heard from a great many people.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2867.882, 2873.853, 2879.424], "stop_times": [2873.853, 2879.424, 2892.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2867.882}, "reply_to": "21270__4_039", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_041", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "I'm talking about once this problem surfaced.\nNow, we have the Ninth Circuit with one opinion, the Third Circuit with a different one, so that this particular problem has been known for a while, and as far as I know there hasn't been any effort to get Congress to spare the judiciary this kind of decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2892.165, 2894.85], "stop_times": [2894.85, 2911.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2892.165}, "reply_to": "21270__4_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21270__4_042", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Well, this is not a problem that arises in Government litigation.\nIt's not just the Government that might have come forward.\nIn fact, we're talking now about the rights between two non-Government parties.\nWe looked in connection with another case pending before this Court and didn't find a single pending case in which the United States has... a single reported case in which the United States has sued anyone for copyright infringement.\nWe're not usually involved in this litigation, so we're not necessarily the ones who would come forward with requests for an amendment that might clarify something.\nWe are faced--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2911.895, 2915.097, 2917.882, 2923.251, 2937.677, 2948.501], "stop_times": [2915.097, 2917.882, 2923.251, 2937.677, 2948.501, 2951.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2911.895}, "reply_to": "21270__4_041", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_043", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Then you're saying this is not a very important issue for the Government, however important it is for private--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2951.77], "stop_times": [2955.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2951.77}, "reply_to": "21270__4_042", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21270__4_044", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--Well, it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2955.972], "stop_times": [2956.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2955.972}, "reply_to": "21270__4_043", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_045", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--participants.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2956.84], "stop_times": [2957.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2956.84}, "reply_to": "21270__4_044", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21270__4_046", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--We do think it's important because it bears on positions we've been taking in international negotiations.\nIt's important to the Government in that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2957.624, 2963.594], "stop_times": [2963.594, 2965.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2957.624}, "reply_to": "21270__4_045", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_047", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Mr. Wallace, I've been reading subsection (b) and I'm curious, could you just help me with the second sentence?\nThe first sentence, the one you pointed to, repeats the prohibition against pirated... piratical works.\nThe second sentence says, in a case where copies were lawfully made the Customs Service has no authority to prevent their importation unless the provisions of 601 are applicable, and 601 has to do with English literary works or something.\nWhat do I do with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2965.196, 2971.767, 2978.838, 2990.812], "stop_times": [2971.767, 2978.838, 2990.812, 2991.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2965.196}, "reply_to": "21270__4_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21270__4_048", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2991.762], "stop_times": [2992.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2991.762}, "reply_to": "21270__4_047", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_049", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--Why doesn't the second sentence describe this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2992.396], "stop_times": [2996.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2992.396}, "reply_to": "21270__4_048", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21270__4_050", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--It's... it does describe this case for purposes of what the Customs Service is authorized to do.\nCongress in section 602 did not expand the authority of the Customs Service to prevent importations.\nThat is still limited to piratical copies.\nIt added 602(a) to give the copyright owner ability to move against copies that were legitimate in the country in which they were acquired, but that would be too difficult for the Customs Service to try to distinguish between goods that may or may not be violating contractual restrictions on their distribution, so the Customs Service still has the same authority in substance that it had before.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [2996.931, 3010.774, 3018.761, 3022.081], "stop_times": [3010.774, 3018.761, 3022.081, 3056.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2996.931}, "reply_to": "21270__4_049", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_051", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "That just emphasizes, it seems to me, the statement in (a) that importation is not a violation of any importation restriction.\nImportation is only a violation of the right to distribute.\nThat sentence just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3056.469, 3071.162, 3075.716], "stop_times": [3071.162, 3075.716, 3077.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3056.469}, "reply_to": "21270__4_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21270__4_052", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "The right--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3077.35], "stop_times": [3078.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3077.35}, "reply_to": "21270__4_051", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_053", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--doubles up on that statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3078.002], "stop_times": [3079.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3078.002}, "reply_to": "21270__4_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21270__4_054", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--The right to distribute is covered in section 106B, a separate section in a separate chapter of this provision, and something was added here to stand alone in a different chapter, and there are a series of exceptions listed which the petitioner in substance is saying can be explained because they would allow piratical copies in, but they would not allow piratical copies in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3079.435], "stop_times": [3105.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3079.435}, "reply_to": "21270__4_053", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_055", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "No, not piratical copies, legitimate copies made under a different copyright, under a different licensee.\nThat's... he says that takes care of the British copyright situation.\nI don't think you've responded to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3105.485, 3111.223, 3116.46], "stop_times": [3111.223, 3116.46, 3118.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3105.485}, "reply_to": "21270__4_054", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21270__4_056", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "But that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3118.443], "stop_times": [3118.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3118.443}, "reply_to": "21270__4_055", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_057", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "You keep referring to piratical.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3118.777], "stop_times": [3120.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3118.777}, "reply_to": "21270__4_056", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21270__4_058", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--But that limits very... most of these importations that are listed here as exceptions would have been ones where a first sale of a legitimate copy occurred.\nIt would not be... would not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3120.079, 3133.053], "stop_times": [3133.053, 3135.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3120.079}, "reply_to": "21270__4_057", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_059", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Well, what about the personal right of a traveler in their baggage.\nYou can bring in anything, piratical or otherwise, if it's in your luggage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3135.089, 3140.742], "stop_times": [3140.742, 3146.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3135.089}, "reply_to": "21270__4_058", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21270__4_060", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--There's nothing in the copyright law that allows a piratical copy to be brought in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3146.21], "stop_times": [3151.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3146.21}, "reply_to": "21270__4_059", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_061", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Well, 602(a) now has a specific little provision for somebody arriving at Customs with an illicit book--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3151.514], "stop_times": [3161.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3151.514}, "reply_to": "21270__4_060", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21270__4_062", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "But the point I've been--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3161.204], "stop_times": [3162.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3161.204}, "reply_to": "21270__4_061", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_063", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--in their baggage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3162.405], "stop_times": [3163.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3162.405}, "reply_to": "21270__4_062", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21270__4_064", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--The point I've been trying to make, and perhaps I haven't explained it, is that 602(b) separately prohibits that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3163.371], "stop_times": [3170.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3163.371}, "reply_to": "21270__4_063", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_065", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Is 602... can you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3170.775], "stop_times": [3171.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3170.775}, "reply_to": "21270__4_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21270__4_066", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "It prohibits the import of any piratical copy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3171.808], "stop_times": [3175.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3171.808}, "reply_to": "21270__4_065", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_067", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--Can you correct this, which I'm about to say: 602(a) says, the act of importing is an act of distribution.\n602(b) says, if what you're importing is a pirated copy, i.e., one that would have been unlawful had the laws of the United States applied there, you can seize it, Customs person.\nIf it's not a piratical copy, you can't seize it.\nYou just notify.\nSo (b) is explicating (a).\nNow, what's wrong with what I just said, if anything?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3175.429, 3185.284, 3196.008, 3199.81, 3201.494, 3203.679], "stop_times": [3185.284, 3196.008, 3199.81, 3201.494, 3203.679, 3206.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3175.429}, "reply_to": "21270__4_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21270__4_068", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Because (a), (a) has--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3206.631], "stop_times": [3208.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3206.631}, "reply_to": "21270__4_067", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_069", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "(a) is covering both.\n(b) says, if at the border it's a pirate, you can seize it.\nIf not, you can't.\nYou notify.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3208.566, 3209.75, 3213.554, 3215.82], "stop_times": [3209.75, 3213.554, 3215.82, 3217.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3208.566}, "reply_to": "21270__4_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21270__4_070", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--It doesn't... what is wrong for a starter is that 602(a) says that importation is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3217.189], "stop_times": [3231.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3217.189}, "reply_to": "21270__4_069", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_071", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3231.682], "stop_times": [3232.099], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3231.682}, "reply_to": "21270__4_070", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21270__4_072", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "It doesn't say it's a distribution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3232.099], "stop_times": [3234.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3232.099}, "reply_to": "21270__4_071", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_073", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "No, no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3234.633], "stop_times": [3235.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3234.633}, "reply_to": "21270__4_072", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21270__4_074", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "What is a distribution is in 106(3), and importation is treated separately from distribution in provision after provision of the act, as we've set out in our brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3235.0], "stop_times": [3247.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3235.0}, "reply_to": "21270__4_073", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_075", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--Thank you, Mr. Wallace.\nMr. Wallace, our records reflect that this is your 141st appearance before the Court.\nYou have now eclipsed the 20th Century record of 140 arguments accumulated by John W. Davis, who was a former Solicitor General, so on behalf of the Court I extend to you our appreciation for your many years of advocacy and dedicated service during your 30 years in the Solicitor General's Office.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3247.858, 3249.024, 3254.678, 3271.889], "stop_times": [3249.024, 3254.678, 3271.889, 3272.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3247.858}, "reply_to": "21270__4_074", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21270__4_076", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice.\nIt's been a great privilege.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3272.456, 3274.675], "stop_times": [3274.675, 3278.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3272.456}, "reply_to": "21270__4_075", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "21270__4_077", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Mr. Snyder, you have 5 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3278.21], "stop_times": [3281.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3278.21}, "reply_to": "21270__4_076", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21270__5_000", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nMr. Wallace said at one point that we are\n\"talking here about interpreting an act of Congress. \"\nWe agree with that, and we think that's the key issue before the Court, and in our view the position of the U.S. Government in bilateral negotiations or bilateral agreements doesn't by itself change what Congress intended.\nAnd I would point out to the Court that in one of the lodgings that the Solicitor General has provided the Court is a 1990 telegram that includes the Government's legal position and argument before most of these bilateral agreements were negotiated.\nIn that memorandum the Government lawyer cites the Sebastian decision from the Third Circuit, which was at the time the only court of appeals decision on this issue anywhere.\nThe Government was aware that the law, as set forth by the court of appeals, was contrary to their position.\nWe believe they could have come to Congress for a clarifying change.\nThey still can.\nThere is no reason why the Government can't ask Congress to change the law, but we believe there has been nothing cited today or otherwise that suggests that Congress in the copyright statute was making the kind of broad, antiparallel imports rule that the Congress... that the respondents and their amici are now suggesting.\nAll of the amici for respondents, including the Solicitor General, have been really quite candid in saying that a big part of what's at issue here is that many manufacturers do charge more for U.S. made goods in the United States than those U.S. manufacturers charge for the same U.S. made goods in foreign countries.\nThe Solicitor General has argued that somehow that's good for our economy.\nThat's a policy argument we don't agree with, but we do not think that that is an issue for this Court to decide or for us to opine on.\nIf the Congress wishes for U.S. consumers to pay more for U.S. goods than foreign consumers, that is a legitimate issue for Congress to deal with as a matter of policy, parallel import--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3281.162, 3282.128, 3284.447, 3288.565, 3301.79, 3318.518, 3328.726, 3334.796, 3339.248, 3339.848, 3359.411, 3380.009, 3383.527, 3390.716], "stop_times": [3282.128, 3284.447, 3288.565, 3301.79, 3318.518, 3328.726, 3334.796, 3339.248, 3339.848, 3359.411, 3380.009, 3383.527, 3390.716, 3403.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3281.162}, "reply_to": "21270__4_077", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "21270__5_001", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "You could put it more kindly.\nYou could say they want foreigners to pay less.\nThat seems more generous.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3403.524, 3404.657, 3406.642, 3408.908], "stop_times": [3404.657, 3406.642, 3408.908, 3410.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3403.524}, "reply_to": "21270__5_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21270__5_002", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--I will accept that, Justice Scalia, although I don't agree with the ultimate decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3410.51], "stop_times": [3415.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3410.51}, "reply_to": "21270__5_001", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "21270__5_003", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Well, they do say that the foreigners have to advertise it on their own, they have to service it, it doesn't come with a warranty, so there is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3415.146], "stop_times": [3424.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3415.146}, "reply_to": "21270__5_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21270__5_004", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3424.168], "stop_times": [3424.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3424.168}, "reply_to": "21270__5_003", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "21270__5_005", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--There's a justification for the differential.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3424.354], "stop_times": [3425.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3424.354}, "reply_to": "21270__5_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21270__5_006", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--They do say that, Justice Ginsburg.\nI would point out that, in the recording industry amicus brief that they filed here, they pointed out that videotapes cost as much as six times more in the United States than the same U.S. videotape is sold for in certain foreign countries.\nI don't think anyone contends that the marketing cost is 600 percent of the price.\nThe Government has been quite candid in saying that they believe there are certain foreign policy values in promoting underdeveloped countries, some other economic issues.\nThere may be antitrust issues at stake.\nWhatever those considerations are, we don't think in the copyright law Congress addressed them, and while I agree, Justice Stevens, that copyrights can apply to labels sometimes, I think the tail is wagging the dog here, and that Congress certainly didn't intend the result that's at issue here.\nWe would also point out that the respondent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3425.504, 3426.92, 3441.546, 3446.6, 3454.706, 3457.472, 3476.1], "stop_times": [3426.92, 3441.546, 3446.6, 3454.706, 3457.472, 3476.1, 3480.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3425.504}, "reply_to": "21270__5_005", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "21270__5_007", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "But you wouldn't have any problem if you just changed the label, right?\nI mean, you could... you could do everything and not have any problem about importing if you just made a different label.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3480.218, 3484.753], "stop_times": [3484.753, 3491.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3480.218}, "reply_to": "21270__5_006", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21270__5_008", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--There might be some issues of tampering with goods if we were to take off the label of someone else's product, but I'm not prepared to say what the State law issues there are.\nCertainly, the copyright law itself wouldn't, I think, address that, I agree, but there may be some other tort issues that might come into play.\nThe respondent has acknowledged that under his theory the fair use doctrine of section 107 doesn't apply to imported goods.\nWe think that is an extremely important point, because the logic of their position is that none of these exceptions apply, including fair use.\nWhen the owner of the London Times gives authority to import multiple copies of the London Times to sell in the United States, under the respondent's theory the owner of the London Times copyright cannot bring in his own newspaper if there is a book review in the London Times that quotes from someone else's book in what normally would be considered fair use, because the fair use doctrine that allows scholarly books, treatises, book reviews to quote someone else's work, it only allows that under 107.\nUnder their theory, 107 is simply inapplicable to imports.\nIt would be a quite major change in the law of this United States.\nWe think their entire argument, getting rid of the first sale doctrine, also is a major change.\nWe have in our country--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3491.007, 3499.613, 3507.867, 3518.741, 3526.846, 3558.984, 3562.703, 3567.488, 3573.142], "stop_times": [3499.613, 3507.867, 3518.741, 3526.846, 3558.984, 3562.703, 3567.488, 3573.142, 3574.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3491.007}, "reply_to": "21270__5_007", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "21270__5_009", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Snyder.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3574.944], "stop_times": [3576.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3574.944}, "reply_to": "21270__5_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21270__5_010", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "--Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3576.444], "stop_times": [3577.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3576.444}, "reply_to": "21270__5_009", "speaker": "allen_r_snyder"}
{"id": "21270__5_011", "conversation_id": "21270", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1470", "start_times": [3577.127], "stop_times": [3578.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3577.127}, "reply_to": "21270__5_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20631__0_000", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "We'll hear argument first this morning in Number 96-1375, Regions Hospital v. Donna Shalala.\nMr. Sutter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [0.0, 7.837], "stop_times": [7.837, 9.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20631__0_001", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis case presents a straightforward question of statutory construction.\nAt issue is the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(2)(A), which is quoted on page 19 of petitioner's opening brief.\nAs the Sixth Circuit correctly concluded in the Toledo case, this is a simple statute.\nIt directs the Secretary to do one thing.\nIt directs the Secretary to determine an average, nothing more.\nThe numerator in this case is the amount recognized as reasonable under this subchapter for GME costs for 1984.\nThe statute itself does not direct the Secretary to determine the numerator, and the reason why is clear from the words, under this subchapter.\nThe statute does not say, under this section, or under this paragraph, but it says, under this subchapter, and there was already a longstanding process in place for determining the amount recognized as reasonable for each year, including 1984.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [9.026, 14.612, 19.545, 28.67, 35.584, 38.986, 44.231, 53.946, 64.113], "stop_times": [14.612, 19.545, 28.67, 35.584, 38.986, 44.231, 53.946, 64.113, 85.298], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.026}, "reply_to": "20631__0_000", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_002", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, determine I think could quite reasonably be read to mean, use some discretion, or judgment.\nI mean, it seems to me if they just meant calculate they would have said calculate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [85.298, 93.293], "stop_times": [93.293, 96.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 85.298}, "reply_to": "20631__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20631__0_003", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, I think when you're referring to an average, determine and calculate are essentially equivalent, and there are, Mr. Chief Justice, within 1395ww(h) other provisions where it's clear that Congress did intend to confer significant authority on the Secretary.\nOne such provision is 1395ww(h)(2)(E), which is on page 3 of petitioner's appendix.\nI will use ellipses here, but there it says, in the case of a hospital that did not have an approved medical residency training program, ellipses, during fiscal year 1984, the Secretary shall, ellipses, provide for such approved FTE resident amount as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.\nNow, this is language that does clearly grant the secretary discretion.\nHere we have activist language.\nIn (a), the provision we're dealing at... with, the Congress was telling the Secretary, divide A by B, divide one number by another.\nThere is also, if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [96.895, 119.249, 131.487, 153.462, 159.336, 161.647, 170.523], "stop_times": [119.249, 131.487, 153.462, 159.336, 161.647, 170.523, 173.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 96.895}, "reply_to": "20631__0_002", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_004", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Mr. Sutter--\n--The problem I have with this provision is what it is that the word recognized modifies.\nYou win, it seems to me, if it is to be read, that the average amount recognized as... recognized as reasonable under this subchapter.\nDoes under this subchapter go with recognized?\nIf it does, I think your case is strengthened.\nBut it could also be read, the average amount recognized as reasonable under this subchapter.\nYou understand what I'm saying?\nIf it has to have been recognized under this subchapter, you're... the text obviously refers to a 19... to a prior determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [173.545, 174.476, 184.291, 196.579, 198.582, 201.424, 210.408, 213.711], "stop_times": [174.476, 184.291, 196.579, 198.582, 201.424, 210.408, 213.711, 221.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 173.545}, "reply_to": "20631__0_003", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20631__0_005", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [221.347], "stop_times": [221.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 221.347}, "reply_to": "20631__0_004", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_006", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "It has already been recognized.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [221.688], "stop_times": [223.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 221.688}, "reply_to": "20631__0_005", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20631__0_007", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [223.408], "stop_times": [223.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 223.408}, "reply_to": "20631__0_006", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_008", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Under this subchapter.\nBut it could also be read as recognized as reasonable under this subchapter, so that the prepositional phrase, under this subchapter, goes with reasonable.\nNow, why is it that I should read it the first way rather than the second?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [223.708, 224.449, 235.315], "stop_times": [224.449, 235.315, 238.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 223.708}, "reply_to": "20631__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20631__0_009", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, there are a number of reasons, but one is that there is one, and only one statutory provision in the medicare subchapter that does provide for recognizing an amount as reasonable, and that is 42 U.S.C. 1395oo (a), which we have quoted at pages 11 and 12 of petitioner's appendix.\nThe relevant language is at the top of page 12, which refers to a final determination, which we know as the notice of program reimbursement for the NPR, as to the amount of total program reimbursement due the provider for the items and services for which payment may be made under this subchapter for the period covered by such report.\nThe words that are used in the GME statute is, amount recognized as reasonable under this subchapter.\nHere in 1395oo(a) we have a specific amount, it is recognized as reasonable... that is, there's a final determination of program reimbursement... it is specifically under this subchapter, and it's specifically for a period.\nThis is a very important provision in the medicare subchapter, and in fact is one that this Court has seen before in the Bethesda Hospital Association case decided in 1988.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [238.618, 258.641, 287.228, 294.785, 312.245], "stop_times": [258.641, 287.228, 294.785, 312.245, 322.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 238.618}, "reply_to": "20631__0_008", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_010", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, that... I mean, that's all very persuasive if you read the phrase as recognized under this subchapter.\nI think you point out quite correctly to that provision.\nThat's the only provision it could refer to if it's talking about something that has been recognized under this subchapter.\nBut if it's just talking about something that has been recognized as reasonable, or that will in the future be recognized as reasonable, then it could refer to a new determination and not one that has already been made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [322.992, 332.659, 336.682, 342.376], "stop_times": [332.659, 336.682, 342.376, 357.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 322.992}, "reply_to": "20631__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20631__0_011", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, I do... I think the timing here would preclude that, because COBRA 9202(e), which we have cited at page 6 of our reply brief, clearly reflects that Congress intended these amounts to be established by 1987.\nThat was well within the reopening period for 1984 in all cases.\nThere's no reason why Congress would have wanted to have two amounts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [357.766, 372.924, 378.39], "stop_times": [372.924, 378.39, 382.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 357.766}, "reply_to": "20631__0_010", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_012", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, there's no reason it would want two amounts, but there is a reason that it might want a corrected amount, and suddenly a figure which in the past has been used solely to calculate a reimbursement for 1 year is going to be the basis for reimbursement in effect in perpetuity until the law gets changed, so I mean, there's a... there would be a good reason on Congress' part to want to make sure that the ultimate figure was the right one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [382.582], "stop_times": [412.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 382.582}, "reply_to": "20631__0_011", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20631__0_013", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Oh, I agree with you.\nThey would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [412.25, 412.962], "stop_times": [412.962, 414.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 412.25}, "reply_to": "20631__0_012", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_014", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "So we're not talking... I mean, it's not as though... but I guess my only point is, I don't see that you get anywhere by saying Congress wouldn't have wanted two figures.\nCongress wants one figure and it wants the right figure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [414.281, 420.936], "stop_times": [420.936, 424.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 414.281}, "reply_to": "20631__0_013", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20631__0_015", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "And I think there's every reason to believe that we do have the right figure here.\nWe have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [424.499, 428.91], "stop_times": [428.91, 429.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 424.499}, "reply_to": "20631__0_014", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_016", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Let me ask you this.\nGoing back to Justice Scalia's question, on your reading, what is served by having the modifier, as reasonable, in there at all, because on your reading once the figure has been recognized, that's it for all purposes, including future calculation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [429.331, 430.352], "stop_times": [430.352, 448.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 429.331}, "reply_to": "20631__0_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20631__0_017", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--I think that avoids a potential question as to whether the lower cost or charges principle applies.\nUnder reasonable cost standards--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [448.835, 458.8], "stop_times": [458.8, 461.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 448.835}, "reply_to": "20631__0_016", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_018", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "But... may I interrupt you here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [461.802], "stop_times": [463.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 461.802}, "reply_to": "20631__0_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20631__0_019", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [463.455], "stop_times": [463.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 463.455}, "reply_to": "20631__0_018", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_020", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "In any given... in the case of any given hospital for the base year there has been, at least in the past with respect to that year, that annual reimbursement, only one figure recognized, isn't that so?\nIn other words, the Secretary didn't say, well, we'll reimburse you either the A amount or the B amount, depending on methodology.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [463.965, 477.703], "stop_times": [477.703, 486.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 463.965}, "reply_to": "20631__0_019", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20631__0_021", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, there has been only one figure recognized as reasonable, but in certain cases that may not have been what was actually paid and the reason why is that, under 42 U.S.C. 1395f(b), a hospital got paid the lower of its reasonable cost or its customary charges.\nNow, in almost all cases the reasonable costs would be lower, but there could be cases where the customary charges were lower, and to avoid any ambiguity the words, as reasonable make clear that you're looking at the amount that was recognized as reasonable--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [486.07, 508.134], "stop_times": [508.134, 523.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 486.07}, "reply_to": "20631__0_020", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_022", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Is that your interpretation of it, or is there any basis for saying that what Congress had in mind was that sometimes the hospital might charge even less than what was reasonable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [523.534], "stop_times": [537.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 523.534}, "reply_to": "20631__0_021", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20631__0_023", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--Well, that's in the statute.\nThat's 42 U.S.C. 1395f(b).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [537.163, 540.285], "stop_times": [540.285, 542.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 537.163}, "reply_to": "20631__0_022", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_024", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "But you're giving that as a reason--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [542.358], "stop_times": [544.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 542.358}, "reply_to": "20631__0_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20631__0_025", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [544.649], "stop_times": [545.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 544.649}, "reply_to": "20631__0_024", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_026", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--for why the word reasonable is in there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [545.119], "stop_times": [547.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 545.119}, "reply_to": "20631__0_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20631__0_027", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [547.311], "stop_times": [547.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 547.311}, "reply_to": "20631__0_026", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_028", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "And my question to you was, is that just your interpretation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [547.671], "stop_times": [552.182], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 547.671}, "reply_to": "20631__0_027", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20631__0_029", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "That's my interpretation.\nThat's why I think it's important to have the words, as reasonable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [552.182, 553.353], "stop_times": [553.353, 556.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 552.182}, "reply_to": "20631__0_028", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_030", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Do I understand you right that you wouldn't be having any claim here if the Secretary had made the reopening period 5 or 6 years instead of 3 years?\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [556.136, 567.753], "stop_times": [567.753, 568.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 556.136}, "reply_to": "20631__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20631__0_031", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, I think in this case, in light of COBRA 9202(e), it is clear that Congress intended the per-resident amount to be established by 1987, which was well within the existing reopening period, and I think prompt implementation was very important, just as in the case of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [568.284], "stop_times": [588.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 568.284}, "reply_to": "20631__0_030", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_032", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "But if you would... suppose there hadn't been the 3-year.\nSuppose from the start the Secretary had said, I want the reopening period to be 6 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [588.79, 591.301], "stop_times": [591.301, 596.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 588.79}, "reply_to": "20631__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20631__0_033", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--You mean that was a general period for all years?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [596.984], "stop_times": [599.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 596.984}, "reply_to": "20631__0_032", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_034", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Just the same regulation as the Secretary now has, except instead of saying 3, it says 6.\nThen do I understand that you wouldn't have any claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [599.586, 604.438], "stop_times": [604.438, 607.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 599.586}, "reply_to": "20631__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20631__0_035", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, as we pointed out in footnote 8 of our reply brief, the current reopening regulation is a pretty broad construction of the statute, but you would certainly have a very different case here.\nOur case is based upon the fact that there was an amount recognized as reasonable under this subchapter, and the Secretary is not using that amount.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [607.65, 623.783], "stop_times": [623.783, 632.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 607.65}, "reply_to": "20631__0_034", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_036", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Yes, I understand that argument, but I just wanted to be clear on two things.\nOne, if the Secretary made a longer period you wouldn't be contesting that the amount that the Secretary ultimately arrived at is an amount that is reasonable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [632.417, 636.698], "stop_times": [636.698, 647.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 632.417}, "reply_to": "20631__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20631__0_037", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "We would... yes.\nWe would say there needs to be uniformity, and whatever's the final determination for 1984, that is the amount that would be used for purposes of this average, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [647.297, 649.018], "stop_times": [649.018, 658.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 647.297}, "reply_to": "20631__0_036", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_038", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Just following up on Justice Ginsburg's question, you would agree the agency could have repealed the 3-year window for examining the costs if it had chosen to do so by regulation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [658.865], "stop_times": [671.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 658.865}, "reply_to": "20631__0_037", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20631__0_039", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, I don't think so in this case because of COBRA 9202(e).\nThat clearly reflected Congress' intent that this would be established by 1987, and in any event--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [671.601, 675.814], "stop_times": [675.814, 683.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 671.601}, "reply_to": "20631__0_038", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_040", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "So the statute froze into place the congressional... pardon me, the administrative regulations on re-audit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [683.879], "stop_times": [691.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 683.879}, "reply_to": "20631__0_039", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20631__0_041", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--If it expected to be done by 1987, which Congress made clear that it did, I think it would... it did that, yes.\nI mean, this is a rate system.\nIt's not a retrospective payment system like reasonable cost, and one of the important things for a rate is that they be set in advance so that everyone knows what the rate's going to be and so that you have predictability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [691.176, 698.239, 699.952], "stop_times": [698.239, 699.952, 710.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 691.176}, "reply_to": "20631__0_040", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_042", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "May I ask you a question about one of the phrases that troubles me?\nIt's a hard statute to follow, but you quoted to us from sections oo and so forth.\nThey were in the statute before 1986, I believe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [710.987, 717.302, 722.745], "stop_times": [717.302, 722.745, 725.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 710.987}, "reply_to": "20631__0_041", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20631__0_043", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Yes, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [725.527], "stop_times": [726.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 725.527}, "reply_to": "20631__0_042", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_044", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "And therefore the duty to make a determination existed before the 1986 amendment.\nNow, therefore, the word in the 1986 amendment that seems interesting to me is the Secretary shall determine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [726.689, 733.083], "stop_times": [733.083, 739.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 726.689}, "reply_to": "20631__0_043", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20631__0_045", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [739.606], "stop_times": [740.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 739.606}, "reply_to": "20631__0_044", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_046", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "In 1986 it imposed a new duty to make a determination that did not previously exist.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [740.077], "stop_times": [745.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 740.077}, "reply_to": "20631__0_045", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20631__0_047", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Determine the average.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [745.971], "stop_times": [746.792], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 745.971}, "reply_to": "20631__0_046", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_048", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Which sounds to me as though they may have said you're not necessarily bound by what you would have done under the preexisting statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [746.792], "stop_times": [753.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 746.792}, "reply_to": "20631__0_047", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20631__0_049", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, it said you shall determine the average, and the amount recognized.\nIn the normal course the amount recognized for '84 will be done before you actually determine the average, just because '84 preceded the first year subject to payment under the new methodology by 2 years.\nIn petitioner's case, the first year was '86, that they would be subject to payment under the new methodology, and the base year would be '84.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [753.276, 758.989, 771.349], "stop_times": [758.989, 771.349, 779.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 753.276}, "reply_to": "20631__0_048", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_050", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, the old determination didn't do it resident by resident, did it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [779.364], "stop_times": [782.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 779.364}, "reply_to": "20631__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20631__0_051", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "No, no.\nIt is a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [782.847, 784.119], "stop_times": [784.119, 784.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 782.847}, "reply_to": "20631__0_050", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_052", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "The '84 determination just gave you the total figure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [784.89], "stop_times": [788.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 784.89}, "reply_to": "20631__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20631__0_053", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [788.63], "stop_times": [789.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 788.63}, "reply_to": "20631__0_052", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_054", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "And what this says is, you figure how much of that is attributable to each full-time equivalent resident.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [789.231], "stop_times": [794.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 789.231}, "reply_to": "20631__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20631__0_055", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "No, it's the average--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [794.314], "stop_times": [795.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 794.314}, "reply_to": "20631__0_054", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_056", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [795.596], "stop_times": [796.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 795.596}, "reply_to": "20631__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20631__0_057", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--for each resident, but what you would have, when you have the NPR you would have with it an audited cost report that would give you an aggregate figure for GME.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [796.597], "stop_times": [807.303], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 796.597}, "reply_to": "20631__0_056", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_058", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [807.303], "stop_times": [807.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 807.303}, "reply_to": "20631__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20631__0_059", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "So you would take that figure, whatever it is, and divide it by your number of residents--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [807.713], "stop_times": [812.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 807.713}, "reply_to": "20631__0_058", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_060", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [812.048], "stop_times": [812.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 812.048}, "reply_to": "20631__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20631__0_061", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--and that's what you'd get as your number.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [812.336], "stop_times": [813.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 812.336}, "reply_to": "20631__0_060", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_062", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "But it's interesting that the term which we're considering is not the amount recognized as reasonable for each full-time... each FTE.\nIt's the average amount recognized as reasonable, and the so-called average amount has never been recognized.\nThat is a purely prospective determination, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [813.447, 825.606, 833.09], "stop_times": [825.606, 833.09, 836.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 813.447}, "reply_to": "20631__0_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20631__0_063", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Yes, that's correct, so the Secretary shall determine the average, that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [836.362], "stop_times": [841.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 836.362}, "reply_to": "20631__0_062", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_064", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, shall determine the average amount, and that so-called average amount has never been determined in the past.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [841.027], "stop_times": [847.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 841.027}, "reply_to": "20631__0_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20631__0_065", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "No, but the amount recognized as reasonable under this subchapter is always determined as... in the normal course, and the language here is very similar to the same language that we had in the prospective payment system for operating costs in... for TEFRA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [847.32], "stop_times": [862.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 847.32}, "reply_to": "20631__0_064", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_066", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, except that it didn't have the modifier average on there.\nIt was talking about a different figure.\nIt was talking... as you have pointed out earlier, it was talking about the numerator.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [862.779, 865.601, 867.284], "stop_times": [865.601, 867.284, 870.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 862.779}, "reply_to": "20631__0_065", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20631__0_067", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "But the Secretary was directed to compute the average.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [870.506], "stop_times": [874.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 870.506}, "reply_to": "20631__0_066", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_068", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [874.888], "stop_times": [875.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 874.888}, "reply_to": "20631__0_067", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20631__0_069", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Because you see that there's an average if you look at 42 U.S.C. 1395ww(a)(4), which defines all of that in terms of average.\nSo the term that you're looking at, and looking at what the target amount is, doesn't use the word average, but it keys into an average when you look at (a)(4), which requires that it's an average amount, in that case per discharge, and in this case it's per resident.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [875.208, 886.154], "stop_times": [886.154, 900.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 875.208}, "reply_to": "20631__0_068", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_070", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Mr. Sutter, I hope at some point you will tell us... because this has to affect the way you look at this case.\nThere's an enormous variation between what the '84 figure would show and what the recalculation shows.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [900.503, 907.959], "stop_times": [907.959, 916.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 900.503}, "reply_to": "20631__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20631__0_071", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [916.485], "stop_times": [916.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 916.485}, "reply_to": "20631__0_070", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_072", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "And it gives me, at least, the impression that it's a pretty terrible system that would carry forward such an enormous error, and if there's a way to avoid that, I would like to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [916.835], "stop_times": [935.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 916.835}, "reply_to": "20631__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20631__0_073", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Okay.\nWell, essentially what happened in this case is, a great portion of that is attributable to the time that the physicians reported as administrative time.\nThat is, during '84 they completed time studies, and one of the categories was for administrative time that was always claimed and always allowed as GME.\nIn the re-audit the intermediary applied a default rule and said, well, your administrative time could have been administrative time for GME, or it could have been administrative time for operating purposes.\nWe must look... we must see actual data from '84, or we're just going to apply an ad hoc default rule, and that's what occurred in this case.\nThat... either directly or indirectly, that accounts for about 90 percent of the differential here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [935.608, 936.43, 950.678, 962.796, 977.897, 988.192], "stop_times": [936.43, 950.678, 962.796, 977.897, 988.192, 993.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 935.608}, "reply_to": "20631__0_072", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_074", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "And your claim is that had that been... had that method of calculation been imposed in 1984 you would have had the facts and figures that would have allocated more of that administrative time to GME.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [993.975], "stop_times": [1011.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 993.975}, "reply_to": "20631__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20631__0_075", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "I believe that to be the case.\nI would also say that during '84 itself no breakdown was required, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1011.169, 1012.018], "stop_times": [1012.018, 1018.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1011.169}, "reply_to": "20631__0_074", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_076", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, what factual development in the record is there to show that you were hurt by this socalled default rule, that you didn't have material that you had at one time but had disposed of?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1018.912], "stop_times": [1031.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1018.912}, "reply_to": "20631__0_075", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20631__0_077", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--Well, we... in the record we have... there is the audit adjustment report which shows that these are recharacterizations--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1031.361], "stop_times": [1038.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1031.361}, "reply_to": "20631__0_076", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_078", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1038.724], "stop_times": [1039.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1038.724}, "reply_to": "20631__0_077", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20631__0_079", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--of costs.\nThey're not... they weren't disallowances of costs.\nThey were recharacterizations of cost from GME to operating--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1039.115, 1039.586, 1041.877], "stop_times": [1039.586, 1041.877, 1046.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1039.115}, "reply_to": "20631__0_078", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_080", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Yes, but my question was, what is there in the record that shows you were injured, that you could have produced something had it come up in 1988, but you couldn't when it came up in 198--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1046.192], "stop_times": [1055.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1046.192}, "reply_to": "20631__0_079", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20631__0_081", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--We haven't really focused on that because we're really focusing on the threshold question here, which is, did the Secretary have the authority to re-audit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1055.636], "stop_times": [1063.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1055.636}, "reply_to": "20631__0_080", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_082", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--Well, then you don't really rely on the fact that you were hurt by the Secretary's decision to re-audit if it were justified on other grounds.\nIn other words, that had the... the Secretary perhaps had authority, but there was very... it was... came to you as a surprise.\nYou'd thrown your records away.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1063.602, 1074.208, 1083.565], "stop_times": [1074.208, 1083.565, 1084.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1063.602}, "reply_to": "20631__0_081", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20631__0_083", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, we haven't focused on the individual facts because we are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1084.927], "stop_times": [1089.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1084.927}, "reply_to": "20631__0_082", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_084", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, I... you can answer that question yes or no, Mr. Sutter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1089.189], "stop_times": [1091.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1089.189}, "reply_to": "20631__0_083", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20631__0_085", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--Yes, I think that's correct, but we are looking at whether the Secretary had the authority to do the re-audit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1091.54], "stop_times": [1098.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1091.54}, "reply_to": "20631__0_084", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_086", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Because a large part of your brief, and I thought it was a convincing argument when I first examined it, was that hospitals have thrown away their records for 1984 and they're prejudiced, but that seems to be falling--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1098.446], "stop_times": [1110.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1098.446}, "reply_to": "20631__0_085", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20631__0_087", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, no they... that did, in fact, happen in this case.\nI mean, we had a total turnover of the reimbursement department between 1984 and the time of the re-audit, and there were records that had been discarded.\nThat did happen in the case, but I have not been focusing on this, because we're really looking at the threshold question, which is, did the Secretary have the authority to do this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1110.643, 1113.414, 1124.221], "stop_times": [1113.414, 1124.221, 1133.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1110.643}, "reply_to": "20631__0_086", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_088", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--Is the reason you're not focusing on it because... is the reason, is one reason you're not focusing on it... one reason because you conceded it out of the case, and I take it the other reason is because they've actually promulgated a rule that states, as an equitable solution to the problem of the nonexistence of records, we are allowing providers to furnish documentation from cost reporting periods subsequent to the base period.\nNow, am I wrong?\nI've looked at that.\nI tried to find it.\nYou did mention it in your brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1133.288, 1160.124, 1162.126, 1162.897, 1163.818], "stop_times": [1160.124, 1162.126, 1162.897, 1163.818, 1165.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1133.288}, "reply_to": "20631__0_087", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20631__0_089", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1165.067], "stop_times": [1165.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1165.067}, "reply_to": "20631__0_088", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_090", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "I wanted to know what HHS had done about people who'd thrown their records away, and my law clerk found this rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1165.318], "stop_times": [1171.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1165.318}, "reply_to": "20631__0_089", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20631__0_091", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1171.473], "stop_times": [1171.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1171.473}, "reply_to": "20631__0_090", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_092", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Which says, they're aware of the problem and they're going to be fair about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1171.803], "stop_times": [1175.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1171.803}, "reply_to": "20631__0_091", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20631__0_093", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "We--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1175.335], "stop_times": [1176.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1175.335}, "reply_to": "20631__0_092", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_094", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Now... so is there any answer to this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1176.026], "stop_times": [1178.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1176.026}, "reply_to": "20631__0_093", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20631__0_095", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1178.998], "stop_times": [1179.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1178.998}, "reply_to": "20631__0_094", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_096", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "What?\nWhat's the answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1179.329, 1179.819], "stop_times": [1179.819, 1180.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1179.329}, "reply_to": "20631__0_095", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20631__0_097", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "There's two answers.\nFirst of all, even where that applies, it's not fair, and secondly it doesn't apply here.\nLet me go to the first.\nThey allow a 3-week current time study for 1990, but it's skewed to the Secretary's favor.\nYou get the lower two numbers.\nYou get what was in the 80... 1984 NPR, or you get the figure in the time study.\nIt's also a figure for 1990, which is unrelated to what we're looking for, which is what was recognized for 1984.\nIt was not available to the hospital here because this hospital did have time records from 1984, or it had summaries.\nThe problem wasn't the time records, it was... the problem was that they were reinterpreted by the Secretary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1180.009, 1180.249, 1185.763, 1187.626, 1198.733, 1200.025, 1206.426, 1213.372, 1222.017], "stop_times": [1180.249, 1185.763, 1187.626, 1198.733, 1200.025, 1206.426, 1213.372, 1222.017, 1228.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1180.009}, "reply_to": "20631__0_096", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_098", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "But I also have a later sentence in this same thing which, it says, we understand that all this stuff is at best persuasive, so if the intermediary believes any of the changes or modifications distort the reliability of the data, it says we'll look at the whole thing.\nThat's how I read it.\nIn other words, they're aware of the problem, they will look at it, and they'll deal with it appropriately, and I looked at that, and I saw that you yourselves had given up any challenge to the question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1228.111, 1242.43, 1243.081], "stop_times": [1242.43, 1243.081, 1256.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1228.111}, "reply_to": "20631__0_097", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20631__0_099", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, they... yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1256.742], "stop_times": [1257.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1256.742}, "reply_to": "20631__0_098", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_100", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--of the fairness of the give-back of the [dollars] 4 million.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1257.18], "stop_times": [1259.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1257.18}, "reply_to": "20631__0_099", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20631__0_101", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, they had a choice.\nThey could have proceeded with that.\nIt would have been difficult because the personnel had turned over and records had been lost.\nI think if they had proceeded, that they may very well... I think, in fact, they probably would have won, because really the issue they had here is, I think, the same as an issue in another case called Good Samaritan Hospital, which is 873 F. Supp. at 1089-1092, which involved this administrative time, and that that ruled against the Secretary and the Secretary did not appeal.\nBut they elected not to take that route.\nThey elected to get at what I would suggest is the heart of the matter, which is, did the Secretary have the authority to re-audit, and if the Secretary didn't have the authority that really ends the matter.\nAs far as... I don't see that it's necessary to apply any presumption here, but if there is a presumption that is to be applied, I would suggest the presumption is in favor of the final and binding determination that's made for 1984.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1259.732, 1261.224, 1263.515, 1268.618, 1292.843, 1295.755, 1305.582], "stop_times": [1261.224, 1263.515, 1268.618, 1292.843, 1295.755, 1305.582, 1320.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1259.732}, "reply_to": "20631__0_100", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_102", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Isn't there some difference between a regulation which perhaps deals with private actors in the... in a private field, say like an FTC regulation of competition, and a regulation issued by the Secretary which basically just determines how Government money is going to be spent?\nI mean, don't we give more latitude to the latter, usually?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1320.643, 1340.915], "stop_times": [1340.915, 1344.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1320.643}, "reply_to": "20631__0_101", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20631__0_103", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, perhaps, but I think we have clear language here, and I think we also have the fact that there was already a final and binding determination, and there is a presumption in favor of issue preclusion, and there's nothing to overcome that presumption here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1344.218], "stop_times": [1361.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1344.218}, "reply_to": "20631__0_102", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_104", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, where does the presumption in favor of issue preclusion come from?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1361.873], "stop_times": [1366.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1361.873}, "reply_to": "20631__0_103", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20631__0_105", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "The... well, the Court has established that in cases such as Astoria Federal, and here we have a final and binding determination for 1984.\nHospitals were told they were free to discard their records.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1366.363, 1377.711], "stop_times": [1377.711, 1381.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1366.363}, "reply_to": "20631__0_104", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_106", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, but this is not a redetermination for the same purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1381.244], "stop_times": [1385.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1381.244}, "reply_to": "20631__0_105", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20631__0_107", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, it still said final and binding.\nIt was unqualified.\nIt said final and binding, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1385.625, 1387.968, 1389.168], "stop_times": [1387.968, 1389.168, 1392.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1385.625}, "reply_to": "20631__0_106", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_108", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "But up until the change that was made to take this as a base year, final and binding meant, we do it on a year-by-year basis, so that's... final and binding for purposes of that year, once a 3-year reopening passes is one thing.\nTo say final and binding forever is something that could come into play only after the '86 act, am I right, because before then final and binding referred only to the year-by-year determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1392.112, 1407.03], "stop_times": [1407.03, 1421.14], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1392.112}, "reply_to": "20631__0_107", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20631__0_109", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--Well, it was the same thing that was done for PPS in TEFRA.\nThere, Congress established an... a rate for the future based upon a... an amount recognized under the subchapter for a base year, and the Secretary used the same amount, and it's important--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1421.14, 1424.613], "stop_times": [1424.613, 1441.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1421.14}, "reply_to": "20631__0_108", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_110", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Yes, but that's not answering my question, that I... there was a change, was there not, that up until then--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1441.133], "stop_times": [1446.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1441.133}, "reply_to": "20631__0_109", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20631__0_111", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--But 1986, Justice Ginsburg, was within the reopening period for this year.\nI mean, we... the... in some cases the NPR had not even been issued as of the date that this statute was enacted.\nIn other--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1446.166, 1454.601, 1463.497], "stop_times": [1454.601, 1463.497, 1464.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1446.166}, "reply_to": "20631__0_110", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_112", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--So you don't quarrel with any... if all this had been done within the 3 years, you would have no quarrel with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1464.158], "stop_times": [1468.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1464.158}, "reply_to": "20631__0_111", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20631__0_113", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--I am... yes.\nI mean, there's... there has to be uniformity.\nIt's really the same argument that I made in the PPS context for Georgetown II, and that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1468.442, 1469.691, 1471.624], "stop_times": [1469.691, 1471.624, 1477.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1468.442}, "reply_to": "20631__0_112", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_114", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "So what you're saying is, the Secretary got it wrong.\nShe's got 3 years to get it right, and if she doesn't, too bad, it gets rejected into the future until Congress changes it.\nThat's the essence of your argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1477.876, 1479.568, 1486.544], "stop_times": [1479.568, 1486.544, 1488.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1477.876}, "reply_to": "20631__0_113", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20631__0_115", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--I'm saying once that period has passed you are not going to get an accurate result, and I'm also saying that these results were accurate because they were audited determinations, done by experienced intermediaries, and they were done at a time when there was reason to be careful because this was the year to be used for the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1488.355], "stop_times": [1505.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1488.355}, "reply_to": "20631__0_114", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_116", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "But all that's another case.\nIt's not the one that we have, right?\nFor purposes of this argument you have accepted, I thought, that the second determination by the Secretary was a reasonable determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1505.465, 1506.206, 1507.326], "stop_times": [1506.206, 1507.326, 1517.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1505.465}, "reply_to": "20631__0_115", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20631__0_117", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--No, we've not accepted that.\nWe simply have elected instead to pursue the threshold question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1517.142, 1518.364], "stop_times": [1518.364, 1522.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1517.142}, "reply_to": "20631__0_116", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_118", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Counsel, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1522.676], "stop_times": [1523.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1522.676}, "reply_to": "20631__0_117", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20631__0_119", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Which is, did the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1523.667], "stop_times": [1524.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1523.667}, "reply_to": "20631__0_118", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_120", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--I also have a question, and your time is running out, and I did want to ask it.\nI take it that what happened after this new statute was passed is that some costs were reclassified--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1524.468, 1528.74], "stop_times": [1528.74, 1535.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1524.468}, "reply_to": "20631__0_119", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20631__0_121", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1535.656], "stop_times": [1536.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1535.656}, "reply_to": "20631__0_120", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_122", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--from education to operating.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1536.287], "stop_times": [1538.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1536.287}, "reply_to": "20631__0_121", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20631__0_123", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1538.648], "stop_times": [1539.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1538.648}, "reply_to": "20631__0_122", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_124", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "And I think there is a regulation... tell me if that's right... that hospitals can request an upward adjustment in the hospital-specific rate if a reaudit results in the reclassification of costs as operating costs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1539.208], "stop_times": [1555.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1539.208}, "reply_to": "20631__0_123", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20631__0_125", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1555.798], "stop_times": [1556.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1555.798}, "reply_to": "20631__0_124", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_126", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "So in theory, even though this disastrous thing happened, the hospital can ask for an upward adjustment in the rate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1556.339], "stop_times": [1563.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1556.339}, "reply_to": "20631__0_125", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20631__0_127", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "They can ask, but that doesn't really help.\nIt doesn't help because the Secretary's not changing the Federal rate, which is the primary component of payment under PPS.\nIt's also not helping in many cases because the hospitals have to have documentation from 1982, which many of them no longer have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1563.594, 1566.006, 1573.031], "stop_times": [1566.006, 1573.031, 1583.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1563.594}, "reply_to": "20631__0_126", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_128", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, they may not have it, but weren't they put on notice by the Secretary that there would indeed be this recalculation, so can any hospital at this point claim that they were surprised to find that they would like to look at old records which they tossed out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1583.618], "stop_times": [1598.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1583.618}, "reply_to": "20631__0_127", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20631__0_129", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "No, they weren't put on notice.\nThe proposed rule indicated that there might be some reaudits in unspecified circumstances, but it nowhere suggested that there could be a re-audit after the 3-year period had expired.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1598.236, 1599.917], "stop_times": [1599.917, 1616.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1598.236}, "reply_to": "20631__0_128", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_130", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "But it didn't suggest otherwise.\nI mean, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1616.119, 1617.43], "stop_times": [1617.43, 1617.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1616.119}, "reply_to": "20631__0_129", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20631__0_131", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Yes, it did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1617.601], "stop_times": [1617.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1617.601}, "reply_to": "20631__0_130", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_132", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--How did it suggest otherwise?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1617.901], "stop_times": [1619.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1617.901}, "reply_to": "20631__0_131", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20631__0_133", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "At page 36,592 it reiterated the normal 3-year reopening period and said that there would be a special exception to make conforming amendments for purposes of the hospital-specific rate, but there... but... and it also said to the extent there's a re-audit those will be begun quickly, before any final rule is issued, so there was absolutely nothing in there that suggested that there would be some sort of audit done after expiration of the 3-year period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1619.362], "stop_times": [1649.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1619.362}, "reply_to": "20631__0_132", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_134", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "I'm sorry, I'm mixed up now.\nI thought that the language I read you says to the hospital during the re-audit, hospital, if you don't have old records, give us last year's records.\nIf you don't have last year's records, give us yesterday's records.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1649.021, 1651.715, 1661.6], "stop_times": [1651.715, 1661.6, 1664.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1649.021}, "reply_to": "20631__0_133", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20631__0_135", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "But that wouldn't apply to this hospital, because it did have the '84 time records.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1664.922], "stop_times": [1670.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1664.922}, "reply_to": "20631__0_134", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_136", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "So you had all the old records.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1670.055], "stop_times": [1670.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1670.055}, "reply_to": "20631__0_135", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20631__0_137", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "No, no, no.\nWe didn't have... well, we had the time records.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1670.946, 1671.347], "stop_times": [1671.347, 1673.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1670.946}, "reply_to": "20631__0_136", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_138", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1673.518], "stop_times": [1674.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1673.518}, "reply_to": "20631__0_137", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20631__0_139", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "And the time--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1674.219], "stop_times": [1675.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1674.219}, "reply_to": "20631__0_138", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_140", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "I... all right.\nExplain this particular thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1675.389, 1675.649], "stop_times": [1675.649, 1678.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1675.389}, "reply_to": "20631__0_139", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20631__0_141", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1678.243], "stop_times": [1678.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1678.243}, "reply_to": "20631__0_140", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_142", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "I thought if there is one piece of paper missing from 1984, the reg says, you don't have that, you've thrown it away, whatever it is, give us your most recent one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1678.439], "stop_times": [1689.098], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1678.439}, "reply_to": "20631__0_141", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20631__0_143", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "That's not how it was applied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1689.098], "stop_times": [1690.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1689.098}, "reply_to": "20631__0_142", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_144", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "That's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1690.267], "stop_times": [1690.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1690.267}, "reply_to": "20631__0_143", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20631__0_145", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "If you had the time records, then that's what they used.\nIt was the same time records that had been around in '84, the time that had been claimed as administrative time and had been... that had been claimed as GME, and that had been allowed as GME, and the re-audit conducted 6 years later, the intermediary said, well, we're... it's not based upon new evidence.\nThey just said, we're going to apply an ad hoc default rule, and also you cannot do a current time study because there are the records from 1984.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1690.808, 1694.1, 1712.924], "stop_times": [1694.1, 1712.924, 1721.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1690.808}, "reply_to": "20631__0_144", "speaker": "ronald_n_sutter"}
{"id": "20631__0_146", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--Thank you, Mr. Sutter.\nMs. Blatt, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1721.098, 1726.483], "stop_times": [1726.483, 1728.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1721.098}, "reply_to": "20631__0_145", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20631__1_000", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe GME amendment ties future reimbursements for graduate medical education expenses to 1984 costs.\nTo implement that new payment system, the Secretary adopted a regulation to ensure an accurate computation of those base year costs.\nThis regulation was designed to prevent mistakes from being cemented and perpetuated into all future medicare reimbursements.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1728.764, 1739.211, 1746.556, 1753.88], "stop_times": [1739.211, 1746.556, 1753.88, 1761.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1728.764}, "reply_to": "20631__0_146", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_001", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, he could have done that by re-auditing any ones he was doubtful about within the period.\nHe had some time before the period expired, didn't he, the 3-year re-audit period?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1761.265, 1767.79], "stop_times": [1767.79, 1772.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1761.265}, "reply_to": "20631__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20631__1_002", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "That's correct, and to the extent that the 3-year period expired, the Secretary can no longer recoup that money, but what's at issue here is the implementation of the statute in which, if there are errors that the Secretary cannot recoup, the Secretary does not want to prevent them from being forever enshrined into all payments.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1772.783], "stop_times": [1789.994], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1772.783}, "reply_to": "20631__1_001", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_003", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "No, but my point is, they didn't have to be forever enshrined.\nHe had time to do any re-audits that were necessary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1789.994, 1792.485], "stop_times": [1792.485, 1795.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1789.994}, "reply_to": "20631__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20631__1_004", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1795.237], "stop_times": [1796.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1795.237}, "reply_to": "20631__1_003", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_005", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Didn't he?\nWithout adopting this new regulation.\nHe could have gone back and reexamined the 1984 year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1796.479, 1796.82, 1800.589], "stop_times": [1796.82, 1800.589, 1802.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1796.479}, "reply_to": "20631__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20631__1_006", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--That's correct, Justice Scalia, and if the Secretary had--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1802.892], "stop_times": [1806.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1802.892}, "reply_to": "20631__1_005", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_007", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Moved quickly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1806.423], "stop_times": [1807.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1806.423}, "reply_to": "20631__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20631__1_008", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--Had promulgated the rule earlier, then you would have had the re-audit within the 3-year window, and you would have been able to recoup the money, but this regulation by and large for most hospitals missed that 3-year window.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1807.775], "stop_times": [1821.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1807.775}, "reply_to": "20631__1_007", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_009", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Okay.\nSo we don't have to interpret the statute the way you suggest in order to prevent what would otherwise have been an inevitable enshrinement of past mistakes.\nIt wasn't inevitable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1821.426, 1821.806, 1833.152], "stop_times": [1821.806, 1833.152, 1834.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1821.426}, "reply_to": "20631__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20631__1_010", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "No, Justice Scalia, but the issue is whether the language is consistent with what the Secretary did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1834.482], "stop_times": [1839.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1834.482}, "reply_to": "20631__1_009", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_011", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1839.527], "stop_times": [1840.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1839.527}, "reply_to": "20631__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20631__1_012", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "And in this case the statute directs the Secretary to determine an average amount recognized as reasonable under the act for GME costs per resident.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1840.078], "stop_times": [1847.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1840.078}, "reply_to": "20631__1_011", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_013", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Why is the word recognized in there?\nYour colleague had some difficulty explaining the phrase, as reasonable, but why is the word recognized... why didn't it just say, the average amount reasonable under this subchapter for direct graduate... why is the word recognized there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1847.432, 1849.583], "stop_times": [1849.583, 1867.424], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1847.432}, "reply_to": "20631__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20631__1_014", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, the word recognized under the act, to us the most natural reading of that language is, it's the costs that are regarded by the statute, acknowledged or regarded or deemed by the statute as allowable, and we think the actual... actually, two points.\nThis statute does not say the Secretary shall determine an average amount previously determined.\nIt doesn't use the word determined.\nIt says, recognized.\nNor does it refer to section 1395oo, which refers to a fiscal intermediary's determination.\nNor does it say, the amount previously reimbursed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1867.424, 1883.036, 1887.647, 1889.169, 1890.469, 1897.144], "stop_times": [1883.036, 1887.647, 1889.169, 1890.469, 1897.144, 1899.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1867.424}, "reply_to": "20631__1_013", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_015", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Can I just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1899.647], "stop_times": [1900.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1899.647}, "reply_to": "20631__1_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20631__1_016", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "It says recognized as reasonable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1900.507], "stop_times": [1901.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1900.507}, "reply_to": "20631__1_015", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_017", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--May I just interrupt on that first point?\nYou said, does not say the amount already recognized, but the reason for that it seems to me might be that there's a... the 3-year period hadn't run yet, so some of the... some of them had to be in the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1901.428, 1903.569], "stop_times": [1903.569, 1914.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1901.428}, "reply_to": "20631__1_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20631__1_018", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "That's correct.\nSome of them, you hadn't even... you might not have even had a notice of program reimbursement--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1914.438, 1916.017], "stop_times": [1916.017, 1920.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1914.438}, "reply_to": "20631__1_017", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_019", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1920.691], "stop_times": [1921.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1920.691}, "reply_to": "20631__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20631__1_020", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--by April of 1986.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1921.079], "stop_times": [1922.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1921.079}, "reply_to": "20631__1_019", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_021", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "That's a good point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1922.031], "stop_times": [1922.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1922.031}, "reply_to": "20631__1_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20631__1_022", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "But the point, Justice Stevens, is that recognized as reasonable in our reading of the statute refers to the substantive standard of allowability under the act during the base year.\nIt's simply silent as to the process by which the Secretary should make the determination of the per-resident average, and the Secretary had longstanding--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1922.381, 1932.947], "stop_times": [1932.947, 1941.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1922.381}, "reply_to": "20631__1_021", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_023", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "But do you think it's fair to assume that Congress thought there might be one amount that would be determined in the 3-year period for the 1984 reimbursement and still a different amount based on 1984 for this permanent program?\nIs it reasonable to think Congress thought there would be two 1984 determinations, both of which would be reasonable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1941.423, 1954.312], "stop_times": [1954.312, 1960.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1941.423}, "reply_to": "20631__1_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20631__1_024", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--No.\nI think what Congress wanted was the actual... the payment system to be based on an accurate amount, and there is only one accurate amount, and the problem was, when the Secretary promulgated her regulation, at least proposed in 1988, she realized that substantial overpayments had been made for this educational program, and she cited many examples.\nThe Secretary was also concerned that there had been inconsistent treatment in the costs, and they had not been given sufficient scrutiny, and to prevent those costs, or those errors, rather, from being perpetuated into all future reimbursements, she felt it was important... I guess it was he at the time... to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1960.025, 1960.506, 1980.559], "stop_times": [1960.506, 1980.559, 1996.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1960.025}, "reply_to": "20631__1_023", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_025", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, I'm not questioning the reasonableness of her judgment and all that.\nI'm just trying to sit... if I'm sitting in Congress in 1986, what did I expect to happen under this language?\nDid I expect her to make two different determinations of reasonableness for 1984 for this particular hospital.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [1996.231, 1998.761, 2004.795], "stop_times": [1998.761, 2004.795, 2010.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1996.231}, "reply_to": "20631__1_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20631__1_026", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--I don't think the statute speaks to this at all, Justice Stevens.\nI think it's completely silent as to the process.\nIt's clear that Congress wanted an accurate amount, and it wanted the per-resident average to be reasonable, and we read that as reasonable under the substantive standards that were in effect during the base year, and the Secretary read that language to permit her to calculate the per-resident average based on an accurate amount.\nI just don't think the... neither the legislative history nor the text addresses this, and presumably Congress was also aware that the Secretary could amend her regulations, and that's what she did here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2010.368, 2012.85, 2015.154, 2033.145], "stop_times": [2012.85, 2015.154, 2033.145, 2044.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2010.368}, "reply_to": "20631__1_025", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_027", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Ms. Blatt, would you help me out on one thing?\nI thought I understood how the 3-year period works, and now I'm not so sure I do.\nI thought that at the end of the... whatever the fiscal year is involved here, the hospital in effect would submit the equivalent of a bill with whatever supporting documents it has to submit, and the bill would either get paid or they would fight it out then and there, but that even after the bill was paid there was a 3-year period during which the Secretary might reopen and do a re-audit.\nIs that basically how it does work?\nOr, conversely, is the 3-year period simply the period within which, to put it as I was doing it, the bill has to be paid?\nWhich is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2044.132, 2046.783, 2051.094, 2076.503, 2079.324, 2088.53], "stop_times": [2046.783, 2051.094, 2076.503, 2079.324, 2088.53, 2089.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2044.132}, "reply_to": "20631__1_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20631__1_028", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "No, I think the former description was accurate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2089.259], "stop_times": [2093.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2089.259}, "reply_to": "20631__1_027", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_029", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2093.273], "stop_times": [2093.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2093.273}, "reply_to": "20631__1_028", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20631__1_030", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "You get a... excuse me.\nThe hospital periodically gets paid throughout the year as it incurs the cost.\nThere's a year-end book-balancing just based on what the hospital claims as its cost.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2093.623, 2094.983, 2100.419], "stop_times": [2094.983, 2100.419, 2106.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2093.623}, "reply_to": "20631__1_029", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_031", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2106.072], "stop_times": [2106.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2106.072}, "reply_to": "20631__1_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20631__1_032", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Then sometimes 2 and sometimes even 3 years later there's a notice of program reimbursement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2106.453], "stop_times": [2111.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2106.453}, "reply_to": "20631__1_031", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_033", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "All right.\nNow, the reason I... the reason the question interests me goes back to Justice Stevens' question.\nIf that's the way it works, at the time this statute was passed, would it not normally have been the case that all hospitals would at least have been paid in the first instance and, as an implication of that, their back-up, their figures, their costs would have been recognized in the first instance as reasonable, but they would, nonetheless, have been subject to a re-audit within 3 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2111.616, 2111.926, 2116.028], "stop_times": [2111.926, 2116.028, 2144.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2111.616}, "reply_to": "20631__1_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20631__1_034", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "You're correct in that the amount of money had been reimbursed, but you use the word recognized as having the same meaning--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2144.487], "stop_times": [2153.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2144.487}, "reply_to": "20631__1_033", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_035", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "I was saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2153.972], "stop_times": [2154.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2153.972}, "reply_to": "20631__1_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20631__1_036", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--as a determination, and we don't read it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2154.252], "stop_times": [2156.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2154.252}, "reply_to": "20631__1_035", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_037", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--the reimbursement implies a recognition.\nIs that a misuse of the term?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2156.005, 2157.104], "stop_times": [2157.104, 2159.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2156.005}, "reply_to": "20631__1_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20631__1_038", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--It could be... that could be one reading of the word recognized, but equally in fact we think a more persuasive reading of the word recognized is recognized by the statute, not determined by a fiscal intermediary.\nCongress could have easily have said, come up with an amount previously reimbursed, or previously determined, or it could have said, previously determined under the Secretary's existing regulations, or determined under 1395oo, which refers to a fiscal intermediary's determination of the amount of reimbursement due.\nIt just said, recognized as reasonable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2159.047, 2170.033, 2188.796], "stop_times": [2170.033, 2188.796, 2189.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2159.047}, "reply_to": "20631__1_037", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_039", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "But it uses that phrase many other times, or at least several other times in the statute for the very purpose that Justice Souter is describing.\nI mean, I don't know that you can say that other language is more natural for this purpose in other places.\nIt doesn't say... it says, recognized under this chapter, this subchapter.\nIt doesn't use, recognized as reasonable, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2189.938, 2198.934, 2206.25, 2210.224], "stop_times": [2198.934, 2206.25, 2210.224, 2212.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2189.938}, "reply_to": "20631__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20631__1_040", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "That's correct, Justice Scalia, but the D.C. Circuit in Tulane cited two cases, two instances in which the statute does use the term, recognized as reasonable.\nIt's just that there it had a word previously in one instance and it had a to be in another instance, which we think simply highlights the flexibility and the ambiguity in this term.\nIt just says, recognized as... an amount recognized as reasonable.\nIt doesn't say an amount that was, an amount that is, an amount to be, an amount previously, and it's more of a... it's silent as to the process by which the Secretary would make this determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2212.874, 2221.219, 2231.416, 2235.149], "stop_times": [2221.219, 2231.416, 2235.149, 2245.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2212.874}, "reply_to": "20631__1_039", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_041", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--I was going to say, I suppose for the purposes of your case it doesn't matter whether my reading is the better one or your reading is the better one.\nThere's at least some kind of a reasonable disagreement, and in that circumstance the Secretary supposedly can cast the determinative vote by the way she interprets it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2245.277, 2252.633], "stop_times": [2252.633, 2265.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2245.277}, "reply_to": "20631__1_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20631__1_042", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Thank you, Justice Souter.\nI mean, we're... that would... we're clearly asking for deference here.\nYou don't have to agree, but we happen to think that it is the better reading of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2265.78, 2267.152, 2269.372], "stop_times": [2267.152, 2269.372, 2274.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2265.78}, "reply_to": "20631__1_041", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_043", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, what about the argument, Ms. Blatt, that's made that if the Secretary can wait this long, till '90, '91, to go around doing what she should have done in the first place, she could do the same thing in '93?\nI believe Mr. Sutter said that this second thought reordering could go on forever, so what's there to stop her, on your reading, from saying, yes, I came up with a lower figure in '90 or '91, but I could get it down even lower and find more misallocations?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2274.606, 2288.146], "stop_times": [2288.146, 2304.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2274.606}, "reply_to": "20631__1_042", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20631__1_044", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, Justice Ginsburg, several responses.\nFirst of all, we don't think the statute addresses this, but it might well be irrational or arbitrary if the Secretary subjected hospitals to perpetual re-audits.\nThere would also have to be an articulated reason for doing it.\nI mean, what the Secretary did here is said we want to make a one-time... clear-the-slate, one-time determination of this average-per-resident amount, and she promulgated a rule to do that.\nI don't know any reason why the Secretary would do it again, maybe if there was fraud, and then she wouldn't even need to promulgate a regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2304.369, 2306.539, 2315.594, 2318.907, 2329.823], "stop_times": [2306.539, 2315.594, 2318.907, 2329.823, 2337.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2304.369}, "reply_to": "20631__1_043", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_045", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Yes, but you're suggesting there's something magical about a one-time adjustment.\nThe other side might argue, well, the first determination they paid on was a one-time, thought-to-be-final adjustment.\nIf you can have a second one-time adjustment, why not a third and a fourth?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2337.69, 2340.502, 2345.925], "stop_times": [2340.502, 2345.925, 2348.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2337.69}, "reply_to": "20631__1_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20631__1_046", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Again, that first... when it was paid originally in 1984, Justice Stevens, the only risk associated with errors was the amount of reimbursement that provider was due in 1984.\nWhen the statute got amended to base all future payments on an equal cost--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2348.977, 2359.164], "stop_times": [2359.164, 2365.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2348.977}, "reply_to": "20631__1_045", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_047", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, the amendment was in '86, and there was still... the final determination of reasonableness just on how much you're going to pay this hospital was still subject to change.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2365.929], "stop_times": [2373.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2365.929}, "reply_to": "20631__1_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20631__1_048", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--That's true, and the price that the Secretary paid for not acting quickly is, she cannot go back and recoup the money.\nI mean, that did not hurt the hospitals.\nWhat the Secretary's trying to do is to prevent future--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2373.616, 2379.71, 2381.95], "stop_times": [2379.71, 2381.95, 2384.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2373.616}, "reply_to": "20631__1_047", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_049", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well then, I'm just not sure why that argument wouldn't allow her in 1999 to say, well, I can't recover anything earlier than 1995, say, but I can still change the basic rules for the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2384.601], "stop_times": [2393.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2384.601}, "reply_to": "20631__1_048", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20631__1_050", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--And if she doesn't have a good reason, it would be arbitrary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2393.928], "stop_times": [2396.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2393.928}, "reply_to": "20631__1_049", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_051", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, there's a good reason why.\nShe didn't realize there were a lot of misallocations.\nShe made a lot of mistakes before, which is the same reason she has here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2396.45, 2397.191, 2398.631], "stop_times": [2397.191, 2398.631, 2400.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2396.45}, "reply_to": "20631__1_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20631__1_052", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "But Justice Stevens--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2400.971], "stop_times": [2402.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2400.971}, "reply_to": "20631__1_051", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_053", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Imperfect knowledge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2402.534], "stop_times": [2403.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2402.534}, "reply_to": "20631__1_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20631__1_054", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--But Justice Stevens, the Secretary went into this round to make this per-resident determination knowing the point of it, and it would... I just can't imagine a situation where the Secretary would say, okay, I need to do this every 2 years, but if she did articulate a reason it would be judged based on the information the Secretary had in front of her, and whether that was reasonable.\nI'd like to just briefly address two things that petitioner said about whether hospitals were on notice of the need to retain records.\nThe same page that petitioner quotes, which was 53 Federal Register 36,592, says three extremely important things to hospitals, and this was within the time, within the 4-year period under any kind of scenario in which you... the hospitals were permitted to discard physician allocation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2403.443, 2424.697, 2435.035], "stop_times": [2424.697, 2435.035, 2452.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2403.443}, "reply_to": "20631__1_053", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_055", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Do you have a page citation for this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2452.636], "stop_times": [2454.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2452.636}, "reply_to": "20631__1_054", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20631__1_056", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--Yes.\nIt was 50--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2454.417, 2454.708], "stop_times": [2454.708, 2455.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2454.417}, "reply_to": "20631__1_055", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_057", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--in the petitioner's brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2455.579], "stop_times": [2455.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2455.579}, "reply_to": "20631__1_056", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20631__1_058", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--Well, he just said it a minute ago in his argument, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2455.989], "stop_times": [2461.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2455.989}, "reply_to": "20631__1_057", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_059", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2461.053], "stop_times": [2461.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2461.053}, "reply_to": "20631__1_058", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20631__1_060", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--So it's not cited in the brief.\nIt's what the district court in Samaritan Health Systems relied on to say hospitals had notice.\nIt cites this Federal Register cite.\nBut the three things were very simple.\nThe Secretary warned hospitals that a re-audit would be conducted to exclude misclassified and unallowable cost.\nIt said... and most critically it said, appropriate supporting documentation... the fiscal intermediaries would look at... would ask for appropriate supporting documentation where costs seemed questionable, and 3), equally importantly it said, we can't... the Secretary indicated that she could not guarantee any time frame in which this re-audit activity would be completed because of budgetary constraints on contractors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2461.302, 2463.252, 2468.636, 2470.158, 2472.729, 2480.343], "stop_times": [2463.252, 2468.636, 2470.158, 2472.729, 2480.343, 2503.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2461.302}, "reply_to": "20631__1_059", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_061", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "What was the date of this Federal Register?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2503.169], "stop_times": [2504.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2503.169}, "reply_to": "20631__1_060", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20631__1_062", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "I think September 21, 1988.\nLet me check on that.\nYes, September 21, 1988, and under petitioner's year, his... its cost year ended December '88.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2504.879, 2508.253, 2509.735, 2519.429], "stop_times": [2508.253, 2509.735, 2519.429, 2521.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2504.879}, "reply_to": "20631__1_061", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_063", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Did it say these were going to be general re-audits, or just in... claimed it was just in a few circumstances?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2521.78], "stop_times": [2528.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2521.78}, "reply_to": "20631__1_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20631__1_064", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--It said, where costs seemed questionable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2528.185], "stop_times": [2530.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2528.185}, "reply_to": "20631__1_063", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_065", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Where costs seemed questionable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2530.258], "stop_times": [2532.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2530.258}, "reply_to": "20631__1_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20631__1_066", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Yes.\nI mean, I read it as quite general.\nIt said, as indicated.\nSo that was clear notice, and it's also... we think the Secretary reasonably believed that hospitals would have retained records, and certainly this case doesn't involve an as-applied challenge where a hospital has presented evidence that it discarded records, and on that... that's on that issue, although petitioner has said there's... that the hospital was prejudiced.\nThe petitioner did challenge this re-audit for 3 years, but then withdrew all of its challenges in 1994, and we think that is quite significant.\nAnd moreover, the... it wasn't a default rule applied to the disallowance.\nThere was a [dollars] 4 million difference, and the reason that was so significant was, most of this did result from the fact that petitioner had records from 1984, and those records showed that administrative costs had been paid when they weren't related to educational.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2532.369, 2532.67, 2533.858, 2536.47, 2562.947, 2573.155, 2580.071], "stop_times": [2532.67, 2533.858, 2536.47, 2562.947, 2573.155, 2580.071, 2593.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2532.369}, "reply_to": "20631__1_065", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_067", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "In this case, or in the run-of-the-mind case, does the misallocation indicate that the Government actually paid too much even under the old program, or would the Government come out just the same either way, and it just affects the GME program because of misallocation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2593.52], "stop_times": [2609.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2593.52}, "reply_to": "20631__1_066", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20631__1_068", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "I'm not sure how to answer that question.\nThe... if the costs were misallocated--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2609.272, 2613.123], "stop_times": [2613.123, 2615.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2609.272}, "reply_to": "20631__1_067", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_069", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "But I'm glad you understood it, because it's hard to put--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2615.607, 2617.376], "stop_times": [2617.376, 2617.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2615.607}, "reply_to": "20631__1_068", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20631__1_070", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--Yes.\nIf... but let me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2617.997, 2618.458], "stop_times": [2618.458, 2619.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2617.997}, "reply_to": "20631__1_069", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_071", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "It's hard... in other words, was the Government prejudiced for reasons other than the GME program, or was it just under the GME program that it is paying too much or paying too little, depending on who wins here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2619.197], "stop_times": [2629.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2619.197}, "reply_to": "20631__1_070", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20631__1_072", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--The 1984... the problem in 1984 was that the Government paid too much.\nIt's... if you talk about reclass--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2629.083, 2634.397], "stop_times": [2634.397, 2637.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2629.083}, "reply_to": "20631__1_071", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_073", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Even without reference to the GME program?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2637.138], "stop_times": [2639.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2637.138}, "reply_to": "20631__1_072", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20631__1_074", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--No.\nI think it's... if the costs were counted as educational, but they should have been operating, and there were caps on operating costs in effect during that year, and they were paid on a pass-through reasonable cost basis, and so the Government paid too much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2639.109, 2641.413], "stop_times": [2641.413, 2655.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2639.109}, "reply_to": "20631__1_073", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_075", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "So the Government paid too much even under the 1984 scheme?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2655.381], "stop_times": [2657.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2655.381}, "reply_to": "20631__1_074", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20631__1_076", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Oh, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2657.412], "stop_times": [2658.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2657.412}, "reply_to": "20631__1_075", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_077", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2658.213], "stop_times": [2659.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2658.213}, "reply_to": "20631__1_076", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20631__1_078", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Yes.\nI'm... yes, definitely, and the interesting thing about that is, the complaints about the hospital-specific rate and the Federal rate all could have been lodged had the Secretary originally caught these errors in 1984, or had promulgated a rule within the 3-year window.\nYou would still have problems about what to do about prior year classification, and we think the Secretary quite reasonably allowed hospitals to not only increase their rates for operating costs, but one thing... and in conclusion, I'd like to point this out.\nThe regulation actually allowed hospitals to increase their GME amounts, and our records reflect that approximately 30 percent of hospitals raised their amounts.\nObviously, more often than not the amounts went down, but there were a significant number of hospitals where the costs went up.\nIf there are no more questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2659.044, 2659.225, 2673.022, 2686.112, 2694.146, 2700.821], "stop_times": [2659.225, 2673.022, 2686.112, 2694.146, 2700.821, 2702.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2659.044}, "reply_to": "20631__1_077", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_079", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "I would like just to be clear in my own mind.\nWhat petitioner said in his brief, in his reply brief on page 15, he says there was a re-audit, and then he says that they changed the classification of certain fixed costs, the administrative costs, from education costs to operating costs, not because of new evidence but because petitioner no longer had audit documentation.\nNow, I... I may... I'm not certain what he had in mind by that, but if he actually meant physical pieces of paper, which does seem like a problem, I was concerned about that.\nAm I right in thinking that isn't the problem, because if there are pieces of paper or other kinds of evidence that are no longer around, the Secretary will permit the hospital to introduce--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2702.821, 2705.035, 2725.578, 2735.113], "stop_times": [2705.035, 2725.578, 2735.113, 2747.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2702.821}, "reply_to": "20631__1_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20631__1_080", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2747.241], "stop_times": [2747.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2747.241}, "reply_to": "20631__1_079", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_081", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--other evidence, later evidence, or anything that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2747.872], "stop_times": [2749.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2747.872}, "reply_to": "20631__1_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20631__1_082", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "That's correct, and ironically, Justice Breyer, the petitioner did present subsequent year data, I think we pointed out in our brief, because the time records did not break... this is the very same issue we're talking about.\nThis petitioner had time records in 1984 which are very detailed documents, but because the petitioner on the face of the time records did not break down the costs between teaching medical students versus teaching residents, they were allowed to use a new time study, and that's why there was a settlement in this case and the petitioner actually got an increase in the per-resident average.\nSo petitioner used that equitable relief in this case, even though... and that's not because petitioner threw away records.\nIt's because petitioner never had the records to begin with.\nThere's just simply nothing in the record, at least that we could draw any conclusion that there were records thrown away.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2749.915, 2760.504, 2783.037, 2790.093, 2791.883], "stop_times": [2760.504, 2783.037, 2790.093, 2791.883, 2797.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2749.915}, "reply_to": "20631__1_081", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_083", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "--Thank you, Ms. Blatt.\nMs. Blatt, I have one more question.\nDo you have any response to the point, which seems to me a fairly substantial one, made by the petitioner that in the same legislation that enacted this provision Congress instructed the Secretary to report back by December 31, 1987 on whether there should be any revisions to provide greater uniformity in the approved FTE resident amounts?\nNow, how could she possibly have done that by December 31, 1987, unless everything... unless she had made these determinations by 1987?\nI mean, isn't that a pretty clear indication that Congress expected this stuff to be done by '87?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2797.198, 2798.698, 2800.379, 2828.959, 2838.226], "stop_times": [2798.698, 2800.379, 2828.959, 2838.226, 2844.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2797.198}, "reply_to": "20631__1_082", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20631__1_084", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Well, it might, Justice Scalia, but it would... it certainly goes against petitioner's reading of the statute, which is that Congress assumed the Secretary had a 3-year window under these regulations, which would have been in 1989, and there's simply no way that could have been done under this reporting requirement.\nBut this statute is a reporting requirement, and there were several reporting requirements imposed on the Secretary in this very bill, but even if you read this reporting requirement as a mandate for the Secretary to do something by a date certain, I don't think you should read in a congressional intent that the Secretary lacks the power to act beyond that statutory deadline.\nAnd one more point.\nThe... it would have been extremely difficult for the Secretary to have promulgated and finalized a rule, made an evaluation, and reported to the Secretary by December of '87 under... in all events.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2844.239, 2863.09, 2883.334, 2886.245], "stop_times": [2863.09, 2883.334, 2886.245, 2897.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2844.239}, "reply_to": "20631__1_083", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "20631__1_085", "conversation_id": "20631", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Blatt.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1375", "start_times": [2897.986, 2899.752], "stop_times": [2899.752, 2900.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2897.986}, "reply_to": "20631__1_084", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20508__0_000", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 97-501, Randall Ricci v. The Village of Arlington Heights.\nMr. Flaxman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [0.0, 11.206], "stop_times": [11.206, 12.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20508__0_001", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe petitioner was arrested because he was operating a business without having first obtained a license from the respondent.\nRespondent's policy required its police officers to make a full custodial arrest of petitioner.\nAlthough we challenge the mandatory nature of respondent's policy, our primary contention is that the Fourth Amendment does not permit a full custodial arrest for a fine-only infraction on the same basis as in felony cases.\nThat is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [12.308, 15.426, 23.263, 30.852, 48.664], "stop_times": [15.426, 23.263, 30.852, 48.664, 49.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 12.308}, "reply_to": "20508__0_000", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_002", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Mr. Flaxman, what do you mean by full custodial arrest?\nThis man was not handcuffed, he wasn't fingerprinted, he wasn't put in a holding cell.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [49.197, 54.149], "stop_times": [54.149, 59.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 49.197}, "reply_to": "20508__0_001", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20508__0_003", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--What I mean is what is what the Court said in Gustafson v. Florida, that a full custodial arrest is when you're taken into custody, when you can be subjected to an inventory search, when the area around you can be searched, when you're subject to up to 48 hours of post-arrest processing.\nIn this case the arrest was not as severe as it could have been, but I don't think the Court has ever engaged in balancing the severity of an arrest.\nAn arrest is an arrest is an arrest.\nThe Court has never made distinctions between them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [59.903, 77.364, 87.303, 89.672], "stop_times": [77.364, 87.303, 89.672, 92.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 59.903}, "reply_to": "20508__0_002", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_004", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, if an arrest is an arrest is an arrest, your proposition that the commonlaw traditionally has not allowed arrests for misdemeanors is patently false.\nWe've had several cases up here involving the arrest of motorists.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [92.374, 106.45], "stop_times": [106.45, 112.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 92.374}, "reply_to": "20508__0_003", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__0_005", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "In--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [112.02], "stop_times": [112.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 112.02}, "reply_to": "20508__0_004", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_006", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "I mean, arrest means to stop the person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [112.753], "stop_times": [116.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 112.753}, "reply_to": "20508__0_005", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__0_007", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Well, in the most recent case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [116.072], "stop_times": [118.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 116.072}, "reply_to": "20508__0_006", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_008", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Isn't that a seizure, when they stop a car?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [118.007], "stop_times": [120.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 118.007}, "reply_to": "20508__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__0_009", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Well, that's temporary questioning.\nIn Whren the Court was very careful, I think, not to say that Mr. Whren was being arrested.\nThe Court said Mr. Whren was being subject to a temporary stop for questioning, and during that questioning evidence was found.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [120.726, 122.776, 128.899], "stop_times": [122.776, 128.899, 136.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 120.726}, "reply_to": "20508__0_008", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_010", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, in your case do you think--\n--You appeal to the common law.\nDo you think the common law makes that distinction between a seizure that is an arrest in the technical sense that you're telling us and the seizure that is not an arrest in that technical sense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [136.153, 137.586, 138.205], "stop_times": [137.586, 138.205, 151.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 136.153}, "reply_to": "20508__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__0_011", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Yes.\nI think the nightwalker statutes, allowing detention of suspicious people, is the detention for investigation that is... survives today in Terry v. Ohio, but the common law I think was very, very clear that an arrest as the way of initiating a prosecution was reserved for felony cases or for nonfelony cases where there was breach of the peace committed in the officer's presence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [151.079, 151.496], "stop_times": [151.496, 172.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 151.079}, "reply_to": "20508__0_010", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_012", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "So you say the nightwalker statute was not an exception, then, to the misdemeanor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [172.559], "stop_times": [177.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 172.559}, "reply_to": "20508__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__0_013", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "It was not an arrest provision.\nIt was a detention provision, an investigative stop provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [177.813, 179.665], "stop_times": [179.665, 183.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 177.813}, "reply_to": "20508__0_012", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_014", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Well, in your case, in the case we have before us, suppose the police officer did what you say he should do and told the man, now you're going to have to come down and I'm going to give you a citation, and the fellow said, I'm not interested, and started to walk away.\nCould the officer hold him long enough to fill out the citation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [183.884, 199.994], "stop_times": [199.994, 205.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 183.884}, "reply_to": "20508__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20508__0_015", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Oh, if... yes.\nIf--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [205.38, 207.38], "stop_times": [207.38, 208.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 205.38}, "reply_to": "20508__0_014", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_016", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, then an arrest is an arrest is an arrest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [208.049], "stop_times": [209.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 208.049}, "reply_to": "20508__0_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20508__0_017", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Well, no.\nIf a person refuses to accept a field citation, or flouts the officer's authority, or continues to jaywalk, or continues to litter, or continues to deface public property--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [209.799, 210.265], "stop_times": [210.265, 220.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 209.799}, "reply_to": "20508__0_016", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_018", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "No.\nThe officer stays stop, I'm going to write you out a citation, and then he fumbles with his book and so forth.\nIsn't that an arrest?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [220.907, 221.373, 226.977], "stop_times": [221.373, 226.977, 228.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 220.907}, "reply_to": "20508__0_017", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20508__0_019", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--That's not an arrest.\nHe has... that's a detention for giving him the citation, and in the situation where the person refuses to cooperate with the officer who's writing the citation, then the person traditionally has been subject to arrest for not cooperating with the officer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [228.996, 231.281], "stop_times": [231.281, 244.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 228.996}, "reply_to": "20508__0_018", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_020", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Of course, the Fourth Amendment doesn't address arrest.\nIt addresses seizures, and both of them are seizures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [244.839, 246.89], "stop_times": [246.89, 250.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 244.839}, "reply_to": "20508__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__0_021", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, the Court has differentiated between seizures which are arrests and seizures which are temporary detentions for investigation like of luggage, or of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [250.259], "stop_times": [259.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 250.259}, "reply_to": "20508__0_020", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_022", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Like a what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [259.531], "stop_times": [260.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 259.531}, "reply_to": "20508__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__0_023", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Like of luggage, or a stop of a person for questioning at the scene of a motor vehicle incident.\nGetting back to Whren, the Court was not there talking about a full custodial arrest.\nThe Court was talking about a detention, a stop to investigate, which is not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [260.432, 266.436, 271.09], "stop_times": [266.436, 271.09, 275.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 260.432}, "reply_to": "20508__0_022", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_024", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, you... but I thought you replied to Justice Ginsburg's question a few minutes ago that the Court has never distinguished between kinds of arrests, and now you're distinguishing between them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [275.894], "stop_times": [285.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 275.894}, "reply_to": "20508__0_023", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20508__0_025", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Well, Whren was not an arrest, is what our point is.\nWhren did not rise to that level.\nWhren was a detention for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [285.166, 288.117, 289.701], "stop_times": [288.117, 289.701, 291.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 285.166}, "reply_to": "20508__0_024", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_026", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Okay.\nWell, what is the significance of the term arrest in Fourth Amendment connotation?\nAs Justice Scalia says, the Fourth Amendment doesn't talk about arrest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [291.069, 291.536, 297.49], "stop_times": [291.536, 297.49, 301.525], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 291.069}, "reply_to": "20508__0_025", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20508__0_027", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--It talks about unreasonable seizures of people.\nWhen somebody is arrested they're taken into custody.\nThey're subject to all of the post-arrest processing that the Court has approved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [301.525, 304.811, 307.313], "stop_times": [304.811, 307.313, 311.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 301.525}, "reply_to": "20508__0_026", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_028", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, but how do you know that they're subject to all the post-arrest processing.\nHow do you know they're not simply subject to what they were in fact subjected to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [311.15, 316.619], "stop_times": [316.619, 320.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 311.15}, "reply_to": "20508__0_027", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20508__0_029", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, when somebody's taken to the police station the Court has uniformly held that that's an arrest situation.\nIn Berkemer, which was the motorist stop with Miranda warnings, the Court said you're not entitled to Miranda warnings when you've been stopped and we're investigating, but once you're in custody, you are entitled to Miranda warnings, which is what happened to the petitioner in this case.\nHe wasn't just brought to city hall to buy a license.\nHe was brought and locked in a room, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [320.523, 327.26, 341.086, 343.971], "stop_times": [327.26, 341.086, 343.971, 346.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 320.523}, "reply_to": "20508__0_028", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_030", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, the distinction you're making is the distinction between simply stopping and keeping someone basically in the vicinity of the stop, and on the other hand taking the person away, as to the police station.\nIs that where you draw the line?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [346.656, 357.279], "stop_times": [357.279, 358.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 346.656}, "reply_to": "20508__0_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20508__0_031", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--That's correct, and we don't have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [358.714], "stop_times": [360.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 358.714}, "reply_to": "20508__0_030", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_032", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Taking them into custody, I suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [360.581], "stop_times": [362.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 360.581}, "reply_to": "20508__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__0_033", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [362.683], "stop_times": [363.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 362.683}, "reply_to": "20508__0_032", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_034", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "I suppose that you'd say if the officer told the person, you are under arrest, you'd say that that was an arrest even if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [363.033], "stop_times": [369.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 363.033}, "reply_to": "20508__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__0_035", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--That's true, but once you're under arrest you don't stay at the scene.\nYou're taken away to someplace else for processing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [369.586, 372.973], "stop_times": [372.973, 375.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 369.586}, "reply_to": "20508__0_034", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_036", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Suppose the door weren't locked.\nSuppose the police said, we want a bond because the liability here could run into several thousands, considering how long you operated without a license, so we're going to take you in because we have no facilities to arrange for the bond in your workplace, and we'll put you in a waiting room and we'll see where you are but we won't lock the door.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [375.759, 377.642], "stop_times": [377.642, 399.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 375.759}, "reply_to": "20508__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20508__0_037", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, if Mr. Ricci was free to leave, then he would not have been under arrest.\nBut getting back to the bond question, the court of appeals discovered that aspect of what they believed the Village's policy was on their own.\nThe Village had never urged that Mr. Ricci was facing more than a potential $500 fine.\nThe officers who arrested Mr. Ricci knew that what was going to happen was that he would get a business license and, in fact, we know that the license was secured while he was under arrest and in custody.\nHe wasn't facing this gigantic fine.\nHe was facing the annoyance and the humiliation of being arrested, but he wasn't facing... there wasn't the realistic expectation that he was facing a fine.\nIn those situations where there is a realistic expectation that someone is facing a huge fine and might not come to court, the officer should get a warrant.\nThat's a tradition--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [399.375, 403.427, 414.467, 419.336, 430.577, 432.929, 441.385, 452.592], "stop_times": [403.427, 414.467, 419.336, 430.577, 432.929, 441.385, 452.592, 454.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 399.375}, "reply_to": "20508__0_036", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_038", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "If in this case the officer had gotten a warrant, then everything would have been fine.\nIs that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [454.725, 458.413], "stop_times": [458.413, 459.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 454.725}, "reply_to": "20508__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20508__0_039", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--We would not be challenging the municipality's policy.\nThere would be a question... I don't know how it could be raised, about whether a judge has the authority to issue a warrant, but I think traditionally and at common law judges could issue warrants for minor offenses.\nWe have that in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [459.063, 462.115, 472.654], "stop_times": [462.115, 472.654, 473.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 459.063}, "reply_to": "20508__0_038", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_040", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Is there a question about whether the police officer in a case like this, an infraction of an ordinance, could have gotten a warrant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [473.673], "stop_times": [482.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 473.673}, "reply_to": "20508__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20508__0_041", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--There's no question there are Illinois cases approving the obtaining of warrants to make arrests for minor offenses, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [482.712], "stop_times": [490.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 482.712}, "reply_to": "20508__0_040", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_042", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "So it's not the idea that this is such a minor thing that somebody shouldn't be in custody.\nYou say he could be in custody as long as there's a warrant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [490.782, 494.502], "stop_times": [494.502, 498.038], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 490.782}, "reply_to": "20508__0_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20508__0_043", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Well, but in order to get a warrant in Illinois the officer, whoever applied for a warrant has to make a showing not only that there's a violation of the law but that the person will not obey a summons, or will not obey a citation.\nThere's some likelihood that the person will flee unless they're arrested.\nAnd that's absolutely not present in this case, where the officers knew for 2 days that Mr. Ricci was operating his business and that he appeared not to have a license.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [498.038, 511.548, 515.0], "stop_times": [511.548, 515.0, 524.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 498.038}, "reply_to": "20508__0_042", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_044", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, what if Illinois law were otherwise and a warrant was obtainable on precisely the showing that the police had here.\nWould... do you think that would violate the Fourth Amendment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [524.706, 532.377], "stop_times": [532.377, 535.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 524.706}, "reply_to": "20508__0_043", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20508__0_045", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "No.\nI think that would be consistent with the common law history of specific warrants for specific offenses, even for minor offenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [535.077, 535.446], "stop_times": [535.446, 543.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 535.077}, "reply_to": "20508__0_044", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_046", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "But it doesn't make sense to say... I thought your objection was that there was no good reason for taking this person down to the station.\nNow you're telling us it doesn't matter if there's any good reason, so long as you get a warrant, and a warrant doesn't... you don't need a good reason to get a warrant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [543.0, 554.041], "stop_times": [554.041, 561.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 543.0}, "reply_to": "20508__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__0_047", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [561.045], "stop_times": [561.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 561.045}, "reply_to": "20508__0_046", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_048", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "I would have thought your position would be, you need a good reason to get a warrant, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [561.512], "stop_times": [564.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 561.512}, "reply_to": "20508__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__0_049", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Well, I think a judge looking at a warrant application in this case would say, why do you want to arrest this man, give him... issue a summons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [564.331], "stop_times": [573.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 564.331}, "reply_to": "20508__0_048", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_050", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "He doesn't have to say that.\nYou just told the Chief Justice he doesn't have to say that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [573.352, 574.121], "stop_times": [574.121, 576.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 573.352}, "reply_to": "20508__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__0_051", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Oh, he doesn't have to say that, but I think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [576.338], "stop_times": [578.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 576.338}, "reply_to": "20508__0_050", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_052", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "So you're willing... so long as a warrant issues, it doesn't matter what the conditions for the warrant are.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [578.573], "stop_times": [582.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 578.573}, "reply_to": "20508__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__0_053", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Well, I think the Court has traditionally respected the warrant as legitimizing a seizure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [582.477], "stop_times": [591.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 582.477}, "reply_to": "20508__0_052", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_054", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Oh, we've also traditionally required a probable cause for a warrant to be a proper warrant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [591.148], "stop_times": [595.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 591.148}, "reply_to": "20508__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__0_055", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, there's no disagreement in this case that there was probable cause to believe that Mr. Ricci did not have a business license.\nThe question is whether the officers without a warrant--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [595.885, 602.706], "stop_times": [602.706, 605.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 595.885}, "reply_to": "20508__0_054", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_056", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Yes, but it was probable cause of an arrestable offense, is the probable cause that we'd normally have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [605.574], "stop_times": [612.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 605.574}, "reply_to": "20508__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__0_057", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--That's exactly the position that we're advocating here, but that is not what the court of appeals said, and that's not what some of the State courts have said, that if there's any kind of violation then police officers without a warrant can go and arrest someone for littering.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [612.163], "stop_times": [625.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 612.163}, "reply_to": "20508__0_056", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_058", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "What about... what's a misdemeanor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [625.987], "stop_times": [628.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 625.987}, "reply_to": "20508__0_057", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20508__0_059", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "A misdemeanor is an offense punishable by incarceration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [628.173], "stop_times": [632.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 628.173}, "reply_to": "20508__0_058", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_060", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "It's not in Massachusetts.\nMassachusetts defines misdemeanor in terms... and felony in terms of where you can be incarcerated.\nIf you're incarcerated in State prison, then it's a felony.\nIf it's not incarcerated in a State prison, it's not a felony.\nI've never been able to figure out... you'd have to go through the statute books, decide where you have to go to Concord, where you'd have to go to Walpole, where you could be imprisoned in a different place.\nI mean, my point is every State has a different definition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [632.058, 634.093, 639.064, 642.433, 645.318, 653.573], "stop_times": [634.093, 639.064, 642.433, 645.318, 653.573, 656.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 632.058}, "reply_to": "20508__0_059", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20508__0_061", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Every State has a different definition of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [656.608], "stop_times": [657.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 656.608}, "reply_to": "20508__0_060", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_062", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "And Massachusetts is really complicated, so I just realized you can't tell me what it is in Massachusetts.\nYou don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [657.992, 662.696], "stop_times": [662.696, 663.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 657.992}, "reply_to": "20508__0_061", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20508__0_063", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--I think it's clear... it's easy to look at the statutes in any State and determine what's a fine-only infraction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [663.629], "stop_times": [669.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 663.629}, "reply_to": "20508__0_062", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_064", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Oh, it is?\nIn Massachusetts... I'll read you the statute.\nIt says... I mean... it says what I said it says.\nIt says a felony is... a crime punishable by imprisonment in the State prison is a felony.\nAll other crimes are misdemeanors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [669.85, 670.952, 673.068, 676.087, 685.526], "stop_times": [670.952, 673.068, 676.087, 685.526, 688.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 669.85}, "reply_to": "20508__0_063", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20508__0_065", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "But then the question which has been addressed in a number of courts is whether a fine-only infraction is a crime or if it's a civil infraction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [688.062], "stop_times": [695.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 688.062}, "reply_to": "20508__0_064", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_066", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Do you take the position that this is a civil infraction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [695.833], "stop_times": [698.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 695.833}, "reply_to": "20508__0_065", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20508__0_067", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Absolutely.\nIt--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [698.452, 699.169], "stop_times": [699.169, 699.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 698.452}, "reply_to": "20508__0_066", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_068", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "What's a civil infraction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [699.819], "stop_times": [701.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 699.819}, "reply_to": "20508__0_067", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20508__0_069", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--It's something that's punishable by fine only, which is not even the level of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [701.137], "stop_times": [704.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 701.137}, "reply_to": "20508__0_068", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_070", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "All right.\nSo in other words now... because that's easier.\nIn other words, what you're saying is, since... I mean, one of the terrible problems is you have 50 States and each has a different definition of misdemeanor and felony, so I didn't know where your rule applies, where it doesn't apply.\nNow, you say we look to the statute books and we say, you see, if it's punishable by fine only you can't arrest a person even if he's committing the crime, and if it's not punishable by fine only you can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [704.356, 704.639, 707.208, 718.349], "stop_times": [704.639, 707.208, 718.349, 731.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 704.356}, "reply_to": "20508__0_069", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20508__0_071", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Unless the infraction is... involves a breach of the peace, or there's some emergency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [731.574], "stop_times": [736.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 731.574}, "reply_to": "20508__0_070", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_072", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Yes, okay.\nThen I guess a lot of things... you know, careless driving, reckless driving, false information to a police officer, a fish and game violation... I bet we went through a lot of those, you know, minor things, I bet we'd find in a lot of States that it's not just fine only, or maybe you've done it, and maybe you know.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [736.91, 737.51], "stop_times": [737.51, 755.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 736.91}, "reply_to": "20508__0_071", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20508__0_073", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "If it's not fine only then our rule doesn't apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [755.022], "stop_times": [758.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 755.022}, "reply_to": "20508__0_072", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_074", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "All right.\nWell then, are we really going to separate the... what you're trying to do is get the really trivial things from the more important ones, and will a fine-only rule do it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [758.974, 759.458], "stop_times": [759.458, 768.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 758.974}, "reply_to": "20508__0_073", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20508__0_075", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Oh, I think it will do it.\nI think things that are fine only are really, really trivial.\nI think if we look at... the... I mean, the Court has done that with the right to trial by jury with petty offenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [768.632, 770.249, 773.501], "stop_times": [770.249, 773.501, 779.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 768.632}, "reply_to": "20508__0_074", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_076", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Even fine-only offenses, you say, if they involve a breach of the peace are arrestable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [779.571], "stop_times": [787.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 779.571}, "reply_to": "20508__0_075", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20508__0_077", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [787.66], "stop_times": [788.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 787.66}, "reply_to": "20508__0_076", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_078", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "That comes from the... the breach of the peace term comes from the common law?\nAnd what did it mean at common law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [788.527, 793.981], "stop_times": [793.981, 796.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 788.527}, "reply_to": "20508__0_077", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20508__0_079", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "It meant a disturbance to public order, that there was some... some need to... that the arrest was necessary to preserve order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [796.533], "stop_times": [805.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 796.533}, "reply_to": "20508__0_078", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_080", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Oh, I think it doesn't mean that.\nI think it meant any violation of the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [805.389, 806.741], "stop_times": [806.741, 809.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 805.389}, "reply_to": "20508__0_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__0_081", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "In--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [809.341], "stop_times": [809.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 809.341}, "reply_to": "20508__0_080", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_082", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "That was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [809.859], "stop_times": [810.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 809.859}, "reply_to": "20508__0_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__0_083", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--It mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [810.876], "stop_times": [811.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 810.876}, "reply_to": "20508__0_082", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_084", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Any violation of the King's... any violation of the law was a violation of the King's peace.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [811.659], "stop_times": [816.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 811.659}, "reply_to": "20508__0_083", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__0_085", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--It meant that in a different context.\nAs it was consistently applied to arrest cases in the common law cases, a breach of the peace meant an affray, that that there was a disorder, an actual disorder or a potential for a future disorder.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [816.512, 818.798], "stop_times": [818.798, 831.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 816.512}, "reply_to": "20508__0_084", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_086", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, does it add anything to your position to say that one can arrest in a fine-only case if there is also a breach of the peace, because if there's a breach of the peace in the modern sense, that would be a separate offense in virtually all States, I assume, and it would be committed in the officer's presence and so this issue wouldn't come up.\nWe wouldn't be dealing with a fine-only situation.\nWe would be dealing with somebody who was committing a breach of the peace in the officer's presence, isn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [831.689, 855.638, 858.256], "stop_times": [855.638, 858.256, 863.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 831.689}, "reply_to": "20508__0_085", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20508__0_087", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [863.16], "stop_times": [864.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 863.16}, "reply_to": "20508__0_086", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_088", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "So you don't need that qualification.\nWhat you want to say is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [864.06, 865.862], "stop_times": [865.862, 867.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 864.06}, "reply_to": "20508__0_087", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20508__0_089", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "It's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [867.662], "stop_times": [868.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 867.662}, "reply_to": "20508__0_088", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_090", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--if all you've got is a fine-only situation, no arrest without a warrant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [868.095], "stop_times": [872.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 868.095}, "reply_to": "20508__0_089", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20508__0_091", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Well, I think it's hypothetically possible to envision, and maybe my opponent can, a fine-only ordinance which involves a breach of the peace for which the officer should be able to arrest where there is no misdemeanor or felony but it involves the same conduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [872.933], "stop_times": [887.959], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 872.933}, "reply_to": "20508__0_090", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_092", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "How about reckless driving?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [887.959], "stop_times": [889.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 887.959}, "reply_to": "20508__0_091", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20508__0_093", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Reckless driving involves a breach of the peace.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [889.478], "stop_times": [893.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 889.478}, "reply_to": "20508__0_092", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_094", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [893.78], "stop_times": [894.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 893.78}, "reply_to": "20508__0_093", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20508__0_095", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Because it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [894.68], "stop_times": [897.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 894.68}, "reply_to": "20508__0_094", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_096", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Is it an affray in that sense?\nAn affray always seemed to me to involve more than one person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [897.481, 900.25], "stop_times": [900.25, 904.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 897.481}, "reply_to": "20508__0_095", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20508__0_097", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Well, reckless driving is the kind of misconduct that can involve more than one person.\nI think it depends on what kind of reckless driving we have.\nWe have people drag-racing.\nThat's a different kind of reckless driving, or somebody who's weaving over a yellow line.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [904.237, 909.872, 913.01, 914.943], "stop_times": [909.872, 913.01, 914.943, 918.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 904.237}, "reply_to": "20508__0_096", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_098", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, it seems to me that your criteria are very... they waver quite a bit.\nHow about parking in a no parking zone?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [918.712, 924.049], "stop_times": [924.049, 926.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 918.712}, "reply_to": "20508__0_097", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20508__0_099", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "That... you should not be able to be arrested for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [926.984], "stop_times": [929.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 926.984}, "reply_to": "20508__0_098", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_100", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "What if you think, though, it's an out-of-State vehicle and the driver may not show up for the hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [929.87], "stop_times": [934.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 929.87}, "reply_to": "20508__0_099", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20508__0_101", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--I think it's still unreasonable to make an arrest.\nI think we can't... I don't think it would be reasonable for the municipality to detain that person for it because that person didn't pay the parking ticket.\nI think that would just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [934.94, 937.291, 945.711], "stop_times": [937.291, 945.711, 946.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 934.94}, "reply_to": "20508__0_100", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_102", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "What if he happened to check in at headquarters and found out he had 400 parking tickets that he'd never paid?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [946.83], "stop_times": [952.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 946.83}, "reply_to": "20508__0_101", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20508__0_103", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Well, parking... then the car can be seized and immobilized until he pays the parking ticket, which is the traditional way for dealing with that kind of infraction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [952.051], "stop_times": [959.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 952.051}, "reply_to": "20508__0_102", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_104", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Mr. Flaxman, I guess it's clear that the line-drawing is not going to be simple, assuming we draw a line at all.\nWhy do we... why should we go through this effort?\nWhat, as you understand it, is the value that is going to be served by drawing this line and requiring the warrant?\nWhat's important to you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [959.72, 967.31, 971.262, 979.034], "stop_times": [967.31, 971.262, 979.034, 980.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 959.72}, "reply_to": "20508__0_103", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20508__0_105", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "If there is no line drawn and police officers are free to make arrests for any violation that they observe, then we have gone back, I believe, to giving general warrants to police officers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [980.251], "stop_times": [992.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 980.251}, "reply_to": "20508__0_104", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_106", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Why are we giving general warrants?\nThey've simply... they've got to justify the arrest by virtue of an offense and probable cause to believe the offense was... had been committed.\nThat's the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [992.859, 994.544, 1002.916], "stop_times": [994.544, 1002.916, 1003.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 992.859}, "reply_to": "20508__0_105", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20508__0_107", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "The general warrant would authorize the officer to make an arrest of anybody that he believed had violated a law, which is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1003.433], "stop_times": [1009.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1003.433}, "reply_to": "20508__0_106", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_108", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Well, no, that's not so.\nI mean, if you say... depending on what you mean by believe, assuming that the normal arrest standard requiring probable cause to believe that an offense had been committed will be applied whether we have a warrant or don't have a warrant.\nThe officer does not have a roving commission to go out and act upon unsupported belief.\nI don't see how that gets us into a general warrant situation.\nIt gets us into a no-warrant situation where probable cause is nonetheless required.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1009.903, 1010.903, 1026.449, 1033.353, 1037.137], "stop_times": [1010.903, 1026.449, 1033.353, 1037.137, 1042.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1009.903}, "reply_to": "20508__0_107", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20508__0_109", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--But I think the general warrant also involved the officers having some belief that somebody was involved with the wrongdoing, the subject of the warrant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1042.79], "stop_times": [1051.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1042.79}, "reply_to": "20508__0_108", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_110", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, sometimes when they had a general warrant, they could arrest without probable cause, the general warrant was abused.\nBut we're not talking about that situation.\nWe're talking about a situation in which there's no warrant but there is a probable cause requirement, and so on that assumption, what value is going to be served to make it worth the effort to go through this fairly... seemingly fairly subtle line-drawing exercise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1051.38, 1058.403, 1060.62], "stop_times": [1058.403, 1060.62, 1081.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1051.38}, "reply_to": "20508__0_109", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20508__0_111", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, I disagree that a fine-only offense is a subtle line-drawing, but I think that the value of limiting the ability of the police to make arrests for fine-only infractions that do not involve a breach of the peace is that it promotes respect for the law, and it avoids the situations where police are using their powers in a unfair manner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1081.666], "stop_times": [1108.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1081.666}, "reply_to": "20508__0_110", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_112", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "I agree that you shouldn't... I mean, what you've done is, you've picked examples where, I totally agree with you, where it seems silly to have the policeman arrest somebody, but the difficulty for me is, you're asking the Court to draw a line that, while it would win you your case and deal with what we might think of as silly examples, might extend into a lot of other things, and that's what I'm trying to find out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1108.234], "stop_times": [1132.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1108.234}, "reply_to": "20508__0_111", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20508__0_113", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1132.451], "stop_times": [1133.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1132.451}, "reply_to": "20508__0_112", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_114", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Is there anywhere in any of these briefs that anyone has gone through and figured out really what crimes would, in the different States, be encompassed by your rule?\nLet's take your second rule, which is the fine-only rule.\nDo I... how could I find that out?\nIs there any way for me to find that out, other than, you know, set my law clerk to work and look through 48... which you could do as easily as I.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1133.151, 1146.442, 1150.83, 1154.032], "stop_times": [1146.442, 1150.83, 1154.032, 1161.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1133.151}, "reply_to": "20508__0_113", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20508__0_115", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Well, even if your law clerk went to do that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1161.452], "stop_times": [1164.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1161.452}, "reply_to": "20508__0_114", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_116", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1164.237], "stop_times": [1164.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1164.237}, "reply_to": "20508__0_115", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20508__0_117", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--I think it would be almost impossible to ascertain that, and that's not because your clerk isn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1164.589], "stop_times": [1169.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1164.589}, "reply_to": "20508__0_116", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_118", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "All right, then if we can't ascertain it, then I'd ask you a second question.\nIs it your rule that if we get the fine-only set of circumstances, and if we look at all those crimes, it's your rule, your idea that the policeman cannot arrest the person without a warrant, assuming no breach of the peace, even if the policeman thinks he's going to run away, never show up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1169.557, 1173.093], "stop_times": [1173.093, 1189.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1169.557}, "reply_to": "20508__0_117", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20508__0_119", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--No.\nIf... that's a classic exigent circumstance, but again, fitting into the hypothetical--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1189.705, 1190.388], "stop_times": [1190.388, 1197.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1189.705}, "reply_to": "20508__0_118", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_120", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "All right.\nSo then the total rule you want is, you take the fine-only set of crimes, which we're not certain what that includes, and we say the policeman, even though he sees the crime, cannot arrest the person unless, A, breach of the peace or B, run away.\nIs there a C, or is that the whole thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1197.477, 1197.861, 1214.938], "stop_times": [1197.861, 1214.938, 1217.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1197.477}, "reply_to": "20508__0_119", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20508__0_121", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--No, and I think that the criteria for when the police officer should be allowed... should be able to exercise his or her discretion to make an arrest has been identified by the ALI in the model code, so you can set out--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1217.438], "stop_times": [1230.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1217.438}, "reply_to": "20508__0_120", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_122", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "So you really want us to say, constitutionalize--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1230.115], "stop_times": [1233.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1230.115}, "reply_to": "20508__0_121", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20508__0_123", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Well... no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1233.334], "stop_times": [1233.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1233.334}, "reply_to": "20508__0_122", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_124", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--that six or eight part--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1233.667], "stop_times": [1234.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1233.667}, "reply_to": "20508__0_123", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20508__0_125", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--What I really want the Court to say is that the policy that we have in this case of requiring arrests in all trivial cases is unreasonable, and that unless there is a regulation or a statute or an ordinance which limits the discretion and which says, this is how you may use your discretion to make arrests, that the police can't have the roving commission, the absolute freedom to make arrests in trivial cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1234.884], "stop_times": [1266.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1234.884}, "reply_to": "20508__0_124", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_126", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Well, supposing that the Village of Arlington Heights had had a written policy and it permitted an arrest in this case, would that make it any different?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1266.871], "stop_times": [1277.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1266.871}, "reply_to": "20508__0_125", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20508__0_127", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, if they had--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1277.446], "stop_times": [1278.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1277.446}, "reply_to": "20508__0_126", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_128", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Would it make it any different?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1278.646], "stop_times": [1279.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1278.646}, "reply_to": "20508__0_127", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20508__0_129", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--It depends on what the policy was.\nIf they had Chicago's policy, then we would not be suing the municipality for its policy.\nThe question would be whether the officer misused his authority for some... to deny equal protection for some--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1279.965, 1281.031, 1287.118], "stop_times": [1281.031, 1287.118, 1293.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1279.965}, "reply_to": "20508__0_128", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_130", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, what case is authority for you to sue a municipality because of its policy, independent of what happened to your particular client?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1293.455], "stop_times": [1301.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1293.455}, "reply_to": "20508__0_129", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20508__0_131", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Well, we're not suing independent.\nWe're suing because of what happened.\nMr. Ricci was arrested because of a municipal policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1301.378, 1303.128, 1304.913], "stop_times": [1303.128, 1304.913, 1308.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1301.378}, "reply_to": "20508__0_130", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_132", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "But so you're saying that even though he might have been arrested under a permissible policy, if that policy wasn't in effect, his arrest is no good?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1308.532], "stop_times": [1317.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1308.532}, "reply_to": "20508__0_131", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20508__0_133", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "No.\nI... that's not what I'm saying.\nIf Arlington Heights had the Chicago policy and the officers, for whatever reason, decided to arrest Mr. Ricci, we would not have a case against Arlington Heights.\nWe would not have a Fourth Amendment case against the officers.\nWe might have an equal protection case against the officers if they arrested him for an impermissible reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1317.554, 1318.054, 1319.521, 1328.677, 1332.23], "stop_times": [1318.054, 1319.521, 1328.677, 1332.23, 1337.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1317.554}, "reply_to": "20508__0_132", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_134", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Mr.--\n--What is the policy that you say Arlington Heights has that the officer must effect a seizure for any offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1337.532, 1338.734], "stop_times": [1338.734, 1349.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1337.532}, "reply_to": "20508__0_133", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20508__0_135", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "That's... Arlington Heights tells us that their policy is, these minor violations have to be arrested.\nYou can't give a field citation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1349.59, 1358.029], "stop_times": [1358.029, 1359.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1349.59}, "reply_to": "20508__0_134", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_136", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "It takes the position, even in the case of, for instance, not wearing a seat belt in a car--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1359.898], "stop_times": [1365.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1359.898}, "reply_to": "20508__0_135", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20508__0_137", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1365.535], "stop_times": [1366.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1365.535}, "reply_to": "20508__0_136", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_138", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--that no citation can be issued, that the person must be seized?\nIs that your understanding of the policy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1366.285, 1370.522], "stop_times": [1370.522, 1373.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1366.285}, "reply_to": "20508__0_137", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20508__0_139", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--The policy is, there's an exception for parking violations, and I don't know if seat belts are a municipal ordinance violation or whether it's a State statute violation.\nI don't know if Arlington Heights has tried to regulate seat belts, but Arlington Heights says--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1373.288, 1382.144], "stop_times": [1382.144, 1385.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1373.288}, "reply_to": "20508__0_138", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_140", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Is it the policy that any violation of a... an Arlington Heights ordinance requires a seizure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1385.782], "stop_times": [1395.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1385.782}, "reply_to": "20508__0_139", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20508__0_141", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Other than parking tickets and some other park violations Arlington Heights says, officers must make arrests, and I think that's why the officers did not treat Mr. Ricci to the full 48 hours of detention that's authorized for an arrest, because they realized that there was no need to do that, but they had to make the arrest and bring him down and lock him up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1395.988], "stop_times": [1416.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1395.988}, "reply_to": "20508__0_140", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_142", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Mr. Flaxman--\n--Now, you said this is a civil fine, so that if he went to trial he doesn't get the protection of beyond a reasonable doubt--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1416.634, 1417.836], "stop_times": [1417.836, 1426.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1416.634}, "reply_to": "20508__0_141", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20508__0_143", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1426.173], "stop_times": [1426.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1426.173}, "reply_to": "20508__0_142", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_144", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--a unanimous jury and so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1426.942], "stop_times": [1428.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1426.942}, "reply_to": "20508__0_143", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20508__0_145", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "He gets a clear preponderance.\nHe has under the State constitution a right to trial by jury.\nHe can't get his costs if he wins on appeal.\nThe State can appeal.\nExcuse me, the Village can appeal if it loses after trial.\nThere's no double jeopardy.\nIt's in the nature of a fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1428.109, 1429.561, 1432.679, 1436.798, 1439.25, 1442.952, 1444.321], "stop_times": [1429.561, 1432.679, 1436.798, 1439.25, 1442.952, 1444.321, 1446.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1428.109}, "reply_to": "20508__0_144", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_146", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Mr. Flaxman, when you responded to Justice Souter, Justice Souter's question about, you know, what's the harm, I thought you were going to say that the harm of allowing arrests for misdemeanors is that for the most minor of offenses somebody can be detained for 48 hours.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1446.004], "stop_times": [1464.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1446.004}, "reply_to": "20508__0_145", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__0_147", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "That is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1464.548], "stop_times": [1466.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1464.548}, "reply_to": "20508__0_146", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_148", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "That's what you might have answered, anyway.\n[Laughter]\nBut what's wrong with that?\nSuppose you have a real law-and-order State which simply adopts a law that says, all misdemeanor... we're serious about all our offenses, and even for a misdemeanor you are subject to incarceration for 48 hours.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1466.817, 1469.036, 1469.719, 1472.221], "stop_times": [1469.036, 1469.719, 1472.221, 1488.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1466.817}, "reply_to": "20508__0_147", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__0_149", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Well, I think the Framers rejected that and intended to put barriers between the people and the police.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1488.498], "stop_times": [1495.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1488.498}, "reply_to": "20508__0_148", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_150", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, I mean, would it be unconstitutional for a State to impose 48 hours of detention for jaywalking?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1495.669], "stop_times": [1508.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1495.669}, "reply_to": "20508__0_149", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__0_151", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, if this Court upholds respondent's policy, it would not be, and it would be absolutely permissible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1508.077], "stop_times": [1514.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1508.077}, "reply_to": "20508__0_150", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_152", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Never mind what the Court does in this case--\n--It would be permissible on probable cause rather than on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1514.731, 1516.75], "stop_times": [1516.75, 1519.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1514.731}, "reply_to": "20508__0_151", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__0_153", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1519.635], "stop_times": [1520.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1519.635}, "reply_to": "20508__0_152", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_154", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "No, I don't mean whether it would be permissible under the Fourth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1520.769], "stop_times": [1524.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1520.769}, "reply_to": "20508__0_153", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__0_155", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "No.\nIf this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1524.706, 1525.056], "stop_times": [1525.056, 1526.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1524.706}, "reply_to": "20508__0_154", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_156", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "The law says that the punishment for jaywalking is 48 hours in... of detention.\nWould that be unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1526.173, 1531.443], "stop_times": [1531.443, 1533.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1526.173}, "reply_to": "20508__0_155", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__0_157", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--That's an entirely different question than what we're arguing here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1533.211], "stop_times": [1536.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1533.211}, "reply_to": "20508__0_156", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_158", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "No.\nI know it's an entirely different question.\nWhat's the answer to it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1536.846, 1537.746, 1539.948], "stop_times": [1537.746, 1539.948, 1541.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1536.846}, "reply_to": "20508__0_157", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__0_159", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "I'm not sure what the answer is, and in an appropriate case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1541.9], "stop_times": [1546.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1541.9}, "reply_to": "20508__0_158", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_160", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, I'm saying if the answer is that a State can do that if it wishes, then the asserted harm that you're coming forward with, well, somebody could be detained for as long as 48 hours, is a harm which in another fashion, at least, is fully achievable by the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1546.269], "stop_times": [1563.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1546.269}, "reply_to": "20508__0_159", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__0_161", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--The distinction, though, is that when the State, when the legislature has said we're going to lock people up for 48 hours, then it's the elected people, the elected representatives of the people who are saying that.\nIn this case, it's the police department that's saying that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1563.148, 1573.754], "stop_times": [1573.754, 1576.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1563.148}, "reply_to": "20508__0_160", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_162", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "That's one distinction, and another distinction, of course, is that it would only be the guilty who would be detained for 48 hours.\nWell, I thought it was the city legislative body that said there would be a seizure, not... that's the group that said police officers will affect a seizure--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1576.805, 1580.792], "stop_times": [1580.792, 1594.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1576.805}, "reply_to": "20508__0_161", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20508__0_163", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "No, the... this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1594.517], "stop_times": [1595.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1594.517}, "reply_to": "20508__0_162", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_164", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--for a violation of our ordinances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1595.135], "stop_times": [1596.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1595.135}, "reply_to": "20508__0_163", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20508__0_165", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--This is a police department unwritten practice, which is the custom of the whole Village, but there's no ordinance saying to do this.\nThis is the police department.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1596.985, 1604.405], "stop_times": [1604.405, 1605.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1596.985}, "reply_to": "20508__0_164", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_166", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "This is a police department practice only?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1605.405], "stop_times": [1608.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1605.405}, "reply_to": "20508__0_165", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20508__0_167", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1608.174], "stop_times": [1608.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1608.174}, "reply_to": "20508__0_166", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_168", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Not authorized by city ordinance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1608.793], "stop_times": [1611.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1608.793}, "reply_to": "20508__0_167", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20508__0_169", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1611.828], "stop_times": [1612.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1611.828}, "reply_to": "20508__0_168", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_170", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "I thought you were suing the city.\nWeren't you suing the city?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1612.461, 1613.845], "stop_times": [1613.845, 1615.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1612.461}, "reply_to": "20508__0_169", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__0_171", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "That's correct.\nIn this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1615.03, 1615.913], "stop_times": [1615.913, 1616.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1615.03}, "reply_to": "20508__0_170", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_172", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Even though the city didn't order any of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1616.897], "stop_times": [1618.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1616.897}, "reply_to": "20508__0_171", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__0_173", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Well, the city's policy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1618.148], "stop_times": [1619.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1618.148}, "reply_to": "20508__0_172", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_174", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "That doesn't seem right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1619.348], "stop_times": [1619.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1619.348}, "reply_to": "20508__0_173", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__0_175", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--The city admitted that its policy was as the police department--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1619.964], "stop_times": [1623.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1619.964}, "reply_to": "20508__0_174", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_176", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "So it was the city's policy, then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1623.885], "stop_times": [1625.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1623.885}, "reply_to": "20508__0_175", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__0_177", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--It was, but it was not adopted by an ordinance by the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1625.285], "stop_times": [1627.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1625.285}, "reply_to": "20508__0_176", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_178", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "All right, but it's the city's policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1627.618], "stop_times": [1628.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1627.618}, "reply_to": "20508__0_177", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__0_179", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Oh, it absolutely is the city's policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1628.82], "stop_times": [1630.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1628.82}, "reply_to": "20508__0_178", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_180", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "So--\n--Mr. Flaxman, there's one thing one of your answers suggested that makes me more puzzled by the case.\nWhy don't you ask that the line be drawn between criminal and noncriminal offenses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1630.637, 1631.189, 1638.009], "stop_times": [1631.189, 1638.009, 1643.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1630.637}, "reply_to": "20508__0_179", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20508__0_181", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "I think that's what finally is the same thing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1643.93], "stop_times": [1646.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1643.93}, "reply_to": "20508__0_180", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_182", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, certainly there are criminal fines.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1646.948], "stop_times": [1648.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1646.948}, "reply_to": "20508__0_181", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20508__0_183", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Excuse me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1648.9], "stop_times": [1649.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1648.9}, "reply_to": "20508__0_182", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_184", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "There are certain... certainly there are criminal misdemeanor offenses under the law of most States which are punishable only by fine, but they are criminal.\nI thought you... this is a case, as I understood what you said a moment ago, in which the State has defined the offense as being a civil offense.\nIt does not carry criminal stigma, and you agreed that... I think you agreed that the criminal process would not be required constitutionally.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1649.75, 1660.106, 1670.314], "stop_times": [1660.106, 1670.314, 1679.086], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1649.75}, "reply_to": "20508__0_183", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20508__0_185", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "That--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1679.086], "stop_times": [1679.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1679.086}, "reply_to": "20508__0_184", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_186", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "All right.\nThen why don't you... why aren't you arguing that there should be no arrest without a warrant for a noncriminal offense in the absence of a failure to respond to process, or something of that sort?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1679.803, 1680.32], "stop_times": [1680.32, 1693.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1679.803}, "reply_to": "20508__0_185", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20508__0_187", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--I thought that's what I was arguing, and I had envisioned that dimension of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1693.179], "stop_times": [1699.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1693.179}, "reply_to": "20508__0_186", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_188", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, no.\nYou argued the breach of the peace hypothetical, or the breach of the peace distinction, the misdemeanor felony line, but if this is just a civil offense it may be that arrest is simply not permitted.\nDo you have any authority which would help you in... if that were to be the line?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1699.499, 1700.133, 1717.211], "stop_times": [1700.133, 1717.211, 1725.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1699.499}, "reply_to": "20508__0_187", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20508__0_189", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1725.382], "stop_times": [1726.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1725.382}, "reply_to": "20508__0_188", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_190", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Do we have authority which says that you can arrest for a civil offense?\nI assume that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1726.251, 1730.202], "stop_times": [1730.202, 1731.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1726.251}, "reply_to": "20508__0_189", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20508__0_191", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Well, the common law rule--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1731.804], "stop_times": [1733.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1731.804}, "reply_to": "20508__0_190", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_192", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--a stable category.\nI'm not sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1733.537, 1734.27], "stop_times": [1734.27, 1735.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1733.537}, "reply_to": "20508__0_191", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20508__0_193", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--The common law rule allowed arrests to begin civil prosecutions of this nature, but there was a warrant to do that.\nThere wasn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1735.106, 1741.91], "stop_times": [1741.91, 1742.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1735.106}, "reply_to": "20508__0_192", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_194", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Mr. Flaxman, I thought your question presented asked whether the Reasonableness Clause of the Fourth Amendment incorporated the common law rule prohibiting warrantless arrests in misdemeanor cases not involving breach of the peace.\nI didn't read into that an allegation that a civil offense which is not a misdemeanor, not a crime, can justify a seizure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1742.476, 1757.603], "stop_times": [1757.603, 1770.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1742.476}, "reply_to": "20508__0_193", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20508__0_195", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--That ques--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1770.179], "stop_times": [1771.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1770.179}, "reply_to": "20508__0_194", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_196", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "You seem to be changing what's presented.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1771.262], "stop_times": [1774.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1771.262}, "reply_to": "20508__0_195", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20508__0_197", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Well, the question was phrased in an a fortiori situation.\nIf the rule... we know what the rule was in misdemeanors.\nAt common law there was no rule at all allowing arrest in ordinance violation cases.\nOrdinance violation cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1774.731, 1778.083, 1780.718, 1785.705], "stop_times": [1778.083, 1780.718, 1785.705, 1786.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1774.731}, "reply_to": "20508__0_196", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_198", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, do we assume this is a misdemeanor offense--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1786.955], "stop_times": [1789.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1786.955}, "reply_to": "20508__0_197", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20508__0_199", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Oh--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1789.974], "stop_times": [1790.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1789.974}, "reply_to": "20508__0_198", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_200", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1790.491], "stop_times": [1790.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1790.491}, "reply_to": "20508__0_199", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20508__0_201", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--No.\nIt's a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1790.574, 1791.074], "stop_times": [1791.074, 1791.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1790.574}, "reply_to": "20508__0_200", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_202", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "No, even though that's the question you raised.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1791.924], "stop_times": [1794.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1791.924}, "reply_to": "20508__0_201", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20508__0_203", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Well, I raised that in an a fortiori way of doing it, that if it's not true for misdemeanor cases, certainly it shouldn't be true for anything less than misdemeanor cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1794.376], "stop_times": [1803.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1794.376}, "reply_to": "20508__0_202", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_204", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "I'm still trying to figure out where it's likely to have bite.\nI mean, would you say... because you have an odd case, no doubt about that.\nThe... speeding.\nI suppose speeding offenses.\nIsn't that the normal thing?\nShould a policeman, when he finds somebody speeding, be able to arrest him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1803.315, 1805.917, 1809.469, 1811.487, 1812.987, 1814.939], "stop_times": [1805.917, 1809.469, 1811.487, 1812.987, 1814.939, 1818.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1803.315}, "reply_to": "20508__0_203", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20508__0_205", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1818.891], "stop_times": [1819.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1818.891}, "reply_to": "20508__0_204", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_206", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "You'd say no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1819.691], "stop_times": [1820.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1819.691}, "reply_to": "20508__0_205", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20508__0_207", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "No, you shouldn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1820.291], "stop_times": [1821.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1820.291}, "reply_to": "20508__0_206", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_208", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "All right.\nNow, why not?\nSuppose I said, highways are dangerous places.\nPeople who go around speeding kill a lot of people.\nIf the policeman sees somebody speeding and thinks he should arrest him, he ought to be able to arrest him.\nAt least the State should have the power to make that determination.\nWhy not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1821.041, 1821.357, 1822.141, 1824.226, 1826.345, 1831.313, 1834.349], "stop_times": [1821.357, 1822.141, 1824.226, 1826.345, 1831.313, 1834.349, 1835.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1821.041}, "reply_to": "20508__0_207", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20508__0_209", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Because that's just a civil infraction.\nThat is not enough to justify an arrest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1835.167, 1837.569], "stop_times": [1837.569, 1840.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1835.167}, "reply_to": "20508__0_208", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_210", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "That's not a crime, you say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1840.019], "stop_times": [1840.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1840.019}, "reply_to": "20508__0_209", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20508__0_211", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "That's not a crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1840.937], "stop_times": [1841.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1840.937}, "reply_to": "20508__0_210", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_212", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "And in most States, can they or can't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1841.387], "stop_times": [1843.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1841.387}, "reply_to": "20508__0_211", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20508__0_213", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Most States that have actually considered that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1843.237], "stop_times": [1845.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1843.237}, "reply_to": "20508__0_212", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_214", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Mm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1845.337], "stop_times": [1845.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1845.337}, "reply_to": "20508__0_213", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20508__0_215", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--and there's a recent decision from Hawaii who said you can detain someone and search them and talk to them, but you can't arrest them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1845.953], "stop_times": [1852.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1845.953}, "reply_to": "20508__0_214", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_216", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Flaxman.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1852.093], "stop_times": [1853.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1852.093}, "reply_to": "20508__0_215", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20508__0_217", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1853.943], "stop_times": [1854.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1853.943}, "reply_to": "20508__0_216", "speaker": "kenneth_n_flaxman"}
{"id": "20508__0_218", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Mr. Strauss, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1854.709], "stop_times": [1856.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1854.709}, "reply_to": "20508__0_217", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20508__1_000", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1856.478], "stop_times": [1860.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1856.478}, "reply_to": "20508__0_218", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_001", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Would you please tell us what this is?\nIs it a civil offense in the City of Arlington, or is it a criminal offense?\nIs it a misdemeanor?\nWhat is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1860.513, 1861.865, 1868.352, 1869.668], "stop_times": [1861.865, 1868.352, 1869.668, 1870.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1860.513}, "reply_to": "20508__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20508__1_002", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--This is treated by Illinois law as a civil offense.\nIt's not subject to the panoply of criminal protections.\nThat point, however, is something that petitioner never raised throughout these proceedings until the reply brief in this Court after an amicus raised it, so that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1870.52, 1873.756, 1876.791], "stop_times": [1873.756, 1876.791, 1885.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1870.52}, "reply_to": "20508__1_001", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_003", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "I think you're right about that, but could you tell us, is there authority which allows an arrest for a so-called civil offense, I suppose just to start the proceeding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1885.58], "stop_times": [1900.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1885.58}, "reply_to": "20508__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20508__1_004", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--In a sense, Justice Kennedy, the text of the Constitution is that authority.\nThe text of the Constitution grants legislators an immunity from arrest which is phrased in a way that leaves... that denies immunity in criminal cases, so the immunity, the limit of legislative immunity in the Constitution applies to arrest in civil cases, and this Court has so held on at least two occasions, in Williamson and Brewster.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1900.34, 1904.376], "stop_times": [1904.376, 1925.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1900.34}, "reply_to": "20508__1_003", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_005", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "That was the old arrest for debt, wasn't it, arrest on so-called mean process?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1925.205], "stop_times": [1929.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1925.205}, "reply_to": "20508__1_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20508__1_006", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "I think it was the capias, the initiation of private civil proceedings by means of seizing the... seizing the defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1929.609], "stop_times": [1935.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1929.609}, "reply_to": "20508__1_005", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_007", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "It was a general civil process.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1935.997], "stop_times": [1937.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1935.997}, "reply_to": "20508__1_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20508__1_008", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Right.\nRight, but as far as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1937.347, 1937.865], "stop_times": [1937.865, 1939.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1937.347}, "reply_to": "20508__1_007", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_009", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "But those arrests always required warrants, didn't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1939.215], "stop_times": [1942.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1939.215}, "reply_to": "20508__1_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20508__1_010", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1942.501], "stop_times": [1943.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1942.501}, "reply_to": "20508__1_009", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_011", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "In other words, I didn't think there could ever be a warrantless arrest on a civil capias.\nI mean, by definition capias is the written document, which is an arrest warrant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1943.184, 1947.637], "stop_times": [1947.637, 1954.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1943.184}, "reply_to": "20508__1_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20508__1_012", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--There was a writ, Justice Souter.\nI'm not sure what showing was required.\nBut my real point is that a hard civil-criminal line can't be imported into the Fourth Amendment, given that the... as far as when are arrests allowed, given that the Constitution itself quite clearly envisions arrests in civil cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1954.041, 1955.66, 1957.943], "stop_times": [1955.66, 1957.943, 1974.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1954.041}, "reply_to": "20508__1_011", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_013", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, it may be that there can be no line drawn between civil and criminal for purposes of arrest, but there may very well be a line drawn between civil and criminal for purposes of a warrant requirement, and if the reference is, as you said, to the capias process, that was by definition one in which there was a written warrant.\nIt was called a capias in civil cases, but it was still an arrest warrant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1974.038, 1994.968], "stop_times": [1994.968, 1998.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1974.038}, "reply_to": "20508__1_012", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20508__1_014", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, Justice Souter, just, I want to preserve the point that they waived... that both courts below found that they waived any right--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [1998.403], "stop_times": [2004.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1998.403}, "reply_to": "20508__1_013", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_015", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "So what are we supposed to decide, because let's assume that not having... as once I did look into that, I think that the point about arresting legislatures is irrelevant, something totally different.\nOn that assumption, what are we supposed to do with this case?\nI thought the case was here to decide this question of whether or not an undoubted crime, something that everybody concedes is criminal, but it's called a misdemeanor, or it's a crime punishable only by a fine, whether or not you could arrest someone without a warrant.\nNow, what we're saying is that isn't this case.\nThis case is perhaps not an undoubted crime.\nThis case is perhaps a civil offense or something that's not a crime, so what in your view, are we supposed to do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2004.407, 2014.18, 2017.817, 2035.712, 2038.397, 2041.949], "stop_times": [2014.18, 2017.817, 2035.712, 2038.397, 2041.949, 2048.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2004.407}, "reply_to": "20508__1_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20508__1_016", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Justice Breyer, we've litigated the case throughout on your assumption that this is a crime, and that the civil nature of this offense has simply not been a part of the proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2048.77], "stop_times": [2056.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2048.77}, "reply_to": "20508__1_015", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_017", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, Mr. Strauss, where did you say respondents first raised the contention that this was a civil offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2056.775], "stop_times": [2063.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2056.775}, "reply_to": "20508__1_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20508__1_018", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "In their reply brief in this Court, after an amicus raised it in the opening round of briefing.\nSo far as I am aware there's no reference to the Illinois statutes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2063.612, 2069.016], "stop_times": [2069.016, 2072.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2063.612}, "reply_to": "20508__1_017", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_019", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "But surely the Village knew that it was dealing with.\nThe Village and its police should have known that they were dealing with a civil offense, and wouldn't that be quite worrisome if the police think that all these civil offenses are occasions to arrest someone and lock them up?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2072.801, 2074.134], "stop_times": [2074.134, 2087.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2072.801}, "reply_to": "20508__1_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20508__1_020", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, absolutely.\nWe understand it's a civil offense.\nOur position, Justice Ginsburg, is that if officers have probable cause to believe that someone is guilty of an offense, they may seize him, and as long as the seizure is reasonable in manner and duration the Fourth Amendment is satisfied.\nWhere they process the arrest, whether they process it on the scene, process it in a patrol car, process it in another office, or process it at the station house is not a Fourth Amendment question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2087.893, 2089.744, 2091.862, 2108.224], "stop_times": [2089.744, 2091.862, 2108.224, 2118.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2087.893}, "reply_to": "20508__1_019", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_021", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "And we're going to have all sorts of different tests for duration, a 48-hour rule will not apply in some cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2118.496], "stop_times": [2127.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2118.496}, "reply_to": "20508__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__1_022", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2127.186], "stop_times": [2127.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2127.186}, "reply_to": "20508__1_021", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_023", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "This person could have been held for 48 hours?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2127.719], "stop_times": [2129.987], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2127.719}, "reply_to": "20508__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__1_024", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--The test in the County of Riverside... there's... the County of Riverside establishes a 48-hour--as I read it, Justice Scalia, establishes a 48-hour presumption, but it's quite clear that that doesn't give the authorities a free 48 hours, that it's still open to the arrestee to say, after an hour, in this case, you've done everything you needed to do, why didn't you release me, which is what would have happened and what he could have said in this case had we held him even for 2 hours.\nI think County of Riverside is quite clear that it's a presumption only.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2129.987, 2155.019], "stop_times": [2155.019, 2157.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2129.987}, "reply_to": "20508__1_023", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_025", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Mr. Strauss, could the police in this case have handcuffed him, put him in a holding cell with a lot of tough guys?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2157.805], "stop_times": [2166.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2157.805}, "reply_to": "20508__1_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20508__1_026", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, I think at some point the conditions become so onerous as to be unreasonable, and this Court in another case... I think it was Bell v. Wolfish... used the example of putting someone in shackles.\nAt some point--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2166.077, 2179.07], "stop_times": [2179.07, 2180.303], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2166.077}, "reply_to": "20508__1_025", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_027", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Because it's unreasonable based on the type of offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2180.303], "stop_times": [2182.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2180.303}, "reply_to": "20508__1_026", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20508__1_028", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--The type of offense I think can enter the calculus of what is a reasonable manner of restraint.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2182.938], "stop_times": [2188.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2182.938}, "reply_to": "20508__1_027", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_029", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "What authority is there for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2188.942], "stop_times": [2190.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2188.942}, "reply_to": "20508__1_028", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20508__1_030", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, I don't know that the Court has ever... has ever limited the manner of confinement based on the nature of the offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2190.709], "stop_times": [2200.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2190.709}, "reply_to": "20508__1_029", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_031", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Mr. Strauss, I have a different concern that I'd like you to comment on, not going to the burdensomeness of the arrest, but is it clear to you that in a... incident to this arrest the police could have searched this man and his vehicle and his luggage and everything else if they happened to stop him in a car for this kind of offense?\nWould they have had all those powers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2200.4, 2220.48], "stop_times": [2220.48, 2222.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2200.4}, "reply_to": "20508__1_030", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20508__1_032", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Justice Stevens, as... well, as... if they'd... I should just say, as for a traffic offense under Illinois law they would have had to accept his license.\nThey could not have arrested him for a traffic offense under Illinois law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2222.13, 2230.003], "stop_times": [2230.003, 2232.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2222.13}, "reply_to": "20508__1_031", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_033", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, see, we don't have a traffic offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2232.788], "stop_times": [2233.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2232.788}, "reply_to": "20508__1_032", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20508__1_034", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "But... I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2233.738], "stop_times": [2234.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2233.738}, "reply_to": "20508__1_033", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_035", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "If this... take this sort of financial crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2234.505], "stop_times": [2236.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2234.505}, "reply_to": "20508__1_034", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20508__1_036", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2236.257], "stop_times": [2236.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2236.257}, "reply_to": "20508__1_035", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_037", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2236.873], "stop_times": [2237.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2236.873}, "reply_to": "20508__1_036", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20508__1_038", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Justice Stevens, as I read Robinson and Gustafson they settled that question and the answer is yes.\nNow, if that rule is too harsh, it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2237.34, 2242.494], "stop_times": [2242.494, 2244.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2237.34}, "reply_to": "20508__1_037", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_039", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "If this is a full arrest, then that's one of the consequences that follow, is that the... the total search power.\nSearch the car, search the luggage, search the trunk and everything else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2244.863, 2252.266], "stop_times": [2252.266, 2255.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2244.863}, "reply_to": "20508__1_038", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20508__1_040", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--That Robinson and Belton control the scope of search--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2255.134], "stop_times": [2257.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2255.134}, "reply_to": "20508__1_039", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_041", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "So it seems to me that's really what we ought to be concerned about, rather than whether he has to spend 24 hours instead of 48 hours.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2257.32], "stop_times": [2261.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2257.32}, "reply_to": "20508__1_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20508__1_042", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Well, this... in this case there's no evidence there was a search incident to the arrest, even a pat-down.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2261.974], "stop_times": [2265.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2261.974}, "reply_to": "20508__1_041", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_043", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "No, I understand, but there could have been.\nThere could have been.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2265.759, 2266.426], "stop_times": [2266.426, 2267.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2265.759}, "reply_to": "20508__1_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20508__1_044", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "So far as I read it, that's controlled by Robinson and Belton.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2267.392], "stop_times": [2269.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2267.392}, "reply_to": "20508__1_043", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_045", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Yes.\nWell, Robinson would control as to the search of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2269.644, 2270.261], "stop_times": [2270.261, 2273.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2269.644}, "reply_to": "20508__1_044", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20508__1_046", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Of the person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2273.532], "stop_times": [2274.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2273.532}, "reply_to": "20508__1_045", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_047", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--who was arrested.\nI don't think it would control at all as to a search of the car.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2274.065, 2274.565], "stop_times": [2274.565, 2277.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2274.065}, "reply_to": "20508__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20508__1_048", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "No.\nThat would be Belton.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2277.7, 2278.25], "stop_times": [2278.25, 2278.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2277.7}, "reply_to": "20508__1_047", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_049", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Or the luggage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2278.75], "stop_times": [2279.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2278.75}, "reply_to": "20508__1_048", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20508__1_050", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "If... and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2279.266], "stop_times": [2279.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2279.266}, "reply_to": "20508__1_049", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_051", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "It would be Belton, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2279.533], "stop_times": [2280.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2279.533}, "reply_to": "20508__1_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20508__1_052", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--And Chimel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2280.633], "stop_times": [2281.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2280.633}, "reply_to": "20508__1_051", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_053", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "What is the policy with which we're dealing in this case?\nWould you articulate it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2281.202, 2285.07], "stop_times": [2285.07, 2286.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2281.202}, "reply_to": "20508__1_052", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20508__1_054", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Yes, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2286.52], "stop_times": [2287.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2286.52}, "reply_to": "20508__1_053", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_055", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "It does not include minor traffic offenses?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2287.356], "stop_times": [2290.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2287.356}, "reply_to": "20508__1_054", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20508__1_056", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, yes.\nOur policy applies... first of all applies only to local ordinances.\nTraffic offenses in Illinois are governed by State law.\nThis applies only to local ordinances.\nIt does not apply to parking violations, even when those are local ordinances, so those are not in the picture.\nThe policy is not that the police must arrest everyone who violates a local ordinance.\nThey have the ordinary discretion in giving someone a warning, or just letting him go.\nBut if they initiate proceedings against the person, they must bring the person to the station house, where the sergeant on duty makes the decision whether this person is to be bonded out or is to be released on his recognizance.\nWhat Arlington Heights tells its officers on the beat is, when you make an arrest, you don't make the call about whether this person just gets to sign a citation and leave or must post bond.\nThat's a call to be made at the station house.\nYou bring him in, where we will process him.\nThat's the nature of the policy, and that's why he was brought in for this offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2290.308, 2291.224, 2295.776, 2300.079, 2301.948, 2306.483, 2312.404, 2317.458, 2330.016, 2340.888, 2343.507, 2345.359], "stop_times": [2291.224, 2295.776, 2300.079, 2301.948, 2306.483, 2312.404, 2317.458, 2330.016, 2340.888, 2343.507, 2345.359, 2350.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2290.308}, "reply_to": "20508__1_055", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_057", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "As I understand it... this may not count in the decision of the case, but I thought the reason that Arlington Heights had for its policy was a... to be candid, a rather superficial one.\nThey said, well, we just simply don't have a documentary process for field summonses, and... which doesn't really cut much if we get to that issue.\nYou're now saying that they feel that the discretion should be... as to how far to go, to bond or not to bond, should be made by a superior officer and that's the reason that they do not have this field processing scheme?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2350.061, 2361.618, 2373.526], "stop_times": [2361.618, 2373.526, 2390.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2350.061}, "reply_to": "20508__1_056", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20508__1_058", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Yes, Justice Souter, and there's testimony to that effect in the record.\nThe point... the citations is the way we enforce the policy.\nThe officers are not given citation books where they can write a citation in the field.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2390.971, 2393.922, 2396.808], "stop_times": [2393.922, 2396.808, 2401.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2390.971}, "reply_to": "20508__1_057", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_059", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2401.278], "stop_times": [2401.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2401.278}, "reply_to": "20508__1_058", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20508__1_060", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "That's how the policy's enforced, but the reason for the policy is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2401.878], "stop_times": [2404.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2401.878}, "reply_to": "20508__1_059", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_061", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Mr. Strauss, isn't this unusual?\nI think in many places a summons in lieu of an arrest is common even for a misdemeanor that carries jail time, and here you've told us that this is a civil category and that the police have only two choices, either let him go with a warning or, if they want to pursue this civil process, they have to take him into full custody.\nThat seems rather extreme.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2404.48, 2406.932, 2435.249], "stop_times": [2406.932, 2435.249, 2437.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2404.48}, "reply_to": "20508__1_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20508__1_062", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, for purposes of the Fourth Amendment I think the choice about whether to proceed by citation, which I agree is often allowed by municipalities, or whether to proceed in this way I think has to be left to local circumstances.\nWe happen to be in a position where we can process people quickly and where, for whatever reason, we want these decisions not to be made by officers on the beat, whether it's because we think they'll be vulnerable to accusations of shakedowns and intimidation, or because we want them back out on the street and not processing applications, or for whatever reason, and we can process them quickly.\nIn a large metropolitan area, where there are many, many arrests, the policy is likely to be a different one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2437.218, 2457.549, 2478.295], "stop_times": [2457.549, 2478.295, 2483.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2437.218}, "reply_to": "20508__1_061", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_063", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Mr. Strauss, let me get back again to the point that you say was raised only for the first time in the reply brief.\nIn the... the second question presented in the petition for certiorari says, may a municipality require its police officers to make full custodial arrests for an alleged violation of a fine-only license ordinance.\nNow, it seems to me if... the fine-only license ordinance is fairly raised by that question presented.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2483.064, 2490.503, 2503.911], "stop_times": [2490.503, 2503.911, 2510.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2483.064}, "reply_to": "20508__1_062", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20508__1_064", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Justice Rehnquist, when I said it wasn't raised, what I meant is this.\nAt no point until... so far as I'm aware, until the reply brief, did petitioner ever even mention the civil nature of the offense or cite the Illinois statutes in cases that established that it's civil.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2510.75, 2515.136], "stop_times": [2515.136, 2525.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2510.75}, "reply_to": "20508__1_063", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_065", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "So you say a fine-only license ordinance doesn't suggest civil rather than criminal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2525.943], "stop_times": [2532.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2525.943}, "reply_to": "20508__1_064", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20508__1_066", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Violation of a fine-only license ordinance, it seems to me the natural reading of that is criminal, but my real point, Mr. Chief Justice, is not so much about what the question can be read to include, as the premise on which the case has been litigated throughout, and that premise has undoubtedly, I'm certain of this, been that this was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2532.08], "stop_times": [2550.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2532.08}, "reply_to": "20508__1_065", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_067", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "A criminal--\n--Well, but do you take the position that if we assume now that it is a civil offense, and not a criminal misdemeanor offense, that the Fourth Amendment does not prevent the city's policy of seizure and removal to the station house?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2550.725, 2551.411], "stop_times": [2551.411, 2574.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2550.725}, "reply_to": "20508__1_066", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20508__1_068", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Yes, I do take that position, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2574.074], "stop_times": [2576.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2574.074}, "reply_to": "20508__1_067", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_069", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "And what do you rely on in terms of authority for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2576.192], "stop_times": [2580.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2576.192}, "reply_to": "20508__1_068", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20508__1_070", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "The... my... the basis for my position is that the Fourth Amendment cannot be read to draw a sharp line between criminal and civil arrests, and the authority for that is the Court's statement, Justice Brandeis' statement in Long v. Ansell that civil arrests were common at the time of the framing, and the inclusion in the Constitution of an immunity that applies only to civil arrests, confirming that, in fact, civil arrests are contemplated by the Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2580.744], "stop_times": [2608.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2580.744}, "reply_to": "20508__1_069", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_071", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Yes, but if you're going to appeal the history, I think you've got the problem that was raised earlier.\nThere is undoubted history that there could be arrests for civil offenses, but I think there is not undoubted history, and I think there is not any history that there could be arrests for civil or... for civil offenses without some written arrest warrant, whether you call it capias or some other term, and that's the issue here, not whether you can arrest or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2608.93, 2614.067], "stop_times": [2614.067, 2636.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2608.93}, "reply_to": "20508__1_070", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20508__1_072", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, Justice Souter, before I assent to or disagree with that proposition I think neither case that was litigated about civil rights--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2636.165], "stop_times": [2643.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2636.165}, "reply_to": "20508__1_071", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_073", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Let's do it... I just want to work out the answer that you just gave to Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2643.67], "stop_times": [2648.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2643.67}, "reply_to": "20508__1_072", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20508__1_074", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Mm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2648.824], "stop_times": [2649.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2648.824}, "reply_to": "20508__1_073", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_075", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "And I take it that you do not have any authority, know of any authority, traditionally, at common law, for arrest for a purely civil offense without some written process issued by a magistrate, i.e., like a capias.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2649.34], "stop_times": [2664.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2649.34}, "reply_to": "20508__1_074", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20508__1_076", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, Justice Souter, at common law the line between criminal and civil, especially when you're dealing with so-called public nuisances... that is, civil affronts to the Government as opposed to a private party... was a very indistinct line.\nIt was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2664.334, 2678.343], "stop_times": [2678.343, 2678.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2664.334}, "reply_to": "20508__1_075", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_077", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Maybe it was, but leaving aside the problem of indistinction, I take it you don't have any authority with respect to cases that were on the civil side of the line, in which the common law recognized a valid arrest without some written process issued by a third party like a magistrate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2678.509], "stop_times": [2695.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2678.509}, "reply_to": "20508__1_076", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20508__1_078", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--I think our argument, Justice Souter, would be that a civil offense against the Government--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2695.786], "stop_times": [2701.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2695.786}, "reply_to": "20508__1_077", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_079", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "I don't want to cut off your argument, but I don't want to lose my question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2701.089], "stop_times": [2704.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2701.089}, "reply_to": "20508__1_078", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20508__1_080", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Whether there's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2704.91], "stop_times": [2705.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2704.91}, "reply_to": "20508__1_079", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_081", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Do you have any authority for that, or don't you have authority?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2705.693], "stop_times": [2707.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2705.693}, "reply_to": "20508__1_080", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20508__1_082", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--We would have authority for the proposition that certain categories of offenses that we believe are the ancestors of civil offenses against the Government could be subject to... at common law to... on occasion to warrantless arrests.\nI think we have authority for that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2707.76, 2724.372], "stop_times": [2724.372, 2725.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2707.76}, "reply_to": "20508__1_081", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_083", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "What are they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2725.355], "stop_times": [2725.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2725.355}, "reply_to": "20508__1_082", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20508__1_084", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, that's the night-walking category of offenses, where there were minor nuisances committed that by certain statutes under certain circumstances could be proceeded against--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2725.74], "stop_times": [2735.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2725.74}, "reply_to": "20508__1_083", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_085", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "So like the Terry stop, in other words.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2735.613], "stop_times": [2737.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2735.613}, "reply_to": "20508__1_084", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20508__1_086", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Well, it was like a Terry stop except it explicitly could last overnight, and in that sense it really resembles more what goes on with the rest of the minor offenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2737.882], "stop_times": [2746.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2737.882}, "reply_to": "20508__1_085", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_087", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "But in order to prevail here, you've got to take the law beyond Terry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2746.987], "stop_times": [2750.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2746.987}, "reply_to": "20508__1_086", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20508__1_088", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "This was an arrest.\nWe don't quarrel with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2750.689, 2752.389], "stop_times": [2752.389, 2754.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2750.689}, "reply_to": "20508__1_087", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_089", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "And you don't quarrel that there is a distinction in the Fourth Amendment between a seizure that is not an arrest and a seizure that is an arrest?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2754.307], "stop_times": [2762.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2754.307}, "reply_to": "20508__1_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__1_090", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "I think Terry establishes that, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2762.347], "stop_times": [2765.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2762.347}, "reply_to": "20508__1_089", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_091", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Is there... can you give me an example, so I know what I'm talking about here... would you just give me an example of a fine-only criminal offense?\nIs there... just give me one... this one apparently isn't clear, because we think maybe this isn't criminal, so what's an example of something that is a criminal offense that is punishable only by a fine, some bad ones if you can think of some.\nAre there any?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2765.365, 2775.57, 2789.98], "stop_times": [2775.57, 2789.98, 2791.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2765.365}, "reply_to": "20508__1_090", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20508__1_092", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "In... in Illinois, any municipalities have the authority to make their fine-only offenses civil.\nThey could, in some jurisdictions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2791.682, 2799.52], "stop_times": [2799.52, 2801.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2791.682}, "reply_to": "20508__1_091", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_093", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "What I want to know is if anybody here has an example of what it is we're talking about?\nI thought when we started this we were talking about misdemeanors.\nNow we're not.\nWe're talking about fine-only offenses, and then I thought maybe there were some fine-only offenses that are criminal, and so I'd have to face that constitutional question.\nNow I have one that may be criminal, may not be criminal.\nIt's an odd animal.\nIs there one, if we write an opinion, that I'd at least know it affects that one, and what is it?\nWhat's a fine-only criminal offense that's undoubtedly criminal, that's... you apparently don't have an example--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2801.622, 2806.526, 2809.727, 2810.343, 2821.868, 2824.82, 2826.27, 2833.509], "stop_times": [2806.526, 2809.727, 2810.343, 2821.868, 2824.82, 2826.27, 2833.509, 2840.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2801.622}, "reply_to": "20508__1_092", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20508__1_094", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--I can't cite you to any in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2840.68], "stop_times": [2841.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2840.68}, "reply_to": "20508__1_093", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_095", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--and I haven't found it in the brief, so I'm not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2841.449], "stop_times": [2842.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2841.449}, "reply_to": "20508__1_094", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20508__1_096", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--I can't cite you to any in Illinois.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2842.399], "stop_times": [2844.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2842.399}, "reply_to": "20508__1_095", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_097", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--But it certainly isn't the one before us, and I think you told us that most of the... in Arlington most of the offenses in this category are civil offenses.\nThese, not having a license to do something or other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2844.165, 2853.07], "stop_times": [2853.07, 2855.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2844.165}, "reply_to": "20508__1_096", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20508__1_098", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Local ordinances that provide only for fines are treated as civil.\nI should say this isn't... this is in large measure a benefit to the accused as well, who now does not have a criminal record by virtue... would not have a criminal record by virtue of being found to have committed a civil infraction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2855.939, 2860.16], "stop_times": [2860.16, 2872.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2855.939}, "reply_to": "20508__1_097", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_099", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Does... I wanted to ask you about the booking and the record.\nIs it the same as in an arrest in a criminal... for a criminal prosecution, the way the person is booked and the record, the police record that that person... the arrest record that the person will have?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2872.134, 2875.086], "stop_times": [2875.086, 2890.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2872.134}, "reply_to": "20508__1_098", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20508__1_100", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "I think the answer is no, Justice Ginsburg, to the extent that the record will reflect that this is a civil offense, and if he is asked, have you ever been convicted, he's not... he was not convicted.\nThe charges were dismissed.\nBut had he been convicted, were he asked, have you ever been convicted of a crime, he could say no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2890.529, 2901.885, 2903.42], "stop_times": [2901.885, 2903.42, 2908.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2890.529}, "reply_to": "20508__1_099", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_101", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Suppose he was asked, was he ever arrested?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2908.741], "stop_times": [2910.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2908.741}, "reply_to": "20508__1_100", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20508__1_102", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "He would have to say yes.\nHe was arrested.\nHe was arrested on probable cause.\nWe had a right to arrest him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2910.641, 2911.858, 2913.292, 2915.06], "stop_times": [2911.858, 2913.292, 2915.06, 2917.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2910.641}, "reply_to": "20508__1_101", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_103", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "And that would be the same, so he would have to answer that question the same, and it wouldn't make any difference whether it was a misdemeanor with jail time, he has an arrest record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2917.929], "stop_times": [2927.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2917.929}, "reply_to": "20508__1_102", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20508__1_104", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "He has an arrest record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2927.468], "stop_times": [2928.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2927.468}, "reply_to": "20508__1_103", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_105", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2928.768], "stop_times": [2929.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2928.768}, "reply_to": "20508__1_104", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20508__1_106", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Now, he could go... explain the charges were dismissed.\nThe charges were only civil.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2929.354, 2932.189], "stop_times": [2932.189, 2933.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2929.354}, "reply_to": "20508__1_105", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_107", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Mr. Flaxman said that this business about the bond requirement, on the face of it it looks like there could be several thousand dollars involved, and so it would be reasonable to require a bond before letting this person go, but Mr. Flaxman said that that was an afterthought.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2933.522], "stop_times": [2952.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2933.522}, "reply_to": "20508__1_106", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20508__1_108", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, the reason... the subjective reason these officers arrested him was that we tell our officers, you don't make the decision whether to release the person on the basis of a citation or not, you bring them down.\nThat was all the officers were thinking.\nThey weren't thinking about the size of the infraction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2952.318, 2965.577, 2967.862], "stop_times": [2965.577, 2967.862, 2970.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2952.318}, "reply_to": "20508__1_107", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_109", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Mr.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2970.231], "stop_times": [2970.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2970.231}, "reply_to": "20508__1_108", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__1_110", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Were I called upon to explain objectively why this was reasonable, one of the factors I would say if I needed to say it was the one you just mentioned, that in fact he'd been, by his own admission, operating for 6 months and did face a very substantial fine.\nHe had a person on his premises who was subject to an arrest warrant, and various other circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2970.914, 2983.539], "stop_times": [2983.539, 2990.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2970.914}, "reply_to": "20508__1_109", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_111", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Mr. Strauss, Terry aside, do you know any basis in common law for the distinction between an arrest that enables you to be taken down to the station house and a traffic stop, or whatever you want to call it, that does not allow you to be taken down to the station house?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [2990.443], "stop_times": [3012.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2990.443}, "reply_to": "20508__1_110", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__1_112", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "No.\nJustice Scalia, so far as I know, if there is probable cause, then the person can be seized, can be arrested, and whether he is... where he is taken for processing I think can't be regulated by a constitutional rule.\nThere are just too many variables, too many factors that affect that.\nThey vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, situation to situation, and even the ALI which disapproved of... which emphasized the need for citations, suggested a code and then said, but the fact is we really can't prescribe guidelines about when citations are needed because the situations are just too variable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3012.522, 3012.839, 3027.449, 3030.668], "stop_times": [3012.839, 3027.449, 3030.668, 3050.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3012.522}, "reply_to": "20508__1_111", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_113", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "No, but even if there's no common law category such as Terry, we surely have recognized many, many situations in which police are authorized to stop and interrogate, even without probable cause, and those are all seizures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3050.065], "stop_times": [3063.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3050.065}, "reply_to": "20508__1_112", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20508__1_114", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3063.205], "stop_times": [3063.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3063.205}, "reply_to": "20508__1_113", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_115", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "You would agree with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3063.639], "stop_times": [3064.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3063.639}, "reply_to": "20508__1_114", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20508__1_116", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "If it's a stop, then it's a seizure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3064.407], "stop_times": [3065.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3064.407}, "reply_to": "20508__1_115", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_117", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3065.674], "stop_times": [3066.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3065.674}, "reply_to": "20508__1_116", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20508__1_118", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "But so far as I know, Terry--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3066.141], "stop_times": [3067.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3066.141}, "reply_to": "20508__1_117", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_119", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "And it doesn't require probable cause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3067.443], "stop_times": [3068.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3067.443}, "reply_to": "20508__1_118", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20508__1_120", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--It doesn't require probable cause, but if it's... if there's no probable cause the stop is very limited in duration and purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3068.676], "stop_times": [3073.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3068.676}, "reply_to": "20508__1_119", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_121", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "But we have here... all we have here is taking him to the police station to book him.\nThere's nothing more.\nLike, they didn't... do we have to consider whether 48 hours, and searches and that sort of thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3073.763, 3077.631, 3078.731], "stop_times": [3077.631, 3078.731, 3084.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3073.763}, "reply_to": "20508__1_120", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20508__1_122", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "No.\nHe was released in an hour, Justice Breyer, and there's no claim here that the detention went beyond the amount of time needed to process the necessary papers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3084.969, 3085.319], "stop_times": [3085.319, 3093.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3084.969}, "reply_to": "20508__1_121", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_123", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Strauss.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3093.975], "stop_times": [3095.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3093.975}, "reply_to": "20508__1_122", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20508__1_124", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3095.176], "stop_times": [3095.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3095.176}, "reply_to": "20508__1_123", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "20508__1_125", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Ms. Millett.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3095.926], "stop_times": [3097.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3095.926}, "reply_to": "20508__1_124", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20508__2_000", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nJustice Breyer, you asked for examples of criminal fine-only offenses, and we list a number of these on page 20 of our brief which are, of course, Federal ones, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.\nThis is not an exhaustive list, but they include such things as exclusion of jurors on account of race, interference with aids to navigation, vandalism at national monuments and military parks, and as I said, this is the tip of the icebergs.\nOur initial cut at how many Federal fine-only criminal offenses there are was around... I think I got around 60 to 70, and I don't know if that's exhaustive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3097.259, 3110.019, 3121.91, 3137.502], "stop_times": [3110.019, 3121.91, 3137.502, 3146.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3097.259}, "reply_to": "20508__1_125", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_001", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "What makes them criminal rather than civil, just saying so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3146.025], "stop_times": [3148.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3146.025}, "reply_to": "20508__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__2_002", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, certainly a legislative decision, the community judgment to label behavior criminal, is a big factor in whether it's a crime or not, but certainly then whether traditional criminal processes attend the prosecution of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3148.394], "stop_times": [3161.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3148.394}, "reply_to": "20508__2_001", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_003", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, that's a consequence of its being criminal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3161.618], "stop_times": [3162.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3161.618}, "reply_to": "20508__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__2_004", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3162.652], "stop_times": [3162.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3162.652}, "reply_to": "20508__2_003", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_005", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--not a cause of its being criminal.\nI mean, so it's up to the State to say, we're going to impose this fine and make it a civil fine, and therefore you don't get beyond a reasonable doubt--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3162.952, 3164.254], "stop_times": [3164.254, 3171.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3162.952}, "reply_to": "20508__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__2_006", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Oh, I think this Court has long recognized that it is primarily the job of States and Congress within its authority to define what is criminal or not, whether or not this Court or one particular jurisdiction thinks that's a wise thing to make criminal or not, and if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3171.908], "stop_times": [3187.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3171.908}, "reply_to": "20508__2_005", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_007", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Well, if this is not a criminal offense, then what is the Government's position?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3187.852], "stop_times": [3194.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3187.852}, "reply_to": "20508__2_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20508__2_008", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--I don't know if we have a position on what happens to ordinance in particular.\nI think our position is very clear that there is no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3194.273, 3198.91], "stop_times": [3198.91, 3201.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3194.273}, "reply_to": "20508__2_007", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_009", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Does the Federal Government have some civil offenses that are not criminal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3201.945], "stop_times": [3206.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3201.945}, "reply_to": "20508__2_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20508__2_010", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Plenty of civil offenses that are not criminal, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3206.664], "stop_times": [3209.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3206.664}, "reply_to": "20508__2_009", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_011", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "What is your position with regard to those--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3209.283], "stop_times": [3212.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3209.283}, "reply_to": "20508__2_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20508__2_012", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Our position--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3212.551], "stop_times": [3213.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3212.551}, "reply_to": "20508__2_011", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_013", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--as to the Fourth Amendment requirements?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3213.336], "stop_times": [3214.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3213.336}, "reply_to": "20508__2_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20508__2_014", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Our position is the Fourth Amendment does not draw a bright line banning seizures, arrests, for civil offenses, such things as deportation, extradition, civil commitment, if a police officer finds someone who is a danger to himself.\nThere are categories of violations, offenses... I'm not even sure what to call them... civil violations for which arrest has traditionally been recognized to be appropriate.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3214.786, 3230.846, 3242.17], "stop_times": [3230.846, 3242.17, 3242.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3214.786}, "reply_to": "20508__2_013", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_015", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "The issue, if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3242.637], "stop_times": [3243.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3242.637}, "reply_to": "20508__2_014", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20508__2_016", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--conveyances and traffic may be another one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3243.689], "stop_times": [3244.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3243.689}, "reply_to": "20508__2_015", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_017", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--May I interrupt you?\nThe issue is not whether arrest may comport with the Fourth Amendment, but arrest without any process issued by a magistrate or some third party.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3244.572, 3245.206], "stop_times": [3245.206, 3255.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3244.572}, "reply_to": "20508__2_016", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20508__2_018", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Right, and I think the analysis... the mode of analyzing whether proceeding without a warrant or whatever process would be appropriate may be different between criminal and civil cases under the Fourth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3255.246], "stop_times": [3268.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3255.246}, "reply_to": "20508__2_017", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_019", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, didn't the Seventh Circuit rule that the petitioner had waived his argument under the Warrant Clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3268.054], "stop_times": [3273.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3268.054}, "reply_to": "20508__2_018", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20508__2_020", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Yes, they did, Justice... Mr. Chief Justice.\nBut for purposes of what would be required in the civil arena, our position is, if it's a crime, probable cause justifies an arrest.\nYou know, probable cause plus.\nIf it's civil, I think this Court has recognized that under the Fourth Amendment when you get into civil seizures, which take a variety of forms, that a balancing analysis is generally appropriate, and of course we want to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3273.725, 3276.077, 3286.349, 3287.468], "stop_times": [3276.077, 3286.349, 3287.468, 3298.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3273.725}, "reply_to": "20508__2_019", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_021", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Every example that you gave involved the risk of absconding or fleeing.\nYou want to deport someone, extradite someone, there's a high risk that person won't be there if you let them out on the street.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3298.423, 3303.41], "stop_times": [3303.41, 3310.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3298.423}, "reply_to": "20508__2_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20508__2_022", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--That's right, so that's why--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3310.916], "stop_times": [3312.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3310.916}, "reply_to": "20508__2_021", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_023", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "But here we're talking about, I didn't get a license for my business, that my wife got while I was in the police station.\nIt was that easy.\nSo when you don't have a breach of the peace, and when you don't have the risk that the person will flee, then what is the justification?\nWhat is the reason for permitting an arrest?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3312.633, 3319.856, 3321.389, 3332.43], "stop_times": [3319.856, 3321.389, 3332.43, 3337.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3312.633}, "reply_to": "20508__2_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20508__2_024", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--I guess I'm... if you're assuming that this is a criminal offense, then... I'm sorry, civil?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3337.733], "stop_times": [3343.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3337.733}, "reply_to": "20508__2_023", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_025", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "I thought we asked you... you were giving examples of civil proceedings--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3343.971], "stop_times": [3347.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3343.971}, "reply_to": "20508__2_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20508__2_026", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3347.589], "stop_times": [3348.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3347.589}, "reply_to": "20508__2_025", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_027", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--where an arrest would be recognized as reasonable, and they were all... fall in the \"exigent circumstance\" category.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3348.239], "stop_times": [3357.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3348.239}, "reply_to": "20508__2_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20508__2_028", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Right.\nI think a balancing would be appropriate in a civil case, and certainly whether or not someone is likely to abscond or... I'm not sure someone who's a danger to himself is the same as a likelihood of absconding, but that could be another factor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3357.445, 3357.981], "stop_times": [3357.981, 3371.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3357.445}, "reply_to": "20508__2_027", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_029", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Someone about to commit suicide, for example.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3371.122], "stop_times": [3372.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3371.122}, "reply_to": "20508__2_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20508__2_030", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "About to commit suicide or other civil... just to harm themselves, if not suicide, but there's going to be a balance--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3372.305], "stop_times": [3376.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3372.305}, "reply_to": "20508__2_029", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_031", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "But this... what's in front of us doesn't seem to fit.\nWhat would be... now, we have... the kind of offense that's involved is failure to get a license to operate some kind of business.\nWhat circumstances would justify an arrest for such an infraction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3376.692, 3379.31, 3388.666], "stop_times": [3379.31, 3388.666, 3394.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3376.692}, "reply_to": "20508__2_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20508__2_032", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--I think it may be fair for a legislature to... for a legislature or a police department to conclude that as a class there is a... and the Fourth Amendment analysis may permit this, that there is as a class a risk of absconding or injury.\nFor example, when we think... it's harder to conceive of it in this particular case in the established business, but you'd think of push-carts and vendors along the street who are operating without licenses, and whether in a particular case I know this person, I know where they live, I don't know whether I would be able to find them again, is not the appropriate analysis.\nThis Court has recognized that at some points when you have an established level of suspicion you need not have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3394.82, 3411.616, 3431.01], "stop_times": [3411.616, 3431.01, 3438.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3394.82}, "reply_to": "20508__2_031", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_033", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Yes, well--\n--We're talking about a civil case.\n--that's one of the virtues of the Robinson opinion, I say perhaps because I wrote it--\n[Laughter]\n--that it lays down a flat rule.\nNow, you say... are you balancing in every individual case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3438.516, 3438.849, 3439.699, 3443.485, 3444.003, 3447.372], "stop_times": [3438.849, 3439.699, 3443.485, 3444.003, 3447.372, 3451.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3438.516}, "reply_to": "20508__2_032", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20508__2_034", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3451.157], "stop_times": [3451.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3451.157}, "reply_to": "20508__2_033", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_035", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--whether you can make an arrest?\nThat's hardly workable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3451.641, 3452.443], "stop_times": [3452.443, 3453.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3451.641}, "reply_to": "20508__2_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20508__2_036", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--No, certainly not for crimes.\nThe question is whether, once it's a civil violation, Robinson wouldn't cover that by its own terms.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3453.826, 3456.578], "stop_times": [3456.578, 3464.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3453.826}, "reply_to": "20508__2_035", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_037", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3464.75], "stop_times": [3465.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3464.75}, "reply_to": "20508__2_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20508__2_038", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "That dealt with a crime.\nI mean, it does get complicated because you can have traffic violations that are a crime in one case... Maryland v. Wilson dealt with speeding, where it's a crime.\nIt is not a civil infraction.\nWhren v. United States was speeding and it was a civil infraction.\nSo it... jurisdiction by jurisdiction the same conduct may, in fact, be either a crime or a civil offense, and I think again when it's... Robinson wouldn't cover it if it's... necessarily if it's civil, but there may be either... either through a balancing analysis or a recognition of historical categories such as conveyances, deportation, immigration control, that they may be the types of civil seizures that are permitted on a... you know, without balancing in individual cases because of... the interests are going to apply generally across the board in making a seizure in those cases to enforce the civil or criminal law, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3465.166, 3466.3, 3474.106, 3475.856, 3479.61], "stop_times": [3466.3, 3474.106, 3475.856, 3479.61, 3519.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3465.166}, "reply_to": "20508__2_037", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_039", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Is it fair to say that you briefed this case on the assumption that we were dealing with a criminal offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3519.335], "stop_times": [3524.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3519.335}, "reply_to": "20508__2_038", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20508__2_040", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Yes, we did, and I apologize if we don't have a completely thorough analysis of the issue.\nWe did not read the second question presented to render the first question presented an advisory question, but we certainly are emphatic that there is not a bright civil-criminal line in the Fourth Amendment, that there are classes of seizures, and whether... that are permissible in the civil arena, as I said, deportation, conveyances, or the maritime, or traffic, and whether those--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3524.805, 3529.357], "stop_times": [3529.357, 3552.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3524.805}, "reply_to": "20508__2_039", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_041", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "That's all irrelevant for this case, right?\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3552.389, 3555.241], "stop_times": [3555.241, 3556.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3552.389}, "reply_to": "20508__2_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__2_042", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--I guess it depends on whether this Court reads the second question presented differently from whether we did.\nI think it certainly has not been briefed, briefed other than at a very late stage, and it wasn't addressed by the courts below.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3556.36, 3561.228], "stop_times": [3561.228, 3569.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3556.36}, "reply_to": "20508__2_041", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_043", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--But now we know we are dealing with a civil infraction, so how can we pretend that it's criminal when it's... we're told that it's civil?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3569.768], "stop_times": [3577.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3569.768}, "reply_to": "20508__2_042", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20508__2_044", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, if this Court concludes that it is civil and it needs to address it, then we think it would be better to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3577.107], "stop_times": [3582.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3577.107}, "reply_to": "20508__2_043", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_045", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "We don't have to conclude that.\nWe were told that by Mr. Strauss, that this is in fact in the City of Arlington a civil offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3582.392, 3583.26], "stop_times": [3583.26, 3592.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3582.392}, "reply_to": "20508__2_044", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20508__2_046", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--We think that it may be preferable for this Court to remand to allow a case to come up, or else the courts below to address what either the common law or the practices are for civil arrests on these types of ordinances, which hasn't been briefed and addressed below, and we certainly would be very concerned about having a decision issued without the information provided to this Court that is necessary about civil offenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3592.199], "stop_times": [3615.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3592.199}, "reply_to": "20508__2_045", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_047", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "We should forgive the waiver?\nI mean, the point wasn't raised below.\nShould we instruct the lower court to give the defendant another... or the plaintiff another swing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3615.899, 3618.434, 3621.635], "stop_times": [3618.434, 3621.635, 3628.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3615.899}, "reply_to": "20508__2_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__2_048", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, the Court could certainly dismiss cert as improvidently granted simply on the question that either--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3628.956], "stop_times": [3633.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3628.956}, "reply_to": "20508__2_047", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_049", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Well, I thought you were saying we should read the second question, in light of the record, as saying is this particular criminal offense one for which you could arrest someone.\nWasn't that your position, or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3633.008, 3643.732], "stop_times": [3643.732, 3647.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3633.008}, "reply_to": "20508__2_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20508__2_050", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Our position is, we read the second question presented in light of the first question presented.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3647.87], "stop_times": [3651.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3647.87}, "reply_to": "20508__2_049", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_051", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Which is criminal.\nIn other words, I take it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3651.655, 3652.022], "stop_times": [3652.022, 3653.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3651.655}, "reply_to": "20508__2_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20508__2_052", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Right, absolutely.\nAbsolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3653.388, 3653.94], "stop_times": [3653.94, 3654.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3653.388}, "reply_to": "20508__2_051", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_053", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--So I take it you're not... I thought... you think we should do the same, I take it, as you did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3654.524], "stop_times": [3660.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3654.524}, "reply_to": "20508__2_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20508__2_054", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "We--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3660.094], "stop_times": [3663.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3660.094}, "reply_to": "20508__2_053", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_055", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "It would be a hypothetical question when we know it is not criminal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3663.045], "stop_times": [3668.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3663.045}, "reply_to": "20508__2_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20508__2_056", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--If... the Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3668.347], "stop_times": [3670.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3668.347}, "reply_to": "20508__2_055", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_057", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "How can we then say, well, we'll assume that it's waived, that we'll treat something that the city says is civil as criminal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3670.499], "stop_times": [3678.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3670.499}, "reply_to": "20508__2_056", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20508__2_058", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--That is the danger that you're essentially issuing an advisory opinion in a case that just does not present the question.\nThat's again why cert may have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3678.403, 3685.259], "stop_times": [3685.259, 3687.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3678.403}, "reply_to": "20508__2_057", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_059", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "It's not an advisory opinion in this case if that issue was not raised below.\nIt's been tried on the assumption that it's criminal.\nWhy is it advisory in this case?\nI, for one, would certainly not send it back to let this new point be dredged up when it was simply foregone in the trial below, so I don't see why it's an abstract case.\nI mean, we have a real case before us that's been tried on this assumption, and it seems to me we can decide it on that assumption.\nIt just doesn't conform to the facts.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3687.475, 3692.328, 3694.78, 3697.232, 3711.057, 3717.98, 3720.096], "stop_times": [3692.328, 3694.78, 3697.232, 3711.057, 3717.98, 3720.096, 3720.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3687.475}, "reply_to": "20508__2_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20508__2_060", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--I think you were not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3720.682], "stop_times": [3722.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3720.682}, "reply_to": "20508__2_059", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_061", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "I thought I heard you say that we should dismiss the writ as improvidently granted, because we thought we were dealing with a criminal offense and it turns out to be civil.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3722.598], "stop_times": [3732.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3722.598}, "reply_to": "20508__2_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20508__2_062", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Our only position... may I answer, Mr.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3732.489], "stop_times": [3734.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3732.489}, "reply_to": "20508__2_061", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_063", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3734.455], "stop_times": [3734.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3734.455}, "reply_to": "20508__2_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20508__2_064", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "--Our only position is that if the Court wishes to address, or... wishes to address the issue and wishes not to address the criminal issue, that it may... it's certainly within this Court's prerogative to decide that the question it thought it was going to be deciding is not, in fact, now presented to the case in light of the respondent's admissions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3734.739], "stop_times": [3753.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3734.739}, "reply_to": "20508__2_063", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "20508__2_065", "conversation_id": "20508", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Millett.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-501", "start_times": [3753.569, 3754.652], "stop_times": [3754.652, 3756.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3753.569}, "reply_to": "20508__2_064", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21209__0_000", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-1971, Mary Anna Rivet v. the Regions Bank of Louisiana.\nMr. Odom.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [0.0, 8.946], "stop_times": [8.946, 9.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21209__0_001", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe issue in this case, Your Honors, is whether a novel res judicata exception should be engrafted into the settled rules of Federal removal jurisdiction.\nBefore we address these removal issues, I believe it would be helpful to set out in the nature of the action that we filed in State court below on behalf of these petitioners.\nYour Honors, my clients loaned $1.3 million in 1984 to other sophisticated individuals in a transaction at a time of high interest rates, at an interest rate of 20 percent with a note and a subsequent mortgage up to an amount of $5 million.\nWe took a note and we took a mortgage on the real property, or the leasehold estate which is at issue in this case.\nBasically our State action filed 10 years later is a standard mortgage foreclosure action seeking either to recognize our mortgage or to have our debt paid.\nIt's a hybrid in personam in rem action which is permissible under Louisiana law.\nThere's a second aspect of our claim which is similar but distinct.\nThat is, a prior bankruptcy proceeding, as the Court is aware, had authorized the respondents in this action or their predecessors in interest to procure cancellation of our lien, which was duly recorded in the conveyance records of Orleans Parish, and it empowered them to do that.\nThey left bankruptcy court one day in 1986 with the right to have our lien canceled according to the Louisiana lien cancellation procedure.\nThey never took advantage of that right.\nThe bankruptcy court acknowledged, we take the position, Your Honors, implicitly Louisiana's procedure to have liens cancelled.\nIt acknowledged a two step process, because it not only ordered the subject property to be sold free and clear of all liens, it also ordered that the recorder of mortgages erase the liens.\nThis was never done and now, in a footnote, if you will, to this argument, they've waited too long and since the filing of this lawsuit their right to execute on those liens has expired under Louisiana law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [9.888, 12.77, 21.364, 30.41, 47.732, 53.976, 65.022, 69.987, 73.78, 88.668, 96.946, 99.187, 105.81, 116.327], "stop_times": [12.77, 21.364, 30.41, 47.732, 53.976, 65.022, 69.987, 73.78, 88.668, 96.946, 99.187, 105.81, 116.327, 128.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.888}, "reply_to": "21209__0_000", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__0_002", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Am I correct in understanding you're explaining why res judicata won't bar your claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [128.134], "stop_times": [131.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 128.134}, "reply_to": "21209__0_001", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21209__0_003", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Your Honor, I'm just trying to give a little background to the facts, because I feel that... I feel that it would be important.\nThe facts are somewhat tangled and I thought it would be good to lay those out.\nWe don't feel it's... there are a variety of reasons why we don't believe res judicata would bar our claim and those we will all adjudicate below, assuming that it's remanded, of course.\nYour Honors, it's important to remember in that connection that two of the four persons that we sued were not even present in the bankruptcy proceeding, and two of our four petitioners did not appear in the bankruptcy proceeding and received absolutely no notice of it.\nWe claim against these two--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [131.708, 137.982, 140.934, 150.668, 164.889], "stop_times": [137.982, 140.934, 150.668, 164.889, 167.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 131.708}, "reply_to": "21209__0_002", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__0_004", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "May I ask, does that have anything to do with any issue except whether there's estoppel here?\nI'm just a little puzzled why we have to get into the facts in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [167.001, 170.994], "stop_times": [170.994, 174.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 167.001}, "reply_to": "21209__0_003", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21209__0_005", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--Your Honor, it's important for us, we believe, to show the Court exactly how far this doctrine will go if a res judicata exception is carved out on the facts of this case and, that being so, you would have to see that this is not even a proper res judicata situation, because two of the four persons were not even... two of the four persons we sued were not even a part of the bankruptcy proceeding.\nTherefore, my point in bringing these to the Court's attention, Your Honor, is, look at how far this goes.\nWhere it's going is, if you have any part of a claim that a bankruptcy procedure has affected in any way someone, or that person's privity and interest in any way, or that can be alleged, that's going to be brought up by defendants as a res judicata exception.\nIt doesn't have to be a complete res judicata exception.\nIndeed, it wasn't in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [174.935, 200.072, 205.005, 220.146, 222.787], "stop_times": [200.072, 205.005, 220.146, 222.787, 224.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 174.935}, "reply_to": "21209__0_004", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__0_006", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "But your point, as I understand your brief, is that even a narrow res judicata exception should not be recognized.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [224.496], "stop_times": [229.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 224.496}, "reply_to": "21209__0_005", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21209__0_007", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Absolutely, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [229.832], "stop_times": [230.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 229.832}, "reply_to": "21209__0_006", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__0_008", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "So you're just saying this is the parade of horribles.\nIf we take the first step, we go down the slippery slope.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [230.411, 232.323], "stop_times": [232.323, 234.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 230.411}, "reply_to": "21209__0_007", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21209__0_009", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Yes, sir.\nThat's exactly what I'm trying to suggest.\nAnd Your Honor... well, we believe that the opinions below were not even internally consistent, if you will, in that connection, because they likened their new jurisdictional basis to... of complete preclusion to complete preemption, but complete preemption, as this Court has stated over and over again, really means complete preemption.\nIt means that Congress has so thoroughly occupied a whole field of the law that any State law claim is really a Federal claim, but here complete preclusion, as they use it, is not complete because this State action was not completely precluded by res judicata.\nTo show just how far it goes, Your Honor, not only did the district court below decide the case on the merits, decide that there was no claim there, that the plaintiffs were dead, if you will, and use that as a basis for removal jurisdiction, he then used that removal jurisdiction to get supplemental jurisdiction over the two parties who were not involved in the res judicata aspect, and so what we have is the decision on the merits that the claim was completely precluded being used as justification to assert supplemental jurisdiction over parties whose claim... against whose claims we did not have a completely precluded claim, so it really is not even internally consistent and it does show, if you will, the parade of horribles.\nBut fundamentally, Your Honors, as we've stated in our brief, res judicata is an affirmative defense and removal cannot be based on an affirmative defense.\nIt's codified in the statute, it's been reconfirmed many times by this Court, most recently by Franchise Tax Board, by Caterpillar, and by Oklahoma Tax Commission--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [234.534, 235.024, 237.055, 256.44, 271.627, 312.904, 321.091], "stop_times": [235.024, 237.055, 256.44, 271.627, 312.904, 321.091, 329.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 234.534}, "reply_to": "21209__0_008", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__0_010", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "And I take it if we adopted your position we could leave intact the doctrine that originated in Avco v. Aero Lodge, the preemptive... the preemption doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [329.307], "stop_times": [338.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 329.307}, "reply_to": "21209__0_009", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21209__0_011", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nWe don't urge an... that the preemption doctrine has to be overruled.\nThat is now so firmly in... fixed in the jurisprudence of this Court that we believe that it has worked well.\nIt's fine.\nIt doesn't have to be overruled.\nBut the Court has been very careful about articulating any further exceptions to the well pleaded complaint rule if the Avco doctrine be an exception.\nI know there's academic dispute about that.\nWhat is clear with respect to the facts of this case is that, even if the affirmative defense, the Federal affirmative defense is the only real issue in the case, even if it is absolutely dispositive of the merits and is the only thing that has to be decided below, it cannot be used as a basis for Federal removal jurisdiction.\nNow, there is nothing special about the res judicata affirmative defense as opposed to any other affirmative defenses that might be raised by someone below as a justification for removing a case to Federal court.\nIndeed, Your Honors--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [338.864, 339.503, 343.215, 350.971, 351.56, 353.072, 362.028, 363.949, 382.241, 393.277], "stop_times": [339.503, 343.215, 350.971, 351.56, 353.072, 362.028, 363.949, 382.241, 393.277, 394.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 338.864}, "reply_to": "21209__0_010", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__0_012", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Well, they could be to the extent the Anti Injunction Act makes an exception, the relitigation exception.\nThat does show that there is something special about relitigating a case that was resolved in Federal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [394.699, 401.922], "stop_times": [401.922, 408.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 394.699}, "reply_to": "21209__0_011", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21209__0_013", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--Your Honor, that does show that Congress has recognized the relitigation situation, has addressed it in the appropriate way after full consideration, and has crafted the relitigation exception to section 2283.\nThat is a different remedy, though, than removal based upon res judicata, because, as this Court's ruling in Chick Kam Choo makes clear, the 2283 relitigation exception to the Anti Injunction Act is narrower than the full range of res judicata.\nIt also is an equitable proceeding, and the Court does not have to enjoin a State court from relitigating something that's previously been decided.\nThe Court can take full cognizance of all the facts and circumstances, the equitable arguments on both sides.\nI dare say if that exception had been applied in this case there are equities on both sides of this case that would need to have been considered.\nIt's far different from enlarging the scope of Federal removal jurisdiction by making res judicata an affirmative defense, a permissible basis for removal jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [408.798, 421.758, 439.428, 447.243, 452.226, 458.591], "stop_times": [421.758, 439.428, 447.243, 452.226, 458.591, 468.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 408.798}, "reply_to": "21209__0_012", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__0_014", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Your claim, leaving aside the bankruptcy, is wholly State in origin.\nThere's no Federal element to it, is there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [468.117, 474.572], "stop_times": [474.572, 476.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 468.117}, "reply_to": "21209__0_013", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21209__0_015", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "That's absolutely correct, Your Honor.\nIn fact, in trying to cast in my own mind as to whether there would be any conceivable way that our claim could be recharacterized as a Federal claim, I can't imagine how our claim could have been recharacterized on the face of the pleadings or any other way so as to state a Federal cause of action.\nThere is no general Federal law of mortgages that I'm aware of.\nThere's no Federal statute that deals with the issues that we're talking about.\nWe have a third party beneficiary claim against the Browns under Louisiana State law, under the Louisiana State law doctrine of stipulation pour entree, which is similar to the third party beneficiary doctrine.\nAll of those are third party claims.\nNot a single one is a Federal claim.\nThat's why we feel so strongly that this cannot be cast as an artful pleading case.\nThere's no way that we could have artfully recast any of our pleadings.\nThere's nothing we could have artfully recast.\nEven if the statute and the jurisprudence of the Court allowed us to plead on the face of our pleadings an affirmative defense to somehow get ourselves into Federal court, I don't see how it could have been recast in an artful way as a Federal affirmative defense, so it's an entirely State law cause of action, something that we could not have brought in Federal court.\nThe res judicata issue that they try to bring us in on removal is something that we did not bring... it's somebody else's bankruptcy.\nIt's a very far cry from the simple situation where A sues B in Federal court and loses and then A goes back down to Federal court, to State court and brings the identical claim in State court leaving out one or two words.\nThat's the situation that the Court had in the Moitie petition.\nIt's a very far cry from that.\nIt wasn't our bankruptcy.\nTwo of our petitioners weren't even there, had no notice of any of it.\nTwo of the defendants weren't even there, and the State courts... the Federal court had to acknowledge that they weren't bound by the res judicata that he used to remove the case and assumed supplemental jurisdiction over them and dismissed that claim as well.\nI think that there is truly nothing special about res judicata.\nIf you were to allow the res judicata defense to establish removal of jurisdiction it's hard to see why other defenses, other affirmative defenses might not be as worthy, but the Court has already spoken to that.\nIndeed, Your Honors, any given application of res judicata is likely to be less significant than any given application of the tribal immunity defense, because tribal immunity is the result of a solemn treaty between the Congress of the United States and a sovereign Indian nation.\nIt's hard to think of how something could be more completely extinguished than a claim of... based on... claim falling to the defense of tribal immunity, yet this Court in Oklahoma Tax Commission in 1989 said that that has to be decided by the State courts.\nThe State courts are presumed competent to decide these issues of Federal law.\nThey do it all the time.\nThe respondents say that our claim was completely extinguished by the res judicata effect of the bankruptcy court below, and that's what makes it so different.\nBut Your Honor, that's exactly what the defendants argued in Caterpillar.\nThey argued that the collective bargaining agreement governed by Federal law completely extinguished the State law contract claims in that case and in that case again this Court said, that kind of extinguishment doesn't mean anything.\nYou cannot use an affirmative defense to establish removal jurisdiction in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [476.882, 478.284, 494.874, 497.896, 501.108, 511.777, 512.946, 514.438, 520.042, 524.304, 526.156, 544.097, 551.261, 563.509, 567.092, 568.564, 569.514, 572.566, 583.982, 589.527, 603.747, 618.596, 633.256, 636.939, 638.429, 647.294, 650.306, 663.436], "stop_times": [478.284, 494.874, 497.896, 501.108, 511.777, 512.946, 514.438, 520.042, 524.304, 526.156, 544.097, 551.261, 563.509, 567.092, 568.564, 569.514, 572.566, 583.982, 589.527, 603.747, 618.596, 633.256, 636.939, 638.429, 647.294, 650.306, 663.436, 668.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 476.882}, "reply_to": "21209__0_014", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__0_016", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "What do you do with the footnote in our Moitie case, Mr. Odom?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [668.328], "stop_times": [673.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 668.328}, "reply_to": "21209__0_015", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21209__0_017", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Your Honor, the more one reads Moitie, the more difficult it is to see how so many people became convinced that this Court was articulating a new theory of removal jurisdiction based on res judicata.\nNo such theory is mentioned in footnote 2 or anywhere else.\nJustice Brennan's vigorous dissent which everyone cites doesn't even address that.\nIt doesn't mention anything about a res judicata defense.\nIt addresses only the preemption aspect of it and the antitrust aspects.\nThe... if you consider the language employed by the Court in the Moitie footnote, the Court defers to the factual findings by the district court below and notes that at least some of those claims were sufficiently Federal in character to support removal jurisdiction, at least some of the claims.\nThat's not the language of complete preclusion.\nIf it was completely precluded, we believe the Court would have said so.\nAnd Your Honors, with all respect, the Moitie decision is virtually a treatise on the law of res judicata.\nIt goes into every aspect of it, from the history of it in our jurisprudence to the way it's used and the way it has to be used and we dare say that, if there had been some intention to highlight this aspect of the law of res judicata, it would have been mentioned.\nAnd Your Honors, the Court in Moitie, this Court actually remanded the issue of res judicata to the court of appeals to decide, stating that it was\n\"unnecessary for the Court to reach that issue. \"\nBut if the Court in Moitie had been using complete preclusion, res judicata as its ground for removal jurisdiction, then the res judicata issue would already have been decided.\nThere wouldn't have been anything to remand to the Ninth Circuit for consideration.\nThere would have been nothing to send back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [673.08, 686.531, 689.592, 694.685, 697.246, 701.58, 716.899, 719.293, 723.254, 730.319, 743.769, 755.79, 758.08, 768.486, 772.049], "stop_times": [686.531, 689.592, 694.685, 697.246, 701.58, 716.899, 719.293, 723.254, 730.319, 743.769, 755.79, 758.08, 768.486, 772.049, 773.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 673.08}, "reply_to": "21209__0_016", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__0_018", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Well, what made the case... what was the Federal character of the claim, as distinguished from the preclusion defense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [773.829], "stop_times": [781.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 773.829}, "reply_to": "21209__0_017", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21209__0_019", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Your Honors, it's clear from reading the Moitie opinion and the opinions below that the sufficient Federal... sufficiently Federal character of the claims brought in State court was an intent to rely on Federal law, an intent to really state Federal claims in State law disguise.\nThis becomes crystal clear when one looks at the unreported district court opinion which, Your Honor, I confess I did not do until last week, when I came and looked at your archives upstairs, but it's in there on the third floor.\nThe district court's opinion below makes it absolutely clear that the second complaint, filed after the Federal complaint was dismissed, was identical in every respect to the Federal claim that had been there.\nIndeed, in oral argument it was made plain that the only word that was changed in the second complaint was the word antitrust.\nThe Court... the discussion of that which makes it very clear, two paragraph discussion, is found at pages 16a and 17a of Judge Spencer Williams' June 30, 1977 opinion below.\nThe... the... and also makes it clear that the State law plaintiffs had pleaded identical words from the Government's civil claim and the Government's criminal claim, criminal action, two separate Federal actions.\nThey had initially... they had initially indicated their intent to be in Federal court by filing the case in Federal court.\nI'm speaking of the Browns now.\nMrs. Moitie originally filed in State court.\nShe did not wind up before this Court.\nIt was the Browns' claim that wound up before this Court, even though the case is called Moitie.\nThe Browns had originally evinced their desire to be in Federal court by filing in Federal court.\nThen they went back to State court, restated their complaint identically word for word, leaving out the word antitrust and copying the Federal pleadings of the Federal civil action and the Federal criminal action.\nIt is simply... it is simply an application of the artful pleading doctrine in the antitrust context, and there's every reason to believe, as we set out in our brief, that that's exactly what it was.\nThere is zero reason to believe, either in the opinion of the Ninth Circuit below, or in Judge Spencer Williams' opinion, or in the opinion of this Court, that there was an effort to involve some new exception to the removal jurisdiction doctrines articulated by the Court.\nWhile--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [781.155, 802.009, 812.414, 824.723, 830.597, 844.505, 858.306, 863.979, 865.519, 868.003, 869.543, 873.385, 878.348, 890.055, 900.251, 913.611], "stop_times": [802.009, 812.414, 824.723, 830.597, 844.505, 858.306, 863.979, 865.519, 868.003, 869.543, 873.385, 878.348, 890.055, 900.251, 913.611, 914.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 781.155}, "reply_to": "21209__0_018", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__0_020", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "What did they... I'm somewhat curious.\nI take it that the Browns' original Federal claim said the defendants had done something that violated the antitrust... the Federal antitrust laws.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [914.402, 917.034], "stop_times": [917.034, 924.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 914.402}, "reply_to": "21209__0_019", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21209__0_021", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--Yes, sir.\nIt's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [924.06, 924.157], "stop_times": [924.157, 924.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 924.06}, "reply_to": "21209__0_020", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__0_022", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Then they left out the word antitrust, so what were they claiming in the State court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [924.648], "stop_times": [927.349], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 924.648}, "reply_to": "21209__0_021", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21209__0_023", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--In the State court below, Your Honor, they alleged unfair competition and breach of contract.\nThey may have alleged--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [927.349, 933.724], "stop_times": [933.724, 934.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 927.349}, "reply_to": "21209__0_022", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__0_024", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "All right, so they had a list of defendants' activities they said that violate Federal antitrust, then they leave out the word antitrust, they say the same thing violates State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [934.755], "stop_times": [940.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 934.755}, "reply_to": "21209__0_023", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21209__0_025", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--State law, various--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [940.809], "stop_times": [942.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 940.809}, "reply_to": "21209__0_024", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__0_026", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "State... unfair competition law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [942.109], "stop_times": [943.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 942.109}, "reply_to": "21209__0_025", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21209__0_027", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [943.541], "stop_times": [943.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 943.541}, "reply_to": "21209__0_026", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__0_028", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--contract law, or something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [943.901], "stop_times": [944.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 943.901}, "reply_to": "21209__0_027", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21209__0_029", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [944.651], "stop_times": [944.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 944.651}, "reply_to": "21209__0_028", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__0_030", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Well... they'd say, well, different claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [944.991], "stop_times": [949.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 944.991}, "reply_to": "21209__0_029", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21209__0_031", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [949.455], "stop_times": [950.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 949.455}, "reply_to": "21209__0_030", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__0_032", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "A single activity can violate State law, it can also violate Federal law, and we said in Federal court it violated Federal law, and now we say the same thing violates State law, a different law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [950.845], "stop_times": [960.011], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 950.845}, "reply_to": "21209__0_031", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21209__0_033", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--Well, the artful pleading doctrine, Your Honor, exists for situations where the claim can be recharacterized as a Federal claim and I believe, on a straightforward basis, that's what the judge in the Moitie case did and that is what this Court was doing in saying that at least some of those claims were sufficiently Federal in character to support removal jurisdiction.\nBut in any event, it had nothing to do with the law of res judicata or carving out a new exception whereby an affirmative defense itself could be the basis for jurisdiction.\nWhat the district court did in that case was, in fact, accepted jurisdiction on the basis of the recharacterization of Federal claims and then, having acquired jurisdiction, dismissed those claims due to res judicata.\nThere was no linkage of res judicata to jurisdiction in the case anywhere along the line, including in this Court.\nThere was no effort to establish jurisdiction by reference to res judicata.\nThey did not accept jurisdiction because the claim was being dismissed on the basis of res judicata, and that's the odd conundrum that we articulated as issue 2 in our questions presented.\nThe Court in this case decided, made a decision on the merits and decided that the claim was completely destroyed and used that decision on the merits to justify having jurisdiction in the case.\nNothing like that occurred in the district court's analysis in Moitie.\nHe was simply applying a straightforward artful pleading doctrine case.\nYour Honors--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [960.011, 981.836, 992.202, 1004.25, 1009.235, 1012.925, 1023.524, 1035.582, 1039.042, 1043.477], "stop_times": [981.836, 992.202, 1004.25, 1009.235, 1012.925, 1023.524, 1035.582, 1039.042, 1043.477, 1045.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 960.011}, "reply_to": "21209__0_032", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__0_034", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Can you explain that a little further, because there are many instances, for example, constitutional law, where the facts are the same and a claim may be brought under the Federal Constitution, and then the same claim is made in the State court saying the State constitution means something different, or more, so why is it different in the antitrust context?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1045.548], "stop_times": [1066.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1045.548}, "reply_to": "21209__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21209__0_035", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--Well, Your Honors, if a claim is brought under... if we're assuming that a claim is originally brought in State court, and it also asserts violations of the Federal Constitution, I say that claim is immediately removable to Federal court on the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1066.692], "stop_times": [1080.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1066.692}, "reply_to": "21209__0_034", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__0_036", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "No, I'm supposing a case in Federal court first.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1080.041], "stop_times": [1084.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1080.041}, "reply_to": "21209__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21209__0_037", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--Yes, ma'am.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1084.603], "stop_times": [1085.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1084.603}, "reply_to": "21209__0_036", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__0_038", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "And the Federal court says, you don't have that Federal constitutional right.\nThen you bring the same case over again in State court and say, but I have a State constitutional right based on those very same facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1085.415, 1089.256], "stop_times": [1089.256, 1098.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1085.415}, "reply_to": "21209__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21209__0_039", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Well, in my view, Your Honor, that would be easily distinguished because the State constitution is a separate document and many of them are very, very different from the Federal Constitution.\nThe claims would be... if there were legitimate State constitutional claims they would possibly be vastly different from any Federal claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1098.753, 1107.127], "stop_times": [1107.127, 1114.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1098.753}, "reply_to": "21209__0_038", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__0_040", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Well, isn't that the same thing with Federal antitrust law and State Valentine acts?\nThe State antitrust laws remain in effect.\nThey're not totally preempted by the Federal antitrust law, are they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1114.854, 1119.148, 1122.178], "stop_times": [1119.148, 1122.178, 1127.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1114.854}, "reply_to": "21209__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21209__0_041", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "No, sir, they're not.\nThey're not.\nThere's no complete preemption under antitrust--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1127.651, 1128.923, 1129.474], "stop_times": [1128.923, 1129.474, 1131.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1127.651}, "reply_to": "21209__0_040", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__0_042", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "So then, how do you explain the consequence in Moitie?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1131.344], "stop_times": [1134.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1131.344}, "reply_to": "21209__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21209__0_043", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--Your Honor, in that case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1134.707], "stop_times": [1136.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1134.707}, "reply_to": "21209__0_042", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__0_044", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "The outcome.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1136.597], "stop_times": [1137.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1136.597}, "reply_to": "21209__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21209__0_045", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--In that case the judge literally drew a chart, which is also in the record upstairs, of the differences... of the differences in the claims.\nI think it's... the way I explain it, Your Honor, is that it's a case by case analysis and, if there were a State law that were vastly different from the Federal law, perhaps that would mandate a different conclusion.\nThis Court was satisfied in the Moitie case that at least some of the factual findings by the district court supported jurisdiction.\nThat is a good example of why I think the word factual finding was used.\nIt is a comparison on a case by case basis to find out what is really going on and it seems to turn on, at least in part, on the intent of the parties to bring a Federal action, which was evinced very forcefully in the Moitie case.\nYour Honors, our case essentially... our argument essentially is that there's... that there is no removal jurisdiction based on affirmative defense.\nThis is not a case of artful pleading, there is no way that it could have been recharacterized as a Federal complaint, and that Moitie does not dictate any kind of result of the type that my colleagues would like the Court to adopt, and we suggest that it would be a very bad idea for such claims to be... such a rule to be adopted.\nIt's hard to see where it would stop.\nIt's easy to see from the facts of this case, as I indicated in response to Justice Stevens--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1137.048, 1146.234, 1157.12, 1163.274, 1167.067, 1180.257, 1195.147, 1214.97, 1217.151], "stop_times": [1146.234, 1157.12, 1163.274, 1167.067, 1180.257, 1195.147, 1214.97, 1217.151, 1221.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1137.048}, "reply_to": "21209__0_044", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__0_046", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "What if we were to say it stops with the first cases in which the answer turns on an interpretation of a Federal order, which here I guess one could... part of your argument would be the scope of the bankruptcy's court's order, just what it means, and maybe you... maybe we could say that's the scope of the doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1221.114], "stop_times": [1237.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1221.114}, "reply_to": "21209__0_045", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21209__0_047", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, if one does that, then it's easy to see that the courts below will get into all kinds of factual considerations, such as who were exactly the parties before the court?\nWho were their privies?\nWho were the... what part of the claim resolves what part of the State law claim?\nAre we dealing with husband and wife, as you know was an issue in this case.\nIf we are, what are the State domestic relations laws?\nIs there a separate property agreement if there's a community property State.\nAnd you can see this turning into a mini trial on the basis... on the issue of removal jurisdiction so much without any reason for it, because there's no harm... any possible beneficial gain in efficiency or anything else that could be gained by making such a rule is far outweighed by the harm it would cause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1237.574, 1247.47, 1248.7, 1253.615, 1257.606, 1260.26, 1263.442], "stop_times": [1247.47, 1248.7, 1253.615, 1257.606, 1260.26, 1263.442, 1284.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1237.574}, "reply_to": "21209__0_046", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__0_048", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Let me ask you this one other question.\nDo you... is the res judicata issue a matter of Federal law or State law, in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1284.353, 1285.896], "stop_times": [1285.896, 1289.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1284.353}, "reply_to": "21209__0_047", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21209__0_049", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Federal res judicata law, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1289.519], "stop_times": [1295.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1289.519}, "reply_to": "21209__0_048", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__0_050", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Federal.\nYou think it's Federal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1295.182, 1295.683], "stop_times": [1295.683, 1296.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1295.182}, "reply_to": "21209__0_049", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21209__0_051", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Yes, sir, and I believe the State court would apply Federal res judicata law and Your Honors, there is... as Justice Ginsburg indicated, there is a remedy if anyone feels aggrieved by someone trying to relitigate something previously decided in Federal court.\nSection 2283, the relitigation exception, provides that remedy and provides a far more sensitive means of application than any kind of removal, absolute removal rule would supply.\nFurthermore, the most obvious remedy is that we've got a cadre of 50 States with very competent State judges, and this Court has repeatedly stated that State court judges are competent to decide issues of Federal law.\nIt's done on a routine basis.\nThey do it every day.\nThere simply is no harm here to fix, and the fix would require a terrible rupture of very subtle jurisprudence of this Court.\nYour Honors, that concludes my argument.\nIf there are no further questions, I'd like to reserve the balance of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1296.462, 1316.564, 1328.683, 1340.841, 1342.233, 1343.174, 1353.229, 1357.683], "stop_times": [1316.564, 1328.683, 1340.841, 1342.233, 1343.174, 1353.229, 1357.683, 1360.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1296.462}, "reply_to": "21209__0_050", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__0_052", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Very well, Mr. Odom.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1360.925], "stop_times": [1361.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1360.925}, "reply_to": "21209__0_051", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21209__0_053", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1361.955], "stop_times": [1362.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1361.955}, "reply_to": "21209__0_052", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__0_054", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Mr. Stern, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1362.506], "stop_times": [1363.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1362.506}, "reply_to": "21209__0_053", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21209__1_000", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nPlaintiffs, in the guise of a State court foreclosure action, have launched a collateral attack on a prior order of the bankruptcy court, in this case the bankruptcy court sitting in the Eastern District of Louisiana.\nI'd like to take issue initially with a couple of comments that Mr. Odom made concerning the import of the order and its application under State law.\nWhat's not at issue is what the order says.\nThis is not a situation where we're arguing about does the order say X or does the order say Y. The order clearly states that a sale is going to be made under the auspices of the bankruptcy court free and clear of all liens, mortgages, claims, et cetera, and the mortgage that the petitioners seek to foreclose on is specifically listed in the order.\nThere's no question about that, and what petitioners are seeking to do is attack the validity of the order.\nIf you read their brief, I believe perhaps the clearest indication is on page 48 of the brief.\nThey want to attack the validity of the order in terms of, were the proper parties there, was the proper notice given, was the proper procedure used.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1363.808, 1374.063, 1385.91, 1397.899, 1400.65, 1424.326, 1430.86, 1435.512], "stop_times": [1374.063, 1385.91, 1397.899, 1400.65, 1424.326, 1430.86, 1435.512, 1441.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1363.808}, "reply_to": "21209__0_054", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_001", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Well, Mr. Stern, it was your client who removed the action, was it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1441.897], "stop_times": [1445.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1441.897}, "reply_to": "21209__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21209__1_002", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1445.129], "stop_times": [1445.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1445.129}, "reply_to": "21209__1_001", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_003", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "And in order to remove it, you have to comply with 1441(b), is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1445.39], "stop_times": [1451.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1445.39}, "reply_to": "21209__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21209__1_004", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "No question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1451.734], "stop_times": [1451.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1451.734}, "reply_to": "21209__1_003", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_005", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Any civil action in which the district courts have original jurisdiction, and how do you phrase your argument that a district court would have had original jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1451.925], "stop_times": [1461.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1451.925}, "reply_to": "21209__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21209__1_006", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Well, the... that goes back to the question of how the artful pleading doctrine works in the first place.\nIt requires some recharacterization.\nI believe Justice Breyer's question dealing with Moitie points that out.\nOn its face, Moitie had only State causes of action.\nThe argument here... in that instance the recharacterization was that there was a Federal cause of action stated, although in disguise.\nOur position here is that the petitioners are in effect taking either an out of time appeal from the bankruptcy court order, or you could interpret what they're as a Rule 9024 motion, essentially a Rule 60 motion.\nThey are seeking to attack the bankruptcy court order.\nThe Fifth Circuit saw the case that way and made specific reference in several points during its opinion to the fact that this is a collateral attack.\nThis is, in disguise, an attempt to retry the bankruptcy case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1461.399, 1466.875, 1469.185, 1472.986, 1477.641, 1486.186, 1500.926, 1503.81, 1511.725], "stop_times": [1466.875, 1469.185, 1472.986, 1477.641, 1486.186, 1500.926, 1503.81, 1511.725, 1515.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1461.399}, "reply_to": "21209__1_005", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_007", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "And why does that make it a civil action in which the district court would have had original jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1515.896], "stop_times": [1520.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1515.896}, "reply_to": "21209__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21209__1_008", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Well, if it's either an appeal or a Rule 60 motion the original court would have had... the district court would have had original jurisdiction, essentially ancillary to the bankruptcy jurisdiction that it had in the first place.\nIf you file a Rule 60 or a Rule 9024 motion in Federal court you don't need an independent basis for jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1520.23, 1531.717], "stop_times": [1531.717, 1539.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1520.23}, "reply_to": "21209__1_007", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_009", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Well, but this was filed in State court, wasn't it?\nIt seems extraordinarily unlikely that they would file what was really a 60(b) motion appended to an earlier Federal action and file that in the State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1539.872, 1541.915], "stop_times": [1541.915, 1551.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1539.872}, "reply_to": "21209__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21209__1_010", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Well, but that's the whole point of the artful pleading doctrine, is that you try to disguise what is, in effect, a Federal claim.\nIf you look at what they say the State court should have reviewed, what the State court has to do is essentially sit in review on what the bankruptcy court did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1551.663, 1557.856], "stop_times": [1557.856, 1565.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1551.663}, "reply_to": "21209__1_009", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_011", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "But it seems to me you're expanding the artful pleading doctrine a good ways with your submission.\nThe artful pleading doctrine, as I had understood it, was that you cannot by artful pleading avoid the possibility of removal, but I don't think it's ever been construed quite as broadly as you construe it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1565.59, 1571.864], "stop_times": [1571.864, 1590.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1565.59}, "reply_to": "21209__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21209__1_012", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Well, the... I would agree that the procedural context here makes it unique, but it's a procedural context that occurs over and over in bankruptcy.\nOne of the things that makes this case a little bit different from Moitie on the surface but not, I believe, once you look underneath it, is the fact that in bankruptcy typically a creditor comes in objecting to something that's going to happen and what they're seeking to do is have a State court sit in review of the propriety of the order issued by the court simply by saying I'm going to foreclose on a mortgage that this order says no longer exists.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1590.939, 1599.094], "stop_times": [1599.094, 1625.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1590.939}, "reply_to": "21209__1_011", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_013", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "But are you saying that any time a plaintiff in State court, perhaps without legal justification, files an action which would require the State court to review some previous proceeding in Federal court, that that is automatically removable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1625.861], "stop_times": [1640.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1625.861}, "reply_to": "21209__1_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21209__1_014", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "There are two or three different arguments that we've made.\nOne of the arguments would suggest that.\nThe argument that speaks to the question of merger and bar and how you characterize a State court action that is precluded by a prior Federal judgment I think would lead to that result, but I think there are narrower ways that you can interpret Moitie if you so choose and Mr. Odom--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1640.03, 1645.482, 1647.355], "stop_times": [1645.482, 1647.355, 1665.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1640.03}, "reply_to": "21209__1_013", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_015", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Well, let me give you a very narrow way to interpret Moitie.\nThe Court had a substantive issue it took the case to reach and the parties... one of the parties brought up the problem that this... maybe this stuff doesn't belong in Federal court anyway, so there's no jurisdiction and you can't reach the substantive argument and the Court goes through this footnote, the conclusion of which footnote is, we will not question here that factual finding.\nIt seems to me the Court is simply saying, we accept the determination of the district court which we take as a factual determination.\nI don't know that the Court itself endorsed it.\nIt said, we will not question here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1665.497, 1668.329, 1692.784, 1701.62, 1706.304], "stop_times": [1668.329, 1692.784, 1701.62, 1706.304, 1709.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1665.497}, "reply_to": "21209__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21209__1_016", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--Whether the Court was endorsing the finding, so to speak, Your Honor, I think, though, to some extent begs the question, because the Court had to consider whether the case was properly before it in the first place and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1709.026], "stop_times": [1721.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1709.026}, "reply_to": "21209__1_015", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_017", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Ah, but we have a lot of jurisdiction that says... a lot of jurisprudence that says, where question of jurisdiction is just accepted or assumed by the Court and not considered and ruled on, it won't be considered precedential--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1721.983], "stop_times": [1737.122], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1721.983}, "reply_to": "21209__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21209__1_018", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1737.122], "stop_times": [1737.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1737.122}, "reply_to": "21209__1_017", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_019", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--and I don't know that this isn't that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1737.473], "stop_times": [1738.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1737.473}, "reply_to": "21209__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21209__1_020", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1738.534], "stop_times": [1738.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1738.534}, "reply_to": "21209__1_019", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_021", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "We will not question here that factual finding, is the bottom line.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1738.805], "stop_times": [1742.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1738.805}, "reply_to": "21209__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21209__1_022", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--Well, with all due respect, first of all the jurisdictional issue was clearly brought to the Court's attention, because there is a dissent by Justice Brennan, 90 percent of which is devoted to the jurisdictional issues, and footnote 2 makes clear that the Court is considering the issue.\nSecondly, there is the question of what factual finding means in that context.\nIt's not a factual finding that a jury could make.\nThis isn't the kind of issue that's going to go to the jury.\nIt's essentially a legal characterization of a claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1742.388, 1758.728, 1763.62, 1766.303, 1768.825], "stop_times": [1758.728, 1763.62, 1766.303, 1768.825, 1771.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1742.388}, "reply_to": "21209__1_021", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_023", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Well, if we take out the word factual in that last sentence, then Justice Scalia's explanation would be quite sufficient, would it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1771.066], "stop_times": [1779.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1771.066}, "reply_to": "21209__1_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21209__1_024", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Well, it would be sufficient to this extent.\nWhat it would be saying is that district courts have the authority to recharacterize claims if they believe that despite what... despite the characterization that the plaintiffs give to a claim it is, in fact, something else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1779.0, 1781.414], "stop_times": [1781.414, 1795.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1779.0}, "reply_to": "21209__1_023", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_025", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Well, every single statement in a Supreme Court opinion isn't a pearl, so to speak.\n[Laughter]\nAnd I mean, I think if you find something in a footnote that is rather vague, you expand on it or put great weight on it kind of at your peril.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1795.841, 1800.997, 1801.297], "stop_times": [1800.997, 1801.297, 1810.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1795.841}, "reply_to": "21209__1_024", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21209__1_026", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Well, I recognize I'm speaking to the author of that footnote, so--\n[Laughter]\nThere is a danger in reading too much into Moitie, into the footnote, but I think at a minimum what it stands for is recognition by the Court that there is such a thing as artful pleading.\nI mean, that much, it seems to me, is clear from the footnote and, secondly, that the doctrine of artful pleading is going to expand to some extent beyond the preemption cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1810.931, 1813.872, 1814.182, 1829.734], "stop_times": [1813.872, 1814.182, 1829.734, 1840.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1810.931}, "reply_to": "21209__1_025", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_027", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Well, if you're right about that and that artful pleading consists of bringing a cause of action to which there is a defense that a Federal... a prior Federal case gives a res judicata defense, then what would follow is not only you can remove it, but that State law claim to which there is a possible Federal res judicata defense can be brought originally in Federal court, so any State law claim, you know, how clear does the Federal bankruptcy defense or the other Federal res judicata defense have to be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1840.52], "stop_times": [1881.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1840.52}, "reply_to": "21209__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21209__1_028", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Let me suggest that in this case, if you want to view Moitie at its narrowest... and let's take your construction of Moitie, Justice Scalia.\nThere's a factual finding that, despite what someone purports to say, it in fact is really something else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1881.129, 1893.345], "stop_times": [1893.345, 1902.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1881.129}, "reply_to": "21209__1_027", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_029", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1902.281], "stop_times": [1902.661], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1902.281}, "reply_to": "21209__1_028", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21209__1_030", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "And the Court on review doesn't need to disturb that.\nThat's what we have here.\nI mean, if you look at the opinion of the Fifth Circuit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1902.661, 1906.013, 1907.185], "stop_times": [1906.013, 1907.185, 1911.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1902.661}, "reply_to": "21209__1_029", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_031", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Okay... I'll... yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1911.657], "stop_times": [1913.269], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1911.657}, "reply_to": "21209__1_030", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21209__1_032", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--The joint appendix, page 81, and let me just read one sentence and then perhaps we can get to the core issue that you're speaking to.\nIt says, despite its intentionally deceitful garb, the core issue of the Miranne subsequent State court complaint was the efficacy of the final executory nonappealable order of the bankruptcy court that had freed the leased premises from, inter alia, the Mirannes' second mortgage.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1913.269, 1920.843, 1935.923], "stop_times": [1920.843, 1935.923, 1936.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1913.269}, "reply_to": "21209__1_031", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_033", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "And I agree with you, if this were a case like Moitie where this question was just an obstacle to our reaching the issue for which we took the case, we could get rid of it with a footnote that said we're not inclined to question the, you know, the district court's factual finding on this inconvenient jurisdictional question that's been raised.\nUnfortunately, we took this case for the jurisdictional question.\nIt's hard to write a footnote like that.\n[Laughter]\nThere couldn't be any text to which the footnote would attach itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1936.223, 1957.859, 1960.851, 1967.082, 1962.611], "stop_times": [1957.859, 1960.851, 1967.082, 1962.611, 1967.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1936.223}, "reply_to": "21209__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21209__1_034", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--Is that why he's coming back?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1967.543], "stop_times": [1970.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1967.543}, "reply_to": "21209__1_033", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_035", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "But--\n--No, but why, if it's an open... if it's an open question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1970.175, 1971.356], "stop_times": [1971.356, 1973.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1970.175}, "reply_to": "21209__1_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21209__1_036", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1973.587], "stop_times": [1974.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1973.587}, "reply_to": "21209__1_035", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_037", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--why should the law recognize any exception but for the possible preemption exemption?\nIt's a doctrine that is supposed to be clear, so people don't spend all their money litigating jurisdiction and, therefore, you have to be, if you're a district judge or a party you have to know what you're doing, what court you're supposed to be in and the rule is absolutely clear, read the complaint.\nIf the complaint states a Federal cause of action, you know where... you know it's possible to remove it.\nIf it doesn't, you know it's not going to be removable.\nThat helps the judges, it helps the parties.\nNow, why wouldn't that be the rule, clear and simple, instead of having endless expenditure, as this case may illustrate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [1974.378, 1980.933, 1998.344, 2002.456, 2005.818, 2007.861], "stop_times": [1980.933, 1998.344, 2002.456, 2005.818, 2007.861, 2015.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1974.378}, "reply_to": "21209__1_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21209__1_038", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Well, the rule as it had been stated in the Fifth Circuit was clear, and there was a ruling by the Ninth Circuit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2015.404], "stop_times": [2027.303], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2015.404}, "reply_to": "21209__1_037", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_039", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Oh, clear, but they say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2027.303], "stop_times": [2028.174], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2027.303}, "reply_to": "21209__1_038", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21209__1_040", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--It was clear for purposes of what we were doing.\nI mean, the fact is, of course, we're up here, and that makes it a whole different kind of case, but there was a very clear rule, and the rule that we have suggested in our brief is a clear rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2028.174, 2032.137], "stop_times": [2032.137, 2044.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2028.174}, "reply_to": "21209__1_039", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_041", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--What would be clearer that you... you look at the face of the complaint.\nIf it states... the complaint I think here must say... I couldn't find it in the documents, but I'm guessing the complaint must say there's a piece of paper called the Louisiana equivalent of a mortgage.\nIt's on file somewhere.\nGo read that piece of paper.\nThat piece of paper as a matter of State law says we're entitled to the building, or some money, or something.\nThat's what it says, I take it.\nYou say, we have a defense.\nThe defense is that the bankruptcy court makes that... order makes that void.\nThat sounds to me a classic case: State law claim, Federal defense.\nNow, if that's what's going on, why should you be able to remove?\nHow could we let you remove without eroding the basic doctrine, look at the face of the complaint?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2044.324, 2047.366, 2060.014, 2061.645, 2063.617, 2068.739, 2071.101, 2073.063, 2076.956, 2082.118, 2086.922], "stop_times": [2047.366, 2060.014, 2061.645, 2063.617, 2068.739, 2071.101, 2073.063, 2076.956, 2082.118, 2086.922, 2092.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2044.324}, "reply_to": "21209__1_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21209__1_042", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Let me answer that in two stages, because to some extent the initial part of your question deals with whether the artful pleading should apply even in preemption cases.\nI mean, in a preemption case there is a State law claim being asserted... Avco, Franchise Tax Board, and so forth... yet in two of the four preemption cases the Court has said, despite what it appears to be, it is, in fact, a Federal claim and that requires delving into what the substance of the action is, delving into Federal preemption law and getting into all sorts of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2092.264, 2103.922], "stop_times": [2103.922, 2129.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2092.264}, "reply_to": "21209__1_041", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_043", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Mr. Stern, let's slice of one part of that, where there is no Federal law, where there's blanket preemption so State law effectively doesn't exist because Federal law covers the field entirely.\nThat's one set of circumstance.\nHere you have what appears to be just a garden variety, wholly State law claim.\nThe Federal element comes into it only by way of a res judicata preclusion affirmative defense, which Rule 8 (c) says it... suppose you never raise that defense.\nThis wouldn't... it would still be a claim.\nYou're supposed to judge it from the pleading, from the complaint.\nIf... you're not obliged to raise res judicata.\nIt isn't the kind of defense that a court raises on its own motion, like subject matter jurisdiction, so it's not even in the case until the defendant puts it there and the Federal rule seems to say the way it's supposed to come in is as an affirmative defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2129.359, 2139.196, 2141.058, 2146.862, 2160.581, 2162.722, 2168.455, 2172.107], "stop_times": [2139.196, 2141.058, 2146.862, 2160.581, 2162.722, 2168.455, 2172.107, 2187.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2129.359}, "reply_to": "21209__1_042", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21209__1_044", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--Let me answer that in part by reference to a decision that's cited in our brief but isn't emphasized perhaps to the extent that it should be and that's the Celotex v. Edwards.\nNow, that is not a jurisdictional case in the State v. Federal jurisdictional setting, but it is a question of a collateral attack on a bankruptcy court order.\nIn that case, the bankruptcy court issues an injunction.\nThe injunction prohibits execution upon a supersedeas bond.\nA plaintiff in another forum, in another State but still in Federal court, seeks to execute upon that judgment and using the supersedeas bond, and what the Court said is that you can't do that.\nThe only place you can go if you want to launch a collateral attack upon a bankruptcy court order, you have to go back to the original court and what this is, although it's filed in State court, it's the same thing.\nIt is a collateral attack on a bankruptcy court order.\nIt's an attempt to seek a State court review of that order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2187.698, 2200.215, 2212.092, 2216.536, 2220.109, 2234.399, 2245.256, 2247.767], "stop_times": [2200.215, 2212.092, 2216.536, 2220.109, 2234.399, 2245.256, 2247.767, 2252.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2187.698}, "reply_to": "21209__1_043", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_045", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Do you think that's true even as to people who weren't parties to the bankruptcy proceeding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2252.301], "stop_times": [2256.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2252.301}, "reply_to": "21209__1_044", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21209__1_046", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Excuse me, Justice O'Connor, I'm not sure I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2256.503], "stop_times": [2258.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2256.503}, "reply_to": "21209__1_045", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_047", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Do you think that your argument is true even as to people who were not parties and had no notice of the bankruptcy proceeding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2258.214], "stop_times": [2265.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2258.214}, "reply_to": "21209__1_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21209__1_048", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--Well, there are two sets of nonparties we're dealing with here.\nThere is the issue of two of Mr. Odom's clients who were wives of the two people who were clearly represented in the bankruptcy, according to the text of the bankruptcy court order, and the answer to that is, yes, I think they do if they are considered privies to the parties who were there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2265.948, 2269.27], "stop_times": [2269.27, 2287.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2265.948}, "reply_to": "21209__1_047", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_049", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Well, answer my question in the abstract as to parties who were not privy to a prior bankruptcy proceeding in any way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2287.844], "stop_times": [2296.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2287.844}, "reply_to": "21209__1_048", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21209__1_050", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Then I think that under those circumstances the answer would probably be no.\nAt that point, you are far enough away from someone who is bound by what happened in bankruptcy court that you would have to stay in State court at that point.\nThat's not what we have and, frankly, in most settings like this, where someone seeks to collaterally attack an order of the Federal court you're not going to have that problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2296.709, 2303.843, 2314.081], "stop_times": [2303.843, 2314.081, 2324.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2296.709}, "reply_to": "21209__1_049", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_051", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Celotex v. Edwards didn't involve removal, as I recall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2324.957], "stop_times": [2328.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2324.957}, "reply_to": "21209__1_050", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21209__1_052", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "No, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2328.19], "stop_times": [2328.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2328.19}, "reply_to": "21209__1_051", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_053", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "It said you have to go back to the bankruptcy court.\nAnd it may be that your defense would prevail on the merits, but that's a question that the State courts are entitled to decide in the first instance and it could be reviewed here if you think they decided wrongly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2328.6, 2332.494], "stop_times": [2332.494, 2347.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2328.6}, "reply_to": "21209__1_052", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21209__1_054", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--There's no question that if we had wanted to have the State court review it, the State court had the power to review it and I agree with Mr. Odom that that review would have had to be conducted pursuant to Federal law, Federal law of res judicata, because it's a Federal judgment that is being interpreted.\nThe issue before you, though, is whether that's the only way that you could go.\nCelotex, while it's not a removal question, does have to do with whether the court that had the supersedeas bond in front of it had the power to ignore what the bankruptcy court to do... excuse me, had the power to ignore the order of the bankruptcy court and litigate, relitigate that issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2347.282, 2362.082, 2367.966], "stop_times": [2362.082, 2367.966, 2386.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2347.282}, "reply_to": "21209__1_053", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_055", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "That's a res... that's res judicata law, but the kind of law we're dealing with here is removal law, which is based, as we say, on 1441(b) and the well pleaded complaint doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2386.176], "stop_times": [2397.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2386.176}, "reply_to": "21209__1_054", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21209__1_056", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "That's correct.\nI didn't say that Celotex controlled by any means.\nI simply wanted to use it as an analogy, the suspicion that this Court has, that any Court has when there is a collateral attack being made upon a bankruptcy court order.\nAnd then let me go back to Moitie.\nThat may--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2397.616, 2401.096, 2405.531, 2415.127, 2417.168], "stop_times": [2401.096, 2405.531, 2415.127, 2417.168, 2417.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2397.616}, "reply_to": "21209__1_055", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_057", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "You keep using collateral attack on bankruptcy court order and I keep thinking, res judicata defense, district court order, what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2417.848], "stop_times": [2426.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2417.848}, "reply_to": "21209__1_056", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21209__1_058", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--Well, let... I wanted to get back--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2426.864], "stop_times": [2428.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2426.864}, "reply_to": "21209__1_057", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_059", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--Do you get anything more out of it being in the bankruptcy court than in the district court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2428.764], "stop_times": [2431.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2428.764}, "reply_to": "21209__1_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21209__1_060", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--Well, I wanted to get back to Moitie, because I think that's the second part of the answer to your concern.\nThat very same argument was available in Moitie.\nIt convinced Justice Brennan that the case did not belong in the Federal court.\nMoitie on its face stated only State causes of action, the second complaint in Moitie and, as you pointed out in the constitutional context, you can assert claims based upon State law and claims based upon Federal law based upon identical facts, so if there's not something more to Moitie than a factual finding, we're... the Court is essentially saying district courts are free to recharacterize claims almost at their discretion.\nI mean, then there are no rules.\nA court simply looks and says, well, this looks like the federal case I saw before.\nIt's only based on State law, but it looks like the Federal case, so I'm going to recharacterize it and authorize removal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2431.536, 2437.871, 2443.504, 2448.647, 2483.861, 2485.723, 2490.107], "stop_times": [2437.871, 2443.504, 2448.647, 2483.861, 2485.723, 2490.107, 2496.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2431.536}, "reply_to": "21209__1_059", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_061", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Well, one question is whether the Federal court should take a footnote and run with it for all its worth or say, now, this was a footnote made en passant so we should be particularly careful about expanding it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2496.749], "stop_times": [2509.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2496.749}, "reply_to": "21209__1_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21209__1_062", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "I recognize that and my suggestion then, and I believe I may have begun the answer in response to one of the Chief Justice's questions, is that if you want to interpret Moitie that narrowly, still the characterization of what the Fifth Circuit has said about this case, which is, this is an attempt to retry what happened in the bankruptcy court, would still carry the day.\nUnder the narrowest construction of Moitie there has been in effect a finding by the court below that this is the bankruptcy case, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2509.938, 2537.806], "stop_times": [2537.806, 2546.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2509.938}, "reply_to": "21209__1_061", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_063", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "What work does that argument leave for 2283, where Congress thought about relitigating cases that already had run their course in the Federal court?\nIt seems to me that you'd never need... if you have a case going on in the State court you would never need to resort to 2283.\nYou'd simply remove it to the Federal court.\nIt's over.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2546.732, 2555.457, 2563.553, 2565.115], "stop_times": [2555.457, 2563.553, 2565.115, 2565.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2546.732}, "reply_to": "21209__1_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21209__1_064", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--Well, there are a couple of distinctions between how 2283 would work and how the... Moitie--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2565.625], "stop_times": [2573.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2565.625}, "reply_to": "21209__1_063", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_065", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Well, give me a case where you could get relief under 2283 but not via this removal that you claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2573.26], "stop_times": [2579.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2573.26}, "reply_to": "21209__1_064", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21209__1_066", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--If the judgment of the Federal court were based entirely on State law, that would be one difference.\nThe rules that all the lower courts have come up with have to do with whether the Federal court is adjudicating issues of Federal law, so that the subsequent claim is in effect a claim arising--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2579.393, 2586.808], "stop_times": [2586.808, 2599.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2579.393}, "reply_to": "21209__1_065", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_067", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Is that true about 2283, it has--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2599.546], "stop_times": [2600.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2599.546}, "reply_to": "21209__1_066", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21209__1_068", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--No, 2283--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2600.848], "stop_times": [2602.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2600.848}, "reply_to": "21209__1_067", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_069", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--That it doesn't work in diversity cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2602.618], "stop_times": [2603.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2602.618}, "reply_to": "21209__1_068", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21209__1_070", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--2283 does work in diversity cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2603.399], "stop_times": [2605.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2603.399}, "reply_to": "21209__1_069", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_071", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2605.232], "stop_times": [2605.68], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2605.232}, "reply_to": "21209__1_070", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21209__1_072", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "So part of what I'm saying is that 2283 cuts more broadly in that sense.\n2283 has also been applied in cases involving issue preclusion as opposed to claim preclusion.\nThat is, there is an issue that may arise in the subsequent State court case which the defendant says is now precluded as a result of something that happened in Federal court.\nThat would also be subject to a 2283 injunction.\nWe certainly don't contend that there would be any right to remove based upon the preclusion of a single issue in what is otherwise a State court case, so in both instances 2283 cuts differently and, to the extent that we're saying that what Mr. Odom has really filed is a Federal claim, there's already, in the case of a Federal cause of action filed in the State court in the event of a res judicata situation, the right either to remove or to seek an injunction.\nIf--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2605.68, 2609.794, 2615.949, 2625.194, 2628.357, 2661.826], "stop_times": [2609.794, 2615.949, 2625.194, 2628.357, 2661.826, 2662.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2605.68}, "reply_to": "21209__1_071", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_073", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "If you didn't answer his complaint--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2662.147], "stop_times": [2663.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2662.147}, "reply_to": "21209__1_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21209__1_074", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2663.499], "stop_times": [2665.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2663.499}, "reply_to": "21209__1_073", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_075", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--he would get a default judgment under State law, pure and simple, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2665.089], "stop_times": [2668.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2665.089}, "reply_to": "21209__1_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21209__1_076", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "If we did not answer his complaint, assuming he could prove up his case, yes.\nI mean, he still has to prove it up to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2668.501, 2673.534], "stop_times": [2673.534, 2676.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2668.501}, "reply_to": "21209__1_075", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_077", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2676.296], "stop_times": [2676.496], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2676.296}, "reply_to": "21209__1_076", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21209__1_078", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--To the State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2676.496], "stop_times": [2677.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2676.496}, "reply_to": "21209__1_077", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_079", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "But there would be no Federal element in that at all--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2677.247], "stop_times": [2679.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2677.247}, "reply_to": "21209__1_078", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21209__1_080", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "In the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2679.05], "stop_times": [2679.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2679.05}, "reply_to": "21209__1_079", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_081", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--because you didn't raise... because you didn't raise a defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2679.979], "stop_times": [2682.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2679.979}, "reply_to": "21209__1_080", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21209__1_082", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--In the proof that he would offer, I am assuming that he would simply offer proof of debt, proof of mortgage, essentially, and you're correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2682.002], "stop_times": [2693.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2682.002}, "reply_to": "21209__1_081", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_083", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "So you must come in defensively to assert this protection of the Federal judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2693.42], "stop_times": [2699.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2693.42}, "reply_to": "21209__1_082", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21209__1_084", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "That's true.\nThat was also true in Moitie.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2699.093, 2703.104], "stop_times": [2703.104, 2704.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2699.093}, "reply_to": "21209__1_083", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_085", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "But if... if you leave... I'd like to go back for a second, because I didn't get your answer to my particular question.\nNormally, we look at the complaint and you, I think correctly, pointed out that there is one exception, namely, preemption.\nNow, if... forgetting the footnote in Moitie, is there any reason that we should have two exceptions?\nI mean, let us say, I'd start from the hypothetical position one exception is bad enough.\nNow, I want to know if there's any reason--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2704.636, 2709.348, 2716.935, 2723.009, 2729.561], "stop_times": [2709.348, 2716.935, 2723.009, 2729.561, 2733.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2704.636}, "reply_to": "21209__1_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21209__1_086", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2733.364], "stop_times": [2733.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2733.364}, "reply_to": "21209__1_085", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_087", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--why we should go into two--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2733.654], "stop_times": [2734.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2733.654}, "reply_to": "21209__1_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21209__1_088", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--Let me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2734.706], "stop_times": [2735.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2734.706}, "reply_to": "21209__1_087", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_089", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--and what it will be.\nOf course, the concern is that if you have two, then there might be three, et cetera.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2735.377, 2736.687], "stop_times": [2736.687, 2742.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2735.377}, "reply_to": "21209__1_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21209__1_090", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2742.4], "stop_times": [2742.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2742.4}, "reply_to": "21209__1_089", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_091", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "And what you are asking for is an exception for a defense.\nWe have a defense.\nWe want to go into Federal court on the basis of the defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2742.66, 2746.102, 2747.192], "stop_times": [2746.102, 2747.192, 2751.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2742.66}, "reply_to": "21209__1_090", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21209__1_092", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--Let me suggest a couple of policy considerations that do not apply across the board but do apply in situations like this arising out of bankruptcy, free and clear sales orders.\nThis is part of the essence of what bankruptcy courts do.\nUnlike the situation in Celotex, where there was a significant issue of bankruptcy jurisdiction, there's no issue of bankruptcy jurisdiction here.\nThe stability of titles is at issue.\nIn effect, what we would have here is a procedural avenue that someone dissatisfied with an order of the bankruptcy could use and run to State court and you also have, not withstanding the general competence of State courts and their ability to consider bankruptcy issues... courts rarely deal with bankruptcy issues and so what you would have, at least in the narrow type of situation that we have presented by this case, is a situation in which the stability of titles that are obtained through bankruptcy is at issue.\nAnd that is exactly what we have here.\nWe have a third party who's purchased this property.\nThere are millions of dollars that have been put into a piece of property and now, 10 years after the bankruptcy court order, we have an attack in State court seeking to enforce the mortgage.\nSo in terms of policy considerations I would suggest those at a minimum might say that if someone is seeking to foreclose on a mortgage that is the subject of a free and clear sale order in bankruptcy court, that at least can be recharacterized as an attempt to appeal from or seek to modify the bankruptcy court order.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2751.686, 2764.546, 2768.126, 2775.372, 2777.724, 2812.356, 2813.548, 2815.687, 2825.644], "stop_times": [2764.546, 2768.126, 2775.372, 2777.724, 2812.356, 2813.548, 2815.687, 2825.644, 2845.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2751.686}, "reply_to": "21209__1_091", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_093", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Mr. Stern, could I ask you about Moitie again?\nWhy can't you explain the Moitie footnote... and I think this is somewhat the way the petitioner characterized it.\nThe Moitie footnote doesn't say anything about res judicata nor, for that matter, does Justice Brennan's dissent, to which you say the footnote must have been directed.\nI don't believe he mentions res judicata even in the dissent, so we don't really know that the reason the Court is saying that this is an artful recasting of essential Federal law claims was because of the res judicata defense.\nYou're just assuming that.\nIt may well be that the Court was just saying, look, it was the same complaint filed.\nWe just crossed off antitrust and put in Valentine Act, or whatever the name of the California law was.\nI really think that that's a more plausible reading of the footnote.\nNow, maybe that... whether that was right or wrong, it has nothing to do with this case, whether crossing off antitrust and putting in the name of a similar State... that's what Brennan was addressing in his dissent.\nHe said, there are State antitrust causes of action as well as Federal and if you bring them, it's not a Federal claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2845.768, 2849.08, 2856.985, 2869.163, 2882.513, 2883.943, 2887.726, 2892.709, 2899.284, 2911.37], "stop_times": [2849.08, 2856.985, 2869.163, 2882.513, 2883.943, 2887.726, 2892.709, 2899.284, 2911.37, 2916.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2845.768}, "reply_to": "21209__1_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21209__1_094", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Right, and that's the point.\nWhether you want to go the distance that we have suggested in our brief you go, or just go the very short distance that I tried to outline for Justice Breyer a moment ago, at a minimum what Moitie says is that courts, trial courts, courts of appeal do have some limited discretion to recharacterize a purported State cause of action that has been filed if, in their view, considering all the circumstances, this is really an attempt to file a claim or redo something under Federal law, and we're suggesting that the Fifth Circuit at a minimum said this is an attempt--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2916.053, 2917.575], "stop_times": [2917.575, 2955.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2916.053}, "reply_to": "21209__1_093", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_095", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "This is a collateral attack.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2955.9], "stop_times": [2956.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2955.9}, "reply_to": "21209__1_094", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21209__1_096", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--Well... yes.\nThis is an attempt to seek State court review of what the bankruptcy court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2956.959, 2957.56], "stop_times": [2957.56, 2961.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2956.959}, "reply_to": "21209__1_095", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_097", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "But isn't there the large difference that Mr. Odom's clients weren't trying to do anything under Federal law?\nIn the Moitie situation you have people who brought a claim to Federal court and then they bring the same claim to State court.\nHere, the... I forgot the names of the people involved... were not looking to be in Federal court at all.\nThey were dragged in there because there was a bankruptcy, so it's... are the cases distinguishable on that basis?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2961.073, 2966.426, 2972.771, 2981.066], "stop_times": [2966.426, 2972.771, 2981.066, 2987.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2961.073}, "reply_to": "21209__1_096", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21209__1_098", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--On the surface, yes.\nI think when you look below the surface, no.\nIn order for there to have been a contested proceeding in the bankruptcy court in the first place, they had to file an objection to the trustee's propsal that the property be sold free and clear.\nIf you look at the bankruptcy rules, the contested proceeding is triggered by their objection, so they, in fact, instigated the contested proceeding in bankruptcy court that forced the court to determine whether the property could be sold free and clear of their lien, and they lost.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [2987.25, 2989.87, 2991.633, 3001.578], "stop_times": [2989.87, 2991.633, 3001.578, 3016.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2987.25}, "reply_to": "21209__1_097", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_099", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Well, but they didn't choose that court to walk into.\nThey had in the bankruptcy no other choice.\nIn the Moitie case, here's parties who go into a Federal court and then they do the same show over again in State court.\nIt was their choice.\nThey picked the Federal forum when they could have picked the State forum.\nOnce the bankruptcy is ongoing, these creditors have no place else to go.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [3016.158, 3019.681, 3023.765, 3031.478, 3032.59, 3036.213], "stop_times": [3019.681, 3023.765, 3031.478, 3032.59, 3036.213, 3042.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3016.158}, "reply_to": "21209__1_098", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21209__1_100", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Well, let me suggest that the distinction doesn't really hold water if you take it a step farther.\nBy that logic, if someone files a Federal constitutional claim in Federal court and a parallel State constitutional claim in State court, the State constitutional claim could be removed because it's nothing but the Federal constitutional claim and I don't think anyone believes that to be the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [3042.786, 3049.341], "stop_times": [3049.341, 3066.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3042.786}, "reply_to": "21209__1_099", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_101", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Stern.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [3066.572], "stop_times": [3067.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3066.572}, "reply_to": "21209__1_100", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21209__1_102", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [3067.754], "stop_times": [3068.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3067.754}, "reply_to": "21209__1_101", "speaker": "charles_l_stern_jr"}
{"id": "21209__1_103", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Mr. Odom, you have 6 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [3068.324], "stop_times": [3070.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3068.324}, "reply_to": "21209__1_102", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21209__2_000", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nMay it please the Court:\nI have just a couple of points to make in response to some of the questions that were directed to Mr. Stern.\nAs far as taking a footnote and running with it, I didn't make this obvious point in my argument, but we did make it in the brief.\nTaking this particular footnote and running with it, if you're a district judge below, is even less appropriate than in other circumstances, because here we had three unanimous opinions of this Court following the date of the footnote that expressly reconfirmed all of the fundamental elements of removal jurisdiction in exactly the way that we've argued, so a clearer view than that would be hard to find.\nI agree with Mr. Stern that stability of titles is important, but under his view the State recordation doctrine is of no moment at all and can be completely ignored when, if there is a bankruptcy, a two part bankruptcy judgment order, the first part where the judge snaps his fingers and says, poof, if you will, all liens... the property may be sold free and clear of all liens, and the second part of his order orders and directs and authorizes the erasure of all the liens.\nThe second part is not taken care of and is not fulfilled, then if you simply allow him to rely on the first part of it, then it says that the entire State record, State title recordation policy is of no moment at all, because a party in another State is entitled to rely on what's on file down at the New Orleans conveyance office and under Mr. Stern's theory would not be.\nStability of titles is important.\nI will note that there was no adversary proceeding under Rule 7001 in the bankruptcy court below.\nThis is an argument that we made below to suggest that the matter was not in fact actually litigated.\nWe didn't even have a cause of action at the date of the bankruptcy.\nNot only were two of our people not there, we didn't even have any cause of action because the Browns had not attempted to pass title in derogation of our mortgage at that time.\nThe bank had not let its right to enforce the erasure order expire of that time... at that time.\nThere was no... our loan was not in default at that time.\nWe were not claimants in the bankruptcy proceeding.\nThis was a balloon payment, a one time balloon payment that was not mature at the time of the bankruptcy.\nIn fact, the loan had been made on it shortly before the bankruptcy.\nThe obligation sued upon is, in fact, a new post bankruptcy obligation due to the written waiver of prescription which we say, under State law, constitutes a novation.\nThat's a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [3070.054, 3074.997, 3077.631, 3083.575, 3093.122, 3114.626, 3142.305, 3165.33, 3167.293, 3173.147, 3178.52, 3182.443, 3191.239, 3196.562, 3198.913, 3201.595, 3207.429, 3210.401, 3221.527], "stop_times": [3074.997, 3077.631, 3083.575, 3093.122, 3114.626, 3142.305, 3165.33, 3167.293, 3173.147, 3178.52, 3182.443, 3191.239, 3196.562, 3198.913, 3201.595, 3207.429, 3210.401, 3221.527, 3221.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3070.054}, "reply_to": "21209__1_103", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__2_001", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "But that all goes to the merits--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [3221.917], "stop_times": [3223.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3221.917}, "reply_to": "21209__2_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21209__2_002", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--It does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [3223.049], "stop_times": [3223.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3223.049}, "reply_to": "21209__2_001", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__2_003", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--of your claim, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [3223.63], "stop_times": [3224.59], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3223.63}, "reply_to": "21209__2_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21209__2_004", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "It does.\nIt's in the record, Your Honor.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [3224.59, 3226.001, 3226.612], "stop_times": [3226.001, 3226.612, 3227.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3224.59}, "reply_to": "21209__2_003", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__2_005", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--No acceleration for insolvency?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [3227.37], "stop_times": [3229.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3227.37}, "reply_to": "21209__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21209__2_006", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--No, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [3229.943], "stop_times": [3230.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3229.943}, "reply_to": "21209__2_005", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__2_007", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "A balloon payment with no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [3230.893], "stop_times": [3231.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3230.893}, "reply_to": "21209__2_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21209__2_008", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "No, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [3231.805], "stop_times": [3232.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3231.805}, "reply_to": "21209__2_007", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__2_009", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "--Who wrote that?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [3232.235, 3232.926], "stop_times": [3232.926, 3233.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3232.235}, "reply_to": "21209__2_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21209__2_010", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "I didn't write it, Your Honor.\nI'm not sure.\nBut the novations are in the record at pages 138 and 139 of this matter.\nYour Honors, as far as any particular concerns about bankruptcy, obviously Congress can address that if it wants to.\nIf it wants to pass a statute saying anything relating to bankruptcy is to be done a different way, then that's fine, it can.\nIf there are no further questions, Your Honor, I believe I have stated my argument as best as I can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [3233.484, 3235.196, 3236.436, 3241.931, 3248.995, 3258.12], "stop_times": [3235.196, 3236.436, 3241.931, 3248.995, 3258.12, 3263.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3233.484}, "reply_to": "21209__2_009", "speaker": "john_g_odom"}
{"id": "21209__2_011", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Odom.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [3263.506, 3264.225], "stop_times": [3264.225, 3265.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3263.506}, "reply_to": "21209__2_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21209__2_012", "conversation_id": "21209", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until Monday next at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1971", "start_times": [3265.408], "stop_times": [3271.21], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3265.408}, "reply_to": "21209__2_011", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20835__0_000", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-1279, George C. Rogers v. The United States.\nMr. Rubinstein.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [0.0, 9.326], "stop_times": [9.326, 10.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20835__0_001", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe question before the Court in this case is whether the removal of an element by the trial court of an essential element of the crime with which a defendant is charged from the jury's consideration is the type of error that can be subject to harmless error scrutiny even if the defendant admitted the element by his testimony.\nWe urge this Court to hold that it is not.\nIn this case, it is undisputed that the trial court completely removed from the jury's consideration an element of the offenses with which petitioner was charged.\nAlthough the court of appeals recognized that there was an incomplete verdict, it nonetheless held that the error was subject to harmless error scrutiny because the trial court removed only one element of the offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [10.628, 13.79, 33.034, 35.634, 44.889], "stop_times": [13.79, 33.034, 35.634, 44.889, 55.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.628}, "reply_to": "20835__0_000", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_002", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Well, when you say an incomplete verdict, you don't mean that the verdict formed was incomplete, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [55.678], "stop_times": [60.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 55.678}, "reply_to": "20835__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20835__0_003", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "What we mean is that the jury... what the jury found, the elements that the jury found do not constitute a crime, that the jury did not render a verdict on every element.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [60.34], "stop_times": [68.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 60.34}, "reply_to": "20835__0_002", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_004", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Let's take a look and... are you saying that the form of the jury verdict didn't comply with law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [68.664], "stop_times": [75.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 68.664}, "reply_to": "20835__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20835__0_005", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Well, in the sense that every element of the offense charged was not included.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [75.089], "stop_times": [79.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 75.089}, "reply_to": "20835__0_004", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_006", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Well, but that isn't in the form of a jury... that isn't in an ordinary jury verdict, that they find every element of the offense, is it?\nThey simply find a person guilty or not guilty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [79.203, 84.897], "stop_times": [84.897, 87.098], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 79.203}, "reply_to": "20835__0_005", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20835__0_007", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "That is true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [87.098], "stop_times": [88.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 87.098}, "reply_to": "20835__0_006", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_008", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "And that was done here, was it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [88.359], "stop_times": [90.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 88.359}, "reply_to": "20835__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20835__0_009", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Yes, except that it was done in the context of jury instructions that did not instruct the jury--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [90.18], "stop_times": [95.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 90.18}, "reply_to": "20835__0_008", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_010", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Well, yes, but that's a little different than saying the jury rendered a flawed verdict in the sense of some defect in the form of the verdict.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [95.015], "stop_times": [101.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 95.015}, "reply_to": "20835__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20835__0_011", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--Our contention is not with respect to the actual form.\nIt is with respect to the fact that, as this Court held in Gaudin, a verdict of guilty necessarily means a verdict that the defendant is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged, and in this case it is undisputed that the... one of the elements of that crime was explicitly removed by the trial court from the jury's consideration.\nIt is in that respect, and as this Court explained in Gaudin, without an element... without a jury finding on each element of the crime with which the defendant is charged, there is no verdict within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment, and if there is no verdict within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment, as this Court held in Sullivan there is no object upon which the harmless error doctrine--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [101.647, 104.608, 121.499], "stop_times": [104.608, 121.499, 141.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 101.647}, "reply_to": "20835__0_010", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_012", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "In Sullivan the failure wasn't to give an instruction about reasonable doubt, was it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [141.234], "stop_times": [146.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 141.234}, "reply_to": "20835__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20835__0_013", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--Yes, it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [146.025], "stop_times": [146.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 146.025}, "reply_to": "20835__0_012", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_014", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "And there, one could say that the jury had not found anything the way it should have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [146.746], "stop_times": [151.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 146.746}, "reply_to": "20835__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20835__0_015", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Actually, in our view the error in this case provides an even clearer example of the type of error that cannot be subject to harmless error scrutiny than was present in Sullivan.\nAs The Chief Justice Rehnquist pointed out in his concurring opinion in Sullivan, at least in that case the jury, there could be room for some argument as to whether or not the defective reasonable doubt instruction impacted the jury's deliberations, whereas... and in the concurring opinion, Your Honor drew a distinction with the case in which an element is explicitly removed.\nIn the case of an element that is taken away from the jury, there is no room for speculation, because it is clear that the jury did not, in fact, render a complete verdict within the meaning of the Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [151.529, 161.106, 181.86], "stop_times": [161.106, 181.86, 193.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 151.529}, "reply_to": "20835__0_014", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_016", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Well, I have trouble with your present articulation of the question, too.\nYou seem to be shoe-horning it into an incomplete verdict argument, but I thought the question presented related to the failure of the court to give an instruction, and all of a sudden we're hearing some new articulation.\nI don't know why you're doing that.\nIs it to try to get it into some other case or something?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [193.189, 197.66, 213.192, 214.504], "stop_times": [197.66, 213.192, 214.504, 218.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 193.189}, "reply_to": "20835__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20835__0_017", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "No, no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [218.274], "stop_times": [218.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 218.274}, "reply_to": "20835__0_016", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_018", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "What happened here was, there isn't an instruction on one element.\nNow, what is that element?\nThat he knew it was a silencer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [218.875, 225.02, 225.94], "stop_times": [225.02, 225.94, 227.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 218.875}, "reply_to": "20835__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20835__0_019", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Yes.\nIt is the element of mens rea that this Court required in Staples v. United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [227.901, 228.501], "stop_times": [228.501, 232.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 227.901}, "reply_to": "20835__0_018", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_020", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "And what's the specific crime that we're talking about here, the possession of a silencer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [232.222], "stop_times": [236.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 232.222}, "reply_to": "20835__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20835__0_021", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Of an unregistered silencer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [236.325], "stop_times": [237.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 236.325}, "reply_to": "20835__0_020", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_022", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Uh-huh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [237.457], "stop_times": [238.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 237.457}, "reply_to": "20835__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20835__0_023", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "And in particular, what Staples would require in combination with the knowing possession requirement is that the defendant must knowingly possess an object, and at the time that the defendant knowingly possesses it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [238.367], "stop_times": [250.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 238.367}, "reply_to": "20835__0_022", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_024", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "And you say that that can never be a harmless error, the failure to instruct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [250.105], "stop_times": [255.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 250.105}, "reply_to": "20835__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20835__0_025", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--If the trial court fails to instruct the jury on an element of the crime, and the jury's findings on the other elements do not necessarily encompass the element that was omitted--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [255.139], "stop_times": [266.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 255.139}, "reply_to": "20835__0_024", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_026", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Well, what if it's clear from the evidence that the defendant says, yeah, I had a silencer.\nI knew it was a silencer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [266.886, 272.941], "stop_times": [272.941, 274.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 266.886}, "reply_to": "20835__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20835__0_027", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--In that particular--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [274.01], "stop_times": [275.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 274.01}, "reply_to": "20835__0_026", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_028", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Harmless error possible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [275.763], "stop_times": [277.293], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 275.763}, "reply_to": "20835__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20835__0_029", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--It would depend.\nIn light of this Court's decision earlier this year in Johnson v. United States, there would have to be a timely objection to the instruction.\nIn other words, the instructional error would have to be preserved for appellate review in order for the harmless error doctrine to even be potentially applicable, otherwise the plain error doctrine would apply and, as this Court held in Johnson, under those circumstances the analysis would be quite different, so in our--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [277.293, 278.304, 285.267], "stop_times": [278.304, 285.267, 300.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 277.293}, "reply_to": "20835__0_028", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_030", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Well, the plain error doctrine as enunciated in Olano refers back to the Atkinson case and says you don't reverse if the reversal would seriously... unless it would seriously affect the fairness and integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.\nHow do you think a reversal here would affect the public perception of judicial proceedings where your client admitted the element that you say is missing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [300.457, 318.179], "stop_times": [318.179, 327.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 300.457}, "reply_to": "20835__0_029", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20835__0_031", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [327.836], "stop_times": [328.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 327.836}, "reply_to": "20835__0_030", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_032", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "You know, that's what harmless error's all about, is technical things like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [328.617], "stop_times": [332.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 328.617}, "reply_to": "20835__0_031", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20835__0_033", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--I would like to answer your question, Mr. Chief Justice, in two ways.\nFirst, Olano presented a circumstance in which there was no objection and so therefore, as this Court held in Johnson, the constitutional objection is forfeit.\nIn other words, the analysis is entirely governed by Rule 52.\nAnd as far as the second part of your question, though, as far as the public perception, the reason why reversal is required when an element is omitted from the trial court's instructions and where there is a contemporaneous objection to the instructional error is because it is the right to the jury trial itself that is at stake.\nWhen the... and in addition to that, what is also at stake when a trial court removes an element of the offense charged, as occurred in this case, effectively what is happening is that the trial court is directing a verdict in favor of the State as to that element.\nIt is taking the element away from the jury.\nAnd when the appellate court, as occurred in this case, is faced with the removal of an element, and decides that to look at the evidence and make its own finding as to whether the element was established beyond a reasonable doubt.\nThe problem, as this Court explained in Sullivan, is that the wrong entity is judging the defendant guilty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [332.418, 335.142, 343.147, 347.627, 367.342, 381.592, 383.953, 396.981], "stop_times": [335.142, 343.147, 347.627, 367.342, 381.592, 383.953, 396.981, 402.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 332.418}, "reply_to": "20835__0_032", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_034", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Your rule would carry over to the States, too, I suppose, so that any failure on the part of a State court to charge on some element of a crime would be Federal constitutional error.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [402.505], "stop_times": [414.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 402.505}, "reply_to": "20835__0_033", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20835__0_035", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "If the jury does not find the element that was omitted--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [414.643], "stop_times": [419.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 414.643}, "reply_to": "20835__0_034", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_036", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Well, ordinarily juries don't find special verdicts.\nThey find general verdicts.\nSo it goes back to the question of what a... what was charged.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [419.396, 422.027, 423.259], "stop_times": [422.027, 423.259, 426.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 419.396}, "reply_to": "20835__0_035", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20835__0_037", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--It is certainly true that a jury generally will enter a general verdict, but it is a general verdict that is predicated upon the jury's instructions that tell the jury what the elements are.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [426.541], "stop_times": [437.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 426.541}, "reply_to": "20835__0_036", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_038", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "So what is your answer to my question?\nWould this affect all failures to charge on an element in all State cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [437.08, 439.161], "stop_times": [439.161, 444.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 437.08}, "reply_to": "20835__0_037", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20835__0_039", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "It would affect State cases, but it would only do so if the jury does not find that element.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [444.272], "stop_times": [451.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 444.272}, "reply_to": "20835__0_038", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_040", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Well, you're not answering my question.\nMy question is, would this affect failures to charge, the failure of a judge to charge on an element of the crime in all State cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [451.188, 453.449], "stop_times": [453.449, 461.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 451.188}, "reply_to": "20835__0_039", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20835__0_041", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "It would not.\nIt would only apply where the failure is a complete one, where the jury's findings on other elements do not embrace the element that was omitted, and where there is a contemporaneous--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [461.506, 462.335], "stop_times": [462.335, 474.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 461.506}, "reply_to": "20835__0_040", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_042", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Mr. Rubinstein, you're not making any distinction between Federal trials and State trials.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [474.083], "stop_times": [478.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 474.083}, "reply_to": "20835__0_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20835__0_043", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--I'm not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [478.387], "stop_times": [478.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 478.387}, "reply_to": "20835__0_042", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_044", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "So whatever the rule is for the Federal trials you're saying, whatever you're arguing here in the Federal trial would apply to the State trial as well.\nYou mentioned that this is an example of a type of error that is incurable, and the standard categories, the person who is without counsel, the biased judge, and now you say the failure to instruct on an element when there's a request for the instruction.\nWhat else belongs in that category of incurable errors?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [478.788, 485.42, 506.805], "stop_times": [485.42, 506.805, 512.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 478.788}, "reply_to": "20835__0_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20835__0_045", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "In addition to the type of error that we are dealing with in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [512.979], "stop_times": [516.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 512.979}, "reply_to": "20835__0_044", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_046", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [516.772], "stop_times": [517.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 516.772}, "reply_to": "20835__0_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20835__0_047", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Essentially it would be a situation where the right to the jury trial itself has been denied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [517.203], "stop_times": [524.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 517.203}, "reply_to": "20835__0_046", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_048", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Yes, well, if you could be specific about that, and I gave the two standard ones and added the one you're urging.\nIs there anything else, or is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [524.266, 530.589], "stop_times": [530.589, 532.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 524.266}, "reply_to": "20835__0_047", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20835__0_049", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "As far as I am... I am only prepared in this case to suggest that... and I realize that the category of errors that this Court has regarded as essentially being immune from harmless error scrutiny are limited, and we accept that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [532.56], "stop_times": [545.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 532.56}, "reply_to": "20835__0_048", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_050", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "May I ask you... you're saying where the essence of the right to a jury trial is denied and, of course, the principal purpose of the jury is to resolve disputed issues of fact, and is it equally important to have the jury pass on an undisputed issue of fact, where everybody agrees what the facts are?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [545.019], "stop_times": [560.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 545.019}, "reply_to": "20835__0_049", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20835__0_051", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Yes, it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [560.9], "stop_times": [561.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 560.9}, "reply_to": "20835__0_050", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_052", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "And why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [561.641], "stop_times": [562.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 561.641}, "reply_to": "20835__0_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20835__0_053", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "And the reason is that as this Court indicated, for instance, in Estelle v. McGuire, where a defendant concedes an element, the prosecution's burden of proof remains the same, and where a defendant admits an element through testimony the weight of that testimony is for the jury to decide.\nUltimately, what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [562.329, 580.172], "stop_times": [580.172, 581.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 562.329}, "reply_to": "20835__0_052", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_054", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Yes, but it's not merely an admission which, sometimes admissions are more probative than others, but it's also the... as counsel agreed that the facts... as I remember the record here, that the facts are that he in fact knew that it was a silencer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [581.463], "stop_times": [592.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 581.463}, "reply_to": "20835__0_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20835__0_055", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--Yes.\nUltimately, as this Court explained in Duncan, the purpose of the jury trial and the purpose... is to ultimately have the jury pass upon the guilt or innocence of the defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [592.7, 593.411], "stop_times": [593.411, 603.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 592.7}, "reply_to": "20835__0_054", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_056", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "I take it that interstate commerce, which is a jurisdictional requisite to many Federal crimes, and I think can be called an element of the offense, has to be charged and considered by the jury in every case, even though it was obvious that interstate commerce is involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [603.517], "stop_times": [621.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 603.517}, "reply_to": "20835__0_055", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20835__0_057", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "I would say the answer is yes, assuming that the defendant objects to... assuming that there is a failure to instruct on the interstate commerce element, it would only be subject to the rule that we are talking about if the defendant timely objects to the trial court's failure to instruct on that element, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [621.859], "stop_times": [639.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 621.859}, "reply_to": "20835__0_056", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_058", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "And defenses, the same thing?\nDefenses to the mens rea that's necessary for a crime, those are also included in your rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [639.109, 640.841], "stop_times": [640.841, 651.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 639.109}, "reply_to": "20835__0_057", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20835__0_059", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--I would think so.\nTo give an example of entrapment, the burden of production that would be necessary on the part of the defendant to trigger the defendant's entitlement to a defense instruction like entrapment would be subject to appellate review.\nBut if an appellate court concludes that the burden of production was satisfied and that the defendant did have a right to have the instruction given to the jury, it would not be within the power of the appellate court to declare the omission of that instruction harmless because the appellate court has reviewed the evidence and decided that, in fact, no reasonable jury would have found that entrapment existed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [651.869, 652.861, 667.149], "stop_times": [652.861, 667.149, 690.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 651.869}, "reply_to": "20835__0_058", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_060", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Mr. Rubinstein, what if the defendant at his arraignment said... the judge said, well, how do you plead, and he said, I plead not guilty, except that I perfectly well knew that this object that they're talking about was a silencer.\nWould he have the right to a jury trial on that element then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [690.064, 704.272], "stop_times": [704.272, 707.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 690.064}, "reply_to": "20835__0_059", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20835__0_061", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "That apparently is an open question within the circuits, and I know that there is... it is a conflict right now as to whether or not a defendant can partially plead guilty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [707.996], "stop_times": [718.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 707.996}, "reply_to": "20835__0_060", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_062", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Well, the... I mean, I guess it's obvious the theory is that the trial is held to resolve issues which are joined, and that issue is not joined in the hypothesis that I give, so I would suppose there was a pretty good argument there for the propriety of removing that from the jury's consideration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [718.273], "stop_times": [740.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 718.273}, "reply_to": "20835__0_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20835__0_063", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "If it were permissible to plead to an element in accordance with Rule 11, and all of the normal safeguards are provided to the defendant, that the defendant is waiving his or her right to a jury trial as to that element, and if such a plea were permissible, I think that since we are talking about it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [740.246], "stop_times": [759.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 740.246}, "reply_to": "20835__0_062", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_064", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Then the same thing would be true here, I suppose, if he stands up at a later point and says, look, I know about that.\nThat... there's no question about that element.\nAnd I take it what your argument would boil down to then would be that the failure here is the failure to conduct a kind of waiver hearing.\nIn other words, if the judge had said, now, wait a minute, you can admit that if you want to, and we'll take it away from the jury if you understand that you are waiving your jury trial right and there's a burden of proof and so on, the kind of Boykin thing.\nSo I take it you would say that if they'd gone through a Boykin analysis on this element it would be perfectly permissible to take it from the jury.\nIs that true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [759.97, 768.724, 771.388, 781.313, 797.916, 804.888], "stop_times": [768.724, 771.388, 781.313, 797.916, 804.888, 805.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 759.97}, "reply_to": "20835__0_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20835__0_065", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--Let me answer that in two ways.\nFirst of all, this Court has said that even where an open concession is made on an element, that that does not reduce the prosecution's burden of proof.\nIn fact, even where a defendant stipulates--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [805.819, 807.101, 816.806], "stop_times": [807.101, 816.806, 818.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 805.819}, "reply_to": "20835__0_064", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_066", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "I was surprised to hear you concede the point that a... that Justice Souter began with that a trial is held, in criminal cases at least, only to resolve those issues that are joined.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [818.929], "stop_times": [829.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 818.929}, "reply_to": "20835__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20835__0_067", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [829.645], "stop_times": [830.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 829.645}, "reply_to": "20835__0_066", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_068", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "I mean, suppose the defendant comes in and says, I am pleading not guilty, Your Honor, but of course I committed the crime, does that mean you don't need a trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [830.607], "stop_times": [837.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 830.607}, "reply_to": "20835__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20835__0_069", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--Absolutely not, and I did not mean to concede--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [837.079], "stop_times": [839.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 837.079}, "reply_to": "20835__0_068", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_070", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "You still need a trial.\nYou need a jury... a jury verdict that he committed it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [839.762, 840.341], "stop_times": [840.341, 842.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 839.762}, "reply_to": "20835__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20835__0_071", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--Absolutely, and it is our position that if the defendant pleads not guilty, it makes no difference whether the defendant concedes an element.\nIt would make no difference if the defendant openly confessed on the stand that he or she committed the crime.\nThe Government concedes in its brief that if a defendant were to break down on the stand and openly concede guilt of the crime it would not be harmless for the judge to discharge the jury and enter a judgment of conviction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [842.812, 850.349, 856.593], "stop_times": [850.349, 856.593, 867.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 842.812}, "reply_to": "20835__0_070", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_072", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Suppose there are two counts, as there were in this case, submitted to the jury and under the law each count requires knowing that it's a silencer, but as to count 1 the judge instructs that that's not an issue, and as to count 2... but then he's convicted on both counts.\nCan you go back and sustain the conviction on both counts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [867.741, 882.569], "stop_times": [882.569, 886.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 867.741}, "reply_to": "20835__0_071", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20835__0_073", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "It would depend... if the jury could not have found the elements of... on one count without also finding--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [886.934], "stop_times": [894.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 886.934}, "reply_to": "20835__0_072", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_074", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Well, they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [894.128], "stop_times": [894.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 894.128}, "reply_to": "20835__0_073", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20835__0_075", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--Let me rephrase that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [894.678], "stop_times": [895.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 894.678}, "reply_to": "20835__0_074", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_076", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--Suppose they found there was a silencer on one count which was rather minor so far as the sentence is concerned, but then as to the major count the judge instructs knowledge is not... this is not for you to consider, what result there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [895.647], "stop_times": [908.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 895.647}, "reply_to": "20835__0_075", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20835__0_077", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "In that case the jury will have found that the defendant knowingly possessed an item that he knew to be a silencer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [908.036], "stop_times": [915.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 908.036}, "reply_to": "20835__0_076", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_078", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Well, but they haven't considered the whole crime, pursuant to your earlier discussion.\nThey haven't had this dynamic of facing the whole crime, which you describe in your reply brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [915.933, 921.455], "stop_times": [921.455, 927.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 915.933}, "reply_to": "20835__0_077", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20835__0_079", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "In that context, and I think that this Court's decision in Pope is instructive on that, that if the jury could not... if the jury actually did make the finding of fact that would be necessary to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [927.149], "stop_times": [940.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 927.149}, "reply_to": "20835__0_078", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_080", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "No, but that's on the same count.\nHe's introduced a second count, and there's no reason... juries may return inconsistent verdicts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [940.758, 942.47], "stop_times": [942.47, 947.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 940.758}, "reply_to": "20835__0_079", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20835__0_081", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [947.252], "stop_times": [947.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 947.252}, "reply_to": "20835__0_080", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_082", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "See, Pope, it was all one count.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [947.502], "stop_times": [948.424], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 947.502}, "reply_to": "20835__0_081", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20835__0_083", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Yes, I understand that, but if no rational jury could have found what they did find as to count 2 and not find it at the same time as to count 1--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [948.424], "stop_times": [956.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 948.424}, "reply_to": "20835__0_082", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_084", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "That wouldn't impeach the verdict.\nYou can have inconsistent verdicts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [956.539, 957.49], "stop_times": [957.49, 958.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 956.539}, "reply_to": "20835__0_083", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20835__0_085", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--Yes.\nWell, in that particular instance, at the very least the court would have... the appellate court would have actual jury findings that it can rely on, and it would... at least will have the confidence of knowing that the jury had to decide whether the defendant... and all of the elements, whether the defendant knowingly possessed an item that he knew to be a silencer.\nHere, we have no such finding, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [958.692, 959.45, 978.894], "stop_times": [959.45, 978.894, 980.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 958.692}, "reply_to": "20835__0_084", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_086", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Could we look at the instructions so that I see specifically what you're finding fault with?\nI think they're in the appendix on pages 104 and 105.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [980.875, 986.368], "stop_times": [986.368, 990.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 980.875}, "reply_to": "20835__0_085", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20835__0_087", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [990.902], "stop_times": [992.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 990.902}, "reply_to": "20835__0_086", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_088", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Joint appendix.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [992.332], "stop_times": [993.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 992.332}, "reply_to": "20835__0_087", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20835__0_089", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--The particular jury instruction that was given is at page 104, and it is the instruction from the trial court that it is not necessary for the Government to prove that the defendant knew that the item described in the indictment was a firearm, which the law requires.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [993.453], "stop_times": [1008.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 993.453}, "reply_to": "20835__0_088", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_090", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "But over on the next page, in 105, the court instructed that the firearm, the term firearm includes a silencer.\nThe defendant can be found guilty of that offense only if all the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt.\nFirst, that the defendant at the time and place charged in the indictment knowingly possessed a firearm as defined above.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1008.012, 1019.49, 1025.614], "stop_times": [1019.49, 1025.614, 1031.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1008.012}, "reply_to": "20835__0_089", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20835__0_091", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "What that instruction means is that the defendant must knowingly possess an object which the law defines as a firearm.\nIt does not mean that the defendant has to know the characteristics of the item that make it a firearm.\nThat was the basis for this Court's holding in Staples.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1031.909, 1037.873, 1043.476], "stop_times": [1037.873, 1043.476, 1045.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1031.909}, "reply_to": "20835__0_090", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_092", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "In Staples, but in Staples, now we had a situation where a machine gun... it wasn't clear whether it was a machine gun or a rifle.\nIt could have been either.\nNow, a silencer is a silencer is a silencer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1045.868, 1055.884, 1056.876], "stop_times": [1055.884, 1056.876, 1059.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1045.868}, "reply_to": "20835__0_091", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20835__0_093", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Actually--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1059.407], "stop_times": [1060.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1059.407}, "reply_to": "20835__0_092", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_094", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "We don't have the same problem with a silencer, do we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1060.487], "stop_times": [1063.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1060.487}, "reply_to": "20835__0_093", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20835__0_095", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--I think you do, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1063.799], "stop_times": [1065.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1063.799}, "reply_to": "20835__0_094", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_096", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1065.381], "stop_times": [1066.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1065.381}, "reply_to": "20835__0_095", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20835__0_097", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--All of the circuits that have considered the question have held that Staples does apply to silencer possession offenses, the Seventh Circuit and the Ninth Circuit both.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1066.09], "stop_times": [1072.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1066.09}, "reply_to": "20835__0_096", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_098", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Well, why isn't there some difference there?\nI mean, I can understand where there's some reason not to understand that a particular weapon could be a machine gun if it had certain characteristics, otherwise it was a rifle, but what's the difference of a silencer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1072.735, 1074.838], "stop_times": [1074.838, 1088.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1072.735}, "reply_to": "20835__0_097", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20835__0_099", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "I'll give you an example.\nThe... a silencer as I understand it looks very similar to a flash suppressor, which is also an item that is attached to a gun.\nA flash suppressor is not subject to registration requirements.\nIt is not defined as a firearm, and the two objects can look highly similar.\nAnd so it is possible, and particularly when the silencer is not attached to the weapon itself it is not necessarily clear that someone will know that the cylinder that they have is a silencer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1088.826, 1089.658, 1096.84, 1100.294, 1104.575], "stop_times": [1089.658, 1096.84, 1100.294, 1104.575, 1113.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1088.826}, "reply_to": "20835__0_098", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_100", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Well, you might think it's a grenade launcher.\n[Laughter]\nRight?\nBut if that's so, I don't understand... I really don't understand this.\nAs I read these instructions it seemed to me that they did instruct the jury that the jury is supposed to find exactly what Staples says they're supposed to find.\nAt most, it's ambiguous.\nWhat the first thing is, jury, you have to find that the defendant knowingly possessed a firearm as defined above.\nWell, that's right.\nThat's what we said in Staples.\nYou have to know that the machine gun is that kind of thing which the statute is talking about, not a soap box derby racer.\nIt's a thing that looks like this, that has... et cetera, and the defendant has to know that, and they just said you have to know it.\nAnd then, on the other instruction, it says it is not necessary for the Government to prove that the defendant knew the item described in the indictment was a firearm which the law requires to be registered.\nIn other words, that's ambiguous, but it's certainly able... and my natural reading is, defendant, you don't have to know that that thing, which you do know is the very thing described in section 5845, you do not have to know the fact that there's a statute called 5845 which makes it illegal to possess it.\nNow, that's a natural meaning of that.\nNow, given that, what we have here is not an omission.\nWhat we have is an instruction that is ambiguous as to whether or not it does or does not tell the jury what we said in Staples was an element.\nTherefore, if you are right, every ambiguous instruction ever given by any judge in the United States legal system is suddenly going to be absolutely unreviewable for harmless error, and that, of course, seems like quite a far-reaching proposition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1113.343, 1114.744, 1115.865, 1116.366, 1121.321, 1132.178, 1134.241, 1142.004, 1144.726, 1146.105, 1156.103, 1161.977, 1173.124, 1193.296, 1195.088, 1198.682, 1210.349], "stop_times": [1114.744, 1115.865, 1116.366, 1121.321, 1132.178, 1134.241, 1142.004, 1144.726, 1146.105, 1156.103, 1161.977, 1173.124, 1193.296, 1195.088, 1198.682, 1210.349, 1228.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1113.343}, "reply_to": "20835__0_099", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20835__0_101", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Let me answer your question, Justice Breyer, in two steps.\nFirst, with respect to the instructions themselves it was conceded by the Government in the court of appeals that the element required by Staples was explicitly removed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1228.501, 1232.182], "stop_times": [1232.182, 1241.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1228.501}, "reply_to": "20835__0_100", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_102", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Did not concede that it was not ambiguous.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1241.569], "stop_times": [1245.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1241.569}, "reply_to": "20835__0_101", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20835__0_103", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "What they conceded was that it was removed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1245.032], "stop_times": [1247.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1245.032}, "reply_to": "20835__0_102", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_104", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Fine, and I say, you can say that if you're prepared to say that the reason it was removed is because the instruction was capable of two possible understandings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1247.623], "stop_times": [1257.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1247.623}, "reply_to": "20835__0_103", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20835__0_105", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "I would take issue that it is ambiguous.\nIn my reading of the instruction the trial court told the jury that it didn't... that the Government did not have to prove that the defendant knew the characteristics of the item that made it a firearm--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1257.4, 1261.092], "stop_times": [1261.092, 1270.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1257.4}, "reply_to": "20835__0_104", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_106", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "What are the words that do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1270.559], "stop_times": [1271.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1270.559}, "reply_to": "20835__0_105", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20835__0_107", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--under the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1271.58], "stop_times": [1272.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1271.58}, "reply_to": "20835__0_106", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_108", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "What are the words that do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1272.031], "stop_times": [1272.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1272.031}, "reply_to": "20835__0_107", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20835__0_109", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "At page... at page 104 the Government... I mean, sorry, the judge said, it is not necessary for the Government to prove that the defendant knew that the item described in the indictment was a firearm which the law requires to be registered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1272.992], "stop_times": [1290.614], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1272.992}, "reply_to": "20835__0_108", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_110", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Which the law requires to be registered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1290.614], "stop_times": [1291.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1290.614}, "reply_to": "20835__0_109", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20835__0_111", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "And when the defendant's counsel objected, he objected on the grounds that it was necessary for the Government to prove, otherwise the counsel was concerned that the element, without that element, that a jury might be inclined to believe, as this Court was concerned in Staples, that simply knowing possession of the object itself was enough to convict.\nUltimately... and the court of appeals also held that the element was explicitly removed and ultimately, with respect to the question of whether every conviction involving an ambiguous instruction would be subject to reversal, ultimately it will be for the Court to decide whether or not, based on the review of the instructions themselves, whether the element in fact was omitted or not and, in light of this Court's decision in Johnson, it would be incumbent upon defense counsel to object on the grounds that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1291.682, 1312.347], "stop_times": [1312.347, 1339.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1291.682}, "reply_to": "20835__0_110", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_112", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "That's... that's the very--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1339.916], "stop_times": [1340.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1339.916}, "reply_to": "20835__0_111", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20835__0_113", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--it had been omitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1340.377], "stop_times": [1340.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1340.377}, "reply_to": "20835__0_112", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_114", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--You've now put your finger on just the point that's bothering me.\nThis is exactly difficult to understand what those words mean.\nAs I read them first I thought they just meant the jury doesn't have to decide whether the defendant knew there's a statute that makes it illegal.\nAs you read it, you thought it meant something different, namely that the element's missing, and what worries me is if the Constitution of the United States says in respect to that kind of instruction it can never be harmless error, then aren't we saying it virtually in respect to all instructions, or thousands, or tens of thousands, and courts all over the place will have to start reviewing.\nThat's--\n--Mr. Rubinstein, I didn't think this question was in this case.\nLet him answer Justice Breyer's question.\nThen you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1340.958, 1343.418, 1349.513, 1356.82, 1378.351, 1379.052, 1380.444, 1383.616], "stop_times": [1343.418, 1349.513, 1356.82, 1378.351, 1379.052, 1380.444, 1383.616, 1385.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1340.958}, "reply_to": "20835__0_113", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20835__0_115", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "To answer your question, I believe that the fact that petitioner's counsel is... or the defense counsel is obligated to object, and that ultimately it is for the appellate court to decide whether the element has been omitted, provides the safeguard that would prevent all ambiguous instructions from being subject.\nIt does provide the appellate court with a way of knowing that the omission was perceived at the trial court level and was brought to the trial court's attention, and the trial court passed upon the objection, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1385.048, 1400.095], "stop_times": [1400.095, 1410.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1385.048}, "reply_to": "20835__0_114", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_116", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--Mr. Rubinstein, the question presented in this case is whether a district court's failure to instruct on an element of an offense is harmless error where at trial the defendant admitted that element.\nDid the Government contend that this question is not involved in the case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1410.964, 1422.572], "stop_times": [1422.572, 1425.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1410.964}, "reply_to": "20835__0_115", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20835__0_117", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--The Government never--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1425.945], "stop_times": [1427.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1425.945}, "reply_to": "20835__0_116", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_118", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--in its opposition to the petition for certiorari?\nDid it say that there was no ambiguity... that there was ambiguity in the charge, and that the element was included?\nHad it said that, we wouldn't have taken the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1427.064, 1428.977, 1433.84], "stop_times": [1428.977, 1433.84, 1435.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1427.064}, "reply_to": "20835__0_117", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20835__0_119", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--The Government has not taken that position.\nIn the court of appeals, the Government stated explicitly at page 10 of its appellate brief that the element required by Staples was explicit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1435.75, 1438.033], "stop_times": [1438.033, 1444.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1435.75}, "reply_to": "20835__0_118", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_120", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Well, they actually stipulated that the machine gun count was reversible for this same flaw, did it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1444.845], "stop_times": [1451.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1444.845}, "reply_to": "20835__0_119", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20835__0_121", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--They also confessed error with respect to the machine gun count as well, and ultimately, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the question presented assumes that in fact the element was omitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1451.741], "stop_times": [1462.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1451.741}, "reply_to": "20835__0_120", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_122", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Still, if that... I mean, I'd worry about lawyers reading an opinion that upheld you in light of the instruction that was actually given, and even if that weren't so, I'm still worried about my basic problem, finding something in the Constitution that says that this kind of ambiguity, or something a little less ambiguous, could never be harmless error.\nThat's... why would the Constitution say that?\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1462.169, 1482.502, 1485.915], "stop_times": [1482.502, 1485.915, 1486.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1462.169}, "reply_to": "20835__0_121", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20835__0_123", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "And it is not our contention that it would never be harmless error.\nIt would only be where the omission is a true one, and where the jury's findings on other elements do not necessarily embrace the omitted element and, finally, where there is a contemporaneous objection and where it is brought to the trial court's attention and the trial court has an opportunity to consider whether the element has been omitted or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1486.776, 1490.877], "stop_times": [1490.877, 1510.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1486.776}, "reply_to": "20835__0_122", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_124", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--Mr. Rubinstein, on the admission, I wasn't clear whether you were saying the admission wasn't even a flat out admission.\nWere you suggesting that he said, yes, yes, it's a silencer, I know it's a silencer, but not saying that he knew a silencer was a firearm that Federal law prohibited?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1510.061, 1519.548], "stop_times": [1519.548, 1532.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1510.061}, "reply_to": "20835__0_123", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20835__0_125", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "What we have... what we believe to be the case is that he did admit that when he was shown the object he could identify it as a silencer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1532.505], "stop_times": [1541.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1532.505}, "reply_to": "20835__0_124", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_126", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "I mean, you could say about a gun, but a silencer is... you might think, oh, yeah, there's a gun registration law, guns have to be registered, but you wouldn't automatically say that about an accoutrement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1541.341], "stop_times": [1552.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1541.341}, "reply_to": "20835__0_125", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20835__0_127", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "We're not suggesting that he... that petitioner had to know it had to be registered.\nThat is not our contention.\nAnd ultimately, based upon the way the question presented--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1552.187, 1555.469, 1556.531], "stop_times": [1555.469, 1556.531, 1559.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1552.187}, "reply_to": "20835__0_126", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_128", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Well, what did he... what are you contending he did have to know?\nIn other words, you are conceding that what he said he knew is all that is required to... for the Government to prove that he knew.\nThe only thing is, the element didn't go to the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1559.333, 1561.223, 1571.861], "stop_times": [1561.223, 1571.861, 1574.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1559.333}, "reply_to": "20835__0_127", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20835__0_129", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--Right.\nWe... we have accepted the Court's premise in adopting the Government's question that he admitted... that his admission was coextensive with the element.\nWith the Court's permission, I'd like to reserve the balance of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1574.552, 1574.993, 1581.718], "stop_times": [1574.993, 1581.718, 1585.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1574.552}, "reply_to": "20835__0_128", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_130", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--Mr. Rubinstein.\nLet's go back to page 104 of the joint appendix.\nI'm having a similar problem, a problem similar to Justice Breyer.\nIt says here at the bottom, what must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant knowingly possessed the item as charged.\nNow, what was that item, as charged?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1585.649, 1591.143, 1592.465, 1595.638, 1603.902], "stop_times": [1591.143, 1592.465, 1595.638, 1603.902, 1607.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1585.649}, "reply_to": "20835__0_129", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "20835__0_131", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Yes.\nWhat that charge was that... it charged knowing possession as an element.\nIt did not charge that the defendant had to know at the time of possession the characteristics of the item that made it a firearm, which is what this Court held is also required.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1607.174, 1608.263, 1612.306], "stop_times": [1608.263, 1612.306, 1619.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1607.174}, "reply_to": "20835__0_130", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_132", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "That's not what we held in Staples.\nWhat we held in Staples is that he had to know that the machine gun, or the gun that he had could be converted... had the characteristics of a machine gun.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1619.272, 1620.952], "stop_times": [1620.952, 1628.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1619.272}, "reply_to": "20835__0_131", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "20835__0_133", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Correct, and in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1628.997], "stop_times": [1629.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1628.997}, "reply_to": "20835__0_132", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_134", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Not that it was a firearm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1629.968], "stop_times": [1631.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1629.968}, "reply_to": "20835__0_133", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "20835__0_135", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--Right.\nYou have to know the characteristics that make it a firearm.\nIn this case, all that would have to be proven--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1631.93, 1632.721, 1634.965], "stop_times": [1632.721, 1634.965, 1636.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1631.93}, "reply_to": "20835__0_134", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_136", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "No, no, the characteristics that make it a machine gun.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1636.775], "stop_times": [1638.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1636.775}, "reply_to": "20835__0_135", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "20835__0_137", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--All right, and in this case what that would... Staples would require is that the person knew it was, in fact, a silencer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1638.117], "stop_times": [1644.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1638.117}, "reply_to": "20835__0_136", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_138", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Well, the item as charged, what I don't understand is that, what must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant knowingly possessed the item as charged.\nThe item as charged was that... is that a 9-inch by 1/3/4 inch silencer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1644.451, 1654.546], "stop_times": [1654.546, 1659.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1644.451}, "reply_to": "20835__0_137", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "20835__0_139", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "What I believe the instruction states at the bottom of page 4 is that the defendant knowingly possessed the item charged, which is described, and then that it was a firearm.\nHe does not have to find... and ultimately the judge removed from the jury's consideration the element that the defendant had to know the characteristics, or in this particular case that the defendant had to know it was a silencer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1659.608, 1670.427], "stop_times": [1670.427, 1683.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1659.608}, "reply_to": "20835__0_138", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__0_140", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Very well, Mr. Rubinstein.\nMr. Nuechterlein, we'll hear from you.\nDo you pronounce your name Nuechterlein or Nuechterlein?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1683.245, 1685.938, 1687.797], "stop_times": [1685.938, 1687.797, 1692.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1683.245}, "reply_to": "20835__0_139", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20835__1_000", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "It's Nuechterlein, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1692.32], "stop_times": [1693.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1692.32}, "reply_to": "20835__0_140", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_001", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Nuechterlein.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1693.391], "stop_times": [1693.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1693.391}, "reply_to": "20835__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20835__1_002", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe question in this case is not whether a criminal defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on every element of his offense.\nHe is.\nThe question is whether a defendant is entitled to an appellate remedy if the district court erroneously failed to instruct the jury on an element that the defendant admitted in open court.\nIn this case, the question is, at bottom, whether petitioner is entitled to reversal on the ground that the jury was deprived of an opportunity to find that he was not telling the truth when he testified under oath that he knew that a silencer was a silencer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1693.782, 1696.564, 1703.289, 1703.827, 1713.274], "stop_times": [1696.564, 1703.289, 1703.827, 1713.274, 1727.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1693.782}, "reply_to": "20835__1_001", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_003", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "And you might add in there that he asked for the instruction to be given and it was denied.\nHe did object to its not being given.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1727.773, 1731.626], "stop_times": [1731.626, 1734.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1727.773}, "reply_to": "20835__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20835__1_004", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "He did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1734.117], "stop_times": [1734.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1734.117}, "reply_to": "20835__1_003", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_005", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Okay.\nAnd the issue is, you say he's entitled to have them all given, and even when he objects when one is not given, the issue is whether it makes any difference, whether there's any remedy for it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1734.508, 1736.299], "stop_times": [1736.299, 1746.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1734.508}, "reply_to": "20835__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20835__1_006", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "The question is ultimately whether he was subjected to some kind of procedural unfairness.\nThat is the foundational principle of the Court's harmless error jurisprudence.\nAnd it's one thing for a defendant to claim that he has been subjected to procedural unfairness at his trial if the jury hasn't been given an adequate opportunity to test the credibility of the Government's evidence on some issue, but it's quite another thing for a defendant to claim that his trial was unfair if the jury wasn't given an opportunity--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1746.316, 1752.04, 1756.163], "stop_times": [1752.04, 1756.163, 1772.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1746.316}, "reply_to": "20835__1_005", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_007", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "That depends on whether you consider it to be an ipso facto unfairness not to have a jury pronouncement that you committed all the elements of this crime.\nI don't think it's unfair, procedurally unfair to say to somebody who comes in and says yes, I did all of the things that constitute the element of the crime, but I want to plead not guilty, I don't think it would be procedurally unfair for the judge to say, get out of here, you admitted it all.\nYou've admitted you're guilty.\nGo to jail.\nThat's not procedurally unfair.\nBut unfortunately, the man has a right to a jury trial, and even though he's admitted it, you have to have a jury say he did it.\nThat's what's at issue here, and I don't think it characterizes it fairly to say that what you're talking about is procedural fairness.\nThere is a requirement of a jury trial that may not have anything to do with fairness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1772.182, 1783.4, 1798.8, 1799.741, 1801.191, 1803.594, 1810.557, 1816.972], "stop_times": [1783.4, 1798.8, 1799.741, 1801.191, 1803.594, 1810.557, 1816.972, 1821.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1772.182}, "reply_to": "20835__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20835__1_008", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--Well, I think there is an important distinction, Justice Scalia, between a total and a partial deprivation of any constitutional right.\nFor example, it is categorically unfair and reversible per se to deny someone counsel at his trial, but if counsel's appointed, and that counsel sleeps through nine-tenths of the trial, the inquiry then becomes whether there's been some particularized unfairness of the trial as a result of the counsel's failure.\nAnd the same principle is applicable here.\nThe Court has distinguished between total deprivations of Sixth Amendment rights and partial deprivations.\nSullivan itself is an example of that.\nIn Sullivan, it was held to be categorically reversible if there is no... if there's no finding beyond a reasonable doubt on any of the elements, but by contrast, in the cases where this Court has addressed burden of proof errors that relate only to individual elements, it has held that harmless error analysis is applicable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1821.335, 1826.819, 1842.518, 1844.341, 1850.734, 1852.625], "stop_times": [1826.819, 1842.518, 1844.341, 1850.734, 1852.625, 1869.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1821.335}, "reply_to": "20835__1_007", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_009", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Sullivan differs from this case in that there was a jury finding of the element.\nThe question is whether the jury finding was tainted by the presumption that the judge told the jury to... that it had to make, but the jury did have a finding there, didn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1869.596, 1875.53], "stop_times": [1875.53, 1885.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1869.596}, "reply_to": "20835__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20835__1_010", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "That is one distinction, but there is also another, which is that in Sullivan the error spanned the entire trial and affected the entire jury deliberations, and the Court does distinguish between total and partial deprivations of a Sixth Amendment right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1885.618], "stop_times": [1898.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1885.618}, "reply_to": "20835__1_009", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_011", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Mr. Nuechterlein, what is it that the Government concedes was error in the instruction here that we're talking about on the silencer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1898.086], "stop_times": [1906.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1898.086}, "reply_to": "20835__1_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20835__1_012", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "The failure to give the jury an instruction on the Staples element.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1906.542], "stop_times": [1910.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1906.542}, "reply_to": "20835__1_011", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_013", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Well, be more specific.\nWhat is it that the judge should have said that he didn't say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1910.512, 1912.385], "stop_times": [1912.385, 1916.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1910.512}, "reply_to": "20835__1_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20835__1_014", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "The judge should have said that you must find that the defendant knew that his silencer was a silencer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1916.557], "stop_times": [1922.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1916.557}, "reply_to": "20835__1_013", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_015", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "I've never heard... look--\n--I mean, he did... an instruction was given that the jury had to find the defendant at the time and place knowingly possessed a firearm as described above, and described above includes a silencer.\nNow, they were told that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1922.631, 1924.203, 1939.763], "stop_times": [1924.203, 1939.763, 1940.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1922.631}, "reply_to": "20835__1_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20835__1_016", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "It is true that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1940.975], "stop_times": [1942.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1940.975}, "reply_to": "20835__1_015", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_017", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "And that's not correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1942.147], "stop_times": [1943.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1942.147}, "reply_to": "20835__1_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20835__1_018", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--There is some ambiguity in this instruction.\nWe have proceeded on the assumption that when this Court granted cert in this case it wanted the parties to brief the issues on the question presented, which is whether, if there is an omission of an element in the jury instructions, whether that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1943.797, 1946.148], "stop_times": [1946.148, 1959.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1943.797}, "reply_to": "20835__1_017", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_019", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "I just am trying to find out what it is the Government says that's missing, instead of just being ambiguous.\nMr. Nuechterlein, isn't it true that the instruction that Justice O'Connor and Justice Breyer focus on related to count 3, and there wasn't a similar description with respect to--\n--Count 2.\nCount 2.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1959.758, 1965.922, 1976.117, 1976.818], "stop_times": [1965.922, 1976.117, 1976.818, 1977.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1959.758}, "reply_to": "20835__1_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20835__1_020", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--Well, there actually was similar language in count 2 also, but the difference is that in count 2 the district court also explicitly said... let me get the exact language.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1977.279], "stop_times": [1986.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1977.279}, "reply_to": "20835__1_019", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_021", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "It explicitly says that you don't have to know it was a firearm within the meaning of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1986.856], "stop_times": [1991.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1986.856}, "reply_to": "20835__1_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20835__1_022", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1991.941], "stop_times": [1992.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1991.941}, "reply_to": "20835__1_021", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_023", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "And that's the instructions he wanted, but that is not the instruction that Staples requires.\nStaples merely requires knowledge that it was a silencer, and he did not request the instruction that Staples requires, did he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [1992.451, 1997.344], "stop_times": [1997.344, 2004.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1992.451}, "reply_to": "20835__1_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20835__1_024", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "I think we have assumed for the purposes of this case that he did request that instruction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2004.781], "stop_times": [2010.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2004.781}, "reply_to": "20835__1_023", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_025", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "You made a lot of assumptions in order to have us decide a very important question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2010.072], "stop_times": [2013.315], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2010.072}, "reply_to": "20835__1_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20835__1_026", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "No, I think we have addressed this issue by giving petitioner the benefit of the doubt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2013.315], "stop_times": [2017.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2013.315}, "reply_to": "20835__1_025", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_027", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2017.667], "stop_times": [2017.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2017.667}, "reply_to": "20835__1_026", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20835__1_028", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "This was an ambiguous instruction, and he did... if you read through the colloquy he did ask for what appeared to be the Staples element, and the district court did deny that request.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2017.957], "stop_times": [2026.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2017.957}, "reply_to": "20835__1_027", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_029", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "But that might be redundant, and certainly what Justice Thomas just read doesn't even seem ambiguous.\nHe says, what must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant knowingly possessed... knowingly possessed the item as charged.\nWhat was charged is that he possessed a 9-inch by 1-3/4 silencer.\nTherefore, he told the jury, jury, you must find the defendant knowingly possessed a 9-inch by 1-3/4 silencer.\nThat's what he told them.\nNow, what else was he supposed to say, other than that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2026.693, 2032.247, 2040.942, 2046.476, 2054.98, 2056.282], "stop_times": [2032.247, 2040.942, 2046.476, 2054.98, 2056.282, 2058.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2026.693}, "reply_to": "20835__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20835__1_030", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "It is possible to construe that assumption... it's possible to construe that instruction as telling the jury that it had to find that he possessed the item and that he knew that he possessed the item, but it is also possible for the jury, given his subsequent instruction, to find that he was telling them that he might have thought that the item was a pipe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2058.924], "stop_times": [2075.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2058.924}, "reply_to": "20835__1_029", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_031", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "So in other words, if you charge the defendant with robbing a federally insured bank, or with robbing a bank, you also have to instruct and by the way, you know that a bank is a bank.\nHe had to know that it was a bank.\nYou have to tell the jury he didn't think it was a grocery store.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2075.197, 2085.034, 2086.674], "stop_times": [2085.034, 2086.674, 2088.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2075.197}, "reply_to": "20835__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20835__1_032", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "I'm not following your question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2088.774], "stop_times": [2091.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2088.774}, "reply_to": "20835__1_031", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_033", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Maybe a Federal bank is a better example.\nIf the crime is that you must knowingly rob a Federal bank, when you say knowingly rob, does it mean that your knowledge just has to extend to the robbing, or does it also have to extend to the fact that it's a Federal bank, and I think it is ambiguous here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2091.616, 2093.569], "stop_times": [2093.569, 2110.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2091.616}, "reply_to": "20835__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20835__1_034", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2110.529], "stop_times": [2111.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2110.529}, "reply_to": "20835__1_033", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_035", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "At least ambiguous, and maybe less than that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2111.019], "stop_times": [2113.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2111.019}, "reply_to": "20835__1_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20835__1_036", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--I think it is ambiguous, and we have briefed this case on the assumption that he was denied the right that this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2113.411], "stop_times": [2119.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2113.411}, "reply_to": "20835__1_035", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_037", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Rightly so, in my view.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2119.124], "stop_times": [2120.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2119.124}, "reply_to": "20835__1_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20835__1_038", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--thought he was denied when the Court granted certiorari.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2120.216], "stop_times": [2123.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2120.216}, "reply_to": "20835__1_037", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_039", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "The Moats case, which you cite at the outset of your brief, I think somewhat unfairly, you later explain I think quite accurately.\nI don't think it really supports your position.\nMoats is not an elements case.\nMoats is easily distinguishable by the petitioner, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2123.399, 2132.725, 2134.174, 2135.566], "stop_times": [2132.725, 2134.174, 2135.566, 2138.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2123.399}, "reply_to": "20835__1_038", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20835__1_040", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Moats was not an instructional error, but it does support the general principle that a defendant is uniquely ill-positioned to claim on appeal that he was denied--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2138.817], "stop_times": [2148.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2138.817}, "reply_to": "20835__1_039", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_041", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Well, but it's not an element, it's not instructional error.\nIt's just not this case.\nIf we rule for the petitioner, do we have to overrule any of our cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2148.132, 2150.165, 2151.005], "stop_times": [2150.165, 2151.005, 2155.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2148.132}, "reply_to": "20835__1_040", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20835__1_042", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--I don't think you have to overrule them, but what you do have to do is, at least in this context, curtail the principle that there is some important relationship between harmless error analysis and the underlying fairness of the defendant's trial.\nAgain, I think Moats does support the general point that a defendant is uniquely ill-positioned to be claiming on appeal that his trial was unfair because the jury was given an inadequate opportunity to find that he was lying about some issue, and that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2155.369, 2169.689], "stop_times": [2169.689, 2183.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2155.369}, "reply_to": "20835__1_041", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_043", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Yes, but Mr.... I'm sorry.\nFinish your answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2183.355, 2184.457], "stop_times": [2184.457, 2185.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2183.355}, "reply_to": "20835__1_042", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20835__1_044", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--That was my answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2185.609], "stop_times": [2186.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2185.609}, "reply_to": "20835__1_043", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_045", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "In the normal question when we apply a harmless error analysis, we ask, can it be found beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict.\nWhat we are asking is, did they return a verdict on the necessary elements despite the fact that there was an error, and sometimes the answer is, sure, because we can tell from what they found, assuming they followed the rest of the instructions, that they must have covered this point as to which specifically the instruction was inadequate.\nBut we can't do that in the case that at least we're assuming we have here in which there was a complete omission of any reference to the element, and it is not claimed that in finding some other element, or some other subsidiary fact, they must have found this element.\nSo the harmless error analysis is functioning, if it is applied here, I think, in an essentially different way from the way it functions in the normal case.\nDo you agree with that proposition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2186.257, 2195.675, 2219.64, 2236.661, 2246.979], "stop_times": [2195.675, 2219.64, 2236.661, 2246.979, 2248.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2186.257}, "reply_to": "20835__1_044", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20835__1_046", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "I don't think I do agree with that proposition.\nI think... it is true that in the context of instructional errors in a typical case, it is the appropriate rule.\nThe question is whether or not the error had an effect on the jury's deliberations, but those cases all dealt with contested issues, and the defendant's claim was that the jury wasn't given an adequate opportunity to assess the credibility of the Government's evidence.\nWe have a quite different case here, where the defendant's claim is that the jury wasn't given an adequate opportunity to find that he had lied, in effect, about the element that he admitted under oath.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2248.709, 2250.941, 2256.345, 2269.702], "stop_times": [2250.941, 2256.345, 2269.702, 2279.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2248.709}, "reply_to": "20835__1_045", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_047", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "That it was a directed verdict, I mean, that's the strongest... to put their case in the strongest terms, you can't direct a verdict in a criminal case, and the way you have agreed that this case is shaped presents that question.\nYou said yes, there was a missing instruction on an essential element, but he admitted that element, not at a plea hearing or anything like that, and so pro tanto there is a directed verdict.\nNow, that's the case that you agreed is presented here.\nI think maybe from the charge it... you should not have made that agreement, but you did, so can a trial judge direct a verdict on an element in a criminal case on the basis that the defendant has admitted it but hasn't waived his right to a jury trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2279.73, 2298.764, 2313.823, 2317.307], "stop_times": [2298.764, 2313.823, 2317.307, 2338.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2279.73}, "reply_to": "20835__1_046", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20835__1_048", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "I don't think that this case would be different if there had been a directed verdict on this element so long as the jury was able to assess all the other elements that he did not admit under oath, and so long as the jury played an essential role, but the important point is this.\nThis is not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2338.481, 2351.109], "stop_times": [2351.109, 2351.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2338.481}, "reply_to": "20835__1_047", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_049", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Is that because the element was admitted, or because the element is somehow trivial compared to the other elements?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2351.58], "stop_times": [2357.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2351.58}, "reply_to": "20835__1_048", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20835__1_050", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--It is because the element was admitted, and I think the important point is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2357.354], "stop_times": [2361.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2357.354}, "reply_to": "20835__1_049", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_051", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Admitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2361.275], "stop_times": [2361.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2361.275}, "reply_to": "20835__1_050", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20835__1_052", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--Admitted, and I think the important point is that this is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2361.775], "stop_times": [2363.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2361.775}, "reply_to": "20835__1_051", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_053", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "So that you could direct a criminal... a verdict of guilty if the defendant admits all the essentials of the crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2363.909], "stop_times": [2370.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2363.909}, "reply_to": "20835__1_052", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20835__1_054", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--No.\nI think that that is different, because that is a total deprivation of his right to a jury trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2370.481, 2370.812], "stop_times": [2370.812, 2374.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2370.481}, "reply_to": "20835__1_053", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_055", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Nine-tenths, 9 out of 10 elements you can direct a verdict on, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2374.685], "stop_times": [2379.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2374.685}, "reply_to": "20835__1_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20835__1_056", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2379.189], "stop_times": [2379.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2379.189}, "reply_to": "20835__1_055", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_057", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "I mean, you know, how close do we slice this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2379.929], "stop_times": [2381.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2379.929}, "reply_to": "20835__1_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20835__1_058", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--So long as the jury plays an essential role in the determination of guilt or innocence--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2381.76], "stop_times": [2386.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2381.76}, "reply_to": "20835__1_057", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_059", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "I see--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2386.041], "stop_times": [2386.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2386.041}, "reply_to": "20835__1_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20835__1_060", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--and so long as the jury--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2386.442], "stop_times": [2387.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2386.442}, "reply_to": "20835__1_059", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_061", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--Essential as to what?\nWe normally define essentiality with reference to elements, and if that essential jury function is missing on one, why, even on your premise, is there not an essential denial or failure of the jury role?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2387.553, 2388.355], "stop_times": [2388.355, 2402.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2387.553}, "reply_to": "20835__1_060", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20835__1_062", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--I think the public perceives that the jury has a very important role to play.\nIf he admits every element under oath and the jury is then instructed to resolve the remaining elements that he has not admitted under oath, it is error not to let the jury address all of the elements, but that is not the question here.\nThe question is whether he is entitled to an appellate remedy on the premise that the jury wasn't given an opportunity to find that he had lied under oath--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2402.085, 2405.417, 2417.777], "stop_times": [2405.417, 2417.777, 2424.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2402.085}, "reply_to": "20835__1_061", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_063", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Mr. Nuechterlein, when I practiced, and perhaps things have changed, when a judge directed a verdict he sat up there on the bench and told the jury, now, stand up, I'm going to... you know, this is not for you to deliberate, I'm going to direct you how to return, so either the jury was handed a piece of paper and they handed it back and did exactly what the judge... that, to me, was the judge directing a verdict, not omitting an element in the chart.\nNo such directed verdict took place here, did it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2424.773, 2449.349], "stop_times": [2449.349, 2451.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2424.773}, "reply_to": "20835__1_062", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20835__1_064", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--That is correct.\nActually, the... there have been directed verdict cases where this Court has upheld convictions.\nLast term's Johnson decision was such a case.\nBut even in the harmless error context, this Court has held that mandatory conclusive presumptions can be harmless error if certain conditions are met.\nThere is no substantive difference from a juror's perspective between an omission of an element and a mandatory conclusive presumption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2451.731, 2452.391, 2457.757, 2460.308, 2468.413], "stop_times": [2452.391, 2457.757, 2460.308, 2468.413, 2475.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2451.731}, "reply_to": "20835__1_063", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_065", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "When there's a mandatory conclusive presumption, the jury comes in with a finding that that element was met pursuant to the presumption, and when you say certain conditions are met, the conditions are that that... either some other finding would have inevitably led to that, or that it have been admitted, but the jury would have come in with a finding, nonetheless.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2475.648], "stop_times": [2497.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2475.648}, "reply_to": "20835__1_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20835__1_066", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "But I think that that finding, Justice Scalia, is an empty formalism, because the jury has been told that it must conclude that that element has been satisfied if it finds that the predicate element has been satisfied, so there is... from a juror's perspective there is absolutely no distinction between a mandatory conclusive presumption and the omission that occurred in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2497.251], "stop_times": [2515.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2497.251}, "reply_to": "20835__1_065", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_067", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Mr. Nuechterlein, can I ask you to comment on a rather broad point that is troubling me about this case.\nIt's been apparent from some of the questioning by Justice Thomas and Justice Breyer in particular that the Government elected not to make what was a fairly strong argument that the issue really isn't presented in this case, and this is a terribly important constitutional question affecting State trials all over the country, and this Court, too, and our normal practice is not to address constitutional questions unless absolutely necessary to resolve the case, and you failed in your opposition to the cert petition to tell us, to even make the argument that this... we didn't have to reach this question to decide this case.\nDid you do that because you thought you might win a huge victory that would cover all these cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2515.283, 2520.138, 2552.168], "stop_times": [2520.138, 2552.168, 2556.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2515.283}, "reply_to": "20835__1_066", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20835__1_068", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "That is not it at all.\nIn fact, we looked at the instructions very carefully and we made the determination that in fact the element was not instructed, and we did that because we resolved that issue and there--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2556.52, 2557.442], "stop_times": [2557.442, 2568.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2556.52}, "reply_to": "20835__1_067", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_069", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "You thought it was so clear that even though some of us are troubled by the instruction you didn't even want to point it out to us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2568.568], "stop_times": [2573.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2568.568}, "reply_to": "20835__1_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20835__1_070", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--No, we didn't think it was clear, but where there is a deep ambiguity and the jury can reasonably construe that ambiguity against the need to find the element, we thought that this case was an appropriate vehicle for addressing the question presented the petitioner raised.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2573.002], "stop_times": [2585.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2573.002}, "reply_to": "20835__1_069", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_071", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Mr. Nuechterlein--\n--Can I ask--\n--No.\nWell, if we go to the merits of it; and say totally... which I'm not sure, you know.\nI mean, this ambiguity is a slight problem, but the question, the sort of deep... the question I have on the merits is, imagine that you do fail to charge on an element.\nYou fail to let the jury decide whether the person who is the bank robber used a threat, or force.\nWell, I would think in such a case it couldn't be harmless, that the guts of the crime weren't... don't you agree with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2585.751, 2587.063, 2588.085, 2589.053, 2593.548, 2605.218, 2612.711], "stop_times": [2587.063, 2588.085, 2589.053, 2593.548, 2605.218, 2612.711, 2619.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2585.751}, "reply_to": "20835__1_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20835__1_072", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "In the ordinary case also the defendant doesn't admit that element.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2619.907], "stop_times": [2623.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2619.907}, "reply_to": "20835__1_071", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_073", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "So if you have a murder case and you forget to say that they have to find that there was a victim, you see, I mean, that would seem a serious problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2623.638], "stop_times": [2630.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2623.638}, "reply_to": "20835__1_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20835__1_074", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2630.854], "stop_times": [2632.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2630.854}, "reply_to": "20835__1_073", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_075", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "So you agree in that case.\nAll right.\nThen there are only three possibilities.\nOne is, you don't agree and it's never... you always look for harmless error.\nThe second possibility is that if it's an element of the offense that's omitted, it's never harmless error, and the third possibility is something in between, where you don't think the first two, so you must think something in between, and as to when the omission of the element is, per se, bad, no matter if it's harmless, and when it isn't.\nNow, the only standard that I've been able to find that might do it is, you'd look to Olano, which is a different context, and you'd say, it is harm... you can't look for harmless error.\nIt's per se harmful.\nIt's structural... if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.\nOtherwise, you look to see if it's harmless.\nI don't know if that's a good standard.\nI know we need some standard if we're not going to take either extreme, and so I'm asking you what the standard is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2632.604, 2633.916, 2634.587, 2635.656, 2640.511, 2665.746, 2676.813, 2677.825, 2683.187, 2687.011, 2689.081], "stop_times": [2633.916, 2634.587, 2635.656, 2640.511, 2665.746, 2676.813, 2677.825, 2683.187, 2687.011, 2689.081, 2696.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2632.604}, "reply_to": "20835__1_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20835__1_076", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "I think the standard is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2696.367], "stop_times": [2697.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2696.367}, "reply_to": "20835__1_075", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_077", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "That one or some other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2697.258], "stop_times": [2698.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2697.258}, "reply_to": "20835__1_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20835__1_078", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--if the defendant admits the element under oath then the jury is not instructed on that element.\nThat is not structural error.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2698.157, 2701.78], "stop_times": [2701.78, 2702.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2698.157}, "reply_to": "20835__1_077", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_079", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Well, even if he... in other words, if he admits, under oath, I murdered the victim, and what the judge does is walk in and say to the jury, jury, is the defendant guilty or not guilty, and the jury says, of what, they think to themselves.\nHuh, I won't tell you.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2702.901, 2719.181, 2720.383], "stop_times": [2719.181, 2720.383, 2721.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2702.901}, "reply_to": "20835__1_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20835__1_080", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Well, I think that, you know, Justice Breyer, is a total deprivation of his right to a jury trial, and again I think that is distinct from the sort of case that you have here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2721.253], "stop_times": [2729.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2721.253}, "reply_to": "20835__1_079", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_081", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "But then you're not agreeing with proposition 1 that... you're saying that... you're saying there is no omission, no omission of an element.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2729.42], "stop_times": [2737.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2729.42}, "reply_to": "20835__1_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20835__1_082", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "What I'm saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2737.467], "stop_times": [2738.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2737.467}, "reply_to": "20835__1_081", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_083", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "That wouldn't be subject to harmless error no matter how central the element if a person admits it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2738.537], "stop_times": [2743.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2738.537}, "reply_to": "20835__1_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20835__1_084", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--Centrality is not an important part of our test.\nWhat is important is that the jury have... play a role in the determination of guilt or innocence, and if the jury does do that and finds every element of the offense correctly described under the appropriate burden of proof, then the district court's failure to instruct the jury on an element that the defendant admitted under oath can be harmless error.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2743.351, 2746.313], "stop_times": [2746.313, 2765.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2743.351}, "reply_to": "20835__1_083", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_085", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Well, part of your discussion with Justice Breyer I think is fairly academic.\nI mean, if there's an omission of a central part of the charge, whether you say it's never subject to harmless error review or whether you say it's never harmless under a harmless error review may be a nice question for academic discussion, but it comes out the same way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2765.685, 2770.129], "stop_times": [2770.129, 2785.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2765.685}, "reply_to": "20835__1_084", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20835__1_086", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "I think it does, and the... it is also the case that where the jury has not addressed an issue like that it may very well be that the error is not harmless.\nIn fact, I would imagine that is the case in almost all the circumstances, but that's not what we have here.\nWhat we have here is a defendant who asked the jury to accept his statement of fact with respect to his own state of mind, and then, on appeal, has predicated his claim for reversal on the premise that he may have been lying when he told the jury what he told them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2785.779, 2794.385, 2798.837], "stop_times": [2794.385, 2798.837, 2813.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2785.779}, "reply_to": "20835__1_085", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_087", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Mr. Nuechterlein--\n--And how does the fact of the defendant's admitting the element bear on your centrality analysis?\nYour test that you offer is us whether or not the jury played a central role in the proceeding.\nI hope I'm not misinterpreting... that's the way I understand your position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2813.028, 2813.696, 2821.813, 2826.676], "stop_times": [2813.696, 2821.813, 2826.676, 2830.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2813.028}, "reply_to": "20835__1_086", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20835__1_088", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "That is the limiting principle on our general theory of this case, but that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2830.188], "stop_times": [2834.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2830.188}, "reply_to": "20835__1_087", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_089", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "What does the defendant's having admitted the element as opposed, say, to 10 witnesses having testified to it, have to do with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2834.28], "stop_times": [2843.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2834.28}, "reply_to": "20835__1_088", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20835__1_090", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--I... again, I think it comes down to your question of procedural fairness, which is what the harmless error doctrine is all about.\nIt's one thing for a defendant to argue that his trial was unfair because the district court didn't give the jury enough of an opportunity to assess the credibility of the Government's evidence, no matter how compelling that evidence may seem on appeal, but it's quite another thing for a defendant to claim that his trial wasn't fair because the jury didn't have an adequate opportunity to find that his trial testimony, an issue within his knowledge, was false.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2843.797, 2849.062], "stop_times": [2849.062, 2870.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2843.797}, "reply_to": "20835__1_089", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_091", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Mr. Nuechterlein, I don't... taking those two central elements of fairness and substantial activity by the jury in reaching the verdict it does render, I don't know why we shouldn't... if those are of such significance I don't know why we shouldn't change our standard for harmless error review in a very essential respect.\nBecause we say now, however overwhelming the evidence may have been, however adequate the evidence may have been to convict, despite the fact that the jury certainly, let's say, considered 9 out of the 10 elements clearly, and the instructional error only goes to one element, despite the overwhelming power of the evidence on that element, if we cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt in effect that the jury did find what was necessary, we reverse.\nIt's not a sufficiency of the evidence test.\nWhy shouldn't a sufficiency of the evidence test be appropriate so long as the evidence is so overwhelming that there's no unfairness in sending someone away with a record like that, and number 2, in reaching whatever verdict the jury did reach, it certainly engaged in a substantial amount of fact-finding, even if there was an error with respect to one element.\nWhy doesn't each of your central conditions get satisfied on, we'll say, a sufficiency of the evidence test, whereas in normal harmless error review that isn't enough?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2870.414, 2893.201, 2924.36, 2926.491, 2949.658], "stop_times": [2893.201, 2924.36, 2926.491, 2949.658, 2960.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2870.414}, "reply_to": "20835__1_090", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20835__1_092", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "I think that the difference is with respect to the first of those that you identified.\nThere is an extremely important qualitative difference between a claim that the jury should have been interposed between the Government's proof on some element and the defendant.\nThat is very different from the circumstance that we have here, where the defendant's claim is that the district court should have interposed a jury between the defendant and his own unequivocal testimony.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2960.935, 2965.277, 2975.023], "stop_times": [2965.277, 2975.023, 2985.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2960.935}, "reply_to": "20835__1_091", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_093", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "It's not in a case in which a stipulation is involved, and yet if a stipulation of fact is involved and nothing more, we don't say sufficiency of the evidence is enough.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2985.96], "stop_times": [2994.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2985.96}, "reply_to": "20835__1_092", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20835__1_094", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "I actually think that a defendant's sworn testimony on an issue within his peculiar knowledge should be more binding on appeal than a stipulation would be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [2994.906], "stop_times": [3003.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2994.906}, "reply_to": "20835__1_093", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_095", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Mr. Nuechterlein, can I ask about the sworn testimony here.\nDid he really admit in open court that he knew that a silencer was a silencer at the time that he possessed it?\nDid he make that admission, or did... was it very clear from his testimony that generally speaking he now knows what silencers are.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3003.652, 3006.964, 3016.71], "stop_times": [3006.964, 3016.71, 3024.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3003.652}, "reply_to": "20835__1_094", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20835__1_096", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "What he--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3024.427], "stop_times": [3024.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3024.427}, "reply_to": "20835__1_095", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_097", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "He was shown a silencer.\nHe says, sure I know what that is.\nHow do you know?\nI've used them in Vietnam.\nYou knew exactly what the silencer were the moment they were shown to you at trial.\nYes, absolutely, sir.\nWhen you depend for your life on silencers, you know how to take them apart.\nSo it was conclusively shown at trial that this is a person who now knows very well what silencers are, but he never really got up at trial and said, at the time that I had this silencer in the car I knew what it was.\nIn fact, he denied he ever had it in the car, so he couldn't have made such an admission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3024.746, 3025.447, 3026.419, 3027.448, 3029.791, 3033.371, 3035.014, 3037.115, 3048.532], "stop_times": [3025.447, 3026.419, 3027.448, 3029.791, 3033.371, 3035.014, 3037.115, 3048.532, 3053.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3024.746}, "reply_to": "20835__1_096", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20835__1_098", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--His account of why he knew that silencer was a silencer is inconsistent with a rational jury's determination that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3053.577], "stop_times": [3059.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3053.577}, "reply_to": "20835__1_097", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_099", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Ah, so we now do not have a precise admission of the very element that has to be proven.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3059.121], "stop_times": [3064.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3059.121}, "reply_to": "20835__1_098", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20835__1_100", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--No, we do, and in fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3064.613], "stop_times": [3065.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3064.613}, "reply_to": "20835__1_099", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_101", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "But something which makes it almost incredible that that element didn't exist, but nonetheless not a precise admission of that element.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3065.164], "stop_times": [3071.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3065.164}, "reply_to": "20835__1_100", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20835__1_102", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--It is a precise admission of that element, because no rational juror... and one--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3071.288], "stop_times": [3075.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3071.288}, "reply_to": "20835__1_101", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_103", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "We have an interesting little colloquy here, because it seems that several colleagues of mine have different points of view on the question presented, first whether there was really error here, and second whether it was really an admission and, of course, the question presented is whether a district court's failure to instruct the jury on an element of an offense is harmless error where at trial the defendant admitted that element.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3075.7, 3101.198], "stop_times": [3101.198, 3102.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3075.7}, "reply_to": "20835__1_102", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20835__1_104", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--The defendant did admit this element.\nThe fact is, what he told the jury was, I knew this was a silencer because I was in Vietnam and I depended for my life on silencers.\nI knew it from the moment that I saw it, which was in his claim 2 hours--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3102.679, 3103.981, 3110.003], "stop_times": [3103.981, 3110.003, 3113.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3102.679}, "reply_to": "20835__1_103", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_105", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "I knew it when?\nNot at the time the crime was committed.\nI knew it when it was shown to me at trial, because he claimed he didn't have it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3113.855, 3114.436, 3115.918], "stop_times": [3114.436, 3115.918, 3118.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3113.855}, "reply_to": "20835__1_104", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20835__1_106", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--No.\nNo, he claimed he knew what it was when it was shown to him right after his arrest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3118.769, 3119.458], "stop_times": [3119.458, 3122.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3118.769}, "reply_to": "20835__1_105", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_107", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--Right after his arrest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3122.122], "stop_times": [3123.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3122.122}, "reply_to": "20835__1_106", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20835__1_108", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3123.361], "stop_times": [3123.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3123.361}, "reply_to": "20835__1_107", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_109", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "You're saying his admission was, if I had that, I knew what it was.\nIt was a lawyer's admission, wasn't it?\n[Laughter]\nMr. Nuechterlein, before you conclude, you say admission, and there are admissions and admissions.\nThis one looked like it was very forthright and repeated, but sometimes a defendant can admit something when he's testifying from the stand.\nWhen he finishes he says, oh my gosh, I never should have admitted that.\nSo the admission comes in many sizes and shapes, and how, if we adopt your rule, do we guard against the possibility that a defendant will be trapped by an inadvertent admission?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3123.712, 3128.484, 3130.216, 3131.617, 3137.531, 3145.959, 3150.319], "stop_times": [3128.484, 3130.216, 3131.617, 3137.531, 3145.959, 3150.319, 3162.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3123.712}, "reply_to": "20835__1_108", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20835__1_110", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Well, I... I mean, I think that it is always the role of a reviewing court to determine what the facts of the case are, and there is no particular impediment in determining that he testified about some... about his own state of mind, which is an issue within his peculiar knowledge, and that he did so under circumstances where there was no question about whether he was telling the truth.\nIn other words, this is a case where, if his admission was false, it was knowingly false.\nIf it was false, it was because he lied on the stand at trial.\nI think it's also... I mean, it's significant to think about what would happen if this trial were... if in fact his conviction were reversed and a new trial ordered.\nThe new trial would not be about this element at all, because the testimony of his admission here would be introduced, and presumably he wouldn't contest it.\nIn fact, in his reply brief, he alleges that this is an essential element of his defense.\nWhat he wants is a new trial so that he can have an... a second bite of the apple on all of the elements that he did not admit under oath at his first trial and that the jury resolved against him at his first trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3162.628, 3181.971, 3186.885, 3190.017, 3200.452, 3207.578, 3212.17], "stop_times": [3181.971, 3186.885, 3190.017, 3200.452, 3207.578, 3212.17, 3223.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3162.628}, "reply_to": "20835__1_109", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_111", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Mr. Nuechterlein, just a couple of clarifications.\nIn the court of appeals' opinion, the court of appeals says, as discussed above the district court, over defense objection, refused to inform the jury that the Government had the burden of showing Rogers knew the item in questions were firearms under the act.\nIn the question presented in this case, in the cert petition, the petitioner says that the trial court, over the objection of the defense counsel, the timely objection of defense counsel, refused to instruct the jury that the Government as an element of the offense charged was required to prove that petitioner knew the item in question was a firearm within the meaning of the statute.\nNow, does the Government concede that the failure to object that the silencer was a firearm is an error?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3223.227, 3228.252, 3242.45, 3265.607], "stop_times": [3228.252, 3242.45, 3265.607, 3271.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3223.227}, "reply_to": "20835__1_110", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "20835__1_112", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Does the Government concede--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3271.942], "stop_times": [3274.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3271.942}, "reply_to": "20835__1_111", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_113", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "That the failure to instruct that the silencer was a firearm is an error?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3274.473], "stop_times": [3281.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3274.473}, "reply_to": "20835__1_112", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "20835__1_114", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--I don't think that's the error.\nNo, I don't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3281.165, 3284.008], "stop_times": [3284.008, 3285.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3281.165}, "reply_to": "20835__1_113", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_115", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "That's the error that the court of appeals found.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3285.059], "stop_times": [3287.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3285.059}, "reply_to": "20835__1_114", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "20835__1_116", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "I had understood the court of appeals to find that the error in this case was that he did not find... that the district court did not instruct the jury that it must find that the firearm possessed the characteristics that made it a firearm within the meaning of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3287.911], "stop_times": [3300.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3287.911}, "reply_to": "20835__1_115", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_117", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "I think he knew that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3300.96], "stop_times": [3303.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3300.96}, "reply_to": "20835__1_116", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20835__1_118", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Yes, that he knew that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3303.582], "stop_times": [3305.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3303.582}, "reply_to": "20835__1_117", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_119", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "So your answer is, the Government does not concede that the failure to give a particular instruction was in error.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3305.064], "stop_times": [3313.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3305.064}, "reply_to": "20835__1_118", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "20835__1_120", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "That is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3313.199], "stop_times": [3313.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3313.199}, "reply_to": "20835__1_119", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_121", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "That that was--\n--No, that's... my question is... this is from the court of appeals opinion, and you... that the... as discussed above, the district court, over defense objection, refused to inform the jury that the Government had the burden of showing Rogers knew the items in question were firearms under the act.\nWith the benefit of the Supreme Court's opinion is Staples, we can now indubitably state that the district court's action effectively omitted the instruction an... from the instruction an essential element of the crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3313.74, 3314.881, 3331.632], "stop_times": [3314.881, 3331.632, 3342.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3313.74}, "reply_to": "20835__1_120", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "20835__1_122", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--Yes.\nI... is your question whether or not Staples applies to silencers as well as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3342.378, 3342.778], "stop_times": [3342.778, 3346.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3342.378}, "reply_to": "20835__1_121", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_123", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "No, whether Staples requires that there be an instruction that the silencer was a... that he knowingly possessed a firearm under the act.\nNot a silencer, a firearm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3346.431, 3355.516], "stop_times": [3355.516, 3358.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3346.431}, "reply_to": "20835__1_122", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "20835__1_124", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "--The error in this case was the district court's failure to tell the jury that it had to find... I guess I'm just not understanding your question.\nIt had to find that he knew that the silencer was a silencer, that he knew the silencer possessed the characteristics that made it a firearm within the meaning of the act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3358.218, 3367.274], "stop_times": [3367.274, 3376.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3358.218}, "reply_to": "20835__1_123", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_125", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "And you think that the court of appeals says that in this opinion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3376.671], "stop_times": [3380.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3376.671}, "reply_to": "20835__1_124", "speaker": "j__clarence_thomas"}
{"id": "20835__1_126", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "That's how I understood the court of appeals opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3380.044], "stop_times": [3381.564], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3380.044}, "reply_to": "20835__1_125", "speaker": "jonathan_nuechterlein"}
{"id": "20835__1_127", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Nuechterlein.\nMr. Rubinstein, you have about a minute remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3381.564, 3382.836], "stop_times": [3382.836, 3387.098], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3381.564}, "reply_to": "20835__1_126", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20835__2_000", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nFirst of all, pointing to the same passage that Justice Thomas just read from, the court of appeals did find, as a predicate to its opinion, that the element in this case was omitted from the trial court's instructions.\nAnd at page 10 of the Government's brief in the court of appeals it said that the instruction did not pass post Staples muster insofar as it explicitly withdrew from the jury's consideration the issue of appellant's knowledge that the firearm he possessed fell within the statutory definition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3387.098, 3389.308, 3401.085], "stop_times": [3389.308, 3401.085, 3415.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3387.098}, "reply_to": "20835__1_127", "speaker": "javier_h_rubinstein"}
{"id": "20835__2_001", "conversation_id": "20835", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Rubinstein.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1279", "start_times": [3415.127, 3416.747], "stop_times": [3416.747, 3417.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3415.127}, "reply_to": "20835__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20521__0_000", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "We'll hear argument now in No. 96-738, Mario Salinas v. United States.\nMr. Enriquez.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [0.0, 8.254], "stop_times": [8.254, 9.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20521__0_001", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis case involves the interpretation of the RICO statute and the Federal theft, bribery and embezzlement statutes.\nConcerning the Federal bribery statute, this case presents the issue of whether this prosecution in Federal court, of State officials, is within the scope of the statute, even though it does not... the conduct complained of does not impinge upon... upon, affect or divert Federal or even State or even any local funds whatsoever.\nConcerning the RICO statute, this case presents the issue of what are the elements of a RICO conspiracy and how that should be charged to a jury.\nBecause of the nature of the prosecution in this case, State officials being tried for primarily State law violations in Federal court, it raises great issues concerning Federalism and the federalization of State crimes.\nAs to the Federal bribery statute, it is our position that the statute itself does not reach as far as a prosecution in this case.\nOf course, the... the funds which funded the bribery did not involve any State, Federal or local funds; but, more importantly, no Federal funds, no local funds, no State funds, whatsoever, were diverted.\n18 U.S.C., Section 666 contemplates the kind of transaction where, for example, money is embezzled from the government, where there is a theft of government property, or, in the bribery context, where government funds are diverted as a result of the bribe.\nAnd what I mean by this, for example, is where money is, for example, paid to a government official, and then a... a bid is awarded or a contract is given or a lease is awarded or a grant is made or a job is given, something of that nature.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [9.606, 12.391, 19.212, 41.327, 50.183, 64.757, 74.048, 87.622, 106.52], "stop_times": [12.391, 19.212, 41.327, 50.183, 64.757, 74.048, 87.622, 106.52, 125.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.606}, "reply_to": "20521__0_000", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_002", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Of course, it's clear the statute would apply in those cases.\nBut are you suggesting there is no Federal interest in how Federal prisoners are treated when they're housed in State facilities?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [125.331, 126.797], "stop_times": [126.797, 134.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 125.331}, "reply_to": "20521__0_001", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20521__0_003", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Not at all, Your Honor.\nI am saying that there... I do recognize that there is a Federal interest in how the prisoners are treated.\nAnd... and I think that could be vindicated probably in a properly worded statute that is directed to that.\nBut this statute is not directed to that.\nAdditionally, if I may point out, the government's interest is... is probably satisfied if, for example, it makes sure that the grant that it's giving or... or the Federal funds that... that it is awarding are to an organization that, for example, shares it views... shares its views or its policies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [134.617, 135.653, 142.573, 149.143, 152.245], "stop_times": [135.653, 142.573, 149.143, 152.245, 171.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 134.617}, "reply_to": "20521__0_002", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_004", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "But our... our inquiry, really... we think probably that Congress is the one to decide whether the government's interest is satisfied.\nSo I don't think there's any separate inquiry.\nIf... if the statute covers this, then the government's interests would be satisfied by an application of the statute, I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [171.373, 180.313, 183.531], "stop_times": [180.313, 183.531, 193.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 171.373}, "reply_to": "20521__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20521__0_005", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Well, yes, it would be, Justice Rehnquist, Mr. Chief Justice.\nIt would be, but it's our position that the purpose of this statute is a protection of property statute.\nThat's what this statute is directed at.\nThat's the focus of it.\nThat is what the government is... is trying to take care of.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [193.053, 197.94, 205.38, 207.646, 209.082], "stop_times": [197.94, 205.38, 207.646, 209.082, 212.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 193.053}, "reply_to": "20521__0_004", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_006", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Then why... why... why is this statute... I gather the government gave 860... or $850,000, and about 915,000 a year, to house 100... 100 Federal prisoners... up to 100.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [212.784], "stop_times": [227.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 212.784}, "reply_to": "20521__0_005", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20521__0_007", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [227.544], "stop_times": [228.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 227.544}, "reply_to": "20521__0_006", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_008", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "That's about $9,000 or $10,000 a prisoner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [228.194], "stop_times": [230.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 228.194}, "reply_to": "20521__0_007", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20521__0_009", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Yes, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [230.912], "stop_times": [231.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 230.912}, "reply_to": "20521__0_008", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_010", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "To create a certain kind of a room, a cell.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [231.947], "stop_times": [234.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 231.947}, "reply_to": "20521__0_009", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20521__0_011", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [234.413], "stop_times": [235.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 234.413}, "reply_to": "20521__0_010", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_012", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "And now that room or cell was misused.\nSo why doesn't it affect the... exactly the... the very, very expenditure that the Federal Government made?\nWe'll give you a thous... we'll give you this prisoner, $10,000, to create a certain kind of cell that is to be used in a certain kind of way.\nAnd now, this... your client took a bribe to use it in a different way.\nSo why does that not directly affect the Federal expenditure that was at issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [235.232, 237.632, 243.569, 251.925, 256.163], "stop_times": [237.632, 243.569, 251.925, 256.163, 261.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 235.232}, "reply_to": "20521__0_011", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20521__0_013", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Well, because in... in... in the trial court level, the judge faced the issue of whether this conduct in this case, the... the conjugal visits or the contact visits, were... were illegal.\nAnd the jury was not asked to find whether that was improper conduct in this situation.\nAnd what they were asked were whether bribes were paid for contact visits.\nThe... the purpose of the statute, as we see it, is a protection of property statute.\nWe see it from... from the internal structure of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [261.466, 273.374, 279.694, 284.646, 291.152], "stop_times": [273.374, 279.694, 284.646, 291.152, 295.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 261.466}, "reply_to": "20521__0_012", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_014", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "I'm... I'm sorry, I didn't... I didn't quite grasp the... the answer to your question.\nIs there... is there a doubt, is it disputed that conjugal visits are unauthorized for... for Federal prisoners housed in this jail?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [295.188, 298.39], "stop_times": [298.39, 309.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 295.188}, "reply_to": "20521__0_013", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20521__0_015", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Yes... yes, ma'am.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [309.698], "stop_times": [311.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 309.698}, "reply_to": "20521__0_014", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_016", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "So why would that have to be put to the jury?\nThat's a given, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [311.331, 313.665], "stop_times": [313.665, 314.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 311.331}, "reply_to": "20521__0_015", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20521__0_017", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "No... no, ma'am.\nThe... the judge, in instructing the jury, said that the question of whether there were conjugal visits or contact visits... and that was disputed in the evidence... was not the issue.\nThe question was, was their payment for these visits, whatever their nature may have been.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [314.934, 315.867, 330.444], "stop_times": [315.867, 330.444, 335.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 314.934}, "reply_to": "20521__0_016", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_018", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Well, why would there have been a need for the briber to bribe if the conjugal visits were lawful?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [335.265], "stop_times": [344.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 335.265}, "reply_to": "20521__0_017", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20521__0_019", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "I... I think it's because it was a policy of the sheriff's department not to allow conjugal visits.\nAnd... and, of course, the sheriff indicated that the visits that occurred were not conjugal... conjugal visits.\nAlthough they were very liberal, as far as the number of contact visits that were allowed, he denied that conjugal visits occurred.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [344.287, 352.976, 357.678], "stop_times": [352.976, 357.678, 366.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 344.287}, "reply_to": "20521__0_018", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_020", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Well, wouldn't there also be a Federal interest in... in not wanting its... its contract jails to be used for bribery, even if in fact the briber gets a very bad deal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [366.284], "stop_times": [381.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 366.284}, "reply_to": "20521__0_019", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20521__0_021", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Yes, I... I think there is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [381.394], "stop_times": [383.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 381.394}, "reply_to": "20521__0_020", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_022", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "So, if that's the case, then what difference does it make whether, in fact, these visits were, in fact, lawful or not lawful?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [383.262], "stop_times": [390.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 383.262}, "reply_to": "20521__0_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20521__0_023", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Well, because this statute is directed to the protection of property.\nThat is the... the structure of the statute.\nThat is the history of the statute.\nFor example, this... this statute is not limited to bribery.\nIt is... it also deals with theft of government property.\nIt deals with embezzlement of government funds.\nAnd... and it's talking about something... something of value, something monetary, something that can be measured, being taken away as a result... or being given out... the government largess being given out as a result of a bribe given to a government official.\nThat didn't occur--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [390.0, 394.653, 397.003, 398.755, 401.723, 405.242, 408.027, 422.537], "stop_times": [394.653, 397.003, 398.755, 401.723, 405.242, 408.027, 422.537, 423.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 390.0}, "reply_to": "20521__0_022", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_024", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Well, suppose... suppose the jail official charged with purchasing the food for the prisoners is taking a... a bribe and a kickback, and siphons off $10,000 a month.\nAnd, as a result, the prisoners get much worse food.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [423.321, 432.679], "stop_times": [432.679, 434.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 423.321}, "reply_to": "20521__0_023", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20521__0_025", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [434.979], "stop_times": [435.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 434.979}, "reply_to": "20521__0_024", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_026", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Is that covered by this statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [435.796], "stop_times": [437.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 435.796}, "reply_to": "20521__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20521__0_027", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Yes, it is covered by that statute, because then there is... is something that was taken from the Federal funds or from the State funds, but not the local funds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [437.013], "stop_times": [445.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 437.013}, "reply_to": "20521__0_026", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_028", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "No... no; these are State funds.\nThese are State.\nIt just is in the Federal facility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [445.986, 446.452, 446.969], "stop_times": [446.452, 446.969, 448.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 445.986}, "reply_to": "20521__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20521__0_029", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Yes, sir, it... it is... Justice Kennedy, it is covered by this statute, because the statute, in my reading of it, says, not only are we protecting Federal funds, but state, we're going to protect your funds, we're going to protect your property, we're going to protect you from bribery.\nSo, yes, from the plain reading of the statute, it does cover that situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [448.604, 465.9], "stop_times": [465.9, 469.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 448.604}, "reply_to": "20521__0_028", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_030", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Suppose the Federal Government gives money for a museum or for a dam, and a State official improperly says to the public, I'll charge you to use the dam, and keeps the money.\nOr, I'll only let you use the dam if you bribe me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [469.935, 481.092], "stop_times": [481.092, 485.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 469.935}, "reply_to": "20521__0_029", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20521__0_031", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Mmm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [485.027], "stop_times": [485.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 485.027}, "reply_to": "20521__0_030", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_032", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Is that covered by the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [485.677], "stop_times": [487.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 485.677}, "reply_to": "20521__0_031", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20521__0_033", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "I... I think it would be probably not covered by the statute, because nothing was taken from the Federal Government or the State government or the local government.\nThe... there was no taking of funds from these entities.\nAnd so I don't think it would be covered by the statute.\nAnd I don't think this statute is intended to cover all of those situations.\nFor example, from the legislative history, it... and from the reading of the statute, it makes it clear that not all prohibited transactions are covered, even if the agency receives--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [487.629, 498.287, 504.291, 506.208, 510.429], "stop_times": [498.287, 504.291, 506.208, 510.429, 521.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 487.629}, "reply_to": "20521__0_032", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_034", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Well, that... that... that's a bit tautological to say that not all prohibited transactions are covered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [521.736], "stop_times": [526.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 521.736}, "reply_to": "20521__0_033", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20521__0_035", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [526.538], "stop_times": [526.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 526.538}, "reply_to": "20521__0_034", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_036", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Where... where in the statute do you find the language that would make it not applicable, say, to Justice Breyer's question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [526.921], "stop_times": [537.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 526.921}, "reply_to": "20521__0_035", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20521__0_037", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "I find it in... in the bribery portion of the statute that says that in order for it to be a violation, there has to be... it has to involve a transaction... business transaction or series of transaction of government, involving more than $5,000.\nThat $5,000 figure is something that is carried through, throughout the statute, not only in the bribery provisions, but also in the theft and embezzlement provisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [537.46, 554.071], "stop_times": [554.071, 563.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 537.46}, "reply_to": "20521__0_036", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_038", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "So you say the amount of the bribe would have to be $5,000?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [563.36], "stop_times": [566.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 563.36}, "reply_to": "20521__0_037", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20521__0_039", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "No, Your Honor, I do not.\nUnder the terms of the statute, the amount of the bribe can be any amount.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [566.562, 567.679], "stop_times": [567.679, 571.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 566.562}, "reply_to": "20521__0_038", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_040", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Then what does the $5,000 refer to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [571.7], "stop_times": [574.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 571.7}, "reply_to": "20521__0_039", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20521__0_041", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "It refers to the value to the Federal Government or the State government or the local government of what was taken away from them.\nSimilar to the embezzlement and theft provisions that say, if... if money is taken from the Federal Government, embezzled, and it's $5,000, then it's a violation under the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [574.668, 580.056], "stop_times": [580.056, 590.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 574.668}, "reply_to": "20521__0_040", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_042", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "But you don't tie it into the text of this provision, Mr. Enriquez; that... that... that's what troubles me.\nWhy not... I... I find it difficult to... to see that there's any business transaction or series of transactions involved here.\nWhat... what is the business?\nYou... you... or you've conceded that point, haven't you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [590.677, 596.831, 607.223, 609.575], "stop_times": [596.831, 607.223, 609.575, 611.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 590.677}, "reply_to": "20521__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__0_043", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "I... I don't... I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [611.725], "stop_times": [612.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 611.725}, "reply_to": "20521__0_042", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_044", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--there's no business?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [612.527], "stop_times": [613.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 612.527}, "reply_to": "20521__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__0_045", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--I think that's... that's our point, Your Honor, that... that these--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [613.427], "stop_times": [616.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 613.427}, "reply_to": "20521__0_044", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_046", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Well, you didn't put it that way in your brief.\nI... I wish you had focused on the... on the text,\n\"in connection with any business transaction or series of transactions. \"\nThat does seem to... to call to mind that there have been a deal.\nTransaction doesn't... I wouldn't call assigning someone to a cell a transaction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [616.812, 618.329, 623.649, 627.018, 632.154], "stop_times": [618.329, 623.649, 627.018, 632.154, 639.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 616.812}, "reply_to": "20521__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__0_047", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--I... I wouldn't either, and even--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [639.51], "stop_times": [641.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 639.51}, "reply_to": "20521__0_046", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_048", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--or a business.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [641.16], "stop_times": [642.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 641.16}, "reply_to": "20521__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__0_049", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--That's right.\nI... I don't see it that way, Your Honor.\nWe feel, Justice Scalia, that the statute applies when... for example, more appropriately, let's someone comes to an official, who has the power to disburse Federal funds or Federal largess, and... and they pay him something, and then he gives the contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [642.046, 643.162, 644.862], "stop_times": [643.162, 644.862, 665.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 642.046}, "reply_to": "20521__0_048", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_050", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "He gives the contract or he gives--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [665.31], "stop_times": [666.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 665.31}, "reply_to": "20521__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__0_051", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "A bid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [666.995], "stop_times": [667.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 666.995}, "reply_to": "20521__0_050", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_052", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--or gives the business--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [667.895], "stop_times": [669.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 667.895}, "reply_to": "20521__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__0_053", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Or the grant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [669.114], "stop_times": [670.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 669.114}, "reply_to": "20521__0_052", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_054", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Or the grant or whatever, yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [670.346], "stop_times": [671.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 670.346}, "reply_to": "20521__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__0_055", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Or things of that nature.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [671.898], "stop_times": [672.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 671.898}, "reply_to": "20521__0_054", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_056", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Are you saying that--\n--Well, why isn't the transaction the housing of Federal prisoners under the contract with the government?\nIt's in connection with the agreement to house Federal prisoners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [672.865, 673.515, 678.485], "stop_times": [673.515, 678.485, 685.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 672.865}, "reply_to": "20521__0_055", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20521__0_057", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "I... I think that's... there's a possibility of that reading.\nBut I think when you look, Justice O'Connor, at the structure of the statute that talks about the other parts, embezzlement and theft of property, they're talking about taking it... taking it from the government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [685.473, 687.841], "stop_times": [687.841, 699.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 685.473}, "reply_to": "20521__0_056", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_058", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Well, but we're looking at (B), somebody who corruptly solicits or demands for the demand of any person... that could be for the benefit of Beltran... or agrees to accept anything of value from any person... and he agreed to accept money from Beltran... intending to be influenced or rewarded... which he was... in connection with a transaction of the government or agency... the transaction being the housing of Federal prisoners, pursuant to the contract.\nI mean, I could read it, and it seemed to fit.\nAm I missing something?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [699.133, 734.139, 736.508], "stop_times": [734.139, 736.508, 738.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 699.133}, "reply_to": "20521__0_057", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20521__0_059", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "I... I guess our position, Justice O'Connor, is that the... the only transaction there was a transaction between the marshal's office and the County of Hidalgo to establish this agreement.\nAnd... and I don't think that... unless it be under some kind of third-party beneficiary theory or some other kind of... of theory, that that would bring Beltran--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [738.224, 751.683], "stop_times": [751.683, 762.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 738.224}, "reply_to": "20521__0_058", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_060", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "It isn't that complicated.\nThe jail agreed to house the Federal prisoners.\nThis Petitioner worked at the jail.\nAnd he agreed to take money to allow contact visits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [762.139, 763.158, 766.86, 770.162], "stop_times": [763.158, 766.86, 770.162, 774.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 762.139}, "reply_to": "20521__0_059", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20521__0_061", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--That's right.\nBut it... it didn't have anything to do with, for example, whether he should be in the jail or not.\nThat was something that was strictly the marshal's... the U.S. marshal's decision.\nHe's the one that decides how many people... Federal prisoners... are going to be in that jail or whether they're going to be housed in that jail or another jail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [774.447, 775.049, 781.37, 785.655], "stop_times": [775.049, 781.37, 785.655, 793.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 774.447}, "reply_to": "20521__0_060", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_062", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Well, the reason the government wants a statute like this is to avoid the unseemliness of giving large sums of Federal money for services to the Federal Government that are being carried out in a corrupt fashion by the entity and the employees charged with conducting it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [793.677], "stop_times": [813.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 793.677}, "reply_to": "20521__0_061", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20521__0_063", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Yes, ma'am.\nAnd... and, Justice O'Connor, I don't think that... that that's the basis for this particular statute.\nThe basis for this statute is to protect property, to avoid funds leaving the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [813.472, 814.172, 820.927], "stop_times": [814.172, 820.927, 826.564], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 813.472}, "reply_to": "20521__0_062", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_064", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Well, but the language of (B) is broader than that.\nI mean (A) talks about property; (B) doesn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [826.564, 829.183], "stop_times": [829.183, 833.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 826.564}, "reply_to": "20521__0_063", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20521__0_065", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [833.302], "stop_times": [834.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 833.302}, "reply_to": "20521__0_064", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_066", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "I mean, we... we look at the language of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [834.335], "stop_times": [837.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 834.335}, "reply_to": "20521__0_065", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20521__0_067", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Yes.\nAnd... and I think we also look at the... at the history of the statute, the legislative history, because it is unclear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [837.337, 837.956], "stop_times": [837.956, 844.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 837.337}, "reply_to": "20521__0_066", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_068", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Convince my colleague, Justice Scalia, of that, would you?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [844.11, 847.312], "stop_times": [847.312, 847.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 844.11}, "reply_to": "20521__0_067", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20521__0_069", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "I will try.\nIf I could, another indication--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [847.928, 849.428], "stop_times": [849.428, 852.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 847.928}, "reply_to": "20521__0_068", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_070", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "May I just ask this?\nI... I... I guess I didn't read it the same way Justice O'Connor did.\nI thought the transaction was the conjugal visit, and that that had a value of over $5,000.\nIsn't that what the court below relied on, the conjugal visit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [852.014, 852.314, 855.667, 860.535], "stop_times": [852.314, 855.667, 860.535, 863.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 852.014}, "reply_to": "20521__0_069", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20521__0_071", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--That's what... that's what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [863.487], "stop_times": [864.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 863.487}, "reply_to": "20521__0_070", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_072", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "And... and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [864.004], "stop_times": [864.387], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 864.004}, "reply_to": "20521__0_071", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20521__0_073", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--that's what both courts below relied on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [864.387], "stop_times": [865.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 864.387}, "reply_to": "20521__0_072", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_074", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--and is it not... is not correct that the... the transaction term is broader than business?\nThere's a comma between \"business\" and \"transaction\"... so presumably it applies to any... in connection with any business or any nonbusiness transaction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [865.656, 869.391], "stop_times": [869.391, 876.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 865.656}, "reply_to": "20521__0_073", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20521__0_075", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Yes, sir.\nBut then--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [876.145, 876.431], "stop_times": [876.431, 877.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 876.145}, "reply_to": "20521__0_074", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_076", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "And this is surely a nonbusiness transaction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [877.081], "stop_times": [879.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 877.081}, "reply_to": "20521__0_075", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20521__0_077", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Justice Stevens, yes.\nBut then you would have a situation where, within the bribery context, there's a portion of the bribery statute that says that the bribe can be of any value--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [879.064, 880.116], "stop_times": [880.116, 889.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 879.064}, "reply_to": "20521__0_076", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_078", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Yeah, but the... but the transaction has to have value of more than 5,000.\nThey said the visit was worth more than 5,000, using market value in the... in the relevant market area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [889.072, 893.774], "stop_times": [893.774, 900.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 889.072}, "reply_to": "20521__0_077", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20521__0_079", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Well--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [900.279, 901.112], "stop_times": [901.112, 901.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 900.279}, "reply_to": "20521__0_078", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_080", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Mr.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [901.946], "stop_times": [902.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 901.946}, "reply_to": "20521__0_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__0_081", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Justice Stevens--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [902.579], "stop_times": [903.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 902.579}, "reply_to": "20521__0_080", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_082", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Mr. Enriquez, you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [903.481], "stop_times": [903.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 903.481}, "reply_to": "20521__0_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__0_083", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [903.864], "stop_times": [904.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 903.864}, "reply_to": "20521__0_082", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_084", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--you would call allowing somebody a conjugal visit in exchange for a bribe a transaction.\nBut that's not what they said was the transaction here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [904.248, 911.552], "stop_times": [911.552, 915.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 904.248}, "reply_to": "20521__0_083", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__0_085", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "No.\nThat's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [915.039, 915.389], "stop_times": [915.389, 916.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 915.039}, "reply_to": "20521__0_084", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_086", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "What they called a transaction was allowing the conjugal visit.\nAnd that does not seem to me a common way in which to use the word \"transaction\".", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [916.389, 920.693], "stop_times": [920.693, 928.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 916.389}, "reply_to": "20521__0_085", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__0_087", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "And I think it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [928.014], "stop_times": [928.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 928.014}, "reply_to": "20521__0_086", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_088", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Doesn't \"transaction\" usually mean a deal between two people?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [928.78], "stop_times": [932.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 928.78}, "reply_to": "20521__0_087", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__0_089", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--And--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [932.316], "stop_times": [932.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 932.316}, "reply_to": "20521__0_088", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_090", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Transaction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [932.718], "stop_times": [933.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 932.718}, "reply_to": "20521__0_089", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__0_091", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Yes, sir.\nAnd... and the statute seems to be stretching that definition to fit this set of circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [933.834, 934.051], "stop_times": [934.051, 940.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 933.834}, "reply_to": "20521__0_090", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_092", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "It seems to be stretching it.\nWell, what does... what does the legislative history say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [940.504, 941.187], "stop_times": [941.187, 942.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 940.504}, "reply_to": "20521__0_091", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20521__0_093", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "The legislative--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [942.923], "stop_times": [943.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 942.923}, "reply_to": "20521__0_092", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_094", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "I mean, and specifically on the point of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [943.523], "stop_times": [945.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 943.523}, "reply_to": "20521__0_093", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20521__0_095", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, the legislative history--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [945.725], "stop_times": [947.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 945.725}, "reply_to": "20521__0_094", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_096", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--as you're reading... as you are reading it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [947.177], "stop_times": [947.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 947.177}, "reply_to": "20521__0_095", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20521__0_097", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [947.927], "stop_times": [948.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 947.927}, "reply_to": "20521__0_096", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_098", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "It's like a commercial bribery statute.\nAnd that's it.\nWhen they have a transaction in the government... they're awarding contracts or whatever it is... that's what you look to.\nThe opposite in that will immunize--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [948.66, 951.395, 953.264, 958.383], "stop_times": [951.395, 953.264, 958.383, 960.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 948.66}, "reply_to": "20521__0_097", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20521__0_099", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [960.501], "stop_times": [961.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 960.501}, "reply_to": "20521__0_098", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_100", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--and misuse of government property?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [961.101], "stop_times": [963.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 961.101}, "reply_to": "20521__0_099", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20521__0_101", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [963.62], "stop_times": [964.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 963.62}, "reply_to": "20521__0_100", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_102", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "If... if what we're after is a bribe to obtain misuse of government property, this doesn't count, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [964.972], "stop_times": [970.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 964.972}, "reply_to": "20521__0_101", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20521__0_103", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "That... that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [970.606], "stop_times": [971.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 970.606}, "reply_to": "20521__0_102", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_104", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Okay.\nNow, there's something in the legislative history that's going to support that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [971.106, 971.356], "stop_times": [971.356, 973.558], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 971.106}, "reply_to": "20521__0_103", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20521__0_105", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "There's something in the legislative history that... that talks in terms of bribery, which influences Federal funds.\nAdditionally, another indication that this is its purpose is illustrated by reference to what is, in essence, what... what I consider the com... the companion statute to 666, which is 18 U.S.C., Section 201, which is also a bribery statute, and which, it can be said, was the impetus for the creation of Section 666.\nAnd Section 201 is referred to in the legislative history.\nSection 666 was enacted because, in interpreting Section 201, many courts had given a narrow definition to agents of government, or who was acting on behalf of the government, to come within the scope of that bribery statute.\nHowever, this Court interpreted Section 201, in... in the case of Dikson v. United States, and stated, quote, the regulation and oversight of the funds is aimed precisely at the harm that occurred here: diversion of Federal money to unauthorized purposes... diversion of Federal money to un... unauthorized purposes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [973.558, 981.812, 1001.308, 1004.76, 1018.67], "stop_times": [981.812, 1001.308, 1004.76, 1018.67, 1039.915], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 973.558}, "reply_to": "20521__0_104", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_106", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "When it says it's aimed precisely, that doesn't mean it's only aimed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1039.915], "stop_times": [1042.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1039.915}, "reply_to": "20521__0_105", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20521__0_107", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "That... that apparently is the intent of this statute.\nI see it as a protection of property statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1042.867, 1047.003], "stop_times": [1047.003, 1049.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1042.867}, "reply_to": "20521__0_106", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_108", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Well, how about the title?\nIt says theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal money.\nThis is a program receiving Federal money--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1049.856, 1050.474, 1054.676], "stop_times": [1050.474, 1054.676, 1057.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1049.856}, "reply_to": "20521__0_107", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20521__0_109", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Yes, ma'am.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1057.378], "stop_times": [1057.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1057.378}, "reply_to": "20521__0_108", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_110", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--and it's bribery.\nIt just fits like a glove, if you read (B).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1057.878, 1058.978], "stop_times": [1058.978, 1062.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1057.878}, "reply_to": "20521__0_109", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20521__0_111", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Well, it... it... it does, Your Honor, if we ignore the structure, I think, of the statute in its entirety, and we ignore the fact that concerning the bribery, what amount--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1062.616], "stop_times": [1073.304], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1062.616}, "reply_to": "20521__0_110", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_112", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "You mean if you ignore the literal language in the title, you have an argument, is that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1073.304], "stop_times": [1079.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1073.304}, "reply_to": "20521__0_111", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20521__0_113", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--No... no.\nAdditionally, within the bribery... the bribery provisions, itself, it has two elements in there.\nWhat is the amount of the bribe?\nIt can be any amount.\nAnd, then, what does it have to deal with?\nIt has to deal with a transaction involving $5,000 or more.\nAnd... and that is something that is carried out throughout the terms of the statute, not only in this bribery provision, but in the theft and also in the embezzlement provisions.\nMay it please the Court:\nConcerning RICO, it's our position that in order to be found guilty of a RICO conspiracy, the government has to prove that the defendant either committed two predicate acts or agreed to commit two predicate acts.\nWe believe this is so, first of all, because it's a natural reading of the RICO substantive, which states that the essence of the violation is to conduct or participate, through a pattern of racketeering.\nThat is, the performance of two predicate acts.\nIt doesn't speak in terms of joining a conspiracy or simply joining an enterprise.\nIndeed, the indictment in this case read in that fashion.\nIt alleges that the defendant conspired to conduct or participate.\nIt says nothing about conspired to join an enterprise.\nEven the case law cited by the government indicates that in reading RICO substantive and the RICO conspiracy statutes together, that that's the natural reading... conspire to conduct or participate... not simply to conspire to join.\nWell, we... we feel that this pattern of racketeering element is what makes this RICO statute so unique.\nThis is the core of the statute.\nAnd that conduct or participating in a pattern of racketeering is what brings one within the scope of this statute.\nAnd we feel that the government is seeking to circumvent this core requirement in the statute.\nIn... instructive on this issue, again, is the legislative history of the statute, where the principal sponsor of the bill pointed out that even to come within the proscription of... of Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act, which is RICO, and which contains the conspiracy provision, to even come within its prohibition, the individual has to commit the crimes, the predicate acts.\nAnd if he doesn't do it, then he's simply not within the scope of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1079.058, 1079.827, 1085.379, 1086.664, 1088.497, 1090.933, 1096.42, 1106.561, 1108.295, 1123.587, 1134.895, 1136.997, 1143.484, 1148.405, 1153.024, 1157.077, 1173.52, 1180.359, 1183.145, 1191.482, 1196.368, 1220.168], "stop_times": [1079.827, 1085.379, 1086.664, 1088.497, 1090.933, 1096.42, 1106.561, 1108.295, 1123.587, 1134.895, 1136.997, 1143.484, 1148.405, 1153.024, 1157.077, 1173.52, 1180.359, 1183.145, 1191.482, 1196.368, 1220.168, 1223.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1079.058}, "reply_to": "20521__0_112", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_114", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Well, now, at common law, suppose somebody is accused of a conspiracy to commit robbery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1223.853], "stop_times": [1230.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1223.853}, "reply_to": "20521__0_113", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20521__0_115", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Yes, ma'am.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1230.376], "stop_times": [1231.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1230.376}, "reply_to": "20521__0_114", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_116", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Now, I suppose that you don't have to find that the defendant agreed to personally commit the robbery.\nThat's not the common law definition of conspiracy.\nYou just have to agree that the offense will be committed.\nThe government doesn't have to prove--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1231.076, 1240.231, 1245.551, 1251.039], "stop_times": [1240.231, 1245.551, 1251.039, 1253.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1231.076}, "reply_to": "20521__0_115", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20521__0_117", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "I... I think it depends--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1253.072], "stop_times": [1255.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1253.072}, "reply_to": "20521__0_116", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_118", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--that the defendant intended to personally do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1255.157], "stop_times": [1257.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1255.157}, "reply_to": "20521__0_117", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20521__0_119", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, I think it... it varies from statute to statute, crime to crime, as to what the specific intent is; and, in some instances, you probably do.\nI know that the government has cited the Pinkerton case.\nThat has been rejected in the context of... of RICO.\nBut, regardless, the argument of whether you bring--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1257.443, 1266.965, 1270.517, 1275.587], "stop_times": [1266.965, 1270.517, 1275.587, 1279.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1257.443}, "reply_to": "20521__0_118", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_120", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Who... who... who has rejected it in the context of RICO?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1279.022], "stop_times": [1281.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1279.022}, "reply_to": "20521__0_119", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20521__0_121", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--It has been rejected by the government's own decisions in, for example, the Neapolitan case, where it held against our position, but they discussed the idea of whether Pinkerton would apply in the RICO conspiracy context, and the court... the court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1281.974], "stop_times": [1297.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1281.974}, "reply_to": "20521__0_120", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_122", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Well, what court was... was the Neapolitan?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1297.568], "stop_times": [1299.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1297.568}, "reply_to": "20521__0_121", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20521__0_123", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--It was the 7th Circuit, Your Honor.\nAnd... and, in addition, in that discussion, they pointed out that the Department of Justice manual indicates that Pinkerton should not be used in this context.\nAdditionally, if we get into the... the... the question of traditional conspiracy law, which rules do we import from traditional conspiracy law into what is admittedly a new and drastic statute?\nI think if we look, like, for example, in the Pinkerton case, it talks about an agree... that if you... if the substantive statute requires an agreement of... of two people or more, then you can't have a conspiracy violation.\nThat is traditional conspiracy law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1299.27, 1300.72, 1310.411, 1323.968, 1338.311], "stop_times": [1300.72, 1310.411, 1323.968, 1338.311, 1340.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1299.27}, "reply_to": "20521__0_122", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_124", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Mr. Enriquez--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1340.763], "stop_times": [1341.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1340.763}, "reply_to": "20521__0_123", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20521__0_125", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1341.346], "stop_times": [1341.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1341.346}, "reply_to": "20521__0_124", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_126", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--this... this question puzzles me.\nI thought one of the aims of RICO was to get after organized crime, including the top people.\nAnd the top people may plan, agree to, but ordinarily don't themselves perform the predicate acts.\nThey don't engage in the robberies, the murders and the rest.\nSo it... it would not seem a... a logical reading--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1341.879, 1343.229, 1349.785, 1359.907, 1364.795], "stop_times": [1343.229, 1349.785, 1359.907, 1364.795, 1371.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1341.879}, "reply_to": "20521__0_125", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20521__0_127", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1371.548], "stop_times": [1372.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1371.548}, "reply_to": "20521__0_126", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_128", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--to say that... that it has to be... that you have to agree to do the act, instead of that the act will be done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1372.998], "stop_times": [1379.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1372.998}, "reply_to": "20521__0_127", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20521__0_129", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, I would suggest to the Court that that is a logical reading, because if you can't get them under RICO substantive, how can you get them under RICO conspiracy?\nAnd... and so I think, under RICO substantive, this Court has instructed us that... in the Reves v. Ernst B. Young case, that in order to be within RICO, it's not simply enough to be somehow associated with the enterprise, but, rather, you've got to participate by management or control of the enterprise.\nAnd so, in... in your hypothetical, if they can't get you for RICO substantive, then I think it may be fair that they can't get you for RICO conspiracy.\nAnd as a practical matter, in the cases that... that are charged below, I... I... I've never seen a case where they don't charge RICO substantive and RICO conspiracy also, anyway.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1379.804, 1389.576, 1412.291, 1420.797], "stop_times": [1389.576, 1412.291, 1420.797, 1432.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1379.804}, "reply_to": "20521__0_128", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_130", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "You can... you can--\n--The reason you have to be a manager is... is because the statute requires that you participate directly or indirectly in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1432.522, 1433.522], "stop_times": [1433.522, 1443.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1432.522}, "reply_to": "20521__0_129", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__0_131", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "That's correct, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1443.561], "stop_times": [1444.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1443.561}, "reply_to": "20521__0_130", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_132", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "And it's the word \"conduct\" that... that brings in that requirement, not... not any... any... any implication that you're not liable for the acts of coconspirators.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1444.663], "stop_times": [1455.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1444.663}, "reply_to": "20521__0_131", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__0_133", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nBut... but that, again... that is true... but, again, that incorporates some pretty stunning language in the Pinkerton case.\nThe Pinkerton case being, of course, where someone was charged with a conspiracy, and they proved a conspiracy, but because somebody else committed a substantive crime, he was also charged and found guilty of that substantive crime under the partnership of crime theory.\nAnd... and that's been highly criticized and... and criticized even by the cases that... that support the government's position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1455.702, 1457.47, 1467.176, 1483.722], "stop_times": [1457.47, 1467.176, 1483.722, 1490.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1455.702}, "reply_to": "20521__0_132", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_134", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "But the government doesn't need that part of the Pinkerton case here.\nIt seems to me it just needs what... what you apparently agree with the common law idea.\nThat if you agree that a robbery should be committed, the agreement doesn't have to provide for you personally com... committing the robbery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1490.942, 1494.695, 1499.131], "stop_times": [1494.695, 1499.131, 1507.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1490.942}, "reply_to": "20521__0_133", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20521__0_135", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "As I indicated, Mr. Chief Justice, I... I think that it depends on a crime-to-crime basis.\nI don't think that, across the board--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1507.503, 1514.307], "stop_times": [1514.307, 1516.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1507.503}, "reply_to": "20521__0_134", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_136", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Well, how about robbery?\nTake that for a crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1516.443, 1517.559], "stop_times": [1517.559, 1519.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1516.443}, "reply_to": "20521__0_135", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20521__0_137", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Well, I think it's a specific intent, and you have to agree that... that a robbery is going to be committed, and you've got to do something in furtherance of it.\nDrug crimes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1519.045, 1527.401], "stop_times": [1527.401, 1528.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1519.045}, "reply_to": "20521__0_136", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_138", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "But... but are... are you... are you saying that you would have to personally commit the robbery in a situation like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1528.651], "stop_times": [1533.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1528.651}, "reply_to": "20521__0_137", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20521__0_139", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--No.\nI... I think agree to commit elements of the robbery, yes.\nIf it please the Court, I would like to reserve my remaining time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1533.304, 1533.72, 1537.672], "stop_times": [1533.72, 1537.672, 1541.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1533.304}, "reply_to": "20521__0_138", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__0_140", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Very well, Mr. Enriquez.\nMr. Wolfson, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1541.308, 1542.493], "stop_times": [1542.493, 1544.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1541.308}, "reply_to": "20521__0_139", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20521__1_000", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe first statute before the Court, the bribery offense, which is stated in Section 666, specifies four elements.\nFirst, the defendant must be an agent of an entity that receives Federal benefits.\nSecond, the Federal benefits received by that entity must exceed $10,000 in a 1-year period.\nThird, during that 1-year period, the defendant must accept something of value, intending to be influenced in a transaction of the entity.\nAnd, fourth, the transaction must involve something of value.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1544.193, 1549.58, 1557.17, 1562.324, 1569.394, 1577.833], "stop_times": [1549.58, 1557.17, 1562.324, 1569.394, 1577.833, 1582.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1544.193}, "reply_to": "20521__0_140", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_001", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "What was the transaction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1582.135], "stop_times": [1583.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1582.135}, "reply_to": "20521__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20521__1_002", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "The transaction in this case was allowing con... was allowing conjugal visits.\nThat was the theory on which the case was submitted to the jury.\nThe jury instruction is found on page 127 of the joint appendix.\nAnd the judge says, now... says, now, what are the transactions?\nThe transactions are allowing contact visits, I... I should say.\nAnd the Court of Appeals, basically, took the same... the same view.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1583.737, 1587.539, 1590.891, 1596.211, 1599.913, 1603.465], "stop_times": [1587.539, 1590.891, 1596.211, 1599.913, 1603.465, 1608.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1583.737}, "reply_to": "20521__1_001", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_003", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "If I took a bribe for... for allowing the prisoner to open his window, would... would opening the window be a transaction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1608.436], "stop_times": [1616.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1608.436}, "reply_to": "20521__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__1_004", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "I think that if the... it could be.\nI think that if the... if the person who is taking the bribe is a jail guard, who... you know, I think that you have to say that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1616.291, 1620.843], "stop_times": [1620.843, 1627.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1616.291}, "reply_to": "20521__1_003", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_005", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Yeah, I think you're using \"transaction\" in... in a... in a broad sense that I really don't recognize.\nI think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1627.766, 1632.234], "stop_times": [1632.234, 1632.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1627.766}, "reply_to": "20521__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__1_006", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "I do think that what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1632.684], "stop_times": [1633.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1632.684}, "reply_to": "20521__1_005", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_007", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--the word really has, to me, a... a, you know, a flavor of a deal between two people--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1633.586], "stop_times": [1639.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1633.586}, "reply_to": "20521__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__1_008", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Well, let me first--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1639.49], "stop_times": [1640.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1639.49}, "reply_to": "20521__1_007", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_009", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--as \"business\" does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1640.857], "stop_times": [1641.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1640.857}, "reply_to": "20521__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__1_010", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--let me first say, this is not a point that's discussed in the briefs.\nBut I... I have to say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1641.74, 1644.042], "stop_times": [1644.042, 1644.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1641.74}, "reply_to": "20521__1_009", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_011", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "No, I know that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1644.926], "stop_times": [1645.144], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1644.926}, "reply_to": "20521__1_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20521__1_012", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--whatever it... as a transaction, it can't be limited to a deal, because I do think that the statute does... whatever else it does get at... and I know that's been a subject of disagreement... it does get at situations where a... a recipient of Federal funds just simply hands out money to other... other people, without something necessarily in exchange... a kind of a grant program.\nAnd I think, in many cases, in that situation, the... say, the government gives money to a local agency, in turn, to hand out money, the local agency won't be getting... won't be getting a deal for it.\nBut I think, clearly, one thing that is within the statute is if someone bribes a... an agent of a local agency, you know, to send... send the grant money my way, rather than to somebody else.\nI think... so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1645.144, 1663.772, 1675.58, 1687.655], "stop_times": [1663.772, 1675.58, 1687.655, 1688.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1645.144}, "reply_to": "20521__1_011", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_013", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Mr. Wolfson, on Justice Scalia's example of opening a window, it would have to be worth $5,000, that... to... the market value of opening a window.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1688.521], "stop_times": [1698.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1688.521}, "reply_to": "20521__1_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20521__1_014", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--That... that's right.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1698.712, 1699.462], "stop_times": [1699.462, 1699.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1698.712}, "reply_to": "20521__1_013", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_015", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "And if it was letting him out in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1699.845], "stop_times": [1701.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1699.845}, "reply_to": "20521__1_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20521__1_016", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1701.064], "stop_times": [1701.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1701.064}, "reply_to": "20521__1_015", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_017", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--out in the open, in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1701.114], "stop_times": [1702.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1701.114}, "reply_to": "20521__1_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20521__1_018", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1702.497], "stop_times": [1702.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1702.497}, "reply_to": "20521__1_017", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_019", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--public park every Thursday, Friday and Saturday, instead of staying in prison, that would be the same kind of transaction as opening the window, and it might be worth a little more.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1702.93], "stop_times": [1711.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1702.93}, "reply_to": "20521__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20521__1_020", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "I... I think that's right.\nAnd I think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1711.253, 1712.453], "stop_times": [1712.453, 1713.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1711.253}, "reply_to": "20521__1_019", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_021", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "How do you think that helps you?\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1713.288, 1713.972], "stop_times": [1713.972, 1714.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1713.288}, "reply_to": "20521__1_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20521__1_022", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1714.255], "stop_times": [1714.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1714.255}, "reply_to": "20521__1_021", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_023", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--the... the... the notion that we have to place a dollar value on such things as opening a window or having a visit from... from your wife--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1714.722], "stop_times": [1722.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1714.722}, "reply_to": "20521__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__1_024", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1722.578], "stop_times": [1722.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1722.578}, "reply_to": "20521__1_023", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_025", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--I mean, I... I can place $5,000 on most business transactions.\nI... I can place a monetary limit on it.\nBut... but the interpretation you're giving the statute makes you say, how much is it worth to open a window?\nThat's ridiculous.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1722.944, 1728.232, 1730.298, 1735.583, 1736.452], "stop_times": [1728.232, 1730.298, 1735.583, 1736.452, 1737.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1722.944}, "reply_to": "20521__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__1_026", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1737.085], "stop_times": [1737.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1737.085}, "reply_to": "20521__1_025", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_027", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--people don't write statutes that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1737.635], "stop_times": [1738.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1737.635}, "reply_to": "20521__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__1_028", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--I think that... well, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1738.585], "stop_times": [1739.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1738.585}, "reply_to": "20521__1_027", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_029", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Why shouldn't the transaction be the housing of Federal prisoners?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1739.57], "stop_times": [1743.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1739.57}, "reply_to": "20521__1_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20521__1_030", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1743.522], "stop_times": [1743.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1743.522}, "reply_to": "20521__1_029", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_031", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "I mean, that looked like the most normal reading of it.\nWhat's the matter with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1743.989, 1746.491], "stop_times": [1746.491, 1747.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1743.989}, "reply_to": "20521__1_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20521__1_032", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--I think that could be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1747.758], "stop_times": [1748.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1747.758}, "reply_to": "20521__1_031", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_033", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "And I... and I might add, on that very same point, that that's the way I think your indictment is... is better interpreted--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1748.01], "stop_times": [1754.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1748.01}, "reply_to": "20521__1_032", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20521__1_034", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Well, I think that the... I think that the business of the jail could have been... the ongoing housing of Federal prisoners.\nBut here, the... I mean, I think the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1754.579, 1759.381], "stop_times": [1759.381, 1761.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1754.579}, "reply_to": "20521__1_033", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_035", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Well, now, it seems to me, under Justice O'Connor's question, it's either one or the other.\nIt's either the Federal program of prisoners or the conjugal visits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1761.5, 1765.269], "stop_times": [1765.269, 1769.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1761.5}, "reply_to": "20521__1_034", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20521__1_036", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Well, the... the case was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1769.506], "stop_times": [1770.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1769.506}, "reply_to": "20521__1_035", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_037", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "And you can't say it could be one or the other, because the statute doesn't permit you to read it \"one way or the other\".\nSo which is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1770.789, 1774.924], "stop_times": [1774.924, 1776.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1770.789}, "reply_to": "20521__1_036", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20521__1_038", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Well, the case was certainly submitted to the jury on the theory that the transaction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1776.776], "stop_times": [1779.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1776.776}, "reply_to": "20521__1_037", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_039", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "What... what is the government's position as to what the transaction is in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1779.728], "stop_times": [1783.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1779.728}, "reply_to": "20521__1_038", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20521__1_040", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Allowing the conjugal visits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1783.347], "stop_times": [1784.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1783.347}, "reply_to": "20521__1_039", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_041", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "All right.\nSo, then, you're saying that the statute can't be interpreted, as Justice O'Connor suggested, so that the business or transaction is the program of... of keeping the prisoners?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1784.98, 1785.297], "stop_times": [1785.297, 1794.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1784.98}, "reply_to": "20521__1_040", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20521__1_042", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "I... I think it can't be applied that way in this case, because the... the statute requires a payment from the briber... you know, intending to be influenced--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1794.302], "stop_times": [1805.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1794.302}, "reply_to": "20521__1_041", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_043", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "In most cases, it would make a lot more sense.\nThe title of the statute is theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal money.\nThat's why Congress wanted to enact this.\nThey don't want to support some program that's being corruptly administered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1805.61, 1807.545, 1813.366, 1816.418], "stop_times": [1807.545, 1813.366, 1816.418, 1820.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1805.61}, "reply_to": "20521__1_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20521__1_044", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--I... I think that the case... I think that, certainly, one could have tried this case on the theory that the ongoing treatment of the prisoner... you know, if the prisoner received just, generally, day to day, more favorable treatment than somebody else, and gave money in return for that, that that could have been a business, which is the... the conditions under which the prisoner was housed at the jail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1820.62], "stop_times": [1842.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1820.62}, "reply_to": "20521__1_043", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_045", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "But the $5,000 has... has to be given in connection with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1842.651], "stop_times": [1846.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1842.651}, "reply_to": "20521__1_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__1_046", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1846.27], "stop_times": [1846.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1846.27}, "reply_to": "20521__1_045", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_047", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Now, by \"in connection with\", I assume... don't you take that to mean in payment for?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1846.453], "stop_times": [1851.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1846.453}, "reply_to": "20521__1_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__1_048", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "I... there... I think there is an element, yes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1851.341], "stop_times": [1853.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1851.341}, "reply_to": "20521__1_047", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_049", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Otherwise, the statute has a wild breadth to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1853.257], "stop_times": [1855.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1853.257}, "reply_to": "20521__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__1_050", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Yes.\nI think there is an element of exchange.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1855.109, 1855.376], "stop_times": [1855.376, 1856.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1855.109}, "reply_to": "20521__1_049", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_051", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Of exchange.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1856.895], "stop_times": [1857.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1856.895}, "reply_to": "20521__1_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__1_052", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1857.578], "stop_times": [1857.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1857.578}, "reply_to": "20521__1_051", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_053", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "And... and he's not exchanging $5,000 for the whole business of the prison--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1857.861], "stop_times": [1862.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1857.861}, "reply_to": "20521__1_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__1_054", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1862.197], "stop_times": [1862.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1862.197}, "reply_to": "20521__1_053", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_055", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--and housing Federal prisoners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1862.632], "stop_times": [1864.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1862.632}, "reply_to": "20521__1_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__1_056", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--But I... but I don't... but I don't think that the payment... I don't think that the transaction requires an exchange.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1864.165], "stop_times": [1868.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1864.165}, "reply_to": "20521__1_055", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_057", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "He's exchanging it for the window... for the opening of the window or for the conjugal visit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1868.619], "stop_times": [1871.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1868.619}, "reply_to": "20521__1_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__1_058", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "At... at any rate, I... I do want to point out that the issue of transaction is not in the briefs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1871.487], "stop_times": [1876.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1871.487}, "reply_to": "20521__1_057", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_059", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Mr. Wolfson, maybe... maybe... maybe this would clarify it.\nWhen the government says it's a conjugal visit, suppose Beltran was a State prisoner.\nWould you say the statute still applied?\nBecause there is Federal funding to help on the construction.\nThere is Federal funding to house prisoners.\nThis prisoner happens to be a State prisoner, but there is... there is a sheriff or an assistant that is taking bribes.\nWould the statute, in... on your reading, cover this case if Beltran had been a State, and not a Federal, prisoner?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1876.356, 1878.141, 1887.08, 1890.799, 1893.584, 1895.703, 1905.559], "stop_times": [1878.141, 1887.08, 1890.799, 1893.584, 1895.703, 1905.559, 1914.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1876.356}, "reply_to": "20521__1_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20521__1_060", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Yes, it... it would.\nIt... it's because the... the... all of the four elements of the offense are... are stated in the hypothetical--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1914.998, 1915.231], "stop_times": [1915.231, 1921.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1914.998}, "reply_to": "20521__1_059", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_061", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "And because the... because the transaction is that there's a previous Federal grant to the prison?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1921.801], "stop_times": [1927.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1921.801}, "reply_to": "20521__1_060", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20521__1_062", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--No, no.\nThe... the trans... the transaction is... let's suppose there was a State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1927.622, 1927.905], "stop_times": [1927.905, 1930.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1927.622}, "reply_to": "20521__1_061", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_063", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "What's the... what's the Federal grant transaction that's involved in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1930.674], "stop_times": [1933.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1930.674}, "reply_to": "20521__1_062", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20521__1_064", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--The Federal grant--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1933.026], "stop_times": [1933.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1933.026}, "reply_to": "20521__1_063", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_065", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--in Justice Ginsburg's hypothetical?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1933.526], "stop_times": [1935.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1933.526}, "reply_to": "20521__1_064", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20521__1_066", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--The Federal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1935.326], "stop_times": [1936.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1935.326}, "reply_to": "20521__1_065", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_067", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "The transaction, you have told me, is the conjugal visit, which is not... is not related to the Federal grant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1936.06], "stop_times": [1943.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1936.06}, "reply_to": "20521__1_066", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20521__1_068", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Well, the Federal... the Federal Government is giving... on the hyp... I... I hope I'm understanding the hypothetical correctly... the Federal Government is giving the jail money to house a Federal prisoner.\nNow, it so happens that at... during that 1-year period, there is a State prisoner in the jail cell next to Beltran--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1943.631, 1954.122], "stop_times": [1954.122, 1961.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1943.631}, "reply_to": "20521__1_067", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_069", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1961.093], "stop_times": [1961.493], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1961.093}, "reply_to": "20521__1_068", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20521__1_070", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--who is giving bribes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1961.493], "stop_times": [1962.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1961.493}, "reply_to": "20521__1_069", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_071", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1962.712], "stop_times": [1963.195], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1962.712}, "reply_to": "20521__1_070", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20521__1_072", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--in return for the... the privilege of receiving conjugal visits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1963.195], "stop_times": [1965.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1963.195}, "reply_to": "20521__1_071", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_073", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1965.664], "stop_times": [1966.03], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1965.664}, "reply_to": "20521__1_072", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20521__1_074", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "The statute clearly does cover that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1966.03], "stop_times": [1967.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1966.03}, "reply_to": "20521__1_073", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_075", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1967.897], "stop_times": [1968.366], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1967.897}, "reply_to": "20521__1_074", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20521__1_076", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--that situation.\nBecause--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1968.366, 1969.299], "stop_times": [1969.299, 1969.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1968.366}, "reply_to": "20521__1_075", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_077", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "But there you... regarding the transaction, is the conjugal visit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1969.749], "stop_times": [1974.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1969.749}, "reply_to": "20521__1_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20521__1_078", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1974.001], "stop_times": [1974.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1974.001}, "reply_to": "20521__1_077", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_079", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--for which the bribe was paid?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1974.436], "stop_times": [1975.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1974.436}, "reply_to": "20521__1_078", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20521__1_080", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Yes.\nThat's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1975.72, 1976.236], "stop_times": [1976.236, 1977.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1975.72}, "reply_to": "20521__1_079", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_081", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Was there any objection at the trial court to the charge on what trans... what \"transaction\" meant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1977.02], "stop_times": [1982.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1977.02}, "reply_to": "20521__1_080", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20521__1_082", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "I... I'm not aware of any.\nBut, certainly... certainly, that's the way in which the... as I read the jury instruction, that's the way in which it was submitted to the jury.\nAnd that hasn't been challenged in this Court, at any rate.\nAnd the... the whole point hasn't been briefed at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1982.773, 1985.208, 1992.814, 1996.349], "stop_times": [1985.208, 1992.814, 1996.349, 1999.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1982.773}, "reply_to": "20521__1_081", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_083", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Does it help to focus on business?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [1999.801], "stop_times": [2001.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1999.801}, "reply_to": "20521__1_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20521__1_084", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Excuse me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2001.753], "stop_times": [2002.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2001.753}, "reply_to": "20521__1_083", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_085", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "If the statute is primarily aimed at commercial bribery... that's the normal situation... they're selling something or they're buying something, and that's the transaction with the government, that's the heart of the statute... you want to apply it, as well, to misuse of government property, let's say, that was bought by the government... the Federal Government... and why doesn't the word \"business\", then, come into play?\nI mean, there is no transaction here, but this is bribery in connection with the business of this organization, which is to house prisoners.\nAnd, moreover, it affects... that word, in connection with, is very loose... it affects that business... or $5,000, or more, worth of that business... because it's misuse of that property for a period of a year, and the single cell cost 10,000 for the year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2002.52, 2025.118, 2032.022], "stop_times": [2025.118, 2032.022, 2048.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2002.52}, "reply_to": "20521__1_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20521__1_086", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "I... I think it could be... I think it could be applied in that situation.\nI don't think that the statute covers only a situation where Congress gives an entity money and then sets that entity loose in the world to engage in... with that money... to engage in a commercial transaction.\nI think that it... it clearly covers... it clearly covers broader--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2048.15, 2051.936, 2064.51], "stop_times": [2051.936, 2064.51, 2069.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2048.15}, "reply_to": "20521__1_085", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_087", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Well, it seems to me that the criminal statute--\n--Do you consider the Justice Department a business, Mr. Wolfson?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2069.231, 2071.414], "stop_times": [2071.414, 2073.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2069.231}, "reply_to": "20521__1_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__1_088", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Excuse me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2073.199], "stop_times": [2073.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2073.199}, "reply_to": "20521__1_087", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_089", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Do you consider the Justice Department a business?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2073.766], "stop_times": [2076.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2073.766}, "reply_to": "20521__1_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__1_090", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "I think that the business... it could be said that the business of the Justice Department is to... is to bring cases... the business of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2076.135], "stop_times": [2083.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2076.135}, "reply_to": "20521__1_089", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_091", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "It could be said analogously, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2083.139], "stop_times": [2085.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2083.139}, "reply_to": "20521__1_090", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__1_092", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2085.074], "stop_times": [2085.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2085.074}, "reply_to": "20521__1_091", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_093", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--but I wouldn't... that wouldn't be the normal use of \"business\".\nI don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2085.524, 2087.609], "stop_times": [2087.609, 2088.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2085.524}, "reply_to": "20521__1_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__1_094", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "It's the... but it's the business--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2088.126], "stop_times": [2089.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2088.126}, "reply_to": "20521__1_093", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_095", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--regard Federal agencies as being in business.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2089.395], "stop_times": [2091.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2089.395}, "reply_to": "20521__1_094", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__1_096", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--It is... what it says, it is the business or transaction of... of an... of an organization, agency or government.\nAnd it doesn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2091.561, 2100.35], "stop_times": [2100.35, 2101.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2091.561}, "reply_to": "20521__1_095", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_097", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "I'd like to get just one point clear.\nAre... are you saying that, under this statute, business transaction or series of transactions can be, depending on the way the government charges in the indictment, either the business of keeping Federal prisoners that Justice Breyer asked about or the conjugal visit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2101.033, 2102.218], "stop_times": [2102.218, 2118.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2101.033}, "reply_to": "20521__1_096", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20521__1_098", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--I think it can.\nI think the business... I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2118.812, 2119.93], "stop_times": [2119.93, 2121.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2118.812}, "reply_to": "20521__1_097", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_099", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "It seems to me that that is a very strange way to interpret a criminal statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2121.764], "stop_times": [2125.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2121.764}, "reply_to": "20521__1_098", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20521__1_100", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--I think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2125.984], "stop_times": [2126.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2125.984}, "reply_to": "20521__1_099", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_101", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "It seems to me it has to be either one or the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2126.701], "stop_times": [2129.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2126.701}, "reply_to": "20521__1_100", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20521__1_102", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--I think that business... that business could be... could reach... that business or transaction could reach different... different points.\nI mean, business, for example, could reach the broad programmatic... the broad programmatic purpose, such as, you know, the... the general business of housing prisoners.\nTransaction is one implementation of that... of that business, such as allowing... allowing a prisoner to have more privileges than he would normally, under the generally applicable rules.\nThere are also situations, I should say, where the courts have held \"business\" to cover situations where one local agency is an intergovernmental entity, where it... where the local agency doesn't have the authority to do something on its own, and they've said, well... and, say, one entity's representative votes on an intergovernmental board... and they say, well, this is clearly a business, because it's... it's engaged in a... you know, in a relationship with another entity.\nI think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2129.02, 2136.792, 2146.897, 2158.039, 2183.587], "stop_times": [2136.792, 2146.897, 2158.039, 2183.587, 2184.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2129.02}, "reply_to": "20521__1_101", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_103", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "I... I'm just trying to clarify my... you could have charged and... and convicted the defendants, in your view, in this case, by interpreting \"transaction\" in either of these two ways?\nYou had the option to charge, and you would prevail on either interpretation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2184.189, 2196.58], "stop_times": [2196.58, 2202.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2184.189}, "reply_to": "20521__1_102", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20521__1_104", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--I... I don't know that we would have... I think if we had charged... I think we might have charged by saying that he offered a bribe and a bribe was taken in connection with a series of transactions.\nBut I don't know that we would have charged in connection with a business of the jail.\nBut, as I... again, this has not been... we... we're bound by the theory which we took in a lower court, which was that the transaction is the... is the conjugal... is... was the contact visits that were allowed.\nBecause that was basically an exercise of the... of the authority, or of the discretion, of the sheriff and the deputy sheriff of the county, who had the... whose job it was... whose official function it was to decide when and under what circumstances the door of the jail cell would be allowed open so that the... a prisoner could be allowed to see his family or... or whatever.\nAnd that's how we viewed the... the transaction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2202.568, 2216.678, 2222.397, 2235.289, 2258.488], "stop_times": [2216.678, 2222.397, 2235.289, 2258.488, 2260.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2202.568}, "reply_to": "20521__1_103", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_105", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "What is your response to Justice Kennedy's... at the end, he said, I think, if business... the word \"business\" fits pretty uneasily here, and the word \"transaction\" also fits pretty uneasily.\nAnd it's a criminal statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2260.689, 2269.795], "stop_times": [2269.795, 2271.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2260.689}, "reply_to": "20521__1_104", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20521__1_106", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "I think that the... I think that there are situations where a word \"business\" could apply.\nI'm not sure that it would apply to the... the treatment... I... I'm not sure that it would apply to the... to the... the various exercises of discretion in which a prisoner is treated.\nBut I... I think the word \"transaction\" clearly does fit it.\nI... I guess I... it doesn't seem to me to be... to be that ambiguous.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2271.645, 2279.318, 2293.244, 2297.696], "stop_times": [2279.318, 2293.244, 2297.696, 2302.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2271.645}, "reply_to": "20521__1_105", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_107", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Of course, none... none of this leads you to the precise thing that the Petitioner here is complaining of, which is the fact that there is no Federal money directly involved.\nNone of this really goes to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2302.099, 2312.389], "stop_times": [2312.389, 2314.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2302.099}, "reply_to": "20521__1_106", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__1_108", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2314.924], "stop_times": [2315.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2314.924}, "reply_to": "20521__1_107", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_109", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--whether it's a business or a transaction or not a transaction.\nIt doesn't speak to the question of whether you have to re... and... and how... how is the question presented, again?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2315.374, 2318.543], "stop_times": [2318.543, 2324.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2315.374}, "reply_to": "20521__1_108", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__1_110", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Well, the... the question... the question presented is clearly whether there has to be a nexus shown to the treatment of... well, it says what kinds of cases involving State employees are subject to prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 666.\nBut then it goes on to say, do such cases include cases where no Federal funds are di... disbursed or impinged.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2324.28, 2340.725], "stop_times": [2340.725, 2348.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2324.28}, "reply_to": "20521__1_109", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_111", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2348.195], "stop_times": [2348.645], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2348.195}, "reply_to": "20521__1_110", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20521__1_112", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Now, having said that, I think that the statute... I mean, the statute clearly covers cases like this one, where there is a strong Federal interest in the integrity of... there is an... there is an important Federal interest in cases like this, where the... the recipient of the Federal funds is housing Federal prisoners, is responsible for their custody and their safekeeping and is obligated to... to keep them under certain conditions, but also to keep them under certain privileges.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2348.645, 2376.898], "stop_times": [2376.898, 2377.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2348.645}, "reply_to": "20521__1_111", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_113", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Well, what... what if... what if Congress had simply provided for grants to allow the State prisons, without requiring that the house State prisoners.\nNow, would this statute still apply?\nWith... with Federal prisoners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2377.365, 2385.853, 2388.705], "stop_times": [2385.853, 2388.705, 2390.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2377.365}, "reply_to": "20521__1_112", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20521__1_114", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--If Congress... I mean, if Congress gave the Federal... gave the States or local governments just money to house State prisoners, yes, I think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2390.389], "stop_times": [2398.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2390.389}, "reply_to": "20521__1_113", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_115", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "The statute would still apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2398.061], "stop_times": [2399.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2398.061}, "reply_to": "20521__1_114", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20521__1_116", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Yes.\nThe statute does not require a nexus to the implementation of the Federal program.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2399.513, 2399.93], "stop_times": [2399.93, 2404.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2399.513}, "reply_to": "20521__1_115", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_117", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Nor does it require any special Federal interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2404.815], "stop_times": [2407.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2404.815}, "reply_to": "20521__1_116", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20521__1_118", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "I think that's correct, on the terms of the statute.\nI think, though, that... I mean, Congress could, for example, give a local government a... an unrestricted block grant, sort of a... a revenue-sharing grant in aid program.\nAnd I think that Congress could... under the Spending Clause, Congress could have restrictions such as this follow the grants and... the grants and their funds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2407.434, 2409.636, 2419.742], "stop_times": [2409.636, 2419.742, 2429.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2407.434}, "reply_to": "20521__1_117", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_119", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "So that for the next 30 years, any bribery... if it's more than $5,000 involved... in conjunction with the ordinary, day-to-day running of a prison that's been built with Federal monies, is under this statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2429.449], "stop_times": [2440.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2429.449}, "reply_to": "20521__1_118", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20521__1_120", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "No, the bribe has to... the bribe has to take place during the... the 1 year... a 1-year period surrounding the... the receipt of Federal benefits.\nSo it's not... it's not as though once you get Federal... once you get $10,000 of Federal money, you... you're on the hook forever.\nIt's... the... the statute is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2440.322, 2450.196, 2456.1], "stop_times": [2450.196, 2456.1, 2458.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2440.322}, "reply_to": "20521__1_119", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_121", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Well, subsection (B) says that the statute applies where the organization, government or agency, gets, in any 1-year period--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2458.017], "stop_times": [2468.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2458.017}, "reply_to": "20521__1_120", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20521__1_122", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2468.074], "stop_times": [2468.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2468.074}, "reply_to": "20521__1_121", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_123", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--benefits in excess of $10,000 from the Federal Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2468.624], "stop_times": [2472.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2468.624}, "reply_to": "20521__1_122", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20521__1_124", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Right.\nBut 1-year period is then defined... this is on page 3a of our... the appendix in our brief... the term, 1-year period> [\"] means a continuous period that commences no earlier than 12 months before the commission of the offense and ends no later than 12 months after the commission of the offense.\nSo... I mean, it has... the bribe has to be roughly contemporaneous with the... with the receipt of Federal funds.\nAnd the... so, after the 1-year period is over, if the agency doesn't get or take Federal funds--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2472.126, 2472.559, 2490.155, 2498.777], "stop_times": [2472.559, 2490.155, 2498.777, 2505.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2472.126}, "reply_to": "20521__1_123", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_125", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "That doesn't say that.\nI don't... I don't read the 1-year period to impose that requirement.\nIt just describes... that just defines the period in which the $10,000 or more has to be received.\nIt doesn't say anything about when the crime has to be committed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2505.782, 2506.332, 2510.401, 2515.738], "stop_times": [2506.332, 2510.401, 2515.738, 2518.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2505.782}, "reply_to": "20521__1_124", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20521__1_126", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2518.024], "stop_times": [2518.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2518.024}, "reply_to": "20521__1_125", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_127", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Before the commission of the offense.\nOh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2518.674, 2520.459], "stop_times": [2520.459, 2520.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2518.674}, "reply_to": "20521__1_126", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__1_128", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Yeah.\nI mean, it's... you see, the statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2520.959, 2521.492], "stop_times": [2521.492, 2524.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2520.959}, "reply_to": "20521__1_127", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_129", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Oh, I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2524.511], "stop_times": [2524.778], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2524.511}, "reply_to": "20521__1_128", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20521__1_130", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--is... is somewhat of a... of a... of an acrostic.\nIf you... if you look at Section (B)... well, let's... let me start with Section (A).\nWhoever... if the circumstance described in Section (B) exists, then you have to look at (B).\nAnd it says, the circumstance referred to in subsection (A) is that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2524.778, 2526.613, 2531.915, 2537.219], "stop_times": [2526.613, 2531.915, 2537.219, 2542.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2524.778}, "reply_to": "20521__1_129", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_131", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Beautiful.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2542.123], "stop_times": [2542.59], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2542.123}, "reply_to": "20521__1_130", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20521__1_132", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--is that the organization received benefits in any 1-year period.\nAnd then you go on to (D)(5), and it says what the term 1-year period> [\"] means.\nSo, although--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2542.59, 2545.824, 2550.561], "stop_times": [2545.824, 2550.561, 2552.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2542.59}, "reply_to": "20521__1_131", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_133", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "So that is related to the time of the offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2552.428], "stop_times": [2554.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2552.428}, "reply_to": "20521__1_132", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20521__1_134", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Right.\nThat's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2554.53, 2554.847], "stop_times": [2554.847, 2555.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2554.53}, "reply_to": "20521__1_133", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_135", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "And if I read it correctly, you... you... you can take a bribe, and if you're unfortunate enough that the prison you take the bribe from, later, within less than 1 year after you commit the offense, gets Federal money, they got you under the statute; is that right?\nYou... you are retroactively--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2555.597, 2572.725], "stop_times": [2572.725, 2574.011], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2555.597}, "reply_to": "20521__1_134", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__1_136", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "I think that is... I think that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2574.011], "stop_times": [2574.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2574.011}, "reply_to": "20521__1_135", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_137", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--sucked into the vortex of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2574.461], "stop_times": [2575.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2574.461}, "reply_to": "20521__1_136", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__1_138", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Yeah.\nI think that is the reading of the statute.\nBut I think that it... it--\n[Laughter]\n--the... the... it operates on the... it operates on a prophylactic principle, which is that... which is that Congress is entitled to insist that any entity to which it gives money be free of significant corruption.\nAnd even if the... even if the corrupt act takes place before the money is actually in the hands of the recipient, it... you know, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2575.511, 2575.927, 2576.546, 2577.379, 2577.763, 2594.34], "stop_times": [2575.927, 2576.546, 2577.379, 2577.763, 2594.34, 2602.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2575.511}, "reply_to": "20521__1_137", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_139", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--It's perfectly reasonable from Congress' point of view, you know.\nBut I'm not sure it's still reasonable from the poor defendant's point of view.\nHe... he thinks he's stealing the money from... from... from an agency that hasn't gotten any Federal aid.\nAnd, all of a sudden, within a year, it gets Federal aid.\nThat doesn't seem fair.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2602.928, 2606.398, 2609.1, 2614.736, 2617.521], "stop_times": [2606.398, 2609.1, 2614.736, 2617.521, 2618.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2602.928}, "reply_to": "20521__1_138", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__1_140", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Well, the... the receipt of Federal funds is a... is a... is... was seen by Congress as a jurisdictional... as a jur... and... and has been seen by the courts as a jurisdictional requirement that brings Federal authority along with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2618.706], "stop_times": [2631.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2618.706}, "reply_to": "20521__1_139", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_141", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "But there is a simpler way that's consistent with the words \"business transaction\".\nThe Federal Government gives almost everyone in... you know, not almost everyone, but an awful lot of people money.\nAnd many of them are businesses or, many that aren't businesses, buy things and sell things with the money.\nAnd they may, even before they get the money, make contracts that have to do with the money they're going to get.\nAnd commercial bribery often involves bribing a selling agent or a purchasing agent in respect to such money and the use thereof.\nAnd that would be a natural reading of the words.\nWe wouldn't have to struggle with business transaction, et cetera.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2631.613, 2635.065, 2640.303, 2646.44, 2651.844, 2660.383, 2663.169], "stop_times": [2635.065, 2640.303, 2646.44, 2651.844, 2660.383, 2663.169, 2666.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2631.613}, "reply_to": "20521__1_140", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20521__1_142", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2666.537], "stop_times": [2667.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2666.537}, "reply_to": "20521__1_141", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_143", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "So why not read it as a commercial bribery statute, basically, which those words, \"business transaction\", et cetera, seem to suggest?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2667.054], "stop_times": [2675.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2667.054}, "reply_to": "20521__1_142", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20521__1_144", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Well, in this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2675.309], "stop_times": [2675.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2675.309}, "reply_to": "20521__1_143", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_145", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "I'm not saying I would; I just point that out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2675.992], "stop_times": [2677.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2675.992}, "reply_to": "20521__1_144", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20521__1_146", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--I mean, in this regard, I do think it is actually useful to remember that the statute was enacted while the Dikson case was... while the Dikson case, under 18 U.S.C. 201... while that issue was percolating in the courts.\nAnd there were many cases that have been prosecuted under Section 201 that would not fit a commercial bribery situation, where the Federal Government gave community organizations grants, and said to the community organizations, you go out and relieve poverty with this money.\nAnd... and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2677.428, 2690.552, 2708.098], "stop_times": [2690.552, 2708.098, 2709.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2677.428}, "reply_to": "20521__1_145", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_147", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "There are different ideas of how to do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2709.732], "stop_times": [2711.249], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2709.732}, "reply_to": "20521__1_146", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20521__1_148", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Yes.\nWell, I do want to point out, there is another... there is a limitation... there... there is a limitation that is in the statute, which is that the... which is that the... there are two limitations I do want to point out.\nFirst of all, the... the defendant has to be an agent of a local organization.\nAnd he has to be able to act on behalf of the organization.\nSo it may not be that every single employee of every organization is covered.\nThere is a level of, I think, responsibility, official responsibility, that is covered... captured in the term \"agent\".\nAnd the other point is that the statute covers... this is in subsection (B)... benefits under a Federal program that covers a variety of forms of Federal assistance, and that... the legislative history and the courts have... have... do point out that there are some purely commercial transactions between the government and, say, somebody who the government buys computers from, just without any kind of Federal programmatic aspect.\nI mean, if the government just goes out into the open market and spends $10,000 for fungible equipment, that's not necessarily ben... that's not benefits under a Federal program or form of Federal assistance.\nThere is a... there is an aspect of the implementation of a Federal policy that comes with those words.\nI want to turn at this point to the... the other issue before the Court, which is the RICO conspiracy issue.\nOur posissue... our position on that issue... excuse me... is... is quite straightforward, which is that the RICO conspiracy provision follows traditional principles of conspiracy law.\nAnd under the traditional principles, the government is not required to prove that the defendant... the conspiracy defendant agreed personally to commit the offense that is the object of the conspiracy.\nThe government needs to prove only that the conspirators agreed among themselves that the offense would be committed by one or more of them, and that the defendant associated himself with that... with that agreement.\nNothing in the RICO conspiracy statute suggests that Congress intended to depart from this well-settled rule.\nCongress used, really, a term of art, 1962(D).\nAnd that term has a settled common law meaning, and there is no indication in the statute that there are any additional elements of proof.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2711.249, 2711.649, 2724.059, 2729.194, 2732.229, 2737.2, 2744.204, 2772.806, 2786.864, 2793.787, 2799.873, 2810.229, 2823.472, 2836.714, 2845.135, 2852.908], "stop_times": [2711.649, 2724.059, 2729.194, 2732.229, 2737.2, 2744.204, 2772.806, 2786.864, 2793.787, 2799.873, 2810.229, 2823.472, 2836.714, 2845.135, 2852.908, 2860.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2711.249}, "reply_to": "20521__1_147", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_149", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "I'm not sure that I know of another statute which requires, you know, multiple acts by the same person.\nI mean, it can be argued that you cannot conspire to violate (C) unless you conspire to have a person... it may not... it may not be the person you're prosecuting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2860.579, 2872.303], "stop_times": [2872.303, 2886.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2860.579}, "reply_to": "20521__1_148", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__1_150", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2886.962], "stop_times": [2887.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2886.962}, "reply_to": "20521__1_149", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_151", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "But you have to conspire to have one particular person commit a pattern of... of racketeering activity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2887.346], "stop_times": [2893.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2887.346}, "reply_to": "20521__1_150", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__1_152", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "I... I think that may be right.\nThat is, let's say a group of people get together and say, you know, we want to have a... a... a conspiracy of some kind.\nIt may be that the conspirators must foresee that a person carry out... a... one person carry out two predicate acts of racketeering.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2893.55, 2894.852, 2901.906], "stop_times": [2894.852, 2901.906, 2910.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2893.55}, "reply_to": "20521__1_151", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_153", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2910.612], "stop_times": [2911.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2910.612}, "reply_to": "20521__1_152", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__1_154", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "And, of course, two people could carry out four or three carry out six or whatever.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2911.162], "stop_times": [2914.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2911.162}, "reply_to": "20521__1_153", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_155", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2914.699], "stop_times": [2914.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2914.699}, "reply_to": "20521__1_154", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__1_156", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "But I think that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2914.899], "stop_times": [2916.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2914.899}, "reply_to": "20521__1_155", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_157", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "That's not the argument here, though?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2916.066], "stop_times": [2917.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2916.066}, "reply_to": "20521__1_156", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__1_158", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Right.\nNo. But I think that the... but what... I think it is important to point out, as I think what Justice Ginsburg's colloquy with my colleague pointed out, one thing RICO clearly was intended to get at was the... the person who sits at the top of the organization, who effectively insulates himself.\nAnd to... to use, sort of, that classic example, suppose the... the middle people in the organizations go to the top... the organized crime chieftain and the say, you know, we really want to get into the business of arson.\nAnd we... we... you know, we have a plan... you know, we're going to start burning down buildings for... you know, for... for hire.\nAnd the head of the organization says, you know, that sounds good, you know, do you have any particular plans in mind?\nThey say, no, but, you know, we think we've got it.\nI think that, in that situation, you know, it falls squarely within the... the coverage of the statute.\nAnd by agreeing to that... I mean, the... the chief has really, you know, has really allowed the... allowed the thing to go forward.\nAnd his agreement is... is essential, in that case, to the... to the achievement of the... of the enterprise, which have the necessary structure.\nAs the plan is presented to him, there clearly is a pattern, because there is to be continuity, plus relationship.\nAnd the... the... the requirement is satisfied that there be two predicate acts of racketeering.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2917.601, 2917.918, 2933.094, 2944.901, 2951.905, 2956.893, 2958.876, 2963.863, 2972.819, 2982.943, 2988.412], "stop_times": [2917.918, 2933.094, 2944.901, 2951.905, 2956.893, 2958.876, 2963.863, 2972.819, 2982.943, 2988.412, 2993.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2917.601}, "reply_to": "20521__1_157", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_159", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "By a person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2993.382], "stop_times": [2994.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2993.382}, "reply_to": "20521__1_158", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__1_160", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "By a person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2994.215], "stop_times": [2994.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2994.215}, "reply_to": "20521__1_159", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_161", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "By a person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2994.965], "stop_times": [2996.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2994.965}, "reply_to": "20521__1_160", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20521__1_162", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Right.\nBut... but I think, under the... the rule that is suggested by the defendants, really, the... it would hamper the government's ability to... to effectively prosecute racketeering.\nIf there's nothing further, I'd just like to close by saying we... we submit that the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be affirmed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [2996.215, 2996.815, 3007.023], "stop_times": [2996.815, 3007.023, 3013.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2996.215}, "reply_to": "20521__1_161", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20521__1_163", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Wolfson.\nMr. Enriquez, you have 5 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [3013.76, 3015.343], "stop_times": [3015.343, 3017.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3013.76}, "reply_to": "20521__1_162", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20521__2_000", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIt... the discussion that General Wolfson engaged in with this Court concerning RICO conspiracy, the great debates that went on in Congress concerning the enaction of this statute, the legislative history, all of that was directed to RICO substantive.\nRICO substantive, itself, is directed to the heads of the enterprises, the people that manage or control.\nErnst... Reves v. Ernst & Young indicates that... that that's the idea.\nSo it... it just doesn't seem unfair that if you can't get them under RICO substantive, that there's apparently a great discussion in the legislative history that... that would indicate, well, we... we can get them under RICO conspiracy.\nThe... the focus here is, what is the object of the conspiracy?\nAnd the object of the conspiracy, in... in our view, is not simply to join an enterprise that... that operates in that fashion, but to... to personally agree to commit two specific acts of racketeering.\nThat's what the whole discussion in the legislative history was about, not limited RICO substantive or RICO conspiracy... just to when the statute would or would not apply.\nI would suggest to the Court, concerning both of these statutes, Section 666 and... and the RICO statute, that there are certain areas of government which historically this Court has indicated to us, under the Constitution, have been deemed within the province, or primarily within the province, of States.\nFor example, education, domestic relations, State officials and criminal law.\nThis case has two of those areas: State officials and criminal law.\nAnd it has been established, in the context of State officials, that before it can be said that Congress intended to reach their conduct or regulate their conduct or affect their status or qualifications of State officers, it must be clear that the officers, under the circumstances of the case, are within the scope of the statute.\nAnd that's the clear statement rule.\nUnless... under that rule, unless the officers are clearly within the scope of the statute, they're not.\nAnd even if they are arguably--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [3017.978, 3021.782, 3046.897, 3052.134, 3057.871, 3070.113, 3075.017, 3091.692, 3103.15, 3121.296, 3126.615, 3130.484, 3150.481, 3152.25, 3158.737], "stop_times": [3021.782, 3046.897, 3052.134, 3057.871, 3070.113, 3075.017, 3091.692, 3103.15, 3121.296, 3126.615, 3130.484, 3150.481, 3152.25, 3158.737, 3160.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3017.978}, "reply_to": "20521__1_163", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__2_001", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Well, Mr.... Mr. Enriquez, the statute here says, whoever being an agent of a State, local or Indian tribe, so there's no doubt that Congress meant to include those... those persons, is there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [3160.523], "stop_times": [3170.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3160.523}, "reply_to": "20521__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20521__2_002", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Mr. Chief Justice, that is correct.\nThe question is, under the circumstances of the case.\nFor example--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [3170.961, 3172.846, 3175.782], "stop_times": [3172.846, 3175.782, 3176.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3170.961}, "reply_to": "20521__2_001", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__2_003", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "So you say we must read each clause in the Act with... with that in mind, even though it was clear that Congress intended to include State officials?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [3176.632], "stop_times": [3183.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3176.632}, "reply_to": "20521__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20521__2_004", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Yes, because, all... all of a sudden, we have a situation here where Congress is indicating that it wants to work upon or... or affect State officials.\nAnd when you... when that happens, then it becomes an issue of Federalism.\nAnd it's, I feel, to be determined under those rules.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [3183.286, 3193.16, 3197.362], "stop_times": [3193.16, 3197.362, 3201.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3183.286}, "reply_to": "20521__2_003", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__2_005", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Are you suggesting there's a Tenth Amendment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [3201.664], "stop_times": [3203.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3201.664}, "reply_to": "20521__2_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20521__2_006", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Yes, ma'am, I do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [3203.533], "stop_times": [3204.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3203.533}, "reply_to": "20521__2_005", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__2_007", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--and that this is... that... that it would be unconstitutional for the Federal Government to say, now, when we give our money to State operators, we want that agency, in all of its parts, to be clean, because if there's bribery going on with the State program, the... there's the risk that the same officers that are dishonest with regard to the State program are going to be dishonest with regard to the Federal program?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [3204.967], "stop_times": [3236.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3204.967}, "reply_to": "20521__2_006", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20521__2_008", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "I... I think the Federal Government can do that, ma'am, if... if it is couched in terms of protecting its property or if it's couched in another jurisdictional element, such as it affects interstate commerce, or one of the jurisdictional elements--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [3236.754], "stop_times": [3250.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3236.754}, "reply_to": "20521__2_007", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__2_009", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Well, what's wrong with Federal money... that seems to be a big Federal peg... we're giving you Federal money--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [3250.513], "stop_times": [3254.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3250.513}, "reply_to": "20521__2_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20521__2_010", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--Yes, ma'am.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [3254.984], "stop_times": [3255.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3254.984}, "reply_to": "20521__2_009", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__2_011", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--to make conditions on it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [3255.734], "stop_times": [3256.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3255.734}, "reply_to": "20521__2_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20521__2_012", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "And I understand that... that the... the government's position on this is that it's under the Spending Clause and that, by virtue of spending, they can go ahead and regulate.\nBut I... I think this goes beyond the cases that they've cited.\nNone of the cases that they have cited on this regulation issue are criminal law cases.\nAll of the cases that they have cited speak in terms of... of conditions or... or incentives to the States.\nNone of them speak in terms of... of something as coercive as, we're going to put your... your officials in jail.\nSo I... I think, when you get to that point, then we run into a Spending Clause problem.\nIt doesn't seek to justify itself under the terms of... of the Commerce Clause, and so I think it does exceed the scope of the Constitution, as applied in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [3256.65, 3264.773, 3268.642, 3272.946, 3282.552, 3288.971, 3294.525], "stop_times": [3264.773, 3268.642, 3272.946, 3282.552, 3288.971, 3294.525, 3303.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3256.65}, "reply_to": "20521__2_011", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__2_013", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Did you make that argument somewhere else along the line, or did you just today?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [3303.548], "stop_times": [3308.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3303.548}, "reply_to": "20521__2_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20521__2_014", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "No, ma'am.\nI... I did make that argument.\nThe government has in fact tried to justify--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [3308.016, 3308.833, 3310.785], "stop_times": [3308.833, 3310.785, 3315.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3308.016}, "reply_to": "20521__2_013", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__2_015", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "You made that argument in the lower courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [3315.004], "stop_times": [3317.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3315.004}, "reply_to": "20521__2_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20521__2_016", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--I... I don't know that we argued it in terms of Commerce Clause, but we argued it in terms of property of the government; that this was a protection of property statute, and... and that it could be just... it could be justified only on that basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [3317.289], "stop_times": [3331.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3317.289}, "reply_to": "20521__2_015", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__2_017", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "But the Tenth Amendment argument that you're presenting to us now--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [3331.615], "stop_times": [3333.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3331.615}, "reply_to": "20521__2_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20521__2_018", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Yes, ma'am.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [3333.4], "stop_times": [3333.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3333.4}, "reply_to": "20521__2_017", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__2_019", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "--did you make that in the lower courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [3333.817], "stop_times": [3335.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3333.817}, "reply_to": "20521__2_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20521__2_020", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "We didn't specifically come out and say Tenth Amendment, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [3335.083], "stop_times": [3337.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3335.083}, "reply_to": "20521__2_019", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20521__2_021", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Enriquez.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [3337.685, 3339.052], "stop_times": [3339.052, 3340.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3337.685}, "reply_to": "20521__2_020", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20521__2_022", "conversation_id": "20521", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-738", "start_times": [3340.302], "stop_times": [3340.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3340.302}, "reply_to": "20521__2_021", "speaker": "francisco_j_enriquez"}
{"id": "20424__0_000", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "We'll hear argument now in No. 96-1581, South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe.\nGeneral Barnett.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [0.0, 8.997], "stop_times": [8.997, 9.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20424__0_001", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--\nThe case that is before the Court today involves the question of whether an 1894 Act of Congress had the intent and the effect of disestablishing the Yankton Sioux Reservation.\nThe State submits that the answer is conclusively yes.\nAnd we base that \"yes\" on several factors, the first and not least of which is the use of \"cession and sum certain\" language in the operative... or terms... in the operative section of the agreement and the ratifying Act.\nThat particular \"cession and sum certain\", the cession, sale, relinquishment and conveyance of all interests in and to the unalloted land, together with the sum certain, has been held by this Court to create an almost insurmountable presumption, or a nearly conclusive presumption.\nAnd we would submit to the Court that that, in combination with the immediate uptake of jurisdiction by the State of South Dakota in 1895, and continuously uncontested State jurisdiction during the next 100 years, and throwing that together with the fact that that jurisdiction was exercised without objection by the Tribe and without an attempt to exercise jurisdiction by the Tribe or the Federal Government throughout those 100 years, and that's not merely our contention but that also is the observation... excuse me... of both the Eighth Circuit and the... both the majority and dissenting opinion, as well as the opinion of the unanimous State of South Dakota Supreme Court.\nAnd then, add into that, as a method of telling us what everybody understood at the time that this Act was passed, pursuant to the agreement with the Yankton Tribe, was what I will call the immediate wholesale settlement of the area by homesteaders, or what the District Court referred to as the rapid settlement and the loss... the quick loss of Indian character in this area, which would suggest, at least to the State, that that would suggest disestablishment.\nWe also would submit to you that additional--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [9.497, 12.683, 24.115, 28.036, 42.952, 62.039, 103.38, 132.463], "stop_times": [12.683, 24.115, 28.036, 42.952, 62.039, 103.38, 132.463, 135.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.497}, "reply_to": "20424__0_000", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_002", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "May I ask you, General Barnett, you use the word \"disestablishment\", but as I read particularly Judge Magill's decision, his dissenting opinion, he's very careful to speak always about diminishing.\nAnd you seem to use those words as though they mean the same thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [135.836, 151.001], "stop_times": [151.001, 155.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 135.836}, "reply_to": "20424__0_001", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20424__0_003", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--Your Honor, I believe that diminishment probably should be read to suggest a case more like Rosebud v. Kneip, where the Court said that as to several counties, the reservation was disestablished, but it still left one county with a compact square of reservation.\nAnd so there was still actually 18 U.S.C., 1151(a)-type reservation country out there, but it was diminished in size.\nThe case that we have here today... and I think the parties would agree... that the case we are doing today is disestablishment, just like the DeCoteau case, where the Lake Traverse Reservation was found by this Court to be disestablished, meaning there was still no 1151-type--1151(a)-type reservation out there.\nI... I might add, Your Honor, that diminishment and disestablishment at one time were probably not terms of art.\nIn our view, they are now.\nAnd we are, I think, today here litigating disestablishment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [155.765, 174.617, 185.082, 208.151, 214.93, 216.273], "stop_times": [174.617, 185.082, 208.151, 214.93, 216.273, 219.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 155.765}, "reply_to": "20424__0_002", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_004", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Even though Judge Magill said that he thought that the District Court erred in holding that the reservation had not been diminished?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [219.849], "stop_times": [231.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 219.849}, "reply_to": "20424__0_003", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20424__0_005", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Yes.\nAnd I... and I do not believe, from reading all of Judge Magill's opinion, that he's trying to suggest that some 1151(a)-type reservation still existed after 1894.\nI think, to be honest, I would suggest to you that... that he was probably using diminishment and disestablishment interchangeably, and that has happened in the history of the... of the court system in other cases as well.\nReturning for a moment, if I may, to the settlement history that took place out there... and the reason I bring it up is because this Court, on other occasions, has looked to the settlement history immediately after the passage of the Opening Act to help it determine what did everybody understand at the time.\nAnd in this case, as was suggested by the Court of Claims in 1980... or as was found by that Court... within 3 years of the opening of this reservation, more than 100,000 of these opened acres had been sold.\nWithin 5 years, 90 percent had been sold.\nAnd as you will see at joint appendix 475, by 1913, in addition to the ceded lands which had been put up for settlement by the homesteaders, more than twothirds of the allotted lands left to the Indians in 1894 had also been sold.\nAnd so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [231.656, 232.344, 243.729, 255.865, 274.357, 289.633, 292.35, 309.328], "stop_times": [232.344, 243.729, 255.865, 274.357, 289.633, 292.35, 309.328, 309.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 231.656}, "reply_to": "20424__0_004", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_006", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "General Barnett, was the particular tract of land that we're concerned with in this case part of the land that was restored to the public domain by the 1892 agreement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [309.937], "stop_times": [324.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 309.937}, "reply_to": "20424__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20424__0_007", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, we do contend that it was restored to the public domain.\nAnd by way of explanation, at the time of trial, 90 percent of all of the land in what we call the disputed area, 90 percent of that former reservation area was in nonIndian hands.\nWhich has been something that the Court has noted in its prior cases.\nAnd more than twothirds, or 68 percent, of the population was nonIndian, as found by the Federal census.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [324.557, 328.587, 341.925, 346.641], "stop_times": [328.587, 341.925, 346.641, 353.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 324.557}, "reply_to": "20424__0_006", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_008", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "So this parcel was not allotted land that was later alienated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [353.764], "stop_times": [357.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 353.764}, "reply_to": "20424__0_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20424__0_009", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "168,000 acres of the 430... 168,000 were immediately ceded to the Federal Government, and then, then, as I said, began a rapid process of sale.\nAnd then the allotments, which were the balance of the 430, were, in large part, sold in the ensuing years.\nIn about the next 15 or 20 years, a great majority of the allotments were sold.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [357.855, 370.601, 378.878], "stop_times": [370.601, 378.878, 384.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 357.855}, "reply_to": "20424__0_008", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_010", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Yeah, we were asking about this particular tract of land.\nYes.\nAnd its history.\nThis... this is the site of a proposed waste site or something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [384.689, 388.359, 388.906, 389.859], "stop_times": [388.359, 388.906, 389.859, 394.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 384.689}, "reply_to": "20424__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20424__0_011", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Oh, okay.\nI'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [394.06, 394.31], "stop_times": [394.31, 394.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 394.06}, "reply_to": "20424__0_010", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_012", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "And we're talking about a particular tract of land.\nCorrect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [394.732, 397.199], "stop_times": [397.199, 397.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 394.732}, "reply_to": "20424__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20424__0_013", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Excuse me, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [397.589], "stop_times": [397.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 397.589}, "reply_to": "20424__0_012", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_014", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Now, was that land that was directly restored to the public domain?\nWas it allotted and then later resold?\nWhat was the history of this tract?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [397.917, 401.604, 403.837], "stop_times": [401.604, 403.837, 405.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 397.917}, "reply_to": "20424__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20424__0_015", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "It was... it was... it is now and was at the time of trial fee land.\nIt was issued by a government patent, issued by the Federal Government.\nI don't know the exact year, but I'm going to suggest in the late 1800's.\nAnd I can find that fact in time for rebuttal.\nBut it was issued in... in fee patent by the Federal Government, and used actually the words \"public domain\" in that fee patent.\nAnd so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [405.697, 410.382, 415.146, 419.722, 423.642, 430.842], "stop_times": [410.382, 415.146, 419.722, 423.642, 430.842, 433.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 405.697}, "reply_to": "20424__0_014", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_016", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "What... that was before the 1890... 1892 agreement, then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [433.311], "stop_times": [436.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 433.311}, "reply_to": "20424__0_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20424__0_017", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--That I cannot answer.\nI'd be guessing, Your Honor.\nI do have that information, but I don't have it at my fingertips.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [436.185, 437.574, 440.62], "stop_times": [437.574, 440.62, 443.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 436.185}, "reply_to": "20424__0_016", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_018", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "The Respondents rely on a savings clause in Article XVIII, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [443.369], "stop_times": [451.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 443.369}, "reply_to": "20424__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20424__0_019", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [451.708], "stop_times": [453.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 451.708}, "reply_to": "20424__0_018", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_020", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Are you going to address that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [453.192], "stop_times": [455.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 453.192}, "reply_to": "20424__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20424__0_021", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [455.676], "stop_times": [456.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 455.676}, "reply_to": "20424__0_020", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_022", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Because it is language that is different than that which we have seen in other treaties or agreements.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [456.332], "stop_times": [466.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 456.332}, "reply_to": "20424__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20424__0_023", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThe... as we look at Article XVIII, it seems to the State that the one thing that you cannot do with Article XVIII is read it literally.\nBecause if you read it literally, in the strict literal interpretation, then it says that nothing in this Act in effect... or in agreement... in 1892 actually happened.\nThe sale did not happen.\nThe white homesteaders could not move in.\nPart of the 1858 treaty forbade settlers or other whites from coming onto the reservation, with certain narrow exceptions.\nAnd that was in 1858.\nBy contrast, in the 1892, and in the Act ratifying it, the exact opposite purpose was there, that... that we are going to have whites come in and settle this area.\nAnd... and so, when we try to interpret what Article XVIII says, I think, first, that the... and I suspect the parties would even agree... it cannot be read literally.\nBecause then you get absurd results.\nThe second thing that I would observe about Article XVIII is that if you read the first sentence of Article XVIII, it says Nothing in this treaty abrogates the 1858 treaty... or nothing in this agreement.\nIf that's true, all the rest of Article XVIII is surplus.\nIf you go to the first phrase in the second sentence, it repeats that phrase, that... that essential statement.\nAnd if that's true, what came before and what came after is surpluses.\nAnd so it seems to me that it can't be read literally.\nAnd... and that takes us to the next point, which is, how does the Federal Government propose to us that it should... or to you... that it should be read?\nAnd if I understand their argument in their briefs correctly, they're suggesting that you need to read into Article XVIII the phrase \"not inconsistent\".\nAnd they go to Article I and II and suggest that I and II is not really a cession and sum certain, contrary to its express language, but is... and, in fact, I would submit to you they are asking you to read out cession and sum certain.\nAnd take that out, and then construe what is left.\nAnd... and I don't think that that is the appropriate way to handle it.\nAnd, in fact, I would... I would suggest that the Klamath case had an analogous situation, where there was a savings clause in that case, which suggested that nothing in the... in the more modern agreement was to... was to take away rights they had preserved in the past.\nBut as the Klamath court pointed out, the later agreement constituted a cession and sum certain, and that the Klamath Tribe could not silently preserve hunting and fishing rights through a general... the general language of a savings clause.\nNow, I would also submit to the Court that when we look at 18, at the tail end of this agreement, or when you look at it... excuse me... I would suggest to you that it is important that that is not the operative language of the... of the agreement or the Act.\nAnd, in fact, I would... I would call your attention to the Hagen case, where the Court said that, in observing on the Solem case, observed that the use of the words \"public domain\" in the Solem case were not found in the operative language of the Act.\nAnd since they were not found in the operative language, they had, I think, secondary importance.\nOr as the Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [466.421, 466.968, 475.247, 485.977, 487.226, 489.944, 498.191, 500.129, 508.937, 520.479, 522.571, 536.099, 539.893, 547.765, 551.467, 554.356, 561.79, 570.318, 584.954, 588.546, 592.514, 610.833, 626.39, 642.461, 660.609, 665.952], "stop_times": [466.968, 475.247, 485.977, 487.226, 489.944, 498.191, 500.129, 508.937, 520.479, 522.571, 536.099, 539.893, 547.765, 551.467, 554.356, 561.79, 570.318, 584.954, 588.546, 592.514, 610.833, 626.39, 642.461, 660.609, 665.952, 668.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 466.421}, "reply_to": "20424__0_022", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_024", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Why... why isn't this in the operative language?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [668.108], "stop_times": [669.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 668.108}, "reply_to": "20424__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20424__0_025", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--In the 1892?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [669.481], "stop_times": [672.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 669.481}, "reply_to": "20424__0_024", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_026", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [672.683], "stop_times": [673.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 672.683}, "reply_to": "20424__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20424__0_027", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Because I don't think they intended to disestablish... excuse me... I think they intended to disestablish, and I don't think that... that they intended Article XVIII to... to change what the terms or the operative intent of the Act were.\nI think that Article XVIII was there to reassure the Tribe that they would receive the monies and the claims that they felt were due them... the annuities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [673.246, 686.521], "stop_times": [686.521, 696.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 673.246}, "reply_to": "20424__0_026", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_028", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Then why didn't they just say that and nothing else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [696.455], "stop_times": [699.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 696.455}, "reply_to": "20424__0_027", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20424__0_029", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Well, I think, as one justice said... or judge said... at the Eighth Circuit, lawyers repeat themselves.\nAnd I suspect that... that probably what was happening was the Indians were concerned that... that the Federal Government was not going to live up to its obligations, and particularly when they understood they were selling the... the remaining reservation that they had received in the 1858 treaty, it seems to me that a fair question that would have been in the Indians minds was Are you going to abrogate that portion of the 1858 treaty from which our annuities flow?\nAnd the answer would be No, we are not going to abrogate the 1858 treaty, and you will get your annuities.\nAnd, indeed, if you look at the report that the commissioner gave to the State of Interior, who then filed with the Congress, in 1893, what you will see is a... is a lengthy description in the record about what all of the Indians concerns were and how these were resolved in the various articles of the agreement.\nAnd so there was a long discussion about Pipestone Quarry and a long discussion about scout claims for Indians who had served as scouts and felt they still had money owing.\nA lot of discussion about their concerns.\nNo discussion about preserving boundaries or authority, in the first place.\nAnd in the second place, when we come to... to what the negotiator is telling Congress the Indians feel about 18, it gets one sentence, and one sentence only in the record.\nAnd what he says is... with regard to 18, his comment is The Treaty of 1858 is not abrogated and the Indians shall get their annuities.\nAnd so that suggests to me that... that if the Tribe really did think and believe that they were going to preserve their boundaries and their authority, number one, that's a glaring conflict with the cession and sum certain language; and, number two, is completely unsupported in the congressional and in the negotiating record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [699.033, 705.341, 735.126, 742.39, 764.411, 774.657, 777.125, 781.81, 793.869, 803.224], "stop_times": [705.341, 735.126, 742.39, 764.411, 774.657, 777.125, 781.81, 793.869, 803.224, 822.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 699.033}, "reply_to": "20424__0_028", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_030", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "May I ask this question about Article I and... and also Justice Ginsburg's question of distinction between dis... disestablishment and... and diminishment.\nThat when you say... when the sentence says they cede, and so forth and so on, their interest in and all the unalloted lands within the limits of the reservation... set apart... doesn't that kind of convey a message... I don't know... if you don't know the geography... that there's some un... unalloted lands within the limits of the reservation to which this agreement applies and there's additional land in the... in the reservation that's unaffected by this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [822.31, 830.088], "stop_times": [830.088, 855.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 822.31}, "reply_to": "20424__0_029", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20424__0_031", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Well, I read that reference as a geographical reference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [855.89], "stop_times": [860.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 855.89}, "reply_to": "20424__0_030", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_032", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [860.185], "stop_times": [860.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 860.185}, "reply_to": "20424__0_031", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20424__0_033", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "And... and... and through... and the use of the phrase \"within the reservation\"--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [860.638], "stop_times": [865.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 860.638}, "reply_to": "20424__0_032", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_034", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [865.387], "stop_times": [865.637], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 865.387}, "reply_to": "20424__0_033", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20424__0_035", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--does not suggest to us... given the fact that it's right in a cession and sum certain does not suggest to us that a reservation is going to continue.\nIt is simply a reference to what area it is that we are ceding and disestablishing.\nAnd I would call your attention to the DeCoteau case, with the Lake Traverse Sissetons and Titowan Tribe, identical Article I and II, word for word.\nAnd it used the same phrase, \"within the reservation\".\nAnd yet this Court held, as you know, that that reservation was disestablished.\nAnd I would also submit to you, Your Honor, that... that this is consistent with what the Indians have understood for the first 100 years, as evidenced by their own constitutions, particularly the 1962 constitution, which tells us something about what the Indians felt.\nIn 1962, the territory that they claimed... this is in your joint appendix at 499... the only territory they claim jurisdiction over in their own constitution was, quote, tribal lands now owned by the tribe, end quote.\nWhich we think is a lot more consistent than what is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [865.637, 873.507, 878.819, 889.641, 893.438, 898.154, 914.991, 932.094], "stop_times": [873.507, 878.819, 889.641, 893.438, 898.154, 914.991, 932.094, 935.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 865.637}, "reply_to": "20424__0_034", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_036", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "But how do you... but how do you... what's your theory of how the reservation becomes disestablished?\nThat is, I take it they cede 200,000 acres of unalloted lands.\nAnd you're arguing those lands are no longer within the reservation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [935.654, 941.527, 948.431], "stop_times": [941.527, 948.431, 953.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 935.654}, "reply_to": "20424__0_035", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__0_037", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [953.835], "stop_times": [954.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 953.835}, "reply_to": "20424__0_036", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_038", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "You're not... all right.\nThey're subject to the jurisdiction of the State then?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [954.273, 955.257], "stop_times": [955.257, 957.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 954.273}, "reply_to": "20424__0_037", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__0_039", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [957.647], "stop_times": [957.959], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 957.647}, "reply_to": "20424__0_038", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_040", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "All right.\nAnd the remaining 260,000 acres of allotted land?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [957.959, 958.397], "stop_times": [958.397, 962.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 957.959}, "reply_to": "20424__0_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__0_041", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "We are also arguing that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [962.331], "stop_times": [964.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 962.331}, "reply_to": "20424__0_040", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_042", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Now, what is it that... that changes the status of the allotted land in your theory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [964.112], "stop_times": [970.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 964.112}, "reply_to": "20424__0_041", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__0_043", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--I believe that we are adhering to the teaching of the DeCoteau case, where the DeCoteau case, at 420 U.S., 446, in footnote 2, talks about when you cede the authority, the governmental authority, that you have over an area... and... or, in this case, to use the exact language... cede all interest... with that goes the authority not just over the immediately ceded, but in the entire region.\nAnd, indeed, in the DeCoteau case, the Court said that what was intended to be left by Congress was the allotted lands... the allotted and trust lands.\nAnd under the Pelican case and under 18 U.S.C., 1151(a), (b) and (c), what we know today is that when there is a cession and sum certain, the authority is lost.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [970.515, 999.786, 1011.765], "stop_times": [999.786, 1011.765, 1024.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 970.515}, "reply_to": "20424__0_042", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_044", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "See, the part that I'm having difficulty with is imagine a big square, A, B, C, and D, four subsquares within the big square.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1024.103], "stop_times": [1030.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1024.103}, "reply_to": "20424__0_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__0_045", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1030.976], "stop_times": [1032.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1030.976}, "reply_to": "20424__0_044", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_046", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Now, suppose that a particular treaty said,\n\"We cede subsquares C and D. We keep A and B.. \"\nWell, if that's what it said, wouldn't you think the reservation then consisted of A and B?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1032.21, 1034.49, 1041.361], "stop_times": [1034.49, 1041.361, 1046.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1032.21}, "reply_to": "20424__0_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__0_047", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "We subscribe to the DeCoteau logic, that... that, I think, suggested that Congress' intent was that the cession means all authority--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1046.517], "stop_times": [1056.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1046.517}, "reply_to": "20424__0_046", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_048", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "So, if... in your view, if... if it's A, B, C, and D, and they say, We cede... we sell, cede, get rid of and absolutely never want to hear again of subsquares C and D, you're saying, when they did that, they've also destroyed the reservation as to A and B automatically.\nAnd I... that's... that's odd.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1056.605, 1072.646], "stop_times": [1072.646, 1074.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1056.605}, "reply_to": "20424__0_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__0_049", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--What was lost at the time was 1151(a)-type jurisdiction.\nAnd to go back to the Solem case, the common notion at that time, in those years, was that tribal... tribal ownership was synonymous with tribal authority.\nAnd so, then, when lands went out of tribal ownership, they lost that authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1074.504, 1079.721, 1091.513], "stop_times": [1079.721, 1091.513, 1095.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1074.504}, "reply_to": "20424__0_048", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_050", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "But I'm thinking of the part that was left in tribal ownership.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1095.621], "stop_times": [1097.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1095.621}, "reply_to": "20424__0_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__0_051", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Yes.\nAnd... and... and my point, Your Honor, is that then, as those allotted lands are alienated, the Indian title becomes extinguished.\nTo use the exact language of 18 U.S.C., 1151(c), the Indian title is extinguished.\nAnd at that time, under the DeCoteau case and under a long line of cases in the lower Federal courts, as well as, I think, the... the cases from this Court, then that is... that also loses its status as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1097.588, 1097.807, 1105.414, 1111.286], "stop_times": [1097.807, 1105.414, 1111.286, 1126.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1097.588}, "reply_to": "20424__0_050", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_052", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "But they keep their tribal status as to the little bits that they keep, that they don't... see, what I'm driving at is I took... take it that Felix Cohen thought that they must have been left with at least some jurisdiction in respect to little bits of territory that they, for example, kept completely.\nAnd those are scattered throughout the whole area.\nAnd, therefore, it wouldn't be feasible to administer little scattered bits, bit by bit.\nAnd, therefore, they must have intended to keep the whole area.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1126.468, 1143.398, 1145.413, 1150.567], "stop_times": [1143.398, 1145.413, 1150.567, 1153.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1126.468}, "reply_to": "20424__0_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__0_053", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--Well, I think... and that's a reference to the 1941 Cohen opinion... but let me observe that even Felix Cohen, as an advocate and as a, I believe, Acting Solicitor, even he did not base his opinion on Article XVIII when he... when he reviewed this.\nSecondly, the very next year, he offered the Perrin case as authority for the proposition that the tribes... that... that this was now no longer reservation land.\nAnd so that certainly was an indication.\nBut perhaps a better indication would be to... to look at how did the Federal Government and the Tribe view this very question.\nBecause on all of those lands which were allotted and then later alienated... almost all of them by 1913... we've been out since 1913... or in all of those years... exercising jurisdiction, without contest or objection from the Tribe until about 3 years ago.\nAnd then you look at Felix Cohen issued his opinion in 1941.\nAnd if that was not a wakeup call to the Federal Government and the Tribe that maybe you've got more jurisdiction on those lands which once were allotted, certainly Congress' enactment in 1948... if this was still all reservation, both the original cession land and the allotted lands that were alienated... that should have been a wakeup call.\nAnd still we did not see the Federal Government.\nAnd even as late as 1985, the Federal Government was arguing in the Eighty Circuit Court of Appeals that... or suggesting... that this reservation in fact was diminished.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1153.753, 1171.433, 1181.742, 1183.913, 1191.364, 1208.904, 1213.729, 1233.939, 1235.658, 1244.749], "stop_times": [1171.433, 1181.742, 1183.913, 1191.364, 1208.904, 1213.729, 1233.939, 1235.658, 1244.749, 1245.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1153.753}, "reply_to": "20424__0_052", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_054", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Help... help me out, will you, on... on the... on the... the... the relationship between the cession language and the particular parcels involved.\nThe cession language clearly referred to the lands conveyed to the United States, which were then later conveyed out by the United States.\nDid the cession language refer to... to lands which had already been allotted but which were not at that point, in 1892, conveyed to the United States?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1245.576, 1254.04, 1262.88], "stop_times": [1254.04, 1262.88, 1272.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1245.576}, "reply_to": "20424__0_053", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20424__0_055", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--It... it used the words \"all unalloted land\".\nNow, there are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1272.877, 1276.423], "stop_times": [1276.423, 1277.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1272.877}, "reply_to": "20424__0_054", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_056", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "So, as to the allotted land, the cession language did not apply?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1277.532], "stop_times": [1282.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1277.532}, "reply_to": "20424__0_055", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20424__0_057", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--I think it has an effect.\nIt applies--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1282.155, 1285.013], "stop_times": [1285.013, 1285.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1282.155}, "reply_to": "20424__0_056", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_058", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "But it didn't apply.\nI... I don't... I just want to make sure that I understand the way the terms were used.\nThen we get to the legal effect of it.\nI take it that in terms of... of the... the literal statement made, the language employing the term \"cession\" did not, by its terms, apply to... to lands which had previously been allotted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1285.544, 1286.434, 1290.745, 1292.089], "stop_times": [1286.434, 1290.745, 1292.089, 1306.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1285.544}, "reply_to": "20424__0_057", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20424__0_059", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--I would agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1306.333], "stop_times": [1308.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1306.333}, "reply_to": "20424__0_058", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_060", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "So that your argument there is not that the jurisdiction was lost by the cession language as such, but by the application of some other rule... and I think it's the some other rule that I'm not clear about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1308.097], "stop_times": [1322.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1308.097}, "reply_to": "20424__0_059", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20424__0_061", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Well, I think it's a reflection, Your Honor, of when we look at 1151(a), (b) and (c), those are a codification of law that had been developing ever since the... I believe the Bates v. Clark case back in the 1870's.\nAnd I think what the courts have said as they've looked at this question is, is that, did Congress intend to disestablish the reservation?\nAnd if it did intend to disestablish the reservation, then the courts have been uniform, they have been uniform in concluding that not only is there a loss of authority or jurisdiction as to the lands immediately ceded, but they are also taking the position... and this is consistent with the philosophy of the Allotment Act, the... in the Yakima v. Yakima Indian Nation case... the court has expressed, in Justice Scalia's writings... talks about the policy of the Allotment Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1322.247, 1336.524, 1344.676], "stop_times": [1336.524, 1344.676, 1372.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1322.247}, "reply_to": "20424__0_060", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_062", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Mmmhmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1372.836], "stop_times": [1373.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1372.836}, "reply_to": "20424__0_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20424__0_063", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "And the... the... and I think you have to read that within... or as a historical context throughout the late 1800's and into the first decade of the... of the 1900's.\nAnd that is that the... the... the goal and the purpose of these cession and sum certain cases, the goal of Congress was to erase the boundaries--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1373.508, 1382.786], "stop_times": [1382.786, 1393.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1373.508}, "reply_to": "20424__0_062", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_064", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Oh, I will grant you that.\nI don't think there's any... any doubt in... at least in my mind about that.\nBut I take it that the... the... the construction that you are arguing for would work this way Let's take Justice Breyer's example and... and instead of having the four quadrants, A, B, C, and D, let's assume that there was 1 acre in quadrant D. And the Tribe had made a... an agreement with the United States, using the same language here, ceding the 1 acre.\nI take it on your argument the entire reservation would be disestablished as a legal consequence of that; is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1393.89, 1394.875, 1398.701, 1423.691], "stop_times": [1394.875, 1398.701, 1423.691, 1431.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1393.89}, "reply_to": "20424__0_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20424__0_065", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--I would... that would certainly be a more difficult case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1431.469], "stop_times": [1435.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1431.469}, "reply_to": "20424__0_064", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_066", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "But that, theoretically, would be the application of your rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1435.358], "stop_times": [1438.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1435.358}, "reply_to": "20424__0_065", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20424__0_067", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Theoretically... yes, theoretically, that's correct, if... and I... and I... I have to add an \"if\", based on the Hagen teaching... which is look at all of the circumstances.\nIf, in the operative language of the Act, which was the case here, \"cession and sum certain\", if that language is used, and if from all of the other circumstances that apply... the rapid settlement, the uptake of jurisdiction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1438.779, 1448.369], "stop_times": [1448.369, 1463.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1438.779}, "reply_to": "20424__0_066", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_068", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Yeah, but this would have been rapid settlement of 1 acre.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1463.534], "stop_times": [1464.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1463.534}, "reply_to": "20424__0_067", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20424__0_069", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--Okay.\nWell, and so yours is a more difficult case, obviously.\nThis was only--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1464.862, 1466.096, 1469.406], "stop_times": [1466.096, 1469.406, 1470.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1464.862}, "reply_to": "20424__0_068", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_070", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Well, can... can I ask about this hypothetical.\nI assume this 1 acre is the only acre that is... is not previously allotted.\nAll the rest is allotted lands.\nIs that how you understood the hypothetical?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1470.031, 1471.078, 1477.826, 1479.356], "stop_times": [1471.078, 1477.826, 1479.356, 1481.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1470.031}, "reply_to": "20424__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20424__0_071", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1481.23], "stop_times": [1482.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1481.23}, "reply_to": "20424__0_070", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_072", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Okay.\nSo... so the Tribe has given away all of its unalloted portion in the reservation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1482.152, 1482.855], "stop_times": [1482.855, 1487.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1482.152}, "reply_to": "20424__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20424__0_073", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Yes.\nAnd... and, to go back to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1487.681, 1487.993], "stop_times": [1487.993, 1489.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1487.681}, "reply_to": "20424__0_072", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_074", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "But the allotted portions are to members of the Tribe?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1489.743], "stop_times": [1491.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1489.743}, "reply_to": "20424__0_073", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20424__0_075", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--Understood.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1491.43], "stop_times": [1491.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1491.43}, "reply_to": "20424__0_074", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_076", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1491.961], "stop_times": [1492.399], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1491.961}, "reply_to": "20424__0_075", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20424__0_077", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nAnd... and to go back to what DeCoteau tells us, that that cession and sum certain is conveying governmental authority, and it is eliminating the boundaries in the entire quadrant.\nAnd what is left is the allotments which... and the dependent Indian communities.\nAnd so we are not contesting today that we have jurisdiction over that 9 percent.\nWe're suggesting we have 1151(a) jurisdiction over the 90 percent that is not in Indian hands.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1492.399, 1493.319, 1504.565, 1509.797, 1516.794], "stop_times": [1493.319, 1504.565, 1509.797, 1516.794, 1523.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1492.399}, "reply_to": "20424__0_076", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_078", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Well, I'm troubled by why we should answer that broad question.\nWe're dealing with one waste site on some kind of tract of land.\nAnd you can't even tell us the history of that particular tract.\nSo, I mean, why doesn't... why don't we just answer the question as to that and nothing else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1523.041, 1527.181, 1532.148, 1536.256], "stop_times": [1527.181, 1532.148, 1536.256, 1542.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1523.041}, "reply_to": "20424__0_077", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20424__0_079", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "To the best of my knowledge, Your Honor, that tract has never been allotted lands.\nBut to say... but I would have to respectfully disagree with the Justice that we are not simply arguing over that one tract.\nBecause that part is... whether or not there is going to be a site there is not on appeal here.\nWhat's on appeal is the District Judge's opinion that there is still... that... that broad boundaries are out there which create 1151(a) jurisdiction in the entire region, including the 90 percent.\nAnd... and let me just close so I can reserve a little bit of time.\nI would suggest to you this If the Federal Government and the Tribe read this Act the way they do now, where have they been?\nIf it could be easily and reasonably read that way, why wasn't it?\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1542.33, 1546.609, 1554.076, 1558.839, 1570.789, 1575.162, 1582.782, 1586.469], "stop_times": [1546.609, 1554.076, 1558.839, 1570.789, 1575.162, 1582.782, 1586.469, 1587.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1542.33}, "reply_to": "20424__0_078", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__0_080", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Thank you, General Barnett.\nMr. Abourezk.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1587.985, 1590.389], "stop_times": [1590.389, 1591.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1587.985}, "reply_to": "20424__0_079", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20424__1_000", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--\nIn the 1858 treaty... and I'd like to go back to that, if I may... the Tribe gave up 11 million acres of land to the United States Government.\nThese were enormous property rights and sovereignty rights that they bargained away in exchange for a 430,000-acre homeland, a reservation that they believed was going to be their permanent home in perpetuity.\nThey... they also got annuities.\nThey got some cash... I think 1.6 million dollars.\nBut this 430,000 acres was their land that they wanted to retain the Indian character.\nThey wanted to retain this land forever.\nAnd when the government came along, after the allotments in 1892, and said we want to buy what's left over from you, the surplus lands, the Tribe held on so dearly to this 1858 treaty, to their boundaries, to the reservation and their annuities that they refused actually to sign the 1892 agreement until the Federal Government said, okay, we're going to give you Article XVIII, we'll give you school lands, we'll give you the liquor provision that you've asked for.\nThese were things demanded by the Tribe.\nAnd they got them.\nAnd, as you know, they were handed a form agreement by the government, the Tribe was, that had actually six... six articles in it.\nAnd everything else was tagged on... in... insisted upon by the Tribe.\nNow, the State has been arguing disestablishment and diminishment.\nAnd they use the terms interchangeably.\nThey have in their briefs.\nAnd what they're really asking for is not just diminishment, which would be the case Justice Breyer brought up, that would be carving out a discrete portion or a discrete parcel of the reservation and saying, okay, this is now no longer here, so the reservation boundaries are diminished.\nNo, what the State is asking for... and I think it's pretty clear in their... in their writings... is termination, total termination of the reservation altogether.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1591.67, 1596.059, 1606.398, 1619.19, 1622.61, 1624.985, 1632.155, 1635.31, 1664.11, 1666.282, 1667.406, 1674.825, 1679.948, 1685.587, 1687.209, 1688.865, 1704.953], "stop_times": [1596.059, 1606.398, 1619.19, 1622.61, 1624.985, 1632.155, 1635.31, 1664.11, 1666.282, 1667.406, 1674.825, 1679.948, 1685.587, 1687.209, 1688.865, 1704.953, 1714.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1591.67}, "reply_to": "20424__0_080", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_001", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "As far as this parcel at issue here is concerned, does it make any difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1714.559], "stop_times": [1719.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1714.559}, "reply_to": "20424__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20424__1_002", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "In what... in what regard, Justice Scalia?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1719.355], "stop_times": [1722.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1719.355}, "reply_to": "20424__1_001", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_003", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Even if it is only a diminishment rather than a disestablishment, wouldn't the parcel here be in the portion that was diminished... that is, it was taken away from the Tribe?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1722.572], "stop_times": [1734.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1722.572}, "reply_to": "20424__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20424__1_004", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Yes, it would be.\nAlthough the reason you can't really argue diminishment in this respect... and that's why they don't really say diminishment... is that the parcels were checkerboarded all the way... the allotment parcels are checkerboarded all the way through, as well as the ceded portions.\nThey're everywhere within the southern half of Charles Mix County.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1734.176, 1736.784, 1749.872], "stop_times": [1736.784, 1749.872, 1753.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1734.176}, "reply_to": "20424__1_003", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_005", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "So then it has to be disestablishment or nothing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1753.277], "stop_times": [1755.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1753.277}, "reply_to": "20424__1_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20424__1_006", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Or nothing.\nThat's what they're asking for.\nBecause you can't really diminish that reservation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1755.276, 1755.995, 1756.917], "stop_times": [1755.995, 1756.917, 1759.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1755.276}, "reply_to": "20424__1_005", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_007", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Well, but then do you agree with the theory that it has to be... you would say nothing and they would say disestablishment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1759.369], "stop_times": [1762.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1759.369}, "reply_to": "20424__1_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20424__1_008", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Precisely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1762.837], "stop_times": [1763.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1762.837}, "reply_to": "20424__1_007", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_009", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Why... why couldn't you, even if it was a checkerboard?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1763.991], "stop_times": [1766.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1763.991}, "reply_to": "20424__1_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__1_010", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Well, it would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1766.569], "stop_times": [1767.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1766.569}, "reply_to": "20424__1_009", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_011", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Why do we have to reach that question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1767.864], "stop_times": [1769.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1767.864}, "reply_to": "20424__1_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__1_012", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--I think it was one... this Court at one point said that if that were the case... first of all, it's looked upon with disfavor; but, secondly, they would say law enforcement people would have to have a map to decide who they can arrest and where.\nI think it would be very difficult to leave a checkerboard reservation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1769.115, 1783.578], "stop_times": [1783.578, 1786.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1769.115}, "reply_to": "20424__1_011", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_013", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--Do you... do you think... what is the practical consequence of the... of... of this case, one way or the other?\nThat is, I take it there are a lot of towns in this area that are not Indian towns.\nThey're... they're... they're all the descendants of the settlers or whatever.\nSo there are quite... there are several towns in there, and people have been treating it as part of South Dakota.\nNow, if you win this case, what happens to those towns?\nWe're not talking about giving land back to the Tribe.\nWe're talking about jurisdiction and what laws apply, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1786.982, 1792.856, 1798.354, 1802.211, 1806.381, 1810.16, 1812.956], "stop_times": [1792.856, 1798.354, 1802.211, 1806.381, 1810.16, 1812.956, 1815.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1786.982}, "reply_to": "20424__1_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__1_014", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Yes.\nAbsolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1815.362, 1815.924], "stop_times": [1815.924, 1816.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1815.362}, "reply_to": "20424__1_013", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_015", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Yes.\nSo how does it work?\nDo the towns suddenly discover they don't have judges, that they don't have... how does this... what... what turns on this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1816.549, 1816.783, 1817.346], "stop_times": [1816.783, 1817.346, 1823.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1816.549}, "reply_to": "20424__1_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__1_016", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Well, that would never happen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1823.75], "stop_times": [1824.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1823.75}, "reply_to": "20424__1_015", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_017", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1824.375], "stop_times": [1824.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1824.375}, "reply_to": "20424__1_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__1_018", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "First of all, the Federal Government and the Tribe have been exercising jurisdiction ever since the Eighth Circuit opinion.\nAnd the State now cannot arrest Indians on Indian land within the boundaries of the reservation.\nIf we were to win this... if the Tribe were to win the case, really nothing would change.\nIt would be such a minimal change that it wouldn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1824.828, 1830.825, 1838.196, 1842.959], "stop_times": [1830.825, 1838.196, 1842.959, 1845.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1824.828}, "reply_to": "20424__1_017", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_019", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "What is the jurisdiction in respect to those who are not members of the Tribe who are in this territory?\nDo they get to vote?\nI mean, who do they vote for?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1845.037, 1851.847, 1853.628], "stop_times": [1851.847, 1853.628, 1855.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1845.037}, "reply_to": "20424__1_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__1_020", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--Oh, of course, yes.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1855.236, 1855.673], "stop_times": [1855.673, 1856.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1855.236}, "reply_to": "20424__1_019", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_021", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Do they have town councils?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1856.205], "stop_times": [1859.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1856.205}, "reply_to": "20424__1_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__1_022", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1859.547], "stop_times": [1859.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1859.547}, "reply_to": "20424__1_021", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_023", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "What government runs--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1859.735], "stop_times": [1861.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1859.735}, "reply_to": "20424__1_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__1_024", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "There's a county government.\nThere are... there are city govern... town governments in each one of these towns.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1861.391, 1862.234], "stop_times": [1862.234, 1865.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1861.391}, "reply_to": "20424__1_023", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_025", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--Well, isn't this--\n--Under the--\n--if... if you would win the case, just continuing with Justice Breyer's line of examination, would the Federal Government not then supplant the State with reference--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1865.671, 1866.077, 1866.356], "stop_times": [1866.077, 1866.356, 1876.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1865.671}, "reply_to": "20424__1_024", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20424__1_026", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Only... only within the boundaries of the reservation and only with regard to Indian defendants in criminal cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1876.227], "stop_times": [1881.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1876.227}, "reply_to": "20424__1_025", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_027", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--So in the nonIndian defendants, in the... in the ones... people, I'm thinking, who are not Indians, they have towns and there are some laws.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1881.178], "stop_times": [1887.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1881.178}, "reply_to": "20424__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__1_028", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1887.113], "stop_times": [1887.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1887.113}, "reply_to": "20424__1_027", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_029", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "And rules.\nAnd... and there... there are like judges and mayors and... what rules apply to elect all those people?\nWho... who--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1887.645, 1888.176, 1894.033], "stop_times": [1888.176, 1894.033, 1895.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1887.645}, "reply_to": "20424__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__1_030", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "The normal rules of South Dakota--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1895.641], "stop_times": [1897.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1895.641}, "reply_to": "20424__1_029", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_031", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--Of South Dakota?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1897.204], "stop_times": [1897.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1897.204}, "reply_to": "20424__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__1_032", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--South Dakota.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1897.86], "stop_times": [1898.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1897.86}, "reply_to": "20424__1_031", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_033", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Why do South Dakota law apply if it's within the bounds of a reservation?\nIs it that in reservations normally the law of the State applies?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1898.501, 1903.998], "stop_times": [1903.998, 1907.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1898.501}, "reply_to": "20424__1_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__1_034", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Sorry, say that last word again?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1907.793], "stop_times": [1909.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1907.793}, "reply_to": "20424__1_033", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_035", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Why do... is it... what... I'm just missing a very basic hornbook point probably.\nBut in a reservation, where there are groups of people who are not members of the Tribe, what law applies to them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1909.871, 1913.682], "stop_times": [1913.682, 1921.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1909.871}, "reply_to": "20424__1_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__1_036", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "South Dakota law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1921.241], "stop_times": [1922.474], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1921.241}, "reply_to": "20424__1_035", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_037", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "The State laws apply?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1922.474], "stop_times": [1923.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1922.474}, "reply_to": "20424__1_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__1_038", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "That's right.\nThe only exception, Justice Breyer, is if a nonIndian were to commit a crime against an Indian within the boundaries of the reservation, the Federal courts would take jurisdiction over that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1923.631, 1924.177], "stop_times": [1924.177, 1933.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1923.631}, "reply_to": "20424__1_037", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_039", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Well, what... what about civil jurisdiction, Mr. Abourezk?\nWe had an A-1 Contracting case here last year, where the... there was debate as to whether the tribal law and tribal courts would rule on an... on an automobile accident.\nNow, if... if the Eighth Circuit is upheld here, won't that same condition obtain on the Yankton Sioux Reservation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1933.376, 1934.891, 1945.56], "stop_times": [1934.891, 1945.56, 1952.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1933.376}, "reply_to": "20424__1_038", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20424__1_040", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Yes.\nThe... the nonIndians would not be allowed to use the court unless they would both submit to its jurisdic... the tribal court... unless they submitted to its jurisdiction.\nAnd I think the only difference--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1952.166, 1952.947, 1960.895], "stop_times": [1952.947, 1960.895, 1962.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1952.166}, "reply_to": "20424__1_039", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_041", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "That was as a result of the decision that we made in that case.\nBut I'm looking at the... this is a brief that was filed by a number of cities.\nAnd they paint... this is City of Dante, et cetera... they paint, at pages 8 to 12, a... a picture of massive confusion.\nAnd you are now standing here and saying it's not so; State law will still apply and there won't... won't be anything different.\nI thought we were arguing precisely about whether tribal law of State law applies, and... and, hence, whether this land can be used for this purpose or not.\nIf it can under State law but can't under tribal law.\nAnd you're telling us it doesn't make any difference, State law applies anyway.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [1962.583, 1965.973, 1973.298, 1982.81, 1990.182, 1998.32, 2000.864], "stop_times": [1965.973, 1973.298, 1982.81, 1990.182, 1998.32, 2000.864, 2003.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1962.583}, "reply_to": "20424__1_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20424__1_042", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--No, it will make no difference... minimal difference to the nonIndian population.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2003.566], "stop_times": [2007.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2003.566}, "reply_to": "20424__1_041", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_043", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Well, then... then why was this permit denied?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2007.081], "stop_times": [2009.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2007.081}, "reply_to": "20424__1_042", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20424__1_044", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "The permit... the permit wasn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2009.611], "stop_times": [2011.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2009.611}, "reply_to": "20424__1_043", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_045", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "And... and why... why would the permit have been denied if... if... if you're correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2011.954], "stop_times": [2015.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2011.954}, "reply_to": "20424__1_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20424__1_046", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--No, the permit wasn't denied.\nIt was... first of all, they brought a... it was an administrative hearing in the State... in the State administrative procedures, asking for a permit from the State of South Dakota.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2015.047, 2017.233], "stop_times": [2017.233, 2026.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2015.047}, "reply_to": "20424__1_045", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_047", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Well, but you take the position that the Tribe has authority to determine whether or not the plant will be located here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2026.261], "stop_times": [2031.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2026.261}, "reply_to": "20424__1_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20424__1_048", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "No.\nNo, we don't take that position.\nThe position we took was that because the State could not permit on the reservation, that the EPA regulations must be followed then instead of the State regulations, which are weaker than EPA's regulations.\nThat was our--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2031.618, 2032.118, 2033.524, 2045.847], "stop_times": [2032.118, 2033.524, 2045.847, 2046.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2031.618}, "reply_to": "20424__1_047", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_049", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "So Federal law rather than State law would govern?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2046.331], "stop_times": [2048.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2046.331}, "reply_to": "20424__1_048", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20424__1_050", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--Yes.\nBecause the Tribe had not gotten any authority to... to regulate landfills within the reservation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2048.188, 2048.471], "stop_times": [2048.471, 2054.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2048.188}, "reply_to": "20424__1_049", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_051", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "And is the reason that State law would apply to the governance of the cities and towns in Justice Breyer's example, is the reason for that that there is no supplanting Federal law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2054.078], "stop_times": [2063.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2054.078}, "reply_to": "20424__1_050", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20424__1_052", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "No.\nThe reason is decisions by this Court, that provide for different kinds of jurisdiction over different people, whether Indians or nonIndians.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2063.918, 2064.447], "stop_times": [2064.447, 2072.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2063.918}, "reply_to": "20424__1_051", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_053", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "I see.\nCould... could I ask you how you... how you respond to what I understand to be the... what should I say... the philosophy of... of... of the Petitioner here.\nAs I understand it the claim is that... that when all of the unalloted lands in a reservation are ceded, and there is nothing left in the reservation but allotted lands, it is to be understood that the reservation is thereby closed down.\nNow, it would be inconsistent with that, I suppose, if there were indeed numerous reservations which consisted of nothing but allotted lands, in which the Tribe had no... no communal land left at all.\nIt had all been allotted.\nAre there reservations like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2072.71, 2073.179, 2086.783, 2105.136, 2120.253, 2121.237], "stop_times": [2073.179, 2086.783, 2105.136, 2120.253, 2121.237, 2123.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2072.71}, "reply_to": "20424__1_052", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20424__1_054", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "I don't know of any, if there are.\nI think there is always--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2123.205, 2125.408], "stop_times": [2125.408, 2128.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2123.205}, "reply_to": "20424__1_053", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_055", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "So it... it may... it may be... it may be true that... that the way people thought at the end of the 19th century, if the Tribe, as a tribe, doesn't own anything in this whole area, there can't be a reservation.\nYou can't have a reservation composed only of lands that are owned by individual Indians.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2128.017, 2139.918], "stop_times": [2139.918, 2144.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2128.017}, "reply_to": "20424__1_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20424__1_056", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--Well, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2144.415], "stop_times": [2144.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2144.415}, "reply_to": "20424__1_055", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_057", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "All of which can be... can be alienated to nonIndians.\nYou have to have at least some... some basic component of... of tribal land that's owned by the community of the Tribe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2144.978, 2147.743], "stop_times": [2147.743, 2155.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2144.978}, "reply_to": "20424__1_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20424__1_058", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--Well, there is in this case.\nRight now, the... I think the Eighth Circuit did a little research on its own, independent research, showing that there were anywhere from 32 to 44 percent of Indian population in the county within... within that reservation.\nSo there's a substantial--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2155.599, 2156.88, 2169.828], "stop_times": [2156.88, 2169.828, 2170.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2155.599}, "reply_to": "20424__1_057", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_059", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "But that doesn't go to tribal lands?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2170.858], "stop_times": [2172.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2170.858}, "reply_to": "20424__1_058", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20424__1_060", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2172.545], "stop_times": [2172.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2172.545}, "reply_to": "20424__1_059", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_061", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "That doesn't go to whether or not they are tribal lands, the fact that there may be Indians living there.\nI mean, are there tribal lands?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2172.952, 2177.684], "stop_times": [2177.684, 2180.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2172.952}, "reply_to": "20424__1_060", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20424__1_062", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Oh, yes, Your Honor.\nRight now, about 10 percent.\nAs the Attorney General said, about 90 percent have been sold off... of the ceded lands... by... and were purchased by other people that are not... not any longer tribal... or Indian lands, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2180.386, 2180.808, 2182.853], "stop_times": [2180.808, 2182.853, 2193.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2180.386}, "reply_to": "20424__1_061", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_063", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "But... but are you taking the position, to put it crudely, sort of the mirror image of the one that... that I was... I was attributing to the State?\nI said, you know, if they... on the State's theory, if they cede 1 acre, they have, in effect, terminated the jurisdiction over everything.\nAnd... and you are saying, I guess, that as long as they retain 1 acre, the entire reservation, as a jurisdictional entity, as opposed to a... a property title--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2193.942, 2200.659, 2209.467], "stop_times": [2200.659, 2209.467, 2220.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2193.942}, "reply_to": "20424__1_062", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20424__1_064", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "I would say something totally different--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2220.728], "stop_times": [2222.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2220.728}, "reply_to": "20424__1_063", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_065", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--retains.\nOkay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2222.837, 2223.602], "stop_times": [2223.602, 2223.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2222.837}, "reply_to": "20424__1_064", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20424__1_066", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--Your Honor.\nWhat I would say is that Congress intended, by virtue of leaving in Article XVIII in the... in the 1894 statute, by leaving that in, they certainly intended to continue tribal governmental authority within the boundaries of the reservation.\nAnd if you read the entire agreement--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2223.961, 2224.446, 2239.628], "stop_times": [2224.446, 2239.628, 2242.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2223.961}, "reply_to": "20424__1_065", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_067", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Why pick out that?\nWhy pick out that one element from the whole treaty as the one element that... that Article XVIII preserves?\nIf you read it literally, it... it just takes away everything that the whole treaty gives.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2242.469, 2243.173, 2249.186], "stop_times": [2243.173, 2249.186, 2253.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2242.469}, "reply_to": "20424__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20424__1_068", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--No.\nIt continues the treaty, Justice Scalia.\nIt doesn't take away any--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2253.199, 2253.731, 2256.605], "stop_times": [2253.731, 2256.605, 2258.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2253.199}, "reply_to": "20424__1_067", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_069", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Oh, the 1858 Treaty, it continues.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2258.183], "stop_times": [2259.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2258.183}, "reply_to": "20424__1_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20424__1_070", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2259.79], "stop_times": [2260.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2259.79}, "reply_to": "20424__1_069", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_071", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "I'm talking about the 1892 Treaty.\nIf you read Article XVIII literally, it says this Treaty shall have no effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2260.134, 2261.649], "stop_times": [2261.649, 2265.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2260.134}, "reply_to": "20424__1_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20424__1_072", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Well, it doesn't really say that.\nWell, I think... I think a fair reading--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2265.21, 2266.788], "stop_times": [2266.788, 2269.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2265.21}, "reply_to": "20424__1_071", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_073", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Can you tell me why it doesn't say that?\nI mean, it... it... it says what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2269.115, 2270.194], "stop_times": [2270.194, 2272.349], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2269.115}, "reply_to": "20424__1_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20424__1_074", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2272.349], "stop_times": [2273.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2272.349}, "reply_to": "20424__1_073", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_075", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to abrogate the 1858 Treaty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2273.083], "stop_times": [2276.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2273.083}, "reply_to": "20424__1_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20424__1_076", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2276.753], "stop_times": [2277.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2276.753}, "reply_to": "20424__1_075", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_077", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "And everything in the agreement abrogated one thing or another in the 18... the whole purpose of the agreement was to abrogate some elements of the 1858 Treaty, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2277.346], "stop_times": [2285.952], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2277.346}, "reply_to": "20424__1_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20424__1_078", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Respectfully, there's only one change made in the... between the 1858 Treaty and the '94 agreement, where there was a conflict.\nThat... and section 10 of the Treaty, in 1858, said that white people... they didn't use the word \"nonIndian\", they just said white people in those days... cannot enter this reservation and cannot reside here.\nSo that's the only conflicting portion.\nSo if you re... with statutory construction, you passed a statute in 1894--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2285.952, 2293.043, 2306.1, 2308.178], "stop_times": [2293.043, 2306.1, 2308.178, 2313.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2285.952}, "reply_to": "20424__1_077", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_079", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "But isn't that a rather major... just a whole change in the concept, from this is a reservation reserved for the use of Indians to a concept of we want the white men to come in and work side by side for... one is preserving a culture and the other is trying to break it up and assimilate it into another culture.\nIt seems to me that these two documents are totally at odds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2313.238, 2334.354], "stop_times": [2334.354, 2339.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2313.238}, "reply_to": "20424__1_078", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20424__1_080", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--Oh, I don't... I don't agree with that, Justice Ginsburg.\nBecause if... if you read the whole entire treaty and the whole entire 1894 statute, I think it clearly shows that... that the whites... they could sell land to the nonIndians and nonIndians could come and settle.\nIn fact, if you read the legislative history and the report of the commissioners who negotiated it, they say... they told the Indians that we would like whites to come in and show you how to farm and their upstanding character... moral character, et cetera, et cetera.\nAnd that's what we would like to do.\nAnd the Indians bought that.\nAnd they said, but they still wanted to maintain the Indian character of their reservation.\nWhich is how I read Article XVIII to mean.\nAnd that's... of course, that's how the two lower courts read it as well.\nAnd you take the... the cession and sum certain language, which is... in my view, it's just boilerplate in all of those agreements--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2339.228, 2342.179, 2356.314, 2370.137, 2371.198, 2372.089, 2376.884, 2379.43, 2381.945], "stop_times": [2342.179, 2356.314, 2370.137, 2371.198, 2372.089, 2376.884, 2379.43, 2381.945, 2390.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2339.228}, "reply_to": "20424__1_079", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_081", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "But... but this Court has said it's nearly irrebuttable.\nThat's what Solem said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2390.816, 2394.814], "stop_times": [2394.814, 2397.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2390.816}, "reply_to": "20424__1_080", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20424__1_082", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--No, Solem said if you take those two, they're almost... or nearly... Hagen said \"nearly\".\nSolem said \"almost irrebuttable presumption\".\nBut if you read the entire agreement together, I say the presumption falls upon... the presumption is that the Indians retain the reservation and it's up to the State to rebut--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2397.049, 2401.765, 2403.966], "stop_times": [2401.765, 2403.966, 2416.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2397.049}, "reply_to": "20424__1_081", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_083", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "But then you... must... mustn't you... mustn't you, if you're taking that position, say,\n\"Court, you were wrong; you should qualify or even overturn your precedent? \"\nBecause the normal understanding of an almost irrebuttable presumption is it takes a whole lot... not something that ambiguous... ambiguous.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2416.353, 2418.273, 2423.834], "stop_times": [2418.273, 2423.834, 2434.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2416.353}, "reply_to": "20424__1_082", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20424__1_084", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--Well, if it is ambiguous, it should be decided in favor of the Tribe, in any event.\nAccording to this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2434.314, 2438.891], "stop_times": [2438.891, 2439.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2434.314}, "reply_to": "20424__1_083", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_085", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "But if you say... if we're faced with something ir... almost irrebuttable and something that's kind of weak, it could mean one thing, it could mean another thing, why does the... the part that's uncertain--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2439.562], "stop_times": [2454.258], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2439.562}, "reply_to": "20424__1_084", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20424__1_086", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2454.258], "stop_times": [2454.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2454.258}, "reply_to": "20424__1_085", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_087", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--dominate what we have said is a very strong presumption?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2454.774], "stop_times": [2458.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2454.774}, "reply_to": "20424__1_086", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20424__1_088", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, if you read the entire agreement and the statute of 1894, what my position is... our position is that the presumption is in favor of maintaining the reservation boundaries because of what Article XVIII, Article XVII, and the school--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2458.991], "stop_times": [2475.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2458.991}, "reply_to": "20424__1_087", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_089", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Then the presumption that's created by the cession and sum certain clause is rebutted in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2475.376], "stop_times": [2480.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2475.376}, "reply_to": "20424__1_088", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20424__1_090", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--It's not only rebutted, but it shifts... the burden of proof then shifts to the State or the people trying to abolish the reservation.\nAnd I don't think they've met that burden.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2480.56, 2487.261], "stop_times": [2487.261, 2489.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2480.56}, "reply_to": "20424__1_089", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_091", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "But don't you agree that there are various inferences that can be drawn, say, between Article XVIII and Article I and II, that it isn't just crystal clear?\nAnd it seems to me there, as Justice Ginsburg says, if... if you... unless you're attacking what we said was the test in Solem, that... where you have a cession for a sum certain, there's an almost insurmountable presumption, you have to come up with something more than just one way of reading a treaty as opposed to somebody else's reading, either... either of which is plausible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2489.432, 2501.146], "stop_times": [2501.146, 2522.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2489.432}, "reply_to": "20424__1_090", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20424__1_092", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "But you also said in Solem that there must be substantial and compelling evidence in order to disestablish or diminish a reservation.\nAnd what I'm saying, Your Honor, is this That the... the evidence is not there.\nThe State has not met its burden to... it doesn't show any substantial... it doesn't show any--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2522.748, 2529.838, 2535.195], "stop_times": [2529.838, 2535.195, 2539.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2522.748}, "reply_to": "20424__1_091", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_093", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "but the language in Solem suggests it meets its burden of... when it says there's a cession of land for a sum certain.\nWhich they're certainly is here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2539.426, 2546.471], "stop_times": [2546.471, 2547.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2539.426}, "reply_to": "20424__1_092", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20424__1_094", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--If that's all there were.\nBut there is more.\nAnd I mean more by Article XVIII.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2547.565, 2549.236, 2550.032], "stop_times": [2549.236, 2550.032, 2551.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2547.565}, "reply_to": "20424__1_093", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_095", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Yes.\nBut that more would then go to rebutting the almost in... insurmountable presumption.\nI... I just question whether you have that much more.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2551.579, 2552.001, 2557.029], "stop_times": [2552.001, 2557.029, 2559.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2551.579}, "reply_to": "20424__1_094", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20424__1_096", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Oh, I... well, of course, our position is that we have an awful lot more.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2559.42], "stop_times": [2562.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2559.42}, "reply_to": "20424__1_095", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_097", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Right.\nI'm... I'm still curious, Counsel, why you don't take the position that the 1894 Act might have diminished the reservation but not disestablished it entirely?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2562.808, 2563.105], "stop_times": [2563.105, 2584.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2562.808}, "reply_to": "20424__1_096", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20424__1_098", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Well, we take that position simply because it's not practical to... to diminish--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2584.44], "stop_times": [2589.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2584.44}, "reply_to": "20424__1_097", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_099", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "You don't take that position, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2589.953], "stop_times": [2591.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2589.953}, "reply_to": "20424__1_098", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20424__1_100", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--We don't really, because it's not practical.\nYou just can't do it because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2591.61, 2593.327], "stop_times": [2593.327, 2594.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2591.61}, "reply_to": "20424__1_099", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_101", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Although you said there are some tribal lands left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2594.546], "stop_times": [2598.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2594.546}, "reply_to": "20424__1_100", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20424__1_102", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2598.466], "stop_times": [2598.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2598.466}, "reply_to": "20424__1_101", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_103", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "But they also are checkerboarded, I take it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2598.904], "stop_times": [2602.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2598.904}, "reply_to": "20424__1_102", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20424__1_104", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Yes, they are.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2602.964], "stop_times": [2603.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2602.964}, "reply_to": "20424__1_103", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_105", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "How... how did they ever get there?\nIf... if all of the unalloted land was ceded and all of the land that was left is allotted to individual members of the Tribe, how did it come about that there is still some tribal lands?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2603.339, 2605.042], "stop_times": [2605.042, 2617.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2603.339}, "reply_to": "20424__1_104", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__1_106", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "That there is still some?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2617.239], "stop_times": [2618.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2617.239}, "reply_to": "20424__1_105", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_107", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Tribal lands.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2618.848], "stop_times": [2620.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2618.848}, "reply_to": "20424__1_106", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__1_108", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Well, they're owned by individual Indians.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2620.145], "stop_times": [2622.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2620.145}, "reply_to": "20424__1_107", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_109", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "So these are all allotted lands, in other words?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2622.019], "stop_times": [2624.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2622.019}, "reply_to": "20424__1_108", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__1_110", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Yes.\nYeah.\nAnd there... there are some tribal lands, but mostly it's individual--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2624.628, 2625.001, 2625.376], "stop_times": [2625.001, 2625.376, 2628.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2624.628}, "reply_to": "20424__1_109", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_111", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "What other tribal lands?\nI mean, that's crucial to me.\nI thought all the tribal lands, all the communally owned lands were given to the United States.\nThat's... that's certainly what this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2628.281, 2629.078, 2630.078, 2635.232], "stop_times": [2629.078, 2630.078, 2635.232, 2636.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2628.281}, "reply_to": "20424__1_110", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20424__1_112", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--No.\nNo.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2636.607, 2636.747], "stop_times": [2636.747, 2637.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2636.607}, "reply_to": "20424__1_111", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_113", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--No?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2637.185], "stop_times": [2637.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2637.185}, "reply_to": "20424__1_112", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20424__1_114", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Your Honor, what... what happened was there were... the allotments were over 200,000 acres that were allotted out.\nWhat was left over was 160-some-thousand acres.\nThat's what the government came along and bought in 1892.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2637.607, 2643.979, 2646.603], "stop_times": [2643.979, 2646.603, 2649.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2637.607}, "reply_to": "20424__1_113", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_115", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Right.\nAll of the unalloted lands, which was the only portion of the reservation that was still held by the Tribe rather than individual Indians.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2649.945, 2650.508, 2657.77], "stop_times": [2650.508, 2657.77, 2658.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2649.945}, "reply_to": "20424__1_114", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20424__1_116", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2658.035], "stop_times": [2658.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2658.035}, "reply_to": "20424__1_115", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_117", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Okay.\nSo that there were... there were no tribal lands retained in 1892?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2658.473, 2658.957], "stop_times": [2658.957, 2665.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2658.473}, "reply_to": "20424__1_116", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20424__1_118", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Yes, there were.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2665.689, 2666.438], "stop_times": [2666.438, 2666.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2665.689}, "reply_to": "20424__1_117", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_119", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Well, I thought... then I don't understand your answer to Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2666.781], "stop_times": [2669.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2666.781}, "reply_to": "20424__1_118", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20424__1_120", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--I must have misunderstood his question.\nBut there are... there were tribal lands in 1894.\nBut most of them are individual Indian allotments, owned by Indians.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2669.452, 2671.108, 2674.061], "stop_times": [2671.108, 2674.061, 2677.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2669.452}, "reply_to": "20424__1_119", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_121", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "But--\n--But if... if you distinguish between individual Indian allotments and, quote, tribal lands, are... are you saying there are some tribe... what you call tribal lands that are not individual allotments?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2677.856, 2678.137], "stop_times": [2678.137, 2689.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2677.856}, "reply_to": "20424__1_120", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20424__1_122", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Yes, very... not very many... not very many acres, but there are.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2689.696, 2693.599], "stop_times": [2693.599, 2693.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2689.696}, "reply_to": "20424__1_121", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_123", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "And some of them have been in the Tribe's possession since before the 1892 Treaty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2693.88], "stop_times": [2698.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2693.88}, "reply_to": "20424__1_122", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20424__1_124", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "There were all in the Tribe's possession prior to 1892.\nThen--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2698.596, 2703.017], "stop_times": [2703.017, 2703.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2698.596}, "reply_to": "20424__1_123", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_125", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "But the... the... the land... the... the communally owned tribal land was owned by the Indians and so held before 1892 and have been held continuously to the present day; is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2703.986], "stop_times": [2718.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2703.986}, "reply_to": "20424__1_124", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20424__1_126", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--No.\nNo.\nAll of the lands... all of the 430,000 acres were communally owned until the allotments--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2718.652, 2719.557, 2720.198], "stop_times": [2719.557, 2720.198, 2726.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2718.652}, "reply_to": "20424__1_125", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_127", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2726.164], "stop_times": [2726.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2726.164}, "reply_to": "20424__1_126", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20424__1_128", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--around... and then... then what was left over, in 1892, the government purchased.\nThat was 160-some-thousand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2726.649, 2731.178], "stop_times": [2731.178, 2732.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2726.649}, "reply_to": "20424__1_127", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_129", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "So when the government purchased, there were no communally land... owned lands, tribal lands, retained by the Tribe as such?\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2732.381, 2738.847], "stop_times": [2738.847, 2739.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2732.381}, "reply_to": "20424__1_128", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20424__1_130", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Well, only a mile square.\nThere was a mile square they retained for their headquarters, et cetera, et cetera.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2739.378, 2740.144], "stop_times": [2740.144, 2743.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2739.378}, "reply_to": "20424__1_129", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_131", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--Okay.\nThank you, Mr. Abourezk.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2743.938, 2744.469], "stop_times": [2744.469, 2745.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2743.938}, "reply_to": "20424__1_130", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20424__1_132", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2745.969], "stop_times": [2746.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2745.969}, "reply_to": "20424__1_131", "speaker": "james_g_abourezk"}
{"id": "20424__1_133", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Mr.... who do we have here?\nMs. McDowell.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2746.157, 2750.64], "stop_times": [2750.64, 2752.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2746.157}, "reply_to": "20424__1_132", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20424__2_000", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--\nTo start with last things first, we'd like to deal with the jurisdiction over the reservation area subsequent to 1894.\nOne can find in the record annual reports from the superintendent of the Yankton Reservation, from 1895, 1896 and so forth, to 18... to 1906, which I believe is the last report in the record... those reports consistently refer to the reservation as a continuing entity.\nIt's interesting that it doesn't demonstrate any significant change at the time of the opening.\nThere's a notation that the reservation was opened, but there is nothing to suggest that there was a major change in the situation on the reservation at the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2752.936, 2757.356, 2765.259, 2785.189, 2790.53], "stop_times": [2757.356, 2765.259, 2785.189, 2790.53, 2799.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2752.936}, "reply_to": "20424__1_133", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "20424__2_001", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "But there's nothing in there, I take it, to suggest that this kind of jurisdiction was being exercised over either allotted lands or the lands that were conveyed in 18... or under the... under the 1892 agreement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2799.885], "stop_times": [2810.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2799.885}, "reply_to": "20424__2_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20424__2_002", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "The record is unclear as to whether the State or the Tribe or the Federal Government was exercising jurisdiction over the allotted lands at the time.\nIt appears that the only prosecution that is cited from the early era, one in 1895, may well have been on Indian allocated lands.\nIt does not appear clear from my reading of the record.\nMore significantly, however, the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by the State was not inconsistent at the time with continued reservation status, as the Court noted in the Yakima case.\nAt the time, it was thought that Indian character of the land went with Indian ownership.\nAnd it was also thought that once an Indian received an allotment, under the Dawes Act, the Indian immediately became a citizen of the State and subject to its plenary jurisdiction.\nThat was only changed in 1906, which was some time after the Act at issue here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2810.694, 2822.409, 2832.122, 2834.232, 2846.556, 2852.567, 2864.25], "stop_times": [2822.409, 2832.122, 2834.232, 2846.556, 2852.567, 2864.25, 2869.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2810.694}, "reply_to": "20424__2_001", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "20424__2_003", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "A theory which is beautifully in accord with the State's notion that everyone would have assumed that if there's nothing left in a reservation but allotted lands, there's no reservation left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2869.139], "stop_times": [2879.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2869.139}, "reply_to": "20424__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20424__2_004", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Oh, that's a theory that this Court has subsequently rejected over the last 35 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2879.089], "stop_times": [2885.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2879.089}, "reply_to": "20424__2_003", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "20424__2_005", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "But it fits very nicely with what you say to be the... the... the... the understanding, that... that you can't have a... the reservation went with... with Indian ownership.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2885.242], "stop_times": [2895.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2885.242}, "reply_to": "20424__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20424__2_006", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Oh, the Court has acknowledged that in a number of other cases, including Solem, that at the time, the understanding was that Indian status was a property status, but that Congress disabused everyone of that notion in 1948, and that when we are deciding these disestablishment and diminishment issues, we are looking at reservations as they have been considered after '48, and not as they may have been considered 100 years ago.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2895.425], "stop_times": [2922.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2895.425}, "reply_to": "20424__2_005", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "20424__2_007", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Well, how... how... what is the normal now?\nI take it now differently from before 1906.\nImagine a reservation of 50 square miles.\nOn one of those square miles live a group of people who are not Indians, who own their land in fee, and who bought it from the Tribe.\nNow, what law governs?\nThe law of the State governs those people?\nI know the tribal land does not govern them.\nSo far, it seems to me from what I've looked up, Federal law governs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2922.868, 2926.054, 2928.678, 2932.27, 2940.016, 2942.016, 2944.561, 2946.889], "stop_times": [2926.054, 2928.678, 2932.27, 2940.016, 2942.016, 2944.561, 2946.889, 2951.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2922.868}, "reply_to": "20424__2_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__2_008", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "State law governs them except in some particular instances that this Court has spelled out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2951.371], "stop_times": [2956.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2951.371}, "reply_to": "20424__2_007", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "20424__2_009", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Why does State law govern?\nIs it that the Federal Government has somehow, through law, statute or regulation, brought in State law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2956.291, 2956.65], "stop_times": [2956.65, 2963.258], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2956.291}, "reply_to": "20424__2_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__2_010", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "No.\nIt's because the... I understand it's because the State has plenary jurisdiction over its citizens, wherever they reside.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2963.258, 2964.772], "stop_times": [2964.772, 2971.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2963.258}, "reply_to": "20424__2_009", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "20424__2_011", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "All right.\nSo, in other words, these towns that are upset... I don't understand they're upset, or maybe they shouldn't be upset, because nothing is going to change for them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2971.472, 2971.722], "stop_times": [2971.722, 2979.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2971.472}, "reply_to": "20424__2_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__2_012", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "That's our position, that things should not change--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2979.375], "stop_times": [2981.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2979.375}, "reply_to": "20424__2_011", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "20424__2_013", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Then why is it... I'm back at Justice Kennedy's point... why is it that there's some argument here about building a... some kind of thing in this... waste disposal or what it is... if the State law governs the same as it would if it were not within the reservation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2981.765], "stop_times": [2994.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2981.765}, "reply_to": "20424__2_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__2_014", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--This was a... a particular issue of the EPA's authority to delegate primary supervision of landfills to the State.\nAnd under that permitting authority, the State excluded Indian reservations, as I understand it.\nBut as a general matter--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [2994.838, 3005.132, 3010.598], "stop_times": [3005.132, 3010.598, 3013.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2994.838}, "reply_to": "20424__2_013", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "20424__2_015", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "What about... what about taxation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3013.361], "stop_times": [3014.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3013.361}, "reply_to": "20424__2_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20424__2_016", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--As a general matter, the State may tax its citizens on the reservation.\nCertainly, it can tax the nonIndian citizens just as it would, whether it was a reservation or not.\nIt may also impose significant taxes, such as property taxes, on the Indians.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3014.939, 3020.904, 3027.558], "stop_times": [3020.904, 3027.558, 3032.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3014.939}, "reply_to": "20424__2_015", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "20424__2_017", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "So in the absence of a Federal statute that explicitly distinguishes between what happens on the reservation or not, everything stays the same, but for the Indians themselves, because they would have certain rights under tribal law, et cetera, if it is a reservation, throughout the reservation that they wouldn't have if it isn't; is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3032.651], "stop_times": [3052.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3032.651}, "reply_to": "20424__2_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__2_018", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "With a few limited--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3052.019], "stop_times": [3052.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3052.019}, "reply_to": "20424__2_017", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "20424__2_019", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3052.472], "stop_times": [3052.753], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3052.472}, "reply_to": "20424__2_018", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20424__2_020", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--exceptions, Justice Breyer.\nIf an Indian commits a crime... if a... a nonIndian commits a crime against an Indian, if it's reservation land, then Federal law rather than State law governs the prosecution.\nThe State, in A-1... this Court, in A-1 Contractors--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3052.753, 3053.175, 3063.265], "stop_times": [3053.175, 3063.265, 3066.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3052.753}, "reply_to": "20424__2_019", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "20424__2_021", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Well, could... could you enlighten us on what lands continued to be owned by the Tribe as such, as opposed to specific Indians by way of allotment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3066.796], "stop_times": [3080.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3066.796}, "reply_to": "20424__2_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20424__2_022", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--It's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3080.882], "stop_times": [3082.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3080.882}, "reply_to": "20424__2_021", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "20424__2_023", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--after 1892?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3082.022], "stop_times": [3083.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3082.022}, "reply_to": "20424__2_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20424__2_024", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--It's my understanding that those lands were, for the most part, allocated to individual Indians.\nHowever, the Federal Government--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3083.897, 3090.597], "stop_times": [3090.597, 3091.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3083.897}, "reply_to": "20424__2_023", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "20424__2_025", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Well, I'm hearing a lot of \"for the most parts\", and \"no\", and \"there's this other land\", and \"it's scattered\".\nI mean, what is it?\nHow are we to find out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3091.659, 3098.267, 3099.157], "stop_times": [3098.267, 3099.157, 3100.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3091.659}, "reply_to": "20424__2_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20424__2_026", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--Well, it appears--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3100.578], "stop_times": [3101.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3100.578}, "reply_to": "20424__2_025", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "20424__2_027", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "How do we know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3101.359], "stop_times": [3101.952], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3101.359}, "reply_to": "20424__2_026", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20424__2_028", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--from the record, which is not entirely clear, that there were some lands that were subject to allocation, but the actual allocations were not made until some time after 1894.\nThere's also the mile square area--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3101.952, 3112.887], "stop_times": [3112.887, 3115.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3101.952}, "reply_to": "20424__2_027", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "20424__2_029", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "But they've all been made... is there any land that was held continuously by the Tribe as such, as opposed to tribal members, since 1892?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3115.246], "stop_times": [3125.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3115.246}, "reply_to": "20424__2_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20424__2_030", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--It's my understanding that there is this mile square area that's referred to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3125.63], "stop_times": [3129.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3125.63}, "reply_to": "20424__2_029", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "20424__2_031", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "A one square mile.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3129.582], "stop_times": [3129.848], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3129.582}, "reply_to": "20424__2_030", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20424__2_032", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--But, other than that... although there are trust lands today that are held by the Tribe, it's not clear that any of those lands were trust lands earlier.\nPerhaps Mr. Abourezk could clarify that, however.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3129.848, 3139.485], "stop_times": [3139.485, 3141.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3129.848}, "reply_to": "20424__2_031", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "20424__2_033", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Now, this... this is a totally checkerboarded situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3141.687], "stop_times": [3145.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3141.687}, "reply_to": "20424__2_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20424__2_034", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "That's correct.\nAnd this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3145.28, 3146.762], "stop_times": [3146.762, 3147.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3145.28}, "reply_to": "20424__2_033", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "20424__2_035", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "That was certainly a factor that resulted in our thinking there was at least diminishment in the DeCoteau case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3147.403], "stop_times": [3155.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3147.403}, "reply_to": "20424__2_034", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20424__2_036", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--Well, the Court, in DeCoteau, found total disestablishment.\nBut that was a different case, in several respects, from this one.\nIn the first place, of course, there was no savings clause preserving rights under an earlier treaty.\nIn addition, the Court placed a lot of emphasis in DeCoteau on the negotiation history with the Tribe.\nThere were a number of statements of tribal leaders, stating that we understand that the reservation is going to disappear, essentially, that we never understood that we would keep this reservation.\nHere there are no statements like that suggesting any kind of common understanding that the reservation was going to be extinguished as a result of the Act.\nIt's interesting that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3155.696, 3160.351, 3163.397, 3168.644, 3175.174, 3183.294, 3192.306], "stop_times": [3160.351, 3163.397, 3168.644, 3175.174, 3183.294, 3192.306, 3193.915], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3155.696}, "reply_to": "20424__2_035", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "20424__2_037", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "But do you... do you agree with both counsel, it seemed to me, that the choice is either we accept your argument based on Article XVIII or there's a disestablishment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3193.915], "stop_times": [3203.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3193.915}, "reply_to": "20424__2_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20424__2_038", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3203.006], "stop_times": [3204.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3203.006}, "reply_to": "20424__2_037", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "20424__2_039", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "That there is no such thing as diminishment applicable on these facts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3204.053], "stop_times": [3207.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3204.053}, "reply_to": "20424__2_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20424__2_040", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "That's correct.\nDiminishment seems to be limited to cases such as Rosebud, where there was a selling or a ceding of a part of the reservation, in so many words, as opposed to this sort of situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3207.521, 3207.582], "stop_times": [3207.582, 3217.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3207.521}, "reply_to": "20424__2_039", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "20424__2_041", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Didn't--\n--May I ask one--\n--Didn't Judge Murphy say she thought that... that the disestablishment was the rare thing and the diminishment the usual thing?\nIt's a very--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3217.501, 3217.751, 3218.016, 3228.106], "stop_times": [3217.751, 3218.016, 3228.106, 3228.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3217.501}, "reply_to": "20424__2_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20424__2_042", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Well, disestablishment is very rare.\nThis Court has only found it in one prior case, DeCoteau.\nAnd subsequently, in Rosebud, the Court suggested that disestablishment should be more difficult to find.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3228.682, 3230.323, 3233.29], "stop_times": [3230.323, 3233.29, 3239.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3228.682}, "reply_to": "20424__2_041", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "20424__2_043", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--But--\n--Ms.... Ms. McDowell, can I go back?\nYou said... you said Rosebud is different because there it involved conveyance of only part of the reservation, in so many words.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3239.022, 3239.319, 3241.194], "stop_times": [3239.319, 3241.194, 3247.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3239.022}, "reply_to": "20424__2_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20424__2_044", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3247.16], "stop_times": [3247.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3247.16}, "reply_to": "20424__2_043", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "20424__2_045", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "But this case involves a conveyance of only part of the reservation, in so many words.\nNamely, the part that was held in fee by the Tribe and not the part that had been allotted.\nDo you mean that Rosebud involved only a conveyance of part of the tribally owned portion of the reservation, in so many words?\nIs that what you mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3247.613, 3251.065, 3254.891, 3262.311], "stop_times": [3251.065, 3254.891, 3262.311, 3262.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3247.613}, "reply_to": "20424__2_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20424__2_046", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Well, the language of the statute in Rosebud says\n\"We cede a part of our reservation. \"\nThat kind of language wasn't used here.\nThe language was, \"We cede our surplus lands\".\nThere was no reference to selling off all or part of the reservation.\nIt should also be noted that the word \"cede\" didn't have any single--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3262.733, 3266.699, 3268.903, 3270.791, 3273.821, 3277.788], "stop_times": [3266.699, 3268.903, 3270.791, 3273.821, 3277.788, 3281.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3262.733}, "reply_to": "20424__2_045", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "20424__2_047", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Well, isn't it true that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3281.63], "stop_times": [3281.848], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3281.63}, "reply_to": "20424__2_046", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20424__2_048", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--settled meaning in the 19th century; that it was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3281.848], "stop_times": [3284.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3281.848}, "reply_to": "20424__2_047", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "20424__2_049", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--Isn't it true, though, that apart from the savings clause and the negotiating history, if you just look at the text of the document, the DeCoteau case is just like this, that if you have... let me just finish one question so you can comment... if you assume that if everything is allotted, you don't have a reservation.\nAnd if you then assume that all that's left is unalloted land, but then you cede your entire authority over the unalloted lands, what can be left?\nI have trouble getting your explanation to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3284.442, 3300.154, 3308.12], "stop_times": [3300.154, 3308.12, 3311.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3284.442}, "reply_to": "20424__2_048", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20424__2_050", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--Several responses.\nThere are other differences between this case and DeCoteau.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3311.024, 3315.741], "stop_times": [3315.741, 3318.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3311.024}, "reply_to": "20424__2_049", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "20424__2_051", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "I understand the differences because of the history primarily in the absence of the savings clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3318.241], "stop_times": [3321.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3318.241}, "reply_to": "20424__2_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20424__2_052", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "And there are other clauses that are in our Act here that were not in the Act in DeCoteau, such as the reservation of lands for Agency school and other purposes.\nThat was not present in DeCoteau; it is present here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3321.723, 3330.736], "stop_times": [3330.736, 3333.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3321.723}, "reply_to": "20424__2_051", "speaker": "barbara_b_mcdowell"}
{"id": "20424__2_053", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Thank you, Ms. McDowell.\nGeneral Barnett, you have 2 minutes left.\nGeneral Barnett, could you quickly advise us what the jurisdictional consequence of this... of this case is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3333.204, 3335.968, 3338.045], "stop_times": [3335.968, 3338.045, 3345.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3333.204}, "reply_to": "20424__2_052", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20424__3_000", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3345.777], "stop_times": [3346.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3345.777}, "reply_to": "20424__2_053", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__3_001", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "What does the State lose if... if you lose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3346.479], "stop_times": [3349.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3346.479}, "reply_to": "20424__3_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20424__3_002", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--I think we lose a vast amount of clarity, as we are standing... or, up until the District Court opinion, jurisdiction in the 90 percent of this area that has gone out of Indian hands was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3349.073], "stop_times": [3362.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3349.073}, "reply_to": "20424__3_001", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__3_003", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "What... what kinds of authority can you not exercise if you lose that you're exercising now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3362.785], "stop_times": [3367.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3362.785}, "reply_to": "20424__3_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20424__3_004", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--Well, obviously, if you were to hold that it is still a reservation in this entire area, it would have a big effect on criminal jurisdiction.\nAnd the best example I can give you is that if you were the victim of a crime out there on that 90 percent of that area, it's the difference between whether you call the sheriff down the road or whether you call the FBI office 120 miles east of there, in Sioux Falls, and leave a message on the machine.\nSecond--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3367.83, 3375.968, 3391.195], "stop_times": [3375.968, 3391.195, 3392.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3367.83}, "reply_to": "20424__3_003", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__3_005", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "It's criminal jurisdiction over Indians?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3392.195], "stop_times": [3394.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3392.195}, "reply_to": "20424__3_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__3_006", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3394.21], "stop_times": [3394.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3394.21}, "reply_to": "20424__3_005", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__3_007", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Criminal jurisdiction over Indians.\nIs there anything else?\nIs there anything with respect to nonIndians that you'd lose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3394.663, 3396.382, 3397.255], "stop_times": [3396.382, 3397.255, 3400.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3394.663}, "reply_to": "20424__3_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__3_008", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Yes, I think there would be.\nYou're on a reservation at that point, and I think there would be criminal aspects, because of 18--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3400.91, 3402.066], "stop_times": [3402.066, 3407.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3400.91}, "reply_to": "20424__3_007", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__3_009", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "No, no, no.\nForget criminal.\nI mean, is there any civil?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3407.111, 3407.517, 3408.346], "stop_times": [3407.517, 3408.346, 3408.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3407.111}, "reply_to": "20424__3_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20424__3_010", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "--Yes, there would be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3408.814], "stop_times": [3409.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3408.814}, "reply_to": "20424__3_009", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__3_011", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "What?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3409.391], "stop_times": [3409.86], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3409.391}, "reply_to": "20424__3_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20424__3_012", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Well, I think there are a number of holdings of this Court that suggest that... that if there is a reservation out there, the Tribe is going to have some rights of civil jurisdiction.\nAnd, indeed, in this case, when they first now started claiming that they have civil jurisdiction, they're in trying to contest fee land... fee land landfill that isn't even on trust land.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3409.86, 3420.512], "stop_times": [3420.512, 3433.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3409.86}, "reply_to": "20424__3_011", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__3_013", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "That's our Brendle case.\nThe Brendle case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3433.318, 3434.287], "stop_times": [3434.287, 3435.787], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3433.318}, "reply_to": "20424__3_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20424__3_014", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Suffice it to say, Your Honor, with the... and... and I'm trying to be brief to stay within my time... but suffice it to say that this Court is aware that there would be all sorts of ramifications that the Court has seen in prior cases in disputes over civil jurisdiction, A-1 being one place where we've had to litigate who's in charge.\nLet me just clarify something else.\nIn this Act, there was no tribal land base left.\nYet there was a little reserve of Federal land, for the 1 mile square, but everything else was allotments.\nAnd so tribal communal ownership was over.\nSecondly, there were savings clauses in Montana, in the Montana Crow agreements, and in the Rosebud agreement.\nAnd it seems to me there is a hook in the argument that they're suggesting that a nonoperative savings clause, with no specific language about preserving some authority and no contemporary history... my time is up.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3435.787, 3454.545, 3456.201, 3460.214, 3465.555, 3468.835, 3475.818, 3489.218], "stop_times": [3454.545, 3456.201, 3460.214, 3465.555, 3468.835, 3475.818, 3489.218, 3489.577], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3435.787}, "reply_to": "20424__3_013", "speaker": "mark_w_barnett"}
{"id": "20424__3_015", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "Yes.\nThank you, General Barnett.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3489.577, 3489.859, 3490.406], "stop_times": [3489.859, 3490.406, 3491.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3489.577}, "reply_to": "20424__3_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20424__3_016", "conversation_id": "20424", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1581", "start_times": [3491.922], "stop_times": [3497.041], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3491.922}, "reply_to": "20424__3_015", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20743__0_000", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-7171, Randy G. Spencer v. Mike Kemna.\nMr. Simon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [0.0, 8.127], "stop_times": [8.127, 9.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20743__0_001", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:--\nIn September 1992 the State of Missouri revoked Randy Spencer's parole on the basis of the Board of Probation and Parole's finding that he had committed forcible rape, armed criminal action, and possession of crack cocaine.\nAfter exhausting his State remedies, Spencer filed a Federal habeas corpus action asserting Federal constitutional violations concerning this revocation which would, if recognized, have required the court to hold it invalid.\nAbout 4 months after Spencer filed his petition, the State released him on parole again for good behavior, but without expunging the order of revocation or abandoning its finding that he was guilty of these three serious felonies.\nNearly 2-1/2 years after he filed his petition, the district court dismissed it as moot.\nIn conflict with the decisions of every other United States court of appeals that had then issued a published opinion dealing with the subject, the court below affirmed the district court's dismissal.\nAn official governmental finding that one is guilty of forcible rape, armed criminal action, and possession of crack cocaine has collateral consequences like those of a criminal conviction per se.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [9.377, 13.46, 27.428, 42.569, 57.6, 65.293, 78.433], "stop_times": [13.46, 27.428, 42.569, 57.6, 65.293, 78.433, 92.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.377}, "reply_to": "20743__0_000", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_002", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "It does?\nI thought that if you're convicted of a crime, A, then under the guidelines in many States when you're convicted of crime B your sentence automatically goes up, and I thought that wasn't true here, that if your parole is revoked there is no guideline or statute that says you get an increased sentence because of a parole revocation, though of course they could give you an increased sentence on the basis of that for which the parole was revoked.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [92.081, 92.982], "stop_times": [92.982, 118.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 92.081}, "reply_to": "20743__0_001", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20743__0_003", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Justice Breyer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [118.62], "stop_times": [120.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 118.62}, "reply_to": "20743__0_002", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_004", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Am I wrong, because... yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [120.321], "stop_times": [121.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 120.321}, "reply_to": "20743__0_003", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20743__0_005", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--Justice Breyer, I've two responses to that.\nThe first is that although it is not automatic in the case, it is not automatic that under the guidelines you would get it... you would get a higher sentence solely on the basis of the parole revocation, the parole revocation can force one's offense into the 15-year window--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [121.342, 123.403], "stop_times": [123.403, 140.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 121.342}, "reply_to": "20743__0_004", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_006", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "I thought... am I not... what I was saying is, I thought that that which does it is not the parole revocation, it is that for which the parole was revoked.\nIn other words, the defendant would always have a chance to say, but I didn't do this thing, I didn't commit... I didn't do that for which, and then the parole board or whoever, the court would consider, did he do it or didn't he do it.\nYou can't do that if you're convicted of a crime.\nI just want to know if I'm right.\nIs that right or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [140.974, 150.13, 161.69, 163.59, 164.97], "stop_times": [150.13, 161.69, 163.59, 164.97, 166.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 140.974}, "reply_to": "20743__0_005", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20743__0_007", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--I agree with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [166.101], "stop_times": [168.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 166.101}, "reply_to": "20743__0_006", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_008", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Tell me if I'm--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [168.493], "stop_times": [168.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 168.493}, "reply_to": "20743__0_007", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20743__0_009", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--I agree with what you're saying, Justice Breyer, but in Sibron this Court... this Court considered that question in respect to criminal convictions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [168.833], "stop_times": [175.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 168.833}, "reply_to": "20743__0_008", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_010", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--All right, but I mean, the first part was, is that right, and then if I'm right, then why... then you're going to explain why it doesn't matter.\nGo ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [175.537, 181.582], "stop_times": [181.582, 182.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 175.537}, "reply_to": "20743__0_009", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20743__0_011", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--Well... yes.\nThank you, Your Honor.\nYou are right.\nYou are right in that the parole revocation does not have exactly the same effect under the Sentencing Guidelines as a criminal conviction.\nHowever, to put the burden on the petitioner and then defendant in the... under the guidelines of impeaching the parole revocation years after the fact has the same things wrong with it that it would have in the Sibron situation, where this Court said that we shouldn't require people to come in years after the fact when they have proceeded to litigate the claims under the rules as Sibron and Randy Spencer have done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [182.363, 183.913, 185.245, 186.574, 194.111], "stop_times": [183.913, 185.245, 186.574, 194.111, 225.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 182.363}, "reply_to": "20743__0_010", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_012", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "But in Lane v. Williams we said that the same factors don't apply, that the parole revocation situation not becoming moot, we limited Sibron to say what it said, the legal consequences, and said that some of the other consequences that you're talking about did not prevent it from becoming moot.\nYou really... we must modify or abandon Lane v. Williams for you to prevail, must we not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [225.13, 245.753], "stop_times": [245.753, 252.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 225.13}, "reply_to": "20743__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20743__0_013", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Certainly not abandon, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [252.407], "stop_times": [254.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 252.407}, "reply_to": "20743__0_012", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_014", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "But considerably cut back on it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [254.649], "stop_times": [257.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 254.649}, "reply_to": "20743__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20743__0_015", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "I'm not even sure of that, Mr. Chief Justice.\nLane is distinguishable on numerous grounds.\nThe prisoners there neither challenged their parole revocations nor sought relief, nor put the consequences of those revocations at issue by seeking expungement of their records.\nThe target in Lane was the guilty plea way back when, not the parole revocation.\nThey were seeking relief from what they contended to be an involuntary guilty plea.\nIf--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [257.841, 259.511, 263.314, 273.913, 280.446, 284.91], "stop_times": [259.511, 263.314, 273.913, 280.446, 284.91, 285.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 257.841}, "reply_to": "20743__0_014", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_016", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "But didn't we say in Lane that consequences... we're talking about whether something becomes moot.\nThe consequences that didn't have the same effect as statutory consequences would not be regarded as keeping a case from being moot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [285.461, 291.465], "stop_times": [291.465, 301.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 285.461}, "reply_to": "20743__0_015", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20743__0_017", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--Correct, Your Honor.\nHowever, things have changed since Lane.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [301.229, 302.391], "stop_times": [302.391, 304.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 301.229}, "reply_to": "20743__0_016", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_018", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "What has changed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [304.782], "stop_times": [306.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 304.782}, "reply_to": "20743__0_017", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20743__0_019", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Well, first of all the Court's doctrine on that has changed, because in Evitts the Court added--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [306.335], "stop_times": [311.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 306.335}, "reply_to": "20743__0_018", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_020", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "That was a footnote in... on a point that wasn't even argued.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [311.858], "stop_times": [315.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 311.858}, "reply_to": "20743__0_019", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20743__0_021", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I believe... well now, of course, Your Honor, I wouldn't know whether it was argued.\nThe Court would know that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [315.742, 318.821], "stop_times": [318.821, 319.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 315.742}, "reply_to": "20743__0_020", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_022", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Well, you can tell whether... just from the way it's put in a footnote you can tell it wasn't argued.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [319.693], "stop_times": [323.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 319.693}, "reply_to": "20743__0_021", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20743__0_023", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Your Honor, the material that is most damaging to my client in Lane is also in a footnote.\nThe question is what the Court held in Lane and in Evitts, rather than the typography of where the points appeared and in Lane, the question that my client is asking the Court to decide, this wasn't before the Court, because in Lane the prisoners did not argue that the State of Illinois had violated their Federal constitutional rights as explained in Morrissey and Gagnon.\nThe target was just different, Your Honor.\nI know the language is there, but not only were the facts different in Lane and the procedural posture was different, but Lane predated Evitts' addition of sentence enhancement and testimonial impeachment to the list of collateral consequences and, furthermore, one of the things the Court relied on in Lane, as far as the reader can tell, is the speculative nature of what was going to happen.\nAnd it's my position, Your Honor, that the consequences of that, of a parole revocation, especially a serious one like this, one sex offense, one weapons offense, one drug offense, the consequences of these are far more powerful--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [323.805, 330.491, 356.647, 358.398, 385.476], "stop_times": [330.491, 356.647, 358.398, 385.476, 403.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 323.805}, "reply_to": "20743__0_022", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_024", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Well, are you saying then that whether or not a case has become moot may depend upon the seriousness of the charges in the parole revocation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [403.629], "stop_times": [412.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 403.629}, "reply_to": "20743__0_023", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20743__0_025", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--Only if the Court chooses to apply Sibron to parole revocations, Your Honor.\nIf the Court goes on a case by case basis and just says, well, in this case it's forcible rape, armed criminal action, and possession of crack cocaine, well, we're going to hold that it's not moot, if the Court feels that that would be unmanageable because courts would have to decide it on a case by case basis, the Court could apply the Sibron presumption.\nMy client wins either way because of the grossly stigmatic characteristics of the felonies that he's been found guilty of without a trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [412.183, 416.255, 436.039], "stop_times": [416.255, 436.039, 447.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 412.183}, "reply_to": "20743__0_024", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_026", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Well, Mr. Simon, as I understand it, you're concerned about the stigma as it would apply at the point of a subsequent parole revocation.\nI would suppose that the stigma that you refer to would be far more powerful at the point of a subsequent decision to parole in the first place, and yet that does not seem to be your concern.\nWhy does the stigma become greater when he has been paroled and the question is, will parole be revoked, than it was, or seems to be on your calculus, at the point at which he would be subject to parole?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [447.857, 458.425, 472.493], "stop_times": [458.425, 472.493, 485.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 447.857}, "reply_to": "20743__0_025", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20743__0_027", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Your Honor, we have been a little more soft spoken about the parole consequences per se, but we have never abandoned them, and they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [485.273], "stop_times": [494.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 485.273}, "reply_to": "20743__0_026", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_028", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Did you argue them in the... I thought your argument on the circuit was that the adverse consequences that you're concerned about are adverse consequences at the point of a later parole revocation.\nWas I... am I wrong about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [494.6, 505.816], "stop_times": [505.816, 508.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 494.6}, "reply_to": "20743__0_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20743__0_029", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--I... Your Honor, I am not sure about where the focus of it was, except that in the Eighth Circuit the focus was on the parole consequences as... and to the exclusion, I will concede, of later consequences such as sentence enhancement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [508.36], "stop_times": [523.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 508.36}, "reply_to": "20743__0_028", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_030", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Let me ask you a different question, if I may.\nIt goes back to what Justice Breyer began with.\nI take it you accept the fact that at a later parole revocation hearing, at least, you could indeed argue and present evidence to the effect that the underlying conduct that was assumed in this revocation in fact didn't take place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [523.821, 523.848, 527.141], "stop_times": [523.848, 527.141, 550.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 523.821}, "reply_to": "20743__0_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20743__0_031", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [550.345], "stop_times": [550.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 550.345}, "reply_to": "20743__0_030", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_032", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "You could be heard on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [550.936], "stop_times": [551.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 550.936}, "reply_to": "20743__0_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20743__0_033", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [551.895], "stop_times": [552.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 551.895}, "reply_to": "20743__0_032", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_034", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Is it also the case... do you assume that you could also make this argument: you may not consider the fact of the earlier parole revocation as such independently of the underlying conduct, because I was doing my best, I had done my best to litigate that by means of habeas at the time I was released, and therefore the habeas issue became moot and I could never go to judgment, so therefore you shall not consider, you must not consider the parole revocation as such.\nThat argument would be open to you, and... wouldn't it, and wouldn't it be successful?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [552.386, 589.201], "stop_times": [589.201, 594.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 552.386}, "reply_to": "20743__0_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20743__0_035", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Your Honor, if I were representing Mr. Spencer on that hypothetical case I would certainly make the argument that you're suggesting, Justice Souter.\nHowever, I think that Occam's razor would tell us that we should recognize collateral consequences before we require counsel or particularly the pro se parole candidate to make an argument that intricate, and I agree that it is an intricate argument that a resourceful counsel who is sitting here with us today would make.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [594.033, 601.958], "stop_times": [601.958, 628.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 594.033}, "reply_to": "20743__0_034", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_036", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Mr. Simon, may I just clarify one thing?\nI thought that you were making the point in connection with your client that it wasn't that they'd let him out at parole and then it would only be... the question would be to put him back.\nI thought you were talking about the reduction of his chances now to be paroled when you called our attention to the guideline in Missouri that says, will they let him out now on parole when he's due?\nNot if there appears... there does not appear to be a reasonable probability that he would live and remain at liberty without violating the law, so I thought you were talking about the reduction of his chances of being paroled.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [628.645, 630.968, 643.727, 658.737], "stop_times": [630.968, 643.727, 658.737, 673.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 628.645}, "reply_to": "20743__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20743__0_037", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, the guideline that you're quoting is from the Missouri sentencing guidelines rather than their parole guidelines.\nWe acknowledge that it's discretionary with the board how much weight the board should give to this parole revocation in the board's decision, but I believe that what the Court was just quoting was a document for the use of Missouri courts in passing sentences.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [673.787, 681.953], "stop_times": [681.953, 698.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 673.787}, "reply_to": "20743__0_036", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_038", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "It says... can we take the case, then, that there's not a single statute which attaches adverse consequences to parole revocation in and of itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [698.714], "stop_times": [710.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 698.714}, "reply_to": "20743__0_037", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20743__0_039", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "No, Your Honor, we can't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [710.9], "stop_times": [713.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 710.9}, "reply_to": "20743__0_038", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_040", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Or am I wrong about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [713.183], "stop_times": [713.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 713.183}, "reply_to": "20743__0_039", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20743__0_041", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--We can't take that because of the 15-year window under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [713.742], "stop_times": [718.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 713.742}, "reply_to": "20743__0_040", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_042", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "No, there's... I'm sorry.\nIs... that's what I was wondering.\nThere's something in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines that says parole revocation itself makes a difference?\nIn and of itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [718.687, 720.047, 721.228, 726.822], "stop_times": [720.047, 721.228, 726.822, 728.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 718.687}, "reply_to": "20743__0_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20743__0_043", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Well, it's... I guess it depends on what we mean by in and of itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [728.755], "stop_times": [731.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 728.755}, "reply_to": "20743__0_042", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_044", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "No--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [731.955], "stop_times": [732.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 731.955}, "reply_to": "20743__0_043", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20743__0_045", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Consequences.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [732.235], "stop_times": [732.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 732.235}, "reply_to": "20743__0_044", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_046", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--What I mean by this is the following, and I think maybe Justice Kennedy means the same.\nIf you have a prior conviction and then you come up for sentencing again, that's it, you know.\nYou get a bump up.\nYou go into another column, or you get an... that... all that the judge will look to is, is there another conviction?\nI mean, that's basically the rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [732.936, 736.668, 743.434, 744.162, 750.658], "stop_times": [736.668, 743.434, 744.162, 750.658, 753.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 732.936}, "reply_to": "20743__0_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20743__0_047", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "You can't attack it anyway?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [753.019], "stop_times": [754.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 753.019}, "reply_to": "20743__0_046", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_048", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Well, I don't know.\nThat's why I hesitated, because there may be certain things you could attack.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [754.461, 755.14], "stop_times": [755.14, 759.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 754.461}, "reply_to": "20743__0_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20743__0_049", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "No counsel, for example.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [759.804], "stop_times": [761.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 759.804}, "reply_to": "20743__0_048", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_050", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Yes.\nYes, that's right, exactly.\nBut now, parole revocation I thought was different.\nThat's why I started with this, that there is nothing that the parole revocation in and of itself gives you a bump up for.\nRather, a judge would look at it and say, hmm, his parole's been revoked.\nI wonder... that doesn't look good to me.\nI wonder what that's for, and then the counsel would argue about it, and they'd say, you know, it wasn't... et cetera.\nYou see... I thought... but I wasn't certain I'm right, and that's why I started out with this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [761.264, 761.484, 762.416, 766.029, 771.963, 776.934, 778.684, 784.32], "stop_times": [761.484, 762.416, 766.029, 771.963, 776.934, 778.684, 784.32, 788.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 761.264}, "reply_to": "20743__0_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20743__0_051", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Well, Justice Breyer, for me to advise you on the kinds of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [788.651], "stop_times": [793.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 788.651}, "reply_to": "20743__0_050", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_052", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "No, no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [793.225], "stop_times": [793.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 793.225}, "reply_to": "20743__0_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20743__0_053", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--Sentencing Guidelines--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [793.405], "stop_times": [794.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 793.405}, "reply_to": "20743__0_052", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_054", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "You've read it recently--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [794.517], "stop_times": [794.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 794.517}, "reply_to": "20743__0_053", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20743__0_055", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--is like bringing coals to Newcastle.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [794.835], "stop_times": [796.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 794.835}, "reply_to": "20743__0_054", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_056", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--You've read it recently with this in mind, and so I raised it because I fear I could be overlooking something, which is why I raised it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [796.227], "stop_times": [804.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 796.227}, "reply_to": "20743__0_055", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20743__0_057", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Your Honor, the big picture in respect to the Sentencing Guidelines is that before the Sentencing Guidelines were authorized and adopted a Federal sentencing court had virtually unbridled discretion.\n5 years to life could mean anything in between.\nBut under the guidelines, the amount of discretion, the scope of the sentencing judge's discretion has been cabined, and one of the factors that goes into that at various points is the 15-year window, concerning which it does definitely have an effect and there's no wriggling out of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [804.282, 815.929, 818.961], "stop_times": [815.929, 818.961, 836.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 804.282}, "reply_to": "20743__0_056", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_058", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "15-year window for what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [836.513], "stop_times": [839.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 836.513}, "reply_to": "20743__0_057", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20743__0_059", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "For a previous incarceration, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [839.205], "stop_times": [842.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 839.205}, "reply_to": "20743__0_058", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_060", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "For prior offenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [842.908], "stop_times": [846.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 842.908}, "reply_to": "20743__0_059", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20743__0_061", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [846.19], "stop_times": [846.761], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 846.19}, "reply_to": "20743__0_060", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_062", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Not parole revocation as such--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [846.761], "stop_times": [849.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 846.761}, "reply_to": "20743__0_061", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20743__0_063", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [849.413], "stop_times": [849.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 849.413}, "reply_to": "20743__0_062", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_064", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--for prior offenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [849.702], "stop_times": [851.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 849.702}, "reply_to": "20743__0_063", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20743__0_065", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--Not as such, Your Honor, but the parole revocation makes a difference in the 15-year window.\nBut the big picture, members of the court, is that the Sentencing Guidelines have narrowed that window of discretion.\nIt's been a sea change in criminal sentencing in the Federal courts, and the parole revocations--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [851.422, 857.627, 864.552], "stop_times": [857.627, 864.552, 871.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 851.422}, "reply_to": "20743__0_064", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_066", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "These all assume that he's going to commit another crime and be judged again or be up for parole again.\nDo we have to assume that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [871.886, 878.391], "stop_times": [878.391, 879.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 871.886}, "reply_to": "20743__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20743__0_067", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--No, Your Honor, because of the other... because of the other factors.\nWhen... this does not... this argument for collateral consequences, whether as applied to parole revocations or criminal convictions, does not assume that the person is going to go out and commit another crime.\nEverything, all of the factors that the Court has relied on in Carafas, in Evitts, wherever the Court has talked about collateral consequences, there is some intervening act, some intervening decision that the person burdened by the collateral consequences must make.\nOne thing that everyone agrees on as a collateral consequence is jury service.\nWhether a person is kept from serving on a jury because he or she is a convicted felon is... depends on whether they're called for jury duty, whether they come up with some excuse in advance, whether they want to serve on the jury.\nThat depends on intervening choices.\nThe right to vote depends on intervening choices.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [879.533, 884.324, 897.483, 917.717, 921.0, 934.106, 937.239], "stop_times": [884.324, 897.483, 917.717, 921.0, 934.106, 937.239, 939.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 879.533}, "reply_to": "20743__0_066", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_068", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Yes, but those are... I'm willing to acknowledge that people have those choices.\nI'm not willing to acknowledge that people have a choice whether to commit a crime or not.\nI... it seems to me rather weird to say, oh, if I commit another crime I'm going to be subject to these adverse consequences.\nIt seems to me the proper response to that is, don't commit another crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [939.87, 942.532, 946.015, 955.071], "stop_times": [942.532, 946.015, 955.071, 958.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 939.87}, "reply_to": "20743__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20743__0_069", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Agreed, Your Honor, and there's no way that I'm arguing that anyone should commit crimes.\nHowever... however, Your Honor, the same argument would cut against other guarantees of the rights of the accused.\nIt's always... when... it would... there would always be an answer to a criminal defendant who seeks to overturn his or her conviction by saying, well, you shouldn't have committed that crime.\nYou wouldn't have a problem of ineffective assistance of counsel if you hadn't committed the crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [958.003, 961.476, 969.48, 978.245], "stop_times": [961.476, 969.48, 978.245, 982.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 958.003}, "reply_to": "20743__0_068", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_070", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "I'm not talking about that.\nThat's water over the dam.\nIf the crime's been committed we're talking about whether you were tried fairly, but you're talking about, oh, if I... I'm going to be deprived of, you know, something if I should commit another crime, and I'm not willing to accept the hypothesis.\nYou should not commit another crime.\nMay I ask two questions?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [982.408, 983.129, 984.279, 997.88, 999.84], "stop_times": [983.129, 984.279, 997.88, 999.84, 1001.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 982.408}, "reply_to": "20743__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20743__0_071", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Yes, Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1001.36], "stop_times": [1002.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1001.36}, "reply_to": "20743__0_070", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_072", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "First, isn't... didn't... this man actually did commit another crime, didn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1002.261], "stop_times": [1005.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1002.261}, "reply_to": "20743__0_071", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20743__0_073", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "He committed a separate crime that is, we would submit, only marginally relevant to what's going on here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1005.884], "stop_times": [1014.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1005.884}, "reply_to": "20743__0_072", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_074", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Oh, okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1014.009], "stop_times": [1014.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1014.009}, "reply_to": "20743__0_073", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20743__0_075", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "It was... it was attempted stealing, nothing to compare with the serious sexual, violent weapons, drugs felonies that the State has found him guilty of without a trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1014.519], "stop_times": [1025.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1014.519}, "reply_to": "20743__0_074", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_076", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Let me ask my second question, then.\nIn the earlier Illinois case the... conceivably if... it would not have been moot if they had asked for another... wanted to replead and stand trial.\nNow, supposing in this case the State takes the position well, we'll admit the procedure was deficient but we do want... since he wants to get it off the record we do want to have a hearing on the merits of the charges.\nWould that be possible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1025.456, 1027.379, 1038.045, 1048.882], "stop_times": [1027.379, 1038.045, 1048.882, 1050.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1025.456}, "reply_to": "20743__0_075", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20743__0_077", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "I shake hands with Mr. Layton and we go home.\nWe have our hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1050.264, 1052.264], "stop_times": [1052.264, 1053.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1050.264}, "reply_to": "20743__0_076", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_078", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "You'd have... but is that conceivable in the way this thing might develop?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1053.005], "stop_times": [1057.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1053.005}, "reply_to": "20743__0_077", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20743__0_079", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Theoretically conceivable, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1057.316], "stop_times": [1061.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1057.316}, "reply_to": "20743__0_078", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_080", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "But under your view what will happen if you win?\nThat's what I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1061.9, 1065.172], "stop_times": [1065.172, 1066.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1061.9}, "reply_to": "20743__0_079", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20743__0_081", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Oh, the relief we would ask for, Your Honor, is a remand to the Eighth Circuit for... with instructions to remand to the district court to allow the respondents and the petitioner to litigate the merits of his claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1066.162], "stop_times": [1079.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1066.162}, "reply_to": "20743__0_080", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_082", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--To say that it's not moot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1079.071], "stop_times": [1081.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1079.071}, "reply_to": "20743__0_081", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20743__0_083", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1081.022], "stop_times": [1082.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1081.022}, "reply_to": "20743__0_082", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_084", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Do you... you said the Sentencing Guidelines regime is new.\nDo you put in part of the different picture in distinguishing Lane Heck and Balisok, which wasn't clear what the 1983 situation was?\nIn other words, is there a way... 1983 is not available.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1082.184, 1087.407, 1100.205], "stop_times": [1087.407, 1100.205, 1104.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1082.184}, "reply_to": "20743__0_083", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20743__0_085", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Mm hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1104.868], "stop_times": [1105.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1104.868}, "reply_to": "20743__0_084", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_086", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Is there something other than habeas that would enable you to expunge what you say is this unjust blot on the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1105.559], "stop_times": [1118.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1105.559}, "reply_to": "20743__0_085", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20743__0_087", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Not that I'm aware of, Your Honor.\nMy client exhausted his State remedies, as he was required to under Preiser v. Rodriguez.\nThen he filed his habeas corpus action.\nHe can't proceed with a 1983 until his habeas corpus action has been not only litigated but victoriously litigated under Heck and Edwards.\nAt least as I read the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1118.088, 1120.629, 1126.914, 1130.026, 1143.803], "stop_times": [1120.629, 1126.914, 1130.026, 1143.803, 1144.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1118.088}, "reply_to": "20743__0_086", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_088", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "There's no other procedure in Missouri that could be used to expunge this, to get a hearing and to expunge it?\n1983 is a Federal remedy, but no State remedy at all to question a parole revocation that you say was without due process?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1144.914, 1151.968], "stop_times": [1151.968, 1163.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1144.914}, "reply_to": "20743__0_087", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20743__0_089", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--I believe that his appropriate remedy was... in the State courts was a State habeas petition.\nHe filed successive petitions in the three levels of Missouri courts and lost and then went to Federal court, and Your Honor, I... if there is another procedure, first of all I'm not aware of it and second, I believe that my friends here from the State would argue that it was not appropriate and that it was a frivolous inmate filing.\nSo it... Heck... but to go back to your point, Justice Ginsburg, Heck and Edwards are very important to this, because it means that if my client loses on the mootness point and the court, the Federal district court cannot address the merits of this, then he's boxed out of any Federal remedy at all.\nHe is simply stuck with this unconstitutional parole violation that brands him as a forcible rapist.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1163.358, 1169.132, 1188.513, 1209.087], "stop_times": [1169.132, 1188.513, 1209.087, 1216.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1163.358}, "reply_to": "20743__0_088", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_090", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Well, that was the case for at least a century and a half, wasn't it?\nI mean, you speak as though it is unthinkable that a prisoner should not have a hearing in Federal court on alleged constitutional violation and State proceedings, but our use of habeas corpus for that on a regular basis is relatively recent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1216.841, 1220.854], "stop_times": [1220.854, 1236.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1216.841}, "reply_to": "20743__0_089", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20743__0_091", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Agreed, Your Honor.\nThe question is whether this Court and Congress, as the two key decisionmakers in this area, want that result to happen, and Congress... Congress, as we all know, has recently revisited habeas... Federal habeas corpus at the... almost simultaneously they revisited 1983 in PILRA, and in... the Congress considered these things very seriously.\nThey considered them after the majority of the circuits, eight circuits by my count, had held that claims like my client's were not moot, and they didn't amend 2254.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1236.695, 1237.975, 1265.253], "stop_times": [1237.975, 1265.253, 1276.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1236.695}, "reply_to": "20743__0_090", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_092", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Well, they didn't amend it, but what do you think in the congressional statutes dealing with habeas corpus reflects a congressional desire that there be a hearing in Federal court for every asserted violation of the Federal Constitution in State criminal proceedings, or parole proceedings?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1276.791], "stop_times": [1297.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1276.791}, "reply_to": "20743__0_091", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20743__0_093", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Every?\nNone, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1297.183, 1298.045], "stop_times": [1298.045, 1298.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1297.183}, "reply_to": "20743__0_092", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_094", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Okay.\nMay I ask another question, sort of on the question of mootness?\nI gather you do not question the right of the State to retain whatever evidence they have supporting the conclusions that they led to in the parole violations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1298.886, 1299.925, 1303.658], "stop_times": [1299.925, 1303.658, 1311.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1298.886}, "reply_to": "20743__0_093", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20743__0_095", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nI think they'd better do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1311.984, 1312.394], "stop_times": [1312.394, 1313.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1311.984}, "reply_to": "20743__0_094", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_096", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Okay.\nSo if they have the right to keep the evidence, what if they came in and said, well, the parole violation doesn't mean anything in terms of, as they basically argued, they said, therefore we'll take it off the books but we're going to keep the information in the file.\nThat would satisfy you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1313.426, 1314.545, 1324.993], "stop_times": [1314.545, 1324.993, 1326.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1313.426}, "reply_to": "20743__0_095", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20743__0_097", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "We go home, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1326.332], "stop_times": [1327.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1326.332}, "reply_to": "20743__0_096", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_098", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "I don't know why they don't do that and let you go home, because that's all they need, it seems to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1327.374], "stop_times": [1332.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1327.374}, "reply_to": "20743__0_097", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20743__0_099", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Well, Your Honor, the respondents are on the horns of a dilemma, because they're arguing here that, oh, this is just a parole revocation.\nIt doesn't mean anything.\nAnd yet when he comes up for sentencing there'll be some assistant prosecuting attorney who's going to be... you know, arguing to the court that he's the worst thing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1332.026, 1341.752, 1342.884], "stop_times": [1341.752, 1342.884, 1353.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1332.026}, "reply_to": "20743__0_098", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_100", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "When he comes up for sentencing on some new crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1353.39], "stop_times": [1356.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1353.39}, "reply_to": "20743__0_099", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20743__0_101", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--Or, Your Honor, when he is the victim in an automobile accident and has to testify--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1356.402], "stop_times": [1361.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1356.402}, "reply_to": "20743__0_100", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_102", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "But that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1361.475], "stop_times": [1361.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1361.475}, "reply_to": "20743__0_101", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20743__0_103", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--to get his medical expenses paid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1361.736], "stop_times": [1363.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1361.736}, "reply_to": "20743__0_102", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_104", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--That invokes Justice Souter's earlier observation that at that point he says, look, this was an improper revocation, you go from there, and then you said that... I think that's when you said it was... Occam's razor applied, because this is more--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1363.248], "stop_times": [1378.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1363.248}, "reply_to": "20743__0_103", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20743__0_105", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Parsimonious.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1378.278], "stop_times": [1380.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1378.278}, "reply_to": "20743__0_104", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_106", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--I assume because this is more complex.\nIt seems to me it's much more... is Occam's razor a precedent we cited in this Court?\nI haven't seen it recently.\nBut assuming that it is, it seems to me that Justice Souter's solution addresses that.\nIt's much more simple to wait until there is a specific harm, and then talk about it, as opposed to saying that 1983 is available... or, pardon me, that habeas corpus is available for every parole revocation violation when the custody is terminated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1380.538, 1381.63, 1385.872, 1387.474, 1393.997], "stop_times": [1381.63, 1385.872, 1387.474, 1393.997, 1409.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1380.538}, "reply_to": "20743__0_105", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20743__0_107", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Your Honor, I thought that the Court had crossed that bridge in Sibron, and my question is, if it... if Sibron is right on that point, that we shoot it out closer in time to the transactions and occurrences involved in the case, which is what the respondents normally want to do in collateral attacks, is litigate things closer in time while the witnesses are still alive, they're still around, the blood samples are fresh, what not, why doesn't it work when it cuts in the petitioner's favor?\nAnd as to the... as to litigating it in a civil trial, that... see, they just multiply the number of times--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1409.347, 1439.377], "stop_times": [1439.377, 1450.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1409.347}, "reply_to": "20743__0_106", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_108", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Well, how would it... you say it would come up if he testified in an automobile accident.\nDo the Missouri courts allow impeachment of a witness on the ground of his parole was once revoked?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1450.184, 1454.337], "stop_times": [1454.337, 1460.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1450.184}, "reply_to": "20743__0_107", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20743__0_109", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--Your Honor, I believe that the two sides have cited all of the Missouri cases on that, and that the... as... they argue one side, we argue the other.\nIt's our position that as long as one asks the question correctly, you can get that in, and we'd refer to the Newman and Comstock cases on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1460.721, 1470.508], "stop_times": [1470.508, 1478.303], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1460.721}, "reply_to": "20743__0_108", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_110", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "May I ask one other question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1478.303], "stop_times": [1480.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1478.303}, "reply_to": "20743__0_109", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20743__0_111", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Please, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1480.463], "stop_times": [1481.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1480.463}, "reply_to": "20743__0_110", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_112", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "I know your time is almost up, but are you relying at all on any bad faith extension of time in these habeas proceedings that caused the thing to become possibly moot?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1481.665], "stop_times": [1495.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1481.665}, "reply_to": "20743__0_111", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20743__0_113", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Well, first of all, Your Honor, in no way are we relying... are we asserting that this man is entitled to relief on account of the delay, only that he's entitled to a day in court.\nWe are concerned that this would send a message--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1495.013, 1504.649], "stop_times": [1504.649, 1507.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1495.013}, "reply_to": "20743__0_112", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_114", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "But are you relying on the fact that the district court acted improperly or in bad faith or anything in extending the time after which he was released?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1507.391], "stop_times": [1518.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1507.391}, "reply_to": "20743__0_113", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20743__0_115", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--No, Your Honor, but it does illustrate the risk of leaving the lower court decision intact.\nThank you.\nMay I reserve--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1518.237, 1522.311, 1523.663], "stop_times": [1522.311, 1523.663, 1524.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1518.237}, "reply_to": "20743__0_114", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__0_116", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Yes.\nVery well, Mr. Simon.\nMr. Layton, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1524.412, 1524.673, 1525.694], "stop_times": [1524.673, 1525.694, 1526.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1524.412}, "reply_to": "20743__0_115", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20743__1_000", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:--\nAfter Sibron, Lane, and the footnote in Evitts, we might be able to divide collateral consequences that are alleged to defeat mootness into three categories.\nThe first are those that are current civil disabilities, those that led to the decision in Sibron... can't vote, can't serve on a jury, those kinds of things.\nA second category are the ones that were addressed in Lane, things that are discretionary that we can't know now, for example, whether a past parole revocation may have some impact on a future parole request, or, to take that to its ultimate, where the Ninth Circuit has said that perhaps a sufficient collateral consequence is how this revocation might affect someone's chances of employment in the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1526.706, 1530.99, 1539.395, 1549.081], "stop_times": [1530.99, 1539.395, 1549.081, 1570.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1526.706}, "reply_to": "20743__0_116", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_001", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Mr. Layton, maybe I misremember Sibron, but I thought, unlike the first case, Carafas, or whatever, which dealt with only present disability, Sibron did speak about future problems as a result of the conviction, like being impeached as a witness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1570.333], "stop_times": [1589.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1570.333}, "reply_to": "20743__1_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20743__1_002", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "It did speak of those.\nHowever, all of the precedents that Sibron cited to support the premise that it could draw a line beyond which there is a presumption against mootness were felony cases.\nEvery one of those is a case that involves current civil disability, so Sibron is not clear as to what it means in terms of what kind of disability today would be sufficient, but the tenor of Sibron is there is a conviction, and in our society we presume when there is a conviction that there are some effects today, as opposed to other kinds of things that may happen to someone as a result of our judicial system.\nA third category of alleged collateral consequences are those that are contingent on some future event, although they may not be discretionary after the contingency occurs, and that leads us to the question of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines that Justice Breyer was asking about at the beginning of Mr. Simon's presentation, and that are addressed for the first time in this respect in the reply brief on the merits.\nThere is in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines a provision that says, we will give points in criminal history for all of the convictions where the incarceration comes within the last 15 years, and by revoking Mr. Spencer's parole, Mr. Spencer... the time of Mr. Spencer's conviction or his incarceration was extended.\nSo if Mr. Spencer is convicted of a crime between April 16, 2007 and August 7, 2008, then the Federal Guidelines would be affected by this parole revocation, but not otherwise, and I think that shows the difficult position that Mr. Spencer asks this Court to take, that we assume that it is enough to defeat mootness today that he may commit a crime during a relatively brief period in the next century, and yet that's the position that he's taken, that the Ninth Circuit has taken, that that kind of sentence enhancement is sufficient.\nThe consequences Mr. Spencer alleges fall within three general categories, that it may affect a future parole decision... what was addressed in Lane, and which is an entirely discretionary decision under Missouri law... whether it would affect him at trial through impeachment or perhaps a presentation of evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 413, or whether it would affect his sentencing.\nAnd then comes the question of the 1983 action, which doesn't really fit in any of these categories of collateral consequences, because his loss of a 1983 claim is not the result of the parole revocation.\nIt's not the result of the hearing about which he complains.\nIt's the result of his failure to obtain a successful decision in his habeas, or a State or a Federal habeas, and I think there are three reasons why the Court should resist the urge of Mr. Spencer to adopt the position that a 1983 claim, or a loss of the 1983 claim would be enough to defeat mootness.\nThe first is that it is too far removed from the question at hand, which is the parole revocation.\nThe second is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1589.126, 1590.886, 1599.712, 1625.502, 1648.155, 1670.05, 1707.455, 1727.616, 1740.826, 1744.227, 1762.719, 1768.303], "stop_times": [1590.886, 1599.712, 1625.502, 1648.155, 1670.05, 1707.455, 1727.616, 1740.826, 1744.227, 1762.719, 1768.303, 1770.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1589.126}, "reply_to": "20743__1_001", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_003", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "I'm not sure I follow that, because isn't it as a practical matter, given that when you're put back in, parole is revoked, it's not for a very long time, and almost in every case you couldn't get through the whole process.\nYou have to go three tiers in the State and then go into the Federal, so these things are bound to be moot, aren't they, because even... you're talking here about district court delay, but that wouldn't be enough.\nYou'd have to go... Lane didn't become moot till it was in this Court, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1770.774, 1787.026, 1798.713], "stop_times": [1787.026, 1798.713, 1802.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1770.774}, "reply_to": "20743__1_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20743__1_004", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--I think these things are bound to become moot, and I think that the problem Mr. Spencer has where he suggests that he is unusual somehow in losing a 1983 claim is... well, let's present a hypothetical about Mr. Spencer.\nLet's suppose that his State remedies were not exhausted until the day after he was reparoled.\nHe wouldn't have a 1983 claim, not because of anything the State had done, but because it just took a while for that process to happen.\nAnd yet he suggests here the Court ought to announce a new rule that because of the timing of his case, somehow, if we have a 1983 claim it will be lost, the case is no longer moot.\nNow, one of the things that that does is, it would... to adopt that would endorse the position that Mr. Spencer can come before this Court and raise that issue for the first time.\nIn his brief he wonders how the Eighth Circuit, with its own precedent of Leonard v. Nix, could have reached the decision that it did, given the... a loss of a 1983 cause of action.\nWell, the reason is because he never raised the question of a 1983 cause of action in the Eighth Circuit, and so for this Court to adopt that would be to endorse the premise that all of these collateral consequences save one, which were raised for the first time in this Court... in fact, for the first time generally in the reply to the cert petition... that that's the way that someone should operate.\nYou can do these things late.\nI think the third reason why the Court should not adopt the premise that a 198... loss of a 1983 cause of action is sufficient to prevent mootness is that that would in effect move the Sibron presumption from just covering habeas petitions that challenge convictions to covering essentially all habeas petitions, because what habeas petitioner, if the Court were to so rule, is going to resist the urge to say, oh, I have a 1983 cause of action, and so, judge, you can't dismiss my case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1802.847, 1818.097, 1822.599, 1829.615, 1839.749, 1848.776, 1860.293, 1882.168, 1883.468], "stop_times": [1818.097, 1822.599, 1829.615, 1839.749, 1848.776, 1860.293, 1882.168, 1883.468, 1910.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1802.847}, "reply_to": "20743__1_003", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_005", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Let me ask you something, Mr. Layton.\nIs there any other procedure in Missouri whereby the prisoner could get some kind of declaratory judgment or any other relief finding that he was denied any hearing on these charges?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1910.937, 1912.396], "stop_times": [1912.396, 1929.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1910.937}, "reply_to": "20743__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20743__1_006", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Perhaps not, Justice O'Connor.\nThe appropriate method would have been through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which he pursued.\nIt may be possible for him to enter into, or attempt a petition for a writ of mandamus, or a declaratory judgment action, but we know of no instance in which a person in his situation has attempted that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1929.279, 1931.14, 1936.182], "stop_times": [1931.14, 1936.182, 1946.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1929.279}, "reply_to": "20743__1_005", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_007", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "So he just can't get it litigated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1946.701], "stop_times": [1948.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1946.701}, "reply_to": "20743__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20743__1_008", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "He cannot get it litigated in the context of this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1948.311], "stop_times": [1951.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1948.311}, "reply_to": "20743__1_007", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_009", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Well--\n--And does that mean, do you think, that prison authorities would be essentially not constrained about taking arbitrary action against a prisoner near the end of the prison term because the whole thing's going to become moot, or in connection with any parole revocation because it's likely to become moot?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1951.313, 1951.653], "stop_times": [1951.653, 1974.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1951.313}, "reply_to": "20743__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20743__1_010", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "No.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1974.778, 1975.018], "stop_times": [1975.018, 1975.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1974.778}, "reply_to": "20743__1_009", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_011", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "What are the constraints, if you're right, and we have some bright line rule here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1975.309], "stop_times": [1980.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1975.309}, "reply_to": "20743__1_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20743__1_012", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--Section 1983 provides a constraint.\nIt just doesn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1980.642, 1983.035], "stop_times": [1983.035, 1983.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1980.642}, "reply_to": "20743__1_011", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_013", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Well, but he's going to lose any right to recover in 1983 because he can't get a successful habeas conclusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1983.803], "stop_times": [1992.659], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1983.803}, "reply_to": "20743__1_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20743__1_014", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--Well, he loses his 1983 claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1992.659], "stop_times": [1993.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1992.659}, "reply_to": "20743__1_013", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_015", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1993.76], "stop_times": [1994.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1993.76}, "reply_to": "20743__1_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20743__1_016", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "But if the State had a policy or program or practice of doing what Your Honor says, then he would... could have a 1983 claim to stop that practice, not to question his own determination, but to stop that practice, and he would have an incentive to do that, since he's already incarcerated again, and although he's been given a new parole date on his new sentence, he has yet to be paroled, and so he could do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [1994.04], "stop_times": [2015.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1994.04}, "reply_to": "20743__1_015", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_017", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Mr. Layton, what about the State challenges on State habeas?\nIs it possible to tell from the dispositions of those cases whether the Missouri courts passed on the merits of his claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2015.135, 2019.757], "stop_times": [2019.757, 2026.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2015.135}, "reply_to": "20743__1_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20743__1_018", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "In each instance the petition was denied without explanation, and so it is impossible to do more than assume that they were ruling on the merits, with the possible exception of the intermediate court, where he used the wrong writ, although the Missouri practice is, even when a lawyer presents the wrong writ, is to simply assume that the lawyer intended a different writ.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2026.943], "stop_times": [2049.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2026.943}, "reply_to": "20743__1_017", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_019", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Is it possible... is it typical in a Missouri habeas proceeding if the... say the habeas court expressed a view on the merits, to simply deny it, rather than say it's... write it out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2049.868], "stop_times": [2064.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2049.868}, "reply_to": "20743__1_018", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20743__1_020", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "It is very unusual in Missouri practice for the denial of any writ to come with an opinion.\nIn fact, I have yet to see that in my own experience.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2064.798, 2069.53], "stop_times": [2069.53, 2073.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2064.798}, "reply_to": "20743__1_019", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_021", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "May I ask a... probably kind of a stupid question, I must admit, but you're arguing that this... the harm to him is so trivial that the case is moot.\nI suppose the benefit to the State must be fairly minimal also.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2073.083, 2082.178], "stop_times": [2082.178, 2086.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2073.083}, "reply_to": "20743__1_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20743__1_022", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "I don't know that that is a stupid question, because it's something that I've considered carefully.\nIn Pennsylvania v. Mims, where the question before this Court was also mootness, but mootness where the State wanted to continue litigating the case, the Court said that it was... well, the... Justice Marshall in a sense said it was barely not moot because the State had an interest in some future sentencing.\nHere we aren't even to that point.\nIt's hard to imagine what great incentive there is going to be for the parole board if Mr. Spencer is now before the board and has been told the board is to give him a new hearing.\nWhy does the board care whether they give him a new hearing or not at this point?\nHe's already served on his revocation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2086.101, 2092.864, 2108.386, 2110.218, 2119.882, 2124.126], "stop_times": [2092.864, 2108.386, 2110.218, 2119.882, 2124.126, 2126.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2086.101}, "reply_to": "20743__1_021", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_023", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "And if the problem arises in a future proceeding you... everybody agrees you can save the evidence and save... just as you save charges that are made against people that are never disposed of.\nYou keep them in the file so you know what's... what accusations have been made.\nI mean, I... it just doesn't seem to me the world turns on the outcome of this case, and if you... even if you should lose, it seems to me the cost to the State is pretty minimal.\nYou're just say whenever one of these people file these out of... you know, these old cases, we'll just say, okay, we'll expunge the record, we'll keep the... but we're going to keep the evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2126.247, 2136.375, 2139.497, 2148.611], "stop_times": [2136.375, 2139.497, 2148.611, 2155.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2126.247}, "reply_to": "20743__1_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20743__1_024", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Well, I think that that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2155.065], "stop_times": [2156.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2155.065}, "reply_to": "20743__1_023", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_025", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "That doesn't seem to me that would hurt you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2156.587], "stop_times": [2158.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2156.587}, "reply_to": "20743__1_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20743__1_026", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--I think that would be true if all cases were like Mr. Spencer's, but of course, if this Court announces a rule that extends the breadth of collateral consequences, then we will be litigating more cases further in the district courts and the courts of appeals, and that is our difficulty here, is not so much what our disagreement is with Mr. Spencer, as where we would be if this Court announced a different rule.\nIn fact, I doubt that with Mr. Spencer the... this would have any impact at all.\nIt's notable that Mr. Spencer at no point through the process of the parole hearings denied possession of cocaine, and twice before, since the time he'd first left prison, he'd been found with cocaine, and so it's unlikely that he would... his parole revocation would be any different even if he were limited--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2158.077, 2178.462, 2181.895], "stop_times": [2178.462, 2181.895, 2200.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2158.077}, "reply_to": "20743__1_025", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_027", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "But there was a very serious charge there of rape, which he vehemently denied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2200.437], "stop_times": [2204.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2200.437}, "reply_to": "20743__1_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20743__1_028", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--Yes.\nYes, he did deny that.\nHe... at the original interview he admitted to consensual sex, but denied that it was rape.\nHe admitted to pushing the woman down, but denied it was rape.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2204.17, 2204.411, 2205.81, 2211.294], "stop_times": [2204.411, 2205.81, 2211.294, 2213.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2204.17}, "reply_to": "20743__1_027", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_029", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "The problem that I have is that... let's take the worst case.\nLet's say that parole revocation is based on a confession that the defendant made because the prison guard put him on the rack.\nEven so, you say that doesn't matter.\nHe has his chance to go to the State court.\nThey just denied it without giving a reason.\nHis time ran out while he was on the Federal side, so too bad, this process that so severely violated due process it's a wash.\nHe has no chance to be vindicated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2213.925, 2219.051, 2227.496, 2230.778, 2233.75, 2235.31, 2248.218], "stop_times": [2219.051, 2227.496, 2230.778, 2233.75, 2235.31, 2248.218, 2250.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2213.925}, "reply_to": "20743__1_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20743__1_030", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "That is the result of the Court's holding in Heck v. Humphrey.\nNot the result of the holding here, but in Heck v. Humphrey.\nBecause as I said before, Mr. Spencer would be in the same situation under Heck v. Humphrey if he couldn't complete his State remedies... if he couldn't complete his State remedies by the time he filed a Federal habeas, then he couldn't assert a cause of action in the hypothetical that Your Honor poses regardless of how the Court rules here, so there would still be people in that situation, unable to obtain a Federal forum in which to litigate their claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2250.66, 2254.924, 2258.514], "stop_times": [2254.924, 2258.514, 2283.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2250.66}, "reply_to": "20743__1_029", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_031", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "So one possible thing would have been in your view to say it's moot... to bring this you have to be in custody.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2283.602], "stop_times": [2291.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2283.602}, "reply_to": "20743__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20743__1_032", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2291.366], "stop_times": [2291.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2291.366}, "reply_to": "20743__1_031", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_033", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "It's a... all right.\nSo we're only talking about the cases where the prisoner was in custody when he brings it but he's released before he's finished.\nSo in those cases it would be rational to do one of two things.\nYou could say, the habeas is over.\nHe's no longer in custody.\nBut if he thinks he was hurt, he could bring a 1983 action.\nOr alternatively you could say, well, you don't have to... you can't bring a 1983 action, but... if you're hurt... even if you're hurt, but you can keep pursuing the one you started.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2291.817, 2292.398, 2298.222, 2302.493, 2304.346, 2305.918, 2309.239], "stop_times": [2292.398, 2298.222, 2302.493, 2304.346, 2305.918, 2309.239, 2320.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2291.817}, "reply_to": "20743__1_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20743__1_034", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Those are both logical, but the third--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2320.355], "stop_times": [2322.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2320.355}, "reply_to": "20743__1_033", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_035", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "But now where we are is, if we agree with you here we are saying you can't do either.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2322.427], "stop_times": [2326.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2322.427}, "reply_to": "20743__1_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20743__1_036", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2326.518], "stop_times": [2327.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2326.518}, "reply_to": "20743__1_035", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_037", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "All right.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2327.119, 2327.52], "stop_times": [2327.52, 2327.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2327.119}, "reply_to": "20743__1_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20743__1_038", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "I think that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2327.81], "stop_times": [2328.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2327.81}, "reply_to": "20743__1_037", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_039", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--Now if... and starting afresh... let's start absolutely afresh, which is pretty close to where I am.\nI read the statute, and it says that in a habeas case you must be in custody, and then you can ask for such relief as law and justice require.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2328.251, 2333.484], "stop_times": [2333.484, 2346.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2328.251}, "reply_to": "20743__1_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20743__1_040", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2346.143], "stop_times": [2346.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2346.143}, "reply_to": "20743__1_039", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_041", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2346.584], "stop_times": [2347.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2346.584}, "reply_to": "20743__1_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20743__1_042", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2347.063], "stop_times": [2347.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2347.063}, "reply_to": "20743__1_041", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_043", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "All right.\nSo now we know at least in some instances he doesn't really have to be in custody.\nHe just has to have been in custody when he... that's clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2347.403, 2347.784, 2351.296], "stop_times": [2347.784, 2351.296, 2354.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2347.403}, "reply_to": "20743__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20743__1_044", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "That's the way that the statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2354.899], "stop_times": [2355.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2354.899}, "reply_to": "20743__1_043", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_045", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "All right.\nSo now he says how could it be moot under the Constitution of the United States, because I was in custody.\nThat's good enough to start this thing, and I would like such relief as law and justice require.\nNamely, in my case, law and justice require a hearing, after which there will be an expunging of the record.\nThat's what he wants.\nThat's the relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2355.728, 2355.898, 2361.354, 2365.835, 2372.29, 2373.472], "stop_times": [2355.898, 2361.354, 2365.835, 2372.29, 2373.472, 2374.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2355.728}, "reply_to": "20743__1_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20743__1_046", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--But the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2374.0], "stop_times": [2375.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2374.0}, "reply_to": "20743__1_045", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_047", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "I mean, that's what he's asking for.\nHe's asking for that relief.\nHe says of course it's not moot.\nI haven't got the relief I want.\nThat's the relief I want.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2375.091, 2376.331, 2377.132, 2377.884, 2379.323], "stop_times": [2376.331, 2377.132, 2377.884, 2379.323, 2380.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2375.091}, "reply_to": "20743__1_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20743__1_048", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--But to say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2380.445], "stop_times": [2381.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2380.445}, "reply_to": "20743__1_047", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_049", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "And all we're debating about is whether he should want it.\nHe says that's up to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2381.196, 2382.866], "stop_times": [2382.866, 2383.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2381.196}, "reply_to": "20743__1_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20743__1_050", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--The same--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2383.888], "stop_times": [2384.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2383.888}, "reply_to": "20743__1_049", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_051", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Or, unless you say... there's one other little part to this, because I... you'll say... maybe you could say, well, the relief he wants under the circumstances is outside the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2384.288], "stop_times": [2392.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2384.288}, "reply_to": "20743__1_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20743__1_052", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--I believe it is.\nI... the same kind of situation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2392.463, 2394.444], "stop_times": [2394.444, 2395.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2392.463}, "reply_to": "20743__1_051", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_053", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Oh, I didn't mean for you to jump there yet--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2395.966], "stop_times": [2398.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2395.966}, "reply_to": "20743__1_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20743__1_054", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--Okay--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2398.317], "stop_times": [2398.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2398.317}, "reply_to": "20743__1_053", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_055", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--because I was saying... two parts... one is, why would the Constitution stop him from getting the relief he wants?\nHe hasn't got it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2398.648, 2402.908], "stop_times": [2402.908, 2403.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2398.648}, "reply_to": "20743__1_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20743__1_056", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--Well, I don't know that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2403.609], "stop_times": [2404.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2403.609}, "reply_to": "20743__1_055", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_057", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Then the statutory part.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2404.65], "stop_times": [2406.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2404.65}, "reply_to": "20743__1_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20743__1_058", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--I don't know that the Constitution does stop him from getting the relief he wants.\nThe question here is not his constitutional right but his statutory right, either under the habeas statute or 1983, and so this Court has interpreted 1983 not to give relief to someone in this man's situation, and so it's not a constitutional right--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2406.27, 2409.493], "stop_times": [2409.493, 2424.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2406.27}, "reply_to": "20743__1_057", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_059", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "What we're doing here, and it's really... mootness is an odd word to use.\nWe're saying that given the change in circumstance... maybe it's the right word, but given the change in circumstance, the relief he wants is outside the phrase I quoted in the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2424.904, 2427.976], "stop_times": [2427.976, 2438.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2424.904}, "reply_to": "20743__1_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20743__1_060", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2438.372], "stop_times": [2438.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2438.372}, "reply_to": "20743__1_059", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_061", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "It couldn't be relief that law and justice requires, and the reason it couldn't be is because too little turns on it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2438.843], "stop_times": [2443.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2438.843}, "reply_to": "20743__1_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20743__1_062", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2443.838], "stop_times": [2444.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2443.838}, "reply_to": "20743__1_061", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_063", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "That's your argument.\nOr you could say that he's no longer in custody.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2444.455, 2445.397], "stop_times": [2445.397, 2448.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2444.455}, "reply_to": "20743__1_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20743__1_064", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Yes, you could take that approach.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2448.559], "stop_times": [2451.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2448.559}, "reply_to": "20743__1_063", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_065", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "No... well, we... how can we say that if, in fact, in other cases we've said that a person who is no longer in custody can bring it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2451.451], "stop_times": [2458.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2451.451}, "reply_to": "20743__1_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20743__1_066", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "I think that Justice Breyer presents the problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2458.817], "stop_times": [2462.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2458.817}, "reply_to": "20743__1_065", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_067", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Yes.\nYes, if one goes back to the... if one wants to analyze it by the statute, according to Justice Breyer, one would never have decided Carafas or Sibron the way they did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2462.31, 2462.531], "stop_times": [2462.531, 2470.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2462.31}, "reply_to": "20743__1_066", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20743__1_068", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "It's certainly possible to go to where Justice Thomas led in, I believe it's the Heck decision, and not have any of these problems, but we aren't there today, and today we're in the presence of the Lane decision that says that when the future consequences are discretionary, when they're speculative, when they require certain intervening steps before there's some kind of relief, that we aren't going to recognize that the case continues after custody in those situations.\nSo the Court doesn't have to go nearly that far in order to reach the conclusion that it ought to reach today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2470.763, 2497.76], "stop_times": [2497.76, 2503.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2470.763}, "reply_to": "20743__1_067", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_069", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Of course, in Lane we in effect said that if he had... they had asked for relief this man asked for it would not have been moot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2503.514], "stop_times": [2510.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2503.514}, "reply_to": "20743__1_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20743__1_070", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Well, I'm not sure of that.\nI think that the Lane... that at least the way I read the decision the... what you... the Court was suggesting was that they'd asked about the original conviction, and so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2510.45, 2512.21], "stop_times": [2512.21, 2523.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2510.45}, "reply_to": "20743__1_069", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_071", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "They were asking for in effect an enforcement of the plea, specific enforcement of the plea bargain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2523.099], "stop_times": [2527.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2523.099}, "reply_to": "20743__1_070", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20743__1_072", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2527.85], "stop_times": [2528.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2527.85}, "reply_to": "20743__1_071", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_073", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Which we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2528.101], "stop_times": [2528.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2528.101}, "reply_to": "20743__1_072", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20743__1_074", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "If... if we treat the parole revocation as the direct equivalent of a conviction, then that's correct, but we haven't treated parole revocations as the direct equivalent of convictions, and I think the reasons have come out this afternoon, that they don't come accompanied by the same kind of consequences, at least under Missouri law.\nNow, it may be that we would be in a different situation if we were in a State such as, I believe New Hampshire, where after you've been revoked once, you never can get parole again, but we aren't in that situation.\nAll of these kind of disabilities or consequences that we're talking about are remote and contingent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2528.792, 2548.054, 2558.282], "stop_times": [2548.054, 2558.282, 2566.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2528.792}, "reply_to": "20743__1_073", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_075", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--Mr. Layton, the most recent expression of this Court on this mootness is a case called Minnesota v. Dickerson, and I was surprised that neither brief cited that.\nThat seems to favor the petitioner here.\nI... do you know what... it's at 508 U.S. at page 371, footnote 2.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2566.426, 2578.845, 2583.476], "stop_times": [2578.845, 2583.476, 2591.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2566.426}, "reply_to": "20743__1_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20743__1_076", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2591.842], "stop_times": [2592.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2591.842}, "reply_to": "20743__1_075", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_077", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "It's that long footnote.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2592.513], "stop_times": [2594.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2592.513}, "reply_to": "20743__1_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20743__1_078", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--I know the footnote.\nI will confess that I have studied it, but I am not at the moment recalling exactly why I didn't think that I would read it in the petitioner's favor.\nIt certainly does follow along from Sibron, Lane, and Evitts, but I don't think would read to... could be read fairly to hold in petitioner's favor here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2594.125, 2596.336, 2603.88], "stop_times": [2596.336, 2603.88, 2615.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2594.125}, "reply_to": "20743__1_077", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_079", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "It wasn't... it was a case where there was a diversionary sentencing statute so that there was no conviction on the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2615.657], "stop_times": [2627.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2615.657}, "reply_to": "20743__1_078", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20743__1_080", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "That's right, and there was a reference in the case to collateral legal consequences, and they were of the sort that are contingent in my three part classification that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2627.415], "stop_times": [2635.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2627.415}, "reply_to": "20743__1_079", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_081", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Yes, because the original criminal charges, as I understand that case, were dismissed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2635.843], "stop_times": [2640.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2635.843}, "reply_to": "20743__1_080", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20743__1_082", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--I believe that that is right, although the dismissal itself I think is at issue there.\nI don't think that it comes up under habeas, and so it doesn't incur the habeas problems that we have here, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2640.225, 2646.94], "stop_times": [2646.94, 2652.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2640.225}, "reply_to": "20743__1_081", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_083", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "And that was a case I think in which it was the petitioner that was seeking to have it dismissed as moot, rather than the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2652.533], "stop_times": [2656.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2652.533}, "reply_to": "20743__1_082", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20743__1_084", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--That may be, plus the Minnesota statute said that a conviction after a successful probation, although not a conviction for future purposes, can be used in calculating a criminal history category under Minnesota law, but there's nothing in that decision to suggest that the same would be true even under Minnesota law for a parole revocation.\nAgain, it addresses a conviction and not a parole revocation, and that becomes a critical distinction as long as we attach to convictions certain mandatory civil disabilities or consequences.\nIf there are no further questions, I thank the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2656.815, 2676.869, 2689.585], "stop_times": [2676.869, 2689.585, 2693.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2656.815}, "reply_to": "20743__1_083", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "20743__1_085", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Layton.\nMr. Simon, you have 4 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2693.769, 2694.81], "stop_times": [2694.81, 2697.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2693.769}, "reply_to": "20743__1_084", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20743__2_000", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nFirst, I would like to say that the petitioner agrees with the respondent that the question here is statutory and not constitutional, that it's well established in the decisions of this Court, acquiesced in by years of congressional revision, coupled with inaction, that a person must be in custody when he or she files a petition but that once that is filed, the court may reach the merits of that after they have been released or even completely discharged.\nIn respect to the Minnesota decision, members of the court, the petitioner owns that decision and did not feel a need to cite it with specificity by virtue of a reference I believe I made in the reply brief to the cases relied on by the amici.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2697.031, 2702.935, 2736.008], "stop_times": [2702.935, 2736.008, 2759.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2697.031}, "reply_to": "20743__1_085", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__2_001", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "But you didn't cite it, so that suggested to me you didn't think it was... if it was in your favor, that it was strongly in your favor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2759.011], "stop_times": [2766.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2759.011}, "reply_to": "20743__2_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20743__2_002", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "I'm sorry if I didn't cite it expressly, Your Honor, but we would own it.\nNow, it would allow... it referred to use of adjudications in future proceedings.\nIt was rather broad, but we do see it as buttressing our position.\nNow, with respect to the petitioner's denial of his drug use, I would refer the Court to pages 89 and 90 of the joint appendix, paragraphs 33 and 34.\nThese are not written with great articulateness, but I interpret these as denying the drug use and disagreeing with the interviewing officer to the effect that the petitioner had admitted the drug use.\nSo we have hearsay within hearsay from the parole officer saying that the petitioner admitted the drug use.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2766.415, 2771.54, 2779.275, 2783.018, 2793.733, 2806.693, 2815.589], "stop_times": [2771.54, 2779.275, 2783.018, 2793.733, 2806.693, 2815.589, 2816.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2766.415}, "reply_to": "20743__2_001", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__2_003", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "You're not saying that wouldn't be admissible in a revocation hearing, are you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2816.588], "stop_times": [2821.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2816.588}, "reply_to": "20743__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20743__2_004", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "--Mr. Chief Justice, hearsay is, of course, admissible in parole revocation proceedings.\nWe don't deny it, but that illustrates the slender thread on which this revocation hangs.\nNow, the respondents have presented many arguments about how this parole revocation isn't very serious, how this parole revocation for forcible rape, armed criminal action, and possession of crack cocaine isn't very serious, and on some of them I have to agree that they've scored on some of these points in respect to this particular petitioner, and I'm not telling this Court that every single reason why a criminal conviction remains live after release applies to a parole revocation, at least as to Randy Spencer.\nBut if one looks at the big picture, it is just absolutely unrealistic, bordering on disingenuous, to say that a parole revocation by the State of Missouri for three serious felonies doesn't matter, that it doesn't give the person affected by it a substantial stake, that gives him the incentive to litigate it zealously.\nIn Missouri we like to ask questions on voir dire, if there's any member of the panel that does not have common sense.\nNo one raises their hands, and so you say, well, Judge Bandry is going to instruct you in a few minutes, that you just need to apply your common sense in this case.\nI think that if the Court looks at the damage that this does to this man's future in terms of testimonial impeachment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2821.674, 2826.176, 2836.983, 2871.265, 2895.732, 2902.224, 2911.303], "stop_times": [2826.176, 2836.983, 2871.265, 2895.732, 2902.224, 2911.303, 2918.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2821.674}, "reply_to": "20743__2_003", "speaker": "john_w_simon"}
{"id": "20743__2_005", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Simon.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2918.154, 2919.336], "stop_times": [2919.336, 2921.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2918.154}, "reply_to": "20743__2_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20743__2_006", "conversation_id": "20743", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until Monday next at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7171", "start_times": [2921.002], "stop_times": [2926.84], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2921.002}, "reply_to": "20743__2_005", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20633__0_000", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "We'll hear argument first this morning in No. 96-871, State Oil Company v. Barkat U. Khan and Khan & Associates.\nMr. Baumgartner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [0.0, 12.048], "stop_times": [12.048, 13.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20633__0_001", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe Petitioner in this cause would like to accent three questions in this case this morning, if possible.\nFirst, that manufacturers and suppliers have a legitimate and competitive interest in the maximum prices which are charged by the people who carry their products.\nSecond, that the rule in Albrecht actually hinders, rather than enhances, economic efficiency and competition.\nAnd, third, that the foundations of Albrecht were destroyed by the decisions in Sylvania and Arco.\nUnless a manufacturer or a supplier operates his own retail outlets, the only means he has for reaching consumers is through retailers.\nAnd the activities of those retailers vitally affect the degree to which his products are sold.\nFor instance, in this particular case, Khan sales were also State Oil sales.\nAnd State Oil had a legitimate business interest in seeing to it that those sales were handled in the most effective manner possible.\nAny action by Mr. Khan which reduced those sales also reduced State Oil's sales, income and profits.\nWe believe that this is the incentive which a manufacturer or a wholesaler has when he attempts to introduce a maximum retail price.\nWe also believe that the rule in Albrecht hinders, rather than supports, competition, and maximum economic efficiency, because it prevents manufacturers from ensuring that economic incentives offered at the wholesale level are passed on to the targeted consumers, who actually determine the competitive outcome.\nFor example, a dealer who wishes a price reduction, or a manufacturer who wishes to establish a price reduction, are unable to agree, at least to the degree of an enforceable arrangement, that this price reduction will be passed on to the consumer.\nAnd the supplier or the manufacturer is therefore discouraged from utilizing price reductions as a man... as a means of enhancing sales of his products.\nA dealer who wishes an exclusive territory, or a manufacturer who wishes to establish exclusive territories, are again discouraged from utilizing that means, because the manufacturer and the supplier are unable to obtain enforceable assurances that the dealer, or that some dealers, will not ultimately use that exclusive territory to be able to increase the price of the product which they're selling.\nIn this case, when the price ceiling was ignored, the consumer who purchased premium gasoline paid a higher price for that gasoline, and the additional effect of an inability of the manufacturer, or the wholesaler, to limit the maximum price is that an increased price can be passed on to the consumer.\nThe only thing which the rule in Albrecht really encourages is vertical integration on the part of manufacturers and suppliers.\nWe further believe that the foundations of Albrecht were destroyed by the decisions in Sylvania and Arco.\nThe... Arco... Albrecht appears to be based on four concepts.\nNumber one, an objection to restraints on alienation; a concern about the freedom of dealers; an objection to vertical restraints; and an objection to price restraints in any form.\nSylvania rejected the distinction between sales and non-sales transactions and, therefore, also rejected the concept of restraints on alienation.\nIn determining that some forms of vertical restraints were permissible and were not anti-competitive, Sylvania also rejected the concept of freedom of dealers as an antitrust concept.\nThis leaves as the only real foundation for Albrecht an objection to price restraints as such.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [13.48, 16.803, 25.748, 35.533, 44.549, 52.476, 64.941, 71.937, 77.842, 85.468, 94.932, 108.412, 132.579, 153.62, 164.76, 194.449, 220.406, 230.042, 238.647, 246.522, 259.572, 273.921, 290.931], "stop_times": [16.803, 25.748, 35.533, 44.549, 52.476, 64.941, 71.937, 77.842, 85.468, 94.932, 108.412, 132.579, 153.62, 164.76, 194.449, 220.406, 230.042, 238.647, 246.522, 259.572, 273.921, 290.931, 301.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 13.48}, "reply_to": "20633__0_000", "speaker": "john_baumgartner"}
{"id": "20633__0_002", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Are there some markets where freedom for the dealers is... is important?\nAre there some circumstances in which it's advantageous... and I won't say whether it's pro-competitive, but advantageous... to have dealers with substantial strength and substantial freedom?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [301.75, 306.893], "stop_times": [306.893, 320.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 301.75}, "reply_to": "20633__0_001", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20633__0_003", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Oh, yes, there are, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [320.76], "stop_times": [322.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 320.76}, "reply_to": "20633__0_002", "speaker": "john_baumgartner"}
{"id": "20633__0_004", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Is... is one of those instances so that dealers have the ability to switch to different manufacturers, different suppliers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [322.252], "stop_times": [330.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 322.252}, "reply_to": "20633__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20633__0_005", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Well, the dealer, until he's committed to a particular supplier or manufacturer, always has the ability to switch suppliers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [330.768], "stop_times": [343.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 330.768}, "reply_to": "20633__0_004", "speaker": "john_baumgartner"}
{"id": "20633__0_006", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "And... and is that... is that ability helpful to competition, do you think?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [343.187], "stop_times": [347.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 343.187}, "reply_to": "20633__0_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20633__0_007", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Oh, yes, I think it is.\nIt induces a competition between wholesalers or manufacturers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [347.979, 350.4], "stop_times": [350.4, 356.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 347.979}, "reply_to": "20633__0_006", "speaker": "john_baumgartner"}
{"id": "20633__0_008", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Do you suggest that that case, Sylvania, totally rejected any interest in the independence of the dealer, such as, for example, fixing minimum prices?\nDo you think that's at stake in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [356.293, 367.711], "stop_times": [367.711, 369.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 356.293}, "reply_to": "20633__0_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20633__0_009", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "I don't believe that minimum price fixing is at stake in this case, Your Honor.\nAs I understand Sylvania, Sylvania represents a switch from Albrecht in the sense of looking not at... in Albrecht the Court, I believe, looked at possible misuses of the activity in question.\nAnd in Sylvania, the Court, rather than looking at possible misuses, looked to see whether the activity had potential pro-competitive effects.\nMy problem with the question of minimum price-fixing is that I'm not really in a... a position to express a worthwhile opinion on the pro-competitive aspects of minimum price-fixing.\nAnd, therefore, I'm not really expressing any opinion on it at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [369.453, 374.797, 390.819, 400.843, 415.004], "stop_times": [374.797, 390.819, 400.843, 415.004, 418.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 369.453}, "reply_to": "20633__0_008", "speaker": "john_baumgartner"}
{"id": "20633__0_010", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "It doesn't really apply in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [418.247], "stop_times": [420.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 418.247}, "reply_to": "20633__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__0_011", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "It does not apply.\nOur argument is limited strictly to vertical maximum price-fixing.\nIf the primary concern that remains from Albrecht is the question of price agreements as such, it's a recognized fact today that price agreements cannot be realistically lumped into one sole category.\nThere's an excepted difference between vertical price arrangements and horizontal price arrangements.\nThere's a recognized difference between maximum prices and minimum prices.\nAnd we believe that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [420.19, 420.918, 426.113, 447.447, 453.769, 459.286], "stop_times": [420.918, 426.113, 447.447, 453.769, 459.286, 462.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 420.19}, "reply_to": "20633__0_010", "speaker": "john_baumgartner"}
{"id": "20633__0_012", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "But recognized by whom?\nNot by our current antitrust jurisprudence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [462.345, 464.368], "stop_times": [464.368, 467.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 462.345}, "reply_to": "20633__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__0_013", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "--Even in the decision in Albrecht, Your Honor, the Court appears to recognize that there is a difference between maximum prices and minimum prices.\nAnd that's really all I was expressing as an opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [467.991, 477.054], "stop_times": [477.054, 480.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 467.991}, "reply_to": "20633__0_012", "speaker": "john_baumgartner"}
{"id": "20633__0_014", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "I think we can all stipulate that there's a difference between maximum prices and minimum prices.\nBut I thought you were saying that there was a legal difference that's... that's been established in... in some of our cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [480.707, 485.87], "stop_times": [485.87, 494.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 480.707}, "reply_to": "20633__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__0_015", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "I know of no legal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [494.857], "stop_times": [497.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 494.857}, "reply_to": "20633__0_014", "speaker": "john_baumgartner"}
{"id": "20633__0_016", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "That's not what you're saying, though?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [497.962], "stop_times": [498.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 497.962}, "reply_to": "20633__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__0_017", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "--No.\nI know of no legal difference between the effect of maximum prices and the effect of minimum prices.\nI'm just saying there's a realistic economic difference between the two.\nAnd maximum prices established in a vertical sense, as I indicated before, can be used in a pro-competitive manner and should, therefore, not be found to be, per se, as a matter of law, unreasonable and forbidden.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [498.059, 498.47, 503.535, 507.757], "stop_times": [498.47, 503.535, 507.757, 527.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 498.059}, "reply_to": "20633__0_016", "speaker": "john_baumgartner"}
{"id": "20633__0_018", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Pro... pro-competitive because it precludes exploitation of... of exclusive territories.\nIs there any other particular reason that it's pro-competitive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [527.418, 532.504], "stop_times": [532.504, 535.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 527.418}, "reply_to": "20633__0_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20633__0_019", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Yes.\nI believe that the... the most significant position in which it's pro-competitive is the situation... and we believe that situation existed in this case... in which a supplier, in this particular case, to assist the dealers' competitive position, provides a reduced wholesale price... not in one specific instance, such as a... a price war or anything like that, but, generally speaking... prices the dealer below what the dealer would normally be charged as a wholesale price.\nAnd we believe that the supplier is discouraged from doing that because he's unable to obtain any sort of binding assurance that the dealer won't pass that reduction... or will pass that reduction on and won't simply regard it as money on the table which he can then use.\nAnd I think that's probably a more important and more significant instance than the situation in which the dealer has a monopoly position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [535.576, 536.207, 571.647, 590.271], "stop_times": [536.207, 571.647, 590.271, 599.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 535.576}, "reply_to": "20633__0_018", "speaker": "john_baumgartner"}
{"id": "20633__0_020", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "That's really your burden.\nI mean, it's surely not enough for you to say that there's... you can conceive of circumstances in which vertical maximum price restraints are... are healthy.\nI... I suppose I could conceive of instances in which... in which vertical minimum prices are... are healthy as well.\nI... I think our per se rule is directed at situations in which it is most unlikely to be helpful.\nIt might be helpful in some circumstances, but the chances are... are so small that it's not worth... it's not worth taking the risk.\nAnd you should put the burden on the other side, to show that there's some exceptional situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [599.877, 602.919, 617.298, 624.973, 635.101, 646.427], "stop_times": [602.919, 617.298, 624.973, 635.101, 646.427, 652.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 599.877}, "reply_to": "20633__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__0_021", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [652.181], "stop_times": [653.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 652.181}, "reply_to": "20633__0_020", "speaker": "john_baumgartner"}
{"id": "20633__0_022", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "So you... can you persuade us that that's the case, that it's more... it's more likely to be good than bad?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [653.724], "stop_times": [660.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 653.724}, "reply_to": "20633__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__0_023", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "--I believe I can, Your Honor.\nI've given two instances, counting the... the one that was given, three instances, in which it's a good situation.\nOn the other hand, I personally... and it may be a defect in my imagination... but I personally am unable to come up with any situation in which a vertical maximum price arrangement can be used in a manner which will reduce competition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [660.456, 662.288, 670.584], "stop_times": [662.288, 670.584, 687.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 660.456}, "reply_to": "20633__0_022", "speaker": "john_baumgartner"}
{"id": "20633__0_024", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Well, your opponent here... your opponent here claims that one situation is where... where the... the maximum price on... on one line, high octane gas, prevents him from charging a lower price on another line.\nWhy isn't that a situation?\nI mean, as... as I gather it, what... what Khan wanted to do was to use... use the low octane as a... as a loss leader, and make up for the difference by charging a lot on high octane.\nWhy... conceivably, that could benefit consumers.\nI guess there are more consumers that buy low octane than high octane.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [687.413, 704.905, 707.028, 722.219, 725.839], "stop_times": [704.905, 707.028, 722.219, 725.839, 728.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 687.413}, "reply_to": "20633__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__0_025", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Well, it benefits the consumers who buy low octane and hurts the consumers who buy high octane.\nActually, there was no evidence of that ever introduced in this case.\nIt's simply a claim at this point.\nBut I would alter that situation, if I could, Your Honor, to the situation in which we are merely selling high octane gasoline, and he wishes to use our product to subsidize a loss leader of some other type.\nIn Mr. Khan's operation, he carried a lot of different products... bread, milk... a number of things.\nAnd I think we would have a very legitimate objection, and should have a right to protect ourselves, if Mr. Khan had increased the price of all gasoline, for instance, to subsidize a price reduction for beer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [728.35, 734.016, 738.398, 740.098, 755.369, 761.573], "stop_times": [734.016, 738.398, 740.098, 755.369, 761.573, 773.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 728.35}, "reply_to": "20633__0_024", "speaker": "john_baumgartner"}
{"id": "20633__0_026", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Mr. Baumgartner, are you right when you say there's no evidence?\nAt least it was alleged that that was what the receiver did, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [773.66, 777.393], "stop_times": [777.393, 781.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 773.66}, "reply_to": "20633__0_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20633__0_027", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "It was alleged that the receiver increased the price of premium gasoline and reduced the price of regular gasoline, yes.\nThere was no allegation that Mr. Khan ever attempted or wished to do that.\nAnd there was no allegation or evidence that the increase in premium gasoline actually in fact subsidized the reduction of price in regular gasoline.\nIt may very well have been that the reduction of price in regular gasoline increased sales by enough to more than make up the difference of the lost margin.\nThere's not really any evidence, one way or the other, at this point in the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [781.685, 791.573, 797.477, 812.836, 821.793], "stop_times": [791.573, 797.477, 812.836, 821.793, 825.995], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 781.685}, "reply_to": "20633__0_026", "speaker": "john_baumgartner"}
{"id": "20633__0_028", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Although you said you can't think of any example in which a... a supplier's control over the maximum price the... the retailer could sell would ever be anti-competitive, you don't really have to go that far to win.\nBecause you can surely conceive of a case in which the... a... a seller with monopoly power, who wanted to drive out competitors from the market, and, in order to do it, had to control the prices of his customers as well as his own price.\nI mean, it's at least theoretically possible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [825.995, 840.076, 852.311], "stop_times": [840.076, 852.311, 853.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 825.995}, "reply_to": "20633__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20633__0_029", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "I agree.\nAnd I should have accepted the situation in... that predatory pricing was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [853.934, 855.223], "stop_times": [855.223, 861.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 853.934}, "reply_to": "20633__0_028", "speaker": "john_baumgartner"}
{"id": "20633__0_030", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "But... but your view is that it happens so rarely that you shouldn't have a per se rule... you should have a rule of reasoned approached, rather than per se?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [861.838], "stop_times": [866.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 861.838}, "reply_to": "20633__0_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20633__0_031", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "--There are other situations, but they are illegal under other rules.\nAnd I'm just simply saying that the rule of reason will cover any situation that could come up in vertical maximum price-fixing.\nIf the Court has no other questions, I'd like to reserve any time I have remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [866.673, 872.166, 880.211], "stop_times": [872.166, 880.211, 884.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 866.673}, "reply_to": "20633__0_030", "speaker": "john_baumgartner"}
{"id": "20633__0_032", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Very well, Mr. Baumgartner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [884.753], "stop_times": [886.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 884.753}, "reply_to": "20633__0_031", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20633__0_033", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [886.165], "stop_times": [886.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 886.165}, "reply_to": "20633__0_032", "speaker": "john_baumgartner"}
{"id": "20633__0_034", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Mr. Klein, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [886.926], "stop_times": [888.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 886.926}, "reply_to": "20633__0_033", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20633__1_000", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nAlbrecht should be overruled because its doctrinal underpinnings have been eroded, and also because its perpetuation is likely to do considerably more competitive harm than good.\nPer se rules are reserved for business practices that are manifestly, self-evidently, if not always, at least almost always, anti-competitive, whereas maximum resale price agreements are rarely in that category.\nIf anything, we submit, they are more likely to be pro-competitive.\nFor example, as the Court express... expressly recognized in Arco, a maximum can constrain dealer market power, which is something that, in varying degrees, can exist from time to time.\nThese maximums also serve other important purposes relating to price, advertising and discounting, which is undermined by a per se rule.\nI should add, as precedent, Albrecht has had an especially difficult time of it.\nIts dealer autonomy and dealer multiplicity rationales were undermined in Sylvania.\nAnd I do think that that doesn't mean that a minimum falls.\nThe difference is that minimum resale price-fixing has entirely different effects and... both pro-competitive and anti-competitive.\nBut it's not the abstract notion of dealer autonomy, Justice Stevens, that's critical here.\nAnd I would dare say that Albrecht got a remarkably chilly reception in the Arco case.\nThe lower Federal courts have whittled away at it.\nThe commentators have been extraordinarily critical of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [888.959, 901.618, 913.603, 930.577, 935.318, 948.926, 958.884, 964.877, 970.852, 975.135, 982.79, 988.182, 994.327, 997.85], "stop_times": [901.618, 913.603, 930.577, 935.318, 948.926, 958.884, 964.877, 970.852, 975.135, 982.79, 988.182, 994.327, 997.85, 1001.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 888.959}, "reply_to": "20633__0_034", "speaker": "joel_i_klein"}
{"id": "20633__1_001", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Mr. Klein, we have a brief here from 33 States and the Territory of Guam, saying don't get rid of Albrecht.\nThat's going to hurt our antitrust enforcement.\nNow, would you like to comment on the position of the States?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [1001.232, 1011.087, 1014.77], "stop_times": [1011.087, 1014.77, 1018.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1001.232}, "reply_to": "20633__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20633__1_002", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "I'd be... I'd be delighted to.\nI... I think there are two things I'd like to say about it.\nFirst of all, what's significant is that the States themselves don't cite a single instance, and we in the Federal Government could find no instances, where an enforcement agency brought a maximum case.\nAnd that seems to me to be very, very telling.\nThat is, in the 30 years since Albrecht, none of them appear to have brought such a case.\nSecond, their concern... if you read their briefs... their concern is, somehow, if you breach the wall in this pricing area, that you won't be able to stop at minimum.\nNow, I think minimum presents very different effects.\nAnd in fact, their key argument is that maximum could be a minimum.\nBut my answer to that is, if it is a minimum, it will be treated by a minimum.\nAnd, frankly, I don't see any problem in detection.\nThe notion that somehow you could disguise this... after all, the first person who is likely to object is going to be the dealer.\nAnd if the dealer thinks that its price wants... he wants to drive his price down, he's entirely free to do so.\nAnd if he gets punished for that, then we know that it's a minimum.\nSo this notion that it's undetectable seems to me to be a very hard one to sustain.\nNow, in addition, the only other arguments of maximum and minimum, which I think is the most telling thing about the States' brief, Justice O'Connor, is they really are fighting for another day.\nAnd if that day should come, entirely different competitive considerations will be at play.\nBut the other thing that's very telling about it, the only other argument you see in the briefs is that a maximum price could affect dealer service.\nNow, that... that... that's a reasonable concern, but I would say several things about it.\nOne, there's no reason to think that the manufacturer is not interested in dealer service that has a pro-competitive benefit.\nThis Court recognized, in GTE, it recognized in Sharp, that manufacturers have an interest in order to maximize their profit in an efficient distribution system.\nSecond, and it seems to me crucial, is that under the law now, after GTE/Sylvania, you can actually impose specific service limitations in your contract.\nFor example, McDonald's can say to all of its dealers: You can't have waiters.\nIt destroys the ambience.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [1018.423, 1019.475, 1021.706, 1034.531, 1038.275, 1042.74, 1054.427, 1056.908, 1061.42, 1065.895, 1070.346, 1077.542, 1085.126, 1088.468, 1093.981, 1103.91, 1110.624, 1120.298, 1124.792, 1132.176, 1142.023, 1153.991, 1159.785], "stop_times": [1019.475, 1021.706, 1034.531, 1038.275, 1042.74, 1054.427, 1056.908, 1061.42, 1065.895, 1070.346, 1077.542, 1085.126, 1088.468, 1093.981, 1103.91, 1110.624, 1120.298, 1124.792, 1132.176, 1142.023, 1153.991, 1159.785, 1161.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1018.423}, "reply_to": "20633__1_001", "speaker": "joel_i_klein"}
{"id": "20633__1_003", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "You can't have what?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [1161.706], "stop_times": [1162.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1161.706}, "reply_to": "20633__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20633__1_004", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Waiters.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [1162.247], "stop_times": [1162.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1162.247}, "reply_to": "20633__1_003", "speaker": "joel_i_klein"}
{"id": "20633__1_005", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Waiters?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [1162.727], "stop_times": [1163.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1162.727}, "reply_to": "20633__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20633__1_006", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "In a fast-food restaurant.\nThey can condition a McDonald's franchise on that limitation on service.\nThe... the... the manufacturer here, the gas State... gas company here could say: You can't wash windows.\nYou can't do tires.\nThey can put that in there.\nNow, that may be anti-competitive ultimately, but it would be tested by a rule of reason.\nSo the notion that we would have a per se rule, basically because it might impact service... a price restriction might impact service, seems to me to have the cart way before the horse in terms of what would go on, on a direct restriction.\nAnd, beyond that, those are the two generic circumstances: maximum/minimum and effect on service.\nBeyond that, the only other notion that comes up is a possibility of predation.\nAnd if there is predation, of course, that would be a violation.\nBut the Court, in Brook and many other cases, has realized that that's quite rare.\nSo the key point here is that this is not the stuff of which per se rules are made.\nWhether you could imagine a case is not the question.\nIf there is such a case and there's competitive effects, the rule of reason is there, as it is for virtually all business practices.\nWhat the per se rule is reserved for, what it has its real currency in is practices that one ought to look at and say, this is really bad stuff; you don't need to do an in-depth examination.\nNow, what's on the other side of the equation?\nFirst of all, you asked about exclusives.\nBut it's not just exclusives.\nLook at the facts in Albrecht.\nYou can have, if you will, de facto market power.\nIf you're a newspaper dealer, it's... it's really the case that you're going to have an area which you... you deliver these newspapers to.\nAnd unlike the newspaper company, the dealer might well say, look, I have some market power; people in Washington, D.C. want to wake up on a Saturday morning and see their newspaper there.\nI can charge more than a quarter for that, before they're going to go out to a machine or downtown or something like that.\nAnd then the dealer can extract real monopoly profits in that situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [1163.598, 1165.389, 1169.512, 1177.977, 1179.647, 1181.099, 1184.643, 1199.592, 1204.354, 1209.187, 1211.969, 1215.721, 1221.846, 1224.998, 1231.053, 1244.189, 1246.252, 1248.393, 1249.585, 1251.265, 1254.657, 1262.311, 1273.728, 1279.414], "stop_times": [1165.389, 1169.512, 1177.977, 1179.647, 1181.099, 1184.643, 1199.592, 1204.354, 1209.187, 1211.969, 1215.721, 1221.846, 1224.998, 1231.053, 1244.189, 1246.252, 1248.393, 1249.585, 1251.265, 1254.657, 1262.311, 1273.728, 1279.414, 1284.306], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1163.598}, "reply_to": "20633__1_005", "speaker": "joel_i_klein"}
{"id": "20633__1_007", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Is... is one of the States' concerns that if you change the per se rule, then price, for maximum prices, becomes a legitimate subject of a day-to-day discussion between the manufacturer and his dealers, and that this will create a climate in which minimum pricing and price-fixing of the anti-competitive sort might go on, and that it's more difficult, then, for the States to enforce?\nAs it is now, it's just... this is just beyond the subject of discussion, which is one reason why there have been so few cases on it.\nPeople know that you don't do this.\nAnd if we say that you can, does this, then, cause a... a danger of... that price will be a subject of... of legitimate discussion in some instances and that this will lead to abuses?\nIs that, do you think, the States' concern?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [1284.306, 1310.894, 1317.937, 1320.2, 1333.508], "stop_times": [1310.894, 1317.937, 1320.2, 1333.508, 1335.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1284.306}, "reply_to": "20633__1_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20633__1_008", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "I don't... I... I don't think it's... it may be the States' concern.\nI don't think it's a realistic concern, Justice Kennedy, for sev... several reasons.\nTo begin with, there is a lot of discussion about price, as this Court has recognized, time and again.\nYou can have a suggested manufacturers' retail price, as long as there's no agreement.\nBut they discuss it all the time.\nSecond, it seems to me, this notion that somehow talking about this issue will lead to unlawful agreements, I think, if there is such an unlawful agreement that results, then we can address that problem in that particular case.\nBut I don't see any reason to somehow say that we need to eliminate from the air discussions of price.\nManufacturers and their retailers discuss price all the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [1335.601, 1337.531, 1341.295, 1347.219, 1352.162, 1353.892, 1369.813, 1377.747], "stop_times": [1337.531, 1341.295, 1347.219, 1352.162, 1353.892, 1369.813, 1377.747, 1382.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1335.601}, "reply_to": "20633__1_007", "speaker": "joel_i_klein"}
{"id": "20633__1_009", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Mr. Klein, what about the principle of stare decisis here?\nWe're dealing with a statutory question, not a constitutional question.\nAnd, customarily, it takes a fairly strong case to get us to overrule a previous decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [1382.191, 1386.412, 1390.677], "stop_times": [1386.412, 1390.677, 1397.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1382.191}, "reply_to": "20633__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20633__1_010", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "I think that that's right, Mr. Chief Justice.\nI would say two things.\nOne, I think, as this Court has recognized, the standard under the antitrust law is a little different from many statutes, because it is a common law statute, in which this Court has revised and changed over the years.\nGTE/Sylvania said that, and the Court did as well in Copperweld.\nAnd I think it has recognized that principle.\nBut I think, whatever standard you apply, it can be met here.\nI think if you look at GTE/Sylvania, you will see that the basic notions that animated the decision in... in Albrecht are no longer viable.\nThere was a view in the mid-eighties that actually animated Schwinn... in the mid-sixties, it animated Schwinn and animated Albrecht... that said there ought to be dealer autonomy; we ought to have lots and lots of dealers; that's better than a few dealers.\nThe Court's opinion, quite clearly, eroded that thinking.\nNot only that, it created the very right to... to establish exclusives that Albrecht said was no good.\nAlbrecht said, well, if you have market power because you have an exclusive territorial arrangement, then, under Schwinn, the territory falls.\nBut now, post-GTE, the territory remains.\nThen I think the next problem you have is the Court says in Arco... it... it... it's really an interesting opinion... it starts out by saying: We assume, arguendo, that Albrecht is still good law.\nIt then has a footnote saying: Albrecht was the only case ever that dealt with a pure maximum.\nAnd then it goes on, in footnote 13, and says: The pro-competitive benefits are now, quote, clearer than they were at the time of Albrecht.\nAnd they cite a list of maybe 10 different academic articles, all of which are harshly critical of Albrecht for essentially mis-perceiving its competitive impact.\nThen you look at what the lower courts have done.\nThey have constantly read the opinion narrowly, chipping away at it.\nNo antitrust injury, no injury in fact, no damages, no agreement.\nCases involving discounts get distinguished in some sort of ways.\nSo this is anything but robust.\nThis is, in... in Judge... Chief Judge Posner's words, a rather moth eaten foundation.\nAnd then the point which I would not discount... Justice Kennedy said there haven't been many such cases in minimum resale price maintenance.\nThe States cite a lot of cases they have brought.\nThe Antitrust Division has brought such cases.\nThe Federal Trade Commission has brought such... such cases.\nThese are real enforcement actions.\nIn the maximum area, there are no such cases.\nIt's not because the practice doesn't occur; it's because government agencies don't find this to be a desirable enforcement vehicle.\nAnd then I would just say the last point, to the extent congressional intent here is relevant.\nOf course, in 1991, Congress actually attempted to pass... it ultimately failed, but a different statute passed both houses, trying to reverse this Court's decisions in Sharp and Monsanto.\nAnd while the ultimate statute never passed, Mr. Chief Justice, both statutes would have ensured... both... both bills... would have ensured that minimum resale price maintenance stayed a per se rule.\nAnd they had exceptions for maximum.\nSo, to the extent one can glint... glim... take anything from that congressional reaction, Congress, too, realized that Albrecht was no good.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [1397.71, 1399.813, 1401.282, 1414.171, 1418.704, 1420.516, 1424.918, 1435.616, 1447.835, 1451.605, 1460.191, 1469.257, 1473.981, 1487.078, 1494.124, 1502.85, 1513.947, 1515.957, 1521.101, 1527.156, 1531.568, 1533.959, 1539.593, 1547.419, 1549.852, 1551.733, 1554.174, 1556.385, 1559.678, 1568.423, 1573.458, 1586.656, 1599.574, 1602.566], "stop_times": [1399.813, 1401.282, 1414.171, 1418.704, 1420.516, 1424.918, 1435.616, 1447.835, 1451.605, 1460.191, 1469.257, 1473.981, 1487.078, 1494.124, 1502.85, 1513.947, 1515.957, 1521.101, 1527.156, 1531.568, 1533.959, 1539.593, 1547.419, 1549.852, 1551.733, 1554.174, 1556.385, 1559.678, 1568.423, 1573.458, 1586.656, 1599.574, 1602.566, 1611.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1397.71}, "reply_to": "20633__1_009", "speaker": "joel_i_klein"}
{"id": "20633__1_011", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Well, but of... of what use is congressional reaction if it doesn't become a law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [1611.582], "stop_times": [1614.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1611.582}, "reply_to": "20633__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20633__1_012", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "It... it... it... I only point to it.\nI... I put it last on the last.\nI only point to it to say to the extent heard anything from them, we've heard that... what little guidance there is, is minimal, I agree.\nBut the key point is not what Congress did.\nThis is, in the end, a common law statute.\nThis Court, I believe, has the obligation to revise and change in this circumstance.\nAnd the reason you should do it, most importantly, is I don't think you should strip manufacturers of a mechanism that is pro-competitive.\nIf we leave it on the books, that is going to increase market injury.\nAnd I think that is a bad result.\nThank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [1614.755, 1616.776, 1617.717, 1624.65, 1627.772, 1631.023, 1637.439, 1646.956, 1650.959, 1652.9], "stop_times": [1616.776, 1617.717, 1624.65, 1627.772, 1631.023, 1637.439, 1646.956, 1650.959, 1652.9, 1654.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1614.755}, "reply_to": "20633__1_011", "speaker": "joel_i_klein"}
{"id": "20633__1_013", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Klein.\nMr. DiVincenzo.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [1654.933, 1656.363], "stop_times": [1656.363, 1658.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1654.933}, "reply_to": "20633__1_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20633__2_000", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court:\nCurrent antitrust jurisprudence relies upon interbrand competition to guarantee the fundamental purpose of the antitrust laws: the protection and preservation of competition.\nWhat I find interesting in this case is that although cloaking themselves as champions of competition, their position... the Government and State Oil's position... really expresses a deep-seated distrust of interbrand competition.\nLook at what they tell you.\nThey tell you that we need to have the manufacturers and suppliers, the upstream suppliers, have power to set prices, because interbrand competition, which affects and controls retailers' actions as well, isn't going to work.\nWe have to be afraid of the possibility of retailers having market power.\nWhat happened to the concept of interbrand competition, which they espouse?\nIf interbrand competition exists in a marketplace, why not trust interbrand competition to keep the prices of the retailers at the level the competition would in fact dictate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [1658.894, 1664.798, 1678.398, 1696.48, 1698.23, 1717.233, 1722.657, 1726.718], "stop_times": [1664.798, 1678.398, 1696.48, 1698.23, 1717.233, 1722.657, 1726.718, 1738.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1658.894}, "reply_to": "20633__1_013", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_001", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "I guess their answer is that, basically, the only time that a manufacturer would want to do such a thing... not... not 100 percent, but the vast... would be in an instance where interbrand competition was not working perfectly.\nOtherwise, there wouldn't be power in the dealer to raise price above the competitive level.\nThat's why he wants to keep it down.\nThere isn't enough interbrand competition.\nI think that's basically the argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [1738.408, 1750.944, 1756.187, 1758.411, 1760.04], "stop_times": [1750.944, 1756.187, 1758.411, 1760.04, 1761.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1738.408}, "reply_to": "20633__2_000", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20633__2_002", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "In 30 years, since Albrecht was adopted, what I'm looking for and I don't see in this record or in the literature is any breakdown of interbrand competition controlling retailers.\nAs this Court itself pointed out in the... the Sharp case, it is rare, indeed, that you're going to find a retailer that has market power to be able to dictate price.\nAnd, indeed, the concept of GTE/Sylvania was that you don't have to really worry about exclusive territories, because they protect intrabrand competition, because you still have the specter of interbrand competition out there to control these retailers, even though they now have exclusive territories.\nUnder those circumstances, I think the best way to approach the potential problem of a market power in a retailer is under the current jur... jurisprudence.\nAnd that has two very distinct elements.\nThe first is Albrecht, which is the per se application.\nIt says that a violation of Section 1 occurs when there is a vertical maximum resale price maintenance agreement... price-fixing at that level.\nBut there's a second element.\nAnd that is the Arco case.\nAnd the Arco case says that in order for a private plaintiff to have an antitrust cause of action, that private plaintiff has to establish an antitrust injury.\nAnd it is an injury which flows from the core of the antitrust laws.\nAnd what is the core of the antitrust laws, as this Court has come to define it?\nInterbrand competition.\nSo, thus, you have the per se rule in its maximum, strident position, indeed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [1761.592, 1774.24, 1783.567, 1804.119, 1815.376, 1818.05, 1821.982, 1831.668, 1833.919, 1835.651, 1845.646, 1850.679, 1854.943, 1856.543], "stop_times": [1774.24, 1783.567, 1804.119, 1815.376, 1818.05, 1821.982, 1831.668, 1833.919, 1835.651, 1845.646, 1850.679, 1854.943, 1856.543, 1862.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1761.592}, "reply_to": "20633__2_001", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_003", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Sorry, I thought you were talking about intrabrand.\nYou mean interbrand?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [1862.717, 1865.441], "stop_times": [1865.441, 1866.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1862.717}, "reply_to": "20633__2_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20633__2_004", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "--Interbrand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [1866.471], "stop_times": [1867.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1866.471}, "reply_to": "20633__2_003", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_005", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Oh, well, the reason that they worried is that they have some market power in there, in their product.\nAnd since they have some market power, the price isn't perfectly competitive, the dealer gets more market power because of his position; that's why they want to keep the price down.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [1867.102, 1871.486], "stop_times": [1871.486, 1879.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1867.102}, "reply_to": "20633__2_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20633__2_006", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Again--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [1879.46], "stop_times": [1880.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1879.46}, "reply_to": "20633__2_005", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_007", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "And that's the basic argument, which I guess you have to deal with in this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [1880.872], "stop_times": [1883.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1880.872}, "reply_to": "20633__2_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20633__2_008", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "--No, I understand that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [1883.994], "stop_times": [1884.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1883.994}, "reply_to": "20633__2_007", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_009", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "I'm sorry I misunderstood inter for intra.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [1884.835], "stop_times": [1886.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1884.835}, "reply_to": "20633__2_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20633__2_010", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "No, what... what I'm saying is that in a situation... the best way of dealing with that market power is to use the... the per se rule, coupled with antitrust injury.\nIt would require a plaintiff to demonstrate that there was an injury flowing to itself from the interference within interbrand competition.\nAnd that's what occurred in this case.\nHere, Mr. Khan ran his gas station... and he was constrained as to his pricing ability.\nHe had to deal with a margin restraint, which is a... a slightly different animal than a pure maximum price-fixing price.\nIt says: Mr. Khan, you cannot make more than 3 and a quarter cents per gallon of gasoline.\nNow, we don't care if you charge more than the suggested pump price.\nAnd... except... and even to monopoly levels... but we get those monopoly profits.\nAnd that's State Oil's position here.\nIt's clear that State Oil wasn't trying to restrain Mr. Khan's ability to charge monopoly prices.\nAll they wanted to do was shift the profits from that monopoly pricing, if it could occur, from Mr. Khan, and put some--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [1886.256, 1895.431, 1906.839, 1908.411, 1915.174, 1923.411, 1928.964, 1933.656, 1939.791, 1942.221, 1949.547], "stop_times": [1895.431, 1906.839, 1908.411, 1915.174, 1923.411, 1928.964, 1933.656, 1939.791, 1942.221, 1949.547, 1956.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1886.256}, "reply_to": "20633__2_009", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_011", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "But surely... surely the effect was precisely the same.\nIf you tell a dealer that you can charge whatever you want, but everything over a certain amount that you take in goes to me, he's not going to do that?\nYou don't really think they thought Mr. Khan was that stupid?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [1956.6, 1958.744, 1968.709], "stop_times": [1958.744, 1968.709, 1971.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1956.6}, "reply_to": "20633__2_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20633__2_012", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "--No, I--\n[Laughter]\nNo, I... I... I cert... I certainly agree.\nBut I think, Your Honors, what that puts an end to is the argument which State Oil makes, that what they were trying to do was constrain, in reality, Mr. Khan's pricing.\nI don't think that that was what was involved in this case at all.\nThe intention here may have been to allocate the profit margins, but it certainly wasn't any concern over Mr. Khan's ability to manipulate or charge more for gasoline than interbrand competition, which existed in this marketplace, would allow him to charge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [1971.04, 1972.052, 1972.823, 1975.324, 1987.181, 1990.503], "stop_times": [1972.052, 1972.823, 1975.324, 1987.181, 1990.503, 2006.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1971.04}, "reply_to": "20633__2_011", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_013", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "What... what's... what's the antitrust injury?\nWhat... how... how is the consumer harmed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2006.984, 2008.877], "stop_times": [2008.877, 2012.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2006.984}, "reply_to": "20633__2_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__2_014", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "The consumer was harmed here because the price which was in fact set, the mechanism... the restraining mechanism... the margin restraint, affected both a maximum price on some products as well as the minimum price on other products.\nIndeed, what you ended up here is the manufacturer set a single price, and that became the market price.\nBecause it not only eliminated the ability of the supp... of the dealer, Mr. Khan, to increase price... he... well, it removed any incentive, as this Court has quite... pointed... has just pointed out to me... it also eliminated his incentive to decrease prices.\nBecause, at this point, a 3-and-a-quarter-cent margin, his margins were so close to cost that he had no incentive or ability to lower the price.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2012.507, 2028.749, 2034.452, 2050.732], "stop_times": [2028.749, 2034.452, 2050.732, 2059.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2012.507}, "reply_to": "20633__2_013", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_015", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Why does he ever... why does he ever have an incentive to lower the price?\nI mean, once again, this... does... doesn't this posit a... a good deal of stupidity on his part?\nThat, oh, if I could only raise this price more, I would give all this money back to the consumers by lowering my price on the... on the regular gas.\nWhy, I mean, nobody behaves that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2059.571, 2063.199, 2068.623, 2077.391], "stop_times": [2063.199, 2068.623, 2077.391, 2078.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2059.571}, "reply_to": "20633__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__2_016", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Your Honor, with all due respect, the receiver behaved exactly that way after Mr. Khan was out.\nWhen Mr. Khan left the station, the receiver did exactly what we say State Oil constrained them, or stopped them, from doing.\nIt lowered the price on regular grades of gasoline.\nAnd, as the expert points out, that resulted in a shift of the volumes from premium to more sales of regular gasoline, thereby increasing the volume of sales.\nAnd the same token, there was an--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2078.9, 2084.636, 2092.061, 2097.465, 2109.151], "stop_times": [2084.636, 2092.061, 2097.465, 2109.151, 2111.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2078.9}, "reply_to": "20633__2_015", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_017", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Excuse me.\nBy that, do you mean that some people who used to buy premium bought regular or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2111.753, 2112.224], "stop_times": [2112.224, 2116.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2111.753}, "reply_to": "20633__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__2_018", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "--No.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2116.165, 2116.535], "stop_times": [2116.535, 2117.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2116.165}, "reply_to": "20633__2_017", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_019", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "--or more regular were... more people came to buy regular?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2117.026], "stop_times": [2120.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2117.026}, "reply_to": "20633__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__2_020", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "--Your Honor, with all... with... based on the record we have, all we know is that there was more regular gasoline sold.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2120.448], "stop_times": [2126.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2120.448}, "reply_to": "20633__2_019", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_021", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Okay.\nWell, that... that, in itself, is a justification for lowering the price of regular gas.\nAnd as far as I can tell, it's the only justification that someone who's selling gas will ever use.\nIf I lower the price, I'll sell more and I'll make more money.\nI can't imagine anybody thinking, oh, you know, if I could raise the price on premium, I'll be able to lower the price on regular, even though it won't get me any more customers.\nI mean, that's silly.\nWhy does he want to do that?\nThis man is full of love for... for gasoline buyers?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2126.563, 2126.853, 2131.135, 2136.251, 2139.33, 2148.996, 2150.288, 2151.219], "stop_times": [2126.853, 2131.135, 2136.251, 2139.33, 2148.996, 2150.288, 2151.219, 2154.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2126.563}, "reply_to": "20633__2_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__2_022", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nWhat--\n[Laughter]\n--what this man is trying to do is run a business where he has margins constrained at 3 and a quarter cents per gallon, which is simply, as experience proved to him, not enough to sustain his business.\nSo what he attempts to do at that point is, by using his market ability to read the market, to get to a level which brings him more volume and therefore some additional gross revenue--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2154.53, 2155.111, 2155.822, 2156.563, 2168.351], "stop_times": [2155.111, 2155.822, 2156.563, 2168.351, 2179.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2154.53}, "reply_to": "20633__2_021", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_023", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2179.698], "stop_times": [2180.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2179.698}, "reply_to": "20633__2_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__2_024", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "--but, at the same token, add to his profit by charging a... what the market allows him to charge as a competitive price on another grade of gasoline.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2180.068], "stop_times": [2188.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2180.068}, "reply_to": "20633__2_023", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_025", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "But he ought to lower the price of his regular no matter what the price of his premium is if lowering the price of the regular will... will increase his profits.\nHe ought to do that whether or not he's... he can fiddle with the... with the maximum on... on the premium.\nI can't understand why that gives him any more of an incentive to lower the price of his regular.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2188.733, 2197.138, 2202.302], "stop_times": [2197.138, 2202.302, 2207.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2188.733}, "reply_to": "20633__2_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__2_026", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "The incentive that any dealer has is to stay in business, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2207.464], "stop_times": [2211.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2207.464}, "reply_to": "20633__2_025", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_027", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "No; it's to make as much money as he can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2211.108], "stop_times": [2213.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2211.108}, "reply_to": "20633__2_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__2_028", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "And if he... if, by lowering price, he cannot make enough money to stay in business--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2213.378], "stop_times": [2217.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2213.378}, "reply_to": "20633__2_027", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_029", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "No.\nIf by lowering price he can't make more money than by keeping the price higher, he's not going to lower it.\nHe's not going to say, I'm going to lower it; I'll lose a little more... you know, I'll make it up... I'll make it up by... by increasing my premium price.\nThat is... that is senseless behavior.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2217.742, 2218.173, 2222.825, 2230.711], "stop_times": [2218.173, 2222.825, 2230.711, 2232.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2217.742}, "reply_to": "20633__2_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__2_030", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "--Your Honor, no, I don't believe it is.\nAnd... and for this reason.\nAs a businessman sitting there, he must decide whether in fact the lowering of the price in the competitive conditions that he faces will... will result in an increase in volume to him, and bring in sufficient additional revenue to offset the decrease in price that he has in fact imposed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2232.511, 2233.981, 2234.983], "stop_times": [2233.981, 2234.983, 2252.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2232.511}, "reply_to": "20633__2_029", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_031", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "This is intelligent behavior only for somebody whose whole objective in running a gas station is barely to stay in business.\nThen... then it makes sense.\nIf... if I'm going... opening this gas station in order barely to stay in business, then I... I might want to raise my premium price so that I could give away money by lowering my... my... my regular price, even though it's not going to increase sales.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2252.434, 2258.619, 2261.15], "stop_times": [2258.619, 2261.15, 2273.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2252.434}, "reply_to": "20633__2_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__2_032", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "And it is also the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2273.028], "stop_times": [2273.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2273.028}, "reply_to": "20633__2_031", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_033", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "But I don't know anybody who has that objective.\nHe wants to make money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2273.929, 2275.869], "stop_times": [2275.869, 2276.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2273.929}, "reply_to": "20633__2_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__2_034", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "--Your Honor, he must make money.\nBut it would also be the case of someone who is in trouble of going out of business to adopt that marketing strategy and that pricing strategy.\nBecause if that person is then faced with a business where he is about to lose his $100,000 investment in his gas station, he has got to do something to increase his profitability.\nHe's got to make more money.\nSo at that point he says, I can get more volume and thereby increase my ancillary sales, drawing in additional revenue.\nBut, at the same token, that is a tremendous gamble, and one which he may say, given the current market conditions, he could not achieve.\nIf he lowers the price and doesn't increase volume, what he's done is signed his own death warrant.\nBut in the circumstances that existed here because of the pricing decisions imposed upon him by State Oil, the market for premium gasoline, the interbrand competition on premium gasoline, would allow him to make more money.\nAnd so, as a result, he was able... would be able to shift his pricing, to lower the price in one place, to increase his overall volumes and, the same token, to increase the price on premium gasolines, overall increasing his margins.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2276.811, 2278.861, 2287.347, 2297.895, 2299.154, 2306.501, 2315.486, 2319.668, 2336.4, 2352.359], "stop_times": [2278.861, 2287.347, 2297.895, 2299.154, 2306.501, 2315.486, 2319.668, 2336.4, 2352.359, 2353.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2276.811}, "reply_to": "20633__2_033", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_035", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "The 3.25 limit did not apply to premium?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2353.02], "stop_times": [2356.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2353.02}, "reply_to": "20633__2_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20633__2_036", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "--The 3.25 limit applied to all grades of gasoline.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2356.352], "stop_times": [2359.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2356.352}, "reply_to": "20633__2_035", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_037", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "All grades... all grades of gas?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2359.174], "stop_times": [2361.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2359.174}, "reply_to": "20633__2_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20633__2_038", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "All grades of gasoline.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2361.145], "stop_times": [2362.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2361.145}, "reply_to": "20633__2_037", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_039", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2362.196], "stop_times": [2362.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2362.196}, "reply_to": "20633__2_038", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20633__2_040", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "He was restricted with that margin.\nHe could not charge another price.\nIf he did, it went to State Oil.\nIf he dropped below, he lost money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2362.727, 2364.247, 2366.888, 2368.42], "stop_times": [2364.247, 2366.888, 2368.42, 2369.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2362.727}, "reply_to": "20633__2_039", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_041", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "If... if I understand your response to Justice Scalia, it would be that lowering the price of the cheap grade will make him more money, but not for a year or two.\nSo we have to stay in business until it pays off.\nAnd so, what we'll do is raise the high price even more, and that gives us the money necessary to stay in business until the low price pays off.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2369.851, 2381.628, 2384.931], "stop_times": [2381.628, 2384.931, 2393.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2369.851}, "reply_to": "20633__2_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20633__2_042", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "That would certainly be rational thinking on their part.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2393.837], "stop_times": [2396.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2393.837}, "reply_to": "20633__2_041", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_043", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Is that your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2396.36], "stop_times": [2396.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2396.36}, "reply_to": "20633__2_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20633__2_044", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Yes.\nThat would be rational thinking on his part.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2396.741, 2397.4], "stop_times": [2397.4, 2397.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2396.741}, "reply_to": "20633__2_043", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_045", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "All right.\nAnd the problem with that argument, I guess, John D. Rockefeller could make it, too: Let me... any monopolist... let me charge the earth, because, you see, what I do when I charge the earth, is I take all this money... John D. Rockefeller and others... and I give it back to the public.\nI charge a lower price eventually for my heating oil or for some other product.\nAnd the difficulty is not that that's always wrong; I guess the difficulty is, if that argument were allowed as a response, it would always be made and we'd never know when it was wrong.\nI mean, that's... that's what I think... you gave a sophisticated argument... and so I... I think it's an interesting one, and I... I want to get you to respond to what I'd call is a... a real administrative objection to your sophisticated argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2397.76, 2398.211, 2414.032, 2420.714, 2431.373], "stop_times": [2398.211, 2414.032, 2420.714, 2431.373, 2445.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2397.76}, "reply_to": "20633__2_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20633__2_046", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "The argument can always be made by a monopolist with market power that they're... what they're trying to do is shift pricing around so that, at one point, they in fact lower price.\nI don't think that makes a monopolist... you know, going back to United Shoe Machinery, this Court was faced with the benevolent monopolist.\nYou can always posit a benevolent monopolist, but that still was... was considered illegal.\nWhat I think the administrative answer, Your Honor, is that the rest of the antitrust laws aren't abrogated as to dealers.\nThe antitrust laws would apply to dealers who attempt to use or abuse monopoly power that they have acquired in a definable marketplace.\nAnd that... that's the other end of this scenario.\nYou have on one end, in trying to judge whether you should change the per se rule and allow vertical maximum price-fixing, the question is: Is it really necessary?\nAnd I suggest that it's not.\nBecause interbrand competition should do, in all cases where interbrand competition exists and is not distorted, it should keep the prices at competitive levels.\nSo you don't need to have this artificial restraint or power given to manufacturers where interbrand competition can work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2445.532, 2458.801, 2468.098, 2473.781, 2481.045, 2491.263, 2494.135, 2503.731, 2505.502, 2516.829], "stop_times": [2458.801, 2468.098, 2473.781, 2481.045, 2491.263, 2494.135, 2503.731, 2505.502, 2516.829, 2525.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2445.532}, "reply_to": "20633__2_045", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_047", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "But it apparently doesn't work here.\nBecause you say your client feels free to kick the premium up as high as he likes... with... without being... why isn't he constrained by... by other gas stations from charging this additional money for his premium?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2525.256, 2527.038], "stop_times": [2527.038, 2539.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2525.256}, "reply_to": "20633__2_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__2_048", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "The answer, Your Honor, is that in the given conditions, the price that was prevailing in the marketplace must have allowed him to make additional margins.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2539.638], "stop_times": [2549.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2539.638}, "reply_to": "20633__2_047", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_049", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "That is to say there was no interbrand competition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2549.392], "stop_times": [2552.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2549.392}, "reply_to": "20633__2_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__2_050", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "No, I... I disagree with that, Your Honor, with all due respect.\nInterbrand competition doesn't always drive the price to the lowest possible level.\nOtherwise, you'd have no profitability.\nCompetition sets a price... and I think this Court has recognized--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2552.143, 2554.637, 2559.79, 2562.171], "stop_times": [2554.637, 2559.79, 2562.171, 2565.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2552.143}, "reply_to": "20633__2_049", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_051", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Well, is it your position that the market for the premium gas allow... generally allowed for a margin of more than 3.25 cents, where it's just 3.25 on the regular?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2565.864], "stop_times": [2575.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2565.864}, "reply_to": "20633__2_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20633__2_052", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "--Or... or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2575.94], "stop_times": [2577.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2575.94}, "reply_to": "20633__2_051", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_053", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "And that... in other words, the difference in product was... should have dictated a difference in margin, and that's what he was trying to take advantage of?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2577.402], "stop_times": [2583.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2577.402}, "reply_to": "20633__2_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20633__2_054", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "--That is correct, Your Honor.\nThe... the difference in the products... there are... without using the... the term \"market\" in the technical sense... but the difference in the competitive market for premium gasoline would allow a higher margin.\nAnd a... competition within that market would have allowed the dealers to make more than 3 and a quarter cents per gallon.\nThe receiver experience, at least 3 and 8/10ths cents a gallon over all his entire product margin.\nOn the other hand, because of the difference in the nature of competition, it may be that premium gasoline buyers don't price shop as much as regular gasoline purchasers, but that the general circumstance concerning regular gasoline is that the margins... the competitive market allows less margin and requires lower prices.\nAnd what State Oil did was it ignored the competitive circumstances, ignored these differences between these products, and set a single price.\nAnd that put him--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2583.466, 2584.686, 2596.653, 2603.779, 2611.082, 2630.927, 2639.352], "stop_times": [2584.686, 2596.653, 2603.779, 2611.082, 2630.927, 2639.352, 2640.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2583.466}, "reply_to": "20633__2_053", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_055", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Well, of course, the consequence of that normally would be that you would get a larger share of the premium sales, if your margin is less, and you... you'd be un... underpricing your competitors on... on premium.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2640.642], "stop_times": [2650.349], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2640.642}, "reply_to": "20633__2_054", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20633__2_056", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "--You... you might receive some additional--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2650.349], "stop_times": [2653.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2650.349}, "reply_to": "20633__2_055", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_057", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Unless, as you say, all premium buyers are stupid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2653.691], "stop_times": [2656.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2653.691}, "reply_to": "20633__2_056", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20633__2_058", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "--Well, not necessarily stupid; less price elastic.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2656.503], "stop_times": [2659.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2656.503}, "reply_to": "20633__2_057", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_059", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "They don't... they don't... yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2659.364], "stop_times": [2660.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2659.364}, "reply_to": "20633__2_058", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20633__2_060", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Demand being, in that market, a little different, the elasticities of demand being different.\nBut under those circumstances, what you end up happening is... what ends up happening is that you have State Oil saying to this Court: Give us the power to give... put our judgment in place of free market forces.\nAnd... and that is a very serious threat to competition, which is the purpose of the antitrust laws.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2660.105, 2663.639, 2677.767], "stop_times": [2663.639, 2677.767, 2684.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2660.105}, "reply_to": "20633__2_059", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_061", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Well, free market forces are ordinarily reflected in contracts, which your client signed with State Oil.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2684.682], "stop_times": [2690.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2684.682}, "reply_to": "20633__2_060", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20633__2_062", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "There was a contract that was... was signed with State Oil, in which he agreed... that's how we actually get in... under Section 1 here, Your Honor.\nThere was an agreement which constrained his ability to price, to 3 and a quarter cents.\nThere is... the flip side of that, however, is that what is not set is the pump price.\nThere is no contractual requirement that a particular pump price be set.\nSo State Oil had the right to set a pump price, and that pump price may or may not reflect conditions in competition in that particular marketplace.\nAnd if State Oil guessed wrong, then you have the threat of anti-competitive effects.\nAnd if State Oil, as it did, guessed wrong as to the price that should prevail for regular grades of gasoline, you have the consumers being hurt.\nAnd State Oil guessed wrong, on the high side on the... on the premium grades, in setting the maximum, then Mr. Khan was squeezed at that end as well.\nThis was a squeeze that came from both ends, and ultimately resulted in his failure to run the business.\nNow, the receiver, which refused to agree with the restraints set forth in the contract and was free to do what it wanted, and adopted a marketing strategy which increased volume, which increased profitability and margin, and therefore benefitted some consumers, benefitted State Oil, as well as benefitting itself and the operation.\nAnd that's what competition is supposed to do.\nCompetition allows for the businessmen to make a reasonable profit so they can stay in business, so they can invest in their business, to recoup their investment, and that return of investment is... is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2690.697, 2697.4, 2703.444, 2711.011, 2715.502, 2724.347, 2731.613, 2741.301, 2750.655, 2757.611, 2779.856, 2782.207], "stop_times": [2697.4, 2703.444, 2711.011, 2715.502, 2724.347, 2731.613, 2741.301, 2750.655, 2757.611, 2779.856, 2782.207, 2793.795], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2690.697}, "reply_to": "20633__2_061", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_063", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Well, I don't see that any of that argument means you couldn't reach the right result under the rule of reason.\nI mean, I... I just don't understand why it requires a per se rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2793.795, 2799.668], "stop_times": [2799.668, 2804.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2793.795}, "reply_to": "20633__2_062", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20633__2_064", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "--The rule of reason analysis requires proofs of market power, quite honestly, which would exclude almost every single petroleum market case that you're faced with, as well as others.\nAbsent proof of market power and impacts on competition in a definable market, you would have situations like Mr. Khan not being able... you could not address his situation, where he suffers an antitrust injury.\nBut, moreover, when the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2804.38, 2818.221, 2830.638], "stop_times": [2818.221, 2830.638, 2832.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2804.38}, "reply_to": "20633__2_063", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_065", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Excuse me.\nHe suffers and antitrust injury?\nI mean, I... I thought it's the consumer that suffers the antitrust injury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2832.541, 2833.332, 2834.671], "stop_times": [2833.332, 2834.671, 2838.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2832.541}, "reply_to": "20633__2_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__2_066", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "--No.\nIn this case, he suffers an antitrust injury in the sense that he cannot price and increase his volumes on the low end and make a competitive price on the high end.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2838.354, 2838.975], "stop_times": [2838.975, 2847.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2838.354}, "reply_to": "20633__2_065", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_067", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Well, that's a... that's a com... I... I think we've said that... that the antitrust law is not there to protect merchants; it's there to protect consumers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2847.229], "stop_times": [2854.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2847.229}, "reply_to": "20633__2_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__2_068", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "In every ca--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2854.633], "stop_times": [2855.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2854.633}, "reply_to": "20633__2_067", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_069", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "And that's why I keep looking for some consumer who has been hurt by this.\nNow, you... you... you say that... that... that when... when the... the trustee took over, he lowered the price of... of regular.\nIs it clear that it would not have paid him to lower the price of regular unless he had... unless he had increased the price of premium?\nDid... did he not make more money, in volume, by lowering the price of regular?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2855.784, 2859.188, 2870.385, 2877.52], "stop_times": [2859.188, 2870.385, 2877.52, 2882.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2855.784}, "reply_to": "20633__2_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__2_070", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "--He made some additional volume... he made volume.\nThere's nothing in the record which indicates he made enough from that to be able to sustain or improve the profitability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2882.923, 2886.513], "stop_times": [2886.513, 2892.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2882.923}, "reply_to": "20633__2_069", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_071", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Is there any... anything in the record to the contrary, that... that he did not increase his profitability by selling more of the regular at a lower price?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2892.247], "stop_times": [2901.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2892.247}, "reply_to": "20633__2_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__2_072", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2901.433], "stop_times": [2902.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2901.433}, "reply_to": "20633__2_071", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_073", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Do... do we know that he... he lost money on it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2902.485], "stop_times": [2904.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2902.485}, "reply_to": "20633__2_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__2_074", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "--No.\nThe... the only... the only... in... the only evidence in the record is the expert's report, which, as I pointed out, indicates an increase in overall volume, lumping both... all grades together.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2904.067, 2904.488], "stop_times": [2904.488, 2918.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2904.067}, "reply_to": "20633__2_073", "speaker": "anthony_s_divincenzo"}
{"id": "20633__2_075", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Thank you, Mr. DiVincenzo.\nI think you've answered the question.\nMs. Harbour, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2918.207, 2919.699, 2921.449], "stop_times": [2919.699, 2921.449, 2923.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2918.207}, "reply_to": "20633__2_074", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20633__3_000", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nFor several decades, the 35 State attorneys general before this Court today have been the primary enforcers of the law in the area of vertical price-fixing.\nOur experience, and the realities of the marketplace, have shown us that the labels placed on these agreements... that is to say, maximum vertical price-fixing, on one hand, and minimum vertical price-fixing on the other... are, in most cases, a meaningless distinction.\nAs the agencies most familiar with these cases, the States have considerable experience with price-raising schemes being characterized as price-lowering schemes.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2923.999, 2933.977, 2946.984, 2964.786, 2977.805], "stop_times": [2933.977, 2946.984, 2964.786, 2977.805, 2978.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2923.999}, "reply_to": "20633__2_075", "speaker": "pamela_j_harbour"}
{"id": "20633__3_001", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Ms. Harbour, how... how extensive is that experience?\nIs it... is it correct that there's not a single case that's been brought?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2978.606, 2980.567], "stop_times": [2980.567, 2983.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2978.606}, "reply_to": "20633__3_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__3_002", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "--Your Honor, there are... there was a characterization game that was going on here.\nThe targets of our investigation came in and said to us, we are actually fixing price ceilings, intending to lower prices.\nBut, in fact, after we investigated, we found that those were not price ceilings.\nIn fact, they were intended to raise prices rather than lower them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [2983.479, 2989.563, 2997.127, 3002.202], "stop_times": [2989.563, 2997.127, 3002.202, 3006.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2983.479}, "reply_to": "20633__3_001", "speaker": "pamela_j_harbour"}
{"id": "20633__3_003", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "So were there prosecutions brought?\nWhat I'm asking is, is it correct, as the... as the... as the United States Government has contended, that they're... they're unaware of a single case, where... where you or any other State has moved against maximum prices?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3006.604, 3008.106], "stop_times": [3008.106, 3022.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3006.604}, "reply_to": "20633__3_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__3_004", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "As I said, there are elements of maximum price-fixing in the cases that we brought.\nThe States claim that they're price-fixing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3022.034, 3027.327], "stop_times": [3027.327, 3029.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3022.034}, "reply_to": "20633__3_003", "speaker": "pamela_j_harbour"}
{"id": "20633__3_005", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "What cases are they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3029.758], "stop_times": [3030.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3029.758}, "reply_to": "20633__3_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__3_006", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "--The Minolta case.\nIt was a $640,000 settlement that was returned to consumers.\nPanasonic involved a $16 million settlement.\nAnd in these two cases, as well as Mitsubishi, Your Honor, the defendants contended that they were actually trying to lower prices for consumers.\nBut, in fact, when we investigated, we found that they were in fact raising those prices.\nThere was a characterization they were appealing to our prosecutory--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3030.099, 3032.452, 3037.595, 3040.697, 3050.652, 3057.278], "stop_times": [3032.452, 3037.595, 3040.697, 3050.652, 3057.278, 3060.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3030.099}, "reply_to": "20633__3_005", "speaker": "pamela_j_harbour"}
{"id": "20633__3_007", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "You found that they were minimum pricing cases, not maximum pricing cases.\nAnd I suppose the question is, a genuine maximum... which is not in question in this case... no one is asserting that this was a minimum price in disguise... do you have any case where there was a maximum price, not a disguised minimum price, where the States have prosecuted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3060.138, 3064.182], "stop_times": [3064.182, 3084.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3060.138}, "reply_to": "20633__3_006", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20633__3_008", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "--Understood, Your Honor.\nNo, Your Honor.\nBut retailer market power is very rare in these cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3084.486, 3085.307, 3086.706], "stop_times": [3085.307, 3086.706, 3090.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3084.486}, "reply_to": "20633__3_007", "speaker": "pamela_j_harbour"}
{"id": "20633__3_009", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "The... the reason that I think that's awfully important is because what you're basically doing is you're taking the position that consumers should have to pay more money for gasoline.\nNow, if you're requiring consumers to pay more money for gasoline, there ought to be... which is what's going on, if you don't let them set a real high price... then I'd like to know why.\nAnd your argument is, because, really, maybe it's a minimum price.\nAll right, I understand that argument.\nIt's logically sound.\nBut what is the evidence that you have to make consumers pay more money for gasoline in order to stop people from, you know, charging a minimum price?\nAnd... and... and that's why I think this evidentiary question, why you know that, why you're saying this, the facts of the case, are pretty important.\nSo... so I'm urging you to... you know, why do you think that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3090.57, 3099.204, 3110.572, 3114.395, 3116.616, 3118.287, 3129.095, 3137.109], "stop_times": [3099.204, 3110.572, 3114.395, 3116.616, 3118.287, 3129.095, 3137.109, 3141.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3090.57}, "reply_to": "20633__3_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20633__3_010", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "--Your Honor, basically, the argument being advanced today by the Petitioners is that manufacturers, like State Oil, should be free to restrain the exercise of monopoly power by their dealers who have been granted exclusive territories.\nWell, first of all, Khan had no exclusive territory.\nThere is nothing in this record that points to that.\nAnd, second of all, nothing in this record suggests that Khan had monopoly power whatsoever.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3141.864, 3157.242, 3160.444, 3162.775], "stop_times": [3157.242, 3160.444, 3162.775, 3168.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3141.864}, "reply_to": "20633__3_009", "speaker": "pamela_j_harbour"}
{"id": "20633__3_011", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "That's quite a good point.\nAnd... and do you think, then, it would be possible, under a rule of reason, for a firm to come and complain on the basis that they're a failing dealer, and so a failing dealer couldn't possibly be in a situation of trying to raise prices above the competitive level unless there was no need for this kind of thing to constrain his price?\nI mean, that's what I think would be quite interesting, whether there would be categories of things where it would be a good defense... or it would be a good... a good price-fixing claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3168.78, 3170.162, 3195.088], "stop_times": [3170.162, 3195.088, 3205.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3168.78}, "reply_to": "20633__3_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20633__3_012", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "The rule of reason is not the rule for a price-fixing case or any agreement on price.\nIn fact, as this Court has held in Maricopa, the anti-competitive potential inherent in all price-fixing cases justify their facial invalidation even when pro-competitive justifications are offered for some.\nBut, in this case, Your Honor, it is the States' position that the argument posited by the Petitioners is illogical.\nAnd allow me to illustrate.\nThe Petitioners have hypothesized a dealer with market power in an exclusive territory.\nWhen a dealer has monopoly power, by definition, there is no effective interbrand competition; and, therefore, there is no justification for granting the exclusive territory.\nUnder the Sylvania decision, Sylvania held that restraints on intrabrand competition... namely, the exclusive territory... will only be tolerated when they stimulate interbrand competition.\nBut here, this... this dealer, this hypothetical monopoly power that this dealer has, there is no effective interbrand competition.\nTherefore, there is no justification for granting the exclusive territory; and further, there is no justification for imposing the price ceiling to restrain the monopoly power that was unreasonably granted to the dealer in the first place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3205.044, 3211.399, 3226.558, 3234.633, 3235.855, 3242.598, 3256.947, 3270.446, 3279.523], "stop_times": [3211.399, 3226.558, 3234.633, 3235.855, 3242.598, 3256.947, 3270.446, 3279.523, 3294.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3205.044}, "reply_to": "20633__3_011", "speaker": "pamela_j_harbour"}
{"id": "20633__3_013", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Gee, is that our law?\nI wasn't aware it was.\nThat you... you cannot exclusive territories, even those exclusive territories, overall, will... will... will stimulate interbrand competition.\nIf in any single territory there is no interbrand competition, you cannot restrict that dealer to... to a territory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3294.613, 3295.533, 3297.175, 3307.209], "stop_times": [3295.533, 3297.175, 3307.209, 3315.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3294.613}, "reply_to": "20633__3_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__3_014", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "As... as the holding--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3315.897], "stop_times": [3317.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3315.897}, "reply_to": "20633__3_013", "speaker": "pamela_j_harbour"}
{"id": "20633__3_015", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Just one territory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3317.958], "stop_times": [3319.057], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3317.958}, "reply_to": "20633__3_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__3_016", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "--Intrabrand competition... restraints on intrabrand competition will only be tolerated when they stimulated interbrand competition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3319.057], "stop_times": [3329.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3319.057}, "reply_to": "20633__3_015", "speaker": "pamela_j_harbour"}
{"id": "20633__3_017", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Within the particular territory or overall?\nI mean, I'm... I'm... I'm a manufacturer, and nationwide, there's plenty of interbrand competition.\nBut you're saying if there is one... one territory in the country where there's no effective interbrand competition, you cannot have an exclusive territory there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3329.035, 3331.907, 3337.771], "stop_times": [3331.907, 3337.771, 3347.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3329.035}, "reply_to": "20633__3_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__3_018", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "When... I'm talking about a... a monopolist.\nAnd when there is a monopolist there, that means there is no inter or intrabrand competition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3347.026, 3349.848], "stop_times": [3349.848, 3354.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3347.026}, "reply_to": "20633__3_017", "speaker": "pamela_j_harbour"}
{"id": "20633__3_019", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "I wasn't aware we... we had held that, but you think that's the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3354.913], "stop_times": [3359.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3354.913}, "reply_to": "20633__3_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__3_020", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Your Honor, if... if I have mischaracterized that, forgive me.\nBut I... I do know that, in Sylvania, this Court said that in order to... to restrain intrabrand competition, there must be effective interbrand competition.\nAnd the States do not feel that that has been posited here.\nBut we do believe that a great deal is at stake in this case, Your Honor... more than the 29-year-old rule in the Albrecht decision.\nThe clear and straightforward per se rule against maximum price-fixing, which has served this Nation well for most of this century, is at risk.\nAlbrecht was merely a reaffirmation of Dr. Miles, Sucony-Vacuum Oil, Parke Davis and many other precedents in a consistent line of cases, which all stand for the same proposition... that price-fixing is price-fixing, whether it is vertical or horizontal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3359.566, 3362.587, 3374.865, 3379.139, 3386.122, 3393.709], "stop_times": [3362.587, 3374.865, 3379.139, 3386.122, 3393.709, 3410.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3359.566}, "reply_to": "20633__3_019", "speaker": "pamela_j_harbour"}
{"id": "20633__3_021", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Then why was it... Dr. Miles was 1911 and Albrecht wasn't until the sixties.\nSo if it was so evident that minimum and maximum are the same and they're all equally bad, why did it take from 1911, till what, 1968 for that light to go on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3410.359, 3416.494], "stop_times": [3416.494, 3427.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3410.359}, "reply_to": "20633__3_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20633__3_022", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "--Actually, it didn't, Your Honor.\nIn 1911, Dr. Miles equated horizontal and... and vertical price-fixing.\nAnd... and, basically, they said that it produced market effects that were functionally the same.\nBut, then, in the Sucony-Vacuum Oil decision, in 1940, this Court formulated the classic definition of a price-fixing agreement... any agreement that fixes, raises, lowers, maintains, or stabilizes prices.\nIn that agreement, maximum and minimum price-fixing was equated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3427.092, 3428.301, 3434.756, 3440.429, 3452.597], "stop_times": [3428.301, 3434.756, 3440.429, 3452.597, 3456.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3427.092}, "reply_to": "20633__3_021", "speaker": "pamela_j_harbour"}
{"id": "20633__3_023", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Well, that may be, but they're arguing for a very basic distinction.\nIn the vertical context, the one, means the consumer pays low prices; in the other, high prices.\nWhere the consumer pays high prices, that's likely to be bad.\nWhere it means the consumer pays lower prices, that's likely to be good.\nI mean, that's a crude distinction, and it requires lots of... but, I mean, I think that's the basic idea, isn't it, for making the distinction between the high and the low, under the antitrust laws?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3456.331, 3460.023, 3467.147, 3471.671, 3475.491], "stop_times": [3460.023, 3467.147, 3471.671, 3475.491, 3488.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3456.331}, "reply_to": "20633__3_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20633__3_024", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Yes.\nIn the States' opinion, price ceilings almost always harm consumers.\nAnd they almost always harm consumers because they can disguise a minimum price, as this Court pointed out in Albrecht and late in Maricopa, or they could be a de facto minimum.\nAnd also they can fa... facilitate collusion.\nAnd as this Court pointed out in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3488.02, 3488.751, 3493.954, 3504.092, 3507.975], "stop_times": [3488.751, 3493.954, 3504.092, 3507.975, 3509.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3488.02}, "reply_to": "20633__3_023", "speaker": "pamela_j_harbour"}
{"id": "20633__3_025", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Can't you use suggested retail prices for that purpose just as effectively?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3509.235], "stop_times": [3513.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3509.235}, "reply_to": "20633__3_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__3_026", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "--I'm sorry, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3513.519], "stop_times": [3516.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3513.519}, "reply_to": "20633__3_025", "speaker": "pamela_j_harbour"}
{"id": "20633__3_027", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Why can't you use suggested retail prices for that purpose just as effectively?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3516.09], "stop_times": [3520.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3516.09}, "reply_to": "20633__3_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__3_028", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Well, in fact, that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3520.101], "stop_times": [3521.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3520.101}, "reply_to": "20633__3_027", "speaker": "pamela_j_harbour"}
{"id": "20633__3_029", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "I mean, if... if you're trying to get a de facto minimum.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3521.183], "stop_times": [3524.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3521.183}, "reply_to": "20633__3_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20633__3_030", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "--I believe that that suggestion by Your Honor is an alternative that can be used instead of the price ceiling.\nPrice ceilings are almost always anti-competitive.\nAnd there are alternatives that are less pernicious to competition, such as suggested retail pricing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3524.425, 3535.141, 3539.905], "stop_times": [3535.141, 3539.905, 3545.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3524.425}, "reply_to": "20633__3_029", "speaker": "pamela_j_harbour"}
{"id": "20633__3_031", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Harbour.\nYour time has expired.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3545.389, 3545.709], "stop_times": [3545.709, 3546.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3545.389}, "reply_to": "20633__3_030", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20633__3_032", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "You're welcome.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3546.678], "stop_times": [3547.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3546.678}, "reply_to": "20633__3_031", "speaker": "pamela_j_harbour"}
{"id": "20633__3_033", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Mr. Baumgartner, you have 1 minute remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3547.299], "stop_times": [3549.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3547.299}, "reply_to": "20633__3_032", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20633__4_000", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "We have nothing further, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3549.643], "stop_times": [3552.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3549.643}, "reply_to": "20633__3_033", "speaker": "john_baumgartner"}
{"id": "20633__4_001", "conversation_id": "20633", "text": "Very well, the case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-871", "start_times": [3552.725], "stop_times": [3554.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3552.725}, "reply_to": "20633__4_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19939__0_000", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-643, Steel Company, also known as Chicago Steel and Pickling Company, v. Citizens for a Better Environment.\nMr. Stein.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [0.0, 11.53], "stop_times": [11.53, 13.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19939__0_001", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nThis case involves the 60-day notice period in the citizens provision of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, and whether that period is intended to operate as a cure, thereby obviating a citizen's suit, or whether citizens may sue for wholly past violations even after cure.\nAs found by this Court in Gwaltney v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and again in Hallstrom v. Tillamook County, the overriding congressional purpose of environmental citizen provisions is to prompt compliance with environmental laws.\nLitigation ought to be used as a last resort, when other methods have failed.\nOn receiving a 60-day notice under EPCRA, the Steel Company, a small manufacturing company, came into complete compliance, filing the 15 forms required, all within the cure period.\nThe respondent, Citizens for a Better Environment, sued anyway.\nThey alleged no current or ongoing violations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [13.28, 16.303, 35.613, 49.064, 53.695, 65.893, 69.787], "stop_times": [16.303, 35.613, 49.064, 53.695, 65.893, 69.787, 73.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 13.28}, "reply_to": "19939__0_000", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_002", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Let me ask you a question, please, if I may, Mr. Stein.\nWhat if it were the EPA that were coming in asking for penalties to be imposed after the fact of a cure, so to speak, after the forms were actually filed, but the EPA then comes in and says, well, they should have been filed on X date and they weren't, and they've now filed them, but we want a penalty for every day of the nonfiling.\nUnder the statutory scheme, is that permissible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [73.53, 77.612, 104.759], "stop_times": [77.612, 104.759, 107.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 73.53}, "reply_to": "19939__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19939__0_003", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Yes, Justice O'Connor, under our reading of the statute the EPA's enforcement policy comes under section 325 of the statute, a wholly different section than section 326, the citizen provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [107.082], "stop_times": [118.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 107.082}, "reply_to": "19939__0_002", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_004", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Well, the citizen's suit provision I suppose is designed to be a sort of private attorneys general approach, and to let citizens pick up the slack if the EPA doesn't do it, and is there any reason why the citizens suit shouldn't have the same authority, then, to come in and seek a penalty for the failure to file on time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [118.07], "stop_times": [142.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 118.07}, "reply_to": "19939__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19939__0_005", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Yes.\nSeveral reasons, as we see it.\nFirst of all, section 326 is far more limited, giving citizens a more limited enforcement and assistance role than the EPA's authority under section 325.\nIn the citizen provision, a citizen may commence a suit upon the failure to complete or submit the forms.\nThe Sixth Circuit, in analyzing the same language in the United Musical case, found that it was the failure that Congress was looking for.\nEPA's authority is far broader than that.\nAlso, section 326(c) of the statute specifically points out that citizens are able to invoke the court's jurisdiction in the evidence of an enforcement or an injunctive remedy, and then at that time the court can apply penalties if it has jurisdiction through 326, section 326(c).\nIn that respect, the citizen provision of EPCRA is very similar to the citizen provision of the Clean Water Act that this Court analyzed in Gwaltney.\nIn Gwaltney, the Court found many reasons to find that Congress did not expect... intend citizens to sue for wholly past violations, but one of the most convincing was section 505(a) of the Clean Water Act.\nThere, also, the Court found that before a citizen could invoke the court's jurisdiction it had... there had to be some kind of injunctive or abatement remedy that it was seeking and then, and only then, would the Court be willing to address penalties relative to a citizens' action.\nBeyond that, and further answering, we think that if... even if the court below were somehow correct that they can seek wholly past violations, we think it fails the Article III standing test because on that date any injury that would befall a citizen had been fully cured.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [142.726, 143.508, 144.77, 154.497, 160.972, 166.905, 169.346, 186.878, 193.934, 205.2, 219.77], "stop_times": [143.508, 144.77, 154.497, 160.972, 166.905, 169.346, 186.878, 193.934, 205.2, 219.77, 237.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 142.726}, "reply_to": "19939__0_004", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_006", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "What about the attorneys fees and costs that the claimant might have incurred in investigating the claim and filing it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [237.762], "stop_times": [247.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 237.762}, "reply_to": "19939__0_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19939__0_007", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Justice Kennedy, the costs that they incur investigating are also costs that they cannot recover if the EPA comes in under the... under EPCRA.\nThey are barred from suing if EPA comes in under the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [247.909, 254.584], "stop_times": [254.584, 257.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 247.909}, "reply_to": "19939__0_006", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_008", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "They can recover those costs if the violation is not cured after 60 days and the suit proceeds and they prevail, can they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [257.567], "stop_times": [266.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 257.567}, "reply_to": "19939__0_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19939__0_009", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--If they prevail, then they can assert a likelihood for fees--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [266.533], "stop_times": [269.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 266.533}, "reply_to": "19939__0_008", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_010", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--Well, but then it seems to me there may be a... you have a statutory argument.\nI don't see the Article III argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [269.855, 272.526], "stop_times": [272.526, 274.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 269.855}, "reply_to": "19939__0_009", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19939__0_011", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--I think the Court has ruled that penalties alone have to... do not give a party standing.\nThey have to be... a standing has to accrue as an underlying part of the plaintiff's claim and just investigation costs and fees are a byproduct of the litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [274.459, 279.955], "stop_times": [279.955, 288.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 274.459}, "reply_to": "19939__0_010", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_012", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "And what is the proposition... what is a case for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [288.292], "stop_times": [290.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 288.292}, "reply_to": "19939__0_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19939__0_013", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Diamond v. Charles.\nAlso, Lewis v. Continental Bank.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [290.354, 291.782], "stop_times": [291.782, 293.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 290.354}, "reply_to": "19939__0_012", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_014", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "That was just whether or not there was an interest in being a prevailing party per se.\nI'm not sure if it said that Congress couldn't create a cause of action for attorneys fees or investigatory, preparatory fees legitimately and in good faith incurred.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [293.305, 297.836], "stop_times": [297.836, 310.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 293.305}, "reply_to": "19939__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19939__0_015", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "I think there was language.\nI don't know if it said the Congress could not, but here I don't think Congress did.\nI mean, it was... well, there's some addressed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [310.084, 311.286, 314.03], "stop_times": [311.286, 314.03, 317.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 310.084}, "reply_to": "19939__0_014", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_016", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Well, then it's not an Article III question.\nIt's just a statutory question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [317.022, 317.843], "stop_times": [317.843, 319.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 317.022}, "reply_to": "19939__0_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19939__0_017", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--We believe the statutory question here is far more important than... and... than the Court could rule completely under the statute, because under the plain language of that... it is the completion and submission of the forms, the failure of that action, that gives rise to a citizen action, and that's what United Musical found, that's what the district court found.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [319.015, 336.787], "stop_times": [336.787, 337.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 319.015}, "reply_to": "19939__0_016", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_018", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "So on your view, then, if the compliance came after the 60-day period, let's say the time sequence is 60-day period runs, suit is filed on day 70, the defendant comes into total compliance, files all the back forms, the suit would be moot at that point, if I follow your reasoning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [337.068], "stop_times": [360.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 337.068}, "reply_to": "19939__0_017", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19939__0_019", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, at that point, mootness principles would apply and the burden would shift to the defendant to show why mootness would apply and why there would be no likelihood of a recurring violation such as to relieve the court of its jurisdiction.\nBut whereas mootness will lie after the complaint is filed, if it is filed with Article III authority for standing, mootness standing is the plaintiff's burden.\nIt must be proven at the... prior to the complaint being filed, and we don't believe that they had standing in this case at the time the complaint was filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [360.822, 371.129, 380.934], "stop_times": [371.129, 380.934, 388.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 360.822}, "reply_to": "19939__0_018", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_020", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "You're asking us to read the provision in such a way that nobody would have an incentive to file suit.\nIf you say that... even when suit will properly lie, according to you, initially, that is, suit is filed before the defendant comes into compliance, you're saying that suit will be washed out when the defendant complies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [388.781, 395.734], "stop_times": [395.734, 411.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 388.781}, "reply_to": "19939__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__0_021", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Not necess--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [411.355], "stop_times": [411.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 411.355}, "reply_to": "19939__0_020", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_022", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Why would anybody file a suit?\nI can't understand it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [411.775, 412.977], "stop_times": [412.977, 413.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 411.775}, "reply_to": "19939__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__0_023", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--Well, first of all, I think they may file for any number of reasons.\nFirst of all, the Congress was interested in compliance, and interested in citizen enforcement.\nIf the suit, which we think is properly filed after the 60 days, because that's the limit of the cure period... the burden on the defendant at that point is a heavy one to show that there's no further likelihood of an intermittent or recurring violation, and there may be cases where it is mooted, and there may be cases where it is not, but I believe Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [413.999, 416.483, 420.406], "stop_times": [416.483, 420.406, 437.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 413.999}, "reply_to": "19939__0_022", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_024", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Why shouldn't we say that... I guess we don't have to decide that issue in this case, but why couldn't the situation be that so long as you have not filed before... after the 60-day period and before suit is filed against you, you are liable for the penalty that's set forth in the civil provision.\nWould that contradict your theory of this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [437.336, 456.38], "stop_times": [456.38, 459.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 437.336}, "reply_to": "19939__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__0_025", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--If you're filed before the suit was... before the suit was filed, but after the 60 days, I believe standing would not lie.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [459.342], "stop_times": [466.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 459.342}, "reply_to": "19939__0_024", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_026", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "If you file after suit, and after the 60 days, if you come into compliance with the law after the suit is filed and after the 60-day period, why isn't it reasonable to say that the Federal Government intended to give these private attorney generals the right to the penalties accruing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [466.227], "stop_times": [487.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 466.227}, "reply_to": "19939__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__0_027", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "At that point the court would have jurisdiction, Justice Scalia, and the court could apply and determine--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [487.912], "stop_times": [492.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 487.912}, "reply_to": "19939__0_026", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_028", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "You say it's mooted as soon as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [492.053], "stop_times": [493.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 492.053}, "reply_to": "19939__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__0_029", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--Not necessarily.\nNo, I did not say it was... I don't mean to convey that it's mooted.\nI do... I think that the burden severely shifts to the defendant at that point, and the defendant has a heavy burden under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [493.335, 493.796, 496.279], "stop_times": [493.796, 496.279, 503.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 493.335}, "reply_to": "19939__0_028", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_030", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--The penalty alone cannot suffice to sustain a suit, the right to the penalty alone.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [503.415], "stop_times": [507.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 503.415}, "reply_to": "19939__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__0_031", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--After... after filing, if the party did not cure within 60 days--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [507.198], "stop_times": [511.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 507.198}, "reply_to": "19939__0_030", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_032", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Mm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [511.45], "stop_times": [511.74], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 511.45}, "reply_to": "19939__0_031", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19939__0_033", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--And they did file after suit began.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [511.74], "stop_times": [514.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 511.74}, "reply_to": "19939__0_032", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_034", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Mm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [514.692], "stop_times": [515.053], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 514.692}, "reply_to": "19939__0_033", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19939__0_035", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "And the court determines that there is reason for the court to retain jurisdiction, it is not moot in the court's estimation because there is a possibility of further violations, or that the allegedly illegal conduct may continue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [515.053], "stop_times": [525.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 515.053}, "reply_to": "19939__0_034", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_036", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Assume no possibility of further violations, it's your position that the plaintiff's entitlement to the penalty alone wouldn't make any difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [525.49], "stop_times": [531.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 525.49}, "reply_to": "19939__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__0_037", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "The court at that time, after a suit is properly filed, would be able to assess whether its jurisdiction... whether the granting of penalties at that point would have some continuing effect, or some beneficial effect as to the defendant, but if it is mooted the court would lose jurisdiction, I would agree, and therefore the penalties would not apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [531.752], "stop_times": [548.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 531.752}, "reply_to": "19939__0_036", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_038", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Would the penalty ever go to anyone other than the Government?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [548.214], "stop_times": [552.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 548.214}, "reply_to": "19939__0_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19939__0_039", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Not at all, Justice Souter.\nUnder section 325, the Government is the only party entitled to receive the penalties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [552.516, 554.239], "stop_times": [554.239, 558.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 552.516}, "reply_to": "19939__0_038", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_040", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "But even if there were mootness, after the 60-day period ran as a result of compliance there would still be entitlement to attorney's fees, would there not, because the mootness didn't come about until after the case was in court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [558.623], "stop_times": [573.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 558.623}, "reply_to": "19939__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19939__0_041", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "If the court were to retain jurisdiction after properly receiving it, then I assume the court could then address the question of anything within its jurisdiction, including whether or not the prevailing party was the plaintiff, the citizen organization in that case, and whether or not it should receive fees.\nWe do not have a problem with those issues after proper filing, meaning that there is a violation that is ongoing on the date that the complaint is filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [573.362, 587.974], "stop_times": [587.974, 597.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 573.362}, "reply_to": "19939__0_040", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_042", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Well, you're putting in this phrase, retain jurisdiction, and I... maybe Justice Scalia thought you answered his question.\nI still... I'm still not sure of the answer to that question.\nLet's assume that after the 60 days has run, the suit is filed, then it's cured, then it comes before the judge, the judge says there's nothing more to do, I'm going to give no... I'm going to terminate my jurisdiction now, there's no necessity for me to issue some ongoing injunction, but I am going to award attorney's fees.\nCan he do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [597.058, 602.334, 604.568, 624.299], "stop_times": [602.334, 604.568, 624.299, 624.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 597.058}, "reply_to": "19939__0_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19939__0_043", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "I believe, Justice Kennedy, he might be able to determine in that case that because the plaintiff brought the suit, and because it was cured after suit, and presumably the judge could at that point say that it was the action of suit that brought the defendant into compliance, he might be able to find that the plaintiff citizen organization at that time was the prevailing party or substantially prevailing party, as the statute reads, and award fees.\nI think that would be a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [624.54, 648.525], "stop_times": [648.525, 649.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 624.54}, "reply_to": "19939__0_042", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_044", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Well, from the standpoint of mootness and Article III, the precise analysis would apply if the violation were cured before the 60 days.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [649.237], "stop_times": [656.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 649.237}, "reply_to": "19939__0_043", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19939__0_045", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--If... I disagree, because before the 60 days... Congress gave a 60-day period to cure, and Congress gave citizens the right to sue in the event... going back to the statute, in the event cured... in the event there was a failure to comply.\nThat is the right that Congress gave citizens the opportunity to vindicate, if it is vindicated either under the statute or under Article III as we see it, but more strongly under the statute, because we think you can decide this under the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [656.132, 667.94], "stop_times": [667.94, 679.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 656.132}, "reply_to": "19939__0_044", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_046", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Well, what if it is before the 60-day period that the company files the reports, but the plaintiff believes and is prepared to show that the company is likely to be a repeat offender?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [679.439], "stop_times": [694.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 679.439}, "reply_to": "19939__0_045", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19939__0_047", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Justice, in that situation it would be similar to Gwaltney, where the was a possibility, a likelihood of recurrence, and in that case the court could find that there was... that jurisdiction attaches, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [694.599], "stop_times": [705.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 694.599}, "reply_to": "19939__0_046", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_048", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Even though it had been completed and filed, the forms?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [705.617], "stop_times": [709.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 705.617}, "reply_to": "19939__0_047", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19939__0_049", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--Oh, we think under EPCRA it's a very difficult standard to uphold, unlike the Clean Water Act in Gwaltney, where there was complicated--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [709.469], "stop_times": [715.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 709.469}, "reply_to": "19939__0_048", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_050", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "But you say that's possible, and you don't tie that to any language of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [715.752], "stop_times": [721.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 715.752}, "reply_to": "19939__0_049", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19939__0_051", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--I find it theoretically possible, but only on reading the statute academically.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [721.815], "stop_times": [725.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 721.815}, "reply_to": "19939__0_050", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_052", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Isn't the significant point there's no such allegation in this case?\nThey don't allege, if I remember the complaint, that there's a likelihood you will not comply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [725.778, 729.571], "stop_times": [729.571, 733.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 725.778}, "reply_to": "19939__0_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19939__0_053", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "That is correct.\nThey agree that the violation ceases on page 14 of their brief.\nThey acknowledge that the violation ceases on the filing of the forms.\nThis is a case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [733.344, 733.674, 737.448, 740.721], "stop_times": [733.674, 737.448, 740.721, 741.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 733.344}, "reply_to": "19939__0_052", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_054", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "The complaint does not allege a concern about future violations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [741.241], "stop_times": [744.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 741.241}, "reply_to": "19939__0_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19939__0_055", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--It does not, Justice Stevens.\nThis is a case about a wholly past violation, and that is the point, and under EPCRA, which is an information-gathering and information reporting statute, unlike the Clean Water Act that the Court was concerned with in Gwaltney, where there was... I think the Court said the episodic, chronic episodic instances of violation.\nThis is not likely to happen here because of some complicated, especially engineered piece of equipment that might fail.\nLikelihood of recurrence is extremely remote.\nA party would have to be completely asleep.\nSo the likelihood of recurrence, the likelihood of an intermittent injury here, and that's what the Court must look at for a recurring violation, is very remote.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [744.824, 746.266, 764.137, 769.672, 772.505, 774.635], "stop_times": [746.266, 764.137, 769.672, 772.505, 774.635, 780.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 744.824}, "reply_to": "19939__0_054", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_056", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Well, why... no, I mean, there was for 8 years no filing, and then it was called to their attention.\nBy the way, when there was a filing, was it for all the past years or only the most recent year?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [780.88, 785.394], "stop_times": [785.394, 791.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 780.88}, "reply_to": "19939__0_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19939__0_057", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "No, Justice Ginsburg, they filed all 15 forms that were due within the cure period and, as we pointed out both parties rely on the GAO report, that many small companies such as the Steel Company simply were not aware of their requirements, otherwise dutifully compliant with a host of complex environmental laws, and their unawareness... their nonfiling was an innocent unawareness.\nBut upon being given this information, the notice, they filed, and we think that's part of the intent of Congress here.\nCongress gave citizen enforcement in two stages, first with a notice and cure period, and then, and only then, if a party will not heed or cannot heed, for whatever reason, and come into compliance, then Congress gave citizens a very powerful weapon at the end of that 60 days, which was the opportunity to invoke the court's jurisdiction and seek penalties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [791.358, 809.911, 815.106], "stop_times": [809.911, 815.106, 832.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 791.358}, "reply_to": "19939__0_056", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_058", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Mr. Stein, can I ask you, with regard to attorneys fees and the like, they ask in their complaint for all costs in connection with the investigation and prosecution of this matter, including fees, attorneys fees and expert witness fees.\nNow, do you agree that the statute authorizes the award of the investigation costs before suit was filed, or when they were trying to make up their mind whether to file suit?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [832.367, 844.735], "stop_times": [844.735, 854.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 832.367}, "reply_to": "19939__0_057", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19939__0_059", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "I believe, Justice Stevens, they're entitled to those fees if they're a prevailing party, but not if they are not... if they can't bring suit because the defendant cured in the cure period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [854.172], "stop_times": [862.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 854.172}, "reply_to": "19939__0_058", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_060", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "I'm asking, if they are a prevailing party, you agree they get the pre-suit investigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [862.386], "stop_times": [866.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 862.386}, "reply_to": "19939__0_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19939__0_061", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "The court would be able to look into... that would be a subject before the court if they are a prevailing party in a citizens' suit, not if, as here, there was a cure--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [866.821], "stop_times": [872.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 866.821}, "reply_to": "19939__0_060", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_062", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "But the statute says under (f) that the court may award costs of litigation.\nThat's what the statute says, so I guess they are entitled to investigatory costs only if those are part of the costs of litigation.\nIs that right?\nI mean, what we're... I mean, what I would interpret the question to be is, is there something special here by way of costs that are being awarded in this case that are not normally present whenever a statute provides a winning party with costs of litigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [872.945, 880.011, 889.046, 890.077], "stop_times": [880.011, 889.046, 890.077, 905.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 872.945}, "reply_to": "19939__0_061", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19939__0_063", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--And we believe not, Justice Breyer.\nWe believe this is a normal investigation cost that if the EPA should step in barring them from a citizens' suit within a 60-day period, they would not be entitled to those costs.\nThey're only entitled to those costs as the prevailing or substantially prevailing party, and the question is, is, if there is no suit, if cure occurs during the first stage of the congressionally mandated two-stage citizen action period, is that a cost of litigation or is that a normal cost of their activities, which are to assert their interest on behalf of their members.\nSo we think their costs come into it if a party is not able to take heed of the 60-day notice period and not able to cure within that period.\nAt that point, Congress... the congressional goal is satisfied, and the congressional goals achieved.\nCompliance was achieved with this law.\nThe citizens have information that they... the Congress entitled them to have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [905.816, 907.799, 917.707, 935.458, 943.252, 947.356, 949.386], "stop_times": [907.799, 917.707, 935.458, 943.252, 947.356, 949.386, 952.488], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 905.816}, "reply_to": "19939__0_062", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_064", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Mr. Stein, may I ask you this question: one of the arguments that is being made here is that if standing is not found, with the opportunity to go forward with penalties and, of course, get counsel fees and investigatory fees and so on as a result of that, no one is going to have really an incentive... no citizen is going to have an incentive ever to commence one of these proceedings.\nMy question... with that in mind my question is this: is there any requirement that when a citizens organization starts the 60-day period running it must then have concluded that it can prove a case, or could a citizens group simply come forward and say, we don't know of any reason why this particular company should not have been filing these reports.\nIt looks to us as thought they're covered by the law.\nSo we're going to put them on notice that we think they should comply and simply wait and see what happens.\nIn that latter instance if, at the end of 60 days, there hadn't been any compliance, then at that point the citizens organization could decide whether to go ahead and in effect make an investment in legal fees and investigatory fees to see whether it would really be worthwhile to bring action.\nSo that's why I ask the question.\nCan they simply put them on notice, as it were, on the basis of a good faith claim that they ought to be filing, or is there some requirement in the statute or regulations to the effect that they must in effect be ready to establish probable cause, or some such thing, for a violation before they even give the notice that starts the 60 days running?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [952.488, 976.013, 1004.104, 1006.397, 1013.109, 1032.684, 1035.135], "stop_times": [976.013, 1004.104, 1006.397, 1013.109, 1032.684, 1035.135, 1056.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 952.488}, "reply_to": "19939__0_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19939__0_065", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "I'm aware of no provision in the statute that would require the latter.\nI believe it is... the intent of the notice is precisely as you have formulated it, to put the party on notice that they may be out of compliance and that they have 60 days to cure, but if at the end of that period they don't, the court's jurisdiction could be invoked against them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1056.239, 1059.612], "stop_times": [1059.612, 1073.303], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1056.239}, "reply_to": "19939__0_064", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_066", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "So nobody has to make a big investment to get the 60 days running?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1073.303], "stop_times": [1076.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1073.303}, "reply_to": "19939__0_065", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19939__0_067", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "I don't believe so, as, importantly, most of this information is readily available through public filings on the Internet.\nThis is... despite what the Seventh Circuit said, it is not a huge task, we don't believe, to investigate these various instances of innocent unawareness, as the case was here, at least investment of cost, particularly for an organization that is devoted, and has 180,000 dues-paying members, devoted to this particular task.\nBut to be precise, we do not believe it is a very costly or time-intensive activity on behalf of the citizen organization.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1076.625, 1082.591, 1098.47], "stop_times": [1082.591, 1098.47, 1105.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1076.625}, "reply_to": "19939__0_066", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_068", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Well, if that's so, maybe these organizations could just send out standard notices to everybody.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1105.326], "stop_times": [1109.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1105.326}, "reply_to": "19939__0_067", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19939__0_069", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Perhaps, Justice Kennedy, it would be a good idea to help get the word out, because as I say, smaller companies that do not have huge environmental staffs that are able to keep track of all of this have unfortunately gotten caught in this.\nIt would not hurt.\nWe were happy to obtain this information.\nThe Steel Company obtained it, and the first thing they did is, as a dutifully compliant company, compliant with a host of complex laws, said how do we comply, and how fast can we do it, and can we get in within the cure period, and they did, so there is no history here of a company that is trying to dodge or skirt the law.\nIt's quite the contrary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1109.72, 1119.735, 1120.406, 1122.499, 1138.118], "stop_times": [1119.735, 1120.406, 1122.499, 1138.118, 1139.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1109.72}, "reply_to": "19939__0_068", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_070", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Why isn't an adequate explanation of the 60-day cure period that that's the period provided so that EPA itself might come in, instead of having the private plaintiffs do it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1139.369], "stop_times": [1151.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1139.369}, "reply_to": "19939__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__0_071", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "It's perfectly adequate.\nIn fact, quite... as specifically set forth in the statute, section 326(e) says that a citizen's suit is barred.\nThe citizen organization is barred if EPA decides to assert its authority to enforce this law within the 60-day period.\nWe believe... and Hallstrom v. Tillamook looked at this.\nWe believe that that is one of the primary purposes of the notice, to prompt compliance, or enforcement by EPA or compliance by the alleged violator, that it is EPA's primary role to enforce these statutes and, as stated by Congress, by saying that if EPA comes into it... the case and brings an administrative or judicial action within that period, the citizen organization is barred from its complaint.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1151.708, 1152.56, 1158.725, 1164.11, 1166.701], "stop_times": [1152.56, 1158.725, 1164.11, 1166.701, 1189.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1151.708}, "reply_to": "19939__0_070", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_072", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Had that provision not existed I would... I think it would be a very strong argument that the only possible reason for the 60-day period is to give the defaulting company an opportunity to make good, and if the company makes good, then suit cannot be brought after the 60 days, but there is another explanation for the 60 days, as you said.\nIt's to allow EPA to come in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1189.505, 1211.781], "stop_times": [1211.781, 1213.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1189.505}, "reply_to": "19939__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__0_073", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "But Your Honor, the same provision, the same opportunity for the EPA to come in and bar citizen action existed under the Clean Water Act when it was analyzed by Gwaltney, and the Court found the same reasoning.\nThe reason for the notice to EPA is to give it a chance to come in, and the reason for the notice to the alleged violator is for the alleged violator to cure.\nThe Court answered the question, what else could be the purpose of the notice to the alleged violator?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1213.432, 1223.787, 1231.232], "stop_times": [1223.787, 1231.232, 1235.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1213.432}, "reply_to": "19939__0_072", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_074", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "In Gwaltney, though, the case turned on fairly specific language in that act, the present tense of to be in violation, and the Seventh Circuit said they thought the language of this act was different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1235.787], "stop_times": [1247.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1235.787}, "reply_to": "19939__0_073", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19939__0_075", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, Gwaltney used the to be in violation formula, and EPCRA uses the failure to do formulation.\nBeyond that, there are not a whole lot of differences between the two provisions.\nTo be in violation and failure to do are both infinitive phrases.\nFailure and violation are both nouns, no temporal limitation.\nThis is a information-gathering statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1247.064, 1252.687, 1257.292, 1260.635, 1263.306], "stop_times": [1252.687, 1257.292, 1260.635, 1263.306, 1267.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1247.064}, "reply_to": "19939__0_074", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_076", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "There is a temporal... to be in violation, you're currently in violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1267.139], "stop_times": [1270.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1267.139}, "reply_to": "19939__0_075", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__0_077", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "And failure to... and the citizens can--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1270.963], "stop_times": [1273.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1270.963}, "reply_to": "19939__0_076", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_078", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Failure to do means you may have failed to do it in the past, and you failed to do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1273.755], "stop_times": [1277.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1273.755}, "reply_to": "19939__0_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__0_079", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--In Gwaltney--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1277.427], "stop_times": [1278.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1277.427}, "reply_to": "19939__0_078", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_080", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Even though you later made good that failure, you did fail to do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1278.105], "stop_times": [1281.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1278.105}, "reply_to": "19939__0_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__0_081", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--In Gwaltney, the argument was advanced that to be in violation also could have a temporal limitation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1281.919], "stop_times": [1286.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1281.919}, "reply_to": "19939__0_080", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_082", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "That was a bad argument.\nThis isn't a bad argument.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1286.243, 1286.543, 1287.655], "stop_times": [1286.543, 1287.655, 1288.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1286.243}, "reply_to": "19939__0_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__0_083", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--Well, we submit that failure to do is, as used here is forward-looking also, and Gwaltney studied the legislative history of the Clean Water Act... there's very little of it here in EPCRA... and the Clean Air Act, the templates that were used for citizen provisions, and found that citizen provisions are intended to be forward-looking.\nFailure... understand... I'll try and make clear... I hope I make clear that failure to do is the operant... the condition before a citizen's suit can be brought.\nIn the absence of the failure, a citizen's suit is not permitted, so failure to do is a phrase which talks about inaction.\nIn the absence of inaction, the presence of action, a citizen's suit is barred.\nUnited Musical found that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1288.706, 1303.975, 1313.882, 1321.008, 1324.688], "stop_times": [1303.975, 1313.882, 1321.008, 1324.688, 1325.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1288.706}, "reply_to": "19939__0_082", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_084", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "I would like you to go back for a minute to this costs, getting your cost.\nWhat is your response to the following fairly simple argument that has to do with whether their injury is redressable, which I take it is the standing question?\nYou'd say, well, how did this hurt you, their violation?\nAnswer: you are an environmental group.\nThe violation hurt you in that you were forced to live in a world without information, or you had to spend some money to cure the lack of information, and the spending of money involved putting the company on notice, and then they cured it.\nAnd so what we do in this statute is, we don't allow you in respect to past violations... we don't completely help you out, but we help you a little.\nEither they will be stopped in their tracks by the court because they didn't comply, or if they did comply, we will give you back some of the money you spent getting them to comply, and therefore we are redressing your harm, not all of it, but some of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1325.779, 1331.423, 1339.558, 1343.451, 1345.893, 1361.893, 1372.072], "stop_times": [1331.423, 1339.558, 1343.451, 1345.893, 1361.893, 1372.072, 1388.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1325.779}, "reply_to": "19939__0_083", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19939__0_085", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Your Honor, if it were that simple, it might be easier, but they are not asking for their attorneys fees alone.\nThey're asking for $537 million in penalties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1388.802, 1393.625], "stop_times": [1393.625, 1396.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1388.802}, "reply_to": "19939__0_084", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_086", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "But I have to worry about a different question.\nI take it one of the questions that I'd have to answer in this case is whether there is standing, and the reason you argue there is not is because their injury is not redressable insofar as they were injured, it was redressed.\nThis lawsuit doesn't redress it.\nHence my question.\nIs the lawsuit aimed at redressing a different part of their injury, namely, the cost of investigating the matter and bringing it to the attention of the company, and the lawsuit gives them some of that money back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1396.049, 1398.65, 1414.53, 1417.072, 1419.185], "stop_times": [1398.65, 1414.53, 1417.072, 1419.185, 1431.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1396.049}, "reply_to": "19939__0_085", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19939__0_087", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "At the time the complaint was filed, they had no injury.\nTheir costs are a byproduct of their litigation.\nEvery party who had some cost--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1431.784, 1433.797, 1435.79], "stop_times": [1433.797, 1435.79, 1436.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1431.784}, "reply_to": "19939__0_086", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_088", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "You're saying the statute does not give them back their cost except insofar as they are related to this litigation, which took place as part of the litigation decision, not as the other decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1436.979], "stop_times": [1449.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1436.979}, "reply_to": "19939__0_087", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19939__0_089", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1449.358], "stop_times": [1449.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1449.358}, "reply_to": "19939__0_088", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_090", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "And how do I look that up?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1449.799], "stop_times": [1450.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1449.799}, "reply_to": "19939__0_089", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19939__0_091", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "You find it in the statute, which says that they are entitled to receive their cost if they are the prevailing or substantially prevailing party, but since they can't get to court because there is no standing on the day the complaint was filed, they don't have the opportunity to prevail, Congress gave the defendant in this case, who should not be a defendant, the opportunity to cure, obviating the suit.\nAnd when Gwaltney studied this it said, you know, the citizens don't get their pre-investigation costs if EPA were to come in either, so the Congress was not necessarily that interested in those costs, only in the event a party could not heed the 60-day notice, could not come into compliance, we have severe costs, then they could get those extraordinary costs as being the substantially prevailing party.\nMr. Chief Justice, I'd like to reserve the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1450.93, 1468.211, 1488.644], "stop_times": [1468.211, 1488.644, 1490.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1450.93}, "reply_to": "19939__0_090", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__0_092", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Very well, Mr. Stein.\nMr. Strauss, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1490.426, 1491.578], "stop_times": [1491.578, 1493.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1490.426}, "reply_to": "19939__0_091", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19939__1_000", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nLet me begin with the language of section 326 of EPCRA, the citizen's suit provision, both what it is and what it is not.\nSection 326 provides that a citizen may bring a suit for a failure to complete and submit a form under section 312, or under section 313.\nThat citizen's suit provision does not occur, that form of citizen's suit provision does not occur anywhere else.\nThe kind of citizen's suit provision that was before the Court in Gwaltney used the term, alleged to be in violation.\nThat provision is ubiquitous throughout citizen's suit provisions that Congress has enacted.\nAlleged--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1493.989, 1501.596, 1508.931, 1518.366, 1524.529, 1530.354, 1535.318], "stop_times": [1501.596, 1508.931, 1518.366, 1524.529, 1530.354, 1535.318, 1536.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1493.989}, "reply_to": "19939__0_092", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_001", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "I have three statutes that use the word, occur.\nOne is CERCLA, one is RCRA, and one is TOSCA, and they all use in the venue provision the word occurred, and then in the liability provision... they're rather parallel to this one, aren't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1536.478, 1538.328], "stop_times": [1538.328, 1549.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1536.478}, "reply_to": "19939__1_000", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19939__1_002", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--The venue provision uses the word occur, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1549.067], "stop_times": [1552.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1549.067}, "reply_to": "19939__1_001", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_003", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1552.42], "stop_times": [1552.6], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1552.42}, "reply_to": "19939__1_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19939__1_004", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "What I'm focusing on is the provision that authorizes citizen's suits, which in those three statutes contains the phrase, alleged to be in violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1552.6], "stop_times": [1559.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1552.6}, "reply_to": "19939__1_003", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_005", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Right, and so they're parallel to this one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1559.274], "stop_times": [1560.987], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1559.274}, "reply_to": "19939__1_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19939__1_006", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "No, this statute does not contain the phrase, alleged to be in violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1560.987], "stop_times": [1563.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1560.987}, "reply_to": "19939__1_005", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_007", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Well, in violation of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1563.976], "stop_times": [1565.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1563.976}, "reply_to": "19939__1_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19939__1_008", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "It says, failure to complete and submit a form.\nThe alleged to be in violation formulation, which is the formulation that the Court held in Gwaltney, a case with facts somewhat parallel to this, led to the conclusion for which petitioners contend.\nThat formulation does not occur in this statute.\nWhat this statute contains is the phrase, failure to complete and submit a form under section 312 and section 313.\nThe evidence that this is a deliberate choice by Congress is really quite overwhelming.\nIn the very same public law that enacted EPCRA, Congress also enacted the Superfund amendments.\nThe Superfund amendments contain a citizen's suit provision.\nThat citizen's suit provision used the alleged to be in violation formulation.\nEPCRA used a different one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1565.157, 1568.13, 1578.897, 1581.33, 1587.913, 1592.497, 1598.363, 1601.015, 1604.855], "stop_times": [1568.13, 1578.897, 1581.33, 1587.913, 1592.497, 1598.363, 1601.015, 1604.855, 1606.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1565.157}, "reply_to": "19939__1_007", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_009", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--It couldn't have used that language here.\nI mean, if he complies... well, anyway, I'm sorry.\nI'll withdraw my question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1606.207, 1609.48, 1614.075], "stop_times": [1609.48, 1614.075, 1615.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1606.207}, "reply_to": "19939__1_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19939__1_010", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Justice Stevens, then they could have used that language.\nAlleged to be in violation, had it been used in EPCRA, would lead quite logically--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1615.417, 1617.53], "stop_times": [1617.53, 1621.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1615.417}, "reply_to": "19939__1_009", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_011", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Mr. Strauss, the violation here, the only requirement is that you file a form, so then it's logical to talk about failure to file or submit a form.\nIn the other statutes, perhaps more encompassing, there would be a reason to use language, alleged to be in violation, because there were many things that could violate the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1621.013, 1628.118], "stop_times": [1628.118, 1637.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1621.013}, "reply_to": "19939__1_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19939__1_012", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--Well, Justice Ginsburg, there's... the requirement in EPCRA is that you file a form by a certain date, and what the statute says is, failure to complete and submit a form under sections 312 and 313.\nSections 312 and 313 contain deadlines, and it seems to us that if you do not you are guilty of a failure to complete and submit a form under section 312 if you don't meet the deadlines in 312.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1637.235, 1648.371], "stop_times": [1648.371, 1660.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1637.235}, "reply_to": "19939__1_011", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_013", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Well, you don't have to read it that way.\nI mean, it does possibly suggest to you that if the form is completed and filed, it meets the requirement regardless of when.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1660.73, 1662.49], "stop_times": [1662.49, 1671.987], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1660.73}, "reply_to": "19939__1_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19939__1_014", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Then I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1671.987], "stop_times": [1673.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1671.987}, "reply_to": "19939__1_013", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_015", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "It's a little... it's open to that interpretation, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1673.329], "stop_times": [1676.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1673.329}, "reply_to": "19939__1_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19939__1_016", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--Well, Justice O'Connor, then I don't know why the language about under that section would be in the statute, failure to complete and submit a form under section 312.\nIn fact, I'm--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1676.762, 1686.077], "stop_times": [1686.077, 1686.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1676.762}, "reply_to": "19939__1_015", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_017", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Because 312 is the statute that says the forms will be filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1686.496], "stop_times": [1690.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1686.496}, "reply_to": "19939__1_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19939__1_018", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--Well, I'm actually... I'm actually omitting a part of the statute.\nIt says, failure to complete and submit an inventory form under section 312, so the reference to section 312 wasn't even needed to say which form they had in mind.\nAnd not only that, Justice O'Connor, but it's quite clear from the structure of the statute and from the purposes of the statute that timeliness is not an incidental requirement.\nTimeliness is at the core of what the statute is about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1690.849, 1693.471, 1703.038, 1711.674], "stop_times": [1693.471, 1703.038, 1711.674, 1714.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1690.849}, "reply_to": "19939__1_017", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_019", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Well, but the 60-day notice provision has to be factored in, too.\nIt must have been there for a purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1714.097, 1717.499], "stop_times": [1717.499, 1719.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1714.097}, "reply_to": "19939__1_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19939__1_020", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Well, absolutely, Justice O'Connor, and Mr. Stein referred to it as a 60-day cure provision, which is a curious reference for a number of reasons.\nHere's one.\nThe Clean Air Act contained the phrase, alleged to be in violation.\nAfter this Court's decision in Gwaltney, Congress... it also has a notice period.\nAfter Gwaltney, this Court amended, or the Congress amended the Clean Air Act to include the phrase, or to have violated, making it clear that Gwaltney was not to apply to the Clean Air Act, but Congress left the notice period intact in the Clean Air Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1719.452, 1728.398, 1728.629, 1732.662, 1736.665], "stop_times": [1728.398, 1728.629, 1732.662, 1736.665, 1749.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1719.452}, "reply_to": "19939__1_019", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_021", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "But wasn't it more than that?\nWasn't it simply that they didn't... that they violated it on one occasion, but wasn't there something built into that amending language that suggests that the person was a repeat violator?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1749.642, 1751.555], "stop_times": [1751.555, 1762.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1749.642}, "reply_to": "19939__1_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19939__1_022", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Yes, exactly so, Justice Ginsburg.\nAlleged to have violated, if there is evidence that the violation has been repeated, but that could still be entirely in the past.\nIt could be a violation in the past, repeated in the past.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1762.331, 1764.301, 1770.536], "stop_times": [1764.301, 1770.536, 1773.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1762.331}, "reply_to": "19939__1_021", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_023", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Such evidence would allow this suit to proceed anyway, on the theory that there's likely to be a repetition.\nOpposing counsel acknowledges that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1773.238, 1778.901], "stop_times": [1778.901, 1782.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1773.238}, "reply_to": "19939__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__1_024", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "I think that's right, Justice Scalia.\nWhat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1782.363, 1786.808], "stop_times": [1786.808, 1787.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1782.363}, "reply_to": "19939__1_023", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_025", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "I don't think... how you can agree with that, because the complaint doesn't allege that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1787.078], "stop_times": [1790.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1787.078}, "reply_to": "19939__1_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19939__1_026", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--Well, Justice Stevens, what we do in the complaint, we ask for an injunction that will allow us to look at their property in the records.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1790.408], "stop_times": [1796.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1790.408}, "reply_to": "19939__1_025", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_027", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--and so forth, but you don't allege there's any risk of continuing violations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1796.712], "stop_times": [1800.195], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1796.712}, "reply_to": "19939__1_026", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19939__1_028", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Justice Stevens, we don't know.\nWe don't know what the story is.\nAll we know is, they didn't file.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1800.195, 1800.836, 1801.707], "stop_times": [1800.836, 1801.707, 1803.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1800.195}, "reply_to": "19939__1_027", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_029", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Then your burden, normally you have to make an allegation then try and prove it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1803.008], "stop_times": [1806.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1803.008}, "reply_to": "19939__1_028", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19939__1_030", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Well, we don't know whether they would or would not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1806.162], "stop_times": [1808.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1806.162}, "reply_to": "19939__1_029", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_031", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Well then, you don't have any cause of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1808.042], "stop_times": [1809.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1808.042}, "reply_to": "19939__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__1_032", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1809.564], "stop_times": [1809.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1809.564}, "reply_to": "19939__1_031", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_033", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "If you must know something to bring a suit, and you don't know it, you don't have a suit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1809.834], "stop_times": [1813.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1809.834}, "reply_to": "19939__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__1_034", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--Justice Scalia, we don't see anywhere in the statute where it says this has to be a repeat violation.\nIt says there has to be a failure to submit a form under a section with a deadline, a deliberately chosen provision that differs from all other citizen's suit provisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1813.786, 1818.62], "stop_times": [1818.62, 1826.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1813.786}, "reply_to": "19939__1_033", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_035", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "But that's fine.\nYou could allege that they didn't do this on this one occasion.\nYou say that's all that this statute required.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1826.586, 1826.796, 1829.269], "stop_times": [1826.796, 1829.269, 1831.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1826.586}, "reply_to": "19939__1_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19939__1_036", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1831.791], "stop_times": [1832.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1831.791}, "reply_to": "19939__1_035", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_037", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "I thought the question was, are you asserting a continuing violation, or any reason to project that there might be one, and I think the... your answer candidly is, the statute didn't require it and we didn't plead it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1832.042], "stop_times": [1848.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1832.042}, "reply_to": "19939__1_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19939__1_038", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "What we pled was, what we asked for was authorization to inspect their property.\nWe may know down the road whether they are right in saying that they simply didn't know about the statute and now they've gotten everything in order, or maybe that's not the case.\nWe just don't know.\nThis complaint was dismissed.\nBut the statute doesn't contain any reference to repetition.\nThe statute says, a failure to complete and submit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1848.07, 1854.234, 1863.341, 1863.651, 1866.824, 1869.275], "stop_times": [1854.234, 1863.341, 1863.651, 1866.824, 1869.275, 1871.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1848.07}, "reply_to": "19939__1_037", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_039", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "No, but it's relevant to the question of standing, because we're trying to focus on exactly what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1871.769], "stop_times": [1875.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1871.769}, "reply_to": "19939__1_038", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19939__1_040", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Mm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1875.202], "stop_times": [1875.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1875.202}, "reply_to": "19939__1_039", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_041", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--your injury is, and if your injury is a fear of continuing violations, you could allege that and presumably prove it, if they were people who didn't obey the law over and over again.\nBut here, the facts don't seem to suggest that, and it's not alleged in the complaint.\nThe only injury that you refer to in the briefs and all is a costs of investigation which you want to get reimbursed for, but you don't allege in your complaint you have any costs of investigation, either.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1875.362, 1883.939, 1887.731], "stop_times": [1883.939, 1887.731, 1897.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1875.362}, "reply_to": "19939__1_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19939__1_042", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Well, we allege in the complaint that we undertook an investigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1897.167], "stop_times": [1899.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1897.167}, "reply_to": "19939__1_041", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_043", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "No.\nYou generally follow what happens in the environmental community.\nI don't think you allege you spent any money beyond your normal, routine expenses in investigating this company.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1899.788, 1900.048, 1903.361], "stop_times": [1900.048, 1903.361, 1908.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1899.788}, "reply_to": "19939__1_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19939__1_044", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Oh, absolutely, Justice Stevens.\nWe conducted an investigation of this company--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1908.616, 1909.787], "stop_times": [1909.787, 1911.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1908.616}, "reply_to": "19939__1_043", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_045", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "You don't allege it, is what I'm saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1911.578], "stop_times": [1912.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1911.578}, "reply_to": "19939__1_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19939__1_046", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--I think we allege in there that we conducted an investigation of the company, but I'll find the page reference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1912.99], "stop_times": [1920.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1912.99}, "reply_to": "19939__1_045", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_047", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "If it would suffice for standing for everybody to get the costs of bringing the suit, gee, everybody would have standing for any suit at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1920.406], "stop_times": [1930.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1920.406}, "reply_to": "19939__1_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__1_048", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Justice Scalia, that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1930.321], "stop_times": [1931.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1930.321}, "reply_to": "19939__1_047", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_049", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "You know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1931.342], "stop_times": [1931.593], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1931.342}, "reply_to": "19939__1_048", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19939__1_050", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--That's right, but that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1931.593], "stop_times": [1933.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1931.593}, "reply_to": "19939__1_049", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_051", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--whatever it cost you to bring the suit gives you standing to bring the suit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1933.553], "stop_times": [1936.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1933.553}, "reply_to": "19939__1_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__1_052", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--Here's why this statute is... here's why this statute is different, Justice Scalia, and why that argument, which is, of course, right, does not apply, and the point Justice Kennedy and Justice Breyer made in their questions to my colleague.\nIn... before we could file the notice, we had to conduct an investigation to find out information that they, had they been complying with the law, would have made readily available.\nBecause they didn't comply with the law and make this information available, we had to dig it out.\nIf we win the case, we'll get the money back that will compensate us for doing work we only had to do because they didn't give us the information.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1936.154, 1946.773, 1957.59, 1962.522], "stop_times": [1946.773, 1957.59, 1962.522, 1969.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1936.154}, "reply_to": "19939__1_051", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_053", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Well, isn't that a simple matter?\nAs your opposing counsel said, it's on the Internet whether or not they filed the report.\nIf the report had been filed, there it would be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1969.017, 1969.358, 1974.944], "stop_times": [1969.358, 1974.944, 1977.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1969.017}, "reply_to": "19939__1_052", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19939__1_054", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Whether they filed the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1977.248], "stop_times": [1978.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1977.248}, "reply_to": "19939__1_053", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_055", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "So you find out they didn't file it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1978.617], "stop_times": [1980.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1978.617}, "reply_to": "19939__1_054", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19939__1_056", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--Whether they filed the report is on the Internet, Justice O'Connor.\nWhat is not on the Internet is that they use and release large amounts of hydrochloric acid from their premises.\nWe can't go on their premises.\nWe have to put... piece together from various... from tips from people in the community and various sources of information--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1980.19, 1982.56, 1988.106, 1989.455], "stop_times": [1982.56, 1988.106, 1989.455, 1995.209], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1980.19}, "reply_to": "19939__1_055", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_057", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Well, you don't need much of that.\nYou know what the companies in the business--\n--Is that--\n--are doing.\nThe gist of the action is failure to file the report, not trying to show the report is untrue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [1995.209, 1996.51, 1997.99, 1998.27, 1998.521], "stop_times": [1996.51, 1997.99, 1998.27, 1998.521, 2005.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1995.209}, "reply_to": "19939__1_056", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19939__1_058", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--In this case they filed no report.\nBecause they filed no report, we had to dig out information that should have been publicly available.\nThe purpose of the act is to make this information available to us and our members.\nIt wasn't, because they violated it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2005.376, 2008.529, 2013.711, 2017.474], "stop_times": [2008.529, 2013.711, 2017.474, 2019.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2005.376}, "reply_to": "19939__1_057", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_059", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "So you say you would have benefited had they filed their report, because you wouldn't have had to dig out the information yourself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2019.615], "stop_times": [2026.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2019.615}, "reply_to": "19939__1_058", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19939__1_060", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "That's right, Mr. Chief Justice, or the reverse of that, that because they didn't file reports, we had to dig this information out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2026.751], "stop_times": [2033.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2026.751}, "reply_to": "19939__1_059", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_061", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Why did you--\n--You dug it out for some independent purpose, not just to try to show that their report might be false?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2033.356, 2033.586], "stop_times": [2033.586, 2039.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2033.356}, "reply_to": "19939__1_060", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19939__1_062", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Well, they filed no report.\nWe dug it out to determine whether they had failed to file a report.\nThis goes to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2039.979, 2040.83, 2044.273], "stop_times": [2040.83, 2044.273, 2045.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2039.979}, "reply_to": "19939__1_061", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_063", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Why do you need to dig it out in order to determine whether they failed to file a report?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2045.315], "stop_times": [2049.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2045.315}, "reply_to": "19939__1_062", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19939__1_064", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--Excuse me.\nWhether they failed to file a report that they should have filed.\nWhether they had on their premises the kind of substances that trigger the obligation to file a report.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2049.416, 2049.786, 2051.789], "stop_times": [2049.786, 2051.789, 2057.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2049.416}, "reply_to": "19939__1_063", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_065", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Well, what is your answer to Mr. Stein's point in responding to one of my questions that you didn't have to dig at all?\nIf you had any reasonable suspicion that they should have filed a report, all you had to do was put them on the spot and say, we claim you should have, the 60 days are running, and if at the end of the 60 days they had not filed a report, then you could have... you would have had a basis for saying... or you could have made a decision at that point as to whether to invest something further into this investigation, but you didn't have to do the digging, according to him, that you claim you did.\nIs he wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2057.063, 2063.058, 2089.235], "stop_times": [2063.058, 2089.235, 2090.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2057.063}, "reply_to": "19939__1_064", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19939__1_066", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Justice Souter, the notice provision says notice of the alleged violation.\nI think if we sent the petitioner just a general notice that said, we think you're violating EPCRA, with no specifics, they would be justified in coming in when we brought suit and saying, you didn't give us 60 days' notice of the alleged violation.\nYou have to tell us more than just, we think you're violating the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2090.076, 2093.288, 2105.907], "stop_times": [2093.288, 2105.907, 2108.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2090.076}, "reply_to": "19939__1_065", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_067", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Well, all you'd have to do is say, we think you're discharging certain substances into the air, you've filed no report, and we think you have a duty to do so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2108.728], "stop_times": [2114.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2108.728}, "reply_to": "19939__1_066", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19939__1_068", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Well, we have to determine that they are discharging or have on their premises certain substances, which it's not easy to do.\nIt's not easy to determine not only certain substances, but the quantities have to exceed certain thresholds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2114.503, 2120.439], "stop_times": [2120.439, 2124.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2114.503}, "reply_to": "19939__1_067", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_069", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "You don't have to know the details.\nEven if it's just an ounce there's a duty to file... maybe there's a minimum threshold.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2124.561, 2125.011], "stop_times": [2125.011, 2129.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2124.561}, "reply_to": "19939__1_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19939__1_070", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "There's a threshold.\nThey have to exceed the threshold.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2129.044, 2129.514], "stop_times": [2129.514, 2130.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2129.044}, "reply_to": "19939__1_069", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_071", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "What do you say about Mr. Stein's answer to my question.\nHe had a pretty good answer, I thought, that he said that the... as far as the harm goes in respect to your not having the report filed, well, that was cured, so this suit doesn't aim to get you that, and as far as the costs go, in paragraph (e) of your complaint what you actually ask for is to award the plaintiff all of its investigation and prosecution costs and others as authorized by section 326(f), and then he says, if I read section 326(f) I'll see that it authorizes litigation costs, pure and simple, and so it can't help you redressing that kind of harm without opening the door to Article III being no limitation on the lawsuits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2130.696, 2133.828], "stop_times": [2133.828, 2177.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2130.696}, "reply_to": "19939__1_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19939__1_072", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Justice Breyer, the statutory provision authorizes an award of litigation costs.\nThis Court has said actually that a more narrow provision authorizing just attorney's fees that the work must be useful and of a type ordinarily necessary.\nThat's the standard the court has used.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2177.148, 2182.34, 2191.867], "stop_times": [2182.34, 2191.867, 2193.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2177.148}, "reply_to": "19939__1_071", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_073", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "I don't think attorney's fees is narrower.\nI think it's broader.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2193.309, 2195.11, 2195.841], "stop_times": [2195.11, 2195.841, 2196.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2193.309}, "reply_to": "19939__1_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__1_074", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Well, this says litigation costs--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2196.342], "stop_times": [2198.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2196.342}, "reply_to": "19939__1_073", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_075", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--litigation costs is a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2198.463], "stop_times": [2199.334], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2198.463}, "reply_to": "19939__1_074", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19939__1_076", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--Well, this says litigation costs... including attorney's fees and expert witness fees... suggesting that it's broader.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2199.334], "stop_times": [2204.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2199.334}, "reply_to": "19939__1_075", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_077", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--Well, necessary to redress something, not necessary, as it were, in a circular fashion, merely to be in a position to claim attorney's fees--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2204.447], "stop_times": [2212.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2204.447}, "reply_to": "19939__1_076", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19939__1_078", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2212.854], "stop_times": [2213.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2212.854}, "reply_to": "19939__1_077", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_079", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--or investigatory fees, so your claim is still tied to an obligation to come up with some injury that can be redressed by the suit, and number 1 there is no claim here that there's any further redress that you can get for the past failures.\nEverything that can be known is now known.\nThere is no allegation, as I read it, that in fact there is a likelihood of violation in the future.\nNumber 3, if you make your claim for the penalties, you don't get one red cent of that penalty money, as I understand it, so that the only thing that you can obtain that you do not now have is the attorney's fees or the investigatory fees, and they are tied, it seems to me, to litigation which has got to give you some other benefit.\nIn other words, they alone cannot under the statute justify it.\nSo I guess my problem is, if I construe the statute the way you want me to construe it, it seems to me there is a very serious Article III question, and it makes sense to construe the statute in a way which will not raise this Article III question.\nWhat's wrong with that argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2213.002, 2231.844, 2234.176, 2240.59, 2268.539, 2271.561, 2287.823], "stop_times": [2231.844, 2234.176, 2240.59, 2268.539, 2271.561, 2287.823, 2290.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2213.002}, "reply_to": "19939__1_078", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19939__1_080", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Let me first address the point about circularity, Justice Souter, because I do understand the circularity point, and here is why we are not making a circular argument about attorney's fees.\nOne of the injuries they inflicted on us was not giving us information we and our members had a statutory right to.\nAs a result of that, we had to dig out that information ourselves.\nIf we win, we get our costs of digging that out, therefore our injury is redressed.\nA suit under the Clean Water Act, you don't have to clean up the water.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2290.775, 2299.252, 2305.586, 2310.109, 2314.312], "stop_times": [2299.252, 2305.586, 2310.109, 2314.312, 2317.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2290.775}, "reply_to": "19939__1_079", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_081", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "But you're not saying, are you, that the statute gives you a statutory right to that independent of the section that refers to litigation costs?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2317.225], "stop_times": [2326.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2317.225}, "reply_to": "19939__1_080", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19939__1_082", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "The litigation costs provision is the provision that gives us a right to that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2326.742], "stop_times": [2330.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2326.742}, "reply_to": "19939__1_081", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_083", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2330.224], "stop_times": [2331.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2330.224}, "reply_to": "19939__1_082", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19939__1_084", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--To those expenses.\nThe reason it gives us a right to those expenses, to answer Justice Breyer's question on that score, is, we couldn't have signed a Rule 11 statement had we not conducted that investigation.\nWe couldn't have signed a statement saying we believe they have hydrochloric acid on their premises had we not gone out and dug up that information.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2331.163, 2332.275, 2342.252], "stop_times": [2332.275, 2342.252, 2348.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2331.163}, "reply_to": "19939__1_083", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_085", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "You certainly could have at the time you filed your complaint, because they had already filed their reports which told you those facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2348.704], "stop_times": [2353.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2348.704}, "reply_to": "19939__1_084", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19939__1_086", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Well, but we had to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2353.278], "stop_times": [2353.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2353.278}, "reply_to": "19939__1_085", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_087", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "That's when you have to file your Rule 11 statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2353.739], "stop_times": [2355.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2353.739}, "reply_to": "19939__1_086", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19939__1_088", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--Well, but the complaint had to follow on a notice of the alleged violation, otherwise the complaint would be jurisdictionally barred.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2355.432], "stop_times": [2360.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2355.432}, "reply_to": "19939__1_087", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_089", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "In other words, Rule 11 applies at the time you file the complaint.\nYou had all the facts then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2360.424, 2361.746], "stop_times": [2361.746, 2363.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2360.424}, "reply_to": "19939__1_088", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19939__1_090", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Well, that's right, but then it's a jurisdictional prerequisite to the complaint.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2363.906], "stop_times": [2366.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2363.906}, "reply_to": "19939__1_089", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_091", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "In fact, it also seems clear to me as we talk about it more that at the time you filed the complaint your principal injury, which was you were denied this information for a time when you were entitled to it, you had got the information by the time you filed the complaint.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2366.929], "stop_times": [2378.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2366.929}, "reply_to": "19939__1_090", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19939__1_092", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Justice Stevens, what the statute guarantees is timely information.\nPeople who moved into petitioner's neighborhood--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2378.056, 2380.65], "stop_times": [2380.65, 2382.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2378.056}, "reply_to": "19939__1_091", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_093", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2382.833], "stop_times": [2383.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2382.833}, "reply_to": "19939__1_092", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19939__1_094", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--in 1990 aren't benefited by knowing in 1995 that they've been exposed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2383.284], "stop_times": [2387.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2383.284}, "reply_to": "19939__1_093", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_095", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "You are not going to get any redress in this complaint for harms caused by your failure to have that information 3 months ago.\nYou don't get a remedy for, we had to close our windows to keep the odors out, or something like that.\nYou don't get relief for that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2387.205, 2391.708, 2398.802], "stop_times": [2391.708, 2398.802, 2399.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2387.205}, "reply_to": "19939__1_094", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19939__1_096", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--No.\nThat is the injury.\nThat is the injury, Justice Stevens.\nThe redress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2399.624, 2399.864, 2400.375, 2401.706], "stop_times": [2399.864, 2400.375, 2401.706, 2402.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2399.624}, "reply_to": "19939__1_095", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_097", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--for which you are not redressed by this proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2402.217], "stop_times": [2406.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2402.217}, "reply_to": "19939__1_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19939__1_098", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--That injury... that injury that we did not have the information is redressed only to the extent that when we dug it out we will now get paid back for mitigating the injury they inflicted on us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2406.489], "stop_times": [2416.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2406.489}, "reply_to": "19939__1_097", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_099", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Mr. Strauss, in attorney's fees provisions, I mean, there are many in many statutes, and I had thought that the Congress tried more or less to be careful about when it is talking about litigation fees, that is, fees generated post complaint, and fees that happen because of investigation, fees at the agency level, and when Congress speaks of litigation fees, that generally has meant while you're in court, and when it talks about fees before the agency or investigation, that's for that earlier period.\nBut here, the term is litigation fees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2416.867, 2449.419], "stop_times": [2449.419, 2452.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2416.867}, "reply_to": "19939__1_098", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19939__1_100", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "It's litigation costs, Justice Ginsburg, and I agree this would not apply to an agency proceeding, but the Court has made it clear that litigation costs or attorney's fees include work that goes into developing the complaint, as, of course it would have to, investigation you have to do in order to develop, as in the Court's words, the work associated with the development of the theory of the case, and the drafting of the initial pleadings.\nThat sort of pre-complaint work has to be covered by the term.\nIt's an integral, indispensable part of litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2452.451, 2473.464, 2476.978], "stop_times": [2473.464, 2476.978, 2480.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2452.451}, "reply_to": "19939__1_099", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_101", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Yes, but you're saying that this material is... I mean, it seems to me you're arguing that it's two different things.\nFirst you're arguing it is an independent damage and not associated with attorney's fees because we wouldn't have known what stuff was in the air.\nThen, you get damages for this by calling it attorney's fees, or litigation... which is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2480.38, 2485.085, 2493.17], "stop_times": [2485.085, 2493.17, 2500.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2480.38}, "reply_to": "19939__1_100", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__1_102", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "The question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2500.235], "stop_times": [2501.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2500.235}, "reply_to": "19939__1_101", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_103", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Did you do this investigation in order to bring the lawsuit, in which case you can't rely on that for standing, or, did you do it not in order to bring the lawsuit, in which case it's not part of your cause of action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2501.104], "stop_times": [2511.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2501.104}, "reply_to": "19939__1_102", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__1_104", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--As I understand the standing issue, Justice Scalia, the question is, are our injuries being redressed?\nIf we win this lawsuit, our injuries will be redressed.\nThey'll happen to be redressed under a provision that says, litigation costs, but that's immaterial to the Article III question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2511.542, 2517.606, 2520.628], "stop_times": [2517.606, 2520.628, 2524.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2511.542}, "reply_to": "19939__1_103", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_105", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "It depends on why they were undertaken, why these investigations were undertaken.\nWere they undertaken in order to bring this lawsuit?\nIn that case, the statute gives you a right to them, but I question whether you have standing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2524.432, 2526.312, 2528.906], "stop_times": [2526.312, 2528.906, 2533.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2524.432}, "reply_to": "19939__1_104", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__1_106", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "I think they were--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2533.628], "stop_times": [2534.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2533.628}, "reply_to": "19939__1_105", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_107", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--have Article III standing.\nOn the other hand, were they conducted not in order to bring the lawsuit, but just because you wanted to know what was out there in Hyde Park, or wherever, in which case you clearly would have standing, but you have no cause of action under this statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2534.359, 2535.759], "stop_times": [2535.759, 2547.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2534.359}, "reply_to": "19939__1_106", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__1_108", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--Well, they were undertaken for both purposes, Justice Scalia.\nWhat CBE does is to find out information about the communities and if someone is in violation of the law bring suit against them, but I don't know why our purpose in doing this should be material to the redressability inquiry.\nOur injury will get redressed.\nThe fact that it will get redressed under a litigation cost rubric, I don't see where that bears on the Article III problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2547.255, 2549.559, 2562.899, 2564.752], "stop_times": [2549.559, 2562.899, 2564.752, 2570.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2547.255}, "reply_to": "19939__1_107", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_109", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Because it relates to whether they constitute litigation costs.\nIf you would have done this stuff anyway, they're not litigation costs, which is all that you've asked for.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2570.098, 2574.028], "stop_times": [2574.028, 2577.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2570.098}, "reply_to": "19939__1_108", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__1_110", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Well, that goes to the statutory question of whether they are litigation costs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2577.781], "stop_times": [2581.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2577.781}, "reply_to": "19939__1_109", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_111", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Another reason it relates is because, if you say that giving a person litigation costs is sufficient to create an Article III case, then there is virtually... I mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2581.554], "stop_times": [2593.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2581.554}, "reply_to": "19939__1_110", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19939__1_112", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2593.111], "stop_times": [2593.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2593.111}, "reply_to": "19939__1_111", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_113", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--expanded... it's un... you know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2593.341], "stop_times": [2594.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2593.341}, "reply_to": "19939__1_112", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19939__1_114", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "No, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2594.683], "stop_times": [2595.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2594.683}, "reply_to": "19939__1_113", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_115", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2595.031], "stop_times": [2595.472], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2595.031}, "reply_to": "19939__1_114", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19939__1_116", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2595.472], "stop_times": [2595.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2595.472}, "reply_to": "19939__1_115", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_117", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--that's the problem.\nBut if you read it the other way, it seems to make a certain amount of sense.\nThose instances where the company might not comply in the future, you allege that, ask for an injunction, and there you have no standing problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2595.732, 2596.544, 2600.026], "stop_times": [2596.544, 2600.026, 2608.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2595.732}, "reply_to": "19939__1_116", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19939__1_118", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--Well, we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2608.374], "stop_times": [2608.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2608.374}, "reply_to": "19939__1_117", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_119", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "In those cases where there's no significant risk of that at all, you can't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2608.983], "stop_times": [2612.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2608.983}, "reply_to": "19939__1_118", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19939__1_120", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--We--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2612.356], "stop_times": [2613.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2612.356}, "reply_to": "19939__1_119", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_121", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "But of course, then, there wasn't really a case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2613.107], "stop_times": [2615.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2613.107}, "reply_to": "19939__1_120", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19939__1_122", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--We... well, we do ask for an injunction in this case.\nWe do ask for an injunction to look at their materials.\nAs for the question of the circularity and supporting any case, what's different about this statute is that in order to bring this suit we have to remedy the injury that was inflicted on us in order to bring the suit.\nUsually, litigants don't have to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2615.097, 2618.98, 2621.593, 2632.89], "stop_times": [2618.98, 2621.593, 2632.89, 2634.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2615.097}, "reply_to": "19939__1_121", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_123", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Strauss.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2634.49], "stop_times": [2635.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2634.49}, "reply_to": "19939__1_122", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19939__1_124", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2635.632], "stop_times": [2637.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2635.632}, "reply_to": "19939__1_123", "speaker": "david_a_strauss"}
{"id": "19939__1_125", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Mr. Gornstein, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2637.101], "stop_times": [2639.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2637.101}, "reply_to": "19939__1_124", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19939__2_000", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nOur position is that EPCRA authorizes a citizen's suit for failure to file timely reports when the reports are filed only after notice of an intended citizen's suit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2639.204, 2650.083], "stop_times": [2650.083, 2659.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2639.204}, "reply_to": "19939__1_125", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "19939__2_001", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Do you also take the position in the case of suits against the Administrator?\nIf the Administrator is given 60 days' notice, and then before the 60 days expires begins to take the corrective action, can the plaintiffs still sue and recover attorney's fees?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2659.93, 2663.652], "stop_times": [2663.652, 2675.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2659.93}, "reply_to": "19939__2_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19939__2_002", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "They could not recover civil penalties for sure, against the Administrator.\nThe question would be whether there was a sufficient likelihood of recurrence to give them Article III standing.\nThat would be the issue--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2675.59, 2680.055, 2685.701], "stop_times": [2680.055, 2685.701, 2687.271], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2675.59}, "reply_to": "19939__2_001", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "19939__2_003", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Gee--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2687.271], "stop_times": [2687.491], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2687.271}, "reply_to": "19939__2_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19939__2_004", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--in that sort of case, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2687.491], "stop_times": [2689.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2687.491}, "reply_to": "19939__2_003", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "19939__2_005", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--Well, if it's that, then how do you run across the problem here that they haven't alleged anything about recurrence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2689.522], "stop_times": [2695.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2689.522}, "reply_to": "19939__2_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19939__2_006", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--Well, I... first of all, I read the complaint a little differently to be ambiguous on that point at (5) of the Joint Appendix.\nIt says, the right to know about such releases and its interest in protecting and improving the environment and the health of its members have been, are being, and will be adversely affected by the defendant's action in failing to provide timely and required information.\nIt doesn't speak backwards, it doesn't speak forwards.\nIt speaks in terms of the language of the statute there, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2695.326, 2705.132, 2717.842, 2720.533], "stop_times": [2705.132, 2717.842, 2720.533, 2723.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2695.326}, "reply_to": "19939__2_005", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "19939__2_007", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "It sounds as if what it's saying is their failure to file in the past will continue to hurt them in the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2723.525], "stop_times": [2728.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2723.525}, "reply_to": "19939__2_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19939__2_008", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--Well, that's one way of reading it, but they also seek an injunction that looks towards future compliance, it seems to me, that might sort out that ambiguity a little.\nAnd beyond that, Justice Souter, even if this particular... to answer your complaint about the, shouldn't we interpret this more narrowly in light of the constitutional question, even if this particular complaint doesn't allege what is sufficient for a reasonable likelihood of occurrence, that wouldn't mean that some plaintiffs couldn't, and therefore this statute ought not to be interpreted more narrowly than it is, because certainly the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2728.398, 2737.514], "stop_times": [2737.514, 2761.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2728.398}, "reply_to": "19939__2_007", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "19939__2_009", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Oh, I'm not suggesting the... or, I didn't mean to suggest by my question that the statute should be interpreted so narrowly as to preclude standing if there were an allegation of either a continuing violation or the probability of a future violation, but I'm concerned about the interpretive question when there is no question of continuing violation in the sense that they file everything that can be filed with respect to the past, there is no allegation, and we'll leave the question of ambiguity aside for the moment, of the likelihood of a future violation, there is no penalty that can be recovered that will go into the pocket of the private plaintiff, and the only thing which is in issue is the issue of attorney's fees or investigatory fees for the time prior to the moment when litigation could be begun.\nThat's the scenario in which it seems to me there is an Article III, a serious Article III question, and it's on that scenario that I would suggest it might be wise to interpret the statute narrowly to avoid having to reach that issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2761.64, 2812.214], "stop_times": [2812.214, 2826.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2761.64}, "reply_to": "19939__2_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19939__2_010", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--Well, let me just define the class of plaintiffs who have a cause of action here and then say why we think that there's no Article III problem.\nThe class of plaintiffs who have standing are only those class of plaintiffs where the defendants files the report only after receiving notice of an intended citizen's suit.\nThat is what this statute authorized.\nWe derive that not just from the plain language of the citizen's suit provision, which says that you can sue for failure to file untimely reports, but by a contrast between the notice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2826.612, 2833.518, 2844.016, 2846.778], "stop_times": [2833.518, 2844.016, 2846.778, 2857.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2826.612}, "reply_to": "19939__2_009", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "19939__2_011", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "It's not in that language.\nIt doesn't say that.\nFailure to complete and submit reports under section so-and-so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2857.134, 2858.165, 2860.276], "stop_times": [2858.165, 2860.276, 2864.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2857.134}, "reply_to": "19939__2_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19939__2_012", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--Right, and the most natural reading of under in that context is that it incorporates the requirements from the reporting provisions so that they did not have to be repeated all over again in the citizen's suit provision, and one of those requirements is that there has to be timely reports, so a failure to submit and complete reports under those reporting provisions encompasses a suit for the filing untimely reports just as it encompasses a suit for inaccurate information in those reports.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2864.691], "stop_times": [2891.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2864.691}, "reply_to": "19939__2_011", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "19939__2_013", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Well, it may, but do you agree that there is nothing further that can be done to redress the prior failure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2891.438], "stop_times": [2896.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2891.438}, "reply_to": "19939__2_012", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19939__2_014", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "And that's why the Article III question turns on the reasonable likely... the Article III standing question is whether there's a reasonable likelihood of recurrence in that situation, and we submit that the voluntary cessation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2896.761], "stop_times": [2909.289], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2896.761}, "reply_to": "19939__2_013", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "19939__2_015", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "May I interrupt you there, because it's quite important.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2909.289], "stop_times": [2910.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2909.289}, "reply_to": "19939__2_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19939__2_016", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2910.959], "stop_times": [2911.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2910.959}, "reply_to": "19939__2_015", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "19939__2_017", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Then you're saying the reasonable likelihood of recurrence is critical to the standing issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2911.33], "stop_times": [2916.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2911.33}, "reply_to": "19939__2_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19939__2_018", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "It is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2916.322], "stop_times": [2916.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2916.322}, "reply_to": "19939__2_017", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "19939__2_019", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "And that is not alleged here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2916.692], "stop_times": [2918.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2916.692}, "reply_to": "19939__2_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19939__2_020", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2918.365], "stop_times": [2919.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2918.365}, "reply_to": "19939__2_019", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "19939__2_021", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "And you say, well, it might be in other cases, but assume it were alleged in another case but not proved.\nIt's a very difficult thing to prove, if you have a company like this with a history of just an inadvertence and so forth.\nYou are saying the plaintiff would have to prove there is a reasonable likelihood they would not file in the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2919.515, 2923.408, 2928.551], "stop_times": [2923.408, 2928.551, 2932.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2919.515}, "reply_to": "19939__2_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19939__2_022", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--No.\nThere is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2932.454, 2932.745], "stop_times": [2932.745, 2933.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2932.454}, "reply_to": "19939__2_021", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "19939__2_023", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "They can allege it without proving it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2933.285], "stop_times": [2934.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2933.285}, "reply_to": "19939__2_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19939__2_024", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--There is a... no.\nIt has to be alleged that there is a sufficient likelihood of recurrence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2934.527, 2935.768], "stop_times": [2935.768, 2939.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2934.527}, "reply_to": "19939__2_023", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "19939__2_025", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2939.04], "stop_times": [2939.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2939.04}, "reply_to": "19939__2_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19939__2_026", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "But there... the presumption would come that in this scenario where somebody files a report only after being given notice that he's going to be sued, there should be a presumption that there is a sufficient likelihood of recurrence to give the plaintiff Article III standing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2939.37], "stop_times": [2955.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2939.37}, "reply_to": "19939__2_025", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "19939__2_027", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Why, any more than if the police engaged in a certain kind of tactic and were told that that's not good to do, that they're not going to do it any more?\nThere are many cases where it's easy to allege continuing violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2955.26, 2962.584], "stop_times": [2962.584, 2967.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2955.26}, "reply_to": "19939__2_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19939__2_028", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--Well, I think if this Court's voluntary cessation cases do say that when someone comes into compliance only after the commencement of litigation there is a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2967.74], "stop_times": [2977.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2967.74}, "reply_to": "19939__2_027", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "19939__2_029", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "But there is a commencement of litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2977.755], "stop_times": [2979.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2977.755}, "reply_to": "19939__2_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19939__2_030", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--I realize that, but I want to start with the principle that the Court has established--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2979.307], "stop_times": [2984.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2979.307}, "reply_to": "19939__2_029", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "19939__2_031", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "That's not Article III.\nThat's entitlement to an injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2984.03, 2984.29], "stop_times": [2984.29, 2985.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2984.03}, "reply_to": "19939__2_030", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19939__2_032", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--No, it's an Article III doctrine that the Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2985.863], "stop_times": [2989.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2985.863}, "reply_to": "19939__2_031", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "19939__2_033", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "It's mootness, and in a case called mootness... there was a case under the Constitution.\nThere's no argument.\nDo you think those should be parallel?\nIf they're parallel, I don't know what that's going to do to standing law.\nI haven't really thought that through.\nIt never occurred to me that those two things were parallel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [2989.162, 2993.206, 2994.048, 2995.636, 2997.829, 2999.261], "stop_times": [2993.206, 2994.048, 2995.636, 2997.829, 2999.261, 3002.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2989.162}, "reply_to": "19939__2_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19939__2_034", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "They are parallel in an Article III sense, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3002.073], "stop_times": [3004.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3002.073}, "reply_to": "19939__2_033", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "19939__2_035", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "So in any case in which the possibility of recurrence prevents mootness, in any such case, a plaintiff would have standing despite the absence of any... of any ongoing violation.\nThat's a pretty broad--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3004.514, 3015.712], "stop_times": [3015.712, 3016.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3004.514}, "reply_to": "19939__2_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19939__2_036", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "That there would be a prudential standing barrier at that point, because the Court has not carried on on its own the same rules at the standing stage, the same presumptions at the standing stage that it has employed at the mootness stage, but as an Article III matter, any time somebody comes into compliance only because someone has either told them, I'm going to sue you or somebody has filed a lawsuit, there's a presumption.\nNow, that presumption, I hasten to add, can be rebutted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3016.753, 3040.658], "stop_times": [3040.658, 3043.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3016.753}, "reply_to": "19939__2_035", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "19939__2_037", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--What's the presumption--\n--What's the argument for the presumption?\n--based on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3043.151, 3044.552, 3045.443], "stop_times": [3044.552, 3045.443, 3045.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3043.151}, "reply_to": "19939__2_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19939__2_038", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "The voluntary cessation cases that we're relying on include United States v. W. T. Grant, City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, and a whole series of cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3045.643], "stop_times": [3056.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3045.643}, "reply_to": "19939__2_037", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "19939__2_039", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Are they based on--\n--All they show is that if there was originally standing, that there was... it was established that there was going to be a continuing violation.\nThat simply does not eliminate the prior established standing.\nIt's a huge leap from that to say that in and of itself it establishes standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3056.73, 3057.161, 3067.159, 3071.68], "stop_times": [3057.161, 3067.159, 3071.68, 3075.424], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3056.73}, "reply_to": "19939__2_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__2_040", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "No, I don't think it is a huge leap as an Article III matter, because as an Article III matter, the plaintiff at that stage of the litigation has to have a sufficient interest for Article III purposes to carry on the litigation.\nIf the... if it... let's say things had been remedied 1 day after this litigation commenced, 1 day after, you would apply the voluntary cessation cases and you would say there is a presumption that there is a sufficient likelihood of recurrence to keep this case alive, and that could be rebutted only if the defendant has a heavy burden.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3075.424, 3087.291], "stop_times": [3087.291, 3105.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3075.424}, "reply_to": "19939__2_039", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "19939__2_041", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "I would agree with that if the complaint alleged before the voluntary compliance occurred that this person was in violation and would continue in violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3105.651], "stop_times": [3115.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3105.651}, "reply_to": "19939__2_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__2_042", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "But we have a situation, though, where the person has cured that original violation, and the plaintiff at that point has the burden of showing that he has a continuing interest in the litigation.\nThe only way he gets there is through a presumption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3115.058, 3124.985], "stop_times": [3124.985, 3127.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3115.058}, "reply_to": "19939__2_041", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "19939__2_043", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "All right, but let's allege it at least.\nI mean, look, this seems like the simplest approach is also the best approach.\nThe simplest approach would say, in those instances where there's some likelihood of recurrence, the lawsuit's serving an excellent purpose.\nThe lawsuit is.\nAnd in those cases where there is no likelihood whatsoever, the only purpose it's suing is perhaps through the litigation cost thing to give them some of their money back.\nWell, that would be the simple approach, and why not follow that simple approach?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3127.235, 3128.497, 3132.741, 3138.875, 3140.575, 3148.553], "stop_times": [3128.497, 3132.741, 3138.875, 3140.575, 3148.553, 3153.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3127.235}, "reply_to": "19939__2_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19939__2_044", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Well, I think that there's no problem with carrying over the idea that there has to be an allegation, but I think that the important point is that there has to be a presumption with that allegation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3153.164], "stop_times": [3163.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3153.164}, "reply_to": "19939__2_043", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "19939__2_045", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "What's the presumption based on?\nIs it based on our judicial notice that there's an empirical likelihood that when you violate something once, you'll violate it again?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3163.762, 3164.47], "stop_times": [3164.47, 3171.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3163.762}, "reply_to": "19939__2_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19939__2_046", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--It's not an empirical likelihood, but a sufficient likelihood in the scenario where the person only comes into compliance after the commencement of litigation.\nIf somebody is coming into compliance--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3171.806, 3180.242], "stop_times": [3180.242, 3182.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3171.806}, "reply_to": "19939__2_045", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "19939__2_047", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Why is that a likelihood here, when one of the problems is, is that this company just didn't have notice of the statute?\nIt just didn't know about it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3182.004, 3191.669], "stop_times": [3191.669, 3192.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3182.004}, "reply_to": "19939__2_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19939__2_048", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--Well, that's what the company asserts, Justice Kennedy, and that would be something that would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3192.731], "stop_times": [3196.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3192.731}, "reply_to": "19939__2_047", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "19939__2_049", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Isn't this going to be a likelihood in a significant number of these early cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3196.944], "stop_times": [3200.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3196.944}, "reply_to": "19939__2_048", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19939__2_050", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--Well, this is no longer at the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3200.864], "stop_times": [3202.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3200.864}, "reply_to": "19939__2_049", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "19939__2_051", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "I don't know what your presumption is based on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3202.377], "stop_times": [3203.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3202.377}, "reply_to": "19939__2_050", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19939__2_052", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--There's no longer... we're far distant from the time in which this statute was enacted at this point.\nIf the Court has--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3203.696, 3210.422], "stop_times": [3210.422, 3212.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3203.696}, "reply_to": "19939__2_051", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "19939__2_053", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Gornstein.\nMr. Stein, you have 4 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3212.324, 3213.104], "stop_times": [3213.104, 3216.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3212.324}, "reply_to": "19939__2_052", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19939__3_000", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Relative to the term under, the term under appears 27 times in section 326, the citizen provision of EPCRA.\nWe assert in our briefs that under simply relates back, identifies the section of the statute that the citizen opportunity refers to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3216.225, 3227.342], "stop_times": [3227.342, 3236.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3216.225}, "reply_to": "19939__2_053", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__3_001", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "But isn't it equally reasonable to think that it refers to in compliance with the provisions of, rather than just the statute by name?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3236.699], "stop_times": [3244.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3236.699}, "reply_to": "19939__3_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19939__3_002", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, Ardonesti v. INS says that the term under should be taken from the context of the statute, and the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3244.925], "stop_times": [3251.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3244.925}, "reply_to": "19939__3_001", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__3_003", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "I don't think we need that case to tell us that.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3251.039, 3253.242], "stop_times": [3253.242, 3254.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3251.039}, "reply_to": "19939__3_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19939__3_004", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--Well, in any event--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3254.302], "stop_times": [3255.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3254.302}, "reply_to": "19939__3_003", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__3_005", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--what was the name of that case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3255.563], "stop_times": [3256.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3255.563}, "reply_to": "19939__3_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__3_006", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--in the context of this statute, though, I think in the context of the history surrounding the statute, and the context of the way this Court has analyzed citizen suit provisions as being forward-looking, under simply is a relation back.\nAgain, they... respondent suggests that under means in accordance with, but at section 326(a)(1)(B)(iv), and again in section 321(a)(1)(C), Congress did use the in accordance with formulation, and therefore Congress knows how to say, in accordance with, if it wishes to incorporate the specific provisions of the related-to section, and it knows how to use under, as it did 27 times.\nSo we think the better reading, as the United Musical Court looked at it.\nUnder simply relates back, and did not get into what that Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3256.605, 3268.263, 3291.179, 3295.363], "stop_times": [3268.263, 3291.179, 3295.363, 3298.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3256.605}, "reply_to": "19939__3_005", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__3_007", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--So you think if you filed a statement of emissions that was entirely wrong, all the elements and all the quantities are wrong, you'd... suit would not lie?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3298.307], "stop_times": [3311.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3298.307}, "reply_to": "19939__3_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__3_008", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--No, Justice Scalia.\nWe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3311.715, 3312.446], "stop_times": [3312.446, 3312.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3311.715}, "reply_to": "19939__3_007", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__3_009", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "It would have been filed under that provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3312.687], "stop_times": [3313.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3312.687}, "reply_to": "19939__3_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__3_010", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--The... but it's also--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3313.915], "stop_times": [3314.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3313.915}, "reply_to": "19939__3_009", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__3_011", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "It's just not in compliance with it, that's all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3314.866], "stop_times": [3316.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3314.866}, "reply_to": "19939__3_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__3_012", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--No.\nWe think that the complete portion of the complete and submit language suffices for that.\nA form would certainly not be complete--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3316.376, 3316.576, 3320.891], "stop_times": [3316.576, 3320.891, 3322.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3316.376}, "reply_to": "19939__3_011", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__3_013", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "It's completed.\nThere's no blank in the whole thing.\nHe just writes in the wrong elements and the wrong quantities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3322.373, 3322.603, 3324.273], "stop_times": [3322.603, 3324.273, 3326.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3322.373}, "reply_to": "19939__3_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__3_014", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--But we think Congress would not give such an obviously glaring omission in a statute.\nThe complete language connotes some kind of completeness in terms of proper and accurately complete.\nThat's what complete seems to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3326.867, 3331.46, 3336.825], "stop_times": [3331.46, 3336.825, 3338.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3326.867}, "reply_to": "19939__3_013", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__3_015", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "But the language certainly is open, and if it's open, why wouldn't it make a lot of sense to say, in the instance where there's some reason to think they'll do it again, they did it before, maybe they'll do it again.\nOr they didn't do it before, maybe they won't do it again.\nIn such a case, it authorizes the suit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3338.027, 3348.475, 3350.588], "stop_times": [3348.475, 3350.588, 3353.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3338.027}, "reply_to": "19939__3_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19939__3_016", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "It would be inconsistent to apply... if we're talking about under, still, and the timeliness element, it would be inconsistent to apply the timely provisions of section 312 and 313, because Congress had readily available options which it used in other statutes.\nIt could have said, failure to complete and timely submit.\nIt could have said, failure to have completed and submitted.\nIt had many options.\nIt could have given the opportunity to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3353.37, 3365.497, 3367.45, 3369.443, 3371.023], "stop_times": [3365.497, 3367.45, 3369.443, 3371.023, 3372.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3353.37}, "reply_to": "19939__3_015", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__3_017", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Of course, it could have used the language it did in all these other statutes, too.\nBut what's your response to his argument when Congress amended the other statute in response to Gwaltney they just didn't adopt this route?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3372.335, 3374.136], "stop_times": [3374.136, 3381.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3372.335}, "reply_to": "19939__3_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19939__3_018", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--Well, by amending the Clean Air Act in 1970... 1990, to say that the... they can sue for a past violation in the event there is evidence of a repeated violation certainly doesn't amend EPCRA.\nIt only amends the Clean Air Act, or any of the other statutes that use these various formulations in citizen's suits.\nUnited Musical drew strength from the fact that Congress amended the Clean Air Act but not EPCRA to say EPCRA must mean what the citizen's 60-day cure periods mean in 17 other statutes, all 17 of which were cited in a footnote in Hallstrom.\nSo looking at the case as a whole, looking at the context, we think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3381.05, 3392.968, 3400.204, 3412.581], "stop_times": [3392.968, 3400.204, 3412.581, 3417.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3381.05}, "reply_to": "19939__3_017", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__3_019", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "A later Congress' amendment doesn't necessarily show what the earlier Congress meant, anyway.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3417.004, 3421.818], "stop_times": [3421.818, 3422.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3417.004}, "reply_to": "19939__3_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__3_020", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3422.229], "stop_times": [3422.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3422.229}, "reply_to": "19939__3_019", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__3_021", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "--It's as reasonable to think the amendment was meant to change what preexisted as it is to think that it was meant to confirm what preexisted, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3422.439], "stop_times": [3430.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3422.439}, "reply_to": "19939__3_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19939__3_022", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "But we don't think there's any likelihood that Congress would have done that without citing any of that in its legislative history of the Clean Air Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3430.614], "stop_times": [3435.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3430.614}, "reply_to": "19939__3_021", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__3_023", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Stein.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3435.829], "stop_times": [3436.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3435.829}, "reply_to": "19939__3_022", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19939__3_024", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3436.828], "stop_times": [3437.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3436.828}, "reply_to": "19939__3_023", "speaker": "sanford_m_stein"}
{"id": "19939__3_025", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3437.411], "stop_times": [3438.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3437.411}, "reply_to": "19939__3_024", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19939__3_026", "conversation_id": "19939", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-643", "start_times": [3438.561], "stop_times": [3443.796], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3438.561}, "reply_to": "19939__3_025", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20503__0_000", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "We'll go on to Number 97-300, Terry Stewart v. Ramon Martinez-Villareal.\nMr. Ferg, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [0.0, 2.183], "stop_times": [2.183, 4.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20503__0_001", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIt has been said that the principles which guide this Court's habeas corpus jurisprudence are finality, federalism, and fairness.\nIn 1996, Congress conducted its own assessment of those principles and recalibrated the instrument of statutory habeas corpus in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, so now there is a fourth principle which might be called fidelity which must be applied here, by which I mean that this Court, as the supervisor of the lower Federal court system, must ensure that the lower courts are faithfully applying the plain meaning and clear intent of that act.\nIt is critical to read this statute on its own terms, because we sometimes find that we have in effect new wine in old bottles, the same concepts but with new meaning and, therefore, we have to read the statute very, very carefully to understand what exactly it is that Congress was doing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [4.468, 8.67, 15.776, 42.593], "stop_times": [8.67, 15.776, 42.593, 61.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4.468}, "reply_to": "20503__0_000", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_002", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, do you think that Congress may have been trying to tighten up the court's abuse of the writ standards in passing AEDPA?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [61.805], "stop_times": [73.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 61.805}, "reply_to": "20503__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20503__0_003", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nAs a matter of fact, as I pointed out, the way 2244 has been modified simply expunges the concept of abuse of the writ, so that we now have in effect some very clear designations of what is a successive petition and this kind of amorphous concept--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [73.798, 74.664], "stop_times": [74.664, 91.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 73.798}, "reply_to": "20503__0_002", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_004", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Before we had AEDPA, did courts, do you think, apply abuse of the writ standards to Ford claims at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [91.676], "stop_times": [103.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 91.676}, "reply_to": "20503__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20503__0_005", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [103.9], "stop_times": [107.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 103.9}, "reply_to": "20503__0_004", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_006", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "I don't think they did.\nA Ford claim is a little different, since it seems to arise later after the conviction and the sentence and relate to a defendant's mental condition at the time of a scheduled execution, so it wasn't the kind of application that triggered abuse of the writ analysis before AEDPA, was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [107.369, 109.069], "stop_times": [109.069, 132.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 107.369}, "reply_to": "20503__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20503__0_007", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, yes and no.\nThe lower courts did not address that, but this Court in Woodard v. Hutchins did deal with a contention that the individual was currently insane as he was approaching execution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [132.568, 133.753], "stop_times": [133.753, 144.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 132.568}, "reply_to": "20503__0_006", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_008", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Mm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [144.827], "stop_times": [145.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 144.827}, "reply_to": "20503__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20503__0_009", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "And it was indicated by five justices here that that was, in fact, a contention that was subject to abuse of the writ analysis, and so even before AEDPA there had been the indication that in fact that kind of a claim might well be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [145.46], "stop_times": [158.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 145.46}, "reply_to": "20503__0_008", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_010", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "What do you think we do post-AEDPA with claims that really arise later, such as claims arising out of the establishment of good time credits or something of that sort?\nWhat do we do?\nDo we say that that's a successive application for habeas if the thing couldn't even have been raised until good time credits were denied?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [158.285, 175.247, 176.314], "stop_times": [175.247, 176.314, 185.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 158.285}, "reply_to": "20503__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20503__0_011", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--It may well be.\nThe reason for that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [185.971, 186.887], "stop_times": [186.887, 188.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 185.971}, "reply_to": "20503__0_010", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_012", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Is that the position you take, that AEDPA goes that far and that it extends to even those things that could not have arisen before--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [188.754], "stop_times": [198.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 188.754}, "reply_to": "20503__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20503__0_013", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [198.11], "stop_times": [198.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 198.11}, "reply_to": "20503__0_012", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_014", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--the claim was made?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [198.843], "stop_times": [199.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 198.843}, "reply_to": "20503__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20503__0_015", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Because of the plain language of that second exception--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [199.36], "stop_times": [201.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 199.36}, "reply_to": "20503__0_014", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_016", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Uh-huh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [201.895], "stop_times": [202.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 201.895}, "reply_to": "20503__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20503__0_017", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--which says that if it is a matter which you could not have brought the facts forward before, nonetheless, if it does not go to guilt-innocence determinations, then it's excluded.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [202.795], "stop_times": [214.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 202.795}, "reply_to": "20503__0_016", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_018", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "How about a Rose v. Lundy problem?\nAn applicant comes in with several claims on Federal habeas and the district court says, well, you didn't exhaust in State court some of these.\nI'm going to dismiss everything and send you back.\nNow, if a second habeas is then filed, you would say AEDPA bars that there?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [214.135, 217.237, 228.729, 231.414], "stop_times": [217.237, 228.729, 231.414, 239.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 214.135}, "reply_to": "20503__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20503__0_019", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "We have to distinguish your hypothetical as one where the entire petition was dismissed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [239.603], "stop_times": [245.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 239.603}, "reply_to": "20503__0_018", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_020", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Mm-hmm, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [245.507], "stop_times": [246.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 245.507}, "reply_to": "20503__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20503__0_021", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "And our position is in that situation it is in effect not an application which is meaningful.\nHowever, this case was a situation where there was a first petition, where 30 claims were adjudicated on the merits or preclusion basis to the end, and therefore what we're suggesting is that although 2254 has also been modified, particularly so that it is no longer necessary as under Rose to mandatorily dismiss, but the effect for a case where there has been an application where there has been progress to an adjudication of some of those claims on the merits--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [246.107, 252.01], "stop_times": [252.01, 282.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 246.107}, "reply_to": "20503__0_020", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_022", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Was the Ford claim made in the petitioner's first petition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [282.447], "stop_times": [287.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 282.447}, "reply_to": "20503__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20503__0_023", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--It was, and found not ripe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [287.168], "stop_times": [288.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 287.168}, "reply_to": "20503__0_022", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_024", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "And the Federal court said no, we can't deal with this now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [288.868], "stop_times": [294.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 288.868}, "reply_to": "20503__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20503__0_025", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [294.487], "stop_times": [295.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 294.487}, "reply_to": "20503__0_024", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_026", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "But we'll deal with it later.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [295.023], "stop_times": [296.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 295.023}, "reply_to": "20503__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20503__0_027", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "That was the anticipation, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [296.973], "stop_times": [298.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 296.973}, "reply_to": "20503__0_026", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_028", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Are you saying that that determination should have been appealed, i.e., he should have said yes, it is ripe?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [298.641], "stop_times": [305.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 298.641}, "reply_to": "20503__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20503__0_029", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, as a matter of fact that question was raised in the Ninth Circuit and they agreed that that particular claim was properly dismissed as being premature, because there was no warrant for execution.\nIt was years before the likelihood of an execution actually taking place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [305.878, 317.269], "stop_times": [317.269, 320.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 305.878}, "reply_to": "20503__0_028", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_030", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "So what more could he have done?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [320.487], "stop_times": [322.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 320.487}, "reply_to": "20503__0_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20503__0_031", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Under pre-AEDPA he did what he could, and I want to emphasize that this is not a situation where the State somehow inveigled him, or mouse-trapped him.\nWe certainly didn't know 3 years in advance that AEDPA was going to be passed.\nThe law was changed as this case progressed, and so in effect Congress said this no longer is the kind of claim which ought to be heard in Federal district courts, much like they came back in 1868 and said, we are going to withdraw habeas appellate jurisdiction from this Court, and no more than Mr. McCardle had a justiciable interest after that, so Mr. Martinez Villareal no longer has an interest that can be presented at least in district--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [322.339, 332.962, 337.282], "stop_times": [332.962, 337.282, 366.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 322.339}, "reply_to": "20503__0_030", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_032", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "In view of your answer about exhaustion, failure to exhaust, so it's dismissed, and then it comes back after AEDPA, and you said effectively that would not be a successive petition, suppose the Ford claim were the only claim brought up in the first habeas, and the district court says, it's not ripe, you get a competency hearing in the State court... it's so close to exhaustion.\nSo your original answer was, but this person had other claims that were adjudicated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [366.433, 393.433], "stop_times": [393.433, 398.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 366.433}, "reply_to": "20503__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20503__0_033", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [398.904], "stop_times": [399.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 398.904}, "reply_to": "20503__0_032", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_034", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Suppose it had been only the Ford claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [399.287], "stop_times": [401.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 399.287}, "reply_to": "20503__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20503__0_035", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "If it were exclusively the Ford claim and it had been dismissed at that point, then we would not consider that a successive application, because there had been no determination on any merits issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [401.856], "stop_times": [412.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 401.856}, "reply_to": "20503__0_034", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_036", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, except that... yes, there was a decision.\nYou say, well, it may not be successive.\nIt sure is second, because there was a first one and this is a second one, so it seems to me that if we're going to read the statute in that sort of... taking the terminology on its face, I don't see why your answer hasn't got to be the opposite of what you gave.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [412.462, 416.014, 418.049], "stop_times": [416.014, 418.049, 432.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 412.462}, "reply_to": "20503__0_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20503__0_037", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Because we are giving meaning to every word in the statute, including application.\nWhat does it mean to have a meaningful application?\nIt's got to be something that the courts can rule on.\nFor example, there are cases out of the Seventh Circuit which say, if this petition is dismissed for lack of a filing fee, or failure to submit the proper affidavits and so forth, then we're not going to treat it as successive and that's appropriate, because in effect the court is saying, this is a nothing.\nWe're not going to do anything with it.\nBut in this case, we had years of litigation, evidentiary hearings, and determination of 30 issues.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [432.808, 437.279, 441.231, 444.183, 458.359, 459.693], "stop_times": [437.279, 441.231, 444.183, 458.359, 459.693, 465.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 432.808}, "reply_to": "20503__0_036", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_038", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "But suppose--\n--You think the case we just heard was a nothing, because that also involved sort of a ripeness question, which is the same kind of a question as a... as the timeliness of the challenge to a competency hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [465.113, 465.747], "stop_times": [465.747, 478.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 465.113}, "reply_to": "20503__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20503__0_039", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [478.606], "stop_times": [479.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 478.606}, "reply_to": "20503__0_038", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_040", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "I wouldn't call that case a nothing.\nI mean, there was a lot of argument about whether, indeed, it was timely or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [479.272, 480.139], "stop_times": [480.139, 484.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 479.272}, "reply_to": "20503__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20503__0_041", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--Well, sometimes there is much ado about nothing.\n[Laughter]\nIn this particular situation, though, all that the State did was point out what the district court probably would have noticed on its own, which is that if you do not have a ripe issue you do not have Article III justiciability.\nYou've got to have a cause that the court can deal with and if there simply isn't, at that point, a meaningful possibility that you are going to be executed, you don't have something that you can present at that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [484.593, 486.41, 486.86, 502.12], "stop_times": [486.41, 486.86, 502.12, 513.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 484.593}, "reply_to": "20503__0_040", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_042", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Let me ask you another question.\nDo you think that a so-called Ford claim, somebody who says, I'm not mentally competent to be executed, could be raised under section 1983 rather than habeas?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [513.243, 514.695], "stop_times": [514.695, 527.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 513.243}, "reply_to": "20503__0_041", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20503__0_043", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--No, ma'am, I don't believe it can, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [527.003], "stop_times": [528.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 527.003}, "reply_to": "20503__0_042", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_044", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [528.537], "stop_times": [529.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 528.537}, "reply_to": "20503__0_043", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20503__0_045", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--Congress, which, of course, is the author of both of these remedial schemes, if you will, has, I think, made it clear that everything to do with capital punishment and capital sentences is to be litigated by way of habeas.\nFor example, in 21 U.S.C. 848(q), where they talk about the funding statute and it says, this is the way that you do it, you fund lawyers to bring sections under 2254 and 2255 for all kinds of things, including competency determinations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [529.539, 543.965], "stop_times": [543.965, 562.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 529.539}, "reply_to": "20503__0_044", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_046", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, except this person is not before the courts arguing that he is being held in violation of Federal law.\nHe just says, I can't be executed without a determination of my mental capacity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [562.01, 572.466], "stop_times": [572.466, 578.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 562.01}, "reply_to": "20503__0_045", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20503__0_047", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, what this Court indicated in Gomez v. U.S. District Court is that section 1983 is not a device to circumvent rules against successive petitions.\nIn that case it was a McCleskey type of situation, but because 1983--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [578.536, 588.994], "stop_times": [588.994, 593.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 578.536}, "reply_to": "20503__0_046", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_048", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "I don't know that it's a circumvention.\nI'm trying to find out if traditional habeas relief fits this type of claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [593.195, 594.897], "stop_times": [594.897, 603.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 593.195}, "reply_to": "20503__0_047", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20503__0_049", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--Well, to the extent that Congress has indicated this is the way it should go, particularly by the addition of Chapter 154--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [603.003], "stop_times": [613.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 603.003}, "reply_to": "20503__0_048", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_050", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "We've used habeas for all sorts of matters relating to the propriety of execution, haven't we, whether it's cruel and unusual punishment, whether certain procedures have to be used, and that doesn't relate to the detention of the individual.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [613.793], "stop_times": [629.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 613.793}, "reply_to": "20503__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20503__0_051", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [629.82], "stop_times": [630.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 629.82}, "reply_to": "20503__0_050", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_052", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "I sort of favor using habeas for what it ought to be used for, but I think we crossed that bridge a long time ago.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [630.704], "stop_times": [637.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 630.704}, "reply_to": "20503__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20503__0_053", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, in effect I would suggest that this Court has determined this question already.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [637.658], "stop_times": [642.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 637.658}, "reply_to": "20503__0_052", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_054", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "But if that's so... if that's so, then isn't what's before the Court not... he's not challenging his underlying conviction, and he's not challenging the sentence he got.\nHe's challenging now in the Federal court something different, which is the competency adjudication in the State court.\nThat's a different target.\nI don't see how that's successive of anything that was focusing on the conviction and the sentence instead of the competency determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [642.395, 653.87, 662.876, 664.744], "stop_times": [653.87, 662.876, 664.744, 673.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 642.395}, "reply_to": "20503__0_053", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20503__0_055", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "The application is successive because it is the second time he has come to the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [673.6], "stop_times": [678.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 673.6}, "reply_to": "20503__0_054", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_056", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "But you've already told me that you don't take that so formally that in dealing with the dismissed case because of exhaustion for... that technically that's a second... it's the second time he's filed.\nI don't understand why those two would be different, if you say, and he has never before attacked the determination that was just made in the Arizona State court that he is competent, that was just made last week.\nWhy isn't that not successive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [678.485, 696.029, 713.475], "stop_times": [696.029, 713.475, 716.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 678.485}, "reply_to": "20503__0_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20503__0_057", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "It is successive because it goes ultimately to that very same sentence that was imposed upon him in the first place, and therefore he is coming a second time to in effect get a Federal court to say, you cannot execute this person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [716.777], "stop_times": [733.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 716.777}, "reply_to": "20503__0_056", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_058", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Is there any reason to think that Congress wanted the result that Justice Ginsburg is discussing?\nI mean, is there any reason to think that Congress somehow wanted to take this unusual set of claims that arise only, and can by their very nature arise only well after the trial itself, that have nothing to do with the trial, that have nothing to do with the appeals... it would be a claim, for example, saying we're going to torture someone to death, or I mean, you know, some frightful thing, think of some awful thing, and it could never have arisen before.\nI mean, is there any reason Congress would have wanted to bar habeas totally from such a claim?\nI can't think of one, and if there is none, and no evidence they wanted to, can't you just read a claim not to include that kind of claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [733.471, 737.606, 763.158, 769.744], "stop_times": [737.606, 763.158, 769.744, 777.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 733.471}, "reply_to": "20503__0_057", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20503__0_059", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Okay, two answers to that.\nFirst of all, my reading of the legislative history does not show that they specifically looked at the narrow issue of competency for execution, but what they did do is, in drafting their exceptions, made it very clear that it was not to do with any issue of sentencing but only of built-innocence, and as far as the torture, breaking on the wheel, that is what direct search is for.\nYou're always--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [777.767, 779.05, 804.401], "stop_times": [779.05, 804.401, 805.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 777.767}, "reply_to": "20503__0_058", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_060", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "I thought your answer was going to be simply section 2244(b)(2)(B), which makes it very clear that the mere fact that something couldn't have been raised earlier, because the factual predicate did not exist, is not alone enough.\nI mean, that makes it very clear that that's not enough.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [805.168, 822.546], "stop_times": [822.546, 824.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 805.168}, "reply_to": "20503__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20503__0_061", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--Exactly.\nThat says--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [824.814, 825.331], "stop_times": [825.331, 825.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 824.814}, "reply_to": "20503__0_060", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_062", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "In addition to that, the fact... those new facts have to show that the defendant was innocent of the underlying offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [825.881], "stop_times": [833.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 825.881}, "reply_to": "20503__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20503__0_063", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--That's essentially what I was trying to get at, that this is the plain meaning of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [833.254], "stop_times": [837.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 833.254}, "reply_to": "20503__0_062", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_064", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "If you're trying to get at that, I was talking about a claim that not only couldn't have been raised earlier, but one that had nothing to do with the trial or the appeal process.\nIt had nothing to do with the trial itself.\nIt had nothing to do with the jury, that it's totally beside the point whether a jury would or would not have thought the person was innocent.\nIn other words, all those things in (b)(2) just have nothing to do with this kind of thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [837.222, 846.412, 848.346, 854.417], "stop_times": [846.412, 848.346, 854.417, 860.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 837.222}, "reply_to": "20503__0_063", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20503__0_065", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "If it is something which relates to the determination of guilt or innocence, yes, then that would be permissible, assuming that, again, there were some newly discovered facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [860.071], "stop_times": [868.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 860.071}, "reply_to": "20503__0_064", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_066", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "May I ask... maybe I'm going to pose the same kind of question that's been posed before, but let me pose it in a slightly different way.\nI'm going to start with an assumption which I think you do not share, and that is that even you do not read second and successive in a literal way, and I realize you think you do, but I start with the premise that you don't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [868.927, 876.264], "stop_times": [876.264, 889.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 868.927}, "reply_to": "20503__0_065", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20503__0_067", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [889.256], "stop_times": [889.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 889.256}, "reply_to": "20503__0_066", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_068", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "If that's what I assume to begin with, then I'm faced with the following kind of question:\nWhy would Congress have wanted to draw a distinction between the jurisdiction of a court to entertain a competency claim based upon what seems to be the totally capricious circumstance that it was or was not joined in the first instance with some other claims?\nThis seems to me a very difficult question when one accepts, as I think we both do, the premise that the claim does have to be ripe, and you can't come in the week after conviction, when you don't know when you're going to be executed and say, well, I'm not competent to be executed.\nIf we do not start with the premise that the terms literally mean what they mean and have got to be applied in that way right down the line, why would it not be sensible to say, Congress surely would not have intended to cover this rather... or to mandate this rather capricious distinction and hence throw this fellow out of the Federal court?\nWhat's the answer to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [889.756, 897.177, 919.193, 936.571, 957.918], "stop_times": [897.177, 919.193, 936.571, 957.918, 959.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 889.756}, "reply_to": "20503__0_067", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20503__0_069", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, I would suggest that it would not be capricious at all, because in effect what we're finding here is that t he individual is going to have virtually the same kind of review that he would have had without AEDPA, because competency is a factual matter, and for example in Demosthenes v. Baal and Maggio v. Fulford this Court made very clear that, even without AEDPA, there's a factual issue which the courts, the Federal courts must defer to, and so this Court on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [959.185], "stop_times": [988.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 959.185}, "reply_to": "20503__0_068", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_070", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, that doesn't go to the jurisdiction of the Federal court ultimately to entertain the claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [988.27], "stop_times": [993.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 988.27}, "reply_to": "20503__0_069", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20503__0_071", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--What I'm saying, though, is that it is consistent to say that this is an appropriate way to limit the kinds of issues that are going to come in front of the district court, which doesn't drastically--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [993.924], "stop_times": [1005.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 993.924}, "reply_to": "20503__0_070", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_072", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "But it doesn't... I have the same question as Justice Souter.\nYou have two cases.\nOne case, all he does is bring a competency... a claim that he's incompetent to be executed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1005.566, 1008.001, 1009.534], "stop_times": [1008.001, 1009.534, 1015.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1005.566}, "reply_to": "20503__0_071", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20503__0_073", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1015.254], "stop_times": [1015.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1015.254}, "reply_to": "20503__0_072", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_074", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "That's all he brings, and the State comes rushing in and says, premature, and it's dismissed.\nIt's premature, not ripe.\nCase number 1.\nCase number 2, different defendant, he's got 30 claims, and he adds the competency claim.\nWhy should those cases come out differently?\nIn case number 1 you're going to be able to hear the claim later.\nCase number 2, you're not.\nThat just makes no sense.\nAnd I think that was the substance of Justice Souter's question, and I don't think you've answered it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1015.604, 1019.725, 1021.458, 1022.343, 1028.514, 1031.116, 1034.568, 1035.851, 1037.187], "stop_times": [1019.725, 1021.458, 1022.343, 1028.514, 1031.116, 1034.568, 1035.851, 1037.187, 1043.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1015.604}, "reply_to": "20503__0_073", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20503__0_075", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, I think the bottom line is it's a choice that Congress is entitled to make, that we are dealing with a statute... this is where the entitlement comes from, that it is a statute which Congress can say, we will allow the courts to hear certain types of claims, just as this Court said, we're not going to let you hear Fourth Amendment claims any more.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1043.257], "stop_times": [1060.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1043.257}, "reply_to": "20503__0_074", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_076", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "well, if Congress had said that in any direct way, you'd be well on the road to your argument, but you're basically saying... in fact, you said literally a few moments ago, this is just like McCardle.\nIt's not like McCardle.\nThere was no question about what Congress was intending to do and literally clearly did do in the statute that was at issue there.\nHere, we... if we accept your position we are saying that for all practical purposes, in any case in which there's more than one possible claim on habeas, Congress has, without ever expressing directly the question of this subject matter jurisdiction point, indirectly ruled out the subject of competency claims for Federal courts.\nThis isn't straightforward like McCardle.\nIt's exactly the opposite, and it would attribute to Congress either a very strange inadvertence, since Ford claims are well-known, or a rather underhanded way of doing business, which we just don't... we don't attribute that to Congress.\nThat isn't the way we assume they work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1060.718, 1071.258, 1073.026, 1080.614, 1108.533, 1111.235, 1126.661], "stop_times": [1071.258, 1073.026, 1080.614, 1108.533, 1111.235, 1126.661, 1128.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1060.718}, "reply_to": "20503__0_075", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20503__0_077", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, I have to disagree with you on that, because this Court has repeatedly made clear, for example in Moralis v. TVA... excuse me, TWA, legislative history need not confirm details of changes in the law before we interpret it according to its plain meaning, and there are other cases which show you don't have to find that Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1128.863], "stop_times": [1150.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1128.863}, "reply_to": "20503__0_076", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_078", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1150.376], "stop_times": [1150.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1150.376}, "reply_to": "20503__0_077", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20503__0_079", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--looked at the nitty gritty of every possibility--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1150.826], "stop_times": [1152.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1150.826}, "reply_to": "20503__0_078", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_080", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--we're back to plain meaning again, and I think the... as I said, I realize that you and I do not agree entirely on that, but if we don't think that a simple, literal plain meaning analysis is going to be applicable here because of exactly the case that you concede would be allowed as a second shot, then I think the question is more pointed than, or more difficult than you're admitting.\nMay I ask you before you close to... first, if I understand, your theory is this is a second... a successive application.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1152.745, 1176.86], "stop_times": [1176.86, 1185.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1152.745}, "reply_to": "20503__0_079", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20503__0_081", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1185.799], "stop_times": [1186.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1185.799}, "reply_to": "20503__0_080", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_082", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "What is your theory on why we have jurisdiction, given the plain language of the statute that says the grant or denial of a successive application shall not be appealable and shall not the subject of a petition for rehearing or writ of certiorari?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1186.499], "stop_times": [1198.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1186.499}, "reply_to": "20503__0_081", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20503__0_083", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Because of the very specific manner in which the Ninth Circuit ruled, it seems to take it out of the ambit of that preclusion.\nThe language of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1198.94, 1206.063], "stop_times": [1206.063, 1207.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1198.94}, "reply_to": "20503__0_082", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_084", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well... it's... under your view, it is a second, successive, right... second or successive application.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1207.646], "stop_times": [1214.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1207.646}, "reply_to": "20503__0_083", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20503__0_085", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1214.55], "stop_times": [1215.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1214.55}, "reply_to": "20503__0_084", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_086", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "And it was granted... the court of appeals said it shall be granted by the district court, they shall entertain it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1215.418], "stop_times": [1221.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1215.418}, "reply_to": "20503__0_085", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20503__0_087", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "But it said that we're allowing you to do this because we're not going to find it was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1221.889], "stop_times": [1226.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1221.889}, "reply_to": "20503__0_086", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_088", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, they say... but you say they were wrong on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1226.107], "stop_times": [1228.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1226.107}, "reply_to": "20503__0_087", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20503__0_089", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1228.226], "stop_times": [1228.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1228.226}, "reply_to": "20503__0_088", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_090", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "I mean, you can't say they're both right and wrong.\nIf your theory is they were wrong, and having accepted... if we agree with you on that proposition, how do we have jurisdiction to hear the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1228.926, 1230.345], "stop_times": [1230.345, 1238.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1228.926}, "reply_to": "20503__0_089", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20503__0_091", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Two answers.\nFirst of all, there are the cases which I cited, including McNary v. the Asian Refugees Center and Robison v. Johnson, which indicate that when you're talking about not a specific determination under a statutory scheme, but the validity and construction of a scheme as a whole, that it's not subject to those kinds of limitations on review, that we're not looking at this point about the propriety of them saying, this is an okay successive petition because they said, this is not even a successive petition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1238.434, 1239.867], "stop_times": [1239.867, 1270.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1238.434}, "reply_to": "20503__0_090", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_092", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, I know that's... but I'm taking you at your word, not them--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1270.822], "stop_times": [1273.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1270.822}, "reply_to": "20503__0_091", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20503__0_093", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1273.422], "stop_times": [1274.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1273.422}, "reply_to": "20503__0_092", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_094", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--because you're saying they're wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1274.024], "stop_times": [1274.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1274.024}, "reply_to": "20503__0_093", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20503__0_095", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "And the second point is that, because... first of all, those cases would indicate that statutory cert is appropriate to review the overall construction of the statute, but secondly, as I pointed out, and why we brought a combined petition in the first place, is that the issues in this case are of such importance that they warrant review under the extraordinary writ if somehow they don't fall under the statutory writ.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1274.924], "stop_times": [1299.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1274.924}, "reply_to": "20503__0_094", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_096", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, I guess we permit such inconsistent pleading, if you want to call it that, all the time when we reverse a court of appeals which has decided a case that the petitioner claims... for which the petitioner claims there was no jurisdiction.\nFor instance, if the petitioner says there's no standing, he comes here and says, this Court doesn't have any jurisdiction, and neither did the lower court.\nYes, but we never do that by adopting both of the inconsistencies.\nWe take one or the other when we do it, we rule.\nWe don't take them both.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1299.055, 1316.101, 1324.521, 1327.473, 1329.325], "stop_times": [1316.101, 1324.521, 1327.473, 1329.325, 1330.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1299.055}, "reply_to": "20503__0_095", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20503__0_097", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, again, that is why we presented it in both lights.\nOur--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1330.425, 1334.396], "stop_times": [1334.396, 1335.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1330.425}, "reply_to": "20503__0_096", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_098", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "May I ask again about the distinction between the one who brings just the Ford claim, which you say that's okay.\nHe hasn't had a first petition, effectively.\nWould a person who combines them might have this in mind, or the lawyer: my client is incompetent.\nI want to make sure that ultimately the Federal court hears that.\nBut if I don't bring it up along with these others, I may be caught in a procedural default when I come back, so I have to put it in with the other 22.\nI really don't have a choice to leave it out.\nSo you're saying, well, if you want the Ford claim to survive, you have to forfeit all those other claims.\nThat... the distinction between the one who brings the Ford claim alone--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1335.029, 1340.966, 1344.084, 1351.774, 1357.511, 1368.8, 1371.252, 1377.573], "stop_times": [1340.966, 1344.084, 1351.774, 1357.511, 1368.8, 1371.252, 1377.573, 1383.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1335.029}, "reply_to": "20503__0_097", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20503__0_099", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1383.126], "stop_times": [1383.995], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1383.126}, "reply_to": "20503__0_098", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_100", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--as being okay, but the one who combines it with others is not being okay, is a little hard for me to grasp, and I was thinking that well, maybe wouldn't any sensible lawyer say, he's got some good claims.\nI don't want to sacrifice them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1383.995, 1396.403], "stop_times": [1396.403, 1398.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1383.995}, "reply_to": "20503__0_099", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20503__0_101", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, again I think part of the answer is that at stage he doesn't have a claim that he can present anyway.\nIt is simply not justiciable at that stage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1398.353, 1405.509], "stop_times": [1405.509, 1407.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1398.353}, "reply_to": "20503__0_100", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_102", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Yes, but then he wants to be able to come back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1407.694], "stop_times": [1409.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1407.694}, "reply_to": "20503__0_101", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20503__0_103", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "And Congress has now said that the appropriate means of dealing with that is through the kind of Ford evidentiary hearing that we had in the superior court in Arizona, plus Arizona supreme court review, plus cert to this Court, much like the pattern that has followed for Federal prisoners.\nFederal prisoners only have one bite at post conviction relief through their own system.\nAll that Congress has done here is said, okay, in these kinds of claims you have exactly that same situation.\nYou go through your State post conviction relief to the U.S. supreme court and that's the end of it, and are cut off in these kinds of cases from taking a second route through the Federal courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1409.777, 1429.29, 1433.992, 1440.063], "stop_times": [1429.29, 1433.992, 1440.063, 1450.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1409.777}, "reply_to": "20503__0_102", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_104", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "General Ferg, can I clarify one thing.\nI just wasn't 100-percent sure of your answer.\nSupposing... forget the Ford claims for a moment.\nJust a mixed... a petition making four claims, two of which were exhausted, two were not exhausted, and the district court dismisses on the ground there wasn't complete exhaustion, then if he comes back later, is that a first or a second habeas in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1450.287, 1451.854, 1453.689, 1456.175], "stop_times": [1451.854, 1453.689, 1456.175, 1469.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1450.287}, "reply_to": "20503__0_103", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20503__0_105", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "If the whole thing is dismissed out so there's no action, no adjudication, then that would not be a successive application.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1469.165], "stop_times": [1474.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1469.165}, "reply_to": "20503__0_104", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_106", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "In your... okay.\nI take it your position would entail this strategy on the part of careful lawyers.\nLet's assume they have five serious habeas claims going to the validity of the conviction and they also anticipate that there's going to be at the end of the road a competency claim.\nIn order not to be thrown out on the competency claim they will save their five until the eve of execution when their competency claim will be ripe, and yet that will be at the furthest possible remove from the time of trial so that if they also happen to be right on the issues going to conviction it will be more difficult then to go back and retry the case.\nThat would be a strange policy for Congress to want to promote, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1474.569, 1475.588, 1480.556, 1491.281, 1512.927], "stop_times": [1475.588, 1480.556, 1491.281, 1512.927, 1517.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1474.569}, "reply_to": "20503__0_105", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20503__0_107", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Indeed it would, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1517.748], "stop_times": [1519.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1517.748}, "reply_to": "20503__0_106", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_108", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "But isn't that the policy that the careful lawyer who wants to avoid your argument, and... particularly if it's successful, is in fact going to take.\nHe'd be barred by the statute of limitations, wouldn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1519.867, 1528.973], "stop_times": [1528.973, 1532.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1519.867}, "reply_to": "20503__0_107", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20503__0_109", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--He might well be barred that way and also, as the Ninth Circuit pointed out, that when you come in you get the automatic stay the first time around for those other nonmental issues, then you've automatically rendered the issue nonripe again, and so what we're actually doing is saying, we want to get the mental competency issue done in an expeditious manner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1532.775], "stop_times": [1555.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1532.775}, "reply_to": "20503__0_108", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_110", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "No, but that's the point, it can't be done at all unless it is done in relation to competency at time of execution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1555.79], "stop_times": [1563.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1555.79}, "reply_to": "20503__0_109", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20503__0_111", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1563.96], "stop_times": [1564.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1563.96}, "reply_to": "20503__0_110", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_112", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "And if somebody comes in before an execution date is imminent, then that's why it's not ripe, and you don't... I mean, you don't want to promote nonripe claims.\nI mean, it's simply irrelevant to litigate early when the execution is going to be later.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1564.479, 1573.185], "stop_times": [1573.185, 1577.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1564.479}, "reply_to": "20503__0_111", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20503__0_113", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "That's correct.\nIt is an issue which reasonably cannot... or legally cannot be raised at that point at all, and you're left to the very specific avenue of State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1577.87, 1578.906], "stop_times": [1578.906, 1589.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1577.87}, "reply_to": "20503__0_112", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_114", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Right, but that then undercuts the point that Congress wanted these things litigated early.\nCongress doesn't want these things litigated at a time when they're irrelevant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1589.945, 1595.665], "stop_times": [1595.665, 1600.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1589.945}, "reply_to": "20503__0_113", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20503__0_115", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1600.069], "stop_times": [1601.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1600.069}, "reply_to": "20503__0_114", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_116", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "But it's your position they're... they would be left to the State procedure, but what if the State decided they won't have a procedure, which I suppose they could do under your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1601.669], "stop_times": [1608.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1601.669}, "reply_to": "20503__0_115", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20503__0_117", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--Well, that very denial would itself be grounds, I would suggest, to come before this Court.\nFor example, there's an old case called File v. Duffy, where it was claimed that the custodian was not looking into the competency of the individual, and so it was brought through the California supreme courts and to this Court by way of mandamus on the basis that denial of any kind of review was itself a constitutional--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1608.841, 1612.71], "stop_times": [1612.71, 1631.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1608.841}, "reply_to": "20503__0_116", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_118", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Yes, it would be, but that claim wouldn't be ripe at any time.\nThere would be no chance to raise it as I see it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1631.939, 1634.473], "stop_times": [1634.473, 1636.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1631.939}, "reply_to": "20503__0_117", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20503__0_119", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--At that point it would be ripe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1636.742], "stop_times": [1638.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1636.742}, "reply_to": "20503__0_118", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_120", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1638.11], "stop_times": [1638.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1638.11}, "reply_to": "20503__0_119", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20503__0_121", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--because the execution would be imminent.\nI'll reserve the rest of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1638.51, 1639.76], "stop_times": [1639.76, 1641.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1638.51}, "reply_to": "20503__0_120", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__0_122", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Very well, Mr. Ferg.\nMs. Young, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1641.912, 1643.712], "stop_times": [1643.712, 1647.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1641.912}, "reply_to": "20503__0_121", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20503__1_000", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI think it's very important, what we've just heard here today from the State of Arizona.\nThey agree that second or successive in 2244(b) cannot be read to mean any numerically second petition is out.\nThat's just what Mr. Ferg told us.\nSo what that means is now we've got to construe the statute, and that's what we have been asking this Court to do, and that's exactly what the court of appeals did below.\nThe next thing that Mr. Ferg told us today is that we can agree that a claim that can't be presented is not presentable, does not fall within 2244(b), that that type of claim will not be considered a second or successive when that petitioner comes back to this Court, comes back to the district court in a numerically second petition.\nThat's exactly what we have here.\nThis is a claim that the State of Arizona said in the lower court at the time of the first petition was not presentable.\nThey told the district court that there was no case or controversy, no jurisdictionally sufficient case to have that litigated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1647.883, 1650.668, 1654.804, 1663.393, 1665.512, 1674.8, 1700.035, 1702.651, 1711.307], "stop_times": [1650.668, 1654.804, 1663.393, 1665.512, 1674.8, 1700.035, 1702.651, 1711.307, 1719.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1647.883}, "reply_to": "20503__0_122", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_001", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Because it was premature it would have to be decided closer to the time of execution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1719.329], "stop_times": [1723.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1719.329}, "reply_to": "20503__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20503__1_002", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "That's exactly right, Your Honor, and that's what the court decided and it dismissed it without prejudice and everybody knew that, at the time of that dismissal, if Mr. Martinez-Villareal were to lose, ultimately... remember, at that time he had won on an ineffective claim at sentencing, which the court of appeals later reversed on a procedural default, but everybody knew at that time that Mr. Martinez-Villareal would be back if, in fact, he didn't prevail in the court of appeals to litigate this very claim that everybody agreed he could litigate at the proper time.\nNow, what the court of appeals did in construing this language agreed that this type of claim does not fall within second or successive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1723.966, 1757.02], "stop_times": [1757.02, 1765.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1723.966}, "reply_to": "20503__1_001", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_003", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Was AEDPA in effect at the time of the first raising of this claim in the district court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1765.293], "stop_times": [1770.011], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1765.293}, "reply_to": "20503__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20503__1_004", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "No, it was not, Your Honor but, as Justice O'Connor mentioned, all the courts had held at that time, before AEDPA, that Ford claims were not subject to abuse, and that they were routinely raised for the first time in second or successive petitions.\nThis is a case where you have a petitioner's counsel who's making sure that all diligent conduct is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1770.011, 1784.838], "stop_times": [1784.838, 1791.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1770.011}, "reply_to": "20503__1_003", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_005", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "But you don't make any claim that AEDPA shouldn't apply to this case, I take it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1791.674], "stop_times": [1796.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1791.674}, "reply_to": "20503__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20503__1_006", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--It has... what... our position is that this case doesn't fall within 2244(b).\nIt--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1796.312, 1803.149], "stop_times": [1803.149, 1804.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1796.312}, "reply_to": "20503__1_005", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_007", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "But you have not argued here or below that the statute that Congress passed in the form of AEDPA does not apply to your case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1804.084], "stop_times": [1815.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1804.084}, "reply_to": "20503__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20503__1_008", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1815.124], "stop_times": [1816.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1815.124}, "reply_to": "20503__1_007", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_009", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "You say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1816.659], "stop_times": [1817.659], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1816.659}, "reply_to": "20503__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20503__1_010", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "We do--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1817.659], "stop_times": [1818.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1817.659}, "reply_to": "20503__1_009", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_011", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--that it is not a successive petition under AEDPA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1818.292], "stop_times": [1821.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1818.292}, "reply_to": "20503__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20503__1_012", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--That's right.\nThat's exactly right, and so we do not fall within the 2244(b) because what 2244(b) is looking at are claims that had been presented.\nOur claim was one that was never presentable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1821.061, 1822.063, 1832.068], "stop_times": [1822.063, 1832.068, 1834.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1821.061}, "reply_to": "20503__1_011", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_013", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "And you're--\n--It seems to me your argument rests upon the premise that it's unreasonable and therefore presumably not the intent of 2244 that a claim which could only be raised later should be barred, even if it comes up in what could in some senses be called a second application.\nI find it difficult to square that premise with the text of 2244(b), which in (b)(2)(B) obviously envisions situations in which, even though you couldn't have raised the claim before, the claim is barred.\nIt makes only one exception to that, and that is if the claim couldn't be raised before and also is a claim that would establish the innocence of the underlying offense.\nI don't know any other way to read that provision than as clearly affirming Congress doesn't care about certain claims that can only be raised now but nonetheless Congress says, even so, unless they go to the innocence, go away.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1834.353, 1835.12, 1854.351, 1872.562, 1883.434], "stop_times": [1835.12, 1854.351, 1872.562, 1883.434, 1903.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1834.353}, "reply_to": "20503__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20503__1_014", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "There's two answers to that.\nFirst of all, in order to get to (b)(2) you've got to start off with... to get to (b)(2)(ii) I guess is what you're talking about you have to start off with (ii) and look to see what they're talking about, and they're talking about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1903.597, 1905.366], "stop_times": [1905.366, 1918.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1903.597}, "reply_to": "20503__1_013", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_015", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Would you be precise as to which statutory section?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1918.924], "stop_times": [1921.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1918.924}, "reply_to": "20503__1_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20503__1_016", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--I'm sorry.\n2244(b)(2)(B)... I'm talking about 2244(b)(2), and then--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1921.059, 1921.693], "stop_times": [1921.693, 1932.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1921.059}, "reply_to": "20503__1_015", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_017", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "It's on page 3 of the red--\n--Page 3 of the red brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1932.867, 1934.284], "stop_times": [1934.284, 1934.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1932.867}, "reply_to": "20503__1_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20503__1_018", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1934.968], "stop_times": [1935.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1934.968}, "reply_to": "20503__1_017", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_019", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Of the red brief, okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1935.535], "stop_times": [1936.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1935.535}, "reply_to": "20503__1_018", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20503__1_020", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "And it starts out a claim... or, I'm sorry.\nI need to go to... yes.\nA claim presented.\nThat's right, (b)(2), a claim presented in a second or successive application under 22... that was not presented... we have a claim that was not presentable, so that's number 1.\nThen number 2, getting to your question, is what they were looking at here was facts that had not been discovered before.\nWe have a claim that was legally impossible to have brought before--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1936.252, 1942.456, 1943.841, 1945.141, 1954.28, 1961.37], "stop_times": [1942.456, 1943.841, 1945.141, 1954.28, 1961.37, 1965.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1936.252}, "reply_to": "20503__1_019", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_021", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1965.338], "stop_times": [1965.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1965.338}, "reply_to": "20503__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20503__1_022", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--not facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1965.504], "stop_times": [1965.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1965.504}, "reply_to": "20503__1_021", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_023", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--You're mistaking my point.\nI mean, my point is not that... you know, that it technically applies to you.\nMy point is simply that it shows the willingness of Congress to contemplate a situation in which a claim could not possibly have been brought any sooner but which nevertheless the Federal court is supposed to reject.\nI mean, I'm not saying that this text necessarily applies to this case.\nI'm just saying that it shows a mentality on the part of Congress which your premise contradicts.\nYou're saying Congress couldn't have intended something that couldn't have been brought up until now to be... you know, to be rejected, yet that provision clearly envisions some situations where that will happen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [1965.971, 1967.221, 1972.325, 1985.566, 1990.719, 1996.457], "stop_times": [1967.221, 1972.325, 1985.566, 1990.719, 1996.457, 2008.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1965.971}, "reply_to": "20503__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20503__1_024", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "And that situation, it seems to me, that Congress envisioned was a petitioner, the same petitioner coming back and attacking the same judgment.\nThat's what Congress was looking at, was going after in these cases.\nThey wanted to stop relitigation by same petitioners attacking the same judgment and, as this Court said in Felker, we're going to approve this restriction for those kinds of successive, truly successive petitions.\nThat's what that's looking at.\nThis isn't a successive petition.\nWe are going to restrict that, and that will be a modified res judicata.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2008.331, 2016.854, 2020.473, 2033.565, 2034.598, 2036.184], "stop_times": [2016.854, 2020.473, 2033.565, 2034.598, 2036.184, 2040.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2008.331}, "reply_to": "20503__1_023", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_025", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, I do think it's significant, and don't you think it's significant that this whole new legislation does not mention the magic word successive, you know, which had been the buzz word for our prior jurisprudence.\nIt seems to me they're trying to get away from it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2040.469, 2056.412], "stop_times": [2056.412, 2058.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2040.469}, "reply_to": "20503__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20503__1_026", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "They do mention successive, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2058.114], "stop_times": [2060.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2058.114}, "reply_to": "20503__1_025", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_027", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "I mean--\n--Abusive.\n--abuse of the writ, and our whole prior case law concerning that.\nThe cases you're referring to are all done under that.\nIt tries to get away from that and it just says second or successive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2060.566, 2060.9, 2061.9, 2067.037, 2070.488], "stop_times": [2060.9, 2061.9, 2067.037, 2070.488, 2074.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2060.566}, "reply_to": "20503__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20503__1_028", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "I believe this Court looked at that in Felker and said this is a modification on the abuse of the writ doctrine, so I think this is... I agree, it goes far beyond what the abuse of the writ doctrine was before under McCleskey, which was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2074.29], "stop_times": [2089.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2074.29}, "reply_to": "20503__1_027", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_029", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "No, but you have... may I interrupt you just with this question, because I'm going astray here.\nHaven't you also argued in effect that we distinguish between abusive petitions and successive petitions under the old rule, and you're saying... I thought you were saying that under the old rule there was at least facially an argument that a Ford claim would be successive, but it wasn't treated as successive by the lower courts and, in fact, your opposing counsel agree on that point, at least.\nSo I thought your argument was, they're using the same term... when they say second or successive they're using the same term that was used before and because that term did not, under the old law, comprehend a Ford claim, you don't have to read it and, indeed, shouldn't read it to comprehend a Ford claim here.\nIsn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2089.819, 2093.437, 2120.088, 2137.983], "stop_times": [2093.437, 2120.088, 2137.983, 2138.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2089.819}, "reply_to": "20503__1_028", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20503__1_030", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--Yes.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2138.466, 2138.85], "stop_times": [2138.85, 2139.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2138.466}, "reply_to": "20503__1_029", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_031", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2139.25], "stop_times": [2139.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2139.25}, "reply_to": "20503__1_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20503__1_032", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "That's true, and the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2139.752], "stop_times": [2140.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2139.752}, "reply_to": "20503__1_031", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_033", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Of course, it doesn't have to be a successive petition.\nIt only has to be a second petition.\nIt does say second or successive petition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2140.585, 2141.918, 2143.62], "stop_times": [2141.918, 2143.62, 2146.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2140.585}, "reply_to": "20503__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20503__1_034", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--Yes.\nAs that language is understood in the abuse of the writ doctrine, that's a term of art.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2146.822, 2147.406], "stop_times": [2147.406, 2152.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2146.822}, "reply_to": "20503__1_033", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_035", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Oh, you think second or successive means second, comma, that is to say, comma, successive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2152.575], "stop_times": [2158.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2152.575}, "reply_to": "20503__1_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20503__1_036", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2158.396], "stop_times": [2158.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2158.396}, "reply_to": "20503__1_035", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_037", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Second or in other words successive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2158.846], "stop_times": [2161.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2158.846}, "reply_to": "20503__1_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20503__1_038", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--I think it means that it was a claim that was presentable in a prior petition.\nThat's the... the term of art has been in the abuse of the writ doctrine, second or successive, all along.\nThat's not new.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2161.415, 2169.537, 2174.056], "stop_times": [2169.537, 2174.056, 2174.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2161.415}, "reply_to": "20503__1_037", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_039", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "So you read the statute as if it read, a claim presented in a second or successive application, paren, assuming it was then presentable, close paren?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2174.822], "stop_times": [2189.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2174.822}, "reply_to": "20503__1_038", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20503__1_040", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "I believe that's read into it by saying, a claim presented, which by its terms doesn't include a claim that was never presentable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2189.399], "stop_times": [2199.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2189.399}, "reply_to": "20503__1_039", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_041", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Presentable doesn't work, because you could easily have new evidence discovered related to the trial, you know, and it wasn't discovered until November, and by that time the person has filed 13 petitions, and clearly that falls within (b)(2).\nYou know, that's the kind of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2199.504, 2214.781], "stop_times": [2214.781, 2216.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2199.504}, "reply_to": "20503__1_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20503__1_042", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "That would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2216.149], "stop_times": [2216.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2216.149}, "reply_to": "20503__1_041", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_043", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--thing you can do only under certain circumstances, yet it wasn't presentable earlier because you never had the new evidence earlier, or the Brady material early, so it must have to do with the nature of the word claim.\nIt must mean to include certain kinds of claims but not mean those kinds of claims that, by their very nature, having nothing to do with the trial or the process, could only have arisen later.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2216.833, 2225.239], "stop_times": [2225.239, 2236.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2216.833}, "reply_to": "20503__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20503__1_044", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2236.629], "stop_times": [2237.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2236.629}, "reply_to": "20503__1_043", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_045", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "In principle.\nBut what's the form of words that captures what I just said?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2237.129, 2238.179], "stop_times": [2238.179, 2241.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2237.129}, "reply_to": "20503__1_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20503__1_046", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Again, the best that I can do, Your Honor, is to say that what they were talking about here when they were... when they use those words, a claim presented, is that it was something that the... that could have been presented.\nIt was that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2241.248, 2256.71], "stop_times": [2256.71, 2257.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2241.248}, "reply_to": "20503__1_045", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_047", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "You'd say in principle or something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2257.81], "stop_times": [2258.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2257.81}, "reply_to": "20503__1_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20503__1_048", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--That... pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2258.91], "stop_times": [2259.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2258.91}, "reply_to": "20503__1_047", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_049", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "The kind of claim that was in principle presentable earlier but not the kind... even though this one couldn't have been, a Brady claim is the kind that in principle could be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2259.593], "stop_times": [2268.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2259.593}, "reply_to": "20503__1_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20503__1_050", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Yes, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2268.332], "stop_times": [2268.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2268.332}, "reply_to": "20503__1_049", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_051", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--presented earlier.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2268.832], "stop_times": [2269.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2268.832}, "reply_to": "20503__1_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20503__1_052", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2269.618], "stop_times": [2269.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2269.618}, "reply_to": "20503__1_051", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_053", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "A Ford claim is not the kind that in principle could have been presented earlier.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2269.984], "stop_times": [2272.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2269.984}, "reply_to": "20503__1_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20503__1_054", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Yes, that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2272.82], "stop_times": [2274.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2272.82}, "reply_to": "20503__1_053", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_055", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "So then you say it's not a claim, or that it's not successive?\nI thought your argument would be that it's not successive because successive obviously is a comparative term, successive in comparison to what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2274.286, 2276.622], "stop_times": [2276.622, 2284.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2274.286}, "reply_to": "20503__1_054", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20503__1_056", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2284.275], "stop_times": [2285.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2284.275}, "reply_to": "20503__1_055", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_057", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--in... compared to a claim that could have been presented.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2285.093], "stop_times": [2288.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2285.093}, "reply_to": "20503__1_056", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20503__1_058", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, in here what we're looking at is second or successive to what, and we have a completely different judgment.\nOur judgment is a... is the first judgment that we are now challenging, the judgment of the Arizona supreme court that Mr. Martinez-Villareal is to be executed while he is incompetent.\nThat is our challenge, and that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2288.762, 2296.185, 2310.759], "stop_times": [2296.185, 2310.759, 2312.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2288.762}, "reply_to": "20503__1_057", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_059", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "And what makes you even in a better position, I suppose, than the person who brings a first petition and says... in the Federal court and says, go away, you haven't exhausted, comes back with a number 2, but it's not successive because there was no adjudication of the first one, but still that is going to... that is going to the original conviction and sentence.\nHere you say, not only are we the same as the exhaustion person, but we have a new target.\nWe're not really aiming at the conviction, original conviction at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2312.695, 2335.326, 2340.88], "stop_times": [2335.326, 2340.88, 2344.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2312.695}, "reply_to": "20503__1_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20503__1_060", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--That's exactly right.\nThat is exactly right.\nWe are... the Ninth Circuit below analyzed our case to those exhaustion cases, but you're right, we're better than those exhaustion cases, because this is an entirely different judgment and in those cases they were attacking the same judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2344.916, 2346.099, 2347.034], "stop_times": [2346.099, 2347.034, 2360.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2344.916}, "reply_to": "20503__1_059", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_061", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, can you tell me, won't there be cases... maybe this case as well... in which the evidence of the incompetency, the symptoms, the clinical manifestations of the mental disturbance were apparent as of the time of the first petition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2360.276], "stop_times": [2378.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2360.276}, "reply_to": "20503__1_060", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20503__1_062", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2378.053], "stop_times": [2378.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2378.053}, "reply_to": "20503__1_061", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_063", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "They might not have been as aggravated, but they were apparent ones.\nAren't we going to have a number of cases in which the contention is, is that this could have been litigated when the first claims were... when the other claims were litigated early, early on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2378.703, 2381.439], "stop_times": [2381.439, 2393.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2378.703}, "reply_to": "20503__1_062", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20503__1_064", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "I think that that's going to have to be something that the district court, which is something typical that district courts do, will need to decide, but that's right, there are those type of cases where the evidence would be so apparent that counsel is under an obligation to raise that, and the mental illness is such that's not going to change.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2393.599], "stop_times": [2415.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2393.599}, "reply_to": "20503__1_063", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_065", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "So you acknowledge that there will be then some litigation over whether or not this particular competence claim should have been brought earlier.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2415.278], "stop_times": [2422.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2415.278}, "reply_to": "20503__1_064", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20503__1_066", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "I think that's true.\nI think that kind of delay, if, in fact, there is... if, in fact, there's a question that this claim should have been brought earlier and we could have ended all of the litigation, if all we're talking about is whether this person is too incompetent to be executed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2422.666, 2423.701], "stop_times": [2423.701, 2437.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2422.666}, "reply_to": "20503__1_065", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_067", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Now I'm beginning to lose you, because I thought that the problem here is that you couldn't bring it up earlier because it wouldn't be ripe until the date of execution is set.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2437.426], "stop_times": [2444.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2437.426}, "reply_to": "20503__1_066", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20503__1_068", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2444.496], "stop_times": [2445.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2444.496}, "reply_to": "20503__1_067", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_069", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Because there's always hope that somebody will, maybe through a miracle, be cured.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2445.263], "stop_times": [2448.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2445.263}, "reply_to": "20503__1_068", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20503__1_070", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--And that's right.\nI'm sorry, Your Honor, I don't mean to be confusing, but what I'm saying is, I think there are some circumstances where, if the attorney raises the claim in the first petition, the district court can then take a look at it and say, I've looked at what you've brought me and this petitioner is clearly incompetent, he's clearly very mentally ill, and he's never going to get any better, I don't see any reason to delay this.\nThe other situation where it could come up where it would no longer be premature would be the situation if a petitioner came in with various claims besides his incompetency to be executed under a warrant of execution and the district court said, I don't find any of your other claims meritorious.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2448.965, 2449.9, 2473.182], "stop_times": [2449.9, 2473.182, 2491.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2448.965}, "reply_to": "20503__1_069", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_071", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, what if it were a claim, not for lack of competency, but that the Arizona clemency proceeding which he had applied to denied him due process in some way, would that, too, be raisable at this point?\nIt's really... it's not an attack on the judgment.\nYou're--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2491.244, 2506.07, 2509.622], "stop_times": [2506.07, 2509.622, 2510.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2491.244}, "reply_to": "20503__1_070", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20503__1_072", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "I would think that would probably be a better claim to be raised in a 1983 than in a 2254, the clemency attack.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2510.338], "stop_times": [2520.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2510.338}, "reply_to": "20503__1_071", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_073", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--You don't think... you think it could be raised in 1983 rather than habeas?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2520.33], "stop_times": [2524.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2520.33}, "reply_to": "20503__1_072", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20503__1_074", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Yes, I would think so, because that's what their... they would be attack... I guess you could go under either a 2241 or a 1983.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2524.115], "stop_times": [2531.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2524.115}, "reply_to": "20503__1_073", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_075", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, that... now, that's supposed to be impossible, I thought.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2531.452], "stop_times": [2534.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2531.452}, "reply_to": "20503__1_074", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20503__1_076", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Oh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2534.404], "stop_times": [2534.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2534.404}, "reply_to": "20503__1_075", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_077", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "That you couldn't... you could not do both.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2534.821], "stop_times": [2536.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2534.821}, "reply_to": "20503__1_076", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20503__1_078", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "I have... I am not sure.\nIt just... it strikes me, the way that you were describing it, that that would probably be a claim that would be brought under 1983 rather than under 22... rather than under habeas.\nNow, as we've been talking about there's two different reasons for the correctness of the court of appeals decision below, and one is that this is not a second or successive petition because there was no first one challenging the same judgment, and the constitutional violation, as the State of Arizona said in the first proceeding, had not occurred and didn't occur until the execution warrant issued, and that is the separate judgment.\nThe other grounds on which the court of appeals was correct as well, however, was that this was a claim that was dismissed without prejudice, and at that point everybody knew that Mr. Martinez-Villareal was going to come back and, as we've talked about, those claims are... this claim was... is analogous to the exhaustion claims where there is some impediment to a determination and here is absolutely nothing in any of the congressional history that supports Congress' intent to not allow a petitioner to bring at the first opportunity to have this claim litigated.\nThere's nothing that says that Congress intended to stop that.\nIn fact, what Congress was getting at, as we talked about, was relitigation, but they were wanting to ensure that every petitioner had one bite at the apple.\nThose are the key phrases when you go through all of the legislative history that you see, and so we also--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2536.673, 2540.725, 2551.532, 2579.1, 2623.445, 2627.349, 2635.621], "stop_times": [2540.725, 2551.532, 2579.1, 2623.445, 2627.349, 2635.621, 2642.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2536.673}, "reply_to": "20503__1_077", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_079", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Again, that is simply not compatible with 2244 (b)(2)(B).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2642.692], "stop_times": [2652.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2642.692}, "reply_to": "20503__1_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20503__1_080", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--And I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2652.731], "stop_times": [2653.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2652.731}, "reply_to": "20503__1_079", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_081", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "In some cases under (b)(2)(B) you're not going to have a first bite at the apple.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2653.333], "stop_times": [2658.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2653.333}, "reply_to": "20503__1_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20503__1_082", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--If you're attacking the same judgment and it's... again, I think what they are trying to get at there is, they are concerned about delay, and what they're telling lawyers, you better take a look at this.\nWe are encouraging you, you better get out there, you better investigate, you better bring all your facts to us and discover all your claims the first time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2658.719, 2671.377], "stop_times": [2671.377, 2677.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2658.719}, "reply_to": "20503__1_081", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_083", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, it--\n--It doesn't have it.\nIt says under (b)(2), even if you have been diligent and there are some things that only come up later and you couldn't have brought it earlier, nonetheless we're not always going to let you come in here.\nSometimes we're not even going to give you that first bite.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2677.781, 2678.281, 2679.164, 2689.571], "stop_times": [2678.281, 2679.164, 2689.571, 2691.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2677.781}, "reply_to": "20503__1_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20503__1_084", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "And I will say I think that some... some... but it's not this case, but I think the case that may be in front of you at some point, that you're going to have to decide whether that's constitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2691.79], "stop_times": [2701.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2691.79}, "reply_to": "20503__1_083", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_085", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, but it makes it hard for you to argue that Congress always wanted people to have one bite in Federal court.\nIt clearly excludes the first bite in Federal court in some situations.\nNow, whether that's constitutional or not is a different issue, but I think your positing of this congressional everybody-gets-one-bite intention is simply contrary to the text of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2701.646, 2706.2, 2710.235], "stop_times": [2706.2, 2710.235, 2722.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2701.646}, "reply_to": "20503__1_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20503__1_086", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "That's true on the same judgment, and as I said, it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2722.976], "stop_times": [2726.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2722.976}, "reply_to": "20503__1_085", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_087", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, I'm not sure it's even true there.\nIsn't what they've done is just make that a lot harder bite to make?\nI mean, they haven't totally excluded the claim if the applicant can prove actual innocence and a new law, or newly discovered facts.\nHe's not... he gets the one shot at it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2726.762, 2728.345, 2730.964, 2738.653], "stop_times": [2728.345, 2730.964, 2738.653, 2740.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2726.762}, "reply_to": "20503__1_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20503__1_088", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--That's right, and that's why it's still... the abuse of the writ is still in here, but it's very, very restricted.\nYou need--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2740.67, 2745.372], "stop_times": [2745.372, 2745.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2740.67}, "reply_to": "20503__1_087", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_089", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "It may be a claim that doesn't go to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2745.855], "stop_times": [2746.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2745.855}, "reply_to": "20503__1_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20503__1_090", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--you have to meet these conditions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2746.521], "stop_times": [2747.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2746.521}, "reply_to": "20503__1_089", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_091", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--It doesn't go to innocence at all.\nIt may be a claim that goes to the manner of punishment.\nIt may be the claim that goes to many other things.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2747.221, 2748.638, 2751.759], "stop_times": [2748.638, 2751.759, 2754.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2747.221}, "reply_to": "20503__1_090", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20503__1_092", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "That's... this Court, of course, hasn't decided whether it includes a claim that goes to punishment or not under Sawyer v. Whitley and the miscarriage of justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2754.425], "stop_times": [2763.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2754.425}, "reply_to": "20503__1_091", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_093", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "I'm not sure it's helpful to say it's an attack on a different judgment.\nA State habeas court could, for the third time, reject ineffective assistance of counsel claim.\nWe wouldn't say, oh, this is a new judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2763.381, 2767.518, 2773.922], "stop_times": [2767.518, 2773.922, 2775.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2763.381}, "reply_to": "20503__1_092", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20503__1_094", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--No, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2775.79], "stop_times": [2776.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2775.79}, "reply_to": "20503__1_093", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_095", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "And so I don't think that gets us very far.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2776.34], "stop_times": [2778.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2776.34}, "reply_to": "20503__1_094", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20503__1_096", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--Well, that's because, Your Honor, that judgment is still attacking the judgment of guilt and the sentence.\nThat's not what we are attacking.\nWe are not attacking... in your hypothetical that's what it would be.\nYou're saying that there's an ineffective claim being raised for the third time by the... in State post conviction, for example.\nWell, that constitutional violation is again attacking the same judgment of conviction and sentence.\nThat's not what we're attacking here at all.\nWe are attacking the judgment of the Arizona supreme court that they are to execute... they're going to take Mr. Martinez-Villareal out of his cell and execute him on this date while he's incompetent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2778.909, 2787.432, 2788.848, 2792.567, 2798.471, 2804.542, 2806.477], "stop_times": [2787.432, 2788.848, 2792.567, 2798.471, 2804.542, 2806.477, 2817.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2778.909}, "reply_to": "20503__1_095", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_097", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, that's not a new judgment.\nThat's just an order that the earlier judgment of the trial court imposing the death penalty be enforced.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2817.467, 2818.551], "stop_times": [2818.551, 2825.271], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2817.467}, "reply_to": "20503__1_096", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20503__1_098", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "It's a new constitutional... the constitutional violation, that's when it occurs for the first time, is based on that order, based on that judgment.\nThat's when the constitutional violation arises, and that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2825.271, 2835.846], "stop_times": [2835.846, 2838.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2825.271}, "reply_to": "20503__1_097", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_099", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, maybe this is the kind of claim that should be raised in a section 1983 action, not habeas at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2838.948], "stop_times": [2846.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2838.948}, "reply_to": "20503__1_098", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20503__1_100", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--Well, Ford disagrees with that.\nThis Court in Ford found that habeas was the proper place to raise it, and there's no question in my mind that there is custody here when there is an order that's going to take someone from their cell over to another place and execute them.\nThey are being held in custody in violation of the Eighth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2846.102, 2848.47, 2867.467], "stop_times": [2848.47, 2867.467, 2871.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2846.102}, "reply_to": "20503__1_099", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_101", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, but you're not asking that he be released from custody, just that he not be executed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2871.436], "stop_times": [2876.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2871.436}, "reply_to": "20503__1_100", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20503__1_102", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "That's true, and it's there... pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2876.823], "stop_times": [2879.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2876.823}, "reply_to": "20503__1_101", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_103", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Temporarily.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2879.942], "stop_times": [2881.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2879.942}, "reply_to": "20503__1_102", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20503__1_104", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "And that's very similar, Your Honor, to the challenges made to death sentences in cases all the time.\nYou're not asking that the petitioner be released from custody.\nYou're asking that the death sentence be set aside.\nThat's no different than this case.\nThe other point I also--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2881.358, 2889.23, 2892.832, 2895.201, 2898.669], "stop_times": [2889.23, 2892.832, 2895.201, 2898.669, 2902.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2881.358}, "reply_to": "20503__1_103", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_105", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "I think it is, because you're not asking that the penalty be changed, just that it be postponed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2902.473], "stop_times": [2909.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2902.473}, "reply_to": "20503__1_104", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20503__1_106", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--Yes, that's true.\nYes, that's absolutely true, there is that distinction, but again, custody arises as a result of this new violation to execute him at that point, and it seems to me very analogous to those cases.\nThe other point I wanted to make, and it's... would... it's a point that would allow this Court to decide this case on the most narrowest of grounds, and that's waiver based on the State's action in this case, in which they were the ones who asked for multiple proceedings, in which they were the ones who asked that the district court, who told the district court and assured the district court and the Ninth Circuit that they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2909.461, 2910.977, 2925.654], "stop_times": [2910.977, 2925.654, 2951.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2909.461}, "reply_to": "20503__1_105", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_107", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, Ms. Young, ordinarily we grant certiorari to decide what we regard as an important question of law, often because of a split between courts of appeals.\nIf we decided this case on the basis of waiver, we'd decide just this... it would just be error correction in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2951.471, 2958.891], "stop_times": [2958.891, 2964.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2951.471}, "reply_to": "20503__1_106", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20503__1_108", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--Yes.\nI was just offering you the opportunity that if you... if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2964.945, 2966.481], "stop_times": [2966.481, 2969.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2964.945}, "reply_to": "20503__1_107", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_109", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "If that's correct, perhaps we never should have granted certiorari.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2969.783], "stop_times": [2971.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2969.783}, "reply_to": "20503__1_108", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20503__1_110", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--And I agree with that.\nI couldn't agree with that more.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2971.966, 2973.134], "stop_times": [2973.134, 2974.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2971.966}, "reply_to": "20503__1_109", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_111", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, I'm sure it's still available to you to argue that even if we disagree with you on the important question that we took the case to decide, we should remand to let the court of appeals consider whether a waiver would produce the same result.\nI presume that's what you would urge upon us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2974.734, 2990.429], "stop_times": [2990.429, 2993.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2974.734}, "reply_to": "20503__1_110", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20503__1_112", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Yes.\nWe... I... but again, I believe this Court, if you are going to reach this case and decide this case, it should affirm the court of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [2993.314, 2994.681], "stop_times": [2994.681, 3005.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2993.314}, "reply_to": "20503__1_111", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_113", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Ms. Young, may I ask you another hypothetical about your definition of presentable and presented and so forth and so on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3005.356], "stop_times": [3009.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3005.356}, "reply_to": "20503__1_112", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20503__1_114", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3009.724], "stop_times": [3010.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3009.724}, "reply_to": "20503__1_113", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_115", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Suppose a person on death row who has never filed any habeas corpus petition files one that contains nothing but an exhausted Ford claim and the district court says, there's merit to the claim, quash this death warrant, postpone the execution, and they do that, and with no change in facts whatsoever the same man comes back... they issue a new death warrant 10 days later.\nCould... and without any change in physical condition or mental condition.\nCould the man come back without filing a successive habeas?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3010.158, 3035.958, 3038.677], "stop_times": [3035.958, 3038.677, 3042.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3010.158}, "reply_to": "20503__1_114", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20503__1_116", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Now, in the first... I'm sorry, I need to... in the first--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3042.545], "stop_times": [3045.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3042.545}, "reply_to": "20503__1_115", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_117", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "He won the first time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3045.247], "stop_times": [3045.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3045.247}, "reply_to": "20503__1_116", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20503__1_118", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--He won it, can he come back in the second one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3045.933], "stop_times": [3047.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3045.933}, "reply_to": "20503__1_117", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_119", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Can he come back 30 days later if they try to execute him without any change in his condition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3047.733], "stop_times": [3051.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3047.733}, "reply_to": "20503__1_118", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20503__1_120", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Oh, without any change in his condition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3051.837], "stop_times": [3053.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3051.837}, "reply_to": "20503__1_119", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_121", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3053.653], "stop_times": [3054.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3053.653}, "reply_to": "20503__1_120", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20503__1_122", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "And raise claims other than his competency?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3054.153], "stop_times": [3055.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3054.153}, "reply_to": "20503__1_121", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_123", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "No, raise the same claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3055.788], "stop_times": [3056.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3055.788}, "reply_to": "20503__1_122", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20503__1_124", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, I assume he could come back and try, but he certainly would have a huge burden to overcome, because... oh... oh, without any change.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3056.504], "stop_times": [3065.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3056.504}, "reply_to": "20503__1_123", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_125", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3065.644], "stop_times": [3065.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3065.644}, "reply_to": "20503__1_124", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20503__1_126", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "I'm sorry.\nI misunderstood you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3065.727, 3066.277], "stop_times": [3066.277, 3067.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3065.727}, "reply_to": "20503__1_125", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_127", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "In other words, he would have won on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3067.177], "stop_times": [3068.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3067.177}, "reply_to": "20503__1_126", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20503__1_128", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3068.596], "stop_times": [3068.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3068.596}, "reply_to": "20503__1_127", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_129", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--It's clear he would win on the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3068.896], "stop_times": [3070.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3068.896}, "reply_to": "20503__1_128", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20503__1_130", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "So they found him incompetent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3070.129], "stop_times": [3070.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3070.129}, "reply_to": "20503__1_129", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_131", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "But he can't establish innocence.\nHe can't meet the... would that be a claim that was... that was presentable, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3070.996, 3071.798], "stop_times": [3071.798, 3077.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3070.996}, "reply_to": "20503__1_130", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20503__1_132", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--Yes, he could--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3077.35], "stop_times": [3078.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3077.35}, "reply_to": "20503__1_131", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_133", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "He presented it and he won.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3078.168], "stop_times": [3079.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3078.168}, "reply_to": "20503__1_132", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20503__1_134", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--He could come back, because again there would have been a new judgment, the execution warrant saying that now we're going to go execute you, and as we've been talking about, it's that piece of paper that would allow him to come back in and not be a second or successive--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3079.068], "stop_times": [3093.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3079.068}, "reply_to": "20503__1_133", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_135", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, I know, but--\n--I agree with Justice Kennedy's point.\nI... to say you're attacking the warrant rather than the judgment, it seems like something out of the 1800's, really.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3093.394, 3093.911, 3095.663], "stop_times": [3093.911, 3095.663, 3102.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3093.394}, "reply_to": "20503__1_134", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20503__1_136", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--It is something sort of out of the 1800's.\nIt's kind of an executive detention sort of thing, and that's right, but that is what we're challenging, because that's when the constitutional violation arises, when the State seeks to execute somebody who is incompetent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3102.067, 3105.602], "stop_times": [3105.602, 3119.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3102.067}, "reply_to": "20503__1_135", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_137", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "In Justice Stevens' case, would it be fair to say that he doesn't have to bring a new habeas petition at all, all he needs to do is bring a petition to enforce the judgment that he already has, since that judgment covers what the State now proposes to do?\nCould he do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3119.779, 3134.454], "stop_times": [3134.454, 3135.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3119.779}, "reply_to": "20503__1_136", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20503__1_138", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Yes, he could.\nNow, some States have laws that say that if someone... for example, as Arizona, if someone is found incompetent to be executed they're taken to a mental hospital and in 30 days their competency is reassessed, so if they had their competency reassessed and they say, now he's competent, we're going forward, those... that is a situation where, under Justice Stevens' hypothetical, that person could come back in and challenge it and say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3135.304, 3136.49], "stop_times": [3136.49, 3160.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3135.304}, "reply_to": "20503__1_137", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_139", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, but wouldn't you take the position that in that circumstance the State has the burden to come in, to come forward and vacate the judgment that the court had already... and ask for a vacation of the judgment that the court had already rendered and until it did that, you wouldn't bring new habeas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3160.106], "stop_times": [3174.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3160.106}, "reply_to": "20503__1_138", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20503__1_140", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3174.263], "stop_times": [3174.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3174.263}, "reply_to": "20503__1_139", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_141", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "You'd just say, enforce what we've got.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3174.596], "stop_times": [3175.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3174.596}, "reply_to": "20503__1_140", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20503__1_142", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "That's right, yes.\nIf there's still a stay of execution in force then the State wouldn't have... would... well, I wouldn't think the State would have any authority to go forward and issue a new warrant if that was still in force.\nI was unclear whether the stay of execution was still in force, but yes, if you have a judgment of incompetency that would make complete sense to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3175.615, 3176.148, 3185.304], "stop_times": [3176.148, 3185.304, 3193.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3175.615}, "reply_to": "20503__1_141", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_143", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Are you going to stand by your argument that this Court has no jurisdiction, the one that you made last instead of first?\nFirst you tell us it's not second or successive within the meaning of the act for that purpose, but then for purposes of our review you say it is.\nThat's how I read your--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3193.16, 3198.481, 3208.253], "stop_times": [3198.481, 3208.253, 3210.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3193.16}, "reply_to": "20503__1_142", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20503__1_144", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, Your Honor, what we... what we are saying at this... that (b)(3)(E) is getting at is telling this... is Congress telling this Court that they don't want you messing around with the authorization decisions no matter what the result is, that those are proceedings that they don't want to have delay from.\nThey want to expedite the proceedings whether they... the court decides that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3210.871, 3229.0], "stop_times": [3229.0, 3233.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3210.871}, "reply_to": "20503__1_143", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_145", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--If we're getting to the purpose of Congress, I thought it was your theory that this was not a successive--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3233.302], "stop_times": [3237.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3233.302}, "reply_to": "20503__1_144", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20503__1_146", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--It is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3237.789], "stop_times": [3238.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3237.789}, "reply_to": "20503__1_145", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_147", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--Therefore, we have ordinary certiorari jurisdiction under your view.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3238.322], "stop_times": [3241.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3238.322}, "reply_to": "20503__1_146", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20503__1_148", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Yes.\nThat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3241.824, 3242.591], "stop_times": [3242.591, 3243.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3241.824}, "reply_to": "20503__1_147", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_149", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Only if you say... go the other way do we not have jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3243.176], "stop_times": [3245.293], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3243.176}, "reply_to": "20503__1_148", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20503__1_150", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--That's... that's true, but I'm also offering you another way of looking at that statute, which is that any gatekeeper decision, which is what this was... it was a gatekeeper decision saying, you didn't need to come here, by the way, that any gatekeeper decision, Congress is saying that this Court does not have cert jurisdiction over.\nBut you're right, as well, though, if you don't decide that, if you don't construe the statute in that way, then that's right.\nThere would... you would have cert jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3245.293, 3264.106, 3271.577], "stop_times": [3264.106, 3271.577, 3274.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3245.293}, "reply_to": "20503__1_149", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_151", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Well, it seems to me that both for the merits issue and the jurisdictional issue the first thing we've got to decide is whether it's a second or successive petition within the meaning of the act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3274.112], "stop_times": [3280.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3274.112}, "reply_to": "20503__1_150", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20503__1_152", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "It--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3280.699], "stop_times": [3281.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3280.699}, "reply_to": "20503__1_151", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_153", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "And you just take the position it isn't, he takes the position it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3281.735], "stop_times": [3285.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3281.735}, "reply_to": "20503__1_152", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20503__1_154", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "--Except that I believe that this statute can be read, the jurisdictional portion of the statute can be read to say it covers any authorization decision made by the court of appeals, that this Court is to stay out of that, because they want to expedite the procedure.\nIt doesn't mean you're not going to get to hear that claim eventually.\nYou are.\nYou could get review later.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3285.003, 3299.679, 3301.881, 3302.464], "stop_times": [3299.679, 3301.881, 3302.464, 3304.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3285.003}, "reply_to": "20503__1_153", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_155", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "I don't know why you make that argument, because if you're right on the other argument you're going to win on the merits, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3304.014], "stop_times": [3308.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3304.014}, "reply_to": "20503__1_154", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20503__1_156", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Then I will stick with the argument that you have just... that's fine.\nI will... I'm just telling you that's another way of taking a look at it.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3308.868, 3314.189, 3318.141], "stop_times": [3314.189, 3318.141, 3319.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3308.868}, "reply_to": "20503__1_155", "speaker": "denise_i_young"}
{"id": "20503__1_157", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Young.\nMr. Ferg, you have a minute remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3319.843, 3321.326], "stop_times": [3321.326, 3323.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3319.843}, "reply_to": "20503__1_156", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20503__2_000", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Very briefly, Your Honor, as Ms. Young's argument conceded and as... similar to what her brief was, this case hinges to some degree on whether or not successive in the current statute has the same meaning, the same term of art that it was before, and I want to show you that it does not.\nIn Kuhlman v. Wilson, going back all the way to Sanders, this Court said that a successive petition raises grounds identical to those raised and rejected on the merits in a prior application.\nHere, we look at 2244(b)(2) that says that a claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application that was not presented, therefore it is plain that Congress was using second or successive in a form and meaning entirely different from this term of art that you had in Kuhlman v. Wilson.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3323.562, 3341.756, 3353.397], "stop_times": [3341.756, 3353.397, 3373.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3323.562}, "reply_to": "20503__1_157", "speaker": "bruce_m_ferg"}
{"id": "20503__2_001", "conversation_id": "20503", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Ferg.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-300", "start_times": [3373.042, 3373.875], "stop_times": [3373.875, 3374.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3373.042}, "reply_to": "20503__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21144__0_000", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 97-1192, Swidler & Berlin and James Hamilton v. the United States.\nMr. Hamilton.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [0.0, 9.768], "stop_times": [9.768, 11.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21144__0_001", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nOn Sunday, July 11, 1993, at 10:00 a.m. in the morning, Vince Foster came to my home to consult me as a lawyer in the Travel Office matter, which was then the matter of intense public controversy.\nWe spoke alone for 2 hours, during which time I took three pages of notes, which are the subject of this litigation here today.\nBefore we began, Mr. Foster asked me if the conversation was privileged and, without hesitation, I said that it was.\nIt is not disputed that my notes would be privileged had Mr. Foster not taken his own life 9 days later in Fort Marcy Park, Virginia.\nMr. Chief Justice, I wish to make five major points this morning which I would like to summarize briefly at the outset.\nFirst, any balancing test or ruling that leaves the existence of the attorney-client privilege after death in doubt would have a significant chilling effect on client candor, particularly as to those who expect to die soon, because people do care about their reputations and the fate of family and friends after death.\nSecondly, Independent Counsel's central contention that only the perjurer would be chilled if the privilege does not survive but not the truthful client, or the client intending to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege, is contrary to reason and experience and is unsupported by any decision of this Court.\nThird, the conclusion that the privilege should survive in civil cases but not in criminal cases is illogical and unworkable and is supported by no case, no statute, or no commentator.\nFourth, all the pertinent State statutes recognize and virtually all of the nontestator cases hold that the privilege survives death, and the testator cases generally recognize that they apply an exception to the general rule that is intended to effectuate the testator's intent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [11.15, 16.172, 35.713, 46.101, 57.329, 69.707, 79.284, 106.78, 132.897, 149.539], "stop_times": [16.172, 35.713, 46.101, 57.329, 69.707, 79.284, 106.78, 132.897, 149.539, 173.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 11.15}, "reply_to": "21144__0_000", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_002", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "It's an exception that pretty much swallows up the rule though, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [173.966], "stop_times": [177.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 173.966}, "reply_to": "21144__0_001", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__0_003", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [177.467], "stop_times": [178.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 177.467}, "reply_to": "21144__0_002", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_004", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "I mean, like 95 percent of the cases involve the exception to the rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [178.368], "stop_times": [182.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 178.368}, "reply_to": "21144__0_003", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__0_005", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Justice Scalia, that is correct, but they apply to a very specific situation, when there is a will contest, where there is a question about the testator's intent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [182.191], "stop_times": [195.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 182.191}, "reply_to": "21144__0_004", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_006", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "It's very specific, but it also happens to be the situation that is most likely to arise with respect to privilege as to a decedent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [195.74], "stop_times": [205.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 195.74}, "reply_to": "21144__0_005", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__0_007", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Justice Souter--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [205.948], "stop_times": [206.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 205.948}, "reply_to": "21144__0_006", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_008", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "It's precisely the situation most likely to arise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [206.569], "stop_times": [208.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 206.569}, "reply_to": "21144__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__0_009", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Justice Scalia, it is certainly the situation that has arisen most in the past.\nI would suggest, though, that if the court's opinion below is upheld, the situation will arise much more in the criminal context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [208.759, 214.043], "stop_times": [214.043, 223.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 208.759}, "reply_to": "21144__0_008", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_010", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "How many cases upholding the privilege uphold it, uphold it against either a demand by a prosecutor in the... in a criminal case, or a grand jury request?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [223.77], "stop_times": [237.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 223.77}, "reply_to": "21144__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__0_011", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "There are only two cases that I know of.\nOne is the case here.\nThe other is the case in Massachusetts, the case... the case involved a John Doe, as it is styled.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [237.87, 240.732, 241.924], "stop_times": [240.732, 241.924, 249.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 237.87}, "reply_to": "21144__0_010", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_012", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Counsel, I recognize that the time frame for your briefing was compressed, but I think there may be at least a misimpression left by your footnote 22 at page 21 and it bears, too, on Judge Tatel's discussion and it bears, too, on your opening remarks that the States say the privilege does not survive.\nIn California, at least, and that's one of the States you cite in the footnote, the privilege does expire when the estate's closed, and that's been so for 35 years, and I have not found anything in the literature indicating that in California this has caused, number 1, any lack... any diminishment in the number of lawyers, or in their effectiveness in representing their clients.\nAnd so I think it's a very important distinction to say that the privilege can be exercised pending the administration of the estate, and then it closes, and if the other States, or some of them, are like California, that is, it seems to me, a very significant indication that experience has shown that this is not a problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [249.46, 282.782, 320.519], "stop_times": [282.782, 320.519, 343.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 249.46}, "reply_to": "21144__0_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21144__0_013", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Justice Kennedy, I believe that California is the only jurisdiction that has that specific reservation or provision--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [343.053], "stop_times": [352.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 343.053}, "reply_to": "21144__0_012", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_014", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Have other States addressed the problem?\nCan you say that the other States specifically do not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [352.079, 355.1], "stop_times": [355.1, 358.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 352.079}, "reply_to": "21144__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21144__0_015", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Our study of the State statutes find that they do not.\nI would also point out that there are a number of States--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [358.443, 363.475], "stop_times": [363.475, 366.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 358.443}, "reply_to": "21144__0_014", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_016", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "That they do not address the point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [366.098], "stop_times": [367.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 366.098}, "reply_to": "21144__0_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21144__0_017", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--That they... well, that they do not specifically address the point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [367.088], "stop_times": [370.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 367.088}, "reply_to": "21144__0_016", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_018", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Well, and if the administrator of the estate is designated as the one to exercise the privilege, then that means the lawyer alone would not be able to exercise it, so it seems to me you can infer that it expires.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [370.25], "stop_times": [386.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 370.25}, "reply_to": "21144__0_017", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21144__0_019", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Justice Kennedy, in a number of States, close to 20 States, the State provisions apply, or say that the lawyer also can assert the privilege, not just the personal representative but the lawyer also and, of course, that indicates that the survival of the privilege has nothing to do with the winding up of the estate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [386.312], "stop_times": [407.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 386.312}, "reply_to": "21144__0_018", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_020", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "But if I'm correct about California, you would agree that that is relevant in considering whether or not experience shows that this causes a problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [407.395], "stop_times": [417.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 407.395}, "reply_to": "21144__0_019", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21144__0_021", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "I will agree that it is a relevant factor.\nI should point out that there is a California case, the Pena case that we cite in our brief, where this particular statute was applied in a criminal case, not just in a civil case relating to the administration of the estate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [417.082, 421.865], "stop_times": [421.865, 438.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 417.082}, "reply_to": "21144__0_020", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_022", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Was that post the 1965 California amendment, do you know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [438.567], "stop_times": [442.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 438.567}, "reply_to": "21144__0_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21144__0_023", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "I believe it was, but I'll have to check the date of the case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [442.27], "stop_times": [445.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 442.27}, "reply_to": "21144__0_022", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_024", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "All right.\nI'll check that.\nWell, in any event, in your brief and in a number of the amicus briefs it's stated that what the Independent Counsel is requesting here is very sweeping and unprecedented, but we have at least California, we have Pennsylvania, we have the ALI, which speaks for lawyers, we have all of the commentators except Wigmore, I think, and we have, as Justice Scalia points out, the privilege that in any event is inapplicable when estates and property are concerned.\nIt's inapplicable if there's an ongoing scheme that the attorney is consulted for in order to continue.\nIt's inapplicable as to fees, inapplicable as to clients who dispute what the attorney told them and that the clients then are in dispute and, also, the privilege that we're talking about here is one only as to compelled testimony.\nThe attorney's ethical duty to remain silent continues.\nAnd so it seems to me that this not the sweeping change that the amicus briefs and that you indicate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [445.53, 445.741, 446.131, 486.867, 492.853, 512.586, 517.059], "stop_times": [445.741, 446.131, 486.867, 492.853, 512.586, 517.059, 528.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 445.53}, "reply_to": "21144__0_023", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21144__0_025", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Well, there certainly are some exceptions that you have mentioned, but so far, with the exception of this case and the one case in Pennsylvania, there has been no case that has found that in a nontestamentary situation that the privilege expires when the client dies, and I would suggest, as I suggested to Justice Scalia, that if this Court upholds the lower court decision we will have many, many more cases that will raise this particular issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [528.877], "stop_times": [563.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 528.877}, "reply_to": "21144__0_024", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_026", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "It hasn't happened in California for 35 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [563.749], "stop_times": [566.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 563.749}, "reply_to": "21144__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21144__0_027", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "But if the Supreme Court of the United States announces that the privilege expires upon death, I think that we will find many, many more cases raising this particular issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [566.391], "stop_times": [579.271], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 566.391}, "reply_to": "21144__0_026", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_028", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "May I ask if the California statute has been construed by the California supreme court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [579.271], "stop_times": [583.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 579.271}, "reply_to": "21144__0_027", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21144__0_029", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "By the California supreme court?\nIt was construed by a California court of appeals in 1984.\nIt was applied in a criminal case to bar the testimony of an attorney.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [583.715, 587.117, 592.652], "stop_times": [587.117, 592.652, 598.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 583.715}, "reply_to": "21144__0_028", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_030", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "It barred the testimony--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [598.586], "stop_times": [599.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 598.586}, "reply_to": "21144__0_029", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21144__0_031", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [599.728], "stop_times": [599.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 599.728}, "reply_to": "21144__0_030", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_032", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--in a case construing the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [599.928], "stop_times": [601.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 599.928}, "reply_to": "21144__0_031", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21144__0_033", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [601.508], "stop_times": [601.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 601.508}, "reply_to": "21144__0_032", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_034", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Judge Williams did say further, in some States the privilege does not survive the winding up of an estate, and cited California for that proposition.\nI know it isn't part of this record, Mr. Hamilton, but is the Foster estate wound up?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [601.749, 612.347], "stop_times": [612.347, 618.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 601.749}, "reply_to": "21144__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21144__0_035", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "The Foster estate is not wound up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [618.22], "stop_times": [620.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 618.22}, "reply_to": "21144__0_034", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_036", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "But the period of claims is 3 months, the period for filing claims against the estate is 3 months in Arkansas?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [620.123], "stop_times": [628.038], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 620.123}, "reply_to": "21144__0_035", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21144__0_037", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "I believe that is correct.\nAs far as I know, no claims have been filed against the Estate, but it's not been finally wound up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [628.038, 629.971], "stop_times": [629.971, 634.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 628.038}, "reply_to": "21144__0_036", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_038", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "But if this were California you would be able to assert the privilege, is that right?\nI mean, assuming that you read the California words, Personal Representative, to mean someone who ceases to exist when the estate closes, which I don't know whether that's true or not, but assuming that that is true, because here the estate isn't closed, it would be proper to assert the privilege, even under California's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [634.145, 639.197], "stop_times": [639.197, 656.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 634.145}, "reply_to": "21144__0_037", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21144__0_039", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "I... if the question is whether the attorney is the Personal Representative, I don't believe the statutes have been interpreted that way, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [656.868], "stop_times": [665.564], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 656.868}, "reply_to": "21144__0_038", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_040", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--No, it says in California that if there is... you can't claim the privilege if there is no holder of the privilege in existence, and the holder of the privilege is defined as a Personal Representative of the client, so if you were to construe that as saying the privilege dies after the estate's closed, still you'd be able to assert it here because the estate hasn't closed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [665.564], "stop_times": [689.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 665.564}, "reply_to": "21144__0_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21144__0_041", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [689.471], "stop_times": [690.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 689.471}, "reply_to": "21144__0_040", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_042", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Mr. Hamilton--\n--Well, unless only the holder can assert it.\nIs it clear under California law that someone other than the holder of the privilege can assert the privilege?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [690.192, 691.924, 693.643], "stop_times": [691.924, 693.643, 697.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 690.192}, "reply_to": "21144__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__0_043", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Well, under California law the Personal Representative is the one who can assert the privilege.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [697.576], "stop_times": [703.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 697.576}, "reply_to": "21144__0_042", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_044", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "And no one else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [703.681], "stop_times": [703.871], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 703.681}, "reply_to": "21144__0_043", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21144__0_045", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "I don't believe anyone else--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [703.871], "stop_times": [705.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 703.871}, "reply_to": "21144__0_044", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_046", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "No, no, that's--\n--So you could not assert it under California law, then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [705.723, 706.464], "stop_times": [706.464, 709.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 705.723}, "reply_to": "21144__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__0_047", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--The attorney is not... under California law the attorney is not given the right to assert the privilege.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [709.357], "stop_times": [713.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 709.357}, "reply_to": "21144__0_046", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_048", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "I'm not... are you sure?\nI have this now in front of me.\nI'm reading it quickly, but it says the lawyer who received or made the communication subject to the privilege shall claim the privilege, in... do you know that... that's section 955.\nIt seems to give a... I don't know how much you've looked at the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [713.431, 716.623, 718.175, 730.524], "stop_times": [716.623, 718.175, 730.524, 732.677], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 713.431}, "reply_to": "21144__0_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21144__0_049", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "At the California law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [732.677], "stop_times": [733.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 732.677}, "reply_to": "21144__0_048", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_050", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Yes, so I'm not certain that the lawyer couldn't assert it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [733.656], "stop_times": [738.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 733.656}, "reply_to": "21144__0_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21144__0_051", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Well, certainly... certainly, Justice Breyer, in many States the lawyer can assert the privilege.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [738.07], "stop_times": [744.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 738.07}, "reply_to": "21144__0_050", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_052", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Mr. Hamilton, you take the position that there can be no compelled testimony by someone in your circumstances even if the information would be essential to show that a third person was not guilty of a crime, such as in the Macumber case in Arizona.\nYou say even in those circumstances there's no way to get at the information.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [744.033, 765.689, 771.652], "stop_times": [765.689, 771.652, 773.315], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 744.033}, "reply_to": "21144__0_051", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21144__0_053", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Justice O'Connor, what we said was this, that in a situation where a defendant's rights are at issue and where denying a defendant access to certain information might unconstitutionally arbitrarily and disproportionately infringe upon his or her right to weigh the evidence, perhaps the Court in that situation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [773.315], "stop_times": [799.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 773.315}, "reply_to": "21144__0_052", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_054", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Well, we don't even know that unless the material can be reviewed, do we?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [799.902], "stop_times": [805.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 799.902}, "reply_to": "21144__0_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21144__0_055", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Well, that is correct.\nThat is correct.\nYou don't know that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [805.217, 807.31, 808.211], "stop_times": [807.31, 808.211, 808.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 805.217}, "reply_to": "21144__0_054", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_056", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "And you don't oppose reviewing it if a defendant in some other case needs the information, or says he needs it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [808.973], "stop_times": [818.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 808.973}, "reply_to": "21144__0_055", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21144__0_057", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "If there was some demonstration that evidence in the hands of an attorney would be crucial to a defendant's right in this situation I would not oppose in camera review.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [818.108], "stop_times": [831.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 818.108}, "reply_to": "21144__0_056", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_058", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "So you make an exception for criminal cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [831.819], "stop_times": [833.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 831.819}, "reply_to": "21144__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__0_059", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "I would make an--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [833.402], "stop_times": [834.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 833.402}, "reply_to": "21144__0_058", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_060", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "There goes your absolute rule that you can't draw a distinction between civil and criminal.\nYou're willing to make a distinction between criminal to that extent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [834.841, 837.863], "stop_times": [837.863, 842.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 834.841}, "reply_to": "21144__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__0_061", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Justice Scalia, in the case of a situation where a defendant's rights may be at issue, then I think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [842.598], "stop_times": [851.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 842.598}, "reply_to": "21144__0_060", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_062", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "But that's still a criminal case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [851.975], "stop_times": [853.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 851.975}, "reply_to": "21144__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__0_063", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--That is still... that is still a criminal case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [853.177], "stop_times": [855.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 853.177}, "reply_to": "21144__0_062", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_064", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Let's put it in the context, why just the defendant's rights?\nI mean, let's put it in the context of your client and, as you know, there are conspiracy theorists who believe that his death was not a suicide but in fact was murder.\nYou acknowledge that if his evidence was necessary to prove that it was not his wife who committed the murder, that that indeed might be able to come in, but what if his evidence was necessary to prove that somebody else committed the murder?\nThen you would not let it come in for that purpose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [855.327, 857.989, 870.237, 886.579], "stop_times": [857.989, 870.237, 886.579, 889.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 855.327}, "reply_to": "21144__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__0_065", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "In that circum--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [889.411], "stop_times": [890.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 889.411}, "reply_to": "21144__0_064", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_066", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Even if it was necessary to show who killed the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [890.472], "stop_times": [893.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 890.472}, "reply_to": "21144__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__0_067", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--In that circumstance I would not, and let me tell the Court why.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [893.004, 896.366], "stop_times": [896.366, 898.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 893.004}, "reply_to": "21144__0_066", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_068", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--It seems to me quite disproportionate.\nI mean, courts like to get to the truth, and it seems to me that in that situation I can't see what interest is being preserved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [898.728, 899.907], "stop_times": [899.907, 909.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 898.728}, "reply_to": "21144__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__0_069", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Justice Scalia, courts do like to get to the truth, but this Court has said that a privilege like the attorney-client privilege is of transcendent importance.\nIt is important so clients will go to their lawyers and talk to their lawyers with candor.\nThat's central for the lawyer, for the client, but also for the administration of justice.\nNow, if we have a rule that allows the privilege to be broken whenever a prosecutor or a grand jury feels that he or it needs the information to pursue who committed a crime, then the privilege will be of little value.\nObviously, here, we have a balancing, if you will, of interest, the interest in having lawyers speak to their clients with candor and the interest of getting to the truth, but all of the privileges that we have recognize that to some degree, to some degree they will inhibit the search for information.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [909.383, 919.831, 927.618, 933.712, 954.369], "stop_times": [919.831, 927.618, 933.712, 954.369, 975.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 909.383}, "reply_to": "21144__0_068", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_070", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "But virtually all the other privileges we have have somebody else around who can say, well, in this circumstance I'm going to let it go.\nThe attorney-client privilege, when the client is still alive he can say, okay, you know, in the interests of justice this ought to come out.\nBut what's extraordinary here is, you're saying there is nobody... no matter how severe the public interest is on the other side, there is nobody who can say, enough is enough, in these circumstances the information ought to come out.\nEven if you yourself thought that the information was really crucial to you, you would have to say, nobody can let it out.\nThat's extraordinary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [975.81, 986.158, 994.203, 1009.333, 1015.467], "stop_times": [986.158, 994.203, 1009.333, 1015.467, 1016.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 975.81}, "reply_to": "21144__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__0_071", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Justice Scalia, in this particular situation I do believe the Personal Representative of Mr. Foster's estate could waive the privilege.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1016.298], "stop_times": [1023.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1016.298}, "reply_to": "21144__0_070", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_072", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Is the doctor-patient privilege different in that respect, on death?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1023.574], "stop_times": [1029.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1023.574}, "reply_to": "21144__0_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21144__0_073", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "In terms of... in terms of who can waive it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1029.559], "stop_times": [1034.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1029.559}, "reply_to": "21144__0_072", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_074", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1034.84], "stop_times": [1035.212], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1034.84}, "reply_to": "21144__0_073", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21144__0_075", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "I would think... Justice Ginsburg, we have not briefed that particular issue but I would think that in that circumstance also the Personal Representative of the estate could waive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1035.212], "stop_times": [1047.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1035.212}, "reply_to": "21144__0_074", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_076", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "But you--\n--Is there authority for either of those propositions, that the Personal Representative of the estate could waive either the physician-patient privilege or the lawyer-client privilege, or is this just kind of speculation on your part?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1047.148, 1047.869], "stop_times": [1047.869, 1061.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1047.148}, "reply_to": "21144__0_075", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21144__0_077", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "There certainly is authority for the proposition that the Personal Executive can waive the attorney-client privilege.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1061.3], "stop_times": [1067.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1061.3}, "reply_to": "21144__0_076", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_078", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "In California by virtue of statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1067.314], "stop_times": [1070.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1067.314}, "reply_to": "21144__0_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__0_079", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "And in other--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1070.028], "stop_times": [1072.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1070.028}, "reply_to": "21144__0_078", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_080", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "And in a few other States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1072.009], "stop_times": [1072.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1072.009}, "reply_to": "21144__0_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__0_081", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--And in other--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1072.58], "stop_times": [1072.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1072.58}, "reply_to": "21144__0_080", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_082", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "By virtute of statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1072.861], "stop_times": [1073.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1072.861}, "reply_to": "21144__0_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__0_083", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--And in other jurisdictions, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1073.892], "stop_times": [1075.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1073.892}, "reply_to": "21144__0_082", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_084", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "By virtue of statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1075.352], "stop_times": [1076.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1075.352}, "reply_to": "21144__0_083", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__0_085", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1076.554], "stop_times": [1077.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1076.554}, "reply_to": "21144__0_084", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_086", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Wouldn't you suppose, though, that the extent of the waiver would be limited by the extent of the Personal Representative's authority, which I guess I have always assumed is essentially authority over property, so that if we're concerned about reputational protection absent a statute, I would suppose the Personal Representative could not waive it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1077.064], "stop_times": [1098.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1077.064}, "reply_to": "21144__0_085", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21144__0_087", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Well, the cases are not very specific on that, but there is at least some implication that the Personal Representative could waive in other situations.\nFor example, let me speak about the Macumber case, because I think that is an example of how the courts, even in affirming the privilege, have found a way to do justice.\nIn that case, on remand the Personal Representative of the deceased's estate did waive the privilege, and so the attorney's testimony was available to the court.\nAnd it so happened in that situation that the court decided that the testimony was untrustworthy for a number of reasons, and it was not admitted into evidence, but there--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1098.058, 1109.878, 1122.277, 1134.745], "stop_times": [1109.878, 1122.277, 1134.745, 1144.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1098.058}, "reply_to": "21144__0_086", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_088", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "But that came at the initiative of the attorneys, did it not?\nI mean, if they had... they had this confidence that had been made to them, but the defendant never would have found out about it had it not been for the attorneys for the other client.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1144.843, 1148.526], "stop_times": [1148.526, 1160.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1144.843}, "reply_to": "21144__0_087", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21144__0_089", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Well, in that situation the attorneys did seek guidance from the bar to see what they could do, so I think it is fair to say that the attorneys had something to do with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1160.384], "stop_times": [1171.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1160.384}, "reply_to": "21144__0_088", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_090", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Your typical defendant in a criminal case is simply... in a lot of... they're simply not going to know of the existence of this evidence, so... if the privilege obtains, and that presumably is... if the privilege does obtain, that's the way it ought to be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1171.412], "stop_times": [1186.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1171.412}, "reply_to": "21144__0_089", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21144__0_091", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Well, they may or they may not.\nI mean, we don't know what a deceased person has told some third party, so it's hard to speculate as to what someone might know, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1186.004, 1187.736], "stop_times": [1187.736, 1196.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1186.004}, "reply_to": "21144__0_090", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_092", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Mr. Hamilton, you said you had five points, and you got out four, so we'd like to hear what the fifth one was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1196.923], "stop_times": [1205.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1196.923}, "reply_to": "21144__0_091", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21144__0_093", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "The fifth one was this, Justice Ginsburg.\nAs to work product, the court of appeals' notion that even seasoned attorneys do not exercise any professional judgment in taking notes during an initial client interview is contrary to reason and experience, it's without case support, and it is contrary to the facts of this particular case.\nI would like to go back to my point that persons will not talk with a lawyer with candor if they know that, when they die, what they say can be discovered by a prosecutor.\nOver and over and over again this Court has said that the purpose of the privilege is to encourage clients to talk to their lawyers in a candid fashion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1205.66, 1208.094, 1231.728, 1251.46], "stop_times": [1208.094, 1231.728, 1251.46, 1262.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1205.66}, "reply_to": "21144__0_092", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_094", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "I think this is very important and I want to pursue it with you a little, but as you begin, I'm thinking back to the errors on a case, the Macumber case.\nYou indicate that one of the situations where the confidence might be disclosable is when the client confesses a crime and then someone else is charged with the crime after the death.\nSo that's the instance where the confidentiality is most important in... to encouraging the disclosure, and yet we have... you admitted the possibility, in any event, that it would be discoverable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1262.437, 1271.804, 1285.732], "stop_times": [1271.804, 1285.732, 1303.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1262.437}, "reply_to": "21144__0_093", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21144__0_095", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "In the extreme situation where a defendant's rights would be unconstitutionally, arbitrarily and disproportionately infringed upon, a court might find an exception.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1303.494], "stop_times": [1320.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1303.494}, "reply_to": "21144__0_094", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_096", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "And the paradigm example of that is when the client confesses the crime to the attorney.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1320.808], "stop_times": [1326.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1320.808}, "reply_to": "21144__0_095", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21144__0_097", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "That is the paradigm example but, Justice Kennedy, that is not this case.\nHere, we have a prosecutor and a grand jury seeking, not specific information about... that's exonerating, but seeking all relevant information.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1326.283, 1333.246], "stop_times": [1333.246, 1345.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1326.283}, "reply_to": "21144__0_096", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_098", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Agreed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1345.204], "stop_times": [1345.454], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1345.204}, "reply_to": "21144__0_097", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21144__0_099", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "And not to exonerate anyone, but to see whether prosecution is a possibility.\nAs I was saying, the candor rationale has been announced by this Court in Upjohn, Jaffee, Fisher, Zolin, Trammel, and other cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1345.454, 1353.611], "stop_times": [1353.611, 1367.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1345.454}, "reply_to": "21144__0_098", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_100", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "What do you... what's the classic instance in which the attorney really should know something in order to help the client, but that the attorney would not hear this?\nThe client would be silent if the Independent Counsel's position prevailed.\nWhat's the classic example, do you think?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1367.21, 1375.646, 1379.97], "stop_times": [1375.646, 1379.97, 1381.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1367.21}, "reply_to": "21144__0_099", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21144__0_101", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Well, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1381.633], "stop_times": [1382.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1381.633}, "reply_to": "21144__0_100", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_102", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "It can't be confession of the crime, can't be property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1382.524], "stop_times": [1385.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1382.524}, "reply_to": "21144__0_101", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21144__0_103", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--I think you can think of many hypotheticals where a client might be disinclined to reveal something to an attorney if the client knew that after death it might be revealed to the prosecutor.\nI mean, in this situation an attorney would have to say, well, I would like for you to tell me the facts, but don't tell me what's really bad, what's really bad, because if you die I may have to reveal this to a prosecutor.\nSo I think you can come up with many hypotheticals where a client might not want to reveal some facts to the attorney.\nLet me just give you a specific one that I used in the court of appeals.\nWhat if we have a father who is dying, and he wants to consult a lawyer about the criminal drug problems of his child.\nNow, in this circumstance the dying father will know that as soon as he passes away some prosecutor might be able to get to the information that he has imparted to his lawyer and, in that circumstance, I think that candor would be chilled, because the father is not going to want to say things--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1385.876, 1402.918, 1417.189, 1427.316, 1430.979, 1441.528], "stop_times": [1402.918, 1417.189, 1427.316, 1430.979, 1441.528, 1465.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1385.876}, "reply_to": "21144__0_102", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_104", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Why does the father have to do that?\nCan't he just say, I want a spendthrift trust for my son, my son has got some problems.\nThat's all he needs to say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1465.713, 1466.945, 1470.758], "stop_times": [1466.945, 1470.758, 1471.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1465.713}, "reply_to": "21144__0_103", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21144__0_105", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Well, he may not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1471.749], "stop_times": [1473.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1471.749}, "reply_to": "21144__0_104", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_106", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Because you're presuming that there's something that's very necessary for the attorney to know that the client won't be able to tell, and I don't see that in that hypothetical.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1473.03], "stop_times": [1480.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1473.03}, "reply_to": "21144__0_105", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21144__0_107", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Justice Kennedy, the father may not come to the lawyer about some estate problem, may not come to the lawyer to set up a trust.\nThe father may come to the lawyer to consult about the criminal problems of his son, because he is concerned about him and he needs advice as to how these matters should be handled.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1480.697, 1489.064], "stop_times": [1489.064, 1500.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1480.697}, "reply_to": "21144__0_106", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_108", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Certainly many lawyers are kind of family confidantes, as well as just advisors on purely legal matters, I suspect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1500.774], "stop_times": [1509.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1500.774}, "reply_to": "21144__0_107", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21144__0_109", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Well, that, of course, is true.\nThe privilege applies when legal advice is sought.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1509.541, 1513.595], "stop_times": [1513.595, 1516.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1509.541}, "reply_to": "21144__0_108", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_110", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "But a person may... might go to a lawyer and... with respect to your... the drug, criminal drug problems of the son and say, you know, I really don't know what to do about it.\nHe wouldn't necessarily have in mind a particular testamentary disposition.\nHe probably wants the lawyer to tell him what he might do about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1516.977, 1531.235, 1535.379], "stop_times": [1531.235, 1535.379, 1538.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1516.977}, "reply_to": "21144__0_109", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21144__0_111", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Well, he may seek the lawyer's advice about this criminal issue, that is certainly right.\nPeople who are near death do not always consult lawyers about estate issues.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1538.363, 1544.209], "stop_times": [1544.209, 1551.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1538.363}, "reply_to": "21144__0_110", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_112", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "If I consult you about somebody else's criminal problem, is that privileged?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1551.563], "stop_times": [1556.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1551.563}, "reply_to": "21144__0_111", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__0_113", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "If you... if you consult me and you're asking my advice particularly as to a matter that may affect you in some way, yes, it is privileged.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1556.277], "stop_times": [1565.795], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1556.277}, "reply_to": "21144__0_112", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_114", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Well, I'm asking, you know, can my son be prosecuted.\nI mean, there's nothing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1565.795, 1569.528], "stop_times": [1569.528, 1570.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1565.795}, "reply_to": "21144__0_113", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__0_115", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "If--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1570.68], "stop_times": [1571.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1570.68}, "reply_to": "21144__0_114", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_116", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Or, can my brother be prosecuted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1571.371], "stop_times": [1573.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1571.371}, "reply_to": "21144__0_115", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__0_117", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--If--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1573.411], "stop_times": [1573.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1573.411}, "reply_to": "21144__0_116", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_118", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Can my third cousin be prosecuted?\nWould that be--\n--What if he's asking, should I make an insurance claim on behalf of my son, who has this problem?\nHe might not necessarily be asking about whether the man committed a crime, but whether it would be wise to make a claim knowing these background facts.\nThere are a lot of different things, other than crimes, that lawyers consult... are consulted about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1573.712, 1575.332, 1577.683, 1584.259, 1592.433], "stop_times": [1575.332, 1577.683, 1584.259, 1592.433, 1597.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1573.712}, "reply_to": "21144__0_117", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__0_119", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Well, that is certainly true.\nThat is certainly true, and if I am consulted by a person who wants my legal advice, even though it involves issues concerning other people, that type of conversation, Justice Stevens, is privileged.\nNow, if the situation is only, will you help me get a lawyer for my son, that would not necessarily be... I think that would not be privileged, but certainly you can consult about the legal issues of others.\nYou can consult with an attorney.\nYou can ask the attorney to advise you, and that certainly has happened in my own practice.\nMr. Chief Justice, I would like to reserve some time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1597.138, 1597.558, 1612.278, 1629.611, 1630.893, 1634.376], "stop_times": [1597.558, 1612.278, 1629.611, 1630.893, 1634.376, 1638.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1597.138}, "reply_to": "21144__0_118", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__0_120", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Very well, Mr. Hamilton.\nMr. Kavanaugh, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1638.329, 1639.561], "stop_times": [1639.561, 1642.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1638.329}, "reply_to": "21144__0_119", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21144__1_000", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIn light of what petitioner has stated, let me state at the outset there can be no mistake about the pernicious consequences of petitioner's theory, taken to its logical extreme.\nBy permanently walling off a critical category of evidence from the criminal process, petitioners' theory will lead to extreme injustice.\nNot our words, the words of Mueller & Kirkpatrick.\nThat will mean that innocent people--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1642.015, 1649.038, 1660.805, 1671.734, 1674.738], "stop_times": [1649.038, 1660.805, 1671.734, 1674.738, 1676.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1642.015}, "reply_to": "21144__0_120", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_001", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Who are Mueller & Kirkpatrick?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1676.461], "stop_times": [1678.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1676.461}, "reply_to": "21144__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21144__1_002", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--They are two commentators on the law of evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1678.02], "stop_times": [1679.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1678.02}, "reply_to": "21144__1_001", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_003", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Oh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1679.442], "stop_times": [1679.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1679.442}, "reply_to": "21144__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21144__1_004", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "That will mean that--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1679.762, 1680.463], "stop_times": [1680.463, 1683.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1679.762}, "reply_to": "21144__1_003", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_005", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "They're not quite as well known as Professor Wigmore and the like.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1683.087], "stop_times": [1687.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1683.087}, "reply_to": "21144__1_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21144__1_006", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "That will mean that innocent people will be wrongly convicted and guilty people will be wrongly exonerated, each of which implicates a substantial societal interest.\nThe case of State v. Macumber is exemplary of that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1687.108, 1701.506], "stop_times": [1701.506, 1706.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1687.108}, "reply_to": "21144__1_005", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_007", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Mr. Kavanaugh, we've been just told by Mr. Hamilton that he wouldn't take it to that extreme, where it's a question of a defendant who was convicted... who's charged with a crime, and the information was that some other person had done that and the lawyer knew that.\nHe did not press his case to that extreme, so I think it would be useful if you curtailed your argument to the one that Mr. Hamilton is making on behalf of the privilege.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1706.201, 1724.173], "stop_times": [1724.173, 1735.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1706.201}, "reply_to": "21144__1_006", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21144__1_008", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "If that's true that he's not pressing it to the logical extreme, that undercuts entirely his chilling effect argument, because the person consulting his attorney before death will not have the expectation of confidentiality on which their entire theory is premised.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1735.894], "stop_times": [1752.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1735.894}, "reply_to": "21144__1_007", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_009", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "No, you're only leaving out the case where he's confessing to a crime, and there are a lot of consultations between lawyers and clients where the client does not confess to a crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1752.874], "stop_times": [1760.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1752.874}, "reply_to": "21144__1_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21144__1_010", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "That's right, Justice Stevens, but the most likely issue about which a client might consult an attorney in which the communications might be sought after death are testamentary cases, and in that circumstance the law has long established... over a century in this Court... that the privilege does not survive death, notwithstanding, notwithstanding the embarrassment and the harm to reputation that can ensue from disclosure--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1760.921], "stop_times": [1786.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1760.921}, "reply_to": "21144__1_009", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_011", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Yes, but the assumption... no, please.\nWhy do you accept the qualification that your argument only goes to when there's an admission to a crime?\nWouldn't your argument also go to the situation where there's an admission that somebody else did the crime?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1786.056, 1787.669, 1797.156], "stop_times": [1787.669, 1797.156, 1803.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1786.056}, "reply_to": "21144__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__1_012", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Well, in that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1803.989], "stop_times": [1804.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1803.989}, "reply_to": "21144__1_011", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_013", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "My son did the crime.\nMy third cousin did the crime.\nWouldn't that also open up, if you accept the qualification, the consultation to intrusion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1804.63, 1805.781, 1807.293], "stop_times": [1805.781, 1807.293, 1817.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1804.63}, "reply_to": "21144__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__1_014", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Yes, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1817.782], "stop_times": [1819.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1817.782}, "reply_to": "21144__1_013", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_015", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Well, my point is, there are a of consultations where nobody committed a crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1819.571], "stop_times": [1822.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1819.571}, "reply_to": "21144__1_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21144__1_016", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1822.003], "stop_times": [1823.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1822.003}, "reply_to": "21144__1_015", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_017", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "You can't assume all consultations between client and lawyer involve criminal behavior.\nGenerally, we presume people are innocent unless somebody proves otherwise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1823.653, 1828.366], "stop_times": [1828.366, 1832.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1823.653}, "reply_to": "21144__1_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21144__1_018", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "But most likely consultation, again, will be in the testamentary context, and there the law has long established that the privilege--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1832.78], "stop_times": [1840.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1832.78}, "reply_to": "21144__1_017", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_019", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "How do we know that's the most likely consultation between lawyer and client?\nClients talk to lawyers about a host of problems, not just testamentary dispositions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1840.795, 1844.739], "stop_times": [1844.739, 1850.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1840.795}, "reply_to": "21144__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21144__1_020", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--The most likely situation in which the communications would be sought after death, experience tells us, are testamentary cases.\nIn fact, it is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1850.104, 1857.498], "stop_times": [1857.498, 1858.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1850.104}, "reply_to": "21144__1_019", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_021", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "And maybe one reason for that is, it has generally been assumed, as the literature is unanimous on it, that these conversations are privileged.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1858.33], "stop_times": [1866.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1858.33}, "reply_to": "21144__1_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21144__1_022", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--We don't know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1866.414], "stop_times": [1867.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1866.414}, "reply_to": "21144__1_021", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_023", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "That is the background assumption, on the cases you describe all say they are exceptions from the general rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1867.616], "stop_times": [1873.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1867.616}, "reply_to": "21144__1_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21144__1_024", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Exceptions from the general rule of attorney-client privilege.\nIt's not exceptions from a general rule about what happens to the privilege after death, the most prevalent rule after death.\nThe only thing we know that is settled with respect to posthumous privilege is that the privilege does not apply in the vast majority of cases in which it's raised, namely, testamentary cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1873.188, 1876.571, 1884.345], "stop_times": [1876.571, 1884.345, 1895.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1873.188}, "reply_to": "21144__1_023", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_025", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "No, but does that prove very much for your side, because the theory of the testamentary exception is that the client would, in fact, want the lawyer to talk for the purpose of implementing whatever the client's intent was.\nThe assumption seems to be that there's a point to which the client wants to go.\nThat was the object of the will or the trust, or what-not, and so in fact the theory behind that exception is really that the client authorizes it.\nYou're arguing for the converse case, in which we assume the client would not, so what does that prove?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1895.184, 1909.053, 1913.526, 1925.504], "stop_times": [1909.053, 1913.526, 1925.504, 1932.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1895.184}, "reply_to": "21144__1_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21144__1_026", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Two points in response, Justice Souter.\nFirst, as Judge Williams and Judge Wald stated in the court of appeals opinion, that rationale for the testamentary exception simply does not work.\nWe don't know whether, in intending for a particular property distribution, the testator intended that his or her attorney-client communications also be disclosed to fulfill that property intent, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1932.948, 1934.831, 1942.585], "stop_times": [1934.831, 1942.585, 1956.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1932.948}, "reply_to": "21144__1_025", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_027", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Well, we may not in the sense that in this case there is in fact a statement that can be attributed to the client saying, I want you to talk or I don't want you to talk, but it seems to me there is a reasonable argument that the client wants the object of his testamentary intent to be served and if in order to serve it, it is necessary to disclose something, it's reasonable to suppose the client would want the disclosure.\nI think that's as far as the theory goes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1956.916, 1988.586], "stop_times": [1988.586, 1991.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1956.916}, "reply_to": "21144__1_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21144__1_028", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Well, it may be reasonable to suppose but most believe that that's the one situation above all others where clients would be chilled to nondisclosure by the possibility of posthumous disclosure of the attorney-client communications, and if we're going to presume intent in that context, why do we not also presume intent in this context: presume that a person near death would want to fulfill what this Court has called his basic obligation as a citizen to provide information to the grand jury?\nAnd even on the facts of this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [1991.999, 2022.339], "stop_times": [2022.339, 2024.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1991.999}, "reply_to": "21144__1_027", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_029", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Because there are a great many people who know they have that obligation, or at least that there is a general theory that they have that obligation, but they do not, in fact, want to fulfill it.\nI mean, we're being realistic, I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2024.332, 2033.298], "stop_times": [2033.298, 2037.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2024.332}, "reply_to": "21144__1_028", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21144__1_030", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Well, it's again what we should presume someone's intent to be, and if we presume it in the testamentary context, even though it's going to be embarrassing information about one's family members, it could cause great harm--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2037.239], "stop_times": [2049.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2037.239}, "reply_to": "21144__1_029", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_031", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Well, if I may interrupt you, I think it's the difference between a presumption of fact and a presumption of law.\nI mean, in the testamentary case, we figure in fact the fellow wants to accomplish something.\nIf we're going to presume it in this case, I think it probably would have to be a presumption of law quite divorced from any specific actual intent on the part of the client because we know that if embarrassment would in fact result to the client's reputation, to living individuals, probably the client would not want that disclosed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2049.498, 2054.042, 2058.697], "stop_times": [2054.042, 2058.697, 2084.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2049.498}, "reply_to": "21144__1_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21144__1_032", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Well, again, I guess we just have a disagreement about what people would want done in the testamentary context as well, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2084.005], "stop_times": [2091.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2084.005}, "reply_to": "21144__1_031", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_033", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "May I ask you a different question, which hasn't specifically come up, I think.\nWho has the burden of persuasion here?\nDo you have it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2091.639, 2096.172, 2099.255], "stop_times": [2096.172, 2099.255, 2100.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2091.639}, "reply_to": "21144__1_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21144__1_034", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--This Court has stated repeatedly that privileges obstruct the search for truth and thus must be strictly construed, so to the extent there's a burden with respect to a legal issue, we would suppose that the burden would be on petitioners to establish what they want here, which is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2100.166], "stop_times": [2119.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2100.166}, "reply_to": "21144__1_033", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_035", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "What if we... if we assume... and I realize that you dispute this, but if we assume, in fact, the understanding of the profession has been, at least for a very long time, that there is a privilege as broad as Mr. Hamilton argues for, so that we start with a privilege which has been established, then I suppose the burden would be upon you, in fact, to justify a curtailment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2119.568], "stop_times": [2151.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2119.568}, "reply_to": "21144__1_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21144__1_036", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Well, in the... the testamentary exception did not exist forever, either.\nThat was an exception that was developed over time, and this Court recognized it in Glover v. Patten.\nWith respect to exceptions to an absolute privilege, we stili think, when the societal interests are balanced, the burden is on the privilege proponent to establish that the need for confidentiality outweighs the need for relevant information.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2151.97, 2157.045, 2163.78], "stop_times": [2157.045, 2163.78, 2179.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2151.97}, "reply_to": "21144__1_035", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_037", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Mr. Kavanaugh, you're confining your argument to the... to a criminal case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2179.29], "stop_times": [2185.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2179.29}, "reply_to": "21144__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21144__1_038", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "That's correct, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2185.975], "stop_times": [2187.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2185.975}, "reply_to": "21144__1_037", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_039", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Now, when you say a criminal case, do you mean a case where the statement made by the client to the attorney has perhaps some earmarks of a declaration against penal interest, or is it just any statement made by the client towards the attorney which might be admissible or useful to a criminal investigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2187.606], "stop_times": [2209.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2187.606}, "reply_to": "21144__1_038", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21144__1_040", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "It's the latter, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2209.862], "stop_times": [2211.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2209.862}, "reply_to": "21144__1_039", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_041", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "In that context your brief, I think at about page 8, indicates, well, there's no danger to the client of criminal liability once... after his death, but there is substantial danger of civil liability.\nIf X confesses to the attorney that he's engaged in a pattern of fraud that's criminal, and that comes out, that would subject his estate to a civil liability by the injured persons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2211.765, 2234.078], "stop_times": [2234.078, 2247.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2211.765}, "reply_to": "21144__1_040", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21144__1_042", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "The rule we seek in this case leaves open one of two possibilities in a civil case in which the estate is a party.\nEither in that future case the court or the Federal courts could end the privilege at death, or they could end it when the estate is wound up.\nIn your earlier questions, Justice Kennedy, about the estate being wound up, that rule shows that the rationale behind winding it up on the estate, ending the privilege when the estate winds up, means that interests and reputation, and interests and protecting others, are not what justifies the privilege after death.\nIt is simply to protect the financial interests of the estate and, thus, those codes which have been in the proposed Federal rule and the Model Code of Evidence, the rationale for those codes, limitation and duration and scope, support our position when that rationale is translated to the criminal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2247.789, 2256.014, 2264.138, 2284.324], "stop_times": [2256.014, 2264.138, 2284.324, 2301.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2247.789}, "reply_to": "21144__1_041", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_043", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "I think that perhaps understates the... one reason which I think is generally agreed to, that the client must feel free to tell the lawyer, you know, the truth, the whole truth, et cetera, so that the lawyer will be able to give him good legal advice, and it seems to me when you narrow the rationale the way you do, perhaps you overlook some of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2301.246], "stop_times": [2328.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2301.246}, "reply_to": "21144__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21144__1_044", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Well, we think the attorney-client privilege, as it is developed over time, represents not a single policy.\nPetitioners cherry-pick out the one policy of encouraging client candor, but it represents a balancing, a mix of considerations and policies that have led to different rules in different contexts, such as the crime-fraud exception, such as the exception for testamentary cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2328.844, 2335.729], "stop_times": [2335.729, 2352.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2328.844}, "reply_to": "21144__1_043", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_045", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Mr.--\n--Well, in the case of the drug-user son, the hypothetical we were discussing, it seems to me there is some merit to that argument.\nAttorneys, especially in practices where they advise families, often have this kind of question.\nWhat shall I do with X in my family who's an alcoholic, or a drug user?\nAttorneys engage in not just retrospective analysis of what happened.\nThey try to give guidance for the future, and it seems to me that the profession might be a little poorer for the restriction you ask us to adopt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2352.321, 2352.87, 2360.366, 2368.574, 2372.958, 2381.275], "stop_times": [2352.87, 2360.366, 2368.574, 2372.958, 2381.275, 2393.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2352.321}, "reply_to": "21144__1_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21144__1_046", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "The American Law Institute, which does represent the interest of judges and lawyers, and has been followed by this Court in many different bodies of law, has concluded, in agreement with our position, that the privilege should end after death.\nIn the hypothetical--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2393.703, 2407.754], "stop_times": [2407.754, 2408.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2393.703}, "reply_to": "21144__1_045", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_047", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Well, Mr. Kavanaugh, that position is not really supported by much of any case law that I can find.\nI mean, that's a position they take in the explanation, but it does not appear to have a lot of support.\nAnd while I have you interrupted, how do you characterize the holding of the majority of the panel below that we're reviewing?\nThey seem to adopt some sort of balancing test as applied to a specific case to see whether testimony should be... whether the privilege should be breached and the testimony compelled.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2408.496, 2416.522, 2423.948, 2434.595], "stop_times": [2416.522, 2423.948, 2434.595, 2449.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2408.496}, "reply_to": "21144__1_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21144__1_048", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2449.055], "stop_times": [2449.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2449.055}, "reply_to": "21144__1_047", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_049", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Is that how you understand the holding?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2449.426], "stop_times": [2451.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2449.426}, "reply_to": "21144__1_048", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21144__1_050", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--The court of appeals did require that the information be, quote, of relative importance, a standard that they said was plainly met in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2451.216], "stop_times": [2460.182], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2451.216}, "reply_to": "21144__1_049", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_051", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "But it seemed to be some kind of a balancing test applied case by case.\nDo you support that approach?\nIs that the rule you suggest that we should apply?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2460.182, 2465.305, 2467.608], "stop_times": [2465.305, 2467.608, 2472.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2460.182}, "reply_to": "21144__1_050", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21144__1_052", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "We support that approach, but we also pointed out in our brief that it may be somewhat inconsistent with what this Court has done in cases such as Branzburg, where--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2472.663], "stop_times": [2480.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2472.663}, "reply_to": "21144__1_051", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_053", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Yes, I think it is.\nThis Court has rejected a sort of balancing approach.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2480.94, 2481.72], "stop_times": [2481.72, 2485.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2480.94}, "reply_to": "21144__1_052", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21144__1_054", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--In many cases it has, and that's why we pointed out in our brief that in cases such as Branzburg and University of Pennsylvania within the context of grand jury proceedings the need has already been established.\nThere's no necessity for further balancing once you're within that narrow, limited context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2485.683, 2501.243], "stop_times": [2501.243, 2507.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2485.683}, "reply_to": "21144__1_053", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_055", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Mr.--\n--Well, it sounds like you're not arguing for affirmance of the test articulated by the panel below, but you didn't cross-petition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2507.718, 2507.948], "stop_times": [2507.948, 2517.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2507.718}, "reply_to": "21144__1_054", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21144__1_056", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "We're arguing for affirmance of the judgment and we pointed out an alternative legal standard in support of the judgment below.\nWe are not seeking to enlarge the judgment in any way, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2517.015, 2524.09], "stop_times": [2524.09, 2527.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2517.015}, "reply_to": "21144__1_055", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_057", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "What was the judgment below?\nWas it that the district court consider the matter and come to a determination, or was it that the material had to be provided?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2527.362, 2528.754], "stop_times": [2528.754, 2539.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2527.362}, "reply_to": "21144__1_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__1_058", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "It reversed and remanded without specific directions as to what was going to happen on remand.\nPresumably... we don't know whether all the notes even concern the Travel Office matter, since we haven't seen the notes, and there may be parts of it that aren't even relevant to our investigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2539.261, 2545.166], "stop_times": [2545.166, 2553.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2539.261}, "reply_to": "21144__1_057", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_059", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Well, did it tell the district court to apply the weighing test that it enunciated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2553.644], "stop_times": [2558.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2553.644}, "reply_to": "21144__1_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__1_060", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "It simply said, reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2558.586], "stop_times": [2563.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2558.586}, "reply_to": "21144__1_059", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_061", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Well, wouldn't one think that further proceedings consistent with this opinion would be to apply the weighing test that the court announced?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2563.18], "stop_times": [2569.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2563.18}, "reply_to": "21144__1_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__1_062", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--We don't think so, because the court said the standard was plainly met here, and it was talking about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2569.185], "stop_times": [2574.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2569.185}, "reply_to": "21144__1_061", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_063", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Where... can you point out the portion of the opinion, because that's blurry in my mind.\nI don't remember the court of appeals having resolved the issue for the district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2574.267, 2578.431], "stop_times": [2578.431, 2582.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2574.267}, "reply_to": "21144__1_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21144__1_064", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--On page 11a of the petition appendix, where the proponent has offered facts supporting a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2582.995], "stop_times": [2591.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2582.995}, "reply_to": "21144__1_063", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_065", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Whereabouts on page 11a are you reading from?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2591.261], "stop_times": [2593.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2591.261}, "reply_to": "21144__1_064", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21144__1_066", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--The beginning of the first full paragraph, where the proponent has offered facts supporting a good faith reasonable belief that the materials may qualify for the exception, a standard plainly met here by the Independent Counsel, and the preceding paragraph--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2593.411], "stop_times": [2608.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2593.411}, "reply_to": "21144__1_065", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_067", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "But what does it say after that?\nIt says, the district court should, in its sound discretion, examine the communications to see whether they in fact do.\nThat's hardly instructing the district court, go ahead and order the disclosure of this material.\nIt says, examine the communications.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2608.812, 2610.364, 2618.38, 2625.323], "stop_times": [2610.364, 2618.38, 2625.323, 2628.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2608.812}, "reply_to": "21144__1_066", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21144__1_068", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Well, we think the communications have to be examined to determine whether they're relevant to our investigation.\nThere may be portions of the notes, again, that have nothing to do with the Travel Office and may be extraneous materials, and that's why the district court in the first instance has to look at it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2628.775, 2636.112], "stop_times": [2636.112, 2645.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2628.775}, "reply_to": "21144__1_067", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_069", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "And then the court goes on to say, to the extent that the court finds an interest in confidentiality... the district court... it can take steps to limit access, et cetera, so it's hardly an instruction to the district court to go ahead and order the divulgence of these notes.\nMay I ask you a question in that line.\nCould you, if Foster were alive, say... subpoena him as a witness before the grand jury and say, tell us what you told your lawyer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2645.259, 2662.751, 2664.774], "stop_times": [2662.751, 2664.774, 2676.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2645.259}, "reply_to": "21144__1_068", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21144__1_070", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "No.\nWe could say, tell us everything you know about the Travel Office matter, which is the same information that he told... presumably told Mr. Hamilton.\nAll we seek in this case... the grand jury seeks no windfall.\nIt seeks to be... the same information to which it would have been entitled were Mr. Foster alive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2676.051, 2677.871, 2685.418, 2688.97], "stop_times": [2677.871, 2685.418, 2688.97, 2693.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2676.051}, "reply_to": "21144__1_069", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_071", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "But you would not have been entitled to these notes if the client were alive, so it's his death that establishes your qualification for something you could not have gotten.\nI thought your main argument was, this is a backup for the client, we could have had the client were he only alive, but now what you're really urging is something you never could have gotten when the client was alive.\nYou could have gotten the client's testimony.\nDo you think you could ask the lawyer, tell us what Foster told you, instead of looking for his notes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2693.906, 2703.68, 2715.749, 2719.161], "stop_times": [2703.68, 2715.749, 2719.161, 2731.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2693.906}, "reply_to": "21144__1_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21144__1_072", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "If he were alive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2731.159], "stop_times": [2732.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2731.159}, "reply_to": "21144__1_071", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_073", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "No.\nFoster--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2732.959, 2733.66], "stop_times": [2733.66, 2734.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2732.959}, "reply_to": "21144__1_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21144__1_074", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "In the current situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2734.931], "stop_times": [2735.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2734.931}, "reply_to": "21144__1_073", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_075", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Yes.\nYou're saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2735.262, 2735.472], "stop_times": [2735.472, 2735.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2735.262}, "reply_to": "21144__1_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21144__1_076", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2735.913], "stop_times": [2736.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2735.913}, "reply_to": "21144__1_075", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_077", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--you have a right to his notes.\nDo you also have a right to the lawyer's testimony?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2736.113, 2737.854], "stop_times": [2737.854, 2740.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2736.113}, "reply_to": "21144__1_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21144__1_078", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Absolutely, Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2740.846], "stop_times": [2742.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2740.846}, "reply_to": "21144__1_077", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_079", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "And is it up to you interchangeably, or do you have to do one before the other?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2742.078], "stop_times": [2746.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2742.078}, "reply_to": "21144__1_078", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21144__1_080", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "The orderly process of a grand jury, you usually seek someone's documents and then question them about those documents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2746.072], "stop_times": [2751.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2746.072}, "reply_to": "21144__1_079", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_081", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "How--\n--But even on the work product side of it, if you have access to the lawyer's testimony, why do you need the notes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2751.885, 2752.075], "stop_times": [2752.075, 2761.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2751.885}, "reply_to": "21144__1_080", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21144__1_082", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Because the notes may help to show what was discussed in the conversations between Mr. Foster and Mr. Hamilton and refresh Mr. Hamilton's recollection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2761.272], "stop_times": [2770.057], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2761.272}, "reply_to": "21144__1_081", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_083", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Well, he can use them to refresh his recollection.\nBut I thought, now turning to the work product side of it, that a statement that's not the witness' verbatim statement, that is the most closely guarded kind of work product, a lawyer's notes as distinguished from his verbatim transcript of the witness' testimony.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2770.057, 2772.25], "stop_times": [2772.25, 2790.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2770.057}, "reply_to": "21144__1_082", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21144__1_084", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "The settled case law in the lower courts, Justice Ginsburg, is in situations where the witness who communicated with the lawyer is unavailable, then those portions of the notes that at least reflect the factual statements of the witness and surrounding information must be disclosed, even when the client, the witness is still alive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2790.012], "stop_times": [2809.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2790.012}, "reply_to": "21144__1_083", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_085", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "But you have to make a substantial showing under the rule, don't you, and for those perhaps under Upjohn you have to make even more of a showing.\nWhat showing did you make in this case as to the work product?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2809.716, 2818.505], "stop_times": [2818.505, 2821.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2809.716}, "reply_to": "21144__1_084", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21144__1_086", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "The showing that has to be made, Mr. Chief Justice, is a showing that the witness in question is no longer available for questioning, as the Second and Third Circuit stated, and that is what the showing is, and that's been a traditional showing in the lower courts and is approved in the Restatement, that suggest that the notes must be produced in that circumstance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2821.928], "stop_times": [2842.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2821.928}, "reply_to": "21144__1_085", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_087", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "That itself is a substantial showing that the witness is no longer available?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2842.664], "stop_times": [2847.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2842.664}, "reply_to": "21144__1_086", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21144__1_088", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "That's correct, Mr. Chief Justice, and those opinions have... and the Restatement follow what Upjohn stated on that point.\nIn Upjohn, of course, and this goes to the attorney-client privilege point that Justice Ginsburg raised, a fundamental pillar on which the attorney-client privilege rests, a pillar that this Court emphasized in Upjohn, is that the client can be questioned directly about the underlying events, and that's simply not true after death, and that's what fundamentally alters the privilege analysis in this case.\nThe client--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2847.429, 2853.503, 2879.312], "stop_times": [2853.503, 2879.312, 2879.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2847.429}, "reply_to": "21144__1_087", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_089", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Well, you can't question a person after his death... sorry.\nYou can't question the person before his death about a matter that's privileged, can you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2879.622, 2882.065], "stop_times": [2882.065, 2886.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2879.622}, "reply_to": "21144__1_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21144__1_090", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--No, but the same information--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2886.439], "stop_times": [2887.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2886.439}, "reply_to": "21144__1_089", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_091", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Well, how do you know that he didn't talk to the lawyer about privileged matters, matters that were the subject of some other privilege?\nHow do you know that?\nYou haven't seen the notes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2887.831, 2893.856, 2895.378], "stop_times": [2893.856, 2895.378, 2896.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2887.831}, "reply_to": "21144__1_090", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21144__1_092", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--We don't know what's in the notes, correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2896.53], "stop_times": [2898.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2896.53}, "reply_to": "21144__1_091", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_093", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "All right.\nSo is it your rule that what's supposed to happen is that after a person dies the judge is supposed to go through the notes that his lawyer has to see if they're subject to some other privilege or not, and some materials would survive the death and others wouldn't survive the death?\nIs that basically it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2898.2, 2898.401, 2913.751], "stop_times": [2898.401, 2913.751, 2915.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2898.2}, "reply_to": "21144__1_092", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21144__1_094", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2915.083], "stop_times": [2916.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2915.083}, "reply_to": "21144__1_093", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_095", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "I mean, some conversations with lawyers would survive death as privileged.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2916.325], "stop_times": [2920.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2916.325}, "reply_to": "21144__1_094", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21144__1_096", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Ordinarily--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2920.589], "stop_times": [2921.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2920.589}, "reply_to": "21144__1_095", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_097", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Others would not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2921.591], "stop_times": [2921.801], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2921.591}, "reply_to": "21144__1_096", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21144__1_098", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Ordinarily when you disclose information to your attorney, if the attorney-client privilege doesn't apply... for example, in a crime-fraud situation you couldn't come in and say, oh, some other privilege applies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2921.801], "stop_times": [2932.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2921.801}, "reply_to": "21144__1_097", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_099", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Why not?\nYou might have told the attorney what you told your wife, or what your wife told you, or what you told your psychiatrist, or what the psychiatrist told you, or any other dozens of privileges that could apply.\nSo if you're saying, I guess, that those still would apply, even though they'd normally be waived when you talk to somebody about them, you're asking the judge to start picking and choosing among them, is there any common law support, or do you find in the last 30 years, even in California, any instance... I guess you did a handful, six or something.\nBut I mean, you looked at hundreds of cases.\nDid you find instances where either in civil or criminal proceedings, in California or anywhere else, somebody did breach this privilege, other than the testamentary context?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2932.116, 2932.327, 2942.514, 2962.236, 2964.177], "stop_times": [2932.327, 2942.514, 2962.236, 2964.177, 2974.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2932.116}, "reply_to": "21144__1_098", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21144__1_100", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Well, the case in Pennsylvania--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2974.996], "stop_times": [2976.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2974.996}, "reply_to": "21144__1_099", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_101", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "I'm not saying, necessarily, cases.\nI mean, is it the practice in California that prosecutors or civil litigants routinely obtain material on discovery from a lawyer of a person who's died after the closing of the estate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2976.656, 2978.198], "stop_times": [2978.198, 2993.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2976.656}, "reply_to": "21144__1_100", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21144__1_102", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Well, again, there is a distinction between civil cases in which the estate is a party and other civil cases.\nYour question goes to the unusual nature of the facts presented in this proceeding and in cases such as the Charles Stewart case or the Macumber case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [2993.11, 2999.034], "stop_times": [2999.034, 3006.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2993.11}, "reply_to": "21144__1_101", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_103", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "No, I'm asking you basically... you've done a lot of excellent research, and I'm saying in the course of that research, either through conversations or otherwise, have you found it to be a practice in California, which has had this evidence code for 30 years, have you found that it is the practice, have you found an instance, either in cases or outside of cases, where lawyers routinely or otherwise, in civil or criminal proceedings other than the testamentary context, breached the lawyer-client privilege?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3006.9], "stop_times": [3037.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3006.9}, "reply_to": "21144__1_102", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21144__1_104", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "It's simply silent on that point, Justice Breyer.\nWe have not found instances.\nA lot of this will come up, of course, in the criminal context in the context of secret grand jury proceedings in a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3037.79, 3041.072, 3042.194], "stop_times": [3041.072, 3042.194, 3048.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3037.79}, "reply_to": "21144__1_103", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_105", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "If not it perhaps shows that criminal prosecutions are very responsible, that criminal prosecutors are very responsible and don't abuse the privilege that California apparently gives them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3048.739], "stop_times": [3058.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3048.739}, "reply_to": "21144__1_104", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__1_106", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--I think it might show that the kind of situation... that's true, and also shows that the kind of situation we have here, as the facts and the statement of facts indicate, are rarely going to arise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3058.886], "stop_times": [3071.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3058.886}, "reply_to": "21144__1_105", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_107", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Another thing it shows is the woeful dearth of any empirical research in the legal profession, because the kind of questions that Justice Breyer and some of the rest of us asked, you know, if lawyers were polled as to how they treated client confidences, and people asked prosecutors, we would have a much better idea of how to decide this case than, you know, AB writes a law review article and says, here's what I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3071.005], "stop_times": [3098.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3071.005}, "reply_to": "21144__1_106", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21144__1_108", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "I couldn't agree more, Mr. Chief Justice, and the empirical question, even as to the attorney-client privilege for living clients outside the context where the client asserts the Fifth Amendment, there is very little empirical support behind--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3098.481], "stop_times": [3113.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3098.481}, "reply_to": "21144__1_107", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_109", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Well, of course, this is against a background in which the attorney has the unceasing ethical obligation not to discuss the confidential communications.\nWe're talking only about compelled testimony.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3113.771, 3124.83], "stop_times": [3124.83, 3126.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3113.771}, "reply_to": "21144__1_108", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21144__1_110", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--That's exactly right, and that's important, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3126.761], "stop_times": [3128.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3126.761}, "reply_to": "21144__1_109", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_111", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "But even there, I'm a little concerned.\nSuppose that there is a multidefendant crime, and there are five lawyers representing five different defendants.\nDefendant number 1 dies.\nUnder your view I guess the prosecution could compel the attorney for the now-deceased defendant to disclose all of the information, which it seems to me might among other things put the attorney for the deceased clients in great danger.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3128.982, 3130.174, 3140.002, 3142.472, 3166.699], "stop_times": [3130.174, 3140.002, 3142.472, 3166.699, 3167.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3128.982}, "reply_to": "21144__1_110", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21144__1_112", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--That's right, and actually, Justice Kennedy, your question is a problem in the law notwithstanding dying clients.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3167.821], "stop_times": [3177.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3167.821}, "reply_to": "21144__1_111", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_113", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Why is it a problem?\nI mean, death has sort of given one of the five defendants absolute immunity--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3177.137, 3177.818], "stop_times": [3177.818, 3183.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3177.137}, "reply_to": "21144__1_112", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__1_114", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "That was my--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3183.742], "stop_times": [3184.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3183.742}, "reply_to": "21144__1_113", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_115", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--which the State could have given anyway, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3184.473], "stop_times": [3186.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3184.473}, "reply_to": "21144__1_114", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__1_116", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--That's absolutely right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3186.385], "stop_times": [3187.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3186.385}, "reply_to": "21144__1_115", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_117", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "It was given in a more extreme fashion, so to speak.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3187.846], "stop_times": [3189.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3187.846}, "reply_to": "21144__1_116", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__1_118", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "That's right, Justice Scalia, and, in fact, what I was going to say is, the law has a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3189.686], "stop_times": [3192.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3189.686}, "reply_to": "21144__1_117", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_119", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "But Mr. Kavanaugh, in that case it's the defendant who would have the worry, not the defendant's lawyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3192.998], "stop_times": [3200.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3192.998}, "reply_to": "21144__1_118", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21144__1_120", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Well, the law has experience with the situation Justice Kennedy raises, not with someone dying but someone pleading or being granted immunity, and there are complications.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3200.133], "stop_times": [3212.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3200.133}, "reply_to": "21144__1_119", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_121", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Right, and he may have to worry about it, but his lawyer doesn't have to worry about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3212.302], "stop_times": [3215.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3212.302}, "reply_to": "21144__1_120", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21144__1_122", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Well, I think Justice Kennedy was positing a situation in an organized crime type of case where the lawyer would be in danger if the client--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3215.214], "stop_times": [3222.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3215.214}, "reply_to": "21144__1_121", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_123", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Because the lawyer is the source--\n--Well, I am.\n--of the information.\nI am.\nWhat's the answer to it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3222.347, 3224.089, 3224.27, 3224.611, 3224.901], "stop_times": [3224.089, 3224.27, 3224.611, 3224.901, 3226.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3222.347}, "reply_to": "21144__1_122", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21144__1_124", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Well, the answer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3226.223], "stop_times": [3227.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3226.223}, "reply_to": "21144__1_123", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_125", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3227.034], "stop_times": [3227.274], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3227.034}, "reply_to": "21144__1_124", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21144__1_126", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--in that case is that the attorney must disclose the communications and there can be conflict problems if there was a joint defense arrangement whereby everyone was meeting in the same room.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3227.274], "stop_times": [3237.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3227.274}, "reply_to": "21144__1_125", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_127", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Mr. Kavanaugh, you say that the attorney must disclose the communications.\nThis goes to your basic theory.\nI'd just like to know, are you urging us to decide what the law now is, or are you asking us to change the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3237.32, 3242.785, 3243.904], "stop_times": [3242.785, 3243.904, 3251.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3237.32}, "reply_to": "21144__1_126", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21144__1_128", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "We think the law is... in Federal courts there is no law, and so I guess it's both.\nWe don't know whether--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3251.16, 3256.634], "stop_times": [3256.634, 3258.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3251.16}, "reply_to": "21144__1_127", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_129", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "You want us both to say what the law now is and change it.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3258.947, 3260.93], "stop_times": [3260.93, 3263.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3258.947}, "reply_to": "21144__1_128", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21144__1_130", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--We don't know what the law... we don't know what the law is, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3263.562], "stop_times": [3269.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3263.562}, "reply_to": "21144__1_129", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_131", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "But you're not urging that the law be what the D.C. Circuit... as I understand your position, you say, we think that death ends it, period.\nThe D.C. Circuit said there's some kind of balancing.\nDo I understand you correctly to say, we think the D.C. Circuit was wrong, but we'll take that as second best, so that your position is, death ends the privilege?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3269.205, 3278.03, 3281.162], "stop_times": [3278.03, 3281.162, 3291.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3269.205}, "reply_to": "21144__1_130", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21144__1_132", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "We don't think the D.C. Circuit was wrong.\nWe do think the D.C. Circuit's articulation of the phrase, relative importance, has some inconsistency with what this Court has stated in cases such as Branzburg--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3291.491, 3293.434], "stop_times": [3293.434, 3303.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3291.491}, "reply_to": "21144__1_131", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_133", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Well, what is your first position, then?\nIs your first position is, death ends it, or is it... is it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3303.001, 3304.343], "stop_times": [3304.343, 3307.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3303.001}, "reply_to": "21144__1_132", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21144__1_134", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--That is our first position.\nOur second position, alternative positions is that relative importance is a standard that we would be happy with, but again, we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3307.956, 3309.116], "stop_times": [3309.116, 3315.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3307.956}, "reply_to": "21144__1_133", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_135", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--And is that the ALI standard?\nI think earlier you said the ALI agrees with you.\nI thought the ALI position was, there's some kind of balance.\nHow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3315.841, 3317.454, 3320.506, 3324.248], "stop_times": [3317.454, 3320.506, 3324.248, 3324.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3315.841}, "reply_to": "21144__1_134", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21144__1_136", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--It's some kind of vague balancing.\nAs to Pennsylvania--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3324.489, 3327.681], "stop_times": [3327.681, 3329.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3324.489}, "reply_to": "21144__1_135", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_137", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--You're hold... your position is that it ends for both civil and criminal... no, only for criminal?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3329.003], "stop_times": [3333.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3329.003}, "reply_to": "21144__1_136", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21144__1_138", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3333.936], "stop_times": [3334.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3333.936}, "reply_to": "21144__1_137", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_139", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "All right.\nIf it's only for criminal, then who... which group of States... I guess the answer's none, but which group of commentators or law reformers or whatever have advocated that the rule apply... terminate only in criminal but not civil cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3334.246, 3334.436], "stop_times": [3334.436, 3348.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3334.246}, "reply_to": "21144__1_138", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21144__1_140", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Well, with hesitation at raising their names again, Mueller & Kirkpatrick do suggest that--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3348.157, 3352.361], "stop_times": [3352.361, 3353.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3348.157}, "reply_to": "21144__1_139", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_141", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "The ALI... the ALI does not, is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3353.723], "stop_times": [3356.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3353.723}, "reply_to": "21144__1_140", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21144__1_142", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3356.267], "stop_times": [3356.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3356.267}, "reply_to": "21144__1_141", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_143", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3356.547], "stop_times": [3356.658], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3356.547}, "reply_to": "21144__1_142", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21144__1_144", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "That's correct.\nI want to make one point about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3356.658, 3357.95], "stop_times": [3357.95, 3359.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3356.658}, "reply_to": "21144__1_143", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_145", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3359.52], "stop_times": [3359.73], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3359.52}, "reply_to": "21144__1_144", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21144__1_146", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Pennsylvania.\nFor 22 years, Justice Kennedy, there's been experience in Pennsylvania after Cohen v. Jenkintown Cab.\nIt's a big State with a lot of lawyers, and there's no evidence, even with petitioners and their amici and their vast resources, of any chilling going on in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania based on the experience--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3359.73, 3360.451, 3366.886], "stop_times": [3360.451, 3366.886, 3378.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3359.73}, "reply_to": "21144__1_145", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_147", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Do you have the... what I'm quite curious about is, of course, the California Code and maybe Pennsylvania, I don't know, are maybe a little ambiguous as to whether it ends at death, as I read it through here, so an explanation to the dearth of cases may be that all clients basically think they're privileged.\nLawyers think they're privileged.\nEverybody thinks they're privileged, so they don't try to get it.\nNow, is there any reason you have for thinking what I just said is wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3378.362, 3394.835, 3396.277, 3398.731], "stop_times": [3394.835, 3396.277, 3398.731, 3402.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3378.362}, "reply_to": "21144__1_146", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21144__1_148", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--I don't think many people have thought about this issue, Justice Breyer, it comes up so rarely, and that would be my--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3402.741], "stop_times": [3408.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3402.741}, "reply_to": "21144__1_147", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_149", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Well, is the reason that it comes up rarely, because California lawyers, throughout the country lawyers, clients throughout the country go in to a lawyer and they think, I'm safe.\nThey all think that's the rule, so they don't try to get it.\nIs that the reason why there is a dearth?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3408.426, 3420.286, 3424.497], "stop_times": [3420.286, 3424.497, 3427.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3408.426}, "reply_to": "21144__1_148", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21144__1_150", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--The reason that there is a dearth is the factual situation rarely comes up, we think, and clients know when they talk to their lawyers, I'm going to have to disclose these facts when I'm called to testify anyway, so that kind of chilling is far greater than anything we propose here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3427.11], "stop_times": [3445.293], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3427.11}, "reply_to": "21144__1_149", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_151", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Thank you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3445.293], "stop_times": [3445.582], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3445.293}, "reply_to": "21144__1_150", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21144__1_152", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "I thank the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3445.582], "stop_times": [3446.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3445.582}, "reply_to": "21144__1_151", "speaker": "j__brett_m_kavanaugh"}
{"id": "21144__1_153", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Thank you, Mr. Kavanaugh.\nMr. Hamilton, you have 2 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3446.173, 3447.075], "stop_times": [3447.075, 3450.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3446.173}, "reply_to": "21144__1_152", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21144__2_000", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, I want to come back to the work product issue, because I believe Mr. Kavanaugh has misstated the law in that... in that area.\nI believe that the Upjohn case, the Hickman case demonstrate that the type of notes that I took are protected by the work product.\nUpjohn says that notes that embody what the lawyer saw fit to write down enjoy special protection, not an ordinary protection, but special protection.\nThis is found at 449 U.S. at 399.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3450.348, 3463.737, 3474.202, 3487.844], "stop_times": [3463.737, 3474.202, 3487.844, 3491.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3450.348}, "reply_to": "21144__1_153", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__2_001", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Don't these cases usually come up in the context where somebody would want to use... where insight into the lawyer's thinking would be useful in litigation against the lawyer's client?\nI mean, is it... what is the purpose of the work product privilege?\nIs it some copyright benefit that the lawyer has in the particular, unusual way that his lawyer's mind works--\n[Laughter]\n--even in future cases that have nothing to do with this client, or with this litigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3491.608, 3502.673, 3507.097, 3516.634, 3517.215], "stop_times": [3502.673, 3507.097, 3516.634, 3517.215, 3521.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3491.608}, "reply_to": "21144__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__2_002", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "The work product privilege is intended to protect the adversary system.\nIt is intended to let lawyers work in a certain sphere without interference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3521.339, 3527.833], "stop_times": [3527.833, 3533.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3521.339}, "reply_to": "21144__2_001", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__2_003", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Sure, so that your opponent can't see behind your thinking, your strategizing in this particular case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3533.717], "stop_times": [3539.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3533.717}, "reply_to": "21144__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__2_004", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3539.649], "stop_times": [3539.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3539.649}, "reply_to": "21144__2_003", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__2_005", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "But when the case is all gone, when there's no case left at all, is there something sacrosanct about the way this lawyer's mind was working--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3539.91], "stop_times": [3547.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3539.91}, "reply_to": "21144__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__2_006", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3547.586], "stop_times": [3547.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3547.586}, "reply_to": "21144__2_005", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__2_007", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--in a long gone case that has no future implications?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3547.806], "stop_times": [3551.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3547.806}, "reply_to": "21144__2_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__2_008", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--I think this Court, in the Grolyer case, has said that the work product privilege extends even after the litigation involved has concluded, but the purpose is to protect the lawyer's thought processes, his methods of working.\nThis protection--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3551.229, 3569.422], "stop_times": [3569.422, 3570.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3551.229}, "reply_to": "21144__2_007", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__2_009", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "So it is sort of a copyright.\nIt's an intellectual property thing, right?\nIs that what it is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3570.363, 3571.615, 3573.598], "stop_times": [3571.615, 3573.598, 3575.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3570.363}, "reply_to": "21144__2_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__2_010", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--I have not read any opinion, Justice Scalia, that describes it that way, but there are opinions, including the Moody case that Mr. Kavanaugh cites, that say that the work product privilege belongs to the lawyer as well as to the client, because the cases recognize that the lawyer has an interest to protect and the lawyer can assert that work product privilege even though the client does not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3575.328], "stop_times": [3603.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3575.328}, "reply_to": "21144__2_009", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__2_011", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "What is that interest that he has to protect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3603.668], "stop_times": [3605.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3603.668}, "reply_to": "21144__2_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__2_012", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "It is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3605.408], "stop_times": [3606.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3605.408}, "reply_to": "21144__2_011", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__2_013", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "When there's... this litigation is all gone, it's not usable in any other litigation, what is the interest that the lawyer has to protect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3606.049], "stop_times": [3614.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3606.049}, "reply_to": "21144__2_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21144__2_014", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "--It is protecting his thought processes, his methods of operation.\nIt allows him to prepare his cases in a certain amount of privacy, knowing that his adversaries will not have access to his work product.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3614.113, 3618.147], "stop_times": [3618.147, 3626.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3614.113}, "reply_to": "21144__2_013", "speaker": "james_hamilton"}
{"id": "21144__2_015", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Hamilton.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3626.595, 3628.084], "stop_times": [3628.084, 3628.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3626.595}, "reply_to": "21144__2_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21144__2_016", "conversation_id": "21144", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until Monday next at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-1192", "start_times": [3628.935], "stop_times": [3635.061], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3628.935}, "reply_to": "21144__2_015", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20735__0_000", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 97-29, Texas v. The United States.\nMr. Aguilar.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [0.0, 8.028], "stop_times": [8.028, 9.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20735__0_001", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--\nThe temporary appointment of a master or a management team with limited powers to assist school districts that are not achieving the academic goals set by the State is not a change with respect to voting but, rather, it is a temporary change with respect to governance.\nMore precisely, such an appointment does not result in the de facto replacement of the elected school board.\nA review of the statute, which you can find at pages 90a through 92a of the jurisdictional statement appendix shows that the board members... excuse me, shows that the master and the management team have very limited powers.\nThey cannot take any action concerning any type of district elections.\nThey cannot take any action with regard to the number of board members to be elected, or the method of selecting the board member.\nThat is, they can't change from single member districts to at large districts to cumulative voting, which is available to them under the Education Code.\nThey may not set a tax rate for the district.\nThey cannot adopt a budget that's different than the one that the school board members themselves have voted for and adopted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [9.647, 11.848, 27.048, 33.933, 51.154, 54.928, 61.562, 71.166, 73.57], "stop_times": [11.848, 27.048, 33.933, 51.154, 54.928, 61.562, 71.166, 73.57, 80.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.647}, "reply_to": "20735__0_000", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_002", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "If all that is true, Mr. Aguilar, then you have no problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [80.593], "stop_times": [84.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 80.593}, "reply_to": "20735__0_001", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20735__0_003", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "We... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [84.025], "stop_times": [85.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 84.025}, "reply_to": "20735__0_002", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_004", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Just go ahead and do it, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [85.528], "stop_times": [87.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 85.528}, "reply_to": "20735__0_003", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20735__0_005", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--That is correct, Your Honor.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [87.979, 88.898], "stop_times": [88.898, 90.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 87.979}, "reply_to": "20735__0_004", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_006", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--So why are you here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [90.1], "stop_times": [91.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 90.1}, "reply_to": "20735__0_005", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20735__0_007", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--We're here because in fact, when this legislation was passed, we submitted all of the amendments to the Education Code, both those that affected voting and those that didn't.\nWe just presented it with all of them.\nWe did not identify these provisions as being election related.\nThe Department of Justice, the Attorney General informed us that they believed that they were, and requested us to submit further information.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [91.402, 102.159, 104.138, 108.041], "stop_times": [102.159, 104.138, 108.041, 114.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 91.402}, "reply_to": "20735__0_006", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_008", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "That they were?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [114.637], "stop_times": [116.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 114.637}, "reply_to": "20735__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20735__0_009", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "That they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [116.767], "stop_times": [117.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 116.767}, "reply_to": "20735__0_008", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_010", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Were always, or could be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [117.519], "stop_times": [118.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 117.519}, "reply_to": "20735__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20735__0_011", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Well, that they believed that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [118.297], "stop_times": [119.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 118.297}, "reply_to": "20735__0_010", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_012", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Might be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [119.549], "stop_times": [120.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 119.549}, "reply_to": "20735__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20735__0_013", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Might be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [120.05], "stop_times": [120.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 120.05}, "reply_to": "20735__0_012", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_014", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Might be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [120.57], "stop_times": [121.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 120.57}, "reply_to": "20735__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20735__0_015", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "More appropriately stated.\nSo we answered their questions, thinking that once we provided them with answers to their questions, that they would agree with us that in fact they were not election related.\nWell, that is not what happened, Justice Scalia.\nThey in essence precleared the provisions, and I'm talking about as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [121.041, 121.96, 130.346, 132.449], "stop_times": [121.96, 130.346, 132.449, 138.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 121.041}, "reply_to": "20735__0_014", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_016", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "They're unwilling to say that none of these... none of these might not be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [138.365], "stop_times": [142.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 138.365}, "reply_to": "20735__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20735__0_017", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Their unwillingness... well, I guess what they're saying is that they believe, since they precleared them as enabling legislation, that they... once we actually put them into effect in those situations when we need them, to utilize them, that they will result in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [142.386], "stop_times": [158.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 142.386}, "reply_to": "20735__0_016", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_018", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Well, is that what it means?\nI mean, I interpret that to mean there is nothing in this enabling legislation, in and of itself, that's bad, and we just don't want to say right now whether, as it is later implemented, something might be bad, which seems to me a sober thing for the Justice Department to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [158.317, 158.888], "stop_times": [158.888, 176.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 158.317}, "reply_to": "20735__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20735__0_019", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [176.211], "stop_times": [177.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 176.211}, "reply_to": "20735__0_018", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_020", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "We would probably do the same thing, when a case is brought before us.\nWe don't rush into things we don't have to decide.\nYou asked them to clear this statute, and they say, the statute's okay with us.\nIt's just enabling legislation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [177.301, 180.152, 182.522, 186.306], "stop_times": [180.152, 182.522, 186.306, 187.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 177.301}, "reply_to": "20735__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20735__0_021", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--But we didn't ask them to... we went ahead and provided them with the information they requested.\nWe did it, if you will, under protest.\nWe informed them that we did not think these were election related.\nWe tried to make the argument, and we did make the argument as to why we thought it wasn't.\nI think the statute contains--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [187.548, 193.251, 195.124, 198.535, 202.068], "stop_times": [193.251, 195.124, 198.535, 202.068, 203.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 187.548}, "reply_to": "20735__0_020", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_022", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Well, Mr. Aguilar, I share Justice Scalia's concerns.\nYou want us to say that never, under any circumstance, under any implementation, could this be covered under section 5 of The Voting Rights Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [203.81, 206.141], "stop_times": [206.141, 217.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 203.81}, "reply_to": "20735__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20735__0_023", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--That's correct, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [217.498], "stop_times": [218.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 217.498}, "reply_to": "20735__0_022", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_024", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "And it isn't even ripe.\nIt hasn't been implemented.\nSeems to me that's all the Attorney General is saying and, like Justice Scalia, what prevents the State of Texas from just going ahead and implementing it?\nIf somebody thinks there's a problem, they'll file a suit, and in addition, even if the district court here were to say, fine, I don't see a problem, it wouldn't bind private parties.\nThey could always file a suit after implementation.\nI mean, I don't know why you're here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [218.73, 220.781, 223.351, 232.818, 245.247, 249.07], "stop_times": [220.781, 223.351, 232.818, 245.247, 249.07, 251.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 218.73}, "reply_to": "20735__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20735__0_025", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "We're here, Your Honor, because we believe that the statute as written, and as limited by provision (e) on page 91a, in essence passes that bright line test that this Court established in Presley.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [251.381], "stop_times": [264.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 251.381}, "reply_to": "20735__0_024", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_026", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [264.431], "stop_times": [265.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 264.431}, "reply_to": "20735__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20735__0_027", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "There is no way... there's no... I'm sorry, Justice Kennedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [265.719], "stop_times": [267.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 265.719}, "reply_to": "20735__0_026", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_028", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--You began by reciting many of the things the trustees can do.\nOne of the things the trustees can do is to appoint other people to exercise all of the power over the board of trustees under subsection (9), as I understand it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [267.751, 270.762], "stop_times": [270.762, 281.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 267.751}, "reply_to": "20735__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20735__0_029", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "That is true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [281.782], "stop_times": [282.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 281.782}, "reply_to": "20735__0_028", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_030", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "The master can appoint a board of managers composed of residents that exercises all the powers and duties of the board of trustees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [282.73], "stop_times": [288.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 282.73}, "reply_to": "20735__0_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20735__0_031", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "That's not correct, Justice Kennedy.\nThe commissioner, under subdivision (9)--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [288.464, 290.998], "stop_times": [290.998, 293.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 288.464}, "reply_to": "20735__0_030", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_032", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "That's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [293.589], "stop_times": [294.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 293.589}, "reply_to": "20735__0_031", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20735__0_033", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--The commissioner, under subdivision (9), is the one that can appoint a board of managers, and we did not challenge provisions (9) and (10).\nWe are not here today suggesting that that is... that does not fall within section (5).\nWe have no quarrel with the Attorney General's assessment with regard to (9) and (10).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [294.28, 301.005, 307.009], "stop_times": [301.005, 307.009, 312.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 294.28}, "reply_to": "20735__0_032", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_034", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--So you would submit to the Attorney General for preclearance any proposal to invoke the powers under (9) and (10)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [312.322], "stop_times": [320.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 312.322}, "reply_to": "20735__0_033", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20735__0_035", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Under (9) and (10) we would submit them.\nUnder (9), I think that's where you have a de facto replacement, because in fact the commissioner has the authority to select members of the school... I mean, citizens of the school district, residents of the school district and appoint them as board of managers to replace the elected board, and they'll have all the power of the board.\nI think that is more in keeping with what this Court had in mind in Presley with regard to the reference to a de facto replacement, but under no circumstance can that happen under numbers (7) and (8), because the legislature has gone out of its way to define away the problem, if you will, to make sure that it took it out of the coverage of section (5) by allowing them to have authority--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [320.208, 321.959, 339.349], "stop_times": [321.959, 339.349, 362.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 320.208}, "reply_to": "20735__0_034", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_036", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Could you help me just a little bit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [362.946], "stop_times": [363.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 362.946}, "reply_to": "20735__0_035", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20735__0_037", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Yes, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [363.806], "stop_times": [364.547], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 363.806}, "reply_to": "20735__0_036", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_038", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--on why (7) and (8) don't raise the same problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [364.547], "stop_times": [366.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 364.547}, "reply_to": "20735__0_037", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20735__0_039", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "There is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [366.386], "stop_times": [367.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 366.386}, "reply_to": "20735__0_038", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_040", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Because if you read (7) and (8) against the (e) over on 91a about all the things the management team and the master can do, they can direct any action to be taken, can't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [367.989], "stop_times": [374.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 367.989}, "reply_to": "20735__0_039", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20735__0_041", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--They can direct any action to be taken... the reason... let me back up and start at the beginning, Justice Stevens.\nThe reason a master or a management team are needed is because there are severe problems with the school district.\nFor instance, a... they have schools, any number of schools that are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [374.772, 379.577, 384.178], "stop_times": [379.577, 384.178, 387.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 374.772}, "reply_to": "20735__0_040", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_042", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Yes, but that's also true of (9) and (10).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [387.952], "stop_times": [388.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 387.952}, "reply_to": "20735__0_041", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20735__0_043", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--That's correct, but we're not arguing (9) and (10).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [388.774], "stop_times": [391.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 388.774}, "reply_to": "20735__0_042", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_044", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "I'm really trying to ask you to explain why you take one position on (9) and (10) and another position on (7) and (8).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [391.044], "stop_times": [396.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 391.044}, "reply_to": "20735__0_043", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20735__0_045", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Because... (10) is easy, I think.\nThat's an annexation.\nWe don't have any quarrel with the fact that that falls within section (5).\n(9) I think falls within the caveat in Presley about de facto replacement.\nI think that probably satisfies what this Court had in mind.\nBut (7) and (8), that is not a de facto replacement, and that's the only thing we're talking about possibly being a reason for it falling within section (5), because the legislature has said in the limitations found in subdivision (e) that there are certain things that the master or management team cannot touch, for instance, setting of the tax rate, or the amount of money that the citizens in that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [396.037, 398.617, 399.779, 402.661, 409.807, 412.418], "stop_times": [398.617, 399.779, 402.661, 409.807, 412.418, 435.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 396.037}, "reply_to": "20735__0_044", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_046", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "No, I understand that, but Number 1 under (e) is may direct an action to be taken by the principal of a campus, the superintendent of the district, or the board of trustees of the dist--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [435.045], "stop_times": [442.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 435.045}, "reply_to": "20735__0_045", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20735__0_047", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [442.318], "stop_times": [442.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 442.318}, "reply_to": "20735__0_046", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_048", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--They tell the board of trustees what to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [442.788], "stop_times": [443.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 442.788}, "reply_to": "20735__0_047", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20735__0_049", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Well, they can tell the board of trustees what to do with regard to solving the problem in issue.\nThat is correct, Your Honor.\nThat is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [443.81, 449.704, 450.625], "stop_times": [449.704, 450.625, 451.233], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 443.81}, "reply_to": "20735__0_048", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_050", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Why is that different from (9)?\nThat's what I don't quite see.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [451.233, 452.105], "stop_times": [452.105, 453.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 451.233}, "reply_to": "20735__0_049", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20735__0_051", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Because of the limitations they cannot... if we conceive of the authority of the elected board members as being a pie, we're not taking the entire pie away from them the way we are in (a)(9).\nWe may be taking a portion away, but we're never going to take all of it away.\nThey still make decisions with regard to how much total money is spent, how much money is raised, and anything having to do with elections, whether it be bond elections, or the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [453.276, 465.017, 468.897], "stop_times": [465.017, 468.897, 478.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 453.276}, "reply_to": "20735__0_050", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_052", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "I just don't read the statute that way when it says you may direct under (7), may direct an action to be taken by the board of trustees.\nI would say you spend the money for the high school and not the elementary school, or vice versa.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [478.224, 484.958], "stop_times": [484.958, 489.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 478.224}, "reply_to": "20735__0_051", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20735__0_053", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Well, that is... you're right with regard to the allocation of the total amount of the budget.\nYou're right, Your Honor.\nThe master or the management team, in order to solve the prob... it may be that the problem is that they're not spending money appropriately in certain programs in order to get the school kids to pass their reading and their math exams that they have to take every year from grades 3 to 8, and so they'll direct it... maybe they ought to emphasize that aspect, and spend money on those programs, and perhaps teachers in those programs.\nBut they are... they still don't have the entire pie, if you will.\nThey still don't have all the authority of the board, because they can't touch elections.\nThey cannot set the ultimate level of expenditures.\nFor instance, if the school board says that the budget for next year will be $50 million, the board... the... excuse me, the master or the management team can't go in there and require them to increase the budget or decrease the budget.\nThat is something that State law has given, and this provision reserves to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [489.009, 493.774, 495.184, 515.938, 519.41, 525.123, 528.086, 540.995], "stop_times": [493.774, 495.184, 515.938, 519.41, 525.123, 528.086, 540.995, 545.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 489.009}, "reply_to": "20735__0_052", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_054", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "But he... but the manager or master could require that the budget items be reallocated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [545.406], "stop_times": [552.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 545.406}, "reply_to": "20735__0_053", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20735__0_055", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nThey have to in order to be able to solve the... if, in fact, the problem is the result of misguided, if you will, management in terms of not spending the money appropriately, they're spending too much money in athletics and not as much money on reading and writing and arithmetic, well, then they have the authority to say you've got to direct more money to these essential items in order for you all to meet the State standards with regard to passage rates on the achievement tests.\nYes, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [552.913, 554.823, 579.921], "stop_times": [554.823, 579.921, 580.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 552.913}, "reply_to": "20735__0_054", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_056", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Could they order one school to bus children to another school?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [580.87], "stop_times": [583.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 580.87}, "reply_to": "20735__0_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20735__0_057", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "I beg your pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [583.212], "stop_times": [583.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 583.212}, "reply_to": "20735__0_056", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_058", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Could they order busing from one school to another--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [583.933], "stop_times": [585.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 583.933}, "reply_to": "20735__0_057", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20735__0_059", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "No, they cannot.\nNo, they cannot, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [585.845, 586.503], "stop_times": [586.503, 587.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 585.845}, "reply_to": "20735__0_058", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_060", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--spending money?\nWhy not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [587.124, 587.705], "stop_times": [587.705, 588.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 587.124}, "reply_to": "20735__0_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20735__0_061", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Well, because that would be... if they're under a court order to bus--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [588.226], "stop_times": [590.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 588.226}, "reply_to": "20735__0_060", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_062", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "No, no, no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [590.197], "stop_times": [590.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 590.197}, "reply_to": "20735__0_061", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20735__0_063", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--they cannot in any way... they cannot in any way interfere with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [590.978], "stop_times": [593.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 590.978}, "reply_to": "20735__0_062", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_064", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--I mean, just voluntarily adopt a program, we want to reallocate the students between two schools, say.\nJust say, we want to bus the third grade over to here and the fourth grade back here.\nCould they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [593.59, 598.762, 603.797], "stop_times": [598.762, 603.797, 604.295], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 593.59}, "reply_to": "20735__0_063", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20735__0_065", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [604.295], "stop_times": [604.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 604.295}, "reply_to": "20735__0_064", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_066", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--You know, sometimes they're--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [604.866], "stop_times": [605.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 604.866}, "reply_to": "20735__0_065", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20735__0_067", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--I guess--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [605.947], "stop_times": [606.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 605.947}, "reply_to": "20735__0_066", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_068", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Boards do concern themselves with where the children will go to school.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [606.879], "stop_times": [610.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 606.879}, "reply_to": "20735__0_067", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20735__0_069", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Right.\nI don't think... it's possible that that could happen if, in fact, there's some reason to do that.\nIn other words, in order to solve the problem that have them there to begin with, but ordinarily, no, they wouldn't do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [610.569, 611.17, 619.375], "stop_times": [611.17, 619.375, 626.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 610.569}, "reply_to": "20735__0_068", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_070", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "But that's... it's fairly speculative, some of these answers.\nThe Texas courts haven't interpreted these provisions, have they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [626.01, 628.391], "stop_times": [628.391, 631.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 626.01}, "reply_to": "20735__0_069", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20735__0_071", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "No, they have not, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [631.885], "stop_times": [633.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 631.885}, "reply_to": "20735__0_070", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_072", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "So that just what the law does permit the masters to do is really not clearly established.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [633.504], "stop_times": [644.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 633.504}, "reply_to": "20735__0_071", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20735__0_073", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Well, I think that what they can do is limited by the problem at hand and how they go about solving it, the creativity of trying to solve that problem, but that's not where we... that's not the argument we're relying on.\nThe argument we're relying on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [644.524, 657.71], "stop_times": [657.71, 658.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 644.524}, "reply_to": "20735__0_072", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_074", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Why wouldn't raising more money be?\nIs that explicitly excluded?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [658.861, 660.093], "stop_times": [660.093, 661.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 658.861}, "reply_to": "20735__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20735__0_075", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--That is excluded under (e)(6), may not adopt a budget for the district... that's on page 92a--that provides for spending a different amount, exclusive of required debt service, from that previously adopted by the board of trustees.\nWhat I was trying to say was that we believe that the statute, when reviewed, clearly shows that we're not dealing with section 5 coverage regarding changes in the manner of voting, the candidacy requirements, the composition of the electorate, the creation or abolition of an elected office and, indeed, the Attorney General's sole basis for the preclearance as enabling legislation was the issue of de facto replacement.\nIt's our position that this statute clearly shows that we can never even get to that point, that in fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [661.744, 676.493, 701.979], "stop_times": [676.493, 701.979, 707.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 661.744}, "reply_to": "20735__0_074", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_076", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Mr. Aguilar, this is a rather novel procedure as far as I know.\nHas there been any other case where a State or covered jurisdiction has sought to sort of jump the gun this way by bringing a noncoverage claim in the D.C. District Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [707.863, 712.628], "stop_times": [712.628, 727.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 707.863}, "reply_to": "20735__0_075", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20735__0_077", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--No, Your Honor, and I think there's a good reason for that.\nPrior to 1992, before this Court established its bright line test between what is a change with respect to voting and what is a change with respect to governance, I don't think there really was a good... a good understanding... anything that affected voting in any way, I believe, is the way I would characterize the pre-'92 law, would be covered by section 5.\nI think the bright line test laid down by this Court in Presley in '92 gave us the opportunity and gave the legislature the opportunity to say, well, how can we effect these provisions to make sure that they're utilized quickly when necessary without having to go through the preclearance route, because it's really not their intention to have any effect on elections, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [727.925, 730.168, 750.872], "stop_times": [730.168, 750.872, 771.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 727.925}, "reply_to": "20735__0_076", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_078", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Mr. Aguilar, what... this taking over the operations of the board is sort of a... in extremis remedy.\nIt's the last step.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [771.236, 779.792], "stop_times": [779.792, 781.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 771.236}, "reply_to": "20735__0_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20735__0_079", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--(9) and (10) are the last steps, yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [781.914], "stop_times": [784.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 781.914}, "reply_to": "20735__0_078", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_080", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Well... oh, I'm sorry.\nYou're right.\n(9) and (10) are taking over, in your estimation.\nWhat the Government contends might in some circumstances be a taking over, replacing the board with a director as to certain issues, that only comes after other remedies have tried and been failed, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [784.635, 787.316, 788.087, 791.471], "stop_times": [787.316, 788.087, 791.471, 808.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 784.635}, "reply_to": "20735__0_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20735__0_081", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [808.451], "stop_times": [809.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 808.451}, "reply_to": "20735__0_080", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_082", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "There's six or seven of them?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [809.002], "stop_times": [810.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 809.002}, "reply_to": "20735__0_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20735__0_083", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "There's six of them listed on page 90a, a public notice of the deficiency--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [810.411], "stop_times": [813.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 810.411}, "reply_to": "20735__0_082", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_084", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [813.583], "stop_times": [814.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 813.583}, "reply_to": "20735__0_083", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20735__0_085", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--is the first one.\nThe second one is having a hearing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [814.134, 814.664], "stop_times": [814.664, 816.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 814.134}, "reply_to": "20735__0_084", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_086", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [816.094], "stop_times": [816.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 816.094}, "reply_to": "20735__0_085", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20735__0_087", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--conducted by the board.\nI mean, there are a lot of other interventions, if you will, not as draconian as (9) and (10).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [816.735, 817.626], "stop_times": [817.626, 823.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 816.735}, "reply_to": "20735__0_086", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_088", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Right, draconian is the word, and you would hope, I expect, never have... never to have to use that, wouldn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [823.721], "stop_times": [830.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 823.721}, "reply_to": "20735__0_087", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20735__0_089", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "We would hope that the school boards, and we believe that the vast majority, the overwhelming majority of elected school board members of all 1,056 school boards in Texas are dedicated to making sure that their school districts--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [830.096], "stop_times": [842.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 830.096}, "reply_to": "20735__0_088", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_090", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Right.\nI would hope so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [842.024, 842.902], "stop_times": [842.902, 844.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 842.024}, "reply_to": "20735__0_089", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20735__0_091", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--meet the standards that the State has--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [844.034], "stop_times": [844.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 844.034}, "reply_to": "20735__0_090", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_092", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Well, I guess you have used it.\nBut would you say for sure that you know that in at least one case you're going to have to take over?\nWell, indeed, you have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [844.735, 845.515, 850.419], "stop_times": [845.515, 850.419, 852.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 844.735}, "reply_to": "20735__0_091", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20735__0_093", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [852.839], "stop_times": [853.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 852.839}, "reply_to": "20735__0_092", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_094", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Texas has in one case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [853.46], "stop_times": [854.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 853.46}, "reply_to": "20735__0_093", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20735__0_095", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--We have in one case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [854.931], "stop_times": [856.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 854.931}, "reply_to": "20735__0_094", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_096", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "We have some evidence of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [856.112], "stop_times": [857.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 856.112}, "reply_to": "20735__0_095", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20735__0_097", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "The... we made mention of the fact of the Wilmer Hutchins Independent School District, where we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [857.264], "stop_times": [862.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 857.264}, "reply_to": "20735__0_096", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_098", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Well, can you tell us, what were the powers that the master was directed to exercise in this Dallas district?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [862.156], "stop_times": [868.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 862.156}, "reply_to": "20735__0_097", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20735__0_099", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Well, if I may go outside the record, I certainly can answer that question.\nBasically the master... the management team went in to try to, on the one hand increase the pass rate and drop out rate of certain schools in that district, and on the other hand make sure that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [868.26, 872.622], "stop_times": [872.622, 883.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 868.26}, "reply_to": "20735__0_098", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_100", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Well, was the master directed to exercise powers (1) through (7), or (1) through (9), or was it that specific?\nIn other words, there's... we're talking about this lodging that the Solicitor General made with us just a few days ago where the special master was in fact appointed for this district near Dallas--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [883.571, 888.804], "stop_times": [888.804, 900.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 883.571}, "reply_to": "20735__0_099", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20735__0_101", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [900.551], "stop_times": [901.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 900.551}, "reply_to": "20735__0_100", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_102", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--or in Dallas County, and I want to know, was the master appointed and was he specifically directed to exercise statutory powers that were specifically listed under (a)(1) through (10)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [901.141], "stop_times": [913.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 901.141}, "reply_to": "20735__0_101", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20735__0_103", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "No, Justice Kennedy, that's not the way it works.\nHe was... the commissioner was authorized to appoint the master under (a)(7), and then under (a)(7) the powers that he can appoint are circumscribed or limited under (e).\nIn other words, they have the authority to go in and fix the problem, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [913.989, 917.104, 929.851], "stop_times": [917.104, 929.851, 935.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 913.989}, "reply_to": "20735__0_102", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_104", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Well, was he specifically appointed under (a)(7) and not under (a)(8)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [935.904], "stop_times": [938.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 935.904}, "reply_to": "20735__0_103", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20735__0_105", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--That is my recollection, yes.\nThere's no other way that you can appoint a master, Your Honor, under our scheme.\nIt certainly wasn't an (a)(9).\nIt was not a board of managers, and so it's (a)(7) that deals with an appointment of a master.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [938.466, 941.407, 945.24, 947.691], "stop_times": [941.407, 945.24, 947.691, 952.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 938.466}, "reply_to": "20735__0_104", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_106", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Could you, before you finish, explain how you got into this Court?\nAs I read the statute it says, when a State... paraphrasing it, when a State enacts or administers a measure that affects voting, then the State can go to the special three judge court and ask for a declaration that it doesn't affect voting in a racially discriminatory way.\nWell, you're saying this is a measure that doesn't affect voting, so if you think it's a measure that doesn't affect voting, how did you get into this Court?\nHow can you say to the Court, we invoke your jurisdiction because we have a measure here that we think affects voting, but we want you to say it doesn't affect voting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [952.016, 956.587, 976.48, 984.507], "stop_times": [956.587, 976.48, 984.507, 993.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 952.016}, "reply_to": "20735__0_105", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20735__0_107", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Yes, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [993.692], "stop_times": [994.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 993.692}, "reply_to": "20735__0_106", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_108", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "How do you get into the Court on that kind of a theory?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [994.733], "stop_times": [996.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 994.733}, "reply_to": "20735__0_107", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20735__0_109", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Let me explain.\nWe got into the Court because we were precleared, if you will, against our will, because we didn't think these measures, (7) and (8), were affecting voting.\nThe Attorney General basically told us that you've got to preclear any utilization of (7) or (8) before we can say anything about it, therefore putting us in the process, the section 5 process.\nWe think that that... that that legal determination can be reviewed by a three judge panel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [996.506, 997.904, 1005.971, 1016.826], "stop_times": [997.904, 1005.971, 1016.826, 1023.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 996.506}, "reply_to": "20735__0_108", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_110", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Why?\nI mean, why can't... if you... maybe you have some regular declaratory judgment action.\nYou can just go file... I don't know if you do or not, but I don't see how this... how you get within this statute on the theory that you don't affect voting.\nAt least that's the trouble that I'm having.\nI don't see why a State... this seems to be a statute set up for States that believe they have measures that do affect voting, and they believe that those measures are not discriminatory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1023.752, 1024.542, 1028.454, 1035.991, 1037.57], "stop_times": [1024.542, 1028.454, 1035.991, 1037.57, 1047.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1023.752}, "reply_to": "20735__0_109", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20735__0_111", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1047.358], "stop_times": [1048.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1047.358}, "reply_to": "20735__0_110", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_112", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Is there any authority or anything that a State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1048.578], "stop_times": [1050.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1048.578}, "reply_to": "20735__0_111", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20735__0_113", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Well, no.\nAs I answered Justice O'Connor, we have no... this has never been done before as far as we know, and what I mean by that is, we don't know of an instance where a State has gotten a ruling from the Attorney General that a provision falls within section 5 when the State believes, after applying Supreme Court precedent, that it is not part of section 5.\nThat's why we've--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1050.25, 1050.871, 1071.075], "stop_times": [1050.871, 1071.075, 1072.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1050.25}, "reply_to": "20735__0_112", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_114", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--All right.\nSo why would you think the judges... the other side thinks it does affect voting, so you can understand why they wouldn't raise it, but if you're a judge... you're the one who's invoking the Court's jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1072.315, 1073.087], "stop_times": [1073.087, 1080.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1072.315}, "reply_to": "20735__0_113", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20735__0_115", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--We're invoking the Court's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1080.673], "stop_times": [1081.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1080.673}, "reply_to": "20735__0_114", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_116", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "So you say, judge, I want you... to tell you something.\nWe're here because we have a statute that affects voting.\nBy the way, we don't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1081.555, 1083.555, 1086.127], "stop_times": [1083.555, 1086.127, 1087.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1081.555}, "reply_to": "20735__0_115", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20735__0_117", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1087.158], "stop_times": [1088.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1087.158}, "reply_to": "20735__0_116", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_118", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "I mean, how... on those circumstances why wouldn't the judge say, the person who's invoked our jurisdiction concedes we don't have it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1088.007], "stop_times": [1093.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1088.007}, "reply_to": "20735__0_117", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20735__0_119", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1093.962], "stop_times": [1094.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1093.962}, "reply_to": "20735__0_118", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_120", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "So we don't have to go further.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1094.983], "stop_times": [1095.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1094.983}, "reply_to": "20735__0_119", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20735__0_121", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--The... what we did with the court below was, we said that this is a section 5 issue with regard to the coverage question.\nWe believe that every preclearance action certainly comes with the predicate question of whether this is a change affecting voting.\nI think that if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1095.684, 1102.338, 1109.0], "stop_times": [1102.338, 1109.0, 1109.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1095.684}, "reply_to": "20735__0_120", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_122", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "How do we get around the statute's language?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1109.912], "stop_times": [1111.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1109.912}, "reply_to": "20735__0_121", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20735__0_123", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--I beg your--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1111.003], "stop_times": [1112.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1111.003}, "reply_to": "20735__0_122", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_124", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "How do... my problem is how to get around the statute's language.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1112.083], "stop_times": [1114.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1112.083}, "reply_to": "20735__0_123", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20735__0_125", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Well, I think we're relying on this Court's decision in Allen.\nThis Court was able to get around the statute's language and allow for private plaintiffs to file an action on the coverage question and then enjoin a covered jurisdiction from proceeding with the enactment.\nWe're suggesting that the language in the rationale of Allen gives us the right to come before the three judge panel in the District Court of the District of Columbia in order to review an erroneous... what we believe, in... with all due respect is an erroneous legal determination with regard to the coverage question by the Attorney General.\nI think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1114.196, 1116.807, 1127.554, 1145.896], "stop_times": [1116.807, 1127.554, 1145.896, 1146.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1114.196}, "reply_to": "20735__0_124", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_126", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Mr. Aguilar, I think when I asked you the question, has a pure coverage action ever been brought before, you were candid and said no, but hasn't the coverage issue been tied to a routine section 5 case where the District says, we don't think this racially discriminates and, moreover, we don't even think it affects voting?\nThat kind of claim has been brought.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1146.637, 1172.874], "stop_times": [1172.874, 1175.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1146.637}, "reply_to": "20735__0_125", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20735__0_127", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Absolutely, Your Honor.\nWe were involved in that kind of claim previously.\nThere's no question about that.\nWhat we're trying... if we can... the logic is, if we are entitled to bring an action in the district court that raises both the predicate question and the question of purpose and effect, then we believe that we also have, under the logic of Allen, the right to bring the coverage question only when we are in a situation where we have, for lack of a better term, been induced to get preclearance by the Attorney General on an issue that we don't believe falls within... on an enactment we don't believe falls within section 5 to begin with, based on our reading of Presley.\nWe believe that this Court attempted to draw a distinction in Presley between those enactments that respect voting and those that do not, and we are attempting to bring to this Court, and initially to the court below, a declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that in fact the legal judgment of the Attorney General with regard to the application of Presley is incorrect, and the only--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1175.366, 1176.327, 1177.917, 1179.367, 1215.311], "stop_times": [1176.327, 1177.917, 1179.367, 1215.311, 1241.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1175.366}, "reply_to": "20735__0_126", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_128", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Why couldn't you have waited till, say, the first case?\nThe first case comes up, then you can do what is not uncommon.\nThat is, you say, here's this case, and what we want you to rule on in this case, you'll be able to see that under these, whatever it is, (7) and (8), this is not simply not now, but not ever, so get it the way the statute has worked so far.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1241.229, 1243.061, 1248.456], "stop_times": [1243.061, 1248.456, 1266.349], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1241.229}, "reply_to": "20735__0_127", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20735__0_129", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Well, let me explain it this way, Your Honor.\nOnce we were precleared as enabling, then... if we were to ignore... if we were to ignore their determination and just say, well, we think they're wrong, we're just going to go ahead and enact, and just utilize this whenever we want to because there's no way it falls within section 5, in all likelihood we will either get sued by private plaintiffs, or we'll get an enforcement action from the Attorney General.\nIf we get sued by private plaintiffs, in all likelihood we will lose on our--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1266.349, 1268.191, 1292.127], "stop_times": [1268.191, 1292.127, 1295.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1266.349}, "reply_to": "20735__0_128", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_130", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Well, let me interject, because there's one thing you could have done.\nYou say, okay, we're going to be delayed a little the first time we do it, but then we'll be home free, so you could have brought the case the first time.\nThe first time you were contemplating... whatever.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1295.8, 1298.08, 1307.387], "stop_times": [1298.08, 1307.387, 1311.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1295.8}, "reply_to": "20735__0_129", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20735__0_131", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Oh, I see.\nInstead of opting--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1311.55, 1312.83], "stop_times": [1312.83, 1313.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1311.55}, "reply_to": "20735__0_130", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_132", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "And take advantage of the expedited whatever that both the district court said it had and the Attorney General.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1313.571], "stop_times": [1318.525], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1313.571}, "reply_to": "20735__0_131", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20735__0_133", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Well, if you're saying that back at the time when we presented the entire Education Code and then identified those areas that were election related for preclearance that we should have taken this issue and gone to the District of Columbia... is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1318.525], "stop_times": [1333.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1318.525}, "reply_to": "20735__0_132", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_134", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "No.\nI mean the first time that you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1333.797, 1334.414], "stop_times": [1334.414, 1336.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1333.797}, "reply_to": "20735__0_133", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20735__0_135", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Actually--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1336.156], "stop_times": [1337.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1336.156}, "reply_to": "20735__0_134", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_136", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--had whatever you had in that district near Dallas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1337.477], "stop_times": [1339.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1337.477}, "reply_to": "20735__0_135", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20735__0_137", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Oh, I'm sorry.\nThe reason we didn't do that, Your Honor, was because we wanted to act quickly.\nWe did not want to have to wait for a year or two to get a judicial resolution of whether this was a change affecting voting, or whatever, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1339.91, 1340.619, 1344.682], "stop_times": [1340.619, 1344.682, 1352.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1339.91}, "reply_to": "20735__0_136", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_138", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "And there... it didn't take a year or two, did it, in the case that we have?\nIt took a few months.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1352.028, 1355.761], "stop_times": [1355.761, 1357.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1352.028}, "reply_to": "20735__0_137", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20735__0_139", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--With regard to preclearance of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1357.651], "stop_times": [1360.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1357.651}, "reply_to": "20735__0_138", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_140", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1360.914], "stop_times": [1361.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1360.914}, "reply_to": "20735__0_139", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20735__0_141", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Wilmer Hutchins?\nIt took 90 days, and during that 90-day period of time... again, I'm going out... well, actually, we mention this in our briefing before this Court and the court below.\nDuring that period of time IRS and FBI agents were going in raiding the district offices because they suspected some financial goings on.\nWe could not do anything as a State to reach in there and fix the problem so that the schoolchildren would have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1361.495, 1362.096, 1371.76, 1380.766], "stop_times": [1362.096, 1371.76, 1380.766, 1386.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1361.495}, "reply_to": "20735__0_140", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_142", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Mr. Aguilar, the law moves slowly.\nI have never heard the argument before that a case is ripe because if I have to wait until it's really ripe in order to litigate this issue it's going to take a couple of years.\nI mean, that's not an argument that makes the case ripe now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1386.119, 1387.761, 1398.729], "stop_times": [1387.761, 1398.729, 1402.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1386.119}, "reply_to": "20735__0_141", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20735__0_143", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Well, let me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1402.461], "stop_times": [1403.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1402.461}, "reply_to": "20735__0_142", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_144", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "What is it that you were compelled to do by having to wait until one of these horribles actually happened in order to litigate it now, something like in Abbott Labs.\nThe drug company's primary conduct was immediately affected.\nThey were put to the choice of either printing on the labels the ingredients, as the rule required, or else being liable for an enormous amount of damages as well as penalties.\nNow, that's something very substantial.\nWhat does it cost you to wait until the thing happens, other than time?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1403.112, 1413.878, 1417.05, 1430.698, 1432.761], "stop_times": [1413.878, 1417.05, 1430.698, 1432.761, 1437.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1403.112}, "reply_to": "20735__0_143", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20735__0_145", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Well, federalism is ultimately our greatest concern, Justice Scalia.\nWe believe that if these enactments... if we're correct, and they're truly not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1437.033, 1442.859], "stop_times": [1442.859, 1447.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1437.033}, "reply_to": "20735__0_144", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_146", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Do you think it's truly not an individual freedom?\nI mean, you're raising the federalism concern of the State, but that seems to me no different from the individual freedom concern of the private citizen who's affected by a rule, and the private citizen has to wait until the rule bites.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1447.071, 1448.021], "stop_times": [1448.021, 1461.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1447.071}, "reply_to": "20735__0_145", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20735__0_147", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Well, we're also concerned about... well, our concern is with federalism.\nIf we don't fall within the purview of section 5, then we should not have to incur the burdens of section 5.\nWe believe that this is a process where--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1461.429, 1465.542, 1471.967], "stop_times": [1465.542, 1471.967, 1476.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1461.429}, "reply_to": "20735__0_146", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_148", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "But there's a time and place to decide that, and this isn't the time.\nIf Texas thinks they have a crisis in a school district and they're going to appoint a management team, then go ahead and do it, if you're satisfied it isn't affecting voting.\nDo it.\nIf the Attorney General has a complaint, they'll file it.\nIf some private individual has a complaint, they'll file it.\nI just don't see how Texas belongs here now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1476.109, 1479.421, 1490.26, 1491.088, 1493.88, 1496.962], "stop_times": [1479.421, 1490.26, 1491.088, 1493.88, 1496.962, 1501.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1476.109}, "reply_to": "20735__0_147", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20735__0_149", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, if we were to do that... that's what I was trying to explain earlier.\nIf we were to do that and just ignore what has happened with us before the Attorney General, then in all likelihood we would get, I think, private litigation, or private plaintiffs filing a lawsuit saying, wait a minute, you can't bring the master or management team in because this is a change affecting voting, and you haven't precleared.\nAnd I think the first thing that will happen is, in all likelihood we'll lose a preliminary injunction because, of course, the Attorney General's judgments are accorded deference by the courts, and it will again delay the process that we're trying to institute, and that is quickly move in and try to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1501.656, 1505.097, 1523.43], "stop_times": [1505.097, 1523.43, 1537.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1501.656}, "reply_to": "20735__0_148", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_150", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Well, but when you did... when you did apparently submit something to preclearance in the Dallas district it took essentially a couple of months.\nThe law says they have to act within 60 days, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1537.08, 1545.085], "stop_times": [1545.085, 1548.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1537.08}, "reply_to": "20735__0_149", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20735__0_151", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--It took them 90 days, Your Honor.\nWe... I personally phoned and asked for them to expedite it, and in fact we got, on the sixtieth day, more questions asked and 30 days later we got a result.\nThe fundamental... our fundamental position is that when you apply Presley to this statute, to the words of this statute, we... we're of the opinion that it does not fall within section 5, because it's certainly not election related, and it's certainly not the abolition or creation of a... of a office.\nAnd finally, the only other thing it could be would be a de facto replacement.\nAnd what we're arguing is, it can never be a de facto replacement, because the State, in the provisions, has reserved enough, we believe, authority to the school board members... you see, the school board continues to meet, continues to debate, continues to vote on important items like tax rates, like school bond elections, like the amount of money to be spent on the school for the following years.\nThose are areas that our master or management team don't have any authority for.\nSo it is right, from the perspective of we have a statute that needs to be interpreted.\nWe have a wrong, and the wrong to us is an incorrect determination by the Attorney General that this falls within section 5, seen through the prism of Presley, and the immediate impact on us is that it's a federalism one mixed up with the fact that there is delay in trying to get State processes that our legislature, elected by the people, wanted to put in place in order to strengthen our schools.\nEverybody's concerned with stronger schools.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1548.788, 1550.057, 1559.374, 1578.697, 1582.781, 1607.707, 1612.119, 1616.613, 1639.079], "stop_times": [1550.057, 1559.374, 1578.697, 1582.781, 1607.707, 1612.119, 1616.613, 1639.079, 1640.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1548.788}, "reply_to": "20735__0_150", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_152", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Well, I don't think... I don't see how waiving the magic word federalism alters the ripeness analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1640.93], "stop_times": [1646.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1640.93}, "reply_to": "20735__0_151", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20735__0_153", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "I'm not suggesting that it magically alters it, Your Honor.\nI'm just saying that it is in the ripeness analysis you've got to consider the federalism concerns when there has been an incorrect determination that an enactment falls within section 5 when in fact it doesn't.\nThis Court itself in Presley, in Allen, in Katzenbach, all of those cases, been consistent in saying that section 5 is a draconian measure.\nThat was passed for good reason.\nWe're not disputing that, but what we are saying as with regard to these two provisions they do not fall within the rubric, within the coverage of section 5.\nThen we have a federalism issue here, the very same federalism issue that this Court has consistently noted in all of these cases.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1646.264, 1650.456, 1661.743, 1668.508, 1669.81, 1678.624, 1686.239], "stop_times": [1650.456, 1661.743, 1668.508, 1669.81, 1678.624, 1686.239, 1687.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1646.264}, "reply_to": "20735__0_152", "speaker": "javier_aguilar"}
{"id": "20735__0_154", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Aguilar.\nMr. Wolfson, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1687.66, 1689.883], "stop_times": [1689.883, 1691.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1687.66}, "reply_to": "20735__0_153", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20735__1_000", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--\nFor two reasons we think the district court was not empowered to decide the merits of Texas' request for a declaratory judgment in this case.\nFirst, as that court actually concluded, the case was not ripe for a judicial decision in both the Article III and the prudential senses of ripeness and, second, the court in our view lacks statutory jurisdiction to decide this kind of case, which raises only the question of coverage under section 5 and does not actually request preclearance.\nBecause the district court disposed of the case on ripeness grounds, I'd like to turn to that issue first.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1691.473, 1696.037, 1703.802, 1725.206], "stop_times": [1696.037, 1703.802, 1725.206, 1730.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1691.473}, "reply_to": "20735__0_154", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_001", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Mr. Wolfson, before you do, I don't see that they're truly separate, because if you're right about ripeness, then there can never be this kind of action, because when it's ripe there will always be the actual--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1730.749], "stop_times": [1742.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1730.749}, "reply_to": "20735__1_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20735__1_002", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Right.\nI mean, I suppose theoretically if the State were actually... if it were actually implementing one of these sanctions and for some reason it wanted to go to the three judge district court and say, well we... you know, we really want you just to decide the issue on coverage.\nWe... you know, we don't... because we don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1742.928, 1744.059, 1759.25], "stop_times": [1744.059, 1759.25, 1761.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1742.928}, "reply_to": "20735__1_001", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_003", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Isn't that extremely hypothetical?\nI mean, if you went and you've done it, or you've got the plan and you say, please preclear it, as soon as you do, the moment you do we'll do it, why would you ever want to engage in that kind of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1761.031, 1762.77], "stop_times": [1762.77, 1774.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1761.031}, "reply_to": "20735__1_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20735__1_004", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1774.268], "stop_times": [1775.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1774.268}, "reply_to": "20735__1_003", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_005", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--hypothetical exercise?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1775.549], "stop_times": [1776.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1775.549}, "reply_to": "20735__1_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20735__1_006", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--I don't think you... I mean, the only reason why I think you might is if there were evidence of discriminatory intent and you wanted to come outside of section 5 by saying that you didn't have to... it wasn't covered at all, but I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1776.351], "stop_times": [1788.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1776.351}, "reply_to": "20735__1_005", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_007", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "The reason you'd want to do it is you don't want to play this game every time.\nI mean, are you taking the position that even when there is a... an actual implementation of this plan in a certain district, the State of Texas cannot come into the D.C. District Court and say, we think this is okay because it is simply not a change in voting?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1788.58, 1792.323], "stop_times": [1792.323, 1811.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1788.58}, "reply_to": "20735__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20735__1_008", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--They can raise the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1811.035], "stop_times": [1812.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1811.035}, "reply_to": "20735__1_007", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_009", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Because nothing under this statute is a change in voting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1812.415], "stop_times": [1814.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1812.415}, "reply_to": "20735__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20735__1_010", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--They can raise... I think that if they invoke the jurisdiction... well, they can raise that in the courts in two ways.\nFirst of all, of course, they can actually implement it, and then... and then raise that as a defense if a private party or a... or the Attorney General brings an action under section 5 in a local district court.\nBut if they go... the way we read the statutory jurisdiction, if they go to the three judge court in the District of Columbia and they say... if they invoke the jurisdiction of the court for preclearance actions they can also say, and we don't think this is a change affecting voting, so we don't have to be here, but that's once they invoke the jurisdiction of the district court in a properly presented preclearance action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1814.208, 1818.78, 1828.968], "stop_times": [1818.78, 1828.968, 1851.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1814.208}, "reply_to": "20735__1_009", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_011", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "What about Allen?\nI mean, that certainly gave a broader construction of the availability of an action under this statute than one might expect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1851.02, 1852.853], "stop_times": [1852.853, 1861.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1851.02}, "reply_to": "20735__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20735__1_012", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "I think that's true.\nI think that there are factors, though, in this situation... I mean, Allen relied on the notion that there was no other way, really, that a private party could--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1861.478, 1862.72], "stop_times": [1862.72, 1873.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1861.478}, "reply_to": "20735__1_011", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_013", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "But how... what's that got to do with jurisdiction, the fact that there's no other way that a private party could do it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1873.467], "stop_times": [1878.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1873.467}, "reply_to": "20735__1_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20735__1_014", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Well, in that case Allen really was sort of an implied cause of action case, I think, where the... the Court might not decide it on that way today.\nIt might be viewed as an Ex parte Young type action, or a section 1983 action since Maine v. Thibedaux, but at that time I think the Court was saying there was subject matter jurisdiction under 1343, and there was an implied cause of action under section 5, and then the Court said, well, looking at the statute as a whole we think they need a three judge court.\nHere we have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1878.189, 1885.135, 1904.806], "stop_times": [1885.135, 1904.806, 1905.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1878.189}, "reply_to": "20735__1_013", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_015", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Well, Mr. Wolfson, the Attorney General encouraged Texas to submit this new law to it, to the Attorney General for preclearance, and the Attorney General looked at the first six categories of sanctions and said, fine, that's not the problem.\nYou can implement it.\nNow, could Texas have gone to the district court in the District of Columbia and said, as to the first six sanctions, look, we want to file this and get it determined right now.\nIt's not an implementation of voting changes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1905.427, 1921.109, 1922.779, 1934.946], "stop_times": [1921.109, 1922.779, 1934.946, 1938.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1905.427}, "reply_to": "20735__1_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20735__1_016", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Right.\nThat would be a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1938.059, 1938.63], "stop_times": [1938.63, 1939.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1938.059}, "reply_to": "20735__1_015", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_017", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Would that have... would the court have had jurisdiction to do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1939.451], "stop_times": [1942.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1939.451}, "reply_to": "20735__1_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20735__1_018", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--I think it might.\nI think that would be what we call a preclearance of an enabling... enabling legislation before--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1942.3, 1944.133], "stop_times": [1944.133, 1948.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1942.3}, "reply_to": "20735__1_017", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_019", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "But that's what they're arguing for sections (7) and (8).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1948.524], "stop_times": [1951.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1948.524}, "reply_to": "20735__1_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20735__1_020", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1951.008], "stop_times": [1951.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1951.008}, "reply_to": "20735__1_019", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_021", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "I mean, I have trouble with your juris... your no subject matter jurisdiction argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1951.847], "stop_times": [1955.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1951.847}, "reply_to": "20735__1_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20735__1_022", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--I think as to (7)--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1955.45], "stop_times": [1956.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1955.45}, "reply_to": "20735__1_021", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_023", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Why can't the court just say it isn't ripe, and that's the end of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1956.021], "stop_times": [1958.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1956.021}, "reply_to": "20735__1_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20735__1_024", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--I think... well, the court did say it isn't ripe, and our view is that this Court can--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1958.101], "stop_times": [1961.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1958.101}, "reply_to": "20735__1_023", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_025", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Well, why can't we?\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1961.984, 1962.806], "stop_times": [1962.806, 1963.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1961.984}, "reply_to": "20735__1_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20735__1_026", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--You can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1963.413], "stop_times": [1964.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1963.413}, "reply_to": "20735__1_025", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_027", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--I just... I think your subject matter jurisdiction argument is very troublesome.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1964.004], "stop_times": [1967.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1964.004}, "reply_to": "20735__1_026", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20735__1_028", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "I'm certainly happy for the Court to resolve the issue on ripeness.\nI think that... I do think that if Texas... first of all, in terms of preclearing enabling legislation, we're not aware of any situation in which a covered jurisdiction has gone to the three judge district court in the District of Columbia and asked for just enabling legislation to be precleared before it's ever been implemented, and I think just as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1967.557, 1970.769], "stop_times": [1970.769, 1990.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1967.557}, "reply_to": "20735__1_027", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_029", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "But you can understand the State's concern.\nIf the Attorney General is going to take some extreme position... maybe not this Attorney General, but someone in the future, and say that some absolutely innocent law in a section 5 area nevertheless requires preclearance, why shouldn't the State be able to go to the district court here and say, look, this just doesn't implement it at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [1990.132, 1991.815], "stop_times": [1991.815, 2015.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1990.132}, "reply_to": "20735__1_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20735__1_030", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--I mean, there are many occasions... there are many occasions on which, of course, parties want to have their rights adjudicated definitively, and there are even occasions on which the other side wouldn't mind having that done, determined by the courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2015.472], "stop_times": [2028.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2015.472}, "reply_to": "20735__1_029", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_031", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Yes, but the Attorney General would be right in there opposing it, because it's I'm assuming a situation where the Attorney General is taking a very unrealistic view of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2028.119], "stop_times": [2036.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2028.119}, "reply_to": "20735__1_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20735__1_032", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Right, but the fact is that in our... in a system of the Federal courts that we have the courts can't resolve a controversy in advance of... can't resolve a dispute like that in advance of a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2036.247], "stop_times": [2046.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2036.247}, "reply_to": "20735__1_031", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_033", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2046.261], "stop_times": [2047.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2046.261}, "reply_to": "20735__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20735__1_034", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Of a concrete case of controversy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2047.093], "stop_times": [2048.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2047.093}, "reply_to": "20735__1_033", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_035", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--But you know, in Allen the court found some way.\nThey said this was the only way this could be done, even though it was a rather circular way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2048.081, 2049.954], "stop_times": [2049.954, 2054.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2048.081}, "reply_to": "20735__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20735__1_036", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "And that's not the case here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2054.114], "stop_times": [2055.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2054.114}, "reply_to": "20735__1_035", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_037", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Why isn't it the case here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2055.708], "stop_times": [2057.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2055.708}, "reply_to": "20735__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20735__1_038", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Well, there are... well, if the State really... if the State implements... if the State finds it necessary to go so far--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2057.398], "stop_times": [2066.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2057.398}, "reply_to": "20735__1_037", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_039", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "On Justice O'Connor's hypothesis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2066.313], "stop_times": [2067.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2066.313}, "reply_to": "20735__1_038", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20735__1_040", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Okay.\nRight.\nWell, I... I mean, in Allen, though, there was a ripe controversy.\nI mean, I think that's an important difference, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2067.726, 2068.126, 2068.516, 2071.379], "stop_times": [2068.126, 2068.516, 2071.379, 2073.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2067.726}, "reply_to": "20735__1_039", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_041", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Yes, but let's assume that the doctrine of ripeness would prevent many of this kinds of suits from being brought.\nYou're saying not only is it not ripe, but the district court simply had no jurisdiction, and that, I think, is dubious under Allen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2073.56, 2079.224], "stop_times": [2079.224, 2087.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2073.56}, "reply_to": "20735__1_040", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20735__1_042", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Well, again, I think that in terms of the district court's jurisdiction there are a number of factors that one has to take into account.\nFirst, it is a waiver of sovereign immunity problem.\nThe Court has to find an express waiver of sovereign immunity for a suit against the United States, and that... in Allen the Court didn't look at it that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2087.567, 2093.342, 2096.132], "stop_times": [2093.342, 2096.132, 2103.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2087.567}, "reply_to": "20735__1_041", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_043", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Mr. Wolfson, can you explain that to me, because I had thought that in 702 the United States was waiving immunity for nonmonetary claims en masse.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2103.269], "stop_times": [2111.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2103.269}, "reply_to": "20735__1_042", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20735__1_044", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "But this is not... I think Morris v. Gressette really resolves that this is not an Administrative Procedure Act type claim, and it has to fall within--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2111.544], "stop_times": [2120.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2111.544}, "reply_to": "20735__1_043", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_045", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "But I can see that the way... although 702 is in the APA, I didn't think it was limited to the APA.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2120.631], "stop_times": [2125.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2120.631}, "reply_to": "20735__1_044", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20735__1_046", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--I think our view is that the... that this case has to be resolved only within the confines... the jurisdiction is only within the confines of section 5 itself, and that it's really an exclusive... exclusive mechanism.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2125.383], "stop_times": [2136.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2125.383}, "reply_to": "20735__1_045", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_047", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "But that wasn't what was done in Allen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2136.591], "stop_times": [2137.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2136.591}, "reply_to": "20735__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20735__1_048", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Well, in Allen... in Allen--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2137.751], "stop_times": [2140.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2137.751}, "reply_to": "20735__1_047", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_049", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "In Allen the Court went into 1343.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2140.563], "stop_times": [2143.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2140.563}, "reply_to": "20735__1_048", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20735__1_050", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--That's right, but again that was... I mean, at that time I think the Court did not view actions against the States as raising the same sovereign immunity concerns that... as it might now or as it does against suits against the United States.\nThe only basis for jurisdiction for this type of claim is section 5 itself, and that, for the reasons we give in our brief, that's not... we don't find it to fall within section 5.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2143.104, 2155.563], "stop_times": [2155.563, 2166.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2143.104}, "reply_to": "20735__1_049", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_051", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "No, but Mr. Wolfson, as I understand it, even on your own argument, if they had gone into the D.C. court and said, we want preclearance, it's quite true we asked for preclearance from the Attorney General and we got it only, as it were, 90 percent of the way, we're coming in here and we're asking for preclearance 100 percent of the way... i.e. with no such condition as this enabling legislation, condition 9.\nAnd by the way, we also don't think we're covered.\nOn your theory, it seems to me, they could have gotten exactly what they wanted if they had in effect come in and pleaded in that form.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2166.57, 2190.996, 2194.9], "stop_times": [2190.996, 2194.9, 2202.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2166.57}, "reply_to": "20735__1_050", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20735__1_052", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Well, if they were... I think if they sought that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2202.063], "stop_times": [2204.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2202.063}, "reply_to": "20735__1_051", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_053", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Is... am I right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2204.407], "stop_times": [2205.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2204.407}, "reply_to": "20735__1_052", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20735__1_054", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Well, once they're implementing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2205.045], "stop_times": [2206.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2205.045}, "reply_to": "20735__1_053", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_055", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Because you said, you know, if they come in and they ask for preclearance and then they say, as it were, as an afterthought, by the way, we don't think we're covered at all, this declaratory issue may be taken out.\nSo I take it on your view, the court would have had jurisdiction if they had simply approached it in that particularly formal way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2206.497, 2216.761], "stop_times": [2216.761, 2224.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2206.497}, "reply_to": "20735__1_054", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20735__1_056", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--I think if they were doing that before the statute had ever been implemented, or before there was ever any... in a situation where there was no expectation it would be implemented in the future, there would be a serious prudential ripeness concern there.\nI think it would be the same--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2224.438, 2237.828], "stop_times": [2237.828, 2238.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2224.438}, "reply_to": "20735__1_055", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_057", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "No, but I'm talking about jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2238.92], "stop_times": [2240.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2238.92}, "reply_to": "20735__1_056", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20735__1_058", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Right.\nI think that if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2240.42, 2240.96], "stop_times": [2240.96, 2241.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2240.42}, "reply_to": "20735__1_057", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_059", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "I mean, the statutory jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2241.651], "stop_times": [2242.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2241.651}, "reply_to": "20735__1_058", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20735__1_060", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Right.\nI think that probably would be within statutory jurisdiction, just as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2242.342, 2242.783], "stop_times": [2242.783, 2244.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2242.342}, "reply_to": "20735__1_059", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_061", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Well then, why isn't the statutory jurisdictional argument here, then, one of pure formality?\nThe only thing that they fail to do, on your theory, is to precede their request for this declaration with a statement in the form, please preclear this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2244.743, 2249.497], "stop_times": [2249.497, 2262.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2244.743}, "reply_to": "20735__1_060", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20735__1_062", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--I think... well, I think that what it reflects is that they didn't preclear it... they didn't ask for preclearance because... and I can't speak for the State, obviously, why they didn't request preclearance, but that they knew that they weren't going to... they knew that it wasn't going to be done immediately, and so there was nothing to pre... there was no implementation of it to preclear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2262.007], "stop_times": [2279.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2262.007}, "reply_to": "20735__1_061", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_063", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "They didn't ask for it because it might have been granted.\nThis case does differ from--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2279.299, 2281.17], "stop_times": [2281.17, 2284.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2279.299}, "reply_to": "20735__1_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20735__1_064", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Well, right, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2284.052], "stop_times": [2284.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2284.052}, "reply_to": "20735__1_063", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_065", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--is the same as Allen in this respect.\nJust as we said in Allen there's no other way to get this, there is really no other way to be sure what you're going to get is a declaration that none of these things are within the act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2284.543, 2286.433], "stop_times": [2286.433, 2295.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2284.543}, "reply_to": "20735__1_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20735__1_066", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Right, but I don't think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2295.359], "stop_times": [2296.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2295.359}, "reply_to": "20735__1_065", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_067", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Because if they ask for preclearance, if I were a district judge I would say, why should I bother my brains about this, at least in this instance it's okay.\nI... why do I have to reach the more general question?\nAnd that will happen every time one of these specific requests for preclearance is given.\nThe State can never be assured that that case will be decided by the court on the basis that this is simply not a voting change.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2296.431, 2304.335, 2308.398, 2313.961], "stop_times": [2304.335, 2308.398, 2313.961, 2321.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2296.431}, "reply_to": "20735__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20735__1_068", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--That may be, but I don't think... I mean, but the section is designed principally for preclearance, for preclearance actions, and I don't think... this is really somewhat hypothetical, but if the State did bring such an action and got preclearance, I don't think the State could complain about that.\nI mean, they couldn't appeal a judgment preclearing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2321.786, 2338.659], "stop_times": [2338.659, 2341.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2321.786}, "reply_to": "20735__1_067", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_069", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2341.571], "stop_times": [2342.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2341.571}, "reply_to": "20735__1_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20735__1_070", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Preclearing legislation, and indeed--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2342.32], "stop_times": [2344.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2342.32}, "reply_to": "20735__1_069", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_071", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "No, that's the worst part of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2344.232], "stop_times": [2344.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2344.232}, "reply_to": "20735__1_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20735__1_072", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--No, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2344.873], "stop_times": [2345.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2344.873}, "reply_to": "20735__1_071", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_073", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Then they'll have to preclear every other one after that.\nThey--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2345.201, 2347.384], "stop_times": [2347.384, 2348.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2345.201}, "reply_to": "20735__1_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20735__1_074", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--It wouldn't be the worst part of it, because then they would have a defense to any action brought by a private party in a local three... in a local district court, but that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2348.093], "stop_times": [2354.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2348.093}, "reply_to": "20735__1_073", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_075", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--How can they make a judge advert to the issue that they want to bring--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2354.287], "stop_times": [2357.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2354.287}, "reply_to": "20735__1_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20735__1_076", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--I don't think they can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2357.77], "stop_times": [2358.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2357.77}, "reply_to": "20735__1_075", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_077", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--There's no way they can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2358.481], "stop_times": [2359.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2358.481}, "reply_to": "20735__1_076", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20735__1_078", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "I don't think they can.\nI do want to turn--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2359.262, 2359.881], "stop_times": [2359.881, 2360.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2359.262}, "reply_to": "20735__1_077", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_079", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Just before... one quick second.\nIs it possible that... assume they don't want to plead it, I mean, the way that we want them to plead it, which is in the alternative, in which case they'd come in, but suppose they do just want to be sure they're going to get noncoverage, can they bring an ordinary declaratory judgment action in an ordinary court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2360.812, 2362.345], "stop_times": [2362.345, 2378.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2360.812}, "reply_to": "20735__1_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20735__1_080", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--I don't think so.\nI think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2378.484, 2379.205], "stop_times": [2379.205, 2380.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2378.484}, "reply_to": "20735__1_079", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_081", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2380.084], "stop_times": [2380.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2380.084}, "reply_to": "20735__1_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20735__1_082", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--It's... I think that section 5 is... well... I mean... well, I think that section 5 is really exclusive, and that they can't just proceed to a... I mean, I don't think they could proceed to a single district judge in a... in district court under the Declaratory Judgment Act, because I think that section... really the only way the issues--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2380.615], "stop_times": [2399.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2380.615}, "reply_to": "20735__1_081", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_083", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "But section 5--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2399.477], "stop_times": [2400.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2399.477}, "reply_to": "20735__1_082", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20735__1_084", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--of coverage can be raised are those--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2400.138], "stop_times": [2401.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2400.138}, "reply_to": "20735__1_083", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_085", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--The jurisdiction of section 5 is to grant preclearance of changes in affecting voting.\nIf your argument is there is no change, why couldn't you bring that action to a single district judge--\n--Yes, that's my--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2401.217, 2405.442, 2410.163], "stop_times": [2405.442, 2410.163, 2410.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2401.217}, "reply_to": "20735__1_084", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20735__1_086", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Well, I think that our view is that section 5 really is exclusive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2410.714], "stop_times": [2414.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2410.714}, "reply_to": "20735__1_085", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_087", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--It's exclusive as to changes, but is it exclusive as to claims that there are no change... by the district itself that no change has taken place?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2414.017], "stop_times": [2422.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2414.017}, "reply_to": "20735__1_086", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20735__1_088", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "I think that it's the only... it sets forth the ways in which one can--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2422.042], "stop_times": [2426.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2422.042}, "reply_to": "20735__1_087", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_089", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "But what you're saying is, if it's exclusive, then there's no forum at all--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2426.907], "stop_times": [2431.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2426.907}, "reply_to": "20735__1_088", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20735__1_090", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--No, no, no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2431.027], "stop_times": [2431.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2431.027}, "reply_to": "20735__1_089", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_091", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--for that kind of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2431.588], "stop_times": [2432.349], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2431.588}, "reply_to": "20735__1_090", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20735__1_092", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--I mean, it can be raised--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2432.349], "stop_times": [2433.959], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2432.349}, "reply_to": "20735__1_091", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_093", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Only if they allege they're making a change.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2433.959], "stop_times": [2436.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2433.959}, "reply_to": "20735__1_092", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20735__1_094", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--It can be raised if they bring preclearance... I mean, a similar case is probably City of Lockhart, where I believe the city argued... they both argued for preclearance, and they also said, it's not a change.\nIn other words, it... they argued it wasn't... it's a little bit different than this because they weren't arguing it didn't affect voting, but they argued it wasn't a change from the previous... from the cases before.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2436.721, 2450.101], "stop_times": [2450.101, 2460.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2436.721}, "reply_to": "20735__1_093", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_095", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Is that a case that was initiated by the city?\nI don't remember.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2460.016, 2460.717], "stop_times": [2460.717, 2461.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2460.016}, "reply_to": "20735__1_094", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20735__1_096", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Yes.\nIt was a preclearance action in the District Court of the District of Columbia, and this Court, although this Court found it was a change, it did... it did examine it, the lower court did, and this Court did examine it on direct appeal.\nI think the... it is... this is a very unusual statutory provision, there's no doubt about it, but Congress wanted these questions to be brought, I think within the section 5 confine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2461.328, 2461.929, 2472.344], "stop_times": [2461.929, 2472.344, 2485.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2461.328}, "reply_to": "20735__1_095", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_097", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Well, are you saying, then, that under Lockhart if the... if the three judge court in a section 5 action can examine whether or not there was, in fact, a change, can it also examine whether or not in fact the change affected voting?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2485.113], "stop_times": [2501.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2485.113}, "reply_to": "20735__1_096", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20735__1_098", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "The three judge court can, yes, and the similar cases, the other Texas case that was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2501.123], "stop_times": [2506.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2501.123}, "reply_to": "20735__1_097", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_099", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "So, then, there isn't any jurisdictional barrier here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2506.679], "stop_times": [2509.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2506.679}, "reply_to": "20735__1_098", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20735__1_100", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--No, but in both of those cases there was an actual preclearance action brought.\nIt was a classic preclearance action brought in the three judge court where the State was actually... or the city in Lockhart, the State in Texas, was actually to implementing something, and they argued in the alternative, if you will, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2509.22, 2513.271], "stop_times": [2513.271, 2525.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2509.22}, "reply_to": "20735__1_099", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_101", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Well, what if the State simply wants... and this question has been asked before, but I'm not sure I know your answer.\nWhat if the court simply wants a declaration that these changes they've made do not affect voting?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2525.84, 2531.994], "stop_times": [2531.994, 2538.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2525.84}, "reply_to": "20735__1_100", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20735__1_102", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--I don't think that that... that there is jurisdiction for just that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2538.729], "stop_times": [2543.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2538.729}, "reply_to": "20735__1_101", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_103", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Well, under the declaratory... if section 5 doesn't afford it, and then why can't you go into a single judge district court and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2543.642], "stop_times": [2553.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2543.642}, "reply_to": "20735__1_102", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20735__1_104", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Well, first of all that's definitely not... I mean, that's definitely not what was done in this case, and so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2553.599], "stop_times": [2557.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2553.599}, "reply_to": "20735__1_103", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_105", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2557.269], "stop_times": [2557.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2557.269}, "reply_to": "20735__1_104", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20735__1_106", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--And so the question in this case is whether the three judge court had jurisdiction, and that would bring it to this Court under the mandatory direct appeal procedure, but whether or not it could have been brought in a three judge--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2557.73], "stop_times": [2571.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2557.73}, "reply_to": "20735__1_105", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_107", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Well, the Government never made the argument in the district court that it's making here, did it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2571.67], "stop_times": [2576.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2571.67}, "reply_to": "20735__1_106", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20735__1_108", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--That's correct.\nI mean, we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2576.113, 2576.623], "stop_times": [2576.623, 2577.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2576.113}, "reply_to": "20735__1_107", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_109", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "So your whole argument's kind of novel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2577.234], "stop_times": [2579.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2577.234}, "reply_to": "20735__1_108", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20735__1_110", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--We did... we did... but the district court did itself raise doubts as to whether it properly had statutory jurisdiction, and this Court has, on other occasions, itself examined whether there was a statutory basis for jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2579.104], "stop_times": [2593.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2579.104}, "reply_to": "20735__1_109", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_111", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "But it's just so unlikely that we'd end up with a situation where a State wants a declaration that the law it passed does not affect voting, and to be told there is no forum in which to get that resolved, that is a very odd position to take.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2593.113], "stop_times": [2614.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2593.113}, "reply_to": "20735__1_110", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20735__1_112", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "I guess our position is, the State can get that resolved when it is... when it is... it can actually implement the change and require somebody to come in, in effect, and challenge that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2614.668], "stop_times": [2626.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2614.668}, "reply_to": "20735__1_111", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_113", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Well, that was the law before they had declaratory judgments about lots of things--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2626.416], "stop_times": [2630.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2626.416}, "reply_to": "20735__1_112", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20735__1_114", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2630.159], "stop_times": [2630.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2630.159}, "reply_to": "20735__1_113", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_115", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--that you just had to wait, but since the declaratory judgment action, that's no longer true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2630.63], "stop_times": [2634.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2630.63}, "reply_to": "20735__1_114", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20735__1_116", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "But I do want to... I just want to say that, I mean, it's not the case that the State has no forum in which its argument can be tested.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2634.61], "stop_times": [2641.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2634.61}, "reply_to": "20735__1_115", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_117", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Are you saying that the district is well advised to just go ahead and appoint its master and wait to be sued?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2641.485], "stop_times": [2647.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2641.485}, "reply_to": "20735__1_116", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20735__1_118", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "I think that is an option that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2647.179], "stop_times": [2649.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2647.179}, "reply_to": "20735__1_117", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_119", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "They're liable for attorney's fees if they're wrong, I take it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2649.112], "stop_times": [2651.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2649.112}, "reply_to": "20735__1_118", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20735__1_120", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--We might... yes.\nWe might--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2651.933, 2652.845], "stop_times": [2652.845, 2653.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2651.933}, "reply_to": "20735__1_119", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_121", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Are they liable for attorney's fees if they're wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2653.234], "stop_times": [2654.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2653.234}, "reply_to": "20735__1_120", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20735__1_122", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--I believe under... yes, they are, if a private--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2654.055], "stop_times": [2656.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2654.055}, "reply_to": "20735__1_121", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_123", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Are the contracts and the decisions and the directions that the special master has given to the district before the litigation is terminated now at risk?\nThese contracts are void, or voidable, I take it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2656.365, 2665.843], "stop_times": [2665.843, 2668.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2656.365}, "reply_to": "20735__1_122", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20735__1_124", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--I'm not sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2668.813], "stop_times": [2671.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2668.813}, "reply_to": "20735__1_123", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_125", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "You're advising this district to go ahead and implement a section 7 provision without getting preclearance?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2671.354], "stop_times": [2676.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2671.354}, "reply_to": "20735__1_124", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20735__1_126", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Well, they can also... they can also ask for preclearance, and we did preclear both in the City of New York case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2676.898], "stop_times": [2684.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2676.898}, "reply_to": "20735__1_125", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_127", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Yes.\nYou asked them about six pages of questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2684.074, 2684.585], "stop_times": [2684.585, 2685.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2684.074}, "reply_to": "20735__1_126", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20735__1_128", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--And City of New York... and once we asked the questions... well, once we asked questions, then we expeditiously precleared it.\nThey can also go to the three judge court in the District of Columbia and say, we need to do this... we need to do this right away, please resolve this issue promptly, and also please resolve it on the question of whether it's coverage, and that is open to the district court, although as I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2685.804, 2692.76], "stop_times": [2692.76, 2707.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2685.804}, "reply_to": "20735__1_127", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_129", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "You don't think the district court can act any faster?\nCertainly you'd come in and say, we want the answers to these questions so we can decide whether to oppose it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2707.078, 2709.06], "stop_times": [2709.06, 2713.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2707.078}, "reply_to": "20735__1_128", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20735__1_130", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2713.322], "stop_times": [2715.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2713.322}, "reply_to": "20735__1_129", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_131", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "You're certainly not going to just lie down in this one forum and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2715.453], "stop_times": [2717.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2715.453}, "reply_to": "20735__1_130", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20735__1_132", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--I mean, I do think that the Attorney General's review is viewed as more expeditious, and... but I don't think that... I mean, I don't think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2717.476], "stop_times": [2722.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2717.476}, "reply_to": "20735__1_131", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_133", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--But it is a significant burden.\nIf you read through the papers, as Justice Kennedy pointed out, 90 days it takes to process one of... if that's a typical request--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2722.809, 2723.47], "stop_times": [2723.47, 2730.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2722.809}, "reply_to": "20735__1_132", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20735__1_134", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2730.734], "stop_times": [2731.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2730.734}, "reply_to": "20735__1_133", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_135", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--and if they have an emergency situation, they really have a difficult problem--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2731.405], "stop_times": [2734.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2731.405}, "reply_to": "20735__1_134", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20735__1_136", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Well, the City of New York case was done in 22 days.\nI do want to point that out.\nI mean, it's... we do have a responsibility to be cautious in this area as to what is or is not a change affecting voting.\nI mean, our position is that (7) and (8) on their face do admit of the possibility that there is a change affecting voting, and it's possible to see situations where it could be implemented in a discriminatory way, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2734.056, 2735.987, 2737.178, 2743.263], "stop_times": [2735.987, 2737.178, 2743.263, 2754.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2734.056}, "reply_to": "20735__1_135", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_137", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--May I ask you a jurisprudential question?\nYou having raised this jurisdictional issue, do you think it's permissible for this Court to decide the ripeness issue without first deciding whether we have jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2754.829, 2756.261], "stop_times": [2756.261, 2764.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2754.829}, "reply_to": "20735__1_136", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20735__1_138", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--I do.\nI think that the appeal provision of section 5, which provides for a direct appeal to this Court in any appeal, is quite different than, for example, the provisions in the old... under the old three judge district court, the old three judge district court statute where law of a State was... the constitutionality was drawn into question.\nI think that the perp that... under that old provision, the Court had to engage in this very elaborate analysis about whether... was the three judge court properly convened, because did they... or did there have to be a three judge court, and then if the... the end result under that analysis was basically, if the three judge district court ruled on any ground other than striking down the State statute or upholding it on the merits, then the case had to go back to the three judge district court, really, and then taken back up the court of appeals.\nI don't think section 5 provides for such an elaborate provision.\nI do think that the expedition of section 5 is a factor that indicates that the Court can resolve the cases that were brought up to it directly.\nNAACP v. City of New York is the leading case on this point, where in that case there was a motion to intervene, I think in the... I think it was in a preclearance action in the District of Columbia District Court, and the motion to intervene was denied.\nThat case was brought directly up to this Court, and this Court said, we can decide that, and I think this case is similar.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2764.657, 2764.978, 2784.302, 2812.692, 2816.963, 2824.48, 2840.769], "stop_times": [2764.978, 2784.302, 2812.692, 2816.963, 2824.48, 2840.769, 2845.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2764.657}, "reply_to": "20735__1_137", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_139", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Mr. Wolfson, does the Attorney General have any provision for taking immediate action to allow partial implementation of a law like this pending its decision on the preclearance request?\nFor example, where the bankruptcy proceeding has been initiated and people are in the school district trying to seize assets, and the kids can't go to school, is there any provision for the Attorney General to come in and say, well look, we're considering this, but right now we're going to let you operate with the management team pending our resolution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2845.914, 2864.677], "stop_times": [2864.677, 2889.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2845.914}, "reply_to": "20735__1_138", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20735__1_140", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "I'm not aware that the Attorney General's guidelines have anything directly on that point.\nI mean, we can preclear parts of things, of course, and so if, for example, you know, there were a... if the State were planning to do two or three different things, say, in several school districts, and there was an emergency in one, and... we could preclear... we could do partial preclearance, or we can say, we think that this provision is precleared, but we need to look a little more closely at another provision under which you are exercising authority, so there is that possibility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2889.133, 2894.449], "stop_times": [2894.449, 2924.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2889.133}, "reply_to": "20735__1_139", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_141", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "It seems to me rather puzzling and somewhat ironic that you are urging that the State of Texas can proceed, without any preclearance at all, to implement a section 7 plan when you have gone through the preclearance procedure in the Wilmer Hutchins district, and you say, well just go right ahead and take your chances, but you can't go into the United States District Court.\nIt seems to me that the Justice Department would say, of course, go into the district court and we'll answer this question yes or no as to whether or not Presley and Etowah applies to a section 7 proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2924.678, 2950.435], "stop_times": [2950.435, 2959.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2924.678}, "reply_to": "20735__1_140", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20735__1_142", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Well, I mean, I think that if there is... if they're actually implementing it, then that is by far the preferred procedure, to go into the three judge district court.\nThat's the preferred procedure that Congress set up, and... but I don't think it's correct to say that the State has no options.\nI mean, obviously we prefer that a preclearance action be brought in the three judge district court, or that a submission be made to the Attorney General, but just as the three... but in all these situations, we can't resolve all of these questions in advance, before some actual implementation is proposed.\nI mean, the... certainly, for the reasons I've explained the three judge district court can't do that because of Article III concerns, and the Attorney General also... although the Attorney General may be able to preclear, and often does preclear enabling legislation, the Attorney General often has to wait until some actual implementation of that is proposed before review... both before reviewing that on the merits and also even making a considered determination as to whether it would be a change affecting voting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [2959.22, 2968.026, 2977.771, 2998.236], "stop_times": [2968.026, 2977.771, 2998.236, 3026.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2959.22}, "reply_to": "20735__1_141", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_143", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Mr. Wolfson, you're working in the direction of ripeness, and your time is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3026.845], "stop_times": [3030.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3026.845}, "reply_to": "20735__1_142", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20735__1_144", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Finally.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3030.826], "stop_times": [3031.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3030.826}, "reply_to": "20735__1_143", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_145", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--fleeting.\nAre you going to hit ripeness directly?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3031.427, 3032.068], "stop_times": [3032.068, 3033.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3031.427}, "reply_to": "20735__1_144", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20735__1_146", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Yes.\nI mean, I think in effect the State has asked for an advisory opinion that if the Commissioner of Education at some point decides to appoint a master or a management team for a local school district, then that appointment would not be a change affecting voting, and I think it is significant that, as the State has acknowledged, that it's their policy that when a school district does have performance problems the Commissioner tries to resolve those problems through less intrusive sanctions, and we don't know that in the... now or in the imminent future the Commissioner will ever need to go so far as to reach the sanctions under sections 7 and 8.\nI mean, section--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3033.847, 3034.388, 3071.164], "stop_times": [3034.388, 3071.164, 3071.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3033.847}, "reply_to": "20735__1_145", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_147", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "But we know it happened once--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3071.685], "stop_times": [3072.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3071.685}, "reply_to": "20735__1_146", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20735__1_148", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--We know it happened--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3072.963], "stop_times": [3073.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3072.963}, "reply_to": "20735__1_147", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_149", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--so why can't they just amend the thing and say, look, it happened to us once, and we want assurance that it will never happen again?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3073.655], "stop_times": [3080.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3073.655}, "reply_to": "20735__1_148", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20735__1_150", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--I think that Renne v. Geary is actually fairly clear that that does not... fact does not change either the analysis or the result, that that... that controversy was moot before this complaint was filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3080.69], "stop_times": [3093.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3080.69}, "reply_to": "20735__1_149", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_151", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "May I ask you one question that kind of troubles me about the... your position?\nThe question... it seems to me the question of whether the appointment of a management team or a master is... affects voting depends on what the management team or the master does, exercising... some of them... it seems to me some of the things they do clearly would not affect voting, others would, so I'm not sure you're going to have the ripeness the way you've described it until not only the management team's been appointed but also there's some idea of what the management team proposes to do that the school board itself would not have done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3093.436, 3097.441], "stop_times": [3097.441, 3122.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3093.436}, "reply_to": "20735__1_150", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20735__1_152", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "I think... well, one thing is that under the Texas law when the Commissioner of Education appoints a master or a management team he is supposed to delineate the powers of the master or the management team.\nNow, I agree we don't necessarily know every single thing that that master or management team might do, but I think we will have a much better idea when that happens of what are the totality of the powers of... that might be exercised.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3122.815, 3135.896, 3147.954], "stop_times": [3135.896, 3147.954, 3148.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3122.815}, "reply_to": "20735__1_151", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_153", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "But they're all going to be the totality set forth in the statute, I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3148.414], "stop_times": [3151.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3148.414}, "reply_to": "20735__1_152", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20735__1_154", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Right, but I think the... I mean, that point we may have, we and the district court may have questions.\nI mean, the face of the statute, I think, lends itself to some rather evident questions.\nFor example, the statute says, well, the master or the management team may not adopt a budget that is different from the one adopted--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3151.387, 3156.779, 3162.353], "stop_times": [3156.779, 3162.353, 3168.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3151.387}, "reply_to": "20735__1_153", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_155", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3168.807], "stop_times": [3169.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3168.807}, "reply_to": "20735__1_154", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20735__1_156", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--by the school board, but it also says that the master or the management team may direct the trustees to take any action.\nWell, may the master or the management team, although he can't... he, they, or she can't adopt a budget himself.\nCan they tell the district court, tell the school district we don't like your budget, do a new one, and what happens... you know, is that anticipated?\nI mean, there are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3169.607, 3174.19, 3179.494, 3187.401], "stop_times": [3174.19, 3179.494, 3187.401, 3188.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3169.607}, "reply_to": "20735__1_155", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_157", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Can you be more specific?\nCould you give us, for example, an example of an act that might be taken under appropriate instructions, under 7 and 8, that would not go so far as 9 and 10, but which would affect voting?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3188.841, 3190.373], "stop_times": [3190.373, 3205.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3188.841}, "reply_to": "20735__1_156", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20735__1_158", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--I... right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3205.583], "stop_times": [3206.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3205.583}, "reply_to": "20735__1_157", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_159", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Because your brother--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3206.024], "stop_times": [3206.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3206.024}, "reply_to": "20735__1_158", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20735__1_160", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Right.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3206.584, 3207.085], "stop_times": [3207.085, 3207.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3206.584}, "reply_to": "20735__1_159", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_161", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--in effect is saying there's no such thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3207.496], "stop_times": [3207.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3207.496}, "reply_to": "20735__1_160", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20735__1_162", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Right.\nI think that it's possible that a commission... the Commissioner might give the master the full authority on the face of the statute, and under that situation you might have a situation in which the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3207.996, 3208.487], "stop_times": [3208.487, 3222.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3207.996}, "reply_to": "20735__1_161", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_163", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Not authority that would go so far as 9 and 10.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3222.106], "stop_times": [3224.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3222.106}, "reply_to": "20735__1_162", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20735__1_164", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3224.246], "stop_times": [3224.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3224.246}, "reply_to": "20735__1_163", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_165", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3224.707], "stop_times": [3225.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3224.707}, "reply_to": "20735__1_164", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20735__1_166", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "But still, you might have... still... I mean, the... well, under 9, for example, the board of managers can just say, I'm going to do a new budget, you know.\nI don't care what the school district's old budget said.\nNow... but I think under 8, or under 7 or 8 he has... he may have in effect the same power, although it has to be... or almost the same power, although it's exercised in a different way.\nI think it's important to note the State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3225.137, 3233.893, 3236.203, 3247.111], "stop_times": [3233.893, 3236.203, 3247.111, 3248.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3225.137}, "reply_to": "20735__1_165", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_167", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Well, how does it work?\nLet's... you're talking about budgets.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3248.843, 3249.544], "stop_times": [3249.544, 3250.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3248.843}, "reply_to": "20735__1_166", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20735__1_168", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3250.693], "stop_times": [3251.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3250.693}, "reply_to": "20735__1_167", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_169", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Can you give me a budget hypothesis that would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3251.294], "stop_times": [3253.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3251.294}, "reply_to": "20735__1_168", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20735__1_170", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "The State... the school district--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3253.515], "stop_times": [3255.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3253.515}, "reply_to": "20735__1_169", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_171", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--That would not go so far as 9 and 10?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3255.237], "stop_times": [3255.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3255.237}, "reply_to": "20735__1_170", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20735__1_172", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--The school district has a budget, and the master or the management team takes a look at it and says, you know, I don't like this budget.\nI think that you have to completely rewrite it.\nYou have to make it 20 percent less, reallocate, you know, less on building schools and more on teacher training and school books, and if you don't... and so you just take this back and write a new budget.\nI think that is probably... that we would think that is a de facto replacement along with all the others powers, because even though the school district--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3255.967, 3262.962, 3265.353, 3276.99], "stop_times": [3262.962, 3265.353, 3276.99, 3288.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3255.967}, "reply_to": "20735__1_171", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_173", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Is it any way that it would be a de facto replacement in a way that would implicate the discriminatory concerns of the section 5?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3288.728], "stop_times": [3295.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3288.728}, "reply_to": "20735__1_172", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20735__1_174", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--It could.\nI mean, I do want to say just because it's a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3295.834, 3296.335], "stop_times": [3296.335, 3298.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3295.834}, "reply_to": "20735__1_173", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_175", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "How?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3298.835], "stop_times": [3299.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3298.835}, "reply_to": "20735__1_174", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20735__1_176", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Well, I do want to say just because it's a de facto replacement doesn't mean it does.\nI mean, it may--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3299.256, 3302.498], "stop_times": [3302.498, 3303.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3299.256}, "reply_to": "20735__1_175", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_177", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3303.099], "stop_times": [3303.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3303.099}, "reply_to": "20735__1_176", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20735__1_178", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--It may be perfectly okay.\nBut I do think there are situations... for example, suppose that because of demographic changes a school district for the first time becomes majority Hispanic, or majority black, or substantial minority such that the Hispanics and blacks can for the first time influence who the... influence the election of the... of their elected officials, and then all of a sudden the Commissioner decides to implement... decides we don't like that, you know... I'm not... you know, we want to have an appointee who's responsible to the Commissioner.\nNow, I'm not saying that has happened or will happen, but there are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3303.468, 3305.411, 3334.963], "stop_times": [3305.411, 3334.963, 3339.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3303.468}, "reply_to": "20735__1_177", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_179", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "So you're saying the choice of educational policy, reflected in a budget, can also be a reflection of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3339.865], "stop_times": [3345.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3339.865}, "reply_to": "20735__1_178", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20735__1_180", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Of school--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3345.999], "stop_times": [3346.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3345.999}, "reply_to": "20735__1_179", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_181", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--Of racial composition, and if you affect that, then it is a voting--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3346.918], "stop_times": [3350.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3346.918}, "reply_to": "20735__1_180", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20735__1_182", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--I think it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3350.109], "stop_times": [3351.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3350.109}, "reply_to": "20735__1_181", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_183", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--It is a de facto replacement that would be covered by 5.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3351.291], "stop_times": [3352.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3351.291}, "reply_to": "20735__1_182", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20735__1_184", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--I think that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3352.741], "stop_times": [3353.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3352.741}, "reply_to": "20735__1_183", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_185", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "That's your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3353.372], "stop_times": [3353.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3353.372}, "reply_to": "20735__1_184", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20735__1_186", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "--I think that the budget reflects... you know, among other things reflects the entire policy that the school board, the elected school board wants.\nThat's what people elect... when people elect a school board they elect them in order to make various policy judgments, some of which are reflected in a budget, and the master may disagree.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3353.993, 3360.357, 3371.976], "stop_times": [3360.357, 3371.976, 3372.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3353.993}, "reply_to": "20735__1_185", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20735__1_187", "conversation_id": "20735", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Wolfson.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-29", "start_times": [3372.647, 3373.658], "stop_times": [3373.658, 3374.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3372.647}, "reply_to": "20735__1_186", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__0_000", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 97-463, Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Division v. United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America.\nMr. Dyk.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [0.0, 10.939], "stop_times": [10.939, 11.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__0_001", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nIn 1994, the petitioner employer and the respondent union in this case engaged in collective bargaining required by the National Labor Relations Act and by the decisions of the National Labor Relations Board.\nAnd the union alleges that in the course of that bargaining the employer failed to supply information that it was obligated to supply concerning subcontracting plans, one of the questions being whether that was a mandatory or permissive subject of bargaining under the act.\nAnd the union first brought its claim before the National Labor Relations Board alleging that the employer had committed an unfair labor practice by failing to bargain in good faith under sections 8(a)(5) and 8(d) of the act.\nAnd apparently dissatisfied with the progress of this complaint before the board, the union then brought an identical action, making exactly the same charges, seeking virtually the same relief, in Federal district court as a declaratory judgment action, purportedly pursuant to section 301 of the National Labor Relations Act, and the board proceeding has been tentatively settled.\nA settlement was approved by the regional director last week, and the board has granted limited relief, ordering that certain provisions of the contract be set aside and awarding back pay but refusing to grant the broad relief that the union had requested, which would be invalidation of the entire contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [11.808, 14.274, 26.817, 44.445, 60.955, 86.522], "stop_times": [14.274, 26.817, 44.445, 60.955, 86.522, 103.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 11.808}, "reply_to": "20879__0_000", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_002", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "May I ask a preliminary question?\nThe contract has expired?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [103.983, 105.566], "stop_times": [105.566, 107.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 103.983}, "reply_to": "20879__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20879__0_003", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "The contract has expired and the parties are in the process of attempting to negotiate a new agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [107.701], "stop_times": [113.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 107.701}, "reply_to": "20879__0_002", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_004", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "And there's been a strike in the interim by the union?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [113.089], "stop_times": [115.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 113.089}, "reply_to": "20879__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20879__0_005", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "That is correct, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [115.339], "stop_times": [116.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 115.339}, "reply_to": "20879__0_004", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_006", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Why isn't this whole thing moot?\nWe don't have a contract any more.\nThere's been some limited relief granted.\nWhy should... why is there anything left for us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [116.207, 118.124, 120.259, 123.278], "stop_times": [118.124, 120.259, 123.278, 126.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 116.207}, "reply_to": "20879__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20879__0_007", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, we think that the matter should have been resolved by the board proceedings, but as far as the mootness of the court proceeding is concerned the union still claims damages based on the identical facts that led it to request the declaratory judgment and that issue would be unaffected, in the union's view, by the board's settlement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [126.229], "stop_times": [146.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 126.229}, "reply_to": "20879__0_006", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_008", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, didn't the collective bargaining agreement also provide for the payment of survivor's benefits for a certain number of years after the contract expired?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [146.16], "stop_times": [154.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 146.16}, "reply_to": "20879__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__0_009", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "There are a variety of issues which could arise under the collective bargaining agreement because, of course, the effect of that agreement wasn't limited to the 3-year period of the agreement, so for all of these reasons we think there's no real issue of mootness in this case.\nRather, the issue here is whether the district court had jurisdiction under section 301 and, in our view, the language of section 301 is quite plain.\nIt provides for suits for violation of collective bargaining agreements.\nThere's no question here of any violation.\nThere's no allegation that the employer has committed a violation of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [154.999, 169.591, 179.614, 183.685, 186.351], "stop_times": [169.591, 179.614, 183.685, 186.351, 190.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 154.999}, "reply_to": "20879__0_008", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_010", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "But Mr. Dyk, you concede if it came up defensively it would properly be a matter for the court.\nSay the union violated the no-strike clause and the union's answer to that is, this whole contract is no good because it was induced by fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [190.422, 196.909], "stop_times": [196.909, 205.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 190.422}, "reply_to": "20879__0_009", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20879__0_011", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--Well, Justice Ginsburg, yes, we do agree that if there had been an alleged violation of the agreement and a declaratory judgment were sought, that there had been no violation, that that would be a matter properly within the district court's jurisdiction.\nOf course, all the parties agree here that in the course of that proceeding the law that would be applied would be board law, in other words, the good faith bargaining requirements crafted by the board pursuant to the act, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [205.015, 218.488], "stop_times": [218.488, 231.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 205.015}, "reply_to": "20879__0_010", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_012", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "But nonetheless there's nothing about the issue that identifies it as an issue only for the board and never for the courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [231.38], "stop_times": [237.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 231.38}, "reply_to": "20879__0_011", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20879__0_013", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--That's correct, and what this Court has done, as we understand it, it has said that pursuant to the act, that you can have an affirmative suit that's brought in the courts or an unfair labor practice charge before the board that may involve defenses, defenses before the board concerning contracts, defenses in the courts concerning the interpretation of the act, and that has been brought up in cases like Kaiser Steel.\nBut the courts have... this Court has recognized a distinction between bringing something as an affirmative matter and bringing it as a defensive matter.\nFor example, in Communications Workers v. Beck, which was not a case exactly like this but it involved the duty of fair representation, this Court held that the employer's alleged violation of 8(a)(3) of the act could be raised as a defense to the claim, but that an 8(a)(3) claim could not be asserted at the outset in Federal court, and there's a good reason--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [237.902, 265.553, 273.159], "stop_times": [265.553, 273.159, 294.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 237.902}, "reply_to": "20879__0_012", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_014", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "But Mr. Dyk, isn't it the whole purpose of the Declaratory Judgment Act to enable you to anticipate your defenses instead of having to wait for a lawsuit by the other side?\nIsn't the whole purpose of it to enable the union, for example, in this case to come into court and say, we do not intend to live up to this agreement.\nWe're going to strike, and we think we have a right to strike because the agreement is invalidated by the fraud at the beginning, and we want a declaratory judgment to that effect.\nIt seems to me a classical declaratory judgment action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [294.922, 306.463, 313.467, 325.275], "stop_times": [306.463, 313.467, 325.275, 329.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 294.922}, "reply_to": "20879__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20879__0_015", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--Justice Scalia, I think it is not a classic declaratory judgment action in the sense that this Court has held repeatedly in the Franchise Tax Board case, in Skelly Oil and a number of others, that the Declaratory Judgment Act can't expand the jurisdiction of the Federal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [329.06], "stop_times": [342.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 329.06}, "reply_to": "20879__0_014", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_016", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "It isn't a grant of jurisdiction at all, is it?\nIt's just a procedural device where a court has jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [342.486, 345.005], "stop_times": [345.005, 348.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 342.486}, "reply_to": "20879__0_015", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__0_017", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Correct, Mr. Chief Justice.\nNow, if the court had jurisdiction because there had been a violation of the act and there was a controversy over whether there had been a violation of the act, of course there would be jurisdiction under 301(c).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [348.29, 349.073], "stop_times": [349.073, 359.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 348.29}, "reply_to": "20879__0_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20879__0_018", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Of the contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [359.581], "stop_times": [360.098], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 359.581}, "reply_to": "20879__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20879__0_019", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Yes, a violation of the contract, but that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [360.098], "stop_times": [361.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 360.098}, "reply_to": "20879__0_018", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_020", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "That's his claim.\nThat's what the declaratory judgment claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [361.967, 362.95], "stop_times": [362.95, 365.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 361.967}, "reply_to": "20879__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20879__0_021", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [365.002], "stop_times": [365.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 365.002}, "reply_to": "20879__0_020", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_022", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "The declaration judgment says the other side claims that I am in violation of the contract, and I say I am not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [365.619], "stop_times": [372.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 365.619}, "reply_to": "20879__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20879__0_023", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "No, Justice Scalia.\nThere is no claim here that anybody has violated the contract.\nThe only claim is that the court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [372.906, 374.275, 377.642], "stop_times": [374.275, 377.642, 382.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 372.906}, "reply_to": "20879__0_022", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_024", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "There's never a claim that has violated a declaratory judgment.\nIt's always anticipatory, right?\nAre you saying that they just didn't use the right words, that the union should have come in and said, we are about to strike and we want a declaratory judgment that this will not be a violation of the act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [382.278, 385.096, 386.598], "stop_times": [385.096, 386.598, 396.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 382.278}, "reply_to": "20879__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20879__0_025", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--Well, they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [396.688], "stop_times": [397.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 396.688}, "reply_to": "20879__0_024", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_026", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Would that have been okay?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [397.49], "stop_times": [398.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 397.49}, "reply_to": "20879__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20879__0_027", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--If they said we are about to strike and we'd like a declaration, that would not be this case.\nI would think that if it got to the point of being an anticipatory repudiation similar to Dowd Box--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [398.49, 404.794], "stop_times": [404.794, 410.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 398.49}, "reply_to": "20879__0_026", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_028", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [410.631], "stop_times": [411.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 410.631}, "reply_to": "20879__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20879__0_029", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--Yes, you could.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [411.031], "stop_times": [411.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 411.031}, "reply_to": "20879__0_028", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_030", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [411.598], "stop_times": [411.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 411.598}, "reply_to": "20879__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20879__0_031", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "But that's not this case.\nThere are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [411.983, 413.3], "stop_times": [413.3, 413.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 411.983}, "reply_to": "20879__0_030", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_032", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [413.8], "stop_times": [414.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 413.8}, "reply_to": "20879__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20879__0_033", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--There has been no violation, no alleged violation, and we suggest that when Congress said suits for violation it was very clear that there had to be a suit over a violation of the contract.\nThere is no suit over a violation of the contract here.\nThey were asking the district court to declare that at some future time if they chose to do it they could engage in a strike which otherwise might be in violation of the contract, so there was no present controversy about a violation or even an anticipated violation of the agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [414.25, 424.373, 426.909], "stop_times": [424.373, 426.909, 442.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 414.25}, "reply_to": "20879__0_032", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_034", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Can you... can the... suppose the employer says to the union representative, if you go out on strike, I will sue you for breaching this contract.\nHe says that.\nSo the union representative says, I would like a declaration that you have no lawsuit.\nHe brings the suit.\nCan he do that in a declaratory judgment action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [442.502, 453.125, 454.777, 461.13, 463.682], "stop_times": [453.125, 454.777, 461.13, 463.682, 465.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 442.502}, "reply_to": "20879__0_033", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20879__0_035", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "I think there are certainly some circumstances where--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [465.784], "stop_times": [468.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 465.784}, "reply_to": "20879__0_034", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_036", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, let's say the circumstance is a) my basis as union representative is I think you have to have an offer and an acceptance to have a contract and here there was no offer, or there was no acceptance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [468.236], "stop_times": [477.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 468.236}, "reply_to": "20879__0_035", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20879__0_037", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--If the dispute is over a violation of the agreement, yes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [477.592], "stop_times": [481.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 477.592}, "reply_to": "20879__0_036", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_038", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "No.\nThe dispute is... this is the dispute.\nThe employer says, if you go out on strike, I will sue you.\nThe union says, if you sue, you will lose.\nWhy?\nBecause there is no contract.\nThere was no offer, or alternatively there was no acceptance.\nI don't agree, says the employer.\nFine, says the union.\nI'll bring a declaratory judgment action.\nCan they do it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [481.544, 481.894, 483.412, 487.114, 490.25, 491.1, 492.768, 496.22, 498.505, 499.738, 501.707], "stop_times": [481.894, 483.412, 487.114, 490.25, 491.1, 492.768, 496.22, 498.505, 499.738, 501.707, 502.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 481.544}, "reply_to": "20879__0_037", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20879__0_039", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--I think under some circumstances that could be brought.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [502.457], "stop_times": [504.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 502.457}, "reply_to": "20879__0_038", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_040", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "What about the circumstances I just mentioned?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [504.992], "stop_times": [506.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 504.992}, "reply_to": "20879__0_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20879__0_041", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "No, I'm suggesting, under the circumstances you just mentioned, you could imagine, yes, that there would be section 301 jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [506.544], "stop_times": [513.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 506.544}, "reply_to": "20879__0_040", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_042", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Yes, all right.\nIf the answer to that is yes, now we have exactly the same dialogue but substitute for the words, offer and acceptance, the reason your contract is not valid is it was obtained by fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [513.347, 513.681], "stop_times": [513.681, 521.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 513.347}, "reply_to": "20879__0_041", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20879__0_043", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, it isn't the question of what the basis for the claim is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [521.453], "stop_times": [526.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 521.453}, "reply_to": "20879__0_042", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_044", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "No, the reason that you cannot sue me for a breach of contract is because the contract doesn't exist, and the reason it doesn't exist is because it was obtained by fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [526.489], "stop_times": [534.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 526.489}, "reply_to": "20879__0_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20879__0_045", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Justice Breyer, I agree that there may be circumstances in which something has gotten to the point where there is a real dispute about whether there would be a violation of the contract which possibly could be brought into Federal court.\nThis isn't that situation.\nWhat this situation is, where you have an exactly parallel proceeding in district court and what you have is an effort in essence to bring unfair labor practice charges into court rather than to bring them before the board, and Congress when it enacted section 301 could not have possibly contemplated that.\nIndeed, the legislative history shows quite clearly that Congress was very concerned about overlapping affirmative jurisdiction between the board and the courts, and they said that one of the provisions of the original Taft-Hartley Act would have given the board jurisdiction to determine compliance with contracts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [534.512, 544.819, 545.986, 560.996], "stop_times": [544.819, 545.986, 560.996, 575.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 534.512}, "reply_to": "20879__0_044", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_046", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, in Justice Breyer's first hypothetical, could the offer and acceptance dispute have been remitted to the board?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [575.839], "stop_times": [581.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 575.839}, "reply_to": "20879__0_045", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20879__0_047", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "The offer and acceptance dispute could have been remitted to the board.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [581.242], "stop_times": [584.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 581.242}, "reply_to": "20879__0_046", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_048", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Why wouldn't there be concurrent jurisdiction, or conflicting jurisdiction in that case just as well as here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [584.111], "stop_times": [589.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 584.111}, "reply_to": "20879__0_047", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20879__0_049", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "In some circumstances conflicting jurisdiction is tolerated and will exist.\nThe problem is that if you are allowed to bring this kind of proceeding, this kind of abstract proceeding before there has been a real dispute about whether the contract was violated, what you would be doing is to in essence say, virtually any unfair labor practice charge can be framed as a declaratory judgment matter to be brought into court.\nAnything having to do with the collective bargaining, the obligation to bargain in good faith could be brought into court on the theory that there might be in some future time a dispute about the ability to strike under the contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [589.015, 593.133, 611.762], "stop_times": [593.133, 611.762, 622.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 589.015}, "reply_to": "20879__0_048", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_050", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Mr. Dyk, may I just ask this.\nYou say anything covers... is it not correct, at least the union says in their brief that you took the position before the board that this fraud was not a mandatory subject of bargaining and therefore was not subject to review by the board.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [622.069, 623.485], "stop_times": [623.485, 635.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 622.069}, "reply_to": "20879__0_049", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20879__0_051", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, that's correct, Justice Stevens, and I think that's exactly why this matter belongs before the board, because of course the distinction between mandatory and permissive subjects of bargaining under this Court's decision in First National Maintenance is a very difficult line to draw, one that the board has struggled with again and again over the years, and if it's a mandatory subject of bargaining there is the obligation to supply the information to the union, but if it is a permissive subject of bargaining the obligation does not exist to supply the information to the union.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [635.21], "stop_times": [664.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 635.21}, "reply_to": "20879__0_050", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_052", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, why do we have to decide that it belongs somewhere else?\nAll we have to decide here is whether or not it fits the definition of whether this is an action for violation of a contract and if it isn't that, it doesn't belong in court.\nMaybe it belongs before the board, maybe it doesn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [664.562, 668.431, 678.739], "stop_times": [668.431, 678.739, 680.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 664.562}, "reply_to": "20879__0_051", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__0_053", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "That's exactly correct, Mr. Chief Justice, and we suggest that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [680.905], "stop_times": [684.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 680.905}, "reply_to": "20879__0_052", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_054", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Yes, but you have argued that the better forum is the board, and that argument kind of falls apart if the forum isn't there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [684.809], "stop_times": [689.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 684.809}, "reply_to": "20879__0_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20879__0_055", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--No, no, but Justice Stevens, it's exactly because of the difficult distinctions between mandatory--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [689.944], "stop_times": [695.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 689.944}, "reply_to": "20879__0_054", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_056", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [695.331], "stop_times": [695.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 695.331}, "reply_to": "20879__0_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20879__0_057", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--and permissive subjects of bargaining that this case belongs before the board.\nThe board ought to be deciding whether there was an obligation to supply the information or not supply the information.\nThat turns on whether it was a mandatory or permissive subject of bargaining.\nThe courts are ill-equipped to make that kind of determination.\nThat's something that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [695.748, 697.783, 702.52, 705.888, 708.757], "stop_times": [697.783, 702.52, 705.888, 708.757, 709.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 695.748}, "reply_to": "20879__0_056", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_058", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Are you suggesting that even if it was not a mandatory subject of bargaining, that the company could commit fraud in the negotiation and there would be no remedy for the fraud?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [709.774], "stop_times": [718.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 709.774}, "reply_to": "20879__0_057", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20879__0_059", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--No, absolutely not.\nI think there are two separate issues here.\nOne is misrepresentation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [718.03, 718.93, 720.582], "stop_times": [718.93, 720.582, 722.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 718.03}, "reply_to": "20879__0_058", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_060", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [722.182], "stop_times": [722.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 722.182}, "reply_to": "20879__0_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20879__0_061", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Which under Truett--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [722.582], "stop_times": [723.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 722.582}, "reply_to": "20879__0_060", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_062", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Which they alleged.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [723.767], "stop_times": [724.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 723.767}, "reply_to": "20879__0_061", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20879__0_063", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--That would apply to mandatory and permissive subjects of bargaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [724.2], "stop_times": [726.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 724.2}, "reply_to": "20879__0_062", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_064", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [726.552], "stop_times": [726.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 726.552}, "reply_to": "20879__0_063", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20879__0_065", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "But the main part of the charge here is that there was a request for information, that we didn't supply the information.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [726.969], "stop_times": [733.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 726.969}, "reply_to": "20879__0_064", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_066", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Oh, okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [733.54], "stop_times": [733.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 733.54}, "reply_to": "20879__0_065", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20879__0_067", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "And that turns on the distinction between mandatory and permissive subjects of bargaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [733.823], "stop_times": [737.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 733.823}, "reply_to": "20879__0_066", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_068", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "But insofar as they're alleg... their claiming there was an active misrepresentation or a fraud, you would agree that could be remedied by the board.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [737.242], "stop_times": [743.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 737.242}, "reply_to": "20879__0_067", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20879__0_069", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [743.228], "stop_times": [743.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 743.228}, "reply_to": "20879__0_068", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_070", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Oh, okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [743.93], "stop_times": [744.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 743.93}, "reply_to": "20879__0_069", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20879__0_071", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "There's no license to lie, whether it's a mandatory or permissive subject of bargaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [744.747], "stop_times": [749.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 744.747}, "reply_to": "20879__0_070", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_072", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Mr. Dyk--\n--Does the board have jurisprudence cases on misrepresentation and fraud?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [749.132, 749.834], "stop_times": [749.834, 753.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 749.132}, "reply_to": "20879__0_071", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20879__0_073", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Yes.\nI mean, this Court's decision in Truett Manufacturing discusses the obligation to engage in honest bargaining, and the board has implemented that in a large number of cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [753.953, 755.419], "stop_times": [755.419, 763.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 753.953}, "reply_to": "20879__0_072", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_074", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Mr. Dyk, you may have answered this.\nI may have missed it.\nBut you said there is some subjects in which jurisdiction may be concurrent and some not.\nWhere do you draw the line?\nHow do we draw the line?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [763.309, 765.427, 765.994, 770.998, 772.381], "stop_times": [765.427, 765.994, 770.998, 772.381, 773.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 763.309}, "reply_to": "20879__0_073", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20879__0_075", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, the line, Justice Souter, that I'm suggesting that you draw is between matters that are asserted as defense, either contract defenses before the board or unfair labor practice defenses in court, as opposed to allowing affirmative jurisdiction.\nThat is, to bring contract issues in the first instance before the board or bring unfair labor practice charges before the courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [773.298, 789.392], "stop_times": [789.392, 797.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 773.298}, "reply_to": "20879__0_074", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_076", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "But that does--\n--Mr. Dyk, what about the Mack case?\nDo you agree that that was properly a case for the court under 301?\nThat is, an employer that said, the union says we've got no contract.\nWe say we do have a contract.\nCourt, tell us we have a contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [797.565, 798.598, 801.267, 807.254, 809.706, 811.123], "stop_times": [798.598, 801.267, 807.254, 809.706, 811.123, 812.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 797.565}, "reply_to": "20879__0_075", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20879__0_077", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "There was, if my recollection is correct, a dispute about a violation in the Mack case, the original... the Third Circuit case that preceded this one and yes, that probably was within... that was probably correctly decided.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [812.825], "stop_times": [824.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 812.825}, "reply_to": "20879__0_076", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_078", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "What about a classic contract dispute as to whether there was a meeting of the minds?\nI mean, there's no violation of the Labor Relations Act.\nThere's not an unfair labor practice if the minds have not met.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [824.215, 828.934, 834.321], "stop_times": [828.934, 834.321, 836.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 824.215}, "reply_to": "20879__0_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20879__0_079", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, there can be an unfair labor practice under those circumstances.\nRefusal to execute an agreement, Justice Scalia, that the parties have reached can be a violation of 8(d) of the act, but yes, there--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [836.773, 840.309], "stop_times": [840.309, 848.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 836.773}, "reply_to": "20879__0_078", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_080", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, there's been no violation so far.\nNobody has... nobody claims a violation, but the union wants to have it clearly established that there is a collective bargaining agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [848.948, 850.867], "stop_times": [850.867, 860.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 848.948}, "reply_to": "20879__0_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20879__0_081", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--There may be, Justice Scalia, some small number of cases in which there is no board remedy available to a party in the union's situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [860.139], "stop_times": [868.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 860.139}, "reply_to": "20879__0_080", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_082", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "And no Federal court remedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [868.511], "stop_times": [870.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 868.511}, "reply_to": "20879__0_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20879__0_083", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "And no Federal court remedy as an anticipatory matter but, of course, when there is a violation that can be asserted as a defense, but we don't think that the existence of that small number of cases should drive the decision here.\nI mean, in the vast majority of situations there is a remedy before the board, and the board is the place to go.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [870.411, 885.54], "stop_times": [885.54, 892.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 870.411}, "reply_to": "20879__0_082", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_084", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Not in the vast majority of anticipatory situations, surely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [892.194], "stop_times": [895.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 892.194}, "reply_to": "20879__0_083", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20879__0_085", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "I think that in the vast majority of anticipatory situations there is a remedy before the board.\nIf you allow people to go into court... I'll give another example, that if there is an unfair labor practice alleged to occur during the performance of a contract the union can claim that it has a right to strike in violation of the no-strike clause... that's Mastrow Plastics... and what the union could do under those circumstances is go into court and say, we'd like a declaratory judgment that we're entitled to strike because the employer engaged in unfair labor practices.\nIf you're an inventive lawyer either on the union's side or the employer's side you can craft a declaratory judgment action that would bring a whole range of unfair labor practice charges effectively before the Federal courts--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [895.746, 901.133, 928.283], "stop_times": [901.133, 928.283, 939.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 895.746}, "reply_to": "20879__0_084", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_086", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Mr.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [939.675], "stop_times": [940.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 939.675}, "reply_to": "20879__0_085", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__0_087", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--thereby bypassing the board.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [940.191], "stop_times": [941.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 940.191}, "reply_to": "20879__0_086", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_088", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--An aggrieved... either the employer or the union can go into State court, can they not, under the Dowd case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [941.208], "stop_times": [951.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 941.208}, "reply_to": "20879__0_087", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__0_089", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [951.398], "stop_times": [951.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 951.398}, "reply_to": "20879__0_088", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_090", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "So it isn't as if they can't get into Federal court under section 301 they have no judicial remedy.\nThey can go to State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [951.948, 958.636], "stop_times": [958.636, 959.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 951.948}, "reply_to": "20879__0_089", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__0_091", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, that's a possibility, Mr. Chief Justice, and the Ninth Circuit has held that if there's no unfair labor practice potential before the board you can go into State court and apply State law.\nThat is a difficult question which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [959.938, 974.264], "stop_times": [974.264, 976.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 959.938}, "reply_to": "20879__0_090", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_092", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, why is it difficult after the Dowd Box case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [976.848], "stop_times": [979.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 976.848}, "reply_to": "20879__0_091", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__0_093", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--It's not difficult as to whether you could go into State court or not.\nI think the difficult issue is whether you would apply State or Federal law when you went into State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [979.05, 981.668], "stop_times": [981.668, 985.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 979.05}, "reply_to": "20879__0_092", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_094", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Yes, but that's something that isn't involved here, certainly.\nAt least there is some sort of judicial forum in which this dispute could be resolved, even though you can't get into Federal court under 301.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [985.637, 988.405], "stop_times": [988.405, 996.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 985.637}, "reply_to": "20879__0_093", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__0_095", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "But our argument, Mr. Chief Justice, would mean that you could not go into State court under section 301 either, because the scope of Federal jurisdiction and the scope of State jurisdiction are the same.\nBoth are governed by section 301.\nBoth require suits for violation, so you could not go into State court and seek a declaratory judgment under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [996.225, 1008.133, 1009.568], "stop_times": [1008.133, 1009.568, 1015.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 996.225}, "reply_to": "20879__0_094", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_096", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "You think that's a result of the Dowd Box case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1015.638], "stop_times": [1017.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1015.638}, "reply_to": "20879__0_095", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__0_097", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--I believe it is, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1017.338], "stop_times": [1019.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1017.338}, "reply_to": "20879__0_096", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_098", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Which means that you'd have some of the law of labor contacts made by State law rather than by Federal law, which is seemingly what the act envisions, or what we've said the act envisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1019.424], "stop_times": [1030.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1019.424}, "reply_to": "20879__0_097", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20879__0_099", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, our position, Justice Scalia, is that there isn't any room for State law here, that even if you went into State court, that you would have to apply Federal law, but that the State court no more than the Federal court can give declaratory relief under these circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1030.065], "stop_times": [1044.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1030.065}, "reply_to": "20879__0_098", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_100", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "So that there would be no remedy, to answer the Chief Justice's first question.\nIf you concede that the State courts could not apply State law, there would be no remedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1044.123, 1048.359], "stop_times": [1048.359, 1054.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1044.123}, "reply_to": "20879__0_099", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20879__0_101", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "I have conceded that there is some small class of cases in which there would be no anticipatory remedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1054.597], "stop_times": [1060.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1054.597}, "reply_to": "20879__0_100", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_102", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Anticipatory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1060.684], "stop_times": [1061.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1060.684}, "reply_to": "20879__0_101", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20879__0_103", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "But you could always assert it as a defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1061.184], "stop_times": [1063.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1061.184}, "reply_to": "20879__0_102", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_104", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "And the reason for no anticipatory remedy comes down simply to plain language, I take it.\nIn other words, it's not necessary to preserve board jurisdiction because there are some cases in which, as you say, there would be no conflict with board jurisdiction, so it's a straight plain language theory, in effect that the language of 301 trumps the normal rule which would allow a declaratory judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1063.369, 1067.905], "stop_times": [1067.905, 1087.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1063.369}, "reply_to": "20879__0_103", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20879__0_105", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Yes.\nWe've suggested that the language is very plain, and the lower court in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1087.902, 1088.302], "stop_times": [1088.302, 1092.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1087.902}, "reply_to": "20879__0_104", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_106", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "But that's all.\nI mean, you don't... basically your argument is not an argument based upon the preservation of board jurisdiction.\nIt's an argument based on the statutory text, period.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1092.555, 1092.872, 1098.709], "stop_times": [1092.872, 1098.709, 1101.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1092.555}, "reply_to": "20879__0_105", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20879__0_107", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--Our section 301 argument--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1101.494], "stop_times": [1103.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1101.494}, "reply_to": "20879__0_106", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_108", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1103.394], "stop_times": [1103.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1103.394}, "reply_to": "20879__0_107", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20879__0_109", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--is based on statutory text--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1103.696], "stop_times": [1104.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1103.696}, "reply_to": "20879__0_108", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_110", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1104.696], "stop_times": [1105.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1104.696}, "reply_to": "20879__0_109", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20879__0_111", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--and the legislative history, but we have also argued alternatively that there is Garmon preemption here even if you could somehow shoe this... shoe-horn this in within section 301, that the Evening News exception to Garmon preemption only applies, as this Court said in Lockridge, where the cause of action requires a construction of the collective bargaining agreement.\nHere, no construction of the collective bargaining agreement is remotely involved and therefore we suggest that Garmon preemption, that is, Garmon primary jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1105.062, 1124.525], "stop_times": [1124.525, 1133.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1105.062}, "reply_to": "20879__0_110", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_112", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Are you saying that if the union brought an action simply for a violation of the contract and... that there might be preemption of that sort of a claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1133.965], "stop_times": [1144.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1133.965}, "reply_to": "20879__0_111", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__0_113", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "We're suggesting that if the union brought an action for violation of contract which did not depend in any way on the interpretation of the contract, which is the scope of the Smith v. Evening News exception, there might not be jurisdiction under those circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1144.154], "stop_times": [1160.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1144.154}, "reply_to": "20879__0_112", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_114", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, but the statute speaks quite plainly.\nIt says you can bring an action for violation of a contract.\nHow could there not be jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1160.866, 1163.166, 1167.102], "stop_times": [1163.166, 1167.102, 1170.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1160.866}, "reply_to": "20879__0_113", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__0_115", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, I think it's not, Mr. Chief Justice, so much a question of \"jurisdiction\".\nIt's more a question of 301, but that the primary jurisdiction doctrine might apply.\nThat's what Garmon is when you're dealing with Federal law issues.\nBut the primary jurisdiction doctrine might say you should resort to the board even though the district court has technical jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1170.554, 1177.042, 1187.433, 1190.635], "stop_times": [1177.042, 1187.433, 1190.635, 1195.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1170.554}, "reply_to": "20879__0_114", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_116", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, why wouldn't you make that argument--\n--Well, that's a strange doctrine.\n--here, that the election... if it's primary jurisdiction, they went to the board first, but I don't think you're making any kind of election of remedies argument that... this union did go to the NLRB a year before coming to court, right, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1195.754, 1197.256, 1197.589], "stop_times": [1197.256, 1197.589, 1213.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1195.754}, "reply_to": "20879__0_115", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20879__0_117", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "That's correct, and the matter is still pending before the board.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1213.432], "stop_times": [1214.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1213.432}, "reply_to": "20879__0_116", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_118", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--So why aren't you making any kind of primary jurisdiction argument with respect to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1214.916], "stop_times": [1219.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1214.916}, "reply_to": "20879__0_117", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20879__0_119", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, I think in essence we are.\nWhen we talk about a Garmon... the Garmon doctrine applying here, even if there's technical jurisdiction under section 301, what we're saying is the court should leave it to the board under those circumstances, particularly when you have a board proceeding pending and, most particularly, when there's no construction of the contract that's involved.\nAfter all, that was the task assigned by Congress to the Federal courts, was to construe these collective bargaining agreements.\nThere's no construction of a collective bargaining agreement involved in this case.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1219.502, 1221.121, 1237.881, 1243.035, 1245.987], "stop_times": [1221.121, 1237.881, 1243.035, 1245.987, 1246.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1219.502}, "reply_to": "20879__0_118", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_120", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "But if you can't have an action for a declaratory judgment, which you certainly are maintaining in light of the statute, and you can't have an action for construction of the contract, what sort of action for violation of contract can you have under section 301?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1246.503], "stop_times": [1262.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1246.503}, "reply_to": "20879__0_119", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__0_121", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--Well, Mr. Chief Justice, we agree that you can have an action to construe the contract for violation of the contract that requires a construction of the contract.\nWhat we're suggesting is that somehow, if this Court went so far as to say that a violation encompassed anything relating to the contract, a position which you seem to have rejected in the Franchise Tax Board case, we're suggesting that if you went that far and said, oh, yes, this fits within the suits for violation of contract, you should still say it's within the primary jurisdiction of the board.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1262.096, 1268.352], "stop_times": [1268.352, 1287.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1262.096}, "reply_to": "20879__0_120", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_122", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "I understand.\nDo you know, is there any authority... it seemed to me there ought to be fairly clear whether you could or couldn't do this, but in suits that are, let's say, arising under suits, a person might have a State law defense, and is there any reason that the person with a State law defense cannot get a declaratory judgment action on... where he's claiming that I'm being threatened by a Federal suit and if the person brings that Federal suit I have a perfectly good defense and he wants it litigated in a declaratory judgment action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1287.98, 1289.016], "stop_times": [1289.016, 1320.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1287.98}, "reply_to": "20879__0_121", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20879__0_123", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "There's a dispute about a Federal law--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1320.618], "stop_times": [1323.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1320.618}, "reply_to": "20879__0_122", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_124", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Oh, an antitrust case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1323.736], "stop_times": [1324.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1323.736}, "reply_to": "20879__0_123", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20879__0_125", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1324.003], "stop_times": [1324.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1324.003}, "reply_to": "20879__0_124", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_126", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Some private person says, I'm going to bring an antitrust case against you, and the defendant says, look, I have a piece of paper here.\nYou promised not to.\nIt's a State law contract between us.\nI would have thought it would be settled.\nI would have thought you could have done it.\nYou could go into a declaratory... in court and say I want a declaratory action.\nA person's threatening me, but he hasn't brought it yet, a Federal suit.\nI want a declaration that he has no Federal suit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1324.436, 1331.324, 1332.207, 1334.009, 1337.061, 1338.496, 1342.198, 1345.899], "stop_times": [1331.324, 1332.207, 1334.009, 1337.061, 1338.496, 1342.198, 1345.899, 1349.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1324.436}, "reply_to": "20879__0_125", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20879__0_127", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1349.185], "stop_times": [1350.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1349.185}, "reply_to": "20879__0_126", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_128", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--for the reason that I have this State law defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1350.237], "stop_times": [1351.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1350.237}, "reply_to": "20879__0_127", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20879__0_129", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--I suppose, Justice Breyer, that such a suit would lie.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1351.87], "stop_times": [1355.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1351.87}, "reply_to": "20879__0_128", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_130", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1355.355], "stop_times": [1355.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1355.355}, "reply_to": "20879__0_129", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20879__0_131", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "But it depends on the jurisdiction of the Federal courts over the coercive suit that the other party could have brought.\nHere, there is no coercive suit that the employer could have brought.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1355.755, 1361.409], "stop_times": [1361.409, 1364.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1355.755}, "reply_to": "20879__0_130", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_132", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "He could have brought a suit claiming that the contract was being violated and if you say, well, he wouldn't have, that would seem to be a question of whether the declaratory judgment action is ripe or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1364.98], "stop_times": [1378.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1364.98}, "reply_to": "20879__0_131", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20879__0_133", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1378.205], "stop_times": [1379.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1378.205}, "reply_to": "20879__0_132", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_134", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "That would seem a question of whether... I mean, yes, of course you're right, if there's no threat he can't bring the declaratory judgment action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1379.338], "stop_times": [1384.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1379.338}, "reply_to": "20879__0_133", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20879__0_135", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--Well, I think ripeness and the question of whether there's been a violation or imminently threatened violation are very similar questions, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1384.774], "stop_times": [1390.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1384.774}, "reply_to": "20879__0_134", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_136", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Yes, exactly, so if there's no imminently threatened violation, you can't be ripe.\nThat isn't the question before us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1390.778, 1393.797], "stop_times": [1393.797, 1395.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1390.778}, "reply_to": "20879__0_135", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20879__0_137", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--But that's not... that's not the issue here.\nThere is no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1395.499, 1397.249], "stop_times": [1397.249, 1397.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1395.499}, "reply_to": "20879__0_136", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_138", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1397.668], "stop_times": [1398.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1397.668}, "reply_to": "20879__0_137", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20879__0_139", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--imminently threatened violation.\nIndeed, the union did not say that if it got this declaration that it would strike.\nIt said it wanted to use this declaration with respect to the contract being invalid, the unfair labor practice issue, in the course of negotiations.\nThis was not a situation in which the union came in and threatened to strike.\nThere could have been no coercive action here by the employer, and we simply suggest that under the Declaratory Judgment Act there simply can't be a declaratory action, either, and that to allow this would be to allow unions and employers to bring all sorts of unfair labor practice charges in the courts, where they don't belong, instead of the board, where Congress said they should be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1398.234, 1399.301, 1403.272, 1413.628, 1417.18], "stop_times": [1399.301, 1403.272, 1413.628, 1417.18, 1437.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1398.234}, "reply_to": "20879__0_138", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_140", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, suppose the union said, we are in imminent danger of the employer enforcing this contract against us because we're going to take a specific action.\nWe're going to strike.\nAnd we want this contract declared void because it was procured by fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1437.993, 1447.349, 1448.717], "stop_times": [1447.349, 1448.717, 1453.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1437.993}, "reply_to": "20879__0_139", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20879__0_141", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, under some circumstances probably a declaratory judgment like that could be brought.\nThere are questions about an employer's ability to sue to enjoin a threatened strike.\nI believe the lower courts are divided about the standards there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1453.538, 1457.74, 1461.792], "stop_times": [1457.74, 1461.792, 1465.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1453.538}, "reply_to": "20879__0_140", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_142", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, they just want a declaration of contract invalidity.\nWould that be violation of the contract?\nI thought it was your position that that's not a violation of the contract, that's renouncing the contract, and that's different than a violation of the contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1465.143, 1467.278, 1469.13], "stop_times": [1467.278, 1469.13, 1475.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1465.143}, "reply_to": "20879__0_141", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20879__0_143", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "No, Justice Kennedy.\nWe agree that an anticipatory repudiation of the contract under standard contract law is a violation of the contract, that if there weren't anticipatory repudiation, that you could bring a lawsuit in Federal court under section 301.\nThe Dowd Box case, the facts of the Dowd Box case seem to be similar to that.\nMr. Chief Justice, unless there are further questions, I'd like to reserve the balance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1475.118, 1475.684, 1487.492, 1491.777], "stop_times": [1475.684, 1487.492, 1491.777, 1495.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1475.118}, "reply_to": "20879__0_142", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_144", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Very well, Mr. Dyk.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1495.729], "stop_times": [1496.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1495.729}, "reply_to": "20879__0_143", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__0_145", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1496.562], "stop_times": [1496.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1496.562}, "reply_to": "20879__0_144", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__0_146", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Mr. Yokich, we'll hear from you.\nPerhaps, Mr. Yokich, you could tell us what your view is of possible mootness in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1496.762, 1498.462], "stop_times": [1498.462, 1520.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1496.762}, "reply_to": "20879__0_145", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__1_000", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Our view of possible mootness is that there is a fair question of mootness in this case because the contract has expired, but that this is a situation that is a labor case, the labor cases tend to resolve themselves quickly and that therefore it's a situation that's capable of repetition, evading review.\nIn that respect, we think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1520.76, 1540.222], "stop_times": [1540.222, 1542.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1520.76}, "reply_to": "20879__0_146", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_001", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, but you wouldn't anticipate fraud in the future.\nI mean, it just doesn't lend itself to that analysis, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1542.155, 1545.174], "stop_times": [1545.174, 1549.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1542.155}, "reply_to": "20879__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20879__1_002", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--Well, we hope that Textron would not fool this Local twice, but we do think that, given the fact that we have several thousand collective bargaining agreements and almost a dozen with Textron, that it could come up again, and that this is a case very similar to the Burlington Northern case, where there was a strike that was resolved by an emergency... a presidential emergency board.\nThe Court held in that case that that was a situation capable of repetition, even though the parties were thereafter bound to a certain term, and even though the parties might not ever have that situation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1549.661, 1569.622], "stop_times": [1569.622, 1579.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1549.661}, "reply_to": "20879__1_001", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_003", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "I suppose what you say is capable of repetition is a claim that there's been a violation of a contract, whether that qualifies.\nIt wouldn't necessarily have to be the same fraud situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1579.597, 1588.703], "stop_times": [1588.703, 1591.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1579.597}, "reply_to": "20879__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__1_004", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--But... well, that is true also, Mr. Chief Justice.\nAs we indicate in our brief, these contract formation issues come in many different forms.\nYou could have a situation where there was no meeting of the minds, where there wasn't offer and acceptance, all of those types of situations could be repeated also, and bring this case back before the courts and in such a time frame as to make it impossible for this Court to resolve the issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1591.405, 1594.523, 1599.844], "stop_times": [1594.523, 1599.844, 1616.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1591.405}, "reply_to": "20879__1_003", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_005", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Mr. Yokich, do I have to struggle with that?\nWhy isn't the fact that there are benefits under this contract that must continue to be provided after the term of the contract has ended, why--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1616.27, 1617.722], "stop_times": [1617.722, 1624.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1616.27}, "reply_to": "20879__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20879__1_006", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, I think that's a fair argument and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1624.392], "stop_times": [1626.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1624.392}, "reply_to": "20879__1_005", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_007", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--I know it's an argument.\nWhy isn't it right?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1626.494, 1629.88, 1629.28], "stop_times": [1629.88, 1629.28, 1631.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1626.494}, "reply_to": "20879__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20879__1_008", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1631.898], "stop_times": [1632.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1631.898}, "reply_to": "20879__1_007", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_009", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "What's the argument on the other side?\nLet's put it that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1632.782, 1634.015], "stop_times": [1634.015, 1634.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1632.782}, "reply_to": "20879__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20879__1_010", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--I have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1634.684], "stop_times": [1635.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1634.684}, "reply_to": "20879__1_009", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_011", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Somebody ought to give us the argument on the other side, if there is any.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1635.234], "stop_times": [1637.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1635.234}, "reply_to": "20879__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20879__1_012", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--Well, you'll have to find somebody different than me to do it.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1637.267, 1639.636], "stop_times": [1639.636, 1640.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1637.267}, "reply_to": "20879__1_011", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_013", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "But you think it's a good argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1640.102], "stop_times": [1640.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1640.102}, "reply_to": "20879__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20879__1_014", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--I think it's a decent argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1640.754], "stop_times": [1642.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1640.754}, "reply_to": "20879__1_013", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_015", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Mr. Dyk--\n--Is it a correct argument?\nI don't care whether it's obscene or not.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1642.087, 1643.17, 1643.872, 1645.572], "stop_times": [1643.17, 1643.872, 1645.572, 1646.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1642.087}, "reply_to": "20879__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20879__1_016", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Yes.\nAs I say, there are lots of implications to it, because it turns on the nature of the right in this particular contract what the bargaining history is, et cetera, et cetera, all of the factual questions that you have to answer in a case like Litton, and that's why I'm not prepared at this time to say absolutely positively this contract's created a vested right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1646.741, 1648.574], "stop_times": [1648.574, 1667.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1646.741}, "reply_to": "20879__1_015", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_017", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, Mr. Dyk's point was that you got a damage action going down below anyway, and it's the damage action which would be affected by this and therefore that's why there's no mootness here.\nIs that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1667.136, 1678.176], "stop_times": [1678.176, 1678.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1667.136}, "reply_to": "20879__1_016", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20879__1_018", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, that's what we indicate in footnote 4 of our brief and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1678.726], "stop_times": [1681.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1678.726}, "reply_to": "20879__1_017", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_019", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "You agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1681.142], "stop_times": [1681.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1681.142}, "reply_to": "20879__1_018", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20879__1_020", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--that is why this case as a whole is not moot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1681.442], "stop_times": [1683.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1681.442}, "reply_to": "20879__1_019", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_021", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "You agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1683.844], "stop_times": [1684.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1683.844}, "reply_to": "20879__1_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20879__1_022", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1684.128], "stop_times": [1684.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1684.128}, "reply_to": "20879__1_021", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_023", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "So why do you bother with the capable of repetition yet evasive of review if you've got a concrete thing like damages that you say survive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1684.444], "stop_times": [1694.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1684.444}, "reply_to": "20879__1_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20879__1_024", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "I... what I'm... the reason why I bother with it is just that I'm trying to cover all the bases.\nYou could draw a distinction between--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1694.152, 1699.389], "stop_times": [1699.389, 1700.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1694.152}, "reply_to": "20879__1_023", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_025", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "So you wouldn't put that as the number 1 reason that it isn't moot.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1700.655], "stop_times": [1703.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1700.655}, "reply_to": "20879__1_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20879__1_026", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--No.\nMy number 1 reason that the case is not moot is set out in footnote 4 of our brief, which is that there's this live damage claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1703.69, 1704.607], "stop_times": [1704.607, 1711.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1703.69}, "reply_to": "20879__1_025", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_027", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "What about something... you said that the determination here will inevitably impact on the bargaining that's currently going on, that you need to know whether the old contract was no good, and you said that will surely affect how it's bargaining now, and I thought, well, how?\nHow will this information about the old contract have an impact on the bargaining for the new contract?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1711.361, 1729.723], "stop_times": [1729.723, 1737.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1711.361}, "reply_to": "20879__1_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20879__1_028", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, that's an argument that I would rank after repetition evading review, and I would just that when you bargain a new contract you typically bargain from the baseline of the old contract, and if there's a provision in that contract that for some reason doesn't apply because of fraud, you can make an argument that you would have less moral ability or more moral ability at the bargaining table to say we don't have to bargain about that, or we should bargain from zero instead of the old language.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1737.162], "stop_times": [1763.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1737.162}, "reply_to": "20879__1_027", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_029", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "But here you're saying the whole contract is no good, so I just don't understand how that declaration would affect bargaining of a new contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1763.146], "stop_times": [1773.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1763.146}, "reply_to": "20879__1_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20879__1_030", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "I think there is a potential impact of that declaration.\nI think Mr. Dyk's argument about the vested rights, I think the point about the fraud, and I think about the capable of repetition evading review are all stronger arguments.\nSince Lincoln Mills v.... since Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills this Court has held that section 301 gives the responsibility to the Federal courts to fashion a body of law for the enforcement of collective bargaining agreements.\nIn the Lincoln Mills case, the Court rejected a literal reading of the statute.\nIt rejected a reading that the statute was jurisdictional and instead found that the statute created the power to develop a whole body of cases with respect to the enforcement of contracts.\nIn addition in Lincoln Mills, the Court held that the statute gave the Federal courts a wide choice of remedies, remedies such as specific performance in that specific case and, in addition to that, remedies such as declaratory judgments.\nIn Lincoln Mills, for example, specific performance was a remedy that you can't find in the language of section 301 and is one that's really been traditionally disfavored in terms of agreements to arbitrate and disfavored in terms of employment law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1773.335, 1777.204, 1786.594, 1804.473, 1810.21, 1822.767, 1836.527], "stop_times": [1777.204, 1786.594, 1804.473, 1810.21, 1822.767, 1836.527, 1851.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1773.335}, "reply_to": "20879__1_029", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_031", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Are you saying that Lincoln Mills broadened the jurisdictional grant beyond the language that Congress had chosen?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1851.204], "stop_times": [1858.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1851.204}, "reply_to": "20879__1_030", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__1_032", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "I'm not saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1858.208], "stop_times": [1859.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1858.208}, "reply_to": "20879__1_031", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_033", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "That's what we're talking about here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1859.424], "stop_times": [1860.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1859.424}, "reply_to": "20879__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__1_034", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--Well, I would say that... well, Lincoln Mills' reading of the jurisdictional grant was a fair one based upon that language.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1860.476], "stop_times": [1866.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1860.476}, "reply_to": "20879__1_033", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_035", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, are you... what... beyond suits for violation of contracts, which is the statutory language, do you think Lincoln Mills said other things are included in that jurisdictional grant, too?\nI wouldn't have read it that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1866.546, 1878.021], "stop_times": [1878.021, 1879.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1866.546}, "reply_to": "20879__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__1_036", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, I think Lincoln Mills said that the phrase, for violation of contracts, is a broad enough phrase so that the courts have the responsibility to develop a complete body of law with respect to the enforcement of collective bargaining agreements.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1879.104], "stop_times": [1893.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1879.104}, "reply_to": "20879__1_035", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_037", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, with respect to the provision of remedies for a violation.\nYes.\nThat's what was involved in Lincoln Mills.\nThe question was, are you going to provide this equitable remedy for a violation?\nHow does Lincoln Mills take you beyond the for violation language?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1893.531, 1898.566, 1899.183, 1900.851, 1904.637], "stop_times": [1898.566, 1899.183, 1900.851, 1904.637, 1908.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1893.531}, "reply_to": "20879__1_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20879__1_038", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, I think what Lincoln Mills says is that when we have issues that deal with what the rights and the duties are created by the collective bargaining agreement, that the Federal courts are authorized to adjudicate those rights and duties.\nI think the phrase, for violation of, can argu... should be read as giving the Federal courts general jurisdiction over the law of collective bargaining ag reements--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1908.707, 1924.3], "stop_times": [1924.3, 1934.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1908.707}, "reply_to": "20879__1_037", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_039", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "How would you rate that, as a decent argument, or--\n[Laughter]\n--a good argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1934.406, 1936.858, 1937.508], "stop_times": [1936.858, 1937.508, 1938.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1934.406}, "reply_to": "20879__1_038", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__1_040", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--Well, I'd rank it way up there on top.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1938.226], "stop_times": [1942.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1938.226}, "reply_to": "20879__1_039", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_041", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "PG?\nPG, General, or--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1942.595, 1943.078, 1943.964], "stop_times": [1943.078, 1943.964, 1945.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1942.595}, "reply_to": "20879__1_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20879__1_042", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "And I suppose that the... what it comes down to on our view in terms of looking at the language of the statute that's involved is what you use the... what the word for, the preposition involves.\nWe think the word for is susceptible of a broad enough meaning, that being concerning or related to, which you can find in the dictionary, in the definition for for, that the Court has considerable latitude to resolve issues that go to the heart of the enforcement of a collective bargaining agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1945.097, 1962.425], "stop_times": [1962.425, 1979.887], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1945.097}, "reply_to": "20879__1_041", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_043", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Considering the Court's latitude, suppose you're right that theoretically there is a 301 suit here.\nSuppose a district judge then said, well, this union went to the board first, and I have to apply board law, so I'm going to say, prior proceeding pending, and wait until the board acts.\nWould that be a proper response to your claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [1979.887, 1987.041, 2000.098], "stop_times": [1987.041, 2000.098, 2002.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1979.887}, "reply_to": "20879__1_042", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20879__1_044", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "I think it would be a proper response to some claims.\nIf the complaint was wholly based upon an alleged unfair labor practice I think that might be a proper response.\nI don't think that's the case in our situation, because I think if you compare the theory of our case versus the board's theory of their complaint, they're different cases.\nOur case goes to the entire contract and is based upon the common law of fraud.\nThe board's case is really a little bit different than that.\nThe board argues that it was a mandatory subject and that the parties did not bargain in good faith over that mandatory subject, and that the subcontracted clause that would let the board... that would let the employer proceed on that subject was procured by fraud, and so the fraud really comes in, in the board's theory at least, in the tail end of the case as opposed to being the heart of the refusal-to-bargain complaint.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2002.9, 2006.352, 2013.208, 2022.63, 2027.451, 2030.736], "stop_times": [2006.352, 2013.208, 2022.63, 2027.451, 2030.736, 2053.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2002.9}, "reply_to": "20879__1_043", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_045", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "May I just interrupt you with a question there?\nDo you agree with your opponent that, if it is not a mandatory subject of bargaining, but there was nevertheless active fraud in the negotiation on the nonmandatory issue, that the board could remedy that as a failure to bargain in good faith?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2053.685, 2055.085], "stop_times": [2055.085, 2069.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2053.685}, "reply_to": "20879__1_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20879__1_046", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "It's hard for me to see that, Your Honor.\nIf it's a permissive subject--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2069.61, 2072.48], "stop_times": [2072.48, 2075.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2069.61}, "reply_to": "20879__1_045", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_047", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Let's assume it's permissive, and that there's active fraud in misleading the union and the board would be powerless to remedy that.\nThat's your view.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2075.781, 2082.835], "stop_times": [2082.835, 2083.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2075.781}, "reply_to": "20879__1_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20879__1_048", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--If it's a permissive subject their duty is to supply information--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2083.954], "stop_times": [2086.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2083.954}, "reply_to": "20879__1_047", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_049", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "I know there's no duty to disclose.\nI'm assuming there's no duty to disclose, but there nevertheless is an active misrepresentation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2086.656, 2087.422], "stop_times": [2087.422, 2092.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2086.656}, "reply_to": "20879__1_048", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20879__1_050", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--I don't know of any board cases that give--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2092.06], "stop_times": [2094.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2092.06}, "reply_to": "20879__1_049", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_051", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "He said there were a lot of them.\nThat's what puzzles me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2094.126, 2095.594], "stop_times": [2095.594, 2096.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2094.126}, "reply_to": "20879__1_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20879__1_052", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--I don't know of any board cases that give relief in that situation, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2096.312], "stop_times": [2100.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2096.312}, "reply_to": "20879__1_051", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_053", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Are there any board cases saying they have no power to give relief in such situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2100.916], "stop_times": [2104.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2100.916}, "reply_to": "20879__1_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20879__1_054", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--Well, the closest the board has... the relief that we seek in this case is to be able to declare the entire contract unenforceable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2104.951], "stop_times": [2114.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2104.951}, "reply_to": "20879__1_053", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_055", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2114.657], "stop_times": [2115.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2114.657}, "reply_to": "20879__1_054", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20879__1_056", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "And I don't know of any board cases that deal with that exact situation, and that say that you can award that kind of relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2115.074], "stop_times": [2123.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2115.074}, "reply_to": "20879__1_055", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_057", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "And you think, in representing the union, the board would not have the power to declare a contract void on the theory that the... there was no bargaining in good faith because of fraud such as I've described?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2123.829], "stop_times": [2133.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2123.829}, "reply_to": "20879__1_056", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20879__1_058", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, representing the union, the best I could do is predict that that would be a very tough case before the board.\nThere aren't any cases that I could supply to the board to support that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2133.268, 2140.791], "stop_times": [2140.791, 2142.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2133.268}, "reply_to": "20879__1_057", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_059", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "The petitioner's brief makes that statement that the NLRB could, as a remedy for an unfair labor practice, invalidate the contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2142.993], "stop_times": [2158.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2142.993}, "reply_to": "20879__1_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20879__1_060", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, the cases the petitioner's brief relies on, first of all they all deal with mandatory subjects where the employer had an obligation to bargain about them.\nSecond, if you look at the most recent case, the Waymouth case, it speaks of a particular commitment that was made in a contract that has... that was held not to be binding upon the union.\nIt was a case where the union said, if you move to another site this contract's not going to cover us representing the people at the other site.\nThe employer misled the union about where it was moving to, and the board said, well, you can't enforce that specific term of the contract, and again that's very much consistent with the board's theory in this case, which goes to a specific term of the contract rather than the enforceability of the entire agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2158.502, 2167.958, 2179.666, 2187.622], "stop_times": [2167.958, 2179.666, 2187.622, 2205.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2158.502}, "reply_to": "20879__1_059", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_061", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "You read the statute as if it were to say, suits respecting contracts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2205.333], "stop_times": [2212.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2205.333}, "reply_to": "20879__1_060", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20879__1_062", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "I... not only do I read the statute that way, but I think that that is the thrust of the board's precedent from Lincoln Mills onwards.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2212.803], "stop_times": [2222.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2212.803}, "reply_to": "20879__1_061", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_063", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "What authority does the board have to construe a grant of jurisdiction of the Federal courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2222.445], "stop_times": [2227.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2222.445}, "reply_to": "20879__1_062", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__1_064", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "The NLRB?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2227.849], "stop_times": [2228.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2227.849}, "reply_to": "20879__1_063", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_065", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2228.782], "stop_times": [2229.249], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2228.782}, "reply_to": "20879__1_064", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__1_066", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "I think it has very little authority to construe the grant of jurisdiction for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2229.249], "stop_times": [2233.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2229.249}, "reply_to": "20879__1_065", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_067", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "So, then, why is it important that the board may have construed it that way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2233.301], "stop_times": [2236.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2233.301}, "reply_to": "20879__1_066", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__1_068", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--If I said that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2236.955], "stop_times": [2239.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2236.955}, "reply_to": "20879__1_067", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_069", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "You misspoke.\nI think you meant the courts--\n--Oh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2239.221, 2239.755, 2240.99], "stop_times": [2239.755, 2240.99, 2241.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2239.221}, "reply_to": "20879__1_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20879__1_070", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--That's correct.\nI misspoke.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2241.823, 2243.023], "stop_times": [2243.023, 2243.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2241.823}, "reply_to": "20879__1_069", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_071", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "You mean this Court, when you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2243.606], "stop_times": [2246.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2243.606}, "reply_to": "20879__1_070", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__1_072", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "I think that the entire thrust of this Court's cases is to give section 301 a broad reading.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2246.692], "stop_times": [2252.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2246.692}, "reply_to": "20879__1_071", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_073", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--Well, I've just been rereading Textile Workers and I must say I don't agree with your characterization of that.\nIt seems to me the Court said, jurisdiction is jurisdiction, and they went on to say that with section (b) there was a grant of Federal... an additional grant to Federal courts to develop a case law, just as you say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2252.512, 2259.202], "stop_times": [2259.202, 2271.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2252.512}, "reply_to": "20879__1_072", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__1_074", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Mm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2271.925], "stop_times": [2272.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2271.925}, "reply_to": "20879__1_073", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_075", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "But I don't see anything expansive in there about the jurisdictional ground.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2272.309], "stop_times": [2276.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2272.309}, "reply_to": "20879__1_074", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__1_076", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2276.061], "stop_times": [2276.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2276.061}, "reply_to": "20879__1_075", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_077", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Maybe you could refer me to specific language.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2276.913], "stop_times": [2278.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2276.913}, "reply_to": "20879__1_076", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__1_078", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--The... I think that the expansive nature of the jurisdictional grant comes as you develop the other cases that deal with section 301.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2278.196], "stop_times": [2288.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2278.196}, "reply_to": "20879__1_077", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_079", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "That would be strange, really, if you have a limited jurisdictional grant and then construed to authorize development of substantive law in cases within that jurisdictional grant, and then the substantive law doctrines enlarged the jurisdictional grant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2288.804], "stop_times": [2302.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2288.804}, "reply_to": "20879__1_078", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__1_080", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "I'm not trying to argue that, Mr. Chief Justice.\nWhat I'm trying to say is that I think that the courts in Lincoln Mills read the language, did not apply it literally to just give them jurisdiction, applied... read the language to give them the authority to develop a whole body of contract law, and our argument is that our claim in this case that a part of the inducement, like other contract formation claims, fits within the whole body of contract law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2302.861, 2304.98], "stop_times": [2304.98, 2330.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2302.861}, "reply_to": "20879__1_079", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_081", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Are there cases in the arbitration area where the contract says suits for violation of this agreement shall be arbitrated, and then the question is whether or not the agreement is void?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2330.964], "stop_times": [2338.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2330.964}, "reply_to": "20879__1_080", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20879__1_082", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "There are arbitration cases where this is put in as a defense to the enforcement of a specific term of the contract.\nI'm not aware of any arbitration cases that throw out a whole contract because of a claim of voidance of this kind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2338.904, 2348.175], "stop_times": [2348.175, 2354.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2338.904}, "reply_to": "20879__1_081", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_083", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, my question was whether or not there are cases going to the scope of the arbitrator's authority.\nOne party says the contract says suits for violation of this agreement are arbitrated, and the issue is whether or not there's fraud, and the party who's trying to defend says, oh, well, the arbitrator can't consider this because this goes to the whole contract and this is not a violation of the contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2354.579, 2360.983], "stop_times": [2360.983, 2378.195], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2354.579}, "reply_to": "20879__1_082", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20879__1_084", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "There are... let me divide that into two parts.\nThere are Federal court cases that deal with enforcements of agreements to arbitrate that deal with the issue of, can that agreement be enforced due to the fraud, and quite honestly there's a mish-mash of the cases.\nThey go different ways.\nThere are cases, for example, in the Fifth Circuit that say that if an issue of fraud is raised, then that's something the court has to determine before it can order the case to arbitration and that, of course, is, one thing that would happen were this case to go back down is that the district court would have to consider the company's additional defense that this case has to be arbitrated.\nThat was reserved in the court of appeals decision and is something that would be currently before the district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2378.195, 2383.348, 2397.49, 2398.442, 2420.122], "stop_times": [2383.348, 2397.49, 2398.442, 2420.122, 2427.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2378.195}, "reply_to": "20879__1_083", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_085", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "What do you say about what I take it is the declaratory judgment theory?\nSuppose Mr. Dyk were to say, yes, of course, you can bring that kind of claim as a declaratory judgment to get the contract declared void because that's a possible defense that you'd have if the employer were to sue you, but that isn't the theory that was argued below and anyway, if it were, you'd lose because you have to have some kind of threat that the employer really would sue you, and here there was none.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2427.009, 2431.913], "stop_times": [2431.913, 2454.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2427.009}, "reply_to": "20879__1_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20879__1_086", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, I think that your reaction to Mr. Dyk's argument that this is really a ripeness argument is the correct way to analyze that problem, and I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2454.66], "stop_times": [2465.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2454.66}, "reply_to": "20879__1_085", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_087", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "And then he said you'd lose, though, on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2465.218], "stop_times": [2466.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2465.218}, "reply_to": "20879__1_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20879__1_088", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--And I don't think I'd lose on the ripeness point, and that's for two reasons.\nFirst of all, I think that all of the... that a decision on what we plead can be determined by historical facts.\nEither the fraud occurred or it didn't.\nIt depends on who said what to whom when, and because there is no other event that really has to happen to determine whether the fraud occurred, I don't... I think this is a situation that is eminently ripe for judicial resolution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2466.101, 2469.586, 2478.192, 2480.477], "stop_times": [2469.586, 2478.192, 2480.477, 2493.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2466.101}, "reply_to": "20879__1_087", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_089", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "But that's not how it goes with declaratory judgments.\nThe question is, how imminent is it that you are going to be hurt by what happened?\nIt's not, does anything more have to happen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2493.802, 2495.737, 2501.908], "stop_times": [2495.737, 2501.908, 2504.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2493.802}, "reply_to": "20879__1_088", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20879__1_090", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "I think that that goes to the issue of whether a judgment would fix the legal rights of the parties, and I think that a judgment would fix the legal rights of the parties, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2504.593], "stop_times": [2515.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2504.593}, "reply_to": "20879__1_089", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_091", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "But that doesn't sound... I mean, you can think of any kind of contract.\nThink of a landlord and tenant.\nThey want to settle what the contract means, and so they bring this suit and the court will tell them and they can go on.\nDeclaratory... there has to be, especially in the Federal courts, a case or controversy, so you can't just have this iffy, something happened then, and it may ripen into an adversary concept later.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2515.65, 2519.769, 2520.887, 2528.041], "stop_times": [2519.769, 2520.887, 2528.041, 2542.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2515.65}, "reply_to": "20879__1_090", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20879__1_092", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--Well, I think that the parties in this case are in an adversary contest.\nWe say there was fraud, they say there wasn't any fraud.\nWe say the contract's not enforceable, they say the contract is enforceable, and I think the fact that we didn't write them a letter before we filed the lawsuit, that we let the lawsuit be our indication that we thought the contract could be rescinded, I think that's sufficient to put us in a posture where we are adverse and where the decree could be meaningful.\nIf the decree did issue, if the court were to hold this contract could be rescinded, then what would happen was that the parties would say, boy, we'd better go back to the bargaining table and try to remedy this problem, and so the decree that the court would issue would give concrete legal guidance to the parties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2542.318, 2546.187, 2548.704, 2571.404], "stop_times": [2546.187, 2548.704, 2571.404, 2589.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2542.318}, "reply_to": "20879__1_091", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_093", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "You don't... you're not going so far as to contradict, however, the assertion that you have not threatened to violate the contract?\nHave you positively threatened to violate the contract?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2589.381, 2598.387], "stop_times": [2598.387, 2602.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2589.381}, "reply_to": "20879__1_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20879__1_094", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "We... I don't think I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2602.756], "stop_times": [2605.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2602.756}, "reply_to": "20879__1_093", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_095", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "The alleged contract, I suppose I should say.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2605.558], "stop_times": [2607.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2605.558}, "reply_to": "20879__1_094", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20879__1_096", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--Right.\nThe only place where we have said that we think the contract is void is in the two legal proceedings, in the legal proceeding before the NLRB and in the legal proceeding before the district court.\nWe've not otherwise made that threat.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2607.16, 2607.627, 2618.968], "stop_times": [2607.627, 2618.968, 2620.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2607.16}, "reply_to": "20879__1_095", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_097", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "I have understood your position to be that you do not need to allege a threatened violation of the contract in order to establish the jurisdiction you seek in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2620.235], "stop_times": [2628.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2620.235}, "reply_to": "20879__1_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20879__1_098", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "That is our--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2628.574], "stop_times": [2631.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2628.574}, "reply_to": "20879__1_097", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_099", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "I really think that's your position.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2631.157], "stop_times": [2632.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2631.157}, "reply_to": "20879__1_098", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20879__1_100", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--We don't... I don't think we have to go that far.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2632.276], "stop_times": [2633.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2632.276}, "reply_to": "20879__1_099", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_101", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "In other words, this case doesn't turn on an estimate of probabilities of how much likelihood there was of a strike.\nYou think basically you should just go in cold and say, we want to know whether we're bound by the contract or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2633.442, 2638.263], "stop_times": [2638.263, 2642.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2633.442}, "reply_to": "20879__1_100", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20879__1_102", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "On an issue of this nature--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2642.632], "stop_times": [2645.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2642.632}, "reply_to": "20879__1_101", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_103", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2645.167], "stop_times": [2645.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2645.167}, "reply_to": "20879__1_102", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20879__1_104", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--where it's solely determined by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2645.467], "stop_times": [2646.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2645.467}, "reply_to": "20879__1_103", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_105", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Set aside the entire contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2646.452], "stop_times": [2647.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2646.452}, "reply_to": "20879__1_104", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20879__1_106", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--historical fact, I would say yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2647.152], "stop_times": [2647.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2647.152}, "reply_to": "20879__1_105", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_107", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, what if you have a landlordtenant dispute, and say a Maryland lawyer is renting an apartment from a Virginia lawyer, and they've signed a lease, and right after they sign the lease the Virginia lawyer sues the Maryland lawyer in Federal district court and says, we just want to... I want to know whether this is a binding contract or not, and the Maryland lawyer says, I do, too, and we'll just avoid future disputes.\nIs that justiciable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2647.952, 2675.019], "stop_times": [2675.019, 2676.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2647.952}, "reply_to": "20879__1_106", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__1_108", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "I don't think it's justiciable absent some claim that the contract was not binding and absent all of the facts necessary for a court determination on that claim existing, and so just a naked claim, we want to know whether it's enforceable, is not enough.\nIf there was a claim that there was no meeting of the minds, or that the figure in the contract for rent was the wrong figure, I think that is justiciable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2676.555, 2693.314], "stop_times": [2693.314, 2702.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2676.555}, "reply_to": "20879__1_107", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_109", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Yes, but the distinction here is, I don't think there's any doubt that if the statute clearly covered your case there would be Article III jurisdiction.\nHaving an interest in knowing whether there's a good contract is sufficient to give you standing.\nThe question is whether it comes within the scope of this particular statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2702.455, 2708.859, 2712.727], "stop_times": [2708.859, 2712.727, 2716.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2702.455}, "reply_to": "20879__1_108", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20879__1_110", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "I think that's right, and that's why I think it's important that when you construe the word for, that you construe it as meaning concerning, and that when you look at what are the issues the Federal courts have looked at with respect to concerning, you see the whole--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2716.513], "stop_times": [2732.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2716.513}, "reply_to": "20879__1_109", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_111", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "It seems to me if you construe the word for as meaning concerning that doesn't get over the principal hurdle as to whether there's a violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2732.307], "stop_times": [2735.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2732.307}, "reply_to": "20879__1_110", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20879__1_112", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--Well, I... what we're asking for is a declaration that the contract's not enforceable, that if we commit a breach, that it's not a violation, and I would argue to the Court that we've done all we need to do to indicate to the other side that we think that there's a substantial issue that we disagree with them on with respect to whether or not we can violate the contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2735.926], "stop_times": [2760.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2735.926}, "reply_to": "20879__1_111", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_113", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "You agree, don't you, Mr. Yokich, that the Declaratory Judgment Act doesn't expand any jurisdiction.\nIt just applies where there is jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2760.625, 2767.029], "stop_times": [2767.029, 2769.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2760.625}, "reply_to": "20879__1_112", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__1_114", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, and it's a procedural device that let's a person who expects that they will be a defendant get into court first to get a declaration so that they don't have to risk the consequences of a breach.\nIn this type of situation, I think where you have very large consequences from a breach, where you have an impact on the employer if there's a strike, where you have an impact on the union, and where you could have very, very substantial impacts on the membership of the union, it's entirely appropriate to not put the union to the point where it has to say, this is void or we're going on strike tomorrow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2769.398, 2784.423], "stop_times": [2784.423, 2807.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2769.398}, "reply_to": "20879__1_113", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_115", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Do you think you could have gone into State court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2807.939], "stop_times": [2809.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2807.939}, "reply_to": "20879__1_114", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__1_116", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2809.325], "stop_times": [2811.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2809.325}, "reply_to": "20879__1_115", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_117", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2811.058], "stop_times": [2811.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2811.058}, "reply_to": "20879__1_116", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__1_118", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Because our view of section 301 is that it creates a complete jurisprudence of section 301.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2811.759], "stop_times": [2818.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2811.759}, "reply_to": "20879__1_117", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_119", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, what do you do with the Dowd Box case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2818.58], "stop_times": [2820.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2818.58}, "reply_to": "20879__1_118", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__1_120", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, I... let me step back for a second.\nWe could have gone into State court, but it would have been under section 301 and it would have been limited to whatever this Court would hold--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2820.263, 2823.198], "stop_times": [2823.198, 2830.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2820.263}, "reply_to": "20879__1_119", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_121", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, why would it have been under section 301?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2830.638], "stop_times": [2832.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2830.638}, "reply_to": "20879__1_120", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__1_122", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--Excuse me?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2832.221], "stop_times": [2833.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2832.221}, "reply_to": "20879__1_121", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_123", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "I say, why would it have been 301> [\"] when section 301 is a grant of jurisdiction for Federal courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2833.188], "stop_times": [2839.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2833.188}, "reply_to": "20879__1_122", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__1_124", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, what the Court held in AVCO was that a State court breach of contract claim was something that arose under section 301 and was therefore removable, and as a consequence, if you go into State court on a breach of contract claim it's going to be determined by the same standards that this Court uses under section 301.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2839.91], "stop_times": [2858.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2839.91}, "reply_to": "20879__1_123", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_125", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, but if it isn't covered by section 301, it's not removable, I would suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2858.871], "stop_times": [2863.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2858.871}, "reply_to": "20879__1_124", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__1_126", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, and I think that reading Dowd Box and AVCO together means that if it relates to a collective bargaining agreement, that you use the Federal law under section 301.\nYou can use it in either Federal or State court, but if one party wants to remove, then you're in Federal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2863.073, 2877.833], "stop_times": [2877.833, 2883.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2863.073}, "reply_to": "20879__1_125", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_127", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Even though there's no 301 jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2883.487], "stop_times": [2886.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2883.487}, "reply_to": "20879__1_126", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__1_128", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, in the case... you see, and I guess that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2886.206], "stop_times": [2889.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2886.206}, "reply_to": "20879__1_127", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_129", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "That would have to rank as one of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2889.843], "stop_times": [2892.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2889.843}, "reply_to": "20879__1_128", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__1_130", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--that goes to the point that they're making in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2892.026], "stop_times": [2892.795], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2892.026}, "reply_to": "20879__1_129", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_131", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--One of the less plausible arguments, it seems to me.\nOf course, you're going to have to discuss sooner or later whether one reason you couldn't go into State court would be because of Garmon preemption, which at least they say applies here, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2892.795, 2895.211], "stop_times": [2895.211, 2905.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2892.795}, "reply_to": "20879__1_130", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__1_132", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, our position on that is that their analysis of section 301 doesn't really do a very good job of explaining how that would work, and that's because presumably if you went into State court you'd be governed by State rules of procedure, and you could have a State Declaratory Judgment Act that was broader or narrower than the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act in terms of what types of violations you could bring before the court.\nAnd if that's the case, if section 301 is less than complete in terms of the jurisdiction it gives the courts over issues of contract enforceability, you have a situation where you could have State court actions that are entirely undermining the principle of uniformity under section 301.\nNow, if... and you know, their argument doesn't account for many different things.\nIt doesn't account for what happens if it's a permissive subject and the board concededly has no authority whatsoever, Garmon preemption couldn't apply in that case, and it also doesn't account for the fact that there are some contract formation issues that might not get you in front of the board.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2905.353, 2933.603, 2951.465, 2958.07], "stop_times": [2933.603, 2951.465, 2958.07, 2972.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2905.353}, "reply_to": "20879__1_131", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_133", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, maybe Congress wasn't perfect.\nGarmon talks about arguably, you know, and from what you both said to me, I think it's at least arguable the board could fashion a remedy for fraud in the inducement of a contract on a permissive subject of bargaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2972.228, 2973.644], "stop_times": [2973.644, 2984.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2972.228}, "reply_to": "20879__1_132", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20879__1_134", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, and our position on that is that so long as the court can find section 301 jurisdiction we would continue to live in this world where we have concurrent remedies.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2984.869], "stop_times": [2996.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2984.869}, "reply_to": "20879__1_133", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_135", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "So your argument does lead to the end result that there would be many, many more cases of overlap of board jurisdiction and court jurisdiction than has been thought up to now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [2996.426], "stop_times": [3010.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2996.426}, "reply_to": "20879__1_134", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20879__1_136", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "I don't think so, Your Honor, and that's because we've had declaratory judgments in the Federal courts in labor cases for over... for almost 40 years now.\nThe first reported case that I can find is the Black and Clawson case in 1962, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [3010.603, 3020.625], "stop_times": [3020.625, 3024.994], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3010.603}, "reply_to": "20879__1_135", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_137", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "I'm not talking about declaratory judgment cases.\nI'm talking about parallel proceedings.\nI mean, you made a complaint to the regional council first, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [3024.994, 3026.696, 3028.581], "stop_times": [3026.696, 3028.581, 3034.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3024.994}, "reply_to": "20879__1_136", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20879__1_138", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--To the regional director, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [3034.017], "stop_times": [3036.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3034.017}, "reply_to": "20879__1_137", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_139", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "One whole year, so couldn't what you have done be replicated by many other unions in this situation, that is, go to the board, they're moving too slowly, come to court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [3036.268], "stop_times": [3046.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3036.268}, "reply_to": "20879__1_138", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20879__1_140", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well, if you look at the circuits where the courts have acknowledged that lawsuits like this one can go forward, I don't think you can find any evidence that there are dozens and dozens and dozens of cases where the parties are exercising both--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [3046.609], "stop_times": [3064.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3046.609}, "reply_to": "20879__1_139", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_141", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "How many cases are there like this one that said the union, on what would be a defense, can come in and get a 301--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [3064.404], "stop_times": [3071.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3064.404}, "reply_to": "20879__1_140", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20879__1_142", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--Well, the Tenth in McNalley, the Ninth in Rozay's and in Wilson, the First has hinted at that in a recent case, but the Seventh would almost certainly say it.\nThe Third would, and the Second Circuit would also say it, too, under Black and Clawson and Kozera and Messenger, which means I think in the majority of places we already have the potential that they're talking about, and it's hard to identify a great number of cases going into the court that deal with these types of issues.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [3071.892, 3082.282], "stop_times": [3082.282, 3103.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3071.892}, "reply_to": "20879__1_141", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_143", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--Why wouldn't the employers do the same, though?\nIf... why hasn't it happened whenever an employer faces a weak union that isn't going to strike, it sues to have the whole collective bargaining contract set aside as invalid?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [3103.379, 3105.148], "stop_times": [3105.148, 3114.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3103.379}, "reply_to": "20879__1_142", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20879__1_144", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [3114.503], "stop_times": [3115.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3114.503}, "reply_to": "20879__1_143", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_145", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "And they had all these things run right into Federal court, and they're deciding the validity of all the collective bargaining agreements?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [3115.07], "stop_times": [3120.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3115.07}, "reply_to": "20879__1_144", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20879__1_146", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--Well, again, in terms of the affirmative... in terms of employers doing this I think the same analysis applies, because I think we've had concurrent jurisdiction over these types of contract formation issues for many years in many places, and we haven't seen this.\nI guess--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [3120.074, 3138.286], "stop_times": [3138.286, 3139.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3120.074}, "reply_to": "20879__1_145", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_147", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "That isn't something that bothers you, or the board--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [3139.252], "stop_times": [3141.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3139.252}, "reply_to": "20879__1_146", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20879__1_148", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--Well, it doesn't bother me in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [3141.404], "stop_times": [3142.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3141.404}, "reply_to": "20879__1_147", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_149", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--No... well... what... as a labor lawyer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [3142.588], "stop_times": [3145.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3142.588}, "reply_to": "20879__1_148", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20879__1_150", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "It might bother me in Mack Trucks, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [3145.773], "stop_times": [3146.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3145.773}, "reply_to": "20879__1_149", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_151", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--does it bother you that if you win in this case I guess the employers would have a perfectly valid legal right to challenge whatever collective bargaining agreement they felt was invalid as a matter of contract law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [3146.223], "stop_times": [3158.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3146.223}, "reply_to": "20879__1_150", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20879__1_152", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--Well, I think that because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [3158.53], "stop_times": [3160.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3158.53}, "reply_to": "20879__1_151", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_153", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Then you go into the court, not the board.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [3160.863], "stop_times": [3162.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3160.863}, "reply_to": "20879__1_152", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20879__1_154", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "--in most places that's already possible.\nWe've accepted the, sort of the run of the courts in that, and as a consequence we want to establish the proposition that it can be used affirmatively as well, and that is what we're trying to do here.\nI think the best answer to this argument is in the Third Circuit where the decision in Mack Trucks came down 10 years ago, where it's a decision that's pretty closely on point and correctly decided, and where you really don't see a lot of these cases arising.\nOne case came up recently called the Beverly case, and the Third Circuit didn't have any problem in saying, in that case, because all the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [3162.132, 3163.115, 3175.056, 3191.752], "stop_times": [3163.115, 3175.056, 3191.752, 3199.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3162.132}, "reply_to": "20879__1_153", "speaker": "stephen_a_yokich"}
{"id": "20879__1_155", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Yokich.\nYour time has expired.\nMr. Dyk, you have 3 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [3199.357, 3199.74, 3200.89], "stop_times": [3199.74, 3200.89, 3203.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3199.357}, "reply_to": "20879__1_154", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20879__2_000", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Just briefly, Mr. Chief Justice, if you look at the complaint that was filed in this case, which is pages 16 to 19 of the joint appendix, and particularly to paragraphs 5 through 10, which are the operative paragraphs, you can see quite clearly that the theory of this complaint is a failure to supply information in response to the union's request.\nThis is at the heart of the board's expertise and the board's jurisdiction, determining when there is an obligation on the part of the employer to supply information to the union.\nThe union has admitted in its brief that board law must apply to this proceeding, so we suggest that in terms of the substantive rules, there's an exact parallel here between the complaint theory and the board theory, and Justice Stevens, I don't know of a lot of cases where the board has addressed misrepresentations in the context of permissive bargaining, but there's no reason as a matter of theory that that shouldn't be the case.\nAnd if one looks at the brief filed by the United States here, the United States does not suggest that there's any gap in the jurisdiction of the board with respect to this particular case.\nThey make very clear that the board can invalidate contracts, make employees whole... there's an absolute identity of the theories that can be brought before the board and the relief that can be gotten from the board, and the board was set up by Congress to determine what relief should be granted under these circumstances.\nSometimes it will be invalidation of the whole contract or, as here, a part of the contract, and it's that kind of discretion, that kind of expertise which the board has and the courts don't have and is a primary reason why this Court should not permit the Federal courts to, in essence, adjudicate unfair labor practices that otherwise would come before the board.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [3203.475, 3227.257, 3237.03, 3260.978, 3270.668, 3288.295], "stop_times": [3227.257, 3237.03, 3260.978, 3270.668, 3288.295, 3306.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3203.475}, "reply_to": "20879__1_155", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__2_001", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Can the board award damages, which is one of the things they sought here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [3306.674], "stop_times": [3309.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3306.674}, "reply_to": "20879__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20879__2_002", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Oh, yes.\nIn fact, the board settlement awarded back pay damages and the United States in its brief acknowledged that the board can award these kinds of damages.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [3309.026, 3309.609, 3319.184], "stop_times": [3309.609, 3319.184, 3321.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3309.026}, "reply_to": "20879__2_001", "speaker": "timothy_b_dyk"}
{"id": "20879__2_003", "conversation_id": "20879", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Dyk.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-463", "start_times": [3321.784, 3322.917], "stop_times": [3322.917, 3324.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3321.784}, "reply_to": "20879__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20355__0_000", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 96-7901, Richard F. Trest v. Burl Cain.\nMs. Hudsmith.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [0.0, 2.333], "stop_times": [2.333, 2.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20355__0_001", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nA Federal court as a general proposition is not and ought not be obligated to raise a nonjurisdictional defense such as procedural default when the party to the proceeding has failed to raise that defense itself.\nIn this case, in the opinion below the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit evidences a belief that it must have raised, had to raise, was obligated to raise what it perceived to be a defense of procedural default and deny the merits of the petitioner's claim on that basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2.653, 7.727, 24.386], "stop_times": [7.727, 24.386, 45.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2.653}, "reply_to": "20355__0_000", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_002", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Ms. Hudsmith, you're not asserting here that the court could not have raised it on its own.\nYou're just asserting that it had no obligation to.\nIs that the limit of your argument here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [45.751, 51.725, 54.577], "stop_times": [51.725, 54.577, 56.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 45.751}, "reply_to": "20355__0_001", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20355__0_003", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "That is the cert question presented.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [56.728], "stop_times": [60.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 56.728}, "reply_to": "20355__0_002", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_004", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [60.16], "stop_times": [60.591], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 60.16}, "reply_to": "20355__0_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20355__0_005", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "I actually think we can and ought to go a little further, Your Honor, and I would say, Justice Scalia, that the Federal court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [60.591], "stop_times": [68.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 60.591}, "reply_to": "20355__0_004", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_006", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Well, you presented--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [68.158], "stop_times": [68.886], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 68.158}, "reply_to": "20355__0_005", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20355__0_007", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--can.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [68.886], "stop_times": [69.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 68.886}, "reply_to": "20355__0_006", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_008", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [69.447], "stop_times": [70.018], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 69.447}, "reply_to": "20355__0_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20355__0_009", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "It has the power to raise a waived defense that is nonjurisdictional, but it ought not to without first giving the parties an opportunity to be heard, and it... and in this context of procedural default it ought to do so only rarely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [70.018], "stop_times": [85.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 70.018}, "reply_to": "20355__0_008", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_010", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "So what you're asking for us, from us is a remand--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [85.338], "stop_times": [89.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 85.338}, "reply_to": "20355__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20355__0_011", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [89.96], "stop_times": [91.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 89.96}, "reply_to": "20355__0_010", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_012", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--to let the court of appeals decide whether it wants to exercise its discretion to raise this issue or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [91.211], "stop_times": [99.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 91.211}, "reply_to": "20355__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20355__0_013", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "That is the most obvious remedy that we would ask for and hope this Court would grant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [99.126], "stop_times": [105.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 99.126}, "reply_to": "20355__0_012", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_014", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "That's an extremely narrow point, perhaps narrower than I thought the question presented.\nYou agree that the court of appeals could, under Granberry v. Greer, perhaps, have raised this point but it wasn't obligated to.\nYou read its opinion to say it thought it was obligated to, so then we would remand it and tell the court of appeals you may do it but it's a matter of discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [105.081, 110.414, 118.451], "stop_times": [110.414, 118.451, 126.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 105.081}, "reply_to": "20355__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20355__0_015", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nI agree that when a case gets this far and is before this Court and, given the different opinions that are available to be read in the courts of appeals on this issue, that is when the Court should raise procedural defaults sua sponte.\nI think this Court should give the courts of appeal, then the court of appeal below, more guidance than that, and I'm prepared to offer what guidance I can to the Court in that regard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [126.655, 127.924, 144.497], "stop_times": [127.924, 144.497, 156.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 126.655}, "reply_to": "20355__0_014", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_016", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "I wasn't certain, in reading the Fifth Circuit opinion, that it thought it was obligated to do this.\nIt wasn't all that clear to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [156.004, 165.26], "stop_times": [165.26, 167.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 156.004}, "reply_to": "20355__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20355__0_017", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "I will acknowledge, Justice O'Connor, that, unlike the court of appeals' opinion in Granberry, where the court of appeals apparently concluded that it could not ignore a waiver, the Fifth Circuit in the opinion below did not say that.\nHowever, the court must have known, because the dissent, in the form of the Hon.\nRichard Parker, made reference to the fact that the State had never raised the defense of procedural default and ought to be barred as a result.\nAnd I would suggest that it is a fair reading of the opinion, despite the lack of information from the court on the significance of that, that its failure, that the panel majority's failure to even discuss that, in effect, if you will, State procedural default, means that it felt obligated, no matter, to do what it did, and that is to decide the claim against the petitioner on the basis of what it perceived to be a procedural default, and the opinion does--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [167.772, 183.443, 189.848, 199.495], "stop_times": [183.443, 189.848, 199.495, 232.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 167.772}, "reply_to": "20355__0_016", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_018", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Ms. Hudsmith--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [232.326], "stop_times": [232.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 232.326}, "reply_to": "20355__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20355__0_019", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [232.927], "stop_times": [233.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 232.927}, "reply_to": "20355__0_018", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_020", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--did the State in its opposition to the petition for certiorari, did the State contest whether the opinion below, whether the court below felt obligated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [233.688], "stop_times": [248.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 233.688}, "reply_to": "20355__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20355__0_021", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "They didn't address the issue, that I'm aware of, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [248.217], "stop_times": [251.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 248.217}, "reply_to": "20355__0_020", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_022", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Well, if they didn't address the issue, and if the question presented clearly only asks whether the court of appeals is required to raise the defense sua sponte, how do we get into this other point?\nI thought the case was taken on the assumption that the court below was... felt itself obliged to raise the defense sua sponte.\nIsn't that what the question presented states?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [251.711, 266.199, 275.395], "stop_times": [266.199, 275.395, 276.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 251.711}, "reply_to": "20355__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20355__0_023", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--That is, and that certainly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [276.826], "stop_times": [278.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 276.826}, "reply_to": "20355__0_022", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_024", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "And the State did not object that the question presented does not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [278.408], "stop_times": [280.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 278.408}, "reply_to": "20355__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20355__0_025", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [280.669], "stop_times": [281.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 280.669}, "reply_to": "20355__0_024", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_026", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--conform to the true state of facts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [281.78], "stop_times": [282.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 281.78}, "reply_to": "20355__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20355__0_027", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--The State... and I know they can speak better to this than I, but the State does take the position that the opinion can be read more broadly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [282.979], "stop_times": [294.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 282.979}, "reply_to": "20355__0_026", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_028", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Too late now.\nI asked whether they did it in opposition to the petition for certiorari.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [294.339, 294.706], "stop_times": [294.706, 297.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 294.339}, "reply_to": "20355__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20355__0_029", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "I am not aware of that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [297.99], "stop_times": [299.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 297.99}, "reply_to": "20355__0_028", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_030", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "I don't like getting a case here and then finding that it involves a totally different issue from the one that we granted, and that's what you're essentially saying it does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [299.672], "stop_times": [305.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 299.672}, "reply_to": "20355__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20355__0_031", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "What I'm saying is that the narrow... there's a very narrow issue presented to this Court in the question presented.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [305.575], "stop_times": [313.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 305.575}, "reply_to": "20355__0_030", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_032", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "And that's the issue you framed in your question presented--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [313.971], "stop_times": [316.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 313.971}, "reply_to": "20355__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20355__0_033", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "That is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [316.082], "stop_times": [316.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 316.082}, "reply_to": "20355__0_032", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_034", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--which we granted as you framed it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [316.392], "stop_times": [317.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 316.392}, "reply_to": "20355__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20355__0_035", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [317.623], "stop_times": [318.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 317.623}, "reply_to": "20355__0_034", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_036", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [318.134], "stop_times": [318.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 318.134}, "reply_to": "20355__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20355__0_037", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "And I'm prepared to speak to that, but I'm also prepared to speak more broadly if the Court so desires to whether, beyond a remand, the Court, this Court should provide guidance to the court of appeals in the exercise of its discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [318.815], "stop_times": [335.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 318.815}, "reply_to": "20355__0_036", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_038", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "I understand.\nI mean, you understand our--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [335.215, 336.086], "stop_times": [336.086, 337.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 335.215}, "reply_to": "20355__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20355__0_039", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [337.748], "stop_times": [338.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 337.748}, "reply_to": "20355__0_038", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_040", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--I would not have voted to take this case if I thought what it was going to come down to is a parsing of the opinion of this court of appeals to decide the cosmic question of whether this one opinion by this court of appeals in fact displays a belief that the court is obliged to sua sponte raise the issue, or does not... I mean, this is not something that we should be spending our time on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [338.299], "stop_times": [359.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 338.299}, "reply_to": "20355__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20355__0_041", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "I agree.\nI believe, however, Your Honor, that a reading of the opinion is... and it is fairly read to reach the conclusion that the court did feel obliged.\nIt uses the language, precluded, that it is precluded--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [359.391, 360.052, 371.089], "stop_times": [360.052, 371.089, 375.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 359.391}, "reply_to": "20355__0_040", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_042", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "We assumed that when we granted the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [375.633], "stop_times": [376.344], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 375.633}, "reply_to": "20355__0_041", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20355__0_043", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--And I would maintain that position, and I think that that is supported by a fair reading of the opinion itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [376.344], "stop_times": [382.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 376.344}, "reply_to": "20355__0_042", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_044", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Does the answer... does it make any difference, in answering the question that you raise, that here we have some convictions from another State, a State other than Louisiana--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [382.506], "stop_times": [395.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 382.506}, "reply_to": "20355__0_043", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20355__0_045", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [395.985], "stop_times": [397.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 395.985}, "reply_to": "20355__0_044", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_046", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--that are being challenged?\nDoes that matter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [397.247, 397.706], "stop_times": [397.706, 398.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 397.247}, "reply_to": "20355__0_045", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20355__0_047", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--The way the question's framed, it doesn't matter, but I'm certainly aware of the context in which this case comes to this Court, and it is one in which my client, who is in custody at Angola, at Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, and is challenging a Louisiana enhanced sentence, does so, among many reasons, because he believes the underlying Mississippi convictions were constitutionally invalid and should not be used to enhance.\nAnd in the State's brief in response... and I might add that, given we were not given notice and an opportunity to be heard, and only knew of the court's stance on the case with the opinion being issued, the brief was really the first time I had and the first time the State really had to really join issue, if you will, on this very complex topic, I think, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [398.687, 428.097], "stop_times": [428.097, 453.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 398.687}, "reply_to": "20355__0_046", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_048", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Well, our cases previously, cases like Granberry v. Greer and others, have talked about a procedural default in the sense of failing to raise something in Louisiana, where the... where your client hypothet... or not hypothetically, actually is held in custody.\nBut what the court of appeals focused on was a failure... the fact that you could not now go back and raise something in Mississippi.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [453.943, 471.014], "stop_times": [471.014, 478.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 453.943}, "reply_to": "20355__0_047", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20355__0_049", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--That's correct and, of course, if we had given an opportunity to speak to the issue, the petitioner would have argued that that was no procedural default at all.\nGetting back really to the question Justice O'Connor posed and you've added to, Mr. Chief Justice, the question becomes, what is the significance of the fact that we're dealing with an underlying Mississippi conviction?\nIn fact, the Louisiana judgment for which the petitioner stands in custody is not based in any way, shape, or form on his having defaulted procedurally by failing to first go to Mississippi and attack those convictions.\nSo in a very real sense, in fact in every sense that I can think of, there is no adequate and independent State law ground from Mississippi supporting this judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [478.209, 487.015, 498.732, 516.465], "stop_times": [487.015, 498.732, 516.465, 529.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 478.209}, "reply_to": "20355__0_048", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_050", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "But there might be one from Louisiana.\nI mean, as I understood it, when I'd gotten through this, it's quite... I don't know where to begin in this, and I'm reluctant to hold them to an answer they had to give to a question that had four parts, and it was an IFP petition, and there were... I mean, I don't know how much I should hold them to what they've written in three pages there.\nBut the Federal constitutional question, as I'd understood it, would be whether the State of Louisiana can increase an offender's sentence on the basis of convictions in a different State, which convictions either resulted from a guilty plea where he was not told about his right to appeal, or resulted from a guilty plea that was involuntary, or both, and they're collaterally estopped from attacking it, they can't attack it in Mississippi.\nThat's the Federal constitutional question, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [529.373, 530.733, 547.085, 580.666], "stop_times": [530.733, 547.085, 580.666, 582.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 529.373}, "reply_to": "20355__0_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20355__0_051", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "I agree with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [582.399], "stop_times": [583.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 582.399}, "reply_to": "20355__0_050", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_052", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Fine.\nIf that's the Federal constitutional question, I can't find it raised anywhere, ever, in the State of Louisiana.\nOf course they didn't answer it, because it's never been raised.\nThe closest you could come is something like the appeal part of it, where in fact what's cited is a Louisiana case, and then a reference to this case of Griffin, so I would think that that wasn't exhausted.\nI don't... I don't... it's never been raised, and there could well be an independent ground that you can't, you know, go through five proceedings in Louisiana and never raise this issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [583.09, 583.859, 589.053, 591.554, 603.302], "stop_times": [583.859, 589.053, 591.554, 603.302, 610.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 583.09}, "reply_to": "20355__0_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20355__0_053", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Well, certainly the State in its brief in response has... has for the first time, Justice Breyer, I might add, suggested that the claim, as you've just described it, was not fairly presented to the State courts in the petitioner's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [610.776], "stop_times": [625.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 610.776}, "reply_to": "20355__0_052", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_054", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "I don't see it presented at all, and if I'm right about that, what are we supposed to do now?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [625.155], "stop_times": [631.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 625.155}, "reply_to": "20355__0_053", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20355__0_055", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--Well, I would have two responses to that question.\nOne is, and I think it's the very first and most important one, and it gets back to a point that Justice Scalia made about this Court knowing what it has before it on the table when it decides to exercise its scarce judicial resources and grant a cert petition, that the State at least as late as the opposition to the cert petition, should have raised the issue of exhaustion and did not, and therefore this Court ought to consider that defense waived by the State of Louisiana.\nThat would be my first and foremost posture.\nSecondly, I'm not prepared to concede, based upon this record, Your Honor, that in fact the claim was not fairly presented in some form to the State courts in the petition filed in 1990 by the petitioner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [631.44, 633.853, 664.681, 668.075], "stop_times": [633.853, 664.681, 668.075, 683.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 631.44}, "reply_to": "20355__0_054", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_056", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Petitioner himself recognized that the... that it was obscure... I forgot what the words were, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [683.796], "stop_times": [689.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 683.796}, "reply_to": "20355__0_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20355__0_057", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "He did--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [689.539], "stop_times": [690.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 689.539}, "reply_to": "20355__0_056", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_058", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--Obscurely presented, or inarticulate, or something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [690.33], "stop_times": [692.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 690.33}, "reply_to": "20355__0_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20355__0_059", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--He said that it was obscurely framed and that the claim, something to the effect was floating in muddy waters, and even the Fifth Circuit acknowledged that he had to elucidate more on the claim and did so in his objections to the magistrate's report which were filed in 1994.\nBut again, it gets back to the point that I made earlier in response to Justice Breyer's point, and that is that the State then certainly, before the district court ruled on the case, could have responded and, I might add, quite simply, particularly with the petitioner making note of the fact that the claim wasn't... wasn't well-articulated before, they could have filed a one-page statement saying, this claim has not been exhausted in the State courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [692.563, 714.456], "stop_times": [714.456, 744.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 692.563}, "reply_to": "20355__0_058", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_060", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Did I--\n--They didn't... I'm sorry.\nDid I understand you to say at the outset that this really is very narrow because you're not objecting to the authority of the court of appeals to raise the procedural default sua sponte.\nThe only thing you're objecting to is the notion that they must do so.\nIs that true?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [744.586, 745.117, 746.927, 763.289, 767.8], "stop_times": [745.117, 746.927, 763.289, 767.8, 768.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 744.586}, "reply_to": "20355__0_059", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20355__0_061", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "The question that I framed is very narrow, I will admit, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [768.642], "stop_times": [774.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 768.642}, "reply_to": "20355__0_060", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_062", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "So do you... you're not saying that they couldn't do the same thing here as in Granberry.\nThat is to say, exhaustion and procedural default, they're very much alike, so it's something that the court can bring up on its own.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [774.546, 779.621], "stop_times": [779.621, 786.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 774.546}, "reply_to": "20355__0_061", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20355__0_063", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--Beyond the answer to the narrow question, what I am saying, and I want to be heard very clearly as saying, just in case it's not clear enough in the brief, that once we go beyond that very narrow question, it is the petitioner's position that to the extent that a Federal court can raise a waived or forfeited nonjurisdictional defense, it should only do so in very rare circumstances, and in the context of a procedural default defense it should do so even in more rare circumstances than those presented in Granberry v. Greer.\nBecause Granberry v. Greer, which is a very instructive case but not controlling, of course, on this issue, concerned the defense of exhaustion, and in very many important respects exhaustion is a different... it is a different defense, it serves different purposes, and its consequences are much graver.\nAnd so I want to be clear that... and I want to be heard to say that the Fifth Circuit not only was not obligated to raise the procedural default defense that it believed existed, but it ought not to have done so under the circumstances of this case, and I think appropriately the Federal courts in general ought not to raise such a defense except in very rare circumstances where, maybe because of comity, and maybe because of concerns of finality, it is indeed appropriate for a Federal court to save the State from itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [786.665, 817.866, 840.599], "stop_times": [817.866, 840.599, 874.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 786.665}, "reply_to": "20355__0_062", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_064", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "But that's a matter... I'm sorry.\nThat's a matter on which you've never been heard, as I understand it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [874.911, 876.704], "stop_times": [876.704, 879.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 874.911}, "reply_to": "20355__0_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20355__0_065", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Absolutely not.\nThe first court to hear the parties on this issue is this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [879.886, 880.975], "stop_times": [880.975, 884.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 879.886}, "reply_to": "20355__0_064", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_066", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Is right here, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [884.939], "stop_times": [885.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 884.939}, "reply_to": "20355__0_065", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20355__0_067", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Yes, sir.\nIt was not an issue ever even mentioned in the oral argument in the case, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [885.8, 886.291], "stop_times": [886.291, 891.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 885.8}, "reply_to": "20355__0_066", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_068", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Is it clear that Louisiana could not have... the Louisiana courts could not have examined this question, and the validity of and the existence of the alleged bar in Mississippi?\nThe Louisiana courts never even looked at that, did they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [891.974, 907.463], "stop_times": [907.463, 910.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 891.974}, "reply_to": "20355__0_067", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20355__0_069", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--The Louisiana courts were certainly put on notice with the petition filed by the petitioner in 1990 in the State court that he was attacking the constitutional validity of his Mississippi conviction to be used for the collateral consequence of enhancing his Louisiana conviction, and at... of enhancing his Louisiana sentence, and undoubtedly at that point a Louisiana court could have and, if it wanted to, was put on notice that it could say no, Mr. Trest, you must first go to Mississippi.\nBut in fact, Louisiana is more generous than Mississippi and more generous in... than the Federal court in the Custis case in allowing in the first instance in a habitual offender proceeding an attack by the defendant on the voluntary and intelligent nature of the guilty plea that forms a basis for prior conviction and, likewise, in post conviction proceedings.\nAnd I might add that even a failure on the part of the petitioner which he must acknowledge to have objected on this basis at the habitual offender proceeding does not prohibit under Louisiana law his raising this issue in post conviction proceedings.\nSo what I'm saying, I hope in answer to your question, Justice Kennedy, is that the Louisiana court was certainly put on notice it could have raised the issue of a \"procedural bar\".\nIt did not, and there is none, then, to support this State court judgment such that a procedural default should be found or is in order.\nAnd I would suggest, and this really sort of gets back to Justice O'Connor's initial question, that the fact that Mississippi may have some vague, or attenuated, or some interest in its judgment, it is not so great to create a procedural bar.\nThere must first be... the judgment that we must focus on is the Louisiana judgment, and it's not supported by a Mississippi bar, and so we've got interest in the air, if you will, and that's hardly a basis for a Federal court to refuse to exercise its power.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [910.335, 940.785, 967.272, 981.892, 993.919, 1005.427, 1025.492], "stop_times": [940.785, 967.272, 981.892, 993.919, 1005.427, 1025.492, 1041.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 910.335}, "reply_to": "20355__0_068", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_070", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Well, I would think either from the standpoint of discretion or the mandatory rule when a third State, or a second State's interest is involved here, Mississippi, and they're not before it, but that is a compelling case for not allowing the question to be presented.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1041.0], "stop_times": [1054.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1041.0}, "reply_to": "20355__0_069", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20355__0_071", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "I would think that is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1054.39], "stop_times": [1055.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1054.39}, "reply_to": "20355__0_070", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_072", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "If it's late.\nBut Ms. Hudsmith, if I understood your argument properly, weren't you saying that really Mississippi has no interest because there's nothing in this proceeding that's going to set aside the Mississippi judgment?\nThe only question is whether the Louisiana court, in imposing a sentence, may rely on those judgments even if they're entirely valid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1055.861, 1056.522, 1066.129], "stop_times": [1056.522, 1066.129, 1074.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1055.861}, "reply_to": "20355__0_071", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20355__0_073", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Yes, Justice Stevens.\nThat is a very critical point, and that is that the Mississippi conviction that was imposed back in 1976 is final, and the petitioner has served his time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1074.874, 1076.356], "stop_times": [1076.356, 1086.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1074.874}, "reply_to": "20355__0_072", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_074", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Well, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1086.241], "stop_times": [1087.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1086.241}, "reply_to": "20355__0_073", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20355__0_075", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "He's not revisiting that issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1087.343], "stop_times": [1088.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1087.343}, "reply_to": "20355__0_074", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_076", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--So supposing that the petitioner succeeds in his present action, and then he commits another offense in Mississippi, and Mississippi says we're going to commit you on the basis of our habitual offender statute, and your client says no, you can't do that, because in the Federal proceedings in Louisiana it was held that these... this conviction was invalid.\nCertainly Mississippi would have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1088.091, 1112.668], "stop_times": [1112.668, 1114.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1088.091}, "reply_to": "20355__0_075", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20355__0_077", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1114.571], "stop_times": [1115.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1114.571}, "reply_to": "20355__0_076", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_078", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--perhaps not a very direct interest, but you can't say it has no interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1115.199], "stop_times": [1118.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1115.199}, "reply_to": "20355__0_077", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20355__0_079", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "And I haven't, I don't think, been heard to say that Mississippi has no interest.\nI acknowledge that it has some interest in general in terms of the finality of its judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1118.591, 1122.565], "stop_times": [1122.565, 1128.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1118.591}, "reply_to": "20355__0_078", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_080", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "But that interest would only arise if he were subsequently prosecuted in Mississippi.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1128.639], "stop_times": [1132.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1128.639}, "reply_to": "20355__0_079", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20355__0_081", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1132.44], "stop_times": [1133.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1132.44}, "reply_to": "20355__0_080", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_082", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1133.422], "stop_times": [1134.293], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1133.422}, "reply_to": "20355__0_081", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20355__0_083", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1134.293], "stop_times": [1134.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1134.293}, "reply_to": "20355__0_082", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_084", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Do you claim that Mississippi would be estopped in that case, that there would be any preclusion running against Mississippi in that case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1134.884], "stop_times": [1140.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1134.884}, "reply_to": "20355__0_083", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20355__0_085", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "My initial reaction is that no, there wouldn't be, that whether it be in the context of a Mississippi attempt to enhance a sentence because of a Mississippi conviction or otherwise, that Mississippi, because it wasn't a party to this action, ought not be precluded from defending its... both its conviction and asserting its procedural laws that the petitioner failed to comply with vis-a-vis Mississippi.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1140.907], "stop_times": [1166.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1140.907}, "reply_to": "20355__0_084", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_086", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "I suppose a State has a certain interest... whether or not he's prosecuted later in Mississippi, I think a State has a certain interest in not having the solemn judgments of its courts impugned elsewhere.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1166.203], "stop_times": [1177.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1166.203}, "reply_to": "20355__0_085", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20355__0_087", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Sure, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1177.65], "stop_times": [1178.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1177.65}, "reply_to": "20355__0_086", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_088", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "At least where the Constitution does not permit that to happen.\nDon't you think they have a... if they assert that that's the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1178.712, 1180.943], "stop_times": [1180.943, 1183.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1178.712}, "reply_to": "20355__0_087", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20355__0_089", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--But that's the nature of the beast when it comes to enhanced punishments.\nThat is happening all the time, certainly in Louisiana, where, in the habitual offender proceeding itself, a defendant can call into question the validity of a guilty plea.\nSo it's happening, and surely we're not going to stop that and not allow... again, I feel like I'm speaking up for Louisiana here, because Louisiana has its own rules and its own procedures, and they say we can look beyond this judgment if it's presented to us in the right way and it's compelling.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1183.795, 1187.698, 1199.264], "stop_times": [1187.698, 1199.264, 1218.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1183.795}, "reply_to": "20355__0_088", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_090", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "But if Mississippi feels otherwise, and wants to have its judgments final and not looked into later--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1218.517], "stop_times": [1224.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1218.517}, "reply_to": "20355__0_089", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20355__0_091", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "I think that that... that's the way it is, and Mississippi could do the same with Louisiana's judgments.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1224.07], "stop_times": [1231.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1224.07}, "reply_to": "20355__0_090", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_092", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--Well, I thought you had to give judgments the effect they had in the State where they were rendered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1231.155], "stop_times": [1234.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1231.155}, "reply_to": "20355__0_091", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20355__0_093", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "This... I don't think that when we're dealing with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1234.858], "stop_times": [1237.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1234.858}, "reply_to": "20355__0_092", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_094", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "It's the Constitution is an impediment to that, but that's a separate issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1237.48], "stop_times": [1240.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1237.48}, "reply_to": "20355__0_093", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20355__0_095", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--I don't think... I don't think what we're talking about here, that is, Louisiana or any other State determining whether it wants to impose collateral consequences in its State on its sentence with respect to another State's judgment raises an issue of full faith and credit.\nAgain, and I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1240.702, 1261.415], "stop_times": [1261.415, 1263.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1240.702}, "reply_to": "20355__0_094", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_096", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Well, it doesn't have to have--\n--Well, you say that--\n--an habitual offender statute, so the Mississippi judgment had no effect by its own force.\nLouisiana doesn't have to have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1263.118, 1264.317, 1264.938, 1270.281], "stop_times": [1264.317, 1264.938, 1270.281, 1271.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1263.118}, "reply_to": "20355__0_095", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20355__0_097", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--Absolutely, Louisiana doesn't even have to have a habitual--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1271.894], "stop_times": [1275.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1271.894}, "reply_to": "20355__0_096", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_098", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--But when you stand back from all of this, and what you're left with is a very old Mississippi... finally he served his time, and it's been years ago, and he doesn't raise this till very late, and you tell us, ah, but the State defaulted because it didn't object on that basis, isn't there something unseemly about allowing a defendant so many years after to raise this issue and say, he can get by because the State out of carelessness, which seems to be what happens here, didn't object?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1275.136], "stop_times": [1313.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1275.136}, "reply_to": "20355__0_097", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20355__0_099", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--Your Honor, my response to that would be that first of all the... Louisiana, like Mississippi, now has a prescriptive period, if you will, that's what we call it in Louisiana, for when a petitioner who is in prison in Louisiana can bring a post conviction proceeding, so the oldness of these claims is, I think, going to lessen as more and more States like Louisiana and Mississippi adopt these bars, these time bars to these claims.\nBut I think it's even more unseemly for us to allow a Federal court, or to give a Federal court the authority, or even require a Federal court to ignore a State's procedural default because of negligence or inadvertence or whatever, when at the same time this Court's jurisprudence clearly holds that the petitioner's inadvertence or negligence does not save him from his procedural default and, as we know, there are petitioners in those circumstances who have been executed because of that inadvertence or negligence.\nSo yes, it has been a long time, and I think these cases will be less and less so because of these time limitations imposed now by the State systems, but I think it's an appropriate response and more unseemly to allow the State to be forgiven its procedural bar or default.\nIf there are no other questions, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1313.431, 1341.389, 1380.575, 1400.911], "stop_times": [1341.389, 1380.575, 1400.911, 1405.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1313.431}, "reply_to": "20355__0_098", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_100", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Just your bottom line is, facing your narrow question, what are you asking this Court to do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1405.091], "stop_times": [1411.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1405.091}, "reply_to": "20355__0_099", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20355__0_101", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--The bottom line very narrow question is reverse the U.S. Fifth Circuit and remand it for further proceedings, but I think those further proceedings ought to include a caution or instruction, if you will, that the Court ought to give the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard on the issue, first of all, and secondarily that the Court ought not freely forgive a State procedural default, but ought to do it only in a rare circumstance, which we contend, the petitioner contends does not exist here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1411.286], "stop_times": [1446.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1411.286}, "reply_to": "20355__0_100", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__0_102", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Hudsmith.\nMs. Petersen, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1446.218, 1450.802], "stop_times": [1450.802, 1452.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1446.218}, "reply_to": "20355__0_101", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20355__1_000", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nAs the argument has pointed out to this point, the petitioner and the respondent are in agreement on the issue stated, and that is whether or not a Federal court of appeal may, on its own motion, invoke procedural default, and thereby find it is precluded from the merits of the habeas claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1452.983, 1461.378], "stop_times": [1461.378, 1482.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1452.983}, "reply_to": "20355__0_102", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_001", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Well, I--\n--Well, I didn't think that was what the petitioner had raised.\nI thought we had spent a lot of time already this morning establishing that the narrow question presented is whether the court of appeals is required on its own motion to consider this matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1482.182, 1482.673, 1486.446], "stop_times": [1482.673, 1486.446, 1502.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1482.182}, "reply_to": "20355__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20355__1_002", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Well, Justice O'Connor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1502.666], "stop_times": [1504.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1502.666}, "reply_to": "20355__1_001", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_003", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "This procedural bar.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1504.008], "stop_times": [1504.576], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1504.008}, "reply_to": "20355__1_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20355__1_004", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, if you read the Trest opinion, and as we pointed out in the brief, the petitioner's... I mean, the brief on the merits as respondent, we do not read Judge... the judge's opinion, Edith Jones, to have required the sua sponte invocation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1504.576], "stop_times": [1523.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1504.576}, "reply_to": "20355__1_003", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_005", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Did you tell us that in response to the cert petition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1523.819], "stop_times": [1527.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1523.819}, "reply_to": "20355__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20355__1_006", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--The cert petition was filed by the District Attorney in this matter, and the Attorney General's Office--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1527.543], "stop_times": [1532.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1527.543}, "reply_to": "20355__1_005", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_007", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Just answer the question.\nWere we told that in response to the cert petition?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1532.996, 1534.956], "stop_times": [1534.956, 1538.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1532.996}, "reply_to": "20355__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20355__1_008", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--No, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1538.199], "stop_times": [1539.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1538.199}, "reply_to": "20355__1_007", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_009", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Well then, are you going to argue on the narrow question, as framed in the cert petition, was the Fifth Circuit required--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1539.822], "stop_times": [1547.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1539.822}, "reply_to": "20355__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20355__1_010", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1547.526], "stop_times": [1548.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1547.526}, "reply_to": "20355__1_009", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_011", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--to raise it sua sponte?\nWhat do you say in answer to that?\nWas it required to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1548.708, 1550.057, 1551.88], "stop_times": [1550.057, 1551.88, 1552.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1548.708}, "reply_to": "20355__1_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20355__1_012", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "No, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1552.981], "stop_times": [1554.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1552.981}, "reply_to": "20355__1_011", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_013", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "So you agree with the petitioner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1554.24], "stop_times": [1555.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1554.24}, "reply_to": "20355__1_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20355__1_014", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Yes, Justice O'Connor.\nWe agree, and we feel that the record that is before the Court shows that that opinion, Trest v. Whitley, was not abuse of discretion and that the petitioner has not established it was an abuse of discretion, therefore we urge this Court to affirm the judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1555.953, 1556.933], "stop_times": [1556.933, 1573.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1555.953}, "reply_to": "20355__1_013", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_015", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Then how does the... is... you're saying they're not required, but they're permitted to assert an independent State ground.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1573.053], "stop_times": [1581.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1573.053}, "reply_to": "20355__1_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20355__1_016", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1581.278], "stop_times": [1582.488], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1581.278}, "reply_to": "20355__1_015", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_017", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "And even if that State ground doesn't exist?\nI'm curious to know what is the independent State ground that Louisiana could have affirmed this conviction on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1582.488, 1584.17], "stop_times": [1584.17, 1589.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1582.488}, "reply_to": "20355__1_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20355__1_018", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1589.213], "stop_times": [1590.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1589.213}, "reply_to": "20355__1_017", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_019", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "I mean, that he filed the habeas... he filed the collateral... petition for collateral relief in State court.\nIt was denied, and what is the independent State ground on which Louisiana could have denied that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1590.104, 1595.858], "stop_times": [1595.858, 1601.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1590.104}, "reply_to": "20355__1_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20355__1_020", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--At this point the independent State ground is under both Louisiana procedural post conviction law and the Mississippi procedural--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1601.26], "stop_times": [1609.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1601.26}, "reply_to": "20355__1_019", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_021", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "What is that it states that would provide an independent State ground for affirming the conviction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1609.045], "stop_times": [1615.14], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1609.045}, "reply_to": "20355__1_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20355__1_022", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--It would be Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1615.14], "stop_times": [1617.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1615.14}, "reply_to": "20355__1_021", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_023", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "I don't want the citation.\nI want the proposition of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1617.613, 1618.602], "stop_times": [1618.602, 1619.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1617.613}, "reply_to": "20355__1_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20355__1_024", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--That it was a successive petition, that it was not properly presented... in our brief--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1619.934], "stop_times": [1626.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1619.934}, "reply_to": "20355__1_023", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_025", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Right, it's successive... my impression, and here you can correct me, because I... I thought that he initially pleaded guilty at his trial and was sentenced and didn't appeal, and that's sometime around 1980, and then he brought this petition in about 1990-something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1626.349], "stop_times": [1641.349], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1626.349}, "reply_to": "20355__1_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20355__1_026", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--He was found guilty in 1979.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1641.349], "stop_times": [1644.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1641.349}, "reply_to": "20355__1_025", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_027", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Yeah.\nI mean, I'm not saying... isn't that basically what happened?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1644.548, 1644.989], "stop_times": [1644.989, 1646.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1644.548}, "reply_to": "20355__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20355__1_028", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "The first time it was raised in State court was in his third application for State post conviction relief, and it was in 1980.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1646.701], "stop_times": [1653.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1646.701}, "reply_to": "20355__1_027", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_029", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "In 19--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1653.797], "stop_times": [1655.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1653.797}, "reply_to": "20355__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20355__1_030", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "1980.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1655.557], "stop_times": [1656.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1655.557}, "reply_to": "20355__1_029", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_031", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--His third application for post conviction relief was in 1980?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1656.548], "stop_times": [1659.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1656.548}, "reply_to": "20355__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20355__1_032", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Yes... I'm... excuse me, 1990.\nI'm--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1659.511, 1662.823], "stop_times": [1662.823, 1663.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1659.511}, "reply_to": "20355__1_031", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_033", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "And when was the first?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1663.253], "stop_times": [1664.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1663.253}, "reply_to": "20355__1_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20355__1_034", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--The first one was in 1981.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1664.024], "stop_times": [1665.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1664.024}, "reply_to": "20355__1_033", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_035", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "And when was the second?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1665.735], "stop_times": [1666.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1665.735}, "reply_to": "20355__1_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20355__1_036", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "1983.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1666.476], "stop_times": [1667.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1666.476}, "reply_to": "20355__1_035", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_037", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "All right.\nSo I assume he'll argue that this third one, he didn't really know that he had a Federal claim until the Louisiana courts decided Robisher and he had a chance to digest it, and because Robisher was the first time that anybody had suggested under Louisiana law, in reference to Federal law, that there could be some kind of claim here.\nI suppose that will be the argument, as... and... whether he had a chance to do it before or not.\nIs it clear how that argument will come out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1667.364, 1668.436, 1686.869, 1691.45], "stop_times": [1668.436, 1686.869, 1691.45, 1693.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1667.364}, "reply_to": "20355__1_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20355__1_038", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "No, Your Honor, because it has not been presented to the State court, and Robisher dealt with the right to appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1693.123], "stop_times": [1699.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1693.123}, "reply_to": "20355__1_037", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_039", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Right.\nSo then you're saying whether or not there is an adequate State ground has not yet been presented to the Louisiana court, and therefore that hasn't been exhausted, and therefore, what?\nTherefore this is a case that, although you conceded exhaustion, it wasn't exhausted?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1699.846, 1700.337, 1708.861], "stop_times": [1700.337, 1708.861, 1712.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1699.846}, "reply_to": "20355__1_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20355__1_040", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "It was exhausted by the fact of the technical exhaustion in that it was procedurally barred at the point it was raised.\nIn 1990, when the petitioner put the claim in the petition it was not in the nine claims for relief.\nIt was attached in a memorandum of law and no one addressed the claim.\nWe have termed it the needle in the paper haystack.\nThe trial judge in Louisiana read claim number 7 as being the evidence used by the State of Louisiana was illegal, and in his written opinion, which is in the joint appendix, he addressed the technical aspects, whether or not they were certified documents.\nThere was no discussion in that opinion at all on the 7(b) claim, which we have termed it in our brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1712.234, 1721.17, 1730.146, 1735.362, 1738.501, 1754.773], "stop_times": [1721.17, 1730.146, 1735.362, 1738.501, 1754.773, 1761.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1712.234}, "reply_to": "20355__1_039", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_041", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Let me be straightforward with you.\nThe reason I'm asking these questions is in my mind is the tentative idea... I'm certainly not wedded to it... that the correct result here is to say, of course they're not required to assert this on their own, but was it an abuse of discretion here to do so?\nYes, because this is a case where there was no exhaustion.\nIndeed, there is a big question as to whether or not there is an adequate State ground, so it is a case, under Granberry, where, despite the State's concession, it should be remanded to the State courts to give people an opportunity to decide whether there is or is not some State ground that would bar it.\nNow, I have no... that's quite tentative.\nI mean, I'm not advocating that.\nI'm trying to... what's your reaction to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1761.147, 1761.828, 1776.558, 1781.883, 1798.663, 1801.355, 1802.715], "stop_times": [1761.828, 1776.558, 1781.883, 1798.663, 1801.355, 1802.715, 1804.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1761.147}, "reply_to": "20355__1_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20355__1_042", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Justice Breyer, a remand would do no good at this point.\nMr. Trest is procedurally barred in Louisiana and as we read the post conviction articles he couldn't present the claim again in Louisiana.\nIn 1990, when he presented the claim to Louisiana, he was procedurally barred in Mississippi.\nHe was barred in 1987 in Mississippi.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1804.517, 1808.929, 1819.897, 1826.469], "stop_times": [1808.929, 1819.897, 1826.469, 1829.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1804.517}, "reply_to": "20355__1_041", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_043", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Did the Louisiana courts ever say that he was procedurally barred in Louisiana from raising his claims against the Mississippi judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1829.522], "stop_times": [1839.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1829.522}, "reply_to": "20355__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20355__1_044", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "No Louisiana court ever addressed that claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1839.229], "stop_times": [1841.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1839.229}, "reply_to": "20355__1_043", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_045", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Because what, he had never raised it?\nHe says he raised it, I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1841.66, 1843.821], "stop_times": [1843.821, 1846.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1841.66}, "reply_to": "20355__1_044", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20355__1_046", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Well, he raised it but it's not fairly presented.\nIt's in a memorandum attached.\nThe District Attorney, under the State law, was not ordered by the trial judge, and our law did not require the trial judge to order the District Attorney to respond, so therefore the trial judge was without benefit of a response by the District Attorney in 1990.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1846.004, 1847.855, 1849.747], "stop_times": [1847.855, 1849.747, 1864.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1846.004}, "reply_to": "20355__1_045", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_047", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Well, but if the claim was raised, but the District Attorney didn't respond to it, you would think that that was at least preserved.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1864.538], "stop_times": [1873.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1864.538}, "reply_to": "20355__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20355__1_048", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Well, I may agree with that, Chief Justice Rehnquist, but if you look at what the petitioner did after his claim was presumptively ignored by the trial judge, he went to Federal court and filed the exact same petition.\nAnd that leads us to the point that we did file a motion to enlarge the record based on Gray v. Netherland, and the petitioner has consented, and we put into the record all the briefs, and if you examine all the briefs you will plainly see that the petitioner had no problem with the 7(b) claim being ignored, or else he would have brought it to the Federal court's attention.\nThe magistrate didn't look at it.\nThe district court adopted the magistrate's report.\nIt wasn't until February of 1994 that the petitioner came forward with the transcript.\nBack in 1990--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1873.584, 1888.463, 1907.076, 1910.77, 1913.291, 1919.116], "stop_times": [1888.463, 1907.076, 1910.77, 1913.291, 1919.116, 1921.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1873.584}, "reply_to": "20355__1_047", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_049", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "The transcript of the Mississippi proceedings, or the Louisiana proceedings?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1921.046], "stop_times": [1924.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1921.046}, "reply_to": "20355__1_048", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20355__1_050", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--The Mississippi proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1924.148], "stop_times": [1925.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1924.148}, "reply_to": "20355__1_049", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_051", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Ms. Petersen, I... correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the other side in this case said that in an objection to the magistrate's report they did make this claim more explicit, that's the point at which it blossomed, that the district court made no response to that objection to the magistrate's report either by committing it to the magistrate again for further proceedings or by ruling on the merits and, that, in fact, the first time it... and that the State once again said nothing about it in the circuit itself, and that the first time it came up on the merits was when the circuit brought it up.\nIs my recollection of what they said correct and, if so, are they wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1925.8, 1963.985], "stop_times": [1963.985, 1968.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1925.8}, "reply_to": "20355__1_050", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20355__1_052", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Justice Souter, that is correct.\nThe first time that this claim was ever brought to the attention of any forum in this form was when the petitioner filed the objections.\nThe District Attorney did not respond to those objections.\nThe district court did not address the objections.\nIt went on to the Fifth Circuit.\nThe Fifth Circuit granted the certificate of probable cause which the district court had denied, and you would think that if the petitioner really had a problem that his Boykin claim was not addressed, and further had a problem that the 7(b) claim, which is the right to appeal, right to counsel, and maximum sentence, he would have been screaming in the Fifth Circuit that these courts have ignored me, and if you look at his brief in the Fifth Circuit, it's the exact same brief.\nThe exact same brief has been moving through the system, and nobody has asked, was this claim ever presented to the State court, and the answer is no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [1968.836, 1971.528, 1981.796, 1984.287, 1987.86, 1989.192, 2015.438], "stop_times": [1971.528, 1981.796, 1984.287, 1987.86, 1989.192, 2015.438, 2024.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1968.836}, "reply_to": "20355__1_051", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_053", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Ms. Petersen, could... you are asking us to affirm because although you agree that the lower court did not have to take this procedural bar into effect, you believe that it could, in its discretion, do so.\nWell, I don't see how you get there from here.\nThe fact that it could in its discretion do so does not establish that it was exercising its discretion.\nDon't we have to give it a chance to exercise its discretion rather than our exercising it on the Fifth Circuit's behalf?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2024.975, 2042.848, 2046.821, 2052.925], "stop_times": [2042.848, 2046.821, 2052.925, 2061.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2024.975}, "reply_to": "20355__1_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20355__1_054", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2061.29], "stop_times": [2062.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2061.29}, "reply_to": "20355__1_053", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_055", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Unless... unless the argument you're making is that it had no discretion, that, given the facts of this case, it would have been an abuse of discretion not... not to raise the issue sua sponte.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2062.768], "stop_times": [2077.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2062.768}, "reply_to": "20355__1_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20355__1_056", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--The Fifth Circuit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2077.018], "stop_times": [2077.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2077.018}, "reply_to": "20355__1_055", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_057", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Is that your argument here, that it would have been an abuse of discretion to come out the other way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2077.94], "stop_times": [2081.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2077.94}, "reply_to": "20355__1_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20355__1_058", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--I believe that the Fifth Circuit had no fact-finding whatsoever on this claim.\nThe Fifth Circuit was faced with the objections that Trest had filed in the district court.\nThey were aware of Custis v. United States, and they appointed Rebecca Hudsmith as counsel and ordered the parties to brief Custis.\nThe District Attorney, who is representing the State of Louisiana, briefed Custis.\nThey argued custody, and secondly they argued whether or not this would be a claim that would be cognizable in habeas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2081.263, 2088.547, 2097.582, 2106.909, 2111.222], "stop_times": [2088.547, 2097.582, 2106.909, 2111.222, 2119.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2081.263}, "reply_to": "20355__1_057", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_059", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Let's go to... I'm trying to figure out what to do with this, in my... what I think we should do here.\nSuppose we said... all right, suppose you answer the question, required, of course they're not required.\nAll right.\nThe next step would be we remand, and I take it one possible thing to do would be to explain when a court has the power, or when it lacks the power under the law to, sua sponte, or in the face of a refusal by the State to raise the issue, assert a claim of an independent State ground.\nNow, if you were trying to write that paragraph of when it does and when it doesn't, what does it say?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2119.838, 2125.381, 2131.017, 2131.816, 2152.929], "stop_times": [2125.381, 2131.017, 2131.816, 2152.929, 2157.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2119.838}, "reply_to": "20355__1_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20355__1_060", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "I think that's where Granberry v. Greer comes in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2157.874], "stop_times": [2160.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2157.874}, "reply_to": "20355__1_059", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_061", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Exhaustion is the same as independent State ground?\nI'm not sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2160.854, 2164.107], "stop_times": [2164.107, 2164.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2160.854}, "reply_to": "20355__1_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20355__1_062", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "I think it is different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2164.938], "stop_times": [2167.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2164.938}, "reply_to": "20355__1_061", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_063", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2167.058], "stop_times": [2167.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2167.058}, "reply_to": "20355__1_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20355__1_064", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Because it closes the Federal door to the petitioner.\nThe exhaustion allows him to go back and let the States decide it in the first instance.\nWe don't have that here because of the procedural default, and the procedural default is in both Mississippi and in Louisiana.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2167.619, 2170.501, 2177.356], "stop_times": [2170.501, 2177.356, 2184.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2167.619}, "reply_to": "20355__1_063", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_065", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Can we go back--\n--All right, so what you're suggest--\n--one step, because there's a large concern here, I think, with a Court raising a nonjurisdictional question on its own, and if you think of the two models of procedure, there's the adversary system that we follow, and the inquisitorial one that we don't follow, and the ordinary rule is that judges are obliged to bring up jurisdictional issues on their own, but for the rest, we follow the principle of party presentation, and if a party doesn't bring it up then it's forfeited, or waived.\nSo why is this so special that it would be ranked kind of like jurisdiction, that we would let a court deviate from the normal party presentation rule to bring it up on its own, even though the State didn't raise it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2184.793, 2187.584, 2188.265, 2225.518], "stop_times": [2187.584, 2188.265, 2225.518, 2245.293], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2184.793}, "reply_to": "20355__1_064", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20355__1_066", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Because the record in this case was clear in the Fifth Circuit.\nThe District Attorney did not object when the objections were filed by the petitioner.\nThe Fifth Circuit granted the appeal and looked at the record.\nObviously, the petitioner had conceded.\nHe did not object in Louisiana back in 1979 when the prosecutor admitted--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2245.293, 2250.735, 2256.67, 2261.282, 2264.815], "stop_times": [2250.735, 2256.67, 2261.282, 2264.815, 2271.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2245.293}, "reply_to": "20355__1_065", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_067", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "You seem to be making all kinds of arguments that would have strengthened the State's plea if it had made it, but it didn't make it, and that's... you're saying there was a terrific defense that the State had here, and because it was so good, the court of appeals can make it for them.\nThat's what I've heard you say so far.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2271.818, 2288.89], "stop_times": [2288.89, 2291.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2271.818}, "reply_to": "20355__1_066", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20355__1_068", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--Well, the court of appeals addressed the Mississippi interests.\nThe opinion is silent as to the Louisiana's interests, other than the interest you could infer that Louisiana has the right to presume that out-of-State convictions are valid, and unless the petitioner draws that to the attention of the court either at the time of the habitual offender proceedings or at some time seasonably early in the litigation, the court is on its own motion looking for the procedural bar, and they find a procedural bar in Mississippi.\nMississippi has an interest in the finality of its judgments.\nWhether or not Trest returns to the State of Mississippi is an open question.\nBut they also have an interest in the procedural rules, and they allow Trest 11 years to litigate in Mississippi.\nThe door in Mississippi closed in 1987, and he didn't even file the claim until 1990.\nHe waited 3 years past--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2291.853, 2295.265, 2330.247, 2333.938, 2338.763, 2346.377, 2353.052], "stop_times": [2295.265, 2330.247, 2333.938, 2338.763, 2346.377, 2353.052, 2354.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2291.853}, "reply_to": "20355__1_067", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_069", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "May I ask you just another question about the Fifth Circuit's procedure?\nThey say in their own opinion they are amazed that neither party had cited this Sones case.\nIs it the practice in that court, or do you happen to know, if, when they want to rely on a brandnew ground that nobody's addressed, do they ever give notice to the parties and ask them for a brief comment on the issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2354.942, 2359.176, 2364.278], "stop_times": [2359.176, 2364.278, 2375.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2354.942}, "reply_to": "20355__1_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20355__1_070", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--Justice Stevens, I'm sure that happens.\nIn Kubick v. Whitley, a case cited by the petitioner, the Fifth Circuit would not invoke sua sponte procedural default and proceeded to the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2375.047, 2377.269], "stop_times": [2377.269, 2387.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2375.047}, "reply_to": "20355__1_069", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_071", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "In this case they did ask for... request briefing on Custis, did they not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2387.055], "stop_times": [2392.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2387.055}, "reply_to": "20355__1_070", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20355__1_072", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Yes, Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2392.319], "stop_times": [2392.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2392.319}, "reply_to": "20355__1_071", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_073", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Is that unusual, that the court would ask for a briefing, the Fifth Circuit would ask for a briefing on a particular issue, or is that... do they always do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2392.987], "stop_times": [2400.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2392.987}, "reply_to": "20355__1_072", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20355__1_074", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "To be honest, Chief Justice Rehnquist, I haven't practiced much in the Fifth Circuit because I'm a State prosecutor, but I don't think that is that unusual.\nObviously, when that happened the District Attorney should have lodged procedural objections, but for whatever reason, which is not in the record, he did not.\nThe judgment is correct, and this Court sits to review judgments.\nYou can justify it with the Mississippi interest, which is an independent and adequate State bar, and the petitioner has not claimed it was not an adequate and independent State bar until argument today.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2400.353, 2409.799, 2418.415, 2422.386], "stop_times": [2409.799, 2418.415, 2422.386, 2433.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2400.353}, "reply_to": "20355__1_073", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_075", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Well, but if we decide the narrow question presented, which one certainly hopes we will, it would be possible to conclude that the court of appeals was not bound to raise this but perhaps could have raised it in the exercise of its discretion, and you say, I take it, that even if that is so, it would have properly exercised its discretion to prevent the... to raise this question on its own, but isn't it best left for them to decide that exercising their discretion, as they're now told to do, rather than feeling that they're obligated to do it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2433.786], "stop_times": [2473.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2433.786}, "reply_to": "20355__1_074", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20355__1_076", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "We don't read the opinion that they felt like they were obligated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2473.911], "stop_times": [2478.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2473.911}, "reply_to": "20355__1_075", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_077", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "But there I think you're foreclosed by your failure to respond to... your brief in opposition to certiorari.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2478.603], "stop_times": [2485.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2478.603}, "reply_to": "20355__1_076", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20355__1_078", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Well, Chief Justice, we do agree that a remand in light of Granberry v. Greer would... may be proper.\nHowever, it is not necessary on the record as it appears before the Court.\nI think that if you look at the record, both as it was in the Fifth Circuit and as it is presented to this Court, that there was not an abuse of discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2485.758, 2494.474, 2500.038], "stop_times": [2494.474, 2500.038, 2509.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2485.758}, "reply_to": "20355__1_077", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_079", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "No, but aren't you assuming more than that?\nAren't you assuming not merely that there was no abuse, but that there was no discretion to be exercised, because he could only... the court could only come out one way.\nThat would... isn't that the premise upon which we would have to affirm for you, because we're not sitting here to exercise discretion.\nThat's not what we do.\nThat's what other courts do.\nSo if we affirm, it's got to be on the grounds that there was really no discretionary choice except the choice that ultimately is reflected in this judgment, and that would be the only basis upon which we could affirm for you.\nIsn't that the premise of your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2509.283, 2510.944, 2520.992, 2529.937, 2530.859, 2531.827, 2544.787], "stop_times": [2510.944, 2520.992, 2529.937, 2530.859, 2531.827, 2544.787, 2546.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2509.283}, "reply_to": "20355__1_078", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20355__1_080", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, but the reasonings for judgment are not for review, it's the judgment itself, and if you feel by looking at the record that under Granberry v. Greer there was an adequate Federal interest, remanding it back, certainly we would not oppose that, but I think that at this point the remand would be unnecessary and that the decision--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2546.309], "stop_times": [2569.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2546.309}, "reply_to": "20355__1_079", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_081", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "I don't know what you mean when you say the reasons for judgment are not under review.\nI thought that's precisely what we're reviewing, whether the belief which the lower court had that it must raise this matter sua sponte, which is the reason for the judgment, whether that was correct.\nIsn't that what we're reviewing here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2569.895, 2573.314, 2589.186], "stop_times": [2573.314, 2589.186, 2590.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2569.895}, "reply_to": "20355__1_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20355__1_082", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--Well, Justice Scalia, the opinion is solid as far as the propriety of invoking sua sponte default, procedural default.\nThey did, and when we were writing the brief--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2590.328, 2598.413], "stop_times": [2598.413, 2601.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2590.328}, "reply_to": "20355__1_081", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_083", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "I mean, that's why courts write opinions, so that we can see if the reasons for their judgment are okay, and that's why we reverse when the reasons do not sustain the judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2601.925], "stop_times": [2611.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2601.925}, "reply_to": "20355__1_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20355__1_084", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--And we must concede that there is no language in the opinion that addresses their power as a Federal court to invoke--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2611.669], "stop_times": [2618.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2611.669}, "reply_to": "20355__1_083", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_085", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Yes, that's true, but they do start out saying that the Sones decision precludes us from reviewing the merits, and they end up saying this court is bound to conclude, as we did in Sones.\nThey thought they were compelled to do what they'd done in Sones.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2618.455, 2626.8], "stop_times": [2626.8, 2629.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2618.455}, "reply_to": "20355__1_084", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20355__1_086", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--Well, Justice Stevens, I read that language that they were precluded by Coleman v. Thompson.\nIn the Sones opinion that was a Mississippi prisoner attacking a Mississippi conviction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2629.922, 2635.636], "stop_times": [2635.636, 2642.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2629.922}, "reply_to": "20355__1_085", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_087", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2642.461], "stop_times": [2642.902], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2642.461}, "reply_to": "20355__1_086", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20355__1_088", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "You had not... we have a Louisiana prison... prisoner attacking the use of Mississippi convictions in a Louisiana Federal court, so Sones was not exactly on point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2642.902], "stop_times": [2653.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2642.902}, "reply_to": "20355__1_087", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_089", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "But they surely thought it was on point.\nThey said so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2653.557, 2655.798], "stop_times": [2655.798, 2656.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2653.557}, "reply_to": "20355__1_088", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20355__1_090", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "And we believe... that's why we built the record.\nWe believe that the judgment was correct to deny relief to this petitioner.\nWe believe that Mississippi had a valid interest.\nWe believe that the reasoning in Sones showing that if you're going to attack a Mississippi conviction, and this is Phillips v. State, you must return to the court in Mississippi that gave you the judgment.\nIn this case, the petitioner clearly bypassed the State of Mississippi.\nHe was found a habitual offender in June of 1979.\nHe had until 1987 to go back to Mississippi, and he did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2656.459, 2659.381, 2664.754, 2668.027, 2680.606, 2684.519, 2689.321], "stop_times": [2659.381, 2664.754, 2668.027, 2680.606, 2684.519, 2689.321, 2693.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2656.459}, "reply_to": "20355__1_089", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_091", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Ms. Petersen, may I ask a question about your internal procedures not related to the merits of this case?\nAs you see from the discussion today, some very important issues in the case can be precluded by the response to the petition for certiorari, and as I understand what happened here, I wonder if it's the standard procedure in Louisiana that it is the local prosecutor who responds to the petition for certiorari, and that the Attorney General's Office does not get into the matter until the petition is granted, is that the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2693.685, 2699.619], "stop_times": [2699.619, 2725.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2693.685}, "reply_to": "20355__1_090", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20355__1_092", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "That is correct.\nThe District Attorneys in Louisiana have the power and authority for all cases in their districts.\nThe Attorney General is involved only at their request, and when... or a conflict of interest as well, but in this case it was a request by the District Attorney to handle the case on July 7, 1997.\nThat was after the writ was granted, and when we prepared the brief on the merits we were looking forward to the issue of whether Granberry v. Greer should be extended to encompass procedural default.\nQuite honestly, I think that the parties here agree that the Fifth Circuit was not required, and therefore there is no dispute on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2725.806, 2726.464, 2732.37, 2746.069, 2757.557], "stop_times": [2726.464, 2732.37, 2746.069, 2757.557, 2766.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2725.806}, "reply_to": "20355__1_091", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_093", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "I will have to say that I think there's merit to the petitioner's argument that you should read the Fifth Circuit's opinion that way.\nAfter the passage Justice Stevens quoted the Fifth Circuit says, again, the Supreme Court has explained that procedural default will block all Federal review unless there's cause and prejudice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2766.983, 2773.896], "stop_times": [2773.896, 2785.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2766.983}, "reply_to": "20355__1_092", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20355__1_094", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "And Justice Kennedy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2785.396], "stop_times": [2787.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2785.396}, "reply_to": "20355__1_093", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_095", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "That's a pretty straightforward statement from the Fifth Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2787.355], "stop_times": [2789.496], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2787.355}, "reply_to": "20355__1_094", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20355__1_096", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--It is, Justice Kennedy, and we read that to believe that they've looked at the record for cause and prejudice, that they felt that the record did not establish it, and therefore denied relief.\nThat is the only way you can read that correctly, is that they looked at the record, they felt that the petitioner could have shown cause... If you look at the objections to the magistrate's report--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2789.496, 2800.934], "stop_times": [2800.934, 2809.488], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2789.496}, "reply_to": "20355__1_095", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_097", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "But if there was no objection by the State, if this wasn't in the case until the Fifth Circuit put it there, then how could you expect the petitioner to come up with cause and prejudice?\nHe was... to anticipate a defense that wasn't there and answer it, that's very strange, so it does suggest that at least he should have had an opportunity to address the cause and prejudice issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2809.488, 2821.487], "stop_times": [2821.487, 2835.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2809.488}, "reply_to": "20355__1_096", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20355__1_098", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--Well, Justice Ginsburg, we believe that's the next question, and we do not... in our brief we do not state that it was one that was fairly encompassed in the question presented.\nHowever, I would answer that by saying that the petitioner did have an opportunity when he filed the objections to the magistrate's report, because if you look at his answer, you see that he is admitting new evidence, a transcript, in 1994 from a 1979 conviction which was transcribed in June of 19... excuse me, June of 1976.\nIt was a May of 1976 conviction.\nHe brings this new evidence, he cites new case law, and he cites Boykin v. Alabama for the first time for that proposition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2835.666, 2844.832, 2867.097, 2869.148], "stop_times": [2844.832, 2867.097, 2869.148, 2877.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2835.666}, "reply_to": "20355__1_097", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_099", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "All right.\nCan I ask you... are you finished with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2877.804, 2878.284], "stop_times": [2878.284, 2880.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2877.804}, "reply_to": "20355__1_098", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20355__1_100", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Well... no, go ahead if you--\n--Yes, Your Honor.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2880.686, 2882.93, 2883.217], "stop_times": [2882.93, 2883.217, 2883.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2880.686}, "reply_to": "20355__1_099", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_101", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--All right.\nWell, can I ask... I want to ask you this... try a third minimalist approach.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2883.758, 2884.599], "stop_times": [2884.599, 2887.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2883.758}, "reply_to": "20355__1_100", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20355__1_102", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "--Yes, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2887.03], "stop_times": [2888.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2887.03}, "reply_to": "20355__1_101", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_103", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Minimalist.\nIs there any answer to at least the minimalist?\nThe question before us is whether they were required.\nThere's no objection that that's the question, and clearly they're not required to bring it up.\nThe State then argues that despite that they have the power to bring it up, and this was not an abuse of discretion.\nBut one thing that is clear is that it is an abuse of discretion to assert an independent State ground to bar a petitioner's claim when you assert the wrong independent State ground, an independent State ground that has nothing to do with this case, or at least very little, since it had to do with Mississippi and we're interested in Louisiana.\nAt least that's an abuse of discretion.\nNow, there are many other issues that have been raised in this very interesting set of briefs, et cetera, and we'll leave those for the court of appeals.\nAll right.\nIs there any answer to that, as a minimal approach?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2888.831, 2889.733, 2891.742, 2895.084, 2898.998, 2906.093, 2924.116, 2926.016, 2931.64, 2932.13], "stop_times": [2889.733, 2891.742, 2895.084, 2898.998, 2906.093, 2924.116, 2926.016, 2931.64, 2932.13, 2935.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2888.831}, "reply_to": "20355__1_102", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20355__1_104", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Yes, Justice Breyer.\nYou would have to find that the Fifth Circuit abused its discretion by invoking Mississippi law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2935.242, 2936.542], "stop_times": [2936.542, 2942.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2935.242}, "reply_to": "20355__1_103", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_105", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Well, the reason is because of course, as you've heard, to focus you right on it, that the question is whether the Constitution bars Louisiana from taking this Mississippi conviction into account when it increases a punishment, a matter that perhaps has never even been argued.\nNow, go ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2942.496, 2958.498], "stop_times": [2958.498, 2959.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2942.496}, "reply_to": "20355__1_104", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20355__1_106", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Well, I think you can justify it in that the State of Mississippi was never given any opportunity to pass on these convictions despite the fact that Trest was on notice in June of 1979 in Louisiana that they were being used for enhancement, and he had in the State of Mississippi till 1987.\nSo therefore you have the State of Mississippi affording this petitioner an opportunity, clearly knowing the State of Louisiana is using these five other prior felonies, and not going to the State of Mississippi.\nMeanwhile, you have the interest of the State of Louisiana in presuming that that judgments... those judgments are valid, and furthermore, he had two options.\nHe could have either gone to the State court in Louisiana... our position is that in 1990 the claim was not fairly presented.\nHe could have gone back to the State of Mississippi up to the year 1987.\nHe didn't even raise the Boykin claim until 1994.\nClearly, the petitioner had options in either State.\nHe's foreclosed in either State.\nTherefore, there's a procedural bar in either State, and that would support the judgment of the Fifth Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [2959.637, 2978.199, 2990.017, 3000.055, 3007.058, 3012.113, 3016.004, 3019.727, 3021.369], "stop_times": [2978.199, 2990.017, 3000.055, 3007.058, 3012.113, 3016.004, 3019.727, 3021.369, 3027.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2959.637}, "reply_to": "20355__1_105", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_107", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Petersen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [3027.504], "stop_times": [3029.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3027.504}, "reply_to": "20355__1_106", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20355__1_108", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [3029.904], "stop_times": [3030.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3029.904}, "reply_to": "20355__1_107", "speaker": "kathleen_e_petersen"}
{"id": "20355__1_109", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Ms. Hudsmith, you have 5 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [3030.763], "stop_times": [3033.866], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3030.763}, "reply_to": "20355__1_108", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20355__2_000", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "I would waive the remaining oral argument unless the Court has questions of me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [3033.866], "stop_times": [3040.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3033.866}, "reply_to": "20355__1_109", "speaker": "rebecca_l_hudsmith"}
{"id": "20355__2_001", "conversation_id": "20355", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Hudsmith.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-7901", "start_times": [3040.52, 3042.002], "stop_times": [3042.002, 3043.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3040.52}, "reply_to": "20355__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20263__0_000", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 97-731, United States v. Beggerly.\nMr. Wolfson.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [0.0, 8.678], "stop_times": [8.678, 13.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20263__0_001", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIn 1982, the United States and about 200 other parties settled complex land litigation by agreeing that the title to the disputed lands would be quieted in the United States and that the defendants would receive substantial sums which they stipulated in the consent judgment were fair and just compensation for their claims.\nOver a decade later, the respondents sought to nullify that settlement agreement.\nThey contended that public documents in the National Archives showed that the disputed lands on Horn Island had been granted to a private claimant by the Spanish colonial authorities in 1781.\nThe district court dismissed their challenge to the consent judgment as untimely, and also stated that there was little evidence of fraud or mistake to support their challenge on the merits, but the court of appeals agreed with the respondent that the consent judgment should be set aside, and it also held that the Spanish grant was valid, and it awarded title in the disputed lands to the respondents.\nThe court of appeals decision contravenes important values of finality, repose, and stability in the law which are at their apex in litigation over titles to land, and the lower court's errors also have broad significance for the stability of title to both public and private lands.\nFirst, the court of appeals disregarded basic principles of finality of judgments and sovereign immunity when it allowed this case to go forward.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [13.831, 17.154, 35.733, 40.258, 50.714, 70.866, 87.228], "stop_times": [17.154, 35.733, 40.258, 50.714, 70.866, 87.228, 95.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 13.831}, "reply_to": "20263__0_000", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_002", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Incidentally... and I want you to keep on this vein so far as I'm concerned, but do you have to... in order to prevail, do you have to convince us both of the sovereign immunity point and of the statute of limitations point under the Quiet Title Act?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [95.243], "stop_times": [108.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 95.243}, "reply_to": "20263__0_001", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20263__0_003", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Well, they both... there are two... I have to turn to the statute of... the QTA, the Quiet Title Act for a minute.\nIf we win on the sovereign immunity ground, then I think that the quiet title action can't really go anywhere because we would indisputedly have title to the lands.\nThat is, there may be a separate question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [108.732, 114.738, 126.644], "stop_times": [114.738, 126.644, 129.298], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 108.732}, "reply_to": "20263__0_002", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_004", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Well, what if they want to set aside the settlement, or something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [129.298], "stop_times": [131.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 129.298}, "reply_to": "20263__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20263__0_005", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--I don't... my... our position is that the Quiet Title Act would not allow a... would not allow the settlement to be set aside.\nI mean, if the... let's assume that they could get into district court under the Quiet Title Act because the court of appeals said yes, the statute of limitations was tolled.\nImmediately, we would move for summary judgment or to move to dismiss their claim because it's... the judgment held... as a matter of res judicata definitively gave us title, and in the Quiet Title Act, in fact, there's a provision that says that the plaintiff has to set out with particularity the nature of his right title or interest in the disputed lands, as well as the United States, and it would be, I think, a complete defense to any action under the Quiet Title Act that the judgment in the prior action had conclusively found... determined that title were in the United States.\nNow, that is... it may be a separate question from the statute of limitations question under the Quiet Title Act as to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [131.259, 137.623, 144.767, 175.267], "stop_times": [137.623, 144.767, 175.267, 181.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 131.259}, "reply_to": "20263__0_004", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_006", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--made the claim preclusion argument was the one as I was reading your brief, and I said, what is this about equitable tolling, statute of limitations?\nWhy didn't the Government just say claim preclusion?\nWe already had a quiet title action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [181.912, 188.608, 191.412], "stop_times": [188.608, 191.412, 193.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 181.912}, "reply_to": "20263__0_005", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20263__0_007", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Well, I mean, we of course... it has to be understood in the district court the respondents relied on the quiet title action... on the Quiet Title Act not really... they didn't really want title to the land back.\nThey didn't really want their land back.\nThey wanted money, and there's various pleadings in the district court in which they say that.\nWhat they said, Your Honor, was that the Quiet Title Act allowed the district court to award them damages because there is a provision that says if it's found that it's their land but... under the Quiet Title Act, but we elect to keep it anyway, then we can elect to award them compensation.\nOur argument in the district court was that the district court could not use the Quiet Title Act on that basis because it was essentially a taking claim which had to be brought in the Court of Federal Claims.\nNow, we went up to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [193.693, 205.04, 205.921, 211.097, 227.756, 238.513], "stop_times": [205.04, 205.921, 211.097, 227.756, 238.513, 239.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 193.693}, "reply_to": "20263__0_006", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_008", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Even apart from that, why don't you, as to damages, also have res judicata to plead?\nYou say, they acquired it, there was a judgment, it was so many dollars, and that dollar judgment is it.\nIt has been satisfied, end of issue.\nPreclusion for that reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [239.865, 244.286, 249.728, 251.351], "stop_times": [244.286, 249.728, 251.351, 252.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 239.865}, "reply_to": "20263__0_007", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20263__0_009", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--I have to emphasize that the reason... the Quiet Title Act is in the case only because, essentially, of a surprise that the court of appeals--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [252.242], "stop_times": [260.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 252.242}, "reply_to": "20263__0_008", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_010", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "No, but what's the answer to my question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [260.166], "stop_times": [261.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 260.166}, "reply_to": "20263__0_009", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20263__0_011", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--I think that... well, I think that if we win on the first question presented, then we have those defenses to plead, but if we lose on the first question presented--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [261.807], "stop_times": [272.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 261.807}, "reply_to": "20263__0_010", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_012", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "But do you say you have that defense to plead not only with respect to the party in whom title has been adjudicated, but that you also have that defense to plead with respect to the amount of money that could possibly be a liability from the Government to the respondents?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [272.716], "stop_times": [290.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 272.716}, "reply_to": "20263__0_011", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20263__0_013", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Well, again, I think that I... you know, we are here on our petition sort of taking the case as the court of appeals--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [290.207], "stop_times": [295.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 290.207}, "reply_to": "20263__0_012", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_014", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Yes, but yes or no?\nWhat's the answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [295.98, 296.919], "stop_times": [296.919, 297.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 295.98}, "reply_to": "20263__0_013", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20263__0_015", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--I may not be understanding your question exactly, but if we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [297.75], "stop_times": [302.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 297.75}, "reply_to": "20263__0_014", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_016", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Look, Justice Ginsburg asked you why preclusion isn't your answer if you get to quiet title.\nI understood you to say, well, the issue really under the Quiet Title Act is not title.\nThe issue is damages.\nAnd my question is, why isn't that also a matter of preclusion, because the damages were the subject of a prior settlement that was reduced to judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [302.315, 307.197, 311.531, 313.372], "stop_times": [307.197, 311.531, 313.372, 321.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 302.315}, "reply_to": "20263__0_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20263__0_017", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Right, and my... I guess what I have to say is, it's an answer that we can give only if that judgment remains closed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [321.255], "stop_times": [329.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 321.255}, "reply_to": "20263__0_016", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_018", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Well, but the judgment remains closed, I presume, because you have won on the first issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [329.39], "stop_times": [334.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 329.39}, "reply_to": "20263__0_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20263__0_019", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Right.\nIf we win on the first issue, then I think we have a substantive defense, but on the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [334.365, 334.565], "stop_times": [334.565, 339.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 334.365}, "reply_to": "20263__0_018", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_020", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Not any more.\nYou waived it below.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [339.598, 340.039, 341.932], "stop_times": [340.039, 341.932, 342.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 339.598}, "reply_to": "20263__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20263__0_021", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Well, no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [342.102], "stop_times": [342.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 342.102}, "reply_to": "20263__0_020", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_022", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Res judicata can be waived.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [342.563], "stop_times": [344.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 342.563}, "reply_to": "20263__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20263__0_023", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "I don't... I have to say I don't think we waived it.\nI mean, it wasn't really presented in a way in which we were called upon to address it in the district court.\nThe respondents did not even amend their cause of... amend their complaint in order to raise a claim under the Quiet Title Act until after they filed for summary judgment, and the district court dismissed it as untimely, which should be reviewed in the court of appeals, I would think, under an abuse of discretion standard, so we strongly feel that we had no call to even address these matters.\nIt was only when the court of appeals, even while excusing the respondents for their 12-year delay in bringing their suit, rushed to the, you know, ultimate merits of the case, reopened the judgment, concluded that everything... that the land claim was valid, and awarded title to the respondents, that we had to face the issue about whether the Quiet Title Act could be a basis for awarding the title into the respondents' land.\nI think that that does focus... return me to my point about why the court of appeals' decisions... why its rulings are so important.\nFirst, I mean, in terms of finality of judgments and sovereign immunity, the court of appeals essentially redetermined land title issues in a litigation against the United States that was a collateral attack on a final judgment where there was no waiver of sovereign immunity that would permit such a case to go forward.\nSecond, when the court of appeals, on the issue of whether there is tolling of the statute of limitations under the Quiet Title Act, when the court held that it should be tolled, I think it disregarded two very important policies about statute of limitations, both generally in the law and especially with regard to land title litigation: first, protecting parties against being forced to come into court to defend against stale, very stale land claims, and also to encourage plaintiffs who claim an interest in land to conduct prompt and thorough research on their claims.\nI've spoken third about the court of appeals kind of prematurely judging the merits of the case.\nThat, we submit, was error because it was... first of all because it was outside of the scope of the court of appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [344.446, 347.007, 351.278, 372.352, 397.06, 404.703, 421.516, 455.708, 463.842], "stop_times": [347.007, 351.278, 372.352, 397.06, 404.703, 421.516, 455.708, 463.842, 470.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 344.446}, "reply_to": "20263__0_022", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_024", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Is it your position the court of appeals was wrong in saying that the independent action was just really a continuation of the earlier action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [470.607], "stop_times": [478.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 470.607}, "reply_to": "20263__0_023", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20263__0_025", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Yes, it is.\nI think that's... that is essentially our primary submission.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [478.953, 479.363], "stop_times": [479.363, 482.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 478.953}, "reply_to": "20263__0_024", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_026", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Yes.\nCertainly an independent action is possible under the rules, isn't it, because it says that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [482.496, 482.726], "stop_times": [482.726, 487.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 482.496}, "reply_to": "20263__0_025", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20263__0_027", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Right.\nI mean, I would say this.\nThe rules leave any independent action where they found it.\nThat is, they do not... the rules, of course, do not abridge or modify or enlarge any substantive right, and all that... when Rule 60(b) says there may be an independent action, it doesn't purport to create one, or establish what the substantive law would be for proceeding under one.\nAll it says is, if, under some other body of substantive law there is available to a party an independent action that would allow that party relief from a final judgment, the rules leave that where... you know, leave that there.\nWhat the rules themselves do, however, is they eliminated a kind of a borderland of ancillary forms of action that were neither really inside nor exactly outside the original litigation, that were available in the 19th Century, before law and equity were united in the Federal Rules in 1938 and, as we've explained, there was considerable confusion between 1938 and 1946 as to whether still one could go outside the mechanism that the rules had set up, which was to say, to file a motion for relief from judgment.\nThe reason why I think there was confusion was that as it was originally enacted, Rule 60(b) did not specifically say that a party could get relief from a final judgment because of fraud, and I think there was some speculation that it couldn't have been that the rules had intended to cut off that avenue from relief.\nWhat the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [487.531, 487.771, 489.691, 494.806, 510.515, 524.044, 561.679, 580.122], "stop_times": [487.771, 489.691, 494.806, 510.515, 524.044, 561.679, 580.122, 580.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 487.531}, "reply_to": "20263__0_026", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_028", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Right on that point, supposing... I know it's not this case, but supposing there had been allegations of fraud here, would there need to be an independent jurisdictional basis for attacking the judgment on fraud grounds?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [580.672], "stop_times": [592.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 580.672}, "reply_to": "20263__0_027", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20263__0_029", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Yes, because they're outside the time limit of Rule 60(b), which is 1 year for seeking relief from a final judgment based on fraud, whether intrinsic or extrinsic, as the rule specifically says, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [592.112], "stop_times": [609.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 592.112}, "reply_to": "20263__0_028", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_030", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "But the sentence describing independent actions includes fraud as a ground of relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [609.941], "stop_times": [613.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 609.941}, "reply_to": "20263__0_029", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20263__0_031", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Well, there may be... there may be some substantive law... for example, between private parties is one that would come to mind, where one party could seek to... could bring a lawsuit in Federal district court against another and get relief from a final judgment based on fraud, but when such an independent action is filed in Federal district court, it is just like any new lawsuit.\nYou need substantive law.\nYou need subject matter jurisdiction.\nYou need... and... when the lawsuit is against the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [613.825, 636.919, 638.531, 640.043], "stop_times": [636.919, 638.531, 640.043, 642.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 613.825}, "reply_to": "20263__0_030", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_032", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "What is your authority for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [642.947], "stop_times": [644.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 642.947}, "reply_to": "20263__0_031", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20263__0_033", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "What is our authority for that?\nWell, I think... I mean, we're drawing our reasoning from the Court's recent decision in Kokkonen.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [644.107, 646.018], "stop_times": [646.018, 651.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 644.107}, "reply_to": "20263__0_032", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_034", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Yes, but there's no pre-Kokkonen law that establishes that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [651.504], "stop_times": [655.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 651.504}, "reply_to": "20263__0_033", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20263__0_035", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Well, I mean, we recognize--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [655.064], "stop_times": [656.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 655.064}, "reply_to": "20263__0_034", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_036", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "I mean, Kokkonen, of course, wasn't really directed at this problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [656.236], "stop_times": [657.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 656.236}, "reply_to": "20263__0_035", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20263__0_037", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--I acknowledge that.\nI mean, we... I guess our... we recognize that this has been an unsettled issue for a while.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [657.846, 658.918, 665.045], "stop_times": [658.918, 665.045, 665.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 657.846}, "reply_to": "20263__0_036", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_038", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "How about that it would undercut 60(b) entirely if you could just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [665.255], "stop_times": [669.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 665.255}, "reply_to": "20263__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20263__0_039", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--I think that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [669.519], "stop_times": [670.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 669.519}, "reply_to": "20263__0_038", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_040", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--avoid 60(b) and say, here, we... because 60(b), you don't have to establish any independent jurisdictional basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [670.45], "stop_times": [676.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 670.45}, "reply_to": "20263__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20263__0_041", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Right.\nIt is truly ancillary jurisdiction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [676.456, 676.565], "stop_times": [676.565, 678.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 676.456}, "reply_to": "20263__0_040", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_042", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "So--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [678.688], "stop_times": [678.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 678.688}, "reply_to": "20263__0_041", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20263__0_043", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--and I think it would be hard to understand why the drafters of the Federal Rules would have put in a 1-year time limit for relief from judgment, motions for relief from judgment based on fraud, among other things, and mistake, if it had... were also possible just to file a new or an independent action without invoking the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [678.909], "stop_times": [697.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 678.909}, "reply_to": "20263__0_042", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_044", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--But then it's also puzzling why did they use the word fraud in subparagraph (3), or clause (3), and also put it in with regard to independent actions if that's just meant to duplicate?\nThat's what's puzzling to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [697.112, 704.675], "stop_times": [704.675, 705.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 697.112}, "reply_to": "20263__0_043", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20263__0_045", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--I think that... well, there is... I mean, I do have to... I do want to say, there is a separate concept of fraud upon the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [705.596], "stop_times": [712.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 705.596}, "reply_to": "20263__0_044", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_046", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [712.839], "stop_times": [713.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 712.839}, "reply_to": "20263__0_045", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20263__0_047", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Right, and that... that is really, really bad fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [713.069], "stop_times": [716.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 713.069}, "reply_to": "20263__0_046", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_048", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "All right, let's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [716.842], "stop_times": [717.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 716.842}, "reply_to": "20263__0_047", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20263__0_049", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "I mean, there's no other way to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [717.232], "stop_times": [717.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 717.232}, "reply_to": "20263__0_048", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_050", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--That's what I wanted to do.\nI want to distinguish this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [717.683, 718.954], "stop_times": [718.954, 721.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 717.683}, "reply_to": "20263__0_049", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20263__0_051", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [721.227], "stop_times": [721.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 721.227}, "reply_to": "20263__0_050", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_052", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--which doesn't involve that kind of fraud, with a case that does involve really, really bad fraud upon the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [721.507], "stop_times": [726.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 721.507}, "reply_to": "20263__0_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20263__0_053", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [726.352], "stop_times": [726.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 726.352}, "reply_to": "20263__0_052", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_054", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "And in that case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [726.582], "stop_times": [727.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 726.582}, "reply_to": "20263__0_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20263__0_055", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Right.\nWhat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [727.912, 727.972], "stop_times": [727.972, 728.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 727.912}, "reply_to": "20263__0_054", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_056", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--does there have to be an independent Federal basis for jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [728.223], "stop_times": [731.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 728.223}, "reply_to": "20263__0_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20263__0_057", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--I don't think that case... that case does not really involve an independent action at all.\nWhat that case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [731.325, 735.869], "stop_times": [735.869, 736.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 731.325}, "reply_to": "20263__0_056", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_058", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Oh, but it's in the sentence about independent action.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [736.309], "stop_times": [739.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 736.309}, "reply_to": "20263__0_057", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20263__0_059", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--No, it says... but you see, it says, it does not relieve a... it does not prevent a party from bringing an independent action or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court.\nNow, that... the ability of a court to sort of purge itself of the effects of fraud perpetrated upon it... the classic example was this Court's opinion in Hazel-Atlas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [739.042, 750.678], "stop_times": [750.678, 760.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 739.042}, "reply_to": "20263__0_058", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_060", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [760.756], "stop_times": [761.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 760.756}, "reply_to": "20263__0_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20263__0_061", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "That is an inherent authority of the court.\nIt doesn't even require an independent action.\nIn fact, there are cases from this Court where a party brought allegations of fraud to the Court as amicus curiae.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [761.257, 764.218, 766.18], "stop_times": [764.218, 766.18, 772.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 761.257}, "reply_to": "20263__0_060", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_062", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "You know, there's been debate within the Court as to the extent of our inherent power.\nSome of us are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [772.383, 775.996], "stop_times": [775.996, 776.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 772.383}, "reply_to": "20263__0_061", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20263__0_063", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "But I think that this is a... it doesn't even... as I understand the cases under this, to be... for a court to purge itself of a fraud upon the court, it doesn't even really require a new lawsuit.\nIt is ability of one branch of Government to protect itself from fraud perpetrated upon it, but it is a unique and very, very narrow situation that involves egregious misconduct like bribing a juror.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [776.727, 789.123], "stop_times": [789.123, 801.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 776.727}, "reply_to": "20263__0_062", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_064", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Why do you think that?\nThat is, I don't understand the relation of the first parts of the rules to the word independent action.\nMy understanding is there was a classical action in equity called an independent action in equity, and that classical action which existed in the Nineteenth Century was a way of going to a court of equity and asking for relief from a judgment, and you could get it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [801.602, 802.633, 809.058], "stop_times": [802.633, 809.058, 826.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 801.602}, "reply_to": "20263__0_063", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__0_065", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [826.19], "stop_times": [826.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 826.19}, "reply_to": "20263__0_064", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_066", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "And if there was a jurisdictional problem, there was no problem, because you went to the same court and they let you in in the same court that you had the original action in.\nThat seemed fairly clear from the commentators.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [826.979, 833.324], "stop_times": [833.324, 835.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 826.979}, "reply_to": "20263__0_065", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__0_067", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--I think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [835.387], "stop_times": [836.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 835.387}, "reply_to": "20263__0_066", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_068", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "So I grant you, I agree with you, I don't understand the relation to that.\nOn the one hand you have to say, bring it within a year.\nThat's what they say in the first part of the rules.\nAnd then they say, oh, but we're not interfering with an independent action in equity and, of course, that would gut the year requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [836.438, 838.9, 841.491, 843.114], "stop_times": [838.9, 841.491, 843.114, 849.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 836.438}, "reply_to": "20263__0_067", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__0_069", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Well... all right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [849.028], "stop_times": [849.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 849.028}, "reply_to": "20263__0_068", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_070", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "But maybe it does... it does gut it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [849.669], "stop_times": [850.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 849.669}, "reply_to": "20263__0_069", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__0_071", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "I mean, first... right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [850.578], "stop_times": [851.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 850.578}, "reply_to": "20263__0_070", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_072", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "So what are we supposed to do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [851.669], "stop_times": [851.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 851.669}, "reply_to": "20263__0_071", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__0_073", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "First of all let me say, although there were these independent actions in equity, they were not allowed to proceed against the sovereign under cases that we've cited in our brief.\nThey're all--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [851.829, 862.267], "stop_times": [862.267, 862.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 851.829}, "reply_to": "20263__0_072", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_074", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "I thought they could proceed against whatever party was involved in the first action.\nI thought the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [862.657, 868.421], "stop_times": [868.421, 868.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 862.657}, "reply_to": "20263__0_073", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20263__0_075", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Well, all--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [868.982], "stop_times": [869.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 868.982}, "reply_to": "20263__0_074", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_076", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Didn't Missouri... what is it, Pacific Railroad--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [869.172], "stop_times": [871.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 869.172}, "reply_to": "20263__0_075", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20263__0_077", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Missouri Pacific Rail--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [871.215], "stop_times": [871.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 871.215}, "reply_to": "20263__0_076", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_078", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Yes.\nDoesn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [871.485, 872.195], "stop_times": [872.195, 872.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 871.485}, "reply_to": "20263__0_077", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20263__0_079", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Well, that is... I would acknowledge that that is the strongest case for the other side, but that's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [872.685], "stop_times": [875.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 872.685}, "reply_to": "20263__0_078", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_080", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--That... to be sure, that speaks of citizenship.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [875.918], "stop_times": [877.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 875.918}, "reply_to": "20263__0_079", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20263__0_081", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Right.\nThat's not a case against the sovereign, and the cases that we've cited on page 20, footnote 13 of our brief, Hill v. United States, United States v. McLemore, they all say, well, these bills of... these things like bills of review, they are really... they are really new... as far as sovereign immunity is concerned, they are new actions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [877.34, 877.501], "stop_times": [877.501, 898.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 877.34}, "reply_to": "20263__0_080", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_082", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Well, suppose I thought--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [898.505], "stop_times": [899.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 898.505}, "reply_to": "20263__0_081", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__0_083", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "I want to emphasize that before I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [899.326], "stop_times": [900.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 899.326}, "reply_to": "20263__0_082", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_084", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--I understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [900.328], "stop_times": [901.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 900.328}, "reply_to": "20263__0_083", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__0_085", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Right.\nRight.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [901.647, 901.858], "stop_times": [901.858, 902.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 901.647}, "reply_to": "20263__0_084", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_086", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "But suppose I didn't want to be technical about it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [902.098], "stop_times": [903.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 902.098}, "reply_to": "20263__0_085", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__0_087", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [903.5], "stop_times": [903.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 903.5}, "reply_to": "20263__0_086", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_088", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--and said that the whole point of these independent actions in equity was to set aside an initial judgment obtained through fraud, so if the sovereign waived immunity as to the first, they waived it as to the second, and moreover, since an action in equity, forget the statute of limitations in the statutes.\nThere's a question of laches or something.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [903.7, 918.771], "stop_times": [918.771, 920.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 903.7}, "reply_to": "20263__0_087", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__0_089", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [920.189], "stop_times": [920.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 920.189}, "reply_to": "20263__0_088", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_090", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "It's equitable.\nAll right.\nNow, I grant you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [920.39, 920.77, 921.231], "stop_times": [920.77, 921.231, 922.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 920.39}, "reply_to": "20263__0_089", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__0_091", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [922.733], "stop_times": [922.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 922.733}, "reply_to": "20263__0_090", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_092", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--that totally guts the first part.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [922.934], "stop_times": [924.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 922.934}, "reply_to": "20263__0_091", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__0_093", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [924.704], "stop_times": [924.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 924.704}, "reply_to": "20263__0_092", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_094", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "But--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [924.924], "stop_times": [925.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 924.924}, "reply_to": "20263__0_093", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__0_095", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Well, there is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [925.565], "stop_times": [926.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 925.565}, "reply_to": "20263__0_094", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_096", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--And it says it in the second sentence--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [926.686], "stop_times": [927.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 926.686}, "reply_to": "20263__0_095", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__0_097", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--But there is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [927.798], "stop_times": [927.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 927.798}, "reply_to": "20263__0_096", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_098", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--in the rules.\nIt says it.\nSo what am I supposed to do?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [927.978, 928.578, 929.079], "stop_times": [928.578, 929.079, 930.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 927.978}, "reply_to": "20263__0_097", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__0_099", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Well, I think that if... looking at those cases, they really... although they are referred to as independent actions in equity they really are devices that courts of equity were trying to fashion in order to get around the problem that a court of law could not reopen its judgments after a few months, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [930.822], "stop_times": [951.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 930.822}, "reply_to": "20263__0_098", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_100", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Well, in Missouri Pacific the second action was brought as a matter... in a matter of months, after the original decision came down from this Court, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [951.676], "stop_times": [958.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 951.676}, "reply_to": "20263__0_099", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20263__0_101", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Right, and that's... and in Missouri Pacific there had been a problem because there was no longer complete diversity among the parties, and the Court said... now... said yes, you know, the parties can go forward.\nWe think that Missouri Pacific is really best understood as a fraud upon the court case, but if not, then it probably is best understood as a bill of review case, where it was a... sort of a supplemental bill.\nIt wasn't really... it wasn't an independent action in equity like somebody--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [958.479, 970.917, 984.027], "stop_times": [970.917, 984.027, 987.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 958.479}, "reply_to": "20263__0_100", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_102", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Am I supposed to do this?\nWhat it says is, this rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action in equity--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [987.648, 988.509], "stop_times": [988.509, 995.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 987.648}, "reply_to": "20263__0_101", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__0_103", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Right.\nAll right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [995.834, 996.015], "stop_times": [996.015, 996.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 995.834}, "reply_to": "20263__0_102", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_104", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--let's say, to relieve a party, so I'm supposed to imagine I'm back in the days of yesteryear, I'm back in the 19th Century.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [996.426], "stop_times": [1002.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 996.426}, "reply_to": "20263__0_103", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__0_105", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1002.83], "stop_times": [1003.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1002.83}, "reply_to": "20263__0_104", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_106", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "I'm supposed to imagine that, and I'm supposed to imagine what would a court have done then in an independent action in equity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1003.02], "stop_times": [1009.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1003.02}, "reply_to": "20263__0_105", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__0_107", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "But the bill... all right, but the rule--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1009.425], "stop_times": [1010.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1009.425}, "reply_to": "20263__0_106", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_108", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "That's what it seems to tell me to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1010.426], "stop_times": [1010.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1010.426}, "reply_to": "20263__0_107", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__0_109", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--But the rule also says, and I think this is very important, writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, ad ide corella, bills of review and bills in the nature of bills of review, are abolished, so I think first of all you have to make sure that it isn't anything like those, and in the advisory committee notes it says, you know, we have endeavored to list every single form of ancillary form of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1010.576], "stop_times": [1029.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1010.576}, "reply_to": "20263__0_108", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_110", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "All right, but then you're agreeing with me about how to read it.\nNow tell me... I'm now back, imagining I am in the 19th Century, bringing an independent action in equity without coram nobis, coram vobis, whatever it is, and now tell me--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1029.971, 1031.584], "stop_times": [1031.584, 1041.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1029.971}, "reply_to": "20263__0_109", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__0_111", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--I'm not sure... I'm not sure... I'm not sure I agree with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1041.56], "stop_times": [1042.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1041.56}, "reply_to": "20263__0_110", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_112", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--what the court would then have held in respect to this independent action and why.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1042.642], "stop_times": [1046.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1042.642}, "reply_to": "20263__0_111", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__0_113", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--I'm not sure I agree with you that we are back in the 19th Century.\nI think that in... when the Court is using the term, independent action, it means a new lawsuit, but even if we're back in the 19th Century, I mean, what I think we were talking about is, if there is subject matter jurisdiction and all of the rest of it and you can go and bring a new lawsuit... for example, parties with diversity of citizenship who go into Federal court to enjoin the effect of a State court judgment, that is a classic independent action in equity, but it would need all of the requisites of what anybody would need when they were filing a new case in Federal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1046.696, 1049.628], "stop_times": [1049.628, 1082.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1046.696}, "reply_to": "20263__0_112", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_114", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Yes, but Mr. Wolfson, if under all those rules, coram nobis or the various common law writs that were available then, if they could have been brought without a new basis of Federal jurisdiction you can't argue, I don't believe, that substituting a category of independent action for all of those limited the court's jurisdiction, because the rules are not intended to change jurisdiction.\nIn other words, if there were juris... you didn't need new jurisdiction under one of those writs, you don't need it today if this is the substitute for that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1082.3, 1101.971], "stop_times": [1101.971, 1109.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1082.3}, "reply_to": "20263__0_113", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20263__0_115", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "And I think it's not.\nI mean, I think the point is that... I mean, maybe I misunderstood your question, but all of those are abolished, and so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1109.756, 1111.358], "stop_times": [1111.358, 1116.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1109.756}, "reply_to": "20263__0_114", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_116", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "But they're replaced by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1116.581], "stop_times": [1118.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1116.581}, "reply_to": "20263__0_115", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20263__0_117", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--They're not... I don't think they are replaced by an independent action.\nWhat they are replaced by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1118.203, 1121.075], "stop_times": [1121.075, 1122.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1118.203}, "reply_to": "20263__0_116", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_118", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--They were replaced by Rule 60.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1122.027], "stop_times": [1122.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1122.027}, "reply_to": "20263__0_117", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20263__0_119", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--was rule 60(b)... right, and so I would say that the only way... what Rule 60(b) is intended to make clear is that the only way you can get relief from final judgment without filing a new lawsuit is to make a motion under the rules, and the advisory committee notes say the rules, the practice of the rules are intended to be complete in this regard.\nI'd like to turn, if I may, to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1122.788, 1144.372], "stop_times": [1144.372, 1147.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1122.788}, "reply_to": "20263__0_118", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_120", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Mr. Wolfson, before you do, I'd just like to fasten on something extraordinary about this case.\nYou prevailed in the district court.\nThe Fifth Circuit was obviously very disturbed by this case, very angry almost, one might say, because you got cut off entirely at the end.\nYou end up, from being a total winner, being a total loser, so what is it that... is it that the... this Spanish grant should have been... did the court of appeals think that it was terribly negligent, or maybe even deceptive of the United States not to have come forward earlier with this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1147.604, 1151.966, 1154.089, 1164.845], "stop_times": [1151.966, 1154.089, 1164.845, 1184.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1147.604}, "reply_to": "20263__0_119", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20263__0_121", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Well, I... obviously it's difficult to... I mean, I agree with you that the court of appeals was... you know, there was something that really concerned it about the case, but I have to say, to the extent that the court of appeals might have thought there was some problem that led it to toll... thought... think that equitable tolling, for example, was proper, I have to say I disagree with it.\nI mean, as we pointed out in our brief, we did bring the fact of the Boudreau grant to the parties' attention in the original litigation and said, presuming this to be for... a grant for Horn Island, we... you know, we believe that it was not valid because it was never recognized by Commissioner Crawford and so it shouldn't be given effect.\nOn the point about Power's Heirs, which I want to get to, the Court... the respondents did not mention Power's Heirs either in the lower court, and Professor Baade's affidavit, which purports to be a comprehensive examination of this Court's 19th Century decisions on the issue, does not address... you know, does not discuss Power's Heirs at all, even though it is a... it is a controlling decision of Federal law that goes to the ultimate issue on the merits in this case, which is whether the United States obtained title to the lands in the Louisiana Purchase or whether they were... had already been alienated out of the public domain at that time.\nNow, two points on how the court of appeals disposed on the case.\nFirst, as I mentioned earlier, we think that the court of appeals acted outside the scope of appellate jurisdiction under section 1291 when it reached the ultimate issue in the case.\nEven if we're wrong on the first two questions presented, or even the first one, and even if the judgment of dismissal was incorrect in the case... you know, that dismissal should have been reversed... it seems to me that what the court of appeals should have done was simply remand the case to the district court for further proceedings.\nThe district court did not really look at any of the merits issues in this case.\nI mean, it thought that that had already been decided already, and all the district court really said about the case was, well, I don't believe that the respondents have brought forth evidence of fraud or mistake that would justify setting aside the judgment even in the alternative, and on that basis it denied the respondents' motion for summary judgment.\nNow, that denial of the motion for summary judgment was not a final decision.\nIt certainly wouldn't have been appealable by itself, and it didn't merge... the courts often talk about an interlocutory decision merging into the final judgment, and I would submit that it did not merge into the final judgment because it did not in any way affect the ultimate way in which the district court disposed of the case, which was to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.\nSo when the court of appeals reversed the dismissal and said the case can go forward, the case was essentially just where it had been in the district court, which was a tentative conclusion that the case should not... should go to trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1184.437, 1205.013, 1225.767, 1264.489, 1268.523, 1279.432, 1295.471, 1300.526, 1319.978, 1325.111, 1347.606], "stop_times": [1205.013, 1225.767, 1264.489, 1268.523, 1279.432, 1295.471, 1300.526, 1319.978, 1325.111, 1347.606, 1362.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1184.437}, "reply_to": "20263__0_120", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_122", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--You've mentioned the word tentative.\nThere were... there's a 54(b) judgment entered here, and yet there was a third claim that seemed to me just another reason for the relief that was wanted.\nIt seemed to me that this was an unfinished case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1362.796, 1362.986, 1372.943], "stop_times": [1362.986, 1372.943, 1375.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1362.796}, "reply_to": "20263__0_121", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20263__0_123", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "The... well, the district court dismissed the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1375.457], "stop_times": [1379.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1375.457}, "reply_to": "20263__0_122", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_124", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "1 and 2, but the... I understand--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1379.588], "stop_times": [1382.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1379.588}, "reply_to": "20263__0_123", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20263__0_125", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--The third... there was a third that was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.\nThat's the Tucker... that's the... they raised sort of an inverse condemnation claim, and the district court said on that, no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1382.42, 1386.021], "stop_times": [1386.021, 1394.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1382.42}, "reply_to": "20263__0_124", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_126", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--But there were three... two left standing, 3 and 4, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1394.006], "stop_times": [1396.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1394.006}, "reply_to": "20263__0_125", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20263__0_127", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--There's only three... I believe there's only three causes of action in the complaint.\nOne is fraud, one is mutual mistake, and the third is inverse condemnation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1396.979, 1401.333], "stop_times": [1401.333, 1407.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1396.979}, "reply_to": "20263__0_126", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_128", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "You said the... in the... the first count was dismissed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1407.878], "stop_times": [1410.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1407.878}, "reply_to": "20263__0_127", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20263__0_129", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Was dismissed for... because of... yes.\nIt's in the district court's order in the petition appendix at--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1410.77, 1412.332], "stop_times": [1412.332, 1417.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1410.77}, "reply_to": "20263__0_128", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_130", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Well, I'm probably wrong.\nI thought you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1417.808, 1420.659], "stop_times": [1420.659, 1421.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1417.808}, "reply_to": "20263__0_129", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20263__0_131", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Yes, it's at page 42a and 43a of the petition appendix, because the court said, well, even if there is a... some claim of taking here, it has to be presented to the Court of Federal Claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1421.19], "stop_times": [1431.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1421.19}, "reply_to": "20263__0_130", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_132", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--So you're telling me there was only one count left over, only one thing that wasn't dismissed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1431.427], "stop_times": [1436.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1431.427}, "reply_to": "20263__0_131", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20263__0_133", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "No, everything was decided by the district court.\nI would... I mean, the district court dismissed all three causes of action, two for untimeliness, and the third because it belonged in the Court of Federal Claims, so it's a whole... it's not a 54(b) judgment.\nIt's a... it was a final judgment of dismissal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1436.259, 1437.921, 1448.208], "stop_times": [1437.921, 1448.208, 1451.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1436.259}, "reply_to": "20263__0_132", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_134", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1451.269], "stop_times": [1452.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1451.269}, "reply_to": "20263__0_133", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20263__0_135", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Turning last to the court of appeals decision on the merits, the respondents have argued that this Court decided Power's Heirs on the basis of an incorrect and incomplete understanding of the history of West Florida, and we disagree with their reading of that history, but we would say that even if the question is doubtful, that the Court should nonetheless adhere to its decision in Power's Heirs, which was a controlling decision of Federal law about the interests of the United States obtained under the Louisiana Purchase.\nThat decision governs both private and... both public and possibly private land claims in the area, and it would be... the policy of stare decisis has its strongest force, this Court has recognized several times, in the area of litigation over titles to land.\nIt would be extraordinary for the Court to overrule a 150-year-old precedent governing land titles without a truly compelling reason, and for that reason we think the Court should adhere to that decision.\nIf there are no further questions, I would like to reserve my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1452.912, 1482.681, 1501.053, 1512.37], "stop_times": [1482.681, 1501.053, 1512.37, 1515.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1452.912}, "reply_to": "20263__0_134", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__0_136", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Very well, Mr. Wolfson.\nMr. Taylor, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1515.002, 1516.223], "stop_times": [1516.223, 1518.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1515.002}, "reply_to": "20263__0_135", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20263__1_000", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI would like to begin immediately by stating that counsel opposite's comment that the finality of judgments is important to protect litigants from stale claims and to also encourage litigants to do their research before presenting their cases, or during the cases, is a critical point that is in my favor, because the Federal Government in this instance did not do their research, and they misrepresented a critical fact.\nThey misrepresented that the key document that the Beggerlys needed to defend their claim in 1979 did not exist, and I don't think there's really any question on this record but that that misrepresentation is the cause of the entry of this judgment.\nIt also was the cause of delay, which I'll get into in a little bit--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1518.335, 1527.632, 1560.022, 1576.725], "stop_times": [1527.632, 1560.022, 1576.725, 1580.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1518.335}, "reply_to": "20263__0_136", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_001", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "But Mr. Taylor, the district judge said this was in good faith.\nEverybody realized that there was this document, and that it wasn't found, and the district judge said, I understand that, but he is not using the kind of language that you are.\nHe said there was good faith on the part of the Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1580.354, 1584.597, 1597.187], "stop_times": [1584.597, 1597.187, 1601.14], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1580.354}, "reply_to": "20263__1_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20263__1_002", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Your Honor, I did not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1601.14], "stop_times": [1602.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1601.14}, "reply_to": "20263__1_001", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_003", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "They just couldn't find it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1602.741], "stop_times": [1603.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1602.741}, "reply_to": "20263__1_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20263__1_004", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Excuse me.\nPardon me, Your Honor.\nI did not intend to insinuate that the Government did not act in good faith.\nYou can act in good faith and not get your homework done.\nYou can act in good faith and not do a thorough job.\nI'm not saying that the Government intended to not find this document, but the fact of the matter is, they did not find it, and they represented that it did not exist, and our people relied upon that representation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1603.101, 1603.561, 1605.063, 1610.537, 1613.428, 1615.9], "stop_times": [1603.561, 1605.063, 1610.537, 1613.428, 1615.9, 1630.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1603.101}, "reply_to": "20263__1_003", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_005", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Well, maybe you shouldn't in adversary litigation.\nI mean, every time your opponent cites a case incorrectly, or states a fact incorrectly and you don't take them up on it, this is a basis for setting aside the judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1630.168, 1632.581], "stop_times": [1632.581, 1643.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1630.168}, "reply_to": "20263__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20263__1_006", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Certainly not, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1643.869], "stop_times": [1646.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1643.869}, "reply_to": "20263__1_005", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_007", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Well, why is it here, if there is no knowledgeable fraud on the part of the Government?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1646.06], "stop_times": [1650.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1646.06}, "reply_to": "20263__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20263__1_008", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "What happened here, in my mind, is similar to what happens in discovery in all cases.\nAfter doing an initial investigation of their own in various archives, including the National Archives, the Beggerlys ultimately deposed Mr. Dorasavage, who was the ultimate authority on these records and these grants.\nMr. Dorasavage said that the document did not exist.\nThere was still time to look further... not much, but still some time, when he gave that testimony in 1982.\nThe Beggerlys, just like any litigant does when they take a 30(b)(6) deposition, or take a deposition of a managing agent, they're entitled to assume that the testimony that is given on behalf of the other litigant is truthful, and until some time... until such time that they acquire evidence to... that indicates that it's not true, then they don't look in that area any more.\nThey accept--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1650.992, 1657.247, 1672.046, 1675.388, 1681.824, 1707.098], "stop_times": [1657.247, 1672.046, 1675.388, 1681.824, 1707.098, 1707.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1650.992}, "reply_to": "20263__1_007", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_009", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Let's not say it's not truthful.\nIt was truthful.\nIt was simply not correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1707.659, 1708.31, 1709.692], "stop_times": [1708.31, 1709.692, 1711.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1707.659}, "reply_to": "20263__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20263__1_010", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Well, I apologize, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1711.813], "stop_times": [1712.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1711.813}, "reply_to": "20263__1_009", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_011", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "He wasn't... he wasn't misrepresent... wasn't intentionally misrepresenting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1712.835], "stop_times": [1716.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1712.835}, "reply_to": "20263__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20263__1_012", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1716.908], "stop_times": [1717.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1716.908}, "reply_to": "20263__1_011", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_013", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "I don't know, I'm rather troubled by that.\nI'm not sure, in an adversary system, you are entitled to assume that what your opponent or your opponent's expert witness says is true, and if it turns out to be false, you somehow have a 60(b) claim, or some claim to set it aside for fraud.\nI don't find your case as sympathetic as you do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1717.159, 1718.828, 1736.091], "stop_times": [1718.828, 1736.091, 1740.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1717.159}, "reply_to": "20263__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20263__1_014", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Well, Your Honor, the independent action, according to the basis for that action, identified in Banker's Mortgage Company case, Fifth Circuit case, 1970, specified that mistake or fraud is a sufficient basis for setting aside a judgment, and that has been the generally accepted rule, that you do not have to prove fraud, that mistake is sufficient, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1740.863], "stop_times": [1768.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1740.863}, "reply_to": "20263__1_013", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_015", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Well, is the record that supports you on this, pages 222 to 224 of the appendix... I mean, you said the Government said, at your first... you know, at the trial, before you settled... you know, you settled the case.\nThere were no disposals, no private land claim disposals for Petit Bois Island.\nIs that what you're relying on?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1768.413, 1782.069, 1787.874], "stop_times": [1782.069, 1787.874, 1789.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1768.413}, "reply_to": "20263__1_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__1_016", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Well, you've got the wrong island, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1789.216], "stop_times": [1792.137], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1789.216}, "reply_to": "20263__1_015", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_017", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "And it says or Ship Island, or for Horn Island.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1792.137], "stop_times": [1793.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1792.137}, "reply_to": "20263__1_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__1_018", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Right.\nThey... there were a combination of representations, those made during the summary judgment proceedings and the sworn testimony of Mr. Dorasavage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1793.888, 1794.098], "stop_times": [1794.098, 1803.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1793.888}, "reply_to": "20263__1_017", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_019", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "But in the record are they cited somewhere, because I want to look and see what it is that the Government said that you said was a misrepresentation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1803.175], "stop_times": [1810.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1803.175}, "reply_to": "20263__1_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__1_020", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Your Honor, we have cited in our brief Mr. Dorasavage's testimony.\nI don't have that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1810.389, 1813.224], "stop_times": [1813.224, 1814.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1810.389}, "reply_to": "20263__1_019", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_021", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "That's what I quoted here.\nThat's 222-24 of the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1814.072, 1815.173], "stop_times": [1815.173, 1816.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1814.072}, "reply_to": "20263__1_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__1_022", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--All right, sir.\nIf that's Dorasavage's testimony--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1816.845, 1817.316], "stop_times": [1817.316, 1820.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1816.845}, "reply_to": "20263__1_021", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_023", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Yes, it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1820.218], "stop_times": [1820.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1820.218}, "reply_to": "20263__1_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__1_024", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--it's that representation that they did rely upon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1820.418], "stop_times": [1822.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1820.418}, "reply_to": "20263__1_023", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_025", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Fine.\nWhat that seems to do is, the pages before that, what Dorasavage says is, he describes his search, so a person reading that would think, well, he's reached the conclusion on the basis of the search he's just described, so where's the misrepresentation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1822.809, 1823.49], "stop_times": [1823.49, 1838.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1822.809}, "reply_to": "20263__1_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__1_026", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Well, the misrepresentation is that there and in the briefs the Government indicated the grant didn't exist when in fact it did exist.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1838.791], "stop_times": [1847.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1838.791}, "reply_to": "20263__1_025", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_027", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Yes, but a person who says, I've looked here, there, and the other place, what's your conclusion, well, my conclusion is, there are no needles there in that haystack--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1847.215], "stop_times": [1854.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1847.215}, "reply_to": "20263__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__1_028", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "If I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1854.662], "stop_times": [1855.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1854.662}, "reply_to": "20263__1_027", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_029", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--and then it later turns out... I mean, I'm representing on the basis of that search I didn't find the needle.\nI didn't lie, didn't tell the truth.\nI told the truth.\nI didn't find it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1855.243, 1860.044, 1862.416, 1863.238], "stop_times": [1860.044, 1862.416, 1863.238, 1863.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1855.243}, "reply_to": "20263__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__1_030", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Again, Your Honor, in the discovery process, and I don't... am certainly not arguing with the Court in any way, but I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1863.728], "stop_times": [1872.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1863.728}, "reply_to": "20263__1_029", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_031", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "No, but I want you to point me to something that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1872.453], "stop_times": [1874.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1872.453}, "reply_to": "20263__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__1_032", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Well, the 30(b)(6) depositions that we take every day in litigation, if I take a company representative and he says, we don't have any documents of this description, and I have done the research I'm supposed to do, then I am entitled to go and conduct my search in other places and in other ways and to rely on that statement and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1874.206], "stop_times": [1894.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1874.206}, "reply_to": "20263__1_031", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_033", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Yes, but would you be entitled, many years after a judgment in that case, to bring an independent--\n--That's what... that's the--\n--action setting it aside on the basis of that sort of testimony?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1894.87, 1900.115, 1900.977], "stop_times": [1900.115, 1900.977, 1903.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1894.87}, "reply_to": "20263__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20263__1_034", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--It would depend upon the gravity of the representation I think, Your Honor, and also the... in this case I might add that you have individuals against the United States Government, and you have the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1903.786], "stop_times": [1916.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1903.786}, "reply_to": "20263__1_033", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_035", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "What does that amount... how does that differentiate from other cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1916.686], "stop_times": [1920.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1916.686}, "reply_to": "20263__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20263__1_036", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--We get to sophistication, Your Honor, not just of the parties... I know that a litigant has the responsibility to do what's necessary to present his claim, but when you're dealing with specialized documents that are kept in special places that even only a handful of experts, probably, in the country know how to thoroughly research, I do think that makes a difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1920.378], "stop_times": [1942.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1920.378}, "reply_to": "20263__1_035", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_037", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Well then, maybe you have to hire your own expert.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1942.544], "stop_times": [1944.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1942.544}, "reply_to": "20263__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20263__1_038", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Your Honor, and we did, and they came to the archives and did a search, as the Government did, without finding it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1944.253], "stop_times": [1949.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1944.253}, "reply_to": "20263__1_037", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_039", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Yes, but what is the source of authority to file your independent action in the district court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1949.939], "stop_times": [1959.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1949.939}, "reply_to": "20263__1_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20263__1_040", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "The... two sources of authority, Your Honor.\nOne is ancillary jurisdiction to reopen their initial action, as was discussed previously.\nThe Pacific Railroad... Railway--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1959.855, 1962.987, 1968.159], "stop_times": [1962.987, 1968.159, 1971.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1959.855}, "reply_to": "20263__1_039", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_041", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "You say you can come in and reopen the original quiet title action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1971.583], "stop_times": [1976.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1971.583}, "reply_to": "20263__1_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20263__1_042", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1976.635], "stop_times": [1977.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1976.635}, "reply_to": "20263__1_041", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_043", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Without any time limit on doing that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1977.436], "stop_times": [1979.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1977.436}, "reply_to": "20263__1_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20263__1_044", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "The limitation that's applicable to an independent action in equity is laches.\nLaches says that as long as a party is diligent in pursuing his rights and there's no prejudice to the other party in later litigating the issue because of the delay, then they will not be stopped by laches.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1979.888, 1984.09], "stop_times": [1984.09, 1997.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1979.888}, "reply_to": "20263__1_043", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_045", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Well, what does that do to Rule 60(b), which sets time limits, 1 year, setting aside a judgment for fraud?\nDo you think that just falls by the wayside because of your version of an independent action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [1997.769, 2004.804], "stop_times": [2004.804, 2010.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1997.769}, "reply_to": "20263__1_044", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20263__1_046", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "I think that there is... the very rule itself having listed those items in the first part of 60(b) that must be brought within a year and then saying, but this does not prevent someone from bringing an independent action, adopts the independent action as it existed so far as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2010.418], "stop_times": [2028.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2010.418}, "reply_to": "20263__1_045", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_047", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "But don't you agree that you have to read those provisions together so that each one of them make sense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2028.41], "stop_times": [2033.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2028.41}, "reply_to": "20263__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20263__1_048", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Of course, Your Honor, they do have to make sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2033.582], "stop_times": [2037.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2033.582}, "reply_to": "20263__1_047", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_049", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "And if the second part simply swallows the first part, do you think that lets the first part make sense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2037.516], "stop_times": [2042.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2037.516}, "reply_to": "20263__1_048", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20263__1_050", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "I disagree with your premise, Your Honor, that it swallows the first part.\nI believe in order to bring an independent action you've got to show the five elements to bring an independent action that are listed in the Banker's Mortgage case, and that there are more stringent requirements for bringing an independent action after the year has run than are required for bringing the other 60(b) motion within a year.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2042.759, 2047.702], "stop_times": [2047.702, 2070.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2042.759}, "reply_to": "20263__1_049", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_051", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "I think you could reconcile them if you reserve the independent action for particularly egregious frauds, of which my reading of the Dorasavage testimony would say yours is not one.\nYou would respond to my statement by telling me that there are cases that show that isn't so, so which case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2070.947, 2082.306], "stop_times": [2082.306, 2089.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2070.947}, "reply_to": "20263__1_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__1_052", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Your Honor, I can't specify a particular case that provides for that, but I do think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2089.289], "stop_times": [2095.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2089.289}, "reply_to": "20263__1_051", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_053", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Mr. Taylor, can an independent action be brought in a court other than the one that rendered the judgment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2095.112], "stop_times": [2099.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2095.112}, "reply_to": "20263__1_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20263__1_054", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--I... may I conclude my answer here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2099.456], "stop_times": [2103.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2099.456}, "reply_to": "20263__1_053", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_055", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--and if so, isn't that one big difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2103.529], "stop_times": [2103.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2103.529}, "reply_to": "20263__1_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20263__1_056", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--I believe I have concluded that, Justice Breyer is... yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2103.72], "stop_times": [2108.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2103.72}, "reply_to": "20263__1_055", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_057", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "If you're trying to find a difference between the two, 60(b) is what you use to reopen a judgment in the court that rendered it.\nThe independent action, unless I'm wrong about this, but as I recall, you could bring that any place, not the... you're not limited to the court that rendered the judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2108.004, 2114.108], "stop_times": [2114.108, 2125.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2108.004}, "reply_to": "20263__1_056", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20263__1_058", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2125.144], "stop_times": [2126.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2125.144}, "reply_to": "20263__1_057", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_059", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "So wouldn't that make sense, the difference between the two?\n60(b) you go to the court that entered the judgment, and if you have 60(b), then you can't end-run it, and 60(b) has a time limit for mistake, inadvertent surprise, excusable neglect... but the independent action is reserved for, you go to another court, and that court is not going to be any more giving, I assume, than 60(b) would be for the court that rendered the judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2126.684, 2129.255], "stop_times": [2129.255, 2159.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2126.684}, "reply_to": "20263__1_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20263__1_060", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Your Honor, it's curious to me that you can go either to a separate court or into the court that rendered the action, and I frankly do not understand why you may go into a circuit court as well as an original court.\nPresumably the original court is available, and I understand what you're saying, and that is that there is a distinction, because you can go into a separate court there, rather than filing... and filing a motion, you cannot.\nBut I suggest to the Court that the provisions for an independent action here preserve those equitable grounds that existed in the 19th Century, which was to give the court discretion to have some flexibility in setting aside a judgment when a wrong has been done, the party has been diligent that presented it, and that to weigh those equities and to make an adjustment, as all of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure preserved, as I understand it, those 19th Century and prior rights that litigants had.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2159.346, 2172.225, 2184.083], "stop_times": [2172.225, 2184.083, 2220.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2159.346}, "reply_to": "20263__1_059", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_061", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "I may not... I may have confused you in the way I put my question, but when you were doing research on this, you probably looked up a lot of cases that involved an independent action in equity--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2220.806], "stop_times": [2232.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2220.806}, "reply_to": "20263__1_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__1_062", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2232.804], "stop_times": [2233.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2232.804}, "reply_to": "20263__1_061", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_063", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--and involved fraud--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2233.875], "stop_times": [2234.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2233.875}, "reply_to": "20263__1_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__1_064", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2234.676], "stop_times": [2235.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2234.676}, "reply_to": "20263__1_063", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_065", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--or misrepresentation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2235.506], "stop_times": [2237.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2235.506}, "reply_to": "20263__1_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__1_066", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2237.158], "stop_times": [2237.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2237.158}, "reply_to": "20263__1_065", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_067", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Now, did you find a case where an independent action was permitted that involved a fraud or a misrepresentation, let us say as... I want to say as little or trivial... I don't mean to be pejorative, but as small as the one that seems to be at issue here, but nonetheless the court said, I know it was an inadvertent misrepresentation, I know it was somebody who was looking for a needle in a haystack, I know it isn't much of a fraud, but still you can bring your independent action?\nDid you find a case that you would like me to look at that would help you in that way?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2237.419, 2271.36], "stop_times": [2271.36, 2275.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2237.419}, "reply_to": "20263__1_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__1_068", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2275.413], "stop_times": [2276.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2275.413}, "reply_to": "20263__1_067", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_069", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "What was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2276.155], "stop_times": [2276.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2276.155}, "reply_to": "20263__1_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__1_070", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "West Virginia Oil & Gas v. Breece Lumber Company, cited in our brief.\nIt's a Fifth Circuit 1954 decision.\nIt's also cited by the Fifth Circuit in its opinion.\nThat case is one in which there was a mistake in regards to a description of land, and it became apparent that there was a mistake, but oil and gas had been discovered on the land in the meantime.\nThe party that was a beneficiary didn't want to agree to it and fought it on jurisdictional grounds.\nAs I recall, that action was brought 7 years after the original judgment was entered, and it was pure mistake, and the court reversed it and corrected that mistake.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2276.635, 2281.638, 2284.5, 2287.612, 2300.601, 2306.575], "stop_times": [2281.638, 2284.5, 2287.612, 2300.601, 2306.575, 2316.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2276.635}, "reply_to": "20263__1_069", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_071", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Mr. Taylor, on the question of finding the mistake, you said that your client was kind of lulled into a sense that there was nothing to be done because the United States had made a representation that there was nothing there, and yet there came a point in time when you were vigorously pursuing Freedom of Information Act, everything that you could.\nYou hired your own researcher.\nSo why did you shift from trusting the Government and saying, well, I'll accept their representation, and then you took their money... you were paid, what, 200,000 some odd dollars... and then there was a great flurry of activity, much investigation on your part.\nSo why... well, what made you suddenly get into this highly investigative mode when earlier you said, we relied on the United States?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2316.841, 2340.556, 2342.466, 2365.583], "stop_times": [2340.556, 2342.466, 2365.583, 2378.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2316.841}, "reply_to": "20263__1_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20263__1_072", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Your Honor, the intensity of the investigation slowed down some after the judgment was entered but did increase again, or did recontinue afterwards.\nThe critical point, I believe, so far as the inability to bring this action within 1 year, is that the Beggerlys had looked at archives all around, had hired an archivist to look, had looked in the National Archives, as a matter of fact, had not discovered the grant.\nAs they got to the very end, after they'd done this basic research, and they took the deposition of the Government representative, a man who supposedly knows how to find documents in the National Archives and other repositories.\nHe said there is no grant in the National Archives, and they had already done an initial look, and so they accepted him.\nThey pursued Freedom of Information Act requests after the judgment was entered.\nThey pursued other means to try to find this, but they didn't go back to the National Archives for some time, and the reason they did not go back there is because... based on this representation that it would be fruitless.\nFinally, as a last-ditch effort, they said okay, let's take one more look, and they hired this genealogist who went in and did intensive research over a period of several weeks and found the document.\nBut they were directed away from the National Archives as it got to the close of the litigation because of the Government's representation, because they had already deposed the Deputy of that office, who said there may be grants there.\nThey went in and did their own research and they deposed the ultimate authority, and he said you won't find them there, and so they ceased looking there until they had looked in all the other places possible.\nAnd then they went back and said, okay, let's take one last look here and see if we can find it, and they did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2378.26, 2389.479, 2408.07, 2421.049, 2428.924, 2432.947, 2444.074, 2457.442, 2469.57, 2482.739], "stop_times": [2389.479, 2408.07, 2421.049, 2428.924, 2432.947, 2444.074, 2457.442, 2469.57, 2482.739, 2488.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2378.26}, "reply_to": "20263__1_071", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_073", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Why was that deed, or... that grant, why was that dispositive?\nI mean, the Third Circuit said not only was it relevant, but it's so dispositive that we're going to give your client summary judgment?\nThe United States didn't have any chance to say, now, wait a minute, that deed doesn't do it, or that grant doesn't do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2488.433, 2493.355, 2503.843], "stop_times": [2493.355, 2503.843, 2510.258], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2488.433}, "reply_to": "20263__1_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20263__1_074", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Well, the point is the Government had tried to buy the Beggerly property for several years, and negotiated with them and made offers to buy it, fully recognized their title, with the exception of their ultimate determination that there was not a valid disposal out of the Federal Government.\nThere wasn't a valid patent or grant.\nThat was the only question, and once they found the Boudreau grant and it was apparent that it was a valid and binding grant on the record before the court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2510.258, 2527.69, 2529.039], "stop_times": [2527.69, 2529.039, 2537.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2510.258}, "reply_to": "20263__1_073", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_075", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "But why was it apparent?\nI know that Professor Baade provided this affidavit, but the Government didn't have a chance to question that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2537.384, 2539.097], "stop_times": [2539.097, 2545.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2537.384}, "reply_to": "20263__1_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20263__1_076", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--The Government did have an opportunity to question that, Your Honor.\nThey had opportunity in response to our summary judgment affidavit to challenge it.\nThey elected not to challenge it.\nThey elected to attack it purely on legal grounds, saying that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2545.451, 2549.502, 2554.147, 2555.746], "stop_times": [2549.502, 2554.147, 2555.746, 2558.869], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2545.451}, "reply_to": "20263__1_075", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_077", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "That was in the district court you're talking about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2558.869], "stop_times": [2560.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2558.869}, "reply_to": "20263__1_076", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20263__1_078", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, and of course the same thing in the Fifth Circuit, and I might add, the attack that's brought concerning Galvez' authority was brought for the first time in this Court, something we objected to.\nThe citation of the Power's Heirs case in that regard was brought for the first time in this Court, and let me deal with that, if I may, right here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2560.679, 2571.859], "stop_times": [2571.859, 2580.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2560.679}, "reply_to": "20263__1_077", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_079", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "But the district court denied you summary judgment, and that's what the court of appeals granted you, and that's what I don't understand.\nIf you say... the district court said, if it came to the merits, which it didn't because the district judge dismissed it on other grounds, but if it came to the merits, we don't give you summary judgment, faced with that same document, and the Fifth Circuit said, yes you do get summary judgment.\nThat I don't understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2580.274, 2586.477, 2603.858], "stop_times": [2586.477, 2603.858, 2605.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2580.274}, "reply_to": "20263__1_078", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20263__1_080", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Your Honor, it's because the issues that were presented to the district court and to the Fifth Circuit were purely legal issues.\nThe Government defended on the ground of jurisdiction.\nIt defended on the grounds of res judicata.\nIt attacked the judgment on legal grounds, whether or not it was valid because it had not been confirmed, and for that reason the record that was before the court did not indicate that the Government has any interest or any intention to pursue any factual attack here, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2605.76, 2613.365, 2616.979, 2618.949], "stop_times": [2613.365, 2616.979, 2618.949, 2639.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2605.76}, "reply_to": "20263__1_079", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_081", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Why on the factual attack... suppose... this is a question that's bothering me on the merits, which you probably want to get to, but I take it someone in the chain of title here, maybe your client, bought an interest for about $35, and it turns out to be worth, so far, $223,000 to your clients, so they've now gotten that money, I take it, as a result of the decree.\nNow, the thing I might be missing is, suppose I say you win.\nSuppose you win, and you win, but you don't necessarily get... I mean, I don't know whether this Governor had authority to grant the land to Mrs. Boudreau or not.\nHe might have just been an occupying force.\nSo suppose you go back to the district court and we now hear that out, and it turns out that the Governor was just an occupying Governor, just what they say.\nHe's an occupying force.\nThey didn't change the civil law.\nHe can't give any land grants under French law or whatever, and so you lose.\nWell, wouldn't your clients have to give back the $223,000?\nAre they all now prepared to put that at risk?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2639.071, 2659.845, 2664.08, 2674.064, 2675.944, 2685.251, 2686.212, 2687.962, 2692.347, 2696.19], "stop_times": [2659.845, 2664.08, 2674.064, 2675.944, 2685.251, 2686.212, 2687.962, 2692.347, 2696.19, 2698.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2639.071}, "reply_to": "20263__1_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__1_082", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2698.551], "stop_times": [2698.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2698.551}, "reply_to": "20263__1_081", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_083", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "How does this work?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2698.991], "stop_times": [2700.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2698.991}, "reply_to": "20263__1_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__1_084", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--That's an issue that could... would have to be dealt with in the district court, as to the nature of that payment and why it was paid and what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2700.001], "stop_times": [2706.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2700.001}, "reply_to": "20263__1_083", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_085", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Why wouldn't you have to give it back?\nIf it turns out... if it turns out that the Governor in fact did not have the authority to give Mrs. Boudreau the land, because he was just an occupying military force and didn't have civil authority over land grants, why don't you have to give back the $223,000 you already got for this because your client has no interest in this land?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2706.725, 2707.546], "stop_times": [2707.546, 2727.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2706.725}, "reply_to": "20263__1_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__1_086", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--The Government paid that money... and this is documented by the letter of Steve Herman, which is in the Joint Appendix, in order to settle the litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2727.87], "stop_times": [2737.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2727.87}, "reply_to": "20263__1_085", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_087", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "So if they had to settle the litigation, why didn't you have to settle the litigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2737.827], "stop_times": [2741.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2737.827}, "reply_to": "20263__1_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__1_088", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "And they made the choice not to... they made the representation that they were doing this for the purpose of resolving the litigation and not... I'm avoiding your question.\nI don't mean to.\nI'm going around the world to get there, Your Honor.\nThe point is, certainly the Government would have the right to present their claim in the litigation.\nFor whatever reason, they chose not to do so up to this point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2741.849, 2756.478, 2756.839, 2758.451, 2763.927], "stop_times": [2756.478, 2756.839, 2758.451, 2763.927, 2767.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2741.849}, "reply_to": "20263__1_087", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_089", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "But if we send it back and you win, wouldn't we have to say, you asked to reopen this, very well, it's reopened?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2767.867], "stop_times": [2775.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2767.867}, "reply_to": "20263__1_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__1_090", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "If we... I think that would be an issue the district court could take up, is whether or not they had the right to pursue repayment of that money, yes, sir.\nIf I may, I would like to address Power's Heirs.\nThat's the case the Government says controls the validity of the Boudreau grant, and there's a point that is raised in the brief that I think is controlling that says that in 1783... the Government, Dr. Baade, all of us agreed in 1783 a peace treaty was made between Britain and Spain.\nThat resolved all the issues between those two warring nations at that time as to this land.\nThat treaty, by principles of international law, and this is not disputed by counsel opposite, validated all prior actions that had been done by the Spanish Government during the time period of occupation.\nBecause of that, whatever, whoever may be right about the historic facts and when Galvez was given authority, clearly under principles of international law the validation that occurred by virtue of that treaty resolved any issues there.\nThe grant was valid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2775.064, 2783.502, 2788.954, 2813.171, 2819.784, 2835.975, 2852.595], "stop_times": [2783.502, 2788.954, 2813.171, 2819.784, 2835.975, 2852.595, 2854.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2775.064}, "reply_to": "20263__1_089", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_091", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Well now, you... is the proposition that you're now stating, is that consistent with the Power's Heirs decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2854.097], "stop_times": [2861.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2854.097}, "reply_to": "20263__1_090", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20263__1_092", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "The Power's Heirs decision did not reach that issue of law, Your Honor.\nIt said first that we've got questionable evidence that's been presented to us, and that it's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2861.911, 2866.984], "stop_times": [2866.984, 2872.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2861.911}, "reply_to": "20263__1_091", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_093", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "But I don't think you've answered the question I asked you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2872.477], "stop_times": [2875.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2872.477}, "reply_to": "20263__1_092", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20263__1_094", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2875.261], "stop_times": [2875.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2875.261}, "reply_to": "20263__1_093", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_095", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Which was, is the proposition that you're now maintaining consistent with the Power's Heirs decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2875.58], "stop_times": [2881.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2875.58}, "reply_to": "20263__1_094", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20263__1_096", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, I think it is consistent with the Power's Heirs decision.\nThis... if I may--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2881.255, 2884.656], "stop_times": [2884.656, 2886.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2881.255}, "reply_to": "20263__1_095", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_097", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2886.739], "stop_times": [2886.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2886.739}, "reply_to": "20263__1_096", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20263__1_098", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--The other point is, it's a point that was not presented in the Power's Heirs case.\nThis legal issue was not presented as to the effect of the treaty.\nThe controlling point, as I read Power's Heirs, Your Honor, is that the documentation that was presented to the court was incomplete.\nIt was from a secondary and questionable source, and the court questioned whether or not it had authentic, genuine evidence before it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2886.989, 2891.971, 2895.505, 2905.34], "stop_times": [2891.971, 2895.505, 2905.34, 2913.994], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2886.989}, "reply_to": "20263__1_097", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_099", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "And therefore your alleged predecessor in title did not have title.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2913.994], "stop_times": [2918.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2913.994}, "reply_to": "20263__1_098", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20263__1_100", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Well, but this was Power's Heirs, and that's a different document from the document we're dealing with, Your Honor.\nThat document was a separate notarial record of a different grant that had been made as to different islands.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2918.087, 2924.643], "stop_times": [2924.643, 2932.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2918.087}, "reply_to": "20263__1_099", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_101", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "No, but isn't the crucial point that the issue is the authority of the Governor to make the grant, and the grant in Power's and the grant in this case were made on the same day?\nIsn't that the point on which Power's is controlling?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2932.548, 2942.085], "stop_times": [2942.085, 2944.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2932.548}, "reply_to": "20263__1_100", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20263__1_102", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "They... the grants were made on the same day, Your Honor, but I believe a reading of the Power's Heirs case indicates that the court had questionable evidence before it as to whether or not there even was a grant--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2944.265], "stop_times": [2956.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2944.265}, "reply_to": "20263__1_101", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_103", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Maybe it did have questionable evidence--\n--But that--\n--but it's... I'm sorry.\nGo ahead.\nI was going to... regardless of what its evidence was, its conclusion was that the Governor could not make a grant on that day, and that is exactly the fact in... and the day is the same in your case, so I assume that Power's decided the issue upon which your claim rests.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2956.083, 2957.095, 2957.305, 2958.477, 2959.135], "stop_times": [2957.095, 2957.305, 2958.477, 2959.135, 2975.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2956.083}, "reply_to": "20263__1_102", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20263__1_104", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Well, the court did say that Galvez did not have authority to make that grant on that day.\nWe say that the court on the record very clearly says that we suppose and we presume, and used speculative language about what the history was to reach that conclusion.\nI believe, though, that the court was driven by the fact that it had questionable documentation before it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [2975.807, 2984.875, 2996.101], "stop_times": [2984.875, 2996.101, 3001.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2975.807}, "reply_to": "20263__1_103", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_105", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "But that... but the decision turned... or, at least, it concluded that Galvez didn't have the authority to make that grant, did it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3001.894], "stop_times": [3008.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3001.894}, "reply_to": "20263__1_104", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20263__1_106", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "It stated that in the opinion, Your Honor, no question about that.\nThat was stated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3008.75, 3012.401], "stop_times": [3012.401, 3013.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3008.75}, "reply_to": "20263__1_105", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_107", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Then it seems to me that the position you're maintaining isn't consistent with the decision in Power's Heirs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3013.312], "stop_times": [3020.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3013.312}, "reply_to": "20263__1_106", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20263__1_108", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Arguably not, Your Honor, but I think you can distinguish it in this manner, that there were other... I don't think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3020.567], "stop_times": [3029.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3020.567}, "reply_to": "20263__1_107", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_109", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Is this something we want to do in a case involving real property title, where I think the Solicitor General is right, that there stare decisis is regarded as the most... at its greatest peak?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3029.584], "stop_times": [3042.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3029.584}, "reply_to": "20263__1_108", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20263__1_110", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--I do not believe that this... the Court's affirmance of the Fifth Circuit ruling and therefore finding the validity of the Boudreau grant would do violence to titles, and the reason is, Your Honor, that this... we're talking about a period in the late 18th Century and the Government raises a specter that we'll have competing titles out there and that the Government may have titles based upon the Louisiana Purchase and authority it gained, which is in conflict with the Spanish titles.\nThat's not so, Your Honor, because adverse possession will have long since taken care of any issues.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3042.31, 3071.969], "stop_times": [3071.969, 3077.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3042.31}, "reply_to": "20263__1_109", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_111", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "But it still undermines the principle to say that this... it will just have a limited effect because other factors historically soon came into play.\nI don't think that really counsels in favor of being more lenient with stare decisis here, because the general proposition is that when you're dealing with real property titles you adhere most closely to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3077.633, 3086.358], "stop_times": [3086.358, 3099.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3077.633}, "reply_to": "20263__1_110", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20263__1_112", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "I understand that rule of law, Your Honor, and I understand the reason behind it, but I... my statement is, it is a matter of fact there will not be any conflict with any titles caused by ruling that the Boudreau grant was a valid grant, because adverse possession, whether it's the Government's title, and you've got a national forest, or museum, or whatever it may have on the land, adverse possession will clear up any problems with that, and if there's conflicting, theoretically conflicting private titles, adverse possession again would clean those up.\nClearly, the Beggerlys' title itself, they paid taxes for 32 years on this land, and in fact paid quite a bit more money than that initial tax payment, because the tax bills were going up over time.\nNobody was claiming against them.\nThe Government recognized their title itself and negotiated with them for several years and made offers to them to buy it.\nEven in the Raleigh Beggerly affidavit, the Government presented him with title opinions.\nIt said that the title was in the Beggerlys.\nSo I do not see any disruption of title, and I might add, Your Honor, that this Court has on more than one occasion reconsidered its interpretation of laws of foreign Governments as well as State Governments based on newly discovered evidence or the fact that the law in that sovereign area, country, has changed by a ruling of its ultimate authorities.\nI might add that Chief Justice Marshall, writing for the Court in the Percheman case in 1833, I believe it was, reversed his prior ruling... may I continue, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3099.198, 3132.8, 3145.007, 3150.012, 3156.877, 3161.439, 3163.79, 3190.899], "stop_times": [3132.8, 3145.007, 3150.012, 3156.877, 3161.439, 3163.79, 3190.899, 3204.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3099.198}, "reply_to": "20263__1_111", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_113", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "I think not.\nYour time has expired--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3204.519, 3205.84], "stop_times": [3205.84, 3206.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3204.519}, "reply_to": "20263__1_112", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20263__1_114", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "All right.\nThank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3206.962, 3207.162], "stop_times": [3207.162, 3207.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3206.962}, "reply_to": "20263__1_113", "speaker": "ernest_g_taylor_jr"}
{"id": "20263__1_115", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Mr. Taylor.\nMr. Wolfson, you have 3 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3207.413, 3207.914], "stop_times": [3207.914, 3210.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3207.413}, "reply_to": "20263__1_114", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20263__2_000", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nA few points.\nFirst, on the question of mistake on the West Virginia Oil & Gas decision that my colleague mentioned, first of all let me say we think that case was incorrectly decided.\nIt's an old Fifth Circuit case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3210.375, 3212.659, 3214.051, 3222.349], "stop_times": [3212.659, 3214.051, 3222.349, 3223.488], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3210.375}, "reply_to": "20263__1_115", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__2_001", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Well, and it also requires negligence on the part--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3223.488], "stop_times": [3225.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3223.488}, "reply_to": "20263__2_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20263__2_002", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3225.681], "stop_times": [3226.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3225.681}, "reply_to": "20263__2_001", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__2_003", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--the absence of negligence on the part of the moving party.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3226.069], "stop_times": [3228.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3226.069}, "reply_to": "20263__2_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20263__2_004", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Yes.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3228.412, 3228.552], "stop_times": [3228.552, 3228.592], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3228.412}, "reply_to": "20263__2_003", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__2_005", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Do you think we have the authority in this... based on the issues that are before us, to rule in your favor based on the fact that the misrepresentation is not sufficient to set aside the judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3228.592], "stop_times": [3241.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3228.592}, "reply_to": "20263__2_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20263__2_006", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--On the facts--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3241.602], "stop_times": [3246.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3241.602}, "reply_to": "20263__2_005", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__2_007", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Your brief asks that we remand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3246.525], "stop_times": [3247.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3246.525}, "reply_to": "20263__2_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20263__2_008", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Right.\nOn the... well... on the facts of this... I think that if... assume we're wrong on the first two questions presented and there is jurisdiction in the district court, I think that the case has to go back to the district court for a determination about the facts of this case, because the... once the dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction would be wiped out, then the case is no longer really in the court of appeals and the case should go back to the district court for further proceedings.\nThere--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3247.896, 3247.996, 3274.923], "stop_times": [3247.996, 3274.923, 3275.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3247.896}, "reply_to": "20263__2_007", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__2_009", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Was there a ruling on laches on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3275.244], "stop_times": [3277.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3275.244}, "reply_to": "20263__2_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20263__2_010", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3277.567], "stop_times": [3277.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3277.567}, "reply_to": "20263__2_009", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__2_011", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "--the independent action?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3277.787], "stop_times": [3278.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3277.787}, "reply_to": "20263__2_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20263__2_012", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Yes, there was, Your Honor.\nThe district court concluded that the respondents' independent... it recognized that there was a bar of... there could be a bar of laches, and it ruled that respondents' independent action was barred by laches.\nNow, the court of appeals just didn't really address that at all, and nonetheless, you know, held for the respondents.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3278.266, 3278.887, 3289.005], "stop_times": [3278.887, 3289.005, 3295.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3278.266}, "reply_to": "20263__2_011", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__2_013", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Can you go back to Justice Kennedy's question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3295.64], "stop_times": [3296.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3295.64}, "reply_to": "20263__2_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__2_014", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3296.709], "stop_times": [3296.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3296.709}, "reply_to": "20263__2_013", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__2_015", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "I was thinking, maybe if we're trying to reconcile independent action with the first part of the rule, you would do it by saying, independent action of those unusual egregious frauds, et cetera, but you say, if I thought that I couldn't say that here.\nWe'd have to send it back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3296.91, 3310.88], "stop_times": [3310.88, 3311.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3296.91}, "reply_to": "20263__2_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__2_016", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "On the facts of this case, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3311.788], "stop_times": [3313.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3311.788}, "reply_to": "20263__2_015", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__2_017", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "As to whether it is egregious?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3313.2], "stop_times": [3314.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3313.2}, "reply_to": "20263__2_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__2_018", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "As to whether it is egregious, and because the... it's the district court that is supposed to... it's the district court that's supposed to make an evaluation, and then when it looked at the case it said, you know, I don't find any evidence here of fraud or mistake that would warrant setting aside the judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3314.61], "stop_times": [3330.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3314.61}, "reply_to": "20263__2_017", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__2_019", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "But I mean, is... can we take certain facts... I mean, they have the record here.\nSuppose we look at their facts, which was testimony that was referred to, and said that doesn't rise to the level, or it does?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3330.141, 3332.402], "stop_times": [3332.402, 3338.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3330.141}, "reply_to": "20263__2_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20263__2_020", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Well, of course, we... I mean, I think if it went back to the district court, we would move for summary judgment, probably, on the grounds that there was no evidence of fraud or mistake on... and so on the merits the independent action should not go forward.\nI think the court... once... all that the court of appeals could have done was decide whether there was jurisdiction.\nA couple of points about the National Archives.\nI can't agree with the statement that the Government directed the respondents away from the National Archives.\nI understand that my colleague has relied on Dr. Dorasavage's deposition, but I think it is important that the whole of that deposition and also Mr. Knipfing's deposition did say that the Crawford Commission report is one standard source that we look to and it is in the National Archives, and we did bring the Boudreau grant specifically to the attention of the court.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3338.427, 3355.647, 3361.011, 3363.484, 3370.327, 3392.372], "stop_times": [3355.647, 3361.011, 3363.484, 3370.327, 3392.372, 3392.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3338.427}, "reply_to": "20263__2_019", "speaker": "paul_r_q_wolfson"}
{"id": "20263__2_021", "conversation_id": "20263", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Wolfson.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-731", "start_times": [3392.652, 3393.233], "stop_times": [3393.233, 3394.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3392.652}, "reply_to": "20263__2_020", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20065__0_000", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-1487, United States v. Hosep Krikor Bajakajian.\nMr. Gornstein.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [0.0, 9.356], "stop_times": [9.356, 11.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20065__0_001", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nRespondent was about to board a flight to Syria when a Customs inspector informed him that he was required to file a currency report if he was taking more than 10,000 dollars with him.\nRespondent claimed that he was taking less than 10,000 dollars and he therefore did not file a currency report.\nCustoms inspectors searched respondent and his possessions and found more than 350,000 dollars in cash.\nRespondent subsequently pleaded guilty to wilfully failing to file a currency report as he was about to transport more than 350,000 dollars outside this country.\nFor that offense, Congress has mandated forfeiture of the unreported currency.\nThe Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held, however, that the forfeiture of any of that currency would constitute an excessive fine.\nWe believe the court of appeals erred for two reasons.\nFirst, the unreported currency is an instrumentality of a reporting offense and may be forfeited as such without violating the Excessive Fines Clause, and second, even if it is not an instrumentality, its forfeiture is a permissible punishment for what is a serious criminal offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [11.389, 13.474, 23.615, 29.519, 37.673, 48.064, 53.717, 61.304, 64.156], "stop_times": [13.474, 23.615, 29.519, 37.673, 48.064, 53.717, 61.304, 64.156, 81.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 11.389}, "reply_to": "20065__0_000", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_002", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "On your first argument, if it's an instrumentality of the crime and we agree with you on that, does that mean the excessive fines analysis is just inapplicable, or that it is presumptively non... not excessive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [81.7], "stop_times": [94.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 81.7}, "reply_to": "20065__0_001", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20065__0_003", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "It is satisfied.\nThat is that it is not... it is a way of showing that the fine is nonexcessive because the forfeiture of property that is involved in the offense is an inherently proportional... proportionate sanction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [94.342, 95.342], "stop_times": [95.342, 107.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 94.342}, "reply_to": "20065__0_002", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_004", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "In other words, the Excessive Fines Clause analysis applies in either event.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [107.166], "stop_times": [111.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 107.166}, "reply_to": "20065__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20065__0_005", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "It does, but the manner of satisfying the Excessive Fines Clause is by showing that it is property that's seized... one way of satisfying it, it is showing that the property that is seized is in fact an instrumentality of the offense, and there... questions may arise about whether it has a sufficiently close connection to the offense to be classified properly as an instrumentality, but once it is, then that would satisfy the Excessive Fines Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [111.018], "stop_times": [139.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 111.018}, "reply_to": "20065__0_004", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_006", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Well, if we have to ask about excessiveness anyway, I'm just wondering why we have to go through the additional step of elaborating a big jurisprudence on what is an instrumentality and what isn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [139.121], "stop_times": [150.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 139.121}, "reply_to": "20065__0_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20065__0_007", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Well, historic--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [150.827], "stop_times": [151.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 150.827}, "reply_to": "20065__0_006", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_008", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "If in any event we're going to talk about proportionality, maybe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [151.345], "stop_times": [155.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 151.345}, "reply_to": "20065__0_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20065__0_009", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--No.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [155.13, 155.33], "stop_times": [155.33, 155.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 155.13}, "reply_to": "20065__0_008", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_010", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--we should just save ourselves a step.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [155.58], "stop_times": [156.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 155.58}, "reply_to": "20065__0_009", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20065__0_011", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--Well, there are just two different ways of talking about proportionality, Justice Kennedy.\nProportionality, it is inherently proportionate once it's an instrumentality.\nNo further inquiry into culpability or to the value of the property is ever necessary once there is a showing that this is in fact an instrumentality of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [156.997, 160.534, 165.169], "stop_times": [160.534, 165.169, 173.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 156.997}, "reply_to": "20065__0_010", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_012", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Well, you said it's presumptively proportional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [173.573], "stop_times": [175.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 173.573}, "reply_to": "20065__0_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20065__0_013", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--No.\nI'm saying that it is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [175.691, 175.925], "stop_times": [175.925, 177.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 175.691}, "reply_to": "20065__0_012", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_014", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "I thought.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [177.175], "stop_times": [178.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 177.175}, "reply_to": "20065__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20065__0_015", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--I'm sorry if I... if we had a misunderstanding on that, but generally speaking, if the... if it is an instrumentality, then it is per se nonexcessive, and I would except from that one small category of cases where perhaps the property is involved in what might be a minor infraction such as a parking violation, but if it is the kind of violations that property have historically been forfeited for customs violations, for criminal offenses, then if it is an instrumentality in the offense, then it is per se a proportionate fine and not an excessive one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [178.075], "stop_times": [214.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 178.075}, "reply_to": "20065__0_014", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_016", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "It seems a little odd, though, to equate excessiveness with just instrumentality as opposed to some examination of gross proportionality, or lack thereof.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [214.55], "stop_times": [227.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 214.55}, "reply_to": "20065__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20065__0_017", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Well, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [227.774], "stop_times": [228.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 227.774}, "reply_to": "20065__0_016", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_018", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "I mean, the mere term excessiveness seems to import some notion of proportionality to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [228.074], "stop_times": [234.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 228.074}, "reply_to": "20065__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20065__0_019", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--Well, I think the question is excessive in relation to what.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [234.845], "stop_times": [238.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 234.845}, "reply_to": "20065__0_018", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_020", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [238.165], "stop_times": [238.448], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 238.165}, "reply_to": "20065__0_019", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20065__0_021", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "That's right, and here I think that when some--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [238.448], "stop_times": [240.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 238.448}, "reply_to": "20065__0_020", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_022", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Maybe in relation to the criminal fine that could be imposed, or something like that.\nThat might be easy to look at.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [240.465, 245.335], "stop_times": [245.335, 247.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 240.465}, "reply_to": "20065__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20065__0_023", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--But I think that historically it was that if as long as it was in relationship to the offense, that the property was used in the offense, the seizure was not an excessive fine, because it has always been the case that this has been viewed as a reasonable way, seizure of property involved in the offense, a reasonable and effective way to encourage the owners of property to make sure that their property does not become involved in the offense.\nIt is not excessive in that sense.\nIt is perfectly commensurate with that goal, because it has always--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [247.371, 273.921, 275.905], "stop_times": [273.921, 275.905, 279.056], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 247.371}, "reply_to": "20065__0_022", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_024", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Well, I guess this Court has never really articulated the test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [279.056], "stop_times": [283.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 279.056}, "reply_to": "20065__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20065__0_025", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--It has not, and the two cases that this Court has had previously on the Excessive Fines Clause simply said that forfeiture was a fine, but in neither case did the Court set out the methodology for deciding whether the fine would be excessive.\nNow, our view is that there are really two ways to do it.\nFirst, if it's an instrumentality then it's not excessive, without more.\nBut second, if it isn't an instrumentality, then you would engage in the sort of inquiry that you would generally engage in if you had a monetary fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [283.277, 299.704, 303.608, 307.493], "stop_times": [299.704, 303.608, 307.493, 315.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 283.277}, "reply_to": "20065__0_024", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_026", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Well, what is the conclusion that you seek to help us to by saying that it's an instrumentality?\nWe have a purpose for these classifications.\nWhy is it that we're asking about an instrumentality, in order to show the close connection of the property to the crime itself?\nI mean, is that the object of the inquiry?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [315.999, 321.069, 323.771, 330.508], "stop_times": [321.069, 323.771, 330.508, 334.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 315.999}, "reply_to": "20065__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20065__0_027", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Yes.\nThe instrumentality is really just a shorthand expression for the kind of property that has historically been subject to forfeiture in rem because of the significant involvement of the property in the offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [334.127, 334.543], "stop_times": [334.543, 345.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 334.127}, "reply_to": "20065__0_026", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_028", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Ah, but--\n--This is not an in rem forfeiture here, is it?\nThis is not in rem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [345.482, 345.832, 346.998], "stop_times": [345.832, 346.998, 347.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 345.482}, "reply_to": "20065__0_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20065__0_029", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "It's not an in rem forfeiture, but the criminal provision here in addressing the kind of property that is subject to forfeiture singled out only property that is involved in the offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [347.815], "stop_times": [359.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 347.815}, "reply_to": "20065__0_028", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_030", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [359.24], "stop_times": [359.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 359.24}, "reply_to": "20065__0_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20065__0_031", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "And that is the shorthand expression for the kind of property that has historically been subject to in rem forfeiture, and we think by using that language Congress manifested its intent to further the general remedial goals that have always been associated with in rem forfeitures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [359.723], "stop_times": [375.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 359.723}, "reply_to": "20065__0_030", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_032", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Mr. Gornstein, in that connection I'm a little confused.\nWhat is the difference between criminal forfeiture and the civil in rem, because I had been I guess under the false impression that for civil forfeiture it could be an excessive fine to take the whole thing.\nI thought that was what Austin implied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [375.833, 378.951, 397.163], "stop_times": [378.951, 397.163, 400.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 375.833}, "reply_to": "20065__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20065__0_033", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "I think that the only thing that Austin held was that it was a fine, and then it did not decide how you would decide whether a fine was or was not excessive.\nNow, the property that was seized in Austin itself may have been so incidentally involved in the offense that it couldn't properly be characterized as an instrumentality of the offense, and if not, it could not be forfeited on an instrumentality theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [400.13, 409.72], "stop_times": [409.72, 424.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 400.13}, "reply_to": "20065__0_032", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_034", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Can you explain the difference... is there any significant difference between the in personam criminal and the in rem civil for this purpose of judging the proportionality or the... how much can be forfeited without being too much?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [424.563], "stop_times": [439.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 424.563}, "reply_to": "20065__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20065__0_035", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "For purposes of our first argument, that is, whether it is an instrumentality, there is no difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [439.24], "stop_times": [444.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 439.24}, "reply_to": "20065__0_034", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_036", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "No difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [444.659], "stop_times": [445.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 444.659}, "reply_to": "20065__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20065__0_037", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "But for the purpose of our second argument, if you disagree with us on the first one, there is a difference, because the criminal forfeiture embodies the additional purpose of punishing the criminal defendant, whereas, to the extent that punishment is involved in civil in rem, it is punishment only of the owner.\nNow, here the criminal defendant can be both the criminal defendant and the owner, and he can be punished in both ways in a criminal proceeding, but in a civil in rem proceeding the only person that is being punished, if anyone is being punished, is the owner of the property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [445.093, 463.938], "stop_times": [463.938, 478.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 445.093}, "reply_to": "20065__0_036", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_038", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Mr. Gorn--\n--But as far as your instrumentality, it's identical.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [478.281, 478.931], "stop_times": [478.931, 480.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 478.281}, "reply_to": "20065__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20065__0_039", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "It would be the same exact analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [480.649], "stop_times": [483.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 480.649}, "reply_to": "20065__0_038", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_040", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Mr. Gornstein, do the old cases on forfeiture of undutied cargos refer to the forfeited goods as being instrumentalities, or have we simply applied that term as a term of art?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [483.315], "stop_times": [497.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 483.315}, "reply_to": "20065__0_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20065__0_041", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "The latter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [497.842], "stop_times": [498.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 497.842}, "reply_to": "20065__0_040", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_042", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "The latter, okay.\nWhen did that develop?\nI mean, it's an odd usage, and I just like to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [498.361, 499.461, 500.711], "stop_times": [499.461, 500.711, 502.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 498.361}, "reply_to": "20065__0_041", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20065__0_043", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [502.711], "stop_times": [502.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 502.711}, "reply_to": "20065__0_042", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_044", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--understand why we use those.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [502.977], "stop_times": [503.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 502.977}, "reply_to": "20065__0_043", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20065__0_045", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "And I wish I had a full explanation for this, but I would say one of the sources of it was Justice Scalia's concurring opinion in Austin, and I think a lot of the courts which use the phrase instrumentality to describe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [503.81], "stop_times": [515.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 503.81}, "reply_to": "20065__0_044", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_046", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Quite recent law?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [515.701], "stop_times": [517.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 515.701}, "reply_to": "20065__0_045", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20065__0_047", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--Quite recent, yeah, that used the phrase instrumentality to describe the kind of property that has a sufficiently close connection to the offense and that could historically be subject to forfeiture.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [517.701], "stop_times": [527.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 517.701}, "reply_to": "20065__0_046", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_048", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Your... I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [527.925], "stop_times": [529.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 527.925}, "reply_to": "20065__0_047", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20065__0_049", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "And a lot of the court of appeals that have struggled with this question since then have picked up on that phrase, and it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [529.125], "stop_times": [534.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 529.125}, "reply_to": "20065__0_048", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_050", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Going back to Justice Kennedy's question, we could simply stop using the word instrumentality here and consider the argument that the analogy is so close between the undisclosed currency here and the undutied property in the old in rem cases, that that would the basis for your--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [534.829], "stop_times": [553.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 534.829}, "reply_to": "20065__0_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20065__0_051", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--You absolutely could.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [553.974], "stop_times": [554.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 553.974}, "reply_to": "20065__0_050", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_052", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--without getting into this metaphysics.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [554.742], "stop_times": [556.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 554.742}, "reply_to": "20065__0_051", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20065__0_053", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "You do not have to get into an elaborate discussion of what is and is not an instrumentality in this case.\nYou can decide this case based on its relationship to the early customs cases, and in the early customs cases, property was brought into the country without declaration it was subject to forfeiture.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [556.042, 562.58], "stop_times": [562.58, 574.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 556.042}, "reply_to": "20065__0_052", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_054", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "That isn't quite... I mean, the underlying issue, I think, which is possibly a point of agreement or disagreement with Judge Wallace, is that your view is, if something is an instrumentality, no matter how valuable, it is forfeitable if it's involved in a crime, no matter how trivial, with the exception of parking offenses.\nAll right.\nSo that means that the Constitution would permit, in your view, the Taj Mahal, for example, to be forfeited if it was once used to sell a teaspoonful of marijuana or something like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [574.269, 596.234, 596.801], "stop_times": [596.234, 596.801, 608.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 574.269}, "reply_to": "20065__0_053", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20065__0_055", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "I think not, because again that's a... that historically has not been a way in which forfeiture law has been used.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [608.359], "stop_times": [612.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 608.359}, "reply_to": "20065__0_054", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_056", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Ah.\nWell, now wait, then.\nThat's interesting, because that's what I was trying to drive at.\nI thought your initial view was what I said, and now you have a limitation on that initial view, and you say it only applies where?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [612.929, 613.113, 614.079, 616.881], "stop_times": [613.113, 614.079, 616.881, 624.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 612.929}, "reply_to": "20065__0_055", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20065__0_057", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Well, I think in your example that... the question would be whether that was an instrumentality of the offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [624.469], "stop_times": [628.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 624.469}, "reply_to": "20065__0_056", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_058", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Oh, no, no, I'm assuming it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [628.671], "stop_times": [629.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 628.671}, "reply_to": "20065__0_057", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20065__0_059", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "No, but what I'm saying is, that's the inquiry, and what I would say is in that case the relationship of the property to the offense is so minor and incidental that it was never--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [629.687], "stop_times": [638.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 629.687}, "reply_to": "20065__0_058", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_060", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Let me make an example with the hypothetical where it is not minor and incidental.\nPeople are called to the Taj Mahal deliberately in order to sell them the teaspoon of marijuana.\nYou know, it's easy to do that, and I'm trying to get at the underlying point.\nIs the underlying point correct, without limitation, no matter how valuable the property, it is forfeitable if used to commit a crime, no matter how trivial, and my difficulty, of course, if it's without limitation, is how one would reconcile that with the excessive... what seems to be a prohibition of excessive fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [638.11, 643.097, 648.934, 652.202], "stop_times": [643.097, 648.934, 652.202, 672.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 638.11}, "reply_to": "20065__0_059", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20065__0_061", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--And I think that the... you start with the history of the early customs statutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [672.616], "stop_times": [677.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 672.616}, "reply_to": "20065__0_060", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_062", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Do I have it right, what your position is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [677.335], "stop_times": [678.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 677.335}, "reply_to": "20065__0_061", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20065__0_063", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Well, I... with the provisos that I said, that there are two inquiries that have to be made.\nThe first is that it is sufficiently involved in the offense to be treated as an instrumentality, and if you're running a business out of the Taj Mahal, yes, that certainly could be forfeited.\nIf there's one transaction that takes place there, even on a single day, maybe or maybe not, but at some point yes, if you're running a business out of the Taj Mahal and selling drugs out of there, that would be an instrumentality and could be forfeited as such.\nNow, the reason that... there are two powerful reasons, it seems to us, why instrumentality forfeitures satisfy the Excessive Fines Clause, and the first is history.\nIf you look at the early forfeiture laws, they require forfeiture of goods brought into this country without declaration regardless of how valuable those goods were.\nIt could have been priceless jewelry or ordinary gems.\nIf those goods were brought into the country without declaration, they were subject to forfeiture as such.\nThis is the very same First Congress that proposed the Excessive Fines Clause, so I think we have to start with the understanding that that Congress did not view that kind of forfeiture as excessive.\nWe know from Austin that the Congress viewed it as a fine, so the only thing that we can understand from that Congress' action is that they must have thought that that kind of forfeiture was not excessive because of the relationship of the property in the offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [678.604, 683.222, 692.629, 704.754, 714.943, 724.835, 728.119, 733.69, 745.914], "stop_times": [683.222, 692.629, 704.754, 714.943, 724.835, 728.119, 733.69, 745.914, 760.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 678.604}, "reply_to": "20065__0_062", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_064", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "The argument made against that is that in the case of goods brought into the country illegally in that manner it's not only an instrumentality of a crime, the goods themselves are contraband.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [760.222], "stop_times": [773.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 760.222}, "reply_to": "20065__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20065__0_065", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [773.196], "stop_times": [773.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 773.196}, "reply_to": "20065__0_064", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_066", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "They have no business being in the country.\nThey are unlawfully here.\nYou could distinguish those cases on that basis, couldn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [773.48, 775.832, 778.017], "stop_times": [775.832, 778.017, 781.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 773.48}, "reply_to": "20065__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20065__0_067", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--Justice Scalia, I don't think that is a fair characterization, because contraband as we understand it is something that is unlawful to possess.\nThe goods that were being brought into the country to sell were perfectly legal to sell as long as the appropriate duties were paid on them, and the fact that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [781.218, 788.372], "stop_times": [788.372, 797.995], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 781.218}, "reply_to": "20065__0_066", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_068", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Yes, but it's as long as, but if it's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [797.995], "stop_times": [799.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 797.995}, "reply_to": "20065__0_067", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20065__0_069", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--Here it's perfectly legal to take money out of the country and transport it out of the country, but only as long as you make the report, and so it has the exact same relationship to the offense as the traditional... the goods in a customs offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [799.578], "stop_times": [814.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 799.578}, "reply_to": "20065__0_068", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_070", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--Well, why don't you use the term contraband, rather than instrumentality, then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [814.255], "stop_times": [818.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 814.255}, "reply_to": "20065__0_069", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20065__0_071", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Justice Stevens, I would be happy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [818.04], "stop_times": [819.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 818.04}, "reply_to": "20065__0_070", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_072", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Then you'd be in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [819.807], "stop_times": [820.409], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 819.807}, "reply_to": "20065__0_071", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20065__0_073", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--I would be happy to decide this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [820.409], "stop_times": [821.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 820.409}, "reply_to": "20065__0_072", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_074", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--You'll take an opinion written that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [821.992], "stop_times": [823.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 821.992}, "reply_to": "20065__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20065__0_075", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--If you want to use the word contraband to describe this kind of property, that is fine with us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [823.309], "stop_times": [827.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 823.309}, "reply_to": "20065__0_074", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_076", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "No, but I'm just wondering why you didn't argue it in those terms.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [827.229], "stop_times": [829.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 827.229}, "reply_to": "20065__0_075", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20065__0_077", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "The reason that we did not argue it in those terms is that we understood the term contraband to mean property that is unlawful to possess, like--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [829.515], "stop_times": [839.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 829.515}, "reply_to": "20065__0_076", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_078", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Like drugs, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [839.787], "stop_times": [840.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 839.787}, "reply_to": "20065__0_077", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20065__0_079", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--Like drugs, that's right, that are... that sort of uniformly, with rare exceptions, unlawful to possess, not property that is legitimate to possess, but is used in the commission of the offense.\nNow, I say... having said that, this is a peculiar kind of property instrumentality that looks like contraband and could be called the corpus of the offense, and if you want to decide the case on that basis by saying you can always forfeit the corpus of the offense because that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [840.421, 851.344], "stop_times": [851.344, 867.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 840.421}, "reply_to": "20065__0_078", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_080", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--I don't think we need another phrase.\n[Laughter]\nBut Mr. Gornstein, maybe we need two, because I take it on your theory nothing rides on whether these are ill-gotten gains, that is, not possessed lawfully, and are going to be devoted to an unlawful purpose, money laundering, and whether, as at least we must take this case, the possessor had a lawful right to possess and was going to use the money toward lawful ends.\nSo do I understand your position right that, for purposes of the amount of the forfeiture and the excessive fines, it doesn't make any difference whether the funds were possessed totally lawfully or they were, indeed, ill-gotten gains?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [867.89, 869.723, 871.592, 899.759], "stop_times": [869.723, 871.592, 899.759, 915.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 867.89}, "reply_to": "20065__0_079", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20065__0_081", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--That's correct.\nAs long as they were used in the commission of this offense, they are subject to forfeiture, and it is not excessive, in the same way that property imported into this country that is lawfully possessed and intended for a lawful purpose, to sell it, is also subject to forfeiture.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [915.352, 916.518], "stop_times": [916.518, 931.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 915.352}, "reply_to": "20065__0_080", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_082", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "May I ask, then, in that line, that... you've been candid about it, that it doesn't matter that it's... that the money is possessed legally, the crime is the failure to report.\nThe hypothetical that I think was given in one of the briefs is, suppose Congress decided to say that failure to report income, that the consequence of that will not be just the ordinary fines that they're... that are now in place, but that for failure to report you forfeit whatever amount you fail to report.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [931.545, 940.567], "stop_times": [940.567, 961.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 931.545}, "reply_to": "20065__0_081", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20065__0_083", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Yes.\nWe view that question as not being one of... we view the earned income as not being an instrumentality of that offense.\nThere has been no historical tradition of treating earned income as an instrumentality of a failure to file an income tax return, and the relationship is different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [961.813, 962.096, 968.717], "stop_times": [962.096, 968.717, 979.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 961.813}, "reply_to": "20065__0_082", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_084", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Yes, but what's the historical precedent for treating undisclosed money in the same way that you're--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [979.525], "stop_times": [985.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 979.525}, "reply_to": "20065__0_083", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20065__0_085", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Well, it is the very property that moves across the border without proper declaration.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [985.595], "stop_times": [990.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 985.595}, "reply_to": "20065__0_084", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_086", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--Yes, but your criterion in response to Justice Ginsburg was historical tradition, and there's no historical tradition drawing the analogy that you want us to draw.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [990.047], "stop_times": [999.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 990.047}, "reply_to": "20065__0_085", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20065__0_087", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Well, I... in addition to there being no historical tradition, though, the relationship to the offense in that case is different, because earning income is a condition of having a duty to report, but the money is not physically used in the commission of the offense as it is here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [999.237], "stop_times": [1014.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 999.237}, "reply_to": "20065__0_086", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_088", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "But the Government's interest is even stronger, because the Government's interest is not only an interest in having reports, it's an interest in collecting the taxes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1014.679], "stop_times": [1023.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1014.679}, "reply_to": "20065__0_087", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20065__0_089", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "And that's right, and that's why it may or may not be an excessive fine based on the value of the fine as against the gravity of the offense.\nYou would turn to that analysis.\nWe're not saying that if there's... a property is not an instrumentality it can't be forfeited.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1023.97, 1031.208, 1032.66], "stop_times": [1031.208, 1032.66, 1037.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1023.97}, "reply_to": "20065__0_088", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_090", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "No, but if instrumentality is to be determined on the basis of some kind of sufficient relationship to the crime, then I would suppose there was a pretty good argument for treating the undisclosed income as an instrumentality.\nYou can't commit the crime unless you have the income, and therefore it's hard for me to understand why, if you're going to treat the undisclosed exported money as an instrumentality without the benefit of a historical example, and you're going to treat... and you're going to define instrumentality as this close relationship, it's hard to see why you don't fall, it seems to me, into exactly the position that Justice Ginsburg suggests, that if we take your position, then we are, in fact, opening the door to exactly the total forfeiture of any undisclosed income subject to tax.\nWhy will that not be the conclusion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1037.944, 1051.086, 1088.711], "stop_times": [1051.086, 1088.711, 1091.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1037.944}, "reply_to": "20065__0_089", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20065__0_091", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Justice Souter, the historical analogy is much more complete in the case of currency, and the reason is that what the currency is doing, it is being physically transported across the border without declaration.\nIt is actually physically... the money is there, and it is being moved, and that is part of the offense of transporting money outside this country without proper declaration just like the traditional customs law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1091.58, 1108.957], "stop_times": [1108.957, 1121.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1091.58}, "reply_to": "20065__0_090", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_092", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "But isn't it possible the report could be made the day after they arrived abroad?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1121.932], "stop_times": [1125.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1121.932}, "reply_to": "20065__0_091", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20065__0_093", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "It is, but the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1125.801], "stop_times": [1126.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1125.801}, "reply_to": "20065__0_092", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_094", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Then the offense--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1126.634], "stop_times": [1127.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1126.634}, "reply_to": "20065__0_093", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20065__0_095", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--The offense is still... part of the offense is physically transporting the money across the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1127.384], "stop_times": [1132.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1127.384}, "reply_to": "20065__0_094", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_096", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--What I'm saying is, every transportation of money across the border without reporting does not necessarily violate the statute if within 24 hours or so he files a report.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1132.352], "stop_times": [1141.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1132.352}, "reply_to": "20065__0_095", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20065__0_097", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--Actually, on the receiving end that would be true.\nOn the export end--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1141.644, 1143.81], "stop_times": [1143.81, 1146.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1141.644}, "reply_to": "20065__0_096", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_098", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "So either way--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1146.346], "stop_times": [1146.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1146.346}, "reply_to": "20065__0_097", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20065__0_099", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--you have to file the report--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1146.779], "stop_times": [1148.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1146.779}, "reply_to": "20065__0_098", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_100", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--Either way, the... if it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1148.297], "stop_times": [1149.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1148.297}, "reply_to": "20065__0_099", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20065__0_101", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--But--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1149.697], "stop_times": [1150.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1149.697}, "reply_to": "20065__0_100", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_102", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--If it doesn't have to be absolutely simultaneous, I'm not sure your analogy follows.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1150.03], "stop_times": [1154.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1150.03}, "reply_to": "20065__0_101", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20065__0_103", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--I... it seems to me that the analogy is still complete, because the money itself is... part of the offense is physically moving the money across the border, and the money is immediately and directly involved in the offense in the way that earned income is not, which it's just earned over a period of time, and then in a calendar year you report on your income and tax--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1154.301], "stop_times": [1175.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1154.301}, "reply_to": "20065__0_102", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_104", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "But under the income tax you've got to make your report on such-and-such a day, whenever the return is due.\nWhat if this statute said you've got to make your report on the same day you file your income tax return at a later--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1175.964, 1179.432], "stop_times": [1179.432, 1185.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1175.964}, "reply_to": "20065__0_103", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20065__0_105", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--I don't think that that makes a difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1185.419], "stop_times": [1187.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1185.419}, "reply_to": "20065__0_104", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_106", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--It wouldn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1187.236], "stop_times": [1187.686], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1187.236}, "reply_to": "20065__0_105", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20065__0_107", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "I don't think that that makes a difference, and part... and one of... to go back to a question about, that this does not apply even when it is legitimate, found to be legitimate and intended for a lawful purpose, the reason that Congress imposed very serious penalties despite that is that there are many, many cases in which it is impossible for the Government to know at the moment of seizure whether or not property is intended for particular unlawful purposes like tax evasion, for like, money laundering, like large-scale drug-dealing.\nAnd if it were the case that persons bent on those purposes knew that unless the Government knew at the moment of seizure that they were planning to export that money for those purposes, they would... that the money would be free and clear, they would have far less incentive to comply with the reporting requirements in the first place, and that would resurrect the very state of affairs that Congress faced when it enacted this law where--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1187.686, 1219.14], "stop_times": [1219.14, 1244.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1187.686}, "reply_to": "20065__0_106", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_108", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--Well, Mr. Gornstein, suppose we don't share your enthusiasm for the instrumentality approach, and suppose that we're more interested in proportionality, then what factors should guide us?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1244.458], "stop_times": [1258.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1244.458}, "reply_to": "20065__0_107", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20065__0_109", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--The... this Court has set out in two areas the kind of approach that it uses when... to measure excessiveness in both the area of punitive damages and the area of cruel and unusual punishment, and the guiding factors, it seems to us, can be drawn from those opinions, but first of all you would have to say that the offense has to be, in terms of value... I'm sorry, the penalty in terms of value has to be grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense.\nSecond, you would always have to give deference--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1258.782, 1287.868], "stop_times": [1287.868, 1290.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1258.782}, "reply_to": "20065__0_108", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_110", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "So here... let's talk about it in terms of specifics.\nHere the maximum fine was what, 250,000?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1290.487, 1292.939], "stop_times": [1292.939, 1296.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1290.487}, "reply_to": "20065__0_109", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20065__0_111", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--It was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1296.307], "stop_times": [1296.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1296.307}, "reply_to": "20065__0_110", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_112", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "And the total amount seized was 300-some thousand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1296.723], "stop_times": [1300.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1296.723}, "reply_to": "20065__0_111", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20065__0_113", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "350-plus.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1300.175], "stop_times": [1301.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1300.175}, "reply_to": "20065__0_112", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_114", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "And you'd say that was proportional.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1301.575], "stop_times": [1303.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1301.575}, "reply_to": "20065__0_113", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20065__0_115", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "It certainly is proportional, but I think that, Justice O'Connor, it's certainly one barometer of proportionality to look to the fine that's imposed, but it's not the only one, or even the most important one.\nWe would suggest that in measuring the seriousness of an offense you look first to the measure that this Court has always used as the best indicator of how seriously Congress regards an offense, and that's the maximum period of incarceration, which here is 5 years' imprisonment without any aggravating factors at all, and it's 10 years' imprisonment if the money is involved in other offenses, and from that you know that Congress regarded this as a very serious offense, and when you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1303.877, 1317.035], "stop_times": [1317.035, 1348.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1303.877}, "reply_to": "20065__0_114", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_116", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "In a way it's delightfully proportional, isn't it?\nWhat is the minimum, 10,000?\nIs that where it starts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1348.406, 1350.922, 1352.688], "stop_times": [1350.922, 1352.688, 1353.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1348.406}, "reply_to": "20065__0_115", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20065__0_117", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--It does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1353.874], "stop_times": [1354.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1353.874}, "reply_to": "20065__0_116", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_118", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "So if you take out just 10,000, that's surely less of an offense than taking out 300,000, and if you take out only 10, it's a relatively small offense, you forfeit only 10.\nIf you take out 300,000, you forfeit 300,000.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1354.39, 1365.762], "stop_times": [1365.762, 1368.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1354.39}, "reply_to": "20065__0_117", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20065__0_119", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "In that case, in that sense this law has a feature of almost perfect proportionality in that sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1368.531], "stop_times": [1375.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1368.531}, "reply_to": "20065__0_118", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_120", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "I am concerned about this, though.\nYou're appealing in your argument on instrumentality to a doctrine which focuses on the use of the money in the offense, but in fact, what if this money didn't belong to this individual?\nWhat if it belonged to somebody else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1375.053, 1378.421, 1391.896], "stop_times": [1378.421, 1391.896, 1393.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1375.053}, "reply_to": "20065__0_119", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20065__0_121", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "It could not be forfeited in a criminal proceeding, but it could be forfeited in a civil in rem proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1393.348], "stop_times": [1399.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1393.348}, "reply_to": "20065__0_120", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_122", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "To go back to proportionality for a second--\n--Well, can I just finish?\nI mean, we're talking about the criminal one here, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1399.335, 1401.518, 1403.137], "stop_times": [1401.518, 1403.137, 1405.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1399.335}, "reply_to": "20065__0_121", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20065__0_123", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "It could not be forfeited... you can only forfeit the defendant's property in a criminal proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1405.322], "stop_times": [1409.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1405.322}, "reply_to": "20065__0_122", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_124", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "But is it not possible that the Government has to be logical?\nIf it is indeed imposing the kind of a penalty that it did in customs violations, if it's moving against the instrumentality, so to speak, it has to move against the instrumentality, no matter whom it belongs to.\nBut what it says in this statute is, if it belongs to the person who's taking it out of the country we're going to move against it, but if it doesn't belong to him, we're not going to move against it.\nNow, might there not be some requirement that it be using that mode of punishment, moving against the property?\nWe're not really doing that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1409.774, 1413.243, 1426.569, 1434.139, 1442.512], "stop_times": [1413.243, 1426.569, 1434.139, 1442.512, 1443.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1409.774}, "reply_to": "20065__0_123", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20065__0_125", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Justice Scalia, I don't see what in the Constitution would require Congress to do that.\nIt seems to me it makes no sense constitutionally to say, if we had convicted this defendant and then filed an in rem proceeding it would be per se nonexcessive to take the property, but if we add it as a feature of a sentence in which the defendants is the property owner and we've taken it from him, that it's somehow possibly an excessive fine, that Congress can try to accomplish more than one aim at a time, it can try to punish a criminal defendant and at the same time serve the long... the general goals of in rem forfeiture in that proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1443.614, 1448.916], "stop_times": [1448.916, 1481.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1443.614}, "reply_to": "20065__0_124", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_126", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "May I ask, does culpability have anything to do with it?\nThere's two parts to that question.\nOne, is it relevant at all that this fellow told a number of falsehoods.\nSecondly, is it relative at all, relevant at all that the money was acquired lawfully and not being laundered?\nAre those two facts relevant or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1481.989, 1484.522, 1486.441, 1490.076, 1497.063], "stop_times": [1484.522, 1486.441, 1490.076, 1497.063, 1498.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1481.989}, "reply_to": "20065__0_125", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20065__0_127", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Those two facts are not relevant, because what you are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1498.932], "stop_times": [1502.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1498.932}, "reply_to": "20065__0_126", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_128", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "But you stressed the falsehoods in your brief.\nYou did put quite an emphasis on them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1502.05, 1503.3], "stop_times": [1503.3, 1505.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1502.05}, "reply_to": "20065__0_127", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20065__0_129", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--Justice Stevens, there is always the possibility that you would disagree with us that the offense itself was what you looked at, which is what we think is the proper analysis, and that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1505.752], "stop_times": [1516.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1505.752}, "reply_to": "20065__0_128", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_130", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Well, but... sorry.\nFinish, please.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1516.275, 1517.31], "stop_times": [1517.31, 1518.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1516.275}, "reply_to": "20065__0_129", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20065__0_131", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--I'm... and so it would... we went on, then, to address the particulars of this case on the theory that we've lost our first argument that you don't look at those things.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1518.06], "stop_times": [1527.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1518.06}, "reply_to": "20065__0_130", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_132", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "On proportionality, just to follow up on this very question, the kinds of things that I used to look at on the Sentencing Commission and so forth, first you would look at the conduct, and for the worst conduct you'd get a higher sentence, and the second thing that you'd look at would be the harm done, and the more the harm done, the higher the sentence.\nSo 10,000 dollars to 350,000 is proportionate if, and only if, the 350,000 dollars means more harm than the 10,000, and the argument that it doesn't is, it doesn't here because what Congress is trying to stop is money laundering, drugs, a whole host of unlawful things, and here the judge agrees it's nothing to do with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1527.165, 1544.441], "stop_times": [1544.441, 1563.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1527.165}, "reply_to": "20065__0_131", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20065__0_133", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "But--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1563.421], "stop_times": [1563.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1563.421}, "reply_to": "20065__0_132", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_134", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "So there was no... what his argument is that there's no harm in this case that's proportionate, and the culpability, of course, is the same whether you're taking the 10 or the 350.\nNow, that, I think, is the argument this is disproportionate, so I'd like you to address it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1563.721, 1572.877], "stop_times": [1572.877, 1576.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1563.721}, "reply_to": "20065__0_133", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20065__0_135", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--Well, there's two points to that.\nThe first is that the money is still dangerous.\nThere is a dangerous--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1576.829, 1578.645, 1580.714], "stop_times": [1578.645, 1580.714, 1581.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1576.829}, "reply_to": "20065__0_134", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_136", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Yes, of course it is, but it's not... is it 30, 350 or 35 times as dangerous?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1581.983], "stop_times": [1587.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1581.983}, "reply_to": "20065__0_135", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20065__0_137", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--I think that what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1587.035], "stop_times": [1587.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1587.035}, "reply_to": "20065__0_136", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_138", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Why, if it's just going to somebody in Armenia who happened to lend him some money?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1587.518], "stop_times": [1590.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1587.518}, "reply_to": "20065__0_137", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20065__0_139", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--No.\nWhat I'm saying is that at the moment of seizure Congress has said we realize that you're not going to know for sure where this money is headed for.\nWe're going to treat it all as if it's dangerous.\nAnd then the only place where Congress said, okay, if it's shown to involve in other offenses we're going to take account of that, is by increasing the maximum authorized sentence from 5 years to 10 years, so up to 5 years' imprisonment, a mandatory forfeiture, 250,000 dollar fine.\nCongress said, all of this money that is unreported and is more than 10,000 dollars, this is dangerous money.\nWe have a dangerous situation on our hand, and we cannot be sure that at the moment of seizure anybody is going to know about that, and in order to get the right level of deterrence, we are going to have mandatory forfeiture.\nEverybody is going to have to report, and if you do not... regardless of what your purposes are, and if... if you do not report, the money is going to be forfeited.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1590.755, 1591.189, 1599.509, 1602.342, 1618.804, 1624.624, 1636.598], "stop_times": [1591.189, 1599.509, 1602.342, 1618.804, 1624.624, 1636.598, 1646.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1590.755}, "reply_to": "20065__0_138", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_140", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Mr. Gornstein, I had always thought that we approach this question of excessive fines on the basis of the statute and not the particulars of the individual case.\nLet's say a statute that provides for a fine of anywhere from 10 dollars to 500,000 dollars, is it your understanding that we would look at the individual case and the individual fine actually assessed and see how wicked was the person against whom the fine was assessed?\nDid he lie, did he do this, that or the other thing?\nCan it be adjudged just by looking at the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1646.204, 1656.326, 1673.187, 1675.171], "stop_times": [1656.326, 1673.187, 1675.171, 1677.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1646.204}, "reply_to": "20065__0_139", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20065__0_141", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Yes.\nJustice Scalia, our position is that you do just look at it by the statute, and that's the... Harmeline basically stands for that proposition, that Congress does not have to individualize sentences in that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1677.556, 1677.939], "stop_times": [1677.939, 1690.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1677.556}, "reply_to": "20065__0_140", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "20065__0_142", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Gornstein.\nMr. Blatt, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1690.33, 1692.68], "stop_times": [1692.68, 1697.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1690.33}, "reply_to": "20065__0_141", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20065__1_000", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis case, a criminal in personam matter, is here because a district court determined that forfeiture of 357,144 dollars would be grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment for a failure-to-declare offense.\nThe decision was based on the following factual findings by the district court: that the money involved was lawful money for a lawful purpose; that the crime was committed in reference to cultural differences, and that the lies that Mr. Bajakajian stated grew out of fear.\nMr. Bajakajian was sentenced with these fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1697.067, 1700.019, 1714.26, 1730.371], "stop_times": [1700.019, 1714.26, 1730.371, 1733.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1697.067}, "reply_to": "20065__0_142", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_001", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Could you explain... I don't really understand the finding that the crime was committed because of cultural differences.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1733.323], "stop_times": [1739.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1733.323}, "reply_to": "20065__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20065__1_002", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--What happened in this matter, Mr. Chief Justice, is that my client, Mr. Bajakajian, is from Syria.\nHe was a minority there, an Armenian, and where he grew up he was very frightened and afraid of the Government in reference to moneys taken in and out.\nWhen he left this country to pay a lawful debt, and he was going to Cyprus, not to Syria, he thought that he would be harmed, or the money might be taken from him if he showed how much money he had.\nWe indicated that to the district court.\nThe district court took that into consideration, and took also into consideration the lies that he made, which were primarily out of fear, when it came up with a grossly disproportionate analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1739.91, 1745.545, 1752.884, 1764.941, 1767.227], "stop_times": [1745.545, 1752.884, 1764.941, 1767.227, 1777.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1739.91}, "reply_to": "20065__1_001", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_003", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "So if one lies out of fear, it's not the same thing as lying for some other motive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1777.333], "stop_times": [1782.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1777.333}, "reply_to": "20065__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20065__1_004", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nIt's a factor that has to be considered in reference to whether the money was lawful, and for a lawful purpose, because it relates to the culpability.\nIf one lies not... if one lies because he or she is not involved in a criminal enterprise, but because they are frightened, and we're not trying to excuse the culpability of Mr. Bajakajian, but it's a factor for a court to consider in reference to punishment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1782.885, 1783.92, 1791.057], "stop_times": [1783.92, 1791.057, 1806.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1782.885}, "reply_to": "20065__1_003", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_005", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Do you think the Constitution Excessive Fines Clause has to be applied on a case-by-case basis, each individual case?\nNo matter how the statute reads, and even if the statute has been approved in a prior case, it's only been approved as to that defendant under the facts of that case, and every single case involves, necessarily involves courts into the constitutional inquiry of whether, given this defendant's culture, given all the other circumstances of the offense, this is excessive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1806.4, 1812.804], "stop_times": [1812.804, 1834.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1806.4}, "reply_to": "20065__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20065__1_006", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Justice Scalia, I believe that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1834.3], "stop_times": [1837.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1834.3}, "reply_to": "20065__1_005", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_007", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "It's a lot of trouble.\nI don't know if courts can handle that kind of a burden.\nI'd thought it's just done on the face of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1837.002, 1838.835, 1841.037], "stop_times": [1838.835, 1841.037, 1843.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1837.002}, "reply_to": "20065__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20065__1_008", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "I think they can handle that burden, Justice Scalia, because when we're talking about the Eighth Amendment and punishment it's the district court's responsibility to weigh culpability and value.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1843.572], "stop_times": [1851.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1843.572}, "reply_to": "20065__1_007", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_009", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "So every different judge can come up with a different conclusion, I suppose, if each one just weigh, I think this is excessive, this isn't excessive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1851.845], "stop_times": [1859.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1851.845}, "reply_to": "20065__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20065__1_010", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Well, Justice Scalia, I think that's always a possibility, yes.\nDistrict courts can come up with different determinations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1859.165, 1861.701], "stop_times": [1861.701, 1863.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1859.165}, "reply_to": "20065__1_009", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_011", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "And is the standard abuse of discretion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1863.653], "stop_times": [1866.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1863.653}, "reply_to": "20065__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20065__1_012", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Yes, it is, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1866.319], "stop_times": [1866.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1866.319}, "reply_to": "20065__1_011", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_013", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Abuse of discretion is to determine what the meaning of excessiveness is under the Constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1866.788], "stop_times": [1872.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1866.788}, "reply_to": "20065__1_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20065__1_014", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1872.307], "stop_times": [1872.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1872.307}, "reply_to": "20065__1_013", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_015", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "That's a very strange doctrine, it seems to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1872.675], "stop_times": [1874.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1872.675}, "reply_to": "20065__1_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20065__1_016", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Well, when we're... Your Honor, when we're talking about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1874.575], "stop_times": [1876.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1874.575}, "reply_to": "20065__1_015", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_017", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Are there any other constitutional provisions that are entrusted to the interpretation of the district courts under an abuse of discretion standard that you can think of?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1876.877], "stop_times": [1886.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1876.877}, "reply_to": "20065__1_016", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20065__1_018", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--In reference to statutory and constitutionally, no, Your Honor, but in reference to when we're evaluating this on a proportionality analysis, under Austin and Alexander this Court made a determination that the Eighth Amendment applies in reference to forfeitures.\nBy the nature of the word excessive, it implies a proportionality or a comparison analysis, Your Honor, and in order to do that type of comparison, a judge, a district court judge would have to make a determination about culpability.\nThis was lawful money for a lawful purpose.\nThere was no criminal enterprise involved here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1886.399, 1899.826, 1913.317, 1916.019], "stop_times": [1899.826, 1913.317, 1916.019, 1918.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1886.399}, "reply_to": "20065__1_017", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_019", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "What about a statute that says anyone who uses an unlawfully possessed firearm in the commission of a crime shall forfeit the firearm?\nIs... can you say in the abstract whether that's constitutional or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1918.638, 1927.559], "stop_times": [1927.559, 1931.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1918.638}, "reply_to": "20065__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20065__1_020", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "I believe that, Your Honor, that would be entirely constitutional for the following reason.\nThat firearm is contraband.\nIt's an illegal weapon.\nIt's used in the furtherance of a crime.\nThis money was not contraband.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1931.427, 1935.046, 1936.998, 1937.898, 1939.648], "stop_times": [1935.046, 1936.998, 1937.898, 1939.648, 1941.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1931.427}, "reply_to": "20065__1_019", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_021", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "You acknowledge the existence of that doctrine, then, that... your quarrel here is just that it is not a contraband or instrumentality, whatever else you want to call it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1941.516], "stop_times": [1950.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1941.516}, "reply_to": "20065__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20065__1_022", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "I acknowledge that, Your Honor, that contraband and proceeds of contraband are forfeitable, but this is an instrument, allegedly an instrumentality of a crime, a means by which a crime is committed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1950.972], "stop_times": [1962.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1950.972}, "reply_to": "20065__1_021", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_023", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Do you think failure to register a firearm is any different from failure to notify the Government that you're carrying currency?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1962.179], "stop_times": [1968.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1962.179}, "reply_to": "20065__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20065__1_024", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Under the statute it is, Your Honor, because the statute indicates that it's not contraband to have the money and to transport the money outside of the country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1968.083], "stop_times": [1975.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1968.083}, "reply_to": "20065__1_023", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_025", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Okay, but if it is contraband, you acknowledge it doesn't matter how much it's worth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1975.004], "stop_times": [1979.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1975.004}, "reply_to": "20065__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20065__1_026", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1979.391], "stop_times": [1979.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1979.391}, "reply_to": "20065__1_025", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_027", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "I should have used, you know, a 12th Century valuable firearm, if there were any in the 12th Century.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1979.791], "stop_times": [1986.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1979.791}, "reply_to": "20065__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20065__1_028", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Correct, Your Honor.\nIf this money was from... laundered money, it was involved in some type of criminal enterprise.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1986.278, 1986.661], "stop_times": [1986.661, 1992.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1986.278}, "reply_to": "20065__1_027", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_029", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1992.349], "stop_times": [1992.899], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1992.349}, "reply_to": "20065__1_028", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20065__1_030", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Or if it was money that was going out of the country not to pay taxes, to avoid payment of taxes, then it would be tainted money, an instrumentality, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [1992.899], "stop_times": [2001.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1992.899}, "reply_to": "20065__1_029", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_031", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "What if, under Justice Scalia's hypothesis, the defendant in the firearm case took the stand and said, well, in my country it's perfectly legal to have a firearm, so I did it kind of for cultural reasons.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2001.787, 2015.714], "stop_times": [2015.714, 2016.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2001.787}, "reply_to": "20065__1_030", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20065__1_032", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--Well, it depends on whether it was lawful or not.\nI think that's one factor that has to be considered, Mr. Chief Justice, and you have to look at the total context or totality of the circumstances.\nThis was an unusual case.\nIt is never easy at the district level to prove that in reference to a forfeiture that it's lawful money for a lawful purpose, and the way we did that, we showed the cultural aspects, the man's intent, and the district court made a factual determination in reference to this, that this was lawful money, and he made a factual determination as to reasons that he lied.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2016.28, 2019.232, 2027.219, 2028.854], "stop_times": [2019.232, 2027.219, 2028.854, 2047.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2016.28}, "reply_to": "20065__1_031", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_033", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Did he make... did he really make that determination, or did he decide he... it had not been proved that it was unlawful?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2047.899], "stop_times": [2053.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2047.899}, "reply_to": "20065__1_032", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20065__1_034", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nHe made a determination--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2053.136, 2054.119], "stop_times": [2054.119, 2055.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2053.136}, "reply_to": "20065__1_033", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_035", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "I thought there was some ambiguity about the whole story--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2055.071], "stop_times": [2056.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2055.071}, "reply_to": "20065__1_034", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20065__1_036", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--Well, the ambiguity lay with the Government's position that they couldn't really prove or disprove certain facts, but the district judge indicated that this was lawful money for a lawful person... for a lawful purpose, and that much has been proven.\nThat is in the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2056.888, 2069.581], "stop_times": [2069.581, 2070.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2056.888}, "reply_to": "20065__1_035", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_037", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--Did he prove that taxes had been paid on it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2070.481], "stop_times": [2071.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2070.481}, "reply_to": "20065__1_036", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20065__1_038", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "The taxes had been paid on it, Your Honor, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2071.681], "stop_times": [2073.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2071.681}, "reply_to": "20065__1_037", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_039", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Can you go back for a second, because I'm now concerned... Mr. Gornstein answered me and Justice Scalia picked up a point that I'd not focused on, which is that this is a mandatory forfeiture statute.\nIt says the defendant shall forfeit.\nNow, I can understand a statute that says the convicted person in a case of robbery must pay a penalty up to 5 million dollars as well as prison, and then a person take 1 dollar, and the judge imposes 5 million dollars, and you say, well, that's way disproportionate, but the statute said may, and I think his point is here that the statute says shall, and so what Congress is saying here is, you shall.\nYou have to.\nThe judge has no discretion, and where the judge has no discretion you would look to see whether Congress is being reasonable in writing that statute, shall, and not looking to those factors.\nNow, is there... does that trigger anything in your mind, any instance where despite this kind of mandatory statutory provision the courts nonetheless looked into the way in which the provision applied to a particular case and said, it's unconstitutional because of the way it applies here?\nDoes that trigger anything?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2073.949, 2084.924, 2087.542, 2114.96, 2115.594, 2125.751, 2142.927], "stop_times": [2084.924, 2087.542, 2114.96, 2115.594, 2125.751, 2142.927, 2143.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2073.949}, "reply_to": "20065__1_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20065__1_040", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Yes, it does, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2143.843], "stop_times": [2144.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2143.843}, "reply_to": "20065__1_039", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_041", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "What is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2144.993], "stop_times": [2145.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2144.993}, "reply_to": "20065__1_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20065__1_042", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Because under Austin and Alexander this Court indicated that the Eighth Amendment in reference to excessive fine does apply.\nOn the remand of Alexander--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2145.51, 2152.616], "stop_times": [2152.616, 2154.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2145.51}, "reply_to": "20065__1_041", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_043", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2154.416], "stop_times": [2154.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2154.416}, "reply_to": "20065__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20065__1_044", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--When that case was decided there was a breakdown by Alexander using the Busher Ninth Circuit standards of what proportionality should be, and they looked at the value of the crime--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2154.985], "stop_times": [2165.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2154.985}, "reply_to": "20065__1_043", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_045", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Yes, but was that a case in which the fine that was imposed, or the for--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2165.106], "stop_times": [2169.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2165.106}, "reply_to": "20065__1_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20065__1_046", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--Forfeiture.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2169.577], "stop_times": [2170.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2169.577}, "reply_to": "20065__1_045", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_047", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--I don't know if it was a fine... was mandatory under the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2170.027], "stop_times": [2173.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2170.027}, "reply_to": "20065__1_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20065__1_048", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Yes, it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2173.029], "stop_times": [2173.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2173.029}, "reply_to": "20065__1_047", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_049", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "It was.\nThey had to impose, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2173.346, 2173.812], "stop_times": [2173.812, 2174.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2173.346}, "reply_to": "20065__1_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20065__1_050", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "One of the problems in the Government's position is that they indicate that the Eighth Amendment does apply.\nHowever, they go on to state that the particular liquidated damage forfeiture can never be grossly disproportionate.\nIt doesn't matter whether it's 10,001 dollars, or 3 million dollars.\nIt's always going to be the same, no matter in reference to culpability and value.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2174.895, 2181.982, 2189.322, 2193.54], "stop_times": [2181.982, 2189.322, 2193.54, 2198.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2174.895}, "reply_to": "20065__1_049", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_051", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--Well, isn't that the case with respect to the importation of goods to the country without paying customs duties?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2198.51], "stop_times": [2204.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2198.51}, "reply_to": "20065__1_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20065__1_052", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "In One Lot Emerald, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2204.681], "stop_times": [2205.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2204.681}, "reply_to": "20065__1_051", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_053", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "You bring in the moonstone, don't you forfeit the moonstone?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2205.597], "stop_times": [2208.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2205.597}, "reply_to": "20065__1_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20065__1_054", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--You forfeit the moonstone... assuming you buy the moonstone legally, Your Honor, and you fail to report it and then fail to pay the duty, pursuant to the statute, once you fail to pay the duty it becomes contraband, and that property becomes tainted.\nWe don't have that situation here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2208.965, 2222.107], "stop_times": [2222.107, 2224.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2208.965}, "reply_to": "20065__1_053", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_055", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "All right, but so long as you make that limitation upon your argument, there's nothing wrong about forfeiting something that's worth an enormous value so long as it's done within the historical context of something that is called contraband or instrumentality, whatever--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2224.19], "stop_times": [2239.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2224.19}, "reply_to": "20065__1_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20065__1_056", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.\nIf it's contraband, or proceeds from contraband, or if it fits into the historical standard as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2239.45, 2240.152], "stop_times": [2240.152, 2246.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2239.45}, "reply_to": "20065__1_055", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_057", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--But why is it that a metaphysical label then changes whether or not in fact it's excessive?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2246.806], "stop_times": [2251.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2246.806}, "reply_to": "20065__1_056", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20065__1_058", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--I would agree with you, Your Honor, in that, because the legal fiction--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2251.341], "stop_times": [2254.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2251.341}, "reply_to": "20065__1_057", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_059", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Well then... then I think you have to answer Justice Scalia that you cannot--\n--Right.\nGive me back the moonstone.\n--necessarily forfeit the moonstone.\nWe get the moonstone back now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2254.96, 2258.428, 2258.614, 2259.047, 2260.43], "stop_times": [2258.428, 2258.614, 2259.047, 2260.43, 2261.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2254.96}, "reply_to": "20065__1_058", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20065__1_060", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--I like that moonstone, but... I see what you're saying, Your Honor.\nI think the problem is, is how we evaluate an instrumentality.\nAn instrumentality is a means by which.\nWe have property divided in three areas, contraband, proceeds of contraband, and an instrumentality, and contraband and proceeds of contraband have always been a strong remedial interest, and have been forfeited.\nInstrumentality, there has to be a connection.\nIn this particular case, and I would agree from a common, practical point of view, we're splitting hairs.\nWhen we're talking about an instrumentality, should it really relate to a substantial connection?\nI believe there should be some type of cutoff point in reference to instrumentality, but the historical legal fiction doesn't really fit any more.\nIn other words, it's... we now look under modern times that the... in reference to the property, as to the use of the property, and not truly in relation to its respect as to how it was used during piracy times.\nI think the key issue in this matter is whether the district court used the appropriate standard of grossly disproportionate when it forfeited approximately 15,000 dollars.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2261.982, 2266.1, 2271.671, 2274.206, 2286.263, 2289.315, 2295.703, 2300.357, 2308.694, 2323.437], "stop_times": [2266.1, 2271.671, 2274.206, 2286.263, 2289.315, 2295.703, 2300.357, 2308.694, 2323.437, 2332.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2261.982}, "reply_to": "20065__1_059", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_061", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Mr. Blatt--\n--Well--\n--then I mistook your position.\nI thought your position was, if the money is clean, then any forfeiture was excessive and you don't get into the proportionality.\nI thought that's what your first position was.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2332.828, 2333.094, 2333.461, 2334.294, 2345.219], "stop_times": [2333.094, 2333.461, 2334.294, 2345.219, 2347.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2332.828}, "reply_to": "20065__1_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20065__1_062", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "No, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2347.588], "stop_times": [2348.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2347.588}, "reply_to": "20065__1_061", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_063", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "That if nothing is involved other than failure to report--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2348.038], "stop_times": [2351.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2348.038}, "reply_to": "20065__1_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20065__1_064", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--No.\nMy... excuse me, Justice Ginsburg.\nThe first... in reference to the instrumentality argument, I was arguing that it really wasn't an instrumentality.\nIt is a crime of omission.\nIt was not contraband.\nIt doesn't fit under the traditional historical standard of what an instrumentality is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2351.323, 2351.59, 2353.106, 2358.744, 2361.029, 2362.362], "stop_times": [2351.59, 2353.106, 2358.744, 2361.029, 2362.362, 2366.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2351.323}, "reply_to": "20065__1_063", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_065", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--Well, it's a crime of omission when one fails to declare the imported goods and pay the duty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2366.48], "stop_times": [2373.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2366.48}, "reply_to": "20065__1_064", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20065__1_066", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2373.134], "stop_times": [2373.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2373.134}, "reply_to": "20065__1_065", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_067", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "And there is a... I don't think the labels matter, but there is a sense in which the word contraband is used to describe the undutied goods.\nWhy isn't that analogy just as good when the person taking currency out fails to declare it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2373.517, 2383.889], "stop_times": [2383.889, 2390.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2373.517}, "reply_to": "20065__1_066", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20065__1_068", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Justice Souter, the reason it's not as good is that... is because in One Lot Emerald you had to pay a duty.\nOnce you did not pay that duty, by statute it became contraband.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2390.527, 2396.113], "stop_times": [2396.113, 2399.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2390.527}, "reply_to": "20065__1_067", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_069", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Why should that be the point of distinction?\nThe concern... there is a general concern with undutied goods, and that is, they come into the country at a competitive advantage.\nThe... quite apart from the Government's loss of revenue, they tend to compete with products within the country, and therefore one of the objects of a duty is to try to even those odds.\nIn this case, the Government's concern with exporting unreported funds is, if one is allowed to do that it tends to facilitate tax evasion, skimming of illegal profits, and so on.\nIn each case, there is a social ill which is one of the objects of declaring, or declaring and taxing these goods.\nWhy isn't the social object that underlies the money-reporting requirement sufficient to support the analogy between that and the undutied goods?\nWhy should the fact of the tax be crucial?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2399.382, 2403.286, 2412.04, 2423.949, 2437.007, 2447.446, 2458.087], "stop_times": [2403.286, 2412.04, 2423.949, 2437.007, 2447.446, 2458.087, 2461.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2399.382}, "reply_to": "20065__1_068", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20065__1_070", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "I think the Court is correct, that if... that in reference to splitting hairs in this matter, if we're going to evaluate it, there is a strong remedial interest, and we've never denied this in our brief, that the Government should have the opportunity to determine what funds are leaving this country, and that's equally as strong remedial interest in reference to smuggled goods.\nThe problem here is one of semantics.\nIn reference to an instrumentality, it's not a means by which a crime or contraband was conveyed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2461.705, 2481.333, 2484.385], "stop_times": [2481.333, 2484.385, 2489.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2461.705}, "reply_to": "20065__1_069", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_071", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Well, this is a means or not a means in the same sense that the undutied goods are means or not means.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2489.772], "stop_times": [2495.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2489.772}, "reply_to": "20065__1_070", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20065__1_072", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.\nThat is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2495.776, 2496.462], "stop_times": [2496.462, 2497.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2495.776}, "reply_to": "20065__1_071", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_073", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Whatever you call it, it's in the same relation to the person who owns the goods.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2497.212], "stop_times": [2502.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2497.212}, "reply_to": "20065__1_072", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20065__1_074", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Whatever you call it there's a substantial connection, but where we disagree with the Government is that when they see the substantial connection, but-for, and/or an instrumentality, that's where their position ends.\nIf it's an instrumentality, it all must be forfeited, and there's no really proportionality analysis.\nIf it's an instrumentality, we take it all, irregardless of culpability, irregardless of whether the money--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2502.247, 2514.424, 2520.994], "stop_times": [2514.424, 2520.994, 2526.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2502.247}, "reply_to": "20065__1_073", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_075", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "So is it your argument simply that the Government may not assume and this Court may not assume that the undutied goods are, per se, forfeitable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2526.982], "stop_times": [2535.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2526.982}, "reply_to": "20065__1_074", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20065__1_076", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2535.503], "stop_times": [2536.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2535.503}, "reply_to": "20065__1_075", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_077", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "They're all in the same boat, and we've got to go through the same proportionality analysis on the undutied goods that we would, on your theory, on the unreported money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2536.919], "stop_times": [2545.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2536.919}, "reply_to": "20065__1_076", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20065__1_078", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.\nIn other words, we have the first issue as to the connection, and once... because this is a forfeiture, because the Eighth Amendment does apply in reference to punishment, there has to be a second analysis as to whether it is grossly disproportionate or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2545.775, 2546.625], "stop_times": [2546.625, 2560.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2545.775}, "reply_to": "20065__1_077", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_079", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "All right.\nNow, what about the Government's argument, one argument in response to that that if it is, in fact, a threat of certain social ills to allow the export of unreported currency, the more you allow to be exported, the greater the social ill.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2560.933, 2561.116], "stop_times": [2561.116, 2578.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2560.933}, "reply_to": "20065__1_078", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20065__1_080", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "That is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2578.744], "stop_times": [2579.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2578.744}, "reply_to": "20065__1_079", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_081", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "So that there is, as Mr. Gornstein said, in this kind of case as opposed to the Taj Mahal case for example, there really is a kind of inherent proportionality involved in seizure of the entire amount, whatever that amount may be.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2579.096], "stop_times": [2593.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2579.096}, "reply_to": "20065__1_080", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20065__1_082", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--Your Honor, with all due respect, I don't see an inherent proportionality.\nThis was money that had been earned--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2593.856, 2597.474], "stop_times": [2597.474, 2599.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2593.856}, "reply_to": "20065__1_081", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_083", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "If I'm likely to be skimming profits, the more money I take out, the more profit I'm likely to be skimming.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2599.308], "stop_times": [2604.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2599.308}, "reply_to": "20065__1_082", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20065__1_084", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--That is correct, Your Honor, and that goes to culpability.\nThis money wasn't received for money laundering or anything illegal, and it was not for an illegal purpose.\nThe examples--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2604.795, 2607.164, 2612.733], "stop_times": [2607.164, 2612.733, 2613.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2604.795}, "reply_to": "20065__1_083", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_085", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Don't you think it's worse to sneak out 350,000 dollars than it is to sneak out 10,000 dollars?\nDo you think that they are crimes of equivalent proportion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2613.45, 2620.673], "stop_times": [2620.673, 2624.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2613.45}, "reply_to": "20065__1_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20065__1_086", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--It depends on the reasoning.\nIf we're talking about punishment, Your Honor, we're talking about--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2624.208, 2625.458], "stop_times": [2625.458, 2627.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2624.208}, "reply_to": "20065__1_085", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_087", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "All other factors being equal, is it not worse to take out 350,000 dollars than it is to... like--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2627.66], "stop_times": [2633.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2627.66}, "reply_to": "20065__1_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20065__1_088", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--Yes, it is, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2633.581], "stop_times": [2634.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2633.581}, "reply_to": "20065__1_087", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_089", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--Approximately 35 times worse.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2634.631], "stop_times": [2636.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2634.631}, "reply_to": "20065__1_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20065__1_090", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Yes, it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2636.099], "stop_times": [2636.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2636.099}, "reply_to": "20065__1_089", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_091", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "No, it isn't.\nI mean,--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2636.433, 2636.916], "stop_times": [2636.916, 2637.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2636.433}, "reply_to": "20065__1_090", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20065__1_092", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "It is a factor to consider.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2637.266], "stop_times": [2638.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2637.266}, "reply_to": "20065__1_091", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_093", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--That is a principle in punishment law I've never seen anywhere, that it is proportionately worse.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2638.718], "stop_times": [2644.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2638.718}, "reply_to": "20065__1_092", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20065__1_094", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2644.102], "stop_times": [2644.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2644.102}, "reply_to": "20065__1_093", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_095", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "I mean, every bit of punishment law I've ever seen suggests that it does increase in culpability, but not proportionately.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2644.704], "stop_times": [2653.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2644.704}, "reply_to": "20065__1_094", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20065__1_096", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2653.31], "stop_times": [2653.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2653.31}, "reply_to": "20065__1_095", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_097", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "That's... at least, maybe your experience is different on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2653.677], "stop_times": [2656.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2653.677}, "reply_to": "20065__1_096", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20065__1_098", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--Well, Justice Breyer, what I'm indicating is that it has an effect on the culpability.\nObviously, if someone is taking out millions of dollars for an unlawful purpose--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2656.596, 2661.231], "stop_times": [2661.231, 2666.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2656.596}, "reply_to": "20065__1_097", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_099", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Yes, it's worse.\nThere's no question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2666.118, 2666.552], "stop_times": [2666.552, 2666.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2666.118}, "reply_to": "20065__1_098", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20065__1_100", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--It's much worse.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2666.985], "stop_times": [2667.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2666.985}, "reply_to": "20065__1_099", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_101", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "It's worse, but I have not seen proportionality in respect to punishment proportional to the amount of dollars.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2667.502], "stop_times": [2675.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2667.502}, "reply_to": "20065__1_100", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20065__1_102", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "What I meant, Your--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2675.641], "stop_times": [2676.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2675.641}, "reply_to": "20065__1_101", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_103", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "And there's a lot to the contrary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2676.391], "stop_times": [2677.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2676.391}, "reply_to": "20065__1_102", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20065__1_104", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--What I meant, Your Honor, was in reference to culpability.\nIf the Eighth Amendment is going to apply, which this Court has indicated that it should concerning excessive fines, then--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2677.241, 2679.676], "stop_times": [2679.676, 2685.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2677.241}, "reply_to": "20065__1_103", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_105", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Now, if that's so, suppose I accept your argument that say in an environmental case they're not going to forfeit the factory because some, you know, stuff spilled out the pipe intentionally, because I got that far, assume.\nNow, suppose we're also, because of this Alexander that you cited... it's Alexander, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2685.663, 2700.006], "stop_times": [2700.006, 2704.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2685.663}, "reply_to": "20065__1_104", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20065__1_106", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2704.974], "stop_times": [2705.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2704.974}, "reply_to": "20065__1_105", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_107", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "You're quite right, it said shall forfeit.\nNow, suppose because of that we have to look at the application case-by-case.\nStill I'm back to where Justice O'Connor started.\nIt's very hard to believe that all we're going to do is in every single case start looking as to whether there's an abuse of discretion.\nIs there not some standard that you've come across that could catch the extreme cases that wouldn't involve an analysis case by case, instant by instance, of whether the judge somehow went a little wrong, or, in your view, do you have to conduct that under the Constitution?\nHow do you, in other words, give what we call a margin of appreciation to the judge to make some kind of mistake before the Constitution comes into play?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2705.64, 2707.39, 2711.81, 2714.762, 2722.983, 2741.563], "stop_times": [2707.39, 2711.81, 2714.762, 2722.983, 2741.563, 2749.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2705.64}, "reply_to": "20065__1_106", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20065__1_108", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "I don't know the answer to that, Your Honor.\nI don't know the answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2749.55, 2754.252], "stop_times": [2754.252, 2755.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2749.55}, "reply_to": "20065__1_107", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_109", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Well, what are the standards that you would say?\nSo here's this 47, whatever it is.\nYou have already disabused me of one notion, that because they're not ill-gotten gains the Government can't take any of it, so you say the Government can take some of it, so how much is too much?\nHow do we know?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2755.335, 2757.42, 2759.77, 2772.078], "stop_times": [2757.42, 2759.77, 2772.078, 2772.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2755.335}, "reply_to": "20065__1_108", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20065__1_110", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Well, we used a standard, Your Honor, of grossly disproportionate.\nWe look at the value, we look at the culpability, we look at the harm that could be caused in reference to this to the Government.\nOnce the information was found there was no harm to the Government.\nThey now have the information.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2772.946, 2775.298, 2783.468, 2787.356], "stop_times": [2775.298, 2783.468, 2787.356, 2788.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2772.946}, "reply_to": "20065__1_109", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_111", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Well, where does one... you said we look at this, that, and the other thing.\nWhere does one go to find those guides?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2788.356, 2790.808], "stop_times": [2790.808, 2794.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2788.356}, "reply_to": "20065__1_110", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20065__1_112", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "We look at the Alexander remand.\nWe look at Busher.\nIn those... and in that particular case they evaluated the harshness of the penalty in light of the gravity of the offense.\nThey evaluated the defendant's culpability.\nThey looked at the dollar volume of the loss, the existence of any benefit to the defendant, which there was none in this particular case, and the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2794.426, 2795.96, 2797.21, 2802.78, 2805.649], "stop_times": [2795.96, 2797.21, 2802.78, 2805.649, 2812.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2794.426}, "reply_to": "20065__1_111", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_113", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Are you telling me essentially that you think that Judge Wallace, then was it Chief Judge Wallace, got it basically right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2812.553], "stop_times": [2820.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2812.553}, "reply_to": "20065__1_112", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20065__1_114", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--Yes, I do, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2820.289], "stop_times": [2821.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2820.289}, "reply_to": "20065__1_113", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_115", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "So he used the right factors, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2821.322], "stop_times": [2822.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2821.322}, "reply_to": "20065__1_114", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20065__1_116", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "I think that Judge Davies, the district court used the exact factors that were necessary in this matter.\nHe looked at this matter as to whether it was grossly disproportionate.\nHe looked at the lawfulness--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2822.791, 2829.228, 2832.68], "stop_times": [2829.228, 2832.68, 2834.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2822.791}, "reply_to": "20065__1_115", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_117", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--Oh, so you... the district judge.\nThen Judge Wallace--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2834.132, 2835.149], "stop_times": [2835.149, 2835.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2834.132}, "reply_to": "20065__1_116", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20065__1_118", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--The district court, and the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2835.916], "stop_times": [2836.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2835.916}, "reply_to": "20065__1_117", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_119", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--There's a difference, because Judge... I think his position was most favorable to yours, but you reject that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2836.918], "stop_times": [2841.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2836.918}, "reply_to": "20065__1_118", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20065__1_120", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--Judge Wallace has gave a concurring opinion where he disagreed with the Ninth Circuit expansion of this particular area, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2841.703], "stop_times": [2848.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2841.703}, "reply_to": "20065__1_119", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_121", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "And didn't he say that the 15,000 he was letting stand because you hadn't challenged it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2848.892], "stop_times": [2853.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2848.892}, "reply_to": "20065__1_120", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20065__1_122", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--That was the district court, Your Honor.\nThe... Judge Wallace indicated in his concurring opinion that he was allowing the 15,000 because he did not feel it was abuse of discretion, and he agreed with the proportionality analysis.\nWhat I am saying, Your Honor, is that the district court applied the correct standard of grossly disproportionate.\nIt looked at all the factors that I've indicated just now and came up with a decision that the 5,000 dollar fine... it was a 5,000 dollar fine under the guidelines, not 250,000 dollar, and probation, that based upon that he was going to add an additional 15,000 dollar for what he considered what a small fine would be under the guidelines, and the Government expense in this matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2853.177, 2854.627, 2865.652, 2872.138], "stop_times": [2854.627, 2865.652, 2872.138, 2893.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2853.177}, "reply_to": "20065__1_121", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_123", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "May I ask you a question on your proportionality approach?\nIt seems to me that one of the problems in this area is that it's sort of a prophylactic statute.\nWe're not sure what's going to happen to all this money, and supposing the person violating the statute takes the Fifth Amendment, says I'm not going to tell you what I'd do.\nI have a constitutional right to secrecy.\nI didn't want... if I'd filed the report, somebody would have found out about it.\nThere are no protections on secrecy.\nHe just isn't going to tell, and the Government has no way of finding out.\nWhat's your proportionality analysis there?\nDo you assume he's guilty of something really bad because he won't talk about it, or he's perfectly innocent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2893.921, 2897.373, 2902.508, 2910.697, 2912.53, 2915.315, 2916.934, 2919.719, 2921.802], "stop_times": [2897.373, 2902.508, 2910.697, 2912.53, 2915.315, 2916.934, 2919.719, 2921.802, 2926.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2893.921}, "reply_to": "20065__1_122", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20065__1_124", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "I don't really assume either, but he has not met his burden, Your Honor.\nThe defendant, by his failure to report, should have the burden, as it was in this particular case.\nWe had the burden to show that this money was lawful and for a lawful purpose, and that it would be not grossly disproportionate.\nThe defendant should have the burden in these matters when he commits a crime and then tries to obtain the moneys in reference to the forfeiture.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2926.354, 2929.039, 2934.193, 2940.097], "stop_times": [2929.039, 2934.193, 2940.097, 2947.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2926.354}, "reply_to": "20065__1_123", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_125", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "I'm trying to understand your application of gross disproportionality here.\nIn the garden variety case of gross disproportionality I think one of the things, one of the principal things that we do is to compare sentences and individuals.\nIt's hard to do that here, I guess, because we don't have a long string of forfeitures to compare it to.\nAre you really saying, when you use the gross disproportionality criterion, and you then point out the factors that a judge should consider in applying it, are you really saying that any judge who makes a gross disproportionality analysis and refers to all of the relevant factors as you have listed them, should be upheld unless we can say that his determination as such was simply unreasonable or irrational?\nIs that what gross disproportionality here means?\nIn other words, it's a standard that goes to the care of the judge or relevant considerations, as opposed to a standard that goes to real comparisons between this instance, that instance, and the other instance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [2947.6, 2952.404, 2963.562, 2977.303, 3010.959, 3013.828], "stop_times": [2952.404, 2963.562, 2977.303, 3010.959, 3013.828, 3027.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2947.6}, "reply_to": "20065__1_124", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20065__1_126", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Yes, that's what I'm saying, Your Honor, because if we're going to look at real comparisons, when you evaluate a forfeiture, it's a matter of comparing the value in reference to what is going to be forfeited to the serious nature or extensive nature of the crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3027.318], "stop_times": [3040.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3027.318}, "reply_to": "20065__1_125", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_127", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Well, then we could have... you know, we have 700 district judges in the country, and we could have 700 different results, all of them correct under that standard, I suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3040.459], "stop_times": [3049.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3040.459}, "reply_to": "20065__1_126", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20065__1_128", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "That's a possibility, Your Honor, but in the... Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3049.247], "stop_times": [3052.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3049.247}, "reply_to": "20065__1_127", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_129", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "You think that's desirable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3052.099], "stop_times": [3054.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3052.099}, "reply_to": "20065__1_128", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20065__1_130", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "I think it is under this fashion.\nWhen we're examining, Your Honor, under a forfeiture statute, it shouldn't be the district court's position to compare what happened in another district involving another factual situation that could be entirely different.\nEach factual situation, because it's punishment and culpability are involved and different values are involved, have to be decided by that district judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3054.115, 3055.551, 3069.025], "stop_times": [3055.551, 3069.025, 3076.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3054.115}, "reply_to": "20065__1_129", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_131", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Well, of course, you've got not only a prohibition against excessive fines, but a prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.\nCould this be imported into the sentencing phase of criminal cases and say, you know, whatever Congress says each district judge has just got to figure out what the right punishment is to make sure it isn't cruel and unusual?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3076.88, 3085.134], "stop_times": [3085.134, 3096.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3076.88}, "reply_to": "20065__1_130", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20065__1_132", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Well, excessive fines have been distinguished significantly from cruel and unusual punishment, Your Honor, and the... frankly, I feel that the district court can make that decision.\nYes, there's going to be differences, but that district court has all of those particular facts in that particular case, and they would be best able to make that determination as to whether a fine is excessive.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3096.358, 3107.815], "stop_times": [3107.815, 3118.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3096.358}, "reply_to": "20065__1_131", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_133", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "So you do reject the... I'm sorry I got the judges mixed up.\nThe Ninth Circuit majority said, no forfeiture at all here because these were lawfully possessed funds, so you're not defending that position, then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3118.754, 3122.289], "stop_times": [3122.289, 3130.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3118.754}, "reply_to": "20065__1_132", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20065__1_134", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "No, I'm not, Your Honor, and our position at the district court level was, we conceded that the funds were subject to forfeiture, but requested a proportionality examination.\nThe law was changed significantly in the interim, where 69,000 and El Dorado came out by the Ninth Circuit, where they held the instrumentality test, and that test was used in reference to our briefs.\nI think a instrumentality, substantial connection, or some form of cutoff or threshold is necessary, but once that threshold is met, a standard of proportionality in criminal in personam matters needs to be developed as to what is grossly disproportionate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3130.478, 3142.219, 3152.527], "stop_times": [3142.219, 3152.527, 3170.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3130.478}, "reply_to": "20065__1_133", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_135", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "And your best guide to the development is what the district court did here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3170.471], "stop_times": [3174.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3170.471}, "reply_to": "20065__1_134", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20065__1_136", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "I think the district court did a good job, Your Honor, I really do, because they evaluated all the factors, whether the money was lawfully obtained--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3174.023], "stop_times": [3183.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3174.023}, "reply_to": "20065__1_135", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_137", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "So what guide should an appellate court... this is one district judge out of, what--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3183.279], "stop_times": [3188.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3183.279}, "reply_to": "20065__1_136", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20065__1_138", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--The guide--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3188.517], "stop_times": [3189.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3188.517}, "reply_to": "20065__1_137", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_139", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--did the Chief Justice say, 700?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3189.05], "stop_times": [3190.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3189.05}, "reply_to": "20065__1_138", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20065__1_140", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--Yes.\nJustice Ginsburg, the guide that I would give, and based upon the Alexander remand and Busher, and I do not mean to be presumptuous, is looking at a totality of the circumstances, the gravity of the offense, whether the property was lawfully obtained and for a lawful purpose, the dollar volume of the loss, the existence of a benefit that was to be gained by the defendant... in this case there was none... and whether this was part of a criminal enterprise.\nI'm sure there are many more factors that this Court could consider.\nI'm just naming a few.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3190.383, 3190.733, 3218.117, 3220.985], "stop_times": [3190.733, 3218.117, 3220.985, 3222.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3190.383}, "reply_to": "20065__1_139", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_141", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "We've been enforcing customs laws in this country for over 200 years.\nDo you know of a single case in which the forfeiture of undutied goods has been declared to be an excessive fine, by any court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3222.521, 3226.139], "stop_times": [3226.139, 3237.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3222.521}, "reply_to": "20065__1_140", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20065__1_142", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "There has not been one single case, Your Honor, in reference to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3237.745], "stop_times": [3240.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3237.745}, "reply_to": "20065__1_141", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_143", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "That's what you're saying the Constitution has been requiring all these 200 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3240.247], "stop_times": [3244.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3240.247}, "reply_to": "20065__1_142", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20065__1_144", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor, but after Austin and Alexander, where the Court indicated that fines... that forfeitures can be considered fines, and therefore punishment does apply, and the Eighth Amendment does apply.\nThat has changed things.\nThat has... in other words, there is now a review in reference to excessiveness concerning the Eighth Amendment, and excessiveness implies an evaluation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3244.782, 3255.923, 3257.44], "stop_times": [3255.923, 3257.44, 3266.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3244.782}, "reply_to": "20065__1_143", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_145", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "What about, in terms of a constitutional limit, a word like shocking?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3266.879], "stop_times": [3270.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3266.879}, "reply_to": "20065__1_144", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20065__1_146", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Shocking?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3270.581], "stop_times": [3271.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3270.581}, "reply_to": "20065__1_145", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_147", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Mm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3271.231], "stop_times": [3271.581], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3271.231}, "reply_to": "20065__1_146", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20065__1_148", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Well, grossly disproportionate, Your Honor, to me is as close to strict liability as one could get.\nI think it's a difficult burden for a defendant to meet under the district court's standards, in a district court, and it's a word, it's a concept that I think district courts are familiar with.\nShockingly, I'm not too familiar with that.\nI would like--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3271.581, 3276.918, 3289.559, 3295.629], "stop_times": [3276.918, 3289.559, 3295.629, 3296.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3271.581}, "reply_to": "20065__1_147", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_149", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Shocks the conscience.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3296.046], "stop_times": [3297.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3296.046}, "reply_to": "20065__1_148", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20065__1_150", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--Will shock the conscience?\nI like that, and I think, Your Honor, that taking... no one is denying that this... the Government has a strong remedial interest, but perhaps there is something that shocks the conscience when lawful money for a lawful purpose is taken entirely, without any concept of culpability, and I would respectfully indicate that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3297.079, 3298.146], "stop_times": [3298.146, 3318.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3297.079}, "reply_to": "20065__1_149", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_151", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Well, except the district said, and the Government I think concedes they must show that the defendant knew about the reporting requirement and knew that it was illegal to take out more than X amount of dollars.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3318.976], "stop_times": [3331.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3318.976}, "reply_to": "20065__1_150", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20065__1_152", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nIt's a strict liability type of situation.\nYou don't have to know.\nIf you don't... if you go there and you have the money--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3331.802, 3332.386, 3335.838, 3337.371], "stop_times": [3332.386, 3335.838, 3337.371, 3339.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3331.802}, "reply_to": "20065__1_151", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_153", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "I thought the Government... maybe I'm wrong about this.\nI thought the Government conceded that it must prove the defendant knew it was unlawful not to report that he was carrying in excess of 10,000 dollar.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3339.29, 3340.873], "stop_times": [3340.873, 3349.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3339.29}, "reply_to": "20065__1_152", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20065__1_154", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--No, I don't believe that's the case, Your Honor.\nIf you go out of the money... if you go out of the country without the money... I mean, without declaring it, for whatever reasons, ignorance of the law, not knowing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3349.479, 3350.848], "stop_times": [3350.848, 3358.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3349.479}, "reply_to": "20065__1_153", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_155", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "But there was no such thing here, because the agent told him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3358.418], "stop_times": [3361.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3358.418}, "reply_to": "20065__1_154", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20065__1_156", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "--Oh, he knew.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3361.037], "stop_times": [3361.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3361.037}, "reply_to": "20065__1_155", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_157", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "You know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3361.37], "stop_times": [3361.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3361.37}, "reply_to": "20065__1_156", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20065__1_158", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "No question about it, he knew, and he lied, but I would ask the Court to seriously consider at this time developing a proportionality analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3361.803], "stop_times": [3371.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3361.803}, "reply_to": "20065__1_157", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_159", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Blatt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3371.309], "stop_times": [3371.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3371.309}, "reply_to": "20065__1_158", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20065__1_160", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3371.976], "stop_times": [3372.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3371.976}, "reply_to": "20065__1_159", "speaker": "james_e_blatt"}
{"id": "20065__1_161", "conversation_id": "20065", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1487", "start_times": [3372.409], "stop_times": [3373.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3372.409}, "reply_to": "20065__1_160", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20283__0_000", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 97-873, United States v. Balsys.\nMr. Dreeben.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [0.0, 8.518], "stop_times": [8.518, 9.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20283__0_001", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe question in this case is whether the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination may be invoked based on a fear of foreign prosecution.\nFor three main reasons, we submit that it may not.\nFirst, the prohibition against compelling a person to be a witness against himself applies only in a criminal case.\nBy that phrase, the Framers meant a Federal criminal case.\nThe Self-Incrimination Clause is one of a series of rights set forth in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments that are naturally read to govern criminal trials in this country, not foreign criminal cases.\nSecond, history teaches--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [9.57, 12.552, 22.419, 25.832, 34.507, 38.41, 50.609], "stop_times": [12.552, 22.419, 25.832, 34.507, 38.41, 50.609, 52.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.57}, "reply_to": "20283__0_000", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_002", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Mr. Dreeben, in the Arndstein case the Court extended the privilege outside of the scope of a criminal trial, didn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [52.972], "stop_times": [61.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 52.972}, "reply_to": "20283__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20283__0_003", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "--That is correct, Mr. Chief Justice, in this respect.\nThe privilege may be claimed by a witness in any proceeding, regardless of whether the proceeding is civil, criminal, or administrative, so long as what the witness ultimately fears is incrimination in a criminal case.\nThe proper referent to determine whether the Self-Incrimination Clause may be invoked therefor is not the type of proceeding in which it is claimed in this country, but rather the type of proceeding in which the witness actually fears incrimination, and that point is borne out by the history of the clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [61.007, 64.971, 78.961], "stop_times": [64.971, 78.961, 97.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 61.007}, "reply_to": "20283__0_002", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_004", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Mr. Dreeben, before you proceed further, would you tell me why 18 U.S.C. 1001 isn't in this picture?\nIt did involve a false statement to the United States, so why is it seemed to be conceded that there is no criminal case in the United States?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [97.464, 104.498], "stop_times": [104.498, 114.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 97.464}, "reply_to": "20283__0_003", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20283__0_005", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "There could be, Justice Ginsburg, if these statements had been made within a period prosecutable under the statute of limitations, but the original statements that respondent made to gain entry to the United States were in 1963, and the general 5-year statute of limitations has long since run on any prosecution for false statements based on that event and, as a result, the witness is not in a position to claim a fear of domestic incrimination based on any contradiction with his prior statements and I think it's conceded in this case that the only claim of self-incrimination is based on what a foreign power might do if it had custody over respondent and instituted a case.\nThere is no claim in this case that there is a domestic fear of prosecution by either the State or the Federal Government based on the statements that he has made.\nNow, the history of the Self-Incrimination Clause in this country points strongly to the conclusion that the words, any criminal case, in the Fifth Amendment refer only to a Federal criminal case.\nIn the era before this Court extended the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [114.124, 157.852, 167.028, 178.747], "stop_times": [157.852, 167.028, 178.747, 182.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 114.124}, "reply_to": "20283__0_004", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_006", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Wait.\nYou just told us that that refers to the case in which he is asked to testify, not the case in which he would presumably incriminate himself, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [182.279, 182.45], "stop_times": [182.45, 193.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 182.279}, "reply_to": "20283__0_005", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20283__0_007", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "--I'm not sure, Justice Scalia, whether I was clear before, so let me try to make it clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [193.807], "stop_times": [199.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 193.807}, "reply_to": "20283__0_006", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_008", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [199.76], "stop_times": [200.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 199.76}, "reply_to": "20283__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20283__0_009", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "The case in which the incrimination must take place--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [200.01], "stop_times": [202.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 200.01}, "reply_to": "20283__0_008", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_010", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [202.662], "stop_times": [202.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 202.662}, "reply_to": "20283__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20283__0_011", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "--must be a criminal case, by which the Fifth Amendment in our view means a Federal criminal case.\nThe privilege can be claimed by a witness in any proceeding in which he is asked to give compelled testimony, not based on his concerns about what might happen to him in that proceeding, but based on concerns about what might happen to him in a criminal case down the road.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [202.993, 207.717], "stop_times": [207.717, 223.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 202.993}, "reply_to": "20283__0_010", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_012", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "I understand, but I don't understand how you read the phrase, in any criminal case.\nNo person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.\nWhere is the compulsion?\nIs the compulsion in the case in which I am summoned--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [223.429, 228.901, 233.445, 235.476], "stop_times": [228.901, 233.445, 235.476, 240.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 223.429}, "reply_to": "20283__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20283__0_013", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [240.05], "stop_times": [240.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 240.05}, "reply_to": "20283__0_012", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_014", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "--to testify?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [240.448], "stop_times": [241.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 240.448}, "reply_to": "20283__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20283__0_015", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Yes.\nThe compulsion can be in the case in which you are compelled to give testimony under oath, as in this case, in our view, by a... backed by the contempt powers of the court if you decline to give testimony, so the compulsion can occur in any proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [241.219, 241.65], "stop_times": [241.65, 258.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 241.219}, "reply_to": "20283__0_014", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_016", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [258.721], "stop_times": [259.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 258.721}, "reply_to": "20283__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20283__0_017", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "But you need also to have incrimination.\nThe two interlinked requirements of the clause are compulsion and incrimination, and the question here is whether the incrimination can be in a case not brought in this country by the Federal Government or a State, but by a foreign Government.\nThat is the question before the Court in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [259.161, 261.765, 275.573], "stop_times": [261.765, 275.573, 277.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 259.161}, "reply_to": "20283__0_016", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_018", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "And that's the implication in the latter part, to be a witness against himself, and a witness where is what we're debating.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [277.623], "stop_times": [285.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 277.623}, "reply_to": "20283__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20283__0_019", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "That is exactly right.\nThe question is whether it can be triggered based on prosecution abroad.\nNow, if you look at the text of the Fifth and the Sixth Amendments together, which is the logical way to read them because they contain the essential criminal procedure proscriptions that are applicable in trials in this country, the Fifth Amendment seems almost inevitably to be limited to criminal cases brought by the Federal Government.\nThere can be no dispute that the original intent of the Framers of the Bill of Rights was to impose limitations only on the Federal Government, not on the States, and this Court consistently held, in the era before the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified and thereby made certain constitutional protections applicable to the States, that none of the provisions in the original Bill of Rights govern State proceedings and, as a result, State witnesses could not claim the protection of the Fifth Amendment.\nIn that regime, in other words, State witnesses who feared incrimination by a State could not say that they feared incrimination in any criminal case, because State prosecutions were not deemed subsumed within the Fifth Amendment, and there are several textual references that make sense only if read that way.\nThe Sixth Amendment refers to all criminal prosecutions, yet it is quite clear that by that reference the Framers did not intend to refer to State criminal prosecutions, and far less sensible would it be to think that they were referring to foreign criminal prosecutions.\nThe only criminal prosecutions that were originally subsumed by the Sixth Amendment were domestic criminal prosecutions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [285.518, 286.479, 290.454, 310.897, 339.167, 358.237, 375.201], "stop_times": [286.479, 290.454, 310.897, 339.167, 358.237, 375.201, 382.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 285.518}, "reply_to": "20283__0_018", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_020", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "But that goes to where the compulsion is, not to where the incrimination is, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [382.527], "stop_times": [388.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 382.527}, "reply_to": "20283__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20283__0_021", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "No, Justice Scalia.\nI think what it goes to is by what did the Framers mean the words, any criminal case, to refer to?\nOriginally they only meant them to refer to a Federal criminal case and, as a result, this Court held that if a Federal witness was compelled to testify, he said, look, I don't have any concern that I'm going to be incriminated in a Federal criminal case, but I am worried that in the State of Maryland I might be incriminated.\nThis Court held that is not a basis for declining to give testimony, because the criminal case in which you fear incrimination is not a Federal criminal case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [388.04, 389.011, 396.146, 416.219], "stop_times": [389.011, 396.146, 416.219, 425.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 388.04}, "reply_to": "20283__0_020", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_022", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "That was before the Murphy decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [425.986], "stop_times": [428.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 425.986}, "reply_to": "20283__0_021", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20283__0_023", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "That is correct, Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [428.508], "stop_times": [429.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 428.508}, "reply_to": "20283__0_022", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_024", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "And why shouldn't it be that the concern is controlling the conduct of the Federal actor, whether a Federal agent, a police officer... if the amendment is directed against the compulsion, the action that is prohibited is compelling the testimony, why should it matter where the criminal case is instead of who is doing the compelling?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [429.938], "stop_times": [456.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 429.938}, "reply_to": "20283__0_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20283__0_025", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Well, Justice Ginsburg, it always has mattered where the criminal case is, and once this Court held in Malloy v. Hogan that the Fifth Amendment applied equally to the States and to the Federal Government, this Court in the Murphy decision changed the former Federal rule and held that the Fifth Amendment may now be claimed whether the prosecution that is feared would occur in a State or in the Federal Government.\nThe theory behind that is that any jurisdiction that is bound by the Fifth Amendment should not be able to receive testimony that was compelled by another jurisdiction, also bound by the Fifth Amendment, and use it to convict someone.\nSo under the Murphy decision two jurisdictions, each bound by the Fifth Amendment, cannot evade that constitutional guarantee by having one compel the testimony and the other one use it, but that is a value that primarily relates to the way we try criminal cases in this country.\nLike the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the Fifth Amendment fits into a mosaic of rights that express the view that it is the Government that must prove the defendant's guilt without the assistance of compelling the defendant to incriminate himself out of his own mouth and thereby confess himself into a Federal or a State prison.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [456.365, 481.862, 495.11, 511.513], "stop_times": [481.862, 495.11, 511.513, 533.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 456.365}, "reply_to": "20283__0_024", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_026", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Is there anything in our cases which would allow the respondent to make the argument that there is an additional protection in the Fifth Amendment Self-Incrimination Clause that it is simply degrading or destructive of the dignity of the person to be required to answer and to confess a crime?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [533.107], "stop_times": [551.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 533.107}, "reply_to": "20283__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20283__0_027", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "I think that that is one of the components that this Court has identified as a value underlying the Fifth Amendment, but it again relates primarily to a value about how we prosecute individuals in this country.\nIt says nothing about whether another country might choose to adopt a different criminal law system.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [551.328, 564.406], "stop_times": [564.406, 570.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 551.328}, "reply_to": "20283__0_026", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_028", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Well, but I'm not so sure, and do you get that out of Malloy or Murphy?\nWhere do you get this interest in individual dignity or autonomy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [570.15, 574.354], "stop_times": [574.354, 580.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 570.15}, "reply_to": "20283__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20283__0_029", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Well, to the extent that one identifies an interest in individual dignity or autonomy, it does not extend so far as to say the Government cannot exert compulsion.\nBy granting immunity--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [580.959, 591.247], "stop_times": [591.247, 592.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 580.959}, "reply_to": "20283__0_028", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_030", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Of course, because you can have immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [592.507], "stop_times": [594.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 592.507}, "reply_to": "20283__0_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20283__0_031", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "--That's correct.\nThe Government has always had the countervailing ability to grant immunity and then to compel an individual to say anything about himself that he knows honestly, no matter how offensive it is to him personally, no matter whether it would subject him to personal humiliation or jeopardy of life.\nSo long as it's not used against him, those words--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [594.489, 595.398, 612.999], "stop_times": [595.398, 612.999, 616.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 594.489}, "reply_to": "20283__0_030", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_032", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Which leads me to think that there is no freestanding interest in just individual dignity, that it's... the only question is whether or not it can be used by the Government which is going to prosecute him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [616.051], "stop_times": [625.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 616.051}, "reply_to": "20283__0_031", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20283__0_033", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "--I think that that is exactly right, Justice Kennedy.\nIt is not a freestanding interest.\nIt's an interest that it is integrally interlinked with the potential for incrimination, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [625.969, 628.463, 629.785], "stop_times": [628.463, 629.785, 635.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 625.969}, "reply_to": "20283__0_032", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_034", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Mr. Dreeben, can the Federal Government compel testimony that would incriminate someone in a State proceeding by giving him immunity from the State prosecution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [635.03], "stop_times": [646.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 635.03}, "reply_to": "20283__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20283__0_035", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "--Yes.\nIt's settled that the Federal Government has the authority under the Supremacy Clause to declare that testimony that is compelled will not be used against an individual in a State proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [646.508, 646.788], "stop_times": [646.788, 657.547], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 646.508}, "reply_to": "20283__0_034", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_036", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "In a State proceeding as well.\nWhat case--\n--What case settles that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [657.547, 657.788, 658.238], "stop_times": [657.788, 658.238, 659.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 657.547}, "reply_to": "20283__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20283__0_037", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "That I think is settled by the Kastigar decision, by the Murphy decision, by Brown v. Walker, and by Adams v. Maryland.\nI believe we cited all of these cases in our brief that specifically address the Federal Government's power to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [659.42, 668.396], "stop_times": [668.396, 673.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 659.42}, "reply_to": "20283__0_036", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_038", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Mr. Dreeben, is it possible that the Federal Government, for example in this case the OSI, might want to cooperate with a foreign nation to see the individual prosecuted elsewhere and have a motive to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [673.221], "stop_times": [685.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 673.221}, "reply_to": "20283__0_037", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20283__0_039", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Certainly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [685.629], "stop_times": [685.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 685.629}, "reply_to": "20283__0_038", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_040", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "--secure the testimony to help the foreign prosecution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [685.849], "stop_times": [689.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 685.849}, "reply_to": "20283__0_039", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20283__0_041", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "--Well, I think in a case like this the Justice Department has dual interests.\nThere is a Federal law that provides for the deportation of an individual who lied to get into this country and who assisted the Nazis in persecuting Jews during World War II, and that is a distinct Federal interest that is being enforced by OSI.\nIt is also true that OSI regards it as a proper component of its mission to see to it that information that may be relevant to a foreign Government's consideration of prosecution is provided.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [689.92, 695.033, 711.115], "stop_times": [695.033, 711.115, 723.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 689.92}, "reply_to": "20283__0_040", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_042", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Well, should that make any difference in our concerns about this case, if it's that kind of a situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [723.513], "stop_times": [728.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 723.513}, "reply_to": "20283__0_041", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20283__0_043", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "I don't think it should make any difference whatsoever, Justice O'Connor, because the underlying question here is not whether it would be fair in a United States prosecution to use this information.\nThe question is whether the United States Constitution has something to say about the way foreign Governments conduct their prosecutions.\nThere is no country that I'm aware of that has a Fifth Amendment right, or a mirror image of the Fifth Amendment right that looks just like ours.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [728.846, 738.503, 745.709], "stop_times": [738.503, 745.709, 752.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 728.846}, "reply_to": "20283__0_042", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_044", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Do foreign countries scratch our backs, too?\nI mean, do we get people to testify before the courts of foreign countries that don't have Fifth Amendment protections, knowing that what they say can be used in a Federal criminal prosecution?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [752.651, 754.714], "stop_times": [754.714, 768.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 752.651}, "reply_to": "20283__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20283__0_045", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "We don't, Justice Scalia.\nMy understanding is that we provide sufficient information to the foreign Government and ask them to provide information to a witness when we are seeking testimony from overseas about applicable privileges.\nNow, the traditional rule about how the privileges are supposed to be applied when countries cooperate in securing testimony is that the foreign country will take the testimony subject to any claim of privilege, and then the privilege is adjudicated in the home country where the privilege actually derives from, but it is not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [768.022, 769.064, 780.744], "stop_times": [769.064, 780.744, 799.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 768.022}, "reply_to": "20283__0_044", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_046", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "After the testimony is already taken.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [799.043], "stop_times": [801.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 799.043}, "reply_to": "20283__0_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20283__0_047", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "--Right, but it is not the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [801.006], "stop_times": [801.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 801.006}, "reply_to": "20283__0_046", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_048", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "After the cat is out of the bag.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [801.665], "stop_times": [802.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 801.665}, "reply_to": "20283__0_047", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20283__0_049", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "--That is true, Justice Ginsburg.\nIt's not the policy of the United States Government to seek to... that that happen in every case and, as a result, I'm not aware of instances where we did have a foreign Government act as our agent, compelling testimony that would be prohibited if the United States were acting alone.\nObviously, that raises a somewhat separate question from the question here, which is whether the United States may use an agent or an intermediary to accomplish something that it cannot accomplish acting directly, but that is an entirely separate question from whether a witness in this country in a domestic U.S. proceeding may claim the Fifth Amendment based not on a fear of prosecution here, but by a fear of what might happen to him if he is... finds himself in a foreign country and the testimony ends up there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [802.336, 803.989, 820.832], "stop_times": [803.989, 820.832, 849.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 802.336}, "reply_to": "20283__0_048", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_050", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "I take it, then, to your argument it makes no difference whether the foreign country is a country that has a comparable privilege, perhaps, or strata, or whether it's a country that's typical of a civil law system that would not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [849.65], "stop_times": [863.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 849.65}, "reply_to": "20283__0_049", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20283__0_051", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "It does make no difference, Justice Ginsburg, because again, I think that the fundamental concern of the Fifth Amendment and as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment is how we conduct our criminal prosecutions here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [863.048], "stop_times": [875.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 863.048}, "reply_to": "20283__0_050", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_052", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Why is that?\nThat is, if... I'm thinking only of the Fourteenth.\nI agree with you that, let's say hypothetically the Fifth is Federal.\nThey're talking about a Federal trial, but the Fourteenth uses the word liberty, and it protects a person's liberties.\nSo if there's a person in Ohio who would be deprived of a liberty by having his testimony taken and used in an Ohio proceeding, it would deprive that person of a liberty, so he must have a liberty not to have his testimony forced from him for Ohio.\nWhy is it different from Lithuania?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [875.376, 876.508, 878.571, 884.955, 892.582, 912.704], "stop_times": [876.508, 878.571, 884.955, 892.582, 912.704, 914.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 875.376}, "reply_to": "20283__0_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20283__0_053", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "It's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [914.916], "stop_times": [915.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 914.916}, "reply_to": "20283__0_052", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_054", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "I mean, the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't talk about what Ohio can do.\nThe Fourteenth Amendment talks about the liberty that a person enjoys.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [915.396, 918.488], "stop_times": [918.488, 922.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 915.396}, "reply_to": "20283__0_053", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20283__0_055", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "--It's different because Ohio, unlike Lithuania, is bound by the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [922.121], "stop_times": [928.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 922.121}, "reply_to": "20283__0_054", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_056", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Where does it say that in the Constitution?\nI thought all that it says in the Constitution is that you cannot deprive a person of a liberty.\nIt says no State shall deprive a person of a liberty.\nWe're talking about a liberty.\nWhat's the liberty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [928.366, 930.296, 935.511, 939.461, 941.724], "stop_times": [930.296, 935.511, 939.461, 941.724, 943.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 928.366}, "reply_to": "20283__0_055", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20283__0_057", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "--The liberty, I think, in your hypothetical is ultimately freedom from incarceration.\nThe question is whether Ohio may use the information that Illinois has extracted for purposes of prosecution, and this Court in the Murphy decision attempted to make sense out of our Federal system in which all jurisdictions are bound by the Fifth Amendment by saying that two jurisdictions who are equally bound by the Fifth Amendment cannot team up--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [943.626, 949.028], "stop_times": [949.028, 969.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 943.626}, "reply_to": "20283__0_056", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_058", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Mr. Dreeben, may I just interrupt?\nIt isn't technically and strictly correct to say that the State is bound by the Fifth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [969.892, 971.474], "stop_times": [971.474, 977.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 969.892}, "reply_to": "20283__0_057", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20283__0_059", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [977.698], "stop_times": [978.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 977.698}, "reply_to": "20283__0_058", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_060", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "It's bound by the Fourteenth Amendment--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [978.018], "stop_times": [979.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 978.018}, "reply_to": "20283__0_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20283__0_061", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [979.47], "stop_times": [979.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 979.47}, "reply_to": "20283__0_060", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_062", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "--which has a liberty protection which is somewhat comparable, or is comparable to the Fifth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [979.701], "stop_times": [983.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 979.701}, "reply_to": "20283__0_061", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20283__0_063", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Well, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [983.064], "stop_times": [983.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 983.064}, "reply_to": "20283__0_062", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_064", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "But strictly speaking the State is not bound by the Fifth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [983.464], "stop_times": [986.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 983.464}, "reply_to": "20283__0_063", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20283__0_065", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "--That is correct, strictly speaking it's not, but the Court in Malloy v. Hogan said, we are going to apply the Fifth Amendment to the States just as we apply it to the Federal Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [986.554], "stop_times": [994.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 986.554}, "reply_to": "20283__0_064", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_066", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "And when we say just as we apply it to the Federal Government, there is no case, with reference to the Fourth Amendment search rules, the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination or double jeopardy rules, or the jury trial rules in which the State protection is any greater or any less than is granted to... under the Federal... than is applicable to the Federal Government, is that not correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [994.892], "stop_times": [1014.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 994.892}, "reply_to": "20283__0_065", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20283__0_067", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Once the Court has made the decision to extend the right in question to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1014.463], "stop_times": [1019.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1014.463}, "reply_to": "20283__0_066", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_068", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "They are coterminous in each case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1019.417], "stop_times": [1020.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1019.417}, "reply_to": "20283__0_067", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20283__0_069", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "They're coextensive, and the fundamental premise of the Murphy decision is that we do have cooperative federalism in this country when it comes to law enforcement, and it makes very little sense to say that once the States are no longer free to compel testimony under the Federal Constitution, that they may then operate together and achieve results that they couldn't achieve--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1020.567], "stop_times": [1040.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1020.567}, "reply_to": "20283__0_068", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_070", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Can I ask you about that, because I was just testing out the linguistic argument, that's why I was... Justice Stevens made the point linguistically, but I have a practical question, which is why... how specifically would extension of the protection that you oppose interfere with Government law enforcement efforts?\nIn particular, I'm thinking that it must be perhaps a fairly unusual case where, say, as here, the statute of limitations has run, 5 years, so there's no risk of domestic protection.\nI'm guessing that in most cases anybody who can assert a Fifth Amendment privilege in respect to a foreign country probably could here, too, so I'm interested in... I'm raising that so you'll respond to the real practicality, how would extension really interfere with law enforcement efforts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1040.502, 1061.146, 1073.204], "stop_times": [1061.146, 1073.204, 1090.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1040.502}, "reply_to": "20283__0_069", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20283__0_071", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "--The extension of the privilege to foreign prosecutions would seriously interfere with domestic investigations, because we cannot grant immunity from a fear of foreign prosecutions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1090.754], "stop_times": [1102.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1090.754}, "reply_to": "20283__0_070", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_072", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Why don't you just say to the person you wouldn't deport him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1102.274], "stop_times": [1103.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1102.274}, "reply_to": "20283__0_071", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20283__0_073", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "That has not been considered by most courts an adequate answer to concerns about the Fifth Amendment.\nThe Fifth Amendment is not... does not stand as a guarantee that depends on whether later events bear it out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1103.914, 1111.089], "stop_times": [1111.089, 1117.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1103.914}, "reply_to": "20283__0_072", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_074", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "But doesn't there have to be a realistic threat of prosecution, and if you say you're not going to deport him, then there's no realistic threat.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1117.885], "stop_times": [1123.057], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1117.885}, "reply_to": "20283__0_073", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20283__0_075", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "No, there may well be a realistic threat of prosecution because a foreign country may issue an extradition order to us, so we then have the discretion to say, well, we're not going to comply with the terms of our extradition treaty, but we then have to answer to the world community for our decision not to do that.\nIn a case in which, for example, an act of terrorism occurs abroad that involves citizens of foreign States, we may apprehend some of them, bring them to this country, learn that they fear domestic prosecution, and issue an immunity order which would ordinarily require them to testify, but they may say no, I'm sorry, I'm not going to testify because I still fear prosecution abroad.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1123.057, 1140.19], "stop_times": [1140.19, 1161.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1123.057}, "reply_to": "20283__0_074", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_076", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Well, isn't there considerable administrative difficulty in applying the rule sought by the respondent here?\nCourts in this country are going to have to analyze whether the fear is realistic or not and really familiarize themselves with a number of different kinds of foreign law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1161.184, 1167.797], "stop_times": [1167.797, 1176.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1161.184}, "reply_to": "20283__0_075", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20283__0_077", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "There are a number of practical implementation questions, Chief Justice Rehnquist, as you raise.\nIn the jurisdictions where a claim like this could be raised, courts will have to go through, as they did in this case, several bodies of foreign law and try to make appraisal of the realistic ability of a foreign government to prosecute, and that stands quite a bit in contrast to the domestic regime in which, once the privilege is raised, it stands as an absolute, except that the Government has immunity power, and the immunity power has always been viewed as essentially coextensive with the reach of the Fifth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1176.303, 1180.477], "stop_times": [1180.477, 1208.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1176.303}, "reply_to": "20283__0_076", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_078", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Outside of a witness who is a defendant in a criminal trial, you have to show that there is a likelihood of incrimination in the answer.\nYou can't just say, I plead the Fifth Amendment, period, and automatically get off.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1208.895, 1219.463], "stop_times": [1219.463, 1224.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1208.895}, "reply_to": "20283__0_077", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20283__0_079", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "That is certainly true, but the way that the test is applied in the lower courts is not terribly demanding.\nNormally, if a witness can identify a body of law under which he contends it's conceivable that he might be incriminated, he's not required to go much further than that.\nCourts don't typically take in camera testimony to determine whether the answers would really be incriminating, and they don't typically ask whether the State or Government prosecution that is feared is really likely to happen.\nIt's generally enough simply to assert that there is testimony that would incriminate the individual and to identify a law under which that might happen, and the Government's next step is ordinarily immunity if it wants the testimony.\nBut immunity orders aren't going to work in this context, because we rarely are going to be able to guarantee that the immunity order will actually be coextensive with the scope of the privilege and prevent the use of the testimony overseas and, as a result, we may well be in situations where we're investigating serious terrorist activity, or interstate... international drug trafficking, money laundering, white collar crime, and we are helpless to attain our prosecutorial objectives because an immunity order simply doesn't work.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1224.138, 1229.911, 1239.088, 1251.487, 1263.257], "stop_times": [1229.911, 1239.088, 1251.487, 1263.257, 1294.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1224.138}, "reply_to": "20283__0_078", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_080", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Suppose that in this case or a similar case there were three grounds for deportation, each of them fairly substantial, so that you're going... you know you're going to be able to deport this man anyway.\nIf ground number 1 were lying on the application, could the Government say, we don't really need your testimony because we're going to be able to deport you anyway, but we want it in order to help Lithuania, or Israel, or some other foreign country?\nWould that be a legitimate basis for the Government to compel the testimony?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1294.066, 1307.643, 1322.783], "stop_times": [1307.643, 1322.783, 1326.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1294.066}, "reply_to": "20283__0_079", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20283__0_081", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "As long as the Government has a law that it's seeking to enforce in that circumstance, I don't see any reason why the Fifth Amendment question would change.\nNow, it is conceivable that if the Court were to hold that the United States were somehow completely in control of a foreign prosecution so that some foreign Government's prosecution were really nothing but a sham, a cover under which the United States were really the prosecuting entity, then the analysis might be different.\nThis Court had suggested that there might be an exemption to the traditional dual sovereignty rule under the Double Jeopardy Clause, which allows the States and the Federal Government each to prosecute.\nIf in a particular case a defendant could show that in reality the State prosecution was simply a cover for the Federal Government to take over and do it as a tool, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1326.256, 1336.334, 1354.325, 1364.283], "stop_times": [1336.334, 1354.325, 1364.283, 1375.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1326.256}, "reply_to": "20283__0_080", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_082", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Well, the hypothetical I put is a little different.\nIt's not that the foreign prosecution is a cover, but that the United States is very eager to assist the foreign prosecution.\nThat makes no difference in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1375.91, 1377.412, 1384.367], "stop_times": [1377.412, 1384.367, 1385.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1375.91}, "reply_to": "20283__0_081", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20283__0_083", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "--I... no, that makes no difference, because the ultimate constitutional question is whether the criminal case in which incrimination is feared is a criminal case within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.\nOur essential position is that no foreign criminal case fits within the language of the Fifth Amendment, construed in light of its history and its policies and, as a result, it simply doesn't matter that the witness may say, I fear incrimination overseas because the United States may cooperate with a foreign government.\nNow, again, the role of immunity statutes here, in our view, is key, because there has never been a time in this country in which a claim of the Fifth Amendment privilege could not be met by the Government seeking to get the testimony through granting immunity, but if this rule proposed by the respondent and accepted by the Second Circuit were adopted, it would mean that the United States would no longer be able to obtain needed testimony and it would put a witness who feared foreign prosecution in a better position than a witness who fears domestic prosecution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1385.469, 1395.527, 1412.617], "stop_times": [1395.527, 1412.617, 1447.869], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1385.469}, "reply_to": "20283__0_082", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_084", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Of course, the Constitution would have had the same meaning, I suppose, if the Congress had never passed any immunity statutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1447.869], "stop_times": [1453.122], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1447.869}, "reply_to": "20283__0_083", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20283__0_085", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "The Constitution would have, and it would have meant that immunity statutes would be permissible if a legislature wished to pass them.\nThe historical fact is that, as the Fifth Amendment right developed in the common law in England, simultaneously it was recognized that testimony could be compelled if immunity was granted and, in the colonies in this country which adopted precursors of the Fifth Amendment privilege, immunity statutes were also enacted.\nNow, the Federal Government didn't get into the business of enacting immunity statutes until about 1857, but I think that's largely explicable by the very small role of the Federal Government in prosecuting criminal cases in the early years of this Nation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1453.122, 1462.489, 1481.592], "stop_times": [1462.489, 1481.592, 1495.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1453.122}, "reply_to": "20283__0_084", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_086", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Yes, but the Second Circuit's suggestion was that the Congress could pass statutes in the extradition and deportation area that are analogous to the immunity statutes in the domestic area.\nIt could thereby do just what the immunity statutes have done.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1495.11, 1504.958], "stop_times": [1504.958, 1508.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1495.11}, "reply_to": "20283__0_085", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20283__0_087", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1508.421], "stop_times": [1509.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1508.421}, "reply_to": "20283__0_086", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_088", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1509.082], "stop_times": [1509.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1509.082}, "reply_to": "20283__0_087", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20283__0_089", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "It would do far more--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1509.783], "stop_times": [1509.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1509.783}, "reply_to": "20283__0_088", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_090", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1509.963], "stop_times": [1510.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1509.963}, "reply_to": "20283__0_089", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20283__0_091", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "--Justice Breyer, because an immunity statute in this country grants the witness freedom from having his words used against him or the fruits of those words used against him.\nIt doesn't foreclose a prosecution altogether.\nThis Court in the Kastigar decision overruled the view that transactional immunity is required.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1510.264, 1518.872, 1521.714], "stop_times": [1518.872, 1521.714, 1526.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1510.264}, "reply_to": "20283__0_090", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_092", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "No, no, but I mean, why couldn't Congress... what's wrong with the Second Circuit's suggestion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1526.747], "stop_times": [1530.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1526.747}, "reply_to": "20283__0_091", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20283__0_093", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Because the Second Circuit's suggestion in effect would grant transactional immunity.\nNot only would the witness be free from having his words used against him, he would be free from any prosecution altogether, because if the theory of the immunity statute that the Second Circuit posited is correct, that witness can never be sent to the foreign country where he might be prosecuted, and that grants the witness something far more than he would have in the United States, puts him in a much better position than a similarly situated U.S. witness would be, and thwarts the foreign country's interest in prosecuting if it could do it without the defendant's words at all.\nIt is also anomalous because the Second Circuit's holding would grant a witness greater protection than he might have in the country to which he ultimately goes if he faces prosecution.\nThat country might not recognize a Fifth Amendment privilege in the same way or to the same extent as this country, and thus we have the anomaly that here the witness says, I don't want my words to be used against me because I fear prosecution in a foreign country, and then when he gets there that foreign country says, we'd now like your testimony.\nThere's no basis for using the Fifth Amendment to internationalize U.S. self-incrimination rules when foreign countries themselves may treat the same issues quite differently.\nI'd like to reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1530.61, 1533.961, 1562.722, 1573.499, 1590.201, 1600.166], "stop_times": [1533.961, 1562.722, 1573.499, 1590.201, 1600.166, 1603.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1530.61}, "reply_to": "20283__0_092", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__0_094", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Very well, Mr. Dreeben.\nMr. Berzins, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1603.248, 1603.929], "stop_times": [1603.929, 1606.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1603.248}, "reply_to": "20283__0_093", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20283__1_000", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court:\nWhat the Government advocates defeats the policies and purposes of the privilege, as this Court has repeatedly said in all the cases that followed Murphy.\nThe Government wants to extract from my client testimony that is designed to impose criminal penalties on him.\nThey are trying to get him to testify without any grant of immunity, under naked compulsion, to extract out of him, out of his mouth the testimony that will inflict criminal penalties on him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1606.58, 1613.106, 1631.007, 1640.814], "stop_times": [1613.106, 1631.007, 1640.814, 1662.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1606.58}, "reply_to": "20283__0_094", "speaker": "ivars_berzins"}
{"id": "20283__1_001", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Mr. Berzins, could the United States constitutionally compel your client to do something which would be criminal under the law of another country?\nIf it wanted to, could the United States pass a statute that says, if you do not do this you are committing a crime in the United States and will be put in jail, even though, under the law of another country, if he did what the Federal statute says, he would be subject to criminal punishment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1662.096, 1675.666], "stop_times": [1675.666, 1695.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1662.096}, "reply_to": "20283__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20283__1_002", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, the United States could pass such a law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1695.091], "stop_times": [1698.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1695.091}, "reply_to": "20283__1_001", "speaker": "ivars_berzins"}
{"id": "20283__1_003", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Well, this is much less than that, it seems to me.\nHere, what the United States would be compelling would not automatically subject him to criminal punishment somewhere else.\nIt would just allow in evidence somewhere else that might subject him to criminal punishment.\nIt seems to me that the greater includes the lesser.\nIt's a very strange system in which we say we can compel you to do something that will enable a foreign country to send you to jail, but we cannot compel you to say something which might be used as part of a criminal prosecution in a foreign country that might send you to jail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1698.081, 1701.003, 1708.72, 1714.994, 1717.796], "stop_times": [1701.003, 1708.72, 1714.994, 1717.796, 1733.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1698.081}, "reply_to": "20283__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20283__1_004", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "That is quite so, Your Honor, but I invite you to consider the cruel trilemma that faces the claimant to the privilege.\nIt is the cruel trilemma that I submit to you the Constitution prohibits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1733.825, 1744.764], "stop_times": [1744.764, 1749.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1733.825}, "reply_to": "20283__1_003", "speaker": "ivars_berzins"}
{"id": "20283__1_005", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Well, Mr. Berzins, you know, we're bound under stare decisis by the holding of the Murphy case.\nWe're not bound to just accept every sentence in the opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1749.178, 1755.953], "stop_times": [1755.953, 1759.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1749.178}, "reply_to": "20283__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20283__1_006", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Your Honor, Mr. Chief Justice, I submit to you that the Self-Incrimination Clause prohibits compulsion, and that the Framers had in mind precisely the compulsion that is about to be visited upon my client.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1759.065], "stop_times": [1782.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1759.065}, "reply_to": "20283__1_005", "speaker": "ivars_berzins"}
{"id": "20283__1_007", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "No.\nWell--\n--It prohibits compulsion which incriminates.\nThat's the other half, and I think the Government... you have to agree, don't you... maybe you don't.\nDon't you agree that the Government is correct that you're asking, really, for a superprivilege, because the Government is powerless to grant immunity in this case, and we know of... I know of no other case where the Federal Government is powerless to give an immunity when we have simply a State or a Federal prosecution under the Kastigar rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1782.17, 1782.28, 1782.581, 1785.065, 1791.51], "stop_times": [1782.28, 1782.581, 1785.065, 1791.51, 1812.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1782.17}, "reply_to": "20283__1_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20283__1_008", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Your Honor, I submit that the Government is not powerless to help itself if it really wants my client's testimony.\nThey certainly have the means of getting... either not deporting him or getting pardons or immunity from the States to which the Government wants to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1812.553, 1821.329], "stop_times": [1821.329, 1831.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1812.553}, "reply_to": "20283__1_007", "speaker": "ivars_berzins"}
{"id": "20283__1_009", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Well, but a U.S. citizen can't ask for immunity in a civil action, which is the immunity you're suggesting that the Government must give your client.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1831.236], "stop_times": [1840.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1831.236}, "reply_to": "20283__1_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20283__1_010", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "--Your Honor, my client is not asking for immunity.\nMy client is merely asking that he not be compelled to, out of his own mouth to admit to criminal... to admit to acts that will inflict criminal penalties upon him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1840.092, 1845.346], "stop_times": [1845.346, 1858.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1840.092}, "reply_to": "20283__1_009", "speaker": "ivars_berzins"}
{"id": "20283__1_011", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "You recognize, don't you, that if he does successfully plead self-incrimination, that could be used.\nHis refusal to answer could be used against him in the deportation proceeding, so his risk of deportation is enhanced if he refuses to testify, is that not so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1858.395, 1866.89], "stop_times": [1866.89, 1878.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1858.395}, "reply_to": "20283__1_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20283__1_012", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, that is quite so.\nAn inference can be drawn from his mere exercise of the privilege.\nThe cases have so held.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1878.661, 1881.141, 1885.936], "stop_times": [1881.141, 1885.936, 1887.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1878.661}, "reply_to": "20283__1_011", "speaker": "ivars_berzins"}
{"id": "20283__1_013", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "I wanted... your client is now 85 years old, is that... is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1887.245], "stop_times": [1891.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1887.245}, "reply_to": "20283__1_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20283__1_014", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "He's very old, Your Honor.\nMy math fails me right now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1891.55, 1893.48], "stop_times": [1893.48, 1895.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1891.55}, "reply_to": "20283__1_013", "speaker": "ivars_berzins"}
{"id": "20283__1_015", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "But he's still with us.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1895.623], "stop_times": [1897.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1895.623}, "reply_to": "20283__1_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20283__1_016", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThe Government claims that it has no effective way to grant immunity.\nI'd like to address that, if I may.\nIt seems to me that the Government has the means to address foreign governments and it has the means to enter into treaties and other arrangements that might be coextensive with the privilege, and also I submit to you that the compulsion is precisely what the Framers wanted to preclude by the very plain language of the amendment.\nAnd the crux of this case, I submit to you, is on page 13 of the Government's reply brief where, in footnote 4, I believe, they very plainly admit... and I certainly thank them for this admission... that they do not have sufficient evidence to charge my client with anything, that they have to compel him to incriminate himself, that they have to compel him to confess before they can proceed.\nWell, it seems to me that this is exactly what the Framers wanted to preclude.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1897.363, 1898.395, 1907.871, 1909.814, 1939.704, 1969.804], "stop_times": [1898.395, 1907.871, 1909.814, 1939.704, 1969.804, 1975.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1897.363}, "reply_to": "20283__1_015", "speaker": "ivars_berzins"}
{"id": "20283__1_017", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Well, they're not proceeding in a criminal action against him and apparently there's no prospect of that in the United States, isn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1975.318], "stop_times": [1983.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1975.318}, "reply_to": "20283__1_016", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20283__1_018", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Your Honor, the cruel trilemma--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1983.162], "stop_times": [1987.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1983.162}, "reply_to": "20283__1_017", "speaker": "ivars_berzins"}
{"id": "20283__1_019", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Well, before we get back to the cruel trilemma, I mean, what's the answer to my question?\nThe... as I understand it they want to use this in a civil proceeding and so far as I can tell from anything you have said there is no prospect of a domestic criminal proceeding.\nAre those two points correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [1987.824, 1992.297, 2004.415], "stop_times": [1992.297, 2004.415, 2006.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1987.824}, "reply_to": "20283__1_018", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20283__1_020", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nThere is no prospect of a criminal proceeding in the United States, but I submit to you that it makes no difference where the criminal proceeding takes place.\nThe compulsion doesn't become any different whether the compulsion takes place in California and the criminal trial takes place in Calcutta.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2006.649, 2007.427, 2017.695], "stop_times": [2007.427, 2017.695, 2027.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2006.649}, "reply_to": "20283__1_019", "speaker": "ivars_berzins"}
{"id": "20283__1_021", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Well, you say it makes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2027.041], "stop_times": [2028.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2027.041}, "reply_to": "20283__1_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20283__1_022", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "It makes no difference to the claimant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2028.313], "stop_times": [2028.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2028.313}, "reply_to": "20283__1_021", "speaker": "ivars_berzins"}
{"id": "20283__1_023", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "--You say it makes no difference.\nI don't have Kastigar in front of me, but my recollection is that Kastigar explained Murphy as being the result of the decision in Malloy, so that the theory, if I understand the Kastigar explanation, was in effect that we will recognize the privilege in order, in effect, to guarantee enforcement of Fifth Amendment rights in any jurisdiction in which Fifth Amendment rights apply.\nOriginally they just applied with respect to Federal prosecutions.\nAfter Malloy they apply with respect to State prosecutions.\nBut the theory, as I understand it, after Kastigar remains that the enforcement was geared to preserving the right in a jurisdiction in which the Fifth Amendment applied and, if that's the case, then it seems to me we would have to modify the theory of the Fifth Amendment in order to recognize your position.\nAm I wrong in my reading of Kastigar and in inferring the theory behind it that I just stated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2028.733, 2030.215, 2061.716, 2065.59, 2068.762, 2091.107], "stop_times": [2030.215, 2061.716, 2065.59, 2068.762, 2091.107, 2099.122], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2028.733}, "reply_to": "20283__1_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20283__1_024", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThe theory in Kastigar, though, should be read in the context of Kastigar, where there was no claim of a foreign criminal prosecution raised.\nIt dealt with the State prosecution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2099.122, 2101.144, 2111.111], "stop_times": [2101.144, 2111.111, 2113.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2099.122}, "reply_to": "20283__1_023", "speaker": "ivars_berzins"}
{"id": "20283__1_025", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Well, that's right.\nI'm talking about Kastigar's explanation of Murphy in light of Malloy.\nDo you think that was an incorrect explanation, an incorrect reconciliation of our cases, where we had gone from a regime in which the, a State... use in a State prosecution didn't count, to a regime after Malloy in which use in a State prosecution did count, and Kastigar explained it.\nDo you think that the explanation was correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2113.615, 2116.046, 2121.211, 2139.911], "stop_times": [2116.046, 2121.211, 2139.911, 2143.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2113.615}, "reply_to": "20283__1_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20283__1_026", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, I do in the context in which it was given, but I submit to you that Murphy can stand independent of the application of the Fifth Amendment through the Fourteenth Amendment to the States.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2143.103], "stop_times": [2159.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2143.103}, "reply_to": "20283__1_025", "speaker": "ivars_berzins"}
{"id": "20283__1_027", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "But if it does, I guess, we've got to read criminal case in a very different way from the way we have read it before.\nIt's got to go... a criminal case has gone from Federal criminal case to State criminal case and on your theory it's got to go a step further, or we would have to adopt a compulsion theory, but that seems out of the question, because we routinely compel testimony if, in fact, the immunity can be granted.\nSo it seems to me we've got to come up with a brand-new theory of what a criminal case is, and we're going to have to reject the prior explanation in order for the case to come out your way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2159.105, 2168.551, 2187.915], "stop_times": [2168.551, 2187.915, 2199.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2159.105}, "reply_to": "20283__1_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20283__1_028", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Your Honor, I submit that the case could come out as I advocate it if the Court adopts the view that the personal liberties component as explained in Murphy is a very important one, and that it cannot be brushed aside merely because the infliction of criminal penalties will take place elsewhere.\nThe fear is here.\nThe Article III compelling court is here.\nThe claimant is here.\nAll of this takes place in the United States.\nIt is just a coincidence that the criminal penalties will be inflicted elsewhere.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2199.633, 2228.902, 2231.543, 2235.136, 2236.857, 2238.99], "stop_times": [2228.902, 2231.543, 2235.136, 2236.857, 2238.99, 2243.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2199.633}, "reply_to": "20283__1_027", "speaker": "ivars_berzins"}
{"id": "20283__1_029", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Mr. Berzins, if the testimony were taken under seal would you have any... would you still object?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2243.602], "stop_times": [2256.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2243.602}, "reply_to": "20283__1_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20283__1_030", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Your Honor, I would, and I would object for the reasons stated by the district court in this case as well as in the Gecas case and, as I recall, the reasons were the sealing order really cannot be made coextensive with the privilege.\nThat has been recognized as a very difficult prospect in light of all the newspaper articles we read about grand jury leaks, et cetera.\nAnd even more concern to me is what would happen if there is a sealing order, my client gets deported overseas, and then the leaks come out overseas.\nObviously there is no way that that situation can be remedied.\nIt's too late.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2256.061, 2278.374, 2287.521, 2299.858, 2304.072], "stop_times": [2278.374, 2287.521, 2299.858, 2304.072, 2305.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2256.061}, "reply_to": "20283__1_029", "speaker": "ivars_berzins"}
{"id": "20283__1_031", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "But once your client is overseas... I don't know what the Lithuanian legal system is, but most systems have at best a muted self-incrimination guarantee compared to ours, so once he's over there the likelihood is that his testimony could be compelled, is that not so?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2305.074], "stop_times": [2326.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2305.074}, "reply_to": "20283__1_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20283__1_032", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, but I submit we ought not be concerned with what the procedural systems are that might compel it.\nI submit to you that we should be concerned with the compulsion here, not with what happens to the compulsion overseas.\nWe cannot help the compulsion that may occur in some other country.\nThe Fifth Amendment does not, I submit, protect against other compulsions and other disabilities and other harms, only against infliction of criminal penalties, and that, I submit, is what ought to be guarded against, and I submit that is a liberty interest that should be recognized as a very important one.\nAs I submit, the Murphy court in its explanation highlighted it very prominently, and on that basis I ask you to recognize it when the obvious fear of infliction of criminal penalties is real.\nMr. Chief Justice raised the question about administrative difficulties.\nThus far I do not believe administrative difficulties have been encountered in these cases, because the burden has always been upon the claimant to establish precisely what it is that he fears and what are the realistic chances of him winding up before a criminal court where the criminal penalties will be inflicted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2326.328, 2335.433, 2346.052, 2349.715, 2374.229, 2395.765, 2402.449], "stop_times": [2335.433, 2346.052, 2349.715, 2374.229, 2395.765, 2402.449, 2427.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2326.328}, "reply_to": "20283__1_031", "speaker": "ivars_berzins"}
{"id": "20283__1_033", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Was this tried as an issue of fact in the district court, Mr. Berzins?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2427.354], "stop_times": [2431.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2427.354}, "reply_to": "20283__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20283__1_034", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, that was extensively handled in the district court, and it was... in each case it is a claimant's burden and it's a heavy one under the Flanigan case in the Second Circuit.\nIt's a whole litany of things that the claimant has to prove before he can have any chance of having the privilege recognized.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2431.247, 2446.418], "stop_times": [2446.418, 2454.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2431.247}, "reply_to": "20283__1_033", "speaker": "ivars_berzins"}
{"id": "20283__1_035", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Well, if there is a whole litany of things, it seems to me that that would make for administrative difficulties.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2454.663], "stop_times": [2460.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2454.663}, "reply_to": "20283__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20283__1_036", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "But I submit to you that the difficulty is upon the claimant, not upon the courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2460.287], "stop_times": [2467.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2460.287}, "reply_to": "20283__1_035", "speaker": "ivars_berzins"}
{"id": "20283__1_037", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Well, but the fact that it may be a hard row for the claimant to hoe doesn't mean that that fact shouldn't be taken into consideration, because it's also going to be something that the district court probably has to spend a fair amount of time on.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2467.04], "stop_times": [2480.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2467.04}, "reply_to": "20283__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20283__1_038", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Admittedly, the district court may have to spend some time on it, but it's up to the claimant to bring to the district court every last piece of evidence on which he relies and which will establish his claim as being a legitimate claim as distinguished from a fanciful or contrived claim, and that burden is upon the claimant, and once the claimant establishes it, I submit the privilege ought to be permitted to be invoked, because the alternative is the cruel trilemma to which I must again return and urge you to recognize it from the standpoint of the claimant.\nIt makes no difference to him where he will spend his time in jail.\nIf the jail is overseas, or if the gallows are overseas, it's a criminal penalty from his point of view, and from his point of view the liberty interest is definitely infringed upon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2480.642, 2519.758, 2525.631], "stop_times": [2519.758, 2525.631, 2538.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2480.642}, "reply_to": "20283__1_037", "speaker": "ivars_berzins"}
{"id": "20283__1_039", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Well, if it makes no difference I suppose he can just refuse to answer, and then he can spend his time in jail here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2538.448], "stop_times": [2542.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2538.448}, "reply_to": "20283__1_038", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20283__1_040", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I think you hit the nail on the head.\n[Laughter]\nBut that does not minimize the constitutional claim that we're advocating.\nWe're advocating that this Court recognize the individual liberties component as it was so eloquently explained in Murphy, and I submit to you that individual liberties component, if it is recognized, as being a very important component of the privilege.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2542.821, 2548.676, 2550.506, 2558.32], "stop_times": [2548.676, 2550.506, 2558.32, 2576.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2542.821}, "reply_to": "20283__1_039", "speaker": "ivars_berzins"}
{"id": "20283__1_041", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Well, calling it an individual liberty doesn't make it any... doesn't change the wording of the Fifth Amendment, which is a privilege against self-incrimination, and I think... you know, worldwide, as Justice Ginsburg has suggested, that is not a universal... universally valued as highly as it is in this country.\nSo to call it individual liberty I think is perhaps an overstatement.\nIt's something that is in our Constitution.\nIt's a guarantee that we enforce in our courts, but to call it a liberty doesn't change what the Constitution says.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2576.573, 2597.997, 2602.7, 2604.682], "stop_times": [2597.997, 2602.7, 2604.682, 2611.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2576.573}, "reply_to": "20283__1_040", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20283__1_042", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, that is so, but this Court has in a long line of cases since Murphy reiterated this liberty aspect and used very, very strong language in saying that the liberty aspect of the privilege is important.\nIt's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2611.796, 2640.964], "stop_times": [2640.964, 2642.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2611.796}, "reply_to": "20283__1_041", "speaker": "ivars_berzins"}
{"id": "20283__1_043", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Of course, it's a liberty that he has while he's in this country.\nIf as Justice Kennedy suggested, a case in which the Government has two grounds for deportation, one that doesn't incriminate him and one that does, and say he's silent about the one that does but he gets deported on the other ground and he gets sent to Lithuania, and if Lithuania doesn't recognize this liberty, he would there be forced to testify against himself, wouldn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2642.066, 2645.228], "stop_times": [2645.228, 2664.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2642.066}, "reply_to": "20283__1_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20283__1_044", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "--That may very well come to pass, Your Honor, but nevertheless, while he is here, and while he is subject to an Article III court, that Article III court ought not compel him to convict himself out of his own mouth, not here in this country.\nWhat happens in Lithuania, we can't control, but we can control--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2664.79, 2680.291], "stop_times": [2680.291, 2684.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2664.79}, "reply_to": "20283__1_043", "speaker": "ivars_berzins"}
{"id": "20283__1_045", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Well, he hasn't convicted himself out of his own mouth in our courts because he hasn't violated any United States criminal statute.\nHe has given testimony that may be useful abroad in a country that does not provide that particular liberty protection that we provide.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2684.114, 2690.118], "stop_times": [2690.118, 2698.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2684.114}, "reply_to": "20283__1_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20283__1_046", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "--That is quite so, but the incrimination, the testimony coming out of the claimant's own mouth, that I submit violates the privilege, because he's being compelled here without a grant of immunity.\nEvery case where immunity has been granted, and the claimant has been forced to testify, the fear of the criminal penalties has been eliminated.\nBut if the fear of the criminal penalties is not eliminated, I submit that the violation is there regardless of where the infliction takes place.\nIt is the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2698.483, 2717.855, 2731.125, 2742.421], "stop_times": [2717.855, 2731.125, 2742.421, 2744.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2698.483}, "reply_to": "20283__1_045", "speaker": "ivars_berzins"}
{"id": "20283__1_047", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "You do acknowledge that it is kind of a superprivilege that he would have because of the absence of the immunity, the absence of the United States' ability to give... to immunize the testimony?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2744.772], "stop_times": [2759.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2744.772}, "reply_to": "20283__1_046", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20283__1_048", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "--Your Honor, characterizing it as a superprivilege, I don't want to join in that characterization.\nI would prefer to characterize it as giving full application to the privilege, not super.\nIt's really not super.\nHe is not... he is not... the claimant is not being given anything that he shouldn't have, because if his fear is legitimate, if the criminal penalties are there, I really don't see that it is superprotection.\nI think it is the protection that the Framers had in mind.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2759.723, 2770.191, 2779.515, 2780.707, 2796.868], "stop_times": [2770.191, 2779.515, 2780.707, 2796.868, 2799.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2759.723}, "reply_to": "20283__1_047", "speaker": "ivars_berzins"}
{"id": "20283__1_049", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "The Government is saying that, imagine ordinary drug dealers who somehow get into this country and if, in fact, it's a drug dealer from New York who's in Ohio, and Ohio wants to compel the testimony, Ohio can simply give use immunity, or... and it's possible that... and that person can't be prosecuted for what flows from that particular testimony.\nBut suppose the person, instead of coming from New York to Ohio, comes from some foreign country to Ohio, and now the Government is saying, well, we don't know what to do.\nI mean, we'll never be able to get this testimony.\nThere's no way to deal with the foreign country.\nThe best we could ever do is not deport him, and if we don't deport him, that means he can never be prosecuted there for anything, though he might have been the worst murderer in this other country that anybody's ever seen.\nNow, what's your response?\nIs there a response to that claim of the Government?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2799.87, 2821.836, 2832.063, 2833.745, 2835.936, 2845.713, 2847.845], "stop_times": [2821.836, 2832.063, 2833.745, 2835.936, 2845.713, 2847.845, 2850.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2799.87}, "reply_to": "20283__1_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20283__1_050", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Your Honor, my response is that obviously there will be cases where the Government will not be able to either grant immunity or get the foreign government to cooperate in granting a pardon, or issuing its own immunity, or whatever.\nThere obviously will be cases, but I submit to you that those cases will be far and few, and they really ought not be what turns this issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2850.879, 2869.899], "stop_times": [2869.899, 2882.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2850.879}, "reply_to": "20283__1_049", "speaker": "ivars_berzins"}
{"id": "20283__1_051", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Why will they be few and far between, given, let's say, current international criminal behaviors which, you know, are all over the place?\nWhy won't it come up every day of the week?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2882.077, 2891.364], "stop_times": [2891.364, 2893.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2882.077}, "reply_to": "20283__1_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20283__1_052", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I am... I am really prefacing my answer based on the past.\nI have not seen that in the past it has arisen that often.\nMaybe in the future it will, but in the past, these claimants who have made claim to the privilege under similar circumstances, the majority of them have lost.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2893.755, 2901.201, 2904.754], "stop_times": [2901.201, 2904.754, 2913.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2893.755}, "reply_to": "20283__1_051", "speaker": "ivars_berzins"}
{"id": "20283__1_053", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "All right.\nSo in your view the Government can compel your client's testimony provided it says what?\nA) We won't deport him.\nB) We will deport him but not to this particular country.\nC) We will get a promise from the foreign country that they won't use the testimony.\nD) We'll get a promise from the foreign country that they will pardon him.\nAny of those four would be sufficient, in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2931.773, 2913.77, 2918.024, 2919.965, 2923.247, 2927.941, 2932.313], "stop_times": [2913.77, 2918.024, 2919.965, 2923.247, 2927.941, 2932.313, 2934.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2931.773}, "reply_to": "20283__1_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20283__1_054", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "It seems to me that they would be if they are coextensive with what we would consider equivalent to immunity that can be granted here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2934.456], "stop_times": [2942.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2934.456}, "reply_to": "20283__1_053", "speaker": "ivars_berzins"}
{"id": "20283__1_055", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Mm-hmm.\nSo then in your view there is no obstacle of a practical nature for the Government to getting any of those four things, or is there?\nWhat are the natures of the obstacles?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2942.65, 2943.662, 2951.947], "stop_times": [2943.662, 2951.947, 2953.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2942.65}, "reply_to": "20283__1_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20283__1_056", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Your Honor, the obstacles will be practical and diplomatic, but I have a lot of faith in our Government.\nThey can do miracles, and if they have to they will accomplish them here also.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2953.499, 2960.813], "stop_times": [2960.813, 2965.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2953.499}, "reply_to": "20283__1_055", "speaker": "ivars_berzins"}
{"id": "20283__1_057", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "I don't think you're going to rely on it being a miracle, because that would weaken your case considerably.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2965.427, 2971.161], "stop_times": [2971.161, 2974.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2965.427}, "reply_to": "20283__1_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20283__1_058", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Is there anything else that I can be of assistance to this Court with?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2974.253], "stop_times": [2984.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2974.253}, "reply_to": "20283__1_057", "speaker": "ivars_berzins"}
{"id": "20283__1_059", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Apparently not, Mr. Berzins.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2984.431, 2987.012], "stop_times": [2987.012, 2987.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2984.431}, "reply_to": "20283__1_058", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20283__1_060", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2987.491], "stop_times": [2988.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2987.491}, "reply_to": "20283__1_059", "speaker": "ivars_berzins"}
{"id": "20283__1_061", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Mr. Dreeben, you have 2 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2988.102], "stop_times": [2990.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2988.102}, "reply_to": "20283__1_060", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20283__2_000", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "Unless the Court has any questions, the Government waives rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2990.482], "stop_times": [2993.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2990.482}, "reply_to": "20283__1_061", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "20283__2_001", "conversation_id": "20283", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-873", "start_times": [2993.567], "stop_times": [2995.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2993.567}, "reply_to": "20283__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20058__0_000", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "We'll hear argument first this morning in Number 97-454, the United States v. Bestfoods, et al.--\nMs. Schiffer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [0.0, 8.337], "stop_times": [8.337, 9.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20058__0_001", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nAt issue in this case is under what circumstances is a parent corporation directly liable through its own acts as an operator of a facility under CERCLA?\nThis is a case of statutory construction.\nCongress, to carry out its intent to have those responsible for causing pollution at a facility responsible to remediate it created a system that holds, among others,\n\"any person who owned or operated. \"\na facility liable for cleanup of that facility.\nIt is a direct liability standard.\nOwner or operator is a defined term in the statute.\nA pertinent part of the definition, any person who operates the facility, is circular, and so according to the teachings of this Court must be given its common and ordinary meaning.\nThe dictionary definition of operate is in the context of an industrial facility any person who exercises managerial control over that industrial plant, and we think that this is the appropriate test to apply here.\nUnder CERCLA, the term any person is given a broad definition and includes any corporation, whether a parent or a subsidiary.\nThus--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [9.522, 15.093, 27.15, 30.352, 42.493, 45.862, 49.647, 52.183, 56.551, 69.459, 87.856, 97.628], "stop_times": [15.093, 27.15, 30.352, 42.493, 45.862, 49.647, 52.183, 56.551, 69.459, 87.856, 97.628, 98.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.522}, "reply_to": "20058__0_000", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_002", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Well, Ms. Schiffer, surely you would agree that under the statute not every parent is liable under this statute for the operation of a facility by a subsidiary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [98.745], "stop_times": [114.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 98.745}, "reply_to": "20058__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20058__0_003", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--We would absolutely agree with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [114.923], "stop_times": [117.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 114.923}, "reply_to": "20058__0_002", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_004", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "And there mere fact that there are interlocking directorships, or perhaps managers who serve both corporations, wouldn't determine that, would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [117.208], "stop_times": [127.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 117.208}, "reply_to": "20058__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20058__0_005", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "That is exactly correct, Justice O'Connor.\nIt would not determine it.\nThe fact that there are interlocking directorships may be an evidentiary factor in determining whether the parent corporation is operating the facility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [127.314, 130.515, 131.816], "stop_times": [130.515, 131.816, 139.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 127.314}, "reply_to": "20058__0_004", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_006", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Well, I'm not sure it should even do that, I mean, if our ordinary understanding of the corporate structure and reasonable investment-backed expectations is that we recognize the corporate separate entities, and we recognize that a parent can have a subsidiary and that a parent isn't liable for what the subsidiary does in normal circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [139.872], "stop_times": [166.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 139.872}, "reply_to": "20058__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20058__0_007", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Justice O'Connor, what we're talking about here, and which is consistent with the common law, is what the action of the parents are as a company toward the facility, not what the actions of the parent are toward the subsidiary, and while there may be useful evidence in how the parent acts toward the subsidiary, the real question is, how did the parent company directly affect or actively participate in the management of the facility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [166.022], "stop_times": [194.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 166.022}, "reply_to": "20058__0_006", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_008", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "I think that's helpful, and I don't think the district court did that.\nIt seemed to me that the district court focused on the relation of the parent to the subsidiary, and a corporate veil-piercing type of analysis, and certainly the Sixth Circuit did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [194.541, 199.945], "stop_times": [199.945, 211.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 194.541}, "reply_to": "20058__0_007", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20058__0_009", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Well, let me start first with the district court, Justice Kennedy.\nWhat the district court did is make very detailed and extensive factual findings that included information about the activities of the parent toward the subsidiary, but was in no way limited to that.\nFor example, there were specific factual findings made about Mr. Williams, who was a... an employee of the parent company, and the actions he had toward pollution-related activities at the facility that was operated by the subsidiary.\nThe... it's easy to confuse here, because, in fact, for much of the time at issue the subsidiary companies operated only a single facility.\nOtt II operated the facility at Muskegon, Michigan.\nFor 3 years it was its only activity.\nFor the remaining 4 years that Ott II was active here it owned one other facility in North Carolina, but all of the evidence the district court looked at went to the facility in Michigan.\nSimilarly, as to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [211.301, 215.205, 226.763, 244.224, 254.496, 257.447, 259.733, 273.642], "stop_times": [215.205, 226.763, 244.224, 254.496, 257.447, 259.733, 273.642, 275.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 211.301}, "reply_to": "20058__0_008", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_010", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Ms. Schiffer, is that so?\nI mean, he did discuss financial control and he discussed many things that gave me the impression the distinction between the parent controlling the subsidiary and the parent controlling the facility of the subsidiary is a distinction much easier said than applied in fact, because much of what the district judge said, it seemed to me, could be fit under the category, this parent is controlling the subsidiary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [275.277, 276.527], "stop_times": [276.527, 313.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 275.277}, "reply_to": "20058__0_009", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20058__0_011", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--Your Honor, it may be instructive to look at some of the specific findings that the district court made, keeping in mind, again, that for much of the time, or for a substantial part of the time the subsidiary owned only this one facility, so that when we're talking about... when the district court was talking about activities of the subsidiary it was really talking about activities at this particular facility.\nBut for example, at petitioner's appendix 75a, where there are facts about the activities of Mr. Williams, it talked about Mr. Williams instructed Ott II officials to limit cooperation with State and Federal regulators regarding waste disposal, plainly implicitly at this facility, and to consult with CPC before responding to regulatory questionnaires or other inquiries.\nThere are also a list of the pertinent... some of the findings that the district--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [313.369, 338.869, 365.253], "stop_times": [338.869, 365.253, 372.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 313.369}, "reply_to": "20058__0_010", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_012", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "He was an Ott board member though, wasn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [372.573], "stop_times": [373.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 372.573}, "reply_to": "20058__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20058__0_013", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--Mr. Williams was not an Ott board member, Your Honor.\nMr. Williams was simply an employee of CPC.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [373.973, 378.311], "stop_times": [378.311, 382.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 373.973}, "reply_to": "20058__0_012", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_014", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Okay.\nI'm... I--\n--May I ask if the case would be different if Mr. Williams, in addition to his responsibilities for the parent, had also been on the board of directors of the subsidiary and on the payroll of the subsidiary and an officer of the subsidiary?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [382.163, 382.696, 383.548], "stop_times": [382.696, 383.548, 397.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 382.163}, "reply_to": "20058__0_013", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20058__0_015", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "We do not think the case... it would be a different set of facts, Your Honor, but we do not think the outcome would be particularly different, because we think what is probative and what the standard is is, did the parent company participate in management of the facility, and the activities of Mr. Williams were such that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [397.623], "stop_times": [415.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 397.623}, "reply_to": "20058__0_014", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_016", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "But you suggested at the outset that there's a distinction between controlling the subsidiary and directly controlling the facility, and if everything that they did to control the facility was done by directing an officer to do what he thought was appropriate, then the officer went ahead and ran the facility, would that meet your test or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [415.769], "stop_times": [434.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 415.769}, "reply_to": "20058__0_015", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20058__0_017", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--It's a very fact-specific test, Your Honor, but it is likely that it would meet it.\nWe can get some helpful guidance from the lender liability provisions of this statute, which were added in 1996 by Congress and which defined participation in management, and what they look at is the particular act... it is Congress giving content to the concept participation and management in the context of banks or lenders, but they provide helpful guidance for any corporation that is actively participating in management.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [434.648, 440.467], "stop_times": [440.467, 469.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 434.648}, "reply_to": "20058__0_016", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_018", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Were there any other individuals in Williams' position who had no position, nominal or otherwise, either on the board or in the management of the subsidiary, but who were nonetheless directing the subsidiary's own offices and employees?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [469.487], "stop_times": [487.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 469.487}, "reply_to": "20058__0_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20058__0_019", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "I have two responses to that, Justice Souter.\nThe district court made specific findings about something called the CPC Development Company, which was a division of CPC, and while some of the people involved at the CPC Development Company were related to the Ott II facility, the Court indicates that not all of them were.\nIn addition--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [487.198, 489.65, 507.279], "stop_times": [489.65, 507.279, 508.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 487.198}, "reply_to": "20058__0_018", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_020", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "But were the ones who were not so related independently and directingly... directly giving orders to the subsidiary?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [508.146], "stop_times": [517.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 508.146}, "reply_to": "20058__0_019", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20058__0_021", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--The district court's findings go to the CPC Development Company as an entity, not... one I believe can't discern from the facts--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [517.885], "stop_times": [525.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 517.885}, "reply_to": "20058__0_020", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_022", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "So that's not quite on the same plane with Williams.\nAnyone else like Williams?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [525.823, 528.359], "stop_times": [528.359, 529.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 525.823}, "reply_to": "20058__0_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20058__0_023", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--There was no one else singled out particularly, but I would suggest to the court that the district court's findings, which talk about CPC, not... in a number of instances, not CPC's officers, not CPC's managers, CPC itself, don't... doesn't... the Court doesn't directly say that its finding that those officers and managers were acting when they were involved with the Ott facility as in their CPC capacity, but it certainly is the sensible reading and the implicit reading we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [529.675], "stop_times": [564.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 529.675}, "reply_to": "20058__0_022", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_024", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Well--\n--What does not that mean?\nWhat does that mean, to be acting in your CPC capacity, when you are both an officer of CPC and an officer of the subsidiary of CPC?\nIs there any difference between the two?\nThe interest of CPC and the interests of the subsidiary are identical.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [564.782, 565.165, 566.067, 576.173, 577.875], "stop_times": [565.165, 566.067, 576.173, 577.875, 582.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 564.782}, "reply_to": "20058__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20058__0_025", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--If the legal... the legal standard we're espousing is that it is CPC that is actively managing the facility.\nIf the question is whether the district court's findings that talk about CPC really mean that it is Ott that's taking the actions, in fact the court specifically talks about CPC itself, and we think that, and particularly the facts that are listed at pages 11 and 12 of our opening brief, underscore that it is the parent company that is operating the facility within the meaning of operate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [582.16, 591.933], "stop_times": [591.933, 620.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 582.16}, "reply_to": "20058__0_024", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_026", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "No, but unless we get a situation like Williams, how do we avoid the problem that Justice Ginsburg said that she had in reading the findings?\nHow do we draw some metaphysical line between CPC as the operator and CPC simply getting the benefit of the influence which it undoubtedly has as a parent through the ownership of stock and through the frequently overlapping composition of the officers and directors?\nHow do we draw that line when we don't have kind of an easy Williams example?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [620.369, 628.456, 653.506], "stop_times": [628.456, 653.506, 658.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 620.369}, "reply_to": "20058__0_025", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20058__0_027", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Your Honor, the legal standard is, was the parent company acting at the facility, and the district court findings which talk about CPC managing and controlling and operating at the facility don't give the Court an easy line but they certainly give the Court a base, a basis, with these extensive findings of fact, for determining that it was the parent company that was undertaking the operation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [658.91], "stop_times": [689.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 658.91}, "reply_to": "20058__0_026", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_028", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Well, if I may interrupt you, I don't see that it gives me a basis.\nIt seems to me that what it gives me is a conclusion.\nTo say that CPC is doing it, that CPC is operating, when all I can tell beyond that conclusion is that their... that CPC owns the stock, that there are some directors who sit on each of the two boards, that there may be some officers or some individuals who are officers of each of the two corporations, that leaves me saying, what is peculiar about CPC's operation which differentiates it from the position of any parent of any operating subsidiary, and I don't know the answer to that question here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [689.013, 691.715, 694.667], "stop_times": [691.715, 694.667, 737.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 689.013}, "reply_to": "20058__0_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20058__0_029", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "We think that this is not the same as any... as the typical parent of the typical corporation, because CPC here was undertaking much more active involvement.\nUnder the findings of fact of the district court it was making managerial decisions about waste handling, it was making managerial decisions about a number of other operative aspects of the facility, and that when the district court findings talk about CPC, not CPC's officers, not CPC's directors, though it does that, too, but CPC specifically, it was indicating that the CPC officers, managers, and directors who were active at the Ott facility were there with their CPC hat on, not with the Ott--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [737.077, 748.552], "stop_times": [748.552, 782.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 737.077}, "reply_to": "20058__0_028", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_030", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Well, now do we know they have their CPC hat on by virtue of some unusual resolution of the CPC board that they were executing?\nFor example, do we have any resolutions from the CPC board getting down into the minutiae of operating the subsidiary to a degree that a parent normally would not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [782.808, 791.312], "stop_times": [791.312, 802.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 782.808}, "reply_to": "20058__0_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20058__0_031", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--Your Honor, what we have is very detailed findings of the district court about the day-to-day involvement and the overall managerial involvement of CPC at the Ott II facility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [802.02], "stop_times": [815.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 802.02}, "reply_to": "20058__0_030", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_032", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Well, do we have any of the sort that I just asked you about?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [815.677], "stop_times": [817.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 815.677}, "reply_to": "20058__0_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20058__0_033", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Not that were in the district court findings, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [817.779], "stop_times": [820.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 817.779}, "reply_to": "20058__0_032", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_034", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Ms Schiffer--\n--May I--\n--may I ask you, in view of... this question has been brewing for some time, and there are diverse statutes where Congress does provide for reaching a parent... sometimes 80 percent test... has there been in all this time any proposal, any direct confrontation by the legislature of this question of parent liability for the subsidiary's conduct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [820.897, 822.031, 822.414], "stop_times": [822.031, 822.414, 850.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 820.897}, "reply_to": "20058__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20058__0_035", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Not that I'm aware of, Your Honor.\nWhen Congress enacted CERCLA in 1980 it enacted a broad statute that defined any person in a broad way certainly to include a parent company if the parent company was actively managing the facility.\nThere has been over the past 5 years a lot of activity in Congress looking at Superfund reauthorization and to my knowledge this issue has not come up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [850.75, 853.035, 866.776], "stop_times": [853.035, 866.776, 875.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 850.75}, "reply_to": "20058__0_034", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_036", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "What is magic about the word manage?\nI mean, if you say that there's some special participation test when the word manage is used, why wouldn't you use the same test if it were a statute that used the word use?\nWhy couldn't you say just as easily that the parent uses the facility or uses some... or any verb?\nI don't know what there is distinctive about the verb manage, so that we're going to have a special test for this statute.\nI worry that whatever test we apply to this statute ought to be applied to any statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [875.032, 878.484, 895.279, 903.266, 910.539], "stop_times": [878.484, 895.279, 903.266, 910.539, 914.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 875.032}, "reply_to": "20058__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20058__0_037", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Justice Scalia... and this is... we think that each statute needs to be looked at in its own terms for what it does.\nHere, Congress used the term operate and operator.\nThe dictionary definitions of those have, for industrial plants have a concept of managerial control.\nCongress also was helpful in the lender context in using the words, participate in management, which are helpful, but the courts that have looked at this issue have used slightly different verbal formulations.\nThey come down to the same idea, which is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [914.824, 925.214, 929.683, 935.487, 947.478], "stop_times": [925.214, 929.683, 935.487, 947.478, 951.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 914.824}, "reply_to": "20058__0_036", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_038", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "I'm sorry, I used the wrong word.\nIt's operate, which you say is... includes management, but what's magic about the word operate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [951.513, 952.73], "stop_times": [952.73, 959.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 951.513}, "reply_to": "20058__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20058__0_039", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--Operate is the term that Congress used in this statute, and defined to mean operate so that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [959.618], "stop_times": [965.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 959.618}, "reply_to": "20058__0_038", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_040", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "But we normally think that when a subsidiary is operating something the parent is not operating it, unless, you know, there's veil-piercing.\nNow, you say that because the word... the word operate is used here, that there's some special... we're not supposed to treat it like an ordinary corporate situation.\nI don't see what that verb... why that verb has that special meaning.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [965.522, 974.544, 985.167], "stop_times": [974.544, 985.167, 990.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 965.522}, "reply_to": "20058__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20058__0_041", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--We do not think this is a situation where what is the key test is the relationship between the parent and the subsidiary, which is what veilpiercing gets to, but rather what is the relationship of the parent company or any company to the facility, to the activities that are causing the pollution that then is leading to the cleanup, or to the activity of managing the whole facility, even without regard to the pollution, but which leads to the causing of the pollution.\nWhat Your Honor is describing is the corporate veil standard which, when it's pierced, is pierced for all purposes, which goes to the relationship between the parent and the subsidiary.\nWhat we are looking at is the relationship of the parent company to the site, to the site where the pollution is being caused.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [990.471, 1018.038, 1030.012], "stop_times": [1018.038, 1030.012, 1036.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 990.471}, "reply_to": "20058__0_040", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_042", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "May I interrupt with a... but in doing that you look at specifically what Mr. Arnold Ott did and James Eiszner and some of these others, and you have to sort of say what hat were they wearing at the time they did it.\nDoes the record tell us who paid their salaries when they were doing these things?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1036.516, 1049.073], "stop_times": [1049.073, 1052.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1036.516}, "reply_to": "20058__0_041", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20058__0_043", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "It... there are not specific factual findings as to that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1052.109], "stop_times": [1057.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1052.109}, "reply_to": "20058__0_042", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_044", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Do you know if there's evidence in the record on that point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1057.346], "stop_times": [1059.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1057.346}, "reply_to": "20058__0_043", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20058__0_045", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "The district court findings talk about each of those people and... who served at the same time--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1059.281], "stop_times": [1067.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1059.281}, "reply_to": "20058__0_044", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_046", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1067.554], "stop_times": [1068.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1067.554}, "reply_to": "20058__0_045", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20058__0_047", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--as both on the parent and on the subsidiary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1068.287], "stop_times": [1069.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1068.287}, "reply_to": "20058__0_046", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_048", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "But the district court doesn't tell us who paid their salaries.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1069.904], "stop_times": [1071.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1069.904}, "reply_to": "20058__0_047", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20058__0_049", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "I don't have a recollection.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1071.939], "stop_times": [1073.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1071.939}, "reply_to": "20058__0_048", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_050", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Do you think that would be relevant?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1073.125], "stop_times": [1074.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1073.125}, "reply_to": "20058__0_049", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20058__0_051", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "I think it would be a factor, Your Honor, but even if the salaries were being paid by the subsidiary, if what the people were doing is acting in their capacity as... for the parent, and were making managerial decisions at the facility, then it would really be the parent who--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1074.375], "stop_times": [1094.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1074.375}, "reply_to": "20058__0_050", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_052", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Well, supposing... and with regard to Mr. Williams' case I guess is your strongest case, supposing the record showed that whenever he went down... went over to Muskegon or wherever he went to look at the facility and participate, he was especially put on the payroll of the subsidiary for that period of time, and paid by the subsidiary for the work he did, would that make a difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1094.538], "stop_times": [1113.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1094.538}, "reply_to": "20058__0_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20058__0_053", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--It would certainly be a factor, Your Honor.\nIn fact, the facts here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1113.0, 1115.202], "stop_times": [1115.202, 1116.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1113.0}, "reply_to": "20058__0_052", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_054", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "But we don't know whether that happened.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1116.202], "stop_times": [1117.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1116.202}, "reply_to": "20058__0_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20058__0_055", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--What we know as to Mr. Williams is that he always worked for... he was an employee of CPC, and there's no indication in the record that he was in the employ of Ott II, the subsidiary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1117.135], "stop_times": [1127.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1117.135}, "reply_to": "20058__0_054", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_056", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Ms. Schiffer, is it the Government's view that if its view of the law is accepted this Court could simply order the district court judgment affirmed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1127.443], "stop_times": [1137.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1127.443}, "reply_to": "20058__0_055", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20058__0_057", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "It is our view, Your Honor, that there were extensive factual findings in the district court that under rule 52(a) they were left undisturbed by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1137.031], "stop_times": [1146.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1137.031}, "reply_to": "20058__0_056", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_058", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "That really doesn't answer my question at all.\nI asked you, is it the view of the Government that if we accept your view of the law, that we could order that the district court's judgment be affirmed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1146.471, 1148.006], "stop_times": [1148.006, 1157.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1146.471}, "reply_to": "20058__0_057", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20058__0_059", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--Yes, it is, because our view of the law is essentially what the district court applied to its fact-findings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1157.529], "stop_times": [1163.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1157.529}, "reply_to": "20058__0_058", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_060", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Is it... suppose... I don't... I'm having trouble with the... you've said two separate things.\nOne is, just look at the relation of the parent to the dump, and the other thing was that the parent would have to take some action not normal to the parent's subsidiary relation.\nI'm trying to sort those out.\nSuppose that Mr. and Mrs. Smith and their son, John, run a toxic waste dump, and they have a company called the Smith Family Limited Liability Corporation.\nThey do everything themselves.\nNobody else does a thing.\nThey operate it.\nThey're not personally liable, are they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1163.349, 1168.567, 1179.274, 1181.31, 1190.916, 1193.701, 1195.986, 1197.22], "stop_times": [1168.567, 1179.274, 1181.31, 1190.916, 1193.701, 1195.986, 1197.22, 1199.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1163.349}, "reply_to": "20058__0_059", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20058__0_061", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Under the standard that we propose, Your Honor, if Mr. or Mrs. Smith... if Mrs. Smith made active managerial decisions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1199.438], "stop_times": [1209.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1199.438}, "reply_to": "20058__0_060", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_062", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Look, I said Mr. and Mrs. Smith and their son, John, do everything.\nThey have a shovel.\nThey put the dirt in.\nThey do everything themselves.\nThey are doing it through... they are paid... the checks are made out to the Smith Family Limited Liability Corporation.\nNow, I would think that that is the classic situation of where a group of people form a corporation to limit their liability.\nThat's why we have corporations.\nIs there any suggestion in what you say that the Smith family is personally liable?\nNothing special's going on.\nIt's ordinary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1209.811, 1214.198, 1215.615, 1217.234, 1218.967, 1227.855, 1236.128, 1237.747, 1244.401, 1246.419], "stop_times": [1214.198, 1215.615, 1217.234, 1218.967, 1227.855, 1236.128, 1237.747, 1244.401, 1246.419, 1247.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1209.811}, "reply_to": "20058__0_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20058__0_063", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--Any facility can have more than one operator, Your Honor, and it is our view that if Mr. and Mrs. Smith themselves personally operated the facility, that is, actively participated in the management of the facility, that they would be liable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1247.186], "stop_times": [1262.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1247.186}, "reply_to": "20058__0_062", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_064", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Isn't the next case exactly that?\nWasn't there already a case by this same... of a sole shareholder corporation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1262.845, 1264.314], "stop_times": [1264.314, 1270.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1262.845}, "reply_to": "20058__0_063", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20058__0_065", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "There was, Your Honor.\nDonahey v. Bogle was that case, and the sole shareholder also ran the place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1270.468, 1272.101], "stop_times": [1272.101, 1277.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1270.468}, "reply_to": "20058__0_064", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_066", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "So your view is that if a group of people incorporate themselves and they personally operate the dump, they are personally liable, so in this statute alone... I've never seen another statute like that... there is no way for a group of operators to form a corporation and thereby exempt themselves from personal liability.\nI mean, is... that's the view of the Government?\nBecause I would have thought that if that's the view you would have expected Congress to say something about that rather unusual... I think it would be unusual.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1277.555, 1300.403, 1302.772], "stop_times": [1300.403, 1302.772, 1311.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1277.555}, "reply_to": "20058__0_065", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20058__0_067", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Congress did say two things, Your Honor.\nOne is that it defined any person in a broad fashion to include a corporation or to include individuals.\nIt was not looking at the corporate form, but rather at the reality of what was happening, and secondly it began the section 107 liability provision by saying, notwithstanding any other provision of law and subject only to three specified defenses in the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1311.545, 1314.747, 1323.084], "stop_times": [1314.747, 1323.084, 1338.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1311.545}, "reply_to": "20058__0_066", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_068", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Is there any other statute, of which you are aware, where it imposes liability is imposed on some entity... call it person, individual, whatever... and without saying it explicitly, the liability flows to individual shareholders, it flows to directors, it flows to the corporate form makes no difference, doesn't limit liability?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1338.445], "stop_times": [1364.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1338.445}, "reply_to": "20058__0_067", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20058__0_069", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Your Honor, the... in the... I'm not particularly aware of any other case, but decisions of this Court under other statutes have looked beyond corporate form to what is actually going on here, and here Congress was particularly concerned that those who were making decisions that caused the pollution would bear the economic responsibility for cleaning it up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1364.594], "stop_times": [1385.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1364.594}, "reply_to": "20058__0_068", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_070", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Well, Ms. Schiffer, your position on behalf of the Government does propose a very fuzzy sort of line here to do something that is quite contrary to normal investment-backed expectations, and which may not be clearly mandated by the language of the statute.\nAnd maybe because of that the Sixth Circuit, whose judgment we're reviewing, said, we give up.\nWe're going to apply normal State veil-piercing doctrine, and unless the veil is pierced so the corporation is a sham, we're going to protect the corporate entity.\nI guess that's what happened.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1385.759, 1408.958, 1417.362, 1429.955], "stop_times": [1408.958, 1417.362, 1429.955, 1431.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1385.759}, "reply_to": "20058__0_069", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20058__0_071", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "The Sixth Circuit really looked at the concept of derivative liability.\nThat is, when is the parent company responsible for actions of the sub.\nWhat Congress did in the Superfund law is look at the direct liability of the parent, which is really consistent with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1431.222, 1436.942, 1441.68], "stop_times": [1436.942, 1441.68, 1449.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1431.222}, "reply_to": "20058__0_070", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_072", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Well, I know that's what you're saying, but it gets us back to that same question of how you draw the line and whether the statute is, indeed, that clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1449.183], "stop_times": [1459.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1449.183}, "reply_to": "20058__0_071", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20058__0_073", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--Your Honor, we think that operate is, indeed, defined in a circular way, and we looked at the dictionary, but we think the Court can get some good guidance from the lender liability provisions adopted in the lender context, but which spell out a set of standards for how much activity and operation is necessary to meet the standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1459.407], "stop_times": [1479.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1459.407}, "reply_to": "20058__0_072", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_074", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "And under that definition, and under what I think is your answer to Justice Breyer, and I want to be very clear about this, it would be very rare that a corporation would be solely liable and not have some of its principal managers, operators, officers, also liable, is that not right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1479.805], "stop_times": [1497.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1479.805}, "reply_to": "20058__0_073", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20058__0_075", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "It would not be... it would be very rare, Your Honor, because the ordinary corporation which is acting in a supervisory capacity through a subsidiary and not with active management would not be liable--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1497.932], "stop_times": [1510.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1497.932}, "reply_to": "20058__0_074", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_076", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "No, forget parent and subsidiary.\nIt's very unusual for a corporation to commit a tort by itself without some human actor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1510.157, 1512.276], "stop_times": [1512.276, 1519.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1510.157}, "reply_to": "20058__0_075", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20058__0_077", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--Yes, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1519.513], "stop_times": [1520.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1519.513}, "reply_to": "20058__0_076", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_078", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "And the human actor is a cotortfeasor, and I take it your answer to Justice Breyer was that by using the word, any person, in 9607(b), that the Congress would make all of the people in his hypothetical that were actively participating in the waste disposal personally liable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1520.663], "stop_times": [1545.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1520.663}, "reply_to": "20058__0_077", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20058__0_079", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--We believe that that is correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1545.663], "stop_times": [1548.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1545.663}, "reply_to": "20058__0_078", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_080", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "And even if they hire somebody?\nI mean, let's say the largest corporation in the world decided to operate toxic waste dumps, hires four people from the assembly line at a company and says, you go out and you pull the switches, and what they do is, they pay them 42 an hour or something, and they go out there and pull switches, and those people, those individuals, those workers they just hired, assuming that they, you know, turn the shovels and so forth, in your view, they're liable, too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1548.465, 1549.832], "stop_times": [1549.832, 1579.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1548.465}, "reply_to": "20058__0_079", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20058__0_081", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "We do not think they are liable, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1579.901], "stop_times": [1581.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1579.901}, "reply_to": "20058__0_080", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_082", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Oh, well, why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1581.836], "stop_times": [1582.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1581.836}, "reply_to": "20058__0_081", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20058__0_083", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Because the concept is participation in management, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1582.52], "stop_times": [1584.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1582.52}, "reply_to": "20058__0_082", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_084", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "No, no, but what they do is... yes, they--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1584.705], "stop_times": [1586.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1584.705}, "reply_to": "20058__0_083", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20058__0_085", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--not in management.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1586.324], "stop_times": [1587.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1586.324}, "reply_to": "20058__0_084", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_086", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--It says owner or operator.\nCertainly Justice Breyer's people are operating the thing.\nI'm trying to assume facts that they are, you know.\nI'm trying to assume facts such that these are the people... they're fairly low-level supervisors, and so forth, but it's a small dump, and what they do is, they turn shovels, they make all the decisions there, they decide what to bury, what not to bury, they dig... you understand what I'm driving at.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1587.49, 1589.276, 1593.144, 1595.68], "stop_times": [1589.276, 1593.144, 1595.68, 1610.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1587.49}, "reply_to": "20058__0_085", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20058__0_087", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1610.455], "stop_times": [1611.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1610.455}, "reply_to": "20058__0_086", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_088", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "I'm saying, in the Government's view, is that kind of person who's, let's say, a fourth tier employee of the big corporation, also personally liable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1611.389], "stop_times": [1618.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1611.389}, "reply_to": "20058__0_087", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20058__0_089", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "If it was a small facility and they were the managers, they would be liable.\nIf they're the fourth tier employees and not the managers, they would not be.\nI'd like to reserve the remainder--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1618.795, 1622.497, 1625.615], "stop_times": [1622.497, 1625.615, 1626.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1618.795}, "reply_to": "20058__0_088", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_090", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "May I ask you one question, though, before you sit down?\nI take it that you could maintain your position in this case simply by saying, I will... the Government assumes that Congress meant to respect corporate forms, that Congress did not mean to look behind every corporate structure whenever an employee of the corporation performs a duty, and still maintain your position.\nFor example, what I'm thinking of is, if CPC passed a resolution, or if its president said to Williams, consistently with the corporate resolution, Williams, go down there and make sure that they dump the waste in the sand immediately, you don't have to say that Williams is liable under those circumstances in order to get CPC liability as well as the subsidiary liability, do you?\nYou could respect the corporate form and still, in effect, get your... the result that you think is proper in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1626.699, 1629.151, 1654.901, 1684.238], "stop_times": [1629.151, 1654.901, 1684.238, 1690.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1626.699}, "reply_to": "20058__0_089", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20058__0_091", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--That's exactly correct, Your Honor, and we think that our theory is consistent with respecting the corporate form because it looks at what is the corporation doing for its own activities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1690.224], "stop_times": [1700.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1690.224}, "reply_to": "20058__0_090", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_092", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Right, but I thought in answer to Justice Breyer's question you were getting to the point where... of saying that whenever the employee of a corporation does the act which forms a part of the operation, that the employee is an operator and therefore liable regardless of whether the employee is acting as a maverick in relation to his corporate organization or whether he is doing exactly what his corporate organization told him to do, and now I think you're saying you're maybe not going that far.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1700.513], "stop_times": [1733.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1700.513}, "reply_to": "20058__0_091", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20058__0_093", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "The test is participation in management.\nIf there is a maverick employee who midnightdumps in the back 40, we would look at the activities of that particular person, but if the people are working for the corporation, following the orders of management, then we... it is the management and not the individual employees who would be liable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1733.651, 1736.77], "stop_times": [1736.77, 1753.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1733.651}, "reply_to": "20058__0_092", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_094", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "So--\n--So I think that you were saying that in any close corporation there would be shareholder liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1753.732, 1754.75], "stop_times": [1754.75, 1760.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1753.732}, "reply_to": "20058__0_093", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20058__0_095", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "In fact, what the cases that look at shareholder liability really are taking people who are shareholders and chief executive officers and really are the active managers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1760.904], "stop_times": [1771.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1760.904}, "reply_to": "20058__0_094", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_096", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "I'm referring to a family corporation, the kind Justice Breyer described, a one-person corporation, a closed corporation, very small group, where they're all involved in running the business.\nIn all those cases your theory is, you would reach the people who are operating, the participants in those close corporations.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1771.277, 1782.234], "stop_times": [1782.234, 1793.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1771.277}, "reply_to": "20058__0_095", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20058__0_097", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "We think that is what Congress intended by its definition of the term, operator, to assure that those who are responsible for the pollution are responsible for cleaning it up, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1793.542], "stop_times": [1801.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1793.542}, "reply_to": "20058__0_096", "speaker": "lois_j_schiffer"}
{"id": "20058__0_098", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Schiffer.\nMr. Geller, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1801.815, 1802.815], "stop_times": [1802.815, 1804.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1801.815}, "reply_to": "20058__0_097", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20058__1_000", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nUnder CERCLA, a past or present owner or operator of a hazardous waste facility is liable for cleanup costs paid by the Government.\nThe question in this case is whether a parent corporation becomes an operator under CERCLA simply by participating in and exerting some unspecified degree of control over the affairs of a subsidiary that operates such a facility.\nThe answer to that question, in our view, turns entirely on whether Congress meant to sweep away traditional common law principles of limited shareholder liability merely by using the word operator in CERCLA.\nWe believe that the Government's theory of parent company liability is unsupportable for a number of reasons.\nThe most obvious reason is that is plainly inconsistent with the language of the statute itself.\nCERCLA imposes liability on persons that operate a facility.\nThat is, a place where hazardous substances are deposited.\nIt doesn't impose liability, as the Government would have it, on persons that control separate entities that in turn operate that facility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1804.565, 1811.103, 1820.459, 1834.35, 1846.674, 1852.744, 1858.215, 1862.786, 1866.071], "stop_times": [1811.103, 1820.459, 1834.35, 1846.674, 1852.744, 1858.215, 1862.786, 1866.071, 1874.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1804.565}, "reply_to": "20058__0_098", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_001", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "But the Government told us very clearly that that is not the way it would have it.\nIt says the parent must operate the facility, not the sub.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1874.344, 1880.164], "stop_times": [1880.164, 1884.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1874.344}, "reply_to": "20058__1_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20058__1_002", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1884.882], "stop_times": [1885.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1884.882}, "reply_to": "20058__1_001", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_003", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "And then I asked, well, how do we--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1885.734], "stop_times": [1887.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1885.734}, "reply_to": "20058__1_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20058__1_004", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, there's a lot of historical revisionism going on here today.\nThe Government's position from the moment this case was brought was that all it had to show was that CPC controlled the affairs of its subsidiary.\nIt never took the position that it had to prove that CPC actually operated the Muskegon facility based on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1887.467, 1891.555, 1903.113], "stop_times": [1891.555, 1903.113, 1909.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1887.467}, "reply_to": "20058__1_003", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_005", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--Well, I think the district court's findings have that same flaw.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1909.517], "stop_times": [1914.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1909.517}, "reply_to": "20058__1_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20058__1_006", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--They absolutely do, Justice Kennedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1914.652], "stop_times": [1917.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1914.652}, "reply_to": "20058__1_005", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_007", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "However... however, in determining what the test is, it seems to me that if this corporation, whether it's a parent, whether it's a partner, where it's just as a lease, is simply a co-tortfeasor in the management of the company.\nIt seems to me the facts of the record could support that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1917.104, 1936.167], "stop_times": [1936.167, 1939.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1917.104}, "reply_to": "20058__1_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20058__1_008", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "I don't believe so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1939.286], "stop_times": [1940.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1939.286}, "reply_to": "20058__1_007", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_009", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--Could support that test if we send it back.\nI think we'd probably have to remand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1940.219, 1941.752], "stop_times": [1941.752, 1942.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1940.219}, "reply_to": "20058__1_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20058__1_010", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "I don't believe it could, Justice Kennedy.\nCorporations can only act through their employees, obviously.\nIn order to show that CPC operated this facility, you have to show that some employee of CPC did something that could be construed as operating this facility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1942.738, 1943.621, 1946.023], "stop_times": [1943.621, 1946.023, 1956.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1942.738}, "reply_to": "20058__1_009", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_011", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Granted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1956.748], "stop_times": [1957.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1956.748}, "reply_to": "20058__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20058__1_012", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Now--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1957.714], "stop_times": [1958.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1957.714}, "reply_to": "20058__1_011", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_013", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "And if we can just stick with Justice Breyer's hypothetical a minute, because that's where we ended the argument--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1958.381], "stop_times": [1961.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1958.381}, "reply_to": "20058__1_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20058__1_014", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1961.716], "stop_times": [1962.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1961.716}, "reply_to": "20058__1_013", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_015", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--would you agree that if three people were all actively involved in managing a facility, that they would all be operators?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1962.05], "stop_times": [1971.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1962.05}, "reply_to": "20058__1_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20058__1_016", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1971.221], "stop_times": [1972.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1971.221}, "reply_to": "20058__1_015", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_017", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1972.44], "stop_times": [1973.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1972.44}, "reply_to": "20058__1_016", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20058__1_018", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Yes, but the point in this case, Your Honor, is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1973.707], "stop_times": [1975.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1973.707}, "reply_to": "20058__1_017", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_019", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Excuse me.\nThe shareholders?\nYou would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1975.709, 1976.325, 1976.959], "stop_times": [1976.325, 1976.959, 1977.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1975.709}, "reply_to": "20058__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20058__1_020", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--If the shareholders were actually operating the facility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1977.661], "stop_times": [1981.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1977.661}, "reply_to": "20058__1_019", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_021", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--As officers of their corporation?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1981.029], "stop_times": [1982.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1981.029}, "reply_to": "20058__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20058__1_022", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "No.\nNo, if they were actually personally involved in operating, they may well be operators.\nThat's not what we have here.\nWe simply have a shareholder here that did nothing that could be construed as operating the facility.\nAll of the employees of CPC--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1982.862, 1983.212, 1987.099, 1988.099, 1993.67], "stop_times": [1983.212, 1987.099, 1988.099, 1993.67, 1996.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1982.862}, "reply_to": "20058__1_021", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_023", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Let me be sure I understand your position, Mr. Geller.\nYou take Justice Breyer's hypothetical and say yes, Mr. and Mrs. Smith and their son would be liable, if I understand your--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [1996.889, 1999.324], "stop_times": [1999.324, 2005.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1996.889}, "reply_to": "20058__1_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20058__1_024", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--If they were actually physically engaged in operating the facility, they would fall within the statute, I would think, but that's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2005.894], "stop_times": [2012.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2005.894}, "reply_to": "20058__1_023", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_025", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--So that any employee of a corporation with a facility can be liable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2012.231], "stop_times": [2015.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2012.231}, "reply_to": "20058__1_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20058__1_026", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--If someone satisfies the definition of operator, they're liable under the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2015.683], "stop_times": [2019.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2015.683}, "reply_to": "20058__1_025", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_027", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "If I go to work for 40 a week and they tell me to dump the waste in the sand, I am liable under the statute?\nDo you concede that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2019.57, 2026.724], "stop_times": [2026.724, 2027.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2019.57}, "reply_to": "20058__1_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20058__1_028", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--Technically if you're a person, if you're operating the facility you would be liable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2027.824], "stop_times": [2032.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2027.824}, "reply_to": "20058__1_027", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_029", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "So that the corporate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2032.878], "stop_times": [2033.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2032.878}, "reply_to": "20058__1_028", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20058__1_030", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "There may well be... you know, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2033.428], "stop_times": [2035.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2033.428}, "reply_to": "20058__1_029", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_031", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--I'm not operating it on my own behalf.\nI'm operating it as an agent of someone else.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2035.43, 2037.866], "stop_times": [2037.866, 2040.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2035.43}, "reply_to": "20058__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20058__1_032", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--And under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2040.068], "stop_times": [2040.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2040.068}, "reply_to": "20058__1_031", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_033", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Does it make any difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2040.5], "stop_times": [2041.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2040.5}, "reply_to": "20058__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20058__1_034", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--respondeat superior principles the corporation would be liable as well and this issue we're debating now would not be relevant.\nBut I want to make... bring us back to this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2041.8, 2047.804], "stop_times": [2047.804, 2050.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2041.8}, "reply_to": "20058__1_033", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_035", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Well, why wouldn't it be relevant?\nI mean, they can sue both of us.\nThey can sue my superior and... you know, the company and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2050.839, 2051.239, 2052.356], "stop_times": [2051.239, 2052.356, 2054.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2050.839}, "reply_to": "20058__1_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20058__1_036", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--That's... that's... we're not here to argue that the employee would be liable in that situation.\nYou'd have to know the facts of that case.\nThe facts of this case show that no CPC employee did anything that could be construed as operating this facility.\nAll of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2054.724, 2059.612, 2060.978, 2068.032], "stop_times": [2059.612, 2060.978, 2068.032, 2068.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2054.724}, "reply_to": "20058__1_035", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_037", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--But what about Williams?\nThat seems to be the toughest case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2068.717, 2069.333], "stop_times": [2069.333, 2070.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2068.717}, "reply_to": "20058__1_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20058__1_038", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--Williams is the only person that they have identified as an employee of CPC and nothing that Williams did can be construed as operating this facility.\nHe attended a single meeting.\nHe gave some advice which was not followed.\nThat was the extent of Williams' involvement in this case.\nWhen you look at the list of factors that the district court identified as to why it concluded that CPC was an operator here, Williams is far down the list.\nWhat the district court principally referred to was the fact that CPC owned 100 percent of the stock here.\nThere were some dual officers and directors.\nThe fact is, there is no employee of CPC that did anything here that could be construed as operating the facility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2070.533, 2078.755, 2080.156, 2082.391, 2085.226, 2094.849, 2102.272, 2104.741], "stop_times": [2078.755, 2080.156, 2082.391, 2085.226, 2094.849, 2102.272, 2104.741, 2111.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2070.533}, "reply_to": "20058__1_037", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_039", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Well, what did Williams do in particular?\nI'm concerned in particular.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2111.31, 2113.246], "stop_times": [2113.246, 2114.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2111.31}, "reply_to": "20058__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20058__1_040", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "He--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2114.579], "stop_times": [2115.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2114.579}, "reply_to": "20058__1_039", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_041", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Even if we eliminate all the rest, should we send it back to the district court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2115.012], "stop_times": [2117.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2115.012}, "reply_to": "20058__1_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20058__1_042", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--No, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2117.864], "stop_times": [2118.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2117.864}, "reply_to": "20058__1_041", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_043", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--and tell the district court, you know, is... was Williams, what Williams did enough?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2118.164], "stop_times": [2122.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2118.164}, "reply_to": "20058__1_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20058__1_044", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--If the... Justice Scalia, if the Sixth Circuit adopted the right legal standard, which we conclude it did, there's no reason to send it back because the Sixth Circuit looked at all the evidence in this case, including Williams, and concluded that none of that amounted to operating a facility on the part of CPC.\nBut I'd like to return the Court, if it would, because there's a lot... been a lot of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2122.435, 2137.695], "stop_times": [2137.695, 2141.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2122.435}, "reply_to": "20058__1_043", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_045", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Mr. Geller, before we get off Mr. Williams, what you said is, well, he was just sort of a peripheral character, but at least one of these briefs told us that the sub didn't even fill out a questionnaire without consulting him, because he was responsible for the environmental affairs of the corporate unit, that is, both parent and sub.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2141.73], "stop_times": [2168.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2141.73}, "reply_to": "20058__1_044", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20058__1_046", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, that is completely untrue.\nWilliams was a lawyer-lobbyist who worked for CPC who attended a single meeting, would occasionally give advice to Ott II, which was frequently ignored.\nBut as I say, all of this was before the Sixth Circuit, which concluded that none of this amounted to direct operation of the facility by CPC.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2168.731, 2171.499, 2180.891], "stop_times": [2171.499, 2180.891, 2189.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2168.731}, "reply_to": "20058__1_045", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_047", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Well, where did Williams live?\nI'd like to get something concrete here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2189.045, 2191.246], "stop_times": [2191.246, 2193.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2189.045}, "reply_to": "20058__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20058__1_048", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Williams lived--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2193.131], "stop_times": [2193.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2193.131}, "reply_to": "20058__1_047", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_049", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Did he live in Muskegon?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2193.898], "stop_times": [2195.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2193.898}, "reply_to": "20058__1_048", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20058__1_050", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--No.\nNo, he didn't.\nNone of the... none of the C... none of the people whose activities here were attributable to CPC, none of the dual employees lived at the Muskegon site.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2195.181, 2195.65, 2196.416], "stop_times": [2195.65, 2196.416, 2209.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2195.181}, "reply_to": "20058__1_049", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_051", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Where did they live?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2209.141], "stop_times": [2209.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2209.141}, "reply_to": "20058__1_050", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20058__1_052", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "They all lived in New Jersey, where CPC had its corporate headquarters.\nNone of them was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2209.724, 2212.51], "stop_times": [2212.51, 2214.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2209.724}, "reply_to": "20058__1_051", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_053", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Even Mr. Ott?\nWas Mr Ott--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2214.545, 2215.695], "stop_times": [2215.695, 2216.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2214.545}, "reply_to": "20058__1_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20058__1_054", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--Mr. Ott... the two corporate officers who had dual... who wore the two hats, Ott and Eiszner, who had been employees of Ott I when it was taken over by CPC, shared their time between Muskegon and New Jersey, spent most of their time at CPC--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2216.48], "stop_times": [2231.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2216.48}, "reply_to": "20058__1_053", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_055", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--It would be better for your case if the dual employees lived in Muskegon.\nWhat's better for your case is if the sole employee, such as Williams, lived in New Jersey.\nThat helps you.\nBut the fact that the dual employees were at CPC's headquarters--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2231.323, 2236.041, 2244.797, 2245.181], "stop_times": [2236.041, 2244.797, 2245.181, 2248.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2231.323}, "reply_to": "20058__1_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20058__1_056", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--It doesn't matter where they lived.\nThe question is, when these dual employees took actions on behalf of Ott II, is it appropriate to attribute those actions to the parent CPC, and the common law rule is clearly no.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2248.535, 2249.835], "stop_times": [2249.835, 2260.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2248.535}, "reply_to": "20058__1_055", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_057", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--But do you agree the record doesn't tell us who paid their salary when they were working?\nSupposing they were paid entirely by the parent for everything they did, would that make a difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2260.843, 2264.645], "stop_times": [2264.645, 2269.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2260.843}, "reply_to": "20058__1_056", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20058__1_058", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "If they were employee... if they were acting... if they were dual employees, it seems to me, Justice Stevens, it doesn't matter who paid their salaries.\nThe question is, in what capacity were they acting, and if they were acting in their capacity as Ott II employees it is inappropriate... inappropriate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2269.282, 2276.018], "stop_times": [2276.018, 2285.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2269.282}, "reply_to": "20058__1_057", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_059", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Do you think he'd be acting in his capacity as an Ott II employee if all his money came from the parent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2285.208], "stop_times": [2289.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2285.208}, "reply_to": "20058__1_058", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20058__1_060", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--Well, the record doesn't reflect, of course, and it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2289.76], "stop_times": [2292.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2289.76}, "reply_to": "20058__1_059", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_061", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Strange.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2292.528], "stop_times": [2293.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2292.528}, "reply_to": "20058__1_060", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20058__1_062", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--silly to speculate.\nThe question is, who is responsible for the activities of these dual employees, and the common law answers that question quite clearly.\nWhat the Government is asking for here is a new Federal common law rule to attribute all of that activity to the parent, and there's absolutely no basis--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2293.23, 2294.247, 2301.384], "stop_times": [2294.247, 2301.384, 2309.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2293.23}, "reply_to": "20058__1_061", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_063", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Well, no, they just say you've got to attribute some of it to the parent.\nIf you attribute some of it to the parent, it's... you know, maybe half-time he's an operator and half-time he's the general--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2309.59, 2311.692], "stop_times": [2311.692, 2318.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2309.59}, "reply_to": "20058__1_062", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20058__1_064", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--The Government has never made that case.\nWhat they suggest is simply because CPC controlled and participated in the activities of its--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2318.429, 2320.214], "stop_times": [2320.214, 2327.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2318.429}, "reply_to": "20058__1_063", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_065", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--Well, the district court did emphasize that a lot, I agree with you, but I'm not sure they confined it to the corporate control.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2327.135], "stop_times": [2333.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2327.135}, "reply_to": "20058__1_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20058__1_066", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--Well, I would like if I could to turn the court's attention to the district court's fact-findings, because it seems to me they are fairly significant in this case, and quite contrary to what the Government suggests here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2333.605], "stop_times": [2344.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2333.605}, "reply_to": "20058__1_065", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_067", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Mr. Geller, may I ask for a clarification before you do that, and that... you said the Sixth Circuit took care of Williams.\nThey made him a minor player and that's that.\nBut I took it that the big difference between the district court and the Sixth Circuit was, what is the source of law that we look to, because if it's State law veil-piercing, then it takes a sham, a fraud to go through, but if you... on the district judge's view and on the Government's view it's not State law, it's Federal common law.\nThey called it, what, a middle ground or something, but not the traditional State veil-piercing.\nSome uniform Federal notion that the Federal courts will develop of a parent liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2344.08, 2350.917, 2353.519, 2380.67, 2387.49], "stop_times": [2350.917, 2353.519, 2380.67, 2387.49, 2398.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2344.08}, "reply_to": "20058__1_066", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20058__1_068", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "That's correct, Justice Stevens.\nThe district court adopted this new middle ground of liability, which is something in between direct liability and State common law veil-piercing, and the question in this case, the question for this Court is, is there anything in CERCLA that could be read on the part of Congress to want to have a new rule for attributing the liability of the subsidiary to the parent where the Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2398.029, 2399.731], "stop_times": [2399.731, 2424.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2398.029}, "reply_to": "20058__1_067", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_069", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Well, but the Government... the Government says that's not its theory now, at least.\nThe Government says you have to define the term operate, owner and operate.\nThese people were actively engaged in management and participating.\nTherefore, they're operators.\nNow, maybe that's right, maybe that's wrong, but it seems to me that the test the Government suggests is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2424.497, 2428.282, 2434.686, 2440.006, 2440.889], "stop_times": [2428.282, 2434.686, 2440.006, 2440.889, 2447.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2424.497}, "reply_to": "20058__1_068", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20058__1_070", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--The test is whether the parent can be said to be operating.\nThe only way a corporation can be operating, Justice Kennedy, is through its employees, and therefore, in order to meet the Government's test you have to show that some employee of CPC did anything that constitutes operating here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2447.093, 2451.397], "stop_times": [2451.397, 2463.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2447.093}, "reply_to": "20058__1_069", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_071", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "The word she used there was not normal.\nShe said... Ms. Schiffer said, well, look at this, and if you see something happening here in respect to operation that is not normally present where you have a simple parent-subsidiary relationship... let's say the parent is significantly more active in operating than a company that was the classic parent subsidiary relationship.\nWhere that occurs, then you could say, without getting into all the problems you're talking about, that the parent has operated it, and then you look at the record here and they seem to have some things that would go beyond what would be normal.\nThat's what I took partly, that... I heard her say the word normal, and I've extrapolated on that a little.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2463.205, 2465.388, 2488.753, 2503.096], "stop_times": [2465.388, 2488.753, 2503.096, 2510.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2463.205}, "reply_to": "20058__1_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20058__1_072", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Well, there was a... if I could just finish the answer to Justice Kennedy's question, if I could, you have to find that some employe of CPC was doing something here that could be considered operating before you could conclude that CPC itself... there was no evidence here.\nThe only evidence that the district court relied on was the dual officers, that Ott and Eiszner worked both for CPC and for Ott II.\nIf you... now, the question is, how can you attribute what Ott and Eiszner did in their role as Ott II employees and officers to CPC in a way that makes CPC the operator?\nThe normal common law rule would not allow you to do that, and therefore the only question really is, did Congress, in enacting CERCLA, intend to have a different attribution rule?\nIs there any evidence in the statute itself that Congress intended to eliminate or supplant the normal common law rule of limited shareholder liability and create some amorphous, undefined test that suggests that if the parent takes an active role in controlling its subsidiary, which all parents of wholly-owned subsidiaries do, then there's going to be liability on the part of the parent, and our submission is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2510.15, 2524.844, 2534.317, 2547.308, 2557.331], "stop_times": [2524.844, 2534.317, 2547.308, 2557.331, 2580.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2510.15}, "reply_to": "20058__1_071", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_073", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Well, do you say that dual officers, people who are officers in both parent and subsidiary corporation, is not a relevant fact at all to be considered?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2580.362], "stop_times": [2590.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2580.362}, "reply_to": "20058__1_072", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20058__1_074", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--Under the common law, it would be a typical situation and not a relevant fact to consider in veil-piercing.\nYou'd have to show something far more than simply that they were dual officers.\nSeveral of the amicus briefs filed in this Court have cited numerous authorities to the Court, including this Court's own cases, that suggest that it's the typical situation, particularly in a case of a wholly-owned subsidiary, to have some dual officers, and in fact you had fewer here than you had in the normal case.\nRemember, this was Ott--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2590.052, 2595.622, 2598.724, 2613.167], "stop_times": [2595.622, 2598.724, 2613.167, 2614.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2590.052}, "reply_to": "20058__1_073", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_075", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Well, do you say, Mr. Geller, that it's only if you can pierce the veil that you can impose liability on the parent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2614.685], "stop_times": [2621.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2614.685}, "reply_to": "20058__1_074", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20058__1_076", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--We agree that there are two ways, as the Sixth Circuit said, to show that the parent is liable under CERCLA.\nFirst, if the parent itself, through its own officers, has done something that could constitute operating, the parent is liable.\nIf, for example, at this facility CPC had been using the facility as part of its foreign business, or had in some way directed the disposal of the hazardous waste, it would be liable as an operator.\nSecondly, there's vicarious liability.\nCPC as the parent could be liable if you could pierce the corporate veil.\nThe Government--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2621.505, 2626.457, 2633.896, 2645.621, 2647.737, 2651.69], "stop_times": [2626.457, 2633.896, 2645.621, 2647.737, 2651.69, 2652.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2621.505}, "reply_to": "20058__1_075", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_077", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Well, what if CPC sends a memo to the people at Ott and says, look, we know the pollution inspectors are coming around on Friday, so dump this stuff on Saturday, not Thursday, and nobody ever goes to Muskegon to do it themselves.\nThey simply send that memo to the subsidiary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2652.174, 2671.688], "stop_times": [2671.688, 2675.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2652.174}, "reply_to": "20058__1_076", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20058__1_078", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--If... in that sort of situation, if you have direct parental involvement in something that might constitute operating the facility, there may well be liability.\nThere isn't a stitch of evidence in this particular case that any sort of... any of that sort of thing happened.\nRemember, Ott I was a functioning business here before CPC came into the picture.\nWhen CPC bought Ott I and it became Ott II, basically the same officers were left in place, Ott and Eiszner.\nOtt and Eiszner were then given additional responsibilities at the parent CPC, but this isn't the case in which CPC suddenly took over and implanted its own officers throughout the subsidiary's corporate structure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2675.056, 2681.977, 2687.448, 2692.332, 2699.671], "stop_times": [2681.977, 2687.448, 2692.332, 2699.671, 2711.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2675.056}, "reply_to": "20058__1_077", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_079", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "But that wouldn't matter in your view, anyway.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2711.812], "stop_times": [2714.195], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2711.812}, "reply_to": "20058__1_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20058__1_080", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "It wouldn't matter, Justice Scalia, except atmospherically.\nThis is hardly a case of an atypical parent-subsidiary relationship.\nIn fact, the evidence here suggests more of a hands-off relationship and while I'm not going to take the time now to read any of this, I would refer the Court to the findings of the district court at pages 67 and 69a of the appendix to the petition, where the district court makes thorough findings that this was a facility that was completely operated by Ott II's officers and management.\nThere isn't any suggestion that any employee of CPC had anything to do with the management of this facility.\nIt's purely a vicarious liability theory that the Government from day one in this case has tried to... has argued for in order to impose liability on CPC.\nAnd therefore the question is, did Congress mean to impose a completely different rule of vicarious liability here beyond that what the common law for 100 years has required in order to have a shareholder be liable for the operations of this corporation, and we suggest that there are lots of indications that Congress never had that intention in CERCLA.\nTo begin with, this Court has many times said that in order for Congress to supplant a common law rule, particularly a rule as ingrained as the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2714.195, 2716.614, 2720.585, 2740.998, 2746.902, 2756.608, 2776.837], "stop_times": [2716.614, 2720.585, 2740.998, 2746.902, 2756.608, 2776.837, 2787.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2714.195}, "reply_to": "20058__1_079", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_081", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "May I ask a question, Mr. Geller, before I forget it?\nThere is the special provisions about lender liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2787.043, 2790.579], "stop_times": [2790.579, 2793.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2787.043}, "reply_to": "20058__1_080", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20058__1_082", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2793.947], "stop_times": [2794.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2793.947}, "reply_to": "20058__1_081", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_083", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Where... which are a departure from normal rules.\nIf the parent's participation fit into the fact pattern that would have made a lender liable, would the parent then be liable as an operator?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2794.466, 2798.751], "stop_times": [2798.751, 2810.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2794.466}, "reply_to": "20058__1_082", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20058__1_084", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "I don't think so, Your Honor, because it seems to me that participating in the management facility is not the same thing as operating the facility.\nTo begin with, this is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2810.226, 2816.896], "stop_times": [2816.896, 2819.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2810.226}, "reply_to": "20058__1_083", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_085", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "So that what your... I just want to be sure I understand your position.\nSo it is... a lender has a greater exposure than a parent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2819.181, 2821.466], "stop_times": [2821.466, 2825.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2819.181}, "reply_to": "20058__1_084", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20058__1_086", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--Because a lender is already... first of all, not every lender is liable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2825.351], "stop_times": [2829.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2825.351}, "reply_to": "20058__1_085", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_087", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "No, I understand that, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2829.32], "stop_times": [2830.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2829.32}, "reply_to": "20058__1_086", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20058__1_088", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Only a lender that has indicia--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2830.572], "stop_times": [2832.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2830.572}, "reply_to": "20058__1_087", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_089", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--But I want to be sure that I get in my... sort it out for myself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2832.038], "stop_times": [2834.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2832.038}, "reply_to": "20058__1_088", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20058__1_090", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2834.707], "stop_times": [2835.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2834.707}, "reply_to": "20058__1_089", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_091", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "The facts that would make a lender liable, in your view, would not be sufficient to make a parent liable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2835.207], "stop_times": [2840.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2835.207}, "reply_to": "20058__1_090", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20058__1_092", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "They may or may not.\nThe lender... the lender may be participating in the management of a facility to such an extent that it has become an operator, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2840.344, 2841.044], "stop_times": [2841.044, 2847.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2840.344}, "reply_to": "20058__1_091", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_093", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "No, but I thought the object of the particular lender provision was directed at owning rather than operating.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2847.497], "stop_times": [2854.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2847.497}, "reply_to": "20058__1_092", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20058__1_094", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--Absolutely, Justice Souter.\nThat was the point I was going to make with Justice Stevens.\nIt's an exception to owner liability.\nIt has nothing at all to do--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2854.787, 2855.887, 2857.655, 2860.007], "stop_times": [2855.887, 2857.655, 2860.007, 2861.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2854.787}, "reply_to": "20058__1_093", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_095", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Well, that's not what the statute says.\nThe statute, which is at 2a of the Government's brief in the middle of the page, says the term owner or operator does not include a person that is a lender that did not participate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2861.273, 2862.39], "stop_times": [2862.39, 2874.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2861.273}, "reply_to": "20058__1_094", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20058__1_096", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--Yes, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2874.681], "stop_times": [2875.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2874.681}, "reply_to": "20058__1_095", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_097", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--in the management of a vessel.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2875.817], "stop_times": [2876.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2875.817}, "reply_to": "20058__1_096", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20058__1_098", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--Justice Kennedy, if you look... the only reason this is in here is because if you look at the bottom of that, holds indicia of ownership... in other words--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2876.65], "stop_times": [2884.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2876.65}, "reply_to": "20058__1_097", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_099", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Whereabouts on 2a are you reading?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2884.888], "stop_times": [2886.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2884.888}, "reply_to": "20058__1_098", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20058__1_100", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--I'm on... well, actually, I'm on la of the appendix to the Government's brief, where the... 9601 is reprinted, and (20)(A), if you look at the last sentence in that paragraph, such term does not include, if you see that, such term does not include a person who holds indicia of ownership primarily to protect a security interest.\nIn other words, these are people who would have been considered owners because they had indicia of ownership primarily to protect their security interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2886.657, 2905.636], "stop_times": [2905.636, 2912.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2886.657}, "reply_to": "20058__1_099", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_101", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Yes, but the such term is owner or operator.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2912.39], "stop_times": [2914.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2912.39}, "reply_to": "20058__1_100", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20058__1_102", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Well, that may be.\nI'm not sure it changes anything, Justice Kennedy.\nIn fact, if you look at the derivation of this, this came into a House bill, H.R. 85, that only defined owner, and this was an exception to owner liability.\nWhen the bills were combined it was put in this way, but it's clear that what Congress was talking about here are people who hold security interests in States that would make them owners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2914.475, 2916.344, 2918.11, 2927.782], "stop_times": [2916.344, 2918.11, 2927.782, 2935.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2914.475}, "reply_to": "20058__1_101", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_103", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Well, but it seems to me, as Justice Stevens indicates, that if management participation, which is what the Congress is interested in, is management participation, who's doing this, if that suffices to hold a lender liable, surely it should hold a corporate... an affiliated corporation liable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2935.305], "stop_times": [2956.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2935.305}, "reply_to": "20058__1_102", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20058__1_104", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "For several reasons not so, Justice Kennedy.\nFirst of all, it's not participation in the management of a subsidiary.\nIt's participation in management of a facility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2956.352, 2957.185, 2959.854], "stop_times": [2957.185, 2959.854, 2961.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2956.352}, "reply_to": "20058__1_103", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_105", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "I agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2961.956], "stop_times": [2962.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2961.956}, "reply_to": "20058__1_104", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20058__1_106", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "And I don't... CPC would not satisfy that definition here, because it did not participate... no one played--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2962.622], "stop_times": [2967.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2962.622}, "reply_to": "20058__1_105", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_107", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Well, but we're talking about the test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2967.776], "stop_times": [2968.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2967.776}, "reply_to": "20058__1_106", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20058__1_108", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2968.759], "stop_times": [2969.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2968.759}, "reply_to": "20058__1_107", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_109", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "If a parent participated in management, as defined in this section that is applicable to lenders, would that parent, by reason of that participation in management, be an operator?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2969.561], "stop_times": [2987.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2969.561}, "reply_to": "20058__1_108", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20058__1_110", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "It would... no.\nThey would not be liable as operators, Justice Kennedy.\nThey would not satisfy the exemption from liability as owners.\nThat's the point.\nThis is an exemption from... these are people who would otherwise be liable as owners, and Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [2987.19, 2987.89, 2989.975, 2994.444, 2995.962], "stop_times": [2987.89, 2989.975, 2994.444, 2995.962, 3000.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2987.19}, "reply_to": "20058__1_109", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_111", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "But Mr. Geller, on 2a, sub... (E)(i), it's exclusions of lenders not participant in management, (i) indicia of ownership to protect security, the term owner or operator does not include a person that is a lender without... blah, blah, blah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3000.848], "stop_times": [3016.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3000.848}, "reply_to": "20058__1_110", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20058__1_112", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--I understand that, Justice Stevens, but it's only because of the indicia of ownership that this matters.\nThese are people who would be liable as owners.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3016.307, 3020.677], "stop_times": [3020.677, 3022.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3016.307}, "reply_to": "20058__1_111", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_113", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Right.\nRegardless... if... but in any event, do you think that if a lender, say the Chase Bank, or some large lending institution, did exactly what the parent did in this case, sent Williams out to tell them not to open that one facility and so forth and so on, do you think they would be liable as a lender or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3022.863, 3023.446], "stop_times": [3023.446, 3043.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3022.863}, "reply_to": "20058__1_112", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20058__1_114", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "No.\nNot so, Justice Stevens.\nI don't think they would satisfy the definition of who are participating in management of this facility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3043.142, 3043.759, 3044.842], "stop_times": [3043.759, 3044.842, 3048.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3043.142}, "reply_to": "20058__1_113", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_115", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "But your submission is that even if they might, the parent would not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3048.93], "stop_times": [3053.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3048.93}, "reply_to": "20058__1_114", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20058__1_116", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "The parent would not be liable in that situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3053.665], "stop_times": [3056.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3053.665}, "reply_to": "20058__1_115", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_117", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Even if the lender would be under the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3056.584], "stop_times": [3057.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3056.584}, "reply_to": "20058__1_116", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20058__1_118", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Yes, because this is a... participating in the management is not the same... as EPA has conceded, participating in the management is not the same thing as operating.\nThis is an exemption that applies to owner liability.\nIt has no relevance here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3057.869, 3065.889, 3068.241], "stop_times": [3065.889, 3068.241, 3069.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3057.869}, "reply_to": "20058__1_117", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_119", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--It would be a meaningless exception to the exemption--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3069.125], "stop_times": [3075.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3069.125}, "reply_to": "20058__1_118", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20058__1_120", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "That's exactly right, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3075.831], "stop_times": [3077.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3075.831}, "reply_to": "20058__1_119", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_121", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--if participating in management were the same as operating--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3077.414], "stop_times": [3078.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3077.414}, "reply_to": "20058__1_120", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20058__1_122", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3078.865], "stop_times": [3079.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3078.865}, "reply_to": "20058__1_121", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_123", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--because then you wouldn't have to get them as an owner.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3079.465], "stop_times": [3081.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3079.465}, "reply_to": "20058__1_122", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20058__1_124", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3081.132], "stop_times": [3081.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3081.132}, "reply_to": "20058__1_123", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_125", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "You could get them as an operator.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3081.567], "stop_times": [3082.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3081.567}, "reply_to": "20058__1_124", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20058__1_126", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Absolutely, Justice Scalia.\nIt wouldn't make any sense to say that the only way you can satisfy the exemption from owner liability is to show that you're not an operator, because if you are an operator you wouldn't need the exemption from owner... you're absolutely right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3082.317, 3083.134], "stop_times": [3083.134, 3092.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3082.317}, "reply_to": "20058__1_125", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_127", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "You wouldn't need it.\nIt wouldn't do you any good.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3092.006, 3093.223], "stop_times": [3093.223, 3093.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3092.006}, "reply_to": "20058__1_126", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20058__1_128", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "It wouldn't do you any good.\nYou'd be liable in exactly the same way under CERCLA.\nI want to just continue this point that there's no evidence here that Congress mean to change the common law rule.\nTo begin with, this Court has said that Congress will not be taken to change common law rules, particularly ones as ingrained as limited liability for shareholders, without clear evidence that it intended to do so.\nThere is absolutely no clear evidence here.\nIn fact, in this statute there is another provision of this statute in which Congress did import a control test.\nWhen you're dealing with abandoned facilities, Congress provided that people are liable not only if they owned or operated the facility, but also if they otherwise controlled the facility, so Congress clearly knew how to import the concept of control when it wanted to do so, but it didn't do so in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3093.858, 3094.208, 3096.075, 3101.296, 3111.168, 3112.768, 3119.924], "stop_times": [3094.208, 3096.075, 3101.296, 3111.168, 3112.768, 3119.924, 3136.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3093.858}, "reply_to": "20058__1_127", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_129", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "But Mr. Geller, the Government told us that that was meant to deal with facilities that had long ceased operating, that that was otherwise controlled.\nYou stopped any operations at the place but you have security guards or whatever you have.\nThat was the picture that I got.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3136.969, 3146.991, 3152.395], "stop_times": [3146.991, 3152.395, 3153.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3136.969}, "reply_to": "20058__1_128", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20058__1_130", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "That's what they say.\nThere's certainly nothing in the legislative history or anywhere else to support that, but even if that were true, in their view operating includes the concept of control, and therefore there would still have been no reason for Congress to have put otherwise controlled in there.\nCongress could have said, whoever was operating the facility immediately before it was abandoned, but Congress didn't do that.\nThey said, owned, operated, or controlled the facility immediately before it was abandoned, so this clearly shows that operator requires something different than mere control.\nIn addition, as you said, pointed out, Justice Ginsburg, there are many other statutes, many other statutes, including important statutes like ERISA and the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Securities Exchange Act, where Congress has imposed liability on people who control violators.\nIn other words, corporations are liable, as are their parents, in those situations.\nCongress specifically did not do that in this particular statute.\nAnd it would be inappropriate, we think, for the Court to read that in there when Congress has not chosen to put it in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3153.795, 3155.181, 3167.238, 3173.558, 3183.014, 3199.876, 3205.029, 3208.481], "stop_times": [3155.181, 3167.238, 3173.558, 3183.014, 3199.876, 3205.029, 3208.481, 3213.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3153.795}, "reply_to": "20058__1_129", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_131", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Mr. Geller, could I call you back to Mr. Williams again and ask you to address the findings of the district court concerning Williams?\nThey're set forth on 75a of the joint appendix, and the... the district court finds that he exerted control over a variety of Ott II environmental matters.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3213.969, 3221.456], "stop_times": [3221.456, 3239.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3213.969}, "reply_to": "20058__1_130", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20058__1_132", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3239.001], "stop_times": [3239.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3239.001}, "reply_to": "20058__1_131", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_133", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Where are you reading from?\n75a in the middle of the page.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3239.451, 3241.451], "stop_times": [3241.451, 3243.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3239.451}, "reply_to": "20058__1_132", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20058__1_134", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--There is no... if I could say, Justice Scalia, there's no evidence to support that finding.\nThe district court doesn't cite any evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3243.236, 3247.621], "stop_times": [3247.621, 3249.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3243.236}, "reply_to": "20058__1_133", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_135", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Well, it goes on to give what I take are... its... what it believed constituted exerting control.\nIn a meeting with the Water Resources Commission, Williams participated in discussions which, as a result of his influence, did not include presentation by Ott II.\nI guess influence wouldn't be the same as directing, would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3249.223, 3257.329, 3265.482], "stop_times": [3257.329, 3265.482, 3269.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3249.223}, "reply_to": "20058__1_134", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20058__1_136", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Right.\nIn fact, I think all these fact-findings are not supported by the record, but even if they were taken as true, and I would refer the Court to our reply brief and our supplemental brief for why they're not true, I don't think that would rise to the level--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3269.053, 3269.386], "stop_times": [3269.386, 3280.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3269.053}, "reply_to": "20058__1_135", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_137", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "What about the next one?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3280.778], "stop_times": [3281.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3280.778}, "reply_to": "20058__1_136", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20058__1_138", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--operating this facility, operating--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3281.444], "stop_times": [3283.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3281.444}, "reply_to": "20058__1_137", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_139", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Operating... but the next one said, he instructed them regarding various responses to State and Federal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3283.61], "stop_times": [3289.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3283.61}, "reply_to": "20058__1_138", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20058__1_140", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--There was a... they were negotiating--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3289.448], "stop_times": [3291.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3289.448}, "reply_to": "20058__1_139", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_141", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--You say that's not operating?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3291.966], "stop_times": [3292.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3291.966}, "reply_to": "20058__1_140", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20058__1_142", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--That's not operating this facility.\nThere were negotiations going on at the time with the Michigan Water Resources Commission as to use of the water facility, the county water facility, and Williams attended one of a dozen of those meetings.\nHe made some recommendations, most of which were not accepted.\nThis is all, I think, in our reply brief.\nNone of this, even if true, I think would amount to operating the Muskegon facility, which is what's relevant here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3292.55, 3293.585, 3305.225, 3308.094, 3309.677], "stop_times": [3293.585, 3305.225, 3308.094, 3309.677, 3316.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3292.55}, "reply_to": "20058__1_141", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_143", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "If we have a 4,000-page record on this, is it perhaps... if they've made the findings not supported, we should send it back under a correct standard, and is that correct--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3316.181], "stop_times": [3326.722], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3316.181}, "reply_to": "20058__1_142", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20058__1_144", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3326.722], "stop_times": [3327.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3326.722}, "reply_to": "20058__1_143", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_145", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--standard, in your view, the standard that if a parent operates simply as a shareholder... a shareholder, which includes appointing directors and doing those things that 100-percent shareholders often do, that that is not sufficient for liability, but if it goes beyond what shareholders normally do in the direction of making operational decisions, then it is liable, so we would look to what is normal in a relationship between parent and sub, a 100-percent shareholder.\nI mean, I'm looking for a way of stating the correct standard.\nThe Sixth Circuit itself thought that a parent could go beyond what is normal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3327.122, 3358.36, 3361.912], "stop_times": [3358.36, 3361.912, 3367.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3327.122}, "reply_to": "20058__1_144", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20058__1_146", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--What the Sixth Circuit said was that the... that the parent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3367.031], "stop_times": [3371.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3367.031}, "reply_to": "20058__1_145", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_147", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--It said about joint venture, but I mean, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3371.168], "stop_times": [3372.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3371.168}, "reply_to": "20058__1_146", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20058__1_148", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--No.\nWhat was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3372.535, 3372.968], "stop_times": [3372.968, 3373.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3372.535}, "reply_to": "20058__1_147", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20058__1_149", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--doesn't really capture it very well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3373.718], "stop_times": [3374.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3373.718}, "reply_to": "20058__1_148", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20058__1_150", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--This is at 17 and 18 of the joint... of the appendix to the petition, Justice Breyer.\nWhat the... it said a parent could be liable if it directly operated the facility.\nIt didn't say... have anything to do with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3374.401, 3378.086, 3384.323], "stop_times": [3378.086, 3384.323, 3386.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3374.401}, "reply_to": "20058__1_149", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_151", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "All right, then we use the word... is the word... is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3386.906], "stop_times": [3386.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3386.906}, "reply_to": "20058__1_150", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20058__1_152", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--the influence that the parent had over the subsidiary, which is what you're talking about now, I believe.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3386.973], "stop_times": [3391.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3386.973}, "reply_to": "20058__1_151", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_153", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--I'm looking for the best way to state what I think you might agree and everyone might agree that it's certainly possible for a parent to go out and begin to operate the facility irrespective of whether the subsidiary does as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3391.977], "stop_times": [3404.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3391.977}, "reply_to": "20058__1_152", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20058__1_154", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "If employees--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3404.986], "stop_times": [3406.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3404.986}, "reply_to": "20058__1_153", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_155", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "All right.\nSo what's the word... yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3406.552, 3406.936], "stop_times": [3406.936, 3407.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3406.552}, "reply_to": "20058__1_154", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20058__1_156", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--If employees of the parent are directly involved in operating the facility, in other words, engaged in the day-to-day running of the facility, involved in the dumping of the hazardous waste of the facility--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3407.769], "stop_times": [3419.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3407.769}, "reply_to": "20058__1_155", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_157", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "What about making managerial decisions that determine how those operations will take place?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3419.996], "stop_times": [3423.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3419.996}, "reply_to": "20058__1_156", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20058__1_158", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--If you could show that the parent, as opposed to dual officers, which is what we have in this case, if you could show that the parent was making all of the decisions for the subsidiary--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3423.881], "stop_times": [3432.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3423.881}, "reply_to": "20058__1_157", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_159", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Why all?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3432.135], "stop_times": [3432.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3432.135}, "reply_to": "20058__1_158", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20058__1_160", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--Or decisions related to the facility--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3432.585], "stop_times": [3435.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3432.585}, "reply_to": "20058__1_159", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_161", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "How about actually participated in the management or operational affairs of the facility?\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3435.17, 3440.224], "stop_times": [3440.224, 3440.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3435.17}, "reply_to": "20058__1_160", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20058__1_162", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--If you could show that the parent was actually doing that, but there's no evidence the parent was doing that in this case.\nAll of the evidence that would support that sort of a conclusion in this case, Justice Kennedy, has to do with Ott and Eiszner, who were dual officers.\nThere was no... I say this again because it's so significant.\nThere was no employee of CPC... of CPC, as opposed to these dual officers, whose actions cannot be attributed to CPC.\nThere was no employee of CPC that did anything in this case that could be construed as operating this facility.\nThat's what the Sixth Circuit held.\nWe think the Sixth Circuit adopted the correct legal standard, and we think that it reviewed the record in this case and correctly came to the conclusion that there was no operator liability.\nNow, I just want to conclude by saying that although the Government tries to sugar-coat its position, if the evidence here is sufficient to find the parent liable under a Federal veil-piercing theory, and it's hard to imagine any parent of a wholly owned subsidiary that wouldn't be liable for its subsidiary's acts under CERCLA by virtue of the Government's two-step theory, it would be... this would be an astounding extension of CERCLA liability.\nParents would never know when they have overstepped what the Government thinks is an appropriate investor relationship, as they say, and instead have left themselves open for millions of dollars of unexpected CERCLA liability.\nIt's an amorphous and unworkable test, and it's contrary to the common law test that's been around for 100 years.\nThere's no evidence that Congress intended to supplant that common law test with this new middle ground that the district court has adopted here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3440.707, 3445.961, 3452.714, 3455.564, 3463.07, 3469.057, 3470.24, 3479.282, 3503.98, 3517.055, 3523.375], "stop_times": [3445.961, 3452.714, 3455.564, 3463.07, 3469.057, 3470.24, 3479.282, 3503.98, 3517.055, 3523.375, 3531.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3440.707}, "reply_to": "20058__1_161", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_163", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Mr. Geller, let me just... I don't mean to be beating a dead horse here, but I do want to be sure I understand completely your thought on this.\nSupposing we went through this series of reasoning and said, we've got to decide what an operator is.\nYou might say an operator is a person who participates actively in management.\nThat might be a test.\nAnd then you'd say, well, what does participate in management mean?\nWhat would be wrong with saying, we look at the definition of participation in management that Congress provided us for determining when lenders become owners or operators?\nWhat would be wrong with that approach?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3531.814, 3537.868, 3542.855, 3546.224, 3547.342, 3550.461, 3559.4], "stop_times": [3537.868, 3542.855, 3546.224, 3547.342, 3550.461, 3559.4, 3561.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3531.814}, "reply_to": "20058__1_162", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20058__1_164", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3561.367], "stop_times": [3561.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3561.367}, "reply_to": "20058__1_163", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_165", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "It just occurred to me, and I should have thought of it before, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3561.85], "stop_times": [3564.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3561.85}, "reply_to": "20058__1_164", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20058__1_166", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--It... I think it would be wrong because it equates participating in management with operation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3564.219], "stop_times": [3569.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3564.219}, "reply_to": "20058__1_165", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_167", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--And you don't... you think participating in management is not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3569.006], "stop_times": [3572.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3569.006}, "reply_to": "20058__1_166", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20058__1_168", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "I think it's a different--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3572.791], "stop_times": [3573.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3572.791}, "reply_to": "20058__1_167", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_169", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--enough to be an operator?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3573.241], "stop_times": [3575.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3573.241}, "reply_to": "20058__1_168", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20058__1_170", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--I think it's a different test, but I would also say that even if you did that, what CPC did in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3575.259], "stop_times": [3578.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3575.259}, "reply_to": "20058__1_169", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_171", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Would not... I'm not suggesting you're giving that away.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3578.378], "stop_times": [3580.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3578.378}, "reply_to": "20058__1_170", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20058__1_172", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "--Yes.\nIt's a diff... Congress could have just said operates instead of participating in management--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3580.563, 3580.847], "stop_times": [3580.847, 3584.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3580.563}, "reply_to": "20058__1_171", "speaker": "kenneth_s_geller"}
{"id": "20058__1_173", "conversation_id": "20058", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Geller.\nI think you've answered the question.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-454", "start_times": [3584.282, 3585.182, 3586.615], "stop_times": [3585.182, 3586.615, 3588.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3584.282}, "reply_to": "20058__1_172", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20766__0_000", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 97-643, United States v. Vickie Cabrales.\nMr. Stewart.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [0.0, 7.586], "stop_times": [7.586, 9.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20766__0_001", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nTo obtain a conviction under the Federal money-laundering statutes, the Government must prove that the defendant engaged in a financial transaction, that the property involved in that transaction represented the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, and that the defendant knew that the funds were illegally acquired.\nThe Government has alleged in this case that respondent violated the money-laundering statutes by engaging in banking transactions in Florida using funds that were acquired through cocaine-trafficking activities in Missouri.\nThe question presented is whether venue was proper in Missouri, the place where the unlawful generation of funds is alleged to have occurred.\nThis Court's decisions have recognized two principal criteria on which venue may be based.\nFirst, a prosecution may ordinarily be brought in any district where conduct constituting an element of the offense occurs.\nSecond, where a particular effect is an element of a Federal crime, the prosecution may generally be brought in any district where that effect is felt.\nFor purposes of the present case, the crucial point is that neither of those bases for laying venue requires that the prosecution be brought in a district where the defendant personally committed an unlawful act.\nIn the Government's view, Missouri is an appropriate forum for this prosecution on both of the foregoing approaches.\nFirst, Missouri is the place where conduct constituting an element of the offense, namely the drug-trafficking crimes that generated the laundered funds, is alleged to have occurred.\nSecond, Missouri is the place where the harmful effects of respondent's money-laundering were principally felt, since the evil of money-laundering consists of its capacity to conceal and thus facilitate the predicate crimes.\nFinally, trial in Missouri furthers the purposes underlying the requirement that a criminal offense be prosecuted at the place where the offense was committed.\nNow, both Article III of the Constitution and the Sixth Amendment require that a criminal offense be prosecuted at the place where the offense shall have been committed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [9.008, 12.952, 27.14, 37.488, 44.153, 49.737, 56.351, 63.595, 74.814, 80.79, 89.714, 101.652, 109.498], "stop_times": [12.952, 27.14, 37.488, 44.153, 49.737, 56.351, 63.595, 74.814, 80.79, 89.714, 101.652, 109.498, 118.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.008}, "reply_to": "20766__0_000", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_002", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Does it make any difference at all, Mr. Stewart, whether the defendant had any knowledge of the circumstances of the predicate offense or any link at all with the State in which that was carried out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [118.254], "stop_times": [133.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 118.254}, "reply_to": "20766__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20766__0_003", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "To establish guilt under the money-laundering statutes the defendant would have to be shown to have known that the funds were illegally acquired, so to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [133.144], "stop_times": [140.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 133.144}, "reply_to": "20766__0_002", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_004", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Well, the defendant presumably could have been told by somebody, look, I got these funds illegally.\nMaybe the defendant is told that in the State of New York by someone from Missouri, and the someone says, these are illegally obtained funds but I need your help to put them in a bank and do such-and-such with them.\nIs that enough to prosecute in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [140.71, 146.503, 161.243], "stop_times": [146.503, 161.243, 163.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 140.71}, "reply_to": "20766__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20766__0_005", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--Yes, under our view it is.\nThat is, the defendant must be shown to have known of the unlawful origin of the funds, but you're correct, the defendant doesn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [163.985, 165.387], "stop_times": [165.387, 170.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 163.985}, "reply_to": "20766__0_004", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_006", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Even if the defendant doesn't know that the crime occurred in Missouri and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [170.382], "stop_times": [174.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 170.382}, "reply_to": "20766__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20766__0_007", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [174.746], "stop_times": [175.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 174.746}, "reply_to": "20766__0_006", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_008", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--was never there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [175.027], "stop_times": [175.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 175.027}, "reply_to": "20766__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20766__0_009", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "That's correct.\nIn mean, in this case there are more substantial contacts between the respondent and the Western District of Missouri, but you're correct, under our theory that's not an essential feature of the grounds for laying venue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [175.918, 176.779], "stop_times": [176.779, 187.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 175.918}, "reply_to": "20766__0_008", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_010", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Well, what cases do you think justify that particular approach?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [187.838], "stop_times": [193.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 187.838}, "reply_to": "20766__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20766__0_011", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "I think the two best cases in this Court would be Hyde v. United States and In Re Palliser.\nHyde v. United States involved a prosecution for conspiracy, in which the petitioners in this Court were prosecuted in the District of Columbia.\nThey were not... for conspiracy.\nThey were not alleged to have personally committed an unlawful act in the District of Columbia, or ever to have been there, but it was held that because coconspirators had committed overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy in the District of Columbia, that that was an appropriate venue, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [193.214, 198.91, 208.274, 210.277], "stop_times": [198.91, 208.274, 210.277, 225.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 193.214}, "reply_to": "20766__0_010", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_012", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Well, I... it's a little easier to see, isn't it, in a conspiracy context.\nOf course, you have a conspiracy charge here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [225.378, 230.682], "stop_times": [230.682, 233.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 225.378}, "reply_to": "20766__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20766__0_013", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--It... you're correct that in some sense the link between the defendant and the coconspirators may be more direct than the link between the money-launderer and the persons who perpetrate the predicate crimes.\nNevertheless, to us the crucial point is that the evil of money-laundering is not that the transactions are per se unlawful or harmful.\nThe evil of money-laundering consists precisely of the fact that it assists in the concealment and thus the facilitation of the predicate criminal act--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [233.174, 246.191, 254.977], "stop_times": [246.191, 254.977, 263.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 233.174}, "reply_to": "20766__0_012", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_014", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Well, what about receiving stolen property, one of the examples mentioned, I think, in one of the briefs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [263.976], "stop_times": [268.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 263.976}, "reply_to": "20766__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20766__0_015", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [268.087], "stop_times": [268.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 268.087}, "reply_to": "20766__0_014", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_016", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "You know, the property is stolen in State A, and then it's received and resold in State B.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [268.617], "stop_times": [275.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 268.617}, "reply_to": "20766__0_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20766__0_017", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--It certainly is our theory that the prosecution could be brought in State A for much the same reasons, that because the evil of the offense is that it facilitates or conceals the crime that occurred in jurisdiction A, and because the harm of the crime is felt in jurisdiction A, it therefore makes sense to prosecute the offense there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [275.172], "stop_times": [293.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 275.172}, "reply_to": "20766__0_016", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_018", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--Well, how does receiving stolen property in New York conceal the existence of a crime, say, in Chicago?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [293.866], "stop_times": [299.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 293.866}, "reply_to": "20766__0_017", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20766__0_019", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Well, for one thing, if the person in New York receives it and profits by it rather than, for instance, turning over the evidence to the police, in that sense it conceals the offense.\nIt certainly facilitates the offense in that the crime of stealing property is more profitable and therefore is more likely to occur if there are people out there who will--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [299.672, 310.829], "stop_times": [310.829, 321.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 299.672}, "reply_to": "20766__0_018", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_020", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "I can see how it facilitates it, but to say it conceals it, I really don't follow that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [321.136], "stop_times": [325.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 321.136}, "reply_to": "20766__0_019", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20766__0_021", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--I guess it would be accurate to say it conceals it only if we compare the person who receives the stolen property to the person who becomes aware of the theft and reports it to the authorities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [325.66], "stop_times": [334.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 325.66}, "reply_to": "20766__0_020", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_022", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "I take it on your theory... how do you feel about controlled substances?\nI mean, there are quite a few that the Attorney General has to put on a list or they're not controlled, so does that mean as to any such substance every drug crime could be prosecuted, wherever it takes place, in Washington, D.C.?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [334.926, 340.32], "stop_times": [340.32, 351.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 334.926}, "reply_to": "20766__0_021", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20766__0_023", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "No, I don't think so, because the Attorney General's act of putting the controlled substance on the list would not in any sense be conduct that the ban on possession--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [351.437], "stop_times": [361.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 351.437}, "reply_to": "20766__0_022", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_024", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "No, it's not conduct exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [361.644], "stop_times": [362.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 361.644}, "reply_to": "20766__0_023", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20766__0_025", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--It would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [362.804], "stop_times": [363.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 362.804}, "reply_to": "20766__0_024", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_026", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "But isn't it an element of the offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [363.054], "stop_times": [364.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 363.054}, "reply_to": "20766__0_025", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20766__0_027", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--It's no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [364.897], "stop_times": [365.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 364.897}, "reply_to": "20766__0_026", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_028", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "I mean, if the substance is not on the list, then you can't prosecute the person for the offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [365.495], "stop_times": [370.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 365.495}, "reply_to": "20766__0_027", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20766__0_029", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--It would not be conduct that it was the purpose of the controlled substance statutes to prohibit or deter, and I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [370.77], "stop_times": [378.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 370.77}, "reply_to": "20766__0_028", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_030", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Oh--\n--Element of an offense is not a separate justification, as you said in your initial presentation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [378.605, 378.915], "stop_times": [378.915, 384.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 378.605}, "reply_to": "20766__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20766__0_031", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [384.419], "stop_times": [384.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 384.419}, "reply_to": "20766__0_030", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_032", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Is it or isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [384.67], "stop_times": [385.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 384.67}, "reply_to": "20766__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20766__0_033", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--Element of the offense is not a universal justification.\nI said in the opening statement that typically the crime--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [385.781, 388.335], "stop_times": [388.335, 391.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 385.781}, "reply_to": "20766__0_032", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_034", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "It's not sufficient, then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [391.387], "stop_times": [392.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 391.387}, "reply_to": "20766__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20766__0_035", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [392.436], "stop_times": [393.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 392.436}, "reply_to": "20766__0_034", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_036", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "So what else do you... I mean, it's... your theory is that although all the conduct relevant here took place in Florida, I take it, but there was some element of the offense that took place in a different State, that that element of the offense does give venue, but my element of the offense, putting the drug on the list, doesn't give venue, because?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [393.508], "stop_times": [415.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 393.508}, "reply_to": "20766__0_035", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20766__0_037", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Well, I would dispute the proposition that all of the conduct that's relevant here occurred in Florida.\nIt's true that the only conduct in which the respondent--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [415.523, 420.726], "stop_times": [420.726, 423.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 415.523}, "reply_to": "20766__0_036", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_038", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Yes, all the conduct... and similarly the Attorney General's conduct of putting a drug on a list took place in Washington, D.C., but that conduct which created an element of the offense does not count for venue, but here the conduct of the activity and element of the offense in Missouri does, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [423.269], "stop_times": [442.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 423.269}, "reply_to": "20766__0_037", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20766__0_039", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--There's an intensely practical reason for that, that is that the central purpose underlying the constitutional requirement that the crime be prosecuted at the place where it was committed was to facilitate the production of relevant evidence, and it's very likely, in money laundering prosecutions generally and in this case in particular, that the fact that specified unlawful activity generated the funds will--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [442.612], "stop_times": [464.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 442.612}, "reply_to": "20766__0_038", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_040", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--Do you really think that provision was designed to protect the Government's interest in getting evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [464.507], "stop_times": [468.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 464.507}, "reply_to": "20766__0_039", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20766__0_041", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--I don't think it was designed to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [468.18], "stop_times": [468.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 468.18}, "reply_to": "20766__0_040", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_042", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Not to protect the defendant's interest--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [468.928], "stop_times": [470.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 468.928}, "reply_to": "20766__0_041", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20766__0_043", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [470.551], "stop_times": [470.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 470.551}, "reply_to": "20766__0_042", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_044", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--in being tried at home?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [470.711], "stop_times": [471.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 470.711}, "reply_to": "20766__0_043", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20766__0_045", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--I think... well, it was designed to protect the defendant's interest, but clearly if the Framers had been concerned only with the defendant's convenience, or with the right of the defendant to be tried at home, the Constitution would say that the defendant has a right to be tried in the district of her residence.\nThe Constitution doesn't say that.\nIt recognizes that the defendant's... the interest in the defendant's convenience should not be so overwhelming as to frustrate--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [471.502, 486.871, 488.574], "stop_times": [486.871, 488.574, 496.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 471.502}, "reply_to": "20766__0_044", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_046", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Prevent him from being tried where he goes and commits a crime.\nBut to let him be tried where somebody else committed a crime across the country and shipped goods to him he fenced, that's a rather novel proposition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [496.361, 498.742], "stop_times": [498.742, 506.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 496.361}, "reply_to": "20766__0_045", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20766__0_047", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--Well, I think it is consistent with the prin--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [506.439], "stop_times": [508.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 506.439}, "reply_to": "20766__0_046", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_048", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Mr. Stewart, in the Constitution... this is mentioned twice in the Constitution, and in the Sixth Amendment it says, the accused shall enjoy the right, so apparently the people who wrote that thought... the right to be tried in the district wherein the crime shall have been committed, enjoy the right.\nSo it's a little hard to say that they saw that mainly in terms of where... the convenience of the prosecution, as opposed to the right of the defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [508.382, 527.863], "stop_times": [527.863, 535.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 508.382}, "reply_to": "20766__0_047", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20766__0_049", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--I'm not suggesting that they put the provision in there in order to protect the prosecution.\nWhat I am saying is that they... the constitutional provisions represent a balancing of the defendant's and the Government's interest.\nThat is, if the Framers had wanted to protect the convenience of the defendant at all costs, they could have said the defendant has the right to trial in the district of her residence.\nThey could even have said the defendant has the right to trial in whatever district she chooses.\nAs the Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [535.971, 541.343, 549.1, 558.056, 563.5], "stop_times": [541.343, 549.1, 558.056, 563.5, 564.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 535.971}, "reply_to": "20766__0_048", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_050", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "But it is the idea of the jury of the vicinity where the act was committed, and you have dealt with the Attorney General and the list, but what crimes?\nTo get an idea of the dimensions of what we're talking about, so far you've mentioned receiving stolen property would be analyzed the same way as money-laundering.\nThere's one example in the cases of jury tampering.\nThe jury is sitting in D.C. but the tampering is done in Maryland.\nWhat else?\nWhat other crimes present this problem, where all of the conduct is in one State, but it's in aid of something that went on earlier in another State?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [564.16, 578.521, 587.998, 592.172, 594.694, 596.005], "stop_times": [578.521, 587.998, 592.172, 594.694, 596.005, 607.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 564.16}, "reply_to": "20766__0_049", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20766__0_051", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--Well, in terms of something that went on earlier, I think there isn't so much authority.\nThe principle is well-established in cases, for instance, involving aiding and abetting, where a person in jurisdiction A assists in the planning or preparation for a crime that's to occur--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [607.404, 612.667], "stop_times": [612.667, 622.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 607.404}, "reply_to": "20766__0_050", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_052", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "But that--\n--That, like conspiracy, is a crime where you are being held responsible for acts done by other people.\nI think you have to set aside aiding and abetting, just as you set aside conspiracy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [622.575, 622.895, 628.799], "stop_times": [622.895, 628.799, 635.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 622.575}, "reply_to": "20766__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20766__0_053", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--Well, it is true that respondent is not being held responsible for the drug-trafficking crimes in the sense of being prosecuted for distribution of narcotics or for conspiracy to distribute narcotics, but I think it's nevertheless accurate, in a sense, to say that she is being held responsible for those acts.\nIn the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [635.183, 651.214], "stop_times": [651.214, 651.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 635.183}, "reply_to": "20766__0_052", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_054", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "But if we could take the substance of it, is what I'm... let's assume we're talking about just a single defendant, no aiding and abetting, so I know from the cases that there's receiving stolen property, and there's jury tampering, and there's money-laundering.\nWhat else?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [651.885, 664.975], "stop_times": [664.975, 666.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 651.885}, "reply_to": "20766__0_053", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20766__0_055", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--I think perhaps the best example would be offenses involving the use of the mails, or the channels of interstate commerce, where Congress has provided by statute that those offenses can be prosecuted in any district, for instance, where the mail was sent, where the mail was received, or even in a district through which the mail passes in transit, and the idea is that even though the defendant may not personally have been present in the district of receipt, nevertheless she is responsible for harm occurring in that district by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [666.126], "stop_times": [692.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 666.126}, "reply_to": "20766__0_054", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_056", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Well, is that it, or she is using the mails wherever she sends her letter.\nShe's using the mails where it's received, she's using the mails where it's transported through.\nI don't think that's a good example.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [692.786, 696.899, 701.722], "stop_times": [696.899, 701.722, 704.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 692.786}, "reply_to": "20766__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20766__0_057", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--I think... it... I think it is a good example, at least to the extent that it shows that the Constitution does not guarantee the defendant the right to trial in a district where she personally acted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [704.285], "stop_times": [717.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 704.285}, "reply_to": "20766__0_056", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_058", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Oh, sure, but that's not the contention being made here by the defendant, I don't think.\nAnd the Palliser case really is the mailing in one district to a postmaster in another district a solicitation that's unlawful, and it seems to me that that falls considerably short of showing that the Government should prevail here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [717.053, 721.567], "stop_times": [721.567, 736.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 717.053}, "reply_to": "20766__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20766__0_059", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Well, I think the Palliser case involves--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [736.366], "stop_times": [738.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 736.366}, "reply_to": "20766__0_058", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_060", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "I think it's Palliser.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [738.036], "stop_times": [738.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 738.036}, "reply_to": "20766__0_059", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20766__0_061", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--Oh, Palliser.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [738.797], "stop_times": [739.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 738.797}, "reply_to": "20766__0_060", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_062", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Have you read the Trollope novels, the Palliser novels?\nI think those are always pronounced Palliser.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [739.378, 741.741], "stop_times": [741.741, 743.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 739.378}, "reply_to": "20766__0_061", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20766__0_063", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Okay.\nI'm sorry, Your Honor.\nThe Palliser case involved the use of the mails.\nThe Palliser case also cited authorities dealing with the crime of murder, that established that the crime of murder may typically be prosecuted at the place where the fatal blow... the fatal force was struck or the poison administered, even if that was not the place where the defendant acted, for instance, the hypothetical which appears to have arisen, at least on occasion, where a person standing in jurisdiction A shoots a gun across the border and hits a person in jurisdiction B.--\nSo I think the Court in Palliser was not announcing a holding that was unique to the mail setting.\nRather, it was relying on a more general principle that a person may be held accountable for harm caused in another jurisdiction even if he never sets foot there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [743.753, 743.933, 744.514, 747.395, 773.473, 778.268], "stop_times": [743.933, 744.514, 747.395, 773.473, 778.268, 787.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 743.753}, "reply_to": "20766__0_062", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_064", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "So your--\n--Well, but there's a difference, it seems to me, in prospective and retroactive.\nUnder your view, as I understand it, if methamphetamine is manufactured in Arizona and it goes through about four different distributors and ends up in New York, you're going to be able to prosecute the New York, what do you call him, mule, or the ultimate seller in Arizona.\nI think that's what you're saying, and... but that's, to me, backward-looking.\nNow, if he... if the defendant intends to cause or should know that what he does will have a prospective effect in some other jurisdiction, that's quite different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [787.534, 787.965, 791.789, 806.16, 810.483], "stop_times": [787.965, 791.789, 806.16, 810.483, 821.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 787.534}, "reply_to": "20766__0_063", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20766__0_065", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "I mean, I think Your Honor is correct in saying that the defendant in a money-laundering case doesn't cause the narcotics-trafficking activities to occur, but I think it's nevertheless the case that the harm of those... the money-laundering activities is felt in the district where the predicate crimes took place.\nThat is, the transactions prohibited by the money-laundering statutes are not prohibited because they are per se harmful.\nThey are prohibited because they assist in the concealment and facilitation of the underlying crimes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [821.57, 837.271, 843.666], "stop_times": [837.271, 843.666, 849.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 821.57}, "reply_to": "20766__0_064", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_066", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "You're not backing away from my description of your position as to the meth prosecution being in Arizona, even though it was sold by someone who has never been in Arizona and it's gone through three different stages and it's in New York City?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [849.292], "stop_times": [860.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 849.292}, "reply_to": "20766__0_065", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20766__0_067", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "I guess I'm not sure about the precise scope of your hypothetical.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [860.841], "stop_times": [864.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 860.841}, "reply_to": "20766__0_066", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_068", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Well, the hypothetical is that meth is manufactured in Arizona, it's sold by two or three different people, and it's finally sold by some guy on the street in New York, and it seems to me, under your point of view, this street seller can be prosecuted in Arizona, because that... it makes the meth laboratory work to have this little distribution network.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [864.043], "stop_times": [880.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 864.043}, "reply_to": "20766__0_067", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20766__0_069", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "I think that may not be accurate, because I think in the prosecution of the street seller it would not in any sense be an element of the crime, where... we would not typically show--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [880.824], "stop_times": [890.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 880.824}, "reply_to": "20766__0_068", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_070", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "But you're not relying on elements of the crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [890.679], "stop_times": [892.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 890.679}, "reply_to": "20766__0_069", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20766__0_071", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--Well, we are relying on effects to the extent that they are elements of the crime.\nThat is, here it's not simply the case that the money-laundering did facilitate the drug-trafficking activities.\nIt's the case that in order to obtain a conviction for money-laundering, we would have to show that the funds were--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [892.611, 896.863, 902.767], "stop_times": [896.863, 902.767, 907.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 892.611}, "reply_to": "20766__0_070", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_072", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Use Justice Kennedy's example with counterfeiting.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [907.361], "stop_times": [909.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 907.361}, "reply_to": "20766__0_071", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20766__0_073", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [909.653], "stop_times": [910.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 909.653}, "reply_to": "20766__0_072", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_074", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Use Justice Kennedy's example with counterfeiting.\nI mean, you have the person passing the $10 bill, but the bill was counterfeited in Arizona.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [910.754, 913.067], "stop_times": [913.067, 917.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 910.754}, "reply_to": "20766__0_073", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20766__0_075", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "I think that probably would fall under our theory, although I think that's a harder case, because the harm in that case would be felt where the counterfeit bill was passed, and not where the bills were manufactured.\nAgain, to return to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [917.88, 929.297], "stop_times": [929.297, 930.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 917.88}, "reply_to": "20766__0_074", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_076", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Oh, you mean the Government doesn't think there's any harm in having a counterfeit organization in a particular community?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [930.309], "stop_times": [935.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 930.309}, "reply_to": "20766__0_075", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20766__0_077", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--There's harm in having the counterfeit organization.\nI mean, hypothetically, if you had an individual who, as a hobby, liked to counterfeit bills simply for the artistry of it, never did anything with them, it wouldn't cause any harm.\nNow, the statutes prohibit that simply because it would be hard to detect the activity going on if you couldn't go after the counterfeiting, but the harm that results from counterfeiting bills occurs at the moment they're passed to innocent people, and to return to Justice Ginsburg's question for a second, I think you were right that part of the purpose of the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a right to trial in the place where the crime shall have been committed is to assure that a jury from the relevant community sits in judgment upon the accused, but in our view, the relevant community here is the Western District of Missouri.\nThat is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [935.133, 937.815, 947.079, 980.251], "stop_times": [937.815, 947.079, 980.251, 980.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 935.133}, "reply_to": "20766__0_076", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_078", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Well, but Mr. Stewart, may I ask you a question that goes one step further on that question of purpose.\nThe reason for selecting the community that the Constitution has done in the vicinage provision historically, as I understand it, was to select a jury from the place where the evidence was going to be found.\nOriginally, if you go far enough back, it reflects the fact that the jury in fact supplied evidence.\nLater on the theory was still maintained and, as I understand it, the theory was maintained in order to prevent the Crown or later the Government from taking people from the places where they are accused of having committed a crime, spiriting them away to another part of the kingdom, or another part of the country, where the Government can, with its power, get all the evidence it wants, but where the individual is probably not going to be very effective in getting any defense evidence.\nNow, assuming that that... and I think that's a fair statement of at least an important historical consideration.\nIf that is so, then it is not... not only is it, I suppose, not a positive justification for the position that you take, but it shows that the kind of evidence that you want to prove these nonact elements really is the kind of evidence that the provision is not concerned with at all.\nFor example, the fact that the money was counterfeited somewhere is not an important fact.\nAll the Government has got to prove is that the counterfeiting, the counterfeited bill was passed at the place where the defendant committed that particular crime.\nSo that it seems to me that no purpose within the Sixth Amendment is served by having a jury anywhere except in places where the evidence either of the cause or the effect of the crime is likely to be found, so if we get into purpose, it seems to me that purpose argues against you.\nAm I wrong in my assumption about the purposes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [980.622, 986.405, 1003.826, 1011.222, 1039.358, 1047.544, 1068.709, 1077.126, 1086.082, 1104.805], "stop_times": [986.405, 1003.826, 1011.222, 1039.358, 1047.544, 1068.709, 1077.126, 1086.082, 1104.805, 1107.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 980.622}, "reply_to": "20766__0_077", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20766__0_079", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--I think you are right in your assumption about the purposes, and I... we would respectfully disagree with the assertion that the purposes are not served here.\nThat is, in the instant case, for example, it's very unlikely to be a fact in dispute that the banking transactions which are alleged to have occurred in Florida actually occurred as stated in the indictment.\nIt's conceivable that that will be disputed, but it's unlikely.\nWhat is most likely to be disputed if this case goes to trial is, first, whether the money was unlawfully generated and, second, whether the respondent knew it.\nNow, you're correct in saying that it's possible that we could prove the money was unlawfully generated without proving where the predicate crimes occurred, but certainly a very good way of proving that the money was unlawfully generated would be to prove the circumstances underlying the drug-trafficking activities, particularly in a case where the Government has already gotten a conviction for the drug conspiracy that is alleged to have generated the laundered funds.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1107.319, 1114.972, 1127.19, 1130.342, 1138.89], "stop_times": [1114.972, 1127.19, 1130.342, 1138.89, 1160.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1107.319}, "reply_to": "20766__0_078", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_080", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "The counterfeiting case, that wouldn't apply.\nThat reasoning wouldn't apply.\nI suppose that reasoning wouldn't apply in the case of the felon in possession of the firearm.\nYou pointed out in your footnote that you're not suggesting that the place of the firearms manufacture would provide venue, but I do suppose that on your theory the place of the predicate felony would be within your choice of venue, and yet the only thing you have to prove is, in fact, that a felony was committed, which you do by record.\nThere's no need to go to that jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1160.965, 1163.239, 1164.508, 1170.903, 1189.696], "stop_times": [1163.239, 1164.508, 1170.903, 1189.696, 1191.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1160.965}, "reply_to": "20766__0_079", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20766__0_081", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "I don't think it follows that the place where the felony was committed would be an appropriate venue.\nFirst, we wouldn't be proving conduct, because it wouldn't be necessary or even permissible in a 922 (g) prosecution for us to present independent evidence that the defendant had actually committed the prior crime.\nWe would simply be introducing the judgment of conviction or relying upon a stipulation.\nBut the... as to the counterfeiting, I think that the... having the trial in the district where the counterfeiting took place might or might not be a sensible venue.\nThat is, if the Government--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1191.779, 1196.621, 1207.099, 1212.263, 1223.301], "stop_times": [1196.621, 1207.099, 1212.263, 1223.301, 1224.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1191.779}, "reply_to": "20766__0_080", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_082", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Why might it be?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1224.179], "stop_times": [1224.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1224.179}, "reply_to": "20766__0_081", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20766__0_083", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--It might be because I assume that an element of the offense of passing counterfeiting money is that the person knew that it was counterfeited and, at least in some cases, one of the ways of proving that the defendant knew that the money was counterfeit was to show that he was the one who manufactured it and perhaps took it to distant locations to pass it, but that he was involved in the operation.\nSo depending on the facts of an individual case, evidence concerning the circumstances upon... under which the money was manufactured might or might not be relevant to the prosecution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1224.47, 1243.193], "stop_times": [1243.193, 1253.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1224.47}, "reply_to": "20766__0_082", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_084", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Well, I suppose if that's what you're going to rely on for proof you would prosecute him for manufacturing the counterfeited bill in the jurisdiction in which he did it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1253.95], "stop_times": [1262.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1253.95}, "reply_to": "20766__0_083", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20766__0_085", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "We might prosecute him for that.\nWe could also have a circumstance... we could also have cases in which it was clear that money had been passed from jurisdiction A to jurisdiction B, and the circumstances under which the counterfeiting occurred would be relevant to the prosecution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1262.306, 1264.039], "stop_times": [1264.039, 1278.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1262.306}, "reply_to": "20766__0_084", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_086", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "I'm not sure you have to win the counterfeiting case in order to win this case.\nAs I understand your theory that you're giving us now, I'm not sure it is the same as the one that was in your briefs.\nYou are... you're insisting upon two things before you can try this person in Missouri, number 1, that the act which occurred in Missouri be an element of the crime, but not that alone.\nIn addition, that element must be the whole purpose... in the counterfeiting case I guess you'd say must be one of the purposes, but here you say that the whole purpose of the crime for which she's prosecuted is to prevent what occurred in Missouri, so it's element, plus the whole purpose of the crime in Missouri is to prevent the drug dealing in Missouri.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1278.559, 1282.181, 1290.047, 1304.556], "stop_times": [1282.181, 1290.047, 1304.556, 1326.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1278.559}, "reply_to": "20766__0_085", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20766__0_087", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "I wouldn't say the whole purpose, but I would say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1326.141], "stop_times": [1328.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1326.141}, "reply_to": "20766__0_086", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_088", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "You wouldn't say the whole purpose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1328.103], "stop_times": [1328.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1328.103}, "reply_to": "20766__0_087", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20766__0_089", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1328.804], "stop_times": [1329.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1328.804}, "reply_to": "20766__0_088", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_090", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "I mean, what do you care if somebody launders money if it's not... you know, you're trying to stop the drug-dealing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1329.044], "stop_times": [1334.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1329.044}, "reply_to": "20766__0_089", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20766__0_091", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--I mean, I would say... I'm sorry if I misspoke.\nI wouldn't say that our test is that the whole purpose of the statute has to be to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1334.617, 1337.91], "stop_times": [1337.91, 1342.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1334.617}, "reply_to": "20766__0_090", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_092", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Oh, I know, because you want to reach further, but in order to win this case I don't have to agree to go any further, do I?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1342.885], "stop_times": [1348.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1342.885}, "reply_to": "20766__0_091", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20766__0_093", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--I think that's absolutely correct, and I think certainly we would acknowledge that there is indeterminacy at the margins as to the way that certain cases should come out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1348.247], "stop_times": [1357.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1348.247}, "reply_to": "20766__0_092", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_094", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Well, sure.\nIn the felon-in-possession case you would certainly be able to argue that one reason for penalizing the possession of the handgun later is to discourage felonies generally, so that the original felony is within the purpose considered by the felon-in-possession statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1357.353, 1357.553], "stop_times": [1357.553, 1372.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1357.353}, "reply_to": "20766__0_093", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20766__0_095", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "That seems to me at the margins.\nI think the other thing I would point to as to the felon-in-possession cases, where they were talking about the location where the underlying felony occurred, or the location where the gun was manufactured, is that in a sense, whether venue would be proper at those sites under the statute or the Constitution is a rather abstract question.\nThat is, there is a Federal rule of criminal procedure that provides for change of venue in criminal cases even--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1372.083, 1375.806, 1391.807], "stop_times": [1375.806, 1391.807, 1397.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1372.083}, "reply_to": "20766__0_094", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_096", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "May I ask about your suggestion that the fact the money was illegal... the taint of the money occurred in Missouri makes venue proper there.\nSupposing that was everybody's understanding, that the money was tainted, with the proceeds of drug transactions in Missouri, but the proof at the trial, they brought in an accountant who proved yes, it was illegal, but actually illegality occurred in Illinois, would that mean that the element of the offense that it was illegal money had not been established?\nIt isn't the place where it occurs.\nIt's what occurs, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1397.223, 1406.888, 1424.67, 1427.374], "stop_times": [1406.888, 1424.67, 1427.374, 1428.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1397.223}, "reply_to": "20766__0_095", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20766__0_097", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--Well, it's the place where the funds were unlawfully generated, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1428.692], "stop_times": [1432.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1428.692}, "reply_to": "20766__0_096", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_098", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "But supposing you'd alleged Missouri, you thought it was, and it turned out... on proof it turned out they were actually done right across the river in Illinois.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1432.396], "stop_times": [1439.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1432.396}, "reply_to": "20766__0_097", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20766__0_099", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1439.01], "stop_times": [1439.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1439.01}, "reply_to": "20766__0_098", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_100", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Would you lose the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1439.61], "stop_times": [1440.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1439.61}, "reply_to": "20766__0_099", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20766__0_101", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--We would lose the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1440.551], "stop_times": [1441.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1440.551}, "reply_to": "20766__0_100", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_102", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "You would not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1441.672], "stop_times": [1442.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1441.672}, "reply_to": "20766__0_101", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20766__0_103", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "We would lose the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1442.223], "stop_times": [1443.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1442.223}, "reply_to": "20766__0_102", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_104", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "You would lose the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1443.114], "stop_times": [1443.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1443.114}, "reply_to": "20766__0_103", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20766__0_105", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "That is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1443.345], "stop_times": [1443.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1443.345}, "reply_to": "20766__0_104", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_106", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "It would be dismissed for improper venue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1443.913], "stop_times": [1445.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1443.913}, "reply_to": "20766__0_105", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20766__0_107", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--That's correct.\nWe would lose it for improper venue.\nThat is, even if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1445.976, 1446.347, 1447.467], "stop_times": [1446.347, 1447.467, 1448.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1445.976}, "reply_to": "20766__0_106", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_108", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Now, assume he's tried in... assume she's tried in Florida.\nI'm assuming there's no venue problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1448.819, 1450.709], "stop_times": [1450.709, 1452.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1448.819}, "reply_to": "20766__0_107", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20766__0_109", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--Oh.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1452.572], "stop_times": [1452.792], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1452.572}, "reply_to": "20766__0_108", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_110", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "I'm just talking about the element of the offense.\nWhen you say the element of the offense is that the illegal drugs transactions occurred in Missouri, say you... they actually proved that occurred across the river, would the offense not have been proved?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1452.792, 1454.853], "stop_times": [1454.853, 1464.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1452.792}, "reply_to": "20766__0_109", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20766__0_111", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "No.\nIt is not necessary to prove the location in that sense, but that really seems to us analogous to the situation involving use of the mails, where the Federal statute says that offenses involving the use of the mails may be prosecuted in any district through which the mailed matter passes.\nThat doesn't mean that the Government in a prosecution involving use of the mails has to prove the identity of all those districts.\nIt simply means that if we do, we can lay venue there on that basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1464.299, 1464.67, 1478.91, 1485.007], "stop_times": [1464.67, 1478.91, 1485.007, 1488.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1464.299}, "reply_to": "20766__0_110", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_112", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "When the conduct that occurs in a different place, like Missouri here, is not conduct that has been engaged in by the defendant, as is true here, you say it has to be an element of the offense, and it has to be the purpose of the statute, to get at it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1488.429], "stop_times": [1503.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1488.429}, "reply_to": "20766__0_111", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20766__0_113", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "I would say if the defendant could show that that act, while an element of the offense, is manifestly not the act that Congress was attempting to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1503.36], "stop_times": [1512.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1503.36}, "reply_to": "20766__0_112", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_114", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Does that mean that that act has to be bad in some way?\nI mean, what I'm thinking of, suppose under your test the act in the distant place considered apart from the conduct in Florida, or the close place, is fine.\nNothing wrong with an act like that.\nIt's only when it takes place... that's true, of course, in dozens of statutes.\nI mean, then does your test get it, or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1512.026, 1515.397, 1526.545, 1528.398, 1532.989], "stop_times": [1515.397, 1526.545, 1528.398, 1532.989, 1535.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1512.026}, "reply_to": "20766__0_113", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20766__0_115", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--I think it does get it.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1535.832, 1536.373], "stop_times": [1536.373, 1536.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1535.832}, "reply_to": "20766__0_114", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_116", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "It does get it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1536.593], "stop_times": [1537.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1536.593}, "reply_to": "20766__0_115", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20766__0_117", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--We would say in these cases that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1537.565], "stop_times": [1538.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1537.565}, "reply_to": "20766__0_116", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_118", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "All right.\nWell, if it does get it, then I'm back to my listing of the drug in dozens of... because that's an element of the offense, and it's connected... I mean, it's nothing wrong with it in itself, but nothing's wrong with a lot of things in themselves.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1538.867, 1539.087], "stop_times": [1539.087, 1552.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1538.867}, "reply_to": "20766__0_117", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20766__0_119", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--I think as a practical matter another way of coming at it is to say that the District of Columbia wouldn't be an appropriate venue in the hypothetical regarding the listing of the drugs because trial in that district would manifestly fail to serve the purposes underling the constitutional requirements.\nThat is, it's extraordinarily unlikely that the fact of the listing is going to be a matter in dispute at trial, and the district--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1552.845, 1567.605], "stop_times": [1567.605, 1573.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1552.845}, "reply_to": "20766__0_118", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_120", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Sounds as if it's getting a little ad hoc, this test.\nThe... I mean, what I'm thinking is, the other case, of course, if I'm in California and I steal by mail, you know, something that was... the property was in New York, I would have thought normally you could try the person in New York, but there's nothing wrong with taking property in New York and moving it unless, of course, this conduct went on in California.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1573.718, 1575.709], "stop_times": [1575.709, 1594.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1573.718}, "reply_to": "20766__0_119", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20766__0_121", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--I guess one of the things I'd like to focus on is, on the facts of this case, this is... the Western District of Missouri seems to us to be manifestly the sensible district to try the case.\nWe have a defendant who was a resident of Missouri.\nHer lawyer is a resident of Missouri.\nThe Federal prosecutor who is immersed in the details of the case is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1594.623, 1605.0, 1607.283, 1609.055], "stop_times": [1605.0, 1607.283, 1609.055, 1612.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1594.623}, "reply_to": "20766__0_120", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_122", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Mr. Stewart, may I ask you, what practical difference does it make?\nYou have the conspiracy, so you've got her on that, and then at sentencing relevant conduct can be taken into account, so what are we talking about in terms of the defendant's exposure, whether you can have it all tried in Missouri, whether you have to split the trials?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1612.228, 1615.53], "stop_times": [1615.53, 1634.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1612.228}, "reply_to": "20766__0_121", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20766__0_123", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--I think the main difference is that if we are limited to the conspiracy charge in Missouri we would have to prove an agreement in addition to... an agreement to launder money in addition to the money-laundering offense.\nIf I may, I'd like to reserve the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1634.733, 1645.151], "stop_times": [1645.151, 1646.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1634.733}, "reply_to": "20766__0_122", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "20766__0_124", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Very well, Mr. Stewart.\nMr. Rogers, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1646.802, 1647.934], "stop_times": [1647.934, 1651.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1646.802}, "reply_to": "20766__0_123", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20766__1_000", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe Government's essential-but-not-essential-all-the-time elements test has no objective content and, if applied consistently, will produce absurd results that violate the constitutional venue provisions.\nIn contrast, the framework that respondent offers is the analysis that this Court has used over and over again when it has confronted a venue question in this century.\nIt's what it did in Armour Packing, it's what it did in Freeman, Lombardo, Mid-State Horticultural Company, Johnson, Anderson, Johnston, Cores, and Travis.\nThat is, it looked at the statute and said, what is the proscribed conduct, and then... the actus reis... and then it said, where was that conduct performed, and then, that is where venue lies.\nThe Government's essential elements test abandons this precedent and offers an unworkable result.\nMoney-laundering is conducting a financial transaction under certain circumstances in the case of a 1956 violation, and it's engaging in a monetary transaction in a 1957 violation.\nClearly, the conducts that's prohibited are the proscribed financial transactions.\nThey have nothing... it is not the narcotics activity.\nThat is a separate and distinct crime.\nIn that sense, this is a straightforward case of statutory construction.\nThis is simply not a continuing offense.\nIt's a crime that was committed entirely within Florida, and that is where it should be prosecuted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1651.608, 1657.521, 1668.41, 1678.054, 1687.35, 1697.358, 1703.181, 1716.351, 1721.623, 1724.706, 1726.819, 1731.542, 1733.595], "stop_times": [1657.521, 1668.41, 1678.054, 1687.35, 1697.358, 1703.181, 1716.351, 1721.623, 1724.706, 1726.819, 1731.542, 1733.595, 1738.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1651.608}, "reply_to": "20766__0_124", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_001", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "So could Congress provide... you say this is a straight question of statutory interpretation that we have, this venue statute.\nSuppose Congress was explicit that a place of proper venue is the place where the funds later laundered were first generated?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1738.159, 1745.386], "stop_times": [1745.386, 1754.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1738.159}, "reply_to": "20766__1_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20766__1_002", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "I think that if Congress was to define money laundering where venue would be proper where the underlying unlawful activity--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1754.869], "stop_times": [1763.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1754.869}, "reply_to": "20766__1_001", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_003", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "That's not defining the crime.\nIt's a venue statute and it says, the crime of money-laundering defined... however it is now defined.\nFor that crime, the prosecution can be brought in either of two places.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1763.725, 1764.456, 1770.831], "stop_times": [1764.456, 1770.831, 1776.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1763.725}, "reply_to": "20766__1_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20766__1_004", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--I believe that statute would violate the Constitution when... in the cases when the crime was not committed where it's tried, so I don't think that that would pass constitutional muster.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1776.374], "stop_times": [1790.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1776.374}, "reply_to": "20766__1_003", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_005", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "So we're dealing not merely with a question of statutory interpretation, but one that you say is constitutionally compelled.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1790.863], "stop_times": [1796.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1790.863}, "reply_to": "20766__1_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20766__1_006", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "I think... I believe the Constitution compels that the trial be had where the crime is committed, and if the trial is not had where the crime is committed, I think it will violate the Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1796.636], "stop_times": [1807.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1796.636}, "reply_to": "20766__1_005", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_007", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Well, that's really tautological.\nI think we'd all agree with that.\nThat the Constitution does require that trial of all crimes shall be held in the State where the crimes were committed, and if it's held someplace else, it violates the Constitution, but I think we need a little more fine-tuning here than that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1807.074, 1810.607, 1811.919], "stop_times": [1810.607, 1811.919, 1825.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1807.074}, "reply_to": "20766__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20766__1_008", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Well, this Court has said when it... to look... to determine where the crime is committed, you must look at the acts of the defendant that violate the statute, and that's why you can't divorce what the proscribed conduct is from the Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1825.978], "stop_times": [1837.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1825.978}, "reply_to": "20766__1_007", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_009", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Well, in this situation, if the Government were to allege and show that the defendant had, indeed, conspired and participated in the drug offenses in Missouri and had agreed that there would be money-laundering, could she be tried in Missouri?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1837.384], "stop_times": [1856.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1837.384}, "reply_to": "20766__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20766__1_010", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "She could be tried in Missouri--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1856.338], "stop_times": [1857.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1856.338}, "reply_to": "20766__1_009", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_011", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "For the money laundering that occurred in Florida?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1857.75], "stop_times": [1859.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1857.75}, "reply_to": "20766__1_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20766__1_012", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--If it was a conspiracy to launder money, possibly, under that hypothetical, she could be.\nShe could not be tried in Missouri for a subsequent violation of money laundering.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1859.781, 1865.224], "stop_times": [1865.224, 1869.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1859.781}, "reply_to": "20766__1_011", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_013", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Well, was she--\n--Well, how do you--\n--Was she charged with conspiring with Missouri defendants concerning laundering of drug proceeds?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1869.685, 1871.007, 1871.177], "stop_times": [1871.007, 1871.177, 1878.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1869.685}, "reply_to": "20766__1_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20766__1_014", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "She was.\nThat's Count I of the indictment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1878.133, 1878.811], "stop_times": [1878.811, 1880.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1878.133}, "reply_to": "20766__1_013", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_015", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "And does that mean that the laundering offense started in Missouri, in effect, because that was the conspiracy agreement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1880.334], "stop_times": [1889.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1880.334}, "reply_to": "20766__1_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20766__1_016", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Well, conspiracy, of course, punishes the agreement to commit the illegal act, so in the sense that the agreement was formed in Missouri and there were overt acts in Missouri, venue would be proper for a conspiracy prosecution in Missouri.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1889.09], "stop_times": [1901.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1889.09}, "reply_to": "20766__1_015", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_017", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Or even if the agreement was formed in Missouri and there... or the agreement was formed in New York and there were overt acts in Missouri.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1901.348], "stop_times": [1908.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1901.348}, "reply_to": "20766__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20766__1_018", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.\nThat's what Hyde holds.\nThis, of course, isn't a conspiracy... this case doesn't involve a conspiracy.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1908.103, 1908.824, 1909.815], "stop_times": [1908.824, 1909.815, 1914.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1908.103}, "reply_to": "20766__1_017", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_019", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "But how do you square that with your interpretation of the Constitution?\nHow do you square that?\nI mean, it's fine to say, as I said to Mr. Stewart, that... you know, that conspiracy is different, and aiding and abetting is different, but how do you square treating them differently with your constitutional point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1914.487, 1918.56, 1920.451], "stop_times": [1918.56, 1920.451, 1932.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1914.487}, "reply_to": "20766__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20766__1_020", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "In both those cases, in the conspiracy context and in the aiding and abetting context, you have a situation where the defendant herself or himself would be legally liable for the conduct of another, so in that sense the crime is committed in that district where the other acts that they're legally liable for.\nYou do not have that in a substantive violation of money laundering.\nThere is no acts of others that the defendant's legally liable for.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1932.84, 1949.292, 1952.681], "stop_times": [1949.292, 1952.681, 1956.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1932.84}, "reply_to": "20766__1_019", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_021", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "That's... okay.\nThat's so for conspiracy.\nThe co-conspirators are effectively agents of the defendant, you can say.\nWhat about aiding and abetting?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1956.135, 1956.355, 1958.385, 1961.627], "stop_times": [1956.355, 1958.385, 1961.627, 1962.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1956.135}, "reply_to": "20766__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20766__1_022", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Aiding and abetting is... by a statutory matter it says that an aider and abettor can be prosecuted as a principal, so in that sense I think the aider and abettor is legally liable for the actions of the principal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1962.989], "stop_times": [1974.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1962.989}, "reply_to": "20766__1_021", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_023", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Mr. Rogers, you... I... am I correct in thinking that there is a conspiracy charge here against your client in connection with one of the pending counts?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1974.226], "stop_times": [1985.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1974.226}, "reply_to": "20766__1_022", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20766__1_024", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1985.374], "stop_times": [1986.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1985.374}, "reply_to": "20766__1_023", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_025", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Then why doesn't Hyde cover this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1986.035], "stop_times": [1988.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1986.035}, "reply_to": "20766__1_024", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20766__1_026", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Venue has to be looked at for each crime that is charged.\nWhile the conspiracy to launder money may or may not be proper in Missouri based on the proof that the Government may or may not be able to make, it's clearly not proper for the substantive violation of money laundering.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [1988.927, 1993.79], "stop_times": [1993.79, 2003.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1988.927}, "reply_to": "20766__1_025", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_027", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "So you say all we're talking about here is the substantive offense, not the conspiracy?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2003.866], "stop_times": [2008.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2003.866}, "reply_to": "20766__1_026", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20766__1_028", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Conspiracy is not at issue in... on... in this case at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2008.671], "stop_times": [2011.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2008.671}, "reply_to": "20766__1_027", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_029", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "You didn't contest venue, or whoever was representing the defendant didn't contest venue with respect to the conspiracy count.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2011.893], "stop_times": [2020.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2011.893}, "reply_to": "20766__1_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20766__1_030", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "No, that's not correct, Your Honor.\nI did--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2020.561, 2022.221], "stop_times": [2022.221, 2022.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2020.561}, "reply_to": "20766__1_029", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_031", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "You did?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2022.321], "stop_times": [2022.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2022.321}, "reply_to": "20766__1_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20766__1_032", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--I filed the motion to dismiss based on all three counts on venue.\nThe district court sustained it as to the two substantive violations, denied it as to the conspiracy.\nI believe that that was a correct decision, not because I believe venue's proper on conspiracy, but I think the Government should have an opportunity to be able to prove that venue's proper on a conspiracy, meaning they should have an opportunity to prove that the agreement was formed in Missouri, overt acts were carried out in Missouri and, thus, the prosecution can properly lie in Missouri.\nOn... as far as the substantive violations that the district court did dismiss, they failed on their face.\nThere is no possible way venue is proper on those two cases, and that's why they were dismissed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2022.661, 2026.115, 2031.177, 2048.991, 2054.712], "stop_times": [2026.115, 2031.177, 2048.991, 2054.712, 2060.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2022.661}, "reply_to": "20766__1_031", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_033", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "But on appeal the only question related to the money laundering, not to the conspiracy, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2060.128], "stop_times": [2065.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2060.128}, "reply_to": "20766__1_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20766__1_034", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "That is absolutely correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2065.853], "stop_times": [2066.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2065.853}, "reply_to": "20766__1_033", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_035", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "So that's what's before us for review.\nYou pursued the conspiracy only in the district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2066.842, 2069.835], "stop_times": [2069.835, 2075.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2066.842}, "reply_to": "20766__1_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20766__1_036", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "I'm sorry, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2075.257], "stop_times": [2076.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2075.257}, "reply_to": "20766__1_035", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_037", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "The... you pursued the venue objection on the conspiracy count only in the district court, not in the court of appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2076.4], "stop_times": [2084.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2076.4}, "reply_to": "20766__1_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20766__1_038", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--That is correct.\nThe Government made an interlocutory appeal on the two dismissed counts, and so at the Eighth Circuit, they, likewise, didn't consider the conspiracy issue at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2084.193, 2084.964], "stop_times": [2084.964, 2093.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2084.193}, "reply_to": "20766__1_037", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_039", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "What if the Government enacts a statute that says, a person who launders money derived from a illegal enterprise, drug sales, for example, shall be deemed an aider and abettor of the illegal enterprise?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2093.8], "stop_times": [2119.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2093.8}, "reply_to": "20766__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20766__1_040", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "If they were, in fact... I... if... in that situation, if they in fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2119.606], "stop_times": [2126.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2119.606}, "reply_to": "20766__1_039", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_041", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "This same statute, just calling your client an aider and abettor of the drug dealing.\nThen she could be prosecuted in Missouri, I guess.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2126.852, 2130.826], "stop_times": [2130.826, 2134.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2126.852}, "reply_to": "20766__1_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20766__1_042", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--That is correct, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2134.108], "stop_times": [2135.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2134.108}, "reply_to": "20766__1_041", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_043", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "The court just said it wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2135.28], "stop_times": [2136.011], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2135.28}, "reply_to": "20766__1_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20766__1_044", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--Or she would have to aid and abet the drug dealing.\nThey would have to prove that because that would be what the statute would... that would be the proscribed conduct of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2136.011, 2137.26], "stop_times": [2137.26, 2142.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2136.011}, "reply_to": "20766__1_043", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_045", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Well, the statute says that the act of enabling the drug dealers to get the benefit of their drug dealing by rendering the money usable, laundering it, constitutes aiding and abetting of the drug dealing.\nThat's what the statute says.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2142.305, 2156.977], "stop_times": [2156.977, 2160.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2142.305}, "reply_to": "20766__1_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20766__1_046", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "That's... in your hypothetical--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2160.718], "stop_times": [2163.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2160.718}, "reply_to": "20766__1_045", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_047", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2163.498], "stop_times": [2164.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2163.498}, "reply_to": "20766__1_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20766__1_048", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--If that's what the statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2164.029], "stop_times": [2164.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2164.029}, "reply_to": "20766__1_047", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_049", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "I'm making it up.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2164.6], "stop_times": [2164.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2164.6}, "reply_to": "20766__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20766__1_050", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--Yes.\nI think if that is what the statute said, and they in fact aided and abetted the drug dealers by laundering their money--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2164.961, 2165.251], "stop_times": [2165.251, 2172.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2164.961}, "reply_to": "20766__1_049", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_051", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2172.106], "stop_times": [2172.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2172.106}, "reply_to": "20766__1_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20766__1_052", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--then you could be proper where the underlying illegal activity happened.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2172.406], "stop_times": [2176.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2172.406}, "reply_to": "20766__1_051", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_053", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "It's not much of a constitutional protection, is it, if it just turns on how the statute was framed.\nIf you could frame a statute that way, why don't you say, effectively that's the same thing going on here.\nThen you ought to be able to try your client in Missouri.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2176.109, 2182.942, 2189.397], "stop_times": [2182.942, 2189.397, 2192.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2176.109}, "reply_to": "20766__1_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20766__1_054", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "I would respectfully disagree that it's not a constitutional protection, since because what you have done is, you have created a statute that penalizes different conduct than the money-laundering statutes at issue.\nOf course, if you had... if the statute said, anyone who participates in a narcotics enterprise by agreeing to launder their money, they could be prosecuted in Missouri.\nI agree with you completely.\nBut in that sense, they would be involved--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2192.381, 2204.348, 2211.674, 2213.266], "stop_times": [2204.348, 2211.674, 2213.266, 2215.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2192.381}, "reply_to": "20766__1_053", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_055", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2215.638], "stop_times": [2215.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2215.638}, "reply_to": "20766__1_054", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20766__1_056", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--and they would be legally liable for the people that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2215.898], "stop_times": [2218.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2215.898}, "reply_to": "20766__1_055", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_057", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--Well, but what would happen, Mr. Rogers, if your client were charged with aiding and abetting, and that was the only basis for venue in Missouri, and the court concluded after all the evidence was in that she may have done something, but that she did not aid and abet.\nWould that mean dismissal for want of proper venue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2218.92, 2235.469], "stop_times": [2235.469, 2239.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2218.92}, "reply_to": "20766__1_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20766__1_058", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--On the hypothetical that Justice Scalia gave, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2239.022], "stop_times": [2242.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2239.022}, "reply_to": "20766__1_057", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_059", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "No, on the hypothetical that I gave.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2242.145], "stop_times": [2244.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2242.145}, "reply_to": "20766__1_058", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20766__1_060", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "I'm sorry, I didn't follow that.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2244.806, 2247.357], "stop_times": [2247.357, 2247.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2244.806}, "reply_to": "20766__1_059", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_061", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Well, what I'm trying to get at is, if the basis for venue were a charge of aiding and abetting, and the court were to decide there just is insufficient evidence of aiding and abetting as to this particular individual, would the next step be to dismiss the case against that individual for improper venue?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2247.828], "stop_times": [2266.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2247.828}, "reply_to": "20766__1_060", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20766__1_062", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--Well, I think you would dismiss it for failure of proof on the substantive--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2266.301], "stop_times": [2270.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2266.301}, "reply_to": "20766__1_061", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_063", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Failure to prove that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2270.443], "stop_times": [2271.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2270.443}, "reply_to": "20766__1_062", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20766__1_064", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--That they aided and abetted, yes, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2271.355], "stop_times": [2274.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2271.355}, "reply_to": "20766__1_063", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_065", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--Well, what if they were charged both with a substantive offense and with aiding and abetting, and the district court says, there's enough here to go to the jury on the substantive offense, but there isn't enough on aiding and abetting?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2274.037], "stop_times": [2285.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2274.037}, "reply_to": "20766__1_064", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20766__1_066", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--Once again, I think my answer would be the same.\nI think it would be a failure of proof on the aiding and abetting count, and if there was enough to go to a jury on the substantive violation, it would go to a jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2285.144, 2288.406], "stop_times": [2288.406, 2296.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2285.144}, "reply_to": "20766__1_065", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_067", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Even though were venue were based only on the aiding and abetting?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2296.363], "stop_times": [2298.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2296.363}, "reply_to": "20766__1_066", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20766__1_068", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Oh, no, no.\nI misunderstood what you were asking.\nVenue has to be proper for each count that's charged.\nYou can't bootstrap venue by getting venue proper on one count and then saying it's proper for any count we choose... that the Government chooses to join.\nI clearly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2298.995, 2299.356, 2301.038, 2303.791, 2311.256], "stop_times": [2299.356, 2301.038, 2303.791, 2311.256, 2312.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2298.995}, "reply_to": "20766__1_067", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_069", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "If that were so there would be no problem here, because she was indicted on the conspiracy count.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2312.735], "stop_times": [2318.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2312.735}, "reply_to": "20766__1_068", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20766__1_070", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2318.198], "stop_times": [2319.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2318.198}, "reply_to": "20766__1_069", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_071", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "If that's all that matters, then you could link the other two.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2319.25], "stop_times": [2322.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2319.25}, "reply_to": "20766__1_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20766__1_072", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "In that sense, this is no different from many cases where, if you have a huge conspiracy of a criminal enterprise, that they can... the Government can only join the counts in the district where the crime was committed if they were... even if they were substantive violations in furtherance of the conspiracy.\nThey can't bring those substantive violations that weren't committed in the district.\nThey have to choose the best district where the crime was committed and, of course, if it's... they could... for sentencing purposes they could, of course, bring that in as relevant conduct as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2322.292, 2337.543, 2342.746], "stop_times": [2337.543, 2342.746, 2352.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2322.292}, "reply_to": "20766__1_071", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_073", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "That's one of the questions I was asking Mr. Stewart.\nI'm trying to determine the practical consequences for your client, if you should prevail and say, they have to deal with the money laundering in Florida.\nStill, let's say she's convicted of the conspiracy in Missouri, and they can take account of the money laundering as relevant conduct, what's the difference in terms of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2352.023, 2353.796, 2363.533], "stop_times": [2353.796, 2363.533, 2373.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2352.023}, "reply_to": "20766__1_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20766__1_074", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--There's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2373.401], "stop_times": [2374.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2373.401}, "reply_to": "20766__1_073", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_075", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--her exposure?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2374.322], "stop_times": [2374.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2374.322}, "reply_to": "20766__1_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20766__1_076", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--You're right on the money, Your Honor.\nThere's very little difference.\nWhen you have a conspiracy count and an aiding and abetting, this case becomes very unimportant.\nI don't see the importance to it as far as the Government's concerned.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2374.573, 2376.195, 2377.565, 2382.139], "stop_times": [2376.195, 2377.565, 2382.139, 2384.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2374.573}, "reply_to": "20766__1_075", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_077", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Why is aiding and abetting different from this statute?\nYou say that the Government can enact a statute, which is called an aiding and abetting statute, which will render your client liable to be hauled into Missouri to defend the case simply because the Government says that the essence of the crime is aiding and abetting.\nHere, the Government has said that the essence of the crime is laundering, not just any money, or doing this financial deal not just with any money, but with money that was the product of a drug... of a drug enterprise.\nWhy can't... why doesn't that suffice, just as an aiding and abetting statute would, to enable your client to be tried in Missouri?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2384.461, 2387.563, 2404.723, 2420.554], "stop_times": [2387.563, 2404.723, 2420.554, 2429.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2384.461}, "reply_to": "20766__1_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20766__1_078", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Your Honor, if I said that just because the Government said she aided and abetted, venue would be proper in Missouri, I clearly misspoke.\nThe Government would need to prove she aided and abetted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2429.58, 2437.067], "stop_times": [2437.067, 2439.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2429.58}, "reply_to": "20766__1_077", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_079", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "No, when I say the Government said it.\nI mean, the Government said it when it enacted the statute.\nIt simply defined the crime in a way that makes it an aiding and abetting crime.\nNow, why is that magical?\nWhy isn't it enough if the Government defines the crime in such a way that there has to have occurred in Missouri, or somewhere... in this case it happened in Missouri... an unlawful acquisition of money?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2439.988, 2441.508, 2443.551, 2447.692, 2449.314], "stop_times": [2441.508, 2443.551, 2447.692, 2449.314, 2464.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2439.988}, "reply_to": "20766__1_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20766__1_080", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "I go back to the Constitution.\nYou... if the Government defines a crime where the act of the crime is committed in a certain district, venue's proper.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2464.835, 2467.336], "stop_times": [2467.336, 2475.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2464.835}, "reply_to": "20766__1_079", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_081", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "But in aiding and abetting, the act that she's aiding and abetting did not occur in Florida, it occurred in Missouri, and here the act that she's facilitating, the drug deal, did not occur in Florida, it occurred in Missouri.\nWhat's the difference--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2475.421, 2487.319], "stop_times": [2487.319, 2488.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2475.421}, "reply_to": "20766__1_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20766__1_082", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "I... the difference--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2488.28], "stop_times": [2490.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2488.28}, "reply_to": "20766__1_081", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_083", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--for constitutional purposes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2490.143], "stop_times": [2491.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2490.143}, "reply_to": "20766__1_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20766__1_084", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--Well, for constitutional purposes, in an aiding and abetting situation you're legally liable for the acts of others, so the crime can be committed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2491.602], "stop_times": [2498.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2491.602}, "reply_to": "20766__1_083", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_085", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "So here, you are legally liable... you're being punished in part because of the acts of others, the drug transaction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2498.929], "stop_times": [2508.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2498.929}, "reply_to": "20766__1_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20766__1_086", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "In an aiding and abetting situation, I don't disagree with that.\nOf course, this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2508.355, 2511.286], "stop_times": [2511.286, 2511.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2508.355}, "reply_to": "20766__1_085", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_087", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Mr. Rogers, may I interrupt with this suggestion, because this may be what's defeating the joinder here.\nDon't you, on your theory, have to make a distinction between aiding and abetting which, in fact, facilitates the commission of the crime in the first place and aiding and abetting after the fact of the crime that involved no pre-criminal agreement?\nYour theory... the reason I pose the question that way is this.\nI thought your theory for reconciling conspiracy and aiding and abetting liability with the Constitution was something like this: the person charged with aiding and abetting in effect is like an agent of the individual who actually commits the criminal act, what you call the actus reis, and therefore when the agent acts, the agent is, in fact, acting for the aider and abettor, acting for the conspirator.\nThat works fine, it seems to me, until you get the situation in which the person charged with what we now call aiding and abetting was the individual who, under the old law, was called the accessory after the fact with no other connection, the person in... you know, when the crime is committed in State A, the felon flees to State B, goes to his friend and says, I'm on the lam, let me hide out.\nLetting him hide out has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the crime that he committed in State B. It simply has to do with whether he's going to get caught or not.\nDon't you have to distinguish between those situations and say, when the aiding and abetting is that kind of independent, after-the-fact accessory, then, in fact, you're in a situation just like this and, in fact, that would not be a basis for venue in the State of the aiding and abetting?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2511.817, 2519.543, 2539.226, 2542.428, 2570.638, 2596.083, 2604.13], "stop_times": [2519.543, 2539.226, 2542.428, 2570.638, 2596.083, 2604.13, 2621.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2511.817}, "reply_to": "20766__1_086", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20766__1_088", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2621.484], "stop_times": [2622.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2621.484}, "reply_to": "20766__1_087", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_089", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Take it, Mr. Rogers, take it.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2622.135, 2623.296], "stop_times": [2623.296, 2625.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2622.135}, "reply_to": "20766__1_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20766__1_090", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--Thank you, Your Honor, and you are absolutely correct.\n[Laughter]\nIn a situation when you're an accessory after the fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2625.229, 2628.301, 2629.841], "stop_times": [2628.301, 2629.841, 2633.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2625.229}, "reply_to": "20766__1_089", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_091", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "And this is a case in which Justice Scalia may even agree with you.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2633.294, 2635.795], "stop_times": [2635.795, 2637.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2633.294}, "reply_to": "20766__1_090", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20766__1_092", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--If you are an accessory after the fact you aren't legally liable for the principals.\nThat is a... and that, you're absolutely right, and that was briefed in the brief, and I think an accessory after the fact is a totally different situation, regardless if, Congress named it aiding and abetting and then essentially passed an accessory-after-the-fact statute.\nI agree with that.\nAs far as the... the Government's put forth two primary arguments, and one is that we can base venue on an act of confederates.\nI think that clearly is not the case that we've discussed so far.\nThe other one is that the effects of the crime are somehow felt in Missouri.\nI think that in that situation we're getting... this is a very, very attenuated and very, very abstract effects argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2637.517, 2643.201, 2658.849, 2660.001, 2670.569, 2673.192, 2678.297], "stop_times": [2643.201, 2658.849, 2660.001, 2670.569, 2673.192, 2678.297, 2688.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2637.517}, "reply_to": "20766__1_091", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_093", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Suppose you intend the effects of the crime to be felt in Missouri, so that there is this prospective element?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2688.215], "stop_times": [2694.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2688.215}, "reply_to": "20766__1_092", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20766__1_094", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Sure.\nI don't think that would make any difference for venue analysis.\nI think if you... for instance, if the Unabomber sent a bomb to New Jersey and intended to kill the president of a corporation and intended to harm that corporation, that doesn't mean venue's proper where the harm is felt.\nSame if you commit murder and the widow is obviously affected by the murder that was committed, and even if you meant to affect the widow, that doesn't mean venue's proper there.\nThe crimes that are able to be had where the effect is felt are the crimes that are defined as in causing a certain result, like murder.\nIt's not... that's not defined as in terms of an act, like shooting.\nIt's defined as in causing the death of a person, so where you cause the death of that person, yes, venue would be proper.\nThe same is true of obstruction of justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2694.047, 2694.308, 2698.562, 2711.792, 2722.409, 2730.004, 2733.307, 2740.622], "stop_times": [2694.308, 2698.562, 2711.792, 2722.409, 2730.004, 2733.307, 2740.622, 2744.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2694.047}, "reply_to": "20766__1_093", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_095", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Well, you wouldn't say that, I mean, what if you... you know, the Unabomber sends the bomb, it explodes and injures the person in New York, and he goes back to Darien, Connecticut, and dies in Darien.\nIs the Unabomber triable in Darien?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2744.085, 2755.032], "stop_times": [2755.032, 2758.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2744.085}, "reply_to": "20766__1_094", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20766__1_096", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "I believe that in certain situations that if you have a... where you commit the... like, if I shot someone and they didn't die, and then they stumbled over to a different district and died, I believe that's one of the rare situations when murder probably could be a continuing offense, and would be proper where the act of the... was committed and where the result was caused in that sense.\nI wouldn't have a problem with that analysis.\nIt's kind of a far-fetched hypothetical and it probably wouldn't happen very much, but at least in that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2758.495, 2779.648, 2781.309], "stop_times": [2779.648, 2781.309, 2787.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2758.495}, "reply_to": "20766__1_095", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_097", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Cases that we've decided which allow a Federal murder indictment where the person died and not where the act which caused the death was applied?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2787.202], "stop_times": [2800.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2787.202}, "reply_to": "20766__1_096", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20766__1_098", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--Well, I think that... go back to the Unabomber example.\nI think that you could look at the act as mailing... or making a bomb and mailing it, and the person dies halfway across the country, but I think they can clearly be tried--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2800.061, 2804.623], "stop_times": [2804.623, 2813.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2800.061}, "reply_to": "20766__1_097", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_099", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "No, but the explosion occurs, the act which you produced occurs where the package is received, and then the person is taken to another State where he eventually dies.\nI wouldn't think it's consistent with your theory to say that the Government can bring the indictment where the death occurs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2813.249, 2827.428], "stop_times": [2827.428, 2833.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2813.249}, "reply_to": "20766__1_098", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20766__1_100", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--I'd have to agree with you.\nI think I was getting a little carried away with myself.\nI think in the sense where murder can be a continuing offense is where the act crosses the... in a sense where you shoot a gun across the border of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2833.662, 2836.334, 2838.427], "stop_times": [2836.334, 2838.427, 2847.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2833.662}, "reply_to": "20766__1_099", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_101", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "I'm not clear on your answer to that question.\nYou're talking about the Federal prosecutor, but murder would ordinarily be prosecuted by the State, and do you mean to say that the State prosecutor in Connecticut could not bring in the Connecticut State courts a murder charge when somebody dies in Connecticut, even though the poison was administered someplace else and the person stumbled home before he died?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2847.102, 2849.384], "stop_times": [2849.384, 2874.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2847.102}, "reply_to": "20766__1_100", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20766__1_102", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--I think that if you... I'm not... I... were... I don't think that if the person was shot in one district and then somehow they hopped on a plane and went somewhere else, I don't think that State would properly be able to try a murder prosecution there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2874.632], "stop_times": [2893.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2874.632}, "reply_to": "20766__1_101", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_103", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Suppose that the defendant intends the... his acts to have effects which it's the object of the statute to prevent.\nI'm thinking of your answer in which the widow grieves in some other State, but that... it's not the object of the statute to prevent those effects, but suppose in this case the object of the statute was to make sure that this drug ring could continue to operate effectively.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2893.185, 2903.51], "stop_times": [2903.51, 2920.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2893.185}, "reply_to": "20766__1_102", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20766__1_104", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Well, if the statute was--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2920.921], "stop_times": [2923.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2920.921}, "reply_to": "20766__1_103", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_105", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "And there was proof to that effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2923.302], "stop_times": [2924.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2923.302}, "reply_to": "20766__1_104", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20766__1_106", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--Sure.\nIf the statute was defined as then causing the narcotics enterprise to continue their activities by agreeing to launder their money, I think in that sense that they properly could be tried there.\nOf course, that's an entirely different crime than what the Government's charged Ms. Cabrales with in this case.\nThey charge her with the substantive act of engaging in a financial transaction with... under certain circumstances with dirty money.\nThat is a far cry from a situation where someone's... someone where the statute's defined in the terms of causing a drug enterprise or a narcotics enterprise to continue.\nAnd, in fact, they wouldn't be able to prosecute her under this statute because she... the money laundering, even if it did occur, didn't cause any drug enterprise to continue at all.\nThey were... the narcotics... as the Government points out, they've been convicted and tried.\nIt's clearly stopped.\nThe money laundering was something that happened after the fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2924.874, 2925.135, 2935.022, 2940.416, 2947.64, 2959.727, 2970.425, 2974.729, 2975.7], "stop_times": [2925.135, 2935.022, 2940.416, 2947.64, 2959.727, 2970.425, 2974.729, 2975.7, 2979.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2924.874}, "reply_to": "20766__1_105", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_107", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Mr. Rogers, one aspect of this puzzles me and that is, this is presented to us as a very clean case.\nShe's been charged just with the money laundering in those counts, nothing with transporting it, and in reality usually these questions don't come up because it is a continuing offense.\nShe's involved in the original trafficking, she's involved in transporting it someplace else and in, finally, the money laundering, the beginning, the middle and the end.\nBut here, it was just presented so cleanly that the... that no, she had nothing to do with transporting the money.\nShe didn't have anything to do with the original sales.\nThat seemed to me odd.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [2979.423, 2987.107, 2999.525, 3007.57, 3014.296, 3017.007], "stop_times": [2987.107, 2999.525, 3007.57, 3014.296, 3017.007, 3020.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2979.423}, "reply_to": "20766__1_106", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20766__1_108", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Well, in that situation, in the crime you're talking about, you've got a... you could have a conspiracy to launder money, or a conspiracy to distribute drugs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [3020.25], "stop_times": [3030.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3020.25}, "reply_to": "20766__1_107", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_109", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Who did transport this money?\nHow is it that she had nothing to do with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [3030.546, 3031.777], "stop_times": [3031.777, 3033.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3030.546}, "reply_to": "20766__1_108", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20766__1_110", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "I... frankly, I don't know who transported the money.\nI... there hasn't been a trial on this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [3033.657, 3037.2], "stop_times": [3037.2, 3039.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3033.657}, "reply_to": "20766__1_109", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_111", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Your answer should be, what money?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [3039.27, 3041.291], "stop_times": [3041.291, 3044.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3039.27}, "reply_to": "20766__1_110", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20766__1_112", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Assuming the money was transported... assuming the money was transported, that has nothing to do with the substantive violation of money laundering.\nThe statute doesn't prohibit transporting dirty money.\nIt prohibits--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [3044.344, 3053.261, 3056.974], "stop_times": [3053.261, 3056.974, 3058.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3044.344}, "reply_to": "20766__1_111", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_113", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Yes, but I was just wondering why, on the Government's side, there was this admission that she wasn't involved in transporting, or that at least what they charged doesn't involve that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [3058.757], "stop_times": [3068.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3058.757}, "reply_to": "20766__1_112", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20766__1_114", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--I couldn't speak for the Government on that issue.\nI don't know why they did that.\nMaybe because they are looking for a certain rule of law out of this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [3068.133, 3070.485, 3072.498], "stop_times": [3070.485, 3072.498, 3075.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3068.133}, "reply_to": "20766__1_113", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_115", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "That's what I was wondering.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [3075.87], "stop_times": [3076.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3075.87}, "reply_to": "20766__1_114", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20766__1_116", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "I just don't know.\nIf there are no further questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [3076.66, 3078.232], "stop_times": [3078.232, 3082.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3076.66}, "reply_to": "20766__1_115", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_117", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Rogers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [3082.373], "stop_times": [3084.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3082.373}, "reply_to": "20766__1_116", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20766__1_118", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [3084.776], "stop_times": [3085.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3084.776}, "reply_to": "20766__1_117", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_119", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Mr. Stewart, you have 1 minute remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [3085.375], "stop_times": [3086.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3085.375}, "reply_to": "20766__1_118", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20766__1_120", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "As the exchange between Mr. Rogers and Justices Scalia and Souter indicates, really the respondent's position stands or falls with the proposition that there is a constitutionally significant difference between being an aider and abettor and being an accessory after the fact, and I think the fact that Congress has chosen to define an aider and abettor as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [3086.787], "stop_times": [3103.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3086.787}, "reply_to": "20766__1_119", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_121", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Of course, in the aider and abettor, you've got to aid something that hasn't yet happened.\nLet me ask you this.\nWhat difference does it make to the Government in this case, if you can prove the conspiracy charge?\nDon't you get everything you need?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [3103.747, 3107.05, 3108.612, 3113.124], "stop_times": [3107.05, 3108.612, 3113.124, 3115.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3103.747}, "reply_to": "20766__1_120", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20766__1_122", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--I think if we can prove the conspiracy charge, then presumably the money laundering--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [3115.015], "stop_times": [3119.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3115.015}, "reply_to": "20766__1_121", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_123", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Would be relevant conduct--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [3119.138], "stop_times": [3119.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3119.138}, "reply_to": "20766__1_122", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20766__1_124", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "--itself would be relevant conduct and probably the end result would be negligible.\nIt's not necessarily the case that we could prove conspiracy simply because we could prove a substantive money... thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [3119.829, 3122.17], "stop_times": [3122.17, 3127.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3119.829}, "reply_to": "20766__1_123", "speaker": "john_w_rogers"}
{"id": "20766__1_125", "conversation_id": "20766", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Stewart.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-643", "start_times": [3127.546, 3128.935], "stop_times": [3128.935, 3130.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3127.546}, "reply_to": "20766__1_124", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20825__0_000", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 96-1613, United States v. The Estate of Francis Romani.\nMr. Jones, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [0.0, 9.184], "stop_times": [9.184, 71.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20825__0_001", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--\nOn the date of his death Francis Romani owned real property worth about 50,000 dollars.\nThat property was subject to a private judgment lien and to a laterfiled Federal tax lien.\nBoth of the liens were for amounts that exceeded the value of the estate, and the estate therefore brought this case to determine whether the claim of the United States or the claim of the private judgment creditor should be paid first.\nThe answer to that question appears in the direct text of what is known as the absolute priority statute.\nSince 1797, that statute has provided a simple rule for the narrow category of cases in which the United States seeks to recover a claim against an insolvent estate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [71.111, 77.422, 84.622, 90.964, 105.146, 111.657], "stop_times": [77.422, 84.622, 90.964, 105.146, 111.657, 124.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 71.111}, "reply_to": "20825__0_000", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_002", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Well, the statute is different in this respect.\nUntil the revision of the statute in question, which I think was 1982, it talked in terms of debt.\n3713(a) at page 2 of your brief talks about claim, and it seems to me that a... that the word claim may be quite different than debt.\nClaim sounds to me as... has the connotation of something that's not... that's ambulatory, or that hasn't been executed yet, whereas debt sounds as if it's something that's fixed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [124.232, 127.996, 137.274, 151.346], "stop_times": [127.996, 137.274, 151.346, 166.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 124.232}, "reply_to": "20825__0_001", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20825__0_003", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "When Congress enacted that provision in 1982 they said it was a formal change of language that was not intended to change the scope of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [166.481], "stop_times": [174.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 166.481}, "reply_to": "20825__0_002", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_004", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "But the language still is different.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [174.602], "stop_times": [176.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 174.602}, "reply_to": "20825__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20825__0_005", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "The language is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [176.337], "stop_times": [177.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 176.337}, "reply_to": "20825__0_004", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_006", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "One is claim, and the other is debt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [177.071], "stop_times": [178.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 177.071}, "reply_to": "20825__0_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20825__0_007", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--The language is different, but Congress didn't intend it to have a different meaning, but moreover--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [178.367], "stop_times": [183.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 178.367}, "reply_to": "20825__0_006", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_008", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "How do you know that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [183.319], "stop_times": [184.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 183.319}, "reply_to": "20825__0_007", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20825__0_009", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--That's... the legislative history--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [184.067], "stop_times": [185.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 184.067}, "reply_to": "20825__0_008", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_010", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Well, but, you know we don't always pay a lot of attention to legislative history.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [185.801], "stop_times": [189.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 185.801}, "reply_to": "20825__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20825__0_011", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--It's... you may not always pay a lot of attention to it, but in the context where a change has been made to words, and the question is whether that changed the meaning of the statute, it's appropriate to look to the legislative history, especially when Congress says in that history, we're not changing the meaning.\nThat should be authoritative.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [189.346, 207.152, 209.214], "stop_times": [207.152, 209.214, 209.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 189.346}, "reply_to": "20825__0_010", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_012", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "A committee says in that regard.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [209.449], "stop_times": [211.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 209.449}, "reply_to": "20825__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20825__0_013", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--That's correct.\nThere is an answer, I think, in any event to your question apart from that, and that is... I may be... I may have the wrong case, but I think it's United States v. Moore where the Court said that whether the claim is unliquidated or not, it's still covered by the absolute priority statute.\nBut the importance of the absolute priority statute is that it provides the simple rule that the United States shall be paid first.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [211.197, 211.572, 226.081], "stop_times": [211.572, 226.081, 234.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 211.197}, "reply_to": "20825__0_012", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_014", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Well then, what's the point of 6321 and 6323(a), which deal specifically with tax liens?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [234.187], "stop_times": [241.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 234.187}, "reply_to": "20825__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20825__0_015", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Yes, that's indeed the ultimate question in the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [241.56], "stop_times": [244.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 241.56}, "reply_to": "20825__0_014", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_016", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [244.012], "stop_times": [244.387], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 244.012}, "reply_to": "20825__0_015", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20825__0_017", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Does that statute change the application of the absolute priority statute for tax claims?\nThe Pennsylvania supreme court said that it did, and we say it doesn't.\nThe rationale of the Pennsylvania supreme court was that this tax lien statute provides a limitation on the effectiveness of the Federal tax lien, and that by limiting the validity of the lien, you limit the priority of the United States, but in United States v. Key and United States v. Emory the Court said that only the plainest inconsistency between two statutory schemes would justify disregarding this ancient and clear command that the United States be paid first.\nThere is no claim inconsistency between these statutory schemes.\nThe absolute priority statute is a priority statute.\nIt does not require any lien of the United States.\nIn United States v. City of New Britain, and United States v. Vermont, this Court held exactly that, that the right of the United States under the absolute priority statute exists wholly without regard to the existence of any lien.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [244.387, 249.588, 253.415, 283.622, 287.713, 290.978, 294.617], "stop_times": [249.588, 253.415, 283.622, 287.713, 290.978, 294.617, 306.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 244.387}, "reply_to": "20825__0_016", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_018", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "But in the New Britain case they discussed at great length the tax lien statutes, too, did they not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [306.441], "stop_times": [313.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 306.441}, "reply_to": "20825__0_017", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20825__0_019", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Yes, because that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [313.234], "stop_times": [314.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 313.234}, "reply_to": "20825__0_018", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_020", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Well, why would that have been necessary if the only holding of the case was that it's governed by the absolute priority statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [314.141], "stop_times": [320.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 314.141}, "reply_to": "20825__0_019", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20825__0_021", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--Because in the New Britain case the debtor was solvent.\nThe absolute priority statute did not, by its terms, apply, and the very important part of that opinion for this purpose is what the Court went on to say about how the Tax Lien Act applies in that situation.\nWhat the Court said was, the Tax Lien Act only determines the validity of the Federal lien.\nIt does not, by its terms, contain any priority provisions.\nIt does not set a priorities, it is a lien statute, and the Court said that to determine priorities we look to the background common law rule of first in time is first in right, unless that has been modified by statute, and the Court pointed out that in the insolvency situations to which the absolute priority statute applies, it has been modified by statute.\nCongress provided specifically since 1797 that in the narrow category of cases involving insolvent estates the United States is to be paid first.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [320.825, 324.356, 336.428, 342.473, 346.58, 369.633], "stop_times": [324.356, 336.428, 342.473, 346.58, 369.633, 378.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 320.825}, "reply_to": "20825__0_020", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_022", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "But if... the whole thing is so strange.\nWhat if the insolvent debtor, instead of dying, became bankrupt?\nThen the Government isn't necessarily going to come out the same way.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [378.972, 381.847, 387.407], "stop_times": [381.847, 387.407, 393.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 378.972}, "reply_to": "20825__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20825__0_023", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Congress specifically has provided that bankruptcy cases are to be determined not under the absolute priority statute but under the priority provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.\nIt's not illogical for Congress to determine that one set of priority rules apply in one context and a different apply in different contexts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [393.327, 402.385], "stop_times": [402.385, 410.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 393.327}, "reply_to": "20825__0_022", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_024", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "But if the debtor is insolvent and dies, then you say this 3713 has to apply, even if it's a tax that we're talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [410.149], "stop_times": [420.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 410.149}, "reply_to": "20825__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20825__0_025", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Absolutely.\nCongress said that, but more important... well, equally importantly, this Court has said that no less than seven times in the last 180 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [420.956, 421.284], "stop_times": [421.284, 428.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 420.956}, "reply_to": "20825__0_024", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_026", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Well, what if under 3713 instead of a judgment lien there had been a prior recorded mortgage?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [428.375], "stop_times": [434.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 428.375}, "reply_to": "20825__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20825__0_027", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Well, that takes us to the heart of an ancient dispute that this Court has, by its express statements, never resolved.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [434.966, 443.541], "stop_times": [443.541, 444.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 434.966}, "reply_to": "20825__0_026", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_028", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Well, what's your position?\nSuppose there was a prior recorded mortgage here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [444.353, 446.821], "stop_times": [446.821, 451.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 444.353}, "reply_to": "20825__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20825__0_029", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--The--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [451.164], "stop_times": [451.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 451.164}, "reply_to": "20825__0_028", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_030", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--and we were talking about that in the case of an insolvent who dies--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [451.554], "stop_times": [456.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 451.554}, "reply_to": "20825__0_029", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20825__0_031", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--The Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [456.379], "stop_times": [457.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 456.379}, "reply_to": "20825__0_030", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_032", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--versus the Government's claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [457.129], "stop_times": [458.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 457.129}, "reply_to": "20825__0_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20825__0_033", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--In New York v. Maclay, for example, the Court said a mortgage is more than a lien, that it is closer to a title and possession of the property, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [458.8], "stop_times": [469.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 458.8}, "reply_to": "20825__0_032", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_034", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Well, do you concede that in the mortgage situation the mortgage holder would come out ahead of the Government here--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [469.578], "stop_times": [476.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 469.578}, "reply_to": "20825__0_033", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20825__0_035", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--I would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [476.309], "stop_times": [476.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 476.309}, "reply_to": "20825__0_034", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_036", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--if it were a recorded mortgage?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [476.731], "stop_times": [478.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 476.731}, "reply_to": "20825__0_035", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20825__0_037", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--I would concede it to this extent.\nThe Court so stated that in Thelusson.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [478.637, 479.153], "stop_times": [479.153, 482.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 478.637}, "reply_to": "20825__0_036", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_038", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [482.136], "stop_times": [482.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 482.136}, "reply_to": "20825__0_037", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20825__0_039", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "The Court confirmed that in the Maclay case, but I believe it was in either Mass... United States v. Massachusetts or United States v. Texas, in one of those two opinions when they were reciting the wellestablished rule about we prevail against judgment liens but we may not prevail against mortgages, the Court said something to the effect that if the mortgage cases are still valid.\nNow... and so I suppose that what the Court was saying then was, they weren't revisiting to decide whether the mortgage case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [482.635, 506.093], "stop_times": [506.093, 513.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 482.635}, "reply_to": "20825__0_038", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_040", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Well, what are you saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [513.45], "stop_times": [514.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 513.45}, "reply_to": "20825__0_039", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20825__0_041", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--Well, I'm... I'm just--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [514.84], "stop_times": [516.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 514.84}, "reply_to": "20825__0_040", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_042", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "I think we'll try to figure out--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [516.136], "stop_times": [517.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 516.136}, "reply_to": "20825__0_041", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20825__0_043", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--Okay.\nThat issue--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [517.028, 517.448], "stop_times": [517.448, 517.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 517.028}, "reply_to": "20825__0_042", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_044", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--what we were saying.\nI want to know what you're saying about this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [517.73, 518.26], "stop_times": [518.26, 519.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 517.73}, "reply_to": "20825__0_043", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20825__0_045", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--What I'm saying is that the Court has always held that we prevail against the general lien of the judgment.\nThe question of whether we prevail against a mortgage isn't presented in this case.\nThe question in particular--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [519.698, 524.54, 528.773], "stop_times": [524.54, 528.773, 530.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 519.698}, "reply_to": "20825__0_044", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_046", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Well, I know that.\nI'm asking what your position is if it were.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [530.616, 531.022], "stop_times": [531.022, 534.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 530.616}, "reply_to": "20825__0_045", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20825__0_047", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--Well, I'm... my position is that the Court has twice held that we lose to a mortgage, and has once said that it's not certain that that's good law.\nI really don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [534.037, 543.19], "stop_times": [543.19, 545.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 534.037}, "reply_to": "20825__0_046", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_048", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "What about all the repair... the repairmen?\nYou know, people come in and they fix the house, and normally you fix the house or you fix the plumbing and throughout the law there are all kinds of ways of making certain those people get paid.\nThey're usually called mechanic's liens, and here Congress has a specific statute that says, you know, if Smith dies and he... or if Smith owes money on taxes, we get it first.\nWe use this magic word lien, but all that means is, we get it first.\nBut by the way, we don't get it first in respect to the mechanic.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [545.096, 547.001, 559.104, 571.037, 575.583], "stop_times": [547.001, 559.104, 571.037, 575.583, 579.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 545.096}, "reply_to": "20825__0_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20825__0_049", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--No, Con--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [579.956], "stop_times": [580.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 579.956}, "reply_to": "20825__0_048", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_050", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "He gets his money first, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [580.737], "stop_times": [582.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 580.737}, "reply_to": "20825__0_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20825__0_051", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [582.564], "stop_times": [583.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 582.564}, "reply_to": "20825__0_050", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_052", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "You're saying that the mechanic lien... the mechanics get their money first, before the tax money, I take it.\nThat's not right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [583.096, 590.436], "stop_times": [590.436, 591.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 583.096}, "reply_to": "20825__0_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20825__0_053", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--First of all--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [591.717], "stop_times": [593.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 591.717}, "reply_to": "20825__0_052", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_054", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "I was reading 632... yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [593.559], "stop_times": [595.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 593.559}, "reply_to": "20825__0_053", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20825__0_055", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--the absolute priority statute doesn't create a lien.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [595.606], "stop_times": [596.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 595.606}, "reply_to": "20825__0_054", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_056", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "I mean, I'm taking... a lien is just a magic way of saying the Government gets paid first, I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [596.839], "stop_times": [603.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 596.839}, "reply_to": "20825__0_055", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20825__0_057", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "It's not a... it's not that kind of a magic word, and this Court has made the very distinction on this subject, and so it's important for me to emphasize it.\nThe right of the United States under the absolute priority statute does not depend upon the existence of any lien, valid or not.\nIt defeats any... what the Court has described in I think seven cases that we've cited.\nIt defeats anything that is a quote, general lien, which is a lien that does not... as the Court said in Thelusson all the way to Gilbert Associates, a general lien does not divest title or possession from the United States.\nThe property remains in the debtor's estate and therefore the United States is to be paid first.\nAnd so, is the... so the question that I believe was implicit in your remark was, is a mechanic's lien a general lien covered... you know, which the United States prevails, or is it a specific lien that might come in ahead of the United States under the absolute priority statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [603.259, 610.647, 618.736, 625.312, 636.98, 642.383], "stop_times": [610.647, 618.736, 625.312, 636.98, 642.383, 658.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 603.259}, "reply_to": "20825__0_056", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_058", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [658.735], "stop_times": [659.001], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 658.735}, "reply_to": "20825__0_057", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20825__0_059", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "My perception of that is that if the Court had to reach it, under its precedent it would hold that it was a general lien, although it could hold it was a specific--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [659.001], "stop_times": [668.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 659.001}, "reply_to": "20825__0_058", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_060", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "And not like a mortgage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [668.029], "stop_times": [668.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 668.029}, "reply_to": "20825__0_059", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20825__0_061", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--It's certainly not exactly like a mortgage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [668.81], "stop_times": [672.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 668.81}, "reply_to": "20825__0_060", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_062", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "So then my question actually is... thank you, that is much clearer, and my question really is what any Congressman or Senator would have had in mind in saying that my goodness, we want to be certain those mechanics who come in and fix the roof are paid before the IRS, and that's what they seem to say in 1623 and, in fact, if we're reading of the statute is correct, every time a person dies insolvent the IRS gets paid before the mechanics.\nNow, that to me just doesn't make any sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [672.012, 702.936], "stop_times": [702.936, 705.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 672.012}, "reply_to": "20825__0_061", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20825__0_063", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Well, I'm not... I'm not saying what our position is on mechanic's liens, because I can hear an argument to be made for saying, oh, that's a specific lien within the context of how the Court uses that term.\nBut let's take the judgment lien, which is also referred to in 6323, and which the Court's opinions say clearly we prevail against under the absolute priority statute.\nDid Congress intend, in adopting 6323, to repeal the application of the absolute priority statute to judgment liens?\nThe answer to that is no.\nWhy?\nBecause at the same... in terms of intent, at the same time that the repealing legislation was presented for... I mean, that the Federal tax lien legislation was presented to Congress in 1966, Congress was also presented with three bills designed expressly to repeal the application of this statute to tax claims.\nCongress conducted hearings on those legislation, informed itself of the objections, and declined to enact it.\n4 years later, the same repealing legis--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [705.327, 715.51, 726.257, 733.925, 736.94, 737.923, 758.852, 765.63], "stop_times": [715.51, 726.257, 733.925, 736.94, 737.923, 758.852, 765.63, 768.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 705.327}, "reply_to": "20825__0_062", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_064", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Or a committee did, anyway.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [768.317], "stop_times": [769.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 768.317}, "reply_to": "20825__0_063", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20825__0_065", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [769.207], "stop_times": [770.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 769.207}, "reply_to": "20825__0_064", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_066", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "I'm normally with you on legislative history, but I'm getting off the train in this instance for the reason that I'd ask before these particular bills, of what sense it would make?\nWhat sense would it make--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [770.082, 779.999], "stop_times": [779.999, 782.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 770.082}, "reply_to": "20825__0_065", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20825__0_067", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "It--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [782.077], "stop_times": [782.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 782.077}, "reply_to": "20825__0_066", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_068", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--for... to have a law which says, like 6323, we normally put all these things ahead of the secret IRS lien, because it isn't necessary... but we don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [782.685], "stop_times": [794.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 782.685}, "reply_to": "20825__0_067", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20825__0_069", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--The sense that it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [794.524], "stop_times": [795.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 794.524}, "reply_to": "20825__0_068", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_070", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--we don't put it ahead when the person dies.\nI'm looking for some sense in that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [795.899, 797.289], "stop_times": [797.289, 798.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 795.899}, "reply_to": "20825__0_069", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20825__0_071", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--The sense that it makes is, when the tax lien provisions are applicable, they're applicable within a priority context determined by some other statute or legislation.\nIn the situation you've described, if he goes into bankruptcy, then it's the Bankruptcy Code that prevails, the Bankruptcy Code that is operative.\nAll that the tax lien provisions say is whether we have a valid lien, and then you should ask, so what if we don't have a valid lien, and the answer under the absolute priority statute is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [798.992, 809.893, 818.14], "stop_times": [809.893, 818.14, 829.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 798.992}, "reply_to": "20825__0_070", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_072", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Mr. Jones--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [829.76], "stop_times": [830.51], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 829.76}, "reply_to": "20825__0_071", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20825__0_073", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--it doesn't matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [830.51], "stop_times": [830.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 830.51}, "reply_to": "20825__0_072", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_074", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--You are presenting the position as though it's clear and certain this is the Government's position, the only question mark is what this Court may have done in some mortgage cases, and yet the red brief cites an Attorney General's opinion from 1857.\nBut you don't... as far as I remember don't address that at all in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [830.932, 850.94], "stop_times": [850.94, 856.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 830.932}, "reply_to": "20825__0_073", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20825__0_075", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Well, one of the reasons we don't address that opinion of the Attorney General is because all of that portion of their argument relates to an issue that wasn't raised below, which is whether this is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [856.11], "stop_times": [865.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 856.11}, "reply_to": "20825__0_074", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_076", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--No, but they can defend the judgment on the ground that it wasn't thought of below.\nThat's wellsettled.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [865.277, 868.635], "stop_times": [868.635, 869.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 865.277}, "reply_to": "20825__0_075", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20825__0_077", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--They can defend it on a ground that wasn't even raised below.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [869.275], "stop_times": [872.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 869.275}, "reply_to": "20825__0_076", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_078", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [872.931], "stop_times": [873.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 872.931}, "reply_to": "20825__0_077", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20825__0_079", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Or addressed below.\nThey--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [873.275, 874.429], "stop_times": [874.429, 874.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 873.275}, "reply_to": "20825__0_078", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_080", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "If their reading of the statute is correct, namely that the... what you call an absolute priority statute merely applies to unsecured claims, then we don't have to get into all this, and we would have to affirm--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [874.913], "stop_times": [888.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 874.913}, "reply_to": "20825__0_079", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20825__0_081", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--If the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [888.425], "stop_times": [889.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 888.425}, "reply_to": "20825__0_080", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_082", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--if that's a correct reading of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [889.252], "stop_times": [890.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 889.252}, "reply_to": "20825__0_081", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20825__0_083", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--If the Court were going to revisit the question of whether the judgment lien was subject to the absolute priority statute I would think it would want to do that in a context where it was raised below, because the Court has already decided that issue seven times.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [890.143], "stop_times": [903.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 890.143}, "reply_to": "20825__0_082", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_084", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Well, it's been fully briefed in this, by both sides in this case.\nYou filed a reply brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [903.277, 906.011], "stop_times": [906.011, 907.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 903.277}, "reply_to": "20825__0_083", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20825__0_085", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "And stare decisis would also suggest--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [907.322], "stop_times": [910.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 907.322}, "reply_to": "20825__0_084", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_086", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [910.04], "stop_times": [910.306], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 910.04}, "reply_to": "20825__0_085", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20825__0_087", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--that what the Court would do would be to apply Thelusson, Gilbert Associates, United States v. Texas, United States v. Massachusetts, City of New Britain and Vermont, and say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [910.306], "stop_times": [919.474], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 910.306}, "reply_to": "20825__0_086", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_088", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--United States v. Massachusetts was a 5 to 4 decision, so it has less claim to stare decisis than--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [919.474], "stop_times": [927.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 919.474}, "reply_to": "20825__0_087", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20825__0_089", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--Well, it was just one of a long string of decisions, and my point is simply that this is wellsettled since 1817.\nIf the Court wants to revisit the issue, I would think it would do it in a case where we had an opportunity to brief it in the courts below and fully here, instead of just in a reply brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [927.237, 934.203], "stop_times": [934.203, 945.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 927.237}, "reply_to": "20825__0_088", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_090", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--Mr. Jones--\n--But you still haven't commented--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [945.276, 945.947], "stop_times": [945.947, 946.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 945.276}, "reply_to": "20825__0_089", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20825__0_091", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Yes--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [946.729], "stop_times": [947.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 946.729}, "reply_to": "20825__0_090", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_092", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--on the merits of the Attorney General's brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [947.182], "stop_times": [949.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 947.182}, "reply_to": "20825__0_091", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20825__0_093", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [949.165], "stop_times": [949.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 949.165}, "reply_to": "20825__0_092", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_094", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "You said we didn't discuss it because it wasn't raised below, and that's your only answer to that opinion?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [949.493], "stop_times": [952.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 949.493}, "reply_to": "20825__0_093", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20825__0_095", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "No, I... that's not my only answer.\nThat opinion was in 1850-something.\nIt was... what it really was, and what the opinion reflects, is that it was an issue about whether a mortgage takes priority under the absolute priority statute, and the Court cited Conard, and maybe Thelusson, but certainly Conard for that proposition, which... we don't intend to dispute Conard.\nWe don't intend to dispute that a mortgage... this Court has held that a mortgage takes priority, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [952.789, 954.382, 956.802, 975.905], "stop_times": [954.382, 956.802, 975.905, 981.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 952.789}, "reply_to": "20825__0_094", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_096", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Why not?\nIt doesn't make any sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [981.746, 982.152], "stop_times": [982.152, 983.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 981.746}, "reply_to": "20825__0_095", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20825__0_097", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--Well, when Justice O'Connor asked me that, it's sort of like... well, I... I'm not trying to reformulate the Court's cases.\nI'm trying to describe them, and the Court's cases have contained that last caveat about, well, whether that is still good law.\nWe don't place that at issue in this case.\nBut getting back to Justice Breyer's question about why does this make sense, this makes sense because Congress has provided priorities for cases involving bankrupts in the Bankruptcy Code.\nCongress has provided by indirection cases for insolvents, which is that they haven't changed the common law rule of first in time, and that's what the Court held in City of New Britain.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [983.059, 989.289, 996.506, 1000.16, 1016.185], "stop_times": [989.289, 996.506, 1000.16, 1016.185, 1027.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 983.059}, "reply_to": "20825__0_096", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_098", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Well, the priority under this would be first in time, first in right.\nI mean, it's not a mystery what the priority would be if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1027.117, 1032.21], "stop_times": [1032.21, 1035.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1027.117}, "reply_to": "20825__0_097", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20825__0_099", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "No, the priority here is we're paid first.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1035.818], "stop_times": [1037.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1035.818}, "reply_to": "20825__0_098", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_100", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--6323(a) governs.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1037.128], "stop_times": [1039.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1037.128}, "reply_to": "20825__0_099", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20825__0_101", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "No, the priority in an insolvent estate is the absolute priority statute, and that's we're paid first.\nThese are different rules.\nCongress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1039.364, 1046.438, 1049.156], "stop_times": [1046.438, 1049.156, 1049.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1039.364}, "reply_to": "20825__0_100", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_102", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "That's the issue.\nIf we were to say 6323(a) was the more specific and it applies, then it would be first in time, first in right, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1049.624, 1050.374], "stop_times": [1050.374, 1060.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1049.624}, "reply_to": "20825__0_101", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20825__0_103", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--That is... well, I wouldn't think you'd say that for a variety of reasons.\nOne is, the Court doesn't apply that method of analysis to the absolute priority statute, but even if it did, which of these provisions is more specific, which is a point I've been trying to get up to.\nThe absolute priority statute is a very narrow statute.\nIt has an extremely narrow scope of operation.\nIt only applies in these narrow categories of cases involving insolvent estates and a few other narrow insolvency situations.\nThe dominant majority of cases are governed by other priority provisions.\nBankruptcy cases, solvency--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1060.089, 1066.196, 1076.551, 1080.019, 1082.768, 1089.795, 1093.935], "stop_times": [1066.196, 1076.551, 1080.019, 1082.768, 1089.795, 1093.935, 1096.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1060.089}, "reply_to": "20825__0_102", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_104", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "But are you saying that priorities, lien, or debt priority statutes come into play in a majority of cases where there is no insolvency?\nThat seems odd to me.\nI would think the time that it would be most useful and probably most applicable is when there is some sort of insolvency.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1096.387, 1105.617, 1108.085], "stop_times": [1105.617, 1108.085, 1114.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1096.387}, "reply_to": "20825__0_103", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20825__0_105", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--And in the vast majority of those cases they're in the Bankruptcy Code, covered by the Bankruptcy Code.\nI mean, we know Congress intended to have two different priority schemes, because the absolute priority statute specifically excepts bankruptcy cases from its application.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1114.801, 1119.721], "stop_times": [1119.721, 1129.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1114.801}, "reply_to": "20825__0_104", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_106", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "But Mr. Jones, the Government is owed all kinds of money by all kinds of people, and that's... the absolute priority statute could cover those debts, but here we have something that deals with tax liens, so that's the specific subject matter, as--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1129.264], "stop_times": [1146.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1129.264}, "reply_to": "20825__0_105", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20825__0_107", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Well, that deals with tax liens, and that's the point, because Congress certainly knew full well that this Court had held in Thelusson in 1817 and in the several cases in the fifties, like City of New Britain, knew full well that this Court had held that you don't need a tax lien.\nIt doesn't matter if you don't have a valid tax lien under the... in the narrow situations that the absolute priority statute applies, and so you have to understand that these statutes really operate in different... on different issues.\nEvery Federal court that has considered this has recognized that the priority statute establishes priorities, the lien statute deals with liens.\nThese are different subjects.\nThere's no inconsistency between these two provisions because they both have full application in the separate contexts that they apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1146.74, 1163.734, 1179.01, 1187.318, 1188.349], "stop_times": [1163.734, 1179.01, 1187.318, 1188.349, 1195.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1146.74}, "reply_to": "20825__0_106", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_108", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--What is the... so I'm still back to the... I'm looking at it... to be honest with you, I'm seeing your statute as a very old one, and once you take that statute the courts have to get into a real nightmare of an issue of deciding when title is passed, or when it isn't passed.\nIt isn't true that any physical property in the possession of the deceased is going to go to the Government.\nYou have to draw odd lines.\nTime passes.\nCongress begins to pass specific statutes dealing with specific situations that set up priorities, and unless there is some reason for not applying these later, specific statutes, I don't know why we wouldn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1195.83, 1211.7, 1217.416, 1219.525, 1220.946], "stop_times": [1211.7, 1217.416, 1219.525, 1220.946, 1235.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1195.83}, "reply_to": "20825__0_107", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20825__0_109", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1235.895], "stop_times": [1236.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1235.895}, "reply_to": "20825__0_108", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_110", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--because they're a more thoughtout, careful method of distinguishing between different kinds of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1236.034], "stop_times": [1242.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1236.034}, "reply_to": "20825__0_109", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20825__0_111", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--You can't come to that conclusion--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1242.203], "stop_times": [1244.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1242.203}, "reply_to": "20825__0_110", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_112", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1244.842], "stop_times": [1245.107], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1244.842}, "reply_to": "20825__0_111", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20825__0_113", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--after reading the City of New Britain opinion, because the City of New Britain opinion says that in the insolvency situation Congress has provided specific priorities, and we win without regard to the existence of any lien.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1245.107], "stop_times": [1257.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1245.107}, "reply_to": "20825__0_112", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_114", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "What's the... what is special about dying insolvent as opposed to just living and not paying your taxes?\nWhat... what's the difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1257.901, 1266.6], "stop_times": [1266.6, 1268.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1257.901}, "reply_to": "20825__0_113", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20825__0_115", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "It's not so much that there's something special about it.\nIt's that the statutes have different words, they have different histories, they have different purposes, they do not conflict if you take them each at their fair reading.\nThe... okay, let's say the fair reading is, this is a judgment lien, our lien would not be valid against it.\nThe next question is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1268.599, 1270.193, 1282.079, 1289.449], "stop_times": [1270.193, 1282.079, 1289.449, 1291.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1268.599}, "reply_to": "20825__0_114", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_116", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "If you go into history, your opponent argues you go back to the prerogative of the Crown and apply to everything, just general claims and not secured claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1291.214], "stop_times": [1298.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1291.214}, "reply_to": "20825__0_115", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20825__0_117", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--I think that that's a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1298.336], "stop_times": [1298.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1298.336}, "reply_to": "20825__0_116", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_118", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "You ignore that history?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1298.82], "stop_times": [1299.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1298.82}, "reply_to": "20825__0_117", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20825__0_119", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--vast overstatement again.\nI mean, they cite a case called Marshall v. New York, where the Court says that the common law rule was that specific liens, only specific liens prevail--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1299.633, 1300.665], "stop_times": [1300.665, 1310.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1299.633}, "reply_to": "20825__0_118", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_120", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Do you think they correctly or incorrectly describe the law in England before we got started?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1310.551], "stop_times": [1315.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1310.551}, "reply_to": "20825__0_119", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20825__0_121", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--I... they didn't correctly describe the law in England as this Court described it in Marshall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1315.034], "stop_times": [1320.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1315.034}, "reply_to": "20825__0_120", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_122", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1320.703], "stop_times": [1321.046], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1320.703}, "reply_to": "20825__0_121", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20825__0_123", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "As far as what the law in England was before, this Court has said it doesn't matter, because in United States v. Moore, and all the way back in 1824, I think, in the Bank of North Carolina case, the Court said that whatever the common law rule is, this priority of the United States arises solely by statute, and it is interpreting that statute that the Court has said, seven times since 1817, that a general lien such as a judgment lien, or a State and municipal tax lien, or a landlord's lien does not prevail against the absolute priority of the United States.\nAnd in City of New Britain they said we don't need a lien in these cases.\nA lien... and or repeated that same conclusion in United States v. Vermont.\nThe lien... the existence of a lien is a security device.\nIt's not a right to payment.\nWe don't have a lien, so when there's property... in the absolute priority situation, when there's property possessed by the insolvent estate, if it's transferred out of the estate we don't have a lien that follows it, and the absence of such a lien doesn't affect our right to be paid out of the property of the estate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1321.046, 1354.58, 1358.205, 1364.326, 1367.544, 1368.839], "stop_times": [1354.58, 1358.205, 1364.326, 1367.544, 1368.839, 1390.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1321.046}, "reply_to": "20825__0_122", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_124", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--You do concede that certain secured creditors can get priority in an insolvent estate situation, and you would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1390.785], "stop_times": [1399.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1390.785}, "reply_to": "20825__0_123", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20825__0_125", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1399.64], "stop_times": [1400.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1399.64}, "reply_to": "20825__0_124", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_126", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--say, well the mortgage... is there anything... well, as to the mortgage, do you make a distinction between--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1400.218], "stop_times": [1406.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1400.218}, "reply_to": "20825__0_125", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20825__0_127", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "I think a purchase money mortgage--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1406.402], "stop_times": [1407.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1406.402}, "reply_to": "20825__0_126", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_128", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--title States and lien States?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1407.136], "stop_times": [1407.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1407.136}, "reply_to": "20825__0_127", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20825__0_129", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--I think a purchase money mortgage would plainly be the sort of thing this Court would hold as a practical matter would hold it's a specific lien that prevails against the absolute priority of the United States.\nI think that much is clear, to answer your question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1407.902, 1417.835], "stop_times": [1417.835, 1420.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1407.902}, "reply_to": "20825__0_128", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_130", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Any other--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1420.679], "stop_times": [1422.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1420.679}, "reply_to": "20825__0_129", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20825__0_131", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "The Court has never decided that question, and has specifically avoided it, so I can't tell you how you'd decide it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1422.224], "stop_times": [1428.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1422.224}, "reply_to": "20825__0_130", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_132", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--I just wondered what worked in with your theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1428.441], "stop_times": [1430.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1428.441}, "reply_to": "20825__0_131", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20825__0_133", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "The theory that the Court has is that to be specific for purposes of the absolute priority statute you have to divest title or possession of the good from the debtor's estate before the claim of the United States arises.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1430.253], "stop_times": [1445.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1430.253}, "reply_to": "20825__0_132", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_134", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "So then in mortgage lien States, as distinguished from title States, then in the lien States the creditor would lose.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1445.668], "stop_times": [1453.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1445.668}, "reply_to": "20825__0_133", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20825__0_135", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Justice Cardozo who addressed that very point in New York v. Maclay, and he said, well, I don't have... I can't decide now whether a lien State the mortgage would win, but, he says, this... a mortgage is more than a... more than merely a lien, he said.\nIt's more akin to title.\nIt's more akin to possession.\nNow, there's a reason why the Court hasn't had to address that question.\nThe reason is that it has never had a case before that presented anything other than a general lien that did not divest title and possession, and so that boundary is still out there.\nIt... but it's never been defined by the Court other than in Thelusson, and it... they said, well, it's title or possession--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1453.821, 1468.207, 1469.44, 1470.643, 1475.86, 1487.401], "stop_times": [1468.207, 1469.44, 1470.643, 1475.86, 1487.401, 1494.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1453.821}, "reply_to": "20825__0_134", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_136", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "We--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1494.616], "stop_times": [1495.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1494.616}, "reply_to": "20825__0_135", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20825__0_137", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--and the Court has followed that for 180 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1495.335], "stop_times": [1497.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1495.335}, "reply_to": "20825__0_136", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_138", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--This is a slightly picky point.\nI'm reminded of my tax professor, Ernie Brown, and I'm looking at the lien statute, and you're saying, well, that's just a lien statute.\nWe win anyway.\nBut it doesn't say the United States shall have a lien.\nIt says the amount owed shall be a lien, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1497.163, 1500.318, 1508.268, 1509.579, 1512.547], "stop_times": [1500.318, 1508.268, 1509.579, 1512.547, 1519.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1497.163}, "reply_to": "20825__0_137", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20825__0_139", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "That's 6321.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1519.294], "stop_times": [1520.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1519.294}, "reply_to": "20825__0_138", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_140", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Yes, 6321.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1520.217], "stop_times": [1521.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1520.217}, "reply_to": "20825__0_139", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20825__0_141", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "6323--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1521.184], "stop_times": [1522.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1521.184}, "reply_to": "20825__0_140", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_142", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "So it says, if I die insol... I know, 6323 refers to the lien in 6321.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1522.402], "stop_times": [1527.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1522.402}, "reply_to": "20825__0_141", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20825__0_143", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--And says it won't be valid--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1527.259], "stop_times": [1528.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1527.259}, "reply_to": "20825__0_142", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_144", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Yes, the lien won't be valid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1528.165], "stop_times": [1530.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1528.165}, "reply_to": "20825__0_143", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20825__0_145", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1530.789], "stop_times": [1531.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1530.789}, "reply_to": "20825__0_144", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_146", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "But what 6321 says is, the amount when I die insolvent and owe it to the IRS, it says that amount shall be a lien, so the amount that I owe you is a lien.\nIt's not that you have a lien.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1531.055, 1545.643], "stop_times": [1545.643, 1547.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1531.055}, "reply_to": "20825__0_145", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20825__0_147", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "But we don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1547.565], "stop_times": [1548.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1547.565}, "reply_to": "20825__0_146", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_148", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "And therefore the language of the statute is consistent with it replacing the statute that you're talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1548.658], "stop_times": [1555.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1548.658}, "reply_to": "20825__0_147", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20825__0_149", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--Well, that... I'm sorry, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1555.843], "stop_times": [1558.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1555.843}, "reply_to": "20825__0_148", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_150", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "I put that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1558.561], "stop_times": [1559.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1558.561}, "reply_to": "20825__0_149", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20825__0_151", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--I'm just surprised at that suggestion.\nThe Court... I can't remember the case, but I'm quite confident that the Court has said that the tax lien provisions supplement the right of the United States to recover a tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1559.576, 1561.965], "stop_times": [1561.965, 1571.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1559.576}, "reply_to": "20825__0_150", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_152", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--We have to say it's a supplement?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1571.788], "stop_times": [1573.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1571.788}, "reply_to": "20825__0_151", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20825__0_153", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Well, I think it obviously is.\nEvery lien is a supplement to the underlying claim.\nI mean, it doesn't substi... it doesn't replace the claim.\nIt's a security device.\nThe question is, do we need it?\nNo, we don't.\nThe Court has so held.\nWe don't need that lien.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1573.554, 1575.084, 1578.645, 1582.175, 1583.956, 1585.659, 1586.175, 1587.33], "stop_times": [1575.084, 1578.645, 1582.175, 1583.956, 1585.659, 1586.175, 1587.33, 1588.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1573.554}, "reply_to": "20825__0_152", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_154", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Why did Congress give it to you if you didn't need it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1588.611], "stop_times": [1590.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1588.611}, "reply_to": "20825__0_153", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20825__0_155", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Well, we don't need it in the absolute priority, in the narrow categories of the absolute priority statute, because there we have a right to be paid first.\nWhen those priorities aren't applicable, yes, we benefit from the lien in other priority contexts.\nCongress intended these priority rules to apply here, intended other priority rules to apply elsewhere.\nI've got just a few minutes left.\nI only want to make one other point at this time, and that is that respondent claims that this ancient statute should be modernized to avoid an inconvenience to creditors.\nThe simple answer to that is what the Court said in Emory.\nWhatever the merits of that objection should be made to Congress, not the Court.\nAnd that brings me to the point that these objections were raised with Congress twice.\nIn '66 and '70, Congress conducted hearings on them and declined to make the changes that respondent now asks this Court to make.\nGoing all the way back to 1805, in the first case that this Court decided under the absolute priority statute, Chief Justice Marshall said for this Court that the inconvenience of the statute did not justify its judicial nullification, and for that reason the Pennsylvania supreme court's decision should be reversed.\nI'd like to reserve time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1590.047, 1599.84, 1606.446, 1611.898, 1613.726, 1621.894, 1624.987, 1628.893, 1633.076, 1639.949, 1658.474], "stop_times": [1599.84, 1606.446, 1611.898, 1613.726, 1621.894, 1624.987, 1628.893, 1633.076, 1639.949, 1658.474, 1660.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1590.047}, "reply_to": "20825__0_154", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__0_156", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Very well, Mr. Jones.\nMr. McCartan, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1660.722, 1662.285], "stop_times": [1662.285, 1664.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1660.722}, "reply_to": "20825__0_155", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20825__1_000", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--\nIf I may, I would like to start with the question posed by Justice Stevens, which is whether antecedent security interests, traditional security interests survive assertion of the priority of the United States Government under the priority statute.\nWe did not handle this case below, and cannot tell the Court, therefore, why it was not discussed below, but I can and do say that it is clearly embraced within the question presented by the Government in its petition.\nThat is why they argued this issue at pages 9 and 10 of the petition, and why they reargued it at pages 14 and 16 of their opening brief on the merits here.\nThe statute under which the Government claims priority had its origins in the prerogative of the Crown for the payment of debts due to the sovereign.\nWhen it was enacted, there was more than a century of English precedent to the effect that antecedent security interests would survive assertion of a priority under the prerogative of the Crown.\nI would urge this Court to revisit your early decisions and those of some of the lower Federal courts at the time.\nIt is old learning, but it demonstrates quite clearly that there is not an unbroken line of authority from Thelusson v. Smith to modern times, as contended by the Government.\nThelusson was decided in 1817.\n11 years later, this Court decided Conard v. Atlantic Insurance Company, stating, and it was essentially the same Court, that Conard should be limited... or, excuse me, that Thelusson should be limited to the circumstances of that case, and stating unequivocally that Thelusson did not stand for the proposition that a perfected lien could be displaced by, and I quote, the mere priority of the Government under Revised Code section 3466.\nSubsequently, this Court, in United States v. Hack and Brent v. Bank of Washington, upheld traditional security interests against assertion of priority under the priority statute.\nFor a period of 75 years thereafter, it was the understanding of the lower Federal courts that traditional security interests would survive assertion of priority by the Government under this statute.\nThe Attorney General of the United States in 1857 issued an opinion to the effect that Thelusson was overruled by Conard, and that was the understanding, that was the assumption, that was the premise on which the lower Federal courts acted from that point on.\nCottrell v. Pierson, which appears on pages 11 and 12 on our brief, I think is illustrative of the understanding of the lower Federal courts.\nNow, it wasn't until 1933 in New York v. Maclay that the language of Thelusson referring to the need of a lienor to perfect the lien by acquiring title or possession was revived.\nMaclay, though, was a case which involved personal property and an unliquidated amount in terms of the lien.\nThe New York State statute with respect to franchise taxes is very, very unusual.\nFranchise taxes under the New York law are a lien in advance of the years in which they are due, so in Maclay you didn't even have the amount of the lien determined because it wasn't yet due and, secondly, any property to which it may have attached may not even have been in existence.\nThe lien is obviously--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1664.113, 1667.22, 1684.384, 1698.035, 1708.829, 1720.901, 1737.097, 1748.312, 1763.868, 1768.039, 1801.821, 1818.658, 1836.494, 1855.472, 1864.437, 1882.101, 1890.504, 1898.923, 1921.195], "stop_times": [1667.22, 1684.384, 1698.035, 1708.829, 1720.901, 1737.097, 1748.312, 1763.868, 1768.039, 1801.821, 1818.658, 1836.494, 1855.472, 1864.437, 1882.101, 1890.504, 1898.923, 1921.195, 1923.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1664.113}, "reply_to": "20825__0_156", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_001", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Counsel, what's your best case for support of your position that the judgment lien comes before the Government's right under 3713?\nWhat's your best case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1923.428, 1934.736], "stop_times": [1934.736, 1936.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1923.428}, "reply_to": "20825__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20825__1_002", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--You mean ahead, Your Honor, in terms of whether the lien survives?\nI would say it would be Cottrell v. Pierson, United States v. Hack, and Brent v. Bank of Washington.\nThose three cases all established the traditional security interests would survive assertion of priority by the Government under the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1936.829, 1940.718, 1948.044], "stop_times": [1940.718, 1948.044, 1958.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1936.829}, "reply_to": "20825__1_001", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_003", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Well, is the judgment lien situation different somehow from a mortgage or other type of secured interest where possession changes, or title, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1958.93], "stop_times": [1970.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1958.93}, "reply_to": "20825__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20825__1_004", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "I think not, Your Honor, and this Court itself in Rankin & Schatzell v. Scott said that a judgment lien has the same power as the mortgage to hold the land, and if we look at these early cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1970.409], "stop_times": [1985.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1970.409}, "reply_to": "20825__1_003", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_005", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--We... the court below didn't really get into the question of the nature of the judgment lien here, did it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1985.841], "stop_times": [1992.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1985.841}, "reply_to": "20825__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20825__1_006", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--No, it did not, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1992.886], "stop_times": [1993.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1992.886}, "reply_to": "20825__1_005", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_007", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "So we don't actually know the nature of it here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1993.37], "stop_times": [1997.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1993.37}, "reply_to": "20825__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20825__1_008", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Well, we know that it was a judgment lien that was definite with respect to the identity of the judgment creditor, the amount of the judgment, and that it was immediately enforceable.\nIt was properly perfected--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [1997.039, 2008.737], "stop_times": [2008.737, 2010.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1997.039}, "reply_to": "20825__1_007", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_009", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Did it apply to all property in the State of Pennsylvania?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2010.237], "stop_times": [2012.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2010.237}, "reply_to": "20825__1_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20825__1_010", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--I'm sorry, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2012.939], "stop_times": [2013.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2012.939}, "reply_to": "20825__1_009", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_011", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Did it apply to all property in the State of Pennsylvania--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2013.486], "stop_times": [2015.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2013.486}, "reply_to": "20825__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20825__1_012", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nIt applied only--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2015.891, 2016.376], "stop_times": [2016.376, 2017.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2015.891}, "reply_to": "20825__1_011", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_013", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--or just a particular county--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2017.001], "stop_times": [2018.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2017.001}, "reply_to": "20825__1_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20825__1_014", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--only to property located within Cambria County, which is the county where the judgment was entered, indexed, and was immediately enforceable, and there was only one parcel of property in Cambria County which was owned by the debtor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2018.203], "stop_times": [2031.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2018.203}, "reply_to": "20825__1_013", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_015", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--But there was nothing to make it more specific than that.\nThen why isn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2031.557, 2034.431], "stop_times": [2034.431, 2036.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2031.557}, "reply_to": "20825__1_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20825__1_016", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "There was nothing that need make it more specific than that, Your Honor.\nIn order to protect the interests that are involved here, which would be subsequent purchasers, or anyone else with an interest in the affairs of the debtor, a simple title search would reveal this.\nIt's not just a matter of journalizing the judgment in the court of record.\nIt is taking that judgment to the county recorder and then entering it there and indexing it so that it will appear in the land--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2036.509, 2038.118, 2049.38, 2054.096], "stop_times": [2038.118, 2049.38, 2054.096, 2061.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2036.509}, "reply_to": "20825__1_015", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_017", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--Well, except the suggestion is that a mortgage is specific as to property, and that judgment liens are not, and whether or not this Court can get into State lien law as to what's specific and what's general is certainly problematic, but that's the suggestion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2061.904], "stop_times": [2079.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2061.904}, "reply_to": "20825__1_016", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20825__1_018", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, when they say that the mortgage is more specific, are we looking at the nature of the mortgage, or are we talking just about parcels?\nIn this case, there was only one piece of real property located within Cambria County to which this judgment lien could attach.\nThe judgment lien was definite with respect to the identity of the judgment creditor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2079.085, 2085.708, 2093.766], "stop_times": [2085.708, 2093.766, 2098.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2079.085}, "reply_to": "20825__1_017", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_019", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Well, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2098.812], "stop_times": [2099.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2098.812}, "reply_to": "20825__1_018", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20825__1_020", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--the amount of the lien, and the property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2099.171], "stop_times": [2100.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2099.171}, "reply_to": "20825__1_019", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_021", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--It seems to me unlikely we're going to base our holding on that.\nWe have to assume that there were five other pieces of property in other counties, if your reading of the statute is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2100.311, 2103.919], "stop_times": [2103.919, 2111.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2100.311}, "reply_to": "20825__1_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20825__1_022", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "No, Your Honor, it would not apply to any property located in other counties unless that judgment were taken to those counties and indexed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2111.931], "stop_times": [2119.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2111.931}, "reply_to": "20825__1_021", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_023", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "But under your submission if you file it in every county, then your lien is good in every county.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2119.741], "stop_times": [2125.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2119.741}, "reply_to": "20825__1_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20825__1_024", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "In every county... if you take that judgment and enter it according to State law, it is good in any county in which real property is located, and that lien has sufficient capacity to bind the land.\nIf you look at the early cases, Justice O'Connor, with respect to mortgages, we have to be careful, I think, in looking at these cases that we don't become hidebound by the common law's emphasis on the form of the transaction.\nAt common law, a mortgage took the form of a straight conveyance of title, but it was always subject to defeasance.\nThe mortgagor had an equity of redemption.\nThe mortgagee was never entitled to realize any more from the property than the amount of the secured interest.\nThe mortgagor's spouse even retained dollar.\nThe mortgagee's spouse did not.\nWith respect to real property... and none of the cases relied upon by the Government here involve real property.\nThey all involve personal property.\nIn cases of real property, a lien can be perfected if it is filed after entry of judgment and indexed in accordance with State law.\nThat was done here, and that lien was, therefore, perfected with respect to real property within the county where it was recorded.\nNow, if the Government's theory is correct, it should apply to mortgage liens as well, and mortgages are liens in 30 State jurisdictions.\nThere's no reason to distinguish between a mortgage lien and a judgment creditor's lien, which has a history at least at long and as enforceable as a mortgage lien.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2125.786, 2137.797, 2149.152, 2158.476, 2160.866, 2166.521, 2169.144, 2170.455, 2177.578, 2179.531, 2189.636, 2198.476, 2209.612], "stop_times": [2137.797, 2149.152, 2158.476, 2160.866, 2166.521, 2169.144, 2170.455, 2177.578, 2179.531, 2189.636, 2198.476, 2209.612, 2221.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2125.786}, "reply_to": "20825__1_023", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_025", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Mr. McCartan, if I understand your position correctly you're not asserting that just the entry of the judgment would have been sufficient to overcome the Government's claim here.\nThat it is the entry of the judgment plus the perfection of the lien--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2221.701, 2237.226], "stop_times": [2237.226, 2243.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2221.701}, "reply_to": "20825__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20825__1_026", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2243.302], "stop_times": [2243.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2243.302}, "reply_to": "20825__1_025", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_027", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--by recording it in... as against particular property?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2243.849], "stop_times": [2246.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2243.849}, "reply_to": "20825__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20825__1_028", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2246.661], "stop_times": [2247.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2246.661}, "reply_to": "20825__1_027", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_029", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "In Arizona, where I practiced, if you got a judgment you would have to take a... get a certified copy of the judgment from the clerk of the court and take it to the county recorder, and the county recorder would record it the same way it would record a mortgage.\nIs that the way Pennsylvania procedure works, too?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2247.677, 2262.983], "stop_times": [2262.983, 2265.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2247.677}, "reply_to": "20825__1_028", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20825__1_030", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "That's the way Pennsylvania works, Your Honor, and at that point, that lien is immediately enforceable without any further judicial proceedings of any kind, as was the case in United States/Texas, a case on which the Government relies here.\nThe mortgage, or the certified copy of the judgment is taken to the county recorder, it is indexed, and it is placed on the land records.\nIt is therefore specific with respect to any land that is located within that county, and it binds that property.\nThere is no way in which a mortgagee or a judgment lien creditor can protect themselves against the kind of theory that's asserted by the Government here.\nDo you realize that 400,000 dollars of this 490,000 dollar tax lien, or tax claim, as the Government would prefer to say, was for tax years that were after the time when this judgment was entered, indexed, and perfected as a lien under Pennsylvania law?\nThe commercial mortgage market would be in total chaos if that theory were to be accepted.\nLet me address next the question of the interaction of these two statutes.\nThe Government would make it appear that the only issue here is whether there is an implied exception to the priority statute, when in fact the issue is really whether there is an implied exception to one statute or an implied limitation on another, as I think Justice Breyer suggested.\nThere are really two separate and distinct questions presented by this phase of the case.\nFirst, whether the competing statutes are inconsistent within some range of overlapping application.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2265.546, 2277.541, 2284.943, 2292.082, 2304.873, 2325.364, 2333.174, 2339.343, 2359.867, 2365.912], "stop_times": [2277.541, 2284.943, 2292.082, 2304.873, 2325.364, 2333.174, 2339.343, 2359.867, 2365.912, 2375.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2265.546}, "reply_to": "20825__1_029", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_031", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Well, we've applied, I think, a higher standard in justifying any displacement of section 3713.\nWe really have at least articulated a higher standard than just finding a more specific statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2375.095, 2385.715], "stop_times": [2385.715, 2394.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2375.095}, "reply_to": "20825__1_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20825__1_032", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Well, when you say a higher standard, Your Honor, I assume that you are referring to the test in United States v. Key, where the Court set forth a threepart test--\nFirst, is there a facial inconsistency, or a logical inconsistency between the two statutes, secondly, would application of the priority statute make the subsequently enacted and more specific statute redundant, or does the legislative history in any way suggest a congressional intention to carve out an exception to the priority statute?\nI submit that while it is doubtful in my mind that in a case that didn't even involve an inconsistency the Court was setting forth an overarching test to resolve all of these cases, I submit the situation here does satisfy the test that was set forth in United States v. Key.\nTo begin with, the competing statutes are inconsistent, and they are inconsistent in the very area presented by this case.\nThe relative priority of the Government depends upon which statute applies.\nAnd, Justice Breyer, it doesn't make sense for the Government to argue that, well, we are here as a tax claimant as well as a lienholder, and we would prefer to proceed as the holder of a tax claim rather than as a lienholder.\nIf you think about that, it's another way of saying that the Government should stand in a better position as an unsecured creditor than as a secured creditor, something that Professor Kennedy, the leading commentator in this area, said was quite paradoxical, that the Government should be better off--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2394.774, 2405.865, 2431.322, 2452.626, 2460.826, 2465.682, 2481.349], "stop_times": [2405.865, 2431.322, 2452.626, 2460.826, 2465.682, 2481.349, 2502.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2394.774}, "reply_to": "20825__1_031", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_033", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "I think it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2502.372], "stop_times": [2503.075], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2502.372}, "reply_to": "20825__1_032", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20825__1_034", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--as an unsecured than as a secured creditor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2503.075], "stop_times": [2504.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2503.075}, "reply_to": "20825__1_033", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_035", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--Where... suppose they're right on the lien statute, and he's clarified the argument quite well.\nSuppose they're right, then where... suppose they're right, in other words, that the priority statute applies.\nIt would apply to people who die insolvent.\nIf that were true, where would the tax lien statute apply?\nIt couldn't apply to dead people, because the other one does for dead people.\nIt would apply to live people.\nIt couldn't apply to live bankrupt people, because the bankruptcy statute would apply to those people, so it would apply to insolvent live people who aren't... no, sorry, it would apply to people who... perhaps solvent live people.\nNow, what is that universe like, the universe of solvent, live people for whom one needs a tax lien statute for the Government to collect its money?\nWhat is that universe?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2504.246, 2510.165, 2518.802, 2522.832, 2529.126, 2533.327, 2535.53, 2551.102, 2561.894], "stop_times": [2510.165, 2518.802, 2522.832, 2529.126, 2533.327, 2535.53, 2551.102, 2561.894, 2563.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2504.246}, "reply_to": "20825__1_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20825__1_036", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "That universe is one where the tax lien would have no... tax lien statute would have no significance whatsoever, as the Chief Justice pointed out earlier.\nIf the debtor is solvent, there is no need for these carefully crafted priorities in section 6326(a).\nIf the debtor is solvent, everyone is going to paid.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2563.456, 2572.483, 2582.792], "stop_times": [2572.483, 2582.792, 2585.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2563.456}, "reply_to": "20825__1_035", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_037", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "There would at least be people who disappear, but even--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2585.916], "stop_times": [2589.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2585.916}, "reply_to": "20825__1_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20825__1_038", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Pardon, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2589.836], "stop_times": [2590.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2589.836}, "reply_to": "20825__1_037", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_039", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--There might be somebody who disappeared, leaving a house behind, and you'd have a tax lien against the property you could find.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2590.601], "stop_times": [2598.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2590.601}, "reply_to": "20825__1_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20825__1_040", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "And that very limited area of cases is hardly what Congress had in mind--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2598.302], "stop_times": [2602.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2598.302}, "reply_to": "20825__1_039", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_041", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Is there any other area?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2602.893], "stop_times": [2603.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2602.893}, "reply_to": "20825__1_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20825__1_042", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--in crafting this.\nThere isn't.\nThe Government says, in an effort really to prove that the priority statute is really the more limited and specific statute, that the Tax Lien Act would have application to cases involving solvent debtors, where, of course, it wouldn't be necessary, and secondly in bankruptcy cases.\nContrary to what the Government suggests, priorities in bankruptcy are determined by sections 724 and 726 of the Bankruptcy Code, not the Tax Lien Act, and the Government's reliance on Terwilliger here is misplaced.\nThere is no reference to the Tax Lien Act in the Bankruptcy Code, nor does the Tax Lien Act apply with full force when a trustee in bankruptcy, acting under section 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, which gives the trustee status of a hypothetical judgment lien creditor at the outset of a bankruptcy proceeding, to determine what liens would survive the bankruptcy, which secured liens might exist.\nThe trustee would refer to the Tax Lien Act to determine if a Federal tax lien were involved, it had been perfected, but then the priorities of the bankruptcy statute would kick in to determine how these payment would be made and to whom and in what order, and in that situation, Your Honor, the Government would apply in the third category and in the sixth category, not in accordance with the provisions of the Tax Lien Act.\nThis is the basic structural flaw in the Government's case.\nIf you accept this theory, the Tax Lien Act has application only to cases where its carefully crafted protections of other creditors would have no significance, and it would also be inconsistent with what this Court itself said in the Kimbell Foods case, and that is that this statute represents congressional disapproval of the unrestricted Federal priority in tax matters.\nNow, I don't think that Congress took the time to craft this very detailed statute in order to have it apply only to situations where it would have no significance, and where its priorities would be rendered totally ineffective, but that is what the Government's position is.\nGoing back, Justice O'Connor, to the key test, I think I've already demonstrated there is an inconsistency between the statutes, because the priority depends upon which statute is applied.\nSecondly, as I've just discussed, the Tax Lien Act would be totally redundant, as would, I might add, other Federal lien statutes if the Government's theory is to be accepted.\nIf you have a solvent debtor, it doesn't matter if you have a lien or not, you're going to be paid.\nNow, with respect to the legislative history, the Government points to two proposals that were advanced by the ABA in 1959 and again in 1970 by way of amendment to the Federal tax lien... or, excuse me, to the priority statute.\nThose amendments went far beyond any issue that is involved in this case.\nThis Court has always been reluctant to draw any inference from congressional inaction, and I submit in this case it would be totally inappropriate to do so because of the breadth of the amendments--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2603.362, 2604.19, 2605.018, 2623.152, 2638.536, 2665.619, 2695.592, 2700.058, 2729.452, 2749.242, 2762.533, 2775.012, 2780.432, 2798.814, 2804.906], "stop_times": [2604.19, 2605.018, 2623.152, 2638.536, 2665.619, 2695.592, 2700.058, 2729.452, 2749.242, 2762.533, 2775.012, 2780.432, 2798.814, 2804.906, 2816.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2603.362}, "reply_to": "20825__1_041", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_043", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "But do they go beyond what your reading of the statute was in the first part of your brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2816.589], "stop_times": [2821.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2816.589}, "reply_to": "20825__1_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20825__1_044", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nIn fact, in the final report of the ABA, which is referred to in the legislative history, I think it is clear that the ABA at that point thought that one of the proposals that was being advanced was really to clarify that traditional security interests have always survived assertion of priority by the Government under the statute.\nIn other words, with respect to that specific proposal, which was part of a much larger package, the ABA was of the view that they were really conforming law to what traditionally it had understood to be, contrary to the suggestion in some cases.\nIf you look at the legislative history of this statute in terms of how the structure of the statute has evolved over time, I think it is also clear that we meet the test set forth in The United States v. Key.\nThis is a statute that started out as a means of facilitating tax collection on the part of the Government.\nOver the years, there has been a steady expansion of the protection afforded to competing creditors, and if you look at the committee report of the 1913 statute, Congress was of the view at that time that they were putting these other creditors on an equal footing with the Government in tax matters.\nIn 1966, the 1966 amendments, which gave even unsecured creditors, Justice Breyer, priority over a properly filed and perfected Federal tax lien, Congress said that these amendments were designed to bring the Federal Tax Lien Act in conformity with the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, and under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, secured claims are always given preference over unsecured claims.\nSo I think that in terms of whether we have satisfied the standards set forth in the United States v. Key, it is clear that we have.\nWith respect to the cases relied upon by the Government, I want to emphasize that in the case of New York v. Maclay you had a situation of a State lien, State franchise tax lien that was designed to cover all property of the debtor that were accrued in advance of the years in which the amount of taxes were due, so you had an amount that was undetermined, you had property that was undetermined.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2821.009, 2821.728, 2845.046, 2864.149, 2880.407, 2888.169, 2908.99, 2940.711, 2951.629], "stop_times": [2821.728, 2845.046, 2864.149, 2880.407, 2888.169, 2908.99, 2940.711, 2951.629, 2981.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2821.009}, "reply_to": "20825__1_043", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_045", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "It wouldn't have been a perfected lien under the Uniform Commercial Code.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2981.976], "stop_times": [2984.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2981.976}, "reply_to": "20825__1_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20825__1_046", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "It would not have been a perfected lien under the Uniform Commercial Code or under any other standard, Justice Scalia, that I can consider.\nThe same was true of United States v. Texas, another case on which the Government relies very heavily.\nIn that case, the amount of the lien was undetermined.\nIt required judicial proceedings to determine the amount.\nThe property there was not only all property used in the business, but all property that might thereafter be acquired, far different from the property in this case located within the county in which this judgment was entered, indexed, and perfected as a lien.\nEvery other case that is relied upon by the Government involved... and which turned on possession of the property involved, was a case involving personal property.\nLiens on personal property at common law required the creditor to take possession of the collateral.\nIf the creditor did not have possession of the collateral, there was no lien at common law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [2984.974, 2991.285, 2996.656, 3001.435, 3003.982, 3022.193, 3033.921, 3043.137], "stop_times": [2991.285, 2996.656, 3001.435, 3003.982, 3022.193, 3033.921, 3043.137, 3050.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2984.974}, "reply_to": "20825__1_045", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_047", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Are these all very old cases, Mr. McCartan, because that's certainly not the rule now--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [3050.604], "stop_times": [3054.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3050.604}, "reply_to": "20825__1_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20825__1_048", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "No, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [3054.056], "stop_times": [3054.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3054.056}, "reply_to": "20825__1_047", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_049", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--under the UCC.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [3054.743], "stop_times": [3055.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3054.743}, "reply_to": "20825__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20825__1_050", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--Now you can make the filing with the UCC, but at common law, absent possession of the collateral, the creditor was not deemed to have a lien.\nIn fact, any lien on personal property absent possession was deemed to be fraudulent.\nSo all of these cases on which the Government relies, the socalled modern cases, are really just reaffirming, in the case of personal property, traditional common law principles.\nThe case is different, the considerations are different with respect to real property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [3055.602, 3063.178, 3067.832, 3079.936], "stop_times": [3063.178, 3067.832, 3079.936, 3085.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3055.602}, "reply_to": "20825__1_049", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_051", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "But you want us to bring the lien statute up to date with the UCC, which is what you say the legislative history expresses as the purpose--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [3085.59], "stop_times": [3095.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3085.59}, "reply_to": "20825__1_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20825__1_052", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Well, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [3095.149], "stop_times": [3095.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3095.149}, "reply_to": "20825__1_051", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_053", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--and you're not going to do that if we continue to make this absolute requirement that in the case of personal property you have to be in possession.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [3095.758], "stop_times": [3103.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3095.758}, "reply_to": "20825__1_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20825__1_054", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--Well, in terms of... no, today in terms of personal property with a UCC filing you can obtain a lien on personal property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [3103.786], "stop_times": [3113.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3103.786}, "reply_to": "20825__1_053", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_055", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [3113.189], "stop_times": [3113.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3113.189}, "reply_to": "20825__1_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20825__1_056", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "What I'm talking about are the cases involving State tax liens, where personal property was involved and this Court said, absent divestiture of title or possession of the property you don't have a perfected lien on personal property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [3113.61], "stop_times": [3128.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3113.61}, "reply_to": "20825__1_055", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_057", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Isn't what we're talking about here real property?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [3128.464], "stop_times": [3132.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3128.464}, "reply_to": "20825__1_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20825__1_058", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "That's right, Your Honor, and all of the cases that the Government relies on have turned on the requirement of possession for the property, as enunciated in Thelusson v. Smith, have involved personal property.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [3132.025], "stop_times": [3145.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3132.025}, "reply_to": "20825__1_057", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_059", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "So you're just saying that that feature makes it impossible for the Government to claim authority from those cases, rather than those features should be regarded by us as a basis for present law.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [3145.097], "stop_times": [3156.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3145.097}, "reply_to": "20825__1_058", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20825__1_060", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "That's correct, Justice Souter, and I think that, too, is really why stare decisis is not implicated here, in addition to several other reasons, but these cases on which they rely do involve personal property and not real property, and if we're talking about stare decisis we have to go back to Conard v. Atlantic Insurance Company, and there the Court was of the view that Thelusson should be limited to its facts, and that the requirement that the judgment creditor obtain title or possession of the property was limited to the facts in that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [3156.764], "stop_times": [3189.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3156.764}, "reply_to": "20825__1_059", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_061", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Was Thelusson personal property?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [3189.345], "stop_times": [3191.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3189.345}, "reply_to": "20825__1_060", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20825__1_062", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "No.\nThelusson was real property, Your Honor, but in Thelusson the judgment creditor was attempting to reach the proceeds of the sale of the property and, as the Court pointed out in Conard, what the judgment creditor should have done was to proceed against the land rather than the proceeds from the sale of the land, and that is why Thelusson was being limited to what the Court said were its circumstances.\nThe Court was very emphatic that Thelusson did not stand for the proposition that a perfected lien could be displaced by the mere priority of the Government under revised statute section 3466.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [3191.126, 3191.517, 3215.476], "stop_times": [3191.517, 3215.476, 3229.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3191.126}, "reply_to": "20825__1_061", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_063", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "And that's the position you say the Attorney General in that 1857 opinion--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [3229.047], "stop_times": [3234.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3229.047}, "reply_to": "20825__1_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20825__1_064", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "That's correct, Justice Ginsburg.\nIn 1857 the Attorney General's opinion was to the effect that Thelusson had been overruled, not just limited to the circumstances of the case, and that the priority statute would not reach back over liens general or specific that were antecedent to the accrual of the Government's claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [3234.951, 3235.998], "stop_times": [3235.998, 3259.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3234.951}, "reply_to": "20825__1_063", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_065", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--And yet he--\n--Your position would require us to overrule Thelusson, I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [3259.239, 3260.067], "stop_times": [3260.067, 3263.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3259.239}, "reply_to": "20825__1_064", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20825__1_066", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "My position, I think, would require you to at least distinguish it, Your Honor.\nConard, if you accept what the Court said in Conard, that Thelusson did not stand for the proposition that a perfected lien could be overcome by the priority statute, then consistent with Conard you don't have to overrule it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [3263.908, 3268.953], "stop_times": [3268.953, 3286.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3263.908}, "reply_to": "20825__1_065", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_067", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "But normally a lien attaches to the proceeds, or I mean... well, anyway, go ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [3286.103], "stop_times": [3289.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3286.103}, "reply_to": "20825__1_066", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20825__1_068", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "You see what I mean, though, that the distinction made in Conard would permit the Court to proceed on the basis of Conard without addressing specifically the issue of whether Thelusson should be overruled.\nAs this Court said in Rankin, the judgment lien does follow the property and can be foreclosed, even in the case where a junior lienholder or unsecured creditor has moved against the property in the first instance.\nI submit that the Government's position in this case, and we are talking about real property, confuses what is necessary to perfect a lien with respect to that property with satisfaction of the underlying judgment.\nRequiring a creditor to take possession of the property or to foreclose on the lien is a means of satisfying the underlying obligation.\nIt is not required to perfect the lien under modern recording statutes, and the only cases that would indicate to the contrary are cases that have involved unspecified personal property or real property that could not be identified.\nIn this case, the property is clearly identified, the identity of the lienor is clear, the amount of the lien has been established, and the property is located within the county in which the lien was perfected.\nWe satisfy the test in United States/Key, in United States v. Campbell, and I submit that the judgment of the Pennsylvania supreme court should be affirmed.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [3289.602, 3300.269, 3320.027, 3334.38, 3344.095, 3359.511, 3372.646, 3382.391], "stop_times": [3300.269, 3320.027, 3334.38, 3344.095, 3359.511, 3372.646, 3382.391, 3383.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3289.602}, "reply_to": "20825__1_067", "speaker": "patrick_f_mccartan"}
{"id": "20825__1_069", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Thank you, Mr. McCartan.\nMr. Jones, you have 4 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [3383.204, 3384.063], "stop_times": [3384.063, 3386.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3383.204}, "reply_to": "20825__1_068", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20825__2_000", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Thank you.\nThere are basically two propositions respondent makes.\nOne is that the Court should disclaim reliance on a distinction that's recognized for 180 years, from Thelusson through Gilbert Associates, between a general lien that does not defeat the absolute priority of the United States and a more specific lien that may.\nThe Court has held... I'm repeating myself, probably, but I think seven times that a judgment lien is such a general lien and that the priority of the United States prevails against it.\nIt's said it not only with respect to personal property, it's said it at least twice with respect to real property.\nIn United States v. Texas in 1941 the Court said, and I'm quoting from page 7 of our brief, but I'm quoting the Court's opinion, a general judgment lien upon the land of an insolvent debtor does not take precedence over claims of the United States unless execution of the judgment has proceeded far enough to take the land out of the possession of the debtor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [3386.765, 3387.529, 3391.31, 3405.993, 3416.94, 3423.986], "stop_times": [3387.529, 3391.31, 3405.993, 3416.94, 3423.986, 3445.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3386.765}, "reply_to": "20825__1_069", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__2_001", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Mr. McCartan's point, as I recall, was that the lien in that case was not perfected.\nThe amount was not even established.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [3445.351, 3449.772], "stop_times": [3449.772, 3452.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3445.351}, "reply_to": "20825__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20825__2_002", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "He's confusing something that this Court has made clear shouldn't be confused, and that is the standards for specificity under the Federal Tax Lien Act, as contrasted with the standards for specificity under the absolute priority statute.\nThe Court in Vermont and in New Britain made clear that those are really two entirely different questions.\nThe question under the Federal Tax Lien Act is, is there a State lien, and the answer is yes if it's become definite in terms of the name of the lienor, the amount of the lien, and the property to which it applies.\nBut as the Court explained in Vermont, the question of whether you have a specific lien for purposes of the absolute priority statute is a different one, and turns on whether, as the Court said in that case, the debtor has been divested of title or possession--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [3452.082, 3466.765, 3473.716, 3487.522], "stop_times": [3466.765, 3473.716, 3487.522, 3501.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3452.082}, "reply_to": "20825__2_001", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__2_003", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Well, why should they be different?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [3501.017], "stop_times": [3502.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3501.017}, "reply_to": "20825__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20825__2_004", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "--They are different because the statutes have different scopes and application, which this Court has clearly held in at least two cases this century.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [3502.329], "stop_times": [3513.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3502.329}, "reply_to": "20825__2_003", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__2_005", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Is it... was the distinction, or they're saying they're different based on the difference in language in the statutes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [3513.559], "stop_times": [3518.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3513.559}, "reply_to": "20825__2_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20825__2_006", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "And the statute's objectives, yes.\nI mean, it goes back to the language.\nThe absolute priority statute simply says we get paid first, and the question is, well, is there something that prevents that from happening, and the Court's answer has been, well, if the property has been taken away from the debtor, then you don't get paid first.\nIf it's been taken away from the debtor by something so specific, like a mortgage, then you don't get paid first, but if it's just a general claim against that property, you still get paid first, because it's still in the possession of the debtor, and the statute says, and the Court says we obey the plain language of the statute that the United States gets paid first.\nTo reach a different conclusion the Court would have to overrule no less than seven opinions over the last 180 years.\nThe cases that he says are his best cases for this proposition were all in the early part of the 19th Century.\nThey don't... as our brief describes, they don't stand for the proposition that he contends.\nThis Court has expressly limited the application of those cases to the mortgage situation in the Maclay, New York v. Maclay, that's what Justice Cardozo carefully explained.\nThe second argument that they make is that this statute, this application of the absolute priority statute somehow makes the Federal tax lien provisions meaningless, which if you think about it is a preposterous contention that has absolutely no support for it.\nThe Federal tax lien provisions of course apply in the ordinary situations that the absolute priority statute doesn't apply.\nIn bankruptcy court, for example, they will determine whose lien comes first, where it matters whether your lien came first or not.\nIn the... I'm sorry.\nMy time has expired.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [3518.962, 3522.821, 3524.163, 3537.081, 3556.276, 3563.695, 3571.456, 3575.94, 3586.387, 3601.118, 3608.036, 3615.86, 3617.314], "stop_times": [3522.821, 3524.163, 3537.081, 3556.276, 3563.695, 3571.456, 3575.94, 3586.387, 3601.118, 3608.036, 3615.86, 3617.314, 3618.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3518.962}, "reply_to": "20825__2_005", "speaker": "kent_l_jones"}
{"id": "20825__2_007", "conversation_id": "20825", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Jones.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1613", "start_times": [3618.656, 3619.822], "stop_times": [3619.822, 3621.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3618.656}, "reply_to": "20825__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20105__0_000", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 96-1469, United States v. Hernan Ramirez.\nMr. Frederick.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [0.0, 9.137], "stop_times": [9.137, 69.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20105__0_001", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis case concerns whether police officers must have a higher justification than reasonable suspicion if they damage property while making a no-knock entry to execute a search warrant.\nThe officers here sought to apprehend an escaped convict who had committed numerous violent acts and had stated that he would never return to prison.\nWhile executing a no-knock entry at respondent's house to execute a search warrant to look for that fugitive, the officers broke a single garage door windowpane.\nBased on that property damage, the Ninth Circuit held that the officers must have a higher justification for foregoing with the general principle of knock and announcement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [69.617, 72.318, 84.686, 92.553, 104.13], "stop_times": [72.318, 84.686, 92.553, 104.13, 115.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 69.617}, "reply_to": "20105__0_000", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_002", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Just a preliminary question: is the warrant in the record?\nI couldn't find it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [115.126, 117.317], "stop_times": [117.317, 118.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 115.126}, "reply_to": "20105__0_001", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20105__0_003", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "The warrant itself is lodged by respondent in the brief in opposition.\nThere was a lodging made by respondent.\nIt's at lodging number F.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [118.018, 123.452, 125.024], "stop_times": [123.452, 125.024, 126.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 118.018}, "reply_to": "20105__0_002", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_004", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [126.674], "stop_times": [127.865], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 126.674}, "reply_to": "20105__0_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20105__0_005", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--And it is lodged with the clerk.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [127.865], "stop_times": [129.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 127.865}, "reply_to": "20105__0_004", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_006", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "And another preliminary matter.\nDo you accept the notion that the Fourth Amendment does impose some kind of restraints on the amount of force that officers can use in effecting a no-knock entry?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [129.066, 131.409], "stop_times": [131.409, 144.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 129.066}, "reply_to": "20105__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20105__0_007", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Yes, Justice O'Connor.\nThe two questions are distinct, in our view.\nIf the officers have reasonable suspicion to forego knocking and announcing, they may use the force reasonably necessary to effectuate the entry.\nA case of excessive or wholly needless property damage would be assessed under a reasonableness standard that took into account whether or not it was actually reasonable to go through the door or to go through the window, or to engage in some other property damage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [144.976, 146.328, 150.209, 159.466], "stop_times": [146.328, 150.209, 159.466, 175.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 144.976}, "reply_to": "20105__0_006", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_008", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Another preliminary question.\nAssume probable cause.\nThis case is the same with or without the warrant, is it not, or is that incorrect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [175.407, 176.757, 177.959], "stop_times": [176.757, 177.959, 181.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 175.407}, "reply_to": "20105__0_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20105__0_009", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "With or without probable cause to make--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [181.471], "stop_times": [185.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 181.471}, "reply_to": "20105__0_008", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_010", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "No, no.\nAssume that it's probable cause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [185.712, 186.073], "stop_times": [186.073, 186.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 185.712}, "reply_to": "20105__0_009", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20105__0_011", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Yes, to conduct the search or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [186.964], "stop_times": [190.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 186.964}, "reply_to": "20105__0_010", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_012", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Your argument here would be the same if there were no warrant but the police had probable cause, would it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [190.687], "stop_times": [195.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 190.687}, "reply_to": "20105__0_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20105__0_013", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Our answer is the same with respect to the no-knock clause of the warrant, Justice Kennedy, if that is what your question is getting at.\nThe officers here had probable cause to search the premises.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [195.432, 202.706], "stop_times": [202.706, 205.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 195.432}, "reply_to": "20105__0_012", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_014", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [205.718], "stop_times": [206.128], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 205.718}, "reply_to": "20105__0_013", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20105__0_015", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "And the magistrate put a no-knock provision in the warrant.\nOur view is that when the officers executed the entry, they had reasonable suspicion to believe that they would face danger if they knocked and announced, so if I understand--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [206.128, 209.81], "stop_times": [209.81, 220.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 206.128}, "reply_to": "20105__0_014", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_016", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "But you would... the... you would make the same argument here whether or not the no-knock waiver was in the warrant or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [220.516], "stop_times": [228.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 220.516}, "reply_to": "20105__0_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20105__0_017", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Yes.\nYes.\nAs the Court made clear in Richards, the question is whether the officers' reasonable suspicion at the time they make the entry.\nThere may be circumstances that dissipate that reasonable suspicion if the officers have gone to the magistrate, the magistrate authorizes a no-knock entry, and what the Court made clear in Richards is that if those circumstances dissipate the reasonable suspicion, it would not be reasonable for the officers to forego knocking and announcing, notwithstanding that the warrant contained a no-knock clause.\nAs the Court made clear in Richards, reasonable suspicion is the standard by which to judge foregoing with knocking and announcing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [228.213, 228.622, 229.633, 236.278, 257.031], "stop_times": [228.622, 229.633, 236.278, 257.031, 265.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 228.213}, "reply_to": "20105__0_016", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_018", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Mr. Frederick, may I go back to the question that was... I think Justice O'Connor asked you, and that is, you said that there could be a Fourth Amendment control of excessive force.\nWhat would be the implementation of that?\nSuppose the agents here had come in like gangbusters and destroyed everything in their path, and also picked up some incriminating evidence, what would be the consequences?\nYou said the Fourth Amendment is involved, how?\nDo we exclude the evidence that would be garnered in such an unreasonable search?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [265.216, 275.704, 281.228, 297.947, 301.4], "stop_times": [275.704, 281.228, 297.947, 301.4, 309.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 265.216}, "reply_to": "20105__0_017", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20105__0_019", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "I think your question poses two distinct points, and let me address them separately, if I may.\nThe reasonableness of the method of making the entry would be assessed by looking at what force was necessary to get in quickly.\nThe remedy that might occur if the officers engaged in excessive property damage, we submit, would be compensation for the damaged property and not necessarily the exclusion of the evidence, for if the officers had properly made a no-knock entry supported by reasonable suspicion but not engaged in the unnecessary property damage, they still would have found the same evidence, and they would have found the same evidence at the same time, so the remedy that would be appropriate in the case of needless property damage would be compensation and not the imposition of the exclusionary rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [309.375, 315.5, 324.125], "stop_times": [315.5, 324.125, 356.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 309.375}, "reply_to": "20105__0_018", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_020", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "But supposing there is authority, though, and there's no Fourth Amendment violation, and they break the door down of a third party, don't they have to pay for the damage?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [356.997], "stop_times": [363.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 356.997}, "reply_to": "20105__0_019", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20105__0_021", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Yes, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [363.342], "stop_times": [365.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 363.342}, "reply_to": "20105__0_020", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_022", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "So the obligation to pay for the damage isn't dependent at all on whether it was justified or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [365.152], "stop_times": [369.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 365.152}, "reply_to": "20105__0_021", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20105__0_023", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--No, Justice Stevens.\nIn fact, the statute that you may be referring to is 31 U.S.C. 3724 provides... Congress has provided that where a law enforcement activity has resulted in property damage to an innocent third party, the Attorney General can pay compensation for that law enforcement activity.\nThat would not necessarily be the case for a criminal wrongdoer.\nThere would not be an obligation on the part of the Government to pay for property damage that occurred for a wrongdoer, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [369.475, 370.424, 386.666, 389.577], "stop_times": [370.424, 386.666, 389.577, 396.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 369.475}, "reply_to": "20105__0_022", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_024", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Well, it would... is this person... at the time of the entry, this... the property owner was not a wrongdoer.\nOf course, you found out later he had some stuff in the house, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [396.293, 402.478], "stop_times": [402.478, 404.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 396.293}, "reply_to": "20105__0_023", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20105__0_025", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--That's correct.\nI mean, the officers are always operating on the information that they have when they make the entry.\nThe question, you know, to be clear, is that if the officers have reasonable suspicion to believe that there would be a danger if they knocked and announced, that carries with it the authority to make whatever property damage is reasonably necessary to effectuate that entry.\nThe case that Justice Ginsburg posits is where the officers have engaged in wholly needless property damage that's unrelated to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [404.948, 407.079, 411.38, 429.184], "stop_times": [407.079, 411.38, 429.184, 436.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 404.948}, "reply_to": "20105__0_024", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_026", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--What did the officers do here by way of property damage?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [436.408], "stop_times": [440.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 436.408}, "reply_to": "20105__0_025", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20105__0_027", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--They broke a single garage door windowpane, Mr. Chief Justice, and they did so because they had information from a confidential, reliable informant that guns were kept in the garage, or that they might be kept in the garage, and the purpose of making that break in the garage door windowpane was so that an officer could secure the garage in the event that the people in the house went to the garage to get the guns.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [440.202], "stop_times": [463.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 440.202}, "reply_to": "20105__0_026", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_028", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Mr. Frederick, I am less concerned about... well, just as concerned, I suppose, but I am less troubled by what the Fourth Amendment might provide than I am by section 3109, which says the officer may break open any outer or inner door or window or any part of the house, or anything therein, to execute a search warrant if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance, which didn't occur here, or when necessary to liberate himself or a person aiding him in the execution of the warrant, which didn't occur here.\nI don't see what the purpose of that statute is unless it is meant to exclude other break-ins, which isn't to say that the other break-ins would exclude all the evidence that's found, and I assume that your answer to what would happen if there's a violation of 3109 is the same thing as your answer to what happens if you use excessive force, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [463.776, 500.178], "stop_times": [500.178, 524.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 463.776}, "reply_to": "20105__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20105__0_029", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Yes, it would be, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [524.415], "stop_times": [525.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 524.415}, "reply_to": "20105__0_028", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_030", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "The exclusionary rule would not apply, but you'd be liable for whatever damage you've caused.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [525.928], "stop_times": [529.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 525.928}, "reply_to": "20105__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20105__0_031", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [529.469], "stop_times": [530.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 529.469}, "reply_to": "20105__0_030", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_032", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Okay.\nWell, why shouldn't I read 3109 that way, saying these are the only... these are the only reasons why a Federal officer can break anything in a house?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [530.33, 530.83], "stop_times": [530.83, 538.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 530.33}, "reply_to": "20105__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20105__0_033", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "For two reasons.\nThe first is that for 40 years this Court, starting in Miller v. United States in 1958, has read the language of 3109 which we have set forth in our opening brief at page 2, to essentially codify the common law rule of knock and announcement and its exceptions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [538.754, 540.236], "stop_times": [540.236, 556.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 538.754}, "reply_to": "20105__0_032", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_034", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Well, it... but it clearly doesn't, unless you're wrong about what the common law allows.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [556.425], "stop_times": [559.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 556.425}, "reply_to": "20105__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20105__0_035", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Well, our view, Justice Scalia, is that the Court has never construed the terms of this statute literally.\nIt read into--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [559.618, 564.272], "stop_times": [564.272, 564.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 559.618}, "reply_to": "20105__0_034", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_036", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "I see.\nWe've never construed it to mean what it says.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [564.991, 565.311], "stop_times": [565.311, 566.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 564.991}, "reply_to": "20105__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20105__0_037", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Absolutely.\nThat's correct, and if you were to start... if you were to start reading this language literally, there are several decisions that would have to overruled.\nMiller v. United States read into this a requirement that knock and announce be done for arrest warrants.\nIt read into the statute an exclusionary rule.\nIn Sabbath this Court read into the statute a requirement that not... force did not have to be used, notwithstanding that it says, may break open, so the Court has read this language and has stated several times that the language is to be understood against the backdrop of principles of common law that have been in effect for hundreds of years, and that the language is not to be read literally, and our view is that there's no reason at this point to go back to a literal, textual reading of section 3109 when the Court has never--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [566.874, 568.064, 576.4, 582.732, 585.136], "stop_times": [568.064, 576.4, 582.732, 585.136, 619.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 566.874}, "reply_to": "20105__0_036", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_038", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "What effect does 3109 have if we do that?\nIs it just a superfluous statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [619.948, 622.709], "stop_times": [622.709, 624.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 619.948}, "reply_to": "20105__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20105__0_039", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Well, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [624.58], "stop_times": [625.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 624.58}, "reply_to": "20105__0_038", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_040", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Just sort of there to say, you don't really mean just this, do whatever you like?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [625.822], "stop_times": [630.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 625.822}, "reply_to": "20105__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20105__0_041", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--No.\nThe language is an expression of congressional policy that Federal officers should conduct their entries by using the general principle of knock and announcement unless there are reasons that would just... be justified in not doing so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [630.694, 631.315], "stop_times": [631.315, 648.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 630.694}, "reply_to": "20105__0_040", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_042", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "It doesn't say that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [648.206], "stop_times": [648.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 648.206}, "reply_to": "20105__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20105__0_043", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "I understand, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [648.607], "stop_times": [649.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 648.607}, "reply_to": "20105__0_042", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_044", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Does it do anything other than what our decision says the Fourth Amendment does with respect to the States?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [649.728], "stop_times": [655.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 649.728}, "reply_to": "20105__0_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20105__0_045", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Well, I think, Justice Ginsburg, the answer to your question is that... first, our position is that the statute is coextensive with the Fourth Amendment requirements, so that the requirements on Federal law enforcement officers are no greater or lesser than they are on State officers as prescribed under the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [655.773], "stop_times": [682.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 655.773}, "reply_to": "20105__0_044", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_046", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "So then you really don't... this is just kind of a statement that doesn't matter, because the Fourth Amendment certainly binds Federal officers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [682.009], "stop_times": [690.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 682.009}, "reply_to": "20105__0_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20105__0_047", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "That's true.\nAs a matter of history, the language in the statute came well before the Supreme Court began to interpret the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement to impose a knock and announce requirement constitutionally, so as a matter of history there is a reason for section 3109.\nIt's just that as it has been construed by this Court, the statute itself does not impose a higher requirement on Federal officers than it would on State officers, who are in the dangerous situation of executing warrants.\nIn fact, all Federal courts of appeals, including the Ninth Circuit, have recognized an exception for officer safety under section 3109, notwithstanding that the textual language does not contain such an exception.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [690.455, 691.456, 708.996, 722.807], "stop_times": [691.456, 708.996, 722.807, 735.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 690.455}, "reply_to": "20105__0_046", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_048", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "We're talking about whether you have to pay for the window or the door.\nI mean, you're not talking about letting the culprit skip away under the exclusionary rule if this provision has been violated.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [735.024, 737.095], "stop_times": [737.095, 744.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 735.024}, "reply_to": "20105__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20105__0_049", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [744.839], "stop_times": [747.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 744.839}, "reply_to": "20105__0_048", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_050", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "If the provision... I mean, I don't know that there is such a massive importance in interpreting 3109 so broadly, because if it has been violated, the only consequence is that the window has to be paid for, or the door that's broken down has to be paid for.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [747.872], "stop_times": [762.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 747.872}, "reply_to": "20105__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20105__0_051", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "That would certainly be our view if the Court were not to accept its prior cases, which hold that the common law rule of knock and announcement has been, in effect, codified by section 3109.\nI'd like to emphasize two other points.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [762.792, 776.201], "stop_times": [776.201, 778.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 762.792}, "reply_to": "20105__0_050", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_052", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Let me ask you one question.\nDid the Sabbath case take any position on whether there might be an exclusionary rule in connection with the violation of 3109?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [778.352, 779.544], "stop_times": [779.544, 788.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 778.352}, "reply_to": "20105__0_051", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20105__0_053", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "I... yes, I... although I'm... I actually don't recall, Justice Scalia.\nI think that as this Court noted in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [788.39, 795.373], "stop_times": [795.373, 797.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 788.39}, "reply_to": "20105__0_052", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_054", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Well, no... I see now in the first paragraph it says, we hold the method of entry vitiated the arrest and therefore that evidence seized in the subsequent search should not have been admitted at petitioner's trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [797.537], "stop_times": [809.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 797.537}, "reply_to": "20105__0_053", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20105__0_055", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [809.422], "stop_times": [809.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 809.422}, "reply_to": "20105__0_054", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_056", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "So that if we say this violates 3109, unless we do something to Sabbath you get an exclusionary rule right along with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [809.752], "stop_times": [816.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 809.752}, "reply_to": "20105__0_055", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20105__0_057", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "That's correct, and in Sabbath itself the Court read the words forcibly break essentially out of this statute, because the facts there were that the officer entered an unlocked door.\nI would like to underscore that the Ninth Circuit's teaching--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [816.797, 829.226], "stop_times": [829.226, 832.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 816.797}, "reply_to": "20105__0_056", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_058", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "That wasn't a holding of the case, of course.\nThat wasn't a holding of the case.\nIt was just an assumption which never had to be applied.\nOh, I don't think that they reversed the judgment of the lower court.\nThis... you know, the first paragraph--\n--They didn't exclude the evidence--\n--They said in the first paragraph the evidence will have to be excluded.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [832.598, 833.909, 835.261, 838.463, 841.605, 844.805, 846.197, 851.49], "stop_times": [833.909, 835.261, 838.463, 841.605, 844.805, 846.197, 851.49, 851.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 832.598}, "reply_to": "20105__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20105__0_059", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--In any event, if this Court were to do something with 3109 it would have to encounter its prior decisions in Miller and in Sabbath with respect to questions such as whether it goes beyond the common law in terms of restricting this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [851.991], "stop_times": [868.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 851.991}, "reply_to": "20105__0_058", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_060", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Where did it come from--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [868.451], "stop_times": [869.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 868.451}, "reply_to": "20105__0_059", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20105__0_061", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--with respect to the exclusionary rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [869.532], "stop_times": [870.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 869.532}, "reply_to": "20105__0_060", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_062", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--3109 doesn't forbid anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [870.403], "stop_times": [872.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 870.403}, "reply_to": "20105__0_061", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__0_063", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "That's correct, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [872.384], "stop_times": [873.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 872.384}, "reply_to": "20105__0_062", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_064", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "All right.\nSo it must... it says it came from the field code in New York in 1880, or something, and so at that time they must have think... thought there was some different rule of law that forbids something, and then they said, despite that different rule of law, this permits something.\nHow did it work?\nWhat were they thinking, do you know?\nYou may not know--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [873.966, 874.444, 887.714, 889.064, 890.106], "stop_times": [874.444, 887.714, 889.064, 890.106, 890.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 873.966}, "reply_to": "20105__0_063", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__0_065", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Well, as the law of knock and announce developed, it developed in the law of civil trespass where property owners brought trespass actions against law enforcement officers for unlawfully entering premises.\nNow, the legislative history, even into the New York statute, is not clear as to why the New York drafters of their statutes put it into the law, but one theory might be that the... New York and in Congress wanted to create an affirmative grant of authority to officers so that they could avoid trespass actions.\nBut that's just speculation on our part, because there is... the historical evidence simply is not clear as to why certain aspects of the common law of knock and announcement were specifically written into 3109 and others that had been well-recognized, including officer safety, from the 1822 decision of Reed v. Case, were not, so I think that it would be pure speculation as to exactly why an affirmative grant was placed into the statutory provisions, Justice Breyer.\nLet me point out that the Ninth Circuit's twotier rule places an unreasonable burden on law enforcement officers.\nNo-knock entries routinely involve some damage to property.\nIn the Richards case, for instance, the officers had to ram the door and kick it in in order to make the entry.\nIf officers need more than reasonable suspicion to justify a no-knock entry involving property damage, they may have to face the choices of having evidence suppressed at trial or facing greater personal risks when knocking and announcement.\nWe submit that the officer should not be forced to make that kind of calculus at a dangerous situation such as executing warrants.\nMoreover, the Ninth Circuit's approach provides no practical guidance to officers.\nWarrant execution entails high risks and requires split-second judgments.\nIt is unclear what level of information will meet the higher tier of specificity required by the Ninth Circuit.\nThe level of justification for a no-knock entry should not turn on the fortuity of the officers encountering an unlocked door or window.\nReasonable, just suspicion justifies the property damage that is reasonably necessary to effectuate that entry and, in fact, if the Ninth Circuit's rule is accepted by this Court that something more than reasonable suspicion is necessary if property damage is the result of the no-knock entry, that will, in effect, swallow the rule that this Court announced in Richards.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [890.847, 904.564, 923.117, 953.467, 960.851, 965.266, 971.069, 986.797, 994.534, 999.718, 1004.529, 1012.116, 1020.811], "stop_times": [904.564, 923.117, 953.467, 960.851, 965.266, 971.069, 986.797, 994.534, 999.718, 1004.529, 1012.116, 1020.811, 1042.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 890.847}, "reply_to": "20105__0_064", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_066", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Well, if we say that reading the record in all of the circumstances here the entry was reasonable, you would prevail in this case.\nThat... I'm not sure that that would answer the question you wanted answered, or am I incorrect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1042.834, 1050.601], "stop_times": [1050.601, 1056.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1042.834}, "reply_to": "20105__0_065", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20105__0_067", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1056.604], "stop_times": [1056.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1056.604}, "reply_to": "20105__0_066", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_068", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Would that be a perfectly satisfactory disposition, or would it still leave the twotier rule in effect?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1056.955], "stop_times": [1062.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1056.955}, "reply_to": "20105__0_067", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20105__0_069", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--I think it... it would not be clear to the courts below exactly what this Court was saying with respect to that question, Justice Kennedy, and we petitioned for certiorari for the express purpose of having this Court say that the two-tier rule was not the rule that should govern in cases of property damage.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1062.788], "stop_times": [1080.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1062.788}, "reply_to": "20105__0_068", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_070", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "But in the course of saying that, it seems to me that we will still... we would still say, if we agreed with you, that the ultimate standard is reasonableness, that the... you cannot destroy more property than is reasonably necessary, given all of the circumstances and given the necessity to protect your officers.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1080.661], "stop_times": [1098.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1080.661}, "reply_to": "20105__0_069", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20105__0_071", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "That's correct, Justice Kennedy, but I hope that, when you do write that opinion saying that, you distinguish between the reasons that the officers have for foregoing with knocking and announcement and the reasons that they have for the particular method of getting into the premises.\nA fortified door that is barricaded, has steel reinforcements, will require a different tactical method than a door that is a screen door, that may be wide open.\nOur view is that reasonable suspicion justifies getting the officers inside the premises as quickly as possible.\nHow they go about doing that, though, is going to turn on the reasonableness of the fortifications that they encounter when they execute the search warrant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1098.833, 1115.163, 1126.78, 1133.866], "stop_times": [1115.163, 1126.78, 1133.866, 1141.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1098.833}, "reply_to": "20105__0_070", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_072", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Or that they believe they encounter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1141.83], "stop_times": [1143.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1141.83}, "reply_to": "20105__0_071", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__0_073", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "That's correct, that are objectively reasonable based on the circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1143.53], "stop_times": [1146.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1143.53}, "reply_to": "20105__0_072", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_074", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "You said the reasonableness of the fortifications.\nYou don't mean that, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1146.982, 1150.054], "stop_times": [1150.054, 1151.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1146.982}, "reply_to": "20105__0_073", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20105__0_075", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "No, I do not mean that the fortifications themselves were reasonable, Mr. Chief Justice, but that the officers need to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1151.296], "stop_times": [1156.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1151.296}, "reply_to": "20105__0_074", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_076", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Reacting to them.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1156.669], "stop_times": [1157.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1156.669}, "reply_to": "20105__0_075", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20105__0_077", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Exactly.\nIt should not be the rule that if people engaged in criminal conduct use some of the fruits of their activity to fortify their homes, which would there... or premises, and thereby lead to greater property destruction if officers have reasonable suspicion to make a no-knock entry, should entitle them to greater Fourth Amendment protection than people who do not engage in such fortifications.\nWhat... and our view is that those two questions should be decoupled so that it is clear to all that officers may dispense with knocking and announcement if they have reasonable suspicion.\nUnless the Court has any further questions at this time, I'd like to save remaining time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1157.77, 1158.15, 1181.915, 1193.422], "stop_times": [1158.15, 1181.915, 1193.422, 1201.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1157.77}, "reply_to": "20105__0_076", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__0_078", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Frederick.\nMr. Levine, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1201.329, 1203.18], "stop_times": [1203.18, 1205.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1201.329}, "reply_to": "20105__0_077", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20105__1_000", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nAt 6:15 in the morning of November 5th, 45 armed officers surrounded the home of Mr. Ramirez.\nThey planned this.\nThis wasn't something that arose spontaneously at the door, like in Richards v. Wisconsin.\nThis wasn't a case where they were recognized as officers where they had to take an immediate action, kick in the door.\nThis was a planned breaking of a window of a residence.\nWho among us would not have risen to the defense of our wives?\nWho among us would not have arisen to the defense of our children?\n50 Percent of Americans have guns in their homes.\nThe Government should have thought this through a little better.\nThe norm, this Honorable Court, the norm from time immemorial, from Semayne's Case and even... even before, as Wilson points out, the norm has been that before officers may break and enter the home, our last refuge in this world that's shrinking smaller and smaller all the time, before they can make that entry, they have to announce their identity, they have to announce their purpose--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1205.53, 1216.57, 1224.994, 1226.425, 1231.64, 1237.832, 1242.095, 1246.437, 1249.539, 1252.353, 1255.724], "stop_times": [1216.57, 1224.994, 1226.425, 1231.64, 1237.832, 1242.095, 1246.437, 1249.539, 1252.353, 1255.724, 1284.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1205.53}, "reply_to": "20105__0_078", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_001", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Well, but I suppose that if the door had been unlocked here and they just burst through the door and everything else was the same, the fear of the occupants would have been precisely the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1284.705], "stop_times": [1293.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1284.705}, "reply_to": "20105__1_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20105__1_002", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--It's a weighing standard.\nThe Ninth Circuit is not applying a two-tiered test.\nThe Ninth Circuit is applying a weighing standard.\nIt's balancing the scope of the intrusion and the risks of the intrusion against the need that the Government has to go in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1293.738, 1296.991, 1300.683, 1304.116], "stop_times": [1296.991, 1300.683, 1304.116, 1312.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1293.738}, "reply_to": "20105__1_001", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_003", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "But unless you disagree with my suggestion in my hypothetical, all we're talking about here is a broken windowpane.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1312.731], "stop_times": [1319.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1312.731}, "reply_to": "20105__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20105__1_004", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "No, Your Honor, we're not talking about a broken windowpane.\nWe're talking about a broken windowpane that the foreseeable consequences of which... the foreseeable consequences of which create danger of life--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1319.496, 1321.94], "stop_times": [1321.94, 1336.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1319.496}, "reply_to": "20105__1_003", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_005", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Well, that same danger would have been applied if they'd burst through the door, assuming the door's unlocked, or they had a pass key... they have a pass key.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1336.249], "stop_times": [1342.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1336.249}, "reply_to": "20105__1_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20105__1_006", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--It may well.\nIt may well, but generally speaking, Justice Kennedy, generally speaking the destruction of a door or a window is going to create a much greater risk than going through a pass key, because the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1342.493, 1344.583], "stop_times": [1344.583, 1358.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1342.493}, "reply_to": "20105__1_005", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_007", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "I just don't think there's any empirical evidence for that.\nI just find it very difficult to write an opinion based on that assumption.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1358.272, 1360.833], "stop_times": [1360.833, 1364.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1358.272}, "reply_to": "20105__1_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20105__1_008", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Well, I think the assump... the purpose of the knock and announce rule has... one of its fundamental purposes is the protection of property.\nThe reason is that... and the protection of the safety of the residents.\nCommon law recognized that when people break property, people will be frightened and will spring to the defense of themselves and their family, and will engage in a shoot-out.\nThings will escalate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1364.886, 1375.024, 1379.577, 1389.153], "stop_times": [1375.024, 1379.577, 1389.153, 1389.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1364.886}, "reply_to": "20105__1_007", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_009", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Well, what if the officers were just clumsy and negligent and poked a hole through a window by virtue of their negligence, and it frightened the homeowner and... should we apply some higher standard for the resulting entry?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1389.974], "stop_times": [1404.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1389.974}, "reply_to": "20105__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20105__1_010", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "You would look at a balancing test, Your Honor.\nThe Ninth Circuit is simply saying, as it has done for 23 years, case after case after case, the Ninth Circuit has a million variations on these themes.\nIt has a general rule that helps guide its application of the rule of reason.\nThe general rule is that where's there's damage to property, and the Ninth Circuit understands that they're not talking about a scratch on the door, or they're not talking about a piece of wood or a flower that's stepped on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1404.683, 1408.207, 1419.992, 1424.805], "stop_times": [1408.207, 1419.992, 1424.805, 1436.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1404.683}, "reply_to": "20105__1_009", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_011", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Mr. Levine--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1436.734], "stop_times": [1437.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1436.734}, "reply_to": "20105__1_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20105__1_012", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1437.074], "stop_times": [1437.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1437.074}, "reply_to": "20105__1_011", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_013", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--I didn't understand the difference between a kicked-down door, which was... which case was that?\nThat was Richards--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1437.194, 1441.338], "stop_times": [1441.338, 1441.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1437.194}, "reply_to": "20105__1_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20105__1_014", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1441.919], "stop_times": [1442.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1441.919}, "reply_to": "20105__1_013", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_015", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--and a rammed door.\nIt seems to me that that does more damage than breaking one windowpane.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1442.75, 1443.93], "stop_times": [1443.93, 1448.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1442.75}, "reply_to": "20105__1_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20105__1_016", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Well, depending on all the circumstances again, Your Honor, I mean, there are thousands of hypotheticals which will--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1448.454], "stop_times": [1454.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1448.454}, "reply_to": "20105__1_015", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_017", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "But are you suggesting that the standard that this Court said was proper in those two cases wasn't tight enough because there was damage to property?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1454.499], "stop_times": [1463.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1454.499}, "reply_to": "20105__1_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20105__1_018", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Are you referring to Richards v. Wisconsin, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1463.351], "stop_times": [1466.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1463.351}, "reply_to": "20105__1_017", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_019", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Yes, and in Wilson, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1466.864], "stop_times": [1468.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1466.864}, "reply_to": "20105__1_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20105__1_020", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1468.686], "stop_times": [1469.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1468.686}, "reply_to": "20105__1_019", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_021", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "But they both involved, not just walking through a door gently.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1469.285], "stop_times": [1475.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1469.285}, "reply_to": "20105__1_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20105__1_022", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--The statement in Richards v. Wisconsin, the test of reasonable suspicion that the Government talks about and that this Court talked about, though, in the context of destruction of evidence, that has to be construed at least with regard to a planned assault on a residence, as opposed to a spontaneous happening at the door, that has to be construed, it seems to me, to include the manner of entry and the degree of danger.\nIt's like Tennessee v. Garner.\nThe Government just wants to have a quantum reasonable suspicion, but that's not what you did in Tennessee v. Garner.\nThat was the case where you said the police officer couldn't shoot the fleeting felon.\nYou have to consider the end result, the fleeing of the... the death of the felon.\nIn Winston v. Lee, which Garner cites, you recall that was the case where the police wanted to compel surgery to remove a bullet from the suspected robber, and they said they need to get the bullet, and this Court said quite clearly that, wait a minute, what's the danger if we remove the bullet?\nWe have to balance that.\nWhat is the Government's interest in getting the bullet?\nAnd at first the bullet was only half an inch, and they said, well, that's okay, go ahead, but then it turned out the bullet was a lot closer, this person might die.\nJustice Scalia, writing for a unanimous court in Whren, I believe last term, you said that there's a certain class of cases, a narrow class of cases like Tennessee v. Garner, like Winston v. Lee, like Welsh v. Wisconsin, the case where the police chased a man in through the house without a warrant to get... they wanted to arrest him for drunk driving in order to get... they said, we have to preserve the evidence.\nYou put in that class no-knock entry, Wilson v. Arkansas, because you said in that narrow class of cases we have to do a full balancing test, and that was a unanimous Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1475.181, 1501.488, 1503.519, 1509.223, 1512.755, 1519.03, 1540.301, 1541.243, 1544.005, 1550.739, 1576.547], "stop_times": [1501.488, 1503.519, 1509.223, 1512.755, 1519.03, 1540.301, 1541.243, 1544.005, 1550.739, 1576.547, 1588.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1475.181}, "reply_to": "20105__1_021", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_023", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Isn't the test that applies, though... is there some disagreement about this, that... I'm reading from Richards v. Wisconsin.\nIt says, to justify a no-knock entry the police must have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing under the particular circumstances would be dangerous or futile, or would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1588.313, 1594.788], "stop_times": [1594.788, 1610.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1588.313}, "reply_to": "20105__1_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__1_024", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "If--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1610.589], "stop_times": [1610.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1610.589}, "reply_to": "20105__1_023", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_025", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Well, that's the test.\nWe just... I mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1610.978, 1612.02], "stop_times": [1612.02, 1613.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1610.978}, "reply_to": "20105__1_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__1_026", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1613.061], "stop_times": [1613.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1613.061}, "reply_to": "20105__1_025", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_027", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--That's what it is, isn't it?\nThat's what it says.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1613.272, 1614.721], "stop_times": [1614.721, 1615.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1613.272}, "reply_to": "20105__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__1_028", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nIf--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1615.522, 1615.643], "stop_times": [1615.643, 1616.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1615.522}, "reply_to": "20105__1_027", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_029", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "That's not the test?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1616.173], "stop_times": [1616.564], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 1616.173}, "reply_to": "20105__1_028", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20105__1_030", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--If that test... first of all, you did not consider any safety interests in Richards v. Wisconsin, understandably.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1616.564], "stop_times": [1622.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1616.564}, "reply_to": "20105__1_029", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_031", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "So you're saying we should overrule... overturn that, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1622.237], "stop_times": [1623.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1622.237}, "reply_to": "20105__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__1_032", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "No.\nYou should... you either have to modify the test or interpret the test to mean reasonable suspicion under the circumstances, including the method of entry, sort of a la... sort of like, excuse me, Winston v. Lee, incorporating the manner of entry into the circumstances, or you have to adjust the other end.\nWhen you say danger, well, what kind of danger?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1623.546, 1623.746, 1646.841], "stop_times": [1623.746, 1646.841, 1649.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1623.546}, "reply_to": "20105__1_031", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_033", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Well, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1649.305], "stop_times": [1650.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1649.305}, "reply_to": "20105__1_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20105__1_034", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Dangerous to whom?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1650.845], "stop_times": [1650.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1650.845}, "reply_to": "20105__1_033", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_035", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--but Richards involved a forcible entry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1650.965], "stop_times": [1653.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1650.965}, "reply_to": "20105__1_034", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20105__1_036", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "It did, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1653.907], "stop_times": [1656.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1653.907}, "reply_to": "20105__1_035", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_037", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "I just don't think that the Ninth Circuit opinion is faithful to that.\nI mean, for you to prevail, I guess you're right, we'd have to change Richards.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1656.73, 1660.461], "stop_times": [1660.461, 1664.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1656.73}, "reply_to": "20105__1_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20105__1_038", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Well, you have to flesh out Richards, I guess would be my terminol--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1664.864], "stop_times": [1670.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1664.864}, "reply_to": "20105__1_037", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_039", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Well, what's the problem?\nThat is to say, presumably, as I read it so far... and you're much more familiar--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1670.089, 1670.647], "stop_times": [1670.647, 1674.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1670.089}, "reply_to": "20105__1_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__1_040", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--I'm sorry, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1674.78], "stop_times": [1675.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1674.78}, "reply_to": "20105__1_039", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_041", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Are you... you are much more familiar with the record than I am.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1675.902], "stop_times": [1679.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1675.902}, "reply_to": "20105__1_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__1_042", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1679.025], "stop_times": [1679.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1679.025}, "reply_to": "20105__1_041", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_043", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "I thought here that the police thought that this person that they wanted to arrest was somewhat dangerous... he had assaulted people, he had violently escaped before... that they came to arrest him and they didn't want to announce themselves because they thought there's a person in the house whom we need to take by surprise or he may pick up a gun and shoot somebody.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1679.212], "stop_times": [1701.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1679.212}, "reply_to": "20105__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__1_044", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1701.447], "stop_times": [1701.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1701.447}, "reply_to": "20105__1_043", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_045", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Or who knows what he'll do.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1701.957], "stop_times": [1702.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1701.957}, "reply_to": "20105__1_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__1_046", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--There's no question that Mr. Shelby was not a model citizen.\nThere's no question that he was a... in the past he had committed violent and horrible crimes.\nThere's no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1702.789, 1706.291, 1711.284], "stop_times": [1706.291, 1711.284, 1711.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1702.789}, "reply_to": "20105__1_045", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_047", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Then they had reasonable suspicion that he was dangerous, so why isn't that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1711.945], "stop_times": [1715.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1711.945}, "reply_to": "20105__1_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__1_048", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--But that's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1715.738], "stop_times": [1716.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1715.738}, "reply_to": "20105__1_047", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_049", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--the end of it?\nAll right.\nYes, all right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1716.319, 1716.679, 1716.98], "stop_times": [1716.679, 1716.98, 1717.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1716.319}, "reply_to": "20105__1_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__1_050", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--That's not the question.\nThat shouldn't be the test.\nThe test has to be, do they have... in light of the way they entered... in light of the way they entered, do they have, at the very least, a reasonable belief that he presents a present imminent danger to the police.\nIf the standard is simply danger--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1717.621, 1718.211, 1718.872, 1732.731], "stop_times": [1718.211, 1718.872, 1732.731, 1734.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1717.621}, "reply_to": "20105__1_049", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_051", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "No, no, obviously you're right, that he has to present a danger, i.e., he might hurt somebody now, okay.\nSo they think, here's a person who's hurt people in the past, here is a person who's violently escaped in the past, here is a person who might have a gun, and we're afraid that if we announce ourselves he's going to shoot somebody, now.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1734.612, 1740.545], "stop_times": [1740.545, 1753.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1734.612}, "reply_to": "20105__1_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__1_052", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--I understand their--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1753.744], "stop_times": [1754.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1753.744}, "reply_to": "20105__1_051", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_053", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Now, how is that not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1754.914], "stop_times": [1756.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1754.914}, "reply_to": "20105__1_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__1_054", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Well, that's not enough, because there has to be evidence in the record to show the basis for their belief.\nThere's no testimony at the hearing.\nThere was... the district court found that there was no evidence that Mr. Shelby was presently armed in the residence, or that he presented the threat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1756.487, 1763.111, 1765.092], "stop_times": [1763.111, 1765.092, 1774.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1756.487}, "reply_to": "20105__1_053", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_055", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--You mean presently armed in the sense of right then at 6:00 in the morning he had a gun on him?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1774.079], "stop_times": [1778.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1774.079}, "reply_to": "20105__1_054", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20105__1_056", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Well, many of the... most of the cases that talk about... let's take a look at--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1778.008], "stop_times": [1783.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1778.008}, "reply_to": "20105__1_055", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_057", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Well, can you first answer my question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1783.813], "stop_times": [1786.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1783.813}, "reply_to": "20105__1_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20105__1_058", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nI'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1786.146, 1786.276], "stop_times": [1786.276, 1786.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1786.146}, "reply_to": "20105__1_057", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_059", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "You say the district court found that Mr. Shelby was not \"presently\" armed.\nAre you suggesting that this finding means that at 6:15 in the morning he was not presently armed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1786.587, 1791.549], "stop_times": [1791.549, 1796.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1786.587}, "reply_to": "20105__1_058", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20105__1_060", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Well, it finds... it means that he was not presently... there was no evidence that he was presently armed or that he--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1796.822], "stop_times": [1803.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1796.822}, "reply_to": "20105__1_059", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_061", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "So you would have... you would then require, in order to break the window of a garage door, that the police have reason to believe that the person was armed, I suppose carrying a gun, at the very moment they were going to break in?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1803.477], "stop_times": [1817.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1803.477}, "reply_to": "20105__1_060", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20105__1_062", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Or, unless there was evidence that he had ready access to a gun and there was no evidence of that.\nThe only evidence in this case was that... was a supposition, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1817.606, 1823.259], "stop_times": [1823.259, 1827.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1817.606}, "reply_to": "20105__1_061", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_063", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Well, but they quote--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1827.022], "stop_times": [1827.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1827.022}, "reply_to": "20105__1_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__1_064", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "The record is clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1827.961], "stop_times": [1828.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1827.961}, "reply_to": "20105__1_063", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_065", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--They quote on this.\nI mean, in the dissent, Judge Kozinski's quoting from somewhere.\nI thought it was the record.\nShelby was a major methamphetamine manufacturer and has had access to large caches of weapons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1828.452, 1829.353, 1832.856, 1833.667], "stop_times": [1829.353, 1832.856, 1833.667, 1840.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1828.452}, "reply_to": "20105__1_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__1_066", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "In the past, it's true.\nIn the past.\nBut there was no evidence that he possessed a gun while in the Ramirez residence.\nIf you make an exception for dangerous people you're creating the very blanket rule that you condemned in Richards.\nIt's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1840.11, 1841.251, 1842.503, 1847.266, 1854.281], "stop_times": [1841.251, 1842.503, 1847.266, 1854.281, 1854.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1840.11}, "reply_to": "20105__1_065", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_067", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "I haven't heard you make one argument that wouldn't apply equally to the application for the no-knock warrant in and of itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1854.8], "stop_times": [1861.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1854.8}, "reply_to": "20105__1_066", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20105__1_068", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Well, the no-knock--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1861.573], "stop_times": [1863.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1861.573}, "reply_to": "20105__1_067", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_069", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "It seems to me what you're saying to me is that the officers should have knocked and announced.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1863.394], "stop_times": [1867.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1863.394}, "reply_to": "20105__1_068", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20105__1_070", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--No, I... no.\nI'm not getting into tactics.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1867.758, 1869.2, 1870.62], "stop_times": [1869.2, 1870.62, 1871.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1867.758}, "reply_to": "20105__1_069", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_071", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "All right.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1871.041, 1871.401], "stop_times": [1871.401, 1871.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1871.041}, "reply_to": "20105__1_070", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20105__1_072", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--What I'm saying is the officer... frankly, Your Honor, the officer--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1871.752], "stop_times": [1874.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1871.752}, "reply_to": "20105__1_071", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_073", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--we have to take this case on the premise that a knock and announce was not required.\nThat's because there were some exigent circumstances, some indications of danger.\nNow, you want us to parse this and say, well, there are two levels.\nYou want us--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1874.012, 1876.764, 1882.298, 1885.249], "stop_times": [1876.764, 1882.298, 1885.249, 1886.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1874.012}, "reply_to": "20105__1_072", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20105__1_074", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--No.\nNo, I don't want you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1886.481, 1886.782], "stop_times": [1886.782, 1887.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1886.481}, "reply_to": "20105__1_073", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_075", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--You don't agree that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1887.15], "stop_times": [1888.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1887.15}, "reply_to": "20105__1_074", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20105__1_076", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--No.\nNo.\nI don't want you to parse this and say there are two levels.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1888.602, 1888.722, 1889.203, 1890.192], "stop_times": [1888.722, 1889.203, 1890.192, 1890.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1888.602}, "reply_to": "20105__1_075", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_077", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Would you agree with this statement in Becker: to justify what the Ninth Circuit case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1890.503], "stop_times": [1893.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1890.503}, "reply_to": "20105__1_076", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20105__1_078", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1893.986], "stop_times": [1894.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1893.986}, "reply_to": "20105__1_077", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_079", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--that preceded McConney.\nTo justify physical destruction of property, more specific inferences of exigency are necessary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1894.236, 1896.286], "stop_times": [1896.286, 1901.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1894.236}, "reply_to": "20105__1_078", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20105__1_080", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "That's what they say, and that's their way of helping them in the balancing test.\nThat's informing their balancing test.\nI point, Your Honor, to petitioner's appendix 11a, where the Ninth Circuit also says, we have touched upon all of these cases because our review is necessarily fact-bound.\nOur cases do not describe a simple straight line.\nPolice must have some leeway in balancing the demands of the knock and announce requirement against other safety considerations.\nNevertheless, the courts must ultimately determine whether the police struck that balance properly.\nI read that language as saying they're doing a balancing, and this word, this mild exigency showing more is simply saying, if there's a greater intrusion, give us more evidence justifying the intrusion.\nThat's all they're doing.\nAnd if you read McConney, the en banc decision of the Court in 1973, you see that they begin immediately saying that the test is a reasonable belief in danger, but as a specific application of that test we look to whether... one factor, an important factor is what they're saying, ultimately.\nAn important factor is property damage, and it generally is an important factor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1901.979, 1907.623, 1908.914, 1917.561, 1920.382, 1926.917, 1931.84, 1945.23, 1945.951, 1964.221], "stop_times": [1907.623, 1908.914, 1917.561, 1920.382, 1926.917, 1931.84, 1945.23, 1945.951, 1964.221, 1968.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1901.979}, "reply_to": "20105__1_079", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_081", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Well, but doesn't the court of appeals say that they want more specific evidence of danger if there's going to be property damage?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1968.916], "stop_times": [1974.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1968.916}, "reply_to": "20105__1_080", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20105__1_082", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Yes.\nYes, and generally speaking that's true.\nGenerally speaking, if you're going to break in a door we want to have a higher justifi--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1974.979, 1975.41, 1977.271], "stop_times": [1975.41, 1977.271, 1982.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1974.979}, "reply_to": "20105__1_081", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_083", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Or break in a garage window.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1982.202], "stop_times": [1983.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1982.202}, "reply_to": "20105__1_082", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20105__1_084", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--A... Your Honor, we are most vulnerable... yes, is the answer to your question.\nWe are most vulnerable when we are asleep with our families.\nWhen we hear the shattering of glass at 6:15 in the morning, we are terrified, we... and the record is clear here that these folks, just like many of us... maybe not all of us... would think we were being burglarized.\nWe... we were being invaded.\nWe defend our children with our lives, if necessary.\nThe officers should have thought about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [1983.604, 1988.417, 1991.699, 2003.177, 2004.639, 2007.32], "stop_times": [1988.417, 1991.699, 2003.177, 2004.639, 2007.32, 2009.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1983.604}, "reply_to": "20105__1_083", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_085", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Okay, but also in the agreed stipulation of facts, to which your client apparently agreed, it said that other information from the Government's informant indicated that the defendant, Ramirez, was possibly involved in drugs which he kept in the garage.\nThe informant also indicated there were supposed to be several guns in the garage, and what we had here was breaking of a windowpane in the garage so that this... officers could surveil... conduct surveillance of that space as they entered.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2009.351, 2030.975], "stop_times": [2030.975, 2049.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2009.351}, "reply_to": "20105__1_084", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20105__1_086", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2049.726], "stop_times": [2050.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2049.726}, "reply_to": "20105__1_085", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_087", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Now, how is that... how does that fail the reasonability test required by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2050.788], "stop_times": [2057.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2050.788}, "reply_to": "20105__1_086", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20105__1_088", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Well... well, first of all--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2057.822], "stop_times": [2058.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2057.822}, "reply_to": "20105__1_087", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_089", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--this Court's cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2058.893], "stop_times": [2060.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2058.893}, "reply_to": "20105__1_088", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20105__1_090", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Let's look at the factual predicate.\nI agree, we have stipulated, and we stand by the stipulation.\nThat is the record.\nThe informant said there were supposed to be guns in the garage.\nThe informant, this reliable informant is giving the best case, presumably.\nNow, he's not saying I saw Shelby with a gun.\nHe's not saying, I overheard Shelby to say he was going to shoot police when he comes in, and remember, the origin of the officer safety exception comes from Reed v. Case, where you have a situation precisely like that, where the person is saying, I'm going to shoot anybody who comes in the house.\nThat's the officer safety exception.\nThe informant said this man was possibly involved in drugs.\nNow, what is... here's a confidential, reliable informant is saying, he's possibly involved in drugs.\nThat doesn't sound like--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2060.034, 2060.846, 2063.427, 2064.065, 2067.217, 2071.591, 2074.393, 2087.882, 2089.543, 2093.246, 2099.031], "stop_times": [2060.846, 2063.427, 2064.065, 2067.217, 2071.591, 2074.393, 2087.882, 2089.543, 2093.246, 2099.031, 2099.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2060.034}, "reply_to": "20105__1_089", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_091", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Why isn't that... isn't... obviously at the bottom you say, if only they'd announced this, there was less of a chance of somebody getting hurt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2099.64], "stop_times": [2107.315], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2099.64}, "reply_to": "20105__1_090", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__1_092", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Why did they have--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2107.315], "stop_times": [2108.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2107.315}, "reply_to": "20105__1_091", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_093", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "They think if the way to stop people from getting hurt was to see if somebody ran for a gun the second that we go into the building, so we want to go and see if somebody's running for a gun.\nSo we have a difference of opinion about the best way to stop somebody from getting hurt.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2108.554, 2118.842], "stop_times": [2118.842, 2123.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2108.554}, "reply_to": "20105__1_092", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__1_094", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2123.936], "stop_times": [2124.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2123.936}, "reply_to": "20105__1_093", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_095", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Now, as long as theirs is a reasonable way of going about it here, that they think theirs is the best way to stop somebody from getting hurt, and they... you know, on the basis of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2124.927], "stop_times": [2133.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2124.927}, "reply_to": "20105__1_094", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__1_096", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2133.422], "stop_times": [2133.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2133.422}, "reply_to": "20105__1_095", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_097", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--reasonable facts and so forth--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2133.723], "stop_times": [2134.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2133.723}, "reply_to": "20105__1_096", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__1_098", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2134.754], "stop_times": [2135.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2134.754}, "reply_to": "20105__1_097", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_099", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--then legally don't we have to go along with it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2135.013], "stop_times": [2137.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2135.013}, "reply_to": "20105__1_098", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__1_100", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nYou don't defer to the police.\nWe... the Fourth Amendment says--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2137.196, 2137.756, 2139.055], "stop_times": [2137.756, 2139.055, 2140.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2137.196}, "reply_to": "20105__1_099", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_101", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "I'm not saying defer.\nI thought the ground was whether they had a reasonable suspicion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2140.287, 2141.096], "stop_times": [2141.096, 2144.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2140.287}, "reply_to": "20105__1_100", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__1_102", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Well, I'm saying that that... that isn't the test as posited by the Government, but assuming the test is under the totality of circumstances... I'm sorry, Your Honor, I lost the train of your question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2144.218], "stop_times": [2158.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2144.218}, "reply_to": "20105__1_101", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_103", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "I was thinking that you keep saying that the best way to get... keep people safe was to announce, but they're just denying that.\nThey think the best way was to break the window to look and see if somebody went for a gun.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2158.75, 2166.154], "stop_times": [2166.154, 2171.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2158.75}, "reply_to": "20105__1_102", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__1_104", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2171.527], "stop_times": [2172.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2171.527}, "reply_to": "20105__1_103", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_105", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Now, my problem is, I... given the standard--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2172.668], "stop_times": [2175.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2172.668}, "reply_to": "20105__1_104", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__1_106", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--with due respect--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2175.28], "stop_times": [2175.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2175.28}, "reply_to": "20105__1_105", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_107", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2175.781], "stop_times": [2176.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2175.781}, "reply_to": "20105__1_106", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__1_108", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--With due respect, Your Honor, a thousand years of common law... a thousand years of common law... the experience of this country with the no-knock statute of 1970, which was repealed in 1974, and that congressional record is well worth reading, and I've tried to put part of it before this Court of the experience that came about from that court, the contemporary accounts of tragedies, I suggest says no.\nThe police don't always... the norm is knock and announce.\nIf we allow this kind of level reasonable suspicion to justify the breaking into the house, we are making the exception the rule.\nWe are fundamentally changing the political relationship between the State and the people.\nThese are innocent people we are talking about.\nI'm not just advocating... I'm a lawyer for Mr. Ramirez, but I'm advocating for myself and my family and for all of our families.\nWe just can't let the police say, there's a danger here, we've got to go in and break a garage window at 6:15 in the morning, without giving some thought, at least thinking now, wait a minute.\nWait a minute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2176.132, 2203.267, 2207.27, 2215.295, 2219.689, 2222.521, 2228.724, 2239.712], "stop_times": [2203.267, 2207.27, 2215.295, 2219.689, 2222.521, 2228.724, 2239.712, 2240.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2176.132}, "reply_to": "20105__1_107", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_109", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Well, Mr. Levine, you're saying, then, it's not reasonable for the police to break a garage window, a pane of glass, after they've been informed that there may be guns in the garage and that Shelby is armed and... could be armed and dangerous?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2240.193], "stop_times": [2255.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2240.193}, "reply_to": "20105__1_108", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20105__1_110", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Your Honor, what's reasonable... it wasn't reasonable under these circumstances, based on the information they had.\nFar more reasonable, frankly, would have been to do nothing, to simply... I'm not... I realize that police make tactics on the field, but they could telephone in, they could say the... Remsburg, cited by amicus--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2255.863, 2262.797], "stop_times": [2262.797, 2273.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2255.863}, "reply_to": "20105__1_109", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_111", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Well, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2273.905], "stop_times": [2274.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2273.905}, "reply_to": "20105__1_110", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20105__1_112", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--says the last thing you do when there's someone in the house with guns--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2274.493], "stop_times": [2276.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2274.493}, "reply_to": "20105__1_111", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_113", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Mr.... just a minute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2276.797], "stop_times": [2278.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2276.797}, "reply_to": "20105__1_112", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20105__1_114", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--I'm sorry, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2278.137], "stop_times": [2278.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2278.137}, "reply_to": "20105__1_113", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_115", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Calm down.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2278.648], "stop_times": [2278.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2278.648}, "reply_to": "20105__1_114", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20105__1_116", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Pardon me.\nI'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2278.878, 2279.248], "stop_times": [2279.248, 2280.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2278.878}, "reply_to": "20105__1_115", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_117", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "You're not suggesting that the police have to do what is most reasonable, are you?\nThe test is whether what they did was \"reasonable\".", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2280.177, 2286.263], "stop_times": [2286.263, 2289.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2280.177}, "reply_to": "20105__1_116", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20105__1_118", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Yes, I agree with, Your Honor, but it seems to me that in determining whether what they did was reasonable, it's not... doesn't seem illogical to look at some of the alternatives.\nI'm not saying they... now, if we look at some of the alternatives, it... they seem to thrust out at you that this would be more likely.\nI mean, Justice Breyer, your argument before almost suggested in order to save the children we have to go in.\nThis sounds... historically there's a lot of instances we have to kill--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2289.714, 2301.33, 2309.926, 2315.86], "stop_times": [2301.33, 2309.926, 2315.86, 2319.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2289.714}, "reply_to": "20105__1_117", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_119", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "I mean, I'm saying I have no idea, frankly.\nI wasn't there.\nI don't know, based on what I've read.\nI have no more reason to think that the police were careless in hurting people than they were helpful in trying to hurt people, trying to prevent them from helping... you see, look, the difficult judgment: there are guns in the place, and this person has assaulted people previously and has had guns previously.\nI can understand--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2319.363, 2320.925, 2321.696, 2325.217, 2340.828], "stop_times": [2320.925, 2321.696, 2325.217, 2340.828, 2342.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2319.363}, "reply_to": "20105__1_118", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__1_120", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--There are supposed to be guns--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2342.109], "stop_times": [2342.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2342.109}, "reply_to": "20105__1_119", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_121", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--I can understand why a policeman, knowing that, might think he ought to see if somebody's going to run for a gun, and if I can understand that based on this record, then it seems to me the standard makes the answer favorable to the Government, so that's what I was asking you to respond to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2342.677], "stop_times": [2358.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2342.677}, "reply_to": "20105__1_120", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__1_122", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Well, there are supposed to be guns in the garage.\nThey're not... guns are not in the garage.\nThis would be a different case and a different balance might well have been struck, but there are supposed to be guns in the garage, and the district court made a finding of fact based on a stipulation, and the finding was that there was no evidence that Mr. Shelby was armed while in the residence or that he presented a danger to the 45 officers.\nIf I may, I'd like to turn to the statutory argument.\nYour Honors, 18 United... oh, this case, of course, is a Federal case, so we are also controlled by the Federal no-knock statute, 18 United States Code section 3109, and if the Court should decide... actually, the Court doesn't even have to reach the constitutional question if it decides my way on the statute.\nNow, under the plain meaning of the statute, as was pointed out earlier, no-knock... knock and announce was required.\nIf you compare the, as a matter of fact, the statute with the New York statute that it was based on, which can be found in, Your Honors, at page 44 of my brief... page 44 of my brief, if you look at the statute that was enacted as part of the field code, you can see that the Federal statute tracks verbatim the New York statute, except for the last sentence.\nNow, the last sentence, we see Congress is changing the New York statute.\nIt adds on the statement that officers can also... another exception is to go in and rescue, or liberate, as they say, a person who's trapped in the house, so we have Congress, Congress making a specific decision to enact specific exceptions.\nThey enacted this one particular exception to liberate, which comes from a common law case, I believe in 1619, the Wilshire case, which Justice Thomas cited in his opinion for the Court in Wilson.\nThat's where a bailiff was trapped in the house and the other bailiffs had to go in and rescue him.\nBut we see, then, that this lends support to the argument that Congress knows exactly what it's doing.\nThis is officer safety.\nThis is the consideration that Congress is taking into account.\nCongress is making the political judgment.\nAs Justice Breyer pointed out, these are difficult judgments.\nCongress, the representatives of the people, are making a judgment here.\nThe judgment is this: in general, officer safety, or apprehension, officer safety is best assured and the safety of the people is best assured when they comply with the rule of Semayne's Case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2358.248, 2363.111, 2365.374, 2385.316, 2391.23, 2421.812, 2431.325, 2467.66, 2472.255, 2499.903, 2513.05, 2518.484, 2526.521, 2528.963, 2532.364, 2534.565, 2538.756, 2543.461], "stop_times": [2363.111, 2365.374, 2385.316, 2391.23, 2421.812, 2431.325, 2467.66, 2472.255, 2499.903, 2513.05, 2518.484, 2526.521, 2528.963, 2532.364, 2534.565, 2538.756, 2543.461, 2559.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2358.248}, "reply_to": "20105__1_121", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_123", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "The Government says that to read the statute as literally as you suggest would be inconsistent with our Miller opinion in '58.\nWhat's your response to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2559.791, 2568.456], "stop_times": [2568.456, 2569.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2559.791}, "reply_to": "20105__1_122", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20105__1_124", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "I don't see that.\nIt's true that the Court, this Court has interpreted the statute to broaden its coverage.\nIt's true that the Court has done that.\nOther court... this Court has done that in the past to broaden the coverage to further what this Court saw as the fundamental values behind the statute, so the Court did say that it also covers arrest warrants even though the terms only say search warrants.\nThe Court did say that it covers the case of just walking into the front door instead of breaking in the front door in Sabbath.\nBut that was always a... let me say that the Court didn't have the benefit, maybe, of this Court's understanding of plain meaning of language.\nThat's number 1, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2569.738, 2571.398, 2581.235, 2584.037, 2597.945, 2605.352, 2615.506], "stop_times": [2571.398, 2581.235, 2584.037, 2597.945, 2605.352, 2615.506, 2616.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2569.738}, "reply_to": "20105__1_123", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_125", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Well, it's the same Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2616.658], "stop_times": [2617.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2616.658}, "reply_to": "20105__1_124", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20105__1_126", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--It is the same Court.\nLet me say that the law has evolved.\nThe law has evolved such that we look at the specific words in the statute.\nWe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2617.309, 2618.39, 2621.19, 2626.665], "stop_times": [2618.39, 2621.19, 2626.665, 2628.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2617.309}, "reply_to": "20105__1_125", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_127", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "The statute says nothing about excluding evidence that was obtained in violation of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2628.937], "stop_times": [2633.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2628.937}, "reply_to": "20105__1_126", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20105__1_128", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Well, that's true, Your Honor, and of course, though, in Sabbath the Court held... as pointed out earlier, the Court held that exclusion is the remedy, and the Government has never claimed, has never argued in any of its briefs before this Court, never raised it, that exclusion is not the remedy.\nThey've never made an argument... it seems to me they've waived any argument.\nBut Sabbath holds that exclusion is the remedy, so it seems to me that that's what the remedy is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2633.408, 2650.74, 2654.272], "stop_times": [2650.74, 2654.272, 2661.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2633.408}, "reply_to": "20105__1_127", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_129", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "I think Mr. Frederick said something about inevitable discovery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2661.418], "stop_times": [2664.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2661.418}, "reply_to": "20105__1_128", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20105__1_130", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2664.31], "stop_times": [2665.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2664.31}, "reply_to": "20105__1_129", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_131", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "That they were authorized to go in without knocking and announcing.\nIf they had simply done that and not broken the window as well, they would have found the same things.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2665.98, 2671.833], "stop_times": [2671.833, 2676.098], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2665.98}, "reply_to": "20105__1_130", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20105__1_132", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Well, they haven't raised inevitable discovery in their brief, and I think inevitable discovery is going to do away with the knock and announce rule altogether, because you can always say, what's the point of having a knock and announce?\nYou can always get it at some point anyway.\nThere's no rule.\nIf you invoke inevitable discovery, it's gone.\nThe common law at the time of the framing of the Constitution, which this Court often looks to for guidance, does not contain, as far as I can determine, an exception for officer safety, that is, in the sense of apprehension of danger.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2676.098, 2686.166, 2687.765, 2688.827, 2691.118], "stop_times": [2686.166, 2687.765, 2688.827, 2691.118, 2710.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2676.098}, "reply_to": "20105__1_131", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_133", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "So if that's so, if this statute, although it's phrased not to forbid anything--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2710.819], "stop_times": [2715.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2710.819}, "reply_to": "20105__1_132", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__1_134", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "I'm sorry, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2715.654], "stop_times": [2716.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2715.654}, "reply_to": "20105__1_133", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_135", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--If we read the statute as forbidding something, namely that which it doesn't permit, which is what you're doing, 3109... you're reading it as forbidding that which it doesn't permit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2716.723], "stop_times": [2727.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2716.723}, "reply_to": "20105__1_134", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__1_136", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2727.222], "stop_times": [2727.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2727.222}, "reply_to": "20105__1_135", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_137", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Does that mean that then a police officer who knows that if he announces himself there'll be a hail of bullets, he knows that, that he would still have to announce himself?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2727.492], "stop_times": [2739.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2727.492}, "reply_to": "20105__1_136", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__1_138", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "No.\nHe wouldn't announce himself.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2739.237, 2739.788], "stop_times": [2739.788, 2740.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2739.237}, "reply_to": "20105__1_137", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_139", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Well, why wouldn't... the statute doesn't give an exception, does it, for officer safety?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2740.699], "stop_times": [2745.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2740.699}, "reply_to": "20105__1_138", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__1_140", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Because the statute says in general the safety of the officer is best assured--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2745.113], "stop_times": [2751.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2745.113}, "reply_to": "20105__1_139", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_141", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "So then in your view if the policeman knows that if he announces himself he will be killed instantly, in your--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2751.307], "stop_times": [2758.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2751.307}, "reply_to": "20105__1_140", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__1_142", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2758.451], "stop_times": [2758.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2758.451}, "reply_to": "20105__1_141", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_143", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--All right.\nOf course, it would be absurd.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2758.751, 2759.041], "stop_times": [2759.041, 2759.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2758.751}, "reply_to": "20105__1_142", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__1_144", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "No, of course he wouldn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2759.983], "stop_times": [2760.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2759.983}, "reply_to": "20105__1_143", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_145", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Yes, so... but then, that's why I'm confused about how the statute's actually supposed to work.\nYou've just abandoned your statutory argument, in other words.\nYou have to take the... well, the bitter with the sweet.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2760.293, 2764.117, 2768.398], "stop_times": [2764.117, 2768.398, 2770.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2760.293}, "reply_to": "20105__1_144", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20105__1_146", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2770.9], "stop_times": [2771.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2770.9}, "reply_to": "20105__1_145", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_147", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "If you want us to read the statute literally, that is what it says.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2771.391], "stop_times": [2774.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2771.391}, "reply_to": "20105__1_146", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20105__1_148", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Well, if that's the outcome, if that's the outcome then Congress had better do some work.\nThat's my suggestion, and I have no doubt that Congress will do some work, but... that's all I can say, Your Honors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2774.974, 2779.275], "stop_times": [2779.275, 2787.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2774.974}, "reply_to": "20105__1_147", "speaker": "michael_r_levine"}
{"id": "20105__1_149", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Levine.\nMr. Frederick.\nMr. Frederick, may I ask you this question: you know, I can understand the Government's feeling that on the facts this case shouldn't have come out this way, and that was also what the dissenting opinion of Judge Kozinski said, but he didn't say that you cannot take into account... he didn't criticize the general rule of the Ninth Circuit that you can't take into account the manner of entry, including the breaking of property, in deciding whether it's an unreasonable search and seizure.\nI don't understand what new rule to replace the California formulation of the test you want us to adopt.\nI... I'm... which makes it hard to write an opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2787.882, 2791.023, 2792.425, 2828.098, 2836.553], "stop_times": [2791.023, 2792.425, 2828.098, 2836.553, 2839.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2787.882}, "reply_to": "20105__1_148", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20105__2_000", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "We would like this Court to say that reasonable suspicion justifies a reasonable entry into the dwelling even if that involves some property damage, and if--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2839.105], "stop_times": [2848.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2839.105}, "reply_to": "20105__1_149", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__2_001", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Well, that's fine, but that... does mere reasonable suspicion and not a higher degree of suspicion become necessary if you're going to do substantial property damage?\nI mean, let's say the only way to get in without knocking and announcing is to blow up one side of the house.\nNow, I can understand that... you do it, if it's a serial murderer in there and you've been looking for him for 10 years, there's no other way to get him, and you're very sure he's there.\nBut do you mean if it's just ordi... the same reasonable suspicion that would justify breaking the window would justify taking out the whole side of the house?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2848.942, 2859.737, 2866.082, 2876.19], "stop_times": [2859.737, 2866.082, 2876.19, 2884.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2848.942}, "reply_to": "20105__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20105__2_002", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2884.265], "stop_times": [2884.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2884.265}, "reply_to": "20105__2_001", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__2_003", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Wow.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2884.735], "stop_times": [2885.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2884.735}, "reply_to": "20105__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20105__2_004", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "And let me explain why.\nIf the wall is barricaded and a person has put fortifications up so that a reasonable means of entry entails taking the wall out, that would be judged separately from the justifications that the officers have for fearing their safety.\nThat's... the Court has long held that the manner of the search can be treated distinct from the justifications that the officers have for getting probable cause for a warrant, for example.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2885.845, 2887.547, 2904.577], "stop_times": [2887.547, 2904.577, 2914.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2885.845}, "reply_to": "20105__2_003", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__2_005", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Well, sure, what manner you use depends on those other factors, how sure you are the guy is there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2914.655], "stop_times": [2918.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2914.655}, "reply_to": "20105__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20105__2_006", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Well, those would be the circumstances as to how the officers tactically needed to make the decision to get into the dwelling, but there should not be a sliding scale or a higher tier if the officers face fortifications but the person is of the same dangerousness as Alan Shelby was in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2918.396], "stop_times": [2936.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2918.396}, "reply_to": "20105__2_005", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__2_007", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "They're not as sure that he's there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2936.929], "stop_times": [2937.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2936.929}, "reply_to": "20105__2_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20105__2_008", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "They have probable cause--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2937.98], "stop_times": [2940.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2937.98}, "reply_to": "20105__2_007", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__2_009", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "You know, maybe he's staying at Scalia's house.\nI don't mind they're taking away one of my walls if they think they're going after, you know, Jack the Ripper, but if they're really not sure he's there, I would like that wall of my house to still be there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2940.12, 2941.041], "stop_times": [2941.041, 2949.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2940.12}, "reply_to": "20105__2_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20105__2_010", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Justice Scalia, two points.\nNumber 1, two Federal agents had identified Shelby at the respondent's home, and they have confidence in the reliable informant, and second--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2949.858, 2952.349], "stop_times": [2952.349, 2960.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2949.858}, "reply_to": "20105__2_009", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__2_011", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "I'm not quarreling with you... I'm not quarreling with you on the facts here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2960.975], "stop_times": [2963.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2960.975}, "reply_to": "20105__2_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20105__2_012", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--It's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2963.355], "stop_times": [2963.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2963.355}, "reply_to": "20105__2_011", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__2_013", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "I agree with Judge Kozinski.\nBut to set forth a rule that you don't, you know, property damage--\n--There is no... you wouldn't do that.\n--does not take--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2963.786, 2965.186, 2969.921, 2971.331], "stop_times": [2965.186, 2969.921, 2971.331, 2971.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2963.786}, "reply_to": "20105__2_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20105__2_014", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--My--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2971.631], "stop_times": [2971.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2971.631}, "reply_to": "20105__2_013", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__2_015", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--does not affect the degree... you want us to say the property damage does not affect the degree of probable cause that you need?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2971.892], "stop_times": [2978.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2971.892}, "reply_to": "20105__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20105__2_016", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Yes.\nThe remedy, Justice Scalia, is to put your wall back up, or to repair your wall, not to require--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2978.056, 2978.656], "stop_times": [2978.656, 2983.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2978.056}, "reply_to": "20105__2_015", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__2_017", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Why do you say that?\nWhy--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2983.198, 2983.589], "stop_times": [2983.589, 2984.139], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2983.198}, "reply_to": "20105__2_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20105__2_018", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--not to require officers to have proof to a near certainty, or proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you or someone in your home poses a danger to officers if they knock and announce their presence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2984.139], "stop_times": [2995.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2984.139}, "reply_to": "20105__2_017", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__2_019", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--Well, if property damage does not have to affect probable cause, does it affect the exigent circumstances that are necessary for the extraordinary means of entry?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [2995.777], "stop_times": [3004.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2995.777}, "reply_to": "20105__2_018", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20105__2_020", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "We would suggest that the use of the term, exigent circumstances, creates and has created problems, and so we would suggest a different analytical formulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [3004.643], "stop_times": [3014.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3004.643}, "reply_to": "20105__2_019", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__2_021", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Well, the special circumstances one.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [3014.109], "stop_times": [3014.27], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3014.109}, "reply_to": "20105__2_020", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20105__2_022", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "What we would suggest is that the means of entry be analyzed separately so that if the officers have information that they are facing barricades or that one particular part of the dwelling is fortified but another part is not, that that would be the reasonable circumstance that should be--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [3014.27], "stop_times": [3030.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3014.27}, "reply_to": "20105__2_021", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__2_023", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "I'm not sure how that's so different from what the Ninth Circuit said.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [3030.94], "stop_times": [3033.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3030.94}, "reply_to": "20105__2_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20105__2_024", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--What the Ninth Circuit held was that the officers needed to have higher evidence of the danger to themselves.\nA person can live behind a fortified dwelling and not pose any threat to anybody.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [3033.812, 3040.446], "stop_times": [3040.446, 3045.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3033.812}, "reply_to": "20105__2_023", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__2_025", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "You're saying the same degree of certainty that this criminal is in there, only the same degree... 20 percent chance he's in there... you need that to break a little window, and you also need that, and no more than that, to take out a wall.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [3045.149], "stop_times": [3058.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3045.149}, "reply_to": "20105__2_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20105__2_026", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Yes, Justice Scalia.\nIf the officers have reason to believe that if they knock and announce they are going to face danger, the fact that the persons inside who posed that danger to them, have put fortifications up that require more property damage, should not entitle them to higher Fourth Amendment protection.\nThe officers, if they have a reasonable suspicion, should be able to take the means reasonably necessary to make the entry even if that damages a lot of property if the property is... if that means is reasonably calibrated to the need to get inside.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [3058.87, 3060.979, 3078.491], "stop_times": [3060.979, 3078.491, 3092.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3058.87}, "reply_to": "20105__2_025", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__2_027", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "If you get me to adopt that rule I may well up my interpretation of what a reasonable suspicion consists of.\nIf I know that the consequence of a reasonable suspicion is I'm going to lose the side of my house, I might well require your agents to be a lot more sure than I otherwise would.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [3092.781, 3098.674], "stop_times": [3098.674, 3107.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3092.781}, "reply_to": "20105__2_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20105__2_028", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "And Justice Scalia, we're wrestling with that question right now in the lower Federal courts as to whether a reasonable suspicion to forego knocking and announcing... you know, what exactly that consists of.\nIt certainly is different than a Terry pat-down frisk.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [3107.048, 3117.207], "stop_times": [3117.207, 3119.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3107.048}, "reply_to": "20105__2_027", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__2_029", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Well, it ought to be... it ought to be fairly substantial, should it not, in light of the long tradition of knock and announce?\nI mean, I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [3119.918, 3127.324], "stop_times": [3127.324, 3128.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3119.918}, "reply_to": "20105__2_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20105__2_030", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [3128.113], "stop_times": [3128.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3128.113}, "reply_to": "20105__2_029", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__2_031", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--I don't see how that can be some casual standard there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [3128.544], "stop_times": [3131.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3128.544}, "reply_to": "20105__2_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20105__2_032", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "It is not, Justice O'Connor, and that is why our office has struggled with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [3131.686], "stop_times": [3135.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3131.686}, "reply_to": "20105__2_031", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__2_033", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "We all have in mind what happened at Waco.\nI think we do have some concerns here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [3135.319, 3138.722], "stop_times": [3138.722, 3142.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3135.319}, "reply_to": "20105__2_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20105__2_034", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "--No, and we share those concerns, Justice O'Connor.\nIt's just that the standard should not be a fluid one.\nIt should be one reasonable suspicion standard, however that comes to be defined by the courts as they struggle with those instances when the officers need to invoke the exception to the general rule of knock and announcement, and that will evolve as courts wrestle with this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [3142.845, 3145.296, 3148.378], "stop_times": [3145.296, 3148.378, 3165.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3142.845}, "reply_to": "20105__2_033", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "20105__2_035", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Frederick.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [3165.411, 3167.893], "stop_times": [3167.893, 3169.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3165.411}, "reply_to": "20105__2_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20105__2_036", "conversation_id": "20105", "text": "The honorable Court is now adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1469", "start_times": [3169.143], "stop_times": [3175.378], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3169.143}, "reply_to": "20105__2_035", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "19942__0_000", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 96-1133, United States v. Edward G. Scheffer.\nMr. Dreeben.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [0.0, 6.465], "stop_times": [6.465, 7.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19942__0_001", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nPolygraph evidence is opinion evidence about credibility.\nBased on inherent doubts about the reliability of polygraph evidence and the burdens of litigating about polygraph results, it has long been banned from courtrooms in a majority of the States.\nIn 1991, the President adopted the same rule for military courts martial.\nExercising delegated authority from Congress, the President promulgated Rule 707, which makes polygraph evidence per se inadmissible in military courts martials.\nThat determination is constitutionally valid for three main reasons.\nFirst, the reliability of the polygraph remains unproven.\nSecond, polygraph evidence is not necessary to help the trier of fact perform its core function of determining credibility of witnesses, and third, the costs of litigating about the reliability of polygraph evidence on a case-by-case basis outweigh any limited probative value that the polygraph may have.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [7.777, 10.829, 16.442, 29.829, 36.524, 48.893, 54.126, 59.519], "stop_times": [10.829, 16.442, 29.829, 36.524, 48.893, 54.126, 59.519, 82.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7.777}, "reply_to": "19942__0_000", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_002", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Would that have been the... was that the consequence of the Armed Forces Court of Appeals opinion here that the validity of each individual polygraph examination had to be tested in each case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [82.616], "stop_times": [96.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 82.616}, "reply_to": "19942__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19942__0_003", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "I think that's correct, Mr. Chief Justice.\nIn 1987, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, then the Court of Appeal... Military Appeals, determined that the per se rule against polygraph evidence which had prevailed in the military should be dropped, and that individual defendants should have the opportunity to litigate about it in each case, and in 1991 the evident response to that was to reinstate the per se rule that had been prevalent in courts across the country as well as the military courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [96.646, 98.876], "stop_times": [98.876, 129.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 96.646}, "reply_to": "19942__0_002", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_004", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "How is it handled in other jurisdictions where there's no per se rule in effect?\nIs it treated like any other bit of scientific evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [129.827, 136.201], "stop_times": [136.201, 140.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 129.827}, "reply_to": "19942__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19942__0_005", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "It is not, Justice O'Connor.\nIn the States, 27 States have per se rules; 22 States allow polygraph evidence into... to be admitted only if there is a stipulation between the parties so that the parties have agreed to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [140.774, 143.157], "stop_times": [143.157, 156.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 140.774}, "reply_to": "19942__0_004", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_006", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "And so from your research no State is treating it like other expert testimony, in effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [156.625], "stop_times": [163.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 156.625}, "reply_to": "19942__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19942__0_007", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "One State is.\nThe State of New Mexico is allowing polygraph evidence in on a routine basis, provided that a very strict list of procedural requirements are satisfied, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [163.731, 164.322], "stop_times": [164.322, 175.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 163.731}, "reply_to": "19942__0_006", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_008", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "But even New Mexico doesn't follow the typical expert testimony approach.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [175.279], "stop_times": [179.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 175.279}, "reply_to": "19942__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19942__0_009", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--I think that that's fair.\nThe requirements are spelled out in the statute with a--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [179.802, 180.981], "stop_times": [180.981, 182.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 179.802}, "reply_to": "19942__0_008", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_010", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [182.914], "stop_times": [183.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 182.914}, "reply_to": "19942__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19942__0_011", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--far greater degree of specificity than for other expert testimony.\nNow, in the Federal system--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [183.235, 188.016], "stop_times": [188.016, 189.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 183.235}, "reply_to": "19942__0_010", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_012", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Daubert, of course, is in the civil context, but would you say that the petitioner's... pardon me, that the respondent's position here is consistent generally with what we held in Daubert?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [189.438], "stop_times": [204.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 189.438}, "reply_to": "19942__0_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19942__0_013", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--I think the respondent's position here is... goes quite a bit further than Daubert.\nDaubert, of course, is simply an interpretation of Federal Rule of Evidence 702.\nThe respondent's position here is that the Constitution prohibits any promulgator of a system of evidentiary rules from establishing a per se rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [204.138, 209.701, 215.024], "stop_times": [209.701, 215.024, 224.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 204.138}, "reply_to": "19942__0_012", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_014", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "I recognize the difference.\nI'm talking about the thrust of the case and what it held, which was to undercut the Frye-type rule which is really being applied by the military here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [224.401, 225.3], "stop_times": [225.3, 233.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 224.401}, "reply_to": "19942__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19942__0_015", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "That is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [233.698], "stop_times": [235.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 233.698}, "reply_to": "19942__0_014", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_016", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "I recognize one's civil, one's criminal, one's constitutional, one's evidence, but so far as the thrust of what the Court was talking about so far as sound management of trials, isn't there some inconsistency with your position in Daubert?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [235.828], "stop_times": [247.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 235.828}, "reply_to": "19942__0_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19942__0_017", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--I don't think there is any inconsistency.\nThe point of Daubert was to drop the strict rule of general acceptance in the scientific community as a prerequisite for scientific evidence to be admitted.\nDaubert did not do away with the rest of the evidentiary considerations that may bear on whether particular evidence may be admitted.\nProminent among those are the requirement in Rule 702 itself that evidence in the form of expert testimony must assist the trier of fact, and furthermore that it's benefits, its probative value must not be significantly outweighed by the waste of time, confusion, or redundancy of other evidence that might be admitted.\nThose type of considerations amply justify exclusion of polygraph evidence.\nPolygraph evidence is very different from most other kinds of scientific evidence that comes into the courtroom.\nIt represents in essence the opinion of the polygraph examiner that, based on an examination of the particular subject, he was deceptive or not deceptive on one particular occasion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [247.465, 249.937, 260.055, 268.15, 290.552, 296.136, 301.301], "stop_times": [249.937, 260.055, 268.15, 290.552, 296.136, 301.301, 314.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 247.465}, "reply_to": "19942__0_016", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_018", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Mr. Dreeben, when the Government itself is responsible for the polygraph, and the Government is attacking the credibility of the defendant, isn't that a different situation?\nThis doesn't have to be all or nothing, but at least as in this case, where the Government itself chose to administer a polygraph test and in prosecuting attacked the credibility of the defendant, when you have those two things, why isn't that enough to trigger a constitutional concern?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [314.409, 330.429], "stop_times": [330.429, 353.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 314.409}, "reply_to": "19942__0_017", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19942__0_019", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, the Government might have had a particular defendant interviewed by a psychiatrist if the defendant consented to that, and the psychiatrist might say, based on my expert opinion and analysis of this particular person's responses in the interview, I can render an opinion that he was quite certainly deceptive or not deceptive.\nThat kind of evidence is never admitted in courtrooms in this country.\nOutside opinion, expert testimony that vouches for the credibility of a witness who testifies, is routinely excluded by both the State and Federal courts as not being needed to assist the trier of fact and, indeed, of impinging on the trier of fact's core function, and it is not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [353.535, 373.459, 377.581], "stop_times": [373.459, 377.581, 395.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 353.535}, "reply_to": "19942__0_018", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_020", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Mr. Dreeben, can I ask you this.\nThere's a brief filed by an amicus, a group of social scientists who say that, if properly conducted, these tests are accurate about 90 percent of the time.\nNow, I don't know whether you would accept that, or you would say that's probably wrong, but assume that's correct, and if there are proper safeguards given and all the rest, what would your position be?\nEven if it was 100 percent accurate, would you still say, along the argument you're making to Justice Ginsburg, this still should be excluded?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [395.353, 396.305, 405.571, 418.8], "stop_times": [396.305, 405.571, 418.8, 424.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 395.353}, "reply_to": "19942__0_019", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19942__0_021", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--Yes.\nI think, Justice Stevens, that it has a drawback from the point of view of courtroom evidence that justifies its exclusion even on the assumption--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [424.664, 425.225], "stop_times": [425.225, 434.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 424.664}, "reply_to": "19942__0_020", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_022", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Even if completely reliable?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [434.031], "stop_times": [435.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 434.031}, "reply_to": "19942__0_021", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19942__0_023", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--Well, completely reliable, I think that no form of scientific tests will ever be viewed by any--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [435.43], "stop_times": [441.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 435.43}, "reply_to": "19942__0_022", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_024", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Well, at least as reliable as fingerprints or DNA or something like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [441.034], "stop_times": [444.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 441.034}, "reply_to": "19942__0_023", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19942__0_025", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--Even if it had achieved that degree of reliability, which I think there's no reason to believe that it has, and there's no reason why the President as a matter of constitutional law must assume, it still has a different character--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [444.286], "stop_times": [455.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 444.286}, "reply_to": "19942__0_024", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_026", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [455.926], "stop_times": [456.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 455.926}, "reply_to": "19942__0_025", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19942__0_027", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--than other forms of scientific evidence in two key respects.\nThe first is that it tells the trier of fact something that we have traditionally entrusted the trier of fact to determine itself, namely, whether a particular witness should be believed.\nThere are many kinds of experts who might be willing to come into court and render an opinion about credibility and say yes, indeed, I'm an expert on this.\nMy work has been validated by numerous outside bodies, and I think that this particular witness is credible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [456.376, 458.72, 469.968, 477.16], "stop_times": [458.72, 469.968, 477.16, 482.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 456.376}, "reply_to": "19942__0_026", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_028", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "But why doesn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [482.633], "stop_times": [483.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 482.633}, "reply_to": "19942__0_027", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19942__0_029", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "We don't have that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [483.124], "stop_times": [483.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 483.124}, "reply_to": "19942__0_028", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_030", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--Why doesn't fingerprint do the... evidence do the same thing if the witness says... gets on the stand and says, I was never in the place where the crime took place, and somebody says, well, your fingerprints were there.\nDoesn't that do the same thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [483.674, 494.202], "stop_times": [494.202, 496.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 483.674}, "reply_to": "19942__0_029", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19942__0_031", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--No.\nIt does something quite different, Justice Stevens, and that's my second distinction of polygraph evidence.\nIt provides the trier of fact with factual information that it would otherwise have no access to.\nAn expert who was able to bring to the jury's attention specific scientific information that has a degree of reliability that is outside the realm of normal jurors' comprehension serves a valid function in the trial system, and is unlikely ever to be excluded by a reasonable system of evidentiary rules precisely because it does enable the proof of facts that could not occur otherwise.\nRules of evidence must be evenhanded, and the Government bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case of establishing a suspect's guilt, and it is therefore extremely unlikely that a reasonable system of rules of evidence will ever exclude reliable scientific testimony that is necessary to determine the facts.\nThe Government would suffer far more than any criminal defendant in such a system, because we would lose the ability--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [496.644, 497.065, 501.078, 507.233, 529.685, 550.259], "stop_times": [497.065, 501.078, 507.233, 529.685, 550.259, 555.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 496.644}, "reply_to": "19942__0_030", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_032", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Well, this rule cuts both ways, because there might be times when the Government would like to produce a polygraph test in court because it shows the defendant is lying.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [555.522], "stop_times": [567.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 555.522}, "reply_to": "19942__0_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19942__0_033", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--That's correct, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [567.129], "stop_times": [568.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 567.129}, "reply_to": "19942__0_032", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_034", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "And under the military rule, the Government can't do that.\nSo it cuts both ways here, I assume.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [568.311, 571.373], "stop_times": [571.373, 573.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 568.311}, "reply_to": "19942__0_033", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19942__0_035", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--It does, and I think that that largely reflects the fact that we take a consistent position on this.\nWe don't believe that it's sufficiently reliable for courtroom evidence, and we think that it performs a function that the trier--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [573.294, 577.477], "stop_times": [577.477, 584.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 573.294}, "reply_to": "19942__0_034", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_036", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "What... under what authority did the President adopt the rule?\nWhat is the provision that says the President may adopt these evidentiary rules?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [584.33, 588.233], "stop_times": [588.233, 593.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 584.33}, "reply_to": "19942__0_035", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19942__0_037", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--The President is delegated authority under Article 36 of the U.C.M.J., which is reprinted in footnote 2 on page 5 of our principal brief, and it says that pretrial, trial, and post trial procedures, including modes of proof, may be prescribed by the President by regulations which, so far as he considers practicable, apply principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in a trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [593.998], "stop_times": [623.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 593.998}, "reply_to": "19942__0_036", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_038", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Getting back to your colloquy with Justice O'Connor just a moment ago, I think perhaps the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces might have taken a different view if the Government had sought to introduce the polygraph test, because they seem to base their constitutional decision on the defendant's right to call witnesses in his favor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [623.466], "stop_times": [642.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 623.466}, "reply_to": "19942__0_037", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19942__0_039", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "That is absolutely right, Mr. Chief Justice.\nThis was not a two-way-street decision.\nThe decision partially invalidated Rule 707 to the extent that it erects a per se bar to the defendant's presentation of evidence.\nThe rule would otherwise remain in effect and bar the Government from introducing it, but I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [642.079, 644.9, 647.512, 655.737], "stop_times": [644.9, 647.512, 655.737, 661.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 642.079}, "reply_to": "19942__0_038", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_040", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Well, the President could change that, the scope of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [661.1], "stop_times": [662.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 661.1}, "reply_to": "19942__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19942__0_041", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--The President could change that.\nJustice Scalia, the President could certainly change it, but I think it's important to emphasize here that the Department of Justice in criminal trials in the civilian courts takes the position that polygraph evidence should not be offered by prosecutors even when it might arguably be of assistance to us, and that it should be opposed when presented by defense lawyers, and we do that precisely for the same reasons that the President relied on in promulgating Rule 707.\nThe underlying scientific validity of polygraph evidence has always been a source of extreme controversy, and it has--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [662.792, 663.913, 688.949], "stop_times": [663.913, 688.949, 697.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 662.792}, "reply_to": "19942__0_040", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_042", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--Mr. Dreeben, as to the truth-telling identification that the polygraph is offered for, it's been traditionally allowed to have a character witness for defendants.\nDefendant testifies and he has a character witness that testifies to his reputation in the community for truth-telling.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [697.414, 715.557], "stop_times": [715.557, 722.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 697.414}, "reply_to": "19942__0_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19942__0_043", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [722.493], "stop_times": [723.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 722.493}, "reply_to": "19942__0_042", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_044", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Well, isn't the polygraph far more reliable than just any character witness the defendant wants to present?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [723.692], "stop_times": [733.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 723.692}, "reply_to": "19942__0_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19942__0_045", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Well, Justice Ginsburg, I think that that assumes that there is scientific validity and accuracy to the polygraph, which we dispute, but more importantly, the system of rules of evidence that we have in courtrooms specifically right now allows opinion evidence and reputation evidence about a trait of character of a witness, but it does not allow specific instances, and it certainly does not allow a witness to say, I know this person, he did denied committing the crime to me, and I believe him.\nThat kind of testimony is routinely disallowed in criminal trials around--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [733.689, 763.679], "stop_times": [763.679, 768.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 733.689}, "reply_to": "19942__0_044", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_046", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "No, but it's reputation as to credibility that the character witness testifies to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [768.763], "stop_times": [772.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 768.763}, "reply_to": "19942__0_045", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19942__0_047", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--The character witness testifies only about what the individual's reputation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [772.414], "stop_times": [777.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 772.414}, "reply_to": "19942__0_046", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_048", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "As to credibility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [777.91], "stop_times": [778.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 777.91}, "reply_to": "19942__0_047", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19942__0_049", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--As to credibility, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [778.729], "stop_times": [779.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 778.729}, "reply_to": "19942__0_048", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_050", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Right.\nIt's precisely the same issue that the polygraph evidence is directed to, credibility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [779.881, 780.311], "stop_times": [780.311, 784.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 779.881}, "reply_to": "19942__0_049", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19942__0_051", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--I think there's an important distinction, Justice Stevens, and that is the polygraph examiner will not render an opinion that I believe that this person is generally credible.\nHe will render an opinion that says, based on physiological responses that I observed, and all other information that was available to me in whatever hour and a half I had with this individual, I concluded that he did not exhibit physiological signs of deception on this particular instance, and that is akin to an expert psychiatrist meeting with a defendant, interviewing him, and coming away with the view that I think this man is credible when he says that he didn't commit the act.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [784.302, 793.559], "stop_times": [793.559, 819.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 784.302}, "reply_to": "19942__0_050", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_052", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Yes, but there's a difference as to the degree of reliability between the two, obviously, and... but your position as I understand it is, even if it were totally reliable, you would still take the same position it's inadmissible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [819.856], "stop_times": [832.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 819.856}, "reply_to": "19942__0_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19942__0_053", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "I do, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [832.194], "stop_times": [833.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 832.194}, "reply_to": "19942__0_052", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_054", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [833.456], "stop_times": [834.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 833.456}, "reply_to": "19942__0_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19942__0_055", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "I recognize that the Court might view that as a somewhat different case, and I think that if, in fact, there were a 100-percent reliable--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [834.196], "stop_times": [840.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 834.196}, "reply_to": "19942__0_054", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_056", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "But then how do you... but then are you saying that the scientists who filed a brief saying it's 90-percent accurate if conducted properly, that we should disbelieve the substance of that brief?\nThat's basically what you're saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [840.91, 851.867], "stop_times": [851.867, 853.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 840.91}, "reply_to": "19942__0_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19942__0_057", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--I think all the Court has to do is realize that this is an area of extraordinary scientific polarization, and that a reasonable system of evidentiary rules is entitled to deference in the conclusion that polygraph has not progressed to the point where its reliability justifies--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [853.048], "stop_times": [870.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 853.048}, "reply_to": "19942__0_056", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_058", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [870.86], "stop_times": [871.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 870.86}, "reply_to": "19942__0_057", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19942__0_059", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--that we litigate about this in every single case where the defendant wants to present it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [871.17], "stop_times": [874.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 871.17}, "reply_to": "19942__0_058", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_060", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--we don't ordinarily make findings of fact on the basis of briefs, I guess.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [874.744], "stop_times": [878.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 874.744}, "reply_to": "19942__0_059", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19942__0_061", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "I think that that is certainly an additional point here.\nThis Court is not sitting to decide--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [878.734, 881.827], "stop_times": [881.827, 883.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 878.734}, "reply_to": "19942__0_060", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_062", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "No, but it is true, is it not, that we can take judicial notice of the practice of the Government itself in routinely using its experts for this very purpose?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [883.85], "stop_times": [890.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 883.85}, "reply_to": "19942__0_061", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19942__0_063", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--Well, I think equally pertinent is the fact that we take the position that it should not be admitted into evidence.\nOut of court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [890.502, 895.447], "stop_times": [895.447, 896.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 890.502}, "reply_to": "19942__0_062", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_064", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Mr.--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [896.656], "stop_times": [897.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 896.656}, "reply_to": "19942__0_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19942__0_065", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--uses of investigatory tools such as the polygraph, which then do not come into evidence because they are either not sufficiently reliable or not needed, are common.\nIn investigating a crime, we will look at a suspect's arrest record.\nIf we have 30 potential suspects, we don't know who did it, we will look at what the arrest records are of the suspects.\nThose who have arrest records may get particular investigatory focus.\nWe don't admit arrest records into evidence.\nWe will engage in profiling of criminal suspects of unsolved crimes, where we call upon various scientific disciplines, such as psychiatrists, forensic experts, and develop a profile of who the likely criminal is, but we don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [897.047, 905.612, 909.256, 914.709, 919.002, 921.604], "stop_times": [905.612, 909.256, 914.709, 919.002, 921.604, 934.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 897.047}, "reply_to": "19942__0_064", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_066", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--Mr. Dreeben, could you go back to your use of the polygraph itself?\nWhat decisions does the Government make itself on the basis of polygraph evidence?\nI mean, one of the... excuse me.\nI'm just adverting to the issue of arbitrariness in saying it can't come in but we use it for other purposes.\nWhat decisions does the Government make in reliance on polygraph evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [934.781, 937.833, 944.017, 945.089, 951.854], "stop_times": [937.833, 944.017, 945.089, 951.854, 956.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 934.781}, "reply_to": "19942__0_065", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19942__0_067", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--I want to be clear about this, Justice Souter.\nThe official policy of most of the users of the polygraph in personnel screening, which is its main application, is that the polygraph result itself is not a basis for any action one way or the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [956.837, 959.919], "stop_times": [959.919, 975.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 956.837}, "reply_to": "19942__0_066", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_068", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Not even to hire or not hire someone?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [975.57], "stop_times": [977.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 975.57}, "reply_to": "19942__0_067", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19942__0_069", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Not even to hire or not hire, except in extraordinary circumstances, and I certainly don't want to say that it never would be relied on as a sole factor, but it primarily is used in personnel screening in this way:\nQuestions are asked.\nIf the examiner concludes that there is some deception, there is an effort to determine what the truth is by further investigation, further questioning of the applicant and so forth.\nGenerally, problems can get resolved that way, and it is the entire body of evidence that is developed in a background check that leads to a decision.\nThe polygraph itself is not supposed to be a tool used in isolation, and it is distinguishable to say that in a context where the Government is considering whether to give access to an individual for national security purposes to use anything available that might be helpful in developing an accurate picture of an individual.\nIt's quite another thing--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [977.45, 988.336, 989.538, 1000.274, 1010.021, 1029.743], "stop_times": [988.336, 989.538, 1000.274, 1010.021, 1029.743, 1030.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 977.45}, "reply_to": "19942__0_068", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_070", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "So basically you use it as a kind of a tip-off of something, as a means of putting somebody on the spot, legitimately, but that's as far as the Government goes?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1030.786], "stop_times": [1038.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1030.786}, "reply_to": "19942__0_069", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19942__0_071", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--I don't want to be categorical and say that's as far as the Government goes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1038.382], "stop_times": [1042.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1038.382}, "reply_to": "19942__0_070", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_072", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "No, I realize there may be exceptions, but in sub... substantially, that is the only kind of use that's made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1042.093], "stop_times": [1045.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1042.093}, "reply_to": "19942__0_071", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19942__0_073", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Substantially in the personnel screening area that's the use that's made.\nI don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1045.704, 1049.308], "stop_times": [1049.308, 1049.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1045.704}, "reply_to": "19942__0_072", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_074", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "In criminal investigation likewise, I assume?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1049.709], "stop_times": [1051.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1049.709}, "reply_to": "19942__0_073", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19942__0_075", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--In investigations, the polygraph is an extraordinarily productive interrogation tool.\nAn enormous amount of confessions are given when a suspect either fails a polygraph or believes that a polygraph is about to smoke him out.\nI have to say that in that sense there are examiners who believe that it is entirely reliable in this respect, and that it's a great interrogation tool because it's accurate.\nThere are other people who will say that, well, it's a great placebo.\nThere is a story of a police interrogation in a State system where the police put a colander on a suspect's head and wired it up to a Xerox machine, and then pressed a button that produced a picture, a little copy that said, you're lying, every time the suspect answered.\n[Laughter]\nThe suspect confessed.\nSo if a suspect believes that the polygraph is accurate and is about to catch him, then it will be very useful to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1051.018, 1056.233, 1064.248, 1073.624, 1077.436, 1094.917, 1093.787, 1095.658], "stop_times": [1056.233, 1064.248, 1073.624, 1077.436, 1094.917, 1093.787, 1095.658, 1103.474], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1051.018}, "reply_to": "19942__0_074", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_076", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "It's the tainted morsel of the 20th Century.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1103.474, 1105.635], "stop_times": [1105.635, 1106.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1103.474}, "reply_to": "19942__0_075", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19942__0_077", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Well, it has a certain use in that respect that would suggest that the Government continues to use it, but at the same time, it's not arbitrary to say that, look, not everything that we do in the investigatory phase should come into admission in evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1106.246], "stop_times": [1120.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1106.246}, "reply_to": "19942__0_076", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_078", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Are there instances in which an employee is terminated for failure to take a polygraph, Government employment?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1120.395], "stop_times": [1126.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1120.395}, "reply_to": "19942__0_077", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19942__0_079", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "My understanding, Justice Kennedy, is that in the... certain national security agencies if you're not willing to take a polygraph, then you won't be able to work at that agency.\nIn the Department of Defense, for example, you may be transferred to an equivalent job that doesn't require access to particular national security information, but you won't be terminated.\nAnd Congress, of course, which has addressed extensively the problem of polygraph reliability, has banned most of its uses entirely in the private sector in large part because of concerns about its reliability, so the President, when considering whether military courts martials ought to be a forum for the admission of polygraph evidence, is entitled to take into account the findings of Congress in enacting the Polygraph Protection Act, the fact that 27 States enjoy a per se rule that bars polygraph evidence, and the fact that until this Court decided Daubert, the uniform rule in the Federal courts, with the exception of the Eleventh Circuit in 1989, was that polygraph evidence is per se inadmissible.\nAnd even after Daubert has been decided, and several Federal courts have reconsidered whether it is appropriate to have a per se rule and have opted some case-by-case litigation, polygraph evidence is rarely being admitted in criminal trials in the civilian courts, by and large because the judges are concluding that either it will not assist the trier of fact, or it is unreliable either in a particular instance or across the board, or because traditional Rule 403 balancing considerations justify the exclusion of the evidence because it's not really needed.\nI think that the President is certainly in a position to take all of that into account and to conclude that the military courts, of all places, should not be a place where experimentation with new evidence is to be carried out.\nIf there ever came a time when experience in the civilian courts revealed that the polygraph was a vital engine for getting out the truth, and that it ought to be part of our criminal trial process, I'm quite sure that the President or an appropriate rulemaking authority would recommend reconsideration of Rule 707.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1126.84, 1136.774, 1147.413, 1189.919, 1222.541, 1236.792], "stop_times": [1136.774, 1147.413, 1189.919, 1222.541, 1236.792, 1255.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1126.84}, "reply_to": "19942__0_078", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_080", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Mr. Dreeben, why doesn't it work the other way with respect to the military courts, because my understanding is that the courts martial, the equivalent to the jurors, are of a certain high level, perhaps higher than the ordinary jury that would sit in a Federal court in a criminal case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1255.322], "stop_times": [1277.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1255.322}, "reply_to": "19942__0_079", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19942__0_081", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, I wouldn't want to disparage the ability of the courts martial members to understand and deal appropriately with scientific evidence, but it is still true that the military conducts an inordinate number of court martial proceedings around the world.\nThese proceedings in which, under Daubert, litigants have attempted to admit polygraph evidence usually involve extensive evidentiary hearings back and forth with experts testifying at great length about the supposed merits of the polygraph while other experts come forward and testify about the demerits of the polygraph.\nOne recent hearing that was carried out under the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces decision in Scheffer took 3 days.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1277.257, 1293.967, 1313.211], "stop_times": [1293.967, 1313.211, 1320.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1277.257}, "reply_to": "19942__0_080", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_082", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Well, it seems to me you're somewhat deflecting the thrust of Justice Ginsburg's question, and I notice this in your brief, too.\nYou talk about danger of confusion of the jury.\nThe military rules allow conclusions of experts on the very premise that military juries are somewhat more sophisticated than most juries.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1320.786, 1327.1, 1328.68], "stop_times": [1327.1, 1328.68, 1337.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1320.786}, "reply_to": "19942__0_081", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19942__0_083", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "That is true, Justice Kennedy, and I don't disagree with that submission.\nMy point is the different one, in that polygraph evidence simply doesn't have a history of use in the civilian courts in this country.\nIt is in an experimental phase in the Federal courts.\nMassachusetts, which had a 15--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1337.595, 1341.679, 1349.145, 1352.415], "stop_times": [1341.679, 1349.145, 1352.415, 1355.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1337.595}, "reply_to": "19942__0_082", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_084", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Well, that may be true, but it doesn't go to the point of the differences in the trier of fact Justice Ginsburg was referring to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1355.019], "stop_times": [1360.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1355.019}, "reply_to": "19942__0_083", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19942__0_085", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--The triers of fact may or may not be superior in the military, but the point is that this particular form of evidence, unlike most other forms of evidence, doesn't have a track record.\nIn fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1360.682, 1371.579], "stop_times": [1371.579, 1371.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1360.682}, "reply_to": "19942__0_084", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_086", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Well, I suppose one could argue that if the triers of fact are indeed superior, they need less help from this sort of evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1371.96], "stop_times": [1377.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1371.96}, "reply_to": "19942__0_085", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19942__0_087", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--Mr. Chief Justice, that is certainly an additional consideration that supports the rule here.\n[Laughter]\n--happy to accept that.\nWhat does distinguish polygraph evidence, again, from the other kinds of scientific evidence or ultimate opinion evidence that might come in in these proceedings is that it's about credibility.\nIt's an out-of-court opinion based on one experience, or exposure to the defendant that says that he was not credible or he was credible on this particular occasion, and it's not a form of evidence that is particularly necessary, and it has high costs as far as the litigation of the reliability of the polygraph whenever it is admitted.\nI would like to save the rest of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1377.893, 1382.796, 1383.707, 1384.378, 1396.764, 1418.078], "stop_times": [1382.796, 1383.707, 1384.378, 1396.764, 1418.078, 1422.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1377.893}, "reply_to": "19942__0_086", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__0_088", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Very well, Mr. Dreeben.\nMs. Sheffield, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1422.773, 1423.842], "stop_times": [1423.842, 1426.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1422.773}, "reply_to": "19942__0_087", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19942__1_000", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nAirman Scheffer's polygraph examination was one of 34,788 polygraph examinations conducted by the Department of Defense in fiscal year 1992.\nAlthough Department of Defense personnel rely on polygraph results in matters of national security, Military Rule of Evidence 707 automatically predetermines, without any evidentiary hearing whatsoever, that the results of Airman Scheffer's examination were both unreliable and a waste of the court's time.\nDespite the fact that polygraph examinations are used in the ordinary course of government business, the rule further predetermined that the military officers who sat in Airman Scheffer's panel were incapable of properly using or evaluating these results, even with proper cautionary instructions from the military judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1426.233, 1432.13, 1442.956, 1460.517], "stop_times": [1432.13, 1442.956, 1460.517, 1477.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1426.233}, "reply_to": "19942__0_088", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_001", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Those... those other uses you're referring to, I mean they are very common.\nIt seems to me are quite different.\nI mean, it's not a use for the purpose of deciding whether you're going to send somebody to jail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1477.929, 1480.85, 1482.22], "stop_times": [1480.85, 1482.22, 1485.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1477.929}, "reply_to": "19942__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19942__1_002", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "No, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1485.553], "stop_times": [1486.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1485.553}, "reply_to": "19942__1_001", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_003", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Or for whether you're going to let a murderer back... back out on the streets.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1486.935], "stop_times": [1490.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1486.935}, "reply_to": "19942__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19942__1_004", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--No, Your Honor, they're very different uses, but... but they are also very important uses.\nThey're used for counterintelligence operations, where it's absolutely critical that we know, you know, national security issues.\nThey're used in whether or not people are going to have sensitive compartmented access to the secrets of the Nation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1490.367, 1495.34, 1501.223], "stop_times": [1495.34, 1501.223, 1506.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1490.367}, "reply_to": "19942__1_003", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_005", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Well, but, you know, I mean, I... I might exclude somebody from the sensitive secrets of his... of the Nation if his... you know, if his... if his uncle is a... a Chinese Communist.\nCould I use that in a criminal trial?\nI mean, what... you know, what the government thinks creates enough of a doubt to exclude somebody from sensitive in... information bears no relationship to what creates enough of a doubt to be admissible in a criminal trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1506.198, 1517.775, 1521.479], "stop_times": [1517.775, 1521.479, 1531.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1506.198}, "reply_to": "19942__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19942__1_006", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nAnd I understand this is a different scenario--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1531.514, 1532.455], "stop_times": [1532.455, 1534.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1531.514}, "reply_to": "19942__1_005", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_007", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "So, then, all of these uses are really... don't... don't establish your point at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1534.266], "stop_times": [1537.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1534.266}, "reply_to": "19942__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19942__1_008", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--Well, what the uses establish, Your Honor, we would submit, is this... if this polygraph were so unreliable, why are millions of tax dollars being spent for it?\nIt has a certain level of reliability or we would not be able to use it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1537.598, 1546.834], "stop_times": [1546.834, 1550.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1537.598}, "reply_to": "19942__1_007", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_009", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "I don't think they deny that it might have a certain level of reliability and... and, just in case it does, they... they use it.\nAnd however doubtful it may be, they... they... they choose to exclude people from national security information on that basis.\nBut that... that... that's a world apart from saying it's reliable enough to make the decision whether you're going to send somebody to jail or not send somebody to jail who belongs there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1550.117, 1555.619, 1563.006], "stop_times": [1555.619, 1563.006, 1571.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1550.117}, "reply_to": "19942__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19942__1_010", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Well, Your Honor, we would submit that it's at least as reliable enough... well... well, first off, on sending people to jail, the use we're talking about here is basically coming in, in an exculpatory sense, not in an inculpatory sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1571.251], "stop_times": [1583.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1571.251}, "reply_to": "19942__1_009", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_011", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Yes, but I think you can't just close the door at that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1583.917], "stop_times": [1589.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1583.917}, "reply_to": "19942__1_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19942__1_012", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1589.503], "stop_times": [1589.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1589.503}, "reply_to": "19942__1_011", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_013", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Because the President would be free to say, okay, all bets are off, and the next case, there is no rule.\nIt's the same government examiner that has given the polygraph.\nAnd there is an inculpatory result.\nAnd the government says, fine.\nAs Justice O'Connor suggested, this is a two-way street, and we're going to use it.\nHe gets on the stand.\nWe're going to say, he's a liar, and here's the polygraph to prove it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1589.823, 1596.166, 1599.147, 1603.501, 1605.062, 1610.277, 1611.577], "stop_times": [1596.166, 1599.147, 1603.501, 1605.062, 1610.277, 1611.577, 1614.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1589.823}, "reply_to": "19942__1_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19942__1_014", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, you're absolutely right.\nIf... if the rulemaker were to take 707 off the books, which they would have to do, because, right now, we just have a very narrow constitutionally required exception, but if the rulemaker were to take Rule 707 off the books, the potential for inculpatory results would come in.\nNow, we would submit that would come in, in a parallel sense.\nFor example, in this case, the defendant took the stand.\nHe testified.\nHis credibility was attacked.\nAnd it was brought in to bolster his credibility.\nWe would submit that the parallel right, then, would be for when a defendant who takes the stand has taken a government polygraph and failed... that that could perhaps come in to impeach his credibility.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1614.339, 1616.332, 1631.09, 1634.22, 1636.564, 1637.185, 1638.474, 1641.487], "stop_times": [1616.332, 1631.09, 1634.22, 1636.564, 1637.185, 1638.474, 1641.487, 1649.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1614.339}, "reply_to": "19942__1_013", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_015", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Would your rule extend to a crucial defense witness as well, whose credibility is attacked?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1649.922], "stop_times": [1658.458], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1649.922}, "reply_to": "19942__1_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19942__1_016", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "It would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1658.458], "stop_times": [1659.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1658.458}, "reply_to": "19942__1_015", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_017", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Here is... here is the state, has the burden of proof, brings in a crucial witness, who says, I saw the defendant stab the victim.\nAnd there's a polygraph test that might be favorable to the defense of this witness.\nWould your rule encompass that as well?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1659.84, 1668.994, 1674.438], "stop_times": [1668.994, 1674.438, 1677.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1659.84}, "reply_to": "19942__1_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19942__1_018", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces specifically limited their holding to a polygraph examination of the defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1677.089], "stop_times": [1683.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1677.089}, "reply_to": "19942__1_017", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_019", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "And what would your position be, logically?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1683.394], "stop_times": [1685.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1683.394}, "reply_to": "19942__1_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19942__1_020", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1685.494], "stop_times": [1685.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1685.494}, "reply_to": "19942__1_019", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_021", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "From the position you're taking here, it's part of the defense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1685.945], "stop_times": [1688.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1685.945}, "reply_to": "19942__1_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19942__1_022", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--Right.\nYour Honor, it would depend on exactly how critical it was.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1688.928, 1689.449, 1692.52], "stop_times": [1689.449, 1692.52, 1693.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1688.928}, "reply_to": "19942__1_021", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_023", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Well, it's critical.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1693.329], "stop_times": [1694.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1693.329}, "reply_to": "19942__1_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19942__1_024", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--I... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1694.09], "stop_times": [1694.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1694.09}, "reply_to": "19942__1_023", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_025", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "This is the eyewitness.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1694.571], "stop_times": [1695.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1694.571}, "reply_to": "19942__1_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19942__1_026", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--Your Honor, then I would say you would have to... you would have to do the same balancing we're doing here.\nIf it's a critical... critical favorable evidence for the defense, we would have to look at the rule and look at the basis for the rule, and determine if in fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1695.202, 1699.953], "stop_times": [1699.953, 1708.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1695.202}, "reply_to": "19942__1_025", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_027", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "So we'd have a big evidentiary hearing in every case where the polygraph was used?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1708.239], "stop_times": [1712.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1708.239}, "reply_to": "19942__1_026", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19942__1_028", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--It would call for evidentiary hearings where there was an exculpatory polygraph, Your Honor, or one in favor of the defense.\nBut bear in mind the net picture.\nThe government focuses a great deal on the individual cases where the polygraph evidence comes up.\nBut... but these cases are few and far between.\nThe greater weight of cases, where you have an exculpatory polygraph, the military convening authority knows that.\nAnd, many times, based on that, elects not to take the case to trial at all.\nAnd if the... if he knew that those results were admissible, that's very much a factor.\nAs Judge Gerky pointed out for the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, in his opinion, look at the overall effect on military justice with this rule.\nIt's the rare case that's going to come in and have the 3-day hearing.\nMost of the cases, it's going to either--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1712.112, 1718.447, 1719.826, 1725.492, 1729.233, 1735.318, 1739.661, 1745.595, 1753.339, 1757.112], "stop_times": [1718.447, 1719.826, 1725.492, 1729.233, 1735.318, 1739.661, 1745.595, 1753.339, 1757.112, 1759.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1712.112}, "reply_to": "19942__1_027", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_029", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "But--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1759.162], "stop_times": [1759.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1759.162}, "reply_to": "19942__1_028", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19942__1_030", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--be disposed of pretrial--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1759.583], "stop_times": [1761.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1759.583}, "reply_to": "19942__1_029", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_031", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--But how... how about a defendant, before the case is brought, who fails a polygraph test; there may be other reasons now why the... the... the Armed Forces would say, let's not bring this guy to trial.\nBut this gives them an added sling in their bow, an added arrow in their bow, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1761.144, 1771.622], "stop_times": [1771.622, 1775.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1761.144}, "reply_to": "19942__1_030", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19942__1_032", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, it does right now, as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1775.913], "stop_times": [1777.666], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1775.913}, "reply_to": "19942__1_031", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_033", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "And don't you think that might lead to more cases being brought?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1777.666], "stop_times": [1781.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1777.666}, "reply_to": "19942__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19942__1_034", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "I would not think so.\nAnd... and the other effect, Your Honor, is, oftentimes, when someone fails a polygraph, if they're truly guilty, it is a great confession inducer, if the government as quite straightforwardly told you.\nAnd also it pushes sometimes the defendant into actually pleading guilty, which is far more expedient as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1781.079, 1784.811, 1793.804], "stop_times": [1784.811, 1793.804, 1799.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1781.079}, "reply_to": "19942__1_033", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_035", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "How... how would you avoid the endless hearings that would... or the disputes before the jury about whether the polygraph is given in the best possible way, of whether it is in fact, in this instance, how probative, of whether or not polygraphs, in general, are reliable or even if they are, in general, often reliable, whether this is the kind of one that is really that reliable or not, all of which, before a finder of fact that's not necessarily sophisticated in scientific matters?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1799.599], "stop_times": [1832.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1799.599}, "reply_to": "19942__1_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19942__1_036", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Well, Your Honor, a... a couple of points.\nFirst off, in the military, it's... it's done in what's called an Article 39(a) session.\nSo the military judge would sort much of that out prior to it going to the jury.\nAnd he has... of course, he applies 403, which is the same rule that you have in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1832.032, 1833.551, 1837.895, 1842.037], "stop_times": [1833.551, 1837.895, 1842.037, 1846.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1832.032}, "reply_to": "19942__1_035", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_037", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "I don't understand what you mean.\nWhat do you mean, he would sort it out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1846.799, 1847.45], "stop_times": [1847.45, 1848.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1846.799}, "reply_to": "19942__1_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19942__1_038", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--Well, basically--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1848.512], "stop_times": [1849.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1848.512}, "reply_to": "19942__1_037", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_039", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "The issue for the jury, it seems to me, is whether this person who administered the polygraph test is any good.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1849.113], "stop_times": [1854.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1849.113}, "reply_to": "19942__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19942__1_040", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, but a lot of--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1854.415], "stop_times": [1856.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1854.415}, "reply_to": "19942__1_039", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_041", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "How can the judge decide that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1856.927], "stop_times": [1857.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1856.927}, "reply_to": "19942__1_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19942__1_042", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--Well, at the preliminary hearing, under... on 102, he is going to make a determination of whether or not it should even go to the jury, like was done in this--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1857.979], "stop_times": [1865.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1857.979}, "reply_to": "19942__1_041", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_043", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Yeah, but once it goes to the jury, the ju... the jury is certainly entitled to come to the conclusion that this person who administered the polygraph test is a hack.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1865.903], "stop_times": [1874.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1865.903}, "reply_to": "19942__1_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19942__1_044", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, they certainly could.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1874.478], "stop_times": [1876.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1874.478}, "reply_to": "19942__1_043", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_045", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "And comes to the wrong conclusion most of the... isn't the jury entitled to do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1876.629], "stop_times": [1878.722], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1876.629}, "reply_to": "19942__1_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19942__1_046", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1878.722], "stop_times": [1879.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1878.722}, "reply_to": "19942__1_045", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_047", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "So aren't you entitled to put in evidence to show that this person is a hack?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1879.22], "stop_times": [1882.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1879.22}, "reply_to": "19942__1_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19942__1_048", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Absolutely, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1882.192], "stop_times": [1883.233], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1882.192}, "reply_to": "19942__1_047", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_049", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1883.233], "stop_times": [1883.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1883.233}, "reply_to": "19942__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19942__1_050", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1883.894], "stop_times": [1884.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1883.894}, "reply_to": "19942__1_049", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_051", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Well, I don't know how you avoid that.\nMay I ask, along that line, you're objecting to a per se rule.\nSupposing they change the per se rule and said, no polygraph evidence shall be admitted unless the examiner met the following qualifications: 5 years training, a degree from such and such a school, and so forth and so on.\nWould you challenge that kind of per se rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1884.185, 1884.946, 1888.078, 1899.035], "stop_times": [1884.946, 1888.078, 1899.035, 1901.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1884.185}, "reply_to": "19942__1_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19942__1_052", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--No... no, Your Honor, because at least... the... the problem with this rule is there's no exceptions, no matter how qualified.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1901.187], "stop_times": [1910.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1901.187}, "reply_to": "19942__1_051", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_053", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "I understand.\nBut I'm... I'm asking about a... a proposed hypothetical per se rule that defined minimum qualifications for the examinations, and just categorically said, all those that don't meet this standard are, per se, inadmissible?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1910.021, 1910.391], "stop_times": [1910.391, 1922.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1910.021}, "reply_to": "19942__1_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19942__1_054", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "As long as the standards were not arbitrary and disproportionate, Your Honor, we would... we would not be doing that.\nOne of the critical things about this case that's so ironic is this is a case that, if ever there were indicia of reliability, we'd have it.\nEven the worst critics of polygraph will... will tell you that much of the... whether or not the test is reliable depends on the examiner, his qualifications and his training.\nAnd much of what the States complain of in their amicus brief is the problem, then, in the States: there is no common training base and there's no standardized procedures.\nIn--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1922.0, 1927.052, 1934.228, 1943.525, 1952.89], "stop_times": [1927.052, 1934.228, 1943.525, 1952.89, 1953.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1922.0}, "reply_to": "19942__1_053", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_055", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Well, is there any basis in the law... suppose we adopted your reliability test.\nNow, make it as strict as you want.\nIf the Supreme Court says that the Constitution requires the defendant to have a right to put those results into evidence, I guess, then, States could say, well, we will permit prosecutors to do the same.\nAfter all, if it's that reliable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1953.359, 1957.452, 1959.754, 1975.054], "stop_times": [1957.452, 1959.754, 1975.054, 1978.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1953.359}, "reply_to": "19942__1_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19942__1_056", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1978.067], "stop_times": [1978.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1978.067}, "reply_to": "19942__1_055", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_057", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "And there would be no rule of law that I'm aware of that would stop it.\nBut I'm raising it because I think... I don't see how it could be... you would prevent, in practice, what I'd call tit for tat, or whatever--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1978.848, 1981.219], "stop_times": [1981.219, 1988.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1978.848}, "reply_to": "19942__1_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19942__1_058", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--Yes.\nYes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1988.742, 1989.062], "stop_times": [1989.062, 1989.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1988.742}, "reply_to": "19942__1_057", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_059", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--the... the prosecution... defense can do it, the prosecution can do it.\nAnd so, pretty soon, we have a contest of... of lie detector experts, one for the prosecution and one for the defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1989.873, 1993.216], "stop_times": [1993.216, 1999.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1989.873}, "reply_to": "19942__1_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19942__1_060", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nBut please understand, we are not asking the Supreme Court to hold that this test should have been admitted, or that any test of any defendant anywhere in the Nation be admitted; only that they have a chance to lay their evidentiary foundation, and let the judge evaluate it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [1999.911, 2000.279], "stop_times": [2000.279, 2014.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1999.911}, "reply_to": "19942__1_059", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_061", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "In this case, it was the govern... government's own--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2014.55], "stop_times": [2016.952], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2014.55}, "reply_to": "19942__1_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19942__1_062", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Yes, ma'am.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2016.952], "stop_times": [2018.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2016.952}, "reply_to": "19942__1_061", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_063", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--test.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2018.081], "stop_times": [2018.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2018.081}, "reply_to": "19942__1_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19942__1_064", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2018.552], "stop_times": [2019.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2018.552}, "reply_to": "19942__1_063", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_065", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "And we could presume that that would meet whatever standards one might set up.\nIf your position is correct, that the defendant is entitled to use this evidence to bolster his credibility, then, in the next case, suppose the government said, we're not going to give this person a test; we think this person could probably pass one.\nCould that... that defendant then insist, as a matter of his Sixth Amendment right, to have the government provide a polygraph test, which he could then use in his defense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2019.463, 2022.947, 2042.277], "stop_times": [2022.947, 2042.277, 2057.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2019.463}, "reply_to": "19942__1_064", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19942__1_066", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Your Honor, we submit no.\nAnd on this case, this wasn't a test that this defendant asked for.\nThat's another thing to bear in mind.\nThe government wanted this test done.\nAnd they went to him.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2057.036, 2058.379, 2062.263, 2063.482, 2065.391], "stop_times": [2058.379, 2062.263, 2063.482, 2065.391, 2066.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2057.036}, "reply_to": "19942__1_065", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_067", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "I don't understand this constitutional rule you're asserting.\nYou're asserting that if the evidence exists out there already, because the government has given a test, he has a constitutional right to have it admitted.\nBut he does not have a constitutional right to develop a test on his own, to hire his own... his own polygraph administrator and have that put before the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2066.293, 2068.815, 2077.73], "stop_times": [2068.815, 2077.73, 2086.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2066.293}, "reply_to": "19942__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19942__1_068", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Your Honor, he could hire someone on his own.\nI don't think it establishes a constitutional right for the government to manufacture exculpatory evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2086.797, 2087.658], "stop_times": [2087.658, 2092.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2086.797}, "reply_to": "19942__1_067", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_069", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "No; I understand.\nBut... but isn't it... isn't it the logic of your position not only that what polygraph tests are extant, having been given by the government, must be admitted, but also that you must allow a defendant to hire a... a... and administer a polygraph test, and... and get that admitted, if it's... if it's a reliable--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2092.862, 2093.161], "stop_times": [2093.161, 2112.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2092.862}, "reply_to": "19942__1_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19942__1_070", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nBut, again, our position is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2112.445, 2114.246], "stop_times": [2114.246, 2115.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2112.445}, "reply_to": "19942__1_069", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_071", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--I don't think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2115.287], "stop_times": [2115.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2115.287}, "reply_to": "19942__1_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19942__1_072", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--not that it must be admitted... simply that he has the opportunity for his hearing, for his day in court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2115.478], "stop_times": [2120.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2115.478}, "reply_to": "19942__1_071", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_073", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Well, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2120.751], "stop_times": [2121.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2120.751}, "reply_to": "19942__1_072", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19942__1_074", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "To show that his test was reliable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2121.052], "stop_times": [2122.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2121.052}, "reply_to": "19942__1_073", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_075", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--Isn't it also the logic of your position that if we agree with you to exactly that extent, we would also have to strike down a rule, a per se rule, that excluded the opinions of psychiatrists or psychologists on the specific truth telling of a witness?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2122.694], "stop_times": [2141.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2122.694}, "reply_to": "19942__1_074", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19942__1_076", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2141.043], "stop_times": [2142.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2141.043}, "reply_to": "19942__1_075", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_077", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "We would... we would... we would have to say, well, the door is not entirely shut to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2142.495], "stop_times": [2145.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2142.495}, "reply_to": "19942__1_076", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19942__1_078", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--Well, Your Honor... and... and... and that is a tough issue.\nBut looking at--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2145.858, 2148.86], "stop_times": [2148.86, 2149.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2145.858}, "reply_to": "19942__1_077", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_079", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Well, what's the answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2149.882], "stop_times": [2150.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2149.882}, "reply_to": "19942__1_078", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19942__1_080", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2150.18], "stop_times": [2150.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2150.18}, "reply_to": "19942__1_079", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_081", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "We'd... we'd have to... we'd have to--\n[Laughter]\n--we'd have to open the door.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2150.52, 2151.492, 2151.932], "stop_times": [2151.492, 2151.932, 2152.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2150.52}, "reply_to": "19942__1_080", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19942__1_082", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--Well... well, Your Honor, perhaps and perhaps not.\nBecause the other experts that we're shutting the door on giving truth testimony, a lot of times the most common example is the child accommodation syndrome, where you bring in a clinical social worker who treats abused children, their area of expertise is treating abused children.\nAnd then, the types of cases where that ultimate truth testimony is precluded is with that kind of expert.\nWell, we would submit, the difference with the polygraph, and of course you have to accord some reliability to it, is that this person's expertise is in using a scientific machine and a... a tested theory and a methodology to arrive at a credibility determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2152.801, 2155.745, 2170.135, 2175.628], "stop_times": [2155.745, 2170.135, 2175.628, 2191.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2152.801}, "reply_to": "19942__1_081", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_083", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Yeah, but you can make the same argument, absent the... the... the mechanics on... on the part of the psychiatrist, a psy... or a psychologist, with... with long clinical experience, and the opportunity to verify the stories of the... of the people interviewed, with... with independently verified facts.\nAnd it seems to me that, on your logic, that kind of specific credibility testimony would at least have to be ad... admissible potentially.\nWouldn't... wouldn't you agree?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2191.516, 2211.341, 2221.607], "stop_times": [2211.341, 2221.607, 2223.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2191.516}, "reply_to": "19942__1_082", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19942__1_084", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, the... the courts don't allow that now.\nAnd... and I... I agree with you that the theory would seem to apply to that as well.\nAnd oftentimes it comes extremely close.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2223.089, 2227.861, 2231.895], "stop_times": [2227.861, 2231.895, 2234.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2223.089}, "reply_to": "19942__1_083", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_085", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "But--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2234.907], "stop_times": [2235.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2234.907}, "reply_to": "19942__1_084", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19942__1_086", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "It's a hairline difference between what they actually can get in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2235.167], "stop_times": [2237.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2235.167}, "reply_to": "19942__1_085", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_087", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--But... but you really... therefore, if we accept your position, we're... we're going to make a determination not only about polygraphs, but I suppose we would be making a... a kind of sea change in... in... in a... in a constitutional evidence rule.\nBecause we would be, in effect, forcing the courts into a... a realm of evidence which, as a... as a general rule, an almost universally general rule, is inadmissible.\nAnd that is, evidence about the specific truth telling in a given instance.\nSo we would... we would really be entering a... a new evidentiary realm here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2237.087, 2253.658, 2265.945, 2270.698], "stop_times": [2253.658, 2265.945, 2270.698, 2275.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2237.087}, "reply_to": "19942__1_086", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19942__1_088", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I... I would think that the... the... whether or not it's a sea change is going to depend on how narrowly or broadly this Court chooses to view this.\nBecause if you look at it from a standpoint of a polygrapher being someone who has specialized expertise in judging credibility, and look at the others as their specialized expertise in perhaps treating children or victims, there could be differentiations made.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2275.763, 2283.087], "stop_times": [2283.087, 2297.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2275.763}, "reply_to": "19942__1_087", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_089", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Yet... but your point in... in response to some of the questions, Ms. Sheffield, has been, you know, we don't ask that it be admitted, we just ask that it be submitted to a judge to decide.\nBut it seems to me, following up on Justice Souter's question, you could then call into question all of the hearsay rule.\nIn other words, don't exclude hearsay that... it doesn't come within the traditional exception, but if it has a lot of... it seems reliable, put people on the stand and let the judge decide whether it should come in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2297.168, 2308.345, 2315.298], "stop_times": [2308.345, 2315.298, 2327.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2297.168}, "reply_to": "19942__1_088", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19942__1_090", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I'm glad... I'm glad you mentioned the hearsay, because the thing with the other evidentiary rules, designed to ensure reliability and other reasons, all of them have exceptions.\nHearsay does.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2327.897, 2336.174, 2336.913], "stop_times": [2336.174, 2336.913, 2337.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2327.897}, "reply_to": "19942__1_089", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_091", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Of course it does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2337.283], "stop_times": [2337.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2337.283}, "reply_to": "19942__1_090", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19942__1_092", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--and... and if there is a case, I believe, where the defense thinks their case is strong enough and there's enough indicia of reliability, they will probably make a proffer, under the residual exception.\nEven privilege rules have exceptions when the policy reasons that underpin them aren't at issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2337.934, 2346.549], "stop_times": [2346.549, 2352.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2337.934}, "reply_to": "19942__1_091", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_093", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "But, nonetheless, there... the rules tend to be categorical.\nThey don't have litigation of whether a particular piece of evidence or particular thing should be admitted, just to be inquired into de novo every time.\nBecause a trial would last for months if you did that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2352.143, 2356.648, 2366.222], "stop_times": [2356.648, 2366.222, 2368.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2352.143}, "reply_to": "19942__1_092", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19942__1_094", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nBut the rules that are there now have existing exceptions.\nAll we are asking for is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2368.503, 2369.214, 2372.476], "stop_times": [2369.214, 2372.476, 2374.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2368.503}, "reply_to": "19942__1_093", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_095", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Is your argument, every rule has to have an exception?\nThis... this... this is... this is the principle you're urging upon us?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2374.489, 2376.44, 2378.88], "stop_times": [2376.44, 2378.88, 2379.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2374.489}, "reply_to": "19942__1_094", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19942__1_096", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, what we're saying, basically, is, one, when... when a defendant's constitutional rights are clearly at issue, where he has a Sixth... an arguable Sixth Amendment right that's at issue, a per se rule... you... you have to see if it apply... if the reasons for the per se rule apply in his case.\nThat's what Rock basically said: wholesale inadmissibility is going to be arbitrary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2379.541, 2396.883], "stop_times": [2396.883, 2401.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2379.541}, "reply_to": "19942__1_095", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_097", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "But Rock... Rock was the defendant's own testimony.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2401.115], "stop_times": [2404.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2401.115}, "reply_to": "19942__1_096", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19942__1_098", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nBut the underpinnings of Rock, it seems that it would apply with equal force.\nIn fact, I think, in a... in... in this Court's opinion in another case... which escapes me... but... but, basically, the Court said that in Rock--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2404.029, 2404.727, 2408.791], "stop_times": [2404.727, 2408.791, 2419.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2404.029}, "reply_to": "19942__1_097", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_099", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Are you talking about the other case or about Rock?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2419.386], "stop_times": [2421.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2419.386}, "reply_to": "19942__1_098", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19942__1_100", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--Okay.\nThe other case... in Taylor v. Illinois... in a footnote, the Court said: Although in Rock we were addressing the specific issue of the defendant's right to offer testimony, it derived its standard from general compulsory process case law on the theory that the right to present one's own testimony extended at least as far as a right to present testimony of others.\nI see nothing constitutionally in Rock that would say it could not apply with equal force to someone other than the defendant's testimony.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2421.128, 2421.539, 2441.332], "stop_times": [2421.539, 2441.332, 2448.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2421.128}, "reply_to": "19942__1_099", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_101", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Well, that... you... you're entitled, certainly, to take an expansive view of Rock.\nBut I think you should remember it was a 5 to 4 decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2448.286, 2451.738], "stop_times": [2451.738, 2454.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2448.286}, "reply_to": "19942__1_100", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19942__1_102", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2454.73, 2455.11], "stop_times": [2455.11, 2455.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2454.73}, "reply_to": "19942__1_101", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_103", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Really, the... the... the key difference between... between all of these... all of these other rules of admissibility and... is what Justice Souter was inquiring into.\nAnd that is, leaping over, into... into this new field of... of accepting evidence on whether... whether the defendant is lying here, today, in this trial, on this fact.\nAnd that's... that's... if... if polygraphs are really that good, you know, 90 percent accurate, what do you think the accuracy of juries is?\nYou think it's 90 percent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2455.831, 2467.758, 2480.816, 2491.395], "stop_times": [2467.758, 2480.816, 2491.395, 2492.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2455.831}, "reply_to": "19942__1_102", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19942__1_104", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Your Honor, I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2492.664], "stop_times": [2494.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2492.664}, "reply_to": "19942__1_103", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_105", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "I mean, if it's lower than 90 percent, maybe we should just dispense with juries and have polygraphs.\nYou wouldn't need juries.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2494.397, 2497.579, 2498.381], "stop_times": [2497.579, 2498.381, 2499.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2494.397}, "reply_to": "19942__1_104", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19942__1_106", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, to me, the... the most perplexing argument is this idea that the jury can determine credibility and the polygraph usurps their function.\nIt is one tool they use.\nIt is simply one piece of the puzzle.\nAnd military juries especially, they balance things all the time and weigh competing interests to make important decisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2499.139, 2506.775, 2509.897, 2511.95], "stop_times": [2506.775, 2509.897, 2511.95, 2518.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2499.139}, "reply_to": "19942__1_105", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_107", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "I thought that the argument that Mr. Dreeben was making was not that it usurps the jury's function, but that it's unnecessary, since juries, from time immemorial, have been judging questions of credibility.\nI thought his argument was, on that branch, it's unnecessary and it's very costly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2518.225, 2531.072], "stop_times": [2531.072, 2536.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2518.225}, "reply_to": "19942__1_106", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "19942__1_108", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Well... well, Your Honor, we... we submit that it's not unnecessary.\nAnd in Airman Scheffer's case, it would be particularly helpful to a jury.\nCredibility was the issue in this case.\nTwenty-one times, in closing argument alone, he was called a liar or said his credibility was lacking, even while the trial counsel knew he'd passed this government-initiated polygraph.\nAnd interestingly, the government brought in evidence of his external physical manifestations going to credibility.\nThere was testimony in the record from Special Agent Shilaikis, when they... when Airman Scheffer came in, and he explained what happened to him the night before the urinalysis, they elicited from their witness, well, what was his demeanor when he testified?\nWell, he was nervous.\nHe used a fast rate of speech.\nNow, arguably, that went to whether drugs were in his system or credibility.\nBut reading the record, it's clear, they're trying to use evidence to go to his credibility.\nAs one judge from the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals said in this case, Airman Scheffer's credibility was the whole ball game.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2536.615, 2540.068, 2543.649, 2545.45, 2556.209, 2563.154, 2575.574, 2576.665, 2578.886, 2581.818, 2586.399], "stop_times": [2540.068, 2543.649, 2545.45, 2556.209, 2563.154, 2575.574, 2576.665, 2578.886, 2581.818, 2586.399, 2593.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2536.615}, "reply_to": "19942__1_107", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_109", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Well, of course, they... they weren't purporting to be experts, reaching a conclusion as to credibility?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2593.414], "stop_times": [2598.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2593.414}, "reply_to": "19942__1_108", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19942__1_110", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "No, Your Honor, they were not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2598.347], "stop_times": [2599.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2598.347}, "reply_to": "19942__1_109", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_111", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "All right.\nAre there other instances in which experts, as Justice Stevens indicated, psychologists or psych... psychiatrists, are called to... to testify about credibility?\nDoes this ever happen in... in State proceedings?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2599.439, 2600.528, 2608.916], "stop_times": [2600.528, 2608.916, 2610.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2599.439}, "reply_to": "19942__1_110", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "19942__1_112", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Your Honor, I'm not familiar with State proceedings enough to answer that.\nI can tell you that, in military proceedings, that they are called.\nAnd although they are not permitted to say, I believe the witness, everything they're saying is basically saying, I believe the witness, without using those words.\nIt's very, very close.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2610.706, 2614.61, 2617.942, 2626.356], "stop_times": [2614.61, 2617.942, 2626.356, 2628.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2610.706}, "reply_to": "19942__1_111", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_113", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "May I ask what the rule is in the military, if there is one, in cases involving very young children who might have been cla... claim to have been sexually abused or something of that kind, who recount the instance to a... a caretaker soon after the incident occurred.\nIs the caretaker allowed to testify as to his or her opinion as to the truthfulness of what the child was describing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2628.377, 2643.397], "stop_times": [2643.397, 2650.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2628.377}, "reply_to": "19942__1_112", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "19942__1_114", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Not as to the truthfulness, Your Honor.\nBut... but demeanor and... and everything else, and then will bring in experts, who talk about child abuse accommodation syndrome and whether or not what the child said to the caretaker would or would not be consistent with a child who was fabricating or involved in fantasy or telling the truth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2650.082, 2651.392], "stop_times": [2651.392, 2664.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2650.082}, "reply_to": "19942__1_113", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_115", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "I'm slightly curious how they know what... whether these are reliable or not.\nI take it the question is whether a person who says \"I'm innocent\" is really guilty.\nAnd then we have these numbers in the brief that say, well, it's 90 percent of the time.\nHow would anyone know that?\nI mean, how... how... you have somebody who says \"I'm innocent\".\nHow, in some test or something, do they know wheth... whether he... how do they know, independently, he's guilty?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2664.872, 2670.315, 2677.33, 2682.984, 2684.474, 2687.787], "stop_times": [2670.315, 2677.33, 2682.984, 2684.474, 2687.787, 2694.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2664.872}, "reply_to": "19942__1_114", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19942__1_116", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Yes.\nAnd... and, often, independent proof is one of the problems.\nAnd it is more the... the accuracy rates are somewhat less in proving that an innocent person is telling the truth.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2694.371, 2695.021, 2697.304], "stop_times": [2695.021, 2697.304, 2704.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2694.371}, "reply_to": "19942__1_115", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_117", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Yeah, but my question is, how do they get these numbers, the accuracy rate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2704.34], "stop_times": [2706.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2704.34}, "reply_to": "19942__1_116", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19942__1_118", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2706.63], "stop_times": [2707.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2706.63}, "reply_to": "19942__1_117", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_119", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "I mean, you'd have to have, like, a laboratory or something.\nI guess everybody would know it would be like a game.\nSo I guess it's a question whether a game replicates reality.\nAnd if you go outside the laboratory, to the field, how does anybody know what the truth is to make this accuracy estimate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2707.101, 2710.063, 2712.035, 2715.856], "stop_times": [2710.063, 2712.035, 2715.856, 2722.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2707.101}, "reply_to": "19942__1_118", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19942__1_120", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nAnd... and exactly what you said, Your Honor.\nThey do do laboratory studies.\nAnd a great weight of the... the... the basis for these cred... these reliability estimates come from laboratory studies.\nThey also do real-life studies.\nAnd what they'll do is they'll go back and review cases in which someone subsequently confessed or some other person subsequently confessed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2722.111, 2722.661, 2723.961, 2725.423, 2731.988, 2733.648], "stop_times": [2722.661, 2723.961, 2725.423, 2731.988, 2733.648, 2740.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2722.111}, "reply_to": "19942__1_119", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_121", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Yeah, but a confession wouldn't work in a case where a person is innocent.\nThere would be very... there would be a handful of cases in which the person was really guilty and he confessed.\nBut there might be a lot of cases where he's really guilty and he didn't confess.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2740.734, 2744.637, 2750.382], "stop_times": [2744.637, 2750.382, 2755.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2740.734}, "reply_to": "19942__1_120", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19942__1_122", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2755.765], "stop_times": [2756.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2755.765}, "reply_to": "19942__1_121", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_123", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "So how would you know in... how would you ever... how do they ever go about figuring this out?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2756.646], "stop_times": [2759.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2756.646}, "reply_to": "19942__1_122", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "19942__1_124", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "And... and that's one of the problems with nailing it down.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2759.406, 2762.408], "stop_times": [2762.408, 2762.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2759.406}, "reply_to": "19942__1_123", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_125", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Ms. Sheffield, a moment ago, you were... you read a quotation from Taylor against Illinois.\nWere you quoting from the court opinion or the dissent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2762.809, 2768.653], "stop_times": [2768.653, 2771.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2762.809}, "reply_to": "19942__1_124", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19942__1_126", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--It was a dissent, Your Honor.\nAnd I should have specified.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2771.324, 2772.285], "stop_times": [2772.285, 2773.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2771.324}, "reply_to": "19942__1_125", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_127", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "I think you should have made that clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2773.247], "stop_times": [2774.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2773.247}, "reply_to": "19942__1_126", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19942__1_128", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "I apologize, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2774.316], "stop_times": [2775.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2774.316}, "reply_to": "19942__1_127", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_129", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Ms. Sheffield, what do you make of the... the... of the information provided in one of the government briefs... I forget which... to the effect that less than one-third of the members of the two major polygraph examiners' organizations are of the opinion that their... that their... that their opinions should be admissible in evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2775.327], "stop_times": [2797.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2775.327}, "reply_to": "19942__1_128", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "19942__1_130", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Well, Your Honor, that came from a study... a survey that was conducted by Dr. Licken... Dr. Lykken... I'm not sure which the correct way was.\nThe study has been called into question by the amicus brief that we have done by the Committee for Concerned Social Scientists.\nBasically, they... they... obviously, it is polarized.\nThere's no doubt about that.\nDr. Raskin and Dr. Honts and some other scientists talk about this study that the government relies on, and says less than one-third said that.\nBut there were some problems with the survey that they point out.\nThey... they... to question whether it was a random sampling, the context that the survey was sent out under.\nApparently, it had a cover letter that dealt with the O.J. Simpson case.\nIt asked them about legal implications.\nAnd we would submit that there are two other surveys that are out there that show very different results from that.\nIn fact, two other surveys... one done by Gallup in 1982, I believe, and... and another survey done by a Dr. Amato, both show that about two-thirds of that same group would support the polygraph being used, at least in conjunction with... as one piece, with other evidence, in... in making this type of determination.\nAnd the last survey that they reference in their brief was conducted by someone who is noted for being almost a vitriolic critic of polygraph evidence.\nSo there's... again, it's a polarized thing and there's viewpoints on either side.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2797.674, 2803.727, 2810.594, 2811.283, 2814.974, 2824.25, 2828.304, 2834.487, 2837.761, 2839.801, 2846.747, 2866.279, 2875.905], "stop_times": [2803.727, 2810.594, 2811.283, 2814.974, 2824.25, 2828.304, 2834.487, 2837.761, 2839.801, 2846.747, 2866.279, 2875.905, 2879.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2797.674}, "reply_to": "19942__1_129", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_131", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Ms. Sheffield, if... if we agree that polygraphs have to be used in the... as... that the Constitution requires polygraphs to be used in military trials, I suppose it would follow that... that they have to be used in civilian criminal trials.\nI mean, we... we couldn't have one rule for the milit... one constitutional rule for the military and... right?\nI mean, a fortiori--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2879.788, 2894.918, 2900.672], "stop_times": [2894.918, 2900.672, 2901.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2879.788}, "reply_to": "19942__1_130", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19942__1_132", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2901.774], "stop_times": [2902.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2901.774}, "reply_to": "19942__1_131", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_133", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--in... in Federal District Courts, we have... what about civil cases, is there any reason why the constitutional requirements wouldn't apply to civil cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2902.876], "stop_times": [2911.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2902.876}, "reply_to": "19942__1_132", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19942__1_134", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I... I wouldn't think that the Sixth Amendment would be implicated in a civil case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2911.151], "stop_times": [2915.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2911.151}, "reply_to": "19942__1_133", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_135", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Is that right, there... there are no... there... there are no restrictions on the processes that... that can be used in... in civil trials--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2915.354], "stop_times": [2926.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2915.354}, "reply_to": "19942__1_134", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19942__1_136", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2926.09], "stop_times": [2926.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2926.09}, "reply_to": "19942__1_135", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_137", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--especially in those civil trials in Federal courts, where a jury is required?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2926.62], "stop_times": [2930.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2926.62}, "reply_to": "19942__1_136", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19942__1_138", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, it's my understanding that... that it does come in, in civil trials, even in some jurisdictions that don't allow it in criminal.\nI'm not conversant enough in Federal civil practice to say--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2930.021, 2936.106], "stop_times": [2936.106, 2940.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2930.021}, "reply_to": "19942__1_137", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_139", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Well, I... I would expect the same argument to be made.\nLook, I'm... I'm trying to prove my case, defend my property, my livelihood.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2940.409, 2941.989], "stop_times": [2941.989, 2946.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2940.409}, "reply_to": "19942__1_138", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19942__1_140", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2946.614], "stop_times": [2947.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2946.614}, "reply_to": "19942__1_139", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_141", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "And you're excluding perfectly relevant evidence that... that the Constitution requires to be allowed in criminal trials.\nAs a matter of due process, I don't know how you could exclude it from a civil trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2947.335, 2952.818], "stop_times": [2952.818, 2957.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2947.335}, "reply_to": "19942__1_140", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19942__1_142", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "But... but, again, we're not asking this Court to hold it has to be admitted.\nOnly let a person show--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2957.229, 2961.212], "stop_times": [2961.212, 2962.233], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2957.229}, "reply_to": "19942__1_141", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_143", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Yes, it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2962.233], "stop_times": [2962.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2962.233}, "reply_to": "19942__1_142", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19942__1_144", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--in his case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2962.604], "stop_times": [2963.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2962.604}, "reply_to": "19942__1_143", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_145", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--it... it has to be admitted if the judge finds... finds that this is a good... a good enough expert.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2963.385], "stop_times": [2968.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2963.385}, "reply_to": "19942__1_144", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19942__1_146", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2968.979], "stop_times": [2970.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2968.979}, "reply_to": "19942__1_145", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_147", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "It would be a strange rule that said you had to admit it, even if you found the expert was a fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2970.178], "stop_times": [2975.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2970.178}, "reply_to": "19942__1_146", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19942__1_148", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Absolutely, Your Honor.\nAnd that's why we're not asking this Court to hold that.\nWe're simply saying, let the military courts, like the vast majority of the Federal Circuits do, let the trial judge hear the evidence.\nLet him do his 403 balancing.\nLet him see, and... and make a determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2975.613, 2977.444, 2979.305, 2985.999, 2988.33], "stop_times": [2977.444, 2979.305, 2985.999, 2988.33, 2990.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2975.613}, "reply_to": "19942__1_147", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_149", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Well, if... if... if we were the co... Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and... and there weren't any Rule 707 promulgated by the President, your presentation cert... certainly would make a great deal of sense.\nBut you... you're in the position where it isn't just a common law judgment on our part.\nThe President has said this will not come in.\nAnd so you have to say there's a constitutional principle that says it has to come in.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [2990.603, 3003.17, 3009.104, 3011.608], "stop_times": [3003.17, 3009.104, 3011.608, 3015.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2990.603}, "reply_to": "19942__1_148", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19942__1_150", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nYes, we do.\nAnd... and... and we... and we, of course, do assert that.\nAnd... and what's ironic is the reasons that are adduced here for allowing poly... keeping polygraphs out make less sense in the military context than they do in the civilian.\nWe... the... the States--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [3015.709, 3016.33, 3016.861, 3019.224, 3028.591], "stop_times": [3016.33, 3016.861, 3019.224, 3028.591, 3031.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3015.709}, "reply_to": "19942__1_149", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_151", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Well, let... let me ask you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [3031.032], "stop_times": [3031.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3031.032}, "reply_to": "19942__1_150", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "19942__1_152", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [3031.663], "stop_times": [3032.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3031.663}, "reply_to": "19942__1_151", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_153", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Is there any way of... of limiting the rule adopted by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to military criminal trials, as opposed to civilian criminal trials?\nAs I read the... the opinion, there... there is no effort to.\nI mean, it comes in as a constitutional matter, the right to... for a defendant to present its case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [3032.023, 3043.671, 3046.302], "stop_times": [3043.671, 3046.302, 3051.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3032.023}, "reply_to": "19942__1_152", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19942__1_154", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nHowever, in this Court, looking at it, such a limiting could be done.\nOf course, the Court of Appeals--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [3051.887, 3053.218, 3056.59], "stop_times": [3053.218, 3056.59, 3057.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3051.887}, "reply_to": "19942__1_153", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_155", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "How... how would you suggest that we do it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [3057.632], "stop_times": [3058.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3057.632}, "reply_to": "19942__1_154", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19942__1_156", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--Well, basically, the reasons that are problems for a lot of the States are not present for us.\nIf you look at their amicus brief, they cite things like there's no standardized training for polygraphers.\nMuch of the reliability depends on the qualifications and training of the examiner.\nThe States, unlike the Department of Defense, do not have the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute.\nThey don't have standardized equipment.\nThey don't have standardized protocol.\nThey don't have two layers of independent review above the polygrapher.\nWe have protections that make our tests more reliable, more trustworthy, that don't exist in the States, which would be a basis for this Court not to apply this case beyond the... the military.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [3058.93, 3063.994, 3068.959, 3072.65, 3077.855, 3079.203, 3081.575, 3085.528], "stop_times": [3063.994, 3068.959, 3072.65, 3077.855, 3079.203, 3081.575, 3085.528, 3095.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3058.93}, "reply_to": "19942__1_155", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_157", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "But then what... but you would still have to derive it from the same constitutional principle, wouldn't you... the right of the defendant to call witnesses in his defense?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [3095.115], "stop_times": [3102.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3095.115}, "reply_to": "19942__1_156", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19942__1_158", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nBut I think the argument would be on the... as far as the States, that the government reasons are not arbitrary.\nWhich they are in the military and which they are in Airman Scheffer's case specifically... arbitrary or disproportionate.\nBecause we have safeguards in our system that they don't have that make these rules arbitrary and disproportionate, and certainly in Airman Scheffer's case.\nEven the thing about the waste of time and everything else is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [3102.92, 3103.731, 3109.354, 3116.62, 3124.474], "stop_times": [3103.731, 3109.354, 3116.62, 3124.474, 3127.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3102.92}, "reply_to": "19942__1_157", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_159", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Well, if those safeguards were... were eliminated, the Army could... could then no longer admit polygraph evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [3127.576], "stop_times": [3134.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3127.576}, "reply_to": "19942__1_158", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19942__1_160", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--They would--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [3134.589], "stop_times": [3137.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3134.589}, "reply_to": "19942__1_159", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_161", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "I mean, if... if we rule that it must be admitted only because there are all of these safeguards, the military could get them unadmitted again by simply eliminating all the safeguards.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [3137.073], "stop_times": [3146.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3137.073}, "reply_to": "19942__1_160", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19942__1_162", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--If they wanted to throw their... their thou--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [3146.089], "stop_times": [3148.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3146.089}, "reply_to": "19942__1_161", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_163", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [3148.322], "stop_times": [3148.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3148.322}, "reply_to": "19942__1_162", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19942__1_164", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "--hundreds of thousands of polygraphs into disarray.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [3148.563], "stop_times": [3150.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3148.563}, "reply_to": "19942__1_163", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_165", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Yeah.\nI mean, go... go under the colander, the colander theory instead, just--\n[Laughter]\nRight.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [3150.824, 3151.144, 3152.273, 3153.645], "stop_times": [3151.144, 3152.273, 3153.645, 3154.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3150.824}, "reply_to": "19942__1_164", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "19942__1_166", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "And... and, you know, what's interesting about the colander theory is that confession would be admissible.\nBut if an individual defendant goes through this grueling process, designed to elicit confessions, and he's been there, done that, and doesn't confess, he can--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [3154.316, 3158.207], "stop_times": [3158.207, 3166.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3154.316}, "reply_to": "19942__1_165", "speaker": "kim_l_sheffield"}
{"id": "19942__1_167", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Sheffield.\nYour time has expired.\nMr. Dreeben, you have 5 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [3166.535, 3167.082, 3168.284], "stop_times": [3167.082, 3168.284, 3171.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3166.535}, "reply_to": "19942__1_166", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "19942__2_000", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nThe fundamental unreliability of polygraph evidence is underscored not only for the reasons that Justice Breyer adverted to, but also because of the possibility that countermeasures can defeat any test.\nAny individual who wants to can go on the Internet and download a book called\n\"Beat the Box: The Insider's Guide to Outwitting the Lie Detector. \"\nAnd studies have shown that with about a half an hour of education in how to outwit the lie detector test, a suspect can do that by provoking physiological responses that fool the examiner by measures as easily as pressing his toes against the ground or biting his tongue when asked particular questions.\nThose kinds of ways of skewing any reliability that polygraph might otherwise have make it clear that the examiner can never be confident to the level that should be required before this form of evidence is admitted in a criminal trial.\nIf the Court has no further questions, thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [3171.406, 3173.468, 3185.736, 3190.848, 3194.602, 3215.074, 3229.374], "stop_times": [3173.468, 3185.736, 3190.848, 3194.602, 3215.074, 3229.374, 3233.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3171.406}, "reply_to": "19942__1_167", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "19942__2_001", "conversation_id": "19942", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Dreeben.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_96-1133", "start_times": [3233.938, 3234.729], "stop_times": [3234.729, 3237.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3233.938}, "reply_to": "19942__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20556__0_000", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 97-372, United States v. United States Shoe Corporation.\nMr. Wallace, you may proceed whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20556__0_001", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIn this test case for thousands of cases being held in abeyance, a five-judge panel of the Federal Circuit held, with Judge Mayer dissenting, that, as applied to exports, the harbor maintenance tax enacted by Congress in 1986 is an invalid tax in violation of the Constitution's export clause rather than, as we contend, a permissible user fee.\nThe provision at issue was enacted as part of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, the first legislation in more than a decade to authorize development of new facilities in the Nation's harbors.\nThere was concern during this period that port development projects in the United States had lagged behind those of other developed countries and that this was contributing to our severe trade imbalance.\nAt the same time, this was a period in which there were large budget deficits and objections to using Federal funding to address this problem, and it was one that, as Judge Mayer pointed out in his dissenting opinion, engaged the attention of Congress over an extended period involving three Congresses and more than 4 years of numerous hearings and other activities, and one of the solutions to the funding problem was to craft a system of user fees that would avoid the need for funding out of general revenues.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_000", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_002", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Sort of similar to the last case, isn't it, trying... finding someone else to pay.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_001", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_003", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Well, in this instance there was a practical problem to be addressed.\nImprovements were needed and the beneficiaries of these facilities could, under court precedent, be charged user fees to defray the costs of providing these--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_002", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_004", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Can you tell us--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_005", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--facilities for their commercial benefit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_004", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_006", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--Does the record show, or are there statistics that we can examine to determine how much of this tax is paid by people who are exporting in contrast to those who are just shipping from point to point in the United States?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_005", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_007", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "I don't... off-hand, I'm not able to point to a breakdown in the statistics in the record, not... certainly not in what we've reproduced in the joint appendix.\nPerhaps my colleagues will be able to find something on that.\nI do want to say that the... one of the most difficult problems that was faced in this massive legislative consideration was how to craft an equitable and workable system of user fees in the context of the multitude of difficulties that were brought to Congress' attention by various industry and port representatives as well as members of the executive branch.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_006", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_008", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Mr. Wallace, one would have thought that if all this attention was devoted to user fees the enactment wouldn't have been called a tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_009", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Well, it perhaps was unfortunate choice of nomenclature--\n[Laughter]\n--but as the Court's decisions do make it clear that nomenclature is not in itself controlling.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_008", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_010", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Well, and also this thing is based on the value of the goods exported, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_011", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_010", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_012", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "So that you have a little package of computer chips this big that takes no space in the ship at all, and it's going to result in a huge tax, but a big quantity of wheat, that actually does require a large ship to convey it and so forth, might pay substantially less.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_011", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_013", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "That is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_012", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_014", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "The value might be less.\nIt's kind of an odd sort of a user fee, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_013", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_015", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--That is exactly correct, and if I may I would like to elaborate on this with reference to the legislative consideration of this very issue, but first I just want to interject in response to Justice Kennedy's previous question that on page 63 of the joint appendix there are some statistics that will shed some light on the question that he asked.\nNow, we have in our references isolated from the massive record of legislative consideration portions which are themselves quite hefty that dealt quite specifically with the user fee problem and, with the Court's permission, I would like to turn briefly to some brief excerpts from a statement that Senator Hatfield made which encapsulates the difficulties and the reasons for the crafting of it.\nIt's worth--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_014", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_016", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "How would a statement like that bear on whether or not this is a violation of the Export Clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_015", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_017", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--Well, I think it bears on the reasons why the particular kinds of objections that are being raised to the way the fee was crafted may be not aspects of the fee that actually disadvantage exports but to some extent may be aspects that were designed to be advantageous to exports, and also shows the sum of the serious economic dislocations that were sought to be avoided in trying to find an equitable manner of putting this fee together, and I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_016", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_018", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "I think if you'd had 20 wizards sitting down and coming up with the best possible solution in their view to these sort of... if it violated the Export Clause it's still bad, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_019", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--Of course, we do not contend that the difficulties and the magnitude of the effort that Congress put in would excuse a constitutional violation, but we do contend that it is too facile for others to contend that a court should ignore these aspects of the legislative consideration and merely hypothesize whether theoretically it could think of a system that might seem more appropriate to the court, which is insulated from the legislative concerns that were before the Congress.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_018", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_020", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "No, but you're talking about a user fee of harbors.\nYou'd think that would have something to do with the ships and the tonnage that's required and how deep the harbor needs to be and how big the dock has to be, and that turns on how large the ship needs to be, and this doesn't bear any relation to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_019", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_021", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Well, that is part of the reason that it took that many years for the Congress to craft a solution, because they started off with some of those same assumptions, but found that they couldn't work it out that way for very serious reasons.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_020", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_022", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Mr. Wallace, you've piqued my curiosity.\nWhy don't you read us that material you wanted to tell us about.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_021", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_023", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "All right.\nThese are brief--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_022", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_024", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Put it in for what it's worth, Mr. Wallace.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_023", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_025", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--These are brief excerpts of what Congress thought it was doing and why, and I might interject a few comments as I go along here.\nIn Senator Hatfield's statement, and it's in this hearing called User Fees for Ports and Waterways that we cite at the bottom of page 4 of our brief, he starts off pointing out we have not had a major authorization in this area for 15 years.\nThere are many economic and political reasons for this delay, but the resolution of the user fee component is a key element in getting a bill to the floor and passed.\n5 years ago I convened a bipartisan group to explore legislative proposals addressing the expectations of the administration for user fees while taking into account the economic realities of the navigation economy and the users of the Nation's waterways.\nOver that period I've introduced three separate and distinct proposals, one of which he explains became the bill that Congress later, shortly thereafter enacted.\nHe then explains, we reserved, meaning rejected in context, user fees based on tonnage because they disproportionately would effect bulk cargo marketability when compared to their impact on containerized cargo.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_024", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_026", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "What State was Senator Hatfield from?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_025", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_027", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Oregon.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_026", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_028", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "A lot of timber.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_027", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_029", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "He was talking about a bipartisan group--\n[Laughter]\n--that spent years of study on this.\nHe was not... these are not views stated individually.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_028", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_030", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "No, but doesn't his statement boil down to saying that a fee which is a real user fee is going to have an economic impact that we don't want.\nIsn't that what it boils down to?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_029", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_031", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Well, it depends... I mean, it's not a real user fee... tonnage is not the only measure of economic value that someone secures from facilities in these days of containerized--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_030", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_032", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "It's a measure of use, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_031", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_033", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--It is a measure--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_032", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_034", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Isn't it closer to being a measure of use than value?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_033", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_035", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--It is a measure of use.\nIf I may just, in answering this, the very next sentence says that a fee based on tonnage also would disadvantage export-dependent ports in contrast to import-dependent ports.\nOne of their concerns was that our export trade would be hurt by a user fee based on this.\nMuch of our export was and is bulk commodities, grains, iron ore, which was having difficulty competing in international trade from the Great Lakes ports, which were suffering some depression at the time, lumber, as is pointed out, and other wood products.\nThe bipartisan group also rejected a port-specific approach to fees because it would have the effect of disadvantaging ports with higher operation and maintenance costs and could cause consolidation of port facilities to a few super ports.\nThis could have severe economic implications for scores of communities across the country.\nSo then he explains that the approach they finally chose to adopt is a nationally uniform single-tier fee based on a percentage of cargo value, and this ad valorem concept, as he explains it, equitably balances containerized versus bulk cargoes, places all ports on an equal footing, and does not affect the marketability of any product or commodity.\nIt also treats all coastal ranges of the continental U.S. in the same manner, East and West Coast, Great Lakes, and Gulf Coasts.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_034", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_036", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Mr. Wallace, I guess--\n--And if they pay for it out of the... suppose they pay for it out of the highway trust fund.\nIt's part of transportation.\nIs the gas tax now... it's really a user fee.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_035", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_037", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "That is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_036", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_038", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "I mean, I guess... all your arguments would say, we don't even have a gas tax.\nWe have a highway user fee, is that right, even though they call it a gas tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_037", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_039", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--It is very similar.\nIn fact, the trust fund--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_038", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_040", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "So if we accept your argument there is no gas tax.\nIt's really a highway user fee and if, in fact, they decided to pay for the ports out of the highway trust fund, then the whole thing's a highway user fee.\nMaybe it's an income user fee, a facilities user fee, income tax is really a user fee for using the country's facilities.\n[Laughter]\nHow do you draw the line?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_039", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_041", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--We wouldn't go this far, but the particular concern that Congress was addressing here was the disadvantage to the commercial use of our ports and to commerce resulting from the outmoded nature of the facilities.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_040", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_042", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "We can get rid of all the disadvantage to exports by putting the whole thing in the income tax.\nThat doesn't make the income tax a user fee.\nMaybe it does.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_041", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_043", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "No, of course not, but it would mean that it would become a matter of general funding.\nIn any event--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_042", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_044", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Mr. Wallace, I thought that when we made an exception from the constitutional prohibition of Federal taxes on exports, when we enunciated an exception for user fees, I didn't think that meant any charge imposed on users.\nI... that would make it no limitation at all.\nSo long as you impose the tax through users, you can tax exports as much as you like.\nIf that limitation is to have any bounds at all, it seems to me we must mean by user fee a charge that is based upon the degree of use of the port.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_043", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_045", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--Well, I think this Court's jurisprudence in distinguishing taxes from user fees shows that it is a more variegated distinction than that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_044", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_046", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Not in the Export Clause field.\nIn other... you're referring to cases that deal with other provisions of the Constitution, not the Export Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_045", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_047", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Well, those cases all had their root in a case called Pace v. Burgess, which was an Export Clause case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_046", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_048", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "And in Pace the Court was at pains to point out that the charge there was not an ad valorem charge.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_047", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_049", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "That is true, but it also made a... but ad valorem charges have since been upheld as permissible methods of user fees.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_048", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_050", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Not under the Export clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_049", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_051", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "But in other contexts where constitutional objections were raised.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_050", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_052", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "But constitutional objections may be quite different in different cases.\nWe have here a very specific prohibition, and the... you know, the Pace case, the Fairbank case deal with those particular... that particular clause.\nI'm surprised you... perhaps it's our fault that you haven't been able to get to those cases yet, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_051", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_053", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_052", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_054", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--we know the Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_053", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_055", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--I'm trying to set this up in context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_054", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_056", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--Yes.\nWe know that Congress gave its all on this thing, but now let's look at the law.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_055", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_057", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Yes.\nYes, and I have to add one further consideration that inhibited the legislative consideration, and that was it was all done against a backdrop of awareness of our international trade relations and international agreements with our trading partners, which also do not supersede constitutional limitations, but they're relevant to whether Congress was going to be able to solve this user fee question.\nBecause those agreements... it was GATT at that time, and now WTO... in which there have been reciprocal reductions of tariffs, those... there are expectations and obligations that prevent members in those agreements from discriminating against the foreign industry in favor of the domestic industry.\nAnd even though the measure adopted here was one that generally would be favorable to exports as against imports, the ad valorem method, for reasons that Senator Hatfield explained, that could be defensible under these agreements, but to charge user fees to imports and not to exports in these same harbors could be a basis for objections and retaliation by our trading partners as a disguised form of raising our tariffs again, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_056", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_058", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Mr. Wallace, is that why you suggested that maybe this... if we ruled against you the whole thing would fall?\nThat sort of surprised me.\nIn page 18, footnote 8 of your brief you say that if the decision of the court of appeals stands, that would effectively abolish the trust fund.\nIt would void the harbor maintenance tax in its entirety, and I had been thinking up till now, well, no, it would only excise the export feature of it, and now you're suggesting well, maybe the import would also fall?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_057", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_059", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--No, we really meant that in context only for exporters, but there is... I don't want to suggest that this would not be severable, but the concern about possible retaliation by our trading partners in saying that we've in disguise raised our tariff rates again and so they're going to raise theirs, that would not only affect the public interest in our balance of trades, but it would directly affect exporters from this country.\nIt would be something that would burden exports from this country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_058", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_060", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "But it would be applied to them the same way it would apply to shipping, say, from New York to Texas?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_059", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_061", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "No.\nI'm talking about retaliation by our trading partners.\nIf they then raise their tariffs, that makes it harder for industries in this country that wish to export to be able to export.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_060", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_062", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Well, I take it it's more serious than that.\nIf we strike down the export provision and require refunds, but the importers can't get any refunds, then we're in violations of the agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_061", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_063", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say we're necessarily in violations, although a foreign country, one of our trading partners might make such a claim before the World Trade Organization, but they also could use this as a reason to impose retaliatory measures.\nCongress was faced with a very complex problem here.\nThe Constitution is designed for modern commerce as well as for the commerce that was known at the time that these provisions were adopted, and we think that the court of appeals was right in pointing to this Court's user fee jurisprudence which has been developed in detail in fields other than the Export Clause after Pace v. Burgess.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_062", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_064", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Well, if a provision is under alternative 1 a tax on imports and exports, it doesn't seem to me that that makes it any more or any less a user fee under any other alternative.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_063", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_065", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_064", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_066", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "In other words, you're... I understand the problem the Congress was faced with.\nIt can't tax imports... exports.\nThat doesn't mean that if it taxes imports and exports it's no longer an export tax.\nIt's still the same thing.\nIt's still an export tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_065", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_067", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--Well, we understand that from the IBM case if this were a tax, and that is why we are arguing that this is a permissible user fee, which is one of the arguments we had made right along in the case and, indeed, had always been our principal argument, and it satisfies the basic classic attribute of a user fee that has been developed in many aspects of the Court's jurisprudence.\nThe funds are all impressed into a trust.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_066", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_068", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Well, if it were imposed, let's say, on the ship... the ships, the owners of the ships or the vessels, and a charge for using the docks or the harbor, which the vessel owners could then pass on in the form of costs to the users of their vessels, I think you'd have a good argument that it's a user fee, but the nature of this makes it awfully hard to see it as a user fee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_067", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_069", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Well, the Court in the Evansville-Vanderburgh case did say that it seemed to the Court in that context to make no difference whether it was assessed on the airline or on the passenger, because it came down to the same thing.\nThe costs were to be passed along to the passenger.\nThere was a very practical reason for asking the shippers to be the ones to make the payment, and that was that the carrier would not be in a position... once Congress decided that the ad valorem measure was the only equitable one that they could hope to impose, the carriers would not be in a position to know the value of the cargo.\nAnd one of the principles that this Court has recognized repeatedly in giving legislative latitude in the crafting of user fees is that you don't want to add administrative expenses that will make the fee more burdensome and more onerous for everybody, that there are virtues in keeping it simple.\nAnd the Customs Service is there, was a resource that could be drawn upon that deals not with the carriers but with the owners of the goods with the shippers one way or the other, and Congress tried to craft this in a manner that would impose the least burden and would avoid severe economic dislocations in the country.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_068", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_070", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Mr. Wallace, can I ask you, do we have a definition of user fee?\nIt seems to me your argument is that as long as the fee is paid by users and the money is used for the purpose of improving ports, that's enough.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_069", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_071", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "That is enough to make it a user fee, and it's a permissible user fee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_070", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_072", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "But is that... is... do I correctly state your position, and if that's true, could you impose a 10-percent tax on the income of every user and then put it in this fund?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_071", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_073", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Well, if it... that would have much more difficulty meeting this Court's criteria for what is a valid user fee.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_072", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_074", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_073", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_075", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "There are the three-part criteria, including that it must not be excessive in relation to the cost to the Government of providing the benefits that are accorded--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_074", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_076", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--Oh, but of course--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_075", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_077", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--to those contributors.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_076", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_078", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--Then don't you bump into Justice O'Connor's position that if some particularly valuable shipment is sent the cost for that particular shipment is really excessive in terms of the use that is gotten for it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_077", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_079", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Well, you know, that is... an ad valorem system, any system is going to have some applications that could be improved upon in a more Utopian scheme, but Congress reasonably concluded that those whose cargo in the aggregate was more valuable were getting greater benefits in terms of enhancement of value from the improvement in facilities that was being provided in order to promote their commerce, the commerce of the users.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_078", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_080", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Mr. Wallace, tell me why it is not true that any definition of user fee, which simply defines it as a... you know, a fee imposed on users, and which does not limit it to the cost that is incurred by the facilities in providing the use, any such definition will be totally ineffective in preventing the taxation of exports, because you could always... I mean, it comes to the same.\nYou call it a user fee and impose an ad valorem tax, which is what has happened here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_079", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_081", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "The three-part test has to be met.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_080", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_082", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "In fact, they didn't even call it a user fee.\nThey called it a tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_081", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_083", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "The three-part test does have to be met that this Court specified in the Massachusetts case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_082", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_084", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Which wasn't an export tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_083", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_085", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_084", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_086", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "In fact, none of your examples of user fees which were upheld have come from the prohibition against a tax on exports.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_085", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_087", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "We recognize that, except for the route in Pace v. Burgess.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_086", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_088", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "And Pace v. Burgess, as I say, pointed out expressly in the Court's reasoning, one of the reasons they upheld it, it was not an ad valorem tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_087", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_089", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "That is true, but ad valorem taxes have been upheld as user fees--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_088", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_090", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--export tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_089", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_091", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--in Sperry and in Capital Greyhound Lines referred to in Evansville-Vanderburgh in the discussion of Capital Greyhound Lines as one permissible approach.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_090", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_092", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Mr. WAllace--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_091", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_093", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "So those are three decisions of this Court that have recognized that as a basis for user fees--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_092", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_094", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--Mr. Wallace--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_093", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_095", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--in a proper context.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_094", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_096", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--this was in the pipeline when IBM was decided, so... and my question is, is there anything else in the wake of the IBM decision that's in the lower courts now that we might want to take account of as we decide this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_095", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__0_097", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "No.\nThese have been the main feature that awaited the decision in IBM, as we pointed out in the IBM briefing itself, that these cases were pending as one of the reasons why a decision was needed in that case, and then the arguments were adjusted accordingly.\nBut it is true that the Court has repeatedly recognized that even exporters can be charged fees for pilotage, for wharfage, for other facilities that are provided, and the line has to be drawn somewhere.\nExporters are not exempt from paying their own way in commerce the same as other users of the facilities of commerce, and the best guidance for drawing the line has been the test that the Court has developed in protecting all constitutionally protected interests.\nI'd like to reserve the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_096", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__0_098", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Very well, Mr. Wallace.\nMr. Atwood, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_097", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__1_000", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nFirst, I'd like to supplement the answer to Justice Kennedy's question about what data is in the record.\nAlso in the appendix at page 97 is some more updated material about the relative charge on exports and imports in domestic commerce, and in the amicus brief of the Aluminum Company of America they had the most recent, 1997 data.\nBasically it tells the same story, and that is that exports have paid between 25 and 30 percent of this tax over the years, and the amount that the exports now pay is less than the annual surpluses accumulated, so you could eliminate exports entirely from this tax and there would still be more revenue coming in than the Government is spending on harbor maintenance.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__0_098", "speaker": "james_r_atwood"}
{"id": "20556__1_001", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "That would translate into a tax, then, on imports only, and I think would raise serious discrimination problems under trade agreements.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_000", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__1_002", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Well, this... if there is an international issue there, it can be solved in the same way the export problems can be solved, which is to make this a legitimate user fee.\nI think the foreign Governments are concerned by the fact that they thought they had negotiated ad valorem duties of a certain level and now the United States is imposing ad valorem charges on top of that, and that's the problem internationally, if there is one, so a valid user fee approach here I think would solve both the export problem and the import problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_001", "speaker": "james_r_atwood"}
{"id": "20556__1_003", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "In fact, I guess the fund has quite a surplus in it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_002", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__1_004", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "It has more than a billion dollars and is expected to hit $3 billion in just a few more fiscal years.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_003", "speaker": "james_r_atwood"}
{"id": "20556__1_005", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "That money isn't... it's just not lying there.\nI assume the Government is using it for other purposes, meanwhile.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_004", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__1_006", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Exactly.\nThat is one of our--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_005", "speaker": "james_r_atwood"}
{"id": "20556__1_007", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "The way it uses taxes... the way it generally uses tax money.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_006", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__1_008", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--That is one of our objections to this user fee classification.\nThe harbor maintenance trust fund is simply an accounting entry.\nRevenues under this tax are treated as on-budget, so that every dollar that comes in offsets obligations to raise taxes for discretionary spending under the budget control process.\nThere is a transfer to the trust fund which is a nonevent for budget purposes.\nIt's simply an accounting entry, and then any expenditures actually made for harbor maintenance--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_007", "speaker": "james_r_atwood"}
{"id": "20556__1_009", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "There's enough in there to pay for the coal miners and their dependents?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_008", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__1_010", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--Any appropriation for harbor maintenance has to follow the same process as if there were no trust fund.\nThere has to be a bill from both Houses of Congress signed by the President and Congress is free to appropriate as much or as little money as it would like for harbor maintenance, irrespective of what's in the trust fund.\nI'd like to address the Government's argument that Mr. Wallace started with that the... this tax... and I hope I can call it a tax, because that's what Congress called it... was a result of a very complex, delicate legislative process and important compromises were made and sophisticated judgments as to what was possible and what wasn't possible.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_009", "speaker": "james_r_atwood"}
{"id": "20556__1_011", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Mr. Atwood, before you do that, may I ask if you would tell us what you think are the essential components of what one could legitimately call a user fee, because I think you told us, you're not arguing the export clause rules out user's fees, but it has to be legitimate.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_010", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__1_012", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_011", "speaker": "james_r_atwood"}
{"id": "20556__1_013", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "And Mr. Wallace, if I understood him right, said, well, it's a tax on a user and it has to meet those three standards.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__1_014", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "We are not arguing that there is no such thing as a legitimate user fee.\nIn the context of the Export Clause at least, because of history, because of the unqualified nature of it, because of this Court's precedents, we think the class of user fees has to be defined strictly and narrowly.\nThere must be a demonstrable service provided to the exporter on that export shipment, an identifiable Government service that is being provided to the exporter, and the charge must bear a very close relationship to that service, particularly where a fee is compulsory in nature.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_013", "speaker": "james_r_atwood"}
{"id": "20556__1_015", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "For the cost of that service.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_014", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__1_016", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "For the cost of that service, exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_015", "speaker": "james_r_atwood"}
{"id": "20556__1_017", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Do the costs here include fixed costs for dredging the harbor originally?\nIs it all maintenance, or is it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__1_018", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "No.\nCapital costs--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_017", "speaker": "james_r_atwood"}
{"id": "20556__1_019", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--Well, there is a tradition... there is a tradition of something called value of service pricing, where you charge somebody for the fixed cost in relationship to the value of the commodity that uses the service.\nThat's... the ICC did that for years, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_018", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__1_020", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--I think the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_019", "speaker": "james_r_atwood"}
{"id": "20556__1_021", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--I don't know whether that makes it a great thing, but there is that tradition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_020", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__1_022", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--Once you're getting into value of service I think that is crossing the line into a tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_021", "speaker": "james_r_atwood"}
{"id": "20556__1_023", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Well, nobody would have thought ICC railroad freight car rates were taxes.\nThey would have said that those are... that's simply a way of pricing the railroad line and, indeed, they have it in the telephone service business right now, where you pay lower cost of residency, and... I mean, there are all kinds of things like that where fixed costs are divided in relationship to the value of the service rather than the cost of the service to the person who's using it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_022", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__1_024", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Well, in deciding this case, this Court need not anticipate every possible cost theory that might be advanced, but an ad valorem tax based on a Nation-wide program, an infrastructure program, is about as far from costs as is possible, and it is feasible, I think, for the... for Congress to have come up with a much more sophisticated targeted user fee, and that is proven by, in the very same legislative package that included the harbor maintenance tax, there was the harbor development tax, which was the State analogue.\nUnder the Import-Export Clause Congress has authority to, notwithstanding the Import-Export Clause prohibition, has authority to authorize State charges of various sorts, and the same legislation included the harbor development tax, which is... the key provisions are in the appendix to our brief, where Congress said, okay, States can impose harbor dues, notwithstanding the Import-Export Clause, but they have to be on a project-specific basis, they have to... there has to be an identifiable project, they may not impose the dues until the project is up and running and providing services to the shippers, exporters or importers, the costs have to be limited... the fees have to be limited to the cost of the project, and you have to discriminate between which vessels are actually using the project and which are not.\nThis is in the same statute that included the harbor maintenance tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_023", "speaker": "james_r_atwood"}
{"id": "20556__1_025", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Is this imposed on vessels or goods?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_024", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__1_026", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "That is not specified in the statute.\nIt says the local... the States and municipalities can consider either approach, but they may not impose charges if the vessel is of a type that would not have benefited from that project.\nFor example, a shallow draft vessel, regardless of what it's carrying, may not be charged for deep dredging when it did not need the deep dredging, so it's an example of an approach that is obviously far closer to a justifiable user fee, and it was in this very legislative package.\nIt can be done.\nYou know, also, as the quotations that Mr. Wallace gave us indicate, this was a difficult political process, to be sure.\nThe Framers were worried about how exports would survive in the political process.\nThat's why we have an Export Clause.\nThis is clear from the constitutional debates.\nThere was concern that, if you left these matters to Congress, that in the give-and-take of the political process exports would not come out favorably, so, instead of waiting for Congress to include exemptions in statutes, and there are a lot of exemptions in this statute, Congress... the Framers put the exemption in the Constitution itself, and that exemption is not being honored here.\nThere is a long tradition under the Export clause of broad liberal construction.\nThe Court has said that in Fairbank, it said it most recently in IBM, it said it in A. G. Spalding, and the broad construction to which the Export Clause is supposed to be given would be completely undermined here by an ad valorem tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_025", "speaker": "james_r_atwood"}
{"id": "20556__1_027", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "I'm not sure what your answer was to Justice Breyer's question.\nThere are many ways of allocating costs.\nIn Justice O'Connor's example, I suppose a valuable shipment needs some extra security guards and a safe warehouse facility.\nMaybe that's included in the act.\nIt seems to me that ad valorem is certainly the simplest way to measure the benefit that the person is getting.\nNow, maybe that's not a use tax.\nAre you saying that a use tax can never be measured by the benefit that the user derives?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_026", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__1_028", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "I believe a proper user fee should be framed in terms of the cost of the benefit and not the benefit.\nThe examples you gave, first of all, don't involve Federal services.\nThe Federal Government does not provide any marshalls at ports.\nThat's separate altogether.\nAnd the lower courts, I think they both considered this question of whether ad valorem is a reasonable measure, even of benefit.\nThey gave the Government the benefit of the doubt and said, even if we analyze this on the basis of benefits, ad valorem is irrational, because benefits have to do with the profitability of the shipment, not its total value or--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_027", "speaker": "james_r_atwood"}
{"id": "20556__1_029", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "That argument runs into Justice Breyer's point.\nI mean, we've considered it rational enough for regulatory pricing.\nYou know, value-of-service pricing has been common, and we've never thought it was irrational.\nAnd even if you--\n--It's rational enough.\nI think your point has to be that it's simply not compatible with any limitation on the taxation of exports, because once you go to ad... it comes to the same.\nExcept that if you relate it to costs... say you're putting in a new lighthouse at the harbor entrance, which would benefit everybody who uses it, and if the total amount collected doesn't exceed the cost of the lighthouse, doesn't that satisfy your cost test?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_028", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__1_030", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--A port-specific charge for a lighthouse.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_029", "speaker": "james_r_atwood"}
{"id": "20556__1_031", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_030", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__1_032", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "That would... sounds to me like a proper user fee, although I still wonder--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_031", "speaker": "james_r_atwood"}
{"id": "20556__1_033", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "And say... and it's measured by those who use it, by the value of the goods shipped.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_032", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__1_034", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--I would think the proper approach is not to measure it by value but to measure it by--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_033", "speaker": "james_r_atwood"}
{"id": "20556__1_035", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Well, your ceiling--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_034", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__1_036", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--numbers of passages past the lighthouse, or some--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_035", "speaker": "james_r_atwood"}
{"id": "20556__1_037", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--Number of calls on the port.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_036", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__1_038", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--Number of calls at the port, exactly, and that's how State taxes are often allocated between ports.\nYou measure relative port days.\nAd valorem really just slides you right into wealth transfers and taxing of value, and particularly so when you do it on a Nation-wide basis, where the costs of dredging in Oregon are paid for by shippers on the East Coast.\nSo I... and given the history of this clause and the purpose for which it was intended to be there, which is to protect exports from the vagaries of the political process, I think it does require a broad construction.\nIf there are no--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_037", "speaker": "james_r_atwood"}
{"id": "20556__1_039", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "There was a jurisdiction point.\nDo I understand correctly, if it... if the CIT is the right place the cases that were started in... what is the proper title now, the CFC?\ncould be transferred under 1631 and that would take care of the statute of limitations?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_038", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__1_040", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--That doesn't affect my client--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_039", "speaker": "james_r_atwood"}
{"id": "20556__1_041", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Because you started out on the CIT--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_040", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__1_042", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--so we do not take a position on the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_041", "speaker": "james_r_atwood"}
{"id": "20556__1_043", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--You don't take any position on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_042", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__1_044", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "--On the transferability of cases from that other court, because in this case it's clear that the CIT... conceded by both sides the CIT and the Federal Circuit had jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_043", "speaker": "james_r_atwood"}
{"id": "20556__1_045", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Atwood.\nMr. Wallace, you have a minute remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_044", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "20556__2_000", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "If itemization requirements are carried too far, and you get into an example for... where wharfage capacity has been increased, does that mean that only the users of the new wharves can be charged user fees?\nIf the channel has been deepened and somebody could have gotten along with a shallower vessel but because of the deepening of the channel had to use the larger vessel, does he have to bear part of the costs?\nThe Constitution may not prohibit Congress from causing serious economic dislocations in exercising its power, but the Court should be hesitant to require Congress to cause serious economic dislocations by not allowing it the latitude that it needs in fashioning an equitable method of devising user fees.\nYes, Congress does have to address the surplus that is accumulating in this fund, but all of the account is impressed for operation and maintenance of the harbors and for no other purpose, and that... and those funds are still available for that.\nCongress has been reluctant to expand the authorizations to NOAA, for example, or to the Coast Guard, because the more aspects of navigation are brought under this fund while litigation is pending, the more it's argued that these are general expenditures.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__1_045", "speaker": "lawrence_g_wallace"}
{"id": "20556__2_001", "conversation_id": "20556", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Wallace.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-372", "start_times": [0.0, 0.0], "stop_times": [0.0, 0.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": "20556__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20657__0_000", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Number 97-461, Wisconsin Department of Corrections v. Schacht.\nMr. Moriarty.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [0.0, 8.42], "stop_times": [8.42, 15.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20657__0_001", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIn this action substantial Federal questions were presented by the individual capacity claims respondent chose to make against Warden Catherine Farrey and the other Wisconsin employees who are defendants in this action.\nHe sued them personally under a Federal statute, section 1983, alleging violations of the Federal constitution.\nSubstantial Federal questions were presented.\nHad this action proceeded in district court on an initial complaint, the district court would unquestionably have had original jurisdiction because substantial Federal questions were presented.\nThe potential, had this commenced in district court, the potential that those claims could have been barred by a sovereign immunity defense or any of those claims could have been barred by a sovereign immunity defense would not have affected original jurisdiction of the court.\nThis case instead was removed.\nIt arrived by removal rather than an initial complaint.\nThe analysis--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [15.343, 19.212, 37.273, 46.112, 49.081, 63.156, 81.368, 86.855, 90.057], "stop_times": [19.212, 37.273, 46.112, 49.081, 63.156, 81.368, 86.855, 90.057, 93.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 15.343}, "reply_to": "20657__0_000", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_002", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "It was removed, in effect, by the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [93.176], "stop_times": [95.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 93.176}, "reply_to": "20657__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20657__0_003", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--It was removed by the State and the employees of the State sued both personally and officially.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [95.628], "stop_times": [104.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 95.628}, "reply_to": "20657__0_002", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_004", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Right.\nNow, if you're right that the official capacity claims and the claims against the State involve defendants who aren't persons under section 1983, why didn't the State just waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity?\nI mean, you're perfectly safe.\nClaims weren't going to go forward under 1983.\nDid the State consider waiving the Eleventh Amendment immunity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [104.132, 105.066, 119.493, 121.093, 126.313], "stop_times": [105.066, 119.493, 121.093, 126.313, 129.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 104.132}, "reply_to": "20657__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20657__0_005", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Your Honor, there are--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [129.598], "stop_times": [131.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 129.598}, "reply_to": "20657__0_004", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_006", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "I mean, if you're right, I just don't see why the State didn't do it.\nI don't... it doesn't make sense to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [131.249, 135.253], "stop_times": [135.253, 136.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 131.249}, "reply_to": "20657__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20657__0_007", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--We return back to the decision on whether to remove.\nThe claims as to which sovereign immunity applied were really irrelevant because, whether this case was prosecuted in Federal court or State court, they would have been barred.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [136.919, 141.156], "stop_times": [141.156, 153.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 136.919}, "reply_to": "20657__0_006", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_008", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Well, would you answer my question?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [153.214], "stop_times": [154.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 153.214}, "reply_to": "20657__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20657__0_009", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "I'm--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [154.364], "stop_times": [154.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 154.364}, "reply_to": "20657__0_008", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_010", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Did the State waive its immunity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [154.58], "stop_times": [156.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 154.58}, "reply_to": "20657__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20657__0_011", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--It did not waive its immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [156.166], "stop_times": [157.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 156.166}, "reply_to": "20657__0_010", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_012", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "But your position is those claims against... the official capacity claims and the claims against the State cannot proceed under 1983 because the State isn't a person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [157.116], "stop_times": [168.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 157.116}, "reply_to": "20657__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20657__0_013", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [168.974], "stop_times": [170.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 168.974}, "reply_to": "20657__0_012", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_014", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Okay.\nSo why not waive it?\nWhy not end this thing?\nI just... it's the strangest posture.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [170.759, 171.142, 172.359, 174.711], "stop_times": [171.142, 172.359, 174.711, 177.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 170.759}, "reply_to": "20657__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20657__0_015", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "We are now looking back, Your Honor, at... from the perspective of the Seventh Circuit decision at the initial removal decision.\nAt the time of removal, the claims made against the State were clearly barred either under Will... in both State and Federal court either under Will, because it wasn't within the definition of a person, or based on Eleventh Amendment immunity, or sovereign immunity in State court.\nThe real crux of the case was the individual capacity claims made against the individual.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [177.08, 188.987, 205.099], "stop_times": [188.987, 205.099, 211.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 177.08}, "reply_to": "20657__0_014", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_016", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "And as to that you wanted it tried in Federal court, not State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [211.919], "stop_times": [216.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 211.919}, "reply_to": "20657__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20657__0_017", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [216.907], "stop_times": [217.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 216.907}, "reply_to": "20657__0_016", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_018", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "So why not waive the Eleventh Amendment immunity?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [217.54], "stop_times": [219.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 217.54}, "reply_to": "20657__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20657__0_019", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--Because that's not a price of admission to the Federal court, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [219.941], "stop_times": [223.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 219.941}, "reply_to": "20657__0_018", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_020", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Well, maybe it should be.\nIf we could start all over, it would seem to me to make some sense that if the State removes, that is a waiver of the Eleventh Amendment.\nIt seems rather odd that you want to go to a court and then say I don't want to be in the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [223.143, 224.393, 232.165], "stop_times": [224.393, 232.165, 236.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 223.143}, "reply_to": "20657__0_019", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20657__0_021", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "By joining with the officials sued personally in removing, which is required by the removal statutes, the State is not saying we want to be in... we don't want to be in court.\nObviously, they're in court.\nThe question is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [236.451, 252.126, 254.345], "stop_times": [252.126, 254.345, 255.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 236.451}, "reply_to": "20657__0_020", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_022", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Well, you have to consent, as you indicate.\nYou have to consent to the removal.\nYou had the option to keep it in State court, but you consented to be removed to a Federal court.\nHe removed it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [255.112, 256.447, 257.764, 262.017], "stop_times": [256.447, 257.764, 262.017, 263.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 255.112}, "reply_to": "20657__0_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20657__0_023", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--Certainly it was a litigation decision by all of the defendants joining together, but the sovereign... the Eleventh Amendment is a defense.\nIt is not part of the initial threshold jurisdictional question.\nIs there a substantial Federal question?\nOf course there is.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [263.134, 271.374, 276.176, 277.944], "stop_times": [271.374, 276.176, 277.944, 278.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 263.134}, "reply_to": "20657__0_022", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_024", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Mr. Moriarty, I remember asking the counsel in the Chicago case that we heard, one thinks of Federal courts as being a place where you can get away from local prejudice and that sort of thing, but one would think that the State of Wisconsin would be perfectly happy to be in the State court.\nI gather that isn't always the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [278.544, 295.589], "stop_times": [295.589, 297.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 278.544}, "reply_to": "20657__0_023", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20657__0_025", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "It isn't always the case in individual cases.\nFor example, we have strictly Federal constitutional claims here.\nA body of Federal constitutional law that has developed, particularly in the Seventh Circuit, where there's binding precedent on the district courts.\nThere would not be that binding precedent on the State courts.\nIf, as a litigator--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [297.107, 299.773, 304.261, 311.581, 313.847], "stop_times": [299.773, 304.261, 311.581, 313.847, 315.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 297.107}, "reply_to": "20657__0_024", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_026", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "What difference does it make, so long as you're going to stand on the Eleventh Amendment?\nAll this knowledge that the Federal courts have about Federal law as far as the State is concerned is irrelevant, and as to that, the last piece of this... I mean, you say we have a right to remand because the Eleventh Amendment is in the nature of a defense.\nIt's not like the existence of Federal question, jurisdiction or diversity.\nThe end of the road as far as the State is concerned, as distinguished from the individuals, you... do you concede that the Federal court entertaining your Eleventh Amendment plea should remand rather than dismiss?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [315.866, 320.437, 335.612, 340.581], "stop_times": [320.437, 335.612, 340.581, 357.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 315.866}, "reply_to": "20657__0_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20657__0_027", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--Answering the second question first, I do not concede that.\nThe Federal court had Federal question jurisdiction.\nIt had it... it would have had it had an initial complaint been filed.\nIt had it on removal.\nIt is inappropriate for the court to remand claims that are properly before it and that were properly dismissed by the district court through that... through the full litigation that occurred.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [357.943, 363.28, 367.466, 370.62, 372.103], "stop_times": [363.28, 367.466, 370.62, 372.103, 389.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 357.943}, "reply_to": "20657__0_026", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_028", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "But then I don't understand, because what you're saying by your Eleventh Amendment plea, the Eleventh Amendment not applying in the State court whatever State immunity applies, that you cannot be sued any place, that you are just totally immune, because you do this, you go over to the Federal court and say, Federal court, you can't touch it because of the Eleventh Amendment and dismiss the case, and then no one can touch it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [389.014], "stop_times": [414.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 389.014}, "reply_to": "20657__0_027", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20657__0_029", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Right.\nThe... when the Eleventh Amendment applies, generally it's dismissal without prejudice, such that if it--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [414.562, 415.262], "stop_times": [415.262, 425.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 414.562}, "reply_to": "20657__0_028", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_030", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "But then you do this over and over again.\nIt's without prejudice.\nYes.\nThen you begin again in the State court, and then you remove it, and you could do that over and over again.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [425.353, 426.837, 428.222, 428.522], "stop_times": [426.837, 428.222, 428.522, 434.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 425.353}, "reply_to": "20657__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20657__0_031", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--We had here, however, claims under section 1983 that were barred in any court regardless.\nThe State court, the Federal court would have barred--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [434.959, 440.53], "stop_times": [440.53, 442.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 434.959}, "reply_to": "20657__0_030", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_032", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "But that's a different issue.\nYou don't want... you're saying, we're the State, you can't touch us, so we don't get to the question of whether you're a person under 1983, whether you're barred.\nThat's... I could understand your argument better if you said, what we were really trying to do was to get those officers, with their individual capacity complaints, over into the Federal court.\nOf course we're not going to say we can manipulate the process by immunizing the State from having any court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [442.982, 443.549, 451.255, 462.21], "stop_times": [443.549, 451.255, 462.21, 469.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 442.982}, "reply_to": "20657__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20657__0_033", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--That's precisely what we were trying to do, Your Honor.\nThe claims as to the State, the official capacity claims and the claims against the State agency, were irrelevant to the removal decision.\nThe point was, we were going to have litigation on the individual capacity claims.\nThose are the ones that the district court spent time on.\nThe district court spent a paragraph on the official capacity claims.\nSo did we in our briefs, essentially.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [469.299, 471.549, 482.524, 487.178, 490.463, 493.415], "stop_times": [471.549, 482.524, 487.178, 490.463, 493.415, 495.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 469.299}, "reply_to": "20657__0_032", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_034", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--So what... I'm not certain.\nPlease correct me if I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [495.283, 497.049], "stop_times": [497.049, 498.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 495.283}, "reply_to": "20657__0_033", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__0_035", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [498.318], "stop_times": [498.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 498.318}, "reply_to": "20657__0_034", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_036", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--don't understand the posture of this, but I thought that these... that the plaintiff has sued the State, i.e. the official capacity ones, and also a number of individuals, and then the whole case is removed to Federal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [498.635], "stop_times": [511.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 498.635}, "reply_to": "20657__0_035", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__0_037", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [511.209], "stop_times": [511.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 511.209}, "reply_to": "20657__0_036", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_038", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "And everybody wins, the defendants won.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [511.693], "stop_times": [514.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 511.693}, "reply_to": "20657__0_037", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__0_039", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [514.16], "stop_times": [514.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 514.16}, "reply_to": "20657__0_038", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_040", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "All right.\nNow, the Seventh Circuit sent the whole case back to the State court, and that was the problem.\nWhy should it send back the part against the individuals?\nIsn't that what was bothering everybody?\nI mean, the part about the State, I would think of course they should send back that claim.\nI mean, that claim, you've asserted the Eleventh Amendment, has no business in Federal court, it's pendant to the others, or it's one claim out of many, and you go back to State court and try it out in the State court.\nAm I right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [514.794, 515.445, 521.851, 524.467, 526.553, 532.723, 544.079], "stop_times": [515.445, 521.851, 524.467, 526.553, 532.723, 544.079, 544.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 514.794}, "reply_to": "20657__0_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__0_041", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "It could be tried, certainly, in the State court.\nHowever, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [544.697, 548.482], "stop_times": [548.482, 549.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 544.697}, "reply_to": "20657__0_040", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_042", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "I'm trying to find out what the issue is here.\nI mean, is anyone saying... I thought there is a pretty clear mistake.\nThe clear mistake was in sending all these other claims, the ones not involving the State, back to the State court.\nAm I right about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [549.115, 551.184, 554.468, 561.972], "stop_times": [551.184, 554.468, 561.972, 562.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 549.115}, "reply_to": "20657__0_041", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__0_043", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--I don't believe you're right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [562.991], "stop_times": [566.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 562.991}, "reply_to": "20657__0_042", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_044", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Good.\nAll right.\nThen explain what I'm missing.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [566.693, 567.093, 567.51], "stop_times": [567.093, 567.51, 568.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 566.693}, "reply_to": "20657__0_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__0_045", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "The issue that I see is the broader issue of what kind of a system are we going to have that is simple and effective for removal, that is simple and effective for determining jurisdictional questions, that is simple and effective for determining Eleventh Amendment immunity.\nWhat happens in this individual case is actually irrelevant--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [568.895, 584.905], "stop_times": [584.905, 589.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 568.895}, "reply_to": "20657__0_044", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_046", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Maybe there's no way of straightening me out.\nI'm trying to figure out what happened in the individual case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [589.392, 591.928], "stop_times": [591.928, 594.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 589.392}, "reply_to": "20657__0_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__0_047", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--Fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [594.578], "stop_times": [595.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 594.578}, "reply_to": "20657__0_046", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_048", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "I thought there are actions against the State and there are actions against people that aren't the State, and I thought the Seventh Circuit sent the whole kit and caboodle back to State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [595.212], "stop_times": [604.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 595.212}, "reply_to": "20657__0_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__0_049", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "It did.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [604.068], "stop_times": [604.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 604.068}, "reply_to": "20657__0_048", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_050", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Now, that's wrong, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [604.685], "stop_times": [606.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 604.685}, "reply_to": "20657__0_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__0_051", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "It was wrong in doing that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [606.218], "stop_times": [607.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 606.218}, "reply_to": "20657__0_050", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_052", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "All right.\nBut is there anything wrong about their sending back the action against the State to State court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [607.103, 607.537], "stop_times": [607.537, 611.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 607.103}, "reply_to": "20657__0_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__0_053", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "As a matter of jurisdiction, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [611.972], "stop_times": [615.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 611.972}, "reply_to": "20657__0_052", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_054", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [615.876], "stop_times": [616.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 615.876}, "reply_to": "20657__0_053", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__0_055", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "As a matter of discretion, it may not have been.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [616.259], "stop_times": [618.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 616.259}, "reply_to": "20657__0_054", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_056", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Ah.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [618.578], "stop_times": [618.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 618.578}, "reply_to": "20657__0_055", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__0_057", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "They turned on jurisdiction and said, there was not removal jurisdiction at the threshold of this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [618.995], "stop_times": [627.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 618.995}, "reply_to": "20657__0_056", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_058", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Right, so they should have used a different reason.\nThe normal way to do it would be to say, well, we decide all the other claims, but the one about the State itself on official capacity, that's barred by the Eleventh Amendment, so we send that one back like a pendant claim.\nThat's your view of how it should have worked.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [627.851, 629.717, 641.858], "stop_times": [629.717, 641.858, 644.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 627.851}, "reply_to": "20657__0_057", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__0_059", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Yes.\nIf, in fact, there is authority to do that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [644.075, 644.375], "stop_times": [644.375, 646.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 644.075}, "reply_to": "20657__0_058", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_060", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "So you're going to end up--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [646.31], "stop_times": [647.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 646.31}, "reply_to": "20657__0_059", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__0_061", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--as a matter of discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [647.512], "stop_times": [648.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 647.512}, "reply_to": "20657__0_060", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_062", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--Yes, and so you're going to end up in the State court anyway.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [648.345], "stop_times": [650.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 648.345}, "reply_to": "20657__0_061", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__0_063", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "We might.\nThe result might be the same, but as a matter of discretion, leaving intact the vital differences between jurisdictional analysis, discretionary analysis, Eleventh Amendment immunity analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [650.546, 652.113], "stop_times": [652.113, 664.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 650.546}, "reply_to": "20657__0_062", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_064", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Then you're changing the answer to the question.\nOriginally you said, no, no, we're saying Federal court.\nThe only thing you can do with the State is dismiss it, not remand, and now I think in response to Justice Breyer's question, you're kind of saying, well, maybe not.\nMaybe there's discretion to remand.\nBut you have no discretion unless you have authority in the first place.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [664.688, 666.021, 668.89, 679.162, 680.948], "stop_times": [666.021, 668.89, 679.162, 680.948, 684.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 664.688}, "reply_to": "20657__0_063", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20657__0_065", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "That's correct, Justice Ginsburg, and it is precisely the point, and I thank you for tightening that.\nOn the issue of jurisdiction, do we... did the district court have jurisdiction?\nMust the appellate court remand one or more of these claims as a matter of jurisdiction?\nMust they?\nNo.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [684.066, 690.387, 697.04, 703.729, 704.279], "stop_times": [690.387, 697.04, 703.729, 704.279, 704.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 684.066}, "reply_to": "20657__0_064", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_066", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Well, may I interrupt you on that point?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [704.763], "stop_times": [708.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 704.763}, "reply_to": "20657__0_065", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20657__0_067", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [708.015], "stop_times": [708.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 708.015}, "reply_to": "20657__0_066", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_068", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "It may be that there are two different jurisdictional issues involved here.\n1441 talks, I think quite plainly, about constitutional subject matter jurisdiction.\nThat's what you're assuming and I agree with you.\nBut 1447(c) talks simply about subject matter jurisdiction, not original jurisdiction but subject matter jurisdiction, and it may well be that, given the way this Court has construed the Eleventh Amendment, that there was Federal question jurisdiction for 1441 purposes so that the case was properly removed, but once the Eleventh Amendment defense was raised, the court no longer had subject matter jurisdiction within the meaning of 1447(c), and therefore was obligated to remand for that purpose.\nWould that be a possibility?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [708.715, 712.602, 721.775, 723.893, 759.4], "stop_times": [712.602, 721.775, 723.893, 759.4, 760.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 708.715}, "reply_to": "20657__0_067", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20657__0_069", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "I don't believe it would fall within the 1447 issue because I do believe subject matter jurisdiction in 1447(c) goes to subject matter jurisdiction over the action, not over a particular claim.\nHere, unquestionably throughout the case--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [760.983, 773.124], "stop_times": [773.124, 776.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 760.983}, "reply_to": "20657__0_068", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_070", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Well, is the... but isn't that a matter of semantics?\nI mean, it's an action insofar as it's against the State, and insofar as it's against State officers in official capacity.\nThat's the case against them, and so far as the case against them is concerned, isn't subject matter jurisdiction lost once the Eleventh Amendment defense is raised?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [776.492, 779.443, 786.847], "stop_times": [779.443, 786.847, 797.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 776.492}, "reply_to": "20657__0_069", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20657__0_071", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--I don't believe so, Your Honor, because claims within an action are not parceled out in that fashion.\nI believe the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [797.405, 806.428], "stop_times": [806.428, 806.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 797.405}, "reply_to": "20657__0_070", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_072", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Well, you just agreed... I thought you just agreed with Justice Breyer that they could be parceled out in that fashion, because we can split the claims against the individuals, the individual responsibility claims from the Government claims, so you're parceling them out.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [806.928], "stop_times": [820.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 806.928}, "reply_to": "20657__0_071", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20657__0_073", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--When we get to the discretionary issue, far from the jurisdictional issue.\nIn other words, when we're looking at jurisdiction to begin with--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [820.068, 823.722], "stop_times": [823.722, 826.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 820.068}, "reply_to": "20657__0_072", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_074", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Why can it be parceled when the court is acting on the discretionary power but not be parceled when the court is considering whether it has a mandate?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [826.172], "stop_times": [834.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 826.172}, "reply_to": "20657__0_073", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20657__0_075", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--Based on this Court's decisions that, for example, in City of Chicago the court had original... had Federal question jurisdiction over the entire action, over all the claims in the action because of the Federal claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [834.262], "stop_times": [850.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 834.262}, "reply_to": "20657__0_074", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_076", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "But surely it's not your position, Mr. Moriarty, that the Eleventh Amendment is a bar to the claims against the individual defendants.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [850.707], "stop_times": [859.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 850.707}, "reply_to": "20657__0_075", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20657__0_077", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Certainly not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [859.062], "stop_times": [859.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 859.062}, "reply_to": "20657__0_076", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_078", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "And those, then, would be litigated in the district court under a correct ruling?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [859.595], "stop_times": [864.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 859.595}, "reply_to": "20657__0_077", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20657__0_079", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "The... those claims... the district court had Federal question jurisdiction on removal.\nTherefore, it could dispose of the Eleventh Amendment barred claims on... it could dispose... the claims against the State, either based on the definition in 1983 or based on the Eleventh Amendment immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [864.431, 871.453], "stop_times": [871.453, 884.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 864.431}, "reply_to": "20657__0_078", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_080", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "But now, let's put the... the Eleventh Amendment immunity that you pleaded in your view requires dismissal of the action as against the State and the official capacity defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [884.611], "stop_times": [896.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 884.611}, "reply_to": "20657__0_079", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20657__0_081", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [896.569], "stop_times": [897.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 896.569}, "reply_to": "20657__0_080", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_082", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "But it does not require dismissal as to the individual defendants.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [897.188], "stop_times": [900.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 897.188}, "reply_to": "20657__0_081", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20657__0_083", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [900.139], "stop_times": [900.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 900.139}, "reply_to": "20657__0_082", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_084", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "So the district court could properly adjudicate those claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [900.472], "stop_times": [905.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 900.472}, "reply_to": "20657__0_083", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20657__0_085", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "The... certainly the individual capacity claims, yes.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [905.091, 908.643], "stop_times": [908.643, 910.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 905.091}, "reply_to": "20657__0_084", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_086", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "May I ask this: under Wisconsin law, can the Attorney General, by his or her own determination, waive the Eleventh Amendment in Federal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [910.328], "stop_times": [922.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 910.328}, "reply_to": "20657__0_085", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20657__0_087", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--No.\nThat's been... it's in the statutes and it's also been litigated.\nThe Attorney General does not have authority to waive Eleventh... sovereign immunity.\nUnder the Wisconsin constitution only the legislature has the authority to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [922.72, 923.27, 927.124, 931.009], "stop_times": [923.27, 927.124, 931.009, 934.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 922.72}, "reply_to": "20657__0_086", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_088", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "So only the legislature can waive the Eleventh Amendment by special statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [934.444], "stop_times": [939.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 934.444}, "reply_to": "20657__0_087", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20657__0_089", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--Right, either waive the Eleventh Amendment or sovereign immunity, correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [939.432], "stop_times": [943.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 939.432}, "reply_to": "20657__0_088", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_090", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Who do you--\n--May I ask why 1441(c) is relevant at all?\nI mean, it seems to me 1441(c) didn't envision the reason for non-Federal jurisdiction, which we have here?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [943.049, 944.335, 949.703], "stop_times": [944.335, 949.703, 958.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 943.049}, "reply_to": "20657__0_089", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20657__0_091", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "I'm sorry if I misspoke.\nI meant 1447(c).\nI think that's what we're referring to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [958.559, 960.611, 962.297], "stop_times": [960.611, 962.297, 964.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 958.559}, "reply_to": "20657__0_090", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_092", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Ah, okay.\nNo, I thought there was some discussion about remanding the portions of the cause of action which do not consist of Federal claims to the State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [964.28, 964.547], "stop_times": [964.547, 978.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 964.28}, "reply_to": "20657__0_091", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20657__0_093", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Correct.\n1441(c) I did not see as relevant either and did not put in my brief.\nPages 5 and 6 cite the portions of 1441(a) and (b) and 1447(c), which I believe to be relevant.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [978.473, 978.973, 983.043], "stop_times": [978.973, 983.043, 993.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 978.473}, "reply_to": "20657__0_092", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_094", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Well, isn't (c) relevant to the extent that it establishes the fact that the district judge could have sent back... could have remanded the claims against the State, the official capacity claims?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [993.999], "stop_times": [1003.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 993.999}, "reply_to": "20657__0_093", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20657__0_095", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "I believe that the 1441(c) addresses an entirely different situation, and involves when there's a separable controversy, when there's not, that type of thing, whereas in this case it's clear we have one single controversy, the firing of the respondent.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1003.938], "stop_times": [1019.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1003.938}, "reply_to": "20657__0_094", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_096", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Yes, but we have a case, the Coville case which says that the statute does not preclude a remand that isn't covered by the precise... that these... the statute covers must remands.\nIt doesn't necessarily cover may remands.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1019.964, 1033.686], "stop_times": [1033.686, 1035.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1019.964}, "reply_to": "20657__0_095", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20657__0_097", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "That's the central point I'm trying to make, that the... this decision by the Seventh Circuit was wrong because it looked at what must occur as a matter of threshold jurisdiction, mixed together the discretionary issues, mixed together the Eleventh Amendment immunity jurisdictional issues, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1035.388], "stop_times": [1053.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1035.388}, "reply_to": "20657__0_096", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_098", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "But may I just clarify one thing in your position?\nDo you agree the district court could have remanded and should have remanded the claims against the State that are barred by the Eleventh Amendment in Federal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1053.618, 1055.553], "stop_times": [1055.553, 1064.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1053.618}, "reply_to": "20657__0_097", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20657__0_099", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--I do not believe they should have remanded it.\nI think what they should have done, if they had jurisdictional questions, which they surely did, looked at the issue, looked immediately at the 1983 definition and said, we don't have anything here against the State, and moved to the merits of the appeal.\nIf they wanted to look at Eleventh Amendment immunity, then they could have said, well, that's fine, but that comes later in the jurisdictional analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1064.124, 1067.36, 1080.418], "stop_times": [1067.36, 1080.418, 1086.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1064.124}, "reply_to": "20657__0_098", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_100", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Who do you represent?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1086.922], "stop_times": [1088.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1086.922}, "reply_to": "20657__0_099", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__0_101", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "We represent the Wisconsin agency, the officials in their official capacity, but the primary motivation on removal was the officials in their individual capacity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1088.191], "stop_times": [1100.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1088.191}, "reply_to": "20657__0_100", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_102", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "All right.\nYou represent them, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1100.999, 1101.199], "stop_times": [1101.199, 1102.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1100.999}, "reply_to": "20657__0_101", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__0_103", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1102.099], "stop_times": [1102.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1102.099}, "reply_to": "20657__0_102", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_104", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Fine.\nThen I took from your cert position your basic point... maybe you're being too subtle about it here, but I took your basic point to be from the cert petition that at least the Seventh Amendment was mistaken in ordering the personal claims sent back, that they shouldn't... even if they're right about having the Eleventh Amendment claims sent back, that's just one claim, or one set of claims--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1102.951, 1103.451], "stop_times": [1103.451, 1127.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1102.951}, "reply_to": "20657__0_103", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__0_105", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1127.749], "stop_times": [1128.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1127.749}, "reply_to": "20657__0_104", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_106", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--in a multiclaim suit, and they can't say you have to send them all back.\nWasn't that your basic claim before you even get into this?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1128.283, 1132.803], "stop_times": [1132.803, 1136.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1128.283}, "reply_to": "20657__0_105", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__0_107", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "That is absolutely fundamental ground floor--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1136.005], "stop_times": [1138.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1136.005}, "reply_to": "20657__0_106", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_108", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Okay.\nNow, once you'd say we win on that we have a separate argument, and the separate argument is, they shouldn't have even sent back the State claim, and the reason for that is, if they'd looked at it for 3 minutes they would have seen that the Eleventh Amendment part is irrelevant, because you can't assert the Eleventh Amendment in defense to a claim that doesn't exist, and the claim doesn't exist because of your interpretation of 1983.\nNow, is that your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1138.957, 1139.357, 1165.858], "stop_times": [1139.357, 1165.858, 1167.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1138.957}, "reply_to": "20657__0_107", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__0_109", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--With this variation.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1167.726], "stop_times": [1169.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1167.726}, "reply_to": "20657__0_108", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_110", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1169.476], "stop_times": [1170.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1169.476}, "reply_to": "20657__0_109", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__0_111", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Eleventh Amendment can bar those claims.\nIt's simply unnecessary.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1170.26, 1171.845], "stop_times": [1171.845, 1173.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1170.26}, "reply_to": "20657__0_110", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_112", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "It's unnecessary.\nThere's an alternative ground.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1173.464, 1173.914], "stop_times": [1173.914, 1175.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1173.464}, "reply_to": "20657__0_111", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__0_113", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1175.68], "stop_times": [1176.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1175.68}, "reply_to": "20657__0_112", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_114", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1176.097], "stop_times": [1176.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1176.097}, "reply_to": "20657__0_113", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__0_115", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "And the point is--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1176.832], "stop_times": [1177.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1176.832}, "reply_to": "20657__0_114", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_116", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "But your first argument is the main argument, and your second... I mean, and don't tell me I'm right if I'm not.\nI want to be certain I'm understanding this.\nIs that... have I now stated what your argument is, basically?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1177.449, 1182.118, 1183.653], "stop_times": [1182.118, 1183.653, 1186.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1177.449}, "reply_to": "20657__0_115", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__0_117", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1186.788], "stop_times": [1188.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1186.788}, "reply_to": "20657__0_116", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_118", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "The first part is, they shouldn't have sent the whole thing back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1188.788], "stop_times": [1191.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1188.788}, "reply_to": "20657__0_117", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__0_119", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1191.923], "stop_times": [1192.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1191.923}, "reply_to": "20657__0_118", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_120", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "The second part is, if we win on that one, they shouldn't have even sent the State part back.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1192.373], "stop_times": [1196.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1192.373}, "reply_to": "20657__0_119", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__0_121", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1196.56], "stop_times": [1197.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1196.56}, "reply_to": "20657__0_120", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_122", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Okay.\nWell, but now, if you have two grounds, one is the Eleventh Amendment and another is a ground of statutory construction, one is, we've said, quasi-jurisdictional and the other is simply an argument on the law.\nI would think that the Eleventh Amendment argument would prevail over the statutory construction argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1197.01, 1197.644, 1209.884], "stop_times": [1197.644, 1209.884, 1214.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1197.01}, "reply_to": "20657__0_121", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20657__0_123", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "That would be the case except for this Court's decisions in Ngirainga v. Sanchez, in which it took up that definitional issue first, over the strenuous objections of the dissent, and that wanted the immunity issues addressed first in Ngiraingas.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1214.771], "stop_times": [1231.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1214.771}, "reply_to": "20657__0_122", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_124", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Was this post-Steel Co., not--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1231.983], "stop_times": [1234.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1231.983}, "reply_to": "20657__0_123", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20657__0_125", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "It was not post-Steel--\n[Laughter]\nLast month.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1234.185, 1234.819, 1235.752], "stop_times": [1234.819, 1235.752, 1236.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1234.185}, "reply_to": "20657__0_124", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_126", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--Yes.\nWell, I thought Steel Co. was our last word.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1236.469, 1237.304], "stop_times": [1237.304, 1239.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1236.469}, "reply_to": "20657__0_125", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20657__0_127", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Indeed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1239.837], "stop_times": [1240.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1239.837}, "reply_to": "20657__0_126", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_128", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "And I thought we said you address, unsurprisingly, jurisdictional issues first.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1240.273], "stop_times": [1243.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1240.273}, "reply_to": "20657__0_127", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20657__0_129", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1243.975], "stop_times": [1244.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1243.975}, "reply_to": "20657__0_128", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_130", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "And in this one, if you take the words of the Constitution it says the judicial power of the United States shall not extend to any suit, so that sounds... there is no power over such a suit.\nHow you would get to the 1983 person question if there is no power to do anything is a bit of a mystery.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1244.475, 1256.515], "stop_times": [1256.515, 1263.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1244.475}, "reply_to": "20657__0_129", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20657__0_131", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Which--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1263.352], "stop_times": [1265.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1263.352}, "reply_to": "20657__0_130", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_132", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Well, it's the same question.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1265.121], "stop_times": [1267.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1265.121}, "reply_to": "20657__0_131", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20657__0_133", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1267.323], "stop_times": [1267.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1267.323}, "reply_to": "20657__0_132", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_134", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "You can answer... look at either one of us.\nI don't care.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1267.773, 1269.056, 1269.442], "stop_times": [1269.056, 1269.442, 1270.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1267.773}, "reply_to": "20657__0_133", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20657__0_135", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "In the Idaho case the Court looked at the words, in particular the word extends in Article III and looked at the word extends in the Eleventh Amendment and said, they seem similar, yes, it must be the same thing.\nIt's not.\nThe Eleventh Amendment immunity has never been held to be a bar to jurisdiction over an action at the threshold, and that's what we're dealing with here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1270.192, 1284.952, 1285.418], "stop_times": [1284.952, 1285.418, 1295.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1270.192}, "reply_to": "20657__0_134", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_136", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Yes, because you could waive it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1295.307], "stop_times": [1296.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1295.307}, "reply_to": "20657__0_135", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20657__0_137", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "We could waive it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1296.342], "stop_times": [1297.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1296.342}, "reply_to": "20657__0_136", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_138", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "We don't know whether it's that kind of bar until the State doesn't waive it, correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1297.309], "stop_times": [1301.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1297.309}, "reply_to": "20657__0_137", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20657__0_139", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "And also it is a defense.\nIt's... it can be waived.\nVery difficult to waive it.\nIt can be waived, and also it is a defense, and in the removal setting particularly, as just noted in Rivet, a defense, removal jurisdiction is not determined based on a defense.\nIt's based on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1301.711, 1303.429, 1305.698, 1306.798, 1318.839], "stop_times": [1303.429, 1305.698, 1306.798, 1318.839, 1319.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1301.711}, "reply_to": "20657__0_138", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_140", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "By failing to raise the Eleventh Amendment as a defense, the... it may not be the same thing as a waiver, where you expressly renounce reliance on it, but by, if you fail to raise the defense at any time during the proceedings, the proceedings stand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1319.156], "stop_times": [1335.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1319.156}, "reply_to": "20657__0_139", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20657__0_141", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1335.134], "stop_times": [1336.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1335.134}, "reply_to": "20657__0_140", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_142", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "It's not like a case where there simply was no subject matter jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1336.6], "stop_times": [1340.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1336.6}, "reply_to": "20657__0_141", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20657__0_143", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--Absolutely correct, Chief Justice, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1340.704], "stop_times": [1344.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1340.704}, "reply_to": "20657__0_142", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_144", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Here you did raise it.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1344.156], "stop_times": [1345.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1344.156}, "reply_to": "20657__0_143", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20657__0_145", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--We did raise it.\nWe raised it again throughout, as is the case in most Eleventh Amendment cases where the court has addressed the issues.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1345.356, 1346.708], "stop_times": [1346.708, 1354.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1345.356}, "reply_to": "20657__0_144", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_146", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "One part of this before you finish that I don't quite understand.\nSince you're so clear on the 1983, not a person argument, why didn't you, over in the Wisconsin State court, say, Wisconsin State court, get the State out of it, we're not a 1983 person?\nThen you'd have a clean suit that the individuals... that the defendants being sued in their individual capacity could remove.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1354.262, 1357.814, 1368.856], "stop_times": [1357.814, 1368.856, 1376.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1354.262}, "reply_to": "20657__0_145", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20657__0_147", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Because the removal decision must be made very promptly.\nThe statute requires that it be made within, I believe it's 20 or 30 days after you first learn of the lawsuit.\nYou don't have time to litigate in front of the State court, get rid of claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1376.477, 1378.829, 1386.9], "stop_times": [1378.829, 1386.9, 1390.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1376.477}, "reply_to": "20657__0_146", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_148", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "So you say... are you saying that the individuals would have been untimely if they didn't petition to remove until after the State was dismissed?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1390.637], "stop_times": [1399.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1390.637}, "reply_to": "20657__0_147", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20657__0_149", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Yes.\nIf the case was not removable at the time, then it might have been deferred, but to risk the fact that it was \"not removable\" by failing to remove at that time would have been a poor litigation decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1399.993, 1402.279], "stop_times": [1402.279, 1418.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1399.993}, "reply_to": "20657__0_148", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_150", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "You made the right litigation decision, we'll assume.\nYou removed... now the Eleventh Amendment defense is raised, why... tell me... explain at that point why the court is not bound to remand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1418.704, 1421.906], "stop_times": [1421.906, 1430.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1418.704}, "reply_to": "20657__0_149", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20657__0_151", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Because the court had Federal question jurisdiction over all of the claims under--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1430.446], "stop_times": [1436.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1430.446}, "reply_to": "20657__0_150", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_152", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "But it no longer has... if the Eleventh Amendment issue is correct, it no longer would have subject matter jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1436.416], "stop_times": [1442.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1436.416}, "reply_to": "20657__0_151", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20657__0_153", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--Over one or two of the claims made in the case, but certainly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1442.737], "stop_times": [1446.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1442.737}, "reply_to": "20657__0_152", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_154", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Oh, look, over the State and the official capacity defendants.\nIt would no longer have subject matter jurisdiction over them, would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1446.558, 1449.676], "stop_times": [1449.676, 1453.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1446.558}, "reply_to": "20657__0_153", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20657__0_155", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--We... it would have... no longer have subject matter jurisdiction over the claims made against the State.\nHowever, that's because of a defense that's been interposed.\nThe issue of original jurisdiction, the issue of removal jurisdiction goes to the entire action.\nThat's what City of Chicago was talking about.\nThe State law claims certainly weren't within the original jurisdiction.\nIt was only when we had the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1453.377, 1459.781, 1463.583, 1469.571, 1471.506, 1474.458], "stop_times": [1459.781, 1463.583, 1469.571, 1471.506, 1474.458, 1476.577], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1453.377}, "reply_to": "20657__0_154", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_156", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Yes, but these--\n--But the point is... the point is, removal was allowable, initially.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1476.577, 1477.293], "stop_times": [1477.293, 1482.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1476.577}, "reply_to": "20657__0_155", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20657__0_157", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--Mm-hmm.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1482.981], "stop_times": [1483.564], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1482.981}, "reply_to": "20657__0_156", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_158", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "And once the State in Federal court says, wait a minute, Eleventh Amendment as to State claims, then those claims could be remanded to the State court and you can go deal with it back in State court, leave the individual capacity claims in the Federal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1483.564], "stop_times": [1500.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1483.564}, "reply_to": "20657__0_157", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20657__0_159", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Certainly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1500.358], "stop_times": [1501.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1500.358}, "reply_to": "20657__0_158", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_160", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Isn't that adequate?\nI mean, doesn't that take care of everything?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1501.208, 1503.458], "stop_times": [1503.458, 1505.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1501.208}, "reply_to": "20657__0_159", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20657__0_161", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--In this particular case, it's not going to make much difference.\nWe can do it.\nWe can go back to court.\nWe can handle that, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1505.243, 1508.445, 1509.028, 1510.064], "stop_times": [1508.445, 1509.028, 1510.064, 1511.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1505.243}, "reply_to": "20657__0_160", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_162", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "You can go back to State court and make your pitch on person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1511.164], "stop_times": [1513.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1511.164}, "reply_to": "20657__0_161", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20657__0_163", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--And we'll prevail.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1513.682], "stop_times": [1515.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1513.682}, "reply_to": "20657__0_162", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_164", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "And why shouldn't that be done?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1515.699], "stop_times": [1517.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1515.699}, "reply_to": "20657__0_163", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20657__0_165", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "I know we'll--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1517.218], "stop_times": [1517.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1517.218}, "reply_to": "20657__0_164", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_166", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "In other words, why shouldn't it be done?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1517.601], "stop_times": [1518.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1517.601}, "reply_to": "20657__0_165", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20657__0_167", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--Why shouldn't it be done?\nBecause it mixes together the essential issues of jurisdiction removal and Eleventh Amendment immunity.\nIf, in fact, the Eleventh Amendment immunity--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1518.92, 1520.653, 1528.525], "stop_times": [1520.653, 1528.525, 1530.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1518.92}, "reply_to": "20657__0_166", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_168", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Stand back from it--\n--Yes.\nYes.\n--and our colloquy before.\nYou are saying, because of the Eleventh Amendment, no court can deal with a 1983 person.\nWe just get out.\nWe just get out at the threshold.\nWe take it out of the State court, put it into the Federal court, and then say, Federal court, you dismiss, and then we're not subject to having that question decided by any court, ever, and that's a very hard argument to make.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1530.491, 1531.643, 1532.11, 1532.443, 1533.762, 1540.166, 1541.016, 1542.701], "stop_times": [1531.643, 1532.11, 1532.443, 1533.762, 1540.166, 1541.016, 1542.701, 1554.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1530.491}, "reply_to": "20657__0_167", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20657__0_169", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--I don't believe that's the result.\nWe are asking that a Federal court look at those issues and resolve them.\nIf, in fact, it's a dismissal without prejudice--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1554.591, 1556.158, 1561.995], "stop_times": [1556.158, 1561.995, 1564.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1554.591}, "reply_to": "20657__0_168", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_170", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "But you're asking for Eleventh Amendment immunity, and as Justice Scalia has pointed out, at least after his recent decision that would come first, before you deal with the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1564.047], "stop_times": [1573.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1564.047}, "reply_to": "20657__0_169", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20657__0_171", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--And if Eleventh Amendment immunity went to the jurisdiction of the court over an action, under Steel Company it would always have to be addressed first, always.\nThe court would never--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1573.653, 1582.675], "stop_times": [1582.675, 1584.259], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1573.653}, "reply_to": "20657__0_170", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_172", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Would you say it's not jurisdiction, since it could be waived?\nYou say it's not jurisdictional.\nIs that what you're saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1584.259, 1586.294, 1588.079], "stop_times": [1586.294, 1588.079, 1588.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1584.259}, "reply_to": "20657__0_171", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20657__0_173", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--I'm not... it is a jurisdictional issue.\nJurisdictional is a word of many, too many meanings.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1588.663, 1590.781], "stop_times": [1590.781, 1592.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1588.663}, "reply_to": "20657__0_172", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_174", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Mm-hmm.\nBut it's not subject matter jurisdiction, then.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1592.748, 1593.733], "stop_times": [1593.733, 1595.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1592.748}, "reply_to": "20657__0_173", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20657__0_175", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "It doesn't go to jurisdiction over the action.\nIt goes to jurisdiction over the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1595.767, 1596.934], "stop_times": [1596.934, 1598.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1595.767}, "reply_to": "20657__0_174", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_176", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Over the person.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1598.518], "stop_times": [1598.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1598.518}, "reply_to": "20657__0_175", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20657__0_177", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--particular claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1598.818], "stop_times": [1599.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1598.818}, "reply_to": "20657__0_176", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_178", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "No, but you're back... I mean, your argument now is back to saying, you cannot split them up.\nYou're back to saying you cannot deal with the official action differently from the way you deal with the individual action.\nThat's the premise of your answer that you just gave, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1599.318, 1603.355, 1610.342], "stop_times": [1603.355, 1610.342, 1612.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1599.318}, "reply_to": "20657__0_177", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20657__0_179", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "The... I don't believe it is, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1612.878], "stop_times": [1615.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1612.878}, "reply_to": "20657__0_178", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_180", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Then I don't understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1615.313], "stop_times": [1616.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1615.313}, "reply_to": "20657__0_179", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20657__0_181", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Jurisdiction over the action is the first question.\nIs this properly within the courthouse door?\nSecond question.\nLet's look at the claims we have and the defenses and see what happens to those claims.\nIn City of Chicago we have Federal claims.\nTherefore, we have the case properly within the courthouse door.\nNext question.\nWhat do we have there?\nWe have some State law claims as well.\nWell, as long as we've got Federal question jurisdiction, we can look at those State law claims under pendant and ancillary jurisdiction.\nWe couldn't have if there weren't any Federal questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1616.613, 1619.182, 1620.967, 1622.767, 1628.121, 1631.223, 1635.81, 1636.56, 1638.928, 1640.797, 1646.499], "stop_times": [1619.182, 1620.967, 1622.767, 1628.121, 1631.223, 1635.81, 1636.56, 1638.928, 1640.797, 1646.499, 1648.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1616.613}, "reply_to": "20657__0_180", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_182", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Right, and this is unlike City of Chicago because once the Eleventh Amendment issue is raised, you don't have... the Federal court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the State and the official capacity claims, so Chicago doesn't cover this.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1648.384], "stop_times": [1661.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1648.384}, "reply_to": "20657__0_181", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20657__0_183", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "It does not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1661.461], "stop_times": [1662.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1661.461}, "reply_to": "20657__0_182", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_184", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "And you're saying, if I understand you, that with respect to the State and the official capacity claims, it was error to remand.\nWhy was it error to remand?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1662.411, 1668.698], "stop_times": [1668.698, 1670.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1662.411}, "reply_to": "20657__0_183", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20657__0_185", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "It was error to remand because the Seventh Circuit did it on a basis of lack of original jurisdiction, lack of removal jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1670.181], "stop_times": [1678.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1670.181}, "reply_to": "20657__0_184", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_186", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "All right.\nShould they not have done the same thing on the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, not Article III jurisdiction, maybe, but at least subject matter jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1678.72, 1679.838], "stop_times": [1679.838, 1688.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1678.72}, "reply_to": "20657__0_185", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20657__0_187", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Under 1447(c)?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1688.778], "stop_times": [1689.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1688.778}, "reply_to": "20657__0_186", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_188", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1689.978], "stop_times": [1690.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1689.978}, "reply_to": "20657__0_187", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "20657__0_189", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "That replies again, as I read the cases, to jurisdiction over the action.\nYou've lost jurisdiction over the entire action before the case is completed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1690.311, 1695.348], "stop_times": [1695.348, 1702.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1690.311}, "reply_to": "20657__0_188", "speaker": "richard_briles_moriarty"}
{"id": "20657__0_190", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Moriarty.\nMr. Lasker, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1702.019, 1703.638], "stop_times": [1703.638, 1706.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1702.019}, "reply_to": "20657__0_189", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20657__1_000", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nJustice Souter, I would like to begin by addressing your concern, because I do believe that this case clearly was handled correctly by the Seventh Circuit, because once removed to Federal court the State did immediately assert its Eleventh Amendment immunity, and there certainly the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1706.24, 1708.573], "stop_times": [1708.573, 1729.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1706.24}, "reply_to": "20657__0_190", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_001", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Well, why couldn't the Federal court retain the action and decide the individual capacity claims, remand the claims against the State, and there you are?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1729.438], "stop_times": [1739.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1729.438}, "reply_to": "20657__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20657__1_002", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "I don't think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1739.96], "stop_times": [1741.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1739.96}, "reply_to": "20657__1_001", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_003", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "What's the matter with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1741.246], "stop_times": [1741.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1741.246}, "reply_to": "20657__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20657__1_004", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--I think the problem with that, Justice O'Connor, is that it doesn't pay respect to the statutes enacted by Congress that govern this matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1741.762], "stop_times": [1749.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1741.762}, "reply_to": "20657__1_003", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_005", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Well, I think it does entirely, and the case was removable in the first instance, but once the Eleventh Amendment defense is asserted, then the Federal court can remand so much of the case as deals with the Eleventh Amendment claims and keep the rest.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1749.916], "stop_times": [1768.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1749.916}, "reply_to": "20657__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20657__1_006", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Your Honor, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1768.813], "stop_times": [1769.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1768.813}, "reply_to": "20657__1_005", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_007", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "I thought that was where the Seventh Circuit's decision appears questionable.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1769.713], "stop_times": [1774.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1769.713}, "reply_to": "20657__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20657__1_008", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I do not agree that the case was properly removed to begin with.\nI think that the Court lacked original jurisdiction under 1441(a).\nI think we have a very unique circumstance here which, as Justice Scalia pointed out, really hasn't been contemplated by the explicit language of any one of these statutory provisions.\nThis is a situation--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1774.883, 1780.204, 1784.073, 1794.547], "stop_times": [1780.204, 1784.073, 1794.547, 1795.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1774.883}, "reply_to": "20657__1_007", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_009", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Well, I think it fits.\nI mean, as long as... if we don't know if the State is going to assert an Eleventh Amendment defense, and certainly the suit originally filed included section 1983 claims against individuals in their individual capacity, so the whole thing could have been filed in Federal district court as an original proposition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1795.364, 1796.697], "stop_times": [1796.697, 1816.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1795.364}, "reply_to": "20657__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20657__1_010", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--I believe that it could have been filed there only to give the Federal court jurisdiction to determine that it lacked jurisdiction because of the Eleventh Amendment problem extant in the case as originally filed.\nOf course, the case was not filed in Federal court, and that's essential to the case at bar, but had the case been filed in Federal court, I believe the Federal court's jurisdiction would have only been to the extent of determining under Steel Company that it didn't have jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1816.674, 1827.466], "stop_times": [1827.466, 1843.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1816.674}, "reply_to": "20657__1_009", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_011", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Well, that's where I disagree.\nIt certainly had jurisdiction over the claims against the individuals in their individual capacity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1843.641, 1845.427], "stop_times": [1845.427, 1850.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1843.641}, "reply_to": "20657__1_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20657__1_012", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I would say that Justice Ginsburg was correct in saying that what the State should have done in this situation, or which would have been the simple way out of the woods for this difficult problem that's presented here, would have been for them to move to dismiss the claims that were supposedly improper claims which were the only claims that presented the Eleventh Amendment problem.\nThen they would have been able to remove under 144--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1850.247, 1873.178], "stop_times": [1873.178, 1877.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1850.247}, "reply_to": "20657__1_011", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_013", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Yes, but I think Mr. Moriarty pointed out that the individuals might have been told you're too late to remove, because the case was removable earlier.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1877.999], "stop_times": [1887.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1877.999}, "reply_to": "20657__1_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20657__1_014", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--Perhaps that would be true, Justice Ginsburg, prior to the decision in this case, but this Court will now reach a decision which will speak to all lawyers and judges and clarify this difficult situation where we have Federal claims that are Eleventh Amendment-barred.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1887.754], "stop_times": [1902.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1887.754}, "reply_to": "20657__1_013", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_015", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Is it your position that the State could have moved, or the Circuit Court of Dane County, they could have moved in that court to dismiss claims that would have been barred by the Eleventh Amendment in Federal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1902.514], "stop_times": [1915.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1902.514}, "reply_to": "20657__1_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20657__1_016", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1915.238], "stop_times": [1915.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1915.238}, "reply_to": "20657__1_015", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_017", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Certainly not on the grounds of the Eleventh Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1915.822], "stop_times": [1918.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1915.822}, "reply_to": "20657__1_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20657__1_018", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "No, on--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1918.274], "stop_times": [1919.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1918.274}, "reply_to": "20657__1_017", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_019", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "That's not binding on the State--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1919.89], "stop_times": [1920.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1919.89}, "reply_to": "20657__1_018", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20657__1_020", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--On the grounds of their argument that we failed to state a claim under section 1983, but once they had established that we'd failed to state a claim against the State, or the State defendants in their official capacities, they could have removed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1920.726], "stop_times": [1930.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1920.726}, "reply_to": "20657__1_019", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_021", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--But that's saying that you have to do what litigating you can in the State court.\nI don't know if that's faithful to the removal statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1930.847, 1935.901], "stop_times": [1935.901, 1938.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1930.847}, "reply_to": "20657__1_020", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20657__1_022", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "I believe it's exactly what Congress intended, Your Honor.\nI think that Congress clearly intended that the sorting out of these matters be done in State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1938.603, 1940.972], "stop_times": [1940.972, 1945.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1938.603}, "reply_to": "20657__1_021", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_023", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "It couldn't have been so clear, because you missed it.\nYou never... you didn't resist the remand.\nNobody ever thought of it till it got to the Seventh Circuit, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1945.924, 1947.543, 1949.726], "stop_times": [1947.543, 1949.726, 1953.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1945.924}, "reply_to": "20657__1_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20657__1_024", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "That's true, Your Honor, and I'm quite an expert on the Eleventh Amendment since the cert petition was granted, but I can't say that I was beforehand.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1953.113], "stop_times": [1960.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1953.113}, "reply_to": "20657__1_023", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_025", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "I don't understand.\nI mean, I must be maybe missing something obvious.\nForget State court.\nSuppose I, a plaintiff, feel my civil rights were infringed, and I want to sue a lot of people, so I march into the door of the Federal district court and I sue four policemen and the municipality, and I throw in a State official, and I add, in his official capacity, so I have seven suits, seven claims in this suit.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1960.184, 1961.251, 1963.136, 1964.588], "stop_times": [1961.251, 1963.136, 1964.588, 1985.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1960.184}, "reply_to": "20657__1_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__1_026", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1985.334], "stop_times": [1985.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1985.334}, "reply_to": "20657__1_025", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_027", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "I would have thought... is there any law, any case, anything that says that I can't bring that lawsuit in a Federal district court?\nI thought that's garden variety.\nI thought it happens every day of the week that people bring suits like that in the Federal district court and then, if the State happens to assert Eleventh Amendment as to its claim, at that point, maybe we dismiss that claim, but am I wrong about my garden variety, and way this civil rights law works, because you do know a lot about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [1985.968, 1994.44, 1996.707], "stop_times": [1994.44, 1996.707, 2015.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1985.968}, "reply_to": "20657__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__1_028", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Well, now that I've become an expert on that Eleventh Amendment, I do--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2015.937], "stop_times": [2018.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2015.937}, "reply_to": "20657__1_027", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_029", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Forgetting... yes.\nGo ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2018.639, 2019.089], "stop_times": [2019.089, 2019.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2018.639}, "reply_to": "20657__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__1_030", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--I do believe that the case you cite should not be accepted in the Federal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2019.672], "stop_times": [2024.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2019.672}, "reply_to": "20657__1_029", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_031", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Now, is there any precedent anywhere where a judge didn't accept such a case?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2024.126], "stop_times": [2028.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2024.126}, "reply_to": "20657__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__1_032", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "I think this would have to become the case, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2028.578], "stop_times": [2031.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2028.578}, "reply_to": "20657__1_031", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_033", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "So as far as we know, no; this would be historical to say that they can't have cases like that in Federal district court, and your reason for saying that is?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2031.28], "stop_times": [2039.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2031.28}, "reply_to": "20657__1_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__1_034", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "My reason for saying that is that the Eleventh Amendment, Your Honor, is in the Constitution at all times, and it is in the nature of a jurisdiction bar, as this Court said in--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2039.053], "stop_times": [2049.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2039.053}, "reply_to": "20657__1_033", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_035", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "But Mr. Lasker, what about the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which says that you can add and drop parties any time, so you were wrong about naming a State or a State officer.\nYou just drop that party.\nThat--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2049.074, 2058.179, 2059.28], "stop_times": [2058.179, 2059.28, 2060.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2049.074}, "reply_to": "20657__1_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20657__1_036", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--If that party is dropped out, then the bar to Federal jurisdiction would be gone, and then under 1446(b) it could be removed to Federal court.\nIf removal to Federal court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2060.63, 2071.654], "stop_times": [2071.654, 2072.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2060.63}, "reply_to": "20657__1_035", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_037", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--Well, Mr. Lasker, I thought City of Chicago was relevant in one respect in this case.\nIt made clear that the existence of some properly stated Federal claims suffices to make actions, civil actions within the original jurisdiction of the district courts for purposes of removal.\nSome Federal claims.\nI thought City of Chicago spoke to that, and so your argument rings hollow to my ear--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2072.856, 2078.058, 2091.233, 2093.518], "stop_times": [2078.058, 2091.233, 2093.518, 2100.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2072.856}, "reply_to": "20657__1_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20657__1_038", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--Thank you--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2100.173], "stop_times": [2100.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2100.173}, "reply_to": "20657__1_037", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_039", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--on that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2100.673], "stop_times": [2101.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2100.673}, "reply_to": "20657__1_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20657__1_040", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--Thank you, because I really think that it's important to underscore that City of Chicago involved State claims that were attached under the Court's pendant or supplemental jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2101.373], "stop_times": [2112.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2101.373}, "reply_to": "20657__1_039", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_041", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "It did not involve claims which would be potentially subject to an Eleventh Amendment immunity defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2112.981], "stop_times": [2119.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2112.981}, "reply_to": "20657__1_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20657__1_042", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2119.968], "stop_times": [2120.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2119.968}, "reply_to": "20657__1_041", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_043", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "It did not.\nBut in principle it's the same because unless and until the Eleventh Amendment is raised, it's okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2120.401, 2121.168], "stop_times": [2121.168, 2130.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2120.401}, "reply_to": "20657__1_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20657__1_044", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Well, Your Honor, the difference between State claims, State law claims and Federal claims that may be barred under the Eleventh Amendment is a distinction that I think is important here, and... but certainly--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2130.324], "stop_times": [2144.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2130.324}, "reply_to": "20657__1_043", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_045", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "But you deal with it by remanding the claims in which the Eleventh Amendment would cover it and go on with what's left.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2144.333], "stop_times": [2151.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2144.333}, "reply_to": "20657__1_044", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "20657__1_046", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--That does not pay homage, Your Honor, to the language of 1447(c), which says that when the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction the case shall be remanded.\nThere's not authority to remand individual claims, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2151.237, 2159.343], "stop_times": [2159.343, 2162.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2151.237}, "reply_to": "20657__1_045", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_047", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "That's... on reading that... that that's all.\nI... shall be remanded says, when you fit this, then it must be remanded.\nIt doesn't say that nothing else can be remanded, and the notion that somehow this case is... doesn't belong in Federal court, even though City of Chicago does, is staggering, because here there's nothing but Federal law, is all.\nThere's no claim made under any law other than Federal law, as I understand this complaint.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2162.628, 2167.246, 2172.65, 2190.212], "stop_times": [2167.246, 2172.65, 2190.212, 2195.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2162.628}, "reply_to": "20657__1_046", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20657__1_048", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--But this contains claims of Federal law, Justice Ginsburg, some of which may not be brought in Federal court but all of which may be brought in State court, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2195.516], "stop_times": [2206.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2195.516}, "reply_to": "20657__1_047", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_049", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Yes, but there's no exclusive venue.\nI mean, if you... you can say yes, sometimes Congress lets people sue in State court if they want to, like the FELA.\nThere's nothing like that here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2206.656, 2209.123, 2215.345], "stop_times": [2209.123, 2215.345, 2216.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2206.656}, "reply_to": "20657__1_048", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20657__1_050", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--The... I guess I--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2216.795], "stop_times": [2223.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2216.795}, "reply_to": "20657__1_049", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_051", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "You can bring a 1983 action in State court, can you not?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2223.433], "stop_times": [2227.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2223.433}, "reply_to": "20657__1_050", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20657__1_052", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--Of course, yes, and this entire action was properly brought in State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2227.82], "stop_times": [2233.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2227.82}, "reply_to": "20657__1_051", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_053", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Yes, but defendants in 1983 actions can remove them to Federal court, as defendants in FELA cases could not, because there Congress says, not only can you bring it in State court, but it can't be removed if you bring it there.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2233.307], "stop_times": [2244.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2233.307}, "reply_to": "20657__1_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20657__1_054", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Your Honor, I think what I'm recommending to this Court is that you announce a doctrine in handling this case that is true to the unambiguous language of the statutes, that is... that honors the principles of Federalism under the Eleventh Amendment and Article III, and that applies a doctrine that is efficient and simple to understand for lawyers and judges, and that, I submit to you, is exactly what the Seventh Circuit did in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2244.513], "stop_times": [2269.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2244.513}, "reply_to": "20657__1_053", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_055", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "And I take it that as part of this clarification you are going to stick with your answer that you gave to Justice Breyer.\nHe said, forget State court, you go into Federal court with all of these claims, one of them, which is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, six of which are good Federal claims.\nAs I understood your answer to the question you said the entire case must be dismissed, and then Justice Ginsburg said, well, what about the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and you said, well, what the State court does is to sort things out, but that was avoiding the hypothetical.\nThe hypothetical was, just the Federal court, so it seemed to me that you didn't answer correctly when you responded to Justice Ginsburg's suggestion, and I want to know if as part of this overall clarification you're suggesting that we say, if there's one cause of action over which the Federal court... forget the State court.\nThis is, initially you file it in the United States district court.\nIf there's one cause of action over which there's an Eleventh Amendment jurisdictional problem, Eleventh Amendment jurisdictional bar, the entire case must be dismissed.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2269.146, 2276.05, 2285.756, 2299.499, 2316.461, 2318.913], "stop_times": [2276.05, 2285.756, 2299.499, 2316.461, 2318.913, 2326.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2269.146}, "reply_to": "20657__1_054", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20657__1_056", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Well, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2326.817], "stop_times": [2328.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2326.817}, "reply_to": "20657__1_055", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_057", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "That is... you have absolutely no authority for that proposition.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2328.851], "stop_times": [2331.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2328.851}, "reply_to": "20657__1_056", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20657__1_058", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--I don't have a case to cite for that proposition, and this case does not raise those facts, of course, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2331.22], "stop_times": [2337.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2331.22}, "reply_to": "20657__1_057", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_059", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "And the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are against you.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2337.54], "stop_times": [2339.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2337.54}, "reply_to": "20657__1_058", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20657__1_060", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--Your Honor, the fact is that we're dealing here with a hybrid type of case that is not... has not been addressed foursquare before in any situation that I'm aware of, and that is a case where you have Federal claims that are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment coupled with Federal claims that are barred by the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2339.54], "stop_times": [2362.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2339.54}, "reply_to": "20657__1_059", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_061", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Well, but these cases happen all the time... all the time.\nIt's just because of the rather unusual step taken by the Seventh Circuit that we have it here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2362.24, 2364.256], "stop_times": [2364.256, 2368.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2362.24}, "reply_to": "20657__1_060", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "20657__1_062", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--Your Honor, I believe that on behalf of my client I had a right as the plaintiff's counsel to file this case in State court, which is how this question comes here from the Seventh Circuit, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2368.894], "stop_times": [2381.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2368.894}, "reply_to": "20657__1_061", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_063", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "I can understand that part of it, and that's what this case is.\nThis is a removal case.\nBut the case that I put to you, and Justice Kennedy just recalled, of an initial proceeding in Federal court with some defendants, why would it be any different than if you filed a diversity suit and you had one nondiverse defendant, and there was a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction?\nYou'd say, fine, I drop the nondiverse defendant.\nWhy is this any different as an initial matter?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2381.202, 2385.236, 2386.271, 2404.817, 2406.769], "stop_times": [2385.236, 2386.271, 2404.817, 2406.769, 2410.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2381.202}, "reply_to": "20657__1_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20657__1_064", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--Because I don't think that Congress intended to bifurcate the litigation in that fashion.\nI think that piecemeal removal--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2410.471, 2415.006], "stop_times": [2415.006, 2416.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2410.471}, "reply_to": "20657__1_063", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_065", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Forget removal.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2416.375], "stop_times": [2418.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2416.375}, "reply_to": "20657__1_064", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20657__1_066", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2418.493], "stop_times": [2419.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2418.493}, "reply_to": "20657__1_065", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_067", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "We're in Federal court with a complaint that includes the State and individuals.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2419.227], "stop_times": [2423.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2419.227}, "reply_to": "20657__1_066", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20657__1_068", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2423.545], "stop_times": [2424.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2423.545}, "reply_to": "20657__1_067", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_069", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "And there is a motion to dismiss the State on Eleventh Amendment grounds.\nIsn't that all that would be dismissed?\nIf in other words, you have this case originally in Federal court.\nThe State gets out when it moves to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment grounds.\nThe other defendants don't.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2424.23, 2432.05, 2436.288, 2440.74, 2445.477], "stop_times": [2432.05, 2436.288, 2440.74, 2445.477, 2446.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2424.23}, "reply_to": "20657__1_068", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20657__1_070", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "I suppose the answer to that question would be yes, and that does--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2446.327], "stop_times": [2449.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2446.327}, "reply_to": "20657__1_069", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_071", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2449.779], "stop_times": [2450.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2449.779}, "reply_to": "20657__1_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20657__1_072", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--then draw the importance of the fact that this case arises out of my choice to sue in State court and then the defendant's procedural maneuver that was disapproved of in this case and that was of concern to the Seventh Circuit in Frances J., that the defendants remove a case of that sort from State court to Federal court really for the purpose of separating the prospective relief claims from the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2450.729], "stop_times": [2477.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2450.729}, "reply_to": "20657__1_071", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_073", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Well then, your argument should address why it should be different on removal than it would have been if the case were originally filed in Federal court, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2477.365], "stop_times": [2486.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2477.365}, "reply_to": "20657__1_072", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20657__1_074", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2486.019], "stop_times": [2486.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2486.019}, "reply_to": "20657__1_073", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_075", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--perhaps pointing to some statutory language.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2486.637], "stop_times": [2487.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2486.637}, "reply_to": "20657__1_074", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20657__1_076", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2487.837], "stop_times": [2488.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2487.837}, "reply_to": "20657__1_075", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_077", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Some statutory language that somehow overrules the extant statutory language that says that any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction may be removed, so we need a statute that somehow undoes that, but you've conceded it could have been brought in the United States district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2488.804], "stop_times": [2509.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2488.804}, "reply_to": "20657__1_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20657__1_078", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--Well, the statute that disposes of this case is 1447(c).", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2509.633], "stop_times": [2515.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2509.633}, "reply_to": "20657__1_077", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_079", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "It's critical to your position, as I understand it, that if there is an Eleventh Amendment defense potentially available to one of the defendants, that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2515.169], "stop_times": [2525.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2515.169}, "reply_to": "20657__1_078", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20657__1_080", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "That's my position, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2525.393], "stop_times": [2526.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2525.393}, "reply_to": "20657__1_079", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_081", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "And that we have not yet held.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2526.877], "stop_times": [2528.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2526.877}, "reply_to": "20657__1_080", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20657__1_082", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2528.095], "stop_times": [2529.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2528.095}, "reply_to": "20657__1_081", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_083", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "And that would be true in an original filing under Federal... in Federal court, surely, just as true as if the action were removed from State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2529.162], "stop_times": [2538.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2529.162}, "reply_to": "20657__1_082", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20657__1_084", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "I believe it would, but I think that that would deal with the kind of case that we've got here in the most efficient way--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2538.201], "stop_times": [2545.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2538.201}, "reply_to": "20657__1_083", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_085", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "You're changing your answer, then.\nI mean, I think if you give away that... the answer to Justice Ginsburg's and Justice Breyer's question of what would have happened had this suit been originally brought in district court, I think your case is gone.\nYou have to defend the position that this action would not have been originally bringable in a Federal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2545.141, 2546.924, 2559.65], "stop_times": [2546.924, 2559.65, 2566.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2545.141}, "reply_to": "20657__1_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20657__1_086", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--I do assert that it should not have been accepted under the court's original jurisdiction, and I say that whether I'm right about that or not, Justice Scalia, certainly when the State asserted its Eleventh Amendment defenses in Federal court, then clearly under 1447(c) the Federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and was right to send the entire case back, not just the--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2566.737], "stop_times": [2589.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2566.737}, "reply_to": "20657__1_085", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_087", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "All right, can I say... I'm trying to find some authority for you.\nI mean, here you got another shot at this from the Seventh Circuit, so I don't blame you at all for defending this, but I'm trying to think of the authority that might support you.\nIs there any authority in the following proposition?\nI now go to the Federal district court and I file my claim, which I have my four defendants, lots of Federal law, and one of my 19 claims... one of them... there is no subject matter jurisdiction over, for whatever set of reasons.\nForget the Eleventh Amendment.\nIs there any authority, when that situation arises... I would have thought all that happens is, they dismiss that claim and proceed with the rest.\nBut is there any authority for the proposition that you have to dismiss the whole thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2589.919, 2592.787, 2601.81, 2604.262, 2620.189, 2621.891, 2628.295], "stop_times": [2592.787, 2601.81, 2604.262, 2620.189, 2621.891, 2628.295, 2632.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2589.919}, "reply_to": "20657__1_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__1_088", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--No, not that I'm aware of, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2632.579], "stop_times": [2634.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2632.579}, "reply_to": "20657__1_087", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_089", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "All right.\nNow, to take them... is there any authority for the proposition that when you remove such a case from the State court to the Federal court you have to dismiss the whole thing, i.e., you couldn't remove it?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2634.745, 2634.945], "stop_times": [2634.945, 2645.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2634.745}, "reply_to": "20657__1_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__1_090", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "No, there isn't, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2645.387], "stop_times": [2648.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2645.387}, "reply_to": "20657__1_089", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_091", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Then I think you're on a tough ground.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2648.255], "stop_times": [2650.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2648.255}, "reply_to": "20657__1_090", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__1_092", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--That's... my answer to you is correct, but I again have to ask you not to hang me on my answer to that question--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2650.189], "stop_times": [2656.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2650.189}, "reply_to": "20657__1_091", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_093", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "No, no, I wouldn't because I mean, you say, well, this will be quite simple.\nI'm not sure it would be simple.\nThere are a lot of cases, you know, where you don't quite know whether this is a State official, not a State official, official capacity, not official capacity, everybody gets mixed up and they have huge arguments, and the whole case would have to be sent back to another court.\nThat's worrying me.\nI suppose one of the things that's wrong is that the State, by quite a sensible rule, it seems to me, should be deemed to have waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity the minute it consents to the removal, but that's not our law, either.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2656.61, 2659.229, 2660.579, 2673.72, 2675.072], "stop_times": [2659.229, 2660.579, 2673.72, 2675.072, 2691.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2656.61}, "reply_to": "20657__1_092", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "20657__1_094", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--No, it doesn't seem to be, Your Honor, so that's the situation we're stuck with.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2691.166], "stop_times": [2694.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2691.166}, "reply_to": "20657__1_093", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_095", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Mr. Lasker, you have a statement in your brief that the State was not immune from suit in State court.\nIsn't there a sovereign immunity doctrine that's applicable in the State court?\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2694.384, 2702.473, 2706.627], "stop_times": [2702.473, 2706.627, 2707.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2694.384}, "reply_to": "20657__1_094", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20657__1_096", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Well, it... there is a sovereign immunity statute in the State court for State claims.\nI'm not sure exactly where in my brief you're referring, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2707.093, 2714.881], "stop_times": [2714.881, 2717.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2707.093}, "reply_to": "20657__1_095", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_097", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--On the top of page 9 you say that the Seventh Circuit held the district court lacked original jurisdiction because petitioners were immune from suit in the Federal court, and then you add, although they were not immune from suit in the State court.\nOf course, they don't have Eleventh Amendment immunity, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2717.649, 2731.723], "stop_times": [2731.723, 2734.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2717.649}, "reply_to": "20657__1_096", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20657__1_098", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--That's what I was referring to.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2734.156], "stop_times": [2734.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2734.156}, "reply_to": "20657__1_097", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_099", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--most States have their own sovereign immunity doctrine, don't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2734.523], "stop_times": [2737.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2734.523}, "reply_to": "20657__1_098", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20657__1_100", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "They do, but I was... but the State immunity is, I believe, abrogated by section 1983, although a State is not a person under section 1983 since Will.\nWhat I was talking about, however, is that the action as it was brought would have been within the jurisdiction of the State court and was not within the jurisdiction of the Federal court for the reason of the existence of the Eleventh Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2737.508, 2756.088], "stop_times": [2756.088, 2769.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2737.508}, "reply_to": "20657__1_099", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_101", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "There isn't something like a Wisconsin tort claims act that would allow a wrongful discharge case to be brought against the State?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2769.562], "stop_times": [2778.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2769.562}, "reply_to": "20657__1_100", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20657__1_102", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "I do have a theory, Your Honor, that I seek to assert in the State court upon remand, that we do have a claim under the Wisconsin constitution that would not be barred by the State doctrine of sovereign immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2778.002], "stop_times": [2788.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2778.002}, "reply_to": "20657__1_101", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_103", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Is your... are the circuit courts in Wisconsin courts of general jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2788.643], "stop_times": [2794.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2788.643}, "reply_to": "20657__1_102", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20657__1_104", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2794.296], "stop_times": [2795.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2794.296}, "reply_to": "20657__1_103", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_105", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Where you don't have limitations of subject matter the way you do in the Federal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2795.179], "stop_times": [2799.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2795.179}, "reply_to": "20657__1_104", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20657__1_106", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2799.598], "stop_times": [2800.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2799.598}, "reply_to": "20657__1_105", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_107", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Mr. Lasker, what prevents us from holding that when a State removes or consents to removal of a case into Federal court it waives its Eleventh Amendment objection?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2800.083], "stop_times": [2815.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2800.083}, "reply_to": "20657__1_106", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20657__1_108", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "I just... I don't know that anything stands in the way of that except stare decisis.\nI think that the Finney case and other cases that are cited in the brief do stand for the proposition that the waiver has to be an explicit act of the sovereign State and not just something that happens because of the strategic decision by an Assistant Attorney General, for example.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2815.043, 2819.579], "stop_times": [2819.579, 2836.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2815.043}, "reply_to": "20657__1_107", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_109", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Well, I mean, isn't it clear that when you say, I want to be in Federal court, you mean I want to be in Federal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2836.79], "stop_times": [2842.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2836.79}, "reply_to": "20657__1_108", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20657__1_110", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Well, it would seem clear to me, Your Honor, but I don't think that that's ever been considered to be a proper waiver of the State's Eleventh Amendment immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2842.36], "stop_times": [2849.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2842.36}, "reply_to": "20657__1_109", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_111", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "We wouldn't have any of these troubles if that were the rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2849.098], "stop_times": [2853.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2849.098}, "reply_to": "20657__1_110", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "20657__1_112", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Perhaps not.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2853.168], "stop_times": [2854.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2853.168}, "reply_to": "20657__1_111", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_113", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "If it were, then maybe Mr. Moriarty could not have removed the case, because he said that under State law they have no authority, the State AG has no authority to waive the Eleventh Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2854.885], "stop_times": [2867.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2854.885}, "reply_to": "20657__1_112", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "20657__1_114", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "I'm not an authority on that.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2867.143, 2870.012], "stop_times": [2870.012, 2870.547], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2867.143}, "reply_to": "20657__1_113", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_115", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "It follows from that, doesn't it, that if that's true, then it was clear even before the removal, because of the State law situation, that there would never have been jurisdiction in the Federal court over part of the case, because the... because it's foreordained that it's not optional, as your opponent suggests, that they may or may not waive it.\nThe law of Wisconsin required him to assist... assert his Eleventh Amendment jurisdiction and, therefore, following the reasoning of the Seventh Circuit, they had to send the whole case back.\nThey could not accept the removal because there was a jurisdictional bar.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2870.547, 2885.489, 2894.079], "stop_times": [2885.489, 2894.079, 2897.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2870.547}, "reply_to": "20657__1_114", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20657__1_116", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--I'd say that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2897.697], "stop_times": [2900.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2897.697}, "reply_to": "20657__1_115", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_117", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "You don't know which side I'm on here.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2900.566], "stop_times": [2901.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2900.566}, "reply_to": "20657__1_116", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20657__1_118", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--Well, I do say that--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2901.666], "stop_times": [2902.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2901.666}, "reply_to": "20657__1_117", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_119", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "It seems to--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2902.766], "stop_times": [2903.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2902.766}, "reply_to": "20657__1_118", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20657__1_120", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--that the case should not have been accepted into Federal court until the State court--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2903.735], "stop_times": [2909.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2903.735}, "reply_to": "20657__1_119", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_121", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2909.922], "stop_times": [2911.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2909.922}, "reply_to": "20657__1_120", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20657__1_122", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--had sorted out the claims--", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2911.105], "stop_times": [2912.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2911.105}, "reply_to": "20657__1_121", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_123", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Because as a matter of Wisconsin law, it's clear that the Federal court never had... could have taken jurisdiction of the claim against the State, as a matter of Wisconsin law, which they would have to honor, that they could not waive the Eleventh Amendment defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2912.874], "stop_times": [2926.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2912.874}, "reply_to": "20657__1_122", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "20657__1_124", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "--Well, I don't know that Wisconsin law is as Mr. Moriarty asserts.\nI'm going to accept his word on that, but I don't think it would be difficult for the State to waive and get a statute enacted by the legislature.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2926.281, 2931.335], "stop_times": [2931.335, 2940.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2926.281}, "reply_to": "20657__1_123", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_125", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Of course, the Federal court would have had jurisdiction if the State had simply processed its removal and made no objection on Eleventh Amendment grounds.\nIt doesn't have to waive in the sense of affirmatively renouncing.\nIt can simply do nothing and the Eleventh Amendment defense is waived.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2940.441, 2950.13, 2954.701], "stop_times": [2950.13, 2954.701, 2957.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2940.441}, "reply_to": "20657__1_124", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "20657__1_126", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "I think that's at least clear in determining the application of 1447(c) to the facts in this case.\nHowever, I am arguing that I think the problem exists in the case of whether the court has original jurisdiction under 1441(a), and that the best rule would be to require that the State court dismiss any claims that would otherwise be barred in the Eleventh Amendment before removal could occur.\nIf there are no further questions, then I'll sit down.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2957.902, 2964.739, 2987.088, 2992.957], "stop_times": [2964.739, 2987.088, 2992.957, 2993.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2957.902}, "reply_to": "20657__1_125", "speaker": "david_e_lasker"}
{"id": "20657__1_127", "conversation_id": "20657", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Lasker.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "1997_97-461", "start_times": [2993.724, 2995.057], "stop_times": [2995.057, 2996.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2993.724}, "reply_to": "20657__1_126", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
